Yeah I think you're perhaps right. I asked my other half about this to try and gauge why someone who wasn't particularly high profile, like JS, polarised opinion in this way. The opinions he held were pretty much similar to mine but he told me the story about how, during a conversation with one of his colleagues about JS, his colleague became infuriated by what my OH was saying and began to protest about all the good he did for the world and the charities he supported. Which is pretty much exactly what is going on here!
If these rumours aren't true and none of these things ever happened I would love for an investigatory documentary to be made and for him to have his name cleared in some way so his legacy can live on.
I have to say it though, if you were related to him and you knew he was innocent wouldn't you commission some kind of investigation/threaten legal action? Something? I don't know, I'm pretty ignorant here. I'm just trying to put myself in the position of being his niece and my cherished uncle's name is being tarnished, I would want to eradicate it at the source...? I mean, they've all been pretty vocal about his "love child" when she crept out of the woodwork. I just can't get the niece's quote out of my head...
"He's done more good in his life than bad".
Hmmm.
I am no lawyer but if he was still alive and these allegations were being made openly he could sue,but i believe you cannot libel the dead.
If his relations were to try and clear his name the legal bill would run into thousands of ££££££££££s and unless they are well off they might well lose a lot of money.
As for comissioning a programme to prove his innocence without him now being here that may well prove fruitless after all who would you interview! Friends relatives and the so called accusers,and go around and around in circles.
Up until now as far as i am c oncerned he is innocent as he has not been proven to be anything else.
I'm sure a lot of girls have done in their youth which with hindsight they weren't sure they wanted.
It is so easy to get carried away with the moment and regret it later and I have no doubt that a lot of men have taken advantage of this even though they should have known better.
I have no idea what JS did in the past but I am sure that there are a lot of pop stars and DJ who wouldn't be too proud of some of their exploits with groupies as checking birth certificates wouldn't have been a priority.
JS was an oddball. I would be surprised if he deliberately set out to harm anyone but a lot of things happened in the 60s and 70s which were wild and excessive and maybe he did decide to try and atone for them in later life with his charitable work.
If someone had an accusation to make about him they should have done it in his lifetime when he was able to defend himself, no injunction super or otherwise would have been able to stop a good case from coming to court.
With a lot of these things memories change depending on your morals at the time when as a teenager it was exciting and going with the flow looking back with maturity it was stupid and dangerous.
I asked if you knew that for a fact and you answered:
I do. Yes. Why? Because as far as I am aware he has never been convicted of any offence that I know of, or even been arrested, or had his collar felt in any way. So, in law, his reputation is un-blemished.
I'm basing my assertions on reality, and not hearsay. This whole story with Sir Jimmy is like an endless round of Chinese whispers being passed from one person to another, and getting ever more incorrect with each passing on of information.
Now that's confusing because you clearly answer my question with "I Do" then go on to say in the next sentence "as far as I'm aware". You can't have it both ways.
What is the "something" you think he is guilty of? You have to say it loud and clear. What is this "something"?
Perhaps Saltydog thought he was guilty of a crime against fashion. As far as I'm aware, being in possesion of a track suit and large cigar is not a punishable offence.:)
Oh no Saltydog, you cannot be allowed to get away with that comment above for a minute.
SOMETHING?
You'd be laughed out of court for saying that!
What is the "something" you think he is guilty of? You have to say it loud and clear. What is this "something"?
I've been reading your posts, with interest, and wondering if you are not a lot closer to this story than you are making out, not necessarily by being a part of the production of any up coming programme as I previously intimated to you, but maybe in other ways? Have you ever met the man in question for example?
But, you must answer for the word "something" that you have used here.
You know what? Anyone from this point onwards could come onto this thread and name a celebrity of the past or present, whether dead or alive, totally at random, and make some kind of case about "something" against them.
Isn't there a well trod phrase that goes a bit like this;
"When people start believing in anything, they stop believing in everything"
I agree the level of accusations in this thread could end up getting a few posters in court themselves
...Sir Jimmy was a character. He had a really interesting sense of humour, observed in part on the Theroux documentary. He could be caustic, sarcastic, and his humour could be dark, droll, or light. You could never quite tell. He was an enigma. He was also an exceptional human being, and when I heard of his passing I was deeply saddened.
It says more about the people writing on here, than it does about Sir Jimmy, when they are throwing mud and insinuations so casually around without any reason whatsoever except for "feelings" or "a hunch" they had.
Sir Jimmy Saville OBE (and a few other letters after his name) is of impeccable character, has done nothing to deserve a single vile comment on here, and deserves credit for his amazing life from such humble beginnings as a coal miner, to Bevan boy, to all that he became and did, almost always for good, and a lot without wish for publicity. Over £10 million for Stoke Mandeville for one. So much else too.
He was one of the worlds good guys, we're poorer without him and his type around us.
So, to sum up, in your opinion Sir Jimmy Savile was exactly as he has always been portrayed in the media. Fair enough.
An oscar Wilde quote from 1895 is worth remembering in the context of this whole discussion.
"The truth is rarely pure, and seldom simple" Think about that guys and gals!
If one is to throw pretentious quotes into a debate, it is often best to check that they actually support one's argument. Rather than, y'know, taking the polar opposite stance.
Just 8 posts in two and a half years and you took time to write that pathetic little sentence to me. What a strange person, that you cannot articulate, and instead probably thought you sounded so clever and pleased with yourself and your simple minded insult. You just made your own self sound like a pi**ock! :rolleyes:
So, to sum up, in your opinion Sir Jimmy Savile was exactly as he has always been portrayed in the media. Fair enough.
However...
If one is to throw pretentious quotes into a debate, it is often best to check that they actually support one's argument. Rather than, y'know, taking the polar opposite stance.
I prefer the term hilarious, but each to their own...:D
Glass houses and all that...
How about taking some lessons in how to conduct an articulate debate, rather than the tedious and rather tiresome flying insults. I'm not going to entertain your low level contributions any further. :yawn:
I'm old enough to remember his fix it show, as a small boy he seemed like the sort of benevolent uncle everyone wants.
As an adult, after watching the, now infamous, Louis Theroux program my opinion changed somewhat.
He came across as a bit strange, but more so a bit unpleasant.
I recall the scene where he had hurt his foot and was on the telephone at the hospital, wanting something.
He came out with the line, to whoever he was speaking with; "Bearing in mind how many kidney machines I've paid for here"
A few other little moments, also showed his less than savoury side.
When he was alive, with his fame and wealth, especially after Gary Glitter was exposed, any credible victims I'm sure would have emerged.
Even if for the purpose of a 'bag of gold'
I'm more inclined to think that JS was a man with quite a nasty side to him, who was possibly gay, and had issues with that.
But that is only my opinion, I don't know, nobody does.
All this "I have it on good information that X" or " a friend of a friends dog said Y"
All just nasty words unless names are named, and sources and facts verified.
I think we can all agree that JS wasn't the man that we watched on Saturday night telly in the 70's.
But I'm not gonna take the leap from a popped childhood memory to accusing a dead man of paedophilia (sp) without some solid facts.
For shame.
I would certainly love to know what Sir Jimmy's motivation was for doing the show with Louis Theroux. What you have also got to remember is that it may well have been edited in a certain way to obtain a certain angle on his lifestyle, like much of these kind of programmes are. They will, over the months that Theroux spent in his company, on and off, have gathered possibly hundreds of hours of material that was condensed down into what we ourselves saw on screen.
When I watched it, I recall thinking it was one of his finest fly on the wall follows of an individual that he had done. It would certainly be hugely interesting to be able to know, now Sir Jimmy has passed away, what Louis Theroux's own personal opinion was, and is, about the man he spent so much time with.
I've not seen the programme since it was first shown, which is quite a while ago now, and would love a chance to review it again, in light of what is being talked about here.
Remembering what I thought after seeing it the time I did, I did not come to think any worse of Sir Jimmy. When you see any celebrity out of their public persona they can look and appear quite different and sometimes ordinary too. In Sir Jimmy Savile's case I recall thinking that he was just one of those people who never liked anyone to get too close to him, and maybe even enjoyed creating this enigmatic side to him. I think he said many things that infact were the exact opposite of what he really thought. The one about disliking children springs to mind. He likely meant the opposite, and it was a defence mechanism at his disappointment that he himself had not had any in his own life.
I also think that any linking with assertions that he may have been gay, which is possible, and being a paedophile, are very dangerous things to connect together. There is absolutely no connection between the two in any way whatsoever, and this line of thought should be avoided.
I'd be more inclined to accept he was an unhappy gay man, than any other accusations that are of the sinister type. In the era he grew up, for a child born in 1926 it would have been quite a burden to put up with (wrongly) in a way that it no longer is thankfully for younger people compared to half a century ago.
But even having given a nod to the gay issue, I'm not really convinced he was even that.
He had the money, the high powered friends, the radio and TV career, the fame, the love from many, yet despite all of this I believe he could well have still been just somewhat lonely when the door was shut behind him in his home at the end of the day.
I think he did enjoy leading people, like Theroux, a merry dance about himself, and it was all part of the persona.
When he talked about his professional life, he was in his element, and always seemed to play a decent straight bat, whether he was talking about the music industry, the mines, or Top Of The Pops, or charity.
In a way this Jimmy Savile debate reminds me of those who claim we never went to the moon. Clearly nonsense that, as too many people were involved in the whole process for nobody to come out with the smoking gun on the issue.
The same applies with Sir Jimmy Savile I think, and it is just my opinion. He had his hands in so many different pots, from the telly to the radio to the charities all over the place, so very many things always on the go, that not only would it be surprising that he forgot everything he had ever done and been to, but it would be surprising in these circumstances that not one credible smoking gun has ever emerged from it all.
I'd say that most people we see on television are not what the private person is, in their off screen world. Very few seem to be the same in both. We all have our unsavoury moments some days, when we get angry on a phone or with something, that is being human. It doesn't condemn Jimmy or any one of us because of it.
A bit like comedians who say that everyone in the street expects them to have a permanent daft smile on their face, and tell a funny joke if stopped. It's not the way it happens much of the time.
I just wonder, if Sir Jimmy really did have anything bad to hide about his life, would he really have opened himself up in the way he did with the Theroux documentary? I'm not sure I would have done, if I had some serious skeletons in my own closet. There may have been a few eccentricities, but Jimmy Savile was no fool, believe that if nothing else.
. I think he said many things that infact were the exact opposite of what he really thought. The one about disliking children springs to mind. He likely meant the opposite, and it was a defence mechanism at his disappointment that he himself had not had any in his own life.
Why would you say that when he himself admitted that the reason he said he didn't like children was to stop people talking about him and thinking he was a paedophile? I mean, don't get me wrong - I love your romantiscized version, but that's not at all true!
In a way this Jimmy Savile debate reminds me of those who claim we never went to the moon. Clearly nonsense that, as too many people were involved in the whole process for nobody to come out with the smoking gun on the issue.
The same applies with Sir Jimmy Savile I think, and it is just my opinion. He had his hands in so many different pots, from the telly to the radio to the charities all over the place, so very many things always on the go, that not only would it be surprising that he forgot everything he had ever done and been to, but it would be surprising in these circumstances that not one credible smoking gun has ever emerged from it all.
Yes. I am so very very busy with my job and kids that I forgot I raped someone last week! Silly me!
Ok, I'm joking by the way - but seriously? That's the best defence you have that he was busy? Why would being a busy person mean you are more likely to have people think you were a paedophile? I mean, I read an interview with the Saturdays a while back (don't judge me!) and they said they'd only had two days off in six months, does that mean Frankie is a child molester too?
I'm all for a balanced arguement and bring on the opposing opinions but to me, your posts are self righteous and pious.
A bit like comedians who say that everyone in the street expects them to have a permanent daft smile on their face, and tell a funny joke if stopped. It's not the way it happens much of the time.
I bet poor old Harry Hill suffers from that even more than most of them!
In a way this Jimmy Savile debate reminds me of those who claim we never went to the moon. Clearly nonsense that, as too many people were involved in the whole process for nobody to come out with the smoking gun on the issue.
This is nonsense. Really offensive nonsense, given what is being discussed. It actually really infuriates me the number of people who use such topics as an opportunity to reaffirm their belief in their own objectivity and sense of fairness, despite never having had any experience of paedophilia or cover ups or corruption, having absolutely no idea that what they're saying is not true, nor seemingly caring, all while patting themselves, and others, on the back.
How about taking some lessons in how to conduct an articulate debate, rather than the tedious and rather tiresome flying insults. I'm not going to entertain your low level contributions any further. :yawn:
I don't need lessons. I know enough not to offer quotes that directly contradict my assertions, unlike you. I know not to offer personal insults, unlike you. I do not state unequivocally that someone I have never met, and never will, is of impeccable character. I don't expect threads to be closed because I disagree with some of the content. I don't edit people's posts in order to excise my own ill thought out contributions. I don't accuse other posters of having hidden agendas.
I am guilty, however, of knowing what 'articulate' means. In the words of Inigo Montoya - 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'.
I don't need lessons. I know enough not to offer quotes that directly contradict my assertions, unlike you. I know not to offer personal insults, unlike you. I do not state unequivocally that someone I have never met, and never will, is of impeccable character. I don't expect threads to be closed because I disagree with some of the content. I don't edit people's posts in order to excise my own ill thought out contributions. I don't accuse other posters of having hidden agendas.
I am guilty, however, of knowing what 'articulate' means. In the words of Inigo Montoya - 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'.
I don't need lessons. I know enough not to offer quotes that directly contradict my assertions, unlike you. I know not to offer personal insults, unlike you. I do not state unequivocally that someone I have never met, and never will, is of impeccable character. I don't expect threads to be closed because I disagree with some of the content. I don't edit people's posts in order to excise my own ill thought out contributions. I don't accuse other posters of having hidden agendas.
I am guilty, however, of knowing what 'articulate' means. In the words of Inigo Montoya - 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'.
I met Sir Jim many times - and used to correspond in writing with him quite a bit in the years just before he died.
"Eccentric" really did seem to sum him up - although I have to say, I do think a lot of this eccentricity was "put on" for the camera's.
I remember meeting him at the recording of the final weekly edition of 'Top of the Pops' at TV Centre in July 2006.
Whilst he was "his character" for the recording, I stood with him chatting after he had recorded his links and it was then that it struck me how frail and "doddery" he seemed to be. He also seemed not very "with it" as constantly had production staff asking him if he was "ok" and if he needed to sit down etc....I suppose it should be remembered that he was coming up to his eighties at the time, something I guess was easy to overlook, but it was surprising just how different he could be away from the cameras.
He could also be very cantankerous - I did several BBC radio interviews with him (again relating to the final weekly recording of Top of the Pops). In one of the interviews, I said to him that it was a great shame that the BBC didn't keep the majority of the sixties editions of 'Top of the Pops' and what a shame that so many from the sixties and early seventies featuring Jimmy now just didn't exist. He became very defensive and said that happened because the BBC recorded "every" edition then onto film and all the films were retained but just "deteriorated". I explained (as many will know) that this was not the case - the very, very early TOTP's were sometimes not recorded at all but most of the time, TOTP was recorded onto video tape which was subsequently wiped and re-used - hence why so many complete editions now do not exist.
He got very defensive and said again that wasn't the case. The interviewer changed the subject then, but I could imagine that he could be a difficult person sometimes to get along with if you felt you needed to correct him!
Having said all this, he also seemed quite likeable. He would write to a work colleague and myself often - some of the letters were quite humourous and jokey - but sometimes he would come across quite harshly if you questioned him on some things. For example, back, pre-internet days, we wrote and asked him why there were no official "fan clubs" (!) He wrote back and simply crossed through our paragraph with the words "Don't like fanclubs. Don't have time for them"
As to whether he was ever guilty of anything untowards within in past - who knows? But without any firm evidence, the man should just be allowed to "rest in peace" and perhaps people should just remember the good that he did for charity etc...
Yes, he could be strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric, etc....but there again, apart perhaps from his beloved mother, "The Duchess", I guess no one really ever knew him, the 'real' Jimmy Savile......
Yes, he could be strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric, etc....but there again, apart perhaps from his beloved mother, "The Duchess", I guess no one really ever knew him, the 'real' Jimmy Savile......
I met Sir Jim many times - and used to correspond in writing with him quite a bit in the years just before he died.
"Eccentric" really did seem to sum him up - although I have to say, I do think a lot of this eccentricity was "put on" for the camera's.
I remember meeting him at the recording of the final weekly edition of 'Top of the Pops' at TV Centre in July 2006.
Whilst he was "his character" for the recording, I stood with him chatting after he had recorded his links and it was then that it struck me how frail and "doddery" he seemed to be. He also seemed not very "with it" as constantly had production staff asking him if he was "ok" and if he needed to sit down etc....I suppose it should be remembered that he was coming up to his eighties at the time, something I guess was easy to overlook, but it was surprising just how different he could be away from the cameras.
He could also be very cantankerous - I did several BBC radio interviews with him (again relating to the final weekly recording of Top of the Pops). In one of the interviews, I said to him that it was a great shame that the BBC didn't keep the majority of the sixties editions of 'Top of the Pops' and what a shame that so many from the sixties and early seventies featuring Jimmy now just didn't exist. He became very defensive and said that happened because the BBC recorded "every" edition then onto film and all the films were retained but just "deteriorated". I explained (as many will know) that this was not the case - the very, very early TOTP's were sometimes not recorded at all but most of the time, TOTP was recorded onto video tape which was subsequently wiped and re-used - hence why so many complete editions now do not exist.
He got very defensive and said again that wasn't the case. The interviewer changed the subject then, but I could imagine that he could be a difficult person sometimes to get along with if you felt you needed to correct him!
Having said all this, he also seemed quite likeable. He would write to a work colleague and myself often - some of the letters were quite humourous and jokey - but sometimes he would come across quite harshly if you questioned him on some things. For example, back, pre-internet days, we wrote and asked him why there were no official "fan clubs" (!) He wrote back and simply crossed through our paragraph with the words "Don't like fanclubs. Don't have time for them"
As to whether he was ever guilty of anything untowards within in past - who knows? But without any firm evidence, the man should just be allowed to "rest in peace" and perhaps people should just remember the good that he did for charity etc...
Yes, he could be strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric, etc....but there again, apart perhaps from his beloved mother, "The Duchess", I guess no one really ever knew him, the 'real' Jimmy Savile......
Fantastic post.
We can all have our suspicions and if anything come to light it has to be dealt with in the right manner.
However I'm very uncomfortable with hammering a guy once he has died and can't defend himself.
I have no great feeling for Jimmy either positive or negative in that respect. I though he was deeply odd, but being odd isn't a crime.
I think a few people in this topic who are willing to believe Sir Jimmy was a paedophile are most probably ex Jim'll Fix It kids who were on the show and now feel embarrassed, especially the fat kid on the roller coaster and them pair who danced with Shakin Stevens very badly, it's their way of revenge for immortalizing them as sad little gits
Um, is someone's ego more important than stopping people perpetuating the myth that babies don't get raped and every member of these large groups of people, on whom they seem to rely on the basis of statistics rather than reality, does nothing about it? I'm not really sure what could be more disgusting than rewriting history for one's own ends in this situation. This is why there is so much corruption.
Um, is someone's ego more important than stopping people perpetuating the myth that babies don't get raped and every member of these large groups of people, on whom they seem to rely on the basis of statistics rather than reality, does nothing about it? I'm not really sure what could be more disgusting than rewriting history for one's own ends in this situation. This is why there is so much corruption.
I believe we have discussed this in a previous thread. I'm not talking about Jimmy Saville. However, I do find him a sinister and controlling man who could quite possibly be a paedophile or have executed some other sexual expression of narcissism. I'm saying that I know of a paedophile ring about whom no one does anything, so for people who have no knowledge of paedophilia, paedophile rings, cover ups and corruption to be stating as fact that you couldn't cover up something if enough people knew about it, and to likely have requested that posts that embarrassed them be removed, disgusts me.
Comments
I am no lawyer but if he was still alive and these allegations were being made openly he could sue,but i believe you cannot libel the dead.
If his relations were to try and clear his name the legal bill would run into thousands of ££££££££££s and unless they are well off they might well lose a lot of money.
As for comissioning a programme to prove his innocence without him now being here that may well prove fruitless after all who would you interview! Friends relatives and the so called accusers,and go around and around in circles.
Up until now as far as i am c oncerned he is innocent as he has not been proven to be anything else.
It is so easy to get carried away with the moment and regret it later and I have no doubt that a lot of men have taken advantage of this even though they should have known better.
I have no idea what JS did in the past but I am sure that there are a lot of pop stars and DJ who wouldn't be too proud of some of their exploits with groupies as checking birth certificates wouldn't have been a priority.
JS was an oddball. I would be surprised if he deliberately set out to harm anyone but a lot of things happened in the 60s and 70s which were wild and excessive and maybe he did decide to try and atone for them in later life with his charitable work.
If someone had an accusation to make about him they should have done it in his lifetime when he was able to defend himself, no injunction super or otherwise would have been able to stop a good case from coming to court.
With a lot of these things memories change depending on your morals at the time when as a teenager it was exciting and going with the flow looking back with maturity it was stupid and dangerous.
Now that's confusing because you clearly answer my question with "I Do" then go on to say in the next sentence "as far as I'm aware". You can't have it both ways.
Perhaps Saltydog thought he was guilty of a crime against fashion. As far as I'm aware, being in possesion of a track suit and large cigar is not a punishable offence.:)
I agree the level of accusations in this thread could end up getting a few posters in court themselves
So, to sum up, in your opinion Sir Jimmy Savile was exactly as he has always been portrayed in the media. Fair enough.
However...
If one is to throw pretentious quotes into a debate, it is often best to check that they actually support one's argument. Rather than, y'know, taking the polar opposite stance.
I prefer the term hilarious, but each to their own...:D
Glass houses and all that...
As an adult, after watching the, now infamous, Louis Theroux program my opinion changed somewhat.
He came across as a bit strange, but more so a bit unpleasant.
I recall the scene where he had hurt his foot and was on the telephone at the hospital, wanting something.
He came out with the line, to whoever he was speaking with; "Bearing in mind how many kidney machines I've paid for here"
A few other little moments, also showed his less than savoury side.
When he was alive, with his fame and wealth, especially after Gary Glitter was exposed, any credible victims I'm sure would have emerged.
Even if for the purpose of a 'bag of gold'
I'm more inclined to think that JS was a man with quite a nasty side to him, who was possibly gay, and had issues with that.
But that is only my opinion, I don't know, nobody does.
All this "I have it on good information that X" or " a friend of a friends dog said Y"
All just nasty words unless names are named, and sources and facts verified.
I think we can all agree that JS wasn't the man that we watched on Saturday night telly in the 70's.
But I'm not gonna take the leap from a popped childhood memory to accusing a dead man of paedophilia (sp) without some solid facts.
For shame.
How about taking some lessons in how to conduct an articulate debate, rather than the tedious and rather tiresome flying insults. I'm not going to entertain your low level contributions any further. :yawn:
I would certainly love to know what Sir Jimmy's motivation was for doing the show with Louis Theroux. What you have also got to remember is that it may well have been edited in a certain way to obtain a certain angle on his lifestyle, like much of these kind of programmes are. They will, over the months that Theroux spent in his company, on and off, have gathered possibly hundreds of hours of material that was condensed down into what we ourselves saw on screen.
When I watched it, I recall thinking it was one of his finest fly on the wall follows of an individual that he had done. It would certainly be hugely interesting to be able to know, now Sir Jimmy has passed away, what Louis Theroux's own personal opinion was, and is, about the man he spent so much time with.
I've not seen the programme since it was first shown, which is quite a while ago now, and would love a chance to review it again, in light of what is being talked about here.
Remembering what I thought after seeing it the time I did, I did not come to think any worse of Sir Jimmy. When you see any celebrity out of their public persona they can look and appear quite different and sometimes ordinary too. In Sir Jimmy Savile's case I recall thinking that he was just one of those people who never liked anyone to get too close to him, and maybe even enjoyed creating this enigmatic side to him. I think he said many things that infact were the exact opposite of what he really thought. The one about disliking children springs to mind. He likely meant the opposite, and it was a defence mechanism at his disappointment that he himself had not had any in his own life.
I also think that any linking with assertions that he may have been gay, which is possible, and being a paedophile, are very dangerous things to connect together. There is absolutely no connection between the two in any way whatsoever, and this line of thought should be avoided.
I'd be more inclined to accept he was an unhappy gay man, than any other accusations that are of the sinister type. In the era he grew up, for a child born in 1926 it would have been quite a burden to put up with (wrongly) in a way that it no longer is thankfully for younger people compared to half a century ago.
But even having given a nod to the gay issue, I'm not really convinced he was even that.
He had the money, the high powered friends, the radio and TV career, the fame, the love from many, yet despite all of this I believe he could well have still been just somewhat lonely when the door was shut behind him in his home at the end of the day.
I think he did enjoy leading people, like Theroux, a merry dance about himself, and it was all part of the persona.
When he talked about his professional life, he was in his element, and always seemed to play a decent straight bat, whether he was talking about the music industry, the mines, or Top Of The Pops, or charity.
In a way this Jimmy Savile debate reminds me of those who claim we never went to the moon. Clearly nonsense that, as too many people were involved in the whole process for nobody to come out with the smoking gun on the issue.
The same applies with Sir Jimmy Savile I think, and it is just my opinion. He had his hands in so many different pots, from the telly to the radio to the charities all over the place, so very many things always on the go, that not only would it be surprising that he forgot everything he had ever done and been to, but it would be surprising in these circumstances that not one credible smoking gun has ever emerged from it all.
I'd say that most people we see on television are not what the private person is, in their off screen world. Very few seem to be the same in both. We all have our unsavoury moments some days, when we get angry on a phone or with something, that is being human. It doesn't condemn Jimmy or any one of us because of it.
A bit like comedians who say that everyone in the street expects them to have a permanent daft smile on their face, and tell a funny joke if stopped. It's not the way it happens much of the time.
I just wonder, if Sir Jimmy really did have anything bad to hide about his life, would he really have opened himself up in the way he did with the Theroux documentary? I'm not sure I would have done, if I had some serious skeletons in my own closet. There may have been a few eccentricities, but Jimmy Savile was no fool, believe that if nothing else.
Why would you say that when he himself admitted that the reason he said he didn't like children was to stop people talking about him and thinking he was a paedophile? I mean, don't get me wrong - I love your romantiscized version, but that's not at all true!
Yes. I am so very very busy with my job and kids that I forgot I raped someone last week! Silly me!
Ok, I'm joking by the way - but seriously? That's the best defence you have that he was busy? Why would being a busy person mean you are more likely to have people think you were a paedophile? I mean, I read an interview with the Saturdays a while back (don't judge me!) and they said they'd only had two days off in six months, does that mean Frankie is a child molester too?
I'm all for a balanced arguement and bring on the opposing opinions but to me, your posts are self righteous and pious.
I bet poor old Harry Hill suffers from that even more than most of them!
btw Amazon has this which I bought recently
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Louis-Theroux-Collection-Disc-BBC/dp/B000S6UZGK/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1344588020&sr=1-1
This is nonsense. Really offensive nonsense, given what is being discussed. It actually really infuriates me the number of people who use such topics as an opportunity to reaffirm their belief in their own objectivity and sense of fairness, despite never having had any experience of paedophilia or cover ups or corruption, having absolutely no idea that what they're saying is not true, nor seemingly caring, all while patting themselves, and others, on the back.
How narcissists really are:
http://samvak.tripod.com/narcissismintimacy.html
I don't need lessons. I know enough not to offer quotes that directly contradict my assertions, unlike you. I know not to offer personal insults, unlike you. I do not state unequivocally that someone I have never met, and never will, is of impeccable character. I don't expect threads to be closed because I disagree with some of the content. I don't edit people's posts in order to excise my own ill thought out contributions. I don't accuse other posters of having hidden agendas.
I am guilty, however, of knowing what 'articulate' means. In the words of Inigo Montoya - 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'.
I love this post
Brava. :cool:
"Eccentric" really did seem to sum him up - although I have to say, I do think a lot of this eccentricity was "put on" for the camera's.
I remember meeting him at the recording of the final weekly edition of 'Top of the Pops' at TV Centre in July 2006.
Whilst he was "his character" for the recording, I stood with him chatting after he had recorded his links and it was then that it struck me how frail and "doddery" he seemed to be. He also seemed not very "with it" as constantly had production staff asking him if he was "ok" and if he needed to sit down etc....I suppose it should be remembered that he was coming up to his eighties at the time, something I guess was easy to overlook, but it was surprising just how different he could be away from the cameras.
He could also be very cantankerous - I did several BBC radio interviews with him (again relating to the final weekly recording of Top of the Pops). In one of the interviews, I said to him that it was a great shame that the BBC didn't keep the majority of the sixties editions of 'Top of the Pops' and what a shame that so many from the sixties and early seventies featuring Jimmy now just didn't exist. He became very defensive and said that happened because the BBC recorded "every" edition then onto film and all the films were retained but just "deteriorated". I explained (as many will know) that this was not the case - the very, very early TOTP's were sometimes not recorded at all but most of the time, TOTP was recorded onto video tape which was subsequently wiped and re-used - hence why so many complete editions now do not exist.
He got very defensive and said again that wasn't the case. The interviewer changed the subject then, but I could imagine that he could be a difficult person sometimes to get along with if you felt you needed to correct him!
Having said all this, he also seemed quite likeable. He would write to a work colleague and myself often - some of the letters were quite humourous and jokey - but sometimes he would come across quite harshly if you questioned him on some things. For example, back, pre-internet days, we wrote and asked him why there were no official "fan clubs" (!) He wrote back and simply crossed through our paragraph with the words "Don't like fanclubs. Don't have time for them"
As to whether he was ever guilty of anything untowards within in past - who knows? But without any firm evidence, the man should just be allowed to "rest in peace" and perhaps people should just remember the good that he did for charity etc...
Yes, he could be strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric, etc....but there again, apart perhaps from his beloved mother, "The Duchess", I guess no one really ever knew him, the 'real' Jimmy Savile......
I think that's spot on.
Fantastic post.
We can all have our suspicions and if anything come to light it has to be dealt with in the right manner.
However I'm very uncomfortable with hammering a guy once he has died and can't defend himself.
I have no great feeling for Jimmy either positive or negative in that respect. I though he was deeply odd, but being odd isn't a crime.
Where are these witnesses and victims?
What does his family say?
if and when the tv show is aired...
So you have evidence?
I believe we have discussed this in a previous thread. I'm not talking about Jimmy Saville. However, I do find him a sinister and controlling man who could quite possibly be a paedophile or have executed some other sexual expression of narcissism. I'm saying that I know of a paedophile ring about whom no one does anything, so for people who have no knowledge of paedophilia, paedophile rings, cover ups and corruption to be stating as fact that you couldn't cover up something if enough people knew about it, and to likely have requested that posts that embarrassed them be removed, disgusts me.