Jimmy Saville exposed

EdanHewittt

Cue jokes about him on Mock the Week and other 'panel' based shows.

And all the ones about Michael Jackson will just be recycled again, with Saville's name in there instead...

Q: What's sex like for Jimmy Saville?
A: Child's Play.

midlandsmissus

Its sad that not one of those girls thought they would be believed.

Power for women. Things have got to change.

Rigol

iamstop wrote: »

GTFO, not now but RIGHT now! Idiot.

Are you related to him?

stabeek

I love the "Why did those allegedly abused only come forward after he died?" question. Mainly because it sound great! It's like a quip,

"Why now?" Bear in mind, it's always possible to take even a random event and suddenly ask "yes, but why now?" and you'll have everybody fidgetting.

The anatomy of this question, is that every event has a cause, and that cause also calculates the time at which it will out itself. These people are coming out about the abuse *after* his death.

Well I can give an answer: these people calculated and chose after his death as the most opportune time to maximise the benefits they now hope to reap: book deals, newspaper exclusives, maybe a film or two. At what cost, I hear you say? Well the the exposure of being abused isn't exactly career-enhancing (last time I looked anyway). And of course, if the alleged accusation turn out to be true there's the very obvious cost "back then when".

Let's be *less proficient* and say he's still alive. I think the *benefits* are pretty much the same actually, except that the costs are different. Savile, in his chosen realms of DJ, broadcaster and major-charity donor, was a towering figure. I would venture that - in fact - the costs of "coming forward" *before* his death would have been much higher.

In summary, coming out after his death is an exercise in cost reduction, not benefit maximisation.

I've tried to treat this argument objectively. I've studied it over and over with an open mind ... I've lived and slept with it and know what people who adhere to it are going through right now, and in my conclusion I must side with Madam_X and say that

The "Why did those allegedly abused only come forward after he died?" argument is a steaming pile of (purposely) counteractive infected badger manure.

billybudd

Sappa wrote: »

The media have no shame,why make these allegations as that's all they are when the man can't defend himself.
Why now do these supposed victims come out of the woodwork,they claim it's to
Get closure but surely closure can only be had when the person is alive and justice can be done if a crime ever existed.
They are looking for a pay off and it's disgraceful that the media are attacking a man that can no longer defend himself,cowards and now his name is ruined to be ridiculed but no mention of the thousands of lives he saved through his charity work etc.
It's a witch hunt to fill newspapers.

Do some research for gods sake, most abuse victims only feel safe after the abuser has died, it shows the level of fear they held onto while this creature was alive and by many accounts still active.

Read some passages from his autobiography to see if it is a witch hunt.

arse..biscuits

stabeek wrote: »

I love the "Why did those allegedly abused only come forward after he died?" question. Mainly because it sound great! It's like a quip,

"Why now?" Bear in mind, it's always possible to take even a random event and suddenly ask "yes, but why now?" and you'll have everybody fidgetting.

The anatomy of this question, is that every event has a cause, and that cause also calculates the time at which it will out itself. These people are coming out about the abuse *after* his death.

Well I can give an answer: these people calculated and chose after his death as the most opportune time to maximise the benefits they now hope to reap: book deals, newspaper exclusives, maybe a film or two. At what cost, I hear you say? Well the the exposure of being abused isn't exactly career-enhancing (last time I looked anyway). And of course, if the alleged accusation turn out to be true there's the very obvious cost "back then when".

Let's be *less proficient* and say he's still alive. I think the *benefits* are pretty much the same actually, except that the costs are different. Savile, in his chosen realms of DJ, broadcaster and major-charity donor, was a towering figure. I would venture that - in fact - the costs of "coming forward" *before* his death would have been much higher.

In summary, coming out after his death is an exercise in cost reduction, not benefit maximisation.

I've tried to treat this argument objectively. I've studied it over and over with an open mind ... I've lived and slept with it and know what people who adhere to it are going through right now, and in my conclusion I must side with Madam_X and say that

The "Why did those allegedly abused only come forward after he died?" argument is a steaming pile of (purposely) counteractive infected badger manure.

What in the name of god are you on about? Cost reduction? I need a beer

fryup

Did any of you ever write to Jim'll fix it ???

i did...........

Dear Jim,

I'm a young musican with a keen interest in the violin,

so could you please fix it for me to meet a fiddler

yours Bobby age 10.

thank christ! he didn't read that one:o

Madam_X

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Its sad that not one of those girls thought they would be believed.

Power for women. Things have got to change.

In fairness, boys would find it difficult to be believed too.

Johnny D. Mudd

Those who ask "Why now?" in relation to the upsurge in allegations need to understand the true mindset of an abuse victim. The fear and the shame play a prominent role in diluting such a persons search for justice. Many may even feel reluctant to talk about it. They feel trapped and silenced by the abusers mere existence, as a constant reminder of what they went through. But you know what they say about these cases. When one person comes forward, usually with great courage and conviction, another no longer feels alone in their accusations and there is more strength in unity. Slowly but surely, others feel confident enough, backed by the strength in numbers, to come forward until eventually the floodgates open and the truth is revealed in all its grisly glory. That is how these things seem to play out and it took one woman to tell all for the rest to start talking.

Besides, Jimmy Saville was always notoriously litigious. This man could afford to bring others to court but unfortunately his victims couldn't. When you take someone to court, it's an expensive process you better be damn well sure that you have a solid case otherwise it's a waste of time. And let's face it, JS was a widely respected presenter back then and his reputation would have been enhanced by his charity work. No-one would have liked to believe that such a man would be capable of such a disgusting crime. Having a teenage girl put her word against his, it would have been almost impossible for her to be believed, especially considering word that some at the BBC knew what was going on but didn't do anything to stop. It's only after his death that his scepter is gone for these women and they don't feel as afraid to come forward. But that's just my view, what do I know?

syklops

stabeek wrote: »

The "Why did those allegedly abused only come forward after he died?" argument is a steaming pile of (purposely) counteractive infected badger manure.

It seems strange after such a well thought out post to then contradict yourself. Few, if any on this thread is defending his actions. Many are looking for truth and clarity in everything and asking why now? You seem to be confusing the "Why not" 'argument' with some kind of defence for Sir Jimmy's alleged actions. It is a valid question.

youreadthis

Johnny D. Mudd wrote: »

Those who ask "Why now?" in relation to the upsurge in allegations need to understand the true mindset of an abuse victim. The fear and the shame play a prominent role in diluting such a persons search for justice. Many may even feel reluctant to talk about it. They feel trapped and silenced by the abusers mere existence, as a constant reminder of what they went through. But you know what they say about these cases. When one person comes forward, usually with great courage and conviction, another no longer feels alone in their accusations and there is more strength in unity. Slowly but surely, others feel confident enough, backed by the strength in numbers, to come forward until eventually the floodgates open and the truth is revealed in all its grisly glory. That is how these things seem to play out and it took one woman to tell all for the rest to start talking.

Besides, Jimmy Saville was always notoriously litigious. This man could afford to bring others to court but unfortunately his victims couldn't. When you take someone to court, it's an expensive process you better be damn well sure that you have a solid case otherwise it's a waste of time. And let's face it, JS was a widely respected presenter back then and his reputation would have been enhanced by his charity work. No-one would have liked to believe that such a man would be capable of such a disgusting crime. Having a teenage girl put her word against his, it would have been almost impossible for her to be believed, especially considering word that some at the BBC knew what was going on but didn't do anything to stop. It's only after his death that his scepter is gone for these women and they don't feel as afraid to come forward. But that's just my view, what do I know?

Come off it, there are 30 potential "victims" so all of them just happen to be the same type of person who says nothing? Even the ones that were willingly sucking him off for trips out and sweets?

fryup

dvcireland wrote: »

"now then, now then"

I wonder if there will be much demand for these, this Halloween

http://www.fancydresscostumeshop.ie/mens_fancy_dress_costumes_jimmy_saville_fancy-dress-costumes?cPath=1450_1489

one way to keep the kids away

Piece of Bread.

This is really not a surprise.

Madam_X

youreadthis wrote: »

Even the ones that were willingly sucking him off for trips out and sweets?

Nice.

Shryke

Madam_X wrote: »

youreadthis wrote: »

Even the ones that were willingly sucking him off for trips out and sweets?

Nice.

I thought of all sorts of words myself. Why is this person alive? Sadface, as the kids say. The kids that willingly suck off pedophiles for sweets apparently. Just ****ing lovely.

Corkfeen

youreadthis wrote: »

Come off it, there are 30 potential "victims" so all of them just happen to be the same type of person who says nothing? Even the ones that were willingly sucking him off for trips out and sweets?

There had been allegations made against him prior to his death. Also many of the people that were his victims appear to have fairly troubled backgrounds as it was so they wouldn't take their word seriously as it was..... This leap to the defence of Jimmy attitude is weird, I could understand it if there was an allegation or two but there's witness accounts who saw him abusing for christ sake. Plus you know, those thirty victims.

The_Kew_Tour

There is too many involved in this for it to be some sort of witch hunt against Saville.

Johnny D. Mudd

youreadthis wrote: »

Come off it, there are 30 potential "victims" so all of them just happen to be the same type of person who says nothing? Even the ones that were willingly sucking him off for trips out and sweets?

Well that's just lovely. It's possible that there are one or two who may be lying but come on, there can't be this many accusations without there being something behind it. But I don't know why I would entertain the opinion of someone who clearly has no empathy or moral conscience. Frankly your whole attitude greatly disturbs me.

Johnny D. Mudd

Johnny D. Mudd wrote: »

Well that's just lovely. It's possible that there are one or two who may be lying but come on, there can't be this many accusations without there being something behind it. But I don't know why I would entertain the opinion of someone who clearly has no empathy or moral conscience. Frankly your whole attitude greatly disturbs me.

Shryke wrote: »

I thought of all sorts of words myself. Why is this person alive? Sadface, as the kids say. The kids that willingly suck off pedophiles for sweets apparently. Just ****ing lovely.

I have to say that the choice of phrasing by youreadthis was, erm, uncharitable to say the least. :eek:

But there is a serious point to be made about this. What about the kids who were quite happy to get close to someone famous? In some cases hopelessly innocent and naive about what that might involve - and in some cases perhaps not so naive.

Apart from all the stuff about Saville, stories abound about young girls and stars of the music industry - and some of them are quite nasty. But they weren't told as stories of sexual perverts preying on children; they were told as tales of rock 'n' roll excess that 'went down' (so to speak) somewhere in the hedonistic shadowlands where cocaine got snorted through $100 bills and expensive cars were driven into swimming pools.

Whether people like it or not - or even admit to it or not - we've only recently discovered how to be really offended at this stuff, so now we fulminate to the point of incandescent rage while retrofitting the moral standards of 2012 to events that happened in the 60s and 70s.

And now what? The Met are investigating the alleged crimes of a dead man?!? Seriously, WTF are they doing THAT for?!?

Madam_X

Savile was a children's entertainer though, not a rock n' roll sex god. I'm not saying what Paige, Jagger et all did was right of course, but I don't think it's a comparison of like with like.

Madam_X

Madam_X wrote: »

Savile was a children's entertainer though, not a rock n' roll sex god. I'm not saying what Paige, Jagger et all did was right of course, but I don't think it's a comparison of like with like.

He became a children's entertainer, but didn't start out as one. He started out as a DJ with Radio Luxembourg in the late 1950s, and went on to present radio shows on BBC Radio One and TV shows on BBC and ITV. He was well-known in the 1960s for presenting Top Of The Pops. He was in the industry for more than 15 years before he branched into children's entertainment. It is a racing certainty that his social circle, like most radio/TV celebs of his day, would have been made up of other celebrities, including musicians. So in fairness it is a comparison of like with like.

K-9

youreadthis wrote: »

Even the ones that were willingly sucking him off for trips out and sweets?

Go away.

Giselle

Madam_X wrote: »

In fairness, boys would find it difficult to be believed too.

Its certainly the case nowadays, and probably even more so in those times Madam X. Sadly.

The man was a predator in a tank of similar sharks, and victim blaming was even more prevalent/accepted in those times. I'm not one bit surprised that victims didn't come forward, it must have been so easy to convince them no one would believe them, no one would care.

I wonder who else of that era, who took full advantage of the climate to abuse kids is currently crapping their pants after thinking they got away with it all these years.

Hootanany

Who was the third perv in the BBC room PM's please.

Oranage2

Hootanany wrote: »

Who was the third perv in the BBC room PM's please.

Rumour is Freddy Star.

As for Saville no doubt he was a nonce, his body should be dug up, dragged through the mud and but on trial!!!!

Melion

Wasn't there rumours about him and The Duchess aswell?

getz

jimmy ,i will bonk anything saville,the salford nonce,as well as his connection to the jersey haut de la orphanage,he said he was never there but there are photos of him with the children outside the building,also accusations of necrophilia when working in the mortuary as a porter in stoke mandeville hospital, there was a time when he and his friend DJ ugli ray terret,[who got himself convicted and did 6 months for raping a 15 year old girl in 1999] ran a disco, jimmy used to bang 13-14 year old girls [two at a time] in the back of his maroon jag at night in broughtons clowes park,

anto9

Melion wrote: »

Wasn't there rumours about him and The Duchess aswell?

Dont know about his mother but there were rumours about him ****ing dead bodyies .That probably started because of him spending 5 days alone with his mums corpse .Yes ,he was weird at the very least .

Fuinseog

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Its sad that not one of those girls thought they would be believed.

Power for women. Things have got to change.

ester rantzen the great supporter of childline stood idlly by. she a great crusader against what was wrong in Britain but drew the line at Sir Jimmy.maybe she should be asked why she did not speak out?

gbee

In truth, I never liked him and never watched anything he hosted, charity fundraiser or not.