• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Jimmy Savile

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jimmy Savile: police officers repeatedly failed sex victims
Sir Jimmy Savile was investigated by police during a series of sex abuse inquiries spanning six decades – but each time he evaded justice.
By Robert Mendick
9:00PM BST 13 Oct 2012

Savile was first investigated by police “for interfering with young girls” when a nightclub manager in Leeds as long ago as 1958. His former bodyguard has told The Sunday Telegraph that Savile claimed to have paid officers to drop the case.

It was the first in a series of at least six investigations that included:
An inquiry into underage sex taking place in the Top of the Pops changing rooms in the late 1960s, according to the show’s then producer. Police interviewed BBC staff but did not pursue a case;

An allegation in 1971 that Savile was involved with a 15-year-old dancer on Top of the Pops, who committed suicide. The girl’s half-brother said Savile was interviewed as a witness, but no further action was taken;

Claims that Savile was abusing patients at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in the late 1970s. John Lindsay, a detective constable at the time, reported the allegations – made by a nurse – to his commanding officer but was told there was not enough evidence to proceed against a celebrity of Savile’s stature;

Two further police investigations in the past five years, including one in Surrey in 2007 over claims of an indecent assault at Duncroft Approved School for Girls. Savile was interviewed by police but the case was dropped due to lack of evidence.

In further evidence that there were widespread suspicions about Savile, Tony Blackburn, a fellow DJ and presenter, said that it was to his “eternal regret” that his former BBC colleague had been “allowed to get away with these monstrous acts”.

The revelations raise serious concerns that the BBC covered up Savile’s sex crimes at the time to protect the reputation of one of their biggest stars.
George Entwistle, the BBC’s director-general, insisted last week that the corporation could find no evidence of allegations of abuse by Savile in its files.

In his first intervention since Savile’s behaviour was made public, Blackburn, 69, told The Sunday Telegraph: “I am disgusted beyond words at the vile, despicable actions of Jimmy Savile.
“He was never a friend. He was not a nice man despite how the public viewed him at the peak of his success. There were always rumours circulating about him. The problem at the time was that rumour was always hard to translate into fact. Jimmy Savile was a master manipulator.”

Scotland Yard said yesterday that the number of likely victims had reached 60 with 340 lines of inquiry pursued by 14 forces. The NSPCC has received more than 100 complaints.
Peter Watt, the head of the NSPCC’s helpline, said: “The number of incidents reported have reached treble figures making him a hugely prolific sex offender – one of the worst I’ve ever heard of.”

et bloody cetera...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ctims.html
 
I wonder if the crest on the letter that 'wasn;t in use at that time' was in use before or after this letter was written.

Sounds like the sort of thing a temp would do, using paper with the old letterhead, forgetting reference numbers... but does it 'prove' it's a fake or just a badly drafted letter.
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
I wonder if the crest on the letter that 'wasn;t in use at that time' was in use before or after this letter was written.

Sounds like the sort of thing a temp would do, using paper with the old letterhead, forgetting reference numbers... but does it 'prove' it's a fake or just a badly drafted letter.

All valid points. I'm just trying to be totally objective as I have been critical of posters who I felt have wilfully ignored facts. It doesn't necessarily mean that the victim was responsible, although that's the tone of the DM article.
 
In law you can say what you want about the dead. They have no legal redress.

(This is why, for example, relations of the subjects of inquests are sometimes upset when reporters misrepresent the facts. The deceased daughter of an acquaintance of mine was described at her inquest as having 'drugs' in her pocket after her death, which were actually ordinary headache tablets. Her mother complained, to hear that 'we can say what we like about her as she's dead.' Sad but true.)

So we can perfectly legally speculate in the most gruesome detail imaginable about what Savile might have got up to. Our only boundaries are those of good taste.

Things're going to get worse round here! :lol:
 
Cochise said:
liveinabin1 said:
Just an aside to those people saying that they can't believe that women were treated to badly in the workplace and elsewhere back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s; don't forget that there was not such crime as rape within marriage in England until 1991.

Yes, your husband had the legal right to have sex with you regardless of your wishes as recently as that.

I know that it is off topic and not really what is being discussed but I fell that we need to understand what the general atmosphere of the time was.

I did specifically talk about public behaviour - I am well aware that there was plenty of abuse behind closed doors - and not all of it was male on female, either. There still is.

No-one had to get married in the first place in this country back then - not so now. And I doubt the brides in a certain religion are encouraged to go to the police by their community leaders if they try to refuse their husband's desire for intercourse. I do get tired of this 'golden age now, terrible then' approach - from what I can see there has been a lot of change but not a lot of net overall gain.

The point I was trying to make was how women were viewed by society at large. General sexual harassment was rife until the early 2000. Bottom pinching, lewd comments and groping were standard in a lot of work places.
 
General sexual harassment was rife until the early 2000. Bottom pinching, lewd comments and groping were standard in a lot of work places.

I'm not sure that sexual harassment of the sort you describe really was that *standard* into the noughties. Not that it never happened, but I think I'd dispute that it was really the norn up until ten years ago
 
escargot1 said:
In law you can say what you want about the dead. They have no legal redress.

She's not dead and her claims are unsubstantiated at this time. The offences are alleged to have taken place and there's a lot of talk of the BBC/hospitals/charities having been negligent and potentially open to claims against them.

That's the only reason I added it.
 
'She's' not dead? Who's that? Savile is dead so he can't be defamed.
 
'She' is the woman who says she was abused.

Perhaps I was being overly pedantic. If so, apologies.

I merely meant that there's a good chance of legal action against other bodies and individuals who are still alive (BBC/Hospitals/Charities), in which case the offence will have to be shown/proved to have been committed.

I'm not concerned about defaming a dead man. I'm just saying that she is still alleging a crime took place; a crime for which there would be legal consequences that extend beyond the claimed-perpetrator. It's looking very likely that someone will be in court soon for failing in a duty of care.
 
los_grandes_lutz said:
Simon, as you're in Jersey, could you please try and answer this question. But of course, anyone who has any information is free to comment.

Mark Williams-Thomas, who produced the documentary about JS, also (I believe) did another documentary on the island of Jersey. I saw bits of that documentary on You Tube and in it he showed two statues in a private garden, one which showed a young boy performing a sexual act on a detached male organ, and the second which he claimed showed a baby playing with itself, in a sexual manner.

Rather than knock on the house's door and demand an explanation, or get the local priest / cops/ nosey parker and asking their opinion, he did some candid filming and a lot of swearing.

The question is, do these statues exist, and do they exist as he described them? And if they do, is no one concerned about the image these give about the island?

Hi l_g_l, could you download a link from youtube. I've never heard of the statues in question, so it'll be good to see the clip so I can try and work it out where abouts it is. There's quite a lot of private houses/gardens in the north of the island and are probably walled-off, but I'll try and hazard a guess.
 
theyithian said:
I merely meant that there's a good chance of legal action against other bodies and individuals who are still alive (BBC/Hospitals/Charities), in which case the offence will have to be shown/proved to have been committed.

The action that may be taken against organisations such as the BBC by alleged victims of Savile's abuse is a claim for compensation in the civil courts.
Civil court decisions are taken on the balance of probability rather than proof beyond all reasonable doubt as in the criminal courts. People who accuse the late DJ of assaulting them are being believed. I think we'll be seeing payouts some time in the future.
 
escargot1 said:
I think we'll be seeing payouts some time in the future.

Is that what it's all about, I wonder? What with Jimmy's estate having been sold off, etc.
 
Maybe some are motivated by it, but I think it is far more likely they were sickened by how much this deviant was fawned over when they knew the ghastly truth and they need their 'closure'.
 
People who sue for damages after abuse want recognition of their pain. The money isn't really the issue. They need to know that they are believed at last. A court case can give them that.

They won't be sueing Savile's estate. They're going after the organisations for which Savile was acting as an agent when he abused them.

It's all going to get much nastier before it gets better. :shock:
 
I'm hoping the victims sre helped by being heard and believed. Hope the nasty is reserved for the guilty.
 
Oh yes, I'm sure that's how it will pan out. :D

It is encouraging that the BBC has already started apologising, when the piss is hardly dry on Savile's coffin.

The people for which the process may be less than enjoyably are those who, it is alleged, also took advantage of underage girls (and possibly boys) alongside Savile. But let us not speak of them.
 
Again, flagging up my great awareness of nothing detrimental about the living, its over isn't it? All the tedious reverence for 3rd rate talent, because we used to hear them on the radio or see them onTV in the 60s & 70s . Last week someone tweeted that they'd have to arrest the 70s, well its already been found guilty, hasn't it?
 
Simon said:
Hi l_g_l, could you download a link from youtube. I've never heard of the statues in question, so it'll be good to see the clip so I can try and work it out where abouts it is. There's quite a lot of private houses/gardens in the north of the island and are probably walled-off, but I'll try and hazard a guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq6lJsBz9UY

Or search Youtube for Sun Sea & Satan

If you skip forward around 12 and a half minutes into the video you'll see the statues for the first time. The second statue is turned around later and is then shown from the front further on in the video.
 
Only if we fall for the misdirection which this story engenders and typifies. Putting the BBC in the pillory is clearly a delight to the tabloids - despite their own less than courageous attitude to Savile and his lawyers. Lots of comment pages are taking up the refrain that the collapse of civilization as we know it can be traced back to the liberal socialist seventies.

That is pure ideology. The same people would have you believe that education at that time was run along Maoist-Leninist lines! Not as those who survived it remember! Show-biz may have been becoming decidedly weird and bendy but it was a scene quite at odds with the general conservatism of life as experienced on a daily basis. It was NOT normal for women to be groped in Britain - I can well recall the shock and horror that such behaviour caused when women encountered it on foreign holidays.

There was gross sexism and gender inequality but Seventies Woman was a lot more likely to be abused at home than in the workplace - nothing to be proud of there! but the collapse in standards of public behaviour is a lot more recent.
 
Clearly any oaf citing the permissiveness of the 60s has to be hit with the fact that JS was active in the 'decent' 50s and that most moral of times, Victorian, gave us adult street prostitutes dressed as children. Regarding Beeb bashing, its so complex as the senior management clearly deserve a year zero removal of authority, but the poor downtrodden workers deserve our support.
 
Jimmy Savile: Former BBC Trust chairman criticises 'hysteria'
The BBC has been the victim of “hysteria” over the Jimmy Savile scandal, according to a former head of its governing body, as the number of girls abused by the disgraced presenter approached 100.
By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor
3:55PM BST 14 Oct 2012

Sir Michael Lyons said the child sex abuse committed by the late TV and radio star, which is now feared to have gone on for six decades without anyone stopping it, was a problem for a larger number of institutions than just the BBC.

He said he would be “surprised” if Newsnight had dropped a planned expose of Savile after his death because of pressure from on high, and insisted that the new Director-General of the corporation had been “pretty well faultless” in his handling of the growing furore.

His comments came as Mark Williams-Thomas, the criminologist who worked on the ITV documentary that disclosed the first victims’ testimony, predicted: “By next week the number of allegations of child sexual abuse against [Savile] will be into three figures. I am continuing to receive info.”

At the weekend Scotland Yard, which is collating reports from 14 other police forces around Britain, said there were already 60 likely victims with allegations spanning six decades from 1959 to 2006, and is pursuing 340 lines of inquiry.

Gwent Police became the latest force to receive a report of historic abuse by Savile. A woman said the star had attacked her in the 1970s, when she was 16.

A Welsh singer, Meic Stevens, said that the DJ and Top of the Pops presenter did not hide the fact that he preyed on underage girls, and Savile had asked him “do you want one” as they travelled in his Rolls-Royce.
He said he never reported his behaviour as it was “rife” among pop stars in the 1960s, but that he considered Savile “a dirty old man”.

Derek Chinnery, the Controller of Radio 1 between 1978 and 1985, admitted that he did challenge Savile directly about the rumours.
He told BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House: “I asked, 'what's all this, these rumours we hear about you Jimmy?'
“And he said, 'that's all nonsense'. There was no reason to disbelieve him.”

But Sir Michael, who was chairman of the BBC Trust between 2007 and last year, told Sky News’s Murnaghan programme that the scandal extended well beyond the public service broadcaster.
As well as abusing girls in his dressing room at Television Centre, Savile used his position as a celebrity and charity fundraiser to find victims in NHS hospitals, children’s homes and approved schools.

Sir Michael said: “There is no doubt about the seriousness of the allegations against Jimmy Savile and they need to be taken seriously and quite properly.
“It clearly has consequences for the BBC but frankly I think the consequences spread well beyond the BBC.
“There may well be lessons here to learn about the way that we tolerate the behaviour of predatory men, particularly when they are in powerful positions and there may be lessons to learn, I’m sure there are, about the licence that we sometimes collectively allow to celebrities.”

He said he understood why there would be an “intense focus” on the “national broadcaster” but added: “As you know there is a degree of hysteria in the extent to which it is focused exclusively on the BBC rather than being seen as something of much wider consequence.

Sir Michael said he would be surprised if it transpired that BBC2's Newsnight had scrapped its investigation into Savile because another arm of the corporation was planning a tribute after he died age 84 last year.

But Sir Michael added: "If somebody intervened to stop it because it would be an embarrassment at the time that they were promoting an entertainment programme on Savile, that would be I think offensive and I am sure there will be actions following up on that."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... teria.html
 
JamesWhitehead said:
Only if we fall for the misdirection which this story engenders and typifies. Putting the BBC in the pillory is clearly a delight to the tabloids - despite their own less than courageous attitude to Savile and his lawyers. Lots of comment pages are taking up the refrain that the collapse of civilization as we know it can be traced back to the liberal socialist seventies.

That is pure ideology. The same people would have you believe that education at that time was run along Maoist-Leninist lines! Not as those who survived it remember! Show-biz may have been becoming decidedly weird and bendy but it was a scene quite at odds with the general conservatism of life as experienced on a daily basis. It was NOT normal for women to be groped in Britain - I can well recall the shock and horror that such behaviour caused when women encountered it on foreign holidays.

There was gross sexism and gender inequality but Seventies Woman was a lot more likely to be abused at home than in the workplace - nothing to be proud of there! but the collapse in standards of public behaviour is a lot more recent.

Yes. There seems to be a lot of rewriting history going on about the 70's - whatever was going on on't telly, the day to day experience even in the south east was more like the 50's than it was like the 90's. And visiting my relatives in the north west wasn't _like_ the 50's - it basically still _was_ the 50's! Huge amounts of change seemed to kick in with a rush from about 1977 on.
 
los_grandes_lutz said:
Simon said:
Hi l_g_l, could you download a link from youtube. I've never heard of the statues in question, so it'll be good to see the clip so I can try and work it out where abouts it is. There's quite a lot of private houses/gardens in the north of the island and are probably walled-off, but I'll try and hazard a guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq6lJsBz9UY

Or search Youtube for Sun Sea & Satan

If you skip forward around 12 and a half minutes into the video you'll see the statues for the first time. The second statue is turned around later and is then shown from the front further on in the video.
Having watched the bit in question,I have to say, from what I could see on YouTube, Bill Maloney, the documentary maker's interpretation of some rather kitsch garden statuary was open to interpretation. The little boy statue was blowing something, no idea what, though. A ram's horn, bubbles? It all looked like rather bad taste, bog standard, garden ornaments, artlessly arranged. Maloney saw signs of Satanic rituals and symbolism.

This documentary goes deep into Icke territory with theories that Jersey's Institutions were a source of ritual human sacrifices, to supply the needs of the British Establishment and Royal Family. Nonetheless, the archive footage of the Haut de la Garenne inquiry, remains contradictory and disturbing.
 
escargot1 said:
There'll be a slew of Poptastic Paedo tabloid stories before the year is out, I can feel it in me bones. :lol:

Curiously, and this is just me, although I also hate Dave Lee Travis along with the late Messrs Savile and Peel, I don't feel that he is a pervy.
Just a thought.
Be careful what you wish for.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...laim-BBC-women-sex-abuse-scandal-deepens.html

'Dave Lee Travis jiggled my breasts live on air': Sky News presenter claims DJ groped her in Radio 4 studio when she was on BBC apprenticeship

Daily Mail. By Sam Greenhill and Eleanor Harding. 14 October 2012, updated 15 October 2012

The BBC sex abuse scandal deepened last night after two former employees claimed former Radio 1 star Dave Lee Travis groped them in the corporation’s studios.

One of the women, who was just 17 at the time, claims that the DJ put his hand up her skirt in 1977.

The other, Vivien Creegor – who went on to become a presenter on Sky News – has claimed Travis ‘jiggled her breasts’ when she was live on Radio 4 in the 1980s.

The unnamed woman has already given a statement to police while Miss Creegor has said she will be making a complaint to the BBC’s director-general George Entwistle.

The allegations come after the corporation announced on Friday that it was launching an inquiry – separate to the Sir Jimmy Savile investigation – into the BBC’s ‘culture’ at the time.

It follows allegations by presenters, including Liz Kershaw and Sandi Toksvig, that they were routinely groped by male colleagues.

Travis, who hosted the Radio 1 Breakfast Show from 1978 to 1980, yesterday said in a statement: ‘I categorically deny that there is any substance in either allegation and I’m genuinely surprised that allegations of this nature have been made. I totally refute any impropriety.’

Miss Creegor yesterday said she was a Radio 4 newsreader at Broadcasting House, in Portland Place, when the alleged incident took place.

The 55-year-old said: ‘I was sitting in the Radio 4 studio, which at the time backed on to the studio where Dave did his show. I could see him coming into the studio.

‘I indicated to him to sit down but... as I went to speak his hands clamped down on my boobs over my jumper and moved them around. I didn’t have a choice. I couldn’t say anything to him because I had to finish my [Woman’s Hour] announcement. When I had, he sat down and started talking as if nothing had happened.’

Miss Creegor, who lives in Hampstead, North London, with her husband, said she was too scared to speak up at the time for fear of ‘rocking the boat’. ‘I was in my early twenties and I was on an apprenticeship with the BBC, and I didn’t want to report a huge star like Dave Lee Travis,’ she added.

‘No woman who valued her career would have been happy to put her name down on a harassment claim.

‘You could say I was cowardly but, when I told someone, they just laughed it off and thought it was funny – that was the climate at the BBC at the time.’

The second woman – who has not waived her right to anonymity – says Travis put his hand down her skirt in 1977.

Sussex Police confirmed she made a statement on Saturday. She has also complained to the BBC.

The woman said Travis groped her after inviting her into his studio to help him select the next music track.

‘I went in. He turned off the lights so the technical operator couldn’t see what he was doing through the glass.

‘He started grinding his groin into me. I didn’t know what was happening. I was still a virgin and I didn’t like it.

‘He held me tighter and put his hand up my skirt and ... in to my knickers.

‘That’s when I pulled away and ran out of the door. Afterwards, I felt embarrassed and dirty. ‘I went back to the technical operator and said: “You won’t believe what he’s just done”.’

‘The operator said, jokingly: “I thought you were being a bit brave going in there”.’


After interviewing Travis earlier this year, Sunday Times reporter Camilla Long described how ‘I don’t think there was a part of my body he did not grope’.

She added: ‘He fondled my foot, inched his hands up my thighs, tried to make me sit on his lap and kissed me.’

The BBC said: ‘We are not able to comment on individual names but where allegations are made they will be passed on to the BBC Investigations Unit or police.’
Emphasis mine

I like the way the Mail says that the, 'BBC sex abuse scandal deepened last night', considering what Savile has been accused of, I think they actually mean, 'widened'.

Travis strenuously denies the allegations.
 
That's interesting! But not surprising. :lol:

I disliked Travis precisely because he seemed likely to be the sort who'd bully and grope women. I worked with men like that and recognised the type. I didn't think he was into underage kids though, unlike the others we've heard mention of, and there's no suggestion that he is.

Hadn't mentioned my suspicions about him in detail because I didn't want the mods to warn me about blackening the names of living people, but I s'pose it's now OK to jump on the bandwagon! ;)

This had just popped up in my memory.
Wiggly lines...

Decades ago in my first job one of the senior staff members, seeing that we were alone, came out with a string of lewd suggestions. I told the first female staff member I saw what he'd said. A few days later, he asked me 'Why did you tell Mrs X that I was going to have you over the table?'
He looked proper crestfallen! Perhaps I'd unwittingly told his wife's best friend. :lol:

I replied, well, you said it to ME first! And you're married!

He never bothered me again. Perhaps you have to tell the right person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top