Jimmy Saville

Sympathetic though I am to the plight of the sexually abused children and adolescents that Jimmy Savile abused, I cannot help thinking that it is pathetic to have opened up this can of worms about him when he is no longer around to defend himself or face justice. What is the point of going on a witch hunt about someone who can no longer be punished for his actions? What do his persecutors (for want of a better word) want to get out of this?

Fri, 2012-10-26 22:41

The police, CPS, judges, local authorities, children's homes and hospitals, Esther Rantzen of Childline and the BBC all knew all about him for decades but chose to do nothing. They gave him free rein to wreck young, vulnerable lives and for this reason they are as much to blame as Savile himself, who would passed an enhanced CRB check with flying colours until the day he died.

Fri, 2012-10-26 23:15

But why though? I've got three CRBs. I'd like to think they mean something. Michael Barrymore was hung out to dry when he came out of the closet. A bloke died at a pool party at his house after being anally raped. I suppose people knew he was gay, even though he was married, but they didn’t expect that to happen. And now more ‘celebs’ are about to get arrested. 200 people have come forward with abuse claims about other pervs. We can all probably guess who they might be, but it would be unfair to mention their names just yet. I just don’t understand why somebody – why all of them – didn’t do something about Saville. Paedophilia was no more accepted twenty, thirty, forty years ago than it is today. Jim’ll Fix It ran for 19 years. When someone first suggested the idea why didn’t someone else say, “You’re joking, aren’t you? He’s a fucking kiddie fiddler!”

Sat, 2012-10-27 01:00

Karl Paedos are classic control freaks and I fear a very large percentage would have a clean criminal record to ensure the access to children that Savile enjoyed. CRBs are a good idea but will only deter the small % of paedos who have been caught. A better solution would be for the police to divulge info to professional bodies on all people seeking employment. Problem is the cops can't be trusted with 20 pence. Verdana, Haut de la Garenne is not alone. Royal dignitaries, Catholic priests, child welfare officers, respected lawmen and eminent judges visit vulnerable children's homes for their own reasons, knowing that the children they abuse will be punished if they make accusations. Pathologists and mediamen will drain the life out of the story and get their whack when the wind dies down so it's little wonder that Savile got away with it for so long. I wouldn't be surprised if his Jim'll Fix it after-show party wasn't the highlight of aristocratic paedophiles' diaries. The big question now is how many more well heeled do the CPS have to protect now that Savile's dead? I

Sun, 2013-01-13 12:34

(Reply to #6) #7

WhaT I do not understand is why all these allegations of sexual misconduct against Savile, now that he is dead and, firstly, cannot defend himself and, secondly, cannot face punishment for his actions Either you punish the criminal immediately or let him off the hook. Waiting forty years in order to bring all this up again, when even the victims have moved on, is plain ridiculous.

Sat, 2012-10-27 11:45

alibob

It's another example of 'all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing,' or something like that. As a former teacher, if I'd ever suspected that a colleague was doing anything untoward with a child, I sincerely hope I'd have done something about it, and that I'd rather have been proved wrong than have stood back and let someone continue to be abused. If you turn a blind eye to something like this, then as far as I'm concerned you become complicit in the crime. So shame on anyone who 'knew' something (rather than having heard rumours) and did nothing. But too many people don't like to rock the boat, because they're scared of the consequences for themselves. A bunch of cowards, basically.

Sat, 2012-10-27 13:30

The Other Terre...

It says a lot about the British media that the Conservative party have avoid all contamination by this story. Let us not forget that he was one of the main celebrity supporters of the Tories, he spoke at Tory party conferences and was a regular visitor to Chequers when Maggie was PM. Or, let's look at it another way. Decision to give him free access to Broadmore - Edwina Curry, (when she was a Tory Minister). Ken Clarke (Tory Minister) made the decision to give him free access to another NHS special hospital. His OBE - granted under a Tory administration. His Knighthood - granted under a Tory administration. Not convinced? Still think it's all the BBC's fault? Then you'd better write to the number one guy at the BBC, Lord Patten (former Tory minister). There were SEVEN separate police investigations while Saville was alive. There is no doubt that these were made more difficult by the fact that he was a friend of the PM, was jangling his various knighthoods and had friends in high places.

Sat, 2012-10-27 18:42

#10

But he had no talent and no charisma - a bit like Dermot O'Leary (is that his name) - so how did he end up on the telly? Let's say he had a couple of Tories in his pocket, but initially how did he end up in the media?

Sat, 2012-10-27 21:02

#11

He was a product of his time, Karl. A 'typical English eccentric' (much loved then) who caught on. It was a different London in those days, the music scene was very small and sort of hung around Hampstead and Notting Hill and the clubs in Soho and Oxford Street(I know, I was in it)and everyone knew everyone. more or less. Then there was the charity thing...guaranteed (later) to keep the ball rolling (as it were). Young girls (14-15, maybe 16) would hang around bands then and, basically, if a band member (a roadie would do, mind, failing all else) wanted to screw you, you'd go for it. Girls at my school in Paddington used to sleep overnight outside the Beatles gaff in Marylebone, hoping for a sighting. You think if one of them (a Beatle) had shown an interest they'd have said no? No way! Me, I was out working at 15, lived alone - many girls were, and did too. Others told their parents they were staying at a friends I imagine. What I'm saying is not that he should be excused in any way (in fact I missed the whole Savile/Top of the Pops thing, really, I was much more into Hendrix, Mayall, The Who etc) but that it was a different climate then. Most girls of 14, 15 that I knew weren't little delicate flowers that had to be protected - they were out there, working for a living and willing to screw anyone famous. Of course I exclude here all the girls (and guys) who were groped, raped, molested unwillingly, goes without saying. But put it like this - if John Peel, say, had shown the slightest interest in me, then, I'd have more than willingly accommodated. Don't underestimate the sexuality of young teenage girls... Just another viewpoint, perhaps. http://www.ukauthors.com

Mon, 2012-10-29 07:32

#12

I agree with you. And. The more free reign JS had, the more powerful he must have felt. Invincible, even. Imelda Marcos in a shoe shop. Bet there are thousands of instances saviloi-you-wink-you'll-do had chosen to take with these youngsters. Even if say, they WERE willing to fumble around in his stretchy breeks, (just had a dry boak, pardin me) he took it to another level (42) that's 2 bands in the one sentence there, you see that? Also. Things were swept under the carpet, weren't they. It's all too ghastly to think about. I agree about Dermot O'leary. And is Holly Willoughby the only female presenter available, these days ..

Fri, 2012-11-02 15:25

#13

I'd like to know why the BBC used institionalised children from backgrounds of stark vulnerability and alienation from society. My guess is that the bosses were fully aware of the after party sex sessions and understood that these children would never be believed if they said anything against their stars. The police and social services see allegations of this nature as an ungrateful stab at authority so they're completely useless. The system's sick from the top down to the very bottom. Vulnerable children are easy targets for abuse from all directions, hence the high incidence of suicide, addiction and prostitution, and nothing will change unless something is done. It seems that only television coverage the like of Panorama actually works to make people think and I'm in awe of those who produced the show the BBC tried so hard to shelve because they had an expensive Savile show planned for Xmas. I think Andrea's comment above was grotesque. An eyeless, whistling sweep under the carpet just isn't acceptable. These children came from institutions, mysterious mansions visited by dignitaries and stars for serial molestation, not schools in Paddington. If she had been herded onto a bus and into the BBC studios, naive and starstruck, would it have been acceptable for Starr/Savile to shag her in a toilet and tell her to keep her mouth shut? Her comments are fractured and bitten by an egotistical desire to prove that she was a young mover at the same time that these children were being abused. Absurd flippancy typical of the sort who say 'Well, it goes on. What can I do?'

Fri, 2012-11-02 20:40

#14

TheShyAssassin

You lot have been reading too much David Icke.

Fri, 2012-11-02 21:03

#15

Sooz006

One word...Money!

Fri, 2012-11-02 21:06

#16

If Andrea saw things that way, then that's how it was for her. No need to attack ..

Sat, 2012-11-03 10:46

#17

I was at pains to point our that I didn't include children from institutions etc. I was talking about a different sort of 'child' altogether. Those who were out working for a living, were not 'bused' anywhere and were certainly not naive. Perhaps you didn't read my post properly. As for Her comments are fractured and bitten by an egotistical desire to prove that she was a young mover at the same time that these children were being abused. Absurd flippancy typical of the sort who say 'Well, it goes on. What can I do?' Since you don't know the first thing about me, your proclamations are patently absurd and, in a bizarre way, rather humorous, since I was severely abused, both mentally and physically, as a child. Be careful not to make assumptions about people you know nothing about, it's pretty ignorant. http://www.ukauthors.com

Mon, 2012-11-05 00:24

(Reply to #17) #18

TVR

Good for you, Andrea, I was in total concord with your comment and view on this and you did not deserve to be heckled in such a way by Blighters. Your contribution was well thought out and sensitive and his tone in response to you was both nasty and unnecessary. I can only assume he'd either been drinking or misunderstood totally the thrust of your viewpoint - probably both. Well done to you for standing your ground and refusing to be hectored. SD

TVR

Sat, 2012-11-03 11:52

#19

Andrea, I've been away for a week and just catching up on emails, Facebook, ABC Tales etc., and was just about to comment on your earlier viewpoint when I read the follow on. First of all, Blighters, that's not a fair call at all. I felt Andrea made some excellent points. I'm guessing we're the same generation as I too left school at 15, and my bands at the time were Hendrix and The Who (still are actually). But secondly whether you agree with Andrea or not, she has a right to her opinion without being insulted. Wasn't it Voltaire who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"? I've re-read Andrea's original comments and I still feel they're points excellently made, whether I agree with them or not - and I think for the most part I do. She looks at the situation at the time with an open mind, explains it succicntly to those who weren't there, and I believe has offered an alternative viewpoint - not on Saville, at all, but on the era. Andrea, well said.

Sat, 2012-11-03 12:20

#20

And also remember this was the epoch of such bands as The Yardbirds (Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page) and Ten Years After (Alvin Lee), who all sang Good Morning Little Schoolgirl; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBD4EKoiY_M "Good Morning Little Schoolgirl I want to ball you all night long" I've never seen this as an acceptance of paedophilia amongst rock 'n' roll artists, but just a note on the promiscuity of schoolgirls at the time. Later covered by The Grateful Dead. The Red Hot Chilli Peppers later on went on to record Catholic Schoolgirls Rule, another track with dodgy lyrics. Just a point.

Sun, 2012-11-04 23:29

#21

Karl, Voltaire was explaining the act of debate as a form of free expression, which, while I'm all for it, does get me in trouble, especially when politics and social comment are concerned. Everyone has a right to speak their mind and I was doing just that. Andrea, You wrote 'I was at pains to point our that I didn't include children from institutions etc' after your first comment, in which I saw no reference at all to children from institutions. The closest I could find was 'Of course I exclude here all the girls (and guys) who were groped, raped, molested unwillingly, goes without saying. But put it like this - if John Peel, say, had shown the slightest interest in me, then, I'd have more than willingly accommodated. Don't underestimate the sexuality of young teenage girls...' In no part of your first comment did you even touch on 'children from institutions etc' and perhaps you weren't even aware that Savile's audience was hand-picked and taken from this vulnerable, easily silenced section of society for their own purposes of foul play. Why else would they not include children from families? Because they would have had a voice and the perpetrators of abuse would have been easier to expose with their parents' help. But that's not really my issue. What irks me is the way you seem to lump together these children's abuse with a need to justify and make acceptable the sexual attention of stars on under-age girls, whose only intention, according to you, was to offer consensual sex. That's a pretty rich mix; a girl from an institution who, when speaking of abuse, will be systematically punished and mocked, against a girl whose world is her oyster and who wants to shag as many stars as she can get her hands on. You also say 'I was talking about a different sort of 'child' altogether. Those who were out working for a living, were not 'bused' anywhere and were certainly not naive. Perhaps you didn't read my post properly.' Well, the reason the abused children were chosen for the show was that they were naive, and extremely vulnerable to corrupt and violate, unlike the picture you give of yourself. Plus, the whole point of this topic is to discuss Savile, paedophiles and secrets within respected institutions like the BBC, not the sexuality of young teenage girls. Obviously I had no idea you suffered abuse as a child and I'm sorry if I offended you by my comment. That wasn't my intention. I was upset by your comment and shouldn't have posted my thoughts. Now that I have, I'm merely exercising my right to defend my own viewpoint and explain what I found distasteful. Richard

Mon, 2012-11-05 07:58

#22

Richard Richard Richard. Calm Doon and leave the wee lassie alone, for goodness sake. Maybe you should direct your anger at the saviloi man, rather than our friend here. I suppose you will hava pop at me now. I feel it in ma bones, but let's just stop, now, thank you ..

Mon, 2012-11-05 11:09

#23

Trev You're entitled to your opinion but let's stick to the point of this forum topic, which is paedos and corrupt leaders. If you want to take sides, that's your prerogative. Denni I will calm doon but the dark side of lazy liberalism has a way of bringing out the worst in me. Richard

Mon, 2012-11-05 11:26

#24

Blighters, they often say that a writer or poet is unaware himself of the deeper inference or message behind his prose or poetry, but as this was originally my post I fear that I may not have explained myself accordingly. The point of this forum topic is not; 1) Paedos and corrupt leaders 2) Secrets within respected institutions like the BBC But rather how did an uncharismatic, untalented, immature ‘person’ rise to such heights in the entertainment business? The post has certainly taken a different direction, but I have no issue with that. We’re all aware that creating a forum topic is akin to unleashing a wild animal that can roam in any direction – and that’s the fun of it, it can’t be controlled, but the original crux was as stated above. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Mon, 2012-11-05 12:52

#25

I don't know wot lazy liberalism means. Yoor a good bloke, l know that. Let's all be great friends xx It's a beautiful day in edinburgh. Am away to ma cleanin job. Happy days xx

Mon, 2012-11-05 13:25

#26

Thanks for the support guys. Can't be bothered to explain myself further - no point getting me bloomers in a twist, eh? http://www.ukauthors.com

Mon, 2012-11-05 14:34

#27

Bet you didny wear bloomers in the 60's. Yood see them under yer mini-ha-ha xx l experienced similar crap, as l was dating a young guy, ex husband now, who played in a band. Very famous later on, and the fucking dirty c*nt 'manager' told them to not have girlfriends, as it was bad for their image. He took them to his big, dirty place, dirty as in, paedo, and showed them gay porn. I had to meet in secret. It was shoooooge later on, in the press. Andrea .. we know wots wot xx blessshoooo xx

Tue, 2013-01-15 09:54

#28

3 things .. why are YOU bringing it up now, who says the victims have moved on, and it's been including 40 years, as he was savalo-ing up until recently. How the hell can you be so dismissive of these men, women and children who had the guts to re- live his elastic waist, easy access shenanigans? Just a thought, prettypolly. Denise

Fri, 2013-01-18 15:39

(Reply to #28) #29

Of course the victims have moved on. They have married and had children of their own. If they were that traumatised, they would never have even wanted to come face to face with men,let alone marry them. I am not saying that their rape ordeal was a joke. It never is. What I am saying is why wait forty years to bring up the subject of sexual assault when the perpetrator is no longer alive to face justice for his actions, instead of deal with him immediately and let him face punishment.

Tue, 2013-01-15 12:21

#30

PP, I've got to agree with Denni. Plainly the victims haven't moved on at all. The conseqwuences of sexual abuse can affect the victims at a deep subliminal level. 1) Post-traumatic stress disorder for one. It's not just the military that suffer from this, you know. 2) Victims of rape or sexual assault can also turn to alcohol or other substances in an attempt to relieve their emotional suffering. 3) Another one of the emotional and psychological reactions that victims of rape and sexual assault can experience is depression. 4) Flashback can also occur 5) Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is one of many possible long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse 6) Many survivors of sexual assault suffer from sleep disturbances and disorders, as well as eating disorders, using food and the control of food as an attempt to deal with or compensate for negative feelings and emotions. 7) Body memories (when physical problems cannot be explained by the usual means). I will question your philosophy of "punishing the criminal immediately or letting him off the hook." You have got to be fucking joking! This is taking the statute of limitatipons to the extreme. Are you suggesting that if someone commits a crime - say, one of abuse - he's 'Let off the hook" if he's not caught immediately? You haven't thought that viewpoint through properly, PP, have you? Take a moment and consider if the abused were a member of your family or even yourself, and finally situations changed that gave you the courage to at last come forward and report it. Now imagine how you'd feel if you were greeted with a, "Sorry, that was last week, this is today, deal with it, move on." NOW do you understand why your viewpoint isn't really demonstrating joined-up thinking?

Tue, 2013-01-15 21:35

#31

Do you think Savile operated in a bubble then, Polly? You don't think it's worth investigating the fact that there was more than likely a ring, many of whom are possibly still alive? And who allowed him free access to these hospitals? You think they shouldn't be held responsible? http://www.ukauthors.com

Fri, 2013-01-18 15:43

(Reply to #31) #32

What if the others who are still alive have forgotten about it in the forty years? Some may have genuinely forgotten, others are senile and their memories may have become impaired. Forty years is a very long time in a person's life, andrea.

Tue, 2013-01-15 23:31

#33

blackjack-davey

What I find odd is that no one seems shocked by the mass outpouring of hate, is it all really generated by Jimmy Saville? Of course, what he did was horrible but does the world need to stop and hate quite so publicly. It reminds me of the hate exercises in 1984. If one doesn't hate enough one might be a wrong'un

Wed, 2013-01-16 11:38

#34

Nature of the beast, BD. People smell blood, join the pack and attack en masse. http://www.ukauthors.com

Wed, 2013-01-16 14:28

#35

Oh - quite. http://www.ukauthors.com

Fri, 2013-01-18 20:53

#36

Oh Polly, Polly, Polly - how little you know, my love. http://www.ukauthors.com

Fri, 2013-01-18 21:55

#37