Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile of BBC [2011]

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 11:36 AM

The clip with the Nolans (juggling a tit on camera) is a bit sleazy, and would have been a bit sleazy whatever the age of the performer, but there is no law against sleaze and the Nolans must have known that showbiz was meant to be that way.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 11:17 AM

Saville's estate is one thing. The BBC if complicit is another.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 10:45 AM

There will be claims for compensation for compensation, and rightly so if it turns out that there is a case to be made for abuse here.
But please don't let that be a weapon for proving that there was no abuse.
When the enormity of the clerical abuse was emering in Ireland an organisation called L.O.V.E. was created (can't remember what it stands for - but it had little to do with LOVE).
Its purpose seemed to be to prove that most of the claims of having been abused were made for financial gain, thus making the abused children victims once again.
I belive the way rape is handled by the judicial system has the consequence that the majority of rapes are never reported.
I agree with Richard Bridge, let's see the evidence before coming to a conclusion one way or the other.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 10:35 AM

I may be being stupid here (well, there's a first time for everything) but where would this compensation come from? I assume that Saville's estate has now been disposed of to his heirs who were not culpable so could not be sued.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 10:21 AM

theLeveller.... In my honest opinion, there will be claims for compensation from some, maybe not from others but once the ball starts rolling it picks up momentum. I sympathise with anyone who has been abused 'by anyone' at any time.... I don't believe it should have been hushed up at all... but it will snowball ................... When compensation doesn't rear its ugly head... I will accept that I was wrong.. we'll have to wait and see.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 10:11 AM

"I believe that it has raised it's ugly head now because people are, or will be seeking compensation.."

Why do you think this? People are coming forward because they have lived their lives (in my mother-in-law's case something like 65 years)under the cloud of having been sexually abused by a person who became a respected public figure. She doesn't want compensation, she doesn't even want to talk about it ouside the family - but she does now have a sense of justice because ir has come out into the open. Do you think that the whole thing should have been hushed up? If not, please stop makingthese hurtful allegations about victims of long-term sexual predator. How would you like it if he'd fucked you?

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 09:55 AM

I don't much care for proclaiming guilt because there was an "aura of pervert". Guilt depends on being guilty, not having an aura.

No doubt part of the reason this is surfacing is because the dead cannot sue for libel - and it may be interesting to compare the widespread rumours that in order to compete on (much less win) Opportunity Knocks you had to be shagged by Hughie Green (known as "Huge" even in public, to his last lady companion but I cannot say the reason) whatever gender you were. But of course the dead cannot be posthumously convicted either.

Back in the 60s the pill had removed terror of unwanted pregnancy. Herpes was a distant threat, and the idea of Aids would have been unthinkable. STDs were not that common, and treatable. It was the first great liberation of sex - and many groupies were begging for it, and going back for more if they could. The ones who got into the star's pants were accounted the lucky ones - and although the Bay City Rollers were musically vile I felt the much delayed conviction and investigation there were a bit puritanical. The tales of Jagger, of the Status Quo, and many others were uniform. The dam had burst and sex could be and was enjoyed. Think of songs like "Young Girl", "Mellow Yellow", Young Girl" "Don't Stand So Close to Me". Think of the Oz schoolkids issue. Think of the cartoon "Honeybunch". That was the zeitgeist of the times and the time I assumed everyone was doing it and wanted to do it even more. The majority of my friends of gender started their sex lives when under age and I am reasonably confident the same has prevailed ever since and still does.

But it seems that not everyone was of the same frame of mind. King was clearly a predator rather than an opportunist, and in some cases coercion now appears to have been thought to be in play. In 2003 the "abuse of position of responsibility" crime came into play.

I am not sure that we have got our collective position on this right. Young people between about 12 and 16 face either unwanted (in many cases) celibacy or criminality. Only some positions involve deemed trust that may render what might be (or might not be) a genuine relationship unlawful. I know of one case not all that long ago at the Hundred of Hoo school where a teacher entered a relationship with a girl pupil - to whom he is now married. More recently there was another case with another teacher (Spendley) at the same school in which there was no coercion but there appears to have been a misuse of position: the relationship foundered, and Spendley is still married to his wife but in prison and mentally ill. The girl also continues to feel adverse after effects. As the judge said, it was a tragedy for all concerned. What I have said here about Spendley was all in the press at the time.

We have the law as a blunt instrument. It criminalises too much and too little. Referring to the 2003 Act Sections 9 to 15 are probably too wide - although I am less clear on sections 14 and 15 - and 16 to 44 are probably too narrow.

I tend to think that S 72 is too wide. Some commentators above should however have a look at it.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 09:54 AM

Whenever something of this nature hits the press... all kinds of people come forward... even ones who had nothing at all to do with the perpetrator/paedophile... why... because somewhere in a bank(s) or other financial investment is a vast fortune left by 'the accused' Don't misunderstand me, I believe that there are those who were abused by Jimmy S but there will also be those who lie when they say they were........ As I said in my previous post.. I believe that it has raised it's ugly head now because people are, or will be seeking compensation.. but who will be entitled to it and how can they prove it??

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Jim'll fuck it
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 09:38 AM

"Whilst we are digging up Saville"

Then there are also the persistent wide spread internet rumours
that Saville took advantage of his charitable free & easy entry to hospitals
in order to gain surreptitious access to fresh corpses in the morgues ???

Now then, now then,
that's as much context as required for this currently circulating gem
of incisive internet humour:

"I notice the paedophilia rumours about Jimmy Savile are in full swing,
but no-one seems to be talking about the necrophilia ones.

Presumably they're still waiting for the victims to come forward."

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 09:19 AM

"Julie Bindel "
Which in no way attempts to link the dereliction of duty by the police to "who the perpetrators are."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 08:45 AM

"That's one guilty vote before trial then."

Your logic, as usual, is totally perverse. Personally, I believe my mother-in-law. Why would she make it up?

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 08:34 AM

lets wait and see.
In the 1960s many people slept with popstars and disc jockeys,, I believe Bill Wyman had a reputation for having a lot of sex, JERRY LEE LEWIS HAD A 13 YEAR OLD WIFE, now if people willingly consented to having sex,it should in my opinion be treated differently to being intimidated or being forced, of course it is still legally an offence, if under the age of consent,
personally I think that Saville possibly/probably was an abuser. however its very easy to judge what happened fifty years ago with the morals of the 21st century, prnot an excuse for Saville, but maybe an excuse for pop stars who had underage consensual sex[possibly not even knowing their age.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 08:33 AM

Poem

Jim fixed it for me
So spare me your wrath
Even if he did get
My knickers off.

Next week: Esther speaks out - my lesbo romps with Mary Whitehouse and childline victims

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 08:30 AM

The comparison was made in The Guardian on Monday by Julie Bindel (remember her Jim?).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/01/jimmy-savile-abused-children-documentary

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Felix Titling
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 08:28 AM

Even The Nolans... about 3.25 in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JygLGzNhiD8

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 08:16 AM

There can be no comparison whatever to what appears to have happened here and the Yorkshire underage sex affair.
Descriptions of bored policemen taking statements from underage sex victims and asking them "if you objected to what happened to you, why did you go back for more?" indicate a total indifference to what happened in Yourkshire and a malicious dereliction of duty rather than who the victims or perpetrators were.
Rather, if the BBC knew about Saville's alleged abuse and covered it up, this can be compared to the ongoing disclosures within the Catholic church, were the heirarchy allowed abuse to to remain undiscovered and even to continue by not disclosing it - for the good of the church.
I wonder if the mis-spelling of the title of this thread was deliberate or a Freudian slip - Sa-vile
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 08:14 AM

More here on the further eight:

Ex-detective Mark William-Thomas, who is presenting tonight's documentary Exposure: The Other Side Of Jimmy Savile, said: "Up to eight women have come forward for the first time to tell me their stories over the last few days.
"I have urged them to go to the police. It is quite clear from this early response that there are lots more women out there with similar stories to tell."

And this is important:

"Today it also emerged that at least four police forces investigated claims that Savile molested children, while Scotland Yard is looking into an allegation of rape dating back to 1986."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jimmy-savile-sexually-abused-us-say-eight-more-women-8195670.html

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 08:10 AM

"We have some evidence Don."

And it's mounting: eight more women came forward today.

"Do you have any reason to believe that all the witnesses are lying?"

There is no reason to suppose any of this flood of allegations are lying. There's certainly no evidence to indicate that any of them have any reason to do so. Producers at the BBC included.

Alternatively it could all be one huge evil conspiracy, probably masterminded by the Illuminati or our friends at Tinfoil Hats R Us

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:58 AM

With you 100% Lizzie.

Dave H

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,your willie
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:29 AM

Different times different mores.
A young lady of twelve, the age of consent at the time, the Duchess of Northumberland in her own right, was wedded and bedded at that age by a fotune hunter of fifty three with barely a comment from her own class.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:25 AM

We have some evidence Don.
Do you have any reason to believe that all the witnesses are lying?
So many and so varied all with the same story?
Celebs die all the time, but this has never happened before.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:11 AM

Thanks, Lizzie. 100% with you on this one!

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:09 AM

"""the unsupported word of alleged victims"

They're called witnesses - it's what our criminal prosecution system is based on. What do you want - photographs?""

That's one guilty vote before trial then.

When dealing with the case against a dead man, who by definition is prevented from mounting any defence, it is necessary to consider the possible motives of all who stand to gain from the accusations, whether by receiving compensation, or by sellingtheir stories to the Media, don't you think?

If rumour gives way to evidence, then and only then, I'll join in the condemnation, and if others are implicated, I'll be calling for charges to be levelled.

The point is, I don't know he's guilty, and I suspect you don't either.

Don T.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 07:02 AM

How distasteful....

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,your willie.
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 06:59 AM

19th. C. or older. Lines on what old men get up to.[no pun intended]

With pows say white and tails say green
Aye fuckin young girls of bare thirteen

At least the hair colour matches

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 06:30 AM

Poem

Let's take it as a gimme
That Saville's jimmy
Acted most unpleasant
With young adolescents


How'z about that then.....!

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 06:22 AM

Jimmy Saville made me squirm as a young girl. He made me squirm as an adult. In fact, he made my blood run cold, all through his life.

It seems that his work for Stoke Mandeville played an important part here, together with his high ratings for the BBC.

Having been told by the BBC that they would get their Special Investigations Department to deal with me, back on their messageboard, with the added threat of that department seeking to get me banned from the internet by my service provider, it would seem the BBC does HAVE a Special Investigations Department.

If this is the case, WHERE WERE THEY?

Jimmy Saville had the 'aura of pervert'all around him, in my opinion, but so too do ALL those concerned who KNEW what was happening, or who had been told highly suspicious things but who then CHOSE not to a damn thing about them!

Complicity should be a Criminal Offence, as far as I'm concerned, for if it were then crimes such as these would NOT have been allowed to continue to happen.

I don't care how much money he raised for charity, his reputation absolutely deserves to be blown to Kingdom Come and quite frankly Stoke Mandeville AND the BBC should be the LOUDEST voices calling for a full Investigation into these allegations, which I have no doubt will be found to be true.

Interestingly, most of you have ignored the comment above from 'the leveller' where he spoke of a relative of his who was abused by Saville. Levels is to be trusted 100% in what he says and therefore his comment above adds yet more translucence to a very foggy situation which was deliberately kept hidden so that money would continue to pour in to Stoke Mandeville and the BBC Ratings would continue to stay high because of Saville's programmes and popularity.

Blow 'em all to smithereens, Legal Industry!!

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:23 AM

LOL!

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:22 AM

I used to be able to spell till I started using my iPhone to post..

Ruddy auto spell checker. The word it slipped in isn't a real word anyway! Whilst we are digging up Saville, I want to dig up Jobs and accuse him of not allowing turning off of the Nanny auto speller. I can do it on my iMac, and have dun.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 05:14 AM

Well said Eliza

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:42 AM

The 'age of consent' or the 'legal age for sex' etc is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if these were women of fifty. They didn't want or welcome his attentions (if all they say is true, which is yet to be proved) They were uncomfortable and very upset by what he did to them. Nobody has any right whatsoever to touch, fumble, put a tongue in the mouth (one of the allegations) press against or in any other way assault another person, male or female, of any age. It may have been many years ago, but these sort of assaults have a lasting effect on the victims. It must be investigated because although Savile is dead, it seems there may have been other adults who knew or even assisted him to do this. Also the BBC should be questioned, as they may have turned a blind eye. The whole thing is very sad.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 04:21 AM

The current law is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents


The original text of the 1956 Act (the previous most general relevant statute) is here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/69/contents/enacted

but as you can see from the schedule of repeals in the 2003 Act there were many other statutes that did fiddle about (see what I did there?) with the UK law of sexual offences, created over a great span of time but repealed in 2003.

There was also a fair bit of common law still relevant in the area during Savile's heyday.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:45 AM

Thanks, Ian - an easy enough mistake to make, and very common. Almost as common as the mis-spelling of 'genius'! :-)    :-)

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:41 AM

Well, thanks to Dick I now know a lot more about ages of consent in different African countries than I ever expected to. Watch out for him on 'Mastermind'.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:13 AM

Just a few observations.

Whilst most of the alleged crimes will predate this, we do have a law, (Bridge or a legal bod of similar sitting may know the details?) that says if you commit a UK criminal act abroad where it is not a crime there, The CPS may consider whether there is a charge to answer if it can be proved you went abroad in order to commit it. It was brought in to help reduce sexual tourism in Asia.

Whether these were children or young adults makes no difference. If it can be proved that Saville's position of power and assumed authority was used to influence them, they are classed as vulnerable. Which pulls it back to rape regardless.

As he is dead, he cannot be charged but his reputation can be held to scrutiny. Whether this is a good thing or not is a subject of debate of course, but if it stops some others from abusing their position of trust, there could be good coming from it.

Backwoodsman. You are correct and I replied to the sod with the same spelling mistake. My bad, as my sons would say. There is not only an H in Townshend but also a G as in genious. And yet to be balanced, he was on a a membership list which for most people is not easy to explain...

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 03:07 AM

When you have many "alleged" child victims telling the same story, you do not disbelieve them because of who the perpetrators are.
The head of Yorkshire police will have to answer to Parliament soon for just that.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: theleveller
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:54 AM

"the unsupported word of alleged victims"

They're called witnesses - it's what our criminal prosecution system is based on. What do you want - photographs?

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:53 AM

If this sordid little scandal about the BBC (Savile was seemingly 'enabled' and protected rather well) is fully opened up. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more of such allegations coming to light. The Newsnight programme which was shelved by the BBC , apparently went further than just Savile himself, and highlighted a number of other likely perpetrators.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:49 AM

"Are the victims seeking compensation?
They say they were in early teens."

Not so far as I know.
Two twelve year old girls also referenced (see my post on coworkers).

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:42 AM

Are the victims seeking compensation?
They say they were in early teens.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:40 AM

More former coworkers corroborate abuse allegations (or "muckraking if you prefer):

"a former producer, Wilfred De'Ath, has confirmed that he warned Savile informally ... after the latter spent the night "in a rather squalid hotel with a girl who was at the most 12, or probably 10". Told that he was "living dangerously", the presenter claimed that he was "much too valuable to the BBC for them to do anything to me"."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9582129/Saviles-reputation.html

***

"Former BBC producer says she witnessed Jimmy Savile abuse - video:"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/video/2012/oct/01/former-bbc-producer-jimmy-savile-video

***

"Yesterday a former BBC chauffeur made damaging allegations about how the scandal was hushed up. He said he had once driven home a 'hysterical' 12-year-old girl who claimed she had been sexually assaulted by Savile after appearing on Jim'll Fix It.
The girl 'sobbed her heart out all the way home' after she was allegedly abused by the presenter after the show during the mid-1970s. When she reached her front door, she collapsed into her mother's arms in tears, telling her: 'I'm sorry. It wasn't my fault. Jimmy grabbed me. He attacked me.'
The driver, who worked as a chauffeur for the BBC for 16 years, said staff members had previously been fired for talking about Savile's reputation, and he feared he would lose his job if he reported it.
He said the show's chiefs 'knew very well' that he had a reputation for sexually assaulting young contestants, and had even begun to employ chaperones to make sure girls could not be lured into his dressing room."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211463/Jimmy-Savile-As-pressure-grows-BBC-cover-women-come-forward-ordeals.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

CS

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Allan Conn
Date: 03 Oct 12 - 02:38 AM

"Neither is it all right to assume that a dead man was guilty of that crime, without something more than the unsupported word of alleged victims."

Of course anyone is innocent until proved guilty whether dead or not. So at the moment they are only accusations. However it is not just the words of the alleged victims. Much of what has been on the news has been former work colleagues who claim that it was known what was going on!

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 07:26 PM

NO!

It isn't all right for anybody to be a child molester Dave.

Neither is it all right to assume that a dead man was guilty of that crime, without something more than the unsupported word of alleged victims.

Dragging up "victims" to litigate for the advantage mainly of the "no win, no fee" lawyer has become a national pastime.

I never had PPI, but I get ten - twelve calls a week telling me that I have a case, and that they will handle it and get back the thousands of pounds I'm owed. God knows how many I'd get if I weren't signed up to the TPS.

Don T.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Allan Conn
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 07:06 PM

On reading the explanatory notes to Section 54 of the said bill it seems that in line with the Council of Europe Convention the UK govt removed dual criminality for offences committed by UK nationals abroad in connection with child abuse, child pornography and child prostitution. Hence a UK national having sex with a 15 year old in France would also be a crime under English Law. Scots Law simply goes even further in stating that any sexual offence is relevant and not just crimes against children.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Allan Conn
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 06:52 PM

"If they claim only to have had sex in France there is no offence as the age of consent there is 15.
Or is there?"

Actually as far as at least part of the UK goes it would be an offense. If a UK national carries out a sexual act abroad which is illegal in Scotland it is an offense even if not illegal in the country where the act took place. Sexual Offences Scotland Act 2009. It was basically introduced to deal with sex tourists to the likes of Thailand etc but would no doubt also cover the above example.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 06:10 PM

Just because someone works for 'charidy' doesn't make them a saint! After all Hermann Goering worked for the Hamburg branch of 'Cats in Need' for many years ... actually, I made that up ... sorry ...

As for the age of consent stuff, I believe that it is the primary duty of all responsible adults to show concern for the welfare of children and young people. An adult person who has sex with a child or much younger person is primarily concerned with satisfying his perverted lust - not the welfare of the child or younger person.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: Johnny J
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:58 PM

"I dont think there is any evidence that Mr Saville was a paedophile. "

There probably isn't.

Also, there IS a moral difference between relationships with "children[ pre puberty] or willing 17 year olds".

However, it's likely that the offences ocurred with children and young persons aged somewhere in between these two extremes and, as such, would still be morally wrong.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:51 PM

I dont think there is any evidence that Mr Saville was a paedophile.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:38 PM

Did Saville have alleged sexual relationships with children[ pre puberty] or willing 17 year olds , there is[IMO] a moral difference.

Subject: RE: 2011 Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile UK disc jockey
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 12 - 05:32 PM

I always found Mr Savile "creepy", even when he was being lauded for his good works.

The Times is serialising a book written by Mr Townshend in which he attempts to excuse his membership of a "child porn website"..."Inever looked! honest!", said he.

Mr Townshend strikes me as being equally creepy
The abuse of children is a crime for which there is no redemption.