Owzabout That Then? The Jimmy Savile Revelations & Aftermath

[Frideswide]

So in Scotland at least, this was clearly a major story.

It still is.

 

[PeteS]

Yup, it's too much for a lot of people to process. Far easier to blame the victims, who are mostly young and/or vulnerable and can be dismissed as unreliable witnesses.

She's a slag, she threw herself at him, he doesn't know what he's talking about, she's making things up for spite, how could you say that about JIMMY!
(Or Gary or Ray or, dear God, ROLF!)

This exactly. It must be horrendously difficult to investigate allegations of historic abuse, but that doesn't mean a full investigation should not be undertaken. A lot depends on the attitude and abilities of the investigating Police officers, which I found to be sadly very lacking indeed, until a specialist team got involved but that took years! One wonders how long it took to launch an investigation into the cases of the likes of Rolf Harris. A long time I bet.

 

[Mythopoeika]

I would remind everyone that advertising in national newspapers that you could earn up to £60,000 by alleging, with some degree of credibility, that you had been interfered with forty years ago, is hardly a fine-toothed comb for establishing true numbers of possible victims.

I am simply amazed that such a scheme has ever been offered. It's an open invitation to fraudsters and charlatans.

 

[GNC]

I'll just remind everybody again that "the plural of allegation is not data".

While I am very confident that Savile probably used his fame and money to exploit people for sexual purposes, I have already pointed out elsewhere that I can't imagine that anyone in the Seventies (and later) music scene didn't. As I noted a while back here in the "Wacko Jacko" thread, luminaries like Bowie and Jagger have been demonstrated to be just as capable of such behaviour as Savile; it's possibly just that no-one has yet been prepared to run the gauntlet of their expensive libel lawyers. I foresee their fortunes remaining intact, however.

I would remind everyone that advertising in national newspapers that you could earn up to £60,000 by alleging, with some degree of credibility, that you had been interfered with forty years ago, is hardly a fine-toothed comb for establishing true numbers of possible victims. Imagine that you were suddenly wrongly accused of squeezing a lass's boob at a party in 1980: How exactly would you defend yourself? Further imagine that said lass was in line to get thousands of pounds of compo for your alleged molestation, and that several other girls at the same party thought to themselves, "This sounds like a good earner!", and added false stories that you'd twanged their bra straps or smacked their backsides. Your local newspaper gets hold of the tales, and next day your name is mud and your life as you knew it is over, because "There's no smoke without fire", and "Victims and children don't lie".

For anyone who's about to start typing furiously, I'd just remind them of one name: Carl Beech:

"Operation Midland was a British police investigation into alleged abuse, conducted by the Metropolitan Police in London from November 2014 to March 2016. The operation focused on investigation of several high-profile British citizens—politicians, military officers and heads of security—over claims of historic child sexual abuse and homicide.

The 18-month operation failed to find sufficient evidence to support the claims, and an inquiry into the police investigation afterwards concluded that the people involved had been falsely accused, leaving them dealing with considerable damage to their lives and reputations."

I would also suggest a study of the writings of the late lamented Anna Raccoon, a respected blogger. She - IIRC - attended one of the schools where Savile was supposed to have committed his depredations, and found some of the allegations to be impossible or implausible. She went on to research them in some depth, with interesting findings. Here, for example, is her pithy summary of the final court hearing in July 2016 (Osborne Clark is the legal firm acting for themselves many of the alleged victims):

"So, we now have his excellent report in today’s Sunday Times detailing the expenses incurred by the ‘legal feeding frenzy‘. I commend it to you. If you don’t happen to have a copy of the Sunday Times, I shall spell it out for you…

"The hearing on Thursday – lasting a matter of two hours, cost £61,000.

The estate has now been whittled down to £2,042,000 from £4,300,000.

Osborne Clarke have received £1,800,000.

Only 78 cases remain from the ‘hundreds of abused victims’ – the 78 are merely those where no one could disprove the claim. They said they were in ‘x’ spot in ‘y’ year when ‘z’ occurred at the hands of Jimmy Savile and there is no evidence to show that either Savile was elsewhere, or the claimant hadn’t been born yet, or the premises didn’t exist at that time, or any of the other myriad ways in which claims have been dismissed.

The lawyers, the ten different firms representing these ‘can’t be disproved’ claims will share £689,000. A poke in the eye with a sharp stick for those whose share price is dependant on a healthy ‘work in progress’ estimate….

The 78 ‘victims of alleged abuse’ will receive an average £13,000."

maximus otter

I'm not about to start clutching my pearls, because you make a very good point about liars' financial motivation damaging real cases of abuse, and though I would highlight that it's often a "he said/she said" situation and the accused can have their lives ruined because they looked a bit funny and fit some profile in the curtain twitchers' heads, the fact remains there are people like Jeffrey Epstein in the world who genuinely do carry out plenty of abuse over many years.

I am aware that the vast majority of abusers are family members or close friends, too, and the Epstein (and Savile) cases are extraordinary. So knowing how complicated this can get, and how assumptions can colour opinions over proof, what would be your solution to conducting these cases? Cut out the financial rewards? Carry out investigations in secret? Because the danger is real victims won't see any benefit in coming forward.

 

[escargot]

I had (had being the operative word) a friend a few years ago who lived in Leeds and used to see Saville out and about.

He was reluctant to say that he believed he was guilty but he was one of the type of people who blamed the girls for wearing short skirts.

That they made it easy for him or something along those lines

To say I was horrified and shocked is an understatement.

This brought back a memory of something my older sister told me. Aged about 18, she and a friend somehow ended up going for 'coffee' in a caravan with some men after a night out.
Things got a bit fraught. At one point Sis and Mate were shouting to each other 'Cross your legs! Cross your legs!'

At the time I didn't understand what she meant but I now think the men were trying to rape them. Or at least, what the girls thought was a bit of snogging had gone too far and they were out of their depth.
If they were wearing trousers they'd have been safer from assault than they were in the minidresses that were the rage at the time.

I believe a sharp exit was eventually made and lessons learned. Sis and co were probably a lot less worldly than they thought they were.

 

[PeteS]

So knowing how complicated this can get, and how assumptions can colour opinions over proof, what would be your solution to conducting these cases?

That of course is the main problem. But it should not be beyond the capabilities of well trained and experienced specialist investigators to pursue these type of allegations. In the end of course it is down to the opinions of a jury ( unless specifically directed by the judge) to call it based on how they perceive the evidence presented. In the case I got involved with, the defence barrister was much more eloquent than the CPS barrister, but even I could see that his defence gave the impression of being half hearted, which must have been apparent to the jury.
Very complex and difficult things to look at these allegations. Much more important of course but similar to Fortean type experiences - where's the evidence? Sadly, not always in abundance.

 

[escargot]

That of course is the main problem. But it should not be beyond the capabilities of well trained and experienced specialist investigators to pursue these type of allegations. In the end of course it is down to the opinions of a jury ( unless specifically directed by the judge) to call it based on how they perceive the evidence presented. In the case I got involved with, the defence barrister was much more eloquent than the CPS barrister, but even I could see that his defence gave the impression of being half hearted, which must have been apparent to the jury.
Very complex and difficult things to look at these allegations. Much more important of course but similar to Fortean type experiences - where's the evidence? Sadly, not always in abundance.

We've been over all this before. One of the convincing aspects of the testimony of victims of serial sexual offenders is that even though they don't know each other they describe almost exactly similar experiences. He will do the same things each time because they work.

Savile openly bragged of his 'Savile move' which brought him sexual success. Maybe it was like Trump's 'pussy grab' technique.

 

[maximus otter]

...what would be your solution to conducting these cases? Cut out the financial rewards? Carry out investigations in secret? Because the danger is real victims won't see any benefit in coming forward.

Way above my link on the food chain.

In response to a couple of your points, I would definitely cut out any financial incentive to dob people in, especially in sex cases, double especially in historic abuse allegations: We have seen that people are prepared to saw off their own limbs; or kidnap, drug and imprison their own kid, for financial reward; what lies would they make up regarding a non-existent minor incident 40 years ago for a chance at £60,000?

If an allegedly real victim requires payment in order to tell her story, I would question her account immediately. Can you imagine anyone saying "Billy Smith stabbed me in 1980, but I won't complain to the police until they offer to pay me."?

The only "benefit" any victim should need to see is her molester receiving condign punishment for their crimes.

maximus otter

 

[Lb8535]

Way above my link on the food chain.

In response to a couple of your points, I would definitely cut out any financial incentive to dob people in, especially in sex cases, double especially in historic abuse allegations: We have seen that people are prepared to saw off their own limbs; or kidnap, drug and imprison their own kid, for financial reward; what lies would they make up regarding a non-existent minor incident 40 years ago for a chance at £60,000?

If an allegedly real victim requires payment in order to tell her story, I would question her account immediately. Can you imagine anyone saying "Billy Smith stabbed me in 1980, but I won't complain to the police until they offer to pay me."?

The only "benefit" any victim should need to see is her molester receiving condign punishment for their crimes.

maximus otter

But many times they won't complain until they see others going after the same perpetrator, then they feel safer in a a group. You can't assume a years-old complaint is only for the money. Going through the process is very painful and many victims just don't want to until they see others going first and feel the need to speak out I don't understand this internally, but I've been told it often enough by people I know that I believe it.

 

[maximus otter]

You can't assume a years-old complaint is only for the money.

l can and will if l’m the accused’s lawyer:

Jimmy Savile groped my breasts while l was alone with him in a BBC dressing room in 1980.

ln 1980 l said nothing.
ln 1981 l said nothing.
ln 1982 l said nothing.
ln 1983 l said nothing.

Etc. etc.

ln 2014 - thirty-four years later, and with Savile dead and no chance of him getting to face me in court - l read in the national media that l can get up to £60,000, and suddenly l’m motivated to tell my story? A defence lawyer would have a field day.

Also consider that the Met found 450 alleged victims of Savile, yet even with the relaxed criteria that were used in establishing veracity, only 78 people received compo.

maximus otter

 

[Ogdred Weary]

only 78 people received compo.

The others presumably got Cleggy or Foggy.

 

[Shady]

I'm a bloke, but thank you for your kind thoughts

I am so sorry and mortified, my apologies sir, but i still want to hug you.

Food for thought, when next you kiss kitty!

Not a vermin-crunching video, for once. Love them!

Who would have thought a kitten's nostril could contain . . . what??

Oh heck, that is aweful, bet that kitty is soooo relieved now, evil bug.

Way above my link on the food chain.

In response to a couple of your points, I would definitely cut out any financial incentive to dob people in, especially in sex cases, double especially in historic abuse allegations: We have seen that people are prepared to saw off their own limbs; or kidnap, drug and imprison their own kid, for financial reward; what lies would they make up regarding a non-existent minor incident 40 years ago for a chance at £60,000?

If an allegedly real victim requires payment in order to tell her story, I would question her account immediately. Can you imagine anyone saying "Billy Smith stabbed me in 1980, but I won't complain to the police until they offer to pay me."?

The only "benefit" any victim should need to see is her molester receiving condign punishment for their crimes.

maximus otter

I am 100% with you there, if i had been a rape victim i would want to see the bastard put away so it couldn't happen to anyone else, to hell with the money, and as you say, if they immediately ask for money then that is suspect straight away, the trouble with these people is that they make it worse for the ones who have really been abused, and the poor guys who get falsely accused for said rapes have their lives ruined, i really hate those kind of women.

 

[Fanari_Lloyd]

Jimmy Saville has always been a mystery to me, as in how did he get so famous? He seemed to have nothing gong for him except a weird and recognisable way of presenting himself. He’s just not the kind of person I can see people ever flocking around, but I suppose that’s fame for you.

 

[Coastaljames]

Jimmy Saville has always been a mystery to me, as in how did he get so famous?

Because he was quite genuinely one of the most efficient psychopathic manipulators the world has ever seen. He didn't just make himself popular to audiences, he made himself popular, if not considered essential and vital, to the very top levels of the UK government and the Royal Family. I mean the guy ordered and got weekly meetings with senior policemen at his flat. They gave him the keys to Broadmoor for heck's sake!

As a kid in the 80s- whenever Saville appeared on the screen, my Dad used to grimace and groan and demand he was switched off. Absolutely hated him with a passion. We could never figure out why. Astute guy.



He also, to this day, reacts in exactly the same way when Andrew Lloyd Webber is on tv.


Just sayin'

 

[Fanari_Lloyd]

Because he was quite genuinely one of the most efficient psychopathic manipulators the world has ever seen.

He must have been!

Your father was spot-on.

Wait, what? The keys to Broadmoor?

 

[Coastaljames]

 

[Coastaljames]

The keys to Broadmoor?

Yes.

"In 1987 a minister in the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS), Lady Jean Trumpington, appointed Savile to the management board in charge of Broadmoor. He was being referred to as 'Dr Savile' by both the DHSS and Broadmoor, despite having no medical qualifications or training."

They basically gave him Broadmoor to play in.

They gave him keys to all areas that even most staff didn't have access. They give him his own living quarters. The government via Edwina Currie made it perfectly clear that he was not to questioned on any matter- what he said would go. This was from 1968 to 2004! Over a thirty years - a peverted lunatic given free rein in an...er...asylum.

 

[escargot]

View attachment 39538

Savile wore tracksuits because the trousers could be pulled down and up again quickly to expedite sexual abuse.
He probably got a kick out of seeing himself dressed like that around kids.

 

[CharmerKamelion]

Referring back to the previous posts about Jimmy Savile, who I suppose really should be in a thread called 'Strange Things That Scared You (But Were A Bloody Sight Scarier Than You Thought), it is really interesting that so many people hated the man and found him horribly creepy but he was just accepted as if he was part of the wallpaper. He used to make my skin crawl, but I still sat and watched "Jim'll Fix It" and "Top of the Pops" with the family, and somehow he just washed over me. Bizarre.

I'm sure part of it was the fact that he looked, facially, like a real-life Mr Punch. And he is another weird thing that kids are supposed to like but - you know - WTF ??

I was prompted to post on here when I tore the page off my Doctor Who desk calendar this morning to be confronted by the image below. It is an alien war machine called the Malus, and it featured in the series in 1984. I really can't help wondering if the person who designed it had an office next door to the "Jim'll Fix It" production office.....

 

[Coastaljames]

Yeah but that's scary mate

 

[CharmerKamelion]

Yeah but that's scary mate

Point taken CJ. There's good scary like the Malus. Then there's weird scary like Mr Punch. And then there's effing scary like Savile. People found him scary even though he wasn't supposed to be. And of course the truth in the end was so much scarier than anyone could have thought. And that is the scariest thing.

 

[Coastaljames]

People found him scary even though he wasn't supposed to be.

I've posted it before mate - but as a kid, if Saville came on tv, my Dad would physically recoil, grimace, left the room as quick as he could. Said he was creepy and disgusting and couldn't bear to look at him. Made us kids laugh our socks off, we thought Dad was mad because we thought Saville was great!

Worth noting - my Dad has a history of abuse as a child.

 

[escargot]

I've posted it before mate - but as a kid, if Saville came on tv, my Dad would physically recoil, grimace, left the room as quick as he could. Said he was creepy and disgusting and couldn't bear to look at him. Made us kids laugh our socks off, we thought Dad was mad because we thought Saville was great!

Worth noting - my Dad has a history of abuse as a child.

*nods* Your Dad was wise to Savile. He had sadly learned to recognise those signs, visible only to some.

 

[Coastaljames]

He had sadly learned to recognise those signs, visible only to some.

I can only conclude that, yeah.

 

[escargot]

I can only conclude that, yeah.

Bless him, no child should have to endure that.

You can tell with some people.

The late Roy Castle was just the opposite, I always thought: almost painfully wholesome!
I'd have trusted him with my kids.

Savile claimed to hate children even though his whole TV career was based around being close to them. Highly suspicious.

I wonder if your Dad picked up calming/grooming tones when Savile spoke to kids? That sets my own radar off.

 

[Coastaljames]

I wonder if your Dad picked up calming/grooming tones when Savile spoke to kids?

My dad, thankfully, never endured sexual abuse. Just a household of physical, emotional abuse and lots of cruelty. Early 60s he finally brought his first new car after years of grafting, his pride and joy. The first day her got it, his father asked if he could give it a spin, drove it down the road and crashed it straight into a wall.

After all this sort of thing I think my Dad had a very finely tuned sense for absolute bxstards. All his life.

 

[escargot]

My dad, thankfully, never endured sexual abuse. Just a household of physical, emotional abuse and lots of cruelty. Early 60s he finally brought his first new car after years of grafting, his pride and joy. The first day her got it, his father asked if he could give it a spin, drove it down the road and crashed it straight into a wall.

After all this sort of thing I think my Dad had a very finely tuned sense for absolute bxstards. All his life.

I wasn't assuming sexual abuse. Just generally bastardery to kids is bad enough; physical and mental bullying.
Though they often go hand-in-hand with the other sort of course.

(My own childhood was rather like your Dad's and it gave me a lifelong scepticism about people in general. Had to make a concerted effort to get over that and learn to trust strangers instead of expecting them to fork me over.)

 

[Coastaljames]

Had to make a concerted effort to get over that and learn to trust strangers instead of expecting them to fork me over

Well, you clearly have done an amazing job! You strike me as the epitome of a people-person!

 

[cycleboy2]

I haven't listened to this in years but I listened to it at the time and remember thinking that Jimmy Savile was clearly a strange and very, very disturbing individual: Jimmy savile In the Psychiatrist's Chair with Dr Anthony Clare.

 

[Nosmo King]

I haven't listened to this in years but I listened to it at the time and remember thinking that Jimmy Savile was clearly a strange and very, very disturbing individual: Jimmy savile In the Psychiatrist's Chair with Dr Anthony Clare.

He certainly came across as very odd on 'Louis Theroux meets...' aswell.

For anyone thats interested here is the full programme6