• 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

Organised charity of course...full of it.

(And lets not talk about Aid workers)
 
kesavaross said:
How many of those thousands of people have an open invitation to visit Prince Charles any time they want? How many of those thousands have Christmas dinner with the then PM at Chequers?

And how many of those thousands make statements like 'no one can touch me because I have friends in very high places'?
Click to expand...
And how many people assume you know them, who you met once but in point of fact, they're one of many?
I take your point - the further up the pyramid of influence, the fewer you compete against for attention.
Let's not let go of the self-promotion aspect:
Abuser: "I've met the Queen personally, you know! Been to Buckingham Palace and everything!"
The Queen: "Who was that ghastly man? Do I have to meet him? Let's keep it short!"
 
Stormkhan said:
And how many people assume you know them, who you met once but in point of fact, they're one of many?
I take your point - the further up the pyramid of influence, the fewer you compete against for attention.
Let's not let go of the self-promotion aspect:
Abuser: "I've met the Queen personally, you know! Been to Buckingham Palace and everything!"
The Queen: "Who was that ghastly man? Do I have to meet him? Let's keep it short!"
Click to expand...
Or equally-

QE2 : "I need to meet that ghastly man to see what he is like"
 
Robbrent said:
It goes back much further than that, men in power (and not) have been abusing women and girls since time immoral, the aforementioned were just the last in the line, still many people have dewy eyed nostalgia for those days on innocence or more likely the very British habit of if we don't see it it never happened but as it has been proven abuse of women and children was rife
Click to expand...
My parents who had Victorian era parents were very much of the "if you don't think about it the problem doesn't exist" type. In some ways partly due to social media we've gone to the other extreme, albeit in some cases quite properly.
 
Exactly. There's always been paedophiles around; the reaction of adults to them has been more of embarrassment than hatred. "We just don't like to talk about them."
Many people knew of their predilection but just made sure their own children stayed away from them. This reinforced the assumption that the loner/eccentric/simple-minded weren't to be trusted with their children. It's only if an attack or killing involving the police occurred that people said "Oh everyone knew he was a wrong 'un."

This is the biggest problem - no proof of a criminal intent but an assumption. Without proof, they cannot act. With an assumption, they do. This is way before social media could spread unfounded accusations from a position of anonymity.
 
kesavaross said:
How many of those thousands of people have an open invitation to visit Prince Charles any time they want? How many of those thousands have Christmas dinner with the then PM at Chequers?

And how many of those thousands make statements like 'no one can touch me because I have friends in very high places'?
Click to expand...

As l pointed out upthread, connections in high places haven’t saved celebrities from arrest, conviction and imprisonment.

“A West Yorkshire Police report has found "no evidence" Jimmy Savile was protected from arrest or prosecution by his relationship with the force.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22476937

maximus otter
 
Stormkhan said:
And how many people assume you know them, who you met once but in point of fact, they're one of many?
I take your point - the further up the pyramid of influence, the fewer you compete against for attention.
Let's not let go of the self-promotion aspect:
Abuser: "I've met the Queen personally, you know! Been to Buckingham Palace and everything!"
The Queen: "Who was that ghastly man? Do I have to meet him? Let's keep it short!"
Click to expand...
Yep. Just because somebody has met Epstein, it doesn't mean they should be regarded as guilty by association.
I mean, heck, Epstein invited lots of people to his many parties. Some of the parties were for people who weren't dodgy, and some parties were for his dodgy mates. If you went to one of his non-dodgy parties, are you to be regarded as some kind of pariah?
 
At Epstein's arrest in July 2019 his Manhattan home was raided by the FBI and material was found (documents, CDs of photos of young women with named men etc) which press reports suggested represented a longterm compromising/blackmailing scheme.

Epstein soon died so couldn't be interrogated about it. Maxwell was widely expected to confirm the rumours about a blackmailing scheme in the hope of securing a plea bargain but instead chose to plead not guilty.

The list seems to be the only scrap of information we're going to get about the putative blackmailing operation. It's nothing of the kind. Just journalistic clickbait.
 
Stormkhan said:
It's incredibly unlikely. It might be construed as displaying an opinion ... and the monarch isn't allowed to do that.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that she would have had the final say in who she met, presumably guided by her advisors. But who knows?
 
Sure. She has the final say so but any monarch goes with the advisors because they're the ones who have gathered reports, opinions etc. but also advise Their Majesties on potential political hazards. F'r instance, they might say "Sure, this potentate is known for a brutal regime, has a potty mouth and is barely house trained ... but we're selling millions of pounds in arms to him, so we don't want an upset, eh?"
 
Stormkhan said:
Sure. She has the final say so but any monarch goes with the advisors because they're the ones who have gathered reports, opinions etc. but also advise Their Majesties on potential political hazards. F'r instance, they might say "Sure, this potentate is known for a brutal regime, has a potty mouth and is barely house trained ... but we're selling millions of pounds in arms to him, so we don't want an upset, eh?"
Click to expand...
I wonder how well informed those filters were in the early 70s, though, or whenever JS inveigled his way into the royals' lives?
 
maximus otter said:
As l pointed out upthread, connections in high places haven’t saved celebrities from arrest, conviction and imprisonment.

“A West Yorkshire Police report has found "no evidence" Jimmy Savile was protected from arrest or prosecution by his relationship with the force.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22476937

maximus otter
Click to expand...
In that documentary, the journalist who went to JS's infamous Friday morning "meetings"with local worthies including police officers (she seemed incredibly start struck by him and was in the process of writing a hagiography when he died, I think?) had a tonne of materials/documents in her shed or garage, didn't she? Sounded like nobody had lifted them and gone through them as she still had them when they were filming the doc.

I'm wondering what evidence is still lying around to this day, that hasn't even been looked at, if she had a garage full of it? Think she kept it as JS died when she still had it. Which seemed odd to me, as surely you'd return it to relatives/executors, not hang on to it? I wonder if the West Yorks police even went to look at that material? Might be evidence there?
 
We come up against his public persona and popularity. Suspicions were suppressed or dismissed - and as long as he 'behaved well' in public then he'd be a popular choice for 'erself to be seen meeting.
 
Ghost In The Machine said:
I wonder if the West Yorks police even went to look at that material? Might be evidence there?
Click to expand...
Supposing there was evidence in the documents to show that he'd been protected by the West Yorkshire police then, or that a clear prosecution had been refused by the CPS or whatever ... d'you think the division would spill the beans now? Or might they be tempted to say "Ah, well, that's all in the past now. No point in stirring up the mud, eh? Get the shredder warmed up ..."
 
Stormkhan said:
Supposing there was evidence in the documents to show that he'd been protected by the West Yorkshire police then, or that a clear prosecution had been refused by the CPS or whatever ... d'you think the division would spill the beans now? Or might they be tempted to say "Ah, well, that's all in the past now. No point in stirring up the mud, eh? Get the shredder warmed up ..."
Click to expand...
I just get the feeling that if that writer had a load of documentation, some of which might have related to the Friday meetings - maybe she had other stuff (unknowingly), too, and that it should have been handed over to executors when he died or, as the story unfolded after he died, the police. Point being, other people may still have evidence, too?

For all we know, maybe those materials were turned over to the police and examined after the doc went out. I wonder?
 
Robbrent said:
It goes back much further than that, men in power (and not) have been abusing women and girls since time immoral, the aforementioned were just the last in the line, still many people have dewy eyed nostalgia for those days on innocence or more likely the very British habit of if we don't see it it never happened but as it has been proven abuse of women and children was rife
Click to expand...
Sure I am not suggesting that the 1970's were better at all for those who have to endure sexual abuse. My point was that the 'innocent' and 'family friendly ' facade presented by certain celebrities who were really quite disturbing seemed to be accepted far too readily.
 
No they weren’t. A lot of women found Savile creepy even from the remote viewing on TV. There was also a joke going around back then about a young girl given a lift in his car and a ‘microphone’ punchline.
As kids we were warned about the local ’funny men’ in the area, who knew that in a mining town, they’d get the living shit kicked out of them if they tried anything.
I’ve said this before but when we used to see Savile endlessly running on TV, my mum would usually say ‘It looks like he’s doing that as a penance’.
 
ramonmercado said:
She even met Swifty.
Click to expand...
Surfing this thread, no offense mate but please don't name drop me in this even if it's only for a laugh. Thanks. I can't finds laughs about kiddie fiddlers

edit: although if you do want to instead make jokes about me banging a giraffe while two pandas are watching, they Dutch rudder each other then both finish on my face .. I'm cool with that.

No kid sex jokes though please.
 
Last edited:
Swifty said:
Surfing this thread, no offense mate but please don't name drop me in this even if it's only for a laugh. Thanks. I can't finds laughs about kiddie fiddlers

edit: although if you do want to instead make jokes about me banging a giraffe while two pandas are watching, they Dutch rudder each other then both finish on my face .. I'm cool with that.

No kid sex jokes though please.
Click to expand...

It was a reference to you meeting the Queen, no offence meant.
 
Cochise said:
I think a fair number of ordinary people who worked with them on a regular basis knew - or strongly suspected, if you prefer, that something wasn't right. But such knowledge isn't proof
Click to expand...
This is an important point. I've heard things about the sexual proclivities of a public-facing person before (not famous nationwide like Jimmy Savile but known within their field and occasionally in the papers etc), but what can one do with such knowledge? You can't go to the police or the press based on rumours.
 
Analogue Boy said:
No they weren’t. A lot of women found Savile creepy even from the remote viewing on TV. There was also a joke going around back then about a young girl given a lift in his car and a ‘microphone’ punchline.
As kids we were warned about the local ’funny men’ in the area, who knew that in a mining town, they’d get the living shit kicked out of them if they tried anything.
I’ve said this before but when we used to see Savile endlessly running on TV, my mum would usually say ‘It looks like he’s doing that as a penance’.
Click to expand...
We had a local person when I was a kid in the East End, I was told by my parents to stay clear of. So I did. I didn't know why at the time. I just did as I was told. Thinking back, now many years later, from stories told by other kids, and how we know now about about how grooming takes place, he was a pedophile. My dad said if he ever approached me to run and tell him and he would sort him out. I hate to think now all these years later, what he would have done. Thankfully, for me, and my dad, that never happened.

There seemed to have been a 'know all about it' by people locally but little interest shown by the police despite other neighbours reporting odd 'stuff' and reporting what I now realise all these years later was open pedophilia type activities. How much in the past has been covered up right from a local level to a governmental level? Now, aged 66, I wonder how and why? How many coppers were then doing the same on all grades right up to the very top? The question has to be asked? Then the next question is, is it still going on?

I am not questioning the integrity of the majority of past and present police officers. Just the few. They exist in all organisations and at all levels of society.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top