Family hits out at ITV for claims about Jimmy Savile

2:00pm Tuesday 2nd October 2012 in News By Lawrence Dunhill

Family hits out at ITV for claims about Jimmy Savile Family hits out at ITV for claims about Jimmy Savile

SIR Jimmy Savile’s family is "disgusted and disappointed" by ITV’s decision to broadcast claims that he sexually abused schoolgirls.

Exposure: The Other Side Of Jimmy Savile, which airs on Wednesday, details claims from women dating to the 1970s, including allegations he abused girls in his Rolls-Royce.

Sir Jimmy, who died last year, was well known in Bucks after spending much of his life raising millions of pounds for Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

Nephew Roger Foster, from East Yorkshire, said he is not only concerned for Sir Jimmy's legacy, but also for the damage the allegations could do to his charities.

He added: "I just get so disgusted and disappointed by it. The guy hasn't been dead for a year yet and they're bringing these stories out....

"I just don't understand the motives behind this. I just think it's very, very sad you can say these things after someone's died and the law says you can't defend yourself when you're dead."

An ITV spokesman said: "This documentary is the result of an in-depth investigation into long-standing allegations of serious and widespread sexual misconduct by Sir Jimmy Savile.

“Because of the very serious nature of the claims made by several interviewees in relation to this, particular care and consideration was of course given to the decision to produce and broadcast this programme.

"The programme takes full account of the fact that Sir Jimmy is not here to defend himself against these claims."

Sir Jimmy was famous for TV shows like Jim'll Fix It and Top Of The Pops as well as being a DJ on BBC Radio 1.

Comments (11)

2:19pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Stalemate says...

There's no smoke without fire.
There's no smoke without fire. Stalemate

2:20pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Marmite XO says...

Who cares if a few youngsters threw themselves at him because of his fame. Let's remember all the good things he did. The same as we do for Michael Jackson. RIP Jimmy.
Who cares if a few youngsters threw themselves at him because of his fame. Let's remember all the good things he did. The same as we do for Michael Jackson. RIP Jimmy. Marmite XO

2:22pm Tue 2 Oct 12

nwmadden says...

Family members using the response that 'Charities will suffer if the allegations don't stop' are using the exact same defense that Jimmy used himself. The money will still go to charity, just not through the ones set up by the alledged mollestor.
Family members using the response that 'Charities will suffer if the allegations don't stop' are using the exact same defense that Jimmy used himself. The money will still go to charity, just not through the ones set up by the alledged mollestor. nwmadden

2:29pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Darren Hayday says...

Marmite XO wrote:
Who cares if a few youngsters threw themselves at him because of his fame. Let's remember all the good things he did. The same as we do for Michael Jackson. RIP Jimmy.
Are you taking the Mickey with this statement? (I hope so!)

At this stage he is alleged to have done these acts but...

...no-one is above the law and child rape/molestation is still frowned upon - even in the UK!

Just because someone is rich/famous does not give them the right to get away with breaking the law.

Are you also adding Gary Glitter into your list of alleged kiddie fiddling admirers? (Which is the only one still alive and actually convicted of his activities.)
[quote][p][bold]Marmite XO[/bold] wrote: Who cares if a few youngsters threw themselves at him because of his fame. Let's remember all the good things he did. The same as we do for Michael Jackson. RIP Jimmy.[/p][/quote]Are you taking the Mickey with this statement? (I hope so!) At this stage he is alleged to have done these acts but... ...no-one is above the law and child rape/molestation is still frowned upon - even in the UK! Just because someone is rich/famous does not give them the right to get away with breaking the law. Are you also adding Gary Glitter into your list of alleged kiddie fiddling admirers? (Which is the only one still alive and actually convicted of his activities.) Darren Hayday

2:49pm Tue 2 Oct 12

VoiceOfSeason says...

Marmite XO wrote:
Who cares if a few youngsters threw themselves at him because of his fame. Let's remember all the good things he did. The same as we do for Michael Jackson. RIP Jimmy.
Absolutely clueless. Agree with Darren's subsequent comment. Marmite, what are you on?
[quote][p][bold]Marmite XO[/bold] wrote: Who cares if a few youngsters threw themselves at him because of his fame. Let's remember all the good things he did. The same as we do for Michael Jackson. RIP Jimmy.[/p][/quote]Absolutely clueless. Agree with Darren's subsequent comment. Marmite, what are you on? VoiceOfSeason

3:00pm Tue 2 Oct 12

deecee01 says...

VoiceOfSeason wrote:
Marmite XO wrote:
Who cares if a few youngsters threw themselves at him because of his fame. Let's remember all the good things he did. The same as we do for Michael Jackson. RIP Jimmy.
Absolutely clueless. Agree with Darren's subsequent comment. Marmite, what are you on?
Marmite XO, what a cretin you are. You obviously don't have children, and are so obviously one of those men who has a d!ck for a brain.

Go back and crawl under the swamp you came out from.
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfSeason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marmite XO[/bold] wrote: Who cares if a few youngsters threw themselves at him because of his fame. Let's remember all the good things he did. The same as we do for Michael Jackson. RIP Jimmy.[/p][/quote]Absolutely clueless. Agree with Darren's subsequent comment. Marmite, what are you on?[/p][/quote]Marmite XO, what a cretin you are. You obviously don't have children, and are so obviously one of those men who has a d!ck for a brain. Go back and crawl under the swamp you came out from. deecee01

3:08pm Tue 2 Oct 12

Stalemate says...

This all looks pretty damning for Mr Savile.

One thing I would question though is the motive for going public with the allegations after the death of the man.

Savile was questioned in 2007 by police in relation to these allegations and no further action was taken, a decision the police would have taken in conjunction with the CPS.

So why didn't those making the allegations take civil action in 2007?

It would have been in the interests of justice and everyone concerned to see him stand trial. No doubt he would have defended himself vigorously and protected his estate with every ounce of strength.

Is it now that his estate is seen as a little more accessible?
This all looks pretty damning for Mr Savile. One thing I would question though is the motive for going public with the allegations after the death of the man. Savile was questioned in 2007 by police in relation to these allegations and no further action was taken, a decision the police would have taken in conjunction with the CPS. So why didn't those making the allegations take civil action in 2007? It would have been in the interests of justice and everyone concerned to see him stand trial. No doubt he would have defended himself vigorously and protected his estate with every ounce of strength. Is it now that his estate is seen as a little more accessible? Stalemate

3:22pm Tue 2 Oct 12

sai-diva says...

Next major headline, Pope is Catholic and bears poo in the woods.
Next major headline, Pope is Catholic and bears poo in the woods. sai-diva

8:53am Wed 3 Oct 12

Darren Hayday says...

I see that all previous comments have been 'removed' then... shock horror!
I see that all previous comments have been 'removed' then... shock horror! Darren Hayday

8:54am Wed 3 Oct 12

Darren Hayday says...

I take that back.. - they are still here.
I take that back.. - they are still here. Darren Hayday

8:46am Thu 4 Oct 12

Me, just me says...

"...the law says you can't defend yourself when you're dead."

Does the law actually state that or is it just a case of the defendant not managing to turn up to court when called due to being 6 foot under and full of worms?!
"...the law says you can't defend yourself when you're dead." Does the law actually state that or is it just a case of the defendant not managing to turn up to court when called due to being 6 foot under and full of worms?! Me, just me

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree