• 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

I think it was archive footage, not a reenactment.
I see, thank you!
I'll be looking out for that.

The description brought back an ugly childhood memory of Savile in that get-up on TV.

He was a professional wrestler early on. Wrestling was shown on TV on Saturday afternoons.

I took a vague interest because one of the more famous wrestlers, not Savile, was local to me.

My family would notice who was appearing and watch out for 'our' bloke.

I'm pretty sure I saw Savile compete in TV in the '60s when he was already becoming famous.

Watching him parading around in the cape, accepting cheers and applause, is definitely part of that memory.

How creepy.
 
I see, thank you!
I'll be looking out for that.

The description brought back an ugly childhood memory of Savile in that get-up on TV.

He was a professional wrestler early on. Wrestling was shown on TV on Saturday afternoons.

I took a vague interest because one of the more famous wrestlers, not Savile, was local to me.

My family would notice who was appearing and watch out for 'our' bloke.

I'm pretty sure I saw Savile compete in TV in the '60s when he was already becoming famous.

Watching him parading around in the cape, accepting cheers and applause, is definitely part of that memory.

How creepy.

Yes, it was archival footage. Here's a still from the bodybuilding show (not from the Arnold documentary)

arnold.jpg
 
I was right. Here he is, wrestling on TV.
No sign of the cape although he'd've taken that off first.

 
TLDR: He tried to gain fame as a wrestler ... and he was beaten to a pulp.
To bad.
He'd openly admit his inadequacies as a wrestler. Wonder why?

Possibly because he'd be contradicted if he tried lying about it. Wrestlers are muscular grown men, not little girls who could be easily silenced.
Also, he'd brag about the wrestling to show he wasn't afraid of brawling. He even joked on TV about wrestling schoolgirls. It was all part of his front.
 
I was right. Here he is, wrestling on TV.
No sign of the cape although he'd've taken that off first.


A satisfying watch. That did seem to be the boxer kicking the shit out of him: no "wrestling" to speak of, either traditional or the entertainment version. Is that what early wrestling was like on TV, I vaguely recall Big Daddy and Haystacks in the 80s and it wasn't like that, it was more theatrical and "fake" for lack of a better word.
 
A satisfying watch. That did seem to be the boxer kicking the shit out of him: no "wrestling" to speak of, either traditional or the entertainment version. Is that what early wrestling was like on TV, I vaguely recall Big Daddy and Haystacks in the 80s and it wasn't like that, it was more theatrical and "fake" for lack of a better word.
Maybe that Wrestler knew about Saville ?
 
Maybe that Wrestler knew about Saville ?
A few had their suspicions. Adrian Street, who died recently, had expressed his doubts about Savile.
Savile wasn't a good wrestler, but he did have some flashes of technical ability. Most bouts ended with him being thrashed, IIRC.
 
Lest we forget, he was one of those 'must have' celebrities - and he made sure of this. His 'participation' was seen as a boost. :(
Which is why the celebrity shenanigans that happen today have no emotional impact on me.
 
Regrettable mood music and dramatic lighting, but there's a video preview:


This should be in a courtroom, not on TV.

I agree. At least Russell Brand is still alive to (hopefully) face a court and justice, any way it goes.

In the case of JS there is still the 0.01% doubt in place as he got away to the grave before TPTB grew a spine.

Has anyone found out how close JS ever came to being formally nicked?
 
I agree. At least he is still alive to (hopefully) face a court and justice, any way it goes.

In the case of JS there is still the 0.01% doubt in place as he got away to the grave before TPTB grew a spine.

Has anyone found out how close JS ever came to being formally nicked?

I did a bit of reading earlier tonight.

It was 2008.

A potential investigation of JS was buggered up in its early stages by Sussex Police officers, which included telling the woman bringing the complaint, that she "wouldn't be believed"

The Independent Police Complaints Commission investigated the investigation -

"IPCC Deputy Chair Sarah Green said: "Greater efforts should have been made by police to investigate the allegation and to encourage the woman to support an investigation.
"She showed considerable courage in coming forward to police but regrettably she felt that the two officers who visited her had a negative attitude towards her pursuing her allegation.
"Not sending a trained female officer, coupled with the perceived absence of support, resulted in a missed opportunity by Sussex Police to investigate Savile in 2008."... "


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-32704789
https://www.digitalspy.com/media/a6...-should-have-made-more-effort-to-investigate/

The lack of investigation was put down to incompetence or can't-be-arsedness, rather than misconduct. This was about 3 years before he died.
 
I agree. At least he is still alive to (hopefully) face a court and justice, any way it goes.

In the case of JS there is still the 0.01% doubt in place as he got away to the grave before TPTB grew a spine.

Has anyone found out how close JS ever came to being formally nicked?
I think is is obvious that TPTB were the ones protecting JS.

JS said that himself so many times.
 
I fully accept that RB isn't being accused of child abuse, as Saville, but I've got to wondering ...

Are we seeing what would've happened if the Saville allegations had been left to run? The public polarising? The accusations of 'trial by media' and so on? Or is the RB 'scandal' a result of 'lessons learned' from the Saville expose? That it's a really bad idea to cover-up or enable a celebrity if allegations are made?

I repeat - there's no suggestion of Brand being a paedophile. But are we seeing the after-effect of the Saville Scandal being exposed?
 
I did a bit of reading earlier tonight.

It was 2008.

A potential investigation of JS was buggered up in its early stages by Sussex Police officers, which included telling the woman bringing the complaint, that she "wouldn't be believed"

The Independent Police Complaints Commission investigated the investigation -

"IPCC Deputy Chair Sarah Green said: "Greater efforts should have been made by police to investigate the allegation and to encourage the woman to support an investigation.
"She showed considerable courage in coming forward to police but regrettably she felt that the two officers who visited her had a negative attitude towards her pursuing her allegation.
"Not sending a trained female officer, coupled with the perceived absence of support, resulted in a missed opportunity by Sussex Police to investigate Savile in 2008."... "


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-32704789
https://www.digitalspy.com/media/a6...-should-have-made-more-effort-to-investigate/

The lack of investigation was put down to incompetence or can't-be-arsedness, rather than misconduct. This was about 3 years before he died.
There were close calls well before that, going back at least to his days running dances for teenagers.
He was able to manipulate and compromise the police into collusion.

Savile described in an early autobiography how the police asked him to look out for a young teenage girl who'd gone missing; he arranged with them to 'keep' her overnight should he find her. The female officer present objected but the male overruled her.

All happened as Savile had demanded and he sent the girl home next morning.
One suspects this was a representative description of what he did all the time. He had the police where he wanted them.
 
I fully accept that RB isn't being accused of child abuse, as Saville, but I've got to wondering ...

Are we seeing what would've happened if the Saville allegations had been left to run? The public polarising? The accusations of 'trial by media' and so on? Or is the RB 'scandal' a result of 'lessons learned' from the Saville expose? That it's a really bad idea to cover-up or enable a celebrity if allegations are made?

I repeat - there's no suggestion of Brand being a paedophile. But are we seeing the after-effect of the Saville Scandal being exposed?
It's the opposite. Brand was dropped from mainstream TV and radio because his image and style drew complaints from the public.
There is alleged to have been an element of alarm about the safety of female studio staff around him, leading apparently to a practice of only employing males on his shows.

None of this indicates that any lessons were learned. Brand seems to have been accommodated for as long as he possibly could be and let go with reluctance.

As @Min Bannister shrewdly pointed out elsewhere, Brand was only dumped when he and Ross harassed a male victim, Andrew Sachs.

People can still pay to see Brand's live act (or could until recently) if they like the edgier elements and they can watch his YouTube videos (although YouTube has now stopped him making money from them.)

As you say, he's not accused of abusing underage girls. When apples are red and so on.
16 is legal although it's still creepy, exploitative, pervy etc; every kind of wrong. We've all known men like that.
 
It's relevant to the Jimmy Savile conversation because openly discussing intimate sexual subjects at work is a way of sexualising the environment.
If enough people do it, and/or they can can shout down dissenters (by for example calling them prudes or gay) then the workplace becomes toxic.

This was the case in the '70s: speaking from personal experience, one might find that anything a woman said was taken the wrong way, i.e. sexually.

Example:
Female employee: Those posters are out of date. I'll take them down.
Male employees: Oho, do you like taking things down then?
Female employee: :rolleyes:

On and on, day after day. TV personalities, like Savile with his 'dolly bird' spiel, helped make this sort of patter acceptable and it was gleefully copied by wags in offices and factories across the country.

It's been said of Savile that he 'groomed the nation'. He certainly did, but not just by pretending to be a philanthropist. He taught men how to force women to accept a sexualised, toxic workplace environment. Specifically, by talking in a 'lightheartedly' smutty way and then accusing objectors of being old-fashioned or having a dirty mind.

*Which I enjoyed delivering, can't lie. :chuckle:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which he mentioned only 42 years after the alleged incident, and two years after Savile’s death.

maximus otter
I do accept your point that nothing is proved in law, but rumours about Savile's behaviour go back to at least the 70's. As I'm sure you know, it was far more difficult back than to make allegations against highly regarded public figures (unless the claim was homosexuality). People are always telling me there can't be conspiracies because no-one can keep a secret, but it's perfectly possible to have a conspiracy in plain sight if the person in question has cultivated such high connections that no-one is going to accept the word of an 'ordinary person', far less an inhabitant of Broadmoor.

We differ on this, but I do entirely accept that because nothing was brought to trial the situation is and will remain unsatisfactory.

In my opinion Kier Starmer needs to be held to account. I cannot believe that accusations against so public a figure would not have crossed his desk.
 
I do accept your point that nothing is proved in law, but rumours about Savile's behaviour go back to at least the 70's. As I'm sure you know, it was far more difficult back than to make allegations against highly regarded public figures (unless the claim was homosexuality). People are always telling me there can't be conspiracies because no-one can keep a secret, but it's perfectly possible to have a conspiracy in plain sight if the person in question has cultivated such high connections that no-one is going to accept the word of an 'ordinary person', far less an inhabitant of Broadmoor.

We differ on this, but I do entirely accept that because nothing was brought to trial the situation is and will remain unsatisfactory.

In my opinion Kier Starmer needs to be held to account. I cannot believe that accusations against so public a figure would not have crossed his desk.

Why stop at Starmer? There are likely multiple dozens of people that we can say with hindsight aught to be brought to account. That's just it though, we are second guessing with hindsight.

It appears to have been an open secret and several people I know, from some a few years older than me to people older than my parents have made comments either about "knowing something was up with him" - which may or may not be true: anyone can "know" in hindsight.

I've also heard a few rumours from friends/family of friends about hearing direct things about him - from those who worked in hospitals etc
 
Why stop at Starmer? There are likely multiple dozens of people that we can say with hindsight aught to be brought to account. That's just it though, we are second guessing with hindsight.

It appears to have been an open secret and several people I know, from some a few years older than me to people older than my parents have made comments either about "knowing something was up with him" - which may or may not be true: anyone can "know" in hindsight.

I've also heard a few rumours from friends/family of friends about hearing direct things about him - from those who worked in hospitals etc
It's just that Starmer denies having known about the case being built against Savile when he was head of DPP - I find that very difficult to believe.

And if it is true, it casts doubt on what was going on further down in the organisation. I know if I was in charge, a case with such potential ramifications darn well ought to have been brought to my attention.
 
Last edited:
It's just that Starmer denies having known about the case being built against Savile when he was head of DPP - I find that very difficult to believe.

And if it is true, it casts doubt on what was going on further down in the organisation. I know if I was in charge a case with such potential ramificatins darn well ought to have been brought to my attention.
And moving on back to more concrete things please.
 
Back
Top