Forum menu
I'm just watching the Jimmy Saville panorama episode and I'm struck at how little most of the people who said they knew about him seem to accept they were part of the cover up. Watching Gambaccini say how he never spoke up because nobody would believe him is a little sickening. At least one of the Nationwide reporters said he accepts his share of the blame for not going to the police (the other said the same as Gambaccini more or less).
Are they really that lacking in self awareness or is it just how they live with themselves?
Paul "rentaquote" Gambaccini made me bring up a little sick.
I lost every bit of respect I had for Gambaccini when I heard him last night.
Career mattered more than the lives of the kids - they should prosecute him and the others for the appropriate offence - aiding and abetting or accessory, conspiracy or whatever.
The thing that struck me most was the level of sleaziness towards young girls/women displayed in the old TV clips that they'd found in the archives. I found it very creepy and I'm a bloke in my mid 30s....
To my 2012 eyes, his association with that Approved School and Broadmoor seemed very peculiar to me.
As has been mentioned, Jimmy Saville was quite honest about some of his past activities -"Hiding behind the truth".
I know that a lot of people appeared quite content to ignore his unacceptable behaviour, but it is amazing that he was allowed to continue [b]for so long[/b] -especially doing "Jim'll Fix It" and to become a "National Treasure" -albeit a very odd one.
They said he had KEYS for Broadmoor, the mind boggles
[quote=Aristotle ]The thing that struck me most was the level of sleaziness towards young girls/women displayed in the old TV clips that they'd found in the archives. I found it very creepy and I'm a bloke in my mid 30s....
Context. At the time, that would all have been seen as "just a bit of fun". Watch an episode of the Benny Hill show. Selectively digging up old clips and showing them in light of the current allegations is putting a spin on it that isn't necessarily relevant.
Remember, we also had "Love Thy Neighbour". Can you imagine that being allowed now?
druidh - MemberContext. At the time, that would all have been seen as "just a bit of fun". Watch an episode of the Benny Hill show. Selectively digging up old clips and showing them in light of the current allegations is putting a spin on it that isn't necessarily relevant.
I appreciate that, but it is amazing that a middle-aged man (he wasn't exactly one of The Osmonds) sleazing (physically and verbally) over young teenagers on prime-time TV was considered acceptable at the time. My 2012 mind boggles at the fact that he is then alleged to have taken some of the girls back to his dressing room for sex parties at the BBC.
It appears that he may have been some sort of role-model for Silvio Berlusconi.
Admittedly, there are still some quite unpleasant things on (late night) TV now.
Remember, we also had "Love Thy Neighbour". Can you imagine that being allowed now?
No, from what I've seen of it, that was horrendous. That programme appears to have shaped (or reflected) the views of a lot of people who are now in their 60s and 70s...
A very, very slight mitigation. By the context of the times and the environment Savile inhabited his actions may not have seemed so beyond the pale. Rock 'n' roll thrived, to a large extent, on it's aura lawlessness. Even now many music fans celebrate the "edginess" of their idols.
Sex 'n' drugs 'n' rock 'n' roll.
To what extent are fans complicit in the bad behaviour of their idols?
+ 1 druidh.
Back then he was your x factor celebrity type character who literally had the keys to anywhere. If you were some hospital for bad kids or disadvantaged it was probably seen as great PR/kudos to have someone like him patronising the establishment as it raised your profile.
Using the benny hill/love thy neighbour analogy, it was not seen as wrong it was of its time, STILL BLOODY WRONG! but safeguarding procedures and protection of vulnerable adults policies were still 25-30 years away.
He played out his fantasies in full public view and we all bought it as entertainment.
Only now when we sit back watching Panorama last night looking at the clips from the 70's and the lines he trotted using our 2012 eyes and ideals are we disgusted because today it is undeniably paedophile behaviour writ large
Should've listened to Jerry Sadowitz in 87.
it seems unbelievable now, like something out of a different century, I suppose the catholic cover up of abuse is similarly hard to understand
saville had 11 NYE dinners with thatcher at chequers
she was a big force in getting him access to broadmoore and having him head up the child task force
youd think that someone around her wouldve vetted him in some way??
I was shocked by it, I still am now.
This reeks of an institutional cover-up.
The Jim'll fix it producer MUST have been aware of the rumours at the very least, to say he knew NOTHING is utterly implausible.
Don't forget the trips to Jersey-- he denied it until shown photographic proof-- his name is an anagram of Evil As , Vile As, lot of forethought in the genes 😉
it seems unbelievable now, like something out of a different century
It was
To what extent are fans complicit in the bad behaviour of their idols?
yeah right- they were leading the weak willed crone on were they, among consenting adults you do as you like, but leave the kids and animals out of it.
[quote=Aristotle ]
> Remember, we also had "Love Thy Neighbour". Can you imagine that being allowed now?
No, from what I've seen of it, that was horrendous. That programme appears to have shaped (or reflected) the views of a lot of people who are now in their 60s and 70s...
Context! Even at the time, it was mocking the racists. The same way that Alf Garnett did.
The thing that struck me most was the level of sleaziness towards young girls/women displayed in the old TV clips that they'd found in the archives. I found it very creepy and I'm a bloke in my mid 30s....
You mean this sort of thing?
Not condoning what Sav' or the BBC did. Then or now really. But modern media culture isn't much better really. Perhaps its worse?
So people think sexy guys/girls in the media/vids are bad/worse. So long as those shown are over 18 I think good/better is more appropriate. Sex in the media is good so long as the over 18 policy is respected, and those vids are sexy rather than sexist IMO.
Funny. I didn't find anything in those videos sexist. Neither would I find a Kylie minogue, Rihanna or madonna show sexist.
druidh - Member"Love Thy Neighbour"....
Context! Even at the time, it was mocking the racists. The same way that Alf Garnett did.
...by use of a lot of racism. Judging by the way that some of the older generation still talk about different ethic minorities, I suspect that there were a lot of viewers laughing with the racist characters.
...As there were presumably a lot of parents laughing along with Jimmy Saville rubbing himself up against young teenaged girls (with problems) on primetime tv...
I appreciate that times have changed, but it is amazing by just how much.
So Shades of Gray is top of the best sellers and Googling "Tumblr" and the fetiche of your choice produces stuff that would have been considered hard core, under-the-counter porn in the 70s. So which direction are sex and morals really going in what is now the main stream media of reference - the Net? Try Googling "jeune soumise" with or without "Tumblr" and you'll see things are changing compared with the soft-focus 70s stuff, for you to judge if it's objectively better or worse.
The sexual age of consent is taken a little more seriously these days - good. There's an industry-wide, over-18 policy on models - good, but frankly the lid is truly off pandora's porn box, it's just that people have learned to be hypocritical tearing down the calendar girls from the office wall whilst trawling the Net for ever more extreme images and vids. And as for what adults really get up to behind closed doors, only you know that... .
I saw it. I don't understand why the BBC are being made to be the main villains. Whether they showed the Newsnight documentary is irrelevant in the light of complicity in Healthcare institutions to collude with JS practices. it is also irrelevant in the light of south yorkshire police failing to act on official complaints.
Just playing devils advocate really.
For us lot seeing semi naked women crawling around on the floor or lap dancing in front of pop stars is pretty normal, socialisation init?
So in some hypothetical scandal in 30 or 40 years time involving, lets say, rape/abuse/drugs/cover ups in the music business, people will look back at selective footage like that and wonder what on earth was going on in our minds accepting it.
Possible no?
And as for what adults really get up to behind closed doors, only you know that... .
Very little in my case.
allmountainventure - MemberJust playing devils advocate really.
For us lot seeing semi naked women crawling around on the floor or lap dancing in front of pop stars is pretty normal, socialisation init?
So in some hypothetical scandal in 30 or 40 years time involving, lets say, rape/abuse/drugs/cover ups in the music business, people will look back at selective footage like that and wonder what on earth was going on in our minds accepting it.
Yes, I think that will quite possibly be the case.
Being out of touch with popular culture, I find it a bit weird myself, in 2012.
rudebwoy - MemberTo what extent are fans complicit in the bad behaviour of their idols?
yeah right- they were leading the weak willed crone on were they, among consenting adults you do as you like, but leave the kids and animals out of it.
Not sure you get me, perhaps not clear. Wasn't talking specifically of the Savile case, or of his victims, but generally. Do we, in some way, get the stars and media we deserve by celebrating illegal behaviours?
Does anyone celebrate molesting children (apart from other child molesters)?
it seems unbelievable now, like something out of a different century,
Without being sarcastic, the reality is that it was a different century, and things were very different then.
Why aren't the "other Tv personalities" who are accused along with savil not being named?
Would'nt it give other victims a chance to come forward with their evidence? Or do the "personalities" have to be Dead as to not blow the lid off the whole Disgusting story and involve the no doubt very influential scum who did the same or worse!
Name and shame NOW i say!
How good are you people at guessing the age of young people? I've been a teacher and have a teenage son so thought I was quite good. At a recent dinner dance organised by my rock and roll dance group I was chatting (innocently) to a young woman I assumed to be over 18 when she commented she was in the same school and year group as my son, he's 15.
How good are you people at guessing the age of young people?
I see what you're saying and it must have been easy for Savile to have made the very same mistake 120+ times........ 🙄
Edukator- you are being disingenuous, the fact that some girls at 15 may look 18 to you at a function, what does that have to do with a serial abuser who used every means at his disposal to commit his deeds on those who had no say in the process-- childrens homes, hospitals, in fact anywhere he could he did.
bet he didn't touch thatcher when dennis was on the sauce....or maybe......
Edukator- you are being disingenuous, the fact that some girls at 15 may look 18 to you at a function, what does that have to do with a serial abuser who used every means at his disposal to commit his deeds on those who had no say in the process-- childrens homes, hospitals, in fact anywhere he could he did.
Both valid points. The former I made myself a while back; it can be very difficult to tell, and accidentally being intimate with a girl who said she was 18 and looked 18 when she was in fact 15 and 11 months does not a nonce make. However, Savile's actions and motivations are seemingly massively dubious regardless of that. Dodge city.
James Hunt reckoned he'd had sex with 5000 women including lots of girls in Japan where the age of consent is 13. Hunt is dead so does that make him fair game for accusations he can't answer too?
James Hunt, John Peel......
Girls at 15 looking 18 does not explain a 9yr old Boy in a scout uniform does it!
Well, no, but then are there any allegations along those lines?
[quote=Cougar ]Well, no, but then are there any allegations along those lines?
There are now.
I'm a long way from a "we ain't nothing but mammals/neanderthals in suits/shaven apes" position, but in many cultures around the world, and not too long ago in the UK, older men taking (and "taking" is probably right) very much younger brides is/was closer to the norm.
I can see that in our history/evolution early-age sex was probably, again, more usual and that consent may have had a lesser role to play.
There appear to be imperatives at play that some men find very difficult to resist despite the fact that they offend so mightily.
Factor in the context in which Savile committed his crimes (one where "edgy" behaviour, sexual and otherwise, was celebrated) and, to me, it is easier to see how he, and others, were able to justify them as not being too far beyond the pale.
I think, in preventing crime it is useful to try to understand the conditions that lead to their being committed. This isn't necessarily to excuse the crimes or to demean the suffering of victims. Just, I think, a sensible way of thinking about things.
Just read the Have I got news for you transcript with Savile, I had forgotten about it.
[quote=King-ocelot ]Just read the Have I got news for you transcript with Savile, I had forgotten about it.
It's a myth
Yeah, I just read it was a 'hoax'
It wasn't a "hoax" it was a hoax. Paul Merton keeps having to answer questions about it.
atlaz - MemberIt wasn't a "hoax" it was a hoax. Paul Merton keeps having to answer questions about it.
I'm a bit puzzled.
I had never heard the rumours about Jimmy Saville until I watched HIGNFY a few years ago. I remember thinking that they were being very harsh to the chap at the time.
When the 'revelations' resurfaced the other week, I was reminded of his appearance on HIGNFY a few years ago.
I wasn't aware of any "trans-script". Having just read that "trans-script", some of it sounded familiar from my "memory" of seeing it, especially the references to a girl's name.
Maybe this "trans-script" was broadcast subliminally over every episode...
Odd.
atlaz - Member
It wasn't a "hoax" it was a hoax. Paul Merton keeps having to answer questions about it.
POSTED 8 HOURS AGO #
I said 'hoax' rather than hoax not as I believe the script may have had some inside knowledge rather i consider a hoax to be something light hearted and did not know if was the correct word to use. That is all.
Having just read that "trans-script", some of it sounded familiar from my "memory" of seeing it,
Your memory is wrong. Sorry. The perpetrators are known, they'd been interviewed about it and such.
There's a write-up [url= http://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/jimmy-savile-the-birth-of-a-paedophile-hoax-on-have-i-got-news-for-you/ ]here[/url].
I wasn't aware of any "trans-script". Having just read that "trans-script", some of it sounded familiar from my "memory" of seeing it, especially the references to a girl's name.
Looks like you were aware of the transcript then ?
but had forgotten about it, and somehow presumed you had seen it rather than read it or been told about it.
Looks like you were aware of the transcript then ?but had forgotten about it, and somehow presumed you had seen it rather than read it or been told about it.
I don't recall reading it before, although I'm assuming I must have read it or been told about it years ago. I suppose that the format is so familiar that the words could be projected in the mind onto an image of the chaps on the show.
I'll have to seek out the actual episode to see if it sparks any real memories.
IIRC the phoney transcript used part of the actual conversation but included parts that had been "cut" from the original screening. It's therefore possible that you remember some of the text.
druidh - MemberIIRC the phoney transcript used part of the actual conversation but included parts that had been "cut" from the original screening. It's therefore possible that you remember some of the text.
That would make more sense, hence only remembering some of it...
I'll have to seek out the actual episode to see if it sparks any real memories.
It won't.
Paul Murton was talking about it on Radio 2 a couple of weeks ago.
He said it was perfectly normal episode with no scandal or anything relating to the contents of the fake transcript.
I wish everyone would stop criticising Jimmy Saville.. I didn't have much as a kid, and when I was eight years old, Jimmy fixed it for me to milk a cow blindfolded..
I wish everyone would stop criticising Jimmy Saville.. I didn't have much as a kid, and when I was eight years old, Jimmy fixed it for me to milk a cow blindfolded..
Every cloud, every cloud...
I wish everyone would stop criticising Jimmy Saville.. I didn't have much as a kid, and when I was eight years old, Jimmy fixed it for me to milk a cow blindfolded..
Excellent, I was going to start a thread on here asking where all the Jimmy Savile jokes are, but I thought I might get a banning.
Dear Jim,
Please could you fix it for the girl in my class who I really fancy to come on holiday with me ?
Yours sincerely
Jeremy Forrest aged 30
not too long ago in the UK, older men taking (and "taking" is probably right) very much younger brides is/was closer to the norm.
Yeah, yeah, but we're talking about the seventies and eighties in the UK. It's not that radically different from now. Child abuse, assaulting the comatose and necrophilia weren't close to the norm. That much is obvious from the fact he apparently didn't do it openly.
I saw it. I don't understand why the BBC are being made to be the main villains. Whether they showed the Newsnight documentary is irrelevant in the light of complicity in Healthcare institutions to collude with JS practices. it is also irrelevant in the light of south yorkshire police failing to act on official complaints.
Also, the tabloids are having a field day slagging off the BBC for covering this up, but how much info must they have been holding back in this over the years? Very difficult to believe they didn't know about it.
Also, the tabloids are having a field day slagging off the BBC for covering this up, but how much info must they have been holding back in this over the years? Very difficult to believe they didn't know about it.
Truly pot calling kettle black.
The BBC as an institution is taking a lot of flack. I bet the Catholic Church is breathing a sigh of relief at the moment.
What 4 words do you not want to hear after sex. " How's about that then "
but WHY has it become the BBC's problem? Entwhistle would've gone up in my eatimation had he told the MPs that "Newsnight decided not to progress with the story as it was considered to be tabloid muck-raking unsuited to a serious news programme".
"Newsnight decided not to progress with the story as it was considered to be tabloid muck-raking unsuited to a serious news programme".
He'd look very stupid now if he had.
I don't think so. Leave the JS story to the likes of ITV or Channel 5.
He worked for the BBC. It cannot ignore that this went on under their watch.
The papers are giving the BBC hell on this because they have their own agenda
Murdoch and the mail are fiercely anti publicly funded broadcasting and will use any stick they can to beat the BBC with
Unfortunately the BBC keep making a mess of their handling of these things
Even if the BBC hadn't screened anything, they'd come out of it a lot better if they'd taken ALL the evidence to the police and handed it over.
The papers are giving the BBC hell on this because they have their own agenda
Yes, but the BBC acted like any other big corporation and dug their own grave.