Discussion
thetapeworm said:
The local rag seems to be suggesting that Leeds is starting to distance itself from old Jim...
I'm sorry but Leeds, that is bYorkshire Evening Post said:
Sir Jimmy Savile’s high-profile legacy in his home city of Leeds was unravelling today as fresh sex abuse allegations were levelled against him.
Public figures and groups were keen to associate themselves with Sir Jimmy during his life and in the scandal-free months that followed his death.
But, with the number of women coming forward to accuse him of abuse now reported to have exceeded 40, the city is moving to distance itself from the showbiz legend and charity fundraiser.
The Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust has confirmed it is considering changing its name in the wake of the allegations.
A spokeswoman for the charity said the step had been suggested by “a number of members of the public”.
She told the Yorkshire Evening Post: “The trustees are currently considering all options.
“[They] will do all they can to ensure the charity’s beneficiaries are not adversely affected by the recent reports.”
[b]The Saviles Hall conference facility next to the Royal Armouries museum in Leeds yesterday appeared to have removed a section of its website relating to events at the venue that had been attended by Sir Jimmy.
An organiser of a Sir Jimmy-themed walking tour around Leeds has also said it is “very doubtful” that any more will take place.[/b]
Dozens of people had attended three Savile walks staged by tourist guide Ken Goor since April.
A fourth on Thursday night, however, failed to attract any inquiries, said Mr Goor.
Leeds-based supermarket giant Asda, meanwhile, confirmed it had stopped selling Sir Jimmy fancy dress costumes on its website.
The clothing was available to buy at £45 plus a delivery charge of £2.95 up until Thursday morning.
As reported in yesterday’s YEP, plans to include a lifesize image of Sir Jimmy in a steel artwork on a new cycle route in Leeds are now in doubt.
Proposals for a statue commemorating his life in Scarborough have also been dropped and a plaque outside his old home in the town taken down after it was vandalised.
Two archive editions of Top of the Pops featuring Sir Jimmy have been pulled from the BBC schedules.
The backlash against the DJ and television presenter has seen calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood.
Yesterday, though, a spokesman for the Cabinet Office said the posthumous removal of a knighthood was impossible.
He told the YEP that a person who is made a knight automatically becomes a Member of the Order of the British Empire.
Membership is on a lifetime-only basis, however, which means that when the recipient dies, their knighthood technically ceases to exist.
Abuse claims began to mount up against Sir Jimmy ahead of the broadcast of an ITV documentary on Wednesday night.
Exposure: The Other Side Of Jimmy Savile carried testimonies from a number of women who say they were indecently assaulted by the star when they were schoolgirls in the 1960s and 1970s.
More alleged victims have spoken out since the show aired and Scotland Yard has now taken the national lead in assessing the accusations.
Sir Jimmy died at his home in Roundhay last October, aged 84.
Public figures and groups were keen to associate themselves with Sir Jimmy during his life and in the scandal-free months that followed his death.
But, with the number of women coming forward to accuse him of abuse now reported to have exceeded 40, the city is moving to distance itself from the showbiz legend and charity fundraiser.
The Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust has confirmed it is considering changing its name in the wake of the allegations.
A spokeswoman for the charity said the step had been suggested by “a number of members of the public”.
She told the Yorkshire Evening Post: “The trustees are currently considering all options.
“[They] will do all they can to ensure the charity’s beneficiaries are not adversely affected by the recent reports.”
[b]The Saviles Hall conference facility next to the Royal Armouries museum in Leeds yesterday appeared to have removed a section of its website relating to events at the venue that had been attended by Sir Jimmy.
An organiser of a Sir Jimmy-themed walking tour around Leeds has also said it is “very doubtful” that any more will take place.[/b]
Dozens of people had attended three Savile walks staged by tourist guide Ken Goor since April.
A fourth on Thursday night, however, failed to attract any inquiries, said Mr Goor.
Leeds-based supermarket giant Asda, meanwhile, confirmed it had stopped selling Sir Jimmy fancy dress costumes on its website.
The clothing was available to buy at £45 plus a delivery charge of £2.95 up until Thursday morning.
As reported in yesterday’s YEP, plans to include a lifesize image of Sir Jimmy in a steel artwork on a new cycle route in Leeds are now in doubt.
Proposals for a statue commemorating his life in Scarborough have also been dropped and a plaque outside his old home in the town taken down after it was vandalised.
Two archive editions of Top of the Pops featuring Sir Jimmy have been pulled from the BBC schedules.
The backlash against the DJ and television presenter has seen calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood.
Yesterday, though, a spokesman for the Cabinet Office said the posthumous removal of a knighthood was impossible.
He told the YEP that a person who is made a knight automatically becomes a Member of the Order of the British Empire.
Membership is on a lifetime-only basis, however, which means that when the recipient dies, their knighthood technically ceases to exist.
Abuse claims began to mount up against Sir Jimmy ahead of the broadcast of an ITV documentary on Wednesday night.
Exposure: The Other Side Of Jimmy Savile carried testimonies from a number of women who say they were indecently assaulted by the star when they were schoolgirls in the 1960s and 1970s.
More alleged victims have spoken out since the show aired and Scotland Yard has now taken the national lead in assessing the accusations.
Sir Jimmy died at his home in Roundhay last October, aged 84.
ks. I worked at the LGI for one summer in about 2002 and everyone knew what he was like. Ask the cardiac nurses, who refused to see him unless they were with someone else. Everyone in Leeds knew, but they were happy to use his name. Now the st has hit the fan they want to disassociate themselves? bks to that. Ozzie Osmond said:
What a load of useless piffle and twaddle this all is.
I just wish similar energy was deployed at issues facing us NOW rather than raking up old nonsense from days long gone.
I would agree that there probably are a lot more things more important out there right now but consider this;I just wish similar energy was deployed at issues facing us NOW rather than raking up old nonsense from days long gone.
As has been made clear on this thread by both myself and other people we knew the bloke was a wrong 'un long before the internet was spreading rumours at the speed of a keystroke. It would appear to becoming equally clear that a lot of people at the BBC knew of his 'tastes' and chose to ignore them either because of the possible loss of viewers and a major star or that he was 'protected' due to his charity work & connections amongst some of the highest people in UK society.
It has now become not what the sick old git was doing but who was turning a blind eye/protecting him to let him do it? What we are talking about here is the suggestion that senior management who were at the BBC at the time, let underage girls be abused for the sake of Saturday night viewing figures or the threat that funding to a hospital might dry up.
If these people were still in a position of authority at the BBC, a charity, a government department or even higher, wouldn't you want them to face some kind of inquest into why they let this dodgy old pervert get away with it for so long? And possibly who else might have been getting up to similar things & might be still alive and therefore able to face charges?
The Hypno-Toad said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
What a load of useless piffle and twaddle this all is.
I just wish similar energy was deployed at issues facing us NOW rather than raking up old nonsense from days long gone.
I would agree that there probably are a lot more things more important out there right now but consider this;I just wish similar energy was deployed at issues facing us NOW rather than raking up old nonsense from days long gone.
As has been made clear on this thread by both myself and other people we knew the bloke was a wrong 'un long before the internet was spreading rumours at the speed of a keystroke. It would appear to becoming equally clear that a lot of people at the BBC knew of his 'tastes' and chose to ignore them either because of the possible loss of viewers and a major star or that he was 'protected' due to his charity work & connections amongst some of the highest people in UK society.
It has now become not what the sick old git was doing but who was turning a blind eye/protecting him to let him do it? What we are talking about here is the suggestion that senior management who were at the BBC at the time, let underage girls be abused for the sake of Saturday night viewing figures or the threat that funding to a hospital might dry up.
If these people were still in a position of authority at the BBC, a charity, a government department or even higher, wouldn't you want them to face some kind of inquest into why they let this dodgy old pervert get away with it for so long? And possibly who else might have been getting up to similar things & might be still alive and therefore able to face charges?
What a difference a few days make
before the program was broadcast
As the trustees of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust, we are saddened by any proposed television documentary which alleges that the late Sir Jimmy Savile committed acts of underage sexual abuse.
The broadcast of such serious allegations, which by their very nature will be one-sided, may impact on the charitable trust and its endeavours.
after the broadcast
A CHARITY founded by Sir Jimmy Savile is considering changing its name as child sex abuse allegations continue to swirl around the late star.
before the program was broadcast
As the trustees of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust, we are saddened by any proposed television documentary which alleges that the late Sir Jimmy Savile committed acts of underage sexual abuse.
The broadcast of such serious allegations, which by their very nature will be one-sided, may impact on the charitable trust and its endeavours.
after the broadcast
A CHARITY founded by Sir Jimmy Savile is considering changing its name as child sex abuse allegations continue to swirl around the late star.
jaybirduk said:
What a difference a few days make
before the program was broadcast
As the trustees of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust, we are saddened by any proposed television documentary which alleges that the late Sir Jimmy Savile committed acts of underage sexual abuse.
The broadcast of such serious allegations, which by their very nature will be one-sided, may impact on the charitable trust and its endeavours.
after the broadcast
A CHARITY founded by Sir Jimmy Savile is considering changing its name as child sex abuse allegations continue to swirl around the late star.
This kind of thing is sickening me as much as Saville himself. Everyone are still choosing their position based on protecting their own interests, and nothing to do with giving any thought the victims. before the program was broadcast
As the trustees of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust, we are saddened by any proposed television documentary which alleges that the late Sir Jimmy Savile committed acts of underage sexual abuse.
The broadcast of such serious allegations, which by their very nature will be one-sided, may impact on the charitable trust and its endeavours.
after the broadcast
A CHARITY founded by Sir Jimmy Savile is considering changing its name as child sex abuse allegations continue to swirl around the late star.
Ozzie Osmond said:
What a load of useless piffle and twaddle this all is.
I just wish similar energy was deployed at issues facing us NOW rather than raking up old nonsense from days long gone.
I just wish similar energy was deployed at issues facing us NOW rather than raking up old nonsense from days long gone.
McClure said:
Everyone are still choosing their position based on protecting their own interests, and nothing to do with giving any thought the victims.
groak said:
I reckon in about 25 years paedophile will be where gay is now. Just another facet of normality which only a prejudiced bigot would condemn. Approval starts with cuddly and beloved celebrities being outed. After all, if someone as philanthropic and honour worthy as Uncle Jim the Kiddies Friend and Saint of Stoke Mandeville is a paedophile, what really can the harm be?
You seriously think paedopholia will be acceptable as a life choice in society ? With reference to Uncle Jim's philanthropic side and his work for charity....if the allegations that have been made are proved it's clear that he abused the access that gave him to young girls. Which questions his motives for doing so.
It's also possible that he did it and continued to do it as a way of making sure that he was above suspicion and to enforce how powerful he was to his victims....certainly my criminologist next door neighbour thinks the latter is very likely.
skinley said:
90 I'd imagine, what's your point?
My point is that the scenario of: "At various times over its history, TOTP has used teenage "plants" in the main audience to get the kids dancing, excited etc. .................... but they were hired in and were regular attendees - so were not normal audience. "is not one that I recognise from my DIRECT experience.
groak said:
I reckon in about 25 years paedophile will be where gay is now. Just another facet of normality which only a prejudiced bigot would condemn. Approval starts with cuddly and beloved celebrities being outed. After all, if someone as philanthropic and honour worthy as Uncle Jim the Kiddies Friend and Saint of Stoke Mandeville is a paedophile, what really can the harm be?
I hope I'm missing the hidden sarcasm in your post. If not you are a dangerous individual who should be euthanised or castrated before you can harm anyone's children. (assuming you haven't already?)Elderly said:
My point is that the scenario of: "At various times over its history, TOTP has used teenage "plants" in the main audience to get the kids dancing, excited etc. .................... but they were hired in and were regular attendees - so were not normal audience. "
is not one that I recognise from my DIRECT experience.
No one else claimed to know this from DIRECT experience, what's your point? Are you claiming to have actually been there at the time?is not one that I recognise from my DIRECT experience.
McClure said:
This kind of thing is sickening me as much as Saville himself. Everyone are still choosing their position based on protecting their own interests, and nothing to do with giving any thought the victims.
A difficult one that, I have some sympathy with the charity's position, and even more with the recipients of its services, whatever they are, who will suffer when donations dry, as they inevitably will.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff