Oi - now you've offended me, nowt wrong with Whitley Bay from what I can remember.

Rat pie was especially nice if you didn't get the slice with all the gristle in it.

Anyway, the last resort is surely Withernsea ?

I've never yet been to another seaside resort that tries so hard to pretend that its not a seaside resort.

Have you never been to Mablethorpe?

The Rex on a Thursday night had its moments too!

Grab a Granny night - with real grannies.

<shudder>

But at least they were old enough!

Yes but I was only 22 at the time.

I only went once, with a sales rep who was staying at the hotel I lived in, he was much older than me and thought it was totty heaven, I sat in the corner trying not to make eye contact but feeling like a lamb wandering around a slaughterhouse.

Did you watch Newsnight on Thursday? This isn't a couple of accusations and a few "bandwagoners". "The Savile Problem" seems to be something the institutions he "volounteered" at swept under the carpet for years. Maybe they should have told him to jog on, but can you imagine the publicity or the difficulty of trying to explain why you didn't want the guy to turn up (remember, he's a friend of the Royals and thought of as practically a saint)?
Far too many people are speaking up, and in reality what evidence is there ever in sexual abuse cases? It quite often boils down to the word of one person (in the case of the victim this could be a young, troubled individual) against the abuser (in this case a massively famous celebrity venerated for his good works). What we have now are very large numbers of people coming forward to tell how he groped, fondled and attacked them.

The guy is dead now, digging his body up, attacking his family is totally pointless (these things are never done by victims anyway - just yobs looking for an excuse to feel good about being a-holes).

Like I said it's depressing. I'm now waiting to hear that Kevin Sinfield is such a good goalkicker because he practices with kittens and JJB demands panda sausages in his pre-match breakfast.

30 - 40 years on and its all about the money IMO now he has slipped off this mortal coil.

expect to see masses of law suits lodged against the BBC, the NHS, Stoke Manderville, Broadmoor, etc etc etc.



The lawyers must all be rubbing their hands with glee.

How on earth would you provge that you'd been groped by Jimmy Savile, 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago ?

Even the eye witness accounts haven't been able to name a victim yet and for most of the ones who are prepared to stand up and tell their story, they have no witnesses.

I'm quite prepared to believe that Jimmy Savile was a sexual predator but if its as simple as putting your hand up and shouting out "Yeah, he did me at the BBC as well" to get some compensation then where's the queue...

I'm sorry



I havent been for over a year now so it could be amazing

Anyone see Have I Got News For You on Friday?

The clip they showed of him on the show from 1994 was very disturbing to say the least

see the necrophilia has been brought up now

No, do tell.

All they need is a few animals and they really would be flogging a dead horse

clip showed him answering a question about how he lived in a Caravan and when asked what did he do in the caravan his reply was "Anything I can get my hands on..."

No, it was never amazing, not even after The Metro came to town (which I helped to build, have I ever mentioned that ?)

When I say "helped", I mean I stood and watched some other people build it and then I measured it afterwards.

yeah, you built it

Anyone watch the Panorama programme last night?

I have to say, on the basis of the "evidence" presented I can see why Sir Jimmy has never been prosecuted let alone convicted of anything.

It was the flimsiest rumour mongering imagine-able. No way would any of it have stood up in a court of Law. There was one lady who was willing to openly make an accusation against him. She gave an interview last November but even Sir Jimmy's main accuser's, the makers of the shelved BBC documentary said they didn't air whilst he was a live because she "wouldn't have made a reliable libel witness". The producers, when defending themselves about why the chose not to pass evidence to police, said that they thought the evdience was flimsy and of no use to the police. Doesn't that say everything?

On chap said he saw Saville with a girl, both fully slothed and she was "definitely under age, about twelve, maybe 13 or 14. definitely no more than 15." Wow.

Even the odious Gambaccini had no direct accusations but merely rhetoric and rumour.

It saddens me that this media witch hunt continues at great pace without anybody, anybody at all, questioning the quality of evidence put forward by his accusers (not alleged victims)

I watched most of it last night and feel pretty similar to you. Very little evidence at all, and whilst I don't think its been made up, I can see why it never got reported by people inside the BBC. I think the thing which came out of it is why didn't people who were concerned at the time do something about it at a more personal level? Trying to disuade young people from being left alone with him etc.

Overall I think there was enough to convince me that Saville had been very clever about his actions and played his cards right. As a result I think that anything that people thought was wrong was just that, and certainly not evidence.

You're confusing one television programme with an entire prosecution case. Why does the evidence presented about Savile by this one programme have to be able to take down a criminal trial the instant after it's given?

The point is whether this original evidence is strong enough to make a proper police investigation worthwhile, during which more evidence is gathered and *then* it is taken to court. That threshold is comprehensively passed in Savile's case, and several police forces are now gathering full evidence, just as they should have many years ago.

[i"There was one lady who was willing to openly make an accusation against him. She gave an interview last November but even Sir Jimmy's main accuser's, the makers of the shelved BBC documentary said they didn't air whilst he was a live because she "wouldn't have made a reliable libel witness"[/i

I have no idea what fog you're trying to knit with that as there was one lady *on that particular programme* who made accusations against Savile. You surely know that many more have been filmed and reported over the past few weeks (and for the shelved Newsnight), and that Panorama used only one accuser's interview because it was a quickly made broader programme flitting between biography of Savile, the seedier side of 70s culture, and the current editorial controversy of Newsnight and the BBC.

Also the "shelved BBC documentary" hadn't even begun production when Savile was alive so I'm not sure what that point was about.

See the Daily Mail headlines today to see what this is really all about.

I wasn't confusing anything at all. I was comment upon how flimsy the accusations in that programme were and commented they would certainly never stand up in court.

Which prosecution case have I got confused with, because there has never been one against JS, rather pertinent don't you think?


It doesn't but it has to have some substance or bare scrutiny otherwise we could all go on television and say what we want about someone. Of course, we would only do that and programme makers would only broadcast such things about an alive person if it stood up to scrutiny. Oh, wait a minute.

What evidence? My point is that last night's programme was severely lacking in evidence. Even the programme makers admitted the evidence wasn't good enough to pass onto the police. That is how they defended themselves against charges that they should have done so.

[i"There was one lady who was willing to openly make an accusation against him. She gave an interview last November but even Sir Jimmy's main accuser's, the makers of the shelved BBC documentary said they didn't air whilst he was a live because she "wouldn't have made a reliable libel witness"[/i

There was only one lady on last night's Panorama willing to put her name and face to her accusations, capiche? She was the same lady who came forward to newsnight for the shelved documentary.



I think you are mistaken but it hardly matters when the producer of the Newsnight programme said he didn't think the lady would make "a credible libel witness"

There is a way things are done. They're not done by the media. They're not done by the police. It has been shown, in the last three to four weeks why those bodies are not trustworthy to do them.

It annoys me that there is now widespread acceptance that a man is accepted as being guilty of what he is accused of simply because it's repeated in the media and his accusers says so. It's a very dangerous slope.