• 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

1678742760801.png
 
sherbetbizarre said:
Once upon a time...
Click to expand...

Way way back, a couple of the Sunday colour supplements used to have a last page that was often based on fairly informal interviews with celebrities, accompanied by a supposedly candid photograph - What I Do On My Weekend, type of fluff.

I will never forget (and this was years before the abuse was public) that Mr Glitter, being interviewed on relationships - advised the reader that young, fashionable and pretty girls may be very well, but in the long run you needed someone you could talk to about things like - for instance - films and books. (Presumably he was actually thinking along the lines of Bambi and Beatrix Potter.)

It stuck in my mind, because I recall thinking even back then - in my raw and somewhat troubled early adolescence - that the last thing I needed right then was life advice from someone who spent their Sunday afternoons dressed like a cartoon astronaut.
 
Last edited:
escargot said:
Main drawing looks like a retouched David Essex. :chuckle:
Click to expand...
I was thinking exactly the same thing. It's like the illustrator morphed his face with the much more attractive one, to make him more appealing to young girls... I was a kid in the 70s and distinctly remember thinking Paul Gadd was fat and old and creepy looking with his weird eyebrows. He was never, for a minute, the sort of pretty-but-non-threatening pop star that most of them were. Felt he was really old, (old = automatically ugly, in the 70s) even then. Actually, now I come to think of it, a bit like Savile - the BBC seemed obsessed with him and kept putting him on shows for kids and teenagers even though I never met a single kid or teenager who thought he was cool. It was like, BBC producers in their 60s thought he was cool.

There were some acts that did seem a bit older and had become famous as pop stars (that sounds so old fashioned now) after a good ten years doing summer seasons at holiday camps, or musical theatre, etc. But Gadd was the most unprepossessing one I can think of.

And this isn't retrospect and what we now know talking, I do remember thinking this about both of them, at the time, like wtf are they doing?
 
Ghost In The Machine said:
It was like, BBC producers in their 60s thought he was cool.
Click to expand...
Precisely so. Producers may have had experience 'in the scene' of their youth, but were now quite distant from 'the scene' because of their work. They were imagining what the current youth generation liked. It's like hearing a middle aged DJ trying to sound like a teenager by using outdated slang. It sounds stilted because they're not of that generation.
Savile's popularity and ubiquitous appearances weren't only engineered by the man himself, but by a self-fulfilling situation:
Savile was everywhere on TV so he must be popular so we must put him on TV ... and another producer carries this on. This circle-jerk only lasts until someone comes to their senses and says "Hang on - he's not actually that good, is he?"
 
Stormkhan said:
Precisely so. Producers may have had experience 'in the scene' of their youth, but were now quite distant from 'the scene' because of their work. They were imagining what the current youth generation liked. It's like hearing a middle aged DJ trying to sound like a teenager by using outdated slang. It sounds stilted because they're not of that generation.
Savile's popularity and ubiquitous appearances weren't only engineered by the man himself, but by a self-fulfilling situation:
Savile was everywhere on TV so he must be popular so we must put him on TV ... and another producer carries this on. This circle-jerk only lasts until someone comes to their senses and says "Hang on - he's not actually that good, is he?"
Click to expand...
You're right. I lived near Leeds so "heard the stories" re Savile - someone would know someone who was a nurse at the hospital where he was a porter, or something else... And we wondered why nobody in London seemed to know what he was. There was a fashion for the media to have pet Northerners, as well, at the time - certain Yorkshire actors would appear and re-appear in what felt like every show... they still presented the news with plummy RP accents but from John Noakes on, Yorkshire accents seemed to be one of the things that maybe TV producers down South fixated on, if they wanted what they imagined to be an approachable, safe, "everyman". We forget it now but at the time, it was very prevalent. I can remember feeling suspicion about these "professional Yorkshiremen". (Not Noakes, actually, but pretty well every other one!) Hard to put into words but I do think if the posh BBC wanted you to trust or believe something, in the late 60s onwards, and they didn't want to do a Mr Cholmondley-Warner type person, they'd substitute, in a condescending way, with a token Northerner. This was my perception even at the time, as a little Yorkshire kid! But think about it, we were fecking everywhere on BBC in particular, even when other regional accents hadn't yet broken through very much... Savile fitted this mould.

ETA: I did a bit of genealogical sleuthing a while back, as my family came from the same Leeds backstreets and Id noticed were neighbours to Saviles, at one point, just curious if those were any relation to Jimmy or not. I couldn't find a link but I did find Savile's family in the censuses and despite being a large family, dad had a fairly middle class job, IIRC - so not even sure that dog rough Leeds accent he did wasn't a bit put on. Interview I saw with his mum, she certainly didn't sound as stereotypically Leeds, as Savile himself did.
 
Spookdaddy said:
Way way back, a couple of the Sunday colour supplements used to have a last page that was often based on fairly informal interviews with celebrities, accompanied by a supposedly candid photograph - What I Do On My Weekend, type of fluff.

I will never forget (and this was years before the abuse was public) that Mr Glitter, being interviewed on relationships - advised the reader that young, fashionable and pretty girls may be very well, but in the long run you needed someone you could talk to about things like - for instance - films and books. (Presumably he was actually thinking along the lines of Bambi and Beatrix Potter.)

It stuck in my mind, because I recall thinking even back then - in my raw and somewhat troubled early adolescence - that the last thing I needed right then was life advice from someone who spent their Sunday afternoons dressed like a cartoon astronaut.
Click to expand...
And let us not forgot him on This is Your Life with Tessa Dahl and I wonder if she was navie mentioning her story or did this on purpose.
Sorry couldn't find the short clip but it starts at 19.20.
 
66 pages of nothingburger re Savile, so now we’re doing Jasper Carrott impressions?

Anyone got a single definite sex offence which can be proved against him?

Just one?

Anyone?

maximus otter
 
To be legally proven, wouldn’t it have to be done so in court? (Innocent until proven guilty and all that)…. and that’s going to somewhat tricky to do seeing as the dirty old bugger is currently rather busy nowadays burning in hell? (Oh, and brummie accents are really funny!)
 
Sgt Girth said:
To be legally proven, wouldn’t it have to be done so in court? (Innocent until proven guilty and all that)…. and that’s going to somewhat tricky to do seeing as the dirty old bugger is currently rather busy nowadays burning in hell? (Oh, and brummie accents are really funny!)
Click to expand...

Even just alleged convincingly?

What we have here is 66 pages of, “I never liked ‘im!”, “”I always thought ‘e was a wrong ‘un!”, “I was more suspicious of him, and earlier than you!”, and so on.

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
Even just alleged convincingly?

What we have here is 66 pages of, “I never liked ‘im!”, “”I always thought ‘e was a wrong ‘un!”, “I was more suspicious of him, and earlier than you!”, and so on.

maximus otter
Click to expand...

I actually totally agree. I think Savile - whatever he did or did not do - is now essentially, in practical terms, a distraction. I posted this a couple of years back - although, looking back through the thread, it's been more or less default since the early days. I thought that distraction would decrease over time but it doesn't appear to be doing so.

I think the danger with Savile is that he's actually become a bit of a distraction. Personally, I have no doubt that he was a malevolent sleazeball of the first water - but the accusations against him will forever remain untested in any legal sense: his victims will remain alleged victims, and the fact that the dead have no legal rights means that his actual crimes will forever attract a crust of false allegation and lurid tabloid fantasy which will only ever serve to muddle the focus on any actual criminal activity.

His death allowed the subject to be turned into a grand guignol horror carnival, where the media can indulge in every lurid fantasy without the least concern of legal comeback. But, unfortunately, for any real victims, his is now an 'over there, then' thing - whereas what society really needs to be doing is looking over here, now. Yes, we need to learn from past mistakes but we need to do that in order to bang up the Weinsteins, not shout at ghosts.
Click to expand...
 
maximus otter said:
Even just alleged convincingly?

What we have here is 66 pages of, “I never liked ‘im!”, “”I always thought ‘e was a wrong ‘un!”, “I was more suspicious of him, and earlier than you!”, and so on.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Spookdaddy said:
I actually totally agree. I think Savile - whatever he did or did not do - is now essentially, in practical terms, a distraction. I posted this a couple of years back - although, looking back through the thread, it's been more or less default since the early days. I thought that distraction would decrease over time but it doesn't appear to be doing so.
Click to expand...
I think the difference here though, is that many of us 'grew up with him' (figuratively of course) or had children who did. He was on our tv's every week, often more than once for years. That's perhaps why it strikes a greater resonance amongst some folk.
 
Stormkhan said:
So "Can't prove it so it's not important", eh?
Click to expand...

Just imagine if the implications of that statement were an actual description of how the law worked.

For what it’s worth, on a personal level, I have little doubt that Savile was a bad man, but then I don’t want to live in a world where accumulated personal intuition takes the place of professional investigation and the legal process.

I also firmly believe that many of the stories that are now part of our collective psyche in relation to Savile are pure fable - and the problem is that when you turn evil into a caricature of itself you are engaging in a process which can end up eclipsing the actual crimes at the core of the issue. I believe that, ironically, in turning Savile into a kind of fairground monster we find ourselves in danger of belittling the true monstrosity of such crimes.

Savile - if he was really guilty, is a fait accompli – those of us not allegedly directly affected by his alleged crimes should move on and deal with the here and now, and the future – things we can and do something about, and absolutely should.

And one of those things is to talk about the issue – to remove the opacity of the past.

Mythologising past monstrosities only adds to that opacity – it’s the equivalent of talking over the top of the conversation which should be taking place.
 
Last edited:
maximus otter said:
Even just alleged convincingly?

What we have here is 66 pages of, “I never liked ‘im!”, “”I always thought ‘e was a wrong ‘un!”, “I was more suspicious of him, and earlier than you!”, and so on.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Quite.

Have a read of this folks, "Full report". You'll need to walk outside on your own for a bit afterwards:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/dame_janet_smith
 
Floyd1 said:
I think the difference here though, is that many of us 'grew up with him' (figuratively of course) or had children who did. He was on our tv's every week, often more than once for years. That's perhaps why it strikes a greater resonance amongst some folk.
Click to expand...

Yes. Totally. I get why Savile and his alleged crimes are a cultural phenomenon - and, on that level, the preoccupation is entirely understandable. But I think it's right and proper - essential, in fact - that we should examine and question aspects of that phenomenon.
 
Spookdaddy said:
Just imagine if the implications of that statement were an actual description of how the law worked.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand that completely - and agree with you. However, there is a certain amount of feeling that he was tried but in absentia. After all, compensation to his victims wouldn't be demanded if there wasn't overwhelming evidence that, while he cannot now challenge, would be hard to refute.
 
Spookdaddy said:
But I think it's right and proper - essential, in fact - that we should examine and question aspects of that phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Yes.

And, for me, one of the most disturbing aspects of the phenomenon is the amount of people who turned a blind eye, brushed it under the carpet, explained it away etc. That is as much an aberration as the abuse itself. When people begin to realise their culpability it's much easier to express outrage at the perpetrator than to deal with the far murkier aspects of how we are all part of the problem.
 
Quite.
Individually, the 'supporter' (i.e. those that ignored or excused) might have abhorrence and disgust to paedophilia and child abuse, but as a group they found it easy to ignore their own feelings to this. It was like they didn't want to be the one to break from the pack and say "Hang on - this is unacceptable". Instead they made excuses such as "He's friends with the Royal family and Government and so if we were to expose him, it would tarnish their image," and "These individuals are deeply disturbed and so we cannot trust in their claims."
 
Spookdaddy said:
Just imagine if the implications of that statement were an actual description of how the law worked.

For what it’s worth, on a personal level, I have little doubt that Savile was a bad man, but then I don’t want to live in a world where accumulated personal intuition takes the place of professional investigation and the legal process.

I also firmly believe that many of the stories that are now part of our collective psyche in relation to Savile are pure fable - and the problem is that when you turn evil into a caricature of itself you are engaging in a process which can end up eclipsing the actual crimes at the core of the issue. I believe that, ironically, in turning Savile into a kind of fairground monster we find ourselves in danger of belittling the true monstrosity of such crimes.

Savile - if he was really guilty, is a fait accompli – those of us not allegedly directly affected by his alleged crimes should move on and deal with the here and now, and the future – things we can and do something about, and absolutely should.

And one of those things is to talk about the issue – to remove the opacity of the past.

Mythologising past monstrosities only adds to that opacity – it’s the equivalent of talking over the top of the conversation which should be taking place.
Click to expand...

The trouble is there is an almost cartoonsihly evil aspect to him and the story, it's grotesque in every sense and is as extreme as the most gallows of British humour. He was akin to the uttermost and vilest The League of Gentlemen character or something from a Chris Morris sketch.

I agree that we shouldn't let it pass into folkore but it already has.
 
pandacracker said:
Yes.

And, for me, one of the most disturbing aspects of the phenomenon is the amount of people who turned a blind eye, brushed it under the carpet, explained it away etc. That is as much an aberration as the abuse itself. When people begin to realise their culpability it's much easier to express outrage at the perpetrator than to deal with the far murkier aspects of how we are all part of the problem.
Click to expand...

He is but one offender, albeit more extreme, prolific and far more prominent than most. No doubt countless other abusers got away with it for similar reasons and others are still getting away with it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top