Quite right .................JS's behaviour was abhorrent but the staff at these schools and care homes were charged with 'taking care' of these children/young girls - they have a lot to answer for. I'm convinced they knew what was going on - quite shocking!
I asked the question earlier, how the hell it could be seen as normal or acceptable for a middle aged man to be driving 14 year old girls off into the countryside alone and returning a couple of hours later and this happening repeatedly.
Would they allow their own 14 year old daughter be driven off alone by him repeatedly and happily wave them off? I don't buy for one moment this "it was a different era" nonsense.....this was gross dereliction of duty and care.
This isn't directly relevant but it's a report in the Independent from a couple of years ago of a big trial in Portugal of a high-society paedophile ring with access to children's homes that had been going on for years. One of the men convicted was a chat show host.
This is just for people who understandably have a hard time believing rings like this can exist. I think the internet age - if it lasts and the powers that be don't manage to censor it - will eventually show that this sort of thing, especially around children's homes, has been happening for a long time but might possibly become much harder in the future.
It's wrong that allegations made so long after the event should be taken so seriously at this initial stage. If Savile was alive, he would be entitled to a fair trial and all that goes with due process. The police are far exceeding their role in giving immediate credence to the allegations which have not been tried in a court of law. Some or all may be true but we must not move to a system where mere allegations can be so influential - one charity considering changing its name etc.
People do tend to jump on the bandwagon in this sort of situation.
Through a police contact several years ago, I do know the names of two other showbiz people who were found to be involved with paedophile matters. One name has been fairly freely mentioned on the internet and, like Savile, had royal contact. Great judgment at the Palace! The other person is no longer on tv, although he was a household name, and I haven't heard of him for years.
Saville being much further up the power chain I presume. If she'd reported him, there's a good chance she would have been ignored and perhaps even sacked. If she'd spotted a porter or cleaner groping a girl, that would be one thing, but this was Saville.
She (BBC producer who witnessed something dodgy) also explained that after the event and following the day's work, a group of staff went off to the local cinema to see a film. Savile showed up and made a point of sitting next to her. He only watched about 10 mins of the film and then went, muttering something about being off to do his night portering at the local LGI. She said that she was sure that he had made a point of doing this to let her know he was on her case. She found it intimidating and it was one of the reasons she didn't take things further. She was in a junior position at the time and just didn't believe she'd be taken seriously.
She (BBC producer who witnessed something dodgy) also explained that after the event and following the day's work, a group of staff went off to the local cinema to see a film. Savile showed up and made a point of sitting next to her. He only watched about 10 mins of the film and then went, muttering something about being off to do his night portering at the local LGI. She said that she was sure that he had made a point of doing this to let her know he was on her case. She found it intimidating and it was one of the reasons she didn't take things further. She was in a junior position at the time and just didn't believe she'd be taken seriously.
He was intimidating her of course : "Report me and I'll make you pay" were the unsaid words.
It's wrong that allegations made so long after the event should be taken so seriously at this initial stage. If Savile was alive, he would be entitled to a fair trial and all that goes with due process. The police are far exceeding their role in giving immediate credence to the allegations which have not been tried in a court of law. Some or all may be true but we must not move to a system where mere allegations can be so influential - one charity considering changing its name etc.
People do tend to jump on the bandwagon in this sort of situation.
Through a police contact several years ago, I do know the names of two other showbiz people who were found to be involved with paedophile matters. One name has been fairly freely mentioned on the internet and, like Savile, had royal contact. Great judgment at the Palace! The other person is no longer on tv, although he was a household name, and I haven't heard of him for years.
I suppose they're taking the view that you cannot libel the dead, and with apparently 120 different first, second and third hand accounts already in their possession they feel confident enough to label him a child abuser.
He was intimidating her of course : "Report me and I'll make you pay" were the unsaid words.
Yup, that's how I read the situation. :mad:
One very nasty piece of work indeed. Can you imagine what kind of politician he would have made? I dread to think.
Am feeling it for some members of his family, though.
I hope nobody is stupid enough to target them. Sounds like they knew as much as we did, for the most part. They are most likely having a very difficult and upsetting time as it is, especially if they believed in him and were also deceived.
As for the woman who claimed to be his daughter, well, she's gone quiet (DNA tests were 'inconclusive', weren't they?). I think I would, too, and count my lucky stars that I never got to call him 'dad'. Ick.
Think I've said it before but from what the Duncroft girls and others have said, JS had a bit of a cavalier attitude towards contraception. If he was as prolific as is being alleged and on the balance of probabilities (unless he fired blanks! ) I dread to think what might eventually come out about the number of young girls he might have impregnated and who may have had to endure abortions or single parenthood so young while he carried on his activities regardless. FWIW, I really do hope I'm off the mark with this last paragraph. As reported numerous times now though, here on DS, I'm aware of one such possibility.
One very nasty piece of work indeed. Can you imagine what kind of politician he would have made? I dread to think.
Am feeling it for some members of his family, though.
I hope nobody is stupid enough to target them. Sounds like they knew as much as we did, for the most part. They are most likely having a very difficult and upsetting time as it is, especially if they believed in him and were also deceived.
As for the woman who claimed to be his daughter, well, she's gone quiet (DNA tests were 'inconclusive', weren't they?). I think I would, too, and count my lucky stars that I never got to call him 'dad'. Ick.
Think I've said it before but from what the Duncroft girls and others have said, JS had a bit of a cavalier attitude towards contraception. If he was as prolific as is being alleged and on the balance of probabilities (unless he fired blanks! ) I dread to think what might eventually come out about the number of young girls he might have impregnated and who may have had to endure abortions or single parenthood so young while he carried on his activities regardless. FWIW, I really do hope I'm off the mark with this last paragraph. As reported numerous times now though, here on DS, I'm aware of one such possibility.
Though Saville doesn't always seem to have gone the whole way. From what I remember of Karin's book and the ITV documentary, he was more of a groper with the Duncroft girls. Perhaps he feared impregnating younger girls would possibly lead to his exposure?
Nonetheless, his activities were still very damaging.....he left a trail of hurt people all over the UK.
The documentary on youtube touches on his friendships with The Establishment. From about 13:15 onwards gives an indication of the level of acceptance into the royal fold, but I also would have liked to get more insight into how things really were between him and Margaret Thatcher, especially since a poster said that Carol had disputed some of his claims alluding to time he says he'd spent at Chequers, etc..
I suspect the jabbing was to test whether you'd say anything. If you did, he could laugh it off and leave you alone. When you didn't say anything,he knew that you would probably not say anything about a further intrusion.
Oh heavens, yes - this makes sense. I've not been able to see it before now.
"To respect public opinion" apparently. Yeah, that and the fact that it was only a matter of time before someone went and daubed graffiti all over it.
The picture on the headstone paints of him is as like a saint, it should be removed as it is more like fiction. His family removed it more likely because they are embarrassed and would like the headstone buried with him!
The words in bold 'It was good while it lasted' could even be a note from the dead from Savile.:(
Even his family are feeling differently about him now. The gravestone's been smashed, the wording ground off and the pieces taken to landfill. I'd suggest they do the same with his body...
Jimmy Savile is today lying in an unmarked grave after a dead-of-night operation to remove his £4,000 headstone at the request of his family.
Undertakers worked in the dark to rip out the giant memorial and have said it will 'be broken up, placed in a skip and used as landfill'.
The gates of Woodlands Cemetery in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, were locked at around 11pm last night and police stood guard for the two-hour operation.
His loved-ones did not attend and while they had ordered the removal of the grave they were not aware of the undertakers’ decision to do it in the middle of the night.
They were to wait until 7am today before removing the headstone with Savile’s now inflammatory epitaph: 'It was good while it lasted.'
All its inscriptions will be ground away before the 4ft stone is destroyed.
The Savile family feared the grave could become the centre of a media circus and could have been attacked, so gave funeral director Robert Morphet a free hand to carry out what he called 'a discreet' operation.
'We started just after 11 and finished going on 1am. We were concerned about the amount of people who might turn up if we left it until morning,' he said.
Jimmy Savile's family to remove his headstone 'out of respect for victims' as police reveal they are looking into 120 leads over abuse against boys and girls
My poor Freddie has suffered heart palpitations since child abuse allegations, claims fiancée as she defends him on TV
'My sisters saved me from Jimmy Savile': Coleen Nolan reveals her narrow escape from TV presenter's clutches
'We decided it was going to be done before then and brought our own lights and generators.
'The grave will now be ground down so the inscription it totally wiped and will be destroyed.
'It will be broken up, placed in a skip and used as landfill.
'For the foreseeable future the grave will remain unmarked. The family will decide at some future point about what to do.'
His family didn't remove the headstone out of respect for the victims, they did it out of respect for the families of others buried in the graveyard, his family still believe he is innocent. Personally I think they removed it so it wasn't further damaged, naff all to do with respect for anyone else
I just wonder where this will all end how many other so called celebs are about to be unmasked i wonder.:(:(
To be honest, I can't help thinking it will begin and end with a few carefully selected individuals - those for whom damage limitation can be applied, such as someone who has died, someone who was already believed to be involved in such pastimes, and someone who's still alive but whose misdemeanours aren't on the same scale. I hope you don't mind me asking, but will you still have the same faith that all future investigation is open, honest and transparent, if this is the case?
Comments
I asked the question earlier, how the hell it could be seen as normal or acceptable for a middle aged man to be driving 14 year old girls off into the countryside alone and returning a couple of hours later and this happening repeatedly.
Would they allow their own 14 year old daughter be driven off alone by him repeatedly and happily wave them off? I don't buy for one moment this "it was a different era" nonsense.....this was gross dereliction of duty and care.
How do you know who it is?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/guilty-after-sixyear-trial-portugals-highsociety-paedophile-ring-2070112.html
This is just for people who understandably have a hard time believing rings like this can exist. I think the internet age - if it lasts and the powers that be don't manage to censor it - will eventually show that this sort of thing, especially around children's homes, has been happening for a long time but might possibly become much harder in the future.
People do tend to jump on the bandwagon in this sort of situation.
Through a police contact several years ago, I do know the names of two other showbiz people who were found to be involved with paedophile matters. One name has been fairly freely mentioned on the internet and, like Savile, had royal contact. Great judgment at the Palace! The other person is no longer on tv, although he was a household name, and I haven't heard of him for years.
She (BBC producer who witnessed something dodgy) also explained that after the event and following the day's work, a group of staff went off to the local cinema to see a film. Savile showed up and made a point of sitting next to her. He only watched about 10 mins of the film and then went, muttering something about being off to do his night portering at the local LGI. She said that she was sure that he had made a point of doing this to let her know he was on her case. She found it intimidating and it was one of the reasons she didn't take things further. She was in a junior position at the time and just didn't believe she'd be taken seriously.
He was intimidating her of course : "Report me and I'll make you pay" were the unsaid words.
I suppose they're taking the view that you cannot libel the dead, and with apparently 120 different first, second and third hand accounts already in their possession they feel confident enough to label him a child abuser.
Yup, that's how I read the situation. :mad:
One very nasty piece of work indeed. Can you imagine what kind of politician he would have made? I dread to think.
Am feeling it for some members of his family, though.
I hope nobody is stupid enough to target them. Sounds like they knew as much as we did, for the most part. They are most likely having a very difficult and upsetting time as it is, especially if they believed in him and were also deceived.
As for the woman who claimed to be his daughter, well, she's gone quiet (DNA tests were 'inconclusive', weren't they?). I think I would, too, and count my lucky stars that I never got to call him 'dad'. Ick.
Think I've said it before but from what the Duncroft girls and others have said, JS had a bit of a cavalier attitude towards contraception. If he was as prolific as is being alleged and on the balance of probabilities (unless he fired blanks! ) I dread to think what might eventually come out about the number of young girls he might have impregnated and who may have had to endure abortions or single parenthood so young while he carried on his activities regardless. FWIW, I really do hope I'm off the mark with this last paragraph. As reported numerous times now though, here on DS, I'm aware of one such possibility.
Though Saville doesn't always seem to have gone the whole way. From what I remember of Karin's book and the ITV documentary, he was more of a groper with the Duncroft girls. Perhaps he feared impregnating younger girls would possibly lead to his exposure?
Nonetheless, his activities were still very damaging.....he left a trail of hurt people all over the UK.
_____
It's hard viewing watching the ''As it happens'' doc back (few interesting comments in there), and the same thing reading this obituary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHzvBQNFwsY
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html
Anyway, i was just wondering what JS's former PA thinks about all this. She knew him very well and said this at the end of last month:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9577037/Jim-liked-being-snapped-with-young-bits-of-crumpet-but-would-not-have-risked-his-image.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/my-life-with-sir-jimmy-savile---89852
They're all but walking on his grave literally right now on Daybreak.
The documentary on youtube touches on his friendships with The Establishment. From about 13:15 onwards gives an indication of the level of acceptance into the royal fold, but I also would have liked to get more insight into how things really were between him and Margaret Thatcher, especially since a poster said that Carol had disputed some of his claims alluding to time he says he'd spent at Chequers, etc..
"To respect public opinion" apparently. Yeah, that and the fact that it was only a matter of time before someone went and daubed graffiti all over it.
The picture on the headstone paints of him is as like a saint, it should be removed as it is more like fiction. His family removed it more likely because they are embarrassed and would like the headstone buried with him!
The words in bold 'It was good while it lasted' could even be a note from the dead from Savile.:(
Anyone help?
To be honest, I can't help thinking it will begin and end with a few carefully selected individuals - those for whom damage limitation can be applied, such as someone who has died, someone who was already believed to be involved in such pastimes, and someone who's still alive but whose misdemeanours aren't on the same scale. I hope you don't mind me asking, but will you still have the same faith that all future investigation is open, honest and transparent, if this is the case?