Is the BBC hiding paedophiles?

[Bella Fortuna]

There were plenty of claims, but the people who should have taken them further, police, teachers, nurses, BBC bosses etc., failed to pursue them.

Rumours are not claims.
All of those agencies deny they EVER recieved a single complaint.

This article says there were six investigations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ctims.html

[DaveD]

Saville row.JPG

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -eBay.html

Damn! I missed a trick there. I could have made a fortune

[Rum]

We are getting really good at judging with perfect hindsight. We seem to do it more and more these days.

The Sunday papers headlines were full of who to blame.

[mistermack]

There were plenty of claims, but the people who should have taken them further, police, teachers, nurses, BBC bosses etc., failed to pursue them.

Rumours are not claims.
All of those agencies deny they EVER recieved a single complaint.

You missed this post:

This was an interesting piece: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334810

Apparently he'd been suspected of unsavoury behaviour as far back as 1958 (Christ, really??), and though it cropped up time and again he either bought his way out or the police work was so reticent or shoddy as to let him elude adequate investigation.

Right. What constitutes a complaint, as far as I'm concerned, is some under-age girl accusing him.
If the police and the CPS say that there isn't enough evidence to charge him, that indicates to me that the person who was supposed to have been abused made no compaint.

In the sixities, pop bands were targets for teenage girls. There was the phenomenon called groupies, they collected pop stars like twitchers collect bird sightings. Loads of them were under sixteen.
What Savile is alleged to have done, could probably be applied to most pop stars and band members from that era.
There are probably quite a lot of LIVING legends, quietly shitting themselves, right now.
Except Cliff. He's probably ok.

[DaveD]

Maybe if the police had read his autobiography, they would have found enough evidence. Then again, maybe they didn't want to.

“A high-ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me a picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home.

“‘Ah,’ says I all serious, ‘if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward’.” Savile describes how the girl came to one of his dances that evening and stayed the night with him before he handed her over.

He added: “The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues for it was well known that were I to go, I would probably take half the station with me.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... es-1359536

[mistermack]

Maybe if the police had read his autobiography, they would have found enough evidence. Then again, maybe they didn't want to.

“A high-ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me a picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home.

“‘Ah,’ says I all serious, ‘if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward’.” Savile describes how the girl came to one of his dances that evening and stayed the night with him before he handed her over.

He added: “The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues for it was well known that were I to go, I would probably take half the station with me.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-wo ... es-1359536

That's just bollocks, sorry.
A remand home isn't a childrens home. There's nothing in that story to indicate the girl was under age.
She was obviously being held on remand from a court. I don't think they put under age children in remand homes. He could technically be done for harbouring a fugitive, I guess.
It's not very likely though.

If she had actually been under age, it's hardly likely he would have put it in his biography.

[odysseus]

Savile seemed to be above suspicion to a lot of people because of his celebrity and his work for Stoke Mandeville Hospital and all that.
Teenage girls will do pretty much anything to get to hang around pop stars and Jimmy Savile was obviously a conduit to that result - it would appear he was only too willing to milk it for all he was worth, as well as any other opportunities that came along.
We are looking at the past with the morality of the present, which is fine as far as it goes, but back in the day paedophilia was the elephant in the room that nobody wanted to confront - it's taken a long time for people to actually accept that it is a problem, let alone do something about it. That said, I still find it very surprising that it has taken this long for the story to emerge in the manner it has.

It's amazing the amount of people at work who are wise as you like after the fact, saying that 'I always knew he was a nonce'..... I have to admit I didn't have a fucking clue...

It makes you wonder how far this story will go and who else will come to light as a kiddie-fiddler.

Rumour has it that Jeremy Beadle might have had a small hand in it.....

[Feck]

Rumour has it that Jeremy Beadle might have had a small hand in it.....

[mistermack]

I'm waiting for better evidence of more serious stuff, before making my mind up.

Even today, young girls throw themselves at pop stars, and brag about it afterwards.
I know for a fact that it's hard, or virtually impossible to tell the age of some girls. And they never had to carry ID to buy a drink in those days. It was just done on looks.

People in supermarkets and off-licences have been fooled for years by under age girls, buying alcohol.
Photo ID with date of birth is really very recent.

In Spain, the age of consent is 13, far too young I think, but they obviously don't.
I'm reserving my disgust for proper pedophiles, not someone who gets taken in by girls just a bit under sixteen, who look a lot older.

That doesn't mean I like Jimmy Savile though. I just don't like the sanctimonious crap and hypocrisy that the media is awash with at the moment.

[Pappa]

I was reading some things about John Peel the other day as well. Very creepy.

Que?

[klr]

In the ITV programme that sparked this latest furore, there was a clip from a radio interview with Savile, in which he defended Glitter, as he had "done nothing wrong". The child porn found on his computer was "for his own private use", and Glitter was only prosecuted because he was a celebrity.

The cops should have investigated Savile just on the basis of that interview.

Christ, that should have set alarm bells ringing big-time, especially given all the contact Savile had with children.

There were plenty of claims, but the people who should have taken them further, police, teachers, nurses, BBC bosses etc., failed to pursue them.

That sounds very familiar, especially if you substitute the Catholic Church for the BBC, and Priests for Jimmy Savile. It just seems that the zeitgeist of the time meant not challenging authority (including large organisations), and turning a blind eye to child abuse/child sexual abuse generally.

I was reading some things about John Peel the other day as well. Very creepy.

Que?

Made a 15-year old girl pregnant, when he was 30. Allegedly ...

[Bella Fortuna]

I was reading some things about John Peel the other day as well. Very creepy.

Que?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19933274

[Cormac]

A bizarre case really. He was a major public figure here through the 70s and 80s but he was always eccentric and presented as if he had a personality disorder of some kind - never showing any real emotion or even personality. It looks as if he hid behind that oddness to get away with serial molestation and worse.

But the DJs at Radio one from the last 60s onwards were 'stars' in their own right and had large fan bases. I suspect there is a lot more to come out frankly connected to several of the 'big names' back then, though Savile seems to have been in a category all his own.

I never liked him and always thought there was something deeply weird about him, but I can't say I anticipated this!

I should of course add that he was part of a privileged group.

A scottish friend of mine tells me two stories about him:

1. A (male) friend of his was once invited to take a drive in his Rolls Royce. When he demurred, saying his Mum told him not to get into stranger's cars, Saville replied "But I'm not a stranger". The (then) little boy said that all the same, his Mum told him not to get into cars with anyone who wasn't his parents. Quick as a flash, Saville's face changed to anger, and "Well you can Fuck Off so" was the response. And off Saville went. So it is possible that he didn't draw the line at little girls.

2. The other story is that Saville, when younger, worked in nightclubs in Scotland (Glasgow, or so the story goes). When the bouncers would lay down the law with some fellow or other, Saville would have them taken into a room where he would torture them.

[devogue]

1. A (male) friend of his was once invited to take a drive in his Rolls Royce. When he demurred, saying his Mum told him not to get into stranger's cars, Saville replied "But I'm not a stranger". The (then) little boy said that all the same, his Mum told him not to get into cars with anyone who wasn't his parents. Quick as a flash, Saville's face changed to anger, and "Well you can Fuck Off so" was the response. And off Saville went. So it is possible that he didn't draw the line at little girls.

It's also possible that Jimmy Savile was offering a child a drive in his Rolls Royce because the child might have found it exciting. He may have had no criminal intent and he may have just thought "oh fuck off then" because tens of thousands of other kids (myself included) would have loved a spin in a Rolls Royce with Jimmy Saville in 1981, so he didn't need or deserve that sort of backchat.

Who knows?

2. The other story is that Saville, when younger, worked in nightclubs in Scotland (Glasgow, or so the story goes). When the bouncers would lay down the law with some fellow or other, Saville would have them taken into a room where he would torture them.

That's so over the top I can see why the bigwigs and colleagues at the BBC didn't shop him - if the stories are that mad, what can anyone possibly believe about him?

I'm with mistermack and others on this one - 45 years of nothing, and then as soon as he dies this gigantic story unfolds.

As far as I can see, the only reason he wasn't shopped when he was alive was because he was a "powerful" celebrity who "might sue".

What the fuck?

Powerful celebrity? - an octagenarian pottering about with his glory days on TV long behind him? And how come Jonathan King and other wealthy and "powerful" figures are brought to book, unable to shield their crimes by threatening litigation?

Perhaps he was guilty of these crimes, but there's still something very fishy about it all IMO.

[mistermack]

It's hard to believe that any DJ could be creepy. They're all so wholesome and nice.

Look at Noel Edmunds.
Or Smashie and Nicie :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaQCr4PI ... re=related[/youtube]