Savile brother 'sexually abused women at a hospital'

immy Savile's brother was likely also a serial sex abuser at a London hospital, a report today has claimed.

Johnny Savile, the entertainer's older brother who died in 1998, was accused of molesting and possibly raping women at Springfield Hospital in south London, the report said.

The claims were made between five women between 1978 and 1980, and related to his time as a recreation officer at the hospital in the 1970s - with the last two culminating with him being sacked for gross misconduct of a sexual nature in 1980

The allegations were uncovered by officers involved in Operation Yewtree.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-02-26/savile-brother-sexually-abused-women-at-a-hospital/

Does make me wonder if they were abused as children and thought it normal. Surely two brothers both being sexual abusers is quite uncommon? I hope so anyway.

Allegations? The man is dead - the press really is disgusting at times.

Report put out by Police this morning, not the media, they were just reporting what the police said.

The scum was Savile and his brother.

Raggamuffin wrote:Allegations? The man is dead - the press really is disgusting at times.

It does say he was sacked for ,gross misconduct of a sexual nature", Raggs.
It's hardly just a rumour.

What is the point of investigating dead people? It's all just scandalmongering IMO - people get off on that kind of thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:What is the point of investigating dead people? It's all just scandalmongering IMO - people get off on that kind of thing.

So death let's you off?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Allegations? The man is dead - the press really is disgusting at times.

It does say he was sacked for ,gross misconduct of a sexual nature", Raggs.
It's hardly just a rumour.

The police are certainly not to be trusted...it's an adversarial system, after all. Neither is the press.

What was determined at trial?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What is the point of investigating dead people? It's all just scandalmongering IMO - people get off on that kind of thing.

So death let's you off?

Well yes, it does - you can't prosecute a dead person. People can of course say what they like about him because you can't libel the dead. The only people it could hurt are his family, but they don't count I guess.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Allegations? The man is dead - the press really is disgusting at times.

It does say he was sacked for ,gross misconduct of a sexual nature", Raggs.
It's hardly just a rumour.

The police are certainly not to be trusted...it's an adversarial system, after all.  Neither is the press.

What was determined at trial?

No idea Quill, it's new news.

There was no trial, and there will never be one. There is no investigation, and going to the press achieves nothing. The man was dismissed from his job in 1980 - over 30 years ago. It's just muckraking.

Raggamuffin wrote:There was no trial, and there will never be one. There is no investigation, and going to the press achieves nothing. The man was dismissed from his job in 1980 - over 30 years ago. It's just muckraking.

Thank you. My point exactly.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There was no trial, and there will never be one. There is no investigation, and going to the press achieves nothing. The man was dismissed from his job in 1980 - over 30 years ago. It's just muckraking.

Thank you.  My point exactly.

You're welcome.

There was enough evidence to sack him but not to put him on trial?

Nems wrote:There was enough evidence to sack him but not to put him on trial?

I don't know.  Where does this come from(?):

eddie wrote:gross misconduct of a sexual nature

Is that is just an adjectival phrase, picked up along the way or a verifiable statement of fact?  If it is alleged as fact, where/what/who is the source?  What was his/her ability to perceive?  What kind of investigation?  Was it a statement under oath, given under penalty of perjury, or just somebody's frivolous opinion?

These are the kinds of things that a trial takes care of.  If there is, or has been no trial, it's just gossip.

Don't kmow Quill, as I've said, it's new news and I just quoted from the OP


"The claims were made between five women between 1978 and 1980, and related to his time as a recreation officer at the hospital in the 1970s - with the last two culminating with him being sacked for gross misconduct"

eddie wrote:Don't kmow Quill, as I've said, it's new news and I just quoted from the OP


"The claims were made between five women between 1978 and 1980, and related to his time as a recreation officer at the hospital in the 1970s - with the last two culminating with him being sacked for gross misconduct"

Well obviously there wasn't enough to put him on trial, which is why this is not a police matter, which is why they had no reason to pass the information onto the press.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Don't kmow Quill, as I've said, it's new news and I just quoted from the OP


"The claims were made between five women between 1978 and 1980, and related to his time as a recreation officer at the hospital in the 1970s - with the last two culminating with him being sacked for gross misconduct"

Well obviously there wasn't enough to put him on trial, which is why this is not a police matter, which is why they had no reason to pass the information onto the press.

Agreed. The criminal justice system is like a huge funnel...lots of stuff in, but very little remains after the sifting. That is to say, there is a lot of gossip out there, but very little of it stands the Rules of Evidence that have been developed and honed by the legal profession. That's why I like the trial system...it's far from perfect, but it's better than the noise you get in the news.

No offense eds...I think it is good that we notice these things, but with a bit of healthy skepticism.

No offence taken Quill.
I hope, it's true, he is rotting in hell though.