Owzabout That Then? The Jimmy Savile Revelations & Aftermath

[Quake42]

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 don't think it does go against any "national narrative". Many people alwasy found Savile a creepy weirdo and many suspected he may have had an unhealthy interest in underage girls (and manybe boys). The extent and nature of some of the revelations certainly is shocking, but it wasn't like Savile was considered a saintly innocent before them.

As for the parallels with SRA: they're clearly very different cases but the Crucible like hysteria of some on this board and elsewhere - impugning anyone who expresses even mild scepticism at some of the most outlandish claims as trolls or worse - does put one in mind of that period.

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

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.

There was a LOT of mournful strings, slow-mo footage....clips of JS from TV shows, then freezing on him as he looks into camera, on the creepiest expression possible.

No complaints about the content, it was what it was - a BBC show being deliberately scathing about the BBC, intended as some sort of apology I assume.

I'm just sure Chris Morris had a hand in the presentation.

 

[escargot]

He wasn't the only one who had a hand in it. :hmm:

 

[Kellydandodi]

Savile clearly wasn't going to be fully investigated until all those upper eschelon celebrities, aristocrats and politicians he pimped for, performed rituals with and knew secrets about had cleaned their closets and got a thousand mile head start on any investigation - which is why he would never have been stood in the dock if alive and why it took a year after his passing to become mainstream news. Paul Burrel style royal intervention would have been the order of the day in court I feel.

Savile frequently visited Haute Le Grange but he also frequently visited Orkney - lending wait to those if us who maintain that Orkney was no Cleveland and should be reopened.

I find it amusing that there are some who still blithely discount the work of Tony Gosling, David Icke and Michael Tsarion - all who knew of and published accounts of Savile's nefarious connections and theocratic/political/media and militant networking.

Ho, hum, I'm a tinfoil hatter, etc... bring it on.

 

[DrRic55]

David Icke believes in lizard men, and that the moon is fake. :?

If he got something right its hard to blame people for not picking up on it.

Even now, a lot of what Icke says is unproven/unproveable. Other than the Saville connection being humiliating for Prince Charles, there is no sign HRH was involved in a cover up. And so far - thank god - there is no evidence emerging about the "other" sexual rumours about Saville, which Icke put about.


The question of how he got away with it though is a fair one. That noted article of reasoned thought the Daily Mail had all the commenters blaming the Masons. :shock:

 

[OneWingedBird]

for one thing and blows a sizable hole in many people's consensus view of reality.

I think it could end up being a very important case if only for challenging ideas about what is credible in the wonderful world of noncing... for the audacity of some of the things he's alleged to have done, the level of the cover up and the sheer amount of time it was kept quiet for.

Probably we're still looking at collusion rather than conspiracy per se.

 

[Sogna]

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

Is this convoluted sentence aimed at me?

I see what you did there, anyone who thinks that there should be a proper consideration of the evidence before a conclusion is reached is either willfully refusing to accept what everyone else thinks, or is has some nefarious reason for thinking that. Disappointingly, neither things are true, it's a dull belief that you examine every accusation carefully and don't get carried away on a wave of moral panic.

 

[Sogna]

...

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.

As I said, the comparison is that there was copious amounts of "evidence" that led nowhere.

In Jimmy Savile's case several cases were abandoned, because the evidence was considered insufficient. His death doesn't change the facts of those cases but it does change the legal need to support any accusations, they can't be examined in court and they can't be considered libellous, to my mind that means they shouldn't be accepted without some scrutiny at least.

 

[DrRic55]

As I said, the comparison is that there was copious amounts of "evidence" that led nowhere.

In Jimmy Savile's case several cases were abandoned, because the evidence was considered insufficient. His death doesn't change the facts of those cases but it does change the legal need to support any accusations, they can't be examined in court and they can't be considered libellous, to my mind that means they shouldn't be accepted without some scrutiny at least.

Which of the 200 witnesses evidence do you want to start scrutinising?

Three points:

- Many of the victims were physically and mentally ill children, and some are similarly unwell adults (and now abuse victims). Much of the reason it didn't come to court was the fact they might not be up to the testimony and examination, particularly because...
- Saville employed the very, very best lawyers. This is a matter of record.
- Saville being exposed doesn't fit any conventional conspiracy narrative. He was as establishment as it gets. Who gains now? Particularly, the non-abused witnesses, they can't claim damages, what's in it for them?


I genuinely admire anyone who stands up for the creed of "innocent until proven guilty". There comes a point however when common sense has to trump the fact this man can never be "officially" guilty of anything.

 

[Yithian]

You want big conspiracy and paedo-rings, then so be it:

Paedophile link to No 10?

Labour MP Tom Watson has urged the police to investigate a paedophile ring with possible links to "a senior aide of a former prime minister".

Mr Watson set the cat among the pigeons in the House of Commons today with a surprise intervention at Prime Minister's Questions.

He said: "The evidence file used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring. One of its members boasts of its links to a senior aide of a former Prime minister who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.

"The leads were not followed up but if the file still exists, I want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police secure the evidence, re-examine it, and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and Number 10."

Mr Cameron said: "I'm not entirely sure which former Prime Minister he's referring to but what I'd like to do is look very carefully in Hansard at the allegations he's raised."

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/30287/

I have no idea if this is the same story that has been floating around for years about events 'north of the border' and said to extend to free masons and someone with North Atlantic connections...

edit: No, it's a fresh one. And apparently the senior aide was from the Heath/Thatcher era - according to Patrick 'O Flynn at the Mirror.
Edit: Could it be this:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 153409.ece

 

[balding13]

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

Is this convoluted sentence aimed at me?

I see what you did there, anyone who thinks that there should be a proper consideration of the evidence before a conclusion is reached is either willfully refusing to accept what everyone else thinks, or is has some nefarious reason for thinking that. Disappointingly, neither things are true, it's a dull belief that you examine every accusation carefully and don't get carried away on a wave of moral panic.

Yes, you directly and anyone else who ignores that JS TOLD us, by his words and actions. Please read the posts where this is listed if you have missed them. When he spoke and behaved as he did, the enablers said he was joking and the press did nothing due to libel laws. Please explain why he PRETENDED to like young girls, as this is the only way you could maintain his innocence. Do you think the filmed behaviour with Coleen Nolan is normal?

 

[balding13]

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

Is this convoluted sentence aimed at me?

I see what you did there, anyone who thinks that there should be a proper consideration of the evidence before a conclusion is reached is either willfully refusing to accept what everyone else thinks, or is has some nefarious reason for thinking that. Disappointingly, neither things are true, it's a dull belief that you examine every accusation carefully and don't get carried away on a wave of moral panic.

Yes, you directly and anyone else who ignores that JS TOLD us, by his words and actions. Please read the posts where this is listed if you have missed them. When he spoke and behaved as he did, the enablers said he was joking and the press did nothing due to libel laws. Please explain why he PRETENDED to like young girls, as this is the only way you could maintain his innocence. Do you think the filmed behaviour with Coleen Nolan is normal?

 

[escargot]

Whoah, go Balding!

This is all true. Savile told us himself, over and over, about his penchant for underage girls, and lots of victims and witnesses have now stepped forward to tell us what went on when he got them alone.
(Or even in small groups - he was really that confident.) So it's time to accept that these people are trustworthy when they talk about what he did to them.

 

[escargot]

One of the reasons that people are disbelieved is that they have never approached the police or told anyone else. Why haven't they disclosed this awful experience? Are they in fact making it up?

I heard on the news at lunchtime today that his last week, helplines and charities that counsel adult victims of child abuse - people who were abused years or even decades ago - have been swamped with calls. People are beginning to believe that they will be taken seriously at last.

There might be some surprising news stories in the coming weeks and months.

 

[rynner2]

People are beginning to believe that they will be taken seriously at last.

I made a post about that on t'other thread this morning.

(I think I'll suggest the two threads are merged - oh, I have already done that... more than once... )

 

[Sogna]

As I said, the comparison is that there was copious amounts of "evidence" that led nowhere.

In Jimmy Savile's case several cases were abandoned, because the evidence was considered insufficient. His death doesn't change the facts of those cases but it does change the legal need to support any accusations, they can't be examined in court and they can't be considered libellous, to my mind that means they shouldn't be accepted without some scrutiny at least.

Which of the 200 witnesses evidence do you want to start scrutinising?

Three points:

- Many of the victims were physically and mentally ill children, and some are similarly unwell adults (and now abuse victims). Much of the reason it didn't come to court was the fact they might not be up to the testimony and examination, particularly because...
- Saville employed the very, very best lawyers. This is a matter of record.
- Saville being exposed doesn't fit any conventional conspiracy narrative. He was as establishment as it gets. Who gains now? Particularly, the non-abused witnesses, they can't claim damages, what's in it for them?


I genuinely admire anyone who stands up for the creed of "innocent until proven guilty". There comes a point however when common sense has to trump the fact this man can never be "officially" guilty of anything.

He's dead, he can't be tried, the accusations against him can't be tested in a court of law. Your common sense opinion comes from what you have read in the papers, not a full and complete consideration of the evidence. You might not be very comfortable with it but the fact is that nothing was proved against him while he was alive and that's the test in this country.

The idea of guilty until proved innocent that you profess to admire applies to everyone, no matter how unattractive they are personally. If you start compromising that idea then you are on very dangerous ground, apparently the investigation has widened, so presumably you are in favour of anyone charged in connection with that to be convicted without a trial?

 

[Sogna]

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

Is this convoluted sentence aimed at me?

I see what you did there, anyone who thinks that there should be a proper consideration of the evidence before a conclusion is reached is either willfully refusing to accept what everyone else thinks, or is has some nefarious reason for thinking that. Disappointingly, neither things are true, it's a dull belief that you examine every accusation carefully and don't get carried away on a wave of moral panic.

Yes, you directly and anyone else who ignores that JS TOLD us, by his words and actions. Please read the posts where this is listed if you have missed them. When he spoke and behaved as he did, the enablers said he was joking and the press did nothing due to libel laws. Please explain why he PRETENDED to like young girls, as this is the only way you could maintain his innocence. Do you think the filmed behaviour with Coleen Nolan is normal?

Stop getting both feet in one knicker leg of your social justice warrior costume, try reading what I have written and understanding it, then, please, feel free to address me. Perhaps by then you will grasp the concept of considering evidence, testing it and reaching a conclusion based on it. Tedious, more complicated and less populist than a pose of moral indignation but there we are.

All the evidence you quote was available when the man was alive, but no action was ever taken. To me this indicates that it should be viewed with particular care now that he's dead and it can't be tested as rigorously as it would have been in a court of law. People can hold different views to you for legitimate reasons, if you want to change my mind, address the points I raise, otherwise, don't waste my time.

 

[Quake42]

I think the evidence against Savile - not least from his autobiography and interviews - is strong enough to say with some confidence that he was guilty of serious offences against children.

Where I am far less comfortable - and where shades of both the Crucible and the SRA panic are clearly visible - is the logic which states that because there is truth in some at least of the allegations against Savile it follows that all such allegations should be believed, regardless of their credibility, and that rumour, hearsay and whispering campaigns are valid substitutes for actual evidence.

What makes this logic especially pernicious is the accompanying argument - which we have seen on this thread -that anyone who is reluctant to condemn people they have never me on he basis of unsubstantiated claims and rumours is deluded, an "enabler" or worse.

 

[balding13]

Stop getting both feet in one knicker leg of your social justice warrior costume, try reading what I have written and understanding it, then, please, feel free to address me. quote

You're a troll or worse. That's why you can't answer me and just offer insults.

 

[garrick92]

What makes this logic especially pernicious is the accompanying argument - which we have seen on this thread -that anyone who is reluctant to condemn people they have never me on he basis of unsubstantiated claims and rumours is deluded, an "enabler" or worse.

[politehat]

Have such suggestions really been made on this thread? Admittedly, I have only just read up to date, but I don't recognise this claim. Which isn't to say that I am correct.

[/politehat]

 

[Cochise]

I think the evidence against Savile - not least from his autobiography and interviews - is strong enough to say with some confidence that he was guilty of serious offences against children.

Where I am far less comfortable - and where shades of both the Crucible and the SRA panic are clearly visible - is the logic which states that because there is truth in some at least of the allegations against Savile it follows that all such allegations should be believed, regardless of their credibility, and that rumour, hearsay and whispering campaigns are valid substitutes for actual evidence.

What makes this logic especially pernicious is the accompanying argument - which we have seen on this thread -that anyone who is reluctant to condemn people they have never me on he basis of unsubstantiated claims and rumours is deluded, an "enabler" or worse.

Savile being dead actually makes it worse all round. Because he can't be tried it is going to be very difficult to establish the truth of what he did or any of the background (think Fred West and Shipman). I suspect that whatever the investigations come up with will not help all that much, either to restore trust in the various institutions or to calm the wilder conspiracy theories.

And although I'm definitely in the 'innocent until probed guilty' camp, simply using the new, albeit untested, evidence to change our perception of things said and done when he was alive makes it difficult to maintain that all the conspiracy theories are - unless involving lizards - completely groundless.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Thread closed pending moderation.

Please refrain from making insinuations against, or using overheated language when referring to, other members of the forum.

If you have any problems with other posters then contact a mod.

P_M




Nothing to do with Cochise's last post, which was a fine balanced example of what a good post should be.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Re-opening the thread.

Please refrain from making accusations, or insinuations, about other posters, specifically, or in general. Also, try to avoid making inflammatory statements, or using overheated language.

If you have any doubts about posts, or the motives of other posters, contact a mod, please don't take it on thread.

P_M

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

And although I'm definitely in the 'innocent until probed guilty' camp, simply using the new, albeit untested, evidence to change our perception of things said and done when he was alive makes it difficult to maintain that all the conspiracy theories are - unless involving lizards - completely groundless.

Yes. A great deal of Jimmy Savile's frenetic and nomadic lifestyle has taken on a new significance and meaning, in the context of the recent evidence and accusations.

Meanwhile, the mud has been stirred in even murkier depths.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/24/jimmy-savile-sex-abuse-doctors

Jimmy Savile inquiry looking at alleged sexual abuse by three doctors

Names of at least three doctors passed to police investigating claims of sexual abuse at hospitals linked to former BBC DJ

The Guardian, Sandra Laville and Lisa O'Carroll 24 October 2012

Detectives investigating the Jimmy Savile scandal have been passed details of three doctors who are alleged to have abused young people in their care, the Guardian understands.

The doctors, identified by victims who have come forward in the last fortnight, worked at hospitals where Savile had links over several decades. The former DJ had an office and living quarters in Broadmoor, a bedroom in Stoke Mandeville, and was given free rein at Leeds general infirmary.

It is understood the names of at least three doctors have been passed to police investigating living individuals over claims that they were at the centre of a loose network of child abusers connected with Savile.

Detectives have not found evidence of a paedophile ring – involving the organised procurement of children for others – but are examining individuals who might have had access to vulnerable children, some of whom were associated with Savile

...

Directly, or indirectly, spiralling to the very heights.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...o-10-mp-tom-watson-demands-probe-8224702.html

Was there a paedophile ring in No 10? MP Tom Watson demands probe

Independent.co.uk.Martin Hickman. 25 October 2012

A powerful paedophile network may have operated in Britain protected by its connections to Parliament and Downing Street, a senior Labour politician suggested yesterday.

Speaking from the back benches of the House of Commons, Tom Watson, the deputy chairman of the Labour Party, called on the Metropolitan Police to reopen a closed criminal inquiry into paedophilia.

...

Where will it end?

 

[Cherrybomb]

Thats the bit that I can't get my head around. Why would anyone have a bedroom/living area at any of those hospitals? Unless something untoward was going on, you wouldn't need a room there.

 

[escargot]

You'd NEED a room there BECAUSE your interest was 'untoward'. You'd only GET one if you were very useful indeed financially.

I've just heard on t'BBC news that arrests of prominent people are imminent. Putting my money on several names which of course one musn't divulge for reasons of taste.

As for the 'No. 10 paedophile ring' conspiracy, I've read lurid accounts of various current and former prominent politicians' alleged sexual misdemeanours involving children. If even a quarter of it is true it's worrying.

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

There's another much-loved kid's entertainer who allegedly abused an acquaintance of ours many years ago.

She swears blind it really happened, but I really don't want to believe it.

You'll be as surprised as me if it comes out and is true, I can tell ya.

 

[escargot]

Poor Sooty.

 

[Cherrybomb]

:lol:

I've "got my money" on a fair few too. I'm basically waiting for all my childhood heroes to be arrested

 

[Heckler]

I'm basically waiting for all my childhood heroes to be arrested

Roland Rat's eyes were a little too close together.....knew he was dodgy.