Jude Collins

Thursday, 4 October 2012

How I know Jimmy Saville was a paedophile


1. I was listening to Joe Duffy's Liveline programme on RTÉ just now and I heard Dickie Rock - remember him? - say that it was strange Jimmy Saville never got married. Good point, Dickie. Didn't even get married once.  Creepy.  Know what I mean?
2. Paul Gambuccini was on the telly yesterday and he said it was more or less common knowledge, what kind of bloke Jimmy Saville was back then. Why would a man like Paul say that if it wasn't true? So there you are. Reason No 2 - Paul  said it.
3. There was a programme on ITV last night about Jimmy Saville. I didn't see it myself but I know people who did and I  believe it had a number of women on it saying they'd been abused - one of them at least said she'd been raped by him - back in the 1970s. What possible reason would they have for saying that if it wasn't true? Right, none.
4. The BBC is pulling  programmes it had planned which featured Jimmy.  And the charities he helped are fearful of a backlash against them. Gotta  be guilty if that happened, wouldn't you say?
5. As Dickie  pointed out,  not only was Saville not married, but he had a  thing about his mother. He called her the Duchess and he kept her hat and clothing even after she died. Creepy or what? You're absolutely right -  the stuff of paedophilia.

Yes, yes, I know -  some of those reasons mightn't stand up in a court of law but the fact that ITV made a programme about him and had those women on - that's good enough for me. All right, I didn't see the programme and I admitted that, but so what? And yes,  having a thing about his mother - holding on to clothes she wore after she died - that mightn't prove he was a child abuser but, you know, it's a sign, isn't it? Maybe not proof but a sign.  Two plus two equals guilty. And all right again, granted,  not every man who doesn't get married is  a paedophile but  at the same time, it's, you know, not normal, is it?  Abnormal, in fact.  Another sign. If it wasn't, I'm sure Dickie wouldn't have mentioned it.  And well yes,  the fact that Paul Gambuccini says something doesn't necessarily make it so, but hey -  another straw in the wind.  No smoke without fire. And did you hear that the monument they put up to him had been sprayed with graffiti? People wouldn't go out and spray the monument of an innocent man, would they?

All in all, you add things together and what you get is  a monster. And I didn't even mention that really weird hair-style of his. Blond. He had, you know, that look.  You can always tell them.  Best of all, of course,  Saville's dead, so we're free to draw our conclusions and make our judgements. And the judgement, from what I hear everybody saying, is guilty. Mightn't stand up in a court of law, or hasn't so far,  but hey - who needs a court of law? We know what we know and you can't libel the dead.

8 comments:

  1. Jude
    You are well named for this one does look like a lost cause.
    The evidence of so many first hand witnesses and victims (allegedly) is formidable.It would of course have been desirable to see that evidence tested in court, but that is not going to happen.
    What I would like to see is for those who knew what was happening and failed to speak out, to be held to account for their complicity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gio - why would you want to hold people to account for complicity in a crime/crimes that has/have yet to be proven? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gio
    I think you may have missed the irony in Jude's blog.As you know,he's a great man for due process and the rule of law.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jude.
    Perhaps then we can agree there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation. And some of those who, by the way, have already admitted knowledge of very illegal behaviour will be questioned and if found to be complicit will be held accountable. Better?
    I understand you are making a point about innocent until proven guilty and the danger of assuming the guilt of someone who has not been tried, but maybe you should use a better example for illustration. Say, Gerry Adams perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, Jude, you know what they say. If it's on the internet, it *must* be true.

    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What about the paedophiles within St John ambulance who are about to receive awards from the Queen's representative:
    http://bit.ly/ourNZexperience

    ReplyDelete
  7. Much of these alleged points are what psychologists refer to as "hindsight bias." For instance, in the case of keeping his mother's belongings and suggesting it is the stuff of pedophilia. Just doesn't make any sense. I know plenty of non pedophiles, including my own mother, who keeps items from their parents.
    -Testimony on the other hand, is keen.

    ReplyDelete