“Paedophille” just looks silly.
Q: Where do child molesters buy their suits?
A: Savile Row.
I am inclined to say yes he dun it,.
To those who think “but why didnt you accuse him when he was alive?” i give this,
An ex g/f of mine was abused by her step dad as a child, it took her 20 years to get the courage to come forward and make an official complaint, he got locked up last month.
None of us know the emotional turmoil those individuals have faced over the years. He was a very influential TV star. Maybe him dying was all they needed to finally break down whatever emotional barrier was holding them back from speaking.
I do not know if any of the allegations have, any basis in reality but I do know about the way some types of individuals work.
Apparently he was a frequenter of some sort of childrens home during the 1970’s, for disruptive or delinquent individuals.
I have come across a number of such folk who have gone on to lead criminal lives. It is now a common practice for such individuals to raise complaints in the hope of getting compensation. I could even relate a number of specific individuals by name but obviously this would not be appropriate. Having overheard such conversations they run along the lines of the individual saying they were not molested in such homes, ‘…but you’ve got to give it a try haven’t you?’
When the program about Mr Savile is broadcast, you should bear in mind just who is saying what and their motivations, if its someone from such a home, give that testimony a pinch of salt. These folk have no floor to their morality and will go to any level to get something for nothing.
I find its pretty odd that much more of these allegations have not been made previously, we have seen other big names get nailed for it and there seems to be no reason for anyone to hold back - given that on this message board we seem to have a number of folk who have 20/20 hindsight then there must be others much close to the events who can relate their stories
It all speaks to me of misrepresentation, or collusion - there isn’t much ground in between. It is interesting to see the beginnings of moral outrage from people who had plenty of opportunity to voice their concerns years ago - perhaps showbiz types are cowards when deciding between their careers and the welfare of children - it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
Oh dear - my apologies for spreading misinformation 
How fabulously sick 
I don’t know about “these folk” but I’ll certainly view your future posts with a pinch of salt. :rolleyes:
I really doubt the girl who was locked in an isolation unit for days after complaining about having been abused had £ signs in her eyes.
more to the point, casdave can ya answer my pm please 
I can back casdave on this one.
My thoughts exactly. :eek:
casdave your response seems oddly strong. I have dealt with many survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Often they will keep quiet. Sometimes for decades. Sometimes forever. Often it takes one to come forward about a serial abuser and they the flood gates open. I doubt there is a ton of money to be had. Certainly not worth the embarrassment. And its not just those who you think are of bad moral fiber that are talking. From the Imp’s link:
And FTR the type of child you describe it the perfect target for a serial predator.
I see on the news tonight that a woman has said she saw Saville and Gary Glitter abusing the same underaged girl in Savile’s dressing room at the BBC. Good God.
I think the biggest fall out from this is going to be the battering the BBC will get if that and even a small percentage of the other stories I’ve seen all over the internet about the BBC’s complicity in all of this turn out to be true. Complaints from girls and parents dismissed and non-celebrity staff being sacked for voicing concerns about what they’d seen him doing.
Casdave works in a prison; I had occasion to visit a number of establishments for wayward children while I was working for local government, and was similarly briefed so as to be particularly careful.
Still does not compute. People with bad backgrounds have bad things happen to them. In greater numbers than those brought up in nice homes. Girls are especially vulnerable.
And here’sa reportthat in 2009, following Glitter’s conviction for abusing girls in Thailand, Savile was defending him for having porn on his computer.
A review of my posts will show that I am becoming more convinced that Savile did have a case to answer but I’m going to try to address this as a devil’s advocate. Casdave, as habitual liars why believe they were telling the truth when they said they lied about being abused? No one likes to admit weakness and I believe it is even harder for men to admit they have been abused than women. So, in prison, rather than face such responses as “why did you let them do that to you, I would have performed some unspeakable piece of violence rather than have it happen to me” or, worse “So you like it like that do you?” they say “I’m only doing it for the money”.
As anecdotal support I had a friend who successfully claimed a modest sum for psychological trauma following a car crash in which she was a passenger. She gleefully recounted the claims she had made to the investigating psychiatrist about isuffering insomnia and nighttime agoraphobia since the accident. “Uh” I said to her gently, thinking about the changes I had seen in her “You know it’s all true?”
Quartz, you do realise that people covering up abuse would encourage people to believe that don’t you?
I don’t know (or care to know) enough about the current allegations to have a specific opinion (so I voted “Other”), but frankly I always did think there was something a bit creepy about him. I once saw him at Leeds General Infirmary (I believe he used to be there on a regular basis) trying to cheer up a child who was frightened of going for an operation (at least, I think that was what was going on). In fact, Savile’s antics were clearly making things worse, and the child was getting more and more hysterical. He did not stop or back off though. (Also, although this was back in the '70s, he looked absolutely ancient in person, much more so than he did on TV. I found the overall effect somehow quite disgusting.)
On the other hand, I think it is worth pointing out that even in his heyday in the '60s and '70s, Savile was an old man, and the standards of acceptable sexual behavior he grew up with (or even that I grew up with a generation later) were very different from the very puritanical attitudes, especially about age differences, that are prevalent today. If we are talking about non-coercive sex between a man (aging, but a glamorous celebrity to some, no doubt) and mid to late teenaged girls, then, although I don’t condone it, I am very uncomfortable with labeling it as “molestation”. I am pretty sure that many people of his generation (male or female) would have been amazed by the idea that there was anything wrong with it - or, at any rate, if they did think it was wrong it would simply be because it was sex out of wedlock, not because of the age gap per se.
But as I say, I have not followed the story, so perhaps we are talking about preteen girls here, or real coercion. I don’t put that past him.
I have to say I find this a bit implausible. It would suggest that after an episode of TOTP, Savile used to invite starts back to his dressing room for a bit of paedophilia, on the off chance they might be in to it too.
Yes, but I was advised by my colleagues, not the staff! For instance, I was never to be alone with them in case they made up something and made an allegation.
Standard advice to all male teachers these days (although female staff would be wise to follow it too). Never be in a situation where you are with a lone child where you cannot be observed by other members of staff in passing. Entirely for your own protection from malicious allegations.
Modern classrooms have lots of windows to protect the children AND the staff.
The Times found the following in Savile’s 1974 autobiography:
As he says, these are Savile’s own words. It’s doesn’t read like irony, or satire, or some sort of persona. It reads like a confession to a sex crime.
Springtime for spacers
I suggest you use some very plain speaking here, what you appear to me to be implying is something that I would be quite prepared to take further, rather further than you may wish - I shall leave this to you for clarification, but your response needs to be very clear and unambiguous.I hope I am reading this quote wrongly - I shall leave that up to you.
I can see there is a ‘paedo’ panic here, over reaction and out of proportion outrage, despite the fact that none of us here at the moment have a shred of evidence. I bet some folk believe I might be trying to defend Jimmy Saville, when I am doing nothing of the sort.
I am pointing out that some individuals have other motivations for making false allegations, and that I have come across such people. Such allegations are going to be much more effective when put in the mainstream media -‘Trial by television’.
No matter how convincing someone appears on tv, and no matter how wonderful and well meaning they seem - such as Esther Rantzen, this is not evidence, it is hearsay.
You will see the show, and make up your mind, but where were these accusers decades ago?, How come they have all become so brave all of a sudden?Let’s see if they try to make claims against the Saville estate or the organisations that he was involved with.
Don’t give me all that crap about the British press being intimidated by Saville - what a crock, look at how the press have been involved in corruption, hacking burglary and character assassination over the last 30 years - then tell me if they would have really and truly backed off just because Jimmy Saville tried some form of intimidation - that I do not believe, our press have had little or no restraint in printing libel, and have never had any fear of any public figure in relation to outing their private lives.
A good scandal about Jimmy Saville is pretty much their stock in trade, the idea they would have covered it all up or backed away seems quite remarkable to me.
A T.V show may well present matters that need further scrutiny, I have no idea about Saville, he certainly seems to have been eccentric, there will no doubt be some earnest words, isn’t it a shame his accusers waited until he was dead?Rather convenient I think.
If other showbiz folk have compelling evidence, I will be pretty pissed with them for not revealing it sooner and putting an end to abuse - no doubt such folk were more interested in protecting their careers than protecting children
Its also standard advice to almost anyone involved in any sort of casework or counselling, right down to sports team coaches, and that also include being alone with adults as well as children.
Fuck me.
I can only assume that sexual abuse was fine back in the day.
If your theory is that these may be false accusations motivated by a desire for compensation, it’s pretty inconvenient to wait till he’s dead.