Is character asassination and slandering of the dead acceptable ???

Why wherent these allegations made whilst he was alive to defend himself ???

Apparently plenty were made, but no one wanted to listen.

Plenty more were made too.

So allegations were made and investigated by the CPS but nothng proven.

So the likes of Gambaccini and Rantzen wait till he is dead to jump on the band wagon.

Bill Wyman started his "relationship" (whatever that may have entailed) with Mandy Smith when she was 13

seem to remember allegations in the sunday papers back in the late 70's/early 80's

Yes it would seem so...by newspapers, his employers (BBC), and the police. None of which were proven.

Justice didn't always come to the fore in the 70's

Steady on here folks...

For the legal bods - is it possible to slander/liable the dead?

Well I imagine his family won't be very pleased about it.

apparently not

I'm interested to see what allegations are made in the documentary and what evidence is given - you'd normally expect the most damning evidence to be saved for the program itself but for the warm-up adverts to at least give a taste of whats to come, at the moment its an ex-BBC employee saying that she saw "a girl who was obviously 14 sitting on his knee".

Obviously 14 ?

It all sounds a bit flimsy at the moment and I hope for the sake of the pre-release publicity and for Esther Rantzen's name that there is a bit more to it than has been released so far.

While I always thought he was a bit "strange" particularly after the Louis Theroux documentary I think that you also have to put some of these allegations into date/time context and some may find that impossible to do if they don't remember what the 1960s and 70s were like - if indeed these allegations date from that time.

Rape, sexual abuse and grooming of under-age girls was as prolific as it is now, it was just never spoken of and never publicised like it is now especially in the context of a "relationship" no matter how flimsy the "relationship", the treatment of females in the media as sexual objects of gratification was prolific in the 60s and 70s and you need to fully understand that as "the norm" before you judge a young man who may have simply been accepting what was on offer at every event he attended - there will be a lot of twitchy bums amongst sixty and seventy year old ex-pop stars going on right now if old coals are going to be raked over in this way.

I'm not defending him at all, but I find the timing of this expose to be strange, I can believe that he may have held some power over the media in the 1970s but he effectively retired from public life for the last two decades - why wait until he can't answer the allegations and why did the police find nothing five years ago ?

It all sounds like a lot of foul publicity to me but we shall see the "evidence" on Wednesday.

In other words .... Jangle Jangle, Jury Jury ?

Good post McF and very well put.

Agreed. And in those now far off days of hysterical young girls throwing their knickers at their pop idols, is not inconceivable that they could also throw themselves as well? They were called groupies I seem to recall.

Its an excellent point regarding his contemporaries.

There are legions of tales about hoards of young "groupies" being invited back stage and indeed if we are going to start investigations based on hearsay evidence from the past then yes there will be many nervous geriatric superstars about.

I too found him strange but its not so long ago that the streets where lined with those paying their respects to a local legend.

Yes and it is just possible that a groupie who had been prepared to offer themselves in return for a bit of relected glory would now consider another shot.

Could it also be that claims for compo might be a consideration ???? surely not



It is coming up to the anniversary of his death. I wonder how long it takes to execute a will for an estate of a substantial amount.

This is why I mention Bill Wyman.

Without doubt if these allegations are true then the women, who were by definition children at the time, are victims of a crime, and should be allowed to give their version of events, perhaps even compensated to some degree, although how, I wouldn't know.

However the accused is dead, so criminal charges obviously can't be brought and the accused cannot defend himself.

But the wider issue is how this case will be treated in the media given the context of the alleged events.

How many pop stars/TV celebs from that era can safely say that every girl who was seduced by their fame and willingly offered something more than polite conversation, for no other reason than the excitement of it, was over the age of consent, even if they appeared, and maybe claimed, to be so?

The difference with the Wyman story, which was bad enough, and any other groupie tales is that many of the Savile abuses were alleged to happened at a childrens' home.

and apparently he was investigated by the police under caution but no charges were made and the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence at the time.

Anybody working with children is vunerable to accusations and investigion.

Rightly so but not 40 years later and after their deaths.

JS wasn't a cliquey BBC type and preferred the company of people he'd known a long time .. I suspect that to many at the BBC he wasn't regarded as "one of us".

As for Rantzen ... she has built the latter part of her flagging career on the back of child abuse stories and this sounds like blatent bandwaggoning on her part.
I'm sure I shan't be alone in thinking that I shall disregard Rantzen's "opinion" and wait to see the documentary.

I think it's appalling that all these women didn't bother to press charges when Jimmy Saville was alive - what has made them come forward now then, now then, now then?