[Archived] Jimmy Saville

[bazza]

What do you think about all this hoo-ha about Jimmy Saville? Personally I think they have gone way over the top on this one.

Don't get me wrong. I fully sympathise with the women who feel they have been sexually exploited by Saville and, if true (which is becoming more obvious day by day), his behaviour and his lack of morals are despicable.

BUT!!................In the 1960s and 1970s there were young ladies known as "teeny boppers" and "groupies". These young ladies were aged 13, 14 and 15 and followed the pop groups around, many of them hoping to get into their idol's dressing room and get "groped" or, better still, "laid". It was a well known fact. It was part of the sexual revolution of the time that was frowned upon by the older population; people such as Mary Whitehouse whom the media mocked for her "old-fashioned ideas".

It was part of the sexual revolution and that is why people turned a blind eye.

Secondly, some young ladies of 14 and 15 years old are not "children". If they have the body and the beauty of a woman, they are definitely not children. So classing Saville as a paedophile is completely wrong. I know that the law says an adult starts at 16 but the law could be (and may be in the future will be) changed to 15. Then what?

Perhaps we should be inviting the young ladies of that era to come forward with their experiences of meeting:-

The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Hollies, Searchers, Freddie & the Dreamers, Billy J Kramer & the Dakotas, Billy Fury, Merseybeats...............etc. etc.

Maybe we can destroy a lot more reputations and desecrate a lot more graves and even bring to "justice" those who are still alive.

[colin]

Secondly, some young ladies of 14 and 15 years old are not "children". If they have the body and the beauty of a woman, they are definitely not children.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this one. Are you suggesting that female children who mature physically are fair game for sexual abuse despite being under the legal age for sex?

I'd just like to suggest that the age of consent is based on the mental maturity rather than the physical attributes of the girls.

Speaking as the father of a teenage daughter I think you are treading on rather dangerous ground here. Are you seriously suggesting that if my 14 year old daughter looked sexually attractive to you then that would give you (or Jimmy Saville, or The Beatles or anyone else ) the green light to go ahead?

I would suggest that if you are in a hole you stop digging.

Right now.

[Shabani]

When you are 13/14 you're basically and legally an idiot, unable to make correct and rational decisions for your self

Any adult in a position of trust who abuses this is a grim grim human being

Someone having the body of a woman and being beautiful is no excuse. In fact, I fidn that excuse utterly reprehensible

[Pedro]

I think it is totally wrong and he is nothing but a paedophile. If it was my daughter he did that to, he'd be presented with his nads in a pickle jar.

[neekoy]

Anyone who bangs a 13,14 or 15 year girl and is not of equal age is a pedophile. It used to be appropriate to beat your wife, keep slaves and burn witches......whatever era you live in, sex with minors is abhorrent behaviour and if the The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Hollies, Searchers, Freddie & the Dreamers, Billy J Kramer & the Dakotas, Billy Fury, Merseybeats where ever found to be part of this behaviour then so should their "reputations" be tarnished and destroyed.

I think you are saying that it is hard to tell the age of a sexually mature girl however when you are a predator like Jimmy Saville and set out to target these girls you are a pedophile and the lowest of human scum.

[Paul]

Secondly, some young ladies of 14 and 15 years old are not "children". If they have the body and the beauty of a woman, they are definitely not children. So classing Saville as a paedophile is completely wrong. I know that the law says an adult starts at 16 but the law could be (and may be in the future will be) changed to 15. Then what?

I must say I find your entire post quite extraordinary but the quoted part is very disturbing.

You do realise this is precisely the arguement that pedophiles put forward to justify their actions?

I think it's also worth mentioning "the body and beauty of a woman" reads as a rather derogatory statement towards all women. An attitude rooted in the distant past.

[Silencio]

What do you think about all this hoo-ha about Jimmy Saville? Personally I think they have gone way over the top on this one.

It seems Savile was deliberately and systematically targeting girls/boys at schools, care homes and even on hospital wards while he was in his 40's and 50's. He also worked his way into various rungs of the establishment to help him do this. Not really sure they have gone "way over the top" if this is true but I do think it's wrong that this should come out after his death (altough his links could be the reason for this)...

[Amo]

I don't know. There's something very unseemly about all this suddenly coming out now the guy isn't alive to defend himself.

I'm not saying there isn't any truth to the accusations but I can't help but think certain groups will be jumping on the bandwagon to make a quick buck.

[SouthAussieRover]

I don't know. There's something very unseemly about all this suddenly coming out now the guy isn't alive to defend himself.

I'm not saying there isn't any truth to the accusations but I can't help but think certain groups will be jumping on the bandwagon to make a quick buck.

An as equally strange comment as Bazzas.

I must say I find your entire post quite extraordinary but the quoted part is very disturbing.

You do realise this is precisely the arguement that pedophiles put forward to justify their actions?

I think it's also worth mentioning "the body and beauty of a woman" reads as a rather derogatory statement towards all women. An attitude rooted in the distant past.

Steady on Paul.

I believe Bazza is quite religious.

Perhaps there's a clue in there?

[bazza]

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this one. Are you suggesting that female children who mature physically are fair game for sexual abuse despite being under the legal age for sex?

Certainly not

I'd just like to suggest that the age of consent is based on the mental maturity rather than the physical attributes of the girls.

If it's based on mental maturity, it should be raised to 18

Speaking as the father of a teenage daughter I think you are treading on rather dangerous ground here. Are you seriously suggesting that if my 14 year old daughter looked sexually attractive to you then that would give you (or Jimmy Saville, or The Beatles or anyone else ) the green light to go ahead?

Not at all. I'm not condoning this sort of behaviour in the slightest. And more mature men taking advantage of teenage girls is reprehensible.

I would suggest that if you are in a hole you stop digging.

Right now.

At least I have got a discussion going. My main point was about the "groupies" of the 60s and 70s.

[RibbleValleyRover]

An as equally strange comment as Bazzas.

How so? Why didn't they come out in their droves when he was alive? Surely they would have wanted to see him in a court of law and prosecuted for these offences if found guilty?

Like Topman I am not disputing whether or not these allegations are true or not but I am questioning the timing of it now. At the end of the day we won't know the full truth because the man is dead.

[LeChuck]

At least I have got a discussion going. My main point was about the "groupies" of the 60s and 70s.

Are you suggesting Jimmy Saville had teenage groupies? By involving himself in children's television, hospitals and charities, he was actively surrounding himself with these young girls.

Not sure why you've felt the need to bring pop groups from that era into it, hardly the same thing.

Your comments on girls under 16 are just plain creepy by the way. I hope you just worded it poorly

[bazza]

You do realise this is precisely the arguement that pedophiles put forward to justify their actions?

No. I thought paedophiles targeted pre adolescent children.

If a 17 year old boy had a girlfriend of 15 would you label him a paedophile?

[SouthAussieRover]

How so? Why didn't they come out in their droves when he was alive? Surely they would have wanted to see him in a court of law and prosecuted for these offences if found guilty?

Like Topman I am not disputing whether or not these allegations are true or not but I am questioning the timing of it now. At the end of the day we won't know the full truth because the man is dead.

Perhaps because when he was most active the subject matter was still treated as taboo?

Perhaps now he is dead his "victims" feel able to talk?

It's interesting how the police have been able to freely refer to him as a sexual predator.

Back to your thoughts.

No. I thought paedophiles targeted pre adolescent children.

If a 17 year old boy had a girlfriend of 15 would you label him a paedophile?

Bazza, can you explain the age range of an adolescent?

Was Saville 17 years old at the time of these events?

[LeChuck]

At the end of the day we won't know the full truth because the man is dead.

Not sure about that. He would have just denied it anyway so how would being alive brought more facts into the open?

The truth will come from testimonies of the victims and witnesses...as with any trial.

[Paul]

How so? Why didn't they come out in their droves when he was alive? Surely they would have wanted to see him in a court of law and prosecuted for these offences if found guilty?

I feel the reason for this is fairly simple. Social culture and attitude towards anyone, especially children and young teenagers, who complain of sexual or any other type of abuse are listened to today. At the time Saville is said to have been active the culture was very different and the abused person unlikely to be believed, especially so when the accused is a high profile celebrity. Two nurses or health workers from Stoke Mandeville have come forward in the last 24 hours - why didn't they raise it 30 years ago? Simple.

Nurse to Stoke Mandeville Director: "Jimmy Saville is abusing young girls"

Director: "Don't be stupid, close the door on the way out"

It would have been dismissed unless the authorities at the hospital were extremely enlightened

No. I thought paedophiles targeted pre adolescent children.

If a 17 year old boy had a girlfriend of 15 would you label him a paedophile?

I don't know the mediacl definition of a pedophile - I do know they abuse young children and teenagers from a very young age upwards.

A 17 year old and 15 year old? Interesting point. The lad is technically breaking the law, on the other hand teenagers have always groped each other, it's part of growing up. I'd have thought 17 year olds and 15 year olds are meant to be interested in each other, I'd be more concerned if they weren't!!

[den]

I remember rumours about Saville donkey's years ago. I can't remember where from, but I definitely remember it.

Paul Gambaccini was on sky news just after these latest stories started. He knew about all this yaers ago as well. He cites one story in particular. A sunday newspaper years ago confronted Saville by telling him that they were going to expose him in the morning. Apparently Savilles reply was "fine, you can print that, but just take into consideration how that will affect the finances at Stoke Mandeville". The newspaper backed off.

in fact here's the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/paul-gambaccini-claims-sir-jimmy-savile-used-charity-work-to-prevent-sexual-abuse-of-schoolchildren-being-exposed-8191761.html

[Amo]

I feel the reason for this is fairly simple. Social culture and attitude towards anyone, especially children and young teenagers, who complain of sexual or any other type of abuse are listened to today. At the time Saville is said to have been active the culture was very different and the abused person unlikely to be believed, especially so when the accused is a high profile celebrity. Two nurses or health workers from Stoke Mandeville have come forward in the last 24 hours - why didn't they raise it 30 years ago? Simple.

What stopped this exposé coming out in 90s? The 2000s? Why wait until just a year after his death?

Saville was no longer a bigwig at the BBC, so you can't even use that argument.

Again, not saying he isn't guilty. There probably is a ring of truth to these accusations but the timing of them makes it pretty much open season since he isn't alive to defend himself. Where's the justice in someone being guilty before proven innocent?

[T4E]

The first post of this thread is mind-blowing.

Aside from that, the real question here in my eyes is why did none of the victims feel as though they could come forward when he was still alive? What was stopping them? Was he really that influential?

[adopted scouser]

Bazza back peddling like I don't know what.

Apparently it was common knowledge in the industry. here's Jerry Sadowitz > http://www.anorak.co.uk/336013/celebrities/jerry-sadowitz-was-right-about-jimmy-savile.html/

People like him alive or dead are dirty b@st@rds, anywhere near my little girl that cigar would have on up his ar$e

[Pedro]

What stopped this exposé coming out in 90s? The 2000s? Why wait until just a year after his death?

Saville was no longer a bigwig at the BBC, so you can't even use that argument.

Again, not saying he isn't guilty. There probably is a ring of truth to these accusations but the timing of them makes it pretty much open season since he isn't alive to defend himself. Where's the justice in someone being guilty before proven innocent?

I think he'll be the first of a moderately long line of well-known people facing the flak over the next couple of years. Rightly so too.

[colin]

Aside from that, the real question here in my eyes is why did none of the victims feel as though they could come forward when he was still alive? What was stopping them? Was he really that influential?

It may be the case that he was "untouchable" due to his popularity and his all round "good bloke" personality. It took a lot to bring down Sir Anthony Blunt & Jeffery Archer because they were all part of "the establishment." Saville may not have had that "old school" background but he did have some immunity due to his fame.

I can only suggest that, for example, if one of the maids at Highgrove House accused Prince Charles of sexuallly molesting or raping her how far do you thing that one would go? (I'll add the comment that I am not suggesting for one instance that this has happened, it's just a theoretical example - rest easy mods.....)

[thenodrog]

I think it's also worth mentioning "the body and beauty of a woman" reads as a rather derogatory statement towards all women. An attitude rooted in the distant past.

Dream on.

[Brfcrule1]

Bazza you also have to realise several of the 14 & 15 year old kids were disabled so were unable to do anything about it and were too scared to speak out and don't forget at that age and being disabled makes them the most vulnerable kids in society if proven true that is the mind of one sick individual and desecrating his grave is the least they could do personally they should be burning the body.

[thenodrog]

I remember rumours about Saville donkey's years ago. I can't remember where from, but I definitely remember it.

Me too den. Way back in the 70's my older sister told me about his sexual 'preferences'. Personally I've no idea why he was ever popular cos I always rated Saville as completely unfunny and an absolute embarrassment on TV/Radio.

btw way back then he owned or had an interest in that dingy nightclub near the Top Lock didn't he?

edit... just rem it was called the Top Spot.