rugbymatt

Yep, you're right, at about 13 I was pretty much hanging out the back end of any girl I could get near but let me tell you something, at 40 I would never look at a 12 year old girl and think, "I'd tap that".... THAT is what we are talking about, I honestly can't see how none of you are getting it!

Now that aside, its also interesting that Saville chose girls and boys from vulnerable and sensitive situations, girls remand schools, special needs kids.... it is CLASSIC predatory behaviour!
You are right, a dead man can't answer for his actions but guess what, OTHERS are being implicated in this and if THEY are still alive then justice can be done. I used to say that no amount of Raj/ Mother England attitude form the Spain posters could ever shock me, over the years I have heard it all from this forum but defending a 40, 50, 60 and 70 year old man preying on 10-15 year old girls is about the most shocking! Sorry.

RichardP

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.


To be honest I don't think that 95-5% of forty plus men would be interested, or even manhandling 10 -15 year old girls but --if proven ---- there are some, of course that are.

But I think what JoJoJo is implying that a few of those 14 /15 year olds that were at events whatever, knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and you'd have to be made of stone not to be flattered, (at least) from the attention they were giving you, but for those girls then to turn around forty years later stating they have been traumatised ever since, are either --liars ---or ---- money grabbing.

All we have heard so far is hearsay, and the medias attempt to blow things out of all proportion, as I have said so many times before --- when and if these events can be proven in a court of law, instead of the offices of the gutter press, then and only then should all the suggested happenings happen either to Saville, or any "star" that has abused his /her star like patronage.

rugbymatt

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

Rambling Rose

Well I get it and I think its disgusting but aren't they defending him because they don't believe he actually did it. That it was maybe one or two 14 or 15 year olds who probably threw themselves at him and the rest has all been made up or exaggerated by the media?
The trouble is it's that unwillingness to believe wrong doing of someone who did so much 'good work for charity' that probably led to the whole sorry mess in the first place.
The really sad thing is that it could well be the only reason he did all that charity work was that it was such good cover for what he really wanted to be doing. It got him an 'in' to all those places where the vunerable children were.
As well as this there is a whole grey area about 'what was the norm' back then, what age children become sexually mature, what counts as abuse etc. etc. Surely we need to make the distinction between all those behaviours (whatever we think of them) and predatory paedophilia?
There's talk now of a possible paedophile ring in the BBC going back decades. People who may have been involved are still alive. Surely we need to find out if that's true and how come the BBC allowed Savile and possibly others to be alone with young vunerable children on BBC premises, especially when there were so many rumours about his behaviour.
Its a shame Savile is not alive to defend himself but the fact that he is not is no reason not to try and find out what happened.
Incidentally I thought all this originally came to light because an exresident of one of the childrens homes had published a book making claims against three men - a 'J' a 'G' and an 'F'. After Saviles death she said that 'J' was Savile the others can't be named because they are still alive. It was this woman who was the original source for the fated BBC 'Newsnight' programme. According to her Savile visited the home and selected children to appear on the 'Clunk Click' programme. They then got whisked off to London in his Rolls Royce. She was one of those 'selected' and then told of what happened in the car and in the BBC dressing room. In the book she says she complained to staff at the children's home and they were so shocked that she should have made such claims they shut her in solitary confinement for 3 days! One of the journalists working on the newsnight programme is the Nephew of the woman in charge of the childrens home. When asked he said there was no conflict of interest because his family had told the aunt in the past she was wrong to invite Savile to the home because of the rumours about him.
So far the BBC don't seem to be falling over themselves to find the truth. Hopefully the police investigation will do better. Trouble is looks like both institutions ignored complaints in the past so if thats true they are going to have to point the finger at themselves. What are the chances of that happening I wonder?

Mitzyboy

That's maybe what I sort of thought at the beginning. The more that came forward, my question was "why didnt you do something at the time". However the point that some are missing is that what allegedly happened is being substantiated by professionals .... and they have NO interest in compensation. They should of course be ashamed of themselves for not speaking at the time ..... but they are saying that they were aware of what Mr Saville was doing. Not just one hospital, or one nurse.

So ..... you have to ask yourself why would a nurse or a doctor or whatever make this up, as all they are doing now is setting themselves up for criticism

If it goes to court then what we are going to hear are the testimonies of the same doctors, nurses, prison warders, victims (male and female) that we are hearing from now. So although I do get the "innocent until proved guilty" thing, it's more than likely a good percentage of what has been said is true because its coming from various professionals in various places who are backing up what the victims have alledged

Sam Greenfield

Who really got me is Ester Ranzen (sp) - she fronts (or did) Childline and she said on telly that they knew it was going on back then - ffs love why dint ya say owt then - no piggin good now is it when the dirty bastard isnt here to be held accountable xxx

rugbymatt

I agree, her silence is an insult to the good work she has done, shame really.

jojojojojo

my daughter wouldnt and neither did any of the girls way back then who were "implicated" with jimmy savile. I've never said its right, all I'm saying is that teenage girls are not all naive little princesses. I will say, just for you that no, I wouldnt have gone near Jimmy Savile at 14 - however, at that age I was fully aware of the pitfalls of dressing and acting seductively and I knew it could get you into trouble, so I didnt. I did however, know, many, many girls of my age at the time who thought nothing of trying to "score" (for want of a better word) with famous people - age immaterial - street cred and celebrity status far more important. Some of these girls, including me actually at 14 did not look or act anything less than 18

On a slightly different note, but to give you an idea of how things, girls, 14 year olds can be; at 14 I fell "madly in love" with a local chap who was 23, I chatted him up, I lied to him and told him I was 17. I went out with him on an innocent date to the cinema and afterwards, we went back to my house where my mother told him my real age and he ran!!! I was furious with my mother!!!!!!

Jo xx

rugbymatt

You are completely missing the point and trying to justify it by giving anecdotal stories about what you were like as a child, you were not 10, he was not 50+ and you were not then passed around among your friends to try. Have you actually looked into any of this or are you just staunchly defending his right to a peaceful death? I only ask because its beginning to emerge that there are people alive who were involved and its also clear they preyed on very young children and very vulnerable children. If you don't understand why the exploitation of vulnerable children is a problem then there is no hope for you understanding why some of us do actually want to see this creep unearthed as the predatory scum he quite obviously was.

Domino

considering the situation of some of these people (male and female) where they had learnt from a very early age that whatever they said about anything would be sneered at, disparaged, where they are made to look stupid and worthless, what would have been the use of making a complaint of any sort to anyone in authority.??
Especially when some of those "in authority" were possibly involved in similar activities and may well have been procuring by recommendation for some sort of favour from JS further down the line.

as to those "professionals", they were in a far far better situation to have raised the barriers on this, to have brought the matter out in to the open for discussion.!!
So why didn't they.??
Perhaps because they took the easy option, after all they and theirs weren't the ones actually being abused.
But nowadays they are the first to jump forward and say that a child with unknown brittle bone disease was being abused due to a fracture or two.
Perhaps they should have put their fluffy bunny costumes on earlier in their careers.

As I said much much earlier, I had heard rumours that JS had women throwing themselves at him and going "out the back" for sex whilst he was DJing. And that was in the late 60's/earlier 70's when he would have been in his 40's.
But there wasn't any statement within that which said it was children.

Domino

have those ages been proven ?
have the passing on been proven ?

jojojojojo

I keep saying this and you keep banging on about all the anecdotal stuff that the gutter press are dragging out - like I said earlier, its a good job that his pet dog couldnt talk or I'm sure we'd have Savile committing bestiality too - I think there was one report that he was a necrophiliac. Just stop reading the sensational hearsay and wait for a proper enquiry before you start spreading more and more

Jo xxx

rugbymatt

A solicitor was on the TV this morning and again yesterday who is representing 110 separate cases of abuse, the one woman who had the balls to speak out wrote in a book she published when Savile was alive that three men abused her and numerous girls from the remand home they were kept in and named them simply as "J", "F" and "G", it is widely known that G and F refer to Freddie Star and Gary Glitter. The solicitor said that in many of the cases the claimants sought no financial recompense, they simply wanted people to hear them and would avoid any financial settlement at all costs.

Now, since numerous prominent journos have for YEARS been reporting back to their bosses about not only the rumours but what they had seen first hand, since Surrey Police themselves had a serious complaint put to them regarding him and passed it on to the CPS and they decided not to take any action shows this goes far deeper than we are being told, everyone one is blaming the BBC but given the shite the Sun et al have printed in the past why have they not ever run a piece? Why, up until the late 90's did they even tell their reporters that there simply wasn't a story in any of it? They have accused celebrities of all sorts in the past and had to run to the courts shitting themselves, look at Matthew Kelly?

Again I say this to you, if you are happy with the thought of YOUR children to be left in a room with Jimmy Savile, Freddy Star and Gary Glitter then good on you but think about this for a second, if PC World hadn't have uncovered what they did on Glitters hardrive not one of us would have believed that a man like that, a music Icon for many, would be capable of what he was and judging by the comments made by a very good mate in the CID (who admittedly wasn't part of any investigation he just spoke at length with colleagues at the time) the content of the hard drive was shocking even for hardened child protection officers.

rugbymatt

I've not picked up a paper in years Jo, I hardly read the news on the internet but I do watch programs and I do then go in search of information if it demands it, its not just one report, as I have said, solicitors are dealing with multiple cases.

Domino

a nice treatise on a hearsay situation but you are starting to become a 78rpm record that has a scratch on it

meanwhile you don't answer my 2 questions so just to remind you