[belinus]

Originally Posted by Linda_Danvers

What mantra? We are discussing semantics. I don't hate heteros, by the way. It would be like hate myself. You said if a male paedophile is attracted to boys, he is an homosexual first, paedophile second. I'm only asking you if for you this also goes for adults males attracted to girls: heterosexuals first, paedophiles second.

I don't know if the gay community despises the term "homosexual". As far as I know, they don't

I does appear that the mere mention of the term homosexuality gains one a tirade of abuse ending in a question demanding the poster state whether they think homosexuality is not normal, its like a trap.

In that sense I use the term mantra.

[sozzled2day]

This explains it much better than I could.

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

I've never linked homosexuality to child offenders because more often that not, child molesters (including Savile) seem focused only on age and not gender.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Found this re causes of homosexuality
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...es_people_gay/

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

This explains it much better than I could.


I've never linked homosexuality to child offenders because more often that not, child molesters (including Savile) seem focused only on age and not gender.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

Although, regarding Savile, he didn't just apparently assault or molest children and teenagers but also adults. The age range of his victims varied from as young as eight to as old as forty seven.

See:-

of his victims, 73 per cent were children, with the total victim age range between eight and 47 years old at the time.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2JGMnqiNi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Over 70 percent is alot but equally that means 27%, over a quarter, weren't children, which is still quite a sizeable amount. That's why I don't think its necessarily right to label him as a paedophile as such, given the label implies he would have only been sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children and would have had little or no ability to be attracted to adults or in forming relationships with adults, which doesn't appear to be the case since its well known he was in relationships with at least a couple of middle aged women at certain times (I know you didn't specify the term paedophile as such but I just wanted to add that as a side note).

[sozzled2day]

Originally Posted by IzzyS

Although, regarding Savile, he didn't just apparently assault or molest children and teenagers but also adults. The age range of his victims varied from as young as eight to as old as forty seven.

See:-

Over 70 percent is alot but equally that means 27%, over a quarter, weren't children, which is still quite a sizeable amount. That's why I don't think its necessarily right to label him as a paedophile as such, given the label implies he would have only been sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children and would have had little or no ability to be attracted to adults or in forming relationships with adults, which doesn't appear to be the case since its well known he was in relationships with at least a couple of middle aged women at certain times (I know you didn't specify the term paedophile as such but I just wanted to add that as a side note).

I think his preference was clearly for underage victims, but maybe because he knew he had much more chance of getting away with abusing them because no one would believe them if they complained about it. The fact he groped older women too, indicates (to me) that he was an opportunist who liked to take chances to see what he could get away with. Maybe he wasn't actually sexually attracted to children as much as he was attracted to the fact that it was 'safe' to abuse them? Like a power thing?

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Elm Guest House
http://www.madlands.co.uk/exaro-the-...iss-the-story/

[inquirer64]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21230334

Not quite sure what to make of the above news.

"A former Metropolitan Police officer who made indecent images of a child has been given a three-year community order.

Christopher Exley, 33, who protected MPs in the diplomatic protection squad, admitted four counts of making images of a child under 18 last month.

He was dismissed from the Metropolitan Police Service earlier in January.

Exley was ordered to enrol on an internet sex offenders programme for three years at Southwark Crown Court..........

In December Exley admitted three counts of making an indecent image of a child under 18, and making 53 indecent images of a child..............."

Does the above mean he made the images from children he had access to?

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

I think his preference was clearly for underage victims, but maybe because he knew he had much more chance of getting away with abusing them because no one would believe them if they complained about it. The fact he groped older women too, indicates (to me) that he was an opportunist who liked to take chances to see what he could get away with. Maybe he wasn't actually sexually attracted to children as much as he was attracted to the fact that it was 'safe' to abuse them? Like a power thing?

Yes, I think others have questioned if he didn't do what he did mainly for the feeling of power it gave him, moreso than any physical or sexual attraction. It seems like he took plenty of risks, abusing in different places including a hospice which makes you wonder if he didn't plan things out to go from one place to another to see how far he could go - I've also briefly wondered if that might explain the necrophilia claims, if he liked the idea of thinking he could do something so morally wrong in a semi public area, not knowing if another member of staff would walk in and witness something and all the rest of it...eesh, its very disturbing, I don't like to think about it of course I could be way off, who knows for sure. As a sociopath, his ability to understand whats truly wrong might, or would, not have been in place so then would he get such a thrill? maybe so if he understood what others thought but didn't 'suffer' the guilt himself...part of such a thrill, presumably?, would be knowing that you shouldn't really be doing it, would he have had that? heck knows. Also he talked about having the 'ultimate freedom' etc., so perhaps he didn't need to keep escalating the assaults as if to test the waters if he claimed to know he could, supposedly/apparently, do as he liked and be protected somehow anyway.

Its all very unsettling...

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

I think his preference was clearly for underage victims, but maybe because he knew he had much more chance of getting away with abusing them because no one would believe them if they complained about it. The fact he groped older women too, indicates (to me) that he was an opportunist who liked to take chances to see what he could get away with. Maybe he wasn't actually sexually attracted to children as much as he was attracted to the fact that it was 'safe' to abuse them? Like a power thing?

You may be on to something there. He spoke about "ultimate freedom" to Anthony Clare....perhaps he was far more turned on by the fact that he was breaking society's taboos than by the abuse itself (this would certainly explain his alleged abuse of sick and disabled people and even something as horrible as necrophilia). I imagine very few child abusers would be interested in those latter things, which might suggest there may have been a lot more going on in Savile's head than simply being attracted to younger people.

[sozzled2day]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

You may be on to something there. He spoke about "ultimate freedom" to Anthony Clare....perhaps he was far more turned on by the fact that he was breaking society's taboos than by the abuse itself (this would certainly explain his alleged abuse of sick and disabled people and even something as horrible as necrophilia). I imagine very few child abusers would be interested in those latter things, which might suggest there may have been a lot more going on in Savile's head than simply being attracted to younger people.

Very possible. When he was talking about the 'ultimate freedom' being something most people would never have, and that he had it - did he mean ultimate freedom to abuse in as many depraved ways as possible in the knowledge he would be protected until after his death? Like you say, few child abusers are drawn to the abuse of the sick, disabled, and the occasional deceased person - which makes Savile something else altogether, perhaps something which doesn't even have a description yet! Although the majority of victims were underage, as Izzy pointed out, 27% were not. I'm not sure Savile was a true paedophile, like Gary Glitter for example, but just someone who saw youngsters as easier prey than people who may have fought back or reported him. The alleged necrophilia suggests he simply had none of the boundaries most of us have. He saw his victims as objects, regardless of whether they were young, sick, or even dead. But the young ones were evidently the easiest targets for him, which would explain the 73% figure. I wonder if he's unique in that his choice of victims were so diverse?

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

Very possible. When he was talking about the 'ultimate freedom' being something most people would never have, and that he had it - did he mean ultimate freedom to abuse in as many depraved ways as possible in the knowledge he would be protected until after his death? Like you say, few child abusers are drawn to the abuse of the sick, disabled, and the occasional deceased person - which makes Savile something else altogether, perhaps something which doesn't even have a description yet! Although the majority of victims were underage, as Izzy pointed out, 27% were not. I'm not sure Savile was a true paedophile, like Gary Glitter for example, but just someone who saw youngsters as easier prey than people who may have fought back or reported him. The alleged necrophilia suggests he simply had none of the boundaries most of us have. He saw his victims as objects, regardless of whether they were young, sick, or even dead. But the young ones were evidently the easiest targets for him, which would explain the 73% figure. I wonder if he's unique in that his choice of victims were so diverse?

A criminal pyschologist speculated on Channel Four a couple of months back that Savile may not even have had a particularly high or abnormal libido. He felt that his actions were more about control and abuse of power.

He was definitely a pervert and deviant in the true sense of the words, as nothing seemed to be off limits to him. His attraction to younger people may simply have been because he saw them as helpless and vulnerable. He was already incapable of having an intimate relationship with an adult, so everyone became an object to him, whether a child, teenager or adult.

It was a really bizarre existence. He doesn't appear to have developed feelings for even one of the people he came into contact with.....he was an empty, soulless individual.

[sozzled2day]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

It was a really bizarre existence.
He doesn't appear to have developed feelings for even one of the people he came into contact with.....he was an empty, soulless individual.

And he said something about 'learning' to enjoy his mother, which I thought was a bit cryptic. It's as if he felt he had to 'love' her because that was what was expected (demanded?) of him. Aside from her, he didn't even pretend to have feelings for anyone else. No defence of him at all, but it must have been a horribly lonely life to have never made a close emotional connection with another person in 84 years.

[Linda_Danvers]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

He was already incapable of having an intimate relationship with an adult

But that is the weird thing. He did have intimate relationships with two middle-aged women. And they weren't one night stands, they were real relationships (what he was capable of, at least).

I think it is hard to categorize a person, even with labels such as psychopath/sociopath. I do think Savile had a psychopath disorder, but he is dead and it is even harder to categorize a dead person whose childhood and young life we know so little about (I must be one of the few people who think he wasn't sexually abused). We can't tell he is a necrophiliac because this is a rumour and nobody has come forward (yet) to say he/she witnessed Savile doing something with a dead body. And until there isn't evidence of that, this continues to be a rumour.

What we can tell about JS is that he obviously was sexually promiscuous (the stories about him with two or three young girls at the same time are rife) attracted to teenage girls, who sexually abused girls, young women and boys, highly manipulative, who had an intense need to control everything and everyone and whose part of the sexual thrill was possibly getting away with it under everyone's nose.

I don't think the power thrill is the only explanation. It is part of, but I don't think it is the only one.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by Linda_Danvers

But that is the weird thing. He did have intimate relationships with two middle-aged women. And they weren't one night stands, they were real relationships (what he was capable of, at least).

I think it is hard to categorize a person, even with labels such as psychopath/sociopath. I do think Savile had a psychopath disorder, but he is dead and it is even harder to categorize a dead person whose childhood and young life we know so little about (I must be one of the few people who think he wasn't sexually abused). We can't tell he is a necrophiliac because this is a rumour and nobody has come forward (yet) to say he/she witnessed Savile doing something with a dead body. And until there isn't evidence of that, this continues to be a rumour.

What we can tell about JS is that he obviously was sexually promiscuous (the stories about him with two or three young girls at the same time are rife) attracted to teenage girls, who sexually abused girls, young women and boys, highly manipulative, who had an intense need to control everything and everyone and whose part of the sexual thrill was possibly getting away with it under everyone's nose.

I don't think the power thrill is the only explanation. It is part of, but I don't think it is the only one.

Definitely promiscious Linda, but he may not neccessarily have had a rampant libido. Was he being turned on by the sex act itself or by the knowledge he was doing something illegal and forbidden ie. the 'ultimate freedom' of which he spoke?

As for the relationships, he did tell Anthony Clare that he had 'no feelings' and seemingly left Clare quite spooked and troubled by the interview.

I might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on the the necrophilia issue, but he bizarrely brought up the claims in a newspaper interview around 1990 where the topic wasn't even under discussion, which makes me quite suspicious.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

And he said something about 'learning' to enjoy his mother, which I thought was a bit cryptic. It's as if he felt he had to 'love' her because that was what was expected (demanded?) of him. Aside from her, he didn't even pretend to have feelings for anyone else. No defence of him at all, but it must have been a horribly lonely life to have never made a close emotional connection with another person in 84 years.

I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree that something must have gone horribly wrong with his childhood development for him to turn into the adult he did. Nobody really knows what his relationship with his mother was like, but whatever it was, it made him incapable of getting emotionally close to other adults for the duration of his lifetime.

[sozzled2day]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

I might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on the the necrophilia issue, but he bizarrely brought up the claims in a newspaper interview around 1990 where the topic wasn't even under discussion, which makes me quite suspicious.

Yes. He denied he was a necrophiliac without any prompting, just like he denied being a paedophile without any prompting during his interview with Theoroux.

Paul Gambaccini also claimed on live radio that he was aware of rumours back in the 80s that Savile was interested in the deceased.

From the interview you're referring to:

In a 1990 interview with Q magazine, Savile, who died last year, admitted he enjoyed being alone with dead people.

He said: ‘You can look after somebody, be alone with somebody, who has lived a whole lifetime, and I’m just saying goodbye and looking after him. That is a privilege and an honour.

‘Some people get hold of the fact that Jim likes looking after cadavers and say, “Aha, Jim’s a necrophiliac”. I’m not a necrophiliac.’

Quite frankly, I believe the rumours more than I don't believe them - mainly because he assaulted sick children who were immobilised from brain and spinal surgery and abused dying children in hospices. To go from that depraved behaviour to necrophilia isn't such a huge jump to make. In fact, it would seem like a natural progression for someone with his preferences.

[i4u]

Originally Posted by inquirer64

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21230334

Not quite sure what to make of the above news.

"A former Metropolitan Police officer who made indecent images of a child has been given a three-year community order.

Christopher Exley, 33, who protected MPs in the diplomatic protection squad, admitted four counts of making images of a child under 18 last month.

He was dismissed from the Metropolitan Police Service earlier in January.

Exley was ordered to enrol on an internet sex offenders programme for three years at Southwark Crown Court..........

In December Exley admitted three counts of making an indecent image of a child under 18, and making 53 indecent images of a child..............."

Does the above mean he made the images from children he had access to?

Originally in May 2012 it was reported thus....

A serving Scotland Yard officer has been charged with trying to meet a child on the internet for sex.

Scotland Yard said he was charged with 'attempting to arrange the commission of a child sex offence, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003'.

But by December 2012 that had been dropped?

Christopher Exley, 33, admitted four counts of making images of a child under 18.

The court heard that the charges related to Exley viewing a website but no more details were given.

Would that mean the early photos The Sun printed of Sam Fox would now be regarded as a criminal offence?

[i4u]

Originally Posted by inquirer64

I'm very interested in all the links provided by Sad_BB_Addict.

Whether you believe what is written is up to you. There are some who will not believe any of it, even when in the MSM and not just in blogs. That is up to them. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

Some of those links do appear to come with an agenda, in the past I've noted how many had anti-semitic undertones.

Returning to some of the recent links provided, it's as if there's a drive to connect being gay with being a paedophilia.
The mindset of the authors appear to suggest they believe it is wrong to be gay...I don't think I've ever seen one of these articles suggest there's something sinister about someone being hetrosexual.

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by Linda_Danvers

But that is the weird thing. He did have intimate relationships with two middle-aged women. And they weren't one night stands, they were real relationships (what he was capable of, at least).

I think it is hard to categorize a person, even with labels such as psychopath/sociopath. I do think Savile had a psychopath disorder, but he is dead and it is even harder to categorize a dead person whose childhood and young life we know so little about (I must be one of the few people who think he wasn't sexually abused). We can't tell he is a necrophiliac because this is a rumour and nobody has come forward (yet) to say he/she witnessed Savile doing something with a dead body. And until there isn't evidence of that, this continues to be a rumour.

What we can tell about JS is that he obviously was sexually promiscuous (the stories about him with two or three young girls at the same time are rife) attracted to teenage girls, who sexually abused girls, young women and boys, highly manipulative, who had an intense need to control everything and everyone and whose part of the sexual thrill was possibly getting away with it under everyone's nose.

I don't think the power thrill is the only explanation. It is part of, but I don't think it is the only one.

Thats what I was thinking - it seems as if he did have relationships with some older women, at least one or two closer to his age, though they were kind of on again, off again type relationships (there was someone he was with in the 60s and lost touch with, then they bumped into each other and stayed together for a good few years around the 90s I think?).

Also I don't think he seemed to have very close friendships either - it seems to me like he knew plenty of people who are, or were, more like business contacts or associates, acquaintances more than particularly close friends. Most people, even if they have a large social circle, will have an inner circle of a select few friends who they trust and confide in more than others but it seems he wasn't that way. Its as if he either didn't care or didn't know how to open up and be honest, to look for that type of emotional closeness, with anyone (and yes I know that men are maybe different to women in not wanting to express their emotions in the same way but I'd hazard a guess that most men still have one or two friends they feel they could open up to about personal issues, go into more detail about whats going on in their life etc. while from what I've read, all his friends talk about it being a struggle to figure out what he was all about and he really didn't talk much about personal things).

Originally Posted by Eurostar

Definitely promiscious Linda, but he may not neccessarily have had a rampant libido. Was he being turned on by the sex act itself or by the knowledge he was doing something illegal and forbidden ie. the 'ultimate freedom' of which he spoke?

As for the relationships, he did tell Anthony Clare that he had 'no feelings' and seemingly left Clare quite spooked and troubled by the interview.

I might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on the the necrophilia issue, but he bizarrely brought up the claims in a newspaper interview around 1990 where the topic wasn't even under discussion, which makes me quite suspicious.

Re BiB - this makes me wonder, if a celebrity has an interview like that and there are some clear warning signs, should they be followed up somehow? if he is an expert in the field and was genuinely troubled by what he saw, should there have been some form of consultation or follow up of some sort? I imagine thats easier said than done. I certainly have a bit of a strange personality and some things might concern people but I know what im like and I don't have the nature to hurt anyone at all but others are completely different...I guess without evidence, they could be clinically show signs of sociopathy or psychopathy but without proof they've committed any criminal act or that their in danger of hurting themselves or others (ie could be sectioned), then they can't really do anything? (btw for the record I'm not a sociopath, just I lead a slightly different kind of life maybe than what society would perhaps expect *shrug*).

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

Yes. He denied he was a necrophiliac without any prompting, just like he denied being a paedophile without any prompting during his interview with Theoroux.

Paul Gambaccini also claimed on live radio that he was aware of rumours back in the 80s that Savile was interested in the deceased.

From the interview you're referring to:


Quite frankly, I believe the rumours more than I don't believe them - mainly because he assaulted sick children who were immobilised from brain and spinal surgery and abused dying children in hospices. To go from that depraved behaviour to necrophilia isn't such a huge jump to make. In fact, it would seem like a natural progression for someone with his preferences.

Regarding Louis documentary, I thought that was a bit strange to mention it then but someone pointed out that the subject had roughly been brought up at the time, just perhaps not in as many words. I'd have to watch it again to double check but I think they were talking about the salacious rumours and so on (or that was certainly mentioned at one point), so it maybe wasn't entirely out of the blue to say what he said? he did say some pretty random stuff though.

Regarding the control element and talk about necrophilia, something I wondered is whether he ever used chloroform or other drugs to knock people out before committing assaults etc.? then he'd have known he had full control because they couldn't fight back if he knew they'd be out for the count or whatever. On the other hand, maybe that would seem too easy somehow? ugh I don't know. It certainly wouldn't be much of a jump at all (like you say) to go from that (if it happened, ie knocking people out) to being with dead bodies.

ETA:- also I remember in the Andrew Neil Channel 4 interview, he mentioned one time when a hospital patient (who I think had been a fan of his or had mentioned him?) had died when he wasn't around and he was told the following day and supposedly spent most of the day upset about it. His talk about feeling its a priviledge to be with someone, even or usually someone he barely knew, as they died, would seem to provide something of an insight but im not entirely sure how to interpret it?. You could almost wonder if he felt he got some kind of power related turn on out of watching them pass *shudders*

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by i4u

Some of those links do appear to come with an agenda, in the past I've noted how many had anti-semitic undertones.

Returning to some of the recent links provided, it's as if there's a drive to connect being gay with being a paedophilia.
The mindset of the authors appear to suggest they believe it is wrong to be gay...I don't think I've ever seen one of these articles suggest there's something sinister about someone being hetrosexual.

I've noticed that too in a few links but it's nothing to do with BB him/herself I am sure and only a tiny minority of the many many links he/she has provided for us. They have been of great value and interest and much appreciated on this thread.

It's a fair point in itself but should not be taken as a reflection of BB's own viewpoint.

If I noticed and you noticed then probably others noticed as well. It's right that you pointed it out.

[Linda_Danvers]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

Definitely promiscious Linda, but he may not neccessarily have had a rampant libido. Was he being turned on by the sex act itself or by the knowledge he was doing something illegal and forbidden ie. the 'ultimate freedom' of which he spoke?

As for the relationships, he did tell Anthony Clare that he had 'no feelings' and seemingly left Clare quite spooked and troubled by the interview.

I might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on the the necrophilia issue, but he bizarrely brought up the claims in a newspaper interview around 1990 where the topic wasn't even under discussion, which makes me quite suspicious.

We don't know Savile's level of libido, that's the problem. I'm sure most people who have rampant levels of libido don't rape people and I agree the power thrill must have played a part. If you ask me, I think Savile was a sadist. But I don't think this or that was only reason. It is like denying these people have sexuality, when they have, which makes easier to explain psychologically why they are like that .

I don't think it is bizarre he brough up the claims of necrophilia. It mean he was aware of the rumours, but it doesn't mean he was one. Quite frankly, I think he played up with those rumours. They were the smokescreen for other activities.

[Linda_Danvers]

Originally Posted by IzzyS

Thats what I was thinking - it seems as if he did have relationships with some older women, at least one or two closer to his age, though they were kind of on again, off again type relationships (there was someone he was with in the 60s and lost touch with, then they bumped into each other and stayed together for a good few years around the 90s I think?).

Also I don't think he seemed to have very close friendships either - it seems to me like he knew plenty of people who are, or were, more like business contacts or associates, acquaintances more than particularly close friends.

The two middle-aged women weren't close to his age, they were about 20 years younger, but they did have relationships with him when they were adults. One in the late 80's and early 90's, I think. Other around the mid 90's until his death, IIRC. With this last one was the on again, off again relationship. These two women met him when they were teens, and I not sure if this did played a part in it.

As for friends, I agree it doesn't seem Savile had friends, but associates. These associates may have seen Savile as a friend, but if they were treated like Alison Bellamy or "Jim the Pill" (what's up with that guy?), they were measured on how useful they were to him. By Louis documentary, I wonder how they could stand being in a room with him for two minutes. What a controlling creep.

[jack patterson]

Originally Posted by Linda_Danvers

As for friends, I agree it doesn't seem Savile had friends, but associates. These associates may have seen Savile as a friend, but if they were treated like Alison Bellamy or "Jim the Pill" (what's up with that guy?), they were measured on how useful they were to him. By Louis documentary, I wonder how they could stand being in a room with him for two minutes. What a controlling creep.

They were part of his care team hence 'Jim the Pill'. He had been extremely ill during the 1990s but never showed that in public. On his last Top of the Pops appearance (where he was supposed to have abused people) witnesses said he was very frail and disorientated and was accompanied by people looking after him, but once the camera light went on he was his old self.

[escargot]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

You may be on to something there. He spoke about "ultimate freedom" to Anthony Clare....perhaps he was far more turned on by the fact that he was breaking society's taboos than by the abuse itself (this would certainly explain his alleged abuse of sick and disabled people and even something as horrible as necrophilia). I imagine very few child abusers would be interested in those latter things, which might suggest there may have been a lot more going on in Savile's head than simply being attracted to younger people.

In some post-grad research I did a few years ago, I came across an interesting paper about the dangers of paedophiles being employed around children.

It included some advice which one had given online to others, to the effect that if you can't get work with access to kids, you could try looking after old folks instead. Such jobs are easier to come by 'and the sex is just as good.'

There was an article based on it in the Guardian. If I look through my old notes I should be able to find it and put a link up.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that for certain types of persistent offender, it would appear that age or gender don't matter as much as opportunity and the vulnerability of victims. This description certainly fits Savile.

I haven't heard of him actively abusing elderly people but it wouldn't surprise me, although he probably had as much fun as he wanted with the children and teenagers.

[Phoenix Lazarus]

Originally Posted by jack patterson

They were part of his care team hence 'Jim the Pill'. He had been extremely ill during the 1990s but never showed that in public.

What with-heart disease? know he had heart bypass surgery, in 1997. Up until then, he'd been doing Savile's Travels, which had been reprised. After that, that went off the air.