I'm not Hora but you get where I'm coming from, times have changed and I expect it was far more difficult to address things like this back then than it is now.
The Police's attitude towards domestic violence has changed. I doubt its changed towards Nonce's.
I can never get why people chime in with "why now?" and "what purpose could it serve?"
There are a bunch of victims out there who have never had the truth told, for whatever reason. Maybe they were too scared, not believed, systematically discredited, or any combination of those things.
A perfectly good answer to "why bring this all out now" would, in my opinion, be "because it hasn't happened yet".
The same line was used about Hillsborough, the same answer applies.
The 1970s were a very different time, and there was (unfortunately) perhaps more acceptance of dirty old men. Not all the stories are about full-on rape or penetrative sex, and those which weren't might have well been given short-shrift by the police. In addition - without the open discussion of such issues that there is today - young people may have lacked confidence to take things forward the way they might now.
My partner tells a couple of stories about a neighbour and someone else trying things on when she was 10-14 in the early 70's. She didn't tell anyone, and she by no means is a shrinking violet.
Autre temps, autre moeurs and all that...
SO - just because the girls did not go to the police then, does not make them liars.
SO - just because the girls did not go to the police then, does not make them liars.
Or Saville guilty....
Doesn't detract from how hard it must be for a victim to go to the Police/services. However, the thinking- someones a victim, how do they go about getting in contact with a (specific) media? (Open question).
My mate (now retired in his 60's) worked at BBC Radio 1 from the late 60's through to mid 90's where he ended up principle sound engineer for R3 and was involved with producing Jimmy's radio shows and every time his face popped up on TV his demeanour visibly changed as he commentated "that man is despicable - when he dies there'll be a torrent of allegations coming out about him - a horrible-horrible man that deserved to get thrown in jail years ago", he never talked about the alleged crimes but i do know it is not just underage girls. I trust my mate 100% as he is not one for fanciful exaggerations, he's worked with just about every artist that has ever passed through BBC radio from the late 60's through to late 80's early 90's and he's an extremely humble person, not prone to boasting about who he's worked with.
somafunk- if what you are saying is correct why didn't your friend go to the Police? Or if it was rumours why didn't he follow them up?
If I worked with someone and there were rumours I'd either say shut up, or I'd ask the person about them.
Risk losing his job? Principles? If he feels THAT strongly/a reaction about the man where are your friends principles? Scared of losing his job in the BBC? Then you can say he too was part of a [b]wall of silence at the BBC.[/b] Do you still trust him?
[quote=binners ]You have been sexually assaulted, do you...
a) Report it to the police, so they can begin a criminal investigation?
b) Contact a TV producer, so they can make a program about it?
There is a reason we spend quite a bit of taxpayers money on a proper criminal justice system. But then maybe we should just save a bit of cash and scrap the present system. Innstead we could have self-serving attention-whores Esther Rantzen getting her mug back on telly after failing in her narcissistic attempt to become an MP, and generate some prime time advertising revenues at the same time
Will there be audience voting? like on X Factor? to ascertain (via a premium cost phone-line) whether he's guilty or not?
Best post on this thread.
I must agree. I thought it but didn't say it incase Binnes papa lazarou'd me
He didnt fix it for me to fly in the millenium falcon - guilty as charged!
Yeah, of course i trust him, if you ever met him you'd instantly realise that's a daft question - i'm not being obtuse or argumentative by saying that believe me, a few of my mates on this forum have met him (sam singular amongst others). He's quite possibly the most truthful, humble, down to earth person i know and if i had worked with some of the folk he has i'd be dining out on it for the rest of my life but it's never something he mentions - even when prompted he is very reluctant to expand on recording sessions with the greatest artists of the last century. Apparently everyone knew about Jimmy's "thing" back then but it was either covered up or hushed up in one way or another, and by everyone i mean everyone involved in the entertainment industry along with so called "high up" interested parties knew about it but did nothing as he was such a well known figure at the time it would be very destructive for the entire industry. You've got to remember that back in the late 60's/70s was a very different time from nowadays.
somafunk- if what you are saying is correct why didn't your friend go to the Police?
The laws of libel and slander perhaps where the defendant has to prove the veracity of their statements on a balance of probability. An area of law where those with the deepest pockets win regardless of the "truth". Make enough enquiries of the oppositions legal team to rack the bill up to unsustainable levels and get them to withdraw.
Louis Theroux, Jimmy Saville documentary and his deceased mother's bedroom! 😯
He was weird, along with Wako Jacko...
by everyone i mean everyone involved in the entertainment industry
Except apparently in the BBC where he worked.
The BBC responded to reports that inappropriate behaviour by Sir Jimmy was an “open secret” at the corporation by saying it found no evidence of any misconduct by the broadcaster.“The BBC has conducted extensive searches of its files to establish whether there is any record of misconduct or allegations of misconduct by Sir Jimmy Savile during his time at the BBC. No such evidence has been found,” it said in a statement.
“Whilst the BBC condemns any behaviour of the type alleged in the strongest terms, in the absence of evidence of any kind found at the BBC that corroborates the allegations that have been made, it is simply not possible for the corporation to take any further action.”
The BBC also explained why an investigation into Sir Jimmy by BBC2’s Newsnight was never broadcast.
Newsnight editor Peter Rippon said: “It is absolutely untrue that the Newsnight investigation was dropped for anything other than editorial reasons.
“We have been very clear from the start that the piece was not broadcast because the story we were pursuing could not be substantiated. To say otherwise is false and very damaging to the BBC and individuals. The notion that internal pressure was applied appears to be a malicious rumour.”
:cringe:
Evidence? Awwwwwww bless? What a quaint, old-fashioned concept?
None of that nonsense required nowadays in our brave new media world. Oh no. Even easier if the person you're lobbing your unsubstantiated allegations against are six feet under.
Lets get stuck in with presenting gossip as facts
Louis Theroux, Jimmy Saville documentary and his deceased mother's bedroom!
I saw that as a quick-talking young presenter taking advantage of a confused old man for personal profit. That programme came across as not even worth putting out.
You've got to remember that back in the late 60's/70s was a very different time from nowadays
It was a moral vacuum?
Louis Theroux, Jimmy Saville documentary and his deceased mother's bedroom!I saw that as a quick-talking young presenter taking advantage of a confused old man for personal profit. That programme came across as not even worth putting out.
Na, Saville was weird!
You live in an as odd and detached world as Jimmy then if thats what you think.
"Hows about that then, [s]Boys[/s] [i]Girls[/i] and Girls?"
Of course we will never know for sure how much the bikes are worth because the press can't differentiate between "groupie accident" and "massive pederast"
Na, Saville was weird!
+1. Doesn't make him a nonce but definitely very odd.
Got to agree- he was odd but then some call it 'being a character'. Whereas I'm average/mundane. Shrugs, didn't make him a nonce though.
Saville had a holiday home near where I live, and I encountered him a few times in the village shop and in one of the local cafe's. I never spoke to him, but I've been present several times when he's made female staff in these establishments feel uncomfortable with his flirting and comments. Nothing that warranted challenging him, but he didn't appear to realise that they were finding him creepy even though it was blindingly obvious. Of course that doesn't mean he was a nonce, but he did seem to be quite unaware of social boundaries.
Whether he was or wasn't/is or isn't guilty isn't really the point is it? More that it should be investigated properly rather than paraded as de facto during an entertainment show (on ITV for goodness sake).
He may well have been a wierd kiddy fiddler (or not) but he is entitled to the same standards and opportunities for investigation and defence as the rest of us. Just because 10 of your neighbours club together and claim you're a 'paedo' doesn't make it so does it?
My last post- the flirting with Cafe staff. I imagine the women WERE over a certain age right?
I'm not sure about Paedophiles tastes but I imagine if you are into children you are only into children? A preference thing.
So I imagine the cafe thing was him trying to hit on women/being a dirty old bastard.
I imagine I'd do the same when I'm older (being a younger dirty bastard now).
Anyway - I'm out. I think I've made my point.
I'll say one thing though -if it does transpire there was a cover up at the Beeb, the ex-Beeb bloke mentioned in this topic IS part of a wall of silence. If you hear something serious about anyone you work with you CHALLENGE it or shut up. You don't complain later when you've retired.
My last post- the flirting with Cafe staff. I imagine the women WERE over a certain age right?
In the shop. middle aged. In the cafe, 16/17 years. All I am saying is that he didn't appear to appreciate social boundaries - what he thought was acceptable was not thought acceptable by the recipients.
Dig him up and cut his balls off.
there is a known connection with mother obsession/domination and deviancy, it can take many forms, so if it turns out that he had an unhealthy interest in children,he will join a long list of 'wacky' celebs that have used their status as a shield for their own ends.
How long is this "long list of wacky celebs" ?
I can think of a couple off the top of my head.
I suppose it depends on the size of writing that you use.
Can we have that picture of the rabbit with a cake on its head now?
binners » You have been sexually assaulted, do you...
a) Report it to the police, so they can begin a criminal investigation?
b) Contact a TV producer, so they can make a program about it?
I'd probably go b) if a) didn't work out. The police aren't always particularly useful when it comes to sexual assault - for example, they ignored the 15 year old girl when she told them that she and other girls were being raped and were in fear of their lives with the Rochdale grooming incident, and they also dismissed several women when they reported Derek Worboys the rapist taxi driver. One was told "a taxi driver wouldn't do that".
Given that they're two incidents from the last ten years, it's not hard to imagine that in the 70s girls would have had a difficult time getting anyone to listen to them, especially when it involves a man of percieved standing and power. I think most victims of sexual abuse don't report it, out of fear, out of the desire to forget, and out of the worry that people will think they're lying. I imagine that if someone comes up to you and says, "You can have some measure of revenge, your story can be heard, here are other people who have been through exactly what you've been through, together you can make people believe," Not saying that's what has happened here, but I wouldn't automatically dismiss someone's claims because their alleged abuser was dead.
There was also the story of the Kebab shop owner and his staff with the disappearing girls not so long ago.
[quote=Mrs Toast ]
Given that they're two incidents from the last ten years, it's not hard to imagine that in the 70s girls would have had a difficult time getting anyone to listen to them,
That was 40 years ago. There is still a police force and Saville hasn't been dead that long. What was to stop them making these allegations - more recently? Much easier to get an audience by running to the media desperate for a bit of sensationalism??
Anyway, he always struck me as a hands-on childrens presenter.
Well Gambo seems to have been waiting for this to surface:
[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/01/jimmy-savile-paul-gambaccini-child-abuse-claims_n_1928362.html ]Huffington Post[/url]
Why does it take decades for sexual abuse cases to surface, Saville had profile and, if the article in the link is to be believed, some measure of influence.
The abuse cases in the RC church have taken decades to surface, often due to the victims own denial, feeling of low self worth etc. These things seem to be pretty good at stopping people coming forward.
struck me as a [b]hands-on children[/b]s presenter.
Great work Hora. Loving it.
Hora are you suggesting that Jimmy Saville actually faked his own death, and now runs a string of Kebab houses in Rochdale?
Mrs Toast - I know what you're saying. But if there wasn't any/enough evidence to prosecute him while he was alive, then it seems pretty dubious to then be presenting what for the most part seems like gossip, as facts, on primetime television. While the person who the allegations are about is not alive to issue legal proceedings or defend themselves.
And any thoughts that it wouldn't be a load of sensationalist claptrap are negated by the fact that
a) Its on ITV. The station for people who find the Sun a bit news-heavy, and
b) It seems to involve rampant everybody-look-at-me, self-promoter Esther Rantzen as some kind of judge and jury
Plenty of reading for you here about the blunders over the Kebab Shop murderer:
The short of it is blunders in gathering evidence (they actually had secret recordings of two of the defendants admitting disposing of the body) yet due to technicalities the defendants got off....
Mrs Toast- the Rochdale issue wasn't a case of JUST the Police, it was cross-department **** ups (and probably Social services) fear of a reprise of the Oldham-style riots again (IMO).
At the very least the Police were trying, just the age-old incompetents in the force.
To summise? No one protects Paedophiles, its incompetence/bad communication that gets them off (IMO).
then it seems pretty dubious to then be presenting what for the most part seems like gossip, as facts, on primetime television
Its eye witness testimony however you wish to caricature it-
a) Its on ITV. The station for people who find the Sun a bit news-heavy, and
b) It seems to involve rampant everybody-look-at-me self-promoter Esther Rantzen as some kind of judge and jury
Yes you seem oblivious to hyperbole and over reaction unlike them 😕
binners - MemberMrs Toast - I know what you're saying. But if there wasn't any/enough evidence to prosecute him while he was alive, then it seems pretty dubious to then be presenting what for the most part seems like gossip, as facts, on primetime television. While the person who the allegations are about is not alive to issue legal proceedings or defend themselves.
And any thoughts that it wouldn't be a load of sensationalist claptrap are negated by the fact that
a) Its on ITV. The station for people who find the Sun a bit news-heavy, and
b) It seems to involve rampant everybody-look-at-me self-promoter Esther Rantzen as some kind of judge and jury
What is dubious about it? - seems you have outlined clear cut case to justify a TV programme.
I must agree. I thought it but didn't say it incase Binnes papa lazarou'd me
what does this mean?
Its [b]ALLEGED [/b]eye witness testimony however you wish to caricature it-
FTFY
If I go and tell a load of slanderous fantasist claptrap about someone in a court of law, I can be jailed for contempt. Then have private prosecutions taken against me for slander
The same applies in between episodes of Coronation Street nowadays, does it?
What is dubious about it?
Seriously?
