I've also found this story, obviously i have no idea whether it's true, but interesting none-the-less: (Scroll right down to the end of the page, you'll see it)
Strange comments from Lord Patten this morning....Why is there all this talk about how things were different back then? These two subjects are getting mixed up for some reason, hopefully not intentionally, i know they are connected in context. I'm hearing the quotes over and over on the news channel and every-time think, well ****ing duh!? :eek:
The chairman of the BBC Trust said allegations of sexual abuse by Sir Jimmy Savile could not be excused as behaviour from a time when "attitudes were different", and gave his backing to inquiries by police and the corporation.
Lord Patten told a business dinner in Cardiff on Monday night it was "no excuse to say 'that was then' in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, and attitudes were different then". It is the first time he has spoken of the controversy triggered by a ITV investigation broadcast last Wednesday.
"It's no excuse to say, 'I'm sure the same thing used to happen with pop groups and others at the time'. Those things may be true but they don't provide an excuse," he told the Cardiff Business Club.
In light of this interesting post from babycakes in the CBB forum I'm going to relate my only experience of meeting JS.
It was about this time of year in 1990. JS was visiting my soon-to-be-exhusband's place of work and he arranged for our 2 children, then aged 8 and 6, to be present and photographed with JS. Although I have absolutely no connection to showbiz in any way I'd heard rumours about JS even back then. I can't remember if these were about him liking underage kids, but certainly that he was gulty of inappropriate behaviour, and even if I hadn't been invited to be present there's no way my children were going to be there without me being able to keep a watchful eye.
I've forgotten a lot about the event, but what struck me forcibly was how cold he was. As babycakes said, he gave off "bad unpleasant vibes...that I can't put my finger on". It's very difficult to describe. When I saw him he was definitely 'on'; he was saying cheery things and talking to a lot of people but there was a dead coldness about him, a sort of chill centre to the room.
Anyway, come time for the photograph of him with my children sitting on his lap. I stood just staring at him. He caught sight of me and gave me the most unpleasant look I've ever had. It was full of loathing and contempt. I didn't know whether it was because the rumours weren't true and so he resented being watched so closely as he had close contact with children, but I didn't care and just continued to stare.
I can't remember either of my kids talking about meeting him after the event. They're now 30 and 28 and neither has mentioned meeting him (or indeed anything about him) since this scandal broke. Whatever it was about him, meeting Jimmy Savile obviously hasn't figured as a treasured childhood memory for either of them.
Oh dear, I bet Freddie Starr is sweating buckets. Also, he probably wishes he hadn't made so much noise (and abuse his accuser) at his show the other night.
There's still the matter of her saying her attacker stank of drink and sweat, when he's known for not drinking. Still need to be careful here, in case we stray into territory that gets the thread pruned or closed.
As I've said before in child abuse cases the child should always be believed. In counselling and teaching ( and the medical profession I think) the moment an accusation of assault on a minor is known you are legally required to inform the Authorities. ( That's why, because the onus is different from the norm of innocent until proven guilty, I strongly believe in Anonymity for both victim and accused).
How many other crimes are the accused hidden by anonymity? People are named because it might bring other victims forward, particularly with regards to sex-related crimes which are notoriously difficult to prove. Also, it's well known that child abusers, more often than not, abuse more than one child and so naming them and bringing other victims forward probably stops the abuser earlier than what it might have done if they'd remained anonymous. If only Savile had been arrested and named earlier then all these alleged victims would probably have come forward back then.
Their reaction was very telling : a direct accusation of sexual abuse against Saville at Duncroft and yet they react instead with rage at the young girl. At that moment, all the pieces should have fallen into place for them as to Saville's true nature, but they were having none of it.
I know posters get cross when I say times were different back then but believe me they were! The child was always in the wrong . ALWAYS!! I too could write a book about my experiences in a children's home in the 60's but it would sound more like fiction than fact!
Do gooding well meaning naive houseparents who had no training and hadn't a clue except to see that their remit was to control 16 children and that was in whatever way it took which included beatings for minor misdeamours. This was to make an example to the rest of us.I could give examples but don't think this is the right place.
As for sexual abuse. It just didn't happen and yes maybe some houseparents were more clued up than others but in general it was a case of not on my doorstep!
Watch This....this is a clip from a 1988 programme called open to question in which Jimmy faces questions from teenagers...interesting to note that even back then they were rumours about Jimmy's private life as the questions asked reflect that
That is such an amazing find and I would really like to watch the whole programme! The teenagers asking the questions were brave, insightful and unashamed to ask anything regardless of how controversial it was. They handle his rudeness and disdain for their questions with a huge amount of maturity. Its a shame there aren't more programmes going on like this these days!
Its a shame Guru-Murphy didn't probe contradictory answers more but by his own admission he was young and naive and looks like he was well out of his depth.
I've also found this story, obviously i have no idea whether it's true, but interesting none-the-less: (Scroll right down to the end of the page, you'll see it)
The reason the newsnight special was scrapped last December...was because the BBC were also showing a number of tribute programmes to him
conflict of interests and all that
It's sickening now to think so many people were being encouraged to relax in the nostalgia, admire the ''good'' deeds etc. and just generally be taken in by the docs at that time, while this was in the background.
Why aren't people asking them to release the Newsnight piece? We should put in a request and demand it from them, we paid for it after all.
Freddie Starrs girlfriend was just on This Morning (via phone) apperently they have hired a private investigator to investigate the claims made by Karin and have already collated info about it. Unfortunately my tv blacked out for a while during the interview so I don't know what else was said.
ETA - His girlfriend also mentioned Karin had released a statement to clarify that the Freddie Starr and Gary Glitter incidences were both at seperate times.
There's still the matter of her saying her attacker stank of drink and sweat, when he's known for not drinking. Still need to be careful here, in case we stray into territory that gets the thread pruned or closed.
Plus the small matter of whether she was actually under age or not on the day that particular show was recorded in 1974 (as has been pointed out by others, her personal blog gives her age as 54 now, so she couldn't have been 14 at the time, has been reported)
BTW I'm not saying that everything she is saying about Savile untrue, and that other things didn't happen at other times, just that the 'third man' story seems a bit muddled.
Plus the small matter of whether she was actually under age or not on the day that particular show was recorded in 1974 (as has been pointed out by others, her personal blog gives her age as 54 now, so she couldn't have been 14 at the time, has been reported)
BTW I'm not saying that everything she is saying about Savile untrue, and that other things didn't happen at other times, just that the 'third man' story seems a bit muddled.
That's what I was thinking. I'm sure Mr Starr's lawyers, for one, will be going through everything she's said very carefully.
Plus the small matter of whether she was actually under age or not on the day that particular show was recorded in 1974 (as has been pointed out by others, her personal blog gives her age as 54 now, so she couldn't have been 14 at the time, has been reported)
Has that ever been updated though? I did have a quick look at the GRO birth register and there are 3 entries for her name: 1954 and 1955, plus one in 1964 which can be ruled out.
Mr Starr maybe about to start back peddalling or more of a damage limitation story soon, being there is clear evidence on video of him being in the same place a the lady accusing him of abuse.
Exactly my thoughts with the quite extraodinary theories expressed on here the other night.
Anyone abused deserve better and their ordeal should not be distracted from by people trying to prove some fanciful poppycock theory.
The 'fanciful theories' actually have a lot of weight behind them, to say they're just a joke is wrong, understandable but wrong. No stone must be left unturned here, don't let it just become about a few celeb wrong uns when the rot runs a lot deeper.
at first , there was discussion here on whether he was on the show at all, now that's been completely debunked -- its now moving onto other things
I think many of us here believed she had been, it was about proving it.
I didn't see Schofe's comments on TM yesterday, but he seemed like he was really trying to be firm today, like he was told to put up a different stance?
The 'fanciful theories' actually have a lot of weight behind them, to say they're just a joke is wrong, understandable but wrong. No stone must be left unturned here, don't let it just become about a few celeb wrong uns when the rot runs a lot deeper.
You can bet your life it will be though. There'll be a few sacrificial lambs (JS , GG) one dead the other already disgraced - job done.
A ''limited hangout'' situation basically. Pin JS down as the major fall guy while protecting his powerful friends and the wider picture. The real story here is sytemized abuse that still exists now, not 'a different culture' from yesterday.
We've now got DJ's denying some of the claims that have come out recently. First of all the waters were muddied with this, and now the claims are being discredited. So who's telling the truth here? and why aren't people naming names?
Comments
http://www.motforum.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25096#wrap
The chairman of the BBC Trust said allegations of sexual abuse by Sir Jimmy Savile could not be excused as behaviour from a time when "attitudes were different", and gave his backing to inquiries by police and the corporation.
Lord Patten told a business dinner in Cardiff on Monday night it was "no excuse to say 'that was then' in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, and attitudes were different then". It is the first time he has spoken of the controversy triggered by a ITV investigation broadcast last Wednesday.
"It's no excuse to say, 'I'm sure the same thing used to happen with pop groups and others at the time'. Those things may be true but they don't provide an excuse," he told the Cardiff Business Club.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-lord-patten-bbc
In light of this interesting post from babycakes in the CBB forum I'm going to relate my only experience of meeting JS.
It was about this time of year in 1990. JS was visiting my soon-to-be-exhusband's place of work and he arranged for our 2 children, then aged 8 and 6, to be present and photographed with JS. Although I have absolutely no connection to showbiz in any way I'd heard rumours about JS even back then. I can't remember if these were about him liking underage kids, but certainly that he was gulty of inappropriate behaviour, and even if I hadn't been invited to be present there's no way my children were going to be there without me being able to keep a watchful eye.
I've forgotten a lot about the event, but what struck me forcibly was how cold he was. As babycakes said, he gave off "bad unpleasant vibes...that I can't put my finger on". It's very difficult to describe. When I saw him he was definitely 'on'; he was saying cheery things and talking to a lot of people but there was a dead coldness about him, a sort of chill centre to the room.
Anyway, come time for the photograph of him with my children sitting on his lap. I stood just staring at him. He caught sight of me and gave me the most unpleasant look I've ever had. It was full of loathing and contempt. I didn't know whether it was because the rumours weren't true and so he resented being watched so closely as he had close contact with children, but I didn't care and just continued to stare.
I can't remember either of my kids talking about meeting him after the event. They're now 30 and 28 and neither has mentioned meeting him (or indeed anything about him) since this scandal broke. Whatever it was about him, meeting Jimmy Savile obviously hasn't figured as a treasured childhood memory for either of them.
There's still the matter of her saying her attacker stank of drink and sweat, when he's known for not drinking. Still need to be careful here, in case we stray into territory that gets the thread pruned or closed.
How many other crimes are the accused hidden by anonymity? People are named because it might bring other victims forward, particularly with regards to sex-related crimes which are notoriously difficult to prove. Also, it's well known that child abusers, more often than not, abuse more than one child and so naming them and bringing other victims forward probably stops the abuser earlier than what it might have done if they'd remained anonymous. If only Savile had been arrested and named earlier then all these alleged victims would probably have come forward back then.
conflict of interests and all that
I know posters get cross when I say times were different back then but believe me they were! The child was always in the wrong . ALWAYS!! I too could write a book about my experiences in a children's home in the 60's but it would sound more like fiction than fact!
Do gooding well meaning naive houseparents who had no training and hadn't a clue except to see that their remit was to control 16 children and that was in whatever way it took which included beatings for minor misdeamours. This was to make an example to the rest of us.I could give examples but don't think this is the right place.
As for sexual abuse. It just didn't happen and yes maybe some houseparents were more clued up than others but in general it was a case of not on my doorstep!
That is such an amazing find and I would really like to watch the whole programme! The teenagers asking the questions were brave, insightful and unashamed to ask anything regardless of how controversial it was. They handle his rudeness and disdain for their questions with a huge amount of maturity. Its a shame there aren't more programmes going on like this these days!
Its a shame Guru-Murphy didn't probe contradictory answers more but by his own admission he was young and naive and looks like he was well out of his depth.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/276147/Jimmy-Savile-molested-five-girls-days-before-he-died-/
WOW ...............it really and truly does beggar belief how he got away with it for his entire life. His sheer arrogance is staggering.
from the Daily Star must be true cough ahem
It's sickening now to think so many people were being encouraged to relax in the nostalgia, admire the ''good'' deeds etc. and just generally be taken in by the docs at that time, while this was in the background.
Why aren't people asking them to release the Newsnight piece? We should put in a request and demand it from them, we paid for it after all.
ETA - His girlfriend also mentioned Karin had released a statement to clarify that the Freddie Starr and Gary Glitter incidences were both at seperate times.
In the light of everything that's come out about Savile in the last few weeks can you suggest a reason as to why their claims aren't true?
Plus the small matter of whether she was actually under age or not on the day that particular show was recorded in 1974 (as has been pointed out by others, her personal blog gives her age as 54 now, so she couldn't have been 14 at the time, has been reported)
BTW I'm not saying that everything she is saying about Savile untrue, and that other things didn't happen at other times, just that the 'third man' story seems a bit muddled.
That's what I was thinking. I'm sure Mr Starr's lawyers, for one, will be going through everything she's said very carefully.
The piece I read only said that he smelt like her stepfather, but perhaps the drink bit was mentioned elsewhere.
Has that ever been updated though? I did have a quick look at the GRO birth register and there are 3 entries for her name: 1954 and 1955, plus one in 1964 which can be ruled out.
Indeed, he was clearly talking nonce sense.
The original article I read said that he stank of drink and sweat - think it was in the original raft of articles in the DM last week.
so if that video clip didn't exist -- he wasn't there?
I think many of us here believed she had been, it was about proving it.
I didn't see Schofe's comments on TM yesterday, but he seemed like he was really trying to be firm today, like he was told to put up a different stance?
You can bet your life it will be though. There'll be a few sacrificial lambs (JS , GG) one dead the other already disgraced - job done.
We've now got DJ's denying some of the claims that have come out recently. First of all the waters were muddied with this, and now the claims are being discredited. So who's telling the truth here? and why aren't people naming names?
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a422853/radio-1-djs-reject-liz-kershaw-claims-of-sexualised-culture-at-station.html