For the benefit of readers of this blog who come from a different
It was not long before the number of people making such allegations had moved into three figures and the media had accepted that Savile was guilty. A number of investigations have been launched and, at the end of last week, the official report of the Metropolitan Police Service and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was published. I have not read the whole report, but I can say that paragraph 4 of the introduction states that the investigation "collated all the allegations against Savile, irrespective of where the offences took place".
That is an official report and in one sentence at the beginning of the report it moves from "allegations" to "offences". And Jimmy Savile has never been found guilty of any of these allegations.
I'm not saying that all or, indeed, any of the people making the allegations are hoaxers, jumping on a bandwagon in the hope that something might accrue to their benefit. Nor am I suggesting that Jimmy Savile was whiter than the driven snow: indeed, I suspect he was guilty as hell. But neither he nor anybody else can give his side of the story; he cannot be proved guilty in accordance with the law of the country. That's what leaves the nasty taste in my mouth; the fact that anybody can, after their death, be considered guilty as a result of unproved allegations.
Got the phone fixed but only by ringing the customer service centre from the shop. And nobody tried to sell me a new phone!
We occasionally have an invasion of French market traders who set up a French market for a day, selling such delicacies as bread, olives, cheese etc. And other things, like these table cloths.