Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile?

15253555758187

Comments

  • chavetchavet Posts: 2,503
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    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.

    On balance, though, I'm relieved that they have at least acknowledged it, as so many people just refused to entertain even the possibility that people would turn a blind eye, and this could perhaps help people in the future, if not the pas. It's hard to believe that only Rantzen and Gambaccini would be aware, which means how many people aren't prepared to raise their heads above the parapet? They could help now, but where are they?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 188
    Forum Member
    I'm not too sure what you want to know. We did not choose to talk to the press or TV, they sought us out. Everyone would happily take a lie detector test and no money has or will pass through any 'alleged' abuse victims hands. If you accept money in return for sexual favours that makes you a prostitute. We feal bad enough, we do not need additional labels. If I claimed a neighbour abused me, I would no doubt get sympathy. Because I state a celebrity abused me and he has now unfortunately died, I get blamed of making up allegations and others feel that it is fair to attack me further. People wonder why we did not speak out earlier, would you have done in all honesty?
    .

    I believe you, because he tried it on with a friend of the families daughter when she was 16, she was working in the hairdressing salon he went to in Roundhay Leeds. He took he out and she went just because she felt sorry for him. He touched her leg and then promised to get her into showbiz etc if she had sex with him. She refused and didnt go out with him again. She wasnt underage but was very yound and wouldnt be interested in a dirty old man iin his 70s.
    A girlfiend of mine also said that he had a reputation for this around the Roundhay area of Leeds.
  • Saltydog1955Saltydog1955 Posts: 4,134
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nosnikrapl wrote: »
    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.

    Oh for heaven's sake.

    How can a dead person be taken to court to defend themselves over anything, never mind libel. Perhaps you think they ought to be taken out of their coffins and propped up in the witness box?
  • HotgossipHotgossip Posts: 22,385
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Toggler wrote: »
    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.

    Very true Toggler. It really was completely different back then. If you had a problem at school with a teacher you just kept quiet because most parents back then always sided with the teacher and YOU were in the wrong.

    If your parents said you had to be in at a certain time, you had to be and it wasn't just my parents, all my friends parents were the same. I remember my friend and I being out in a car with 2 lads and we were about half an hour late and both our Dads were waiting at her house and they grabbed us by our hair and dragged us from the car!! I am sure that would never happen today.

    I also remember one girl at school getting pregnant and she just disappeared off the face of the earth and nobody spoke of her at all. It was seen as very shameful then (unlike today) not just by the parents and school but also by other kids.

    There was an approved school not far from here and kids came from all over the country. There was some sort of scandal there and the school did close down about 20 years ago. I will look it up but I seem to recall some local important people being involved with inteferring with the kids and they got away with it for years BECAUSE nobody believed the kids as after all, they were in there for being out of control, liars etc.
  • chavetchavet Posts: 2,503
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dorydaryl wrote: »
    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.

    Don't get me wrong, your balance is refreshing and surprising, and I'm glad that you seem to have made your peace with it now. I know my own view is coloured by previous experiences with paedophiles, and conmen and conwomen of other descriptions, and has made me very aware of certain character traits, particularly narcissism, and now I wouldn't really trust anyone whose answers didn't make sense, or were inconsistent, irrespective of plausibility or the fact that they keep pretending that their dad is dead.
  • Saltydog1955Saltydog1955 Posts: 4,134
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    Mark Williams-Thomas is on "This Morning" and is currently getting a rough ride.

    Just why is MWT so vilified on this thread? What's he supposed to have done? :confused:

    I must admit, I'd never heard of him until news of this programme being made came out.
  • End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    chavet wrote: »
    On balance, though, I'm relieved that they have at least acknowledged it, as so many people just refused to entertain even the possibility that people would turn a blind eye, and this could perhaps help people in the future, if not the pas. It's hard to believe that only Rantzen and Gambaccini would be aware, which means how many people aren't prepared to raise their heads above the parapet? They could help now, but where are they?

    Yes. It's just a shame that many more alleged victims may have been saved had the issue been raised earlier and JS would have been made to answer.

    PS: His former PA(?) just spoke on This Morning in his defence saying that in over 30 years she had never witnessed anything untoward but then acknowledged he was very manipulative and litigious.
  • Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    Oh for heaven's sake.

    How can a dead person be taken to court to defend themselves over anything, never mind libel. Perhaps you think they ought to be taken out of their coffins and propped up in the witness box?

    People like Jimmy given his wealth will have an Estate to look after his affairs.
    If libel applied after death (I don't know if it does or doesn't) why couldn't the Estate/family take someone to court, if they thought it worth contesting?
  • End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just why is MWT so vilified on this thread? What's he supposed to have done? :confused:

    I must admit, I'd never heard of him until news of this programme being made came out.

    For me personally, it's because he's a ren-a-gob. I can't get over his comments in relation to the McCann case. A so-called "child protection expert" who failed to publicly condemn the child care arrangements of that holiday group, amongst other things- no doubt scared of being sued. Let's not even go there. This thread is about JS.
  • NosnikraplNosnikrapl Posts: 2,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Oh for heaven's sake.

    How can a dead person be taken to court to defend themselves over anything, never mind libel. Perhaps you think they ought to be taken out of their coffins and propped up in the witness box?

    Your inability to see anything other than along a single tramline is quite disturbing. The posting of the same stuff time & time again. Time to take the blinkers off.

    How you can't see that it is frankly wrong that after death media can say what the hell they like about a person is beyond me. Is that the next set of victims for the tabloid press as they can't answer back. What has been generated here is trial by media for the titilation of the masses.

    At the end of the day all this in the media is going to do is get viewing figures/sell newspapers its not going to change what happened. The evidence that there now is should have been passed to the authorities for investigation. If action can be taken it will be / compensation paid. If not, it ends up as unsubstantiated but earned a load of money for media in meantime. Nice.
  • NosnikraplNosnikrapl Posts: 2,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    People like Jimmy given his wealth will have an Estate to look after his affairs.
    If libel applied after death (I don't know if it does or doesn't) why couldn't the Estate/family take someone to court, if they thought it worth contesting?

    It doesn't which is why all this has come out now as none of it has to be proven prior to publication.
  • chavetchavet Posts: 2,503
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just why is MWT so vilified on this thread? What's he supposed to have done? :confused:

    I must admit, I'd never heard of him until news of this programme being made came out.

    Lawl. He's a character from the newspaper story of which we must never speak because of very, very expensive libel lawyers.

    Don't know as much about him as others, probably, but do remember his ever-changing credentials - something along the lines of having a degree in criminology, which became a diploma when queried, which became a two-week course, or something, but I wouldn't know where to find a source now.

    He seems a bit wouldbe sellabrity detective.
  • dorydaryldorydaryl Posts: 15,927
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    .

    I believe you, because he tried it on with a friend of the families daughter when she was 16, she was working in the hairdressing salon he went to in Roundhay Leeds. He took he out and she went just because she felt sorry for him. He touched her leg and then promised to get her into showbiz etc if she had sex with him. She refused and didnt go out with him again. She wasnt underage but was very yound and wouldnt be interested in a dirty old man iin his 70s.
    A girlfiend of mine also said that he had a reputation for this around the Roundhay area of Leeds.

    Yeah, and the guy whose salon it was (if it's the same one but I think JS always went to the same place)- one of his 'best friends'-has been roundly defending him to anyone who'll listen. He, himself seems a decent enough guy. And yes, JS certainly had rep in the area.
  • Penny CrayonPenny Crayon Posts: 36,158
    Forum Member
    .

    I believe you, because he tried it on with a friend of the families daughter when she was 16, she was working in the hairdressing salon he went to in Roundhay Leeds. He took he out and she went just because she felt sorry for him. He touched her leg and then promised to get her into showbiz etc if she had sex with him. She refused and didnt go out with him again. She wasnt underage but was very yound and wouldnt be interested in a dirty old man iin his 70s.
    A girlfiend of mine also said that he had a reputation for this around the Roundhay area of Leeds.

    When my daughter was at Uni she worked P/T in a tea shop in Roundhay, Leeds. My daughter is very tiny and looks young for her age. JS was a regular customer - she always told me that he was disgusting and made her feel physically sick. She avoided serving him and let the 'older' ladies take his order and they fawned all over him.

    I'm not quite sure what he ever said/did to my daughter but she cxouldn't watch him on TV - she always maintained that he was a dirty old man.

    TBH - I think (although not seen the programme) that these allegations are probably true and that his friends and 'connections' in high places protected him somehow.

    I see nothing wrong with his victims getting it off their chests now and also find it disgusting that they were never listened to in the first place.
  • teresagreenteresagreen Posts: 16,444
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CBeeN wrote: »
    I agree i don't think it's fair.
    The truth is it is very possible that he did do these things, but he can't defend himself and that's the bit i don't like.

    I feel sorry for his family though, it must be really hard for them right now :(

    The problem is that most people daren't speak up before his death because of his influence - he was a self admiring type if you ask me. He absolutely loved himself to bits and loved all the publicity about his charity work, but many people have said in the past that he was otherwise a closed book. I absolutely believe that it's right to bring it up now. If it was not possible to reveal all this before his death, it was bound to come out after it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 949
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.

    It's been alleged that others were involved and I am saying if it is true then those who were also part of the activities and committed the same supposed crimes surely they would be under investigation now. I never said they should be held responsible for Savilles crimes but for their own if indeed they also committed criminal acts.
  • chavetchavet Posts: 2,503
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nosnikrapl wrote: »
    Your inability to see anything other than along a single tramline is quite disturbing. The posting of the same stuff time & time again. Time to take the blinkers off.

    How you can't see that it is frankly wrong that after death media can say what the hell they like about a person is beyond me. Is that the next set of victims for the tabloid press as they can't answer back. What has been generated here is trial by media for the titilation of the masses.

    At the end of the day all this in the media is going to do is get viewing figures/sell newspapers its not going to change what happened. The evidence that there now is should have been passed to the authorities for investigation. If action can be taken it will be / compensation paid. If not, it ends up as unsubstantiated but earned a load of money for media in meantime. Nice.

    I kind of agree with the point you're making, and would probably feel differently if it were someone else, but what would you do in the instance were someone were untouchable in their lifetime and, because it was never addressed, that kind of scenario were allowed to continue?
  • teresagreenteresagreen Posts: 16,444
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    HOLY S**T......

    Since when have "under 16s" been IN THE WORKPLACE? Or do you still believe we send kids up fr**in' chimneys?

    Some people I know left school at 15 in the '60's. My father left schoolk when he was 14. Do you know owt about the Victorian era and before, when kids as young as 4 or 5 were working?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 949
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    chavet wrote: »
    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.

    So far I can't see any evidence to say the man is neither guilty or innocent. It's all haresy which is why I don't understand how people can be sure he is guilty.

    It would be awful to know the man was guilty and got away with criminal activities but equally sad if one finds out Saville never committed any such crime and is completely innocent of what he is being accused of in the media.
  • Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,336
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Interestingly Philip Scofield on this morning said he knew the BBC dressing rooms inside out and could not understand how a rape would have been committed without anybody knowing as you are not left alone for any length of time.

    Also his secretary of 30 years was interviewed and said she spent a huge amount of hours with him both at home and at work,and also done his washing and she said she never saw anything thats being alleged in all that time.
  • dorydaryldorydaryl Posts: 15,927
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I do hope that if someone who has worked with him in the media/ TV does know something- to the good or bad- that they have the courage to come out and speak truthfully about what they know. Thing is, if still-living high profile people are somehow implicated, this would be much, much more difficult for them to do, especially if they cannot offer concrete 'proof'. Can of worms comes to mind.

    The other thing is, people who have spoken in the press/ on TV to defend him are actually painting him as 'whiter-than-white', stating that 'Jim would have never done...' this or that. 'He was too conscious of his image', 'He wouldn't have put his charity work in jeapordy' and so on. Part of me thinks it's a perfectly natural response from people who saw nothing untoward in him but a part of me also thinks 'Come on, he wasn't that much of a saint'. I think he actually was a man of contradictions and could have lived a double-life.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,801
    Forum Member
    chavet wrote: »
    On balance, though, I'm relieved that they have at least acknowledged it, as so many people just refused to entertain even the possibility that people would turn a blind eye, and this could perhaps help people in the future, if not the pas. It's hard to believe that only Rantzen and Gambaccini would be aware, which means how many people aren't prepared to raise their heads above the parapet? They could help now, but where are they?

    What did they know?

    Was it gossip, hearsay, something they'd witnessed ?

    I may have feeling that someone may be up to something but is that enough to take it to the police or whoever?

    Strangely Matthew Kelly was wrongly arrested by Surrey Police in 2003 over child abuse allegations, this is the police force the presenter of tomorrow's programme worked for till 2005.
  • NosnikraplNosnikrapl Posts: 2,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    chavet wrote: »
    I kind of agree with the point you're making, and would probably feel differently if it were someone else, but what would you do in the instance were someone were untouchable in their lifetime and, because it was never addressed, that kind of scenario were allowed to continue?

    This is the bit I'm not getting at all. Folks are talking as though he was some untouchable. Quite bizarre. It's been confirmed by ex: NOTW journalists that they were all over the story for years but couldn't substantiate it. They would have gone with it. Murdoch would have gone in full guns blazing as it implicates BBC. The issue is that what media couldn't (apparently) substantiate during his life doesn't matter now. They can say what they like.
  • Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,336
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nosnikrapl wrote: »
    This is the bit I'm not getting at all. Folks are talking as though he was some untouchable. Quite bizarre. It's been confirmed by ex: NOTW journalists that they were all over the story for years but couldn't substantiate it. They would have gone with it. Murdoch would have gone in full guns blazing as it implicates BBC. The issue is that what media couldn't (apparently) substantiate during his life doesn't matter now. They can say what they like.

    Not only that the NOTW had a huge cheque book if they could not get anybody to talk and substantiate the story especially since Rupert Murdoch would have loved a anti BBC story says a lot.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,801
    Forum Member
    Interestingly Philip Scofield on this morning said he knew the BBC dressing rooms inside out and could not understand how a rape would have been committed without anybody knowing as you are not left alone for any length of time.

    Also his secretary of 30 years was interviewed and said she spent a huge amount of hours with him both at home and at work,and also done his washing and she said she never saw anything thats being alleged in all that time.

    Johny Beerling, who worked for many years with Jimmy as a radio producer and Controller of Radio 1 was on Radio 5 saying he never saw anything.
This discussion has been closed.