Jimmy Saville

Status
Not open for further replies.
Russ77 said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

The classic escalation from patronising to insulting whilst in perfect synchronisation the diminishment of credibility.
 
gman said:
The classic escalation from patronising to insulting whilst in perfect synchronisation the diminishment of credibility.
Click to expand...

TBH I'm a little beyond caring now.

The torches have been lit and the pitch-forks sharpened, reasoning either way is a pretty futile activity.
 
Russ77 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are, and not a very good one. Ridiculous explanations like 'maybe she was doped up and dreamed it' do you no favours. You're grasping at straws here, best to stop digging.
 
Many years ago when common sense was still around people sometimes would touch other people and children as a form of affection. A pat on the shoulder or leg if sitting, maybe a hug, this was seen as normal.

Today if you did any of those things they could be classed as harassment or abuse.

Now if Jimmy Saville did any of those things, which he will have, he hasn't really abused anyone has he?

Now IF he has shoved his hand up someones skirt, down their trousers, groped a breast or forced them to do anything then he is guilty and I'll get my torch and pichfork and join in.

As for him liking young girls and being a creepy old man what about actors/celebrities going out with and marrying women half their age and don't forget Mr Playboy magazine ;)
 
Laudrup said:
You are, and not a very good one. Ridiculous explanations like 'maybe she was doped up and dreamed it' do you no favours. You're grasping at straws here, best to stop digging.
Click to expand...

That's a fairly serious accusation you're making there, I suggest you re-read every post I have made and read what I'm actually saying and not what you think I'm saying ;)

Just to get you started I have said "I've always though he was a creepy old man"..... I'll let you go do the rest ;)
 
cowboy said:
Many years ago when common sense was still around people sometimes would touch other people and children as a form of affection. A pat on the shoulder or leg if sitting, maybe a hug, this was seen as normal.

Today if you did any of those things they could be classed as harassment or abuse.

Now if Jimmy Saville did any of those things, which he will have, he hasn't really abused anyone has he?

Now IF he has shoved his hand up someones skirt, down their trousers, groped a breast or forced them to do anything then he is guilty and I'll get my torch and pichfork and join in.

As for him liking young girls and being a creepy old man what about actors/celebrities going out with and marrying women half their age and don't forget Mr Playboy magazine ;)
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
Russ77 said:
That's a fairly serious accusation you're making there, I suggest you re-read every post I have made and read what I'm actually saying and not what you think I'm saying ;)

Just to get you started I have said "I've always though he was a creepy old man"..... I'll let you go do the rest ;)
Click to expand...

You like dictionary definitions, have a look at what apologist means.
 
Laudrup said:
You like dictionary definitions, have a look at what apologist means.
Click to expand...

Still not quite sure I follow?

I'm not trying to defend anyone here, merely offering for/against suggestions.
 
cowboy said:
Many years ago when common sense was still around people sometimes would touch other people and children as a form of affection. A pat on the shoulder or leg if sitting, maybe a hug, this was seen as normal.

Today if you did any of those things they could be classed as harassment or abuse.

Now if Jimmy Saville did any of those things, which he will have, he hasn't really abused anyone has he?

Now IF he has shoved his hand up someones skirt, down their trousers, groped a breast or forced them to do anything then he is guilty and I'll get my torch and pichfork and join in.

As for him liking young girls and being a creepy old man what about actors/celebrities going out with and marrying women half their age and don't forget Mr Playboy magazine ;)
Click to expand...

Are multiple sources accusing Jimmy Savile of patting them on the shoulder?
 
Laudrup said:
You forgot 'they were wearing short skirts so were gagging for it'.
Click to expand...

In the 1980's I was working locally in Kent for a large organisation, and in the Spring of one year, a 16 year old girl started working there. Within weeks she had a bit of a reputation, although the word "predator" was not used, some of the older women used to say "she would have you for lunch and spit you out after".
I remember her bragging about attending a F1 race at Brands Hatch and being "involved with a "few" of the drivers. She had gone there with her friends for one specific purpose, and it did not involve watching motor racing.

Now then, now then, now then, as it 'appens, it would appear that Jimmy Saville has done a lot worse than grope a few girls, but don't let anyone be under the impression that young girls cannot be predators.
 
Garry Edwards said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well said Garry!:clap:
 
Garry Edwards said:
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?
Click to expand...

Have you read some of the witness evidence that is coming forward now? This seems to go well beyond what you basically describe as "groupies" which is what you seem to have witnessed. Most of the criminal aspects of the allegations took place behind closed doors (or what Saville thought were closed doors). Was the underage disabled girl in hospital whom he is alleged to have touched up a groupie? Did she come back for more? No. Or the girls he pinned to the wall, were they willing? No. I'm sure Saville had his fair share of groupies but this isn't what the allegations are really about.

He took advantage of vulnerable girls from various children's homes. We're these groupies or were they desperate young girls taken advantage of?

It's far more sinister than that.

And as for the "standards of the day", sex with a minor was statutory RAPE. The sexual offences act 2003 has redefined this but it's pretty much the same today so really, I think the same moral and legal standards apply. "Free love" didn't mean molesting or raping minors.
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
In the 1980's I was working locally in Kent for a large organisation, and in the Spring of one year, a 16 year old girl started working there. Within weeks she had a bit of a reputation, although the word "predator" was not used, some of the older women used to say "she would have you for lunch and spit you out after".
I remember her bragging about attending a F1 race at Brands Hatch and being "involved with a "few" of the drivers. She had gone there with her friends for one specific purpose, and it did not involve watching motor racing.

Now then, now then, now then, as it 'appens, it would appear that Jimmy Saville has done a lot worse than grope a few girls, but don't let anyone be under the impression that young girls cannot be predators.
Click to expand...

Wearing a short skirt doesn't mean you're gagging for it or you deserve to be raped.
 
On the 'young girls can be predators' front, it is very much the role of ADULTS to have a duty of care over children, however 'predatory' those children may be.
It cannot excuse any kind of behaviour towards a child, because an adult should always be mindful of the fact that they are dealing with a CHILD and however mature they may SEEM, they are not an adult, making mature choices.
 
What are we going to do?

Dig him up, spray some Febreeze on him and get him in the dock?!

The man went to his grave having thought he got away with everything he wanted to do because no-one was big enough to challenge him
'It was good while it lasted'...was he gravestone epitaph. Who had the last laugh there?

Theres no smoke without fire, he was a wrong 'un....but he was empowered by the BBC who wouldnt believe things reported to them. Its the BBC who should be in the dock.
 
Headless Lois said:
On the 'young girls can be predators' front, it is very much the role of ADULTS to have a duty of care over children, however 'predatory' those children may be.
It cannot excuse any kind of behaviour towards a child, because an adult should always be mindful of the fact that they are dealing with a CHILD and however mature they may SEEM, they are not an adult, making mature choices.
Click to expand...

This.
 
odd jim said:
Have you read some of the witness evidence that is coming forward now? This seems to go well beyond what you basically describe as "groupies" which is what you seem to have witnessed. Most of the criminal aspects of the allegations took place behind closed doors (or what Saville thought were closed doors). Was the underage disabled girl in hospital whom he is alleged to have touched up a groupie? Did she come back for more? No. Or the girls he pinned to the wall, were they willing? No. I'm sure Saville had his fair share of groupies but this isn't what the allegations are really about.

He took advantage of vulnerable girls from various children's homes. We're these groupies or were they desperate young girls taken advantage of?

It's far more sinister than that.

And as for the "standards of the day", sex with a minor was statutory RAPE. The sexual offences act 2003 has redefined this but it's pretty much the same today so really, I think the same moral and legal standards apply. "Free love" didn't mean molesting or raping minors.
Click to expand...


Well put :)
 
Look,
I'm not trying to defend what he did, or what he may or may not have done, and I totally agree that it's the adults who are responsible for what happens and that they shouldn't take advantage, even if they are under pressure. And if he did do any of the things that he is now accused of doing, then he was wrong to do so.

All that I am saying is that things were different then, standards and expectations of behaviour were different, it was much more difficult to complain to anyone, including the police too - this was the era when an allegation of rape or sexual misconduct would get a bored look from the desk sergeant and the girl would be asked "were you wearing that miniskirt then?". The police have changed, along with the rest of society

And I'm also saying that people in the BBC and elsewhere who 'knew' what was going on but did nothing probably didn't know anything, they just had the same suspicions that most of us had, and there was nothing that they actually could do.
 
andy700 said:
Did you actually read anything I had said, or are you just trotting out the same words each time?
Click to expand...

Your irrelevant anecdote about rumours of what a girl of legal age got up to is telling me what exactly in relation to Jimmy Savile? He has been accused of rape, sexual assault and victims that were 13 years old. If you have any relevant stories about that I'm all ears.
 
Laudrup said:
Are multiple sources accusing Jimmy Savile of patting them on the shoulder?
Click to expand...

No idea, I'm not privvy to what allegations have been made.

All I am saying is that touching someone COULD HAVE been affection in a non sexual way, such as patting them on the shoulder or knee.

But you don't want to read that, all you seem to want is everyone to agree that he was a sexual predator.
 
cowboy said:
No idea, I'm not privvy to what allegations have been made.

All I am saying is that touching someone COULD HAVE been affection in a non sexual way, such as patting them on the shoulder or knee.

But you don't want to read that, all you seem to want is everyone to agree that he was a sexual predator.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of information and evidence suggesting he was just that. How many witnesses have come forward to defend him?? None.
 
odd jim said:
There's a lot of information and evidence suggesting he was just that. How many witnesses have come forward to defend him?? None.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending him, just playing devil's advocate...
How likely is that people will actually step forward and say that someone didn't assault them?
How likely are the papers to what they don't want to hear?
How many people would believe it anyway?
What would it prove if people did say that?
 
cowboy said:
No idea, I'm not privvy to what allegations have been made.

All I am saying is that touching someone COULD HAVE been affection in a non sexual way, such as patting them on the shoulder or knee.

But you don't want to read that, all you seem to want is everyone to agree that he was a sexual predator.
Click to expand...

Women are accusing Jimmy Savile of molesting them, not patting them on the shoulder. Can you tell the difference between the two?
 
Garry Edwards said:
I'm not defending him, just playing devil's advocate...
How likely is that people will actually step forward and say that someone didn't assault them?
How likely are the papers to what they don't want to hear?
How many people would believe it anyway?
What would it prove if people did say that?
Click to expand...

That still leaves you with the 25+ women who are making the accusations though.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Look,
I'm not trying to defend what he did, or what he may or may not have done, and I totally agree that it's the adults who are responsible for what happens and that they shouldn't take advantage, even if they are under pressure. And if he did do any of the things that he is now accused of doing, then he was wrong to do so.

All that I am saying is that things were different then, standards and expectations of behaviour were different, it was much more difficult to complain to anyone, including the police too - this was the era when an allegation of rape or sexual misconduct would get a bored look from the desk sergeant and the girl would be asked "were you wearing that miniskirt then?". The police have changed, along with the rest of society

And I'm also saying that people in the BBC and elsewhere who 'knew' what was going on but did nothing probably didn't know anything, they just had the same suspicions that most of us had, and there was nothing that they actually could do.
Click to expand...


Gary I do know where you are coming from
Many years ago Gary Glitter lived near me, I was 18 at the time and occasionally drank in the same pub as him, he came across as a decent friendly bloke, would happily buy you a drink, and people knew he often invited young girls back to his place, everyone thought he was just being friendly to his young fans, we all know different now, thankfuly I was far too old for his tastes and never a fan of his anyway.
Makes you wonder how many of these girls will come forward when he dies, no one really knows if anything happened to them, in those days it wasn't common knowledge that such things happened
 
i have to ask, does anyone have the news on, i really can't understand why that woman who described watching him do that didn't speak up :shrug::shrug:it wasn't happening to her she could have told someone
 
lizzy23 said:
i have to ask, does anyone have the news on, i really can't understand why that woman who described watching him do that didn't speak up :shrug::shrug:it wasn't happening to her she could have told someone
Click to expand...

Same reason. Shame and fear. We're talking about a man loved by millions who helped make dreams come true and ran thousands of miles for charity.
 
Jimmy Saville makes me sick. He must be stopped before he kills again.
 
Headless Lois said:
On the 'young girls can be predators' front, it is very much the role of ADULTS to have a duty of care over children, however 'predatory' those children may be.
It cannot excuse any kind of behaviour towards a child, because an adult should always be mindful of the fact that they are dealing with a CHILD and however mature they may SEEM, they are not an adult, making mature choices.
Click to expand...

well said.
 
Exactly

Quite recently one of our female interns made a very overt move on me, now she's very very pretty, she's of legal age, and she clearly knew exactly what she was doing , so why not ?

Well I turned her down because

a) at nearly 18 she might be legally an adult, but she isnt fully mature and I'd basicvally be taking advanage of an impressionable young girl 20 years my junior

b) It would be an abuse of position , I have a duty of care to my interns which doesnt involve taking them home for some special moose lovin'

c) I'm married and I take my vow of fidelity seriously
 
Garry Edwards said:
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?
Click to expand...

Gary, I am not having a go at you personally but have a think about the bits that I have highlighted.....only from a child / young person / victim's perspective.

I work in this particular field and have done so for many years. I know how hard it can be for people that have been abused to come forward at the best of times, let alone when it is a 'famous' person or someone with real power that adults don't want to challenge.

The people that think victims of abuse get massive amounts of compensation need to have a reality check as well. I have worked with more people / young adults that have eventually gone on to committed suicide as a result of abuse than have received compensation.

Some of the utter nonsense in this thread is deeply offensive and shows how some people can make the leap in their own mind between abuse and 'groupies', young women as sexual predators, star struck young women who seek out well known 'stars' and expect to be touched up.

Abuse is about power and how some adults abuse power. Adults should know better. The responsibility should not lay with children and young people.

For those that just see things in terms of proof / evidence. When working within child care proceedings (often involving sexual abuse) the burden of proof is different. Criminal proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt. In childcare proceedings it is on the balance of probability. That helps when it is a very young child or a young person with profound disbilities that cannot communicate. The type of vulnerable children / young people that are often the target of abuse. Would people say that on the balance of probabilities JS may have been a perpetrator given what is coming out?

I don't know whether JS did anything or not. I learnt a long time ago not to get too hung up on thinking about whether someone did or didn't abuse a child. I try to just focus on helping those that have suffered and want or need help and working with their families who are usually devestated too.

I am more concered with some of the utter uninformed nonsense that some people in this thread are spouting. I can guarantee that there will be people reading this that have suffered some form of abuse and will be feeling pretty shook up by some of the views expressed. They will be shook up but sadly not surprised. They know what they have had to face when making a disclosure of abuse and the strength that it takes.

Chris
 
Blue Moon 7 said:
Gary, I am not having a go at you personally but have a think about the bits that I have highlighted.....only from a child / young person / victim's perspective.

I work in this particular field and have done so for many years. I know how hard it can be for people that have been abused to come forward at the best of times, let alone when it is a 'famous' person or someone with real power that adults don't want to challenge.

The people that think victims of abuse get massive amounts of compensation need to have a reality check as well. I have worked with more people / young adults that have eventually gone on to committed suicide as a result of abuse than have received compensation.

Some of the utter nonsense in this thread is deeply offensive and shows how some people can make the leap in their own mind between abuse and 'groupies', young women as sexual predators, star struck young women who seek out well known 'stars' and expect to be touched up.

Abuse is about power and how some adults abuse power. Adults should know better. The responsibility should not lay with children and young people.

For those that just see things in terms of proof / evidence. When working within child care proceedings (often involving sexual abuse) the burden of proof is different. Criminal proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt. In childcare proceedings it is on the balance of probability. That helps when it is a very young child or a young person with profound disbilities that cannot communicate. The type of vulnerable children / young people that are often the target of abuse. Would people say that on the balance of probabilities JS may have been a perpetrator given what is coming out?

I don't know whether JS did anything or not. I learnt a long time ago not to get too hung up on thinking about whether someone did or didn't abuse a child. I try to just focus on helping those that have suffered and want or need help and working with their families who are usually devestated too.

I am more concered with some of the utter uninformed nonsense that some people in this thread are spouting. I can guarantee that there will be people reading this that have suffered some form of abuse and will be feeling pretty shook up by some of the views expressed. They will be shook up but sadly not surprised. They know what they have had to face when making a disclosure of abuse and the strength that it takes.

Chris
Click to expand...

Brilliant post.
 
Blue Moon 7 said:
Gary, I am not having a go at you personally but have a think about the bits that I have highlighted.....only from a child / young person / victim's perspective.

etc.

Chris
Click to expand...

Yes, good post, and I fully accept the points you made. I'm sure that you're good at what you do, other than the obvious fact that your observational skills aren't that great...

But how old are you? Were you around in the 60's and 70's?
If so, then instead of highlighting those points, then you would have understood them. Things are very, very different now.
 
yeah but they changed in part because some people had the courage to make waves when they saw stuffthat they didnt think was right
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top