This story is still unfolding in the UK.
Call me cynical, but why has it taken for Jimmy Savile to pass away before people start coming forward to make complaints to police?
It seems it has become popular to "come forward" and join the throng of complainants - especially after they find out there is a reasonable deceased estate fortune they might get a part of as compensation.
Out of the 300 or so people that have come forward, I find it hard to believe only a few scant complaints were put forward, to BBC management, as I understand it (an informal complaint as against a formal complaint to police).
It will be interesting to see how the police will wade through the sheer volume of complaints and try to work out who is legitimate against those who are out to get a slice of compensation through deceit. The time difference between the alleged offence occuring and official complaint are surely going to make things difficult for police.
"He groped me sometime in the mid 70's when I went to a BBC broadcast of Top Of The Pops". This unintentional vagueness could be the difference between an offence towards a child or an offence toward an adult. And let's face it, there is huge potential that alleged criminal conduct by Savil could be blown out of proportion, or embellished, to make a more sound case.
I'd like to know what sort of offences we are talking about ? a grope of a bum ? sure it's maybe not nice, but hardly newsworthy or even worth a police complaint. Are we talking outright rape of girls and boys? OK, this is far more serious, but again, if it suddenly is important now, why wasn't it important when the offence occurred many years ago?
It's like me reporting a home invasion and physical assault twenty years after if happens. The police would say to me "If this was so serious and important to you, why didn't you report it twenty years ago? Why do it now"?
I think it's wrong that allegations are made against a person (Jimmy Savile in this case) who is unable to defend himself (because he's dead!). If the 'sexually abused' person can't come out and make an allegation against a person while that person is alive and can defend themselves, they should forgo any right to do so. In my books, to come out and 'join the throng' of complaints, a 'victim' could potentially say just about anything and no-one can dispute whether it really happened or not. Sure, a girl may have been in Savil's dressing room, and he may have pinched her bum or kissed her inappropriately, but that could turn into full rape if there's potential for a civil claim against his amassed fortune. I'm not saying we should dismiss all claims against Savil, but there has to be a reasonable degree of responsibility by the victim. In my book it's plain and simple, laws should be enacted that you can't lay allegations of criminal conduct against a deceased person, as that person is not there to defend themselves. How can a balanced investigation ever be carried out when you can't investigate both sides? The police should be saying, "We understand your wanting to report an offence from 20 years ago, but we are no longer able to do a balanced investigation. It's a pity you didn't come forward when the offence occurred". I understand a victims reluctance to report an offence. But maybe if the victim knew they had a 1 year window to report an offence such as this, then Jimmy Savil may have been arrested years ago and be paying for his crimes?
Get Real
Addendum:
30/10/2012
I note the trashy on-line media is pulling out all the old clips of Savile and Glitter from the early days. All I've seen is a pervy Savile having a bit of a grope and holding onto a girl a little longer and closer than what he should. Big deal. It's hardly deadly perverted stuff. Get over it!
Get Real
Call me cynical, but why has it taken for Jimmy Savile to pass away before people start coming forward to make complaints to police?
It seems it has become popular to "come forward" and join the throng of complainants - especially after they find out there is a reasonable deceased estate fortune they might get a part of as compensation.
Out of the 300 or so people that have come forward, I find it hard to believe only a few scant complaints were put forward, to BBC management, as I understand it (an informal complaint as against a formal complaint to police).
It will be interesting to see how the police will wade through the sheer volume of complaints and try to work out who is legitimate against those who are out to get a slice of compensation through deceit. The time difference between the alleged offence occuring and official complaint are surely going to make things difficult for police.
"He groped me sometime in the mid 70's when I went to a BBC broadcast of Top Of The Pops". This unintentional vagueness could be the difference between an offence towards a child or an offence toward an adult. And let's face it, there is huge potential that alleged criminal conduct by Savil could be blown out of proportion, or embellished, to make a more sound case.
I'd like to know what sort of offences we are talking about ? a grope of a bum ? sure it's maybe not nice, but hardly newsworthy or even worth a police complaint. Are we talking outright rape of girls and boys? OK, this is far more serious, but again, if it suddenly is important now, why wasn't it important when the offence occurred many years ago?
It's like me reporting a home invasion and physical assault twenty years after if happens. The police would say to me "If this was so serious and important to you, why didn't you report it twenty years ago? Why do it now"?
I think it's wrong that allegations are made against a person (Jimmy Savile in this case) who is unable to defend himself (because he's dead!). If the 'sexually abused' person can't come out and make an allegation against a person while that person is alive and can defend themselves, they should forgo any right to do so. In my books, to come out and 'join the throng' of complaints, a 'victim' could potentially say just about anything and no-one can dispute whether it really happened or not. Sure, a girl may have been in Savil's dressing room, and he may have pinched her bum or kissed her inappropriately, but that could turn into full rape if there's potential for a civil claim against his amassed fortune. I'm not saying we should dismiss all claims against Savil, but there has to be a reasonable degree of responsibility by the victim. In my book it's plain and simple, laws should be enacted that you can't lay allegations of criminal conduct against a deceased person, as that person is not there to defend themselves. How can a balanced investigation ever be carried out when you can't investigate both sides? The police should be saying, "We understand your wanting to report an offence from 20 years ago, but we are no longer able to do a balanced investigation. It's a pity you didn't come forward when the offence occurred". I understand a victims reluctance to report an offence. But maybe if the victim knew they had a 1 year window to report an offence such as this, then Jimmy Savil may have been arrested years ago and be paying for his crimes?
Get Real
Addendum:
30/10/2012
I note the trashy on-line media is pulling out all the old clips of Savile and Glitter from the early days. All I've seen is a pervy Savile having a bit of a grope and holding onto a girl a little longer and closer than what he should. Big deal. It's hardly deadly perverted stuff. Get over it!
Get Real
No comments:
Post a Comment