Jimmy Saville

[daz3210]

I just watched the documentary on what has been alleged.

Based on what aired nothing has been proven as such, but what can be gained from the accusations?

Can any claim be made on his estate for compensation?

[daz3210]

The problem that I see is that there are always two sides to every story.

The alleged victims have given theirs, now we have to wait until....... oh wait, we have a problem, he can't give his side.

It seems strange to me that there are so many coming forward now, but yet there are suggestions that there were complaints while he was alive too. Why would no one investigate the claims while he was still alive and able to argue back. Yes, he was 'larger than life', but don't the press of this country love a good story.

[daz3210]

decadence said:

On topic quite why it seems Jimmy was allowed to have under-age 'fans' in his changing room alone at all (even for HIS protection against accusations) is really beyond me.....
this is claimed by several staffers at the BBC...

But when did this happen?

In years gone by there was nothing thought about such things. Pedophilia and homosexuality almost certainly existed, but was not talked about quite so openly. Child Protection Policies that sporting clubs have now were unheard of. It basically wasn't thought of as a problem I guess.

25 years since I played a sport that I still play. Back then after a game we went to changing rooms and got showered and changed. Adults and kids mixed freely. Now the rules are oh so different. Men and boys are supposed to use separate facilities (but this does prove difficult sometimes with the nature of some older facilities).

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

daz3210 said:

In years gone by .... Pedophilia [sic] and homosexuality almost certainly existed....

You don't say! Really, Daz, you do come up with some prize ones!

.... but it wasn't spoken about so openly!

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

You have perhaps led a sheltered life.

Perhaps, but then so must my parents.

I am told (but I don't think I am not old enough to remember) that at one point in time homosexuality was illegal. Granted pedophilia still is, but I do not remember it being talked about quite so much. My parents had photographs taken (quite innocently) of me sitting on a potty, in the bath etc at around 12 months old. Back then that was not looked upon as anything bad. Imagine taking such photographs for printing these days. They were part of my childhood, but were destroyed some years ago, lest they be deemed illegal.

I guess it is a sad fact of society that these days those that mean harm/offence impact greatly on those who do not. There was a time when I would be allowed not to like a person of different skin colour for no other reason than we did not get on, today I would be called racist. There was a time when I would have been allowed not to like a person who had a preference for the same sex simply because we had a disagreement about some neighbourly matter, these days I would be homophobic. God forbid if I ever wanted to take photographs of my own children in anything less than full state of dress - the world would immediately scream pedophile without consideration that it could be entirely innocent.

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

Daz, do not believe in tabloid tosh. There is nothing illegal about ordinary photographs of your children undressed, and your parents were daft to destroy old family photos.

There was only one reason. Fear. OK, you may not get convicted, but lets just say mud sticks even if not convicted, something my folks were not prepared to risk.

Breadvan72 said:

You are perfectly at liberty to dislike anyone because of what they say and do, as that has nothing to do with their involuntary characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.

Oh I wish I could believe you. I actually can speak with confidence that this is not always the case, since I have been at the receiving end of racial accusations. Thankfully I was able to head it off thanks to good friends of the same culture as the accuser.

Breadvan72 said:

Homosexuality was criminalised in the UK until the 1960s. That law caused much injustice. It is still criminalised in some less developed countries.

And hence it was hidden and not talked about in times gone by. I used to know a couple who had to flea from Ireland, since they were 'outed' as lovers and from then on were in danger. We are far more tolerant these days, to the point where I have had workmates who are openly 'gay'. My own personal thoughts have been made clear to them, I don't mind, provided their beliefs/feelings are not pushed onto me. In fact, some of the biggest comedy moments at work have been as a result of such openness.

[daz3210]

JustinP1 said:

I think what Daz is highlighting is that 20-30 years ago whist paedophilia existed, there was not the widespread knowledge there is now.

That is basically it.

And also it didn't seem to be reported in quite the same manner as it is today.

[daz3210]

JustinP1 said:

Indeed - as I mentioned before at my school at 12, 13 14 years old we just thought the PE teacher was a bit 'funny' for always having a reason for looking into the communal showers.

Thinking back - his intentions were obvious, and I'm pretty sure because it being an 'open' subject to talk about now that although he is thankfully long retired, that similar things today would get reported to the authorities and stopped quite quickly.

It all depends on how he looked though. Ever thought he may have been simply supervising to make sure nothing untoward was going on?

Perhaps the BBC/ITV should air a documentary on the matter, but best wait until he passes on such that there will be only one side of the story...

[daz3210]

7db said:

Also, the dead no longer do good work for charity so no more threat of that going away.

And even more simple, they cannot refute allegations and give their version of events (if there is even one to give).

[daz3210]

silverfoxcc said:

Perhaps like Hillsborough the truth will out 20yrs from now.

But what will in reality be gained?

At least with Hillborough you can suggest that at least some of those accused of cover up are still around to answer for their actions.

[daz3210]

streaky said:

Knowledge is more "widespread" because communications are so. In days long ago, many families had an 'Uncle Ernie', but the community was warned about his peccadilloes. He didn't get around much in his Morris Traveller, so was essentially 'tolerated'.

Like Derek I would probably respond violently were I to observe such a criminal offence taking place. Traumatic amputation by extreme extension being one likely outcome.

Streaky

I guess there is also the possibility that taking part in such perversions (if that the correct description) is far easier in the days of the internetweb. And also far more detectable due to the technology involved.

[daz3210]

triumphkryten said:

I was at a studio recording of the tv show QI some years ago, and as you can imagine it takes 2 hours to get 30 minutes as they tend to wander from the subject. During one of the wanderings, the subject of child perverts came up, and Steven Fry ordered the cameras stopped, and he and the guests, including J Clarkson commented on Jimmy Saville and what unsavoury facts were just waiting to come to light, but how the establishment (not sure if it was the BBC being referred to) were to scared to say anything while he was alive.

They all talked as if it was common knowledge in showbiz...

If so many people were in such knowledge, how was it kept so quiet though? Unless there is no substance in the accusations.

[daz3210]

triumphkryten said:

My guess is they thought that the first to talk would never get work again - he had some fair clout in the industry, and Jim could certainly fix careers for the worst I'm sure.

But surely if the allegations came out and were proven he would lose that clout pdq.

[daz3210]

decadence said:

I can't believe for one that Daz is lumping in Homosexuality and Paedophilia into the same box.

The only manner in which I am lumping them together is in that in times gone by neither were talked about as much as they are these days.

If you cared to actually digest what I have said in full, I did say that homosexuality is better accepted now, whereas pedophilia is still wrong.

So please stop worrying.

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

daz3210 said:

... I did say that homosexuality is better accepted now, whereas pedophilia is still wrong.

Just to be clear, homosexuality was never wrong, only illegal. Look at the damage that law did, in cases such as Alan Turing's and many others. We have indeed moved on.

That does depend on who you talk to though.

My Gran will never accept it, she still to this day insists it is wrong. Later generations however accept it far more. In fact many of my friends and acquaintances are open about it. I do however find myself somewhat uncomfortable sometimes when the affection between said friends is open and public. But as we said earlier, times change.

Pedophilia on the other hand...... well the thought simply makes me go extremely cold.

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

You gran's atavism is her problem. Why on Earth should you be uncomfortable about two people expressing affection? If you are not bothered about straight people doing this, then you also are displaying prejudice. Some people are gay. Deal with it!

To be honest, even straight people I sometimes think 'for the Lords sake, get a room'.

Holding hands isn't a problem, looking lovingly at each other not a problem. Eating each others faces - stop it!

I guess some of the cause is that I am straight. So, man + woman is 'normal' to me. I find it easier to accept woman + woman than man + man. Probably because I can see the reason for attraction to a woman, whereas it is somewhat more difficult to understand how someone can be attracted to a man. Like I say, I have many friends (male and female) who are openly gay and proud of it. I wouldn't consider myself prejudiced.

[daz3210]

Zod said:

We had a swimming teacher like that. It suddenly dawned on me one day about fifteen years after I left school that he had been a low level paedophile (I've not heard any allegations of anything more serious thant spending too much time around the showers and whackingg boys' naked arses with a pump to turn them into "baboons").

Is there a difference (in law) between a child abuser and a pedophile?

[daz3210]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

daz3210 said:

Is there a difference (in law) between a child abuser and a pedophile?

I guess it's the adding in of a sexual element. Plenty of people abuse kids but not sexually, they beat them and stub cigarettes out on them. Those particular monsters wouldn't end up on the sexual offenders register.

And similarly whacking naked arses to make them baboons?

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

Slavery and bear baiting were wrong when they were practised.

But they weren't were they.

They were looked on as OK, and in law they were, perfectly normal things to do.

Much the same as hanging used to be legal and the accepted thing to do with murderers.

It is only because society has changed its view/attitude that slavery/bear baiting/hanging is no longer practiced or accepted (or legal).

[daz3210]

streaky said:

It might reduce the number of Top of the Pops the BBC is prepared to retransmit ... from which his estate probably receives royalties.

Streaky

Where do the royalties go anyway? Charidee?