pap Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 I dont doubt you have a daughter, I remember seeing the pic. I dont doubt hypo has a girlfriend The point is that you can put a malign filter on anything. That girl in the pic was just somebody you met at a match but posted up to pretend you had a life, or maybe she was some 15 year old you were grooming. The odd thing about your posting style pap is that on the big macro issues you are very liberal but on the individual level very quick to pass judgment, based on very little. Maybe the beliefs in conspiracies follows though into assuming posters, or indeed everyone in general is trying to hide something. Try that again, son - without the provable hypocrisy. John Smith's limitations have long been obvious, but finding this out about Pap is like discovering your favourite uncle is a cross dressing astrology devotee. Smacking your child is abuse and shows you have failed to manage the situation better - just like resorting to violence does in any situation. Pap talks about the shock value as being the reason it works - he's right. Kids are so shocked that you have hit them they are cowed and scared. Way to go. Very snidey and a bit low if I may say. I have no idea if he was guilty of the offences he is accused of or not - and neither do you. Its very easy to join lynch mobs - especially ones formed post mortem when the other side of the story cant be told. A bit pathetic to point the finger at those who refuse to join in the lynching too. Really fascinating to see the way your mind works, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Try that again, son - without the provable hypocrisy. Really fascinating to see the way your mind works, sir. My judgement is that you are a tiresome **** pap. You confessed here on this forum to hitting of your daughter. I did criticise you for that. If you cant tell the difference between condemning somebody for their self conefessed actions and condemning a dead man for allegations not made in his lifetime then you are much less smart, or more disigenuous than I thought. Anyway have no fear, I now have you marked as one of the posters not worth responding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 I haven't watched the programme yet and might get around to it at some stage, but what is interesting is that people are very ready to accept that everything alleged must be true, as it is covered by the media. Personally, I take these things with a giant pinch of salt until I see concrete evidence to prove their veracity. It crosses my mind that similar accusations were levied against Dave Jones when he managed us and at the time, many were prepared to assume that there was no smoke without fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOSaint Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Today the court overturned an injunction taken out by Freddie Starr against ITV to prevent his name being mentioned in relation to the Savile accusations, specifically this allegation; http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-saw-jimmy-savile-and-gary-1359297 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 (edited) My judgement is that you are a tiresome **** pap. You confessed here on this forum to hitting of your daughter. I did criticise you for that. If you cant tell the difference between condemning somebody for their self conefessed actions and condemning a dead man for allegations not made in his lifetime then you are much less smart, or more disigenuous than I thought. Anyway have no fear, I now have you marked as one of the posters not worth responding to. That is certainly one reading of the situation. I'm sure the expansive innards of SaintsWeb can cope with another. I've never lost sleep over your judgment, Tim. If that were the case, I'd have been an insomniac for some time. Most of the time, I have no problem with your posts or what you say. I've even agreed with a lot of them. That's difficult to reconcile with the nastier side of your output. Even now, you're lashing out with "less clever than I thought" or "more disingenuous", vague smears in lieu of anything concrete. Let's contrast that with the post that provoked that response. Didn't call you anything, didn't say you were anything - just reproduced things you wrote. You done yourself up mate, with predictable hysterics ensuing. Returning to the topic, it's pretty clear that you haven't seen the Exposure : "The other side of Jimmy Saville" programme from last night. You pulled your usual "ignore the question" trick and didn't give us a firm answer. For your benefit then, here's what was on the programme. Former BBC employee claims Savile was with 14 year old girl at BBC Yorkshire just after show wrapped. Former BBC producer Wilfred De'Ath claims Savile was with, and slept with a girl as young as 12 ( 14 maximum ). Said Saville made no secret of predilection for young girls. Manchester journalist Alan Leeke speaks of Savile taking young girls ( never went for girls younger than 20, apparently ) Testimony from two women who claim to have been sexually assaulted and or raped, with some degree of commonality in their accounts. Fourteen year old Nolan sister says Savile was all over her during Top of the Pops. Testimony from woman who claims she was groomed by Savile at fourteen years old. Testimony from woman who claims she was invited to Savile's caravan when she was fourteen. Kicked off after Savile touched her breast, dragged out of caravan - put in isolation unit until she agreed to keep her silence. Testimony from woman who was abused in back of Savile's car. 1974. Claims Savile liked having her finger in his anus. Savile on Gary Glitter “Now Gary, all he did was take his computer into PC World to get it repaired…They went into his hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police and the police then, 'Oh we've got a famous person ... Oh my goodness, yeah we'll have them'.“But Gary has not sold 'em, has not tried to sell 'em, not tried to show them in public or anything like that. It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is, of course, it's up to him as a person. But they didn't do anything wrong but they are then demonised.” “And of course, if you ever said to that copper, what’s Gary Glitter done wrong? Well nothing really. He’s just sat at home watching these dodgy ,dodgy films. He was like that but he wasn’t public and he didn’t do anything.” Now, my opinions have in part, been informed by this show. One always has to be careful when assessing the merits of the accounts - the stuff with Esther Rantzen at the end is emotive, and she speaks of there always being rumours, but it doesn't really add to the burden of proof. For me, Savile's own words on Gary Glitter were most troubling. They demonstrate a significant deviation from a "normal view" on Glitter's crimes, wouldn't you say? Ah, I forget. Never going to get a response from you again, am I? Toys well and truly out of the pram. Oh well, I'm calling it. pap pwned buctootim on 4th October 2012. True story. Turkish would be proud. Edited 4 October, 2012 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Returning to the topic, it's pretty clear that you haven't seen the Exposure : "The other side of Jimmy Saville" programme from last night. You pulled your usual "ignore the question" trick and didn't give us a firm answer. For your benefit then, here's what was on the programme. Former BBC employee claims Savile was with 14 year old girl at BBC Yorkshire just after show wrapped. Former BBC producer Wilfred De'Ath claims Savile was with, and slept with a girl as young as 12 ( 14 maximum ). Said Saville made no secret of predilection for young girls. Manchester journalist Alan Leeke speaks of Savile taking young girls ( never went for girls younger than 20, apparently ) Testimony from two women who claim to have been sexually assaulted and or raped, with some degree of commonality in their accounts. Fourteen year old Nolan sister says Savile was all over her during Top of the Pops. Testimony from woman who claims she was groomed by Savile at fourteen years old. Testimony from woman who claims she was invited to Savile's caravan when she was fourteen. Kicked off after Savile touched her breast, dragged out of caravan - put in isolation unit until she agreed to keep her silence. Testimony from woman who was abused in back of Savile's car. 1974. Claims Savile liked having her finger in her anus. What was Saville's response to the above accusations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 What was Saville's response to the above accusations? I bet it started with "now then, now then, what have we here?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 What was Saville's response to the above accusations? Savile is unable to respond, as you well know. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Did I say something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Very snidey and a bit low if I may say. I have no idea if he was guilty of the offences he is accused of or not - and neither do you. Its very easy to join lynch mobs - especially ones formed post mortem when the other side of the story cant be told. A bit pathetic to point the finger at those who refuse to join in the lynching too. Seriously though, ok innocent until proven guilty but having watched the itv prog would you let one of your kids go off for a ride with JS in his rolls royce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 I'm not sure why you found the bit about Gary Glitter most troubling. That could quite easily be a stubborn over 80 year old man who has spoken to an old friend who was guilty of these chances (Glitter) who told him that there was a media conspiracy against him and refuses to accept the guilt of his mate. I think quite a few of the accounts can be dismissed as they didn't know the age of the individuals involved and were speculating. Some admittedly were troubling (especially the dressing room bits at the BBC) but I still find it extraordinary that no one came forward whilst he was alive and the interviewer annoyed me immensely asking leading questions and pressuring interviewees till he got the answers he wanted. He was working on the assumption that he was guilty and then doing everything he could to get that answer which isn't the correct way to do a documentary of this nature IMO regardless of Saville's guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 (edited) Did I say something wrong? You were looking for attention. Well done you provoked a response by suggesting that I am a paedophile because I look after children. How big of you. Edited 4 October, 2012 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 I'm not sure why you found the bit about Gary Glitter most troubling. That could quite easily be a stubborn over 80 year old man who has spoken to an old friend who was guilty of these chances (Glitter) who told him that there was a media conspiracy against him and refuses to accept the guilt of his mate. I think quite a few of the accounts can be dismissed as they didn't know the age of the individuals involved and were speculating. Some admittedly were troubling (especially the dressing room bits at the BBC) but I still find it extraordinary that no one came forward whilst he was alive and the interviewer annoyed me immensely asking leading questions and pressuring interviewees till he got the answers he wanted. He was working on the assumption that he was guilty and then doing everything he could to get that answer which isn't the correct way to do a documentary of this nature IMO regardless of Saville's guilt. Savile was investigated in the 1970s for sexual assault. Didn't go anywhere, but the accusations are not new. Even if no-one had come forward while he was alive, I would not have been surprised. There is the account of the woman who says she was placed into an isolation unit until her silence was guaranteed. Many would not have come forward through fear, shame or a mixture of both. I found the Gary Glitter bit troubling because up until that point, even with all the evidence so far, I felt it gave an indication into how Savile views the world. The bloke wasn't arsed about the fact that Glitter had child pornography on his computer. He doesn't think that Glitter deriving gratification from it is wrong, nor does he make any attempt to suggest that Glitter is not guilty. He's not suggesting the media planted the evidence, and he hasn't condemned his mate for harvesting the images. From Savile's words, you'd think the only thing that Glitter did wrong was take his computer into PC world. That is way off the generally accepted moral compass. The argument over his guilt will soon become academic, especially with a co-operative BBC in the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Met to lead sexual abuse complaints investigation http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/04/jimmy-savile-sexual-abuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Why are people going out of their way in support of a dead peadophile? Let's get #prayforjimmy trending on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 You were looking for attention. Well done you provoked a response by suggesting that I am a paedophile because I look after children. How big of you. No, I merely suggested that police/criminal psychologists would have certain checklists to tick off: - delusional fantasies - a position of power and/or trust with minors - sympathies with known paedos etc etc anyway you never answered the actual question, do you still think he was innocent/to be trusted with kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Seriously though, ok innocent until proven guilty but having watched the itv prog would you let one of your kids go off for a ride with JS in his rolls royce? Obviously because it's not right to join a witch hunt is it? Better to preserve the age old "innocent until proven guilty" mantra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Can you have a witch hunt against someone that doesnt exist anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Can you have a witch hunt against someone that doesnt exist anymore? This "he can't be guilty because he's dead" argument is a bit of an odd one too. Does that mean that if someone murders someone, and then dies before getting caught, they're innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 This "he can't be guilty because he's dead" argument is a bit of an odd one too. Does that mean that if someone murders someone, and then dies before getting caught, they're innocent? yeah, and the alleged crime should never be mentioned again for fear of angering a dead spirit that will come poo in your shoes at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 (edited) So, he's dead, therefore can't testify his innocence... and therefore cannot be proven guilty. How about someone who never confesses but is alive, can they still be proven guilty? More to the point, if anyone is found to have been directly complicit in the investigations and they are still alive.... they need to be brought to justice. Edited 4 October, 2012 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Freddie Starr at the High Court today to get an injunction. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Some narcissists are ostentatiously generous – they donate to charity, lavish gifts on their closest, abundantly provide for their nearest and dearest, and, in general, are open-handed and unstintingly benevolent. How can this be reconciled with the pronounced lack of empathy and with the pernicious self-preoccupation that is so typical of narcissists? The act of giving enhances the narcissist's sense of omnipotence, his fantastic grandiosity, and the contempt he holds for others. It is easy to feel superior to the supplicating recipients of one's largesse. Narcissistic altruism is about exerting control and maintaining it by fostering dependence in the beneficiaries. But narcissists give for other reasons as well. The narcissist flaunts his charitable nature as a bait. He impresses others with his selflessness and kindness and thus lures them into his lair, entraps them, and manipulates and brainwashes them into subservient compliance and obsequious collaboration. People are attracted to the narcissist's larger than life posture – only to discover his true personality traits when it is far too late. "Give a little to take a lot" – is the narcissist's creed. This does not prevent the narcissist from assuming the role of the exploited victim. Narcissists always complain that life and people are unfair to them and that they invest far more than their "share of the profit". The narcissist feels that he is the sacrificial lamb, the scapegoat, and that his relationships are asymmetric and imbalanced. "She gets out of our marriage far more than I do" – is a common refrain. Or: "I do all the work around here – and they get all the perks and benefits!" Faced with such (mis)perceived injustice – and once the relationship is clinched and the victim is "hooked" – the narcissist tries to minimise his contributions. He regards his input as a contractual maintenance chore and the unpleasant and inevitable price he has to pay for his Narcissistic Supply. After many years of feeling deprived and wronged, some narcissists lapse into "sadistic generosity" or "sadistic altruism". They use their giving as a weapon to taunt and torment the needy and to humiliate them. In the distorted thinking of the narcissist, donating money gives him the right and license to hurt, chastise, criticise, and berate the recipient. His generosity, feels the narcissist, elevates him to a higher moral ground. Most narcissists confine their giving to money and material goods. Their munificence is an abusive defence mechanism, intended to avoid real intimacy. Their "big-hearted" charity renders all their relationships – even with their spouses and children – "business-like", structured, limited, minimal, non-emotional, unambiguous, and non-ambivalent. By doling out bounteously, the narcissist "knows where he stands" and does not feel threatened by demands for commitment, emotional investment, empathy, or intimacy. In the narcissist's wasteland of a life, even his benevolence is spiteful, sadistic, punitive, and distancing. bump/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 There are some very vindictive folk out there . I don't know if the allegations are true are not . Thus woman Karin seems a but odd . Reading the mirror story above if she was rebuffed how come she went with savile on two other occassions . If she is such an innocent why go with him again and what was she doing in an approved school . This particular case smacks of the false allegations made against dave jones . I will not comment on the other cases as I have not seen the programme or read their stories . They should have raised their concerns when he was alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 There are some very vindictive folk out there . I don't know if the allegations are true are not . Thus woman Karin seems a but odd . Reading the mirror story above if she was rebuffed how come she went with savile on two other occassions . If she is such an innocent why go with him again and what was she doing in an approved school . This particular case smacks of the false allegations made against dave jones . I will not comment on the other cases as I have not seen the programme or read their stories . They should have raised their concerns when he was alive Would you let your kids ride in the rolls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 No, I merely suggested that police/criminal psychologists would have certain checklists to tick off: - delusional fantasies - a position of power and/or trust with minors - sympathies with known paedos etc etc anyway you never answered the actual question, do you still think he was innocent/to be trusted with kids? You were fishing for a bite and it was childish and pathetic, whether you were joking or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Freddie Starr at the High Court today to get an injunction. I wonder why? This, maybe? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-saw-jimmy-savile-and-gary-1359297 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 They should have raised their concerns when he was alive Not that simple, is it. Typically, victims of child abuse are made to feel that they are complicit in the abuse, and at least partly responsible for it. Long before the paedo allegations surfaced, and I dont mean just the recent ones, Savile was accused of some pretty unpleasant behaviour regarding debt collections and "enforcement" around Leeds. Its not hard to imagine that someone with that background could seem pretty threatening to a young teenage girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Johnyboy below the belt comments. I know two families who savile was very supportive of their children who died of cancer . Visited them in hospital . Fixed it for them and attended their funerals and continued to keep in touch with the families . They are shocked at these allegations and its not the savile they knew . It's easy to condemn somebody when they are not around to defend themselves . I honestly do not know if he did or did not , as said in an earlier post there are some malicious people about in this world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 There are some very vindictive folk out there . I don't know if the allegations are true are not . Thus woman Karin seems a but odd . Reading the mirror story above if she was rebuffed how come she went with savile on two other occassions . If she is such an innocent why go with him again and what was she doing in an approved school . This particular case smacks of the false allegations made against dave jones . I will not comment on the other cases as I have not seen the programme or read their stories . They should have raised their concerns when he was alive She's not the first person from Duncroft school to have made allegations against Savile. I do find it "odd" that a major celebrity would choose to spend so much time at a girl's boarding school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Johnyboy below the belt comments. I know two families who savile was very supportive of their children who died of cancer . Visited them in hospital . Fixed it for them and attended their funerals and continued to keep in touch with the families . They are shocked at these allegations and its not the savile they knew . It's easy to condemn somebody when they are not around to defend themselves . I honestly do not know if he did or did not , as said in an earlier post there are some malicious people about in this world Would you let your kids ride in the rolls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Cheers buctootim, I know we have our differences but I appreciate that. To make suggestions that I am a paedophile due to my job, even if said in jest is pretty pathetic. Par for the course though a d that is why more needs to be Done to change the horrible suspicions that men are under by some when they work in childcare Sticking up for dead paedos helps your cause so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 There are some very vindictive folk out there . I don't know if the allegations are true are not . Thus woman Karin seems a but odd . Reading the mirror story above if she was rebuffed how come she went with savile on two other occassions . If she is such an innocent why go with him again and what was she doing in an approved school . This particular case smacks of the false allegations made against dave jones . I will not comment on the other cases as I have not seen the programme or read their stories . They should have raised their concerns when he was alive "raised their concerns"..... Have you ever been raped or molested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 I'm not sure why you found the bit about Gary Glitter most troubling. That could quite easily be a stubborn over 80 year old man who has spoken to an old friend who was guilty of these chances (Glitter) who told him that there was a media conspiracy against him and refuses to accept the guilt of his mate. I think quite a few of the accounts can be dismissed as they didn't know the age of the individuals involved and were speculating. Some admittedly were troubling (especially the dressing room bits at the BBC) but I still find it extraordinary that no one came forward whilst he was alive and the interviewer annoyed me immensely asking leading questions and pressuring interviewees till he got the answers he wanted. He was working on the assumption that he was guilty and then doing everything he could to get that answer which isn't the correct way to do a documentary of this nature IMO regardless of Saville's guilt. Seriously what places do you work at??? (so glad my nipper is with a private childminder having read this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Seriously what places do you work at??? (so glad my nipper is with a private childminder having read this) Stop fishing. I haven't got personal with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Stop fishing. I haven't got personal with you. Seriously though, Savilles own words imply he doesnt think anything is wrong with looking at kiddie porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Seriously though, Savilles own words imply he doesnt think anything is wrong with looking at kiddie porn. There clearly is something wrong with that, it's abhorrent but even so there is a difference between that and engaging in those acts. Now if you want to discuss it sensibly with me then that is one thing, but implying that I am potentially a danger to children is low and a pretty disgusting thing to say even in jest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Janet Street Porter was on Question Time just now saying that she "knew what was going on in BBC dressing rooms in the 70s and 80s, as did many others" but that they never raised it with the relevant management or authorities as they knew they wouldn't be taken seriously. I can see this one growing exponentially over the coming days/weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Janet Street Porter was on Question Time just now saying that she "knew what was going on in BBC dressing rooms in the 70s and 80s, as did many others" but that they never raised it with the relevant management or authorities as they knew they wouldn't be taken seriously. I can see this one growing exponentially over the coming days/weeks. That's utterly pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 That's utterly pathetic. If you listened to everything that she said about it you might think differently. When she was a young girl, and was abused herself, she got a whack from her mother when she told her what had happened. I reckon something like that would stay with you for a long time. So it's not really 'utterly pathetic' is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 If you listened to everything that she said about it you might think differently. When she was a young girl, and was abused herself, she got a whack from her mother when she told her what had happened. I reckon something like that would stay with you for a long time. So it's not really 'utterly pathetic' is it. Absolutely. This point also extends to the victims who didn't speak out at the time. How anyone can try to defend this bloke is beyond me. It's true that he can't defend himself, but there's no reason why anyone should want to do it for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Janet Street Porter was on Question Time just now saying that she "knew what was going on in BBC dressing rooms in the 70s and 80s, as did many others" but that they never raised it with the relevant management or authorities as they knew they wouldn't be taken seriously. I can see this one growing exponentially over the coming days/weeks. I'm not quite sure whether hypo has taken offence at Janet Street Porter or has somehow confused trousers' sign-off with a bit of a bad joke. Anyway, trousers is quite correct:- http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-jimmy-savile-child-sex-1361230?google_editors_picks=true 40 people have since come forward, including two cases reported to Hampshire Police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 That's utterly pathetic. What sensible input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 I'm not quite sure whether hypo has taken offence at Janet Street Porter or has somehow confused trousers' sign-off with a bit of a bad joke. Anyway, trousers is quite correct:- http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-jimmy-savile-child-sex-1361230?google_editors_picks=true 40 people have since come forward, including two cases reported to Hampshire Police. It's pathetic that so many supposedly knew it was going on yet did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 It's pathetic that so many supposedly knew it was going on yet did nothing. Probably just trying to sweep it under the carpet because of his charity work.....bit like some on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Audio recording from a 1975 show, "Saviles' Travels", that has surfaced, in which a young girl can clearly be heard imploring him to "Get off my backside". Always thought he was a complete creep. At least he can be found guilty without the ordeal of victims being cross examined by his high paid lawyers. Explains why he had vile in his name... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 It's pathetic that so many supposedly knew it was going on yet did nothing. It's actually worse than that. There is no way that Savile could have gotten away with the stuff at the Duncroft school without some form of complicity from some of the staff there. The account of the woman who was put in an isolation unit suggests it could have been covered up from the very top in that school. Those girls had literally no protection. Fish in a barrel. The fact that he visited the Jersey kids home linked to all the child abuse is a bit worrying. He initially denied ever going, and had to climb down from that claim eventually. It might be a 2+2=5 assumption, but again, it's odd that he went there. Conceptually, Savile's charity work isn't much different from the likes of paedophiles who nestle within the Catholic church. Put yourself in a position of trust with access to children. The charity work arguably puts Savile in a more powerful position, as organisations will often have relied on his funding and been compromised in their responsibilities. Doesn't suit anyone in that position to believe that Savile was into underage girls, or indeed, was forcing himself upon them. The other things you've got to consider are the cultural differences between the times and Savile's power to keep a lid on things. I don't think we can be too harsh on people because the allegations never made it all the way to a criminal case. Some tried, but there was never the groundswell of witnesses or evidence around to make it happen. A girl can make as many complaints as she likes, but if you've got people in positions of authority at Duncroft saying she's lying, or putting her in an isolation unit until she changes her story, it's not surprising that nothing ever got off the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 I'm not quite sure whether hypo has taken offence at Janet Street Porter or has somehow confused trousers' sign-off with a bit of a bad joke. The 'joke' was unintentional but reading it back I can see how people might think otherwise. Apologies for the bad choice of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Audio recording from a 1975 show, "Saviles' Travels", that has surfaced, in which a young girl can clearly be heard imploring him to "Get off my backside". Always thought he was a complete creep. At least he can be found guilty without the ordeal of victims being cross examined by his high paid lawyers. Explains why he had vile in his name... If nothing else, that is really quite creepy, even if entirely innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 That's utterly pathetic. Then you're either too young to remember or have forgotten where women stood in society in the 1970s. There was a lot of accepted gender inequality even as recently as then. It was only in the '70s it was made a legal requirement for women to paid the same as men, universities could legally ban women from enrolling just because they were women, the sex discrimination act didn't even exist until 1975 and women couldn't even raise a court order against violent male partners until 1976. Most establishments were completely dominated by males and and if such an allegation was raised against a male star like Savile, not only wouldn't the women be taken seriously, I wouldn't mind betting they risked losing their job as well. When it came to gender equality the 70s and 80s were a completely different world to now. Ask Ann Widdecombe what obstacles she had to overcome when getting into local politics in the '70s and you'll understand why she felt so sick when a lot of the 'Blair babes' got fast-tracked 20 years later. Anyway the Savile rumours have been around for a very long time, and right now it isn't just 1 or 2 people coming forward to earn a quick buck. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now