Jimmy Savile

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Tue 09 Oct, 2012 8:07 pm

To get back on track of what this thread is about.Jimmy Savile: TV star's headstone to be removed in the wake of sex abuse claims http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ji ... -1369863It seems to get worse

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Tue 09 Oct, 2012 8:23 pm

Jogon wrote: GeordxAgreed. Your thread, your title. We are currently being led by the nose - by the media.Try this thoughhttp://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-lidd ... ge-sooner/ It will be interesting to see if Rod Liddle's regular column in The Sun later this week is quite so eloquent and balanced...I must admit, that while the facts (as they are) look grim, this has gone beyond a media frenzy. I'm also very surprised that a senior police officer has taken the step of declaring JS guilty at the start of an investigation and condemning him out of hand at a press conference. Very Orwellian indeed.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Tue 09 Oct, 2012 8:28 pm

raveydavey wrote: I'm also very surprised that a senior police officer has taken the step of declaring JS guilty at the start of an investigation and condemning him out of hand at a press conference. Very Orwellian indeed. Yes I noticed that, it makes you wonder if what they have learnt so far is pretty conclusive and damning doesn't it?

Post by **cnosni** » Tue 09 Oct, 2012 10:47 pm

Phill_dvsn wrote: Geordie-exile wrote: Some might call that hypocrisy. I couldn't possibly comment. Yes I guess some would indeed I agree, It's just great that we are all not alike thank heavens I think a moderators intervention on this thread wouldn't go amiss now in all honesty! Just got in from a long shift so missed out since my "RIP" question.I cant see much wrong with what has been discussed on this thread,posters have made valid points on both sides of the argument and as long as things dont get too personal then thats fine.We are adults after all

somme1916 · Post by **somme1916** » Tue 09 Oct, 2012 10:48 pm

Like many people,I try to keep an open mind in these kind of issues and do really attempt to be objective and open minded about things and not go "along with the flow" and become hysterical.As a final offering to this debate I feel I must relate a couple of stories from that era......more importantly from personal experience.My mum died when I was 6 in 1966.As a result of that and other social issues at the time,I,and my siblings were taken into care(children's home) until the mid 70's.Whilst the particular establishment had no major issues,there were always things that would now be percieved as not quite right.One particular instance was when I was 10yrs old....an older (14) girl,told staff I had tried to "touch her up" whilst in the cellar of the home innocently fetching bars of soap up to the main floor.You may laugh,maybe think well I wish that was me.......point being,it never happened,I didn't even fancy her(god,she was ugly).Guess who got in bother ? But,and a big but was the fact the misdemeanour warranted no more than missing out on cocoa and biscuits before bed.The other incident,which I won't go into any detail,is about definite sexual interference after which the victim felt ashamed,embarassed and scared to come forward with any detail for fear of being harangued,themselves blamed and believing that nobody else would believe their story.Such was the feeling about these things at the times.Therefore,I can fully understand if many(maybe not all) of the alleged victims failed to say anything at the time.The stigma and self shame was enormous without the support that one could expect as common today.The perpetrators were untouchable.What do I gain from this ??? Absolutely nothing except I know I have given an honest account of the mood at that particular time and can be proud in stating that.For people to say it was "accepted" way back then and should be excused is the biggest injustice possible for the victims.I could add to this debate but I feel I have gone far enough.

anthonydna · Post by **anthonydna** » Tue 09 Oct, 2012 11:34 pm

Puts a whole new meaning on "secret Leeds" all very depressing.

somme1916 · Post by **somme1916** » Tue 09 Oct, 2012 11:57 pm

anthonydna wrote: Puts a whole new meaning on "secret Leeds" all very depressing. Please don't beat yourself up about it anthonydna.....that I wasn't in Leeds but Wakefield at the time makes little difference.It just happened.This site is a fantastic source of inspiration and education to many people and long may it remain so.Hopefully,we may all be able to soon put these events behind us.I,for one,can't wait for the day when we may all move on from this episode and get back down to what the site is all about.I hope that may be soon and leave the investigations etc to the professionals.That,I hope,will be my last comment on the subject.

Caron · Post by **Caron** » Wed 10 Oct, 2012 12:10 am

somme1916 wrote: Like many people,I try to keep an open mind in these kind of issues and do really attempt to be objective and open minded about things and not go "along with the flow" and become hysterical.As a final offering to this debate I feel I must relate a couple of stories from that era......more importantly from personal experience.My mum died when I was 6 in 1966.As a result of that and other social issues at the time,I,and my siblings were taken into care(children's home) until the mid 70's.Whilst the particular establishment had no major issues,there were always things that would now be percieved as not quite right.One particular instance was when I was 10yrs old....an older (14) girl,told staff I had tried to "touch her up" whilst in the cellar of the home innocently fetching bars of soap up to the main floor.You may laugh,maybe think well I wish that was me.......point being,it never happened,I didn't even fancy her(god,she was ugly).Guess who got in bother ? But,and a big but was the fact the misdemeanour warranted no more than missing out on cocoa and biscuits before bed.The other incident,which I won't go into any detail,is about definite sexual interference after which the victim felt ashamed,embarassed and scared to come forward with any detail for fear of being harangued,themselves blamed and believing that nobody else would believe their story.Such was the feeling about these things at the times.Therefore,I can fully understand if many(maybe not all) of the alleged victims failed to say anything at the time.The stigma and self shame was enormous without the support that one could expect as common today.The perpetrators were untouchable.What do I gain from this ??? Absolutely nothing except I know I have given an honest account of the mood at that particular time and can be proud in stating that.For people to say it was "accepted" way back then and should be excused is the biggest injustice possible for the victims.I could add to this debate but I feel I have gone far enough. Hi Somme, What a sad start to your childhood.Like you, I shall not add anything else to this thread simply because things I would like to put are not suitable for young eyes.Things have happened in my family also and whether to report the person or not was the hardest decision to make for plenty of reasons.JS is not the first and he certainly will not be the last, even the clergy are not exempt.... and that (to me) says it all.

Post by **cnosni** » Wed 10 Oct, 2012 12:11 am

somme1916 wrote: Like many people,I try to keep an open mind in these kind of issues and do really attempt to be objective and open minded about things and not go "along with the flow" and become hysterical.As a final offering to this debate I feel I must relate a couple of stories from that era......more importantly from personal experience.My mum died when I was 6 in 1966.As a result of that and other social issues at the time,I,and my siblings were taken into care(children's home) until the mid 70's.Whilst the particular establishment had no major issues,there were always things that would now be percieved as not quite right.One particular instance was when I was 10yrs old....an older (14) girl,told staff I had tried to "touch her up" whilst in the cellar of the home innocently fetching bars of soap up to the main floor.You may laugh,maybe think well I wish that was me.......point being,it never happened,I didn't even fancy her(god,she was ugly).Guess who got in bother ? But,and a big but was the fact the misdemeanour warranted no more than missing out on cocoa and biscuits before bed.The other incident,which I won't go into any detail,is about definite sexual interference after which the victim felt ashamed,embarassed and scared to come forward with any detail for fear of being harangued,themselves blamed and believing that nobody else would believe their story.Such was the feeling about these things at the times.Therefore,I can fully understand if many(maybe not all) of the alleged victims failed to say anything at the time.The stigma and self shame was enormous without the support that one could expect as common today.The perpetrators were untouchable.What do I gain from this ??? Absolutely nothing except I know I have given an honest account of the mood at that particular time and can be proud in stating that.For people to say it was "accepted" way back then and should be excused is the biggest injustice possible for the victims.I could add to this debate but I feel I have gone far enough. Excellent example of the complexities of the whole debate.

BIG N · Post by **BIG N** » Wed 10 Oct, 2012 6:37 am

Phill_dvsn wrote: Haven't you just seen the program Big N?It's not long since finished.From what I saw, I doubt many people will want to keep their ''Jim fixed it for me'' badges now. They're wasn't a hint of anyone thinking there was any money to be made out of it. Hi Phill, sorry for the delay in replying to your post but I have a life away from the keyboard lol.No - I didn't manage to see the programme in question as I was working at the time and dont bother recording things these days as I find I only end up with weeks and even months worth of stuff waiting to be watched.Perhaps I could have phrased my previous comments better to make myself more understood, I have no doubt that several of the alledged victims that have now come forward are genuine people who for any number of reasons were far too scared to do so before Jimmy Saville passed away.However, my comment was - "Cant help thinking some people are seeing an easy route to some money in the form of publicity and compensation"And I still feel to a certain extent this could be true, how many of the 120 or so people now offering their stories up as evidence were more than happy as a 15 year old to have the attention of a World famous T.V. celebrity at the time and thought there was nothing wrong with it, even claiming bragging rights amongst their peers of the day, only to come forward now and claim just how badly mis-treated they were?As I said, of course there are genuine victims but there are also people who were not the slightest bit affected at the time now seeking to make a fast buck.