PistonHeads.com Forum

Jimmy Savile

Author
Discussion

GavinPearson

5,581 posts

148 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Mark34bn said:
I saw Esther Rantzen on TV a few nights back, close up footage of her crying and saying how everybody knew what was going on at the time but nobody did anything..... This was a blatant attempt to clear her own name and garner public sympathy. She was a main figure in Childline and did a lot of good, but all the time she knew what (whatever) was going on and stayed silent.
Exactly. After she had got Childline established she could have easily spoken to the Police and let them put the pieces of the puzzle together. But she didn't, and that makes her a hypocrite of the very worst kind.

Voight Kampff

3,867 posts

57 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
There are some strange posts on here from people who seem to want to justify or explain away the alleged crimes. I can understand arguing that it may not be true but to accept it happened and then stand up for it is plain weird. I guess that's the cult of personality at work, or at worst people trying to protect one of their kind.

wildcat45

4,702 posts

86 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Voight Kampff said:
There are some strange posts on here from people who seem to want to justify or explain away the alleged crimes. I can understand arguing that it may not be true but to accept it happened and then stand up for it is plain weird. I guess that's the cult of personality at work, or at worst people trying to protect one of their kind.
I think it more wanting to see the shades rather than just blacl and white. There are degrees of bad.

ofcorsa

3,208 posts

140 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Vipers said:
Tiltle should be changed to "Jimmy Saville, rest in hell"

They cant all be lying.....



smile
Like in Dave Jones's case?

Oakey

18,329 posts

113 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
I think it more wanting to see the shades rather than just blacl and white. There are degrees of bad.
And where does abusing underage girls fit in on your scale of evil?

don'tbesilly

782 posts

60 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
chris watton said:
Mark34bn said:
I haven't read all of this so apologies if this has been covered before. I saw Esther Rantzen on TV a few nights back, close up footage of her crying and saying how everybody knew what was going on at the time but nobody did anything.
The more I think about her, the angrier I'm getting. This was a blatant attempt to clear her own name and garner public sympathy. She was a main figure in Childline and did a lot of good, but all the time she knew what (whatever) was going on and stayed silent.
bh
yes

This article sums it up quite well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/95874...

Part of article said:
.....
Esther's replies left my jaw on the floor. She started by saying that until now it had 'only been one single child's word against the word of a television icon', implying that this meant it was impossible to verify. She went on to say that now it was 'five adult women' who had come forward it was easier, and here was the part that started to make my blood boil, that they were 'cool, credible, sensible women', who through their lack of emotion were 'convincing' to Esther, and so she had started to believe there was some truth to it all. Really? Really, Esther? So, for you to believe allegations of child abuse, it can't only be 'one single child' saying it? And the victims have to be 'cool, credible and sensible' in order to be 'convincing'? And there has to be more than one, and they must never have met one another? Really? Isn't that kind of attitude exactly what you have been campaigning against all your professional life?

The reporter then asked her why she hadn't raised the rumours with anyone at the BBC. Esther's response was that it 'wasn't relevant to anything I was working on at the time'. What, like ChildLine? She then said she was 'only a guest' on Savile's show, effectively suggesting that child abuse was somebody else's department. Exactly whose department we'll never know, as the department of the person who was setting up ChildLine seemed to consider it 'irrelevant'.





Edited by chris watton on Saturday 6th October 10:08
I also saw the 'Exposure' programme,which in honesty,I didn't think was very good in terms of producing any evidence that would stand up in a court,and produce a conviction.

Esther Rantzen's contribution came across as self protecting and cleverly acted,crying, and shedding no tears,Rantzen did herself no favours whatsoever.

Reading the Telegraph article,and the piece on the Sky interview,Rantzen clearly doesn't believe the very ethos that Childline is all about,strange,given that she founded the organisation!

Gazzab

16,582 posts

179 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Somewhere I have (had) a signed note from jimmy saville addressed to me and a friend suggesting we should fill our house with beaver! He was narrating a radio ad and my friend was producing it (an instant tea ad back in 1990). They did ask him to state a number of test words which they then cut into a sentence which I am sure was to do with fiddling with children. So I certainly have memories of jimmy saville being considered a danger to children 20 plus yrs ago.

Eric Mc

82,285 posts

162 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Elderly said:
Yes IIRC that was true and it was probably the ultimate responsibility of the
'Studio Supervisor' to police it, but back in the day we were not so rigid about these kinds of things things, nobody thought twice about being sold cigarettes, alcohol, getting into see X rated films etc. whilst under age.
In the mid 60's I was a regular member of the 'audience' at Klooks Kleek (go Google who played there thumbup ) but I was certainly under age.

I'm talking about 1970 - 1979 and I'm only talking about TOTP.

I didn't know that there have been allegations involving TOTP "dancers, singers etc.".
With the exception of Pan's People, the girls you saw dancing on the show were audience
members. When you say 'singers' do you mean The Ladybirds, the regular TOTP backing singers?
Or do you mean members of bands and singers appearing on the show each week?
At various times over its history, TOTP has used teenage "plants" in the main audience to get the kids dancing, excited etc. They weren't formal dancers in the sense that they didn't perform as part of a troupe (Pan's People, Legs & Co, Zoo etc) but they were hired in and were regular attendees - so were not normal audience.

And, despite the fact that there may have been a lower age limit for the audience, there wasn't for performers. If a child had a hit in the charts (I can think of many under 16s who had chart hits in the 60s and 70s).

We already have one tale of an underage performer (Colleen Nolan - aged 14 at the time) having a run-in with Mr S.

Ozzie Osmond

17,027 posts

143 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
I bet Little Jimmy Osmond could tell some TOTP stories....

OzOs

Oakey

18,329 posts

113 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
I also saw the 'Exposure' programme,which in honesty,I didn't think was very good in terms of producing any evidence that would stand up in a court,and produce a conviction.
Go on, what sort of evidence are you expecting? Tell us, how do you prove a dirty old man fingered you or fondled your tits? What sort of evidence would be produced from such acts? You keep harping on about evidence so enlighten us all as to what this evidence would be. I've asked this a few times yet not one person has actually said what this damning piece of evidence would consist of.

ETA: This is completely ignoring the fact that the witness statements are evidence themselves as the barrister at the end stated.

Eric Mc

82,285 posts

162 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
The QC interviewed at the end seemed convinced.

ofcorsa

3,208 posts

140 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
The QC interviewed at the end seemed convinced.
Would have been anti-climatic if he dismissed it a bks no?

Eric Mc

82,285 posts

162 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
ofcorsa said:
Eric Mc said:
The QC interviewed at the end seemed convinced.
Would have been anti-climatic if he dismissed it a bks no?
Are you suggesting that they interviewed other QCs and only selected the one who felt Savile would have had a case to answer?

Oakey

18,329 posts

113 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Anyone know what the damning piece of evidence that convicted Jonathan King was?

Bedazzled

9,822 posts

118 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
It's the consistency of the statements that provides the evidence, as they all described very similar patterns of behaviour. The QC took a dim view of it and said it was enough to be investigated but I noticed he stopped short of saying JS would be charged. Showing the interviews may encourage other victims to come forward with their stories, perhaps they kept some important details back to compare them?

Elderly

2,137 posts

135 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
At various times over its history, TOTP has used teenage "plants" in the main audience to get the kids dancing, excited etc. They weren't formal dancers in the sense that they didn't perform as part of a troupe (Pan's People, Legs & Co, Zoo etc) but they were hired in and were regular attendees - so were not normal audience.
Eric - I don't put you down as somebody who espouses secondary research and then publicly
quotes it on this forum; so I have to ask, do you **know** this for a fact?

Eric Mc

82,285 posts

162 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
This debate is geting very existential.

Define "know".

90% of what I "know" I have learned through reading, studying and NOT from direct experience.

Are you suggesting that the only knowledge allowed is that garnered from actual experience.

If that is the case, most people know nothing about anything.

And it is a fact that not everybody present in a Top of the Pops studio was 16 or over.

wildcat45

4,702 posts

86 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Oakey said:
And where does abusing underage girls fit in on your scale of evil?
I don't have a scale of evil. What an odd turn of phrase.

Surely it is obvious that crimes differ in severity, circumstances surrounding the crime, intent etc etc.

In terms of abusing underage girs. I don't know. Robert Black at one end of the scale, Bill Wyman at the other.

As I said before. Judge this in the context of what was acceptable then. Not now.

Robert Black, probably one of the most evil men there is. He set out to rape and muder young girls. A 1970s DJ (Not JS for the sake of argument) is in a world where groupies surround him and want to be with him. Sexual stuff taies place, the victim in the case of the suicide girl claims to have done this on several occasions. It doesn't make what allegedly happened right, but there sure is a big difference between the two.



MrMoonyMan

2,152 posts

108 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
MrMoonyMan said:
Ref the 'young girl' allegations I can say that I am not in the least bit surprised from my one and only encounter with him.
Not at work now so I'll add to this;

In '98 I was 15 (Could have been '99 and 16.. but around there). I used to visit my elderly aunt near Fort William in Scotland making use of the over night train.

As she was bidding me good bye one day Jimmy Saville appeared and some how we struck up conversation as we were waiting for the train to leave. I remember him saying to my aunt "ooh is that your sister" to which my aunt immediately told him to "not be so silly" as she was never one to suffer fools gladly. Amuses me now to think of it.

Anyway, later that evening I'm sitting in the dinning carriage and have spotted a cute girl of my age also travelling alone. Before I had a chance to began my awkward teenage advances towards her table Jimmy appears. Helps himself to a seat and begins conversation. Soon after champagne in a bucket is brought over and then a little later after that they both left in the direction of the sleeping carriages. I remember at the time feeling that there was something very wrong with what had happened and the way he had behaved towards this girl but unsure if I should have said / done anything.

This girl looked to be 15/16 like myself (poss younger but not much) and he would have been 72/73.. Bit grim really.

Evil Jack

1,255 posts

125 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Shaolin said:
The fact he never married or even had a partner for long implies that it was an obsession that didn't wane like it seems to have with others as they grew up a bit more, got married etc.
Why does it imply that?
Whilst I can't refute the evidence against Jimmy Savile, I also think it's a very sad aspect of modern society that anyone who's never married or is deemed a bit of a 'funny bugger', is often first on the list of suspects in any high profile sex crime.

We've seen peoples lives ruined by the media in recent cases (Robert Murat & Joanna Yates' landlord spring to mind).

I don't want to see a witch hunt against oddball celebrities.

Otherwise who's next? Patrick Moore?*


*Obviously a ridiculous example to make a point.