Seriously?
Ok in that case I really can’t see how going after teenagers WHO WERE STIL IN SCHOOL FOR GODS SAKE could possibly have been ok.
But still it seems to have been.
BUT THEY WERE STILL CANING SCHOOL PUPILS THEN, RIGHT?
aggghghghgh this is genuinely alien thinking. Honestlyt sounds like a different country.
More naivete from the BBC, but quite amusing: a radio presenter unwittingly read out a crude joke about Savile in a text:
Milk a cow blind-folded indeed…
I’m no fan, but Chris Evans was 34 when he married her, not fifty-something.
And to be fair, he was incredibly rich. Dunno what she saw in him 
The “naughty, sexy schoolgirl” is, and was, a meme. Young, rebellious and up for it, to the eyes of some.
Took me a second 
/aside. As I said to someone at a faculty lecture the other day, having been a school pupil in those days I can honestly say that there was far worse to worry about than the smallish possibility of getting the cane - I received less than one corporal punishment per year and it was always less severe than the cane.
Reading literature from the time when it was more common, such as Stalky & Co and The Moon’s a Balloon, caning was a thing to be avoided if possible but not an OMFGCHILDABUSE!!one! issue - in the latter book, the author received twelve strokes of the cane for cheating in his School Certificate examination (knowing he had already failed, and wanting to get away from his now-useless last paper early to go and meet a prostitute) and, while by no means laughing it off, considered it a welcome alternative to expulsion and disqualification from the exam programme.
Of course, we’re now more humane and kids these days think nothing of asking a teaching assistant they don’t like if they’re into granny porn and like shit all over the end of their dick.
Now then, now then! How’s about we lay off the Jimmy Sa-vile impersonations? This isn’t a tribute thread.
I agree that morals/rules/standards were less strict in regards to sex in the 1970’s, and if this were a story about a guy who merely hit on and goosed women back in the day, it would be dead by now. In regards to children/hospital patients/the dead, however, those sexual taboos have always been around (in varying degrees of force, yes - here in the US we had the Baby Burlesks films back in the '30s, one featuring a 4yo Shirley Temple running around in bra and panties.
[/quote]
) So I agree that blaming the era doesn’t really feel right as what he is accused of doing was probably taboo among cavemen.
Like I said, it’s the “waiting for over 30 years until the man is dead then mass confessional” aspect of this case that interests/confuses me about this.
Yeah, we Yanks had this (pedo mania) in the '80s - looks like it’s your turn.
Laura’s (and mine) question about the “culture of willful ignorance” was brought about by a chapter re: pedophilia in the public school system (schools like Eton, etc) in a book she read a couple of years ago, 'The Anglo Files. (In case you’re wondering where this idea of “willful ignorance” came from.)
This right here.
In the US, people say all the time how McDonald’s serves crap food, unhealthy stuff, how you’re poisoning your kids if you feed them that garbage, etc. One guy made a somewhat controversial documentary about what happened if he ate there every day for a month and accepted every super-size suggestion. If McDonald’s even bothers to acknowledge these things, they just tout their healthy alternatives, say it’s part of a well-balanced overall nutritional plan for your kids, minimize the claims, etc.
In England back in 1986, an extremely tiny environmental group put out a pamphlet criticizing McDonald’s environmental damage, working with questionable governments, animal treatment, and unhealthy food. McDonald’s response to a few people handing out this pamphlet in London? Send spies to infiltrate the group, steal documents, break into offices, and sue the leaders of the group for libel.
In the UK, the defendant has to prove that every statement they made was literally true, so these not-well-off individuals had to fend for themselves (with a little pro bono help, but not much) in their defense, and McDonald’s outspent them by huge amounts - several million vs 30,000 pounds. It went through multiple courts over the span of almost 20 years, and finally the European Court of Human Rights declared that originally the defendants were not given a fair trial and should have been given access to Legal Aid, and that the government should pay them 57,000 pounds. McDonald’s was mostly fine, though lots of info about their environmental/worker treatment/animal treatment/nutritional practices got out there which wasn’t good PR for them.
Now given that kind of atmosphere where you are worried that someone with tons of money and popularity will accuse you of libel and force you to prove what you say - I am not at all surprised that these women who’d been molested as little girls wouldn’t say a word. How many could prove years later that some media celebrity did terrible things to them?
) So I agree that blaming the era doesn’t really feel right as what he is accused of doing was probably taboo among cavemen.
Like I said, it’s the “waiting for over 30 years until the man is dead then mass confessional” aspect of this case that interests/confuses me about this.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. He selected girls who were well into puberty, not pre-pubescents; I doubt that was a taboo in caveman times - it’s not even a taboo everywhere now.
Most of the accusations are about girls only a couple of years under the age of consent (16). Back when I was 13-16, twenty years ago, it was definitely considered normal for grown men to fancy those teenagers. Hell, even having sex with them wasn’t seen as that odd, at least not by everyone, as it seems to be now.
Having sex with helpless hospital patients and the dead is obviously different, but bear in mind that the dead couldn’t complain and the patients would have been even less likely to be believed. Some of the other girls he targeted were the kind who were less likely to be believed, too, like the remand school girl he boasts about in his autobiography.
I think you’re underestimating just how difficult it is for a teenage girl to admit she’s been raped or sexually abused. This is not a complete stranger dragging a straight-A student into the bushes as she walks home from church - the girls he picked would not have been believed and they would have suffered (possibly a lot) from trying to report the crime.
Oh, trust me, we’ve had paedomania for a long, long time here too.
No ‘Trapper’ got his nickname because he was having sex in a public place and the girl blurted out to the surprise witness, ‘he trapped me’. There was no suggestion it was rape, just a limp excuse from an embarrassed girl.
Can someone explain to the thick American?
Imagine you are a child who wants to milk a cow. Now imagine Jimmy saying, sure you can milk a cow, but you have to do it blind-folded. Now, further imagine that you are now blind-folded and performing a vigorous “milking” action on what you are assured is a cow’s firm, warm udder. In a room. With Jimmy Savile.
Would you like cream with that?
The trauma associated with trying to press charges is huge and can go on for years. Say a girl makes an allegation at 12, it can be years in her young life before the case is heard.
Colophon: I figured, but wanted to make sure there wasn’t a pun I was missing. Anyway, ugh.
Including notable highlights such as angry mobs attacking Paediatricians.
To be fair, the back of the book says “raped a beauty queen”, but the book text and other references to it later in canon all make it clear she was a willing participant and only yelled “He trapped me!” to cover her blushes. Not that I am saying that women ever lie about rape.
Another Savile groaner, courtesy of this week’s Popbitch:
Is there a particular reason “dun it” is in quotes in the thread title?
Betfair have got Ken Clarke at odds of 6/4 and you can get 2/1 for Leon Brittan. Most punters seem to be throwing a few quid on Peter Mandelson at 100/1, more out of hope than anything.