Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jimmy Saville report released.

13567

Comments

  • #62
    jaykay74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,608 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    If a priest's dog happened to bite someone, the entire Catholic church would get the blame on here.

    Only if they move the dog to another diocese ;)


  • #63
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    ejmaztec wrote: »

    If a priest's dog happened to bite someone, the entire Catholic church would get the blame on here.

    Depends.
    Was the person that got bitten enticing the dog?


  • #64
    Madam_X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,327 ✭✭✭Madam_X


    Yeh we know the catholic church covered up similar appalling acts, nobody has suggested otherwise. I don't see the point in mentioning it. It's like a discussion on Fred West and someone saying "Well Larry Murphy did similarly sick stuff". Kinda random.

    I'm an atheist btw so I'm not saying the above merely due to bias.


  • #65
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    That's standard procedure in AH because most of the people here are obsessed with anything even remotely connected to the Catholic church.

    If a priest's dog happened to bite someone, the entire Catholic church would get the blame on here.

    Oh would you grow up.

    Have you even read the thread or even know what it's about?

    Would you be surprised if a discussion on Jeffrey Dahmer contained posts about Ted Bundy? Would your persecution complex be stimulated if a discussion on Stalin contained comparisons to Hitler?

    There are some serious questions being asked in this thread about how a creep like Saville got away with so much. Here in Ireland we've had our own experiences with this kind of stuff and it's hardly surprising that we would draw on those experiences to make sense of what happened across the water.


  • #66
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Madam_X wrote: »
    Yeh we know the catholic church covered up similar appalling acts, nobody has suggested otherwise. I don't see the point in mentioning it. It's like a discussion on Fred West and someone saying "Well Larry Murphy did similarly sick stuff". Kinda random.

    Random?
    Both tradesmen.
    Fred West a builder, and Larry Murphy a carpenter.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,266 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Oh would you grow up.

    Have you even read the thread or even know what it's about?

    Would you be surprised if a discussion on Jeffrey Dahmer contained posts about Ted Bundy? Would your persecution complex be stimulated if a discussion on Stalin contained comparisons to Hitler?

    There are some serious questions being asked in this thread about how a creep like Saville got away with so much. Here in Ireland we've had our own experiences with this kind of stuff and it's hardly surprising that we would draw on those experiences to make sense of what happened across the water.

    There's no need to get upset with my pointing out some hard facts.

    As I'm not religious, persecution doesn't enter into the situation. :P


  • #68
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Obviously Saville was a deeply evil man, and what is insane is the kind of culture of cover up/ignore by the police and BBC.

    As the quote goes, there's two type of evil, evil men and when good men do nothing.


  • #69
    Madam_X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,327 ✭✭✭Madam_X


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Obviously Saville was a deeply evil man, and what is insane is the kind of culture of cover up/ignore by the police and BBC.

    As the quote goes, there's two type of evil, evil men and when good men do nothing.
    Anyone who knew and could do something about it deserves consequences. However there are bound to have been people who knew and tried to do something but could only get so far because of whatever obstacles they faced. I don't believe for a second absolutely everyone who knew just stuck their heads in the sand. Why would they all be different to all of us who are sickened by it?
    Same time though, perving on underage girls in the 60s and 70s in showbiz circles, possibly later, was unfortunately more accepted. Just look at the groupie culture.

    Not forgetting one of his alleged victims was a very young boy btw.


  • #70
    otto_26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    I see his "work" with children was recognised by that paedophile organisation, the catholic church.

    Knighted by the Pope

    I assume you refuse to watch the BBC and it's programmes anymore?


  • #71
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Madam_X wrote: »
    Anyone who knew and could do something about it deserves consequences. However there are bound to have been people who knew and tried to do something but could only get so far because of whatever obstacles they faced. I don't believe for a second absolutely everyone who knew just stuck their heads in the sand. Why would they all be different to all of us who are sickened by it?
    Same time though, perving on underage girls in the 60s and 70s in showbiz circles, possibly later, was unfortunately more accepted. Just look at the groupie culture.

    Not forgetting one of his alleged victims was a very young boy btw.

    When you have cover ups to that level and extent, and the same applies to the church scandals or any institutional scandals, my suspicion is that the person at the center, in this case Saville had some kind of information on various individuals who were part of the powers that be. There is more to this than meets the eye. It will come out eventually.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,004 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    When you have cover ups to that level and extent, and the same applies to the church scandals or any institutional scandals, my suspicion is that the person at the center, in this case Saville had some kind of information on various individuals who were part of the powers that be. There is more to this than meets the eye. It will come out eventually.

    Whilst not exactly my Newspaper of choice,The Sun's story does raise some,perhaps politically significant,contacts made by Saville..

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4671341/Evil-MP-Cyril-Smith-and-Jimmy-Savile-were-close-friends-for-four-decades.html


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #73
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Madam_X wrote: »
    Anyone who knew and could do something about it deserves consequences. However there are bound to have been people who knew and tried to do something but could only get so far because of whatever obstacles they faced. I don't believe for a second absolutely everyone who knew just stuck their heads in the sand. Why would they all be different to all of us who are sickened by it?
    Same time though, perving on underage girls in the 60s and 70s in showbiz circles, possibly later, was unfortunately more accepted. Just look at the groupie culture.

    Not forgetting one of his alleged victims was a very young boy btw.

    I don't buy that for a second.

    On the BBC report there was a policeman who reported it and they simply said they didn't believe him.

    You can be sickened by something but still not have the bottle and the lack of self preservation to stand up against it. Groupie culture is one thing, what Saville done was depraved in the extreme.


  • #74
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Whilst not exactly my Newspaper of choice,The Sun's story does raise some,perhaps politically significant,contacts made by Saville..

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4671341/Evil-MP-Cyril-Smith-and-Jimmy-Savile-were-close-friends-for-four-decades.html

    I wouldn't necessarily dismiss a tabloid, they often get to things first.

    Those photos are creepy. He has this secret, arrogant smile of someone who gets away with a lot of things.


  • #75
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    Dodge wrote: »
    Is there really a need to rank how disgusting acts like this are?

    Can you not discuss the issue at hand without bringing ALL other horrific acts into it?

    Saville's abuses are a big enough subject without the need for wehere they fit in the global scheme of horror
    You spelt "where" wrong, but worse, you defended another bunch of paedophiles indirectly. If anyone wants to bring in some other bunch of cnuts and shine a light on them, good for them. I seriously question the intent of your post. And the agenda that may be behind it. Personally, I welcome any and all "bringing in" of cnuts that deserve to be exposed, vilified and prosecuted.


  • #76
    Lagoona Blue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 98 ✭✭Lagoona Blue


    He makes me sick to my stomach . There was a screenshot of him on the BBc news earlier , with a cigar in his mouth , his rotten teeth and that secret evil smile, and of course those pervy 'short ' shorts he used to wear . made me want to puke . It's such a pity he's dead and got away with it .

    The stories coming out are shocking especially the poor kids in hospitals :mad:. How the hell was he able to be alone with all these kids ? I've a feeling the reason this was kept so quiet when he was alive is because he wasn't alone , the truth is yet to come .


  • #77
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I don't buy that for a second.

    On the BBC report there was a policeman who reported it and they simply said they didn't believe him.

    You can be sickened by something but still not have the bottle and the lack of self preservation to stand up against it. Groupie culture is one thing, what Saville done was depraved in the extreme.

    Yes. Until you are in this position, you cannot know how much people don't want to believe you. And they wont believe it and then the victim gets worn down and isolated in the pain and isnt motivated to go further, especially against someone who is perceived to be very popular and powerful.

    Especially back then, before scandals had broken and there was still huge shame and self blame around it, general ignorance on the topic, and powerful people were protected.

    If you look at the Irish scandals, people knew, the guards knew, and no one did anything about it. Some tried but failed because the govt [the guards] didnt respond. When you read the actual reports like Ferns as an example you can see how this all worked.


  • #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lagoona Blue wrote: »
    He makes me sick to my stomach . There was a screenshot of him on the BBc news earlier , with a cigar in his mouth , his rotten teeth and that secret evil smile, and of course those pervy 'short ' shorts he used to wear . made me want to puke . It's such a pity he's dead and got away with it .

    I'm sure what we consider pervy in hindsight was considered eccentric at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.


  • #79
    Madam_X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,327 ✭✭✭Madam_X


    Pottler wrote: »
    You spelt "where" wrong, but worse, you defended another bunch of paedophiles indirectly. If anyone wants to bring in some other bunch of cnuts and shine a light on them, good for them. I seriously question the intent of your post. And the agenda that may be behind it. Personally, I welcome any and all "bringing in" of cnuts that deserve to be exposed, vilified and prosecuted.
    There's no agenda - Dodge is simply remarking on the way a "yeh he was bad but no worse than the catholic church" comment was made on a thread not about the catholic church. We know the catholic church hid and accommodated just as bad - nobody said it didn't. Why say it unless to use this report as a platform to have a go at the catholic church, which IMO is in bad taste: using the plight of his victims to bash a different organisation. And I'm hugely critical of organised religion and detest the cc as an institution.
    Ush1 wrote: »
    I don't buy that for a second.

    On the BBC report there was a policeman who reported it and they simply said they didn't believe him.

    You can be sickened by something but still not have the bottle and the lack of self preservation to stand up against it. Groupie culture is one thing, what Saville done was depraved in the extreme.
    You reckon NOBODY who knew and was as repulsed as we are now, tried to speak out but could only get so far? But that policeman whom you mentioned did.

    Of course what Savile did was more evil than consensual groupie culture, but all I'm saying is: because it was more acceptable then to perv on young girls in showbiz environments would have made it easier for him to get away with it, and even small things we would notice as inappropriate now, would have been deemed innocuous then.


  • #80
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    Froyo wrote: »
    Pathetic people of AH using sick children's suffering to have a pop at the church. Well done.
    Surrey?? As in is this post for real?? Also Madam X, how exactly do you know what "dodge" meant? Or is my view on what he "meant" pretty much as valid as yours? Bad taste?? What, unlike abusing kids?? bad taste me whole.


  • #81
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Yes. Until you are in this position, you cannot know how much people don't want to believe you. And they wont believe it and then the victim gets worn down and isolated in the pain and isnt motivated to go further, especially against someone who is perceived to be very popular and powerful.

    Especially back then, before scandals had broken and there was still huge shame and self blame around it, general ignorance on the topic, and powerful people were protected.

    If you look at the Irish scandals, people knew, the guards knew, and no one did anything about it. Some tried but failed because the govt [the guards] were in cahoots. When you read the actual reports like Ferns as an example you can see how this all worked.

    So where is the line drawn? People who knew it was wrong and stood by because of excuses? Like the archbishop moving Brady around?

    Put it this way, I'd rather lose my job and whatever comes with that than having to look myself in the mirror and think there was something more I could have done for those kids.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    PC CDROM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 408 ✭✭PC CDROM


    The word "abused" has been so fuked these days, it is actually abused.


  • #83
    Madam_X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,327 ✭✭✭Madam_X


    Ush1 wrote: »
    So where is the line drawn? People who knew it was wrong and stood by because of excuses? Like the archbishop moving Brady around?

    Put it this way, I'd rather lose my job and whatever comes with that than having to look myself in the mirror and think there was something more I could have done for those kids.
    But obviously there were plenty of people who'd have thought the same as you - why wouldn't there have been; how were people different to you back then? - however they, like that cop, were met with a wall.


  • #84
    ascanbe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭ascanbe


    Big, big buddy of/protected by a number of very, VERY high up people in British society.
    The case of the Haute de la Garenne childrens home on the island of Jersey that briefly made news a few years ago, before instantly, and mysteriously, disappearing, is well worth investigating.
    And then there's Kincora House in N. Ireland, amongst others.


  • #85
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Ush1 wrote: »
    So where is the line drawn? People who knew it was wrong and stood by because of excuses? Like the archbishop moving Brady around?

    Put it this way, I'd rather lose my job and whatever comes with that than having to look myself in the mirror and think there was something more I could have done for those kids.

    Well you'd have to believe them first. Imagine a child or parent comes to you and claims a current popular tv star has done something to them. [Just pick any tv star in your imagination] Particularly a star that has set up kids charities or works with kids and is very much trusted by the nation and by you.

    And this child or this parent comes and tells you this. You are going to start out not wanting to believe it, one because its so horrific and two because it;s accusing somebody you trust of something horrific. And then lets say it's from a child - oh kids with their imaginations...oh they make stuff up...and they don't have credibility, especially without evidence, and without evidence, without things other than stories to go to the police with you are opening yourself up to a libel/slander suit. It is not until there are many mother verifiable victims/witnesses who can come together, that you have a chance. That is why they get away with it for sooo long and have sooo many victims [on average about 60 girls and or 100 boys] before they get caught.

    Not only that but they are very good at picking their victims, weak vulnerable voiceless people and kids, like the kids in the hospital, like kids who need the extra attention with low confidence, for whatever reason. And especially kids with low credibility And they are even less likely to speak up.

    What I am saying is yes, you are right, people need to speak up, but other people need to believe them, and other people need to be ready to hear it and not always dismiss it as crazy hysteria, which is probably what people were afraid of. Same as today.

    The best we can do now is learn from it and all the other scandals.


  • #86
    Madam_X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,327 ✭✭✭Madam_X


    Pottler wrote: »
    Surrey?? As in is this post for real?? Also Madam X, how exactly do you know what "dodge" meant? Or is my view on what he "meant" pretty much as valid as yours? Bad taste?? What, unlike abusing kids?? bad taste me whole.
    I'm familiar with Dodge's posts and views so it's a confident guess. And I don't hope (like you seem to do) that he's a paedo defender.
    What's the point in bringing in the catholic church so? Is it maybe one of those silly "we can't talk here, look at what the church did!" angles (of course we can criticise similar in other countries).
    I say bad taste in the sense that using this case as an excuse to randomly catholic church bash... just undermines what savile's victims suffered.

    If there was a discussion on paedo priests and someone said "it's terrible, but jimmy savile and the BBC cover-up was as bad" I'd be "wtf?" too.


  • #87
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Madam_X wrote: »
    But obviously there were plenty of people who'd have thought the same as you - why wouldn't there have been; how were people different to you back then? - however they, like that cop, were met with a wall.

    I see your point but what's changed from then to now? Is it the ever shifting moral zeitgeist? Could the cop have went to more papers and national or international press? There was already multiple reports by the time he spoke.

    What is the loss vs gain in such a situation?


  • #88
    cazzak79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 411 ✭✭cazzak79


    I wonder when he was over here did he abuse


  • #89
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Could this be true, could this have happened, I just Googled it.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20many%20%20pedophiles%20have%20got%20royal%20titles&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2F21stcenturywire.com%2F2012%2F10%2F15%2Fjimmy-savile-doorman-to-the-cesspit%2F&ei=0Z_wUJ7tJdCXhQeRsoD4AQ&usg=AFQjCNEYhCSjDdHtdPO5xalVw9O6GzD61Q


  • #90
    Pottler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭Pottler


    Madam_X wrote: »
    I'm familiar with Dodge's posts and views so it's a confident guess. And I don't hope (like you seem to do) that he's a paedo defender.
    What's the point in bringing in the catholic church so? Is it maybe one of those silly "we can't talk here, look at what the church did!" angles (of course we can criticise similar in other countries).
    I say bad taste in the sense that using this case as an excuse to randomly catholic church bash... just undermines what savile's victims suffered.

    If there was a discussion on paedo priests and someone said "it's terrible, but jimmy savile and the BBC cover-up was as bad" I'd be "wtf?" too.
    No, having a functional brain, I can evaluate two seperate entities without excluding one or the other. I believe the issue of child abuse encompasses many facets. To disbar one from a discussion on the grounds of "bad taste" is to me a spurious arguement - and is yet another barrier to discussion.

    If all discussion was welcomed and encouraged, the taboo attached to the subject by previous generations might finally be laid to rest and children who are the victims of these insidious criminals might feel more confident in coming forward. ALL discussion of this issue is valid in my opinion, ALL perpetrators are fair game for discussion and the more discussion and openness on this difficult subject, the better. No matter what status the perpetrator might hold, either institutional or populist.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,490 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Well you'd have to believe them first. Imagine a child or parent comes to you and claims a current popular tv star has done something to them. [Just pick any tv star in your imagination] Particularly a star that has set up kids charities or works with kids and is very much trusted by the nation and by you.

    And this child or this parent comes and tells you this. You are going to start out not wanting to believe it, one because its so horrific and two because it;s accusing somebody you trust of something horrific. And then lets say it's from a child - oh kids with their imaginations...oh they make stuff up...and they don't have credibility, especially without evidence, and without evidence, without things other than stories to go to the police with you are opening yourself up to a libel/slander suit. It is not until there are many mother verifiable victims/witnesses who can come together, that you have a chance. That is why they get away with it for sooo long and have sooo many victims [on average about 60 girls and or 100 boys] before they get caught.

    Not only that but they are very good at picking their victims, weak vulnerable voiceless people and kids, like the kids in the hospital, like kids who need the extra attention with low confidence, for whatever reason. And especially kids with low credibility And they are even less likely to speak up.

    What I am saying is yes, you are right, people need to speak up, but other people need to believe them, and other people need to be ready to hear it and not always dismiss it as crazy hysteria, which is probably what people were afraid of. Same as today.

    The best we can do now is learn from it and all the other scandals.

    If a child came to me with a story of being abused I would not be of the frame of mind to "not want to believe it", no matter the vividness of imagination.

    Trusted by a nation doesn't come into it, he's a human and is capable of doing bad deeds so any claim of that nature would set off alarm bells. Ask yourself why would a child claim such a thing? Especially sexual abuse.

    I'm not saying paint them as guilty instantly but people and especially police have many means to detect serious crimes. Certainly over such a long time period around one high profile individual. The fact is we're talking about this after he is dead.

    It's not crazy hysteria if there is evidence, and evidence needs to be brought instantly to light.


Advertisement