Originally Posted by muddipaws
Not sure why but I was always uncomfortable watching the guy on TV as a kid, either on TOTP or Jim l fixit. I thought then there was something not quite right and I was a kid then. A few years ago I saw the Louis Theroux documentary and thought then JS was still quite creepy and something not quite right, he came across rather strange and sinister. Whether the accusations are true or not it will never be found out. However I would not be surprised if it were true
Originally Posted by Teddybear 99
Interesting you should say that, it's exactly how I always felt about him. I thought it was just me, but he always gave me the same sort of feeling as those slightly sinister clowns that you see in some films.
I certainly don't feel shocked by the accusations, but I do hope that if they are true that the people involved find some sort of closure and peace. If they are not true, then I hope for his familys sake that his name is cleared.
I agree with the two postings above ^ and I felt exactly the same, he was creepy, sinister, and frightening. I never watched Jim'll fix it or any of his programmes, and didn't like it when he was on TotP. He was too old and always very 'me, me,me'.
What folks who were not growing up in the 60s and 70s don't probably realise is that there was a whole different approach to child sex abuse, domestic violence, and the whole spectrum of things like that, which is why it is only coming out now - 40 years or so later -for instance about the horrific sex abuse against boys by Catholic priests.
We were in an age where if you said anything you got a whacking and called a liar for daring to say anything about and adult and your life was made an even worse misery. Girls who got pregnant 'in trouble' either got a shotgun wedding or sent away to another town to an unmarried mothers home and their babies taken away for adoption - no arguments, no choice. Everyone was told they were spending a year with an aunt and working in another town. After the forced adoption girls were expected to come home and continue as though nothing had happened.
So in those days no one would dare say Jimmy Saville - or anyone else really - messed about with me as you would have got a good hiding for your trouble. In more recent times no one would dare say as he was a 'national treasure' - why didn't his illegitimate daughter come forward for so many years. Makes you think.
If Paul Gambaccini has been waiting 30 years! why did he not say a lot more over the years he has a high enough profile to be listened to?
If he knew stuff you might say he has been complicit to a cover up if indeed thats what it was.
As he stated, he would then be responsible for the loss of £££'s to Saville's charities, and lets not forget that JS also had friends in the Royal family, it could have been career suicide for Paul.
Not to forget that PG is gay, and that he may not wanted to have been exposed as such in the 70's.
As he stated, he would then be responsible for the loss of £££'s to Saville's charities, and lets not forget that JS also had friends in the Royal family, it could have been career suicide for Paul.
Not to forget that PG is gay, and that he may not wanted to have been exposed as such in the 70's.
As he stated, he would then be responsible for the loss of £££'s to Saville's charities, and lets not forget that JS also had friends in the Royal family, it could have been career suicide for Paul.
Not to forget that PG is gay, and that he may not wanted to have been exposed as such in the 70's.
Paul Gambaccini has been around since the beggining of time (well not quite) certainly the excuse that stoke madeville would have lost out is a poor one if all this abuse was happening under his nose and he knew about it.
He could have spoken up say 4-5years ago i can understand him not wanting to be exposed in the 70s but in the 2000s say 2005 when his sexuality would not have been an issue.
On Radio Five this morning, someone involved with the programme (didn't catch his name) said the programme featured a clip of Saville himself saying that Gary Glitter hadn't done anything wrong.
Not being horrible but people can't say just because some one looks strange or they have a bad feeling about someone they are guilty of a crime - similar to a "Boo Radley" scenario.
There is lots of rumours and speculation but no evidence.
I have read the links above and I can't see why people are saying he was too powerful to be found out because he was a Knight of Malta etc.
If the media can print kinky tapes of Charles and Camilla, risking the rath of the palace and their cronies surely if their was any such truth to all these allegations it would be in the papers during his life time.
If you are a victim of the said crime you never give up as you fear for those who come after you especially if you was a young adult. If the police couldn't do anything one would have gone to every other medium. If there was any hint of all this - with what been coming out regarding phone hacking - wouldn't his house been bugged from top to bottom.
I am not saying he is innocent or guilty its something no one will know but the trial going through the media now he is dead is horrible.
I read it, Essex Angel and ended up reading most of her online book, too. Sounds like she had a pretty vile life altogether and her book was about much more than that. Although I think she still has lots of 'issues', her story is plausible and the JS story is not sensationalized in any way...she tells it almost matter-of-factly. It's part of a much bigger whole. She hadn't named him in her original text and admits that it was because she couldn't afford to respond to legal action had she done so but she has edited it to name him since his death. Her book seems to be a catharsis on her life in its entirety, rather than focusing on her alleged experience with JS so I tend to believe her. As I said, she does seem a bit screwed and self-absorbed up but based on events of her life it's hardly surprising. Doesn't make her a liar. I ended up being more interested in where she was at with her treatment decisions regarding the cancer and her difficult relationships with her children than I was over the JS/BBC link.
Not being horrible but people can't say just because some one looks strange or they have a bad feeling about someone they are guilty of a crime - similar to a "Boo Radley" scenario.
There is lots of rumours and speculation but no evidence.
I have read the links above and I can't see why people are saying he was too powerful to be found out because he was a Knight of Malta etc.
If the media can print kinky tapes of Charles and Camilla, risking the rath of the palace and their cronies surely if their was any such truth to all these allegations it would be in the papers during his life time.
If you are a victim of the said crime you never give up as you fear for those who come after you especially if you was a young adult. If the police couldn't do anything one would have gone to every other medium. If there was any hint of all this - with what been coming out regarding phone hacking - wouldn't his house been bugged from top to bottom.
I am not saying he is innocent or guilty its something no one will know but the trial going through the media now he is dead is horrible.
I was just wondering - what would be 'evidence' in this case? It is just genuine curiosity, as I'm struggling to keep up with the different viewpoints on this.
I agree, chavet. There are very strong arguments on both sides. Those who believe he was innocent are going to maintain that view and those who believe he was up to no good, the same. What really would constitute 'evidence'?
His former secretary, in the Guardian article, questions why none of the women took oput private prosecutions against him. Maybe they had too much to lose and having failed to secure charges with the criminal courts, they were disheartened.
The sad thing is that some of the people contributing to the public debate who knew or had links with JS must be lying because the arguments are so polarized.
If this all true and it involves others then surely the police should be investigating everything that allegedly occurred at the BBC. If they are still alive and working they should be brought to justice.
Honestly.
I keep reading this BiB all the time here. Do people have no idea how the justice system works?
How the hell can anyone who knew what was going on be taken to court? SAVILE IS DEAD. However wrong we might think it is, they can't be called to account for the actions of a dead man.
No I woudl rahter they spoke up when the person was alive and could speak and stand up for himself. This whole thing is pointless now.
Yes, of course it would have been better if Savile had been prosecuted when he was alive, but walk a mile in the girls' shoes. It's the 1970's when child protection wasn't the big issue it is now. You're young and vulnerable, preyed on by a star with the adulation of the public and the backing of the BBC.
Who are the police and teachers going to believe if you go to them with a complaint?
I'm more disturbed by Paul Gambaccini's alleged comments on Day Break that he had suspicions but kept quiet because of potential implications for charity donations. He should face censure along with Esther Rantzen.
The sole issue for me with this is the media - again! The way that alleged sexual abuse of minors is being sensationalised to make tv / sell newspapers. This does not / should not be being done. It wouldn't happen if JS was still alive as their are libel laws to protect an individual. The same should apply to the dead.
Now I'm not saying the stories should not be told. Of course they should but to the appropriate authorities & the individuals involved given the necessary support. It needs to be investigated & it seems there are now plenty of folks creeping out of the woodwork claiming they knew about it all along. This will end up with an inquiry as I suspect that there will be compensation claims against the BBC forthcoming.
Personally I have complete distain for these folks now coming out saying they knew all along. Sorry not good enough. If you suspected you could take action. There have been enough cases over the years exposed. I saw yesterday that NOTW tried to expose this at the time but couldn't substantiate any story. Where were all the BBC folk at the time? Closing ranks / keeping their jobs no doubt / looking the other way.
I agree, chavet. There are very strong arguments on both sides. Those who believe he was innocent are going to maintain that view and those who believe he was up to no good, the same. What really would constitute evidence.
His former secretary, in the Guardian article, questions why none of the women took oput private prosecutions against him. Maybe they had too much to lose and having failed to secure charges with the criminal courts, they were disheartened.
The sad thing is that some of the people contributing to the public debate who knew or had links with JS must be lying because the arguments are so polarized.
This is what I spend most of my time trying to understand. Literally - I've kind of got Asperger's, so I'm always trying to work out why you humans act the way you do. What I mean about this bit is, what is actually going through their head if they're lying, or do they even acknowledge to themselves that that's what they're doing, and what makes people choose one 'camp', rather than another.
I read another of your posts, in the aftermath of the most recent newspaper stories, and found it interesting that your own bad experience didn't seem to colour your view of this before. Reading through, say, the comments in the Daily Mail, or even on here, it seems that people are so convinced that they know how people would or should react in a given situation, and make their judgement based on that, and, from this grim story, what would be nice is if people would read the experiences of others affected and think about why they might have different perceptions of the same experience.
I'm more disturbed by Paul Gambaccini's alleged comments on Day Break that he had suspicions but kept quiet because of potential implications for charity donations. He should face censure along with Esther Rantzen.
Really?
I wonder how many more 'celebs'/ high profile individuals will come out of the woodwork? The thing is, anyone who might potentially have a little bit more than 'suspicion' (i.e. if they actually witnessed something) know that they risk being pilloried if they speak out, now. Either they will be accused of lying/sensationalizing or criticized for not speaking up at the time.
And in a previously unheard interview from 2009, the star of Jim’ll Fix It insisted Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, was only prosecuted because he was famous.
Glitter was jailed for four months in 1999 for downloading 4,000 child porn images and then deported from Vietnam in 2008 for sexually assaulting two girls aged 10 and 11.
But in a stunning outburst a year later, Savile said: “Now Gary, all he did was to take his computer into PC World to get it repaired.
They went into the hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police. The police then go, ‘Oh we’ve got a famous person – we’ll have them.’
“But Gary has not sold ’em, has not tried to sell ’em, not tried to show them in public. It were for his own gratification.
"If you said to that copper, what’s Gary Glitter done wrong? Well nothing really. He’s just sat at home watching dodgy films.
“Whether it was right or wrong is up to him. They didn’t do anything wrong but they’re demonised.
“He was like that but he wasn’t public with it and didn’t do anything.”
So to Savile it didn't matter because they were for GG's 'own gratification'. Never mind that in every picture GG viewed a child has been abused by men for their own twisted gratification. This gets worse, it really does.
Yes, of course it would have been better if Savile had been prosecuted when he was alive, but walk a mile in the girls' shoes. It's the 1970's when child protection wasn't the big issue it is now. You're young and vulnerable, preyed on by a star with the adulation of the public and the backing of the BBC.
Who are the police and teachers going to believe if you go to them with a complaint?
BIB You're doing it again, it must be at least the 4th time now.
Last time it was: 'the BBC behind him all the way' where are you getting this from, what are you trying to imply here?
You going to respond to the point or just ignore it yet again?
It looks like a steady drip, drip, drip technique at work.
Looks like you're trying to say the BBC (as an organisation) knew what he was up to and colluded with him to cover it up and/or protect him.
This is what I spend most of my time trying to understand. Literally - I've kind of got Asperger's, so I'm always trying to work out why you humans act the way you do. What I mean about this bit is, what is actually going through their head if they're lying, or do they even acknowledge to themselves that that's what they're doing, and what makes people choose one 'camp', rather than another.
I read another of your posts, in the aftermath of the most recent newspaper stories, and found it interesting that your own bad experience didn't seem to colour your view of this before. Reading through, say, the comments in the Daily Mail, or even on here, it seems that people are so convinced that they know how people would or should react in a given situation, and make their judgement based on that, and, from this grim story, what would be nice is if people would read the experiences of others affected and think about why they might have different perceptions of the same experience.
I've had a lot of time to work though it, chavet (30 + years) and can now make sense of the context and time. I went through a period of being furious with my parents for not picking up the signs of what had happened and for not protecting me. They paid dearly for it as I went off the rails and made myself really ill some years later, during when it all came out.
As for JS, based upon what my mum told me about him and her classmate, I can accept as plausible that he had involvements with underage young women/ girls. The extent of these involvements is what I am unsure about. I believe he was an egotist but I don't believe he was a paedophile or necrophile, as it has also been alleged.
Comments
Not sure why but I was always uncomfortable watching the guy on TV as a kid, either on TOTP or Jim l fixit. I thought then there was something not quite right and I was a kid then. A few years ago I saw the Louis Theroux documentary and thought then JS was still quite creepy and something not quite right, he came across rather strange and sinister. Whether the accusations are true or not it will never be found out. However I would not be surprised if it were true
Originally Posted by Teddybear 99
Interesting you should say that, it's exactly how I always felt about him. I thought it was just me, but he always gave me the same sort of feeling as those slightly sinister clowns that you see in some films.
I certainly don't feel shocked by the accusations, but I do hope that if they are true that the people involved find some sort of closure and peace. If they are not true, then I hope for his familys sake that his name is cleared.
I agree with the two postings above ^ and I felt exactly the same, he was creepy, sinister, and frightening. I never watched Jim'll fix it or any of his programmes, and didn't like it when he was on TotP. He was too old and always very 'me, me,me'.
What folks who were not growing up in the 60s and 70s don't probably realise is that there was a whole different approach to child sex abuse, domestic violence, and the whole spectrum of things like that, which is why it is only coming out now - 40 years or so later -for instance about the horrific sex abuse against boys by Catholic priests.
We were in an age where if you said anything you got a whacking and called a liar for daring to say anything about and adult and your life was made an even worse misery. Girls who got pregnant 'in trouble' either got a shotgun wedding or sent away to another town to an unmarried mothers home and their babies taken away for adoption - no arguments, no choice. Everyone was told they were spending a year with an aunt and working in another town. After the forced adoption girls were expected to come home and continue as though nothing had happened.
So in those days no one would dare say Jimmy Saville - or anyone else really - messed about with me as you would have got a good hiding for your trouble. In more recent times no one would dare say as he was a 'national treasure' - why didn't his illegitimate daughter come forward for so many years. Makes you think.
As he stated, he would then be responsible for the loss of £££'s to Saville's charities, and lets not forget that JS also had friends in the Royal family, it could have been career suicide for Paul.
Not to forget that PG is gay, and that he may not wanted to have been exposed as such in the 70's.
Oooh. I never realised he had one, when did she come forward?
And that is a reason to cover-up possible abuse?
Unbelievable!
Paul Gambaccini has been around since the beggining of time (well not quite) certainly the excuse that stoke madeville would have lost out is a poor one if all this abuse was happening under his nose and he knew about it.
He could have spoken up say 4-5years ago i can understand him not wanting to be exposed in the 70s but in the 2000s say 2005 when his sexuality would not have been an issue.
I don't think its been proved that he did? At least I can't find a record of her claims being substantiated
Interesting article by Jimmy's former PA of 40 years about the underage sex claims.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9577037/Jim-liked-being-snapped-with-young-bits-of-crumpet-but-would-not-have-risked-his-image.html
There is lots of rumours and speculation but no evidence.
I have read the links above and I can't see why people are saying he was too powerful to be found out because he was a Knight of Malta etc.
If the media can print kinky tapes of Charles and Camilla, risking the rath of the palace and their cronies surely if their was any such truth to all these allegations it would be in the papers during his life time.
If you are a victim of the said crime you never give up as you fear for those who come after you especially if you was a young adult. If the police couldn't do anything one would have gone to every other medium. If there was any hint of all this - with what been coming out regarding phone hacking - wouldn't his house been bugged from top to bottom.
I am not saying he is innocent or guilty its something no one will know but the trial going through the media now he is dead is horrible.
I read it, Essex Angel and ended up reading most of her online book, too. Sounds like she had a pretty vile life altogether and her book was about much more than that. Although I think she still has lots of 'issues', her story is plausible and the JS story is not sensationalized in any way...she tells it almost matter-of-factly. It's part of a much bigger whole. She hadn't named him in her original text and admits that it was because she couldn't afford to respond to legal action had she done so but she has edited it to name him since his death. Her book seems to be a catharsis on her life in its entirety, rather than focusing on her alleged experience with JS so I tend to believe her. As I said, she does seem a bit screwed and self-absorbed up but based on events of her life it's hardly surprising. Doesn't make her a liar. I ended up being more interested in where she was at with her treatment decisions regarding the cancer and her difficult relationships with her children than I was over the JS/BBC link.
If it was a woman called Georgina, they did a DNA and it came back negative.
I was just wondering - what would be 'evidence' in this case? It is just genuine curiosity, as I'm struggling to keep up with the different viewpoints on this.
His former secretary, in the Guardian article, questions why none of the women took oput private prosecutions against him. Maybe they had too much to lose and having failed to secure charges with the criminal courts, they were disheartened.
The sad thing is that some of the people contributing to the public debate who knew or had links with JS must be lying because the arguments are so polarized.
No I woudl rahter they spoke up when the person was alive and could speak and stand up for himself. This whole thing is pointless now.
Honestly.
I keep reading this BiB all the time here. Do people have no idea how the justice system works?
How the hell can anyone who knew what was going on be taken to court? SAVILE IS DEAD. However wrong we might think it is, they can't be called to account for the actions of a dead man.
Yes, of course it would have been better if Savile had been prosecuted when he was alive, but walk a mile in the girls' shoes. It's the 1970's when child protection wasn't the big issue it is now. You're young and vulnerable, preyed on by a star with the adulation of the public and the backing of the BBC.
Who are the police and teachers going to believe if you go to them with a complaint?
Now I'm not saying the stories should not be told. Of course they should but to the appropriate authorities & the individuals involved given the necessary support. It needs to be investigated & it seems there are now plenty of folks creeping out of the woodwork claiming they knew about it all along. This will end up with an inquiry as I suspect that there will be compensation claims against the BBC forthcoming.
Personally I have complete distain for these folks now coming out saying they knew all along. Sorry not good enough. If you suspected you could take action. There have been enough cases over the years exposed. I saw yesterday that NOTW tried to expose this at the time but couldn't substantiate any story. Where were all the BBC folk at the time? Closing ranks / keeping their jobs no doubt / looking the other way.
This is what I spend most of my time trying to understand. Literally - I've kind of got Asperger's, so I'm always trying to work out why you humans act the way you do. What I mean about this bit is, what is actually going through their head if they're lying, or do they even acknowledge to themselves that that's what they're doing, and what makes people choose one 'camp', rather than another.
I read another of your posts, in the aftermath of the most recent newspaper stories, and found it interesting that your own bad experience didn't seem to colour your view of this before. Reading through, say, the comments in the Daily Mail, or even on here, it seems that people are so convinced that they know how people would or should react in a given situation, and make their judgement based on that, and, from this grim story, what would be nice is if people would read the experiences of others affected and think about why they might have different perceptions of the same experience.
Really?
I wonder how many more 'celebs'/ high profile individuals will come out of the woodwork? The thing is, anyone who might potentially have a little bit more than 'suspicion' (i.e. if they actually witnessed something) know that they risk being pilloried if they speak out, now. Either they will be accused of lying/sensationalizing or criticized for not speaking up at the time.
So to Savile it didn't matter because they were for GG's 'own gratification'. Never mind that in every picture GG viewed a child has been abused by men for their own twisted gratification. This gets worse, it really does.
BIB You're doing it again, it must be at least the 4th time now.
Last time it was: 'the BBC behind him all the way' where are you getting this from, what are you trying to imply here?
You going to respond to the point or just ignore it yet again?
It looks like a steady drip, drip, drip technique at work.
Looks like you're trying to say the BBC (as an organisation) knew what he was up to and colluded with him to cover it up and/or protect him.
I've had a lot of time to work though it, chavet (30 + years) and can now make sense of the context and time. I went through a period of being furious with my parents for not picking up the signs of what had happened and for not protecting me. They paid dearly for it as I went off the rails and made myself really ill some years later, during when it all came out.
As for JS, based upon what my mum told me about him and her classmate, I can accept as plausible that he had involvements with underage young women/ girls. The extent of these involvements is what I am unsure about. I believe he was an egotist but I don't believe he was a paedophile or necrophile, as it has also been alleged.