old - Fazer Owners Club - old
General => General => Topic started by: Streetbudgie on 03 October 2012, 07:55:26 pm
-
Is anyone surprised? Really? :look
-
Is anyone surprised? Really? :look
I was saying to a woman at work today, would you have let him babysit your young daughter even before the revelations came to light?
As a teenager I simply didn't listen to his radio shows because he gave me the creeps. Actually, come to think of it, so did Tony Blackburn and that Dave Lee Travers. Alan Freeman eh, now there's another one. All pervs.
-
there might or might not be any truth in the stuff thats 'come to light' (why would they wait this long to say any thing?) but i met the man twice,once when my mum had cancer and once at a bubble car rally,both times he was a true gent and nothing was too much trouble for hime to help out,he gave my mum and many others a huge laugh and up lifted many spirits and i can realy thank him for that in the low times we were having ,at the car rally he spent time with everyone and again made everyone have fun and raised loads for the air ambulance and more
all i can say is the twice i met him he was fantastic and i hope there is no truth in whats been said
-
I have to say I did wonder, but you kinda hoped that this mad man was the real deal. That he was clean and honest. And he must have been, I mean how could you keep that quiet for so long.
i hope there is no truth in whats been said
There's too much smoke. And film makers are staking their reputation on it. It's 99.9% guaranteed true.
why would they wait this long to say any thing?
Because it wasn't that unusual back then.
Because you could get away with it then. Those who actually witnessed stuff, well if you spoke out, you'd have to be prepared to put your job on the line, would anybody listen, and you might just loose your job and be black listed as a trouble maker.
Remember the Daily Star and the babes coming up to their 16th birthday, yup Julie's getting her tits out tomorrow in the paper! Oh Yeah! And hey nudge nudge wink wink, it's legal to pump her now boys.
The Sun. Here they are today slating the late Jimmy Saville, just a page or so after some young dolly bird with her tits out. I do wonder how long page 3 can survive. Not to mention why are people still buying the Sun today?
You know, maybe the difference between Jonathan King and Jimmy Saville was homophobia. It was only teenage girls with Jimmy, it wasn't as if he was wanking off teenage boys. You know jail bait, grass on the pitch - eh - most em were probably asking for it. Perhaps slowly, bit by bit we are all growing up a bit. Nudge nudge wink wink.
Young girls were just another victim of the rock'n'roll years;http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/young-girls-were-just-another-victim-of-the-rocknroll-years-8194849.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/young-girls-were-just-another-victim-of-the-rocknroll-years-8194849.html)David Hepworth.
-
I hope it isnt true
He spent a lot of time in Stoke Mandeville with the children- didnt he have a flat at the top of the hospital?
He raised millions for charity I hope this isnt some get rich quick girl trying to sully his name ..... but if it is true- I suppose I am glad he isnt alive to face this charge and the children (at the time) can be helped
-
Looks like the jury has spoken in the absence of the defendant. even if he was alive, and was cleared, he'd be screwed...Cheerio career, cos if yer tarred, that's you, games a bogey. Must be a fiddler
Paedofinder General anyone?
-
Dear Jim
Can you fix it for me to have a week in France with a fifteen year old schoolgirl?
Jeremy Forrest
Aged 30.
-
if someone falsely accuses a dead person who can sue for libel or defamation? Easy to point the finger at someone who cannot defend themselves.
That said, if it's true, victims shouldn't keep quiet. but at least do it when justice can be had. This "we were scared" line sounds dodgy. So does waiting a year.
But if they're lying, he'll always be branded as a paedo now
-
Guilty
-
Watch the Esther Rantzan video, she basically says everyone knew it but as he was a BBC god it was ignored.
-
Everyone forgets that Jimmy Saville was DJ originally, he wasn't that good though as he get getting his 7 inches stuck in the 12's...
Door.. :evil
-
Watch the Esther Rantzan video, she basically says everyone knew it but as he was a BBC god it was ignored.
Rantzen is outing herself before the press dig any deeper. She knew what he was up to but was the director of child line? The hypocritical bastard!
Apparently when approached Saville would use his charity work as a cover, as in "Well go public and there goes Stoke Mendiville hospital"
Buried at 45 degrees facing the sea? I think he should be dug up and tipped upside down the pervy old git. :evil
-
One wonders if cheque-book journalism is playing a part here, ie someone's after some dosh and the media are only to happy to pay out ££££ for a juicy story that'll sell papers.
-
In the Sun today they had a double spread of all his alleged victims, pictures from the time and now. With the caption......
"Now then now then" :rollin
-
Rantzen is outing herself before the press dig any deeper. She knew what he was up to but was the director of child line? The hypocritical bastard!
Bollocks. Hearing rumours and gossip is completely and utterly different to having witnessed.
This "we were scared" line sounds dodgy. So does waiting a year.
No it doesn't, he was abusing children. Children in the 60's and 70's certainly weren't as clued up as they are today, many of them didn't quite get what was happening, and of course Saville was trading, grooming them, treating them, getting them on TV and putting them in touch with the stars.
Also attitudes have changed, one journalist dissmissed from Saville's flat as he was too busy with a 14 year old girl stated "so I left without a story".
According to the documentary he parked his caravan in the grounds of a home for vulnerable young girls, basically the most vulnerable of all, and selected girls to take to his van. One girl freaked out. She was put in solitary confinement for three days until finally she withdrew her - filthy accusations.
Little girls with bleak lives jumped at the chance for a day out with Jimmy in his Rolls Royce, even though they knew the price that they had to pay for the day out - basically being fondled by Jimmy then wanking him off. It seemed a fair trade to them, but then they grow up, and the anger grows.
But the school kept feeding him children, and by the sounds of it, any that spoke out were filthy little sluts.
People I guess move on with their lives, but the evil that men do, or the evil that Jimmy Saville did, lives on with his victims , and will do for long time after his death. Maybe that's the one bit Jimmy hadn't quite figured out.
All it seems to have taken, is one for person to carry out and in depth investigation, to scratch the surface a little, and suddenly it all starts coming out.
-
I always thought he was gay?
-
Maybe that's the one bit Jimmy hadn't quite figured out.
Aye, and maybe Jimmy didn't give a shit more likely. The so called rumours were more than that, it was an open secret apparently. Rantzen was quick enough to investigate potato's that looked like willy's and dogs that could say fuckin' sausages for that's life, but couldn't muster a word on child abuse in her position? Now that is bollocks.
-
but couldn't muster a word on child abuse in her position? Now that is bollocks.
How do you figure that. Rantzen did a heck of a lot to tackle child abuse.
Rantzen's distress is that she knew the man, and yes she had heard the rumour.
But others knew the rumours were true, they didn't act, and society as a whole, at that time, didn't seem to care too much.
-
C'mon, Rantzens not backward at coming forward. She failed in her duty by failing to raise the matter. If I put myself in her position then that's how I'd feel. I know there's been a conspiracy of silence, in fact I had to chuckle yesterday as I saw a photo of all the DJ's of the time stood together, yet they all claim never to have known the man. Talk about distancing themselves from it.
They're surely not trying to say that they all didn't gossip about it like old women behind his back. They're all culpable.
-
She failed in her duty by failing to raise the matter.
She failed to believe the rumours. That's what she's guilty of.
The fact remains that she's done a heck of a lot to raise awareness on and help people who have suffered from child abuse.
And as I pointed out, times have changed, the journalist who left the flat disappointed he hadn't got a story is so very revealing. Society as a whole was perhaps culpable. And Rantzen was one of a number of people that worked to change our perception and awareness of child abuse.
-
apparently Freddie Starr is the next to be outed.
-
They've just found his diary. His last entry was ten years old.
-
Should those around at the time have spoken out? I think it depends. To me there is a difference between acting on rumours (very dodgy - rumours may not be true) and acting on evidence.
Speaking out on a rumour alone would be a very stupid thing for anyone to have done - he was a well known star, it would have killed your career, and potentially ruined an innocent man.
The real issue is those that were closer and had actual evidence of dodgy stuff. They should have acted and it is the identities of these people that will the interesting piece of this story. This develops into the question of whether management had evidence presented to them, how damning that was, and what action was taken because of it.
-
apparently Freddie Starr is the next to be outed.d
did he sh*g that hamster before he ate it?
-
We shouldn't be making light of this, abuse is a very evil thing but the world was a different place 40 or 50 years ago, if a teacher inflicted the injuries I got as a 11 year old, when I got the cane, they would go to jail for it now. Mind you it made sure you didn't do anything wrong or at least make sure you didn't get found out.
-
I have no difficulty in finding the allegations plausible... always thought he was a revolting old creep.
It's a shame the victims have only now found the courage to speak out, when it's too late, but given the attitudes of the time and the sheer force of the man's personality, it's understandable.
What puzzles me is that if the BBC was aware of allegations and rumours at the time, even if there was no substance to them, why didn't they protect St. Jimmy as well as these vulnerable kids by insisting on chaperones?
-
I think from the BBC's standpoint they wanted to protect an 'asset'. Damaging him would also be damaging to them, after all he was the Top of the Pop's frontman for years and must have represented a considerable investment. I'm going to say a very Un-PC thing here, but in good faith. Television is full gay people, and by the attitudes of the day homosexuals were often considered to be sexually deviant.
Given that, is it possible that even Saville's activity was known about and considered to be merely his own particular deviance?
-
What about Rod Hull ?
He got away with fisting a bird for years! :rolleyes :lol
-
@Rusty. Yes, I guess they thought they were protecting an asset... I think they could have done that more effectively by making a rule that underage guests were never allowed in the dressing rooms of any performers unless they were accompanied by a BBC-designated responsible adult of the same gender. It would protect the kids, the "asset" against false accusations and the BBC against accusations of complicity and cover-ups. The most cunning of bullying, pervert superstars would find it hard to provide a valid argument against such a rule.
I'm not sure what your point is regarding homosexuality. Even in the 70's sex with children was illegal.
-
couple of things to consider to put this in context-
1. the 60s and 70s were a time when there was a constant string of groupies shagging all the popstars and DJs...to my mind we need to be sure some of this is not just slut groupies trying to cash in on this bandwagon. were they willing , or were they raped ??
2. he must have been feckin good at his work if he kept all this so quiet for so long.I still think its shameless bandwaggoning. Lets be honest , our media would publish photographs of Princess di with her head cut in half if they thought it would sell papers. How can we be sure that any of this is true.
3. there are clear proven cases of unknown/ poor people to lie barefaced to gain notoriety ...look at sharon mathews...went on telly , crying , pleading with the world to bring her daughter back...she knew where she was all the time.Utter barefaced unashamed lying.
I would want a much bigger proof of all this b4 I would condemn the bloke. he did an amazing amount for charity. I think its wrong until we know the full facts ( if that is ever possible)... he was an icon in my teens. :\
-
Did you see the documentary Pitternator?
As Rantzen said "The jury is no longer out"
-
I'm not sure what your point is regarding homosexuality. Even in the 70's sex with children was illegal.
Just thinking out loud really. Until the 60's homosexuality was illegal too wasn't it? I just thought that perhaps BBC people didn't like to talk about such things, or perhaps even blocked out the rumours just as they might have done about gays. I wasn't there so can't know, but those that were there do and are saying nowt.
-
VNA
None of us can corroborate any of these " victim" statements. Like I say ..sharon mathews lyed barefaced to all and sundry for her own aims. I can feel for anyone who has been genuinely abused , but in my op...its all one sided " evidence".Esther rantzen is also in an awkward position since she may well have known about these alleged occurrences, but said and did nothing. Almost an accomplice then , by aiding in any " cover up"??...Jeremy Vine asked her some quite awkward questions recently on radio2..
How would you react if someone you met 20 yrs ago said today you raped them ! ....go on, just what would you say and do ??
-
Now they are talking about John Peel too. So far only Freddie Starr is alive to argue back but he looks like he may peg it any time soon?
Gutted for John's family though?
-
Apparantly his gravestone has been removed for 'security reasons' http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a429438/jimmy-savile-gravestone-is-removed-over-abuse-allegations.html (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/news/a429438/jimmy-savile-gravestone-is-removed-over-abuse-allegations.html)
-
We shouldn't be making light of this, abuse is a very evil thing but the world was a different place 40 or 50 years ago, if a teacher inflicted the injuries I got as a 11 year old, when I got the cane, they would go to jail for it now. Mind you it made sure you didn't do anything wrong or at least make sure you didn't get found out.
I agree we shouldn't make light of this but you cant compare sexual abuse to corporal punishment.
Yes the cane has been banned & if a teacher now uses it there would be an investigation. valid point that it was also a deterrent however that is a totally different thread.
How would you react if someone you met 20 yrs ago said today you raped them ! ....go on, just what would you say and do ??
ok my wife was abused as a 10 year old and found out very recently that the abusers were abusing her sister at the same time.
even 30+ years on I asked why they didn't report it to the police. the reply from both victims was that it would kill their parents to know what had happened to them by people that they trusted!!!
they have both become strong people but the "strength" (for want of a better word) of an abuser is that they know that they can instill fear into their victims by telling them that even if they were to tell then who would believe them!!
Even now the abuser stil has the upper hand knowing what effect reporting an incident this late on will have.
-
Until the 60's homosexuality was illegal too wasn't it? I just thought that perhaps BBC people didn't like to talk about such things, or perhaps even blocked out the rumours just as they might have done about gays. I wasn't there so can't know, but those that were there do and are saying nowt.
Read your own paragraph carefully. You've just turned a groundless speculation into a conspiracy theory.
'those that were there do and are saying nowt'
Or perhaps it wasn't the case at all. Hence they are saying nowt
-
Gives Sky News something to bang on about for the next 6 months.
I'm more interested to see that bastard who killed the welsh kiddy hang from his bollocks until dead.
If Carlsberg did hangings...........................
-
My issue is the almost hysterical way claims are now being made about someone who is dead, cannot answer to any allegation , has a incredible record of raising money for charity ( which so few people do these days), and now all that has been destroyed by the media. Take a step back and look at the process...its a witchhunt .Nobody can be safe if this indeed is how such matters are handled.Any claim, is the truth , guilty till proven innocent.
The latest " claim" is now he only raised millions for charity so he could abuse kids...am I the only one who feels uneasy at such ludicrous speculation ?? FFs just who will be next ...??
At the end of all this..will we be any better off for it ???....just why didnt any of these adults come forward before his death ??...IMO by doing so now actually makes any investigation meaningless as he cant be brought to justice or any punishment if he was guilty.
I spose next it will be war heroes were cowards, straight blokes were gay etc...there could be no end to such claims...
-
My issue is the almost hysterical way claims are now being made about someone who is dead, cannot answer to any allegation , has a incredible record of raising money for charity ( which so few people do these days), and now all that has been destroyed by the media. Take a step back and look at the process...its a witchhunt
Take your point but I saw on the news that his own family have taken down his headstone (already mentioned that) but then smashed it up - sounds to me like they knew what he was up to but like a lot of others couldn't say anything because of his position.
Anyway for his own family to smash up his headstone is pretty damming don't you think?
Regarding so few people raising money for charity these days - Every week there's a stories in my local rag, on my intranet at work and in my local pub about charity events, individual and group efforts and all sorts of opportunites to raise money by doing a parachute jump, wing walk etc.
Even my local classic scooter club does charity ride outs.
I think there's lots of people doing lots of charity raising and volunteer work, they just don't shout about it and present themselves as a child lover on the TV while do so.
-
just why didnt any of these adults come forward before his death ??
Additional to the above, they did come forward, one girl who made such claims was declared 'a hysterical child with a dirty, perverted mind' and was commited to a Psychiatric Centre and held in isolation until she retracted the 'claim' and was declared cured of her mental illness.
I wonder why more didn't come forward.
-
I mean when these people became adults. When any claim could have been reported to the police and it could have been properly investigated, as opposed to now , which is all just impossible to either prove or do anything with the " facts".
ref his family...well given the hysteria , would you want to be associated with the grave in any way ...I feel they destroyed the headstone because it was impossible to use anymore. Its not an acknowledgement of his guilt.
I think we should all be concentrating with stuff we can do something about today , I think the whole issue is self defeating as just what more can be said and done??
I still find it hard to reconcile it all with a man who was a big figure in my childhood...and his charitable work was unprecedented . You cant compare it with local fundraising , which while obviously worthwhile and creditable, is nothing on the scale of what he raised.You know if it is true, its possible the biggest single shock in my life after deaths in my family...thats how I feel about it....why I feel the proof has to be certain...and can that be possible to achieve...?
-
I think we should all be concentrating with stuff we can do something about today , I think the whole issue is self defeating as just what more can be said and done??
I learned yesterday that one of my relatives ex-girlfiends complained about being groped by Savile at a charity event decades ago and no-one beleived her, she got in a hell of a state at the time apparently. At least now at last others have come forward she can expect a more sympathetic ear (and some apologies) when she gets a chance to talk about what was one of the nastiest events of her young life.
-
Was Jimmy giving Rantzen one or two?????
-
I feel the same as Pitternator, a part of my childhood has been shocked the core. That's not to belittle the abuse suffered by all these young girl?
-
I mean when these people became adults. When any claim could have been reported to the police and it could have been properly investigated, as opposed to now , which is all just impossible to either prove or do anything with the " facts".
ref his family...well given the hysteria , would you want to be associated with the grave in any way ...I feel they destroyed the headstone because it was impossible to use anymore. Its not an acknowledgement of his guilt.
I think we should all be concentrating with stuff we can do something about today , I think the whole issue is self defeating as just what more can be said and done??
I still find it hard to reconcile it all with a man who was a big figure in my childhood...and his charitable work was unprecedented . You cant compare it with local fundraising , which while obviously worthwhile and creditable, is nothing on the scale of what he raised.You know if it is true, its possible the biggest single shock in my life after deaths in my family...thats how I feel about it....why I feel the proof has to be certain...and can that be possible to achieve...?
That's a very honest post and I understand that this is affecting you on a personal level. However he was not a relative nor did you know him personally (I presume) and you must have been let down by people closer to you in the past, so why struggle to believe this when the evidence is gathering daily?
The reason people came foward now is simple - fear, he scared them as a child and scared them until they day he died and they knew he could hurt them no more.
I have to disagree about not being able to compare local fund raising with his efforts, most local fund raising is carried out by people who have to work for a living - JS did a radio show for a few hours a day and recorded one or two programmes a week.
He had a lot of spare time and people to drive him about to charity events and I think a lot of it was just turn up, show his face (which was now synonymous with charity fund raising), say something daft but supportive, wave a cigar about and bugger off.
A non famous employed person doing charity work has to commit a much higher ratio of their spare time to charity.
Also if you believe what is being written it appears he had his own agenda for going all over raising this money, at this stage it doesn't seem it was the heartfelt gesture we all thought it to be.
What is shocking me about the whole thing is the reaction by his family (this makes me think they knew something was wrong) and the BBC leeches like Rantzen saying but not saying they knew it was going on but could do nothing about it - bullshit, if I knew the King of England was a fiddler I would be shouting about it until someone heard me (as an adult, not a frightened child).
-
What is the point in the police investigation? He is dead ffs, its not like they are going to get a conviction out of it.
-
Did you see the documentary Pitternator?
-
'What is the point in the police investigation? '
1. Try and prevent it happening again.
2. Find out if anyone still alive 'assisted'/had suspsicions/knew. And string them up :)
3. Closure? for the victims.
Certainly plenty of lessons to be learned, although most of them probably already have been since then.
-
taking this totally off thread and not belittling any previous comments or points of view / opinions on this matter but linked to his charity work .... Lance armstrong who is now looking like he may have been cheating raised half a billion dollars for cancer charity .... thats a lorra lorra cash!!!
-
Modern society has no way of assessing whether the ends justify the means, I mean there is a huge demographic out there that have social distinctions based on EastEnders ffs.
Personally I'm in the camp of right is right, and wrong is wrong.
A few years back my father-in-law was accused of molesting my nephew (on my wife's side, so his grandson). The parents didn't really want to know because it was too difficult to deal with (nothing overtly sexual, but the kid claims he was tied up (as part of game) and had his nipples rubbed.
The problem with this kind of ostrich behaviour is that that everyone knew about this accusation, except the accused.
I (and my wife) were the only ones to confront the issue head-on and talk to him about it. Not least of which was to put him on warning that it was now known about and wouldn't be hidden under the carpet.
In the end the kid ended up hating his parents more than his grandfather because they failed to take his side and do anything about it.
I would much rather let one incident pass un-prosecuted but out in the open, than bury my head in the sand and catch the bloke later on for something a lot more serious.
-
He was a buddy of Prince Charles ... I always wondered what they had in common? :eek
-
if I knew the King of England was a fiddler I would be shouting about it until someone heard me (as an adult, not a frightened child).
Which is why a number of people are asking why the alleged victims didn't speak up when they became adults and when he was alive..and when there was a chance to hold him to account?. Or their parents, or family, siblings, friends, etc etc - no one?
And while the focus is currently on the BBC's conduct, what about the rest of the media? I find it hard to believe the unlamented News of the World among others were intimidated into silence. Pretty sure they'd have had a field day on this.
Not defending him but just asking - where was the shouting?
-
+1 Hogi
Mickey
-
Jimmy Savile's family have had the gravestone removed along with the flowers as a mark of respect.
It just leaves a small hole and no bush around it. Just what he would have wanted..............
-
it's all in his name
JIMMY SAVILE ------------------------- MY I'M VILE AS, J.
-
VNA
I saw parts of it.And its been very heavily covered on J. Vine which I listen to most days.But irrespective of what has been said and claimed, there is still the fundamental principle of justice, which is innocent till proven guilty.I have to say there are now many many claims, and looking at it disspassionately there comes a point where you may have to say well some must be right...though statistically its not correct to make that assumption. There also has been a media circus over it all now, which also will call into question whether people are just making claims in the hope of being famous for a while or even hopes of compensation.
Its why I just think, there will be nothing to come of it anymore. JS reputation is gone...what more can this do ?
Child abuse goes on all the time, this case may serve to highlight the issue now, but I cant see how future cases of abuse will be stopped because of these " revelations".
JS was not a relative ( of course) , but a leading icon in the 60s and 70s, and he did many sponsored runs/ walks etc. He was pivotal in raising funds for stoke mandeville. Its a tragedy whatever way you look at it ...for everyone.
What also concerns me is just how influential media campaigns can be in creating public opinion.... " no smoke without fire"...
-
You should have watched the whole programme.
It was quite compelling.
Sadly there is no doubt that JS was a peadophile.
Numerous people reported him over the years. No action was ever taken. The police it seems failed, for whatever reason, to join the dots over several decades.
he did many sponsored runs/ walks etc. He was pivotal in raising funds for stoke mandeville. Its a tragedy whatever way you look at it ...for everyone.
Particularly for the victims, and of them the ones brave enougth to stand up to him and make a complaint, only to be told not to be so silly etc etc.
It would also appear that everything Jimmy did during his life, was as much as anything, about getting access to children.
but I cant see how future cases of abuse will be stopped because of these " revelations".
Lessons have to learned. I think some of them already have been. Questions must be asked why this was all brushed under the carpet over several decades. Surely that much his victims deserve?
I just hope it doesn't lead to further public paranoia, wrapping children up in even more cotton wool etc. And of course the truth is today, just as it was then, most abuse takes place in the family.
Though who would have expected their kids to be sexually abused at the BBC?
-
Can't help thinking there could be several bands from the same era sitting a little uncomfortably at the moment, given the ages of some of the groupies that followed them! :(
-
Indeed.
Was just listening to Dr Feelgood - Malpractice, one of the songs is entitled 'Don't let your Daddy know'.
-
Can't help thinking there could be several bands from the same era sitting a little uncomfortably at the moment, given the ages of some of the groupies that followed them! :(
They're even younger nowadays
-
VNA
While I am not calling the claimants liars, what doesnt help is just why were sub 16 yr olds allowed to be unescorted in his dressing rooms, and just why any of them didnt come forward when they were a bit older ,and couldnt just be hushed up ?...thats the tragedy of all this.Because if they were abused, by nobody saying anything they allowed future people to be so....I find it hard to believe every parent would have just said " dont be silly".
On a cynical note its now apparent that some form of litigation is to be launched by the victims for compensation from the institutions which employed him ...hmmm. Of course all the claims were nothing to do with that then.Claims which by their very timing can never be substantiated or proven/ disproven.The whole thing still doesnt sit easily with me...
-
why any of them didnt come forward when they were a bit older
Just out of curiosity - do you know anyone who was abused as a child? Your point of view strikes me as being from someone who doesn't.
Many children bury the memories under layers of psychosis and aberrent behaviour making them difficult to access in later life.
Attitudes of people who were trusted enough for them to confide in who then let them down can often do as much damage as the abuse. On person I know reckoned the process to being abused physically and then raped emotionally. It's unfortunately very common.
-
The compo word has finally raised its head, there's said to be 60 victims they'll be coming out the woodwork now there's a chance of a payout
-
Meanwhile, who's going out to the pub dressed as Jimmy Saville on Halloween?
You could get your mates to dress up as Gary Glitter and Johathan King, perhaps pursued by an Esther Rantzen shouting - I'm gonna spank your bottoms you naughty boys!
Sounds like a plan - eh?
-
Chillum
Look it is irrelevant to ask / suggest that cos I may not know someone who has been abused, that I am not qualified to comment. As it happens no, I dont , coming from a " normal" background of a family unit with no homosexual/ paedophiliate relatives either.The point is just why wait now , when surely only 2 or 3 yrs ago an adult will have the maturity to make a stand if thats what they want to do.
The stupidity of all this is not one claim can really be substantiated , hence the validity of such a claim will never be fully accepted by many people.
As someone who has had counselling for PTSD, I do have sympathy for any such victims, as after my counselling I felt " relieved of my burden"...I never felt I had to go on national TV to achieve that state however....putting right ones own psycology is a deeply personal and private thing...hence why I also am very surprised at these claims and the huge publicity the victims are willing to go through.
Then you wonder why I am still sceptical....
-
Chillum
Look it is irrelevant to ask / suggest that cos I may not know someone who has been abused, that I am not qualified to comment.
Not sure I actually said that. I didn't think it was irrelevant, you were saying you didn't understand why they didn't come forward before, or are only doing so now. I was asking if you knew anyone who had been through it because if you did you probably wouldn't be asking. Wasn't questioning your fitness to comment.
Then you wonder why I am still sceptical....
I don't wonder why you're sceptical, you've told us why :) I haven't even said that I believe or disbelieve the accusations yet, although there do seem to be enough disparate accounts that all add up to being pretty damning, if not conclusive.
-
As someone who has had counselling for PTSD, I do have sympathy for any such victims, as after my counselling I felt " relieved of my burden"...I never felt I had to go on national TV to achieve that state however....putting right ones own psycology is a deeply personal and private thing...hence why I also am very surprised at these claims and the huge publicity the victims are willing to go through.
Whatever trauma you have suffered it is good to hear that you have found some peace, and as you say have been relieved of your burden.
But back to Jimmy. This all happened simply because a team of documentary film makers decided to investigate rumours surrounding Jimmy Savile. The investigation was led by Mark Williams-Thomas, a former police detective who specialised during his time with the police in child protection and major crime.
You can read his own account of how this investigation came about, and why after initial research they decided to peruse it. Mark decided to investigate his first lead before the death of Jimmy Saville, unfortunately by the time he spoke to that first person Jimmy had just recently passed away.
The BBC had meanwhile blocked an investigation into Jimmy Savile by their own journalists. Mark was aware that the BBC had shelved an investigation in to Savile.
http://www.williams-thomas.co.uk/?q=system/files/Exposure%20-%20The%20Other%20Side%20of%20Jimmy%20Savile.pdf (http://www.williams-thomas.co.uk/?q=system/files/Exposure%20-%20The%20Other%20Side%20of%20Jimmy%20Savile.pdf)
I never felt I had to go on national TV to achieve that state however
These people were abused as children. Those who spoke out were disbelieved and/or humiliated. The police failed time after time to investigate, or even to join up the dots from numerous allegations and complaints. Most of those who appeared in the film did so under the guarantee of anonymity.
Perhaps, they, unlike you, may not have reach "that state". Perhaps, again unlike yourself, they have not, until now, been offered that opportunity.
I think you need to actually watch that documentary Pitternator.
-
(http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/267603_4754894552287_1088232889_n.jpg)
It'll be Sooty and Sweep next......
What about The Fonz? He used to like hanging out with a load of teenage boys?
-
if I knew the King of England was a fiddler I would be shouting about it until someone heard me (as an adult, not a frightened child).
Which is why a number of people are asking why the alleged victims didn't speak up when they became adults and when he was alive..and when there was a chance to hold him to account?. Or their parents, or family, siblings, friends, etc etc - no one?
And while the focus is currently on the BBC's conduct, what about the rest of the media? I find it hard to believe the unlamented News of the World among others were intimidated into silence. Pretty sure they'd have had a field day on this.
Not defending him but just asking - where was the shouting?
To clarify - I would be shouting as an adult who knew the abuse was going on, not as the terrified child victim or that victim as an adult
Where was the shouting is exactly my point - if Rantzen and her other BBC cronies knew this was happening, why didn't they blow the whistle?
The answer - they were too busy sucking on the BBC's corporate teat and lining their own pockets while knowing full well child abuse was going on under their noses and at the same time becoming heads of institutions like Childline to placate their guilt.
That's who the investigation is for, prove the abuse and prosecute the bastards that stood back and did nothing.
-
Chillum
coming from a " normal" background of a family unit with no homosexual/ paedophiliate relatives either.
Sorry mate, got to pull you on this statement, what has being a paedophile got to do with being homosexual?
Are you saying if one has a gay relative then their family must be considered not normal?
-
Chillum
coming from a " normal" background of a family unit with no homosexual/ paedophiliate relatives either.
It's happened! Jerry Falwell has been resurrected, Hallelulah
-
Where was the shouting is exactly my point - if Rantzen and her other BBC cronies knew this was happening, why didn't they blow the whistle?
The answer - they were too busy sucking on the BBC's corporate teat and lining their own pockets while knowing full well child abuse was going on under their noses and at the same time becoming heads of institutions like Childline to placate their guilt.
That's who the investigation is for, prove the abuse and prosecute the bastards that stood back and did nothing.
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it" A. Einstein
-
To clarify - I would be shouting as an adult who knew the abuse was going on, not as the terrified child victim or that victim as an adult
Would you? Bollocks! After having been used and abused as a child, and in a society which blames the victim and attacks the whistle blower. Nobody listened when people spoke out at the time, why would anybody care in the future, the matter had already been dealt with, had it not?
The funny thing is, Jimmy Savile, it would appear is possibly, if not probably the biggest paedophile and rapist that has ever come to our attention. There are dozens of victims. Wouldn't we better asking why they were, time after time, not able to come forward and/or their allegations repeatedly dismissed.
Posturing is easy, and words are cheap.
What people are doing here is attacking the victims. Yet again the victims are being attacked.
Where was the shouting is exactly my point - if Rantzen and her other BBC cronies knew this was happening, why didn't they blow the whistle?
We are going round in circles. Rantzen had heard rumours. You cannot whistle blow on a rumour.
The answer - they were too busy sucking on the BBC's corporate teat and lining their own pockets while knowing full well child abuse was going on under their noses and at the same time becoming heads of institutions like Childline to placate their guilt.
Those who do something, will always be attacked by those who do nothing. Don't we just hate anybody who dares to make progress on sensitive issues. Rantzen heard rumours, she had no facts, no evidence, nothing, zip, ziltch, that could be acted on.
That's who the investigation is for, prove the abuse and prosecute the bastards that stood back and did nothing.
No it is not. It is not to find guilty people who heard rumours or gossip. To suggest so is, to put it mildly, stupid.
-
The only reason Scotland wants to remain part of the EU post seperation from the UK is they would get more in subsidies back then they pay in to the EU :pokefun
-
To clarify - I would be shouting as an adult who knew the abuse was going on, not as the terrified child victim or that victim as an adult
Would you? Bollocks! After having been used and abused as a child, and in a society which blames the victim and attacks the whistle blower. Nobody listened when people spoke out at the time, why would anybody care in the future, the matter had already been dealt with, had it not?
The funny thing is, Jimmy Savile, it would appear is possibly, if not probably the biggest paedophile and rapist that has ever come to our attention. There are dozens of victims. Wouldn't we better asking why they were, time after time, not able to come forward and/or their allegations repeatedly dismissed.
Posturing is easy, and words are cheap.
What people are doing here is attacking the victims. Yet again the victims are being attacked.
Where was the shouting is exactly my point - if Rantzen and her other BBC cronies knew this was happening, why didn't they blow the whistle?
We are going round in circles. Rantzen had heard rumours. You cannot whistle blow on a rumour.
The answer - they were too busy sucking on the BBC's corporate teat and lining their own pockets while knowing full well child abuse was going on under their noses and at the same time becoming heads of institutions like Childline to placate their guilt.
Those who do something, will always be attacked by those who do nothing. Don't we just hate anybody who dares to make progress on sensitive issues. Rantzen heard rumours, she had no facts, no evidence, nothing, zip, ziltch, that could be acted on.
That's who the investigation is for, prove the abuse and prosecute the bastards that stood back and did nothing.
No it is not. It is not to find guilty people who heard rumours or gossip. To suggest so is, to put it mildly, stupid.
Do you know me?
No you don't, so do not dimiss any action I say I will take as bollocks, trust me it ain't.
I have stuck my neck out on many occasions when I have seen or heard unfair practices going on at work and taken on cases where people have been treated unfairly or abused by those subordinate to them or in higher managment - I DON'T SCARE EASILY.
Did you see Rantzen interviewed? I did. Crocodile tears and hints that she knew but her hands were tied - now that is bollocks, she should have took the risk and blown it open but no, her greed stopped her.
Why insult me?
I have a different opinion to you on what should have been done by those in the know, lets face it, they were in the know, these were not distant rumours, this was common fucking knowledge and they know it, which is why they are all shitting themselves and appearing on TV pleading the innocent.
Whether they were rumours or not I would have thought that child abuse was serious enough to blow the whistle - being bothered by someone calling you stupid for doing so is not an excuse to keep information like that to yourself.
-
I have stuck my neck out on many occasions when I have seen or heard unfair practices going on at work and taken on cases where people have been treated unfairly or abused by those subordinate to them or in higher management - I DON'T SCARE EASILY.
And?
Crocodile tears and hints that she knew but her hands were tied - now that is bollocks, she should have took the risk and blown it open but no, her greed stopped her.
Considering that Jimmy Savile was a bit odd, and his line of work, well it's hardly surprising there were rumours.
I suppose not only do you "DON'T SCARE" easily, and are clearly such a tough guy that you are happy to repeatedly attack Saviles victims, but on top of that you are able to determine if there is substance in rumour without evidence. That is quite incredible! All the more so considering you don't seem to be able see the difference between "unfair practises", as nasty as they can be, and child abuse.
which is why they are all shitting themselves and appearing on TV pleading the innocent.
Did you see Rantzen interviewed? I did.
No I haven't, what interview are you referring to? As you know I did watch the documentary, and as I understand it Rantzen was invited to comment by Mark Williams-Thomas as both a subject matter expert and as somebody who knew Jimmy Savile as she was working at the BBC during much of the period that he was. There was no suggestion that Rantzen was being set up, that she was being questioned, or accusations, or the suggestion of, were being put to her.
Sadly Rantzen has been vilified and slandered since appearing in that documentary, and without a shred of evidence that she knew anything of substance, or had witnessed any inappropriate behaviours by Savile.
Whether they were rumours or not I would have thought that child abuse was serious enough to blow the whistle - being bothered by someone calling you stupid for doing so is not an excuse to keep information like that to yourself.
A rumour is a rumour, information, or indeed evidence and facts are something altogether different. To accuse somebody of being guilty of a crime, or to slag em off and vilify them on the basis that somebody believes that rumour is fact, or that rumours have in this case(with hindsight) turned out to have substance, when there is nothing to suggest and no evidence that that person had heard, or seen,or been presented with, anything other than pure rumour, is not only stupid, it is downright nasty.
-
I suppose not only do you "DON'T SCARE" easily, and are clearly such a tough guy that you are happy to repeatedly attack Saviles victims, but on top of that you are able to determine if there is substance in rumour without evidence.
Are you reading my posts or making them up in your head?
-
see this is the problem with any form of debate on here..guys get personal and start posturing.
There is a difference of opinion on the validity of the claims, which is something tbh we will either choose to accept or not.Its just a one sided thing evidential thing , with inevitably no real hope of formal justice. I have stated my discomfort at anyone who is vilefied post mortem/ innocent till guilty notion...but I do accept that with such seemingly overwhelming claims there must be something to it, a fact which saddens me immensely.I dont think any of us here would have anything but complete sympathy with any genuine abuse victims.
As to Rantzens part ( if any at all) ...well I feel uneasy when anyone associated with childline would not attempt to at least investigate any such rumours! It surely is what they were set up for. But equally if the institutions deliberately ignored any goings on( which I find hard to believe),then it would be difficult to get at the truth. Also dont forget that she hosted a long running series of Thats life, and she had access to investigators etc...so IMO an attempt could have been made. Then we also have to consider just how many calls were made to childline or the samaritans by abused kids. You see this ommission just dont seem right , not with purportedly hundreds of claimants. Its not logical to expect nobody would come forward at some point ??..to somebody , or anyone ..
As such I commented that quite possibly we will not achieve as much as one might think from all the revelations. Maybe a formal inquiry led by a judge will have more success.Cos if it is true...then as VNA said much earlier , just maybe this wouldnt happen again .It is all so possible, especially after all the shenanigans unearthed by the enquiry into the murdochs and the phone tapping ...private companies and corporations can be morally corrupt...
-
Yes :D
-
Childline was set up in 1986.
It appears that not only were some institutions deliberately ignoring what was going on, they seemed to be encouraging Savile, or at least allowing him free unsupervised access to children. If you had watched the documentary Pitternator you would already be aware of that. It is absolutely shocking.
As I keep saying rumours are rumours.
As Ian Hislop said so brilliantly last week, knowledge means that you hear from the person it happened to or a witness and that’s what the ITV documentary showed me.
Up until then, I’ve heard rumours about the royal family, politicians, about TV presenters and my view about rumours is the vast majority of the rumours are untrue.
So I didn’t know anything.
Esther Rantzen - who is said to be currently absolutely furious
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-abuse-claims-esther-1384838 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-abuse-claims-esther-1384838)
There is now speculation that a number of Savile's friends and associates will be arrested shortly.
A follow up documentary from ITV is expected to be screened in the next month or so. 200 victims so far have come forward, there is talk that the number may well exceed 1000, and as it's well known that the vast majority of people who experiance sexual abuse as a child never come forward, it is thought these numbers will simply represent the tip of the ice berg.
Savile has been branded one of the most prolific sex attackers of all time by the NSPCC
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-child-abuse-inquiry-1390992 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-child-abuse-inquiry-1390992)
-
a fact which saddens me immensely
Absolutely. As a kid I loved Top of the Pops, was it a Thursday evening - often presented by Jimmy Savile.
Then on Saturday Jim I'll Fix it, sitting down with the family to watch the show. Sure we all loved Jimmy Savile, umm expect my Mum "That man gives me the creeps" she always used to say.
-
If ol Jim managed to have a thousand victims, how the fuck did he fit in all that charity work?
I'm lucky if I've made myself a victim to my hand a thousand times.
although to be fair, he is a good bit older than me.
point stands tho. do the arithmetic. if its a thousand victims, how many days did he actually manage to get a palm on some pie?
-
there is bound to be some bandwagonning by liars, as I have already said, especially if there is the sniff of compo in the air.
But the one fact which stands out so uncomfortably in all this , is just how did he get away with it ! 1000 victimes FFS...its almost incredulous nobody found out till now...
my feckin opinion goes from pole to pole and back again ...thats the issue aint it ...can it ever really be proved ??...is it truly possible for it all to have happened.
Its like the theme of the X files....the truth is out there .....or is it !