But I think you have to accept it is more then likely Savile is guilty of some of the alleged offenses.
I don't know how long you have been a DS member but I have found those that want to quieten others with differing views from those of the consensus,-- want to be heard the most.
Those that wag a disapproving finger at the member my making it very personal, cast aspersions, make dramatic negative statements, simply like reading their own words and the affect they might have.
You become a victim of a turkey shoot and the DS forum threads/ mods' are famous for allowing it.
And because they allow it, it reinforces in other people's minds that perhaps the perpetrators, their bully tactics and their condemnations of the victim are correct.
But I have noticed those involved in these turkey shooting set ups are the easiest to take the pi*s out of, they are so clever, so smart, so right,---they don't even get it, not an original thought between them.
Your entitled to your views BusStop so long as you believe them.
To be fair, that FM has made more than their fair share of controversial and dramatic statements, and when questioned about them comes out with things like "I won't indulge you" and "you're fascinated by me" so it's perfectly reasonable for people to view those posts as either trying to be controversial for the sake of a reaction or, worse, that the person is irrationally fixated on Savile's innocence to the point that they resist any attempt to discuss their conclusions.
Apparently he was hanging around with Harris at Broadmoor.
Jimmy Savile accompanied Rolf Harris to Broadmoor on one occasion in 1973 - it's mentioned in the NHS report into Savile's association with the hospital. There is no suggestion that anything dodgy happened while they were there. Section 8.16 on page 66 of the pdf version of the report here
To be fair, that FM has made more than their fair share of controversial and dramatic statements, and when questioned about them comes out with things like "I won't indulge you" and "you're fascinated by me" so it's perfectly reasonable for people to view those posts as either trying to be controversial for the sake of a reaction or, worse, that the person is irrationally fixated on Savile's innocence to the point that they resist any attempt to discuss their conclusions.
But to be fair, they are FMs views, dramatic or controversial as the case might me and they are trying to explain/defend those views, so they are not ducking or diving, they are responding.
And there is some malicious baiting going on in this thread and the FM has bitten back or not as they so choose.
It gets tiresome replying to those who constantly deliberately, with malice, mis-construe or mis-understand a post, there are some repeat serial offenders on DS who practise this.
And what the FM is actually saying in a nut shell is the hysterics surrounding Savile,---well, one can't see the wood for the trees----and the FM is right and rational about that.
But I do think some times forum members put them selves in to a corner and ask for slings and arrows, ( note to self seacam ),---there is nothing wrong in abandoning a position, ( another note to self seacam ), but it's hard to do.
Yes, I think we were all pretty much as we are now, albeit minus internet etc. Its true that all of us, and police of course, were very much aware that there was such a thing as sexual abusers of children. I was first made aware of it aged around three or four, although not knowing the terms for it or quite what it entailed. I knew, and screamed the place down, aged 9, when a chap did, as I perceived it, attempt to touch me in a way that didn't seem 'right'. And then growing up, we had the local police warning us, etc.
There was a different attitude to certain types of adult rape of course, which we all know about.
But I think my point is, that I knew that 'wrong actions' against children/minors would be taken seriously, and this was the case for very many of us. And when it comes to JS particularly, I feel that he was precisely the sort of man that people wouldn't have been afraid to make a complaint about. So many people were already thinking, 'he's a bit strange, a bit creepy' etc.
Sorry, bit of a rambling post there. But just trying to convey why its misconceived to declare that some 1000 alleged victims would ALL act identically, and so so differently from the way I, my family, my friends, and others, might have acted.
You have totally missed the point I was making. We reported it to the police, but there was no register of sex offenders in those days. The man in question could have gone on to abuse other 12 year olds.
Our parents did not want to take it to court to protect us and the police weren't pushing it - he was sacked.
In the 70s, those who were reported were not dealt with in the way they would be now,and neither were the victims.
But to be fair, they are FMs views, dramatic or controversial as the case might me and they are trying to explain/defend those views, so they are not ducking or diving, they are responding.
And there is some malicious baiting going on in this thread and the FM has bitten back or not as they so choose.
It gets tiresome replying to those who constantly deliberately, with malice, mis-construe or mis-understand a post, there are some repeat serial offenders on DS who practise this.
And what the FM is actually saying in a nut shell is the hysterics surrounding Savile,---well, one can't see the wood for the trees----and the FM is right and rational about that.
But I do think some times forum members put them selves in to a corner and ask for slings and arrows, ( note to self seacam ),---there is nothing wrong in abandoning a position, ( another note to self seacam ), but it's hard to do.
Well the two instances that I was aware of and which were in mind when I wrote that post were my own response and that of another FM. With regards my own, BS had stated that it was so unbelievable for paedophiles to reveal themselves to others that they couldn't possibly collude together as Savile and others are alleged to have done at Broadmoor, for example. I asked if BS believed in paedophile rings, which I thought was a reasonable question and not baiting in the slightest, since paedophile rings are well accepted as existing, so paedophiles must collude with each other. The only response I've had is for BS to tell me that they're ignoring me, so not really responding in any meaningful way or defending their views.
The response to another FM was in a very similar vein. I don't think they are simply holding views, in fact I doubt whether they believe what they post. They are deliberately posting controversial remarks such as claiming all the alleged victims are lying and after compensation, as well as only ever describing Savile's actions as "a casual grope", then refusing, in the most childish and inane ways, to defend those views. If you ask me the whole stunt is for attention.
Well the two instances that I was aware of and which were in mind when I wrote that post were my own response and that of another FM. With regards my own, BS had stated that it was so unbelievable for paedophiles to reveal themselves to others that they couldn't possibly collude together as Savile and others are alleged to have done at Broadmoor, for example. I asked if BS believed in paedophile rings, which I thought was a reasonable question and not baiting in the slightest, since paedophile rings are well accepted as existing, so paedophiles must collude with each other. The only response I've had is for BS to tell me that they're ignoring me, so not really responding in any meaningful way or defending their views.
The response to another FM was in a very similar vein. I don't think they are simply holding views, in fact I doubt whether they believe what they post. They are deliberately posting controversial remarks such as claiming all the alleged victims are lying and after compensation, as well as only ever describing Savile's actions as "a casual grope", then refusing, in the most childish and inane ways, to defend those views. If you ask me the whole stunt is for attention.
I hadn't read your post's but you take as much opportunity as you feel you need to repeat yourself.
Well the two instances that I was aware of and which were in mind when I wrote that post were my own response and that of another FM. With regards my own, BS had stated that it was so unbelievable for paedophiles to reveal themselves to others that they couldn't possibly collude together as Savile and others are alleged to have done at Broadmoor, for example. I asked if BS believed in paedophile rings, which I thought was a reasonable question and not baiting in the slightest, since paedophile rings are well accepted as existing, so paedophiles must collude with each other. The only response I've had is for BS to tell me that they're ignoring me, so not really responding in any meaningful way or defending their views.
The response to another FM was in a very similar vein. I don't think they are simply holding views, in fact I doubt whether they believe what they post. They are deliberately posting controversial remarks such as claiming all the alleged victims are lying and after compensation, as well as only ever describing Savile's actions as "a casual grope", then refusing, in the most childish and inane ways, to defend those views. If you ask me the whole stunt is for attention.
The Savile defenders are hair-raisingly scary, not to mention sickening.
I'm gobsmacked that anyone in their right mind would try and defend any of the grotesque muck that this deplorable beast got up to.
It's what they're defending though. Is it JS himself, his actions, that they truly believe his action are unfounded or something else? All are very different, some misguided and others worrying to say the least.
I am utterly gob smacked at the enormous scale and extent of his abuse. From children, the elderly, the mentally ill, and the dead.
What is also stunning is that not one person in authority showed much concern.
I would doubt that Saville would have had sex with all of these, these are claims and aren't all proved. Usually with sexual attraction it is extremely rare that someone would be attracted to a large range of people of different ages, species and life levels. For example a woman attracted to black teenage girls wouldn't also be attracted to elderly white men or dead cats.
I would doubt that Saville would have had sex with all of these, these are claims and aren't all proved. Usually with sexual attraction it is extremely rare that someone would be attracted to a large range of people of different ages, species and life levels. For example a woman attracted to black teenage girls wouldn't also be attracted to elderly white men or dead cats.
Sexual abuse is nothing to do with sexual attraction.
It's about power and control. If you get off on control, any vulnerable victim can do the job regardless of age, gender or appearance.
The Savile defenders are hair-raisingly scary, not to mention sickening.
The "Saville defenders" mightn't be defending Saville but more questioning the claims. Many people jump on the bandwagon but there are many fantasists out there who claim they slept with A list celebrities but didn't. These people who are making these claims we don't know if they have made false claims before, they could be crazy fantasists who have made countless claims that they were raped by people or someone who seduces famous people so they can sell their story
Your wrong, it's control and power over the sexual attraction.
Where did you get that from? There is no control over sexual attraction. In many cases abuse is a form of control over the victim and a way of displacing negative feelings such as inadequacy and worthlessness.
Where did you get that from? There is no control over sexual attraction. In many cases abuse is a form of control over the victim and a way of displacing negative feelings such as inadequacy and worthlessness.
My violent ex, used to go round any freind I made and scare them by pushing them up against a wall and pretending they were going to rape them, then when they were so scared he would pull back, smile and say "you wont be visiting Sweatpea again will you?" I could never understand how any nice freind I made never stayed friends for long. Then he did it to my cousin who started to come visit me and she told me, that led me to asking others why they suddenly stopped coming round or asking me round
I'd bet a huge chunk of money that lots of people in authority just preferred to turn a blind eye to what he was doing back then. It's like the police wanted him to be untouchable. That's why he knew he could get away with anything, because he knew that he was being protected by everyone in authority.
No doubt about it, Savile knew he was protected. The whole business of giving him such ridiculous amounts of access and power in Broadmoor (he was a radio DJ, yet all this free reign?) stinks of collusion.
Comments
And there is some malicious baiting going on in this thread and the FM has bitten back or not as they so choose.
It gets tiresome replying to those who constantly deliberately, with malice, mis-construe or mis-understand a post, there are some repeat serial offenders on DS who practise this.
And what the FM is actually saying in a nut shell is the hysterics surrounding Savile,---well, one can't see the wood for the trees----and the FM is right and rational about that.
But I do think some times forum members put them selves in to a corner and ask for slings and arrows, ( note to self seacam ),---there is nothing wrong in abandoning a position, ( another note to self seacam ), but it's hard to do.
You have totally missed the point I was making. We reported it to the police, but there was no register of sex offenders in those days. The man in question could have gone on to abuse other 12 year olds.
Our parents did not want to take it to court to protect us and the police weren't pushing it - he was sacked.
In the 70s, those who were reported were not dealt with in the way they would be now,and neither were the victims.
The response to another FM was in a very similar vein. I don't think they are simply holding views, in fact I doubt whether they believe what they post. They are deliberately posting controversial remarks such as claiming all the alleged victims are lying and after compensation, as well as only ever describing Savile's actions as "a casual grope", then refusing, in the most childish and inane ways, to defend those views. If you ask me the whole stunt is for attention.
The Savile defenders are hair-raisingly scary, not to mention sickening.
Not sure what you mean.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ED0zYuiiwBg/S54kd_kxt2I/AAAAAAAABjY/Mi-AQ9y4fQk/s400/gumball+rings+1.JPG
It's what they're defending though. Is it JS himself, his actions, that they truly believe his action are unfounded or something else? All are very different, some misguided and others worrying to say the least.
I can sort of understand the occasional person playing Devil's Advocate, but to defend him to the hilt on his every misdeed, is just mental.
I would doubt that Saville would have had sex with all of these, these are claims and aren't all proved. Usually with sexual attraction it is extremely rare that someone would be attracted to a large range of people of different ages, species and life levels. For example a woman attracted to black teenage girls wouldn't also be attracted to elderly white men or dead cats.
Sexual abuse is nothing to do with sexual attraction.
It's about power and control. If you get off on control, any vulnerable victim can do the job regardless of age, gender or appearance.
It's so sad that people still make this mistake
The "Saville defenders" mightn't be defending Saville but more questioning the claims. Many people jump on the bandwagon but there are many fantasists out there who claim they slept with A list celebrities but didn't. These people who are making these claims we don't know if they have made false claims before, they could be crazy fantasists who have made countless claims that they were raped by people or someone who seduces famous people so they can sell their story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhDaJs3loOA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sduX3i9zokg
The sex act it's self, whatever form that takes, has little to do with whatever drives the abuser and their abuse, maybe that's what you mean?
What kind of idiot gives a DJ access to such places, as well as control?
"Let's give Chris Moyles the Keys to Porton Down."
"Let's alow Dappy to advise the ministry of defence."
Where did you get that from? There is no control over sexual attraction. In many cases abuse is a form of control over the victim and a way of displacing negative feelings such as inadequacy and worthlessness.
My violent ex, used to go round any freind I made and scare them by pushing them up against a wall and pretending they were going to rape them, then when they were so scared he would pull back, smile and say "you wont be visiting Sweatpea again will you?" I could never understand how any nice freind I made never stayed friends for long. Then he did it to my cousin who started to come visit me and she told me, that led me to asking others why they suddenly stopped coming round or asking me round
The man was pure evil in a lot of ways >:(
No doubt about it, Savile knew he was protected. The whole business of giving him such ridiculous amounts of access and power in Broadmoor (he was a radio DJ, yet all this free reign?) stinks of collusion.
Orgies as well? Was there no limit to this man's depravity?