Jimmy Saville

[anonymous-user]

The level of child abuse appears much the same as ever, regrettably, but the subject is more of a tabloid fixation than it once was

[JustinP1]

daz3210 said:

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.

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.

[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...

[7db]

mdglen said:

simoid said:

What has changed now he's been dead a while

Simple, the dead can't sue for libel.

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

[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).

[silverfoxcc]

Whilst it possible that this story has lots of legs, it really beggers belief that a lot of well know 'celebs' are now saying we knew about it x y z years ago. esp Esther Rantzen given her association with childline, and all the '15 mins of fame' women, all all of them did bugger all about it
Why

If it was one of my kids, irrspective of who fiddled with them i would be shouting from the top of the Shard, or was there a cover up of Blair and Iraq proportions? Perhaps like Hillsborough the truth will out 20yrs from now.

[Derek Smith]

It has only been fairly recently that homosexual acts were made fully legal. The change in the law in the 60s only made certain homosexual acts legal.

I used to knock around with a crowd of sports car drivers in the 60s and one of them was gay. We all knew, including him, but it was never mentioned overtly. Once we were waiting outside a toilet block with my gay mate (don't worry, this isn't that bad) and a girl came out who was a bit of quality. She walked past amid silence and once she was out of earshot my mate said: She was good looking.

I said: I didn't think you went for that sort of thing, and he replied, She had a lovely arse.

So it was accepted but never talked about as such. I met him in Brighton (who would have thought) some years later and we had a chat. He'd formed a long term relationship and it came as no surprise.

I think we all knew about gays in those days. I was chatted up by Daniel Pharson, who was a TV presenter. He also ran a pub on the Isle of Dogs. When I told him he was barking up the wrong tree, he accepted it and moved on. Long John Baldry (I enjoy name dropping) put his hand on my thigh backstage so to speak at the Bromley Court Hotel and I told him to clear off and he smiled and accepted it.

Even in the 60s that some

[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.

[Derek Smith]

silverfoxcc said:

If it was one of my kids, irrspective of who fiddled with them i would be shouting from the top of the Shard, or was there a cover up of Blair and Iraq proportions? Perhaps like Hillsborough the truth will out 20yrs from now.

or would you, perhaps, seek advice of specialists and choose the best course of action for your kid's welfare.

[JustinP1]

daz3210 said:

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...

I know what you are getting at - but funnily enough this guy did not look like the stereotypical paedo at all - in fact quite normal, and as a teacher he was a good and respected chap in the school.

At the time, there were 2 PE teachers teaching the year group, so two supervising during changing. Only on very rare occasions - like if an incident did happen would the other be wandering round the room. The other - every PE lesson - would not just come into the tiled shower area but put his head round to look for 5-10 seconds at a time.

I met with school friends recently, and unanimously this was something we all remembered and independently through the lens of what we now know saw the situation for what it was.

[streaky]

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

[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.

[Mill Wheel]

Derek Smith said:

Mill Wheel said:

Why do victims withdraw their complaints?

I ran an ID parade for an 18-year-old rape victim (which was not required as we had ample DNA but the defence demanded it and in those days they pulled the strings). As soon as she saw the offender (we knew from DNA) she collapsed and remained semi-comatose for all but seven minutes, rolled up into the foetal position.

There was no defence as such but the bloke pleaded NG in the hope that the traumatised victim, then 19, would not return from Germany to give evidence. She proved to have some real bottle and came back. She asked for a screen between her and her attacker and the court took 90 minutes of tense discussion to decide.

She gave her evidence and then the defence tried to block the showing of the video. This was refused. The plea was then changed to guilty and the offender had some time taken off his sentence in consideration of his generous gesture.

But as you say, the kid had to live through the trauma of a whole series of horrendous sexual assaults, repeating it to strangers and the offender.

It is a wonder that any such victims continue with their complaints.

As someone said, once a copper always a copper. The reason being, of course, the absolutely horrible things you have to see and the people you have to deal with.

The kid could have pulled out at any time, and who could have blamed her, yet this 19-year-old put getting on with her life on hold. Whether it was to ensure that, for a short time at least, he would be unable to attack other women, or on the less likely (according to the SIO) alternative of revenge I don't know but good on her.

My concern was that if I ever came across someone offending, or this bloke (as I, like the victim, will never forget his face) I'd lose it. I'm a mild sort of bloke but I really fear that I would lose my temper and really lay into the offender. The other thing is that I hope i will lose my temper and really lay into the offender.

If you could have seen him and his manner you'd feel exactly the same way.

The smug brief as well, making the girl go through with the parade despite it being of no evidential value whatsoever. He needs to watch out.

I don't think many posting here actually know what people go through in the questioning though - on both sides.
The personal nature of the details borders on disgusting - definitely distasteful - but those questions (apparently) have to be asked.
I was innocent of the allegations made, but I felt as though I had been violated - and my wife had to be asked the same questions about our personal life - despite she didn't even know me when the alleged events took place!
If you have not experienced it, you will have no idea how stressful is is.

I had no end of sympathy and people offering to be character witnesses - but what use is a character witness? All it might show is that they didn't know you as well as they thought - Harold Shipman would probably be well spoken of by any of his victims!

It is so easy to sit typing that the victims should have spoken out - but you have NO IDEA what it is like for them.

Saville would appear to have been either innocent or very clever and manipulative.
From what I know of his upbringing, it could well be the latter... somebody mentioned double bluff early on.

[triumphkryten]

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 heand 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 too scared to say anything while he was alive.

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

Edited by triumphkryten on Thursday 4th October 13:42

[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.

[Actus Reus]

Breadvan72 said:

The level of child abuse appears much the same as ever, regrettably, but the subject is more of a tabloid fixation than it once was

Noncesense!

ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NesjvRihbEg

[triumphkryten]

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.

[10 Pence Short]

Ragged old aholes like Esther Ransthen and others crowing about how awful it all is and how we must accept he was a nonce.

Note, these are all the kind of people who used to work and socialise in the same circles and now say "ooh, we had no idea!". Like fk you didn't.

If he was alive, we would have to wait for the outcome of any trial and only then talk about it as a fact. We're not going to get any quality of evidence with regard to this matter, as it's purely trial by media.

It seems the luvvies are enjoying getting some much needed exposure, though.

[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.

[triumphkryten]

Agreed, but as we all know sh#t sticks, just like that poor bloody landlord in the Bristol killing a couple of years back - doesn't matter how right or innocent you are by exposing him, you'll still be the one that talked first, and pilloried for not talking sooner.....

Our wonderful tv and print media have a habit of changing allegiance and viewpoint according the the agenda of the day

Edited by triumphkryten on Thursday 4th October 14:59