Owzabout That Then? The Jimmy Savile Revelations & Aftermath

[PeteS]

When exactly was this?

He denied it in police interview and he denied it during his Louis Theroux interview.

If he had made specific, detailed, incriminating admissions, why was he not taken to court?

maximus otter

The interview I'm referring to he plainly said "I'm sure God will forgive me for my dalliances with the young ladies". So he had to be forgiven? As a copper I'm sure you would have taken this as a clear admission. Why was he not taken to court is the question answered in many of the posts in this thread.

 

[Coal]

The section on the structure of the BBC at the time, and how difficult it was to complain about harassment and bullying, could have been describing several organisations I've worked for including the current outfit.

Yep, I wrote a publishable standard essay on exactly that - I declined a suggestion I might work it into a journal paper, I'd had enough by then.

 

[PeteS]

Yep, I wrote a publishable standard essay on exactly that - I declined a suggestion I might work it into a journal paper, I'd had enough by then.

I've never understood why genuine whistle blowers are subjected to harassing by others (usually the ones who have been exposed) who should themselves be the ones who are subject to that treatment. I was threatened by people in authority but they all came to regret it.

 

[maximus otter]

The interview I'm referring to he plainly said "I'm sure God will forgive me for my dalliances with the young ladies". So he had to be forgiven? As a copper I'm sure you would have taken this as a clear admission. Why was he not taken to court is the question answered in many of the posts in this thread.

That sentence means nothing in legal terms. It’s not even tantamount to a ghost of a whisper of a suggestion of impropriety.

“Why he wasn't taken to court” is that all of the “evidence” amounts to exactly that kind of thing. People would far rather believe that he had “friends in high places”, or was a Mason or whatever, rather than the simple truth: That there was no actionable evidence against him; and that he was wealthy enough to employ good lawyers who’d leave you penniless when your allegations proved to be unfounded.

Did Savile exploit his fame and position to get sex? I have zero doubt of that. He would have had to have been superhuman not to take up any of the offers that would doubtless have been made to him. Every pop star on every CD on your shelf, every actor on every DVD by your telly did exactly the same thing.

Was he guilty of rape, or USI, or necrophilia? Show me the evidence, and “Everybody says” ain’t evidence.

maximus otter

 

[escargot]

The interview I'm referring to he plainly said "I'm sure God will forgive me for my dalliances with the young ladies". So he had to be forgiven? As a copper I'm sure you would have taken this as a clear admission. Why was he not taken to court is the question answered in many of the posts in this thread.

'Dalliances with young ladies' could be taken to mean enjoying the willing company of females of legal age and upwards.
We know what he really meant of course. Proving it was a different matter.

 

[Sgt Girth]

Not just rock/pop stars and actors……wasn’t there a certain tv magician (No longer around but you might have liked him….not a lot!) who admitted that some of his groupies (apparently famous magicians have groupies!) could have been underage.

 

[Ogdred Weary]

'Dalliances with young ladies' could be taken to mean enjoying the willing company of females of legal age and upwards.
We know what he really meant of course. Proving it was a different matter.

Absolutely, after the allegations came to light people mentioned the time he was on Have I Got News for You people brought up his exchange with Ian Hislop which went something like:

Hislop: What exactly do you do in your caravan?

Savile: Anybody I can lay my hands on.

Yes, it's now taken on a more sinister light and I dare say it had more sinister implications to some people at the time but the line he gives is just a stock, rude, banter-y gag.

 

[Floyd1]

Did Savile exploit his fame and position to get sex? I have zero doubt of that. He would have had to have been superhuman not to take up any of the offers that would doubtless have been made to him. Every pop star on every CD on your shelf, every actor on every DVD by your telly did exactly the same thing.



maximus otter

Surely not Yith's favourites though?

 

[Ogdred Weary]

Not just rock/pop stars and actors……wasn’t there a certain tv magician (No longer around but you might have liked him….not a lot!) who admitted that some of his groupies (apparently famous magicians have groupies!) could have been underage.

And they were still taller than him.

 

[Stormkhan]

The point here is (to me) ...
In the 60's/70's pop scene, groupies were a thing and having 'dolly birds on tap' was considered a perk of the career. Think, too, of the well-known phrase 'casting couch' which explicitly refers to sexual exploitation. Yes - it was 'a thing' of it's time.
However, is that it was widespread a defense of criminal behaviour?
I've personally witnessed minders of a popular singer who hand-picked attractive young women from the audience for a 'personal meet and greet' in his dressing room after the show; there was no age questioned or even mentioned and one could infer what might happen behind closed doors, it would actually be hard to prove by staff.

 

[Coal]

I've never understood why genuine whistle blowers are subjected to harassing by others (usually the ones who have been exposed) who should themselves be the ones who are subject to that treatment. I was threatened by people in authority but they all came to regret it.

It's tribal thinking. Loyalty to 'the tribe' is a powerful instinct, often reinforced by threats etc.

 

[Ogdred Weary]

The point here is (to me) ...
In the 60's/70's pop scene, groupies were a thing and having 'dolly birds on tap' was considered a perk of the career. Think, too, of the well-known phrase 'casting couch' which explicitly refers to sexual exploitation. Yes - it was 'a thing' of it's time.
However, is that it was widespread a defense of criminal behaviour?
I've personally witnessed minders of a popular singer who hand-picked attractive young women from the audience for a 'personal meet and greet' in his dressing room after the show; there was no age questioned or even mentioned and one could infer what might happen behind closed doors, it would actually be hard to prove by staff.

I think it still is, I expect it's less blatant and stars are more cautious about age but who knows?

It seemed to be an open secret amongst fans that Ian Watkins from The Lost Prophets liked his groupies on the (very) young side. There's no way his bandmates didn't know about this, though they may have been oblivious to everything else.

 

[Kondoru]

He kissed my friends hand...He is a Bad Un.

But that doesnt mean he is a criminal un...

 

[escargot]

I think it still is, I expect it's less blatant and stars are more cautious about age but who knows?

It seemed to be an open secret amongst fans that Ian Watkins from The Lost Prophets liked his groupies on the (very) young side. There's no way his bandmates didn't know about this, though they may have been oblivious to everything else.

Careful now! His bandmates strenuously deny any knowledge. They certainly wouldn't like any implications about his more extreme sexual tastes.

 

[maximus otter]

Careful now! His bandmates strenuously deny any knowledge. They certainly wouldn't like any implications about his more extreme sexual tastes.

They’re a bit behind the times:

“On 26 November [2013], Watkins pleaded guilty to attempted rape and sexual assault of a child under 13, but not guilty to rape. This was accepted by the prosecution. He further pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault involving children; six counts of taking, making, or possessing indecent images of children; and one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image involving a sex act on an animal. His victims included a baby boy…”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian...singer)#Sexual_offences_and_criminal_activity

maximus otter

 

[Yithian]

Surely not Yith's favourites though?

My actual favourite is Jimmy Page.

*Straight face*

Many posts on accents have been relocated here:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...relocated-tangents.65972/page-32#post-2248624

Please post any future material on paedophilia that does not relate to Savile here:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/its-paedogeddon-is-paedophilia-increasing.10033/

 

[PeteS]

'Dalliances with young ladies' could be taken to mean enjoying the willing company of females of legal age and upwards.
We know what he really meant of course. Proving it was a different matter.

Exactly. He was always very careful with his words. Why say "young"? Take that word out and the sentence would have merely meant "I put it about a bit".

 

[Frideswide]

The interview I'm referring to he plainly said "I'm sure God will forgive me for my dalliances with the young ladies". So he had to be forgiven? As a copper I'm sure you would have taken this as a clear admission. Why was he not taken to court is the question answered in many of the posts in this thread.

If it wasn't JS I'd have heard it as an attempt at wry humour. Or sarcasm of course.

Very literal to read it as an admission.

 

[Stormkhan]

Trouble is, JS's image included silly, irreverent humour. So he must've felt very clever in that he could appear to be making a joke when he was secretly being completely serious.
How many times did he answer even vague suggestions of his behaviour with "the case comes up next Thursday"?

 

[escargot]

If it wasn't JS I'd have heard it as an attempt at wry humour. Or sarcasm of course.

Very literal to read it as an admission.

He was literally admitting wrongdoing. Bragging, in fact.

One of his interviews has him discussing the possibility of making an escape should things go badly wrong for him. Like, y'know, some underage victim actually being believed instead of ignored.

 

[Ghost In The Machine]

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.

The reason I think he's not a distraction is the sheer scale of it. Proven enough for some victims to be paid compo, no?

Also, it's never an irrelevance whilst victims are still alive. Women and kids were never believed at the best of times - or it would have been properly investigated. People knew there was no point in coming forward, because they would be going up against a rich, powerful person who already had those meant to be investigating crime, onside.

It's beyond doubt he had those Leeds coppers in his pocket, as well. The journo who did his biog had plenty of contact with them and even was part of some of those Friday (was it Friday?) meetings. She claimed the police were "starstruck" whilst clearly coming across (allegedly) fairly starstruck herself, in that doc. Even she wasn't denying he had the local police literally round there as his pals, all the time. He wasn't investigated not necessarily due to lack of evidence but due to the zeitgeist of the time (women and kids disbelieved - and institutional sexism of this specific police force - vide Ripper case). And also because he made it his business since his days DJing in Leeds and Manc clubs, to have the local police onside. The evidence for that is fairly clear. In fact, I think he mentioned it himself in interviews.

 

[Spookdaddy]

The reason I think he's not a distraction is the sheer scale of it. Proven enough for some victims to be paid compo, no?...

Any compensation was pursued via the civil courts and in the form of personal injury claims (I believe). No jury, no trial - different burden of evidence. It's a totally different legal process to the one involved in finding an individual guilty of a crime, or crimes, through the criminal courts.

My point is a technical one - not a defence of Savile or his apologists (if such people even exist). Let's not even think about going there.

 

[maximus otter]

Proven enough for some victims to be paid compo, no?

“Only 78 cases remain from the ‘hundreds of abused victims’ – the 78 are merely those where no one could disprove the claim. They said they were in ‘x’ spot in ‘y’ year when ‘z’ occurred at the hands of Jimmy Savile and there is no evidence to show that either Savile was elsewhere, or the claimant hadn’t been born yet, or the premises didn’t exist at that time, or any of the other myriad ways in which claims have been dismissed.”

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...elations-aftermath.50455/page-45#post-1994922

Much of the rest of your post proceeds from a lot of unchallenged assumptions: “He must have done it, therefore he must have got away with it, therefore he must have had ”friends in high places”.”

maximus otter

 

[Ghost In The Machine]

“Only 78 cases remain from the ‘hundreds of abused victims’ – the 78 are merely those where no one could disprove the claim. They said they were in ‘x’ spot in ‘y’ year when ‘z’ occurred at the hands of Jimmy Savile and there is no evidence to show that either Savile was elsewhere, or the claimant hadn’t been born yet, or the premises didn’t exist at that time, or any of the other myriad ways in which claims have been dismissed.”

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...elations-aftermath.50455/page-45#post-1994922

Much of the rest of your post proceeds from a lot of unchallenged assumptions: “He must have done it, therefore he must have got away with it, therefore he must have had ”friends in high places”.”

maximus otter

My point was it is not an "assumption" that he met with those people frequently, in his flat in Leeds. The writer who did his biog witnessed it, for one.

And "only" 78?

 

[maximus otter]

And "only" 78?

You've read the caveats re "only" 78?

All they had to do was establish on the balance of probability that they were under the same roof as Savile on or about a particular date, in order to receive thousands of pounds.

maximus otter

 

[Cochise]

I'm not sufficiently confident of my own moral standing to be commenting on the wider issues of morality re groupies etc.

I would have thought that, in a one-off encounter, the question should be is it consensual.

You might argue that the 60's /70's pop culture was a sort of mass grooming, but if we go down that route there would simply be no end to it. Almost everything aimed at young teens today seems to me to be some sort of mind manipulation, but I'm an old curmudgeon.

One-on-one grooming is of course entirely unacceptable, please don't interpret the above paragraph as a defence.

The point about Savile's (alleged) activities were that they were pre-planned deliberate abuse on a widespread and wide-ranging scale, and furthermore, (again allegedly) people knew about it and did nothing.