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

Owzabout That Then? The Jimmy Savile Revelations & Aftermath

GNC said:
The more I hear about this show, the less I want to see it. Sounds ghoulish.
Click to expand...
I'll give it a miss.

It's going to be incredibly hard to achieve the right tone. It will doubtless offend some people, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, but the balance between showing what happened without it being gratuitous, ghoulish or superficial is going to be a difficuly one to achieve.
 
Coogan is about to get a punch on the nose. :chuckle:

He's a sport and a genuinely good person. I'm looking forward to seeing his performance.
 
escargot said:
Coogan is about to get a punch on the nose. :chuckle:

He's a sport and a genuinely good person. I'm looking forward to seeing his performance.
Click to expand...
I don't know why he's doing it. I'm guessing he wants to retire and they paid him a shed load of money to do it, enough to make a difference.
 
This!

I don't know I'll be able to make myself watch it but I want the drama to be made and kept carefully. It will be a snapshot of how our culture saw and reacted to the situation. Material Culture!
 
I suppose it's valid of the BBC to present apologetic documentaries, and in this case, a drama doc, given they had employed Savile for years; so did many other channels and media outlets and they've done nothing but say "Not me, guv!". It's more than the top politicians, prison service, NHS and Royal Family have done, to name a few institutions that prefer to brush their previous, enthusiastic endorsement of him under a very big carpet.

But it does look like an excuse for Coogan to dust off his Jimmy Savile impersonation he felt was too good not to share, even after all this. And now it's some kind of performance art? Well, it's strange, I'll give it that.
 
GNC said:
I suppose it's valid of the BBC to present apologetic documentaries, and in this case, a drama doc, given they had employed Savile for years; so did many other channels and media outlets and they've done nothing but say "Not me, guv!". It's more than the top politicians, prison service, NHS and Royal Family have done, to name a few institutions that prefer to brush their previous, enthusiastic endorsement of him under a very big carpet.

But it does look like an excuse for Coogan to dust off his Jimmy Savile impersonation he felt was too good not to share, even after all this. And now it's some kind of performance art? Well, it's strange, I'll give it that.
Click to expand...
If only nice people were portrayed in drama the proceedings would be pretty boring. James Bond'd be free to drink endless Vesper Martinis and Maria would still be roaming around the mountains singing.
 
escargot said:
If only nice people were portrayed in drama the proceedings would be pretty boring. James Bond'd be free to drink endless Vesper Martinis and Maria would still be roaming around the mountains singing.
Click to expand...

Yes, but fictional nasty people don't have so much real life baggage.
 
I am looking forward to the Savile drama. Savile was a huge star all through my childhood and adolescence even though he was so obviously out of place. It didn't matter if we liked him or not, he was in our faces. This was a puzzle which became even more complicated after his death.

My interest is rather like that I had in watching The Crown; it was like seeing the news from my childhood played out again.

There was no need to admire the protagonists. We're not watching The Transformers: The Movie. :chuckle:
 
Scary stuff!
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1643354808775.jpg
    FB_IMG_1643354808775.jpg
    79.1 KB · Views: 78
Cochise said:
He must have seriously upset someone in power.
Click to expand...
I get the impression that some of these paedos in power are singled out simply because they have indeed upset someone, whilst others are left alone. A possible reason why Savile was never prosecuted, because he didn't cause upset and knew too much anyway?
 
Cochise said:
Yes, we shouldn't prolong it, but as I understand it because of the prominent nature of the accused it was referred upwards, as no doubt (for example) anything to do with Prince Andrew will have been.

Let us not forget while Savile was obviously not royalty he was certainly acquainted with and in close contact of members of the 'highest in the land'. And had been, by then, (2009) for maybe 30 years.

As such he would no doubt have had the attention of the Special Branch etc. This is not just a question of which underling in the CPS had to decide on the evidence to prosecute Joe Bloggs over an armed robbery.
Click to expand...
Of course it is entirely possible, regardless of who made the decision, that there WASN'T sufficient evidence. That’s not the fault of the COS or DPP but the police. And certainly not a political issue.
However there is always a suggestion that there is something nefarious going on when a significant public figure is seen to get away with something.
 
PeteS said:
I get the impression that some of these paedos in power are singled out simply because they have indeed upset someone, whilst others are left alone. A possible reason why Savile was never prosecuted, because he didn't cause upset and knew too much anyway?
Click to expand...

Probably he made himself powerful friends too: Thatcher and to a lesser extent Charles and Diana, no doubt many others.

I'm not saying that the named above necessarily knew for certain what he was up to but befriending people and earning their trust makes them less likely to believe rumours about you when and if they hear them.
 
Ogdred Weary said:
Probably he made himself powerful friends too: Thatcher and to a lesser extent Charles and Diana, no doubt many others.

I'm not saying that the named above necessarily knew for certain what he was up to but befriending people and earning their trust makes them less likely to believe rumours about you when and if they hear them.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall him boasting about having powerful friends in high and low places.
 
We're probably not going to do this politics angle.

I'm in transit, so the thread is locked until a mod conclave can assemble.

Edit; Unanimous - we're not going to have the latest party political accusations because already it has garnered tit-fot-tat responses. If real evidence comes to light, we shall revisit this decision.

The thread has been reopened, but five recent posts have been removed.
 
Last edited:
Ogdred Weary said:
Probably he made himself powerful friends too: Thatcher and to a lesser extent Charles and Diana, no doubt many others.

I'm not saying that the named above necessarily knew for certain what he was up to but befriending people and earning their trust makes them less likely to believe rumours about you when and if they hear them.
Click to expand...
One wonders though why these powerful "friends" fell for this obnoxious character. A case of jumping on the bandwagon maybe? I can think of no other reason. He was completely transparent to me and people I knew.
 
Ogdred Weary said:
I'm not saying that the named above necessarily knew for certain what he was up to but befriending people and earning their trust makes them less likely to believe rumours about you when and if they hear them.
Click to expand...
I've seen this in action. A chap in my parents' village who worked as a driving instructor was accused of sexual assault on some of his clients. It made the national news at one point, but my parents were quite adamant that it was all a misunderstanding and he hadn't intended to touch bits (or whatever), and that was the general feeling amongst those in the village who knew him. I vaguely recall he did time for the offences.
 
I think there is another behaviour at play. If you know someone and they turn out to be a rapist, it makes you question what else you could be wrong about. People do not like that kind of insecurity. It's emotionally easier to believe that the victims are lying.
 
PeteS said:
I can think of no other reason.
Click to expand...

I can and I have outlined it somewhere on this long thread.

It was easier for them to relate to this grotesque clown, symbolic to them of troublesome youth, than to engage with the rather more diverse reality of the emerging culture.

Royalty, Politicians and the BBC could take this symbolic horror on board as a homeopathic substitute for the dreaded thing itself.

It just proved a lot more potent than they expected. :oops:
 
Solexman said:
Why are they getting flak? He was a disgusting piece of s**t.
As a kid growing up I found him a right creepy git. Couldn’t stand him on telly. :yuck::yuck:
Click to expand...
Neither could I, in some indescribable way I found him revolting... it makes sense now, but I still can't say what it was exactly that revolted me about him when I was a kid.
 
SimonBurchell said:
Neither could I, in some indescribable way I found him revolting... it makes sense now, but I still can't say what it was exactly that revolted me about him when I was a kid.
Click to expand...
A “sixth sense” maybe?
My wife was the same she says. She couldn’t watch him on telly and would shiver when she saw him.
Do you remember the Louie Theroux documentary? It had feckin’ bells on it!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top