and the site receives a small commission
Jimmy Saville
- Thread starter cambsno
- Start date
- Status
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
I have and sorry Graham I still don't get it?
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dean put it in better words than I ...Closure. Probably hard to know what that means unless something like this has happened to you. It's not all about money. Savile's family must be devistated too. It would be nice if the contribute something to the victims from any Estate (if) they get, but that's not the important issue here IMHO
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
What is it i that is so difficult to comprehend???
To trranslate,...
Jimmy = naughty (possibly)
If so Jimmy's pennies go to those that need help, not his family.
gman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,100
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm emphasising that only the absolute genuine ones (not the freeloaders) should be compensated and I explained why, it's not so much about rewarding he victims but punishing the guilty one, who unfortunately is now dead. I think the victims deserve the money more than the family, who were most probably aware of what he was doing anyway as I believe it was common knowledge in his local area. Surely they'd want his money to go towards organisations that help prevent this sort of stuff? If not....well....make your own mind up!
You won't find audio recordings of me touching up young girls, or people coming forward claiming such after I'm dead so I don't think my family have anything to worry about. Plenty of wealthy people have died yet no such claims against them. Perhaps things have been sensationalised but it's unlikely that these accusations have come from thin air and it's pretty obvious that he was up to no good, it's more the extent of it that we don't fully know.
Maybe it's just my thinking but if you are going to start touching up little girls and worse, then you should lose everything whether you are alive or dead. I wouldn't want anything from him if I were his family.
You won't find audio recordings of me touching up young girls, or people coming forward claiming such after I'm dead so I don't think my family have anything to worry about. Plenty of wealthy people have died yet no such claims against them. Perhaps things have been sensationalised but it's unlikely that these accusations have come from thin air and it's pretty obvious that he was up to no good, it's more the extent of it that we don't fully know.
Maybe it's just my thinking but if you are going to start touching up little girls and worse, then you should lose everything whether you are alive or dead. I wouldn't want anything from him if I were his family.
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
I honestly don't get this compensation thing and I do not mean to be argumentative! but I really cannot see how dragging something up from 30+ years ago helps anyone and I can't see how giving them a few quid solves the problem?
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Once he's dead... it's not his pennies! .. how will the money help them?
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree, what ever CLOSURE my be, surely it's not financial compensation!
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Agreed!
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Graham... My point is how does cash help? ... I wasn't suggesting anything about you personally and my apologies if it came across that way!
gman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,100
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I definitely see where you are coming from, especially with the compensation thing. Perhaps it's because so many are so obsessed with money that it's the best tool of punishment (and reparation) sometimes? But I can see why even crimes from long ago (and probably still went on until recently) have to be addressed because you have to send a clear message that you'll never get away with such things, even after death. It also helps them get any other nasty buggers who were doing it or turning a blind eye to it who may still be alive and still doing things.
A very unrelated analogy is HMR&C. They will go ahead and raise court action against dodgy companies even when they know it will cost them more than they'll make - it's because they have to be seen to be doing it so people know that they won't give up.
Money won't change what's happened but it can help you have a better life, a life which may have been messed up because of him. Who does deserve the money then? I would say that he doesn't, therefore there shouldn't even be an estate to be passed on. Words are easily spoken but actions...well, I'll be very interested to see how his family handle the financial affairs, although I don't think I'll be surprised.
It's said 'innocent until proven guilty'. What, by our courts? We all know what a joke they can be, not to mention corrupt. Apart from just very recently when do you ever see judges being reprimanded? I have no doubt he's guilty, the tapes, his associations and comments etc - it's just how much and far that's unknown. I have a hatred of such people, as adults our primary role is to protect our children [all children] because we hold the ultimate position of trust from them. Just like animal cruelty I don't expect others to have the same opinion as me, of course not. But considering how obvious it is that he's been at the very least touching up young girls, I'd not like to be seen to be defending him! (not aimed at you Steve btw).
A very unrelated analogy is HMR&C. They will go ahead and raise court action against dodgy companies even when they know it will cost them more than they'll make - it's because they have to be seen to be doing it so people know that they won't give up.
Money won't change what's happened but it can help you have a better life, a life which may have been messed up because of him. Who does deserve the money then? I would say that he doesn't, therefore there shouldn't even be an estate to be passed on. Words are easily spoken but actions...well, I'll be very interested to see how his family handle the financial affairs, although I don't think I'll be surprised.
It's said 'innocent until proven guilty'. What, by our courts? We all know what a joke they can be, not to mention corrupt. Apart from just very recently when do you ever see judges being reprimanded? I have no doubt he's guilty, the tapes, his associations and comments etc - it's just how much and far that's unknown. I have a hatred of such people, as adults our primary role is to protect our children [all children] because we hold the ultimate position of trust from them. Just like animal cruelty I don't expect others to have the same opinion as me, of course not. But considering how obvious it is that he's been at the very least touching up young girls, I'd not like to be seen to be defending him! (not aimed at you Steve btw).
gman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,100
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
lol no worries, was taking a while to post my reply! Nothing wrong with having different opinions mate.
EDIT: I'm pretty shattered as I've been working days and evenings for a while now so need to unwind with something. Put simply, I hate these type of people and feel that they should have everything taken away from them and given to those who had suffered, it may not help but I feel they deserve it more than anyone else. It's just how I feel on this matter, it will probably never change and I don't hold any disregard to others who have a different opinion. I need to find something to unwind with now, perhaps BF3 - it's been a while!
Last edited:
The23rdman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree that financial compensation isn't the way to go. Which does that hurt? Only his family and we have no proof they knew anything about any alledged offenses. I'd say any victim asking for cash needs to be questioned in any other era, but these days it's seen as the norm. America has a lot to answer for.
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OK, let's rewind a little.........
A 16/17 year old woman in the 60s who had a bit of a thing for Savile has a few drinks with him, goes backstage for a bit of consensual fun. At the time there was nothing untoward and both parties consented.
In the 70s/80s, a kid went to the "Jim'll Fix It" show and sat on his knee. At the time totally and utterly innocent.
Now judge both of those events by today's standards....... Where the latter's concerned I must admit, when I see any clips of the Jim'll Fix It show now I cringe, all those young kids sitting around/on a creepy old man it just looks wrong. That's not to say that anything untoward has or was going on though, it's just how it looks when you look back at something that happened 30 odd years ago.
Society changes and so does people's perceptions and ideas of what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't.
Let's say a 16 year old female fan got backstage at a concert now and one of the celebs had their way with her, it'd be considered inappropriate (although legal) and the celeb would probably get hounded by the media and investigated by the police.
Yet this sort of thing was considered "normal" during the 60s, 70s, 80s and possible most of the 90s. It probably still goes on now but less conspicuously because of todays perception of that type of behaviour.
A 16/17 year old woman in the 60s who had a bit of a thing for Savile has a few drinks with him, goes backstage for a bit of consensual fun. At the time there was nothing untoward and both parties consented.
In the 70s/80s, a kid went to the "Jim'll Fix It" show and sat on his knee. At the time totally and utterly innocent.
Now judge both of those events by today's standards....... Where the latter's concerned I must admit, when I see any clips of the Jim'll Fix It show now I cringe, all those young kids sitting around/on a creepy old man it just looks wrong. That's not to say that anything untoward has or was going on though, it's just how it looks when you look back at something that happened 30 odd years ago.
Society changes and so does people's perceptions and ideas of what is acceptable behaviour and what isn't.
Let's say a 16 year old female fan got backstage at a concert now and one of the celebs had their way with her, it'd be considered inappropriate (although legal) and the celeb would probably get hounded by the media and investigated by the police.
Yet this sort of thing was considered "normal" during the 60s, 70s, 80s and possible most of the 90s. It probably still goes on now but less conspicuously because of todays perception of that type of behaviour.
leftcurl
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,085
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
what i don't get is why the emphasis of this thread seems to be around 'what's the point? he's dead'... the fact that he's dead doesn't matter... the fact is that a lot of independant people have come forward with allegations of abuse by the same man when they were minors. Nothing to do with newspapers paying them for stories or about the victims seeking their 15 minutes.. that's a million miles off the mark. These people have now obviously found the strength to tell someone what happened, obviously with reassurance that JS isn't around to nullify their words anymore. Imagine for 1 second being in their position - no - you can't. Even now, after making the accusations they're probably still worried to death about having to re-live those moments from many years ago and still worried about being doubted.
What if it is all just swept under the carpet? What message does that send out? What about any celebs who might be a little hot under the collar right now hoping the spotlight doesn't turn onto them?
I think there's the mother of all worm cans waiting to be opened here and i can't believe people are comparing it to fingering a bird backstage at a concert
What if it is all just swept under the carpet? What message does that send out? What about any celebs who might be a little hot under the collar right now hoping the spotlight doesn't turn onto them?
I think there's the mother of all worm cans waiting to be opened here and i can't believe people are comparing it to fingering a bird backstage at a concert
- Messages
- 3,143
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
The point I was trying to make was
If he can't be tried and found guilty, how can he be found guilty?
If he did it what is the point of taking money off his estate and giving it to his victims, surely that belittles the crime as the victims got something out of him whereas some poor victims get abused and get nothing because their abuser is worth nothing making them feel more worthless.
If he can't be tried and found guilty, how can he be found guilty?
If he did it what is the point of taking money off his estate and giving it to his victims, surely that belittles the crime as the victims got something out of him whereas some poor victims get abused and get nothing because their abuser is worth nothing making them feel more worthless.
Totally agree, this whole sordid episode is much bigger than just Saville, it is like some "cancer" which has riddled the BBC, Social Services, Charities and the Police, plus other "celebrities and personalities" who have yet to be named. All of these people and organisations let this happen, ignored the obvious signs, and that in itself allowed the problem to grow.
The23rdman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
What has this got to do with the allegations regarding childrens homes?
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Everything and nothing really.......
Firstly they are A L L E G A T I O N S....
And just to clarify:
al·le·ga·tion   /ˌælɪˈgeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[al-i-gey-shuhn] noun
1. the act of alleging; affirmation.
2. an assertion made with little or no proof.
3. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.
4. a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification
OK, now we've cleared that up I'll move on.......
Savile visited childrens homes/hospitals, that is a fact. Perhaps he was affectionate towards the children and his actions were completely innocent back in the 70s/80s by the standards of that day but now a creepy old man going to visit kids in a home or hospital would immediately raise suspicion and those that were involved with what could have been totally innocent encounters are letting their imaginations run riot and judge the then innocent actions by today's more suspicious standards.... hey presto, an innocent hug is now something nasty.
With that said, please can you just try and absorb this........
I am not saying Savile did commit these alleged acts, I am not saying Savile didn't commit these alleged acts, I am not saying these "victims" are just after compo.
These allegations may be true and there may be genuine victims but at the moment no one other than those making the allegations know whether they are true are not and Savile isn't able to defend himself.
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
no more so than some of the "hang saville" club have already demonstrated to be honest.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Let's get this into some kind of context...
I'm one of the people who "knew" what Jimmy Saville was like, because I was a photographer who had contact with his world. I "knew" that he liked 'em young, he never made any secret of the fact and nor did anyone else who was surrounded by groupies. Most of these young girls were legally old enough but nobody asked for proof of age...
These girls were the real predators, they would home in on anyone who they thought was famous, or anyone who worked with anyone famous, or who even knew anyone.
Did I report him? No, because
1. As far as I knew, he was doing nothing illegal. And I had no evidence anyway.
2. Nobody would have listened, including the police
3. It would have been incredibly stupid and dangerous to cause waves.
4. When young girls managed to get backstage they generally expected (and hoped for) 'some' degree of sexual activity. No doubt some were touched up or worse when they didn't expect or want it but it's difficult to blame the men involved, when the vast majority were keen to say the least.
4. Just about everyone in the entertainment/photography business at that time (60's and 70's) was the same. I knew a famous photographer (still alive) who expected to have sex with all his models. They were all old enough, AFAIK, and it was legal - but basically they had no choice, if they wanted him to photograph them then they knew what was expected of them and they accepted it.
The world has changed, mainly for the better. But Jimmy Saville, and the many others in a similar position at the same time, should really be judged by the standards of the day, not by the standards by which we now live.
As for what he did or didn't do at children's homes, that's different. But I'll tell you what does seem strange to me - some of these women allege that he assaulted them, not once, but many times, over a period of months or years. If their accounts are true, why did they go back for more?
I'm one of the people who "knew" what Jimmy Saville was like, because I was a photographer who had contact with his world. I "knew" that he liked 'em young, he never made any secret of the fact and nor did anyone else who was surrounded by groupies. Most of these young girls were legally old enough but nobody asked for proof of age...
These girls were the real predators, they would home in on anyone who they thought was famous, or anyone who worked with anyone famous, or who even knew anyone.
Did I report him? No, because
1. As far as I knew, he was doing nothing illegal. And I had no evidence anyway.
2. Nobody would have listened, including the police
3. It would have been incredibly stupid and dangerous to cause waves.
4. When young girls managed to get backstage they generally expected (and hoped for) 'some' degree of sexual activity. No doubt some were touched up or worse when they didn't expect or want it but it's difficult to blame the men involved, when the vast majority were keen to say the least.
4. Just about everyone in the entertainment/photography business at that time (60's and 70's) was the same. I knew a famous photographer (still alive) who expected to have sex with all his models. They were all old enough, AFAIK, and it was legal - but basically they had no choice, if they wanted him to photograph them then they knew what was expected of them and they accepted it.
The world has changed, mainly for the better. But Jimmy Saville, and the many others in a similar position at the same time, should really be judged by the standards of the day, not by the standards by which we now live.
As for what he did or didn't do at children's homes, that's different. But I'll tell you what does seem strange to me - some of these women allege that he assaulted them, not once, but many times, over a period of months or years. If their accounts are true, why did they go back for more?
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes I could be seeing as I've had to explain myself several time prior and the message I was trying to get across still wasn't being understood.
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
It was/is that "they were looking for it" mentality that allows this sort of thing to continue down to today - "standards of the day" have nothing to do with it, it was wrong then and it's wrong now.
leftcurl
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,085
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can't for the life of me envisage a queue outside Savile's bedroom door of eager 14 year olds looking for action. I'm struggling to grasp the concept of them 'going back for more'
The23rdman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
And again, and for those other guys in this thread who are patronising and assuming I'm assuming guilt as well, what does this have to do with the allegations surrounding the childrens homes and charities?
I am not trying to hang anyone here. I am mostly talking about, and have talked about, how people in this thread are so utterly dismissive of victims of these traumatic events in general and are suggesting that because it's been hidden for 30 odd years (or however long) that is isn't real or important. These are the important issues here - how the general public perceive the abused. There is a massive misunderstanding and willingness to condemn.
You forgot 'they were wearing short skirts so were gagging for it'.
Last edited:
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So you know she's telling the truth and that's a completely 100% factual account of the event that she might or might not have seen?
This is something that she witnessed 30 years ago, after major surgery. Perhaps she was still under the influence of the anaesthetic? Maybe she saw Savile kiss and hug the girl, slipped into a dream like state (due to the anaesthetic) and dreamt the rest?
Alternatively it could be a completely accurate record of events, the point yet again is that we just don't know and based on that "evidence" alone we would never really know.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
To the people above who don't seem to get what I am trying to say, I'm not excusing what happened. All that I'm saying is that, whether it should have been or not, it was pretty normal behaviour back then, and the people who were engaged in that behaviour should be judged by the standards of those days, not by the standards of these days
gramps
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 44,805
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
In isolation possibly but in the light of all the similar complaints it would seem very, very unlikely.No it was not 'normal' behaviour, it was abnormal behaviour by those who abused there positions in order to take advantage of young women.
gman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,100
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I only started at page 5 to be honest but can imagine so. Doesn't make it right in response though.
gman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,100
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As did I, so I just explained myself differently. No need to be patronising regardless if others have done so, it doesn't help a debate and just makes it go downhill and then locked.
Or the most plausible explanation that he was a sex predator on a national scale.
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, you're totally right, he could have been.
But conversely you could also be completely and utterly wrong and accusing a dead man of something he didn't do.
Oh well..... the web-footed lynch mob have rallied again, no point in trying to bring a balance and considered discussion any more, I'm out.
Go grab your pitch forks & torches and have fun
Oh sorry.... who are you all going to harrass in light of the allegations? He's dead.
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd already tried to explain myself differently 2 or 3 times an guess I might have been aiming a little high so knocked it down a notch or two after that
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, you're totally right, he could have been.
But conversely you could also be completely and utterly wrong and accusing a dead man of something he didn't do.
Oh well..... the web-footed lynch mob have rallied again, no point in trying to bring a balance and considered discussion any more, I'm out.
Go grab your pitch forks & torches and have fun
Oh sorry.... who are you all going to harrass in light of the allegations? He's dead.
JS's family....The BBC....Stoke Mandeville....Anyone who these alleged victims feel can eventually be held finacially accountable because I guarantee that eventually it will all come down to compensation...these days it always does. :shrug:
Yes, you're totally right, he could have been.
But conversely you could also be completely and utterly wrong and accusing a dead man of something he didn't do.
Oh well..... the web-footed lynch mob have rallied again, no point in trying to bring a balance and considered discussion any more, I'm out.
Go grab your pitch forks & torches and have fun
Oh sorry.... who are you all going to harrass in light of the allegations? He's dead.
Your arguments as a Jimmy Savile apologist are unconvincing and improbable.
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My point exactly.........
Just for the sake of those struggling to keep up.......
If these allegations are credible and there is sufficient evidence to support them then fine, it's closure for those affected but in no way shape or form should Savile's family feel the repercussions.
If the BBC or any hospitals/care homes are investigated and their duty of care found lacking then that's a different matter entirely and perhaps there is a case for those affected to seek compensation.
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You really are quite funny..... I'm not a Savile apologist, where have I said I've thought he's innocent?
Please for your own dignity and self respect stop making stuff up about what I you think I may have said and take time to understand the point I'm trying to make here.
- Status