Allegations collected by Newsnight from alleged victims that this repulsive man bribed teenage girls at an approved school with cigarettes and promises to include them in the audience of some dreary trumped-up TV show to provide him with executive relief were suppressed by the BBC after his death, it is reported in today's comic. Two other 'celebrities', both still living, were mentioned as having done similar things.
He looked a total wrong'un to me from the very start. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may be a smelly, reactionary, arrogant old nonce.
|
|
Puts a whole new angle on "Jim'll Fix it"
|
Would love to say I don't believe a word of it, but that just wouldn't be true.
He has always oome across as slightly odd, and then I saw the Louis Theroux weekend with Jimmy, and it because clear that he was a lot weirder than I had suspected
|
Lot of unanaswered questions, the first of which concerns how old these girls were at the time and the exact nature of the 'innapropriate behaviour'. Standards were different then; more than one Master at my Grammar school was 'knocking off' a sixth former. That's not to excuse stuff that was illegal or immoral then but........
Another is why it took 40 years for even one of them to come forward.
Clearly an odd man with an unusual relationship with his mother and probably not a 'team player'. OTOH being a Yorkshireman who's happiest in your own company doesn't make you a Nonce.
|
>> being a Yorkshireman who's happiest in your own company doesn't make you a Nonce.
No, it doesn't, and perhaps 'nonce' was the wrong word. But bribing 14-year-olds from approved school wouldn't qualify you as a very superior sort of human being really. You might say, too, that they were naughty headstrong girls to start with and that they might have been better off smoking cigarettes in Savile's big car than getting diseases and crabs up a back alley with boys of their own sort.
Actually this sort of thing - the recruitment of young girls as sexual playthings by richer older men - is widespread and passes for almost respectable in some places I have been. But it always made me slightly uncomfortable at least. It isn't really respectable here, and I think rightly so. Even if it has always been more widespread perhaps than we would like to think.
|
|
There's good and bad in most people. He did a lot of charitable work, and I respect him for that. tinyurl.com/79tt42s
|
I dont think Gary Glitter could be seen in a better light no matter how much charity work he wants to do, so Jimmy can well have his record on such work, however I suspect if the BBC did have some dirt on him, it was genuine but we shall never know because it will never be investigated further. If he did something, he got away with it, happens sometimes.
Michael Jackson was exceptionally weird and did some things questionable in the normal run of things but somehow they could not make anything stick, lord knows they tried and he sure gave them plenty of material to work with.
Worst crimes seem to be committed by the most unassuming people though.
|
|
Surprised it involved women (allegedly) perhaps?
|
Rumor and innuendo.
The bloke is dead and cant defend himself.
Do you have an alibi for what you were doing 40 years ago today?
|
>> Do you have an alibi for what you were doing 40 years ago today?
>>
I'd like to have been able to have said that I was still in my mother's womb, but sadly that isn't the case!
:-(
|
I guess we'll never know for sure, but being weird is definitely pretty strong proof of guilt.
You'll all remember that weirdo landlord who killed his female tenant. Thankfully the press vigorously outed him as very peculiar, a downright oddball. They also had loads of pictures of him looking strange, so the whole population knew that he was definitely guilty.
So, it was only a matter of time before he was hauled before the courts, found guilty and locked away for life...oh...hang on a minute....
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 10 Feb 12 at 16:47
|
From the Mail article "Reporters from Newsnight launched a probe into allegations about inappropriate behaviour by the Jim'll Fix It legend towards schoolgirls just days after his death on October 29".
It's one thing having a grown man trying for a grope, but a dead man? That's wrong on so many counts... :-)
|
>> I guess we'll never know for sure, but being weird is definitely pretty strong proof
>> of guilt.
He certainly was flamboyant and unusual, but there again, so are most entertainers. I've never thought of him as being weird.
|
THe Mail article linked at #2 doesn't particularise the alledged offences in the way AC does. A bit of Googling finds the original Mirror article which names an Approved School in Staines and refers to 'sexual favours'. There may one other story in the media about activity in the JFI dressing rooms.
TBH three allegations from witnesses who know each other and emerging 30-40 years after the event are going to struggle to stand up in court. They're also going to face suggestions of publicity seeking and/or gold digging.
OTOH if the publicity has the effect of flushing out others then smoke might equal fire.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 11 Feb 12 at 08:56
|
...emerging 30-40 years after the event are going to struggle to stand up in court...
They won't have to - so long as Jimmy Savile remains dead.
I've seen historic allegations succeed - and fail - in court cases, so it can be done.
I think one reason why the injured parties come forward after such a long time is they feel the abuser can no longer harm them.
That may be because he's old or infirm, or in this case because he's dead.
|
>> They won't have to - so long as Jimmy Savile remains dead.
This one originally came out in 2007 when Saville was still alive (though possibly infirm). CPS refused to prosecute.
|
...CPS refused to prosecute...
I don't know the ins and outs, but I'm surprised.
These days sexual abuse and rape allegations tend to be prosecuted, even if they are weak.
Rightly or wrongly we have a 'victim culture' which means the police and CPS are reluctant to say to the injured party: "Listen pet, this is a pile of cack."
It can raise expectations unfairly, because the abuser's defence barrister - or the judge - has no such qualms.
|
|
I thought this had been known for years? Groupies etc know the form.
|
>> That may be because he's old or infirm, or in this case because he's dead.
Yup, that's the very worse case of old and infirm.
|
Yes I am surprised hearing this news about Jimmy Saville.
Didn't he collect millions for charity.Excentric yes but messing about with children not sure.
|
>> He looked a total wrong'un to me from the very start. If it walks like
>> a duck and quacks like a duck, it may be a smelly, reactionary, arrogant old
>> nonce.
Ever since I first saw the bloke I assumed he was a nonce. Nothing in the intervening years has ever convinced me otherwise.
Garry Glitter is the very worse kind of unashamed, unrepentant, conniving, devious Nonce.
Wouldn't surprise me if Jimmy Saville was the same.
|
With Gary Glitter there was proof he messed about in Thailand with young lasses and stuff on his computer.
Not sure about Jimmy Saville he isn't here to defend himself.
|
>> Not sure about Jimmy Saville he isn't here to defend himself.
Yes, one of the few things he is unable to fix.
|
"He looked a total wrong'un to me from the very start. "
I wonder how many have been condemned by those words over the years?
|
>> "He looked a total wrong'un to me from the very start. "
>>
>> I wonder how many have been condemned by those words over the years?
And how many escaped because they didn't.
|
|
But not a good basis for a system of justice is it?
|
|
No clearly not, He looked a wrong 'un, he was a wrong 'un, and he never came to justice.
|
|
He looked a wrong 'un, there was absolutely no evidence to support that but we took him out and strung him up anyway would be better?
|
>> He looked a wrong 'un, there was absolutely no evidence to support that but we
>> took him out and strung him up anyway would be better?
If you string up all "wrong 'uns" you may be right or you may be wrong.
If you string up no "wrong 'uns" you will be wrong.
Its a system that worked well for thousand's of years. It eradicated witches didnt it, so it must have an element of practicality.
|
"It eradicated witches didnt it?'
Not in Norfolk - Are you feeling any pain?
|
No
You nonces up there could never do anything right,
|
>> You nonces up there could never do anything right
You need opposable thumbs to put pins into a voodoo doll properly.
Hence the Norfolk witch-fail.
|
>>Wouldn't surprise me if Jimmy Saville was the same.
It's rather graceless to say so even if you think it. The reptiles will also splash this at some point whether they find good evidence or not, as the dead can't sue for libel.
My father knew him in his cycling days, and despised him for reasons I never discovered. I thought it was just the charmless persona, but who really knows? Who ever really will now, apart from the victims if there are any - and how can they be separated from the mischief makers and attention seekers?
|
...The reptiles will also splash this at some point whether they find good evidence or not, as the dead can't sue for libel...
The victims may be pleased that someone is at last listening to them.
|
|
Impossible to judge a book by its cover. ANY book.
|
|
I could never understand why, as someone who often self-confessed to "hating" kids, did so many kids programmes! - I never liked him in life, but I can tolerate him and bear him no ill will in death.
|
I admire Sir Jimmy Savile for the charity work he did. The following is an extract from today's Daily Telegraph.
"Savile’s role as cheery national benefactor was further reflected in his tireless charity work.
It was once estimated that he had personally raised more than £40 million for various charitable causes, and that up to 90 per cent of his own income was given away, although Savile never disclosed the extent of his charitable donations. He took part in more than 200 marathons and innumerable “fun runs” for charity, without ever bothering to train: “I just turn up and run.” He completed the London Marathon in 2005.
He worked as a volunteer porter at the Leeds Royal Infirmary, and enjoyed a particularly close relationship with the Stoke Mandeville hospital near Aylesbury, raising £12 million to contribute to the rebuilding of the hospital’s National Spinal Injuries Centre, which opened in 1983.
He also worked as a volunteer at Broadmoor, the hospital for the criminally insane, where he was given his own room, and referred to the staff and patients at the hospital as “my people” and himself as “the Godfather”.
Savile once described his role at the hospital as honorary entertainments officer: “I ask them, what do you want to go round strangling crumpet for?” But his flippancy belied a shrewd understanding of inmates’ problems and how best to win their trust. In 1988 he was chosen to head a Department of Health task force to advise on the running of the hospital when it suffered a crisis of management and a nursing dispute. By some accounts, he ended up virtually running the place."
How many Car4play members donate even 0.09% of their income to charity, let alone 90%?
|
>> How many Car4play members donate even 0.09% of their income to charity, let alone 90%?
>>
If you're a multi-millionaire you can afford to give 90% of your earnings to charity and still retain an enviable lifestyle. If you're on the average salary you can't.
JS did do a lot of good work, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a dark side. Many are the otherwise good citizens whose sexual practices are of a questionable nature.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Sat 11 Feb 12 at 14:40
|
If he did have a dark side then the charity gifts were only conscience money.
Much easier to justify in your mind.
Pat
|
>> By some accounts, he ended up virtually running the place.
I wonder whose accounts those were. 'Running' Broadmoor? Do me a favour.
One can't hold Savile's relentless self-promotion against him really, because it's a feature of his original profession of high-profile DJ, and because it brought him the fame and money some of which he put to the good use you mention. It is certainly in this loveless man's favour that he spread it around a bit, wasn't a miser and didn't leave it all to a cat's home. Even the (alleged) sexual exploitation of vulnerable young girls, with which I rather sanctimoniously launched this thread, is hardly unique among such people or in the world in general.
What made me identify him as a wrong'un from the start was his image and the discourse that went with it. Behind the apparent idiot with his silly noises and clunking 'youth' dialogue was a hard-eyed Tin Pan Alley cynic, ruling his shows with a rod of iron to ensure than nothing, absolutely nothing, with any meaning or content was ever said, and forcing third-rate crap bubblegum music on teenagers who would have been very happy with something a lot better. A horrible man and a reactionary ideologue of the most sinister sort.
Doesn't mean he didn't cheer up a few suffering patients and criminal lunatics. I'd give him 3 out of 10.
|
>> What made me identify him as a wrong'un from the start was his image and
>> the discourse that went with it. Behind the apparent idiot with his silly noises and
>> clunking 'youth' dialogue was a hard-eyed Tin Pan Alley cynic, ruling his shows with a
>> rod of iron to ensure than nothing, absolutely nothing, with any meaning or content was
>> ever said, and forcing third-rate crap bubblegum music on teenagers who would have been very
>> happy with something a lot better. A horrible man and a reactionary ideologue of the
>> most sinister sort.
I quoted a newspaper report which had been researched. Where did you get your statements from?
|
|
They are my statements Gastropod. I didn't get them from anywhere.
|
>> They are my statements Gastropod. I didn't get them from anywhere.
>>
Unsubstantiated?
|
>> Unsubstantiated?
'Substantiated' by my own observation. We don't have to find someone who agrees with us in print before expressing our opinions surely?
I don't think you're much younger than me escargot, but clearly your gaze in the early sixties was highly uncritical. If I had ever imagined that any high-profile DJ was a well-meaning, innocent sort of superannuated teenager who just loved bubblegum music and only wanted everyone to have fun, my first sight of the ghastly Savile on TV would have disabused me of any ideas of that sort.
Don't you remember those lines of depressed teenagers dancing out of time to the horrible stuff, with the prettiest ones in the front row? Did you watch, as I tried to, Savile's short-lived show supposedly taking the teenage opinion temperature, shutting the poor little idiots up like a sergeant whenever one tried to actually give an opinion? He didn't seem weird to me. He just seemed horrible.
|
|
he-he! - you should take up writing Obituaries!!
|
|
I remember watching Jim'll Fix It as a kid in the 1970s. Even then we thought it was a bit odd when he said things like "And hows about a big kiss for your Uncle Jimmy?"
|
Jimmy Savile: is anyone surprised? - Meldrew
