Owzabout That Then? The Jimmy Savile Revelations & Aftermath

[OneWingedBird]

I always felt that the story suddenly went quiet. Is there a thread on it?

the teeth were the most bizarre part of the story, it's never been explained what around 50 teeth were doing there or that they turned out to be anything other than teeth... they were just not mentioned again.

 

[WhistlingJack]

As a criminal investigation has now been officially launched, all Savile threads will be locked as a precaution.

 

[stu neville]

Following discussion with the eds, it's been agreed that we can reopen the Savile threads.

However, given the potential legal minefield it could throw up, they have to be moderated very closely and carefully. As a result, posts within these threads may be removed or edited, and threads may be closed with no warning. I am taking responsibility for these decisions, so if you do have issues or wish to complain, please direct them to me. I would ask that all posters please think carefully about how they post on this issue.

I understand this is frustrating, but the mag has no appetite for potential litigation, so this is the only way we can reopen the discussions.

 

[DrRic55]

He was apparently a member of Mensa, and if there is one thing that stands out among this mess, its that the guy was clever.

He - allegedly - played off everyone who might have put a stop to his sick activities, the press, his bosses and the police. This was done with either a very lucky or borderline genius mixture of connections, status and charity work. It seems to me he had a plan to get away with this for as long as possible, and commit as many offences as possible.

Going back to a previous comment, I doubt he would have been involved in a paedophile ring as such. He was a loner and didn't want to get caught. More people involved = more risk of detection.

There is the situation of the other 2 people in the dressing room though - both commonly named, but I won't repeat it here. And an old sidekick/assistant (now in jail for paedophilia) said he did things with Jimmy and girls.

So, it depends what you call a "paedophile ring". I can see it coming out that some other famous names may have had "fun" with a girl in his caravan or something similar. Thats not the same as an organised group in my mind, but arguing about when opportunisitc abuse becomes an organised ring seems tasteless given the subject matter.

I bet there is more to come out on this yet though, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few more famous faces are sweating waiting on the next revelation.

 

[Cherrybomb]

I agree, the guy was smart. Hiding in plain sight I think is the term best suited to him. Also, why did he live in a caravan?

 

[rynner2]

Also, why did he live in a caravan?

I think he had several homes. The caravan was just his passion-wagon.

 

[Yithian]

He - allegedly - played off everyone who might have put a stop to his sick activities, the press, his bosses and the police. This was done with either a very lucky or borderline genius mixture of connections, status and charity work. It seems to me he had a plan to get away with this for as long as possible, and commit as many offences as possible.

This is the one angle I keep hearing: the charity work was all conducted as a front and a means of accessing victims.

That is, of course, quite possible.

But, is it not also possible that the charity work was undertaken in an honest spirit, or as some form of twisted atonement? One wonders which came first, the urges or the charity? I mean to say that although it looks as if the man did indeed commit some acts of true evil, he may also have been capable of roughly contemporaneous acts of good. That's a quirk of humanity. Hitler loved his dog, etc.

It all remains to be seen.

 

[escargot]

No, I think it was all done to get close to possible victims. If it hadn't been he'd have turned down the free accommodation.

 

[Sogna]

Dear God, some scarey comments on this thread, not sure who's worse, the one who thinks that an accused person has to prove they didn't do something, in the absence of evidence proving the charge, or the other one who thinks that the amount of complaints made guarantees veracity.

This reminds me of nothing else so much as the satanic abuse hysteria a few years ago, think how many accusations were made, and how many convictions in the UK resulted from them?

 

[Ringo]

But, is it not also possible that the charity work was undertaken in an honest spirit, or as some form of twisted atonement?

I find that a very interesting point. A guilty conscience looking for a reprisal. His marathon running for charity and donating thousands of pounds a year to medical research may have been a self-inflicted punishment.

 

[rynner2]

This reminds me of nothing else so much as the satanic abuse hysteria a few years ago, think how many accusations were made, and how many convictions in the UK resulted from them?

A different animal, I believe.
Alleged Satanic abuse involved multiple, anonymous abusers.

But in the case of JS, the focus is on JS himself.
But the rozzers are finally on the case, and they seem pretty sure they've now got a case.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

This reminds me of nothing else so much as the satanic abuse hysteria a few years ago, think how many accusations were made, and how many convictions in the UK resulted from them?

This seems quite different. Of the people coming forward with claims of being abused, very few appear to be being coaxed, or to have signs of abuse inferred from their behaviour. They seem to be quite certain of what happened to them, even if it was some considerable time ago. Then there are the incidental witnesses, quite often workers in the institutions Savile visited, or work colleagues at the BBC, who are now coming forward with eye witness accounts of Savile caught in the act with his under-age victims.

Are they all lying, or deluded? Have they been badgered by partisan researchers with a narrow list of signs of abuse? Or, are they all suffering from 'false memory syndrome'?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

But, is it not also possible that the charity work was undertaken in an honest spirit, or as some form of twisted atonement?

I find that a very interesting point. A guilty conscience looking for a reprisal. His marathon running for charity and donating thousands of pounds a year to medical research may have been a self-inflicted punishment.

Or, it could have been a sort of self justification. Savile balancing his good works, against his perverted crimes. As if one side might cancel out the other. The fact that that good works gave him access to his victims might possible then be seen as a sort of lucky bonus.

If it wasn't for the fact that some of his 'good works', such as his voluntary work hospital portering, seem to have been carried out specifically with the intent of gaining access to his prey.

 

[Sogna]

This reminds me of nothing else so much as the satanic abuse hysteria a few years ago, think how many accusations were made, and how many convictions in the UK resulted from them?

A different animal, I believe.
Alleged Satanic abuse involved multiple, anonymous abusers.

But in the case of JS, the focus is on JS himself.
But the rozzers are finally on the case, and they seem pretty sure they've now got a case.

Speak of the Devil, Prof La Fontaine's report on the panic deals with very specific accusations, so your belief appears to be mistaken.

A case with what end in view, exactly?

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

Please tell me that was Brass Eye and not really Panorama.

 

[Sogna]

...

This reminds me of nothing else so much as the satanic abuse hysteria a few years ago, think how many accusations were made, and how many convictions in the UK resulted from them?

This seems quite different. Of the people coming forward with claims of being abused, very few appear to be being coaxed, or to have signs of abuse inferred from their behaviour. They seem to be quite certain of what happened to them, even if it was some considerable time ago. Then there are the incidental witnesses, quite often workers in the institutions Savile visited, or work colleagues at the BBC, who are now coming forward with eye witness accounts of Savile caught in the act with his under-age victims.

Are they all lying, or deluded? Have they been badgered by partisan researchers with a narrow list of signs of abuse? Or, are they all suffering from 'false memory syndrome'?

I don't know if they are telling the truth, and neither do you. The matter will never be subject to a trial because Jimmy Saville is dead, I think that is a relevant point when viewing the huge amount of accusations that are being made, none of which have been examined in a court of law.

It reminds me of the satanic abuse hysteria because of the sheer volume of accusations and the scope of them, I'll wait and see how many stand up to examination before I reach a conclusion.

 

[GNC]

Please tell me that was Brass Eye and not really Panorama.

Didn't watch it, but was it that bad? I suppose it doesn't matter now if Sir Jim'll was innocent or not, his name is now mud.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

I don't know if they are telling the truth, and neither do you. The matter will never be subject to a trial because Jimmy Saville is dead, I think that is a relevant point when viewing the huge amount of accusations that are being made, none of which have been examined in a court of law.

It reminds me of the satanic abuse hysteria because of the sheer volume of accusations and the scope of them, I'll wait and see how many stand up to examination before I reach a conclusion.

The main difference between the accusations in the Satanaic Ritual Abuse panic of a few years back and the present Savile abuse case is that, in the Satanic Ritual Abuse cases, the accusers were not the so much under-age victims as the researchers claiming to have uncovered the signs of ritual abuse, who spent many hours, days, weeks and months, interrogating the alleged victims, who had been separated from their families and put into care in the process, until they had built up the accusations to reflect what they believed to be the case and made them fit.

The 'hysteria' in that case was mostly that of the evangelically minded researchers, rather than that of the alleged victims.

In the Savile Abuse case, alleged victims and witnesses are coming forward of their own volition. In several cases, when they originally made their accusations, several years back, or more, they were either not believed, or the various authorities, for one reason, or another, decided not to act upon them.

The several abandoned cases are a matter of public record.

 

[balding13]

I can only question the agenda or motives of what seems like a pathological insistence on innocence. The kindest inference is trolling.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I can only question the agenda or motives of what seems like a pathological insistence on innocence. The kindest inference is trolling.

That's going far too far.

I can well understand why some people will still find this whole business very hard to believe. It goes completely against the National narrative, for one thing and blows a sizable hole in many people's consensus view of reality.

 

[GNC]

More caution than trolling, I think. These are massively serious allegations, and are dragging in more careers daily.

 

[balding13]

More caution than trolling, I think. These are massively serious allegations, and are dragging in more careers daily.

Certainly with any living suspects, but not with any who have already been convicted or JS.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Anyway, I, or the other Mods have instructions to close these Savile related threads, at the first sign of any problems.

When John Simpson says that he thinks that this might be the most serious crisis that the BBC has faced in fifty years, then I am inclined to believe him. And, it's not just the BBC. Serious enough.

So, mind how you go.

P_M

 

[sherbetbizarre]

What was their big crisis 50 years ago?

Or is that just a nice round figure?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

What was their big crisis 50 years ago?

Or is that just a nice round figure?

John Simpson has been working at the BBC for almost fifty years, it's those fifty years he's talking about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/22/jimmy-savile-row-bbcs-biggest-crisis

....

As the scandal threatens to spread to the very top of the corporation, some of its most senior staff have criticised the way the BBC has handled it. The veteran foreign affairs editor John Simpson in particular has warned that "all we have as an organisation is the trust of the people that watch us and listen to us, and if we don't have that … that's very dangerous." The episode, he said, amounts to "the worst crisis that I can remember in my nearly 50 years at the BBC".

...

 

[sherbetbizarre]

Ah, gotcha

 

[garrick92]

BBC’s lawyers blocked emails on decision to drop Newsnight expose

One of the emails sent by Ms MacKean that did feature on Panorama made clear that Peter Rippon, the Newsnight editor, felt his superiors were not happy with his programme’s investigation of Savile.

That email, dated Nov 30, was sent on the same day Mr Rippon was starting to doubt whether the investigation should be broadcast. It said: “PR [Peter Rippon] says if the bosses aren’t happy .?.?. [he] can’t go to the wall on this one.”

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that Ms MacKean sent three other emails expressing further concerns about management interference to the same person. All were censored by Panorama’s lawyers.

http://tinyurl.com/946o3pe

 

[garrick92]

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that a series of emails sent by the BBC reporter Liz MacKean to an unnamed friend were blocked from featuring in a Panorama investigation into the BBC’s treatment of the scandal, which was broadcast last night.

http://tinyurl.com/946o3pe

 

[stu neville]

Multiple identical posts (tech forum fault, not Garrick's!) deleted.

Garrick - have PMd you. Nothing bad, but would appreciate your input.

I'll say what I said on the other Savile thread. The weight of anecdotal evidence, coupled with the way the Police etc are treating it, means that we can discuss Savile, and Savile alone, with a presumption of guilt. However, any other names which get dragged in to this must be treated with the utmost care, and we will edit / delete posts which could in any way place us on the wrong side of the libel line.

I am responsible for these threads, so if you have any queries, etc please direct them to me, via PM or on thread and I will answer. Pietro and Jack are doing exactly as they've been asked. The whys and wherefores are my problem.

 

[Cochise]

I can only question the agenda or motives of what seems like a pathological insistence on innocence. The kindest inference is trolling.

That's going far too far.

I can well understand why some people will still find this whole business very hard to believe. It goes completely against the National narrative, for one thing and blows a sizable hole in many people's consensus view of reality.

I wonder if ordinary people will actually be able to take it in? I sometimes feel (with this on top of Hillsborough, which I'm still shocked about) we are staring at a yawning precipice where everything we grew up with turns out to be a sinister deception. Isn't there a risk that the 'consensus' looks over that precipice and decides to turn back?