Did Jimmy Saville have any friends?

amdublin

The (alleged) molestations (and alleged rapes) aside, he seems like a very unlikeable wierdo from this program on tv3 now.

What was the appeal with him back then?? I don't remember him on tv - what was he like on his programs??

CarMe

Did you see that other man being interviewed about seeing him in a restaurant with a twelve year old girl, and then he rang him the next morning from his hotel room and put him onto this chap. What sort of cowardly world were they living in that it's just common knowledge he "liked young girls" as that man said and don't report it. Id say anyone who was close to him wants to stay well out of the lime light now. Ugh my blood is boiling watching this!

darkdubh

Did he have any friends?Yes,the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe ,Garry Glitter.You get the picture.

lukesmom

amdublin wrote: »

The (alleged) molestations (and alleged rapes) aside, he seems like a very unlikeable wierdo from this program on tv3 now.

What was the appeal with him back then?? I don't remember him on tv - what was he like on his programs??

Now then, now then on Top Of The Pops he was seen as being pretty cool. He was a dj first and foremost so was part of that scene.

From what I remember from 'Jim'l fix it' he was a cigar smoking, hairy chested, oversized gold medallion wearing, shell suited eccentric.

But people loved him. He made kids wishes come true. You wrote into him asking him for a wish and he sorted it out. From watching it as a very young girl I wanted to go on the show to meet Bros although I remember being scared of him at the same time.

Thank God he NEVER fixed it for me!

ChopShop

Although I was far too young too understand why, as a kid I thought he was a weird, creepy old man, and I wondered why BBC kept renewing Jim'll Fix It.

getz

as i was a young merchant seaman sailing out of salford dock [manchester] in the early 60s jimmy would often come down for a booze up with the lads,in those days salford was a great place to drink,[nicknamed the barbary coast,] often he would turn up with two well known singers of that time,frank ifield and lonny donigan,jimmy himself then was assistant manager of a dance hall in manchester,he was a good laugh and always would pay his way,remember as merchant men we would be loaded with cash to blow before we said off again,local girls would always hang around us,but we never did see jimmy cop-off with any of them ,we just took it for granted he had access to a better class of bird and would not bring them down to slum it,

Richard Dower

wernstrom! wrote: »

Although I was far too young too understand why, as a kid I thought he was a weird, creepy old man, and I wondered why BBC kept renewing Jim'll Fix It.

That was my feeling on him also...pawing and groaping kids that sat on his lap.....:(

Da Shins Kelly

What a creep.

Father Damo

I am in my shall we say mid to late 20s and I honestly cannot recall anything of the guy before the Louis Theroux documentary. I find it pretty unbelieveable that, even aside from the rumours, a guy who was clearly a horrible oul kunt in general got into such a high profile likeable role. How a guy with his personality got into these positions of trust, and how with all the child abuse scandals that have become public in the last two decades none of these victims raised a word, I dont get any of it.

havetoquit

We can only assume that because he so carefully and deviously created and meticulously planned his public persona by giving enormous sums of money to charities, hospitals etc and to also be seen working voluntarily in these places, doing marathons etc etc over the years, he made it all seems so credible.

Whenever he was in the public eye, he was always seen to be doing good, helping others.

He made and retained contacts in the highest places right across society.

Many victims did complain and were brushed off and deemed to be trouble makers, attention seekers or plain crazy. There were others who may well have been payed off, threatened with violence etc. Some of the victims say that given Savile's popularity as a jolly, if somewhat eccentric charitable guy, they doubted that they would never have been believed.

Nothing of course excuses those in the BBC and hospitals such as Broadmoor and others who so foolishly gave him the kind of freedom on their premises that beggars belief. He obviously bribed them with huge sums of money as well as being so convincing of his sincerity and good intentions.

If it transpires that anyone in a position of responsibility knew or were warned of his misdeeds and did not act, they should be named, shamed and dealth with by the law.

We, in this country are more than familiar now with how fear, shame, guilt, threats etc can keep a vulnerable person, particularly a child from exposing such horrid deeds. In Savile's case we need to remember that some of those victims were seemingly disabled either mentally or physically. How can these poor unfortunate people be expected to fight back or report such things?

If Savile could get away with using a double personality and perpetrating such vile deeds upon the innocent, how many more like him are and always have been roaming among us, within families even, who are trusted, respected,looked up to and so on?

How many other unfortunates were threatened by so-called pillars of society; priests, doctors, family members and others they looked up to, to keep their secret or else?

I think that the true facts were they known would shock and horrify us.

getz

havetoquit wrote: »

We can only assume that because he so carefully and deviously created and meticulously planned his public persona by giving enormous sums of money to charities, hospitals etc and to also be seen working voluntarily in these places, doing marathons etc etc over the years, he made it all seems so credible.

Whenever he was in the public eye, he was always seen to be doing good, helping others.

He made and retained contacts in the highest places right across society.

Many victims did complain and were brushed off and deemed to be trouble makers, attention seekers or plain crazy. There were others who may well have been payed off, threatened with violence etc. Some of the victims say that given Savile's popularity as a jolly, if somewhat eccentric charitable guy, they doubted that they would never have been believed.

Nothing of course excuses those in the BBC and hospitals such as Broadmoor and others who so foolishly gave him the kind of freedom on their premises that beggars belief. He obviously bribed them with huge sums of money as well as being so convincing of his sincerity and good intentions.

If it transpires that anyone in a position of responsibility knew or were warned of his misdeeds and did not act, they should be named, shamed and dealth with by the law.

We, in this country are more than familiar now with how fear, shame, guilt, threats etc can keep a vulnerable person, particularly a child from exposing such horrid deeds. In Savile's case we need to remember that some of those victims were seemingly disabled either mentally or physically. How can these poor unfortunate people be expected to fight back or report such things?

If Savile could get away with using a double personality and perpetrating such vile deeds upon the innocent, how many more like him are and always have been roaming among us, within families even, who are trusted, respected,looked up to and so on?

How many other unfortunates were threatened by so-called pillars of society; priests, doctors, family members and others they looked up to, to keep their secret or else?

I think that the true facts were they known would shock and horrify us.

in many cases the abuses were known,but who was going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg

golden lane

i was not in my home all the time......but i can assure you that he was never on the telly when i was there......

i couldn't stand the man.....but, millions seemed to think he was the bees knees....

hindsight is a wonderfull thing.......but i always though that there was something creepy about the man....

spurious

getz wrote: »

in many cases the abuses were known,but who was going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg

He also selected targets who were seen as not reliable witnesses. Girls with a history of being in trouble, mental disabilities etc.. Who's going to believe them if they accuse the nice man who raises all the money for charity?
Really disgusting.

golden lane

there are many jimmy saville types out there......and like the 'nice priests and brothers in ireland'........they all know how to play the system......

havetoquit

golden lane wrote: »

there are many jimmy saville types out there......and like the 'nice priests and brothers in ireland'........they all know how to play the system......

You could not have put it better and those who came forward in latter years have given us the answers precisely as to why they did not complain at the time.

There is one woman in particular who says she waited until her mother died before coming forward, as it was this very mother who on hearing her young daughter's frightening revelations, who gave her a slap and told her to ask forgiveness for having said such bad things about the holy priest!!!

How often must that have happened and yes, such types are known to be the most crafty and devious and know exactly how to proceed to build up a persona of respectability, likeability, etc etc, making it even harder for victims to be believed.

Worse still, there are some among us even having heard, seen and read the details of the various reports of abuse here, who are still in denial or simply will not accept that it took place. How indoctrinated and sick these people are and how could any victim even hope to receive any form of sympathy or understanding from such people?

They go through the motions of attending their churches and listening blindly without question to the man on the altar, not even knowing if he is sincere, doing the Lord's work or the Devil's work. I have to sometimes ask if they even care. Then when their 'holy' man is found guilty and has admitted to wrong doing, they still make no comment. What does that mean? Is that what passes for Christianity? Are they not horrified, angry, shocked, sad and thoroughly disgusted like the rest of us? I cannot understand it, but then that is my problem. I can only see that some clergymen use the cloak of their so called vocation to hide behind it's respectable veneer for their own evil purposes.

I am not by any means making assumptions that all clergy are guilty of wrong doing, but my issue with them is this: How can you remain associated with and abide by the double standard rules of such a group, to be part of the secrecy etc and not feel shame? Is it possible that you can be a priest of a parish and not know that these things are being perpetrated by your fellow priests elsewhere? Would you not want to distance yourself from it, report it, protest by leaving and perhaps preach and do God's work as a lay person, go to a 3rd world country to volunteer, anything, as opposed to practicing and functioning within such an institution?

I know a number of men who certainly did leave and early on whilst at their seminaries, simply because they already had a good glimpse into what that institution was all about and did not want to be part of it.

It's a heavy and terribly sad topic and I didn't actually mean to dwell on it, but Savile's story runs so parallel to it.

I am not here to judge any of the subjects discussed, nor do I, but I hope that from now on they will be dealt with swiftly by the law and that people will be listened to and their experiences taken seriously until they can be proven.