There's something just not right about all this...
With all the alleged evidence that's coming to light... how come it was never addressed when he was alive and could answer/defend against the allegations?
Not saying he did or didn't... just saying its hard for a dead man to defend himself. Right or wrong.
Its well known that if you search Mail online with the search terms "All Grown Up" you get thousands of such articles which are basically giving readers the green light to purve over some female celebrity or child star who has just turned 16, or in many instances a subtly purving over someone under 16.
There's something just not right about all this...
With all the alleged evidence that's coming to light... how come it was never addressed when he was alive and could answer/defend against the allegations?
He was being defended by people higher up than he. (Read my earlier post.)
He had access to high security areas (Broadmoor) and unfettered access to young children (Duncroft,Haut De La Garenne.)
If criminal charges were brought against him, that would have threatened the more powerful criminals above him. He protects their backs, they protect his.
Already the media is painting Sa-Vile as a sexual predator, not as a Child Molester.
No one is asking those basic questions which point to complicity among high society/government people, much less seeking out answers...
yes they are... that's the whole point of the current investigations
[Sigh]
No, they are not.
The media is simply ignoring the wider issue of high level child abuse, which Sa-Vile's various crimes were a part of.
As I said, the higher up crooks will not allow a full investigation as they own both the main stream media and the police/judicial system.
The whole point of current investigations these days is to cover up the truth.
As I said, the higher up crooks will not allow a full investigation as they own both the main stream media and the police/judicial system.
The whole point of current investigations these days is to cover up the truth.
The reason it matters is that people will finish work, get home, turn on the television and take what the media tells them at face value.
There was a time when people questioned what was going on.
Fat chance of that now, they are too busy filling their faces with burgers and beer as they turn into cabbages watching The X Factor or other similar drivel.
[citation needed]
[Sigh]
Take the Hutton Inquiry as an example. Meant to be an inquiry into why a high ranking government scientist died. What do they do? Hide away the post mortem reports etc. Why?
Then you have Operation Ore where the UK Police were given the names of high ranking paedo's in the UK. Bit suspicious there was no real follow up, don't you think?
I'm getting very angry at the lack of outrage at these evil monsters.
Then you have Operation Ore where the UK Police were given the names of high ranking paedo's in the UK. Bit suspicious there was no real follow up, don't you think?
There was certainly follow up of the Operation Ore findings in my neck of the world, as my team was part of subsequent investigations alongside the police within the public sector. Many people were led away as a result, and one hung himself after being revealed. It's a bit too 'conspiracy theory' to say nothing ever happens - somethings take time, but generally there are outcomes and consequences of inquiries.
Then you have Operation Ore where the UK Police were given the names of high ranking paedo's in the UK. Bit suspicious there was no real follow up, don't you think?
Top tip: when posting a link to an article perhaps you should read it first to check that it actually supports your argument :)
how is he not credible, out of interest. In that panorama doc he's kind of putting his neck on the line by admitting he could've done something at the time and didn't, something other fellow R1 DJ's may have not appeared in that prog for, because of exactly that reason. don't see what 'agenda' paul gambacini could have other than bringing more evidence to the table, albeit belatedly... never had him down as a notorious liar
There's something just not right about all this...
With all the alleged evidence that's coming to light... how come it was never addressed when he was alive and could answer/defend against the allegations?
Not saying he did or didn't... just saying its hard for a dead man to defend himself. Right or wrong.
It was in a way since we now know that Savile was questioned by police over several incidents in the years before his death. People keep saying "why didn't they say something while he was alive?" They did, that's the point. It was just that the whole thing wasn't brought to the public's attention until the ITV documentary and the media lead-up to it. This wasn't something that everyone discovered only after he died it was something that the media didn't mention until after he died.
I can't understand where all the doubt and fuss is coming from. Before he died, Saville was investigated a number of times, and the abuse was rumoured for decades. Colleagues who mentioned this, any investigations, questions, all were fobbed off. Well over 200 victims, and since we're talking about 40 odd years and NOT just Saville perpetrating the abuse, that number could easily double. None of these people were believed while he was alive. His position gave him the kind of power where he was in a position to abuse these girls without consequence; they were basically called 'liars' until after his death. And never forget that the majority of his victims were girls in higly vulnerable positions. He even abused his own grand-daughter (which begs the question, since her mother covered it up too - well, she was paid off - AND she's still alive, is SHE being investigated too? Will she be prosecuted?)
And don't forget, over 60 victims have named AT LEAST 9 other celebrities, some of whom are still alive, and working. Of course this is a major scandal for the BBC. One of their most well known broadcasters has been exposed as a serial child abuser, and the longer the stories come out, the more likely it is that a paedophile ring will be uncovered in the BBC. They're bricking it for good reason.
Circumstances have shown that there was no way this would come out while he was alive, and no way these girls would be believed, since not only was it being covered up and dismissed, he was also seemingly aided in these vile acts by BBC stars that STILL continue to work.
Everybody who aided in perpetrating this nastiness or covering it up is culpable. They ALL need investigating and if enough evidence is found, lock the bastards up!
None of these people were believed while he was alive. His position gave him the kind of power where he was in a position to abuse these girls without consequence; they were basically called 'liars' until after his death.
That's not true. Several of the victims reported what had happened and Savile was questioned by police. A lack of evidence meant the case had to be dropped (common in cases involving sexual offenses). There's plenty of rumours that Savile did use his celebrity and charm to stop stories about him getting out but the idea that he was able to silence everyone and that no authority would lift a finger to stop him is not true.
And don't forget, over 60 victims have named AT LEAST 9 other celebrities, some of whom are still alive, and working. Of course this is a major scandal for the BBC. One of their most well known broadcasters has been exposed as a serial child abuser, and the longer the stories come out, the more likely it is that a paedophile ring will be uncovered in the BBC. They're bricking it for good reason.
As of yet there's no evidence of a paedophile ring in the BBC or anywhere else. It's also worth remembering that Savile didn't appear to behave as a member of such a ring would - he procured the girls himself and used his own celebrity to keep people quiet by all accounts.
And be cautious of confusing "sexual activity with underage girls/boys" and "sexual harrassment/groping of men/women over 16". Liz Kershaw's comments and at least one allegation against another DJ relate to the latter. Neither are acceptable but only one can be linked to ideas about organised child abuse.
Circumstances have shown that there was no way this would come out while he was alive, and no way these girls would be believed, since not only was it being covered up and dismissed, he was also seemingly aided in these vile acts by BBC stars that STILL continue to work.
But it did "come out" in the sense that it was reported and police investigations followed, as I said before.
Everybody who aided in perpetrating this nastiness or covering it up is culpable. They ALL need investigating and if enough evidence is found, lock the bastards up!
Yes, if anyone is found to have aided and abbeted any abuse. There's currently no evidence that was the case. By all accounts it seems Savile acted alone, procured the victims himself and the closest to "aiding" him anyone came was witnessing something, not reporting it because they would not be believed or reporting it and then not being believed/being brushed off.
As of yet there's no evidence of a paedophile ring in the BBC or anywhere else. It's also worth remembering that Savile didn't appear to behave as a member of such a ring would - he procured the girls himself and used his own celebrity to keep people quiet by all accounts.
I never said there was 'evidence' of a paedophile ring, just that it's very likely. Today it's been announced at least 9 BBC staff are to be quizzed, TV stars have already been named by at least 60 victims (although not publicly... yet.) He didn't work alone either. Gary Glitter at least was party to it on several occasions. Jonathan King, unsurprisingly, has been mentioned, and others have been and will be implicated.
You make a fair point about confusing statements though. They are very different, tho equally nauseating, 'activies'.
Circumstances have shown that there was no way this would come out while he was alive
Ok, that was an error lol. Yes, it came out, but I meant that while he was alive there was no way the girls would be believed. He was repeatedly let off because he was very VERY good at covering his own back. But he couldn't have done it on his own though. If everybody reported what they'd seen, heard or even rumours they'd heard then he wouldn't have gotten away with it for over four decades. Remember, Fred and Rose West were caught because police decided to investigate something the neighbourhood kids heard, not because they actually implicated themselves.
Yes, if anyone is found to have aided and abbeted any abuse. There's currently no evidence that was the case. By all accounts it seems Savile acted alone, procured the victims himself and the closest to "aiding" him anyone came was witnessing something, not reporting it because they would not be believed or reporting it and then not being believed/being brushed off.
If anybody witnessed anything and didn't report it, whether they were going to be taken seriously or not, that places some of the responsibility at their feet. Countless people had a chance to stop him, and nobody did.
Evidently I erred on the grand-daughter comment too. For some reason I believed his sister was still alive, and I must have skipped the part about 'recovered memory'. Would have a little more skeptical if i'd read it thoroughly lol. Ooops :p
That's not true. Several of the victims reported what had happened and Savile was questioned by police.
Just how many victims have to come forward for it to be considered evidence enough? and if it was not considered enough then, why is it now? By the same logic we should we consider there to still be no tangible evidence?
There appears to be substantial evidence that Duncroft was used by more than Jimmy. The interviewed girls said that their school was often being visited by various celebrities at all times of the day with no fore warning.
As of yet there's no evidence of a paedophile ring in the BBC or anywhere else.
A lawyer on the panorama program spoke out saying the evidence she was gaining from the victims indicated that there was a ring, or at least several people were in on it.
A lack of evidence does not always mean a lack of crime, it could mean a lack of thorough investigation or a well crafted or powefull cover up.
And be cautious of confusing "sexual activity with underage girls/boys" and "sexual harrassment/groping of men/women over 16"
Why do people see the difference between 15 and 16 as black and white, morality and legality are not one and the same. Its not like a girls sexuality appears over night on their 16th birthday, every girl is different. To my mind a mature adult sexually harassing or taking advantage of a 15 or 16 year old is the same thing, both quite a disturbing thing for a man old enough to be their granddad to do.
Yes, if anyone is found to have aided and abbeted any abuse. There's currently no evidence that was the case. By all accounts it seems Savile acted alone, procured the victims himself and the closest to "aiding" him anyone came was witnessing something, not reporting it because they would not be believed or reporting it and then not being believed/being brushed off.
Of course there isn't. Its not like those involved are going to fess up themselves. They can blame it all on Jimmy because he is not here to defend himself. Saville did not act alone, it has been publicaly revealed that in at least one instance he and Garry Glitter had sex with two under age girls in a single BBC dressing room. It was also mentioned that in one instance of Saville abuse that the dressing room had several people in it. That's hardly 'All Accounts' is it?
As I have said before some of those in the BBC appear to know what the real situation might be. Esteemed BBC reporter Jonathan Simon described it as the 'biggest crisis to hit the BBC in 50 years'. Choosing not to schedule a program because of a potential schedule inconvenience could hardly be construed as 'the biggest crisis to hit the BBC'. My guess is we will never fully know.
As was hinted at by another poster earlier enquiries are often set up to establish an official turn of events. By doing this a body can replace one truth with another more convenient one so that there can be no more doubt cast on the situation. In a way there are often used to invent an undisputable truth, whilst at the same time showing people they are addressing the problem. I'm not saying this is the case with all enquiries, but I'm guessing some.
And now the other side of the coin, sort of:
One thing I will say though is fraternising with young women was a a common theme in pop/band culture and there music. How many pop tunes of the 60's and 70's refer to this. One example is the Beatles Little Child, there were loads of songs like this throughout those two decades i.e. AC DC's little lover, Donavan's Mellow Yellow. Perhaps many thought it just goes with the territory and that its just part of pop culture as was doing drugs. After all people did not outcry that the film Train-spotting should be banned as it's main character is a 'paedo' for sleeping with a 14 year old. However, this culture suggests sexually maturing if under legal age ladies , defiantly not moral but more moral than young girls, patients or resedents that have been entrusted with ones care.
At the time I'm sure Jimmy saw some of it as coercing the girls to sleep with/ do things to him rather than actual physical rape and quite possibly in 'some' instances it may be just that. As often the girls were complicit because uncle Jimmy was going to get them and their friends on his next TV show. From the victims perspective, the seriousness and awfulness of the situation might not have fully dawned on them till much later. Does that mean they should be right to sue? Possibly, as they would have been naive girls put on the spot and in their view at the time expected to be flattered and honoured by a stars sexual advances.
interesting read about a story The Times were supposed to run on the 20th but backed out
also no idea how anyone can be so sure at this stage that Savil wasn't part of a 'ring'. I mean how can anyone possibly say that with confidence? news seems to be slowly emerging, I'm sure a picture will develop of what really went on
interesting read about a story The Times were supposed to run on the 20th but backed out
also no idea how anyone can be so sure at this stage that Savil wasn't part of a 'ring'. I mean how can anyone possibly say that with confidence? news seems to be slowly emerging, I'm sure a picture will develop of what really went on
the thing is if he's an 'investigative journalist' why can't he run his story on his own? maybe it all does come down to who's got the best lawyers (i.e. who's richest) and needing to do it through The Times so he didn't get sued. in which case this whole thing could in theory never come out in full...
the thing is if he's an 'investigative journalist' why can't he run his story on his own? maybe it all does come down to who's got the best lawyers (i.e. who's richest) and needing to do it through The Times so he didn't get sued. in which case this whole thing could in theory never come out in full...
yeah i mean, he doesn't really have to run a story.
A lawyer on the panorama program spoke out saying the evidence she was gaining from the victims indicated that there was a ring, or at least several people were in on it.
A lack of evidence does not always mean a lack of crime, it could mean a lack of thorough investigation or a well crafted or powefull cover up.
All true, but making sweeping accusations based on nothing but rumour is a bad idea and it can create moral panics. What we do know is that an awful lot of people have accused one specific man of sexual abuse. I think occam's razor says that Savile was involved in some kind of abuse and to claim otherwise looks like denial at this stage. But to start saying "there must have been a ring of some kind" at this stage is taking things too far. Let's wait and see what evidence comes out.
Why do people see the difference between 15 and 16 as black and white, morality and legality are not one and the same. Its not like a girls sexuality appears over night on their 16th birthday, every girl is different. To my mind a mature adult sexually harassing or taking advantage of a 15 or 16 year old is the same thing, both quite a disturbing thing for a man old enough to be their granddad to do.
That wasn't my point. As I said, some of these allegations regard women or girls over 16 and what's euphamistically called "inappropriate behaviour" (ie groping at the like). Whilst this indicates a problem, it's not evidence in favour of some kind of paedophile ring.
f course there isn't. Its not like those involved are going to fess up themselves. They can blame it all on Jimmy because he is not here to defend himself. Saville did not act alone, it has been publicaly revealed that in at least one instance he and Garry Glitter had sex with two under age girls in a single BBC dressing room.
It's been claimed by one person. It may well be true but even that isn't evidence of a "ring". And who says "Savile didn't act alone"? He was perfectly in a position to, he didn't need help to procure anyone due to his position as a celebrity.
It was also mentioned that in one instance of Saville abuse that the dressing room had several people in it. That's hardly 'All Accounts' is it?
As I have said before some of those in the BBC appear to know what the real situation might be. Esteemed BBC reporter Jonathan Simon described it as the 'biggest crisis to hit the BBC in 50 years'. Choosing not to schedule a program because of a potential schedule inconvenience could hardly be construed as 'the biggest crisis to hit the BBC'. My guess is we will never fully know.
Again, none of this points towards an organised ring. Until we have clear evidence of that beyond "I reckon" or "I heard" nobody should start saying that there "must" have been one.
Again, none of this points towards an organised ring. Until we have clear evidence of that beyond "I reckon" or "I heard" nobody should start saying that there "must" have been one.
Again, none of this points towards an organised ring. Until we have clear evidence of that beyond "I reckon" or "I heard" nobody should start saying that there "must" have been one.
It is purely my hunch that for a man to get away with it for so long and in hindsight so almost blatantly, a man that has been associated with several places where abuse was known to happen, who repeatedly had rumours surface, and a handfull of investigations find no evidence, who personally claimed he was untouchable (which was evidently true, as its only once he dies that people can speak out without fear of him implicating anyone else) that there must have been involvement of others.
Its a funny term organised ring, really its probably not organised in the general sense of the word, I'm sure if the ring existed it did not have a chairman, treasurer, secretary and annual general meeting. More it was a loosely coupled group of individuals of unknown size with a common perverted interest and a willingness to preserve and protect their 'privileges'.
Its a funny term organised ring, really its probably not organised in the general sense of the word, I'm sure if the ring existed it did not have a chairman, treasurer, secretary and annual general meeting. More it was a loosely coupled group of individuals of unknown size with a common perverted interest and a willingness to preserve and protect their 'privileges'.
i bet they've got their own roger jowett though. :D
It is purely my hunch that for a man to get away with it for so long and in hindsight so almost blatantly, a man that has been associated with several places where abuse was known to happen, who repeatedly had rumours surface, and a handfull of investigations find no evidence, who personally claimed he was untouchable (which was evidently true, as its only once he dies that people can speak out without fear of him implicating anyone else) that there must have been involvement of others.
You keep saying that nobody spoke out whilst he was alive but people did hence the investigations. As for those who didn't until he was dead: there are a lot of reasons victims of abuse find it hard to say anything and need a lot of support and encouragement before they will and fear of some kind of organised paedophile ring isn't necessarily one of them.
There's also a big hole in your theory which is if Savile was protected by some kind of organised conspiracy during his lifetime surely it should still be in operation to "prevent" what we've seen over the last few weeks.
Currently, unless evidence to the contrary appears, it looks like Savile was someone who procured girls for abuse himself and used his celebrity and charm to brush off any accusations that did emerge.
Comments
With all the alleged evidence that's coming to light... how come it was never addressed when he was alive and could answer/defend against the allegations?
Not saying he did or didn't... just saying its hard for a dead man to defend himself. Right or wrong.
Its well known that if you search Mail online with the search terms "All Grown Up" you get thousands of such articles which are basically giving readers the green light to purve over some female celebrity or child star who has just turned 16, or in many instances a subtly purving over someone under 16.
He was being defended by people higher up than he. (Read my earlier post.)
He had access to high security areas (Broadmoor) and unfettered access to young children (Duncroft,Haut De La Garenne.)
If criminal charges were brought against him, that would have threatened the more powerful criminals above him. He protects their backs, they protect his.
Already the media is painting Sa-Vile as a sexual predator, not as a Child Molester.
No one is asking those basic questions which point to complicity among high society/government people, much less seeking out answers...
yes they are... that's the whole point of the current investigations
[Sigh]
No, they are not.
The media is simply ignoring the wider issue of high level child abuse, which Sa-Vile's various crimes were a part of.
As I said, the higher up crooks will not allow a full investigation as they own both the main stream media and the police/judicial system.
The whole point of current investigations these days is to cover up the truth.
[citation needed]
[Sigh]
Take the Hutton Inquiry as an example. Meant to be an inquiry into why a high ranking government scientist died. What do they do? Hide away the post mortem reports etc. Why?
Then you have Operation Ore where the UK Police were given the names of high ranking paedo's in the UK. Bit suspicious there was no real follow up, don't you think?
I'm getting very angry at the lack of outrage at these evil monsters.
There was certainly follow up of the Operation Ore findings in my neck of the world, as my team was part of subsequent investigations alongside the police within the public sector. Many people were led away as a result, and one hung himself after being revealed. It's a bit too 'conspiracy theory' to say nothing ever happens - somethings take time, but generally there are outcomes and consequences of inquiries.
Top tip: when posting a link to an article perhaps you should read it first to check that it actually supports your argument :)
how is he not credible, out of interest. In that panorama doc he's kind of putting his neck on the line by admitting he could've done something at the time and didn't, something other fellow R1 DJ's may have not appeared in that prog for, because of exactly that reason. don't see what 'agenda' paul gambacini could have other than bringing more evidence to the table, albeit belatedly... never had him down as a notorious liar
It was in a way since we now know that Savile was questioned by police over several incidents in the years before his death. People keep saying "why didn't they say something while he was alive?" They did, that's the point. It was just that the whole thing wasn't brought to the public's attention until the ITV documentary and the media lead-up to it. This wasn't something that everyone discovered only after he died it was something that the media didn't mention until after he died.
And don't forget, over 60 victims have named AT LEAST 9 other celebrities, some of whom are still alive, and working. Of course this is a major scandal for the BBC. One of their most well known broadcasters has been exposed as a serial child abuser, and the longer the stories come out, the more likely it is that a paedophile ring will be uncovered in the BBC. They're bricking it for good reason.
Circumstances have shown that there was no way this would come out while he was alive, and no way these girls would be believed, since not only was it being covered up and dismissed, he was also seemingly aided in these vile acts by BBC stars that STILL continue to work.
Everybody who aided in perpetrating this nastiness or covering it up is culpable. They ALL need investigating and if enough evidence is found, lock the bastards up!
Rant over. Thanks for your time.
Si :smile:
That's not true. Several of the victims reported what had happened and Savile was questioned by police. A lack of evidence meant the case had to be dropped (common in cases involving sexual offenses). There's plenty of rumours that Savile did use his celebrity and charm to stop stories about him getting out but the idea that he was able to silence everyone and that no authority would lift a finger to stop him is not true.
As of yet there's no evidence of a paedophile ring in the BBC or anywhere else. It's also worth remembering that Savile didn't appear to behave as a member of such a ring would - he procured the girls himself and used his own celebrity to keep people quiet by all accounts.
And be cautious of confusing "sexual activity with underage girls/boys" and "sexual harrassment/groping of men/women over 16". Liz Kershaw's comments and at least one allegation against another DJ relate to the latter. Neither are acceptable but only one can be linked to ideas about organised child abuse.
But it did "come out" in the sense that it was reported and police investigations followed, as I said before.
Yes, if anyone is found to have aided and abbeted any abuse. There's currently no evidence that was the case. By all accounts it seems Savile acted alone, procured the victims himself and the closest to "aiding" him anyone came was witnessing something, not reporting it because they would not be believed or reporting it and then not being believed/being brushed off.
I never said there was 'evidence' of a paedophile ring, just that it's very likely. Today it's been announced at least 9 BBC staff are to be quizzed, TV stars have already been named by at least 60 victims (although not publicly... yet.) He didn't work alone either. Gary Glitter at least was party to it on several occasions. Jonathan King, unsurprisingly, has been mentioned, and others have been and will be implicated.
You make a fair point about confusing statements though. They are very different, tho equally nauseating, 'activies'.
Ok, that was an error lol. Yes, it came out, but I meant that while he was alive there was no way the girls would be believed. He was repeatedly let off because he was very VERY good at covering his own back. But he couldn't have done it on his own though. If everybody reported what they'd seen, heard or even rumours they'd heard then he wouldn't have gotten away with it for over four decades. Remember, Fred and Rose West were caught because police decided to investigate something the neighbourhood kids heard, not because they actually implicated themselves.
If anybody witnessed anything and didn't report it, whether they were going to be taken seriously or not, that places some of the responsibility at their feet. Countless people had a chance to stop him, and nobody did.
Evidently I erred on the grand-daughter comment too. For some reason I believed his sister was still alive, and I must have skipped the part about 'recovered memory'. Would have a little more skeptical if i'd read it thoroughly lol. Ooops :p
Just how many victims have to come forward for it to be considered evidence enough? and if it was not considered enough then, why is it now? By the same logic we should we consider there to still be no tangible evidence?
There appears to be substantial evidence that Duncroft was used by more than Jimmy. The interviewed girls said that their school was often being visited by various celebrities at all times of the day with no fore warning.
A lawyer on the panorama program spoke out saying the evidence she was gaining from the victims indicated that there was a ring, or at least several people were in on it.
A lack of evidence does not always mean a lack of crime, it could mean a lack of thorough investigation or a well crafted or powefull cover up.
Why do people see the difference between 15 and 16 as black and white, morality and legality are not one and the same. Its not like a girls sexuality appears over night on their 16th birthday, every girl is different. To my mind a mature adult sexually harassing or taking advantage of a 15 or 16 year old is the same thing, both quite a disturbing thing for a man old enough to be their granddad to do.
Of course there isn't. Its not like those involved are going to fess up themselves. They can blame it all on Jimmy because he is not here to defend himself. Saville did not act alone, it has been publicaly revealed that in at least one instance he and Garry Glitter had sex with two under age girls in a single BBC dressing room. It was also mentioned that in one instance of Saville abuse that the dressing room had several people in it. That's hardly 'All Accounts' is it?
As I have said before some of those in the BBC appear to know what the real situation might be. Esteemed BBC reporter Jonathan Simon described it as the 'biggest crisis to hit the BBC in 50 years'. Choosing not to schedule a program because of a potential schedule inconvenience could hardly be construed as 'the biggest crisis to hit the BBC'. My guess is we will never fully know.
As was hinted at by another poster earlier enquiries are often set up to establish an official turn of events. By doing this a body can replace one truth with another more convenient one so that there can be no more doubt cast on the situation. In a way there are often used to invent an undisputable truth, whilst at the same time showing people they are addressing the problem. I'm not saying this is the case with all enquiries, but I'm guessing some.
And now the other side of the coin, sort of:
One thing I will say though is fraternising with young women was a a common theme in pop/band culture and there music. How many pop tunes of the 60's and 70's refer to this. One example is the Beatles Little Child, there were loads of songs like this throughout those two decades i.e. AC DC's little lover, Donavan's Mellow Yellow. Perhaps many thought it just goes with the territory and that its just part of pop culture as was doing drugs. After all people did not outcry that the film Train-spotting should be banned as it's main character is a 'paedo' for sleeping with a 14 year old. However, this culture suggests sexually maturing if under legal age ladies , defiantly not moral but more moral than young girls, patients or resedents that have been entrusted with ones care.
At the time I'm sure Jimmy saw some of it as coercing the girls to sleep with/ do things to him rather than actual physical rape and quite possibly in 'some' instances it may be just that. As often the girls were complicit because uncle Jimmy was going to get them and their friends on his next TV show. From the victims perspective, the seriousness and awfulness of the situation might not have fully dawned on them till much later. Does that mean they should be right to sue? Possibly, as they would have been naive girls put on the spot and in their view at the time expected to be flattered and honoured by a stars sexual advances.
interesting read about a story The Times were supposed to run on the 20th but backed out
also no idea how anyone can be so sure at this stage that Savil wasn't part of a 'ring'. I mean how can anyone possibly say that with confidence? news seems to be slowly emerging, I'm sure a picture will develop of what really went on
wow, that guy was like cat-nip for peados. :p
can I have that as my sig? maybe not ...
the thing is if he's an 'investigative journalist' why can't he run his story on his own? maybe it all does come down to who's got the best lawyers (i.e. who's richest) and needing to do it through The Times so he didn't get sued. in which case this whole thing could in theory never come out in full...
yeah i mean, he doesn't really have to run a story.
cant he go to the police?
isn't it a crime to offer under 16's sex.
fairly sure it's a crime to think about sex within 50 yards of an under 16 year old ;)
you should have
'now then, now then boys an girls leave our jim alone he once fixed it 4 me 2 milk a cow blindfolded'
its seems to be underneath every jimmy saville clip on youtube. :p
All true, but making sweeping accusations based on nothing but rumour is a bad idea and it can create moral panics. What we do know is that an awful lot of people have accused one specific man of sexual abuse. I think occam's razor says that Savile was involved in some kind of abuse and to claim otherwise looks like denial at this stage. But to start saying "there must have been a ring of some kind" at this stage is taking things too far. Let's wait and see what evidence comes out.
That wasn't my point. As I said, some of these allegations regard women or girls over 16 and what's euphamistically called "inappropriate behaviour" (ie groping at the like). Whilst this indicates a problem, it's not evidence in favour of some kind of paedophile ring.
It's been claimed by one person. It may well be true but even that isn't evidence of a "ring". And who says "Savile didn't act alone"? He was perfectly in a position to, he didn't need help to procure anyone due to his position as a celebrity.
Again, none of this points towards an organised ring. Until we have clear evidence of that beyond "I reckon" or "I heard" nobody should start saying that there "must" have been one.
It is purely my hunch that for a man to get away with it for so long and in hindsight so almost blatantly, a man that has been associated with several places where abuse was known to happen, who repeatedly had rumours surface, and a handfull of investigations find no evidence, who personally claimed he was untouchable (which was evidently true, as its only once he dies that people can speak out without fear of him implicating anyone else) that there must have been involvement of others.
Its a funny term organised ring, really its probably not organised in the general sense of the word, I'm sure if the ring existed it did not have a chairman, treasurer, secretary and annual general meeting. More it was a loosely coupled group of individuals of unknown size with a common perverted interest and a willingness to preserve and protect their 'privileges'.
i bet they've got their own roger jowett though. :D
#getsCoat
You keep saying that nobody spoke out whilst he was alive but people did hence the investigations. As for those who didn't until he was dead: there are a lot of reasons victims of abuse find it hard to say anything and need a lot of support and encouragement before they will and fear of some kind of organised paedophile ring isn't necessarily one of them.
There's also a big hole in your theory which is if Savile was protected by some kind of organised conspiracy during his lifetime surely it should still be in operation to "prevent" what we've seen over the last few weeks.
Currently, unless evidence to the contrary appears, it looks like Savile was someone who procured girls for abuse himself and used his celebrity and charm to brush off any accusations that did emerge.