IMO, it would be almost impossible to prove 'aiding and abetting' at this point, given you generally don't base a criminal prosecution on a single testimony (even from the victim) and there's likely to be no other evidence now, if it ever existed. So the chances of criminal prosecutions are slim to none. Even if there were enough evidence to prosecute someone, that 'someone' was probably a senior BBC official 40 years ago, so there's a better than even chance they're as dead as Saville is.

It's a nice show of public indignation on the part of the newspapers - hey, must be a day with a 'y' in it - but it's not going to lead to anything concrete. We're just now learning about crimes that happened a generation ago so it's far, far too late to actually do anything about it. The people involved at the BBC are most likely dead and it's not at all the fault of the people who are there now. Publishing the organisation on that basis is (if you will excuse the phrase) perverse, and absolutely nothing to do with any notion of 'justice'.

In fact the BBC are probably doing more to expose the failings than any one. Okay the police investigations will be discrete but the BBC are at least trying to stop this happening again. Not that it could any longer. Society has moved on and the sexist racist attitudes of the 70's are gone for good. As you said those who might have known are probably dead or not in a position to do anything to maintain the lies.

No doubt there's been a culture change - not just in the BBC, but throughout the UK - that makes workplaces much more hostile to the inappropriate behaviour of lecherous men, but still the extent of the allegations is bewildering, as is the apparent complicity of BBC management.

I do not think that the management were complicit. I do think that attitudes then were very different. The allegations are staggering but then we need to do more to support the women that have been affected by this. Maybe the BBC will make a donation to some support fund for them? It would be better that dragging the victims names through the courts. The authorities probably should consider stripping Saville of his knighthood even posthumously.

The management weren't complicit? I don't accept that given some of the allegations that are forthcoming, this article alone is pretty grim reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19861688

I would fully accept that things happened then. Though this does go some way towards covering the BBC.


There were also problems in ITV. Wasn't Ulrika Jonnson raped while at ITV? Thank god we have improved since then. The fact that we are more willing to consider it happens now is a huge improvement in attitudes. Until people take such incidents seriously the perpetrators can get away with it.

Ooh, at last the bbc are getting what's coming to them. Nasty public service broadcasting.

They had a bad man working for them and they're trying to cover it up by allowing a full investigation into whatever happened, despite the fact that whoever's in charge now wasn't then.

Now where did I put my sky contract, I wanna sign that [LIFTED] right now. Boo, down with the bbc.

And seriously, apple, stop auto correcting bbc to NBC.

this goes a little bit deeper then just the BBC and one individual
NHS hospitals, several of them in different cities
children homes, Jersey

not just Savile but also King, Gadd and several others ...

Now apparently the Variety Sunshine coaches are having problems with their association with Saville.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9605095/Jimmy-Savile-Variety-launches-investigation-into-claims-Savile-molested-children-on-Sunshine-Coaches.html

I just have this little image of a caravan full of middle aged perverts that kids loved (because they we on TV) touring the country....

I'm frustrated at the way everyone's just decided he's guilty. There appears to be no consideration of the fact that there are accusations and an investigation, but there's no actual "evidence," people are just so keen to tear him down, even though he's long dead and nothing can ever be proven, he should still be "innocent until proven guilty" I can't believe people are talking about stripping him of his knighthood! He did so much good work during his life and now there's a hint of a scandal the "Daily Mail" population of dogs have just leapt in and are determined to rip his reputation to shreds.

I do agree but then I did say



As this is all still alleged he should be given the benefit of the doubt. It has probably been the trigger to get many past victims to come forward. Though many of these could also be false claims in the hope of making some money from someone. Look at the claims about John Travolta. All those appear to be refuted now as gold diggers.

You can’t strip him of his knighthood - that died with him, as does the OBE. If the media wanted him stripped of such titles, then they could not just use that title anymore.

At first, I thought he was innocent until proven guilty, but there seems to be such a flood of people coming forward with stories that it starts to get difficult not to assume that there is more weight to the accusations than a couple of people talking about it in a documentary. Have I Got News For You showed a clip of him on the programme where he admits that he did anything he could “get away with” in his caravan. His interviews with Louis Theroux also show someone being oddly circumspect when viewed prior to the recent allegations, but now they seem to have a different colour to him. If someone asked him bluntly if he had sex with underage girls, I wonder what the answer would be. Ian Hislop seemed to think that he was doing a very good job of hiding in plain sight.

I don't think any of that *means* anything though? What's the motivation for people coming forward now? It's not as though they're suddenly no longer afraid of making accusations because he's dead, he's been dead for over a year now. There's no evidence, unless these people have all got photographs of themselves being abused or tape recording or video then nothing can come of it. Biological evidence will be non-existent so what's the motivation? If they were abused so many years ago then what are the chances that they're still so traumatised that they need support now? I think that's sort of my point over all, unless they're all hoping for compensation from some foundation he owned or something then absolutely nothing can come of it, except pulling down the reputation of someone who (regardless of anything else) spent almost all of his life working and raising money to make other peoples lives better!

For the sake of argument, let's say you've been abused by a famous, who you trusted, when you were 14.
Now in your middle age, you've been carrying this around most of your life, watching your abuser being lauded for all his good work - but you know something different.
You might not feel strong enough to stand up against a 'national treasure' who does a lot of charity work - you might think nobody will believe you.
However, after that persons death you feel it's safe enough to come forward and tell people what he did to you, for no other reason than you don't have to keep that secret any more.

I suspect it's grounded in the same place in a person's psyche that means most rape isn't reported.