Im not sure how she would know, people dont usually do this on their own doorsteps with witnesses do they?
Seems even less likely to me that they'd be brazen enough to do it in the dressing rooms of TV Centre during a working day. Possible, perhaps, but just doesn't ring true.
Seems even less likely to me that they'd be brazen enough to do it in the dressing rooms of TV Centre during a working day. Possible, perhaps, but just doesn't ring true.
Ill wait to watch it and read up on it before making a final opinion but im aware sometimes the saying "no smoke without fire" is true and at other times complete bollox, I wouldnt like for this to be true but if it is the people who helped cover it up have a lot to answer for.
A lady who worked for Sir Jimmy, a PA, who did his cleaning and was close to him for many years, has came out to say these allegations are untrue, she is no fan, she is intelligent, yes he was difficult, a awkward so and so, which she said he was, but she was quite intent, she could not imagine what was alleged now against him.
Really!! Since when is it necessary for a PA to know her boss' sexual hang ups? You mean he didn't discuss his supposdly illegal acts with her? How shocking....
His nephew denies it two. I consider that even odder. Who doesn't discuss their sex games with their nephews?
Seems even less likely to me that they'd be brazen enough to do it in the dressing rooms of TV Centre during a working day. Possible, perhaps, but just doesn't ring true.
Now and probably for the past 25 years, probably not. But back in the 70s, early 80s society was still extremely ignorant about abuse, and there was still a lot of deference around, especially in the BBC. That Savile would have asked not to be disturbed in his dressing room, and that request was respected I don't think is unlikely at all.
An interesting parallel that struck me was - you'd think former victims of MJ would have been crawling out of the woodwork, since his death. But there have been none. Which made me revise my opinion of him, slightly, as TBH, I always thought he was well dodgy. Now I'm not so sure.
Compare that to this. Hardly cold in the ground and already the (alleged) victims are popping up like Whack A Rat rats.
Apparently, he was still alive when the makers of the TV programme started their investigation, and died just before they interviewed the first (alleged) victim.
These are allegations that have to be taken seriously, always, whether the perpetrator is dead or alive. The women's stories corroborate eachother, apparently, and at the time they were interviewed none of them had heard any of the other women's stories.
If Saville committed these acts alleged then throw the book at his reputation, however some of this stinks, we have Esther Ranzen the person who created Childline in 80's who ignored Saville's 'reputation' in showbiz circles, what does that say about her, this guy lived too 2011, are we being told that Ranzen and ladies in their 40's were so terrified of Saville that they did not push a legal case when he was alive, all very convenient, we are not talking about 80's or even 90's when maybe this would have held water.
An interesting parallel that struck me was - you'd think former victims of MJ would have been crawling out of the woodwork, since his death. But there have been none. Which made me revise my opinion of him, slightly, as TBH, I always thought he was well dodgy. Now I'm not so sure.
Compare that to this. Hardly cold in the ground and already the (alleged) victims are popping up like Whack A Rat rats.
I think that may be instructive.
Yes i was all for the "mj is a pervert" now i rethink it and i think "did he really do ANYTHING with those children apart from misguidingly try and recapture his missed out on childhood?
Ill wait to watch it and read up on it before making a final opinion but im aware sometimes the saying "no smoke without fire" is true and at other times complete bollox, I wouldnt like for this to be true but if it is the people who helped cover it up have a lot to answer for.
You see in a peverse kind of way I hope it is true........... because if it is all bowlocks, that means that people are twisted and sick enough to lie and defame a dead and inncoent man, that did a lot of good in his life.
True, but why then not shut up, she seems genuine in what she was saying.
Some people are silly. It doesn't mean she isn't genuine. After every sex offender, paedophile, killer is revealed there are always silly people coming out saying it couldn't have been them, I can't believe it etc cos they were such a nice bloke and I knew him so well. Some people just don't get that you can be a nice interesting person and do horrible things too.
He helped charities, was no doubt kind to his nephew, generous to his PA etc, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether he abused young girls - none.
Now and probably for the past 25 years, probably not. But back in the 70s, early 80s society was still extremely ignorant about abuse, and there was still a lot of deference around, especially in the BBC. That Savile would have asked not to be disturbed in his dressing room, and that request was respected I don't think is unlikely at all.
I should add to that, rather damningly, the BBC apparently eventually employed chaperones to stop girls going into Savile's dressing room, indicating they knew something had been going on. They also apparently disciplined or sacked drivers who would chaffeur girls back home who talked about what Savile had got up to.
An interesting parallel that struck me was - you'd think former victims of MJ would have been crawling out of the woodwork, since his death. But there have been none.
Actually there was one rather significant testimony given by a victim who is now a priest, who stated he had lied about not being abused by Jackson at the Chandler trial because he was afraid he would be seen as gay.
I dont disagree, i agree if hes done something wrong it should come out he shouldnt be protected because hes a celeb and those who let him knowingly continue should be worried as well.
Mixing metaphors
Natural justice/slandering the dead, with no connection??
A mixed metaphor is something like :-
The skeleton in the closet has come home to roost
You're the top dog on the pyramid and we're all the little fish on the bottom rung of the totem pole.
He has been floating on Cloud Nine, and then they pull the rug out from under him.
If Saville committed these acts alleged then throw the book at his reputation, however some of this stinks, we have Esther Ranzen the person who created Childline in 80's who ignored Saville's 'reputation' in showbiz circles, what does that say about her, this guy lived too 2011, are we being told that Ranzen and ladies in their 40's were so terrified of Saville that they did not push a legal case when he was alive, all very convenient, we are not talking about 80's or even 90's when maybe this would have held water.
She's not claiming to be a victim but to have pre-viewed the documentary and now to believe he is an abuser.
In an emotional interview, the broadcaster and Childline founder told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I feel that we in television, in his world, in some way colluded with him as a child abuser – because I now believe that’s what he was. We all blocked our ears. There was gossip, there were rumours.
It’s very distressing. We made him into the Jimmy Savile who was untouchable, who nobody could criticise. He was a sort of god-like figure. Everybody knew of the good that Jimmy did and what he did for children. And these children were powerless...
.
‘What these women say is so matter of fact, they corroborate each other. The style of the abuse and the attack on them was consistent one with each other. I’m afraid the jury isn’t out any more and what upsets me so much is that not one of these children could ask for help. The abuse of power was as great as the sexual abuse.’
I should add to that, rather damningly, the BBC apparently eventually employed chaperones to stop girls going into Savile's dressing room, indicating they knew something had been going on. They also apparently disciplined or sacked drivers who would chaffeur girls back home who talked about what Savile had got up to.
Ok, if he had folk protecting him that might make more sense. Otherwise it seems an unnecessary risk compared with, say, inviting people back to his house or to go for a ride in his Rolls.
As i said before if Saville did this then throw the book at his reputation, but why did Ranzen not come out with this when he was alive,and we are not talking of 80's or 90's, either she doubted she would have a legal case or she did not know, either of the case gives her no moral basis to come out now against a dead man.
If Saville committed these acts alleged then throw the book at his reputation, however some of this stinks, we have Esther Ranzen the person who created Childline in 80's who ignored Saville's 'reputation' in showbiz circles, what does that say about her, this guy lived too 2011, are we being told that Ranzen and ladies in their 40's were so terrified of Saville that they did not push a legal case when he was alive, all very convenient, we are not talking about 80's or even 90's when maybe this would have held water.
On a practical level, what could Esther Rantzen have done? In an interview I have seen, Esther said that there were rumours circulating among BBC staff in the 80s, but as she had no connection with Savile, was never sure if the rumours were true. However she has seen the documentary airing tomorrow night and the anecdotal evidence shown has confirmed the rumours in her mind.
As i said before if Saville did this then throw the book at his reputation, but why did Ranzen not come out with this when he was alive,...
How could she view the documentary before it was made?
She made her comments from viewing the documentary we will have a chance to see tonight not from personal information. All she claims to have heard in his lifetime were the rumours - just like eveyone else. What she said is a comment on the documentary. If you had bothered to read the link you would know that.
Its definatley true, its known in Leeds that he was into young girls and possibly also boys. the police picked him up on various occassions with young vulnerable children in his cars but nothing was said. However they knew for years what he was upto.
On a practical level, what could Esther Rantzen have done? In an interview I have seen, Esther said that there were rumours circulating in the 80s, but as she had no connection with Savile, was never sure if the rumours were true. However she has seen the documentary airing tomorrow night and the anecdotal evidence shown has confirmed the rumours in her mind.
Yes, but she can't have it both ways, she heard rumours and went back too sleep, yet now she ordains herself a Court, Jury and Executioner, doubtless she would do this on the Louis Walsh accuser who was subsequently found of faking it and was jailed by Irish courts.
Show me where I've had a dig at Muslims, generically, as opposed to the extremists specifically ....
Quit being so touchy - you've nothing to fear from people criticising the extremists of your faith. If I remember correctly - you've done the same thing yourself many, many times.
let me remind you of your first post in this thread
You are not allowed to slander anybody who's name begins with 'M' and ends in 'ohammed'
Dont come in make such a remark which is bugger all to do with the thread then get defensive when i react. Its like poking a dog with a stick and not expecting to get bitten. There was no need for any mention like yours none what soever, so get off the "touchy" but and quit making stupid remarks.
How could she view the documentary before it was made?
She made her comments from viewing the documentary we will have a chance to see tonight not from personal information. All she claims to have heard in his lifetime were the rumours - just like eveyone else. What she said is a comment on the documentary. If you had bothered to read the link you would know that.
Did she start childline up before these rumours?
If so, I would expect her to have brought these rumours to someones attention, or at least pressed for them to be investigated. After all her passion was justice for children and victims of abuse.
I can understand the rationale why others might have zipped it but not her. It does seem to make her a little hypocritical if at the time she was running a charity to get protection and justice for the abused, she never acted on rumours about abuse.
let me remind you of your first post in this thread
Dont come in make such a remark which is bugger all to do with the thread then get defensive when i react. Its like poking a dog with a stick and not expecting to get bitten. There was no need for any mention like yours none what soever, so get off the "touchy" but and quit making stupid remarks.
Where's the 'clutching handbag' smiley when you need one?
Yes Miss, Whatever you say Miss, So Sorry Miss ... get a grip Miss.
Comments
Seems even less likely to me that they'd be brazen enough to do it in the dressing rooms of TV Centre during a working day. Possible, perhaps, but just doesn't ring true.
Ill wait to watch it and read up on it before making a final opinion but im aware sometimes the saying "no smoke without fire" is true and at other times complete bollox, I wouldnt like for this to be true but if it is the people who helped cover it up have a lot to answer for.
Really!! Since when is it necessary for a PA to know her boss' sexual hang ups? You mean he didn't discuss his supposdly illegal acts with her? How shocking....
His nephew denies it two. I consider that even odder. Who doesn't discuss their sex games with their nephews?
Compare that to this. Hardly cold in the ground and already the (alleged) victims are popping up like Whack A Rat rats.
I think that may be instructive.
Yes i was all for the "mj is a pervert" now i rethink it and i think "did he really do ANYTHING with those children apart from misguidingly try and recapture his missed out on childhood?
You see in a peverse kind of way I hope it is true........... because if it is all bowlocks, that means that people are twisted and sick enough to lie and defame a dead and inncoent man, that did a lot of good in his life.
Some people are silly. It doesn't mean she isn't genuine. After every sex offender, paedophile, killer is revealed there are always silly people coming out saying it couldn't have been them, I can't believe it etc cos they were such a nice bloke and I knew him so well. Some people just don't get that you can be a nice interesting person and do horrible things too.
He helped charities, was no doubt kind to his nephew, generous to his PA etc, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether he abused young girls - none.
Actually there was one rather significant testimony given by a victim who is now a priest, who stated he had lied about not being abused by Jackson at the Chandler trial because he was afraid he would be seen as gay.
A mixed metaphor is something like :-
The skeleton in the closet has come home to roost
You're the top dog on the pyramid and we're all the little fish on the bottom rung of the totem pole.
He has been floating on Cloud Nine, and then they pull the rug out from under him.
This thing is snowballing like a house afire!
She's not claiming to be a victim but to have pre-viewed the documentary and now to believe he is an abuser.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210592/Jimmy-Savile-accused-sexual-predator-women-claim-abused-underage-schoolgirls.html
Ok, if he had folk protecting him that might make more sense. Otherwise it seems an unnecessary risk compared with, say, inviting people back to his house or to go for a ride in his Rolls.
On a practical level, what could Esther Rantzen have done? In an interview I have seen, Esther said that there were rumours circulating among BBC staff in the 80s, but as she had no connection with Savile, was never sure if the rumours were true. However she has seen the documentary airing tomorrow night and the anecdotal evidence shown has confirmed the rumours in her mind.
How could she view the documentary before it was made?
She made her comments from viewing the documentary we will have a chance to see tonight not from personal information. All she claims to have heard in his lifetime were the rumours - just like eveyone else. What she said is a comment on the documentary. If you had bothered to read the link you would know that.
Big question really though has to be ..
Who at the BBC Fixed it for Jim?
If there is truth in these rumours/accusations, there has to have been a cover up at Auntie Beeb
let me remind you of your first post in this thread
Dont come in make such a remark which is bugger all to do with the thread then get defensive when i react. Its like poking a dog with a stick and not expecting to get bitten. There was no need for any mention like yours none what soever, so get off the "touchy" but and quit making stupid remarks.
lol
Did she start childline up before these rumours?
If so, I would expect her to have brought these rumours to someones attention, or at least pressed for them to be investigated. After all her passion was justice for children and victims of abuse.
I can understand the rationale why others might have zipped it but not her. It does seem to make her a little hypocritical if at the time she was running a charity to get protection and justice for the abused, she never acted on rumours about abuse.
On the other hand to take reasonable precaution against something you can't prove as the Beeb did is hardly evidence of collusion.
Where's the 'clutching handbag' smiley when you need one?
Yes Miss, Whatever you say Miss, So Sorry Miss ... get a grip Miss.
ok apology accepted:D