Jimmy Savile
07 October 2012, 04:11 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 11,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....a lot of others may be getting hot under the collar at the moment for things they did in the sixties and seventies, probably stuff they arent proud of but are about to be judged for the actions of an old morality against a new morality, one with more clearly defined boundaries that is itself not perfect, though it does protect children more which can only be a good thing.
Whilst terrible of course, nothing should come of it some 30 years later. The workplace back then was widely different with sexism and attitude towards women light years from where it is today.
07 October 2012, 04:46 PM
#64
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This. Liz Kershaw was on the Today Show saying that she was routinely groped by someone famous whilst at Radio 1.
Whilst terrible of course, nothing should come of it some 30 years later. The workplace back then was widely different with sexism and attitude towards women light years from where it is today.
Whilst terrible of course, nothing should come of it some 30 years later. The workplace back then was widely different with sexism and attitude towards women light years from where it is today.
But interfering sexually with minors is another thing altogether - I find harder to understand it in a contextual "but things were different back then" way. It should be one of those things that is just self-evidently wrong through the ages..... Alarmingly I think that's probably what has gone on in certain strata of society though, especially the entertainment industry.
Jim Jefferies made a very good point in that video, it does seem that being successful buys you a certain degree of immunity against sexual exploitation of minors; some celebrities like Chaplin, Presley and Jackson (although the latter was never proved) have engaged in sexual activity with minors and yet society looks back on them with reverence for what they did in the showbiz world, rather than reviles them for what they did in their personal life.
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 07 October 2012 at 04:50 PM.
07 October 2012, 05:09 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Think half of the issue here is that it was a different time and this kind of stuff was tolerated to a certain extent, especially considering Savilles power in the industry, I remember back then the "Schoolgirl" thing was considered fair game, if a girl was in possesion of a womans figure then she was considered as such, there wasnt the very polarised view that at 16 anyone was ready to have sex and before that point was pedophilia, think that view has arrived in the nineties really, obviously sex with very young children has always been illegal and caused disgust, it is just that the grey area has shifted and is now viewed as not much better.
07 October 2012, 06:24 PM
#66
The age thing is difficult as some girls can look much older, there is some scope for mistakes, especially for younger guys and those who like younger women but the law is there and everybody knows it. I worked on the Sex offenders database and there were two main types, nailed on Paedos, who looked like paedos, generally ugly old weirdos and then there were normal looking guys, usually late teens who got caught out for ******** a girl under age. I think some people are capable of having normal sex under sixteen and not suffereing, as long as it is consensual, not coerced or manipulative, there were couples at school who had been sexually active for quite a while, conversley there are people much older that cant handle it, the law is an average and is there to protect the majority, some will go outside it, if anybody does then they need to be aware of the potential consequences.
13 October 2012, 09:27 AM
#67
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fife - Scotland
Posts: 4,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see his old number plate is now up for sale on ebay :
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PERRY-PERS...item3ccb851826
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PERRY-PERS...item3ccb851826
13 October 2012, 09:55 AM
#68
Scooby Regular
This. Liz Kershaw was on the Today Show saying that she was routinely groped by someone famous whilst at Radio 1.
Whilst terrible of course, nothing should come of it some 30 years later. The workplace back then was widely different with sexism and attitude towards women light years from where it is today.
Whilst terrible of course, nothing should come of it some 30 years later. The workplace back then was widely different with sexism and attitude towards women light years from where it is today.
13 October 2012, 10:35 AM
#69
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Midlands
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all well and good having the "If it bleeds it breeds" as defence, but i've read about a severly disabled/brain damaged girl being molested.
Seems like his charity work "allowed" him to do this.
Seems like his charity work "allowed" him to do this.
13 October 2012, 12:48 PM
#70
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key is "allegedly" ...... how quick we are to jump to decisions without any factual evidence whatsoever. Interesting that all you would need to prove to "win" your case (and large financial payout) is that you were a) in the company of Jimmy Saville and b) state that he molested you by touching you for 4 seconds.
But of course this isn't about money, its about those people that were molested getting their recognition..... (and a few quid).
But of course this isn't about money, its about those people that were molested getting their recognition..... (and a few quid).
13 October 2012, 01:16 PM
#71
I see his old number plate is now up for sale on ebay :
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PERRY-PERS...item3ccb851826
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PERRY-PERS...item3ccb851826
13 October 2012, 03:16 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
NOW THEN NOW THEN
I used to watch Louis Theroux years back,i bet some have forgot about the interview he did with saville
When Louis asked Jimmy about being a paedophile
A scene from the 2000 interview shows the allegations were a long time coming.
BY ALEX HERN PUBLISHED 03 OCTOBER 2012 12:12
The culture of silence around the apparently widely known allegations that Jimmy Savile abused children who appeared on Jim'll Fix It in the 1970s was strong, but not impermeable. One of the few people to break it - even slightly - was broadcaster Louis Theroux, who had the following conversation with Savile in When Louis Met Jimmy, which aired in April 2000:
Voiceover: We were nearing the end of our time together, and as we headed back to Leeds, it was clear that Jimmy was pleased about the press coverage of his broken ankle.
But it struck me that his relationship with the press hasn't always been a happy one.
Louis: So, why do you say in interviews that you hate children when I've seen you with kids and you clearly enjoy their company and you have a good rapport with them?
Jimmy: Right, obviously I don't hate 'em. That's number one.
Louis: Yeah. So why would you say that then?
Jimmy: Because we live in a very funny world. And it's easier for me, as a single man, to say "I don't like children" because that puts a lot of salacious tabloid people off the hunt.
Louis: Are you basically saying that so tabloids don't, you know, pursue this whole 'Is he/isn't he a paedophile?' line, basically?
Jimmy: Yes, yes, yes. Oh, aye. How do they know whether I am or not? How does anybody know whether I am? Nobody knows whether I am or not. I know I'm not, so I can tell you from experience that the easy way of doing it when they're saying "Oh, you have all them children on Jim'll Fix It", say "Yeah, I hate 'em."
Louis: Yeah. To me that sounds more, sort of, suspicious in a way though, because it seems so implausible.
Jimmy: Well, that's my policy, that's the way it goes. That's what I do. And it's worked a dream.
Pause
Louis: Has it worked?
Jimmy: A dream.
Pause
Louis: Why have you said in interviews that you don't have emotions?
Jimmy: Because it's easier. It's easier. You say you've emotions then you've got to explain 'em for two hours.
Jimmy: The truth is I'm very good at masking them.
I used to watch Louis Theroux years back,i bet some have forgot about the interview he did with saville
When Louis asked Jimmy about being a paedophile
A scene from the 2000 interview shows the allegations were a long time coming.
BY ALEX HERN PUBLISHED 03 OCTOBER 2012 12:12
The culture of silence around the apparently widely known allegations that Jimmy Savile abused children who appeared on Jim'll Fix It in the 1970s was strong, but not impermeable. One of the few people to break it - even slightly - was broadcaster Louis Theroux, who had the following conversation with Savile in When Louis Met Jimmy, which aired in April 2000:
Voiceover: We were nearing the end of our time together, and as we headed back to Leeds, it was clear that Jimmy was pleased about the press coverage of his broken ankle.
But it struck me that his relationship with the press hasn't always been a happy one.
Louis: So, why do you say in interviews that you hate children when I've seen you with kids and you clearly enjoy their company and you have a good rapport with them?
Jimmy: Right, obviously I don't hate 'em. That's number one.
Louis: Yeah. So why would you say that then?
Jimmy: Because we live in a very funny world. And it's easier for me, as a single man, to say "I don't like children" because that puts a lot of salacious tabloid people off the hunt.
Louis: Are you basically saying that so tabloids don't, you know, pursue this whole 'Is he/isn't he a paedophile?' line, basically?
Jimmy: Yes, yes, yes. Oh, aye. How do they know whether I am or not? How does anybody know whether I am? Nobody knows whether I am or not. I know I'm not, so I can tell you from experience that the easy way of doing it when they're saying "Oh, you have all them children on Jim'll Fix It", say "Yeah, I hate 'em."
Louis: Yeah. To me that sounds more, sort of, suspicious in a way though, because it seems so implausible.
Jimmy: Well, that's my policy, that's the way it goes. That's what I do. And it's worked a dream.
Pause
Louis: Has it worked?
Jimmy: A dream.
Pause
Louis: Why have you said in interviews that you don't have emotions?
Jimmy: Because it's easier. It's easier. You say you've emotions then you've got to explain 'em for two hours.
Jimmy: The truth is I'm very good at masking them.
13 October 2012, 03:59 PM
#78
The does seem to be a lot of people appearing and saying he walked past me with a twinkle in his eye or he brushed against me for 0.1 seconds in a sexual manner.
he was obviously a pervert, but its getting ridiculous now.
he was obviously a pervert, but its getting ridiculous now.
13 October 2012, 04:43 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
You know what will happen next,my guess is you'll get some report in the paper etc,that a medium has spoke to jim from beyond the grave,and questioned him about these allegations...
13 October 2012, 04:56 PM
#81
Scooby Regular
13 October 2012, 05:11 PM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a guy who had his own room at several hospitals. I mean why on earth would you do that. The bloke even dressed and looked like a peado!
........ in keeping with the topic 
13 October 2012, 07:14 PM
#87
My point is that we have established he was a pervert, many people are realising he was and are recounting their tales, it is futile, the old weirdo has the last laugh, all that suffers is his memory, he managed to be wealthy, successful and prey on kids for years, there is **** all anyone can do, he has been dead for a year, his old **** is now no threat to Coleen Nolan, it is worm food, cant see the point on dwelling any further on it.
13 October 2012, 08:10 PM
#88
Having worked on the Sex Offenders DB, not many wore lairy tracksuits to be honest, big thick glasses, usually fat, usually pretty ugly and weird.
My point is that we have established he was a pervert, many people are realising he was and are recounting their tales, it is futile, the old weirdo has the last laugh, all that suffers is his memory, he managed to be wealthy, successful and prey on kids for years, there is **** all anyone can do, he has been dead for a year, his old **** is now no threat to Coleen Nolan, it is worm food, cant see the point on dwelling any further on it.
My point is that we have established he was a pervert, many people are realising he was and are recounting their tales, it is futile, the old weirdo has the last laugh, all that suffers is his memory, he managed to be wealthy, successful and prey on kids for years, there is **** all anyone can do, he has been dead for a year, his old **** is now no threat to Coleen Nolan, it is worm food, cant see the point on dwelling any further on it.
13 October 2012, 09:21 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 1,790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked on the Sex Offenders DB, not many wore lairy tracksuits to be honest, big thick glasses, usually fat, usually pretty ugly and weird.
My point is that we have established he was a pervert, many people are realising he was and are recounting their tales, it is futile, the old weirdo has the last laugh, all that suffers is his memory, he managed to be wealthy, successful and prey on kids for years, there is **** all anyone can do, he has been dead for a year, his old **** is now no threat to Coleen Nolan, it is worm food, cant see the point on dwelling any further on it.
My point is that we have established he was a pervert, many people are realising he was and are recounting their tales, it is futile, the old weirdo has the last laugh, all that suffers is his memory, he managed to be wealthy, successful and prey on kids for years, there is **** all anyone can do, he has been dead for a year, his old **** is now no threat to Coleen Nolan, it is worm food, cant see the point on dwelling any further on it.
This is the same organisation that criminalises us if we don't pay our TV licence.
13 October 2012, 09:59 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
I don't think you are quite getting it J4CKO, there is every point in 'dwelling on it' because the institution that is the BBC, the institution that we all underpin with our TV licence contributions has actually covered up Saville's wrong doings for years.
This is the same organisation that criminalises us if we don't pay our TV licence.
This is the same organisation that criminalises us if we don't pay our TV licence.