Jimmy Savile

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Fri 12 Oct, 2012 5:04 pm

Chrism wrote: Taken from an old VIZ annual... ... Other peoples children-A handbook for child minders.You just couldn't make it up could you?

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Fri 12 Oct, 2012 6:11 pm

B.B.C news 24 breaking news.Police now have 340 potential lines of enquiry to follow up.

LS1 · Post by **LS1** » Sat 13 Oct, 2012 7:45 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... .htmlWhere is the "Leeds Royal Infirmary" quoted here?

book · Post by **book** » Sat 13 Oct, 2012 9:16 pm

There can't be any reasonable justice that comes out of these accusations but there certainly will be some compensation and that should solve everything. Public organisations paying out public money to people that would not raise the issues when the man was alive. I'm not saying these people are wrong, I'm saying why didn't they all come forward years ago. Will they pass their compensation on to charities that support abused children? That's the least they can do isn't it.

The Parksider · Post by **The Parksider** » Sat 13 Oct, 2012 11:19 pm

raveydavey wrote: Phill_dvsn wrote: I think the video of Freddie Starr talking about these allegations is one of the saddest things I've seen.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment ... 892258It's hard to know the full truth yet, but that man looks distraught.. That's the problem - mud sticks doesn't it, regardless of being proved innocent or guilty at some distant point down the line?Whilst JS is dead and gone, Freddie Starr is still very much with us and is now being hounded in the media with allegations of a heinous crime, seemingly largely based on the fact he once appeared on a TV show with JS. Going back to JS, Jayne Dawson in the YEP makes interesting reading today...http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/l ... -5008493Is it now possible to cast Jimmy Savile as anything other than the devil incarnate without bringing the sky down on your head?Here at the Yorkshire Evening Post we took the last photographs of him before his death. He is in silhouette and wreathed in cigar smoke.Jimmy was not actually smoking that cigar – he was too unwell – but he was puffing up a storm of smoke at the request of the photographer, and it just so happens that the resulting portrait makes him look demonic – how apt, some might say.So is it now possible to say a word in Jimmy Savile’s defence? Probably not, and maybe he doesn’t deserve it – but let’s have a bit of a discussion anyway.Jimmy was an oddball, wasn’t he? I met him briefly a couple of times, phoned him on stories a few times.There was always the sense that the real man wasn’t actually there, just the rather outdated character he always obligingly put up front, a legacy of the days when entertainment wasn’t required to be as sophisticated as it is now.He admitteed to his oddness, some of it. He even wrote about his sessions with young girls, some of them, talking in his autobiography about encounters and irate parents, as if it was all a bit of a St Trinian’s-style joke.But he also did a lot of good, of that there is no doubt, raised many millions for charity.I suspect Jimmy was a man who actually only felt alive in the public eye, so the publicity was as important as the doing good, but the good part happened, nonetheless.But the big question being asked now is whether the charity work was all a front for darker purposes. Whether, all along, he was a man who wanted a reason to get close to girls, so he could molest them. I’m guessing now, but my feeling is that he was not that man.The specifics are for the police to investigate if they decide to do so, but my view is that we are, in effect, looking at history through modern eyes, using today’s values to judge yesterday’s events, which is compounding our outrage.Jimmy Savile became a big name at the time when the “permissive society” was at its peak: there had been one world, and suddenly there was another.In the old world, the rules were known and understood by everyone, but they were tough rules and the penalties were harsh. Basically, nice girls didn’t, bad girls did. Men, on the other hand, got away with whatever they could get away with. Nice girls got married and had children. They stayed home, their husbands went to work.Bad girls got pregnant and dealt with the consequences – a shotgun wedding, an illegal, dangerous abortion, a secret birth and an adopted baby – or a life lived outside society’s rules.But then along came the new world. There was the Pill, there was the feminist movement, there was the belief that, for women, having sex outside of marriage was empowering and a sign of freedom and independence, and there were teenagers - suddenly and for the first time a labelled group, determined to be free of society’s rules.At the same time, there was music. An explosion of pop, of pirate stations, of Radio One and of DJs, and of groupies and young girls, with all their eager immaturity, interested in exploring a world that didn’t have any rules, and keen to look like experienced women of that new world. Jimmy Savile entered that music world, along with other male DJs. The revered John Peel was a younger contemporary and he went to work in America and, at the age of 26, came home with a 15 year-old bride, who he said had lied about her age – though the prevailing climate was “don’t ask.”Jimmy Savile was older, not handsome, definitely odd, but he found himself in this swirling, youth-obsessed world where no-strings sex with girls was a sign of edgy rebellion. The matter of a powerful person exploiting a younger, more vulnerable, less powerful person, wasn’t discussed. It wasn’t the kind of question that was on the agenda, back then.Those people who sort-of knew at the time and said nothing should not be called guilty. Maybe they weren’t certain, maybe they heard rumours but had no facts, but more than that, maybe they didn’t know what the rules were. Maybe the girls themselves didn’t know what the rules were – couldn’t decide whether they had been favoured or abused.It’s not just a question of challenging the powerful, it’s about knowing when something is right or wrong at a time when society’s moral values are unclear – although hindsight makes them much clearer, of course.That’s not an apology for Jimmy Savile but it is some context. The world is a constantly changing place, we don’t do anyone any favours by pretending it isn’t. I’m just saying. What Jayne Dawson fails to cover is that interfering with children under 16 was illegal all those years ago and is so today.No Dawson, the world has NOT moved on.I was involved in my first sexual encounters at the same time Saville - a grown man - was doing what he was doing. I was just a kid but my god I knew the difference between us kids messing about on the edge and a dirty old man filling his boots.

The Parksider · Post by **The Parksider** » Sat 13 Oct, 2012 11:22 pm

book wrote: There can't be any reasonable justice that comes out of these accusations but there certainly will be some compensation and that should solve everything. Public organisations paying out public money to people that would not raise the issues when the man was alive. There's a raft of claims being made today.Apparently they want to be believed and don't want the money....If you believe that people are out for what they can get once the opportunity arises don't you see the irony??

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Sat 13 Oct, 2012 11:31 pm

book wrote: I'm saying why didn't they all come forward years ago. Jimmy Savile was investigated by police at least six timeshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/j ... times.html

book · Post by **book** » Sun 14 Oct, 2012 1:03 am

My point is that justice against the accused cannot come to any punitive measures being taken against him. If any of the authorities failed in their duty to protect children they should be brought to account but I have reservations that some of those who have brought cases to light now are not chasing compensation. I'd applaud those seeking justice not to accept any monetary compensation or pass it to a charity. I heard a lawyer talking today on the radio and it was definitely a conversation about compensation.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Sun 14 Oct, 2012 1:24 am

Personally I see nothing wrong with being compensated, it is after all what compensation is all about. *Compensation.. or reward given for loss or harm suffered.*Archaic.. restitution made or punishment inflicted for a wrong or injury.If they are worthy of it, then they deserve it.After all Savile didn't care less about making millions of pounds whilst allegedly abusing others. But that's a side issue, I've not yet seen anyone say they want anything but the truth to be known, sure they has been talk about compensation, but this is from advisor's and other legal people now involved, not from the victims.The man may be dead, and no he can't be tried and sent to prison. But the justice is at least the truth is beginning to come out, and he won't be remembered for being the late, great Sir Jimmy Savile. That's good enough justice not having to watch anymore Program's how great he was, or the good he did..Other people alive are implicated, they're are many answers yet to come.

book · Post by **book** » Sun 14 Oct, 2012 1:42 am

Good points phill but that compensation is likely to be paid in out of court settlements and most definitely linked to gagging clauses. There has been enough publicity already to ruin any past reputation, good or bad. It's a very emotive subject and I hope anyone who suffered any abuse finds some form of justice.