Is the BBC hiding paedophiles?

[Tero]

Devo, probably. To sell papers.

[Rum]

The evidence is mounting quite frankly. One of the barriers to dealing with kiddy sexual abuse is the default position of assuming they are making it up.

[Cormac]

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.

That argument (powerful celeb thing) would seem on its face to be dubious, in the sense that if the scale was as large as it seems to be, how it hasn't come out before is surprising. But, odd and unbelievable as it seems, this fear of perceived authority and power is the primary reason why the deviancy at the heart of the Catholic Church in Ireland wasn't exposed for so long. So, I give that explanation credence.

Re: the offer of a lift. Could have been just an offer. The issue for me isn't really the potential that he was after a boy. The issue is the angry way he turned on a child who had, quite rightly, refused a lift. This reveals to me that he had very odd ideas and attitudes to children.

That story is true - I know the guy involved.

The Glasgow one, I am not at all sure about. It is most definitely more than third or fourth hand. I can't find anything on the net that might corroborate it.



He was, in any case, a most peculiar man.

Although he seems to have regularly had sex with minors. In my view, there was never a time when it was alright for a 30 year old guy to fuck a 14 year old girl. (That includes Jimmy Page and that guy from the Rolling Stones and their teenage "lovers").

[Cormac]

Re: the offer of a lift. Could have been just an offer. The issue for me isn't really the potential that he was after a boy. The issue is the angry way he turned on a child who had, quite rightly, refused a lift. This reveals to me that he had very odd ideas and attitudes to children.

That story is true - I know the guy involved.

...although this:

http://www.lfgss.com/post2505041-1983.html


Note that this was posted last year, so none of the current controversy existed. Also - there is no suggestion here that the "twink" was underage.

[devogue]

The evidence is mounting quite frankly. One of the barriers to dealing with kiddy sexual abuse is the default position of assuming they are making it up.

I absolutely agree with that, but I just can't help but feel uncomfortable about the alleged scale of Savile's crimes and the fact that he was never prosecuted in his lifetime. There are reports of almost 400 incidents - I can see people getting away with the abuse of one or two children across a lifetime, but twenty, forty, 150...400? Without a prosecution? It just seems very strange.

Of course, the media is a having an absolute field day. Because he is dead he is fair game; anything can be said about him without any fear of reprisal and the print media in particular is having an absolute field day - celebrity sex abuse, and a chance to get stuck in to the BBC! It doesn't get much better!

[devogue]

[That argument (powerful celeb thing) would seem on its face to be dubious, in the sense that if the scale was as large as it seems to be, how it hasn't come out before is surprising. But, odd and unbelievable as it seems, this fear of perceived authority and power is the primary reason why the deviancy at the heart of the Catholic Church in Ireland wasn't exposed for so long. So, I give that explanation credence.

Yes, I can perhaps see the different pressures involved. It's one thing for a child to be abused by the weird bloke at the end of the street - I would imagine it would be "easier" for a child to report him; but a child reporting a priest who is at the heart of a community, someone revered by thousands in a local community, or a famous DJ - who wants their childhood trauma held up for the world to see?

[Bella Fortuna]

The evidence is mounting quite frankly. One of the barriers to dealing with kiddy sexual abuse is the default position of assuming they are making it up.

I absolutely agree with that, but I just can't help but feel uncomfortable about the alleged scale of Savile's crimes and the fact that he was never prosecuted in his lifetime. There are reports of almost 400 incidents - I can see people getting away with the abuse of one or two children across a lifetime, but twenty, forty, 150...400? Without a prosecution? It just seems very strange.

Of course, the media is a having an absolute field day. Because he is dead he is fair game; anything can be said about him without any fear of reprisal and the print media in particular is having an absolute field day - celebrity sex abuse, and a chance to get stuck in to the BBC! It doesn't get much better!

I don't know where those numbers are from, but does it actually refer to number of victims or approximate number of identified incidents?

[devogue]

The evidence is mounting quite frankly. One of the barriers to dealing with kiddy sexual abuse is the default position of assuming they are making it up.

I absolutely agree with that, but I just can't help but feel uncomfortable about the alleged scale of Savile's crimes and the fact that he was never prosecuted in his lifetime. There are reports of almost 400 incidents - I can see people getting away with the abuse of one or two children across a lifetime, but twenty, forty, 150...400? Without a prosecution? It just seems very strange.

Of course, the media is a having an absolute field day. Because he is dead he is fair game; anything can be said about him without any fear of reprisal and the print media in particular is having an absolute field day - celebrity sex abuse, and a chance to get stuck in to the BBC! It doesn't get much better!

I don't know where those numbers are from, but does it actually refer to number of victims or approximate number of identified incidents?

I think it was the number of these he gave to kiddies:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Bella Fortuna]

So much for the resale value on eBay...

[mistermack]

The evidence is mounting quite frankly. One of the barriers to dealing with kiddy sexual abuse is the default position of assuming they are making it up.

Just a goldarned minute there, deputy.
These "kiddies" are mostly in their fifties, they have said nothing for forty years, and he's just died, leaving an estate probably worth millions.

Nobody's assuming that some kiddies are making anything up. In fact, it's the complete lack of "kiddies" saying anything about Savile at the time, that bothers me.
Kiddies, I would take seriously.
Fifty-year-olds, joining in a clamour for a slice of his money, I don't.

[DaveD]

complete lack of "kiddies" saying anything about Savile at the time, that bothers me.

Bollocks. You keep saying this, despite being given links that say otherwise. There's plenty of evidence that girls complained at the time. Some were punished for speaking out, others were just ignored.

[Bella Fortuna]

As I mentioned before, it was reported that there were six different investigations over time.

[mistermack]

complete lack of "kiddies" saying anything about Savile at the time, that bothers me.

Bollocks. You keep saying this, despite being given links that say otherwise. There's plenty of evidence that girls complained at the time. Some were punished for speaking out, others were just ignored.

Link em then.
I've obviously missed that.

[mistermack]

As I mentioned before, it was reported that there were six different investigations over time.

No, you just linked a Telegraph article.
I read it, it was pure tittle tattle. Nothing solid in it whatsoever.
It was all "he said that someone said".
A typical example of a journalist making a story out of practically nothing.

[Cormac]

I am also uncomfortable with post-mortem witch hunts used by the media as convenient 5 minute hate opportunities. Being dead, the deceased has no legal protection for their reputation.

That said, in this case, I suspect that there is fire under the smoke.

I will, of course, reserve judgement until the facts are in the public domain.