I missed the TV documentary on ITV last night about Jimmy Saville, but have read a few newspaper articles about it and have just watched a reasonably long news report. It all looks rather damning, and it seems that most people have already decided that the allegations are true. What I don't understand is why it took so long for this to come out and how on earth it stayed covered up for so long?!
In any case, it certainly gives the phrase "Jim'll fix it for you" a decidedly sinister shadow...
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
No smoke without fire?
last reply
110 replies
4.7k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by flower411
I`ve not really been paying much attention because let`s face it ......is there anybody who watched jim`ll fix it and didn`t think ...."he`s a strange one that Saville, I`m not gonna write in !!"
Considering the series ran for 19 years, there must have been a hell of a lot of people that didn't think along those lines.
Sex God
Hmmmm, Jim'll fill it for you, and you and you:haha:
Sexlightened
Must say i thought it strange timing. It's not as if child abuse by celebrities hadn't been bought to light previously and they were waiting until Saville's death until stepping forward for fear of not being believed.
Maybe this is their way of closure for all of them but justice can not seem to be served ... unless Saville is stripped of the "Sir"
The only explanation may be that unlike King and Glitter, Saville was seen as a good guy but on last night's evidence his goodness hid a sinister side.
It might just be that one of the women had decided to release her feelings ... or cynically a journalist used and exploited these people just like Saville did
Maybe this is their way of closure for all of them but justice can not seem to be served ... unless Saville is stripped of the "Sir"
The only explanation may be that unlike King and Glitter, Saville was seen as a good guy but on last night's evidence his goodness hid a sinister side.
It might just be that one of the women had decided to release her feelings ... or cynically a journalist used and exploited these people just like Saville did
Sex God
is there any allegations of actual sexual assault?? sorry but i missed the program and i don't read the rags 
Quote by Suedehead
Maybe this is their way of closure for all of them but justice can not seem to be served ... unless Saville is stripped of the "Sir"
If he were still alive and the allegations were proven, I might have some sympathy with that view. However, he is dead and cannot defend himself.
Let him rest in peace.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
is there any allegations of actual sexual assault?? sorry but i missed the program and i don't read the rags
Oh yes... There are some pretty serious allegations. I've not read any of the rags either - I saw something on Channel 4 News last night and read a couple of Telegraph articles online...
I just find it bizarre that there are so many women making allegations and none of them thought to do it before he died. Why is that? It just all seems very odd. I'm not sure what the women hope to achieve from this (assuming, of course, that there's any way of actually proving that their allegations are true) - perhaps money from the criminal compensation fund, closure, and the satisfaction of muddying his name and reputation? There's also the likelihood that they sold their stories to the rags in the first place...
I do feel rather sorry for Saville's family. It also feels very unfair that he is not here to defend himself. But, if it is all true, I don't agree with GnV that he has any right to "rest in peace". The trouble is that it's very hard to work out how much of it is sensationalised gossip and how much of it may actually be true. It all happened so long ago and, despite the number of women who have made accusations and the claim that it was always an "open secret", nothing at all has ever been in the papers about anything to do with this until now. That makes me a little suspicious and cynical about the whole thing.
Quote by flower411
I`ve not really been paying much attention because let`s face it ......is there anybody who watched jim`ll fix it and didn`t think ...."he`s a strange one that Saville, I`m not gonna write in !!"
You ask that question after answering another poster yesterday with the words...
Quote by flower411
What a strangely sweeping statement to make !!!
With absolutely no evidence whatsoever you make what is in all probability a completely erroneous assumption.
Then you go ahead and do exactly what you accuse others of doing. What an own goal. :doh:
Oh and for the record, no I for one did not think that about him, and neither did a heck of a lot of other people.
Quote by Lilith
Oh yes... There are some pretty serious allegations. I've not read any of the rags either - I saw something on Channel 4 News last night and read a couple of Telegraph articles online...
Yes I agree there are serious ALLEGATIONS that as yet are just that, allegations. What I find rather distasteful is that people have already found him guilty without any proof whatsoever, except a few women that after 30 odd years now have decided to air their views publicly now he is dead. What is even sadder is that some people have found him guilty of this, simply because they always thought he was a bit odd. Thank goodness people are not found guilty in a court of law over a wild accusation, but are found guilty or not guilty on facts that are produced. Time will tell if anyone of these women can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that what they say happened, actually did happen.
Quote by Lilith
I just find it bizarre that there are so many women making allegations and none of them thought to do it before he died. Why is that? It just all seems very odd. I'm not sure what the women hope to achieve from this (assuming, of course, that there's any way of actually proving that their allegations are true) - perhaps money from the criminal compensation fund, closure, and the satisfaction of muddying his name and reputation? There's also the likelihood that they sold their stories to the rags in the first place...
I saw the documentary the other night that was shown on the tv, and what I found amazing is that some of these women who are making these allegations now, still wanted their faces hidden. Why? They are now saying that Saville molested them in some way when they were children, and now 35 years later and he is dead, that they still want to hide behind that anonymity shield. Noooo way. What are these people so scared of now? Scared of their families knowing was one excuse. If these women have kept silent for so long, but now suddenly have this new found courage to say what happened to them, then have the courage to stand on the spot, and to show your face to the world. Anonymity in these kinds of cases seem to go one way only. Expose the man yet the women can remain in the shadows. Either expose both sides or neither until a guilty verdict has been reached, otherwise how unfair is that on the exposed party?
Quote by Lilith
I do feel rather sorry for Saville's family. It also feels very unfair that he is not here to defend himself. But, if it is all true, I don't agree with GnV that he has any right to "rest in peace". The trouble is that it's very hard to work out how much of it is sensationalised gossip and how much of it may actually be true. It all happened so long ago and, despite the number of women who have made accusations and the claim that it was always an "open secret", nothing at all has ever been in the papers about anything to do with this until now. That makes me a little suspicious and cynical about the whole thing.
Do people really believe that the BBC actively kept silent over this? Are people really saying that Saville was allowed under aged girls into his dressing room for sex, and the BBC knew and did nothing? He was a DJ fgs not the BBC director.
Yes I also feel sorry for his family that are now bearing the witch hunt. I also wonder Lilith how to separate wild gossip and the five minutes of fame women, from the real deal accusers. How on earth are they going to prove any of this? The problem is Lilith your thread title will be enough for many, along with the people who thought him an odd ball. Before I make any judgment on the man, I would want to see proof and actual evidence, and that I think cannot be shown. And certainly not from a woman making allegations on a telly documentary and hiding her face.
I also do not buy the nobody will believe me arguments. That may have been an argument back in the 70's but for the past 20 years with all we now know about sexual predators and the help available now to the victims, how these women did not come forward earlier. No help maybe back then but plenty available to them now. Show me some proof and I will listen but from the tv show the other night, just filled with wild accusations with no foundation at all from where I was sitting. But as GnV has said, yes the Daily Wail has already made their minds up, their readership is now slating anyone who dares says anything that does not find him guilty. Thank goodness the public are not the ones making the real decisions here.
Quote by starlightcouple
The problem is Lilith your thread title will be enough for many, along with the people who thought him an odd ball.
I'm sorry if you think the thread title is biased. It was intended to represent the point I wanted to discuss - i.e. why is it that so many people have decided that the allegations must be true (without any real evidence)? Also, the inclusion of the "?" was intended to make it a speculative title, rather than a statement of opinion. Perhaps I was being too subtle...
Quote by Lilith
I missed the TV documentary on ITV last night about Jimmy Saville, but have read a few newspaper articles about it and have just watched a reasonably long news report. It all looks rather damning, and it seems that most people have already decided that the allegations are true. What I don't understand is why it took so long for this to come out and how on earth it stayed covered up for so long?!
In any case, it certainly gives the phrase "Jim'll fix it for you" a decidedly sinister shadow...
I am no fan of trial by telly.
Victims of childhood abuse do not come forward and when they do they are disbelieved. The more powerful and influential the abuser the less likely they are to report. As adults the vast majority prefer to put it behind them.
Other examples of abuse that have taken a long time to come out and were covered up for long time are widespread. Gary Glitter, Jonathan King and of course the Catholic church.
I hope a discussion of these allegations will change our culture and lead to abused children being able to make complaints and be believed. It is NEVER their fault and they deserve our compassion.
Quote by flower411
The problem is Lilith your thread title will be enough for many, along with the people who thought him an odd ball.
I'm sorry if you think the thread title is biased. It was intended to represent the point I wanted to discuss - i.e. why is it that so many people have decided that the allegations must be true (without any real evidence)? Also, the inclusion of the "?" was intended to make it a speculative title, rather than a statement of opinion. Perhaps I was being too subtle...
Correct punctuation is probably considered way to too subtle by some
As is bad grammar. :notes:
Quote by Lilith
The problem is Lilith your thread title will be enough for many, along with the people who thought him an odd ball.
I'm sorry if you think the thread title is biased. It was intended to represent the point I wanted to discuss - i.e. why is it that so many people have decided that the allegations must be true (without any real evidence)? Also, the inclusion of the "?" was intended to make it a speculative title, rather than a statement of opinion. Perhaps I was being too subtle...
Sorry Lilith that was not my intention on your part. I was merely pointing out that some people will naturally think that, along with others who thought he was odd so these allegations must be true.
The man is not here to defend himself, therefore put a note on his file only.
I can not think of any reason for the police to pursue this as they have no-one to put on trial except his posthumous reputation.
And to say its in the public interest....how? He can not harm anyone! All this does is to feed Joe publics fascination with fame and infamy.
I can not think of any reason for the police to pursue this as they have no-one to put on trial except his posthumous reputation.
And to say its in the public interest....how? He can not harm anyone! All this does is to feed Joe publics fascination with fame and infamy.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I am no fan of trial by telly.
Victims of childhood abuse do not come forward and when they do they are disbelieved. The more powerful and influential the abuser the less likely they are to report. As adults the vast majority prefer to put it behind them.
Other examples of abuse that have taken a long time to come out and were covered up for long time are widespread. Gary Glitter, Jonathan King and of course the Catholic church.
I hope a discussion of these allegations will change our culture and lead to abused children being able to make complaints and be believed. It is NEVER their fault and they deserve our compassion.
I do agree, Ben - allegations should be taken seriously when a victim comes forward, regardless of the gap between the alleged offence and their decision to report it. However, the flipside of the need to be compassionate and take allegations seriously is that nobody should be viewed as guilty before sufficient evidence has been provided and their guilt is beyond reasonable doubt.
There are examples of people whose entire lives have been destroyed as a result of malicious and unfounded allegations that could not be proven. A recent (albeit unpublicised) example that I know about is a teacher in a local secondary school who was accused of , found not guilty, but lost his job and his family nonetheless.
There is a need for a sensitive balance. Nobody should be disbelieved when they make a serious allegation, such as child abuse. However, there should not be an automatic presumption of guilt on the part of the accused either.
In examples such as this, where there is a huge amount of public attention, there is a possibility that some of the claims are being exaggerated, or entirely fabricated. I'm not saying that I disbelieve the women; I just find the media circus rather distasteful, and I don't like the fact that his reputation has already been destroyed before any real evidence of his guilt has been supplied (so far as we are aware).
Quote by Lilith
I am no fan of trial by telly.
Victims of childhood abuse do not come forward and when they do they are disbelieved. The more powerful and influential the abuser the less likely they are to report. As adults the vast majority prefer to put it behind them.
Other examples of abuse that have taken a long time to come out and were covered up for long time are widespread. Gary Glitter, Jonathan King and of course the Catholic church.
I hope a discussion of these allegations will change our culture and lead to abused children being able to make complaints and be believed. It is NEVER their fault and they deserve our compassion.
I do agree, Ben - allegations should be taken seriously when a victim comes forward, regardless of the gap between the alleged offence and their decision to report it. However, the flipside of the need to be compassionate and take allegations seriously is that nobody should be viewed as guilty before sufficient evidence has been provided and their guilt is beyond reasonable doubt.
There are examples of people whose entire lives have been destroyed as a result of malicious and unfounded allegations that could not be proven. A recent (albeit unpublicised) example that I know about is a teacher in a local secondary school who was accused of , found not guilty, but lost his job and his family nonetheless.
There is a need for a sensitive balance. Nobody should be disbelieved when they make a serious allegation, such as child abuse. However, there should not be an automatic presumption of guilt on the part of the accused either.
In examples such as this, where there is a huge amount of public attention, there is a possibility that some of the claims are being exaggerated, or entirely fabricated. I'm not saying that I disbelieve the women; I just find the media circus rather distasteful, and I don't like the fact that his reputation has already been destroyed before any real evidence of his guilt has been supplied (so far as we are aware).
Very well put Lilith.
People on this very forum go on about trial by media, and in this case that is exactly what seems to be happening, and some sections of the media will do everything possible to try and discredit the BBC also.
There is I seem to recall a law being passed or is about to be passed that will stop the very example you have given from happening. I only read about it in the last few days and maybe you know more than me on that subject?
I find the media circus distasteful too.
That said , given the under reporting of child abuse and the known examples of abuse cultures I would rather the matter be openly debated than hidden.
These accusations are an opportunity for society to look at itself and ask questions about attitudes towards child protection.
That said , given the under reporting of child abuse and the known examples of abuse cultures I would rather the matter be openly debated than hidden.
These accusations are an opportunity for society to look at itself and ask questions about attitudes towards child protection.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I find the media circus distasteful too.
:thumbup:
Quote by Ben_Minx
That said , given the under reporting of child abuse and the known examples of abuse cultures I would rather the matter be openly debated than hidden.
You call the media witch hunt taking place at the moment Ben, a debate? I am all for discussion but as this is only one sided news and the person is now dead, how can this be debated fairly and evenly?
Quote by Ben_Minx
These accusations are an opportunity for society to look at itself and ask questions about attitudes towards child protection.
Protecting children is a different issue to creating a witch hunt. I believe that naming people before any court case, leads to confusion and people assuming guilt by just reading a copy of the Sun newspaper.
Protecting children of course is the number one priority, but surely not like this?
I know this sounds odd but just take the words Jimmy Saville out of any reports you read and insert Sir John Smith OBE KCSG of the BBC.
Might as well cos the reputation of a dead man has no value in law and he cant be convicted of anything either.
Then ask yourself:
What allegations were made over the years, who by and to whom?
Any evidence of any cover ups?
Any evidence of any cultures of acceptance of child abuse?
If such questions reveal such evidence it needs to be followed up surely.
Might as well cos the reputation of a dead man has no value in law and he cant be convicted of anything either.
Then ask yourself:
What allegations were made over the years, who by and to whom?
Any evidence of any cover ups?
Any evidence of any cultures of acceptance of child abuse?
If such questions reveal such evidence it needs to be followed up surely.
Sex God
I've worked in TV for years, i know many BBC staff and heard about the rumors about 10 years ago, along with the power Saville commanded there and other media outlets, and also the fearsome reputation he had. Basically, the general opinion was if you wanted to keep your job (and by some reports, your legs in one piece) you said nothing.
Sex God
i understand the pot gets bigger today with the lifting of a gaging order that freddie star had put in place 
Sex God
Quote by Lizaleanrob
i understand the pot gets bigger today with the lifting of a gaging order that freddie star had put in place
So, the hamster gets to talk at last?
Sex God
Quote by meat2pleaseu
i understand the pot gets bigger today with the lifting of a gaging order that freddie star had put in place
So, the hamster gets to talk at last?
iirc did Freddie not eat the hamster but whats to say the rags haven't held a seance
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Maybe this is their way of closure for all of them but justice can not seem to be served ... unless Saville is stripped of the "Sir"
If he were still alive and the allegations were proven, I might have some sympathy with that view. However, he is dead and cannot defend himself.
Let him rest in peace.
I agree with you GnV...
He cannot be made pay for his crimes (if he has committed any) so I fail to see what the media barrage can achieve
If children were abused in any way then it goes without saying that they need and deserve to be listened to and offered any help that can prove useful to them but why has it taken till now for anything to be said :dunno:
Over the last week or so I have seen the moral Guardians of the British media ( the Dail Mail and The Sun )
behave in such a distasteful way even for them.
The Daily Mails readership have certainly be allowed to have their say on the papers comments pages, and the Sun is now asking their readership to strip him of his Knighthood with a disgusting petition in it's paper. This being a newspaper that has spent it's life championing the causes of the just and true? I find it disgusting how a daily newspaper can be allowed to get away with this. Whatever Savile has or has not done, is yet to be proven in a court of law, yet the media are now launching a witch hunt. I mean it is not that the Sun ever does anything underhand now is it? I mean their paper epitomises what truth is.
I am tired of this whole story now and the way the media in particular have covered this story. The accusers had enough time to have come forward, and to come forward now after in some cases 40 years without a shred of evidence, is a scandal in itself. I want to see some evidence, some kind of proof before I believe any of these stories. Now it seems that Mr Starr is also being implicated by some woman years and years after this " alleged " abuse. These people who apparently were too scared to come forward before, sure have thrown away their fear bags over the last week.
Easy in fact very easy to discredit a person, when he is stiff in his coffin. These people had their time and decided for whatever reason, to say nothing. Why the sudden urges to come forward now? I do not believe a single word on this subject, and why should I without one shred of proper evidence. Maybe this will make people who have been abused to come forward at the time, when the case can be possibly proven, and not years later when the accused cannot offer any evidence themselves.
British justice has it seemed turned on it's head, helped by a pack mentality media witch hunt, whereby now you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. It is about time that Savile's money was used to protect him in a proper court of law, and not in a kangaroo court, set up at the Suns Wapping headquarters.
behave in such a distasteful way even for them.The Daily Mails readership have certainly be allowed to have their say on the papers comments pages, and the Sun is now asking their readership to strip him of his Knighthood with a disgusting petition in it's paper. This being a newspaper that has spent it's life championing the causes of the just and true? I find it disgusting how a daily newspaper can be allowed to get away with this. Whatever Savile has or has not done, is yet to be proven in a court of law, yet the media are now launching a witch hunt. I mean it is not that the Sun ever does anything underhand now is it? I mean their paper epitomises what truth is.
I am tired of this whole story now and the way the media in particular have covered this story. The accusers had enough time to have come forward, and to come forward now after in some cases 40 years without a shred of evidence, is a scandal in itself. I want to see some evidence, some kind of proof before I believe any of these stories. Now it seems that Mr Starr is also being implicated by some woman years and years after this " alleged " abuse. These people who apparently were too scared to come forward before, sure have thrown away their fear bags over the last week.
Easy in fact very easy to discredit a person, when he is stiff in his coffin. These people had their time and decided for whatever reason, to say nothing. Why the sudden urges to come forward now? I do not believe a single word on this subject, and why should I without one shred of proper evidence. Maybe this will make people who have been abused to come forward at the time, when the case can be possibly proven, and not years later when the accused cannot offer any evidence themselves.
British justice has it seemed turned on it's head, helped by a pack mentality media witch hunt, whereby now you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. It is about time that Savile's money was used to protect him in a proper court of law, and not in a kangaroo court, set up at the Suns Wapping headquarters.
Quote by star
Why the sudden urges to come forward now?
The compensation culture star
Well, I mean, ya gotta get ya mits on 'is fortune ain't ya before it's frittered away to 'is bleedin cats.
Steve has it bang on the money. Offer them all the appropriate free guidance and post trauma support available to overcome their 'grief' but I somehow think that the sound of cash tills jingling is a greater motive for going so public just now.
lets not forget ,if as it is said,why did no one come forward sooner,
ask why,in a lot of cases,esp about the church,that it took victoms a long time to deal with it,
no one knows how you would react to been abused ,till it happens to you,
as for talking about poss money involed,dont forget it starts at the top,they was a lot of money being made by every one,charitys included,
and the charge that why come forward now,poss to obtain money,
seems very very strange that they is more than one saying the same thing,
ask why all the peaple who worked with him at the time,now have nothing to say,(oh we didnt realy know him,never mixed)what a load of rubish!.the silence says it all!
of course nothing can be proved,un less some one admitts to it,not likey there!
forget about the poss money papers paying for stories,remember the police are involed,
so not just a headline,
and after all that is written,think,it could be some one in your family abused,and no one knows
except the victom
a very clever man once said,if 100,000 peaple say diff to what you say,dosnt make it true,
the truth is the truth,no matter how many say other wise,and dont like it
ask why,in a lot of cases,esp about the church,that it took victoms a long time to deal with it,
no one knows how you would react to been abused ,till it happens to you,
as for talking about poss money involed,dont forget it starts at the top,they was a lot of money being made by every one,charitys included,
and the charge that why come forward now,poss to obtain money,
seems very very strange that they is more than one saying the same thing,
ask why all the peaple who worked with him at the time,now have nothing to say,(oh we didnt realy know him,never mixed)what a load of rubish!.the silence says it all!
of course nothing can be proved,un less some one admitts to it,not likey there!
forget about the poss money papers paying for stories,remember the police are involed,
so not just a headline,
and after all that is written,think,it could be some one in your family abused,and no one knows
except the victom
a very clever man once said,if 100,000 peaple say diff to what you say,dosnt make it true,
the truth is the truth,no matter how many say other wise,and dont like it
