Jimmy Saville report released.

Ush1 wrote: »

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?

I don't know. Maybe it's because we're more aware of what could be going on behind closed doors now, we're more questioning and cynical. This of course goes to far when you consider the way totally innocent men can be viewed with suspicion.
I'm glad there is so much more awareness now obviously, and what was deemed just a laugh then is inappropriate now. I worked in a place years ago where I was told that up to the 80s it was just the norm to get groped. :eek:

The price though is as I said, men e.g. working with children being viewed with suspicion; men doing something totally innocuous like making a jokey comment being viewed as sexually harassing etc.

Candie wrote: »

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

I doubt it was nor will ever be considered eccentric no matter what time or era it occurred in. Ignorance would be a better word to describe it.

What I'm curious to know is if any of the higher echelon of the BBC was involved. Saville made alot of money for the tv bosses, I'm sure when money is on the table a blind eye can be turned quite quickly.

Saville acted on his disturbing thoughts on children who were on their deathbeds. A childs innocent mind would struggle to comprehend what was happening to them, never mind a poor vulnerable individual at deaths door. A childs "rambling" could have easily been dismissed while the critical task of monitoring their health was at hand.

Can't remember but someone mentioned how could he have been alone with the children. Why wouldn't he?! He was a charitable do-gooder out to bring wishes (although now we see it as nightmares) to children. Nurses could have been called out of the room to more pressing matters.

More importantly, a paedophile will ALWAYS find a way.

Ush1 wrote: »

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.

I agree with you, but I am outlining why people can be passive about it. It wont be helpful to you to judge others by what you would do. I know many people who were sex abuse victims and whose parents didn't believe them. I can understand the denial because no one wants to think this is happening to their child.

Evidence means physical evidence or more than one eye witness. Like a rape or sex assault accusation, its one person's word against another without physical evidence, and in public scenarios you risk defamation and are labelled a hysteric. It was when more than one came forward that this was able to be taken seriously.

People know things but they are afraid of more powerful people so their silence is guaranteeed.

[Deleted User]

FoxyVixen wrote: »

I doubt it was nor will ever be considered eccentric no matter what time or era it occurred in. Ignorance would be a better word to describe it.

What I'm curious to know is if any of the higher echelon of the BBC was involved. Saville made alot of money for the tv bosses, I'm sure when money is on the table a blind eye can be turned quite quickly.

Saville acted on his disturbing thoughts on children who were on their deathbeds. A childs innocent mind would struggle to comprehend what was happening to them, never mind a poor vulnerable individual at deaths door. A childs "rambling" could have easily been dismissed while the critical task of monitoring their health was at hand.

Can't remember but someone mentioned how could he have been alone with the children. Why wouldn't he?! He was a charitable do-gooder out to bring wishes (although now we see it as nightmares) to children. Nurses could have been called out of the room to more pressing matters.

More importantly, a paedophile will ALWAYS find a way.

Actually, I was referring to the cigar chomping and shorts wearing as described in the post I quoted.

I would never describe the perverted, criminal and predatory preying on children for sexual gratification as eccentric.

Pottler wrote: »

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.

I'm not suggesting one bit that the priests who abused and the organisation that aided them can't be discussed. I'm only questioning why they were brought up in the way they were brought up on this thread.

sharpey85

Jimmy Saville was a profiteer.

Its the very sad world we live in that, the very people who (most definitely knew and) would be heard chose to turn their ear all for the sake of money and reputation.

but sadly this was very much the case. I just hope whoever else was involved, and I believe their is many, come to justice.

Candie wrote: »

Actually, I was referring to the cigar chomping and shorts wearing as described in the post I quoted.

I would never describe the perverted, criminal and predatory preying on children for sexual gratification as eccentric.

Apologies, mis-read

Madam_X wrote: »

I don't know. Maybe it's because we're more aware of what could be going on behind closed doors now, we're more questioning and cynical. This of course goes to far when you consider the way totally innocent men can be viewed with suspicion.
I'm glad there is so much more awareness now obviously, and what was deemed just a laugh then is inappropriate now. I worked in a place years ago where I was told that up to the 80s it was just the norm to get groped. :eek:

The price though is as I said, men e.g. working with children being viewed with suspicion; men doing something totally innocuous like making a jokey comment being viewed as sexually harassing etc.

There is more awareness but there is also a lot of ignorance.

According to US statistics which might be different to Irish ones, can't find Irish ones, which are not politically correct, but they are statistically correct, one out of every ten men is a child molester and there is one per square mile.

The problem is people are lost as to what signs to look for, so that's where the ignorance comes in and then we are lost as to what to do about men and access to children.

There are some jokey comments that are totally inappropriate and shouldn't be said around kids. I know someone who went to one of these famous Irish boarding schools and on arrival to the boarding school, the priest [who later turned out to be one of the notorious priests of that school] explained to him what a fanny is. Odd and inappropriate and covert molestation, like making sexual jokes with your child is covert incest. The only thing I could say is trust your gut and prevent.

Its very easy to get time alone with a child. It only takes a few minutes and there are plenty of opportunities in various contexts to do so.

Saville was very wealthy and connected, that's how he got away with it, thats how most people get away with things who are wealthy and connected.

Doc Ruby

FoxyVixen wrote: »

A childs innocent mind would struggle to comprehend what was happening to them, never mind a poor vulnerable individual at deaths door.

Maybe that's why he targeted them. Jesus H Christ that is nasty. Guaranteed he was protected by powerful people, which begs the question as to why. My suspicion is that its a lot nastier and deeper than just saville.

clairefontaine wrote: »

According to US statistics which might be different to Irish ones, can't find Irish ones, which are not politically correct, but they are statistically correct, one out of every ten men is a child molester and there is one per square mile.

Can you find a link for those statistics please? Also why are you confining this to men, plenty of women molest children too.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Maybe that's why he targeted them. Jesus H Christ that is nasty. Guaranteed he was protected by powerful people, which begs the question as to why. My suspicion is that its a lot nastier and deeper than just saville.

It's exactly why he chose them. He assaulted those he knew wouldn't speak out or who wouldn't be believed. He was an opportunist of the sickest degree.

He was certainly protected. Guaranteed those who aided and abetted him are still alive and can feel the noose tightening. My main worry and concern is that they'll have the power to escape even now and this case will only highlight how far paedophiles can get away with it.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Maybe that's why he targeted them. Jesus H Christ that is nasty. Guaranteed he was protected by powerful people, which begs the question as to why. My suspicion is that its a lot nastier and deeper than just saville.

Can you find a link for those statistics please? Also why are you confining this to men, plenty of women molest children too.

Yeh one in ten?! :eek:

Ah I can't believe that...

annascott

I know that I am in the minority here, but I still think that this is some sort of a 'witch hunt' and he is being used because he cannot defend himself.
I still don't believe that he did any of this.

Difference Engine

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is more awareness but there is also a lot of ignorance.

According to US statistics which might be different to Irish ones, can't find Irish ones, which are not politically correct, but they are statistically correct, one out of every ten men is a child molester and there is one per square mile.

The problem is people are lost as to what signs to look for, so that's where the ignorance comes in and then we are lost as to what to do about men and access to children.

There are some jokey comments that are totally inappropriate and shouldn't be said around kids. I know someone who went to one of these famous Irish boarding schools and on arrival to the boarding school, the priest [who later turned out to be one of the notorious priests of that school] explained to him what a fanny is. Odd and inappropriate and covert molestation, like making sexual jokes with your child is covert incest. The only thing I could say is trust your gut and prevent.

Its very easy to get time alone with a child. It only takes a few minutes and there are plenty of opportunities in various contexts to do so.

Saville was very wealthy and connected, that's how he got away with it, thats how most people get away with things who are wealthy and connected.

Just looking at Wikipedia there are 102 million men in the US aged 15-65. So one in ten would be 1.02m child molesters.

annascott wrote: »

I know that I am in the minority here, but I still think that this is some sort of a 'witch hunt' and he is being used because he cannot defend himself.
I still don't believe that he did any of this.

You are one sick pup.
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

I notice no one made a comment on this article, maybe it could be described as "anus horrible" pardon I do not know Latin, but it is near enough. Saville is going to climb the ladder to the top, and hopefully bring the curtain down. No one ever thought the catholic church could be brought to it's knees over the same thing. But it it did all over the world, churches in the US near bankruptcy, the sick bastards hid and were backed up by people that held power. it is time good cops took power over their masters and show what they are made of.

[Deleted User]

annascott wrote: »

I know that I am in the minority here, but I still think that this is some sort of a 'witch hunt' and he is being used because he cannot defend himself.
I still don't believe that he did any of this.

You seriously believe that all of those hundreds of police complaints were made by liars?

Would that not be an even bigger conspiracy?

TwoShedsJackson

ascanbe wrote: »

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.

The Haute de la Garenne case was shut down because no-one was murdered there: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084985/4m-Jersey-House-Horrors-investigation-shut-police-chiefs-admit-NO-children-murdered.html

annascott wrote: »

I know that I am in the minority here, but I still think that this is some sort of a 'witch hunt' and he is being used because he cannot defend himself.
I still don't believe that he did any of this.

I can't understand why it didn't come out until after he died, granted, but on what basis do you believe he didn't do "any" of it?

All those allegations, interviews with people saying he abused them, reputable news sources corroborating this (including the organisation that employed him), police investigations, this report?

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The Haute de la Garenne case was shut down because no-one was murdered there: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084985/4m-Jersey-House-Horrors-investigation-shut-police-chiefs-admit-NO-children-murdered.html

Was there not a problem about kids bones found there.

latenia

annascott wrote: »

I know that I am in the minority here

Not so much the minority as the singularity out of every other person in the entire world.

Madam_X wrote: »

I can't understand why it didn't come out until after he died, granted, but on what basis do you believe he didn't do "any" of it?

Women came forward in 2007, but from my understanding the way the police handled it nothing came from it.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Maybe that's why he targeted them. Jesus H Christ that is nasty. Guaranteed he was protected by powerful people, which begs the question as to why. My suspicion is that its a lot nastier and deeper than just saville.

Can you find a link for those statistics please? Also why are you confining this to men, plenty of women molest children too.

My statistics come from Gavin De Becker, from a book called "Protecting the Gift". He runs a private security firm that consults on predicting violence. He draws his statistics from a number of sources. This then led me to other research.

..
There is a lot more, but I am nervous of copyright at this point.

All the stats are here, with references. It's a long bit of reading but a good assembly.

http://facts.randomhistory.com/child-sexual-abuse-facts.html

http://yellodyno.com/Statistics/statistics_child_molester.html

Madam_X wrote: »

I can't understand why it didn't come out until after he died, granted, but on what basis do you believe he didn't do "any" of it?

All those allegations, interviews with people saying he abused them, reputable news sources corroborating this (including the organisation that employed him), police investigations, this report?

Madam try and keep up with the news, Scotland Yard apologized for not charging him a few years before he died. Who pulled the strings there.

dark crystal

annascott wrote: »

I know that I am in the minority here, but I still think that this is some sort of a 'witch hunt' and he is being used because he cannot defend himself.
I still don't believe that he did any of this.

Which is your right, of course.

However, could you explain why you think all these people are lying? What would they gain from it exactly?

Madam_X wrote: »

Yeh one in ten?! :eek:

Ah I can't believe that...

See. People don't want to believe it.

And to be clear... that does not mean one in ten men are pedophiles, it means that one in ten men have molested a child. They are not always the same thing.

clairefontaine wrote: »

My statistics come from Gavin De Becker, from a book called "Protecting the Gift". He runs a private security firm that consults on predicting violence.[/url]

Each is disturbing in its own context but 18 is incredibly horrifying!!

clairefontaine wrote: »

See. People don't want to believe it.

And to be clear... that does not mean one in ten men are pedophiles, it means that one in ten men have molested a child. They are not always the same thing.

Is finding something difficult to believe, the same thing as not wanting to believe it?

Doc Ruby

clairefontaine wrote: »

..."Nearly 100% of sexual abuse is committed by heterosexual males" p 16

Really yeah? Fark had an almost daily article about female teachers with underage students, male and female. Maybe its a reporting problem again. Also your sources contradict themselves, one per square mile is about 1% of the entire US population, male and female.

"According to the FBI, approximately 1 in 10 men have molested a child, with little chance of being caught (3%). Additionally, the FBI estimates that a child has almost a 25% chance of being molested."

"According to Dr. Herbert Wagemaker, an estimated 4% of the population suffers from sexual attraction toward children."

In fact the contradictions between your two different sites are even more stark than the contradicitons on the same page. Apparently there are ten times more sex offenders than there are registered sex offenders. I haven't the patience to go into the original sources in depth, but I'm confident enough in calling bullshit.

Some of it rings true enough, but really, who are you kidding.

This thread has gone from a pedophile being protected by the upper echelons of UK society, to excusing his activities.
Good one.