Jimmy Saville exposed

Ghandee · 07-10-2012 10:15am

fryup wrote: »

Starr claims his innocence in the mirror ..but look at the picture they publish of him, doesn't look his best does he

Freddie, 69,

Jeez, he's 69 now.

Freddie, speaking from the home he shares near Studley, Warks, with fiancee Sophie Lea, 34

Lol.

Spread · 07-10-2012 7:57pm

The lady said his breath smelled of alcohol? Hamster washed down with a robust Burgundy

Sappa · 09-10-2012 10:03am

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.

M cebee · 09-10-2012 12:32pm

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.

total bs

AlarmBelle · 09-10-2012 12:41pm

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.

rubbish just because he saved lives does not give hin the right to abuse others. What pay off are the non victims who back their story looking for?

Madam_X · 09-10-2012 12:45pm

Dismissively sneering "Why did those allegedly abused only come forward after he died?" is thick and ignorant as sh1t.

old hippy · 09-10-2012 12:47pm

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.

Oh dear, it's all the media's fault. Again.

Am curious. Does your closure criteria apply to the victims of Bloody Sunday, for example?

Intensive Care Bear · 09-10-2012 12:56pm

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.

In fairness there has been allegations against him for years, the cops even interviewed him a few times so its not like all this came from nowhere.

As i said a few times already it doesn't make much of a difference that he is dead. There is no physical evidence so he would have just denied it and we would be in the exact same situation as we are now of either believing he was guilty or that all those women are liars.

Emeraldy Pebbles · 09-10-2012 1:01pm

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I read a book about the punk scene in America in the 1970s. Most of the musicians regularly had sex with underage girls. There was a club in LA where no alcohol was served, filled with teenage runaways looking for rock stars to have sex with.

The John Peel revelations are more shocking for someone like me. I can easily dismiss Saville as a grotesque perv, but when it's someone you hitherto admired it challenges your preconceptions and prejudices.

Yeah, I've read about all the underage sex going on in the rock scene back then too. What's worrying is that, unsurprisingly, a lot of the girls taking part seemed to be from troubled backgrounds or had less than vigilant parents so seemed lost, hence going astray, and these fully grown adults were more than happy to take advantage of these vulnerable girls.

getz · 09-10-2012 1:13pm

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.

is it, what about the people who covered it all up over the years ?they will have broken the law and should not get away with it .dig him up and put him on trail..i say

D-FENS · 09-10-2012 1:19pm

youtube! wrote: »

I just got a nice bargain at the JJB closing down sale, a lovely Jimmy Savile commemorative shell suit tracksuit, they only had adult sized tops left but I just managed to squeeze into a pair of children's bottoms....

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqqp8lxvUB1qz7mamo4_r1_500.jpg

Momento Mori · 09-10-2012 1:20pm

cover up upon cover up.

Emeraldy Pebbles · 09-10-2012 2:36pm

Stuff like all the revelations that are coming out always make me feel like the underage girls/boys, even if they are willing, are always going to come out worst from these things. They're maybe vulnerable, and don't have a cushy, elevated position. They are disposable.

dvcireland · 09-10-2012 8:41pm

"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

Super-Rush · 09-10-2012 9:04pm

I heard a gang of dyslexic vigilantes have gathered outside Jimmy Somerville's house.

Rigol · 09-10-2012 9:28pm

I heard they brought out a tracksuit in honor of him and his life.
Its an adult size top but you have to squeeze into kids bottoms.

iamstop · 09-10-2012 9:44pm

Rigol wrote: »

I heard they brought out a tracksuit in honor of him and his life.
Its an adult size top but you have to squeeze into kids bottoms.

GTFO, not now but RIGHT now! Idiot.

Prick! · 09-10-2012 9:52pm

Might lose his knighthood
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-boss-promises-savile-inquiry-072324862.html

M cebee · 09-10-2012 9:54pm

Prick! wrote: »

Might lose his knighthood
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-boss-promises-savile-inquiry-072324862.html

think i heard they don't take 'em away posthumously
apparently he's not a sir since he died

Fuinseog · 09-10-2012 9:57pm

I thought only the catholic church in ireland engaged in child abuse and cover ups?
ester rantzen admitted in an interview that 'there were rumours' about him, yet nothing was done

EdanHewittt · 09-10-2012 10:03pm

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 · 09-10-2012 10:08pm

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

Power for women. Things have got to change.

Rigol · 09-10-2012 10:09pm

iamstop wrote: »

GTFO, not now but RIGHT now! Idiot.

Are you related to him?

stabeek · 09-10-2012 10:12pm

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 · 09-10-2012 10:18pm

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 · 09-10-2012 10:26pm

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 · 09-10-2012 10:32pm

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 · 09-10-2012 10:33pm

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 · 09-10-2012 10:38pm

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 · 09-10-2012 10:40pm

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 · 09-10-2012 10:48pm

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 · 09-10-2012 10:49pm

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. · 09-10-2012 10:49pm

This is really not a surprise.

Madam_X · 09-10-2012 10:51pm

youreadthis wrote: »

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

Nice.

Shryke · 09-10-2012 10:55pm

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 · 09-10-2012 11:03pm

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 · 09-10-2012 11:09pm

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

Johnny D. Mudd · 09-10-2012 11:14pm

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.

09-10-2012 11:30pm

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 · 09-10-2012 11:36pm

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.

09-10-2012 11:57pm

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 · 10-10-2012 12:59am

youreadthis wrote: »

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

Go away.

Giselle · 10-10-2012 1:13am

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 · 10-10-2012 8:21am

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

Oranage2 · 10-10-2012 9:07am

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 · 10-10-2012 9:20am

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

getz · 10-10-2012 10:19am

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 · 10-10-2012 10:20am

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 · 10-10-2012 10:57am

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 · 10-10-2012 11:01am

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

Jimmy Saville exposed

Comments