The establishment wouldn't have protected JimmySaville but his connections would, be protected in case any flak was associated with them. Such people might have been entirely innocent of similar crimes but bad publicity would have been avoided at all costs.
*I mention aspects covered in the Exposure update TV show incase anyones yet to watch it and might not like to read 'spoilers', you might prefer to skip this post - just a warning*
The ending with Rantzen was rather cringeworthy (a word I like to use lol) - why is it she always seems to get next to the final word? that letter doesn't help her case much but it does seem like she had no idea the extent of what was going on. I felt rather uncomfortable with her seemingly insinuating that had any child called Childline and spoke up about what he'd been up to, they would have passed it to the police and that it was a missed opportunity - thats like blaming the kids for not speaking to them specifically, because they had some Childline branded book which had an input with JS so she seemed to be saying she wished a child who had been abused by him, had spotted that and phoned in to set the record straight about what he was really like. I understand all the talk of hindsight and that she'd maybe heard rumours but you need evidence etc. but something about that made me feel uncomfortable, like it was entirely up to children to make the link and speak to them and then he'd have been dealt with but no-one spoke up, so he got away with it (sorry im probably repeating myself, not always good at wording things).
What a weight on your shoulders it must be, to have such harrowing memories and not know if its safe to tell anyone. Does Childline allow children to talk/report things anonymously (like Crimestoppers)? if they might have been scared they'd be looked at differently by family, friends and school children if they spoke out and it became public knowledge? but then im thinking they probably couldn't prosecute with the victims real name not known. Its also saddening that they say the full extent of his criminal behaviour may never be known now...we're left with alot of guesswork.
Oh and the talk about him randomly walking in on girls having baths and staring at them or ocassionally assaulting them, that was very disturbing to hear let alone the fact that someone complained and was put in solitary confinement for days due to reporting it - I honestly can't get my head around that, at all. You think we're supposed to live in a civilised society, eh?. It strikes me he got off on mass intimidation, major power trips...ugh.
Yes that was reported, then a few days later she said she realised she had been fooled and in light of the sheer amount of allegations she realises now she had been.
Something like that anyway.
You should find the 2nd article somewhere, think its a daily mail one.
Thanks yes I saw that. It will probably take months to come over here though. I'll just have to keep up to date with what is being said on DS. I hope this latest expose focuses on the establishment and their role in his position of power.
Partly but its more on him as an individual, how he came across (I never saw the original documentary so I'm not sure if its more of the same). The hospitals are mentioned quite alot, maybe more than the BBC(?).
It seems once he'd blagged his way in so far, the 'untouchableness' carried its own momentum. He got in at Stoke Mandeville by raising loads of money, he made connections and gained approval from important people through that reputation, other institutions wanted a piece of it and everybody assumed it must be ok because he was already in such a high position.
Thing is, I can accept why the above would make a ;patient or nurse at Stoke Mandeville or Broadmoor reluctant to report abuse. No need for blackmail material, they would have every reason to think the complaints wouldn't be acted on. I CANNOT accept that Government ministers, even disregarding any access to intelligence or rumour, would think it was a good idea to put a TV presenter and DJ on a taskforce to run a secure mental hospital and still try to justify that decision.
that was very strange as the article is not that old, I guess she has finally realised what he may have been capable of. Also didn't she say he sacked her rather callously tonight
*I mention aspects covered in the Exposure update TV show incase anyones yet to watch it and might not like to read 'spoilers', you might prefer to skip this post - just a warning*
The ending with Rantzen was rather cringeworthy (a word I like to use lol) - why is it she always seems to get next to the final word? that letter doesn't help her case much but it does seem like she had no idea the extent of what was going on. I felt rather uncomfortable with her seemingly insinuating that had any child called Childline and spoke up about what he'd been up to, they would have passed it to the police and that it was a missed opportunity - thats like blaming the kids for not speaking to them specifically, because they had some Childline branded book which had an input with JS so she seemed to be saying she wished a child who had been abused by him, had spotted that and phoned in to set the record straight about what he was really like. I understand all the talk of hindsight and that she'd maybe heard rumours but you need evidence etc. but something about that made me feel uncomfortable, like it was entirely up to children to make the link and speak to them and then he'd have been dealt with but no-one spoke up, so he got away with it.
What a weight on your shoulders it must be, to have such harrowing memories and not know if its safe to tell anyone. Does Childline allow children to talk fully anonymously, if they might have been scared they'd be looked at differently by family, friends and school children if they spoke out and it became public knowledge? but then im thinking they probably couldn't prosecute with the victims real name not known. Its also saddening that they say the full extent of his criminal behaviour may never be known now...we're left with alot of guesswork.
BIB - I felt exactly the same way when I heard that. Not quite on a par with Currie's blaming of Broadmoor staff, as obviously Esther didn't actually appoint him into any position of power but it's in the same ballpark. At least ER acknowledges her part in being complicit in the image of JS as a cuddly uncle, with far less culpability than Currie.
The thing what struck me is that the man obviously built himself a powerful network which enabled him to operate as he did. Surely these high profile people must have known or had an inkling? Even when they did (like the BBC boss who shifted him away from Children in Need) didn't see it as his responsibility to pass on/share his concerns - instead using hindsight as an excuse. Upshot is that no-one wanted to take Saville on, because he was protected and it seems that even Surrey Police may have been complicit in a potential cover-up.
It seems once he'd blagged his way in so far, the 'untouchableness' carried its own momentum. He got in at Stoke Mandeville by raising loads of money, he made connections and gained approval from important people through that reputation, other institutions wanted a piece of it and everybody assumed it must be ok because he was already in such a high position.
Thing is, I can accept why the above would make a ;patient or nurse at Stoke Mandeville or Broadmoor reluctant to report abuse. No need for blackmail material, they would have every reason to think the complaints wouldn't be acted on. I CANNOT accept that Government ministers, even disregarding any access to intelligence or rumour, would think it was a good idea to put a TV presenter and DJ on a taskforce to run a secure mental hospital and still try to justify that decision.
You'd have to say he was a brilliant strategist : he went about his abuse with almost military style planning.
Stoke Mandeville came out of the documentary very badly. It's evident they were seriously compromised in their relationship with him. Not only was he raking in millions for them but they were one of the most famous hospitals in the UK as a result, with cameras and TV shows visiting there constantly. No wonder there was no official record of his abuse....they would never have allowed such allegations be filed or recorded.
Currie, the Dept of Health and Broadmoor came out of the programme terribly too.
BIB - I felt exactly the same way when I heard that. Not quite on a par with Currie's blaming of Broadmoor staff, as obviously Esther didn't actually appoint him into any position of power but it's in the same ballpark. At least ER acknowledges her part in being complicit in the image of JS as a cuddly uncle, with far less culpability than Currie.
Yes, I understand where she's coming from but I find it uncomfortable knowing no matter what, the bottom line is that we can't do anything until someone who's already been hurt, builds up the courage and takes that step themselves and many of them probably couldn't face it, were too scared/worried, which is frustrating but it doesn't feel right at all to insinuate its (partly?) their fault he wasn't stopped...it just must feel like so much pressure on those peoples' shoulders, especially when their young. I know how I feel about things in my life that I don't want my family knowing about, that im ashamed of, I find it very hard to envisage me talking to people about it if I'd been abused like that, I'd probably blame myself and try to blot out the memory somehow, wish it all away.
Ultimately its the abuser to blame, never the victim, no matter what they say, if their adult and they put a move on you, their in the wrong, so I guess I just feel sad for children that even so, the onus is on them to come forward.
What about others who stayed quiet and are now hearing about all the allegations, who maybe feel they failed everyone by staying quiet and question if they had spoke out when it happened to them, whether it could have made that difference and spared others' suffering? the 'what if's'. That must be an awful feeling...
Yes, I understand where she's coming from but I find it uncomfortable knowing no matter what, the bottom line is that we can't do anything until someone who's already been hurt, builds up the courage and takes that step themselves and many of them probably couldn't face it, were too scared/worried, which is frustrating but it doesn't feel right at all to insinuate its (partly?) their fault he wasn't stopped...it just must feel like so much pressure on those peoples' shoulders, especially when their young. I know how I feel about things in my life that I don't want my family knowing about, that im ashamed of, I find it very hard to envisage me talking to people about it if I'd been abused like that, I'd probably blame myself and try to blot out the memory somehow, wish it all away.
Ultimately its the abuser to blame, never the victim, no matter what they say, if their adult and they put a move on you, their in the wrong, so I guess I just feel sad for children that even so, the onus is on them to come forward.
What about others who stayed quiet and are now hearing about all the allegations, who maybe feel they failed everyone by staying quiet and question if they had spoke out when it happened to them, whether it could have made that difference and spared others' suffering? the 'what if's'. That must be an awful feeling...
I totally get what you're saying and I do agree. That didn't come over so well in my first reply but I am completely in agreement..
Partly but its more on him as an individual, how he came across (I never saw the original documentary so I'm not sure if its more of the same). The hospitals are mentioned quite alot, maybe more than the BBC(?).
Thank you Izzy for the update....just reading all of the other comments....looks like interesting viewing!
The thing what struck me is that the man obviously built himself a powerful network which enabled him to operate as he did. Surely these high profile people must have known or had an inkling? Even when they did (like the BBC boss who shifted him away from Children in Need) didn't see it as his responsibility to pass on/share his concerns - instead using hindsight as an excuse. Upshot is that no-one wanted to take Saville on, because he was protected and it seems that even Surrey Police may have been complicit in a potential cover-up.
Shameful.
You're being too hard on Sir Roger Jones. He didn't have a shred of evidence, was just picking up on people's body language when Savile's name was mentioned and acted on gut feeling not to let JS have anything to do with the charity. It was a personal decision. There was nothing he could pass on to anyone else, not even the fact he'd made that private decision. Some people have serious scruples about passing on unsubstantiated hunches to the detriment of other people's character.
You're being too hard on Sir Roger Jones. He didn't have a shred of evidence, was just picking up on people's body language when Savile's name was mentioned and acted on gut feeling not to let JS have anything to do with the charity. It was a personal decision. There was nothing he could pass on to anyone else, not even the fact he'd made that private decision. Some people have serious scruples about passing on unsubstantiated hunches to the detriment of other people's character.
This. The ole mucker from Leeds (Frainey) needs asked questions IMHO.
Cardinal Basil Hume - recommending for Papal Knighthood / Entry to Athenaem Club
Franley ex: Leeds recommended for task force at meeting at Athenaeum Club
Likely recommendation for Knighthood by Senior Civil Servant
I not sure folks realise that 'most' decisions made in Whitehall are not made by Ministers (Remember Yes Minister) but by Civil Servants. Even if final decisions need the nod from Ministers they make them on recommendations put forward by Civil Servants. Seemed to me that heavy hints being made of 'iffy' involvement in this area by Presenter.
Cardinal Basil Hume is already known to have covered up paedophilia in school in Yorkshire - see wiki entry.
Franley being put on tv in same way that the BBC Producer was in last programme!
You're being too hard on Sir Roger Jones. He didn't have a shred of evidence, was just picking up on people's body language when Savile's name was mentioned and acted on gut feeling not to let JS have anything to do with the charity. It was a personal decision. There was nothing he could pass on to anyone else, not even the fact he'd made that private decision. Some people have serious scruples about passing on unsubstantiated hunches to the detriment of other people's character.
I agree. More folks need to act on hunches particularly in charity arena. If you suspect just don't have folks involved even if you don't tell them why. Just protect kids or vulnerable adults.
Cardinal Basil Hume - recommending for Papal Knighthood / Entry to Athenaem Club
Franley ex: Leeds recommended for task force at meeting at Athenaeum Club
Likely recommendation for Knighthood by Senior Civil Servant
I not sure folks realise that 'most' decisions made in Whitehall are not made by Ministers (Remember Yes Minister) but by Civil Servants. Even if final decisions need the nod from Ministers they make them on recommendations put forward by Civil Servants. Seemed to me that heavy hints being made of 'iffy' involvement in this area by Presenter.
Cardinal Basil Hume is already known to have covered up paedophilia in school in Yorkshire - see wiki entry.
Franley being put on tv in same way that the BBC Producer was in last programme!
Hume was almost certainly unaware Savile was a pervert : probably just another naive fool taken in by Savile the showman / conman (it's incredible how so many high profile people were fooled by him when many ordinary people who met him were struck by his general creepiness and unpleasantness).
Hume was almost certainly unaware Savile was a pervert : probably just another naive fool taken in by Savile the showman / conman (it's incredible how so many high profile people were fooled by him when many ordinary people who met him were struck by his general creepiness and unpleasantness).
I'm sure he put on the charm for the rich and powerful, emphasising the good works he had done and was doing. Whereas he had no use for the "ordinary people" apart from inflicting his depraved/perverted ways on them.
I'm sure he put on the charm for the rich and powerful, emphasising the good works he had done and was doing. Whereas he had no use for the "ordinary people" apart from inflicting his depraved/perverted ways on them.
That's actually a good point : he probably turned on the charm to the max when with politicians and royalty, but was far less guarded with mere mortals and they could see he was quite creepy and unpleasant.
Comments
I think they were dazzled or rather influenced, by his connections.
Yes, he wasn't just a famous celebrity, but one with powerful connections to PMs and Royalty.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/276939/-Greedy-liars-blast-by-Jimmy-Savile-s-loyal-PA-Janet-Cope/
The ending with Rantzen was rather cringeworthy (a word I like to use lol) - why is it she always seems to get next to the final word? that letter doesn't help her case much but it does seem like she had no idea the extent of what was going on. I felt rather uncomfortable with her seemingly insinuating that had any child called Childline and spoke up about what he'd been up to, they would have passed it to the police and that it was a missed opportunity - thats like blaming the kids for not speaking to them specifically, because they had some Childline branded book which had an input with JS so she seemed to be saying she wished a child who had been abused by him, had spotted that and phoned in to set the record straight about what he was really like. I understand all the talk of hindsight and that she'd maybe heard rumours but you need evidence etc. but something about that made me feel uncomfortable, like it was entirely up to children to make the link and speak to them and then he'd have been dealt with but no-one spoke up, so he got away with it (sorry im probably repeating myself, not always good at wording things).
What a weight on your shoulders it must be, to have such harrowing memories and not know if its safe to tell anyone. Does Childline allow children to talk/report things anonymously (like Crimestoppers)? if they might have been scared they'd be looked at differently by family, friends and school children if they spoke out and it became public knowledge? but then im thinking they probably couldn't prosecute with the victims real name not known. Its also saddening that they say the full extent of his criminal behaviour may never be known now...we're left with alot of guesswork.
Oh and the talk about him randomly walking in on girls having baths and staring at them or ocassionally assaulting them, that was very disturbing to hear
Yes that was reported, then a few days later she said she realised she had been fooled and in light of the sheer amount of allegations she realises now she had been.
Something like that anyway.
You should find the 2nd article somewhere, think its a daily mail one.
Partly but its more on him as an individual, how he came across (I never saw the original documentary so I'm not sure if its more of the same). The hospitals are mentioned quite alot, maybe more than the BBC(?).
Thing is, I can accept why the above would make a ;patient or nurse at Stoke Mandeville or Broadmoor reluctant to report abuse. No need for blackmail material, they would have every reason to think the complaints wouldn't be acted on. I CANNOT accept that Government ministers, even disregarding any access to intelligence or rumour, would think it was a good idea to put a TV presenter and DJ on a taskforce to run a secure mental hospital and still try to justify that decision.
that was very strange as the article is not that old, I guess she has finally realised what he may have been capable of. Also didn't she say he sacked her rather callously tonight
BIB - I felt exactly the same way when I heard that. Not quite on a par with Currie's blaming of Broadmoor staff, as obviously Esther didn't actually appoint him into any position of power but it's in the same ballpark. At least ER acknowledges her part in being complicit in the image of JS as a cuddly uncle, with far less culpability than Currie.
To be fair to her, the mountain of evidence has probably made her completely reassess him.....he did fool a lot of people.
Shameful.
You'd have to say he was a brilliant strategist : he went about his abuse with almost military style planning.
Stoke Mandeville came out of the documentary very badly. It's evident they were seriously compromised in their relationship with him. Not only was he raking in millions for them but they were one of the most famous hospitals in the UK as a result, with cameras and TV shows visiting there constantly. No wonder there was no official record of his abuse....they would never have allowed such allegations be filed or recorded.
Currie, the Dept of Health and Broadmoor came out of the programme terribly too.
Yes, I understand where she's coming from but I find it uncomfortable knowing no matter what, the bottom line is that we can't do anything until someone who's already been hurt, builds up the courage and takes that step themselves and many of them probably couldn't face it, were too scared/worried, which is frustrating but it doesn't feel right at all to insinuate its (partly?) their fault he wasn't stopped...it just must feel like so much pressure on those peoples' shoulders, especially when their young. I know how I feel about things in my life that I don't want my family knowing about, that im ashamed of, I find it very hard to envisage me talking to people about it if I'd been abused like that, I'd probably blame myself and try to blot out the memory somehow, wish it all away.
Ultimately its the abuser to blame, never the victim, no matter what they say, if their adult and they put a move on you, their in the wrong, so I guess I just feel sad for children that even so, the onus is on them to come forward.
What about others who stayed quiet and are now hearing about all the allegations, who maybe feel they failed everyone by staying quiet and question if they had spoke out when it happened to them, whether it could have made that difference and spared others' suffering? the 'what if's'. That must be an awful feeling...
Thank you Izzy for the update....just reading all of the other comments....looks like interesting viewing!
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-11-21/jimmy-savile-files/
You're being too hard on Sir Roger Jones. He didn't have a shred of evidence, was just picking up on people's body language when Savile's name was mentioned and acted on gut feeling not to let JS have anything to do with the charity. It was a personal decision. There was nothing he could pass on to anyone else, not even the fact he'd made that private decision. Some people have serious scruples about passing on unsubstantiated hunches to the detriment of other people's character.
This. The ole mucker from Leeds (Frainey) needs asked questions IMHO.
I not sure folks realise that 'most' decisions made in Whitehall are not made by Ministers (Remember Yes Minister) but by Civil Servants. Even if final decisions need the nod from Ministers they make them on recommendations put forward by Civil Servants. Seemed to me that heavy hints being made of 'iffy' involvement in this area by Presenter.
Cardinal Basil Hume is already known to have covered up paedophilia in school in Yorkshire - see wiki entry.
Franley being put on tv in same way that the BBC Producer was in last programme!
I agree. More folks need to act on hunches particularly in charity arena. If you suspect just don't have folks involved even if you don't tell them why. Just protect kids or vulnerable adults.
Hume was almost certainly unaware Savile was a pervert : probably just another naive fool taken in by Savile the showman / conman (it's incredible how so many high profile people were fooled by him when many ordinary people who met him were struck by his general creepiness and unpleasantness).
I'm sure he put on the charm for the rich and powerful, emphasising the good works he had done and was doing. Whereas he had no use for the "ordinary people" apart from inflicting his depraved/perverted ways on them.
That's actually a good point : he probably turned on the charm to the max when with politicians and royalty, but was far less guarded with mere mortals and they could see he was quite creepy and unpleasant.