• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stormkhan said:
My family was never demonstrative. Even as a young child, I was never hugged.
Even now, it's only lovers who I felt it was okay to touch me. I 'accept' hugs from close family. I like to hug my wife and be demonstrative because I know her family are 'huggers'.
I shake hands in formal context but, outside that, I neither touch nor like being touched. This was a problem for me in the New Year because everybody, strangers and acquaintances, seemed to feel it appropriate to shake hands!
Click to expand...
I'm pretty much the same. Our 2 female cats don't like being hugged either so fit in nicely with the household. (Thread drift - yeah I know Max)
 
Frideswide said:
In autistic groups it's accepted without question that people can wear badges showing how much of what sort of conversation they would like. Also hug/no hug badges. Takes the guesswork out and everyone is happy. In groups I run the phrase appropriate hugs tends to be used a lot. Online you can send a brief eyebrow raise across a soccer pitch and it'll be received as full body deep-pressure HUG!
Click to expand...

quoting my own post :roll:

Not here I'm sure but in general training groups (industry, unions, council staff, nhs etc) there is often a reaction to this of how awful to be so stunted you don't just know these things through empathy. [imagine hand-wringing and much high emption affect here]

The response is along the lines of if your empathy is so good, why are you so often embarassingly wrong?
 
Tigerhawk said:
I remember an episode of Have I got News For You from several years before the pandemic, where Bruce Forsyth was hosting and was singing as part of the game. Part way through he touched the hair of the female guest Laura Solon, and she looked uncomfortable about it. Bruce, as far as I know, has never been accused of anything wrong, but it just gave me the creeps.
Click to expand...
Now you mention it, my attention was recently drawn to an episode of Blankety-blank featuring someone who came to public prominence in their later years. That person doesn't do all that well, but I found Wogan's interactions with the episode winner to be really creepy and predatory. And yet Wogan, as far as I know, maintained a fairly spotless reputation throughout his career. So is this another record of the sexist entitlement that seems to have been typical of the time, or was there something even more dodgy to it?

 
I think I mentioned in a post way upthread (but I can't find it) how in one of Pynchon's novels a minor character is a middle-aged pop DJ who has a thing for underage girls, with the feeling that that would be a widely known and joked about stereotype in the 1960s. Well, I just rewatched Grease for the first time in yonks, and they have a whole bit at the school dance where an older radio DJ comes to present the event, and spends the whole time making advances on a teenage character - it's later revealed that he tried to drug her. This is all played as a bit of a knowing joke, and the teenage character is too smart to fall for his schtick

It makes me wonder if during Savile's (and Teret's, etc etc) heyday, people would have assumed he was up to dodgy stuff with underage girls, but brushed it off as to be expected from a DJ?
 
Krepostnoi said:
Now you mention it, my attention was recently drawn to an episode of Blankety-blank featuring someone who came to public prominence in their later years. That person doesn't do all that well, but I found Wogan's interactions with the episode winner to be really creepy and predatory. And yet Wogan, as far as I know, maintained a fairly spotless reputation throughout his career. So is this another record of the sexist entitlement that seems to have been typical of the time, or was there something even more dodgy to it?

Click to expand...
It'll be the sexist entitlement. Women were always being belittled in this way.

The late TV presenter David Jacobs was a master of it. There's a clip of him on Juke Box Jury him praising some female celebrity's appearance and kitten-like qualities. Really.

Can you imagine, say, Jo Brand responding to this treatment?
Jacobs: And here we have the Rubenesquely beautiful and yet kittenish, self-proclaimed funny lady heh heh Jo Brand.
Jo Brand: Kittenish? You saw me licking my arse then?
 
Swifty said:
Shit. I've just remembered I kissed the back of the hand of my mate's wife's sister a few years ago. I was only mucking about (we all were) and I never normally kiss the back of a woman's hand. All three of these people have remained good friends and even turned up at my house uninvited to surprise party with me this New Year's Eve.. I won't be doing any hand kissing again (I wasn't planning on it anyway) now I've read people saying it's that creepy. We were all pissed, I'm English and they're Polish so maybe they thought it was a cultural difference thing?. I'm glad I got away with that now .. phew! ..

I don't know the correct spelling but I got used to hearing my mate calling his wife "Mishka". I'd just assumed that was her Polish name so one day I did the same thing to be polite and they both paused. I realised I'd somehow said something wrong so I asked him "What does Mishka mean?" .. they both laughed and he replied "It means darling". That was well embarrassing.
Click to expand...
When I lived in Russia I was told that in Russian Mishka means bear?
One of my colleagues was a welsh giant and his Russian Lady always referred to him as Mishka.
 
escargot said:
It'll be the sexist entitlement. Women were always being belittled in this way.
Click to expand...

^this^ I watched @Krepostnoi's clip in entirety. He is definitely handsy, but I watched him with the guy as well and he also is touchy with him, though to a lesser degree. If you watch the woman closely, you can see her pretty much gritting her teeth to bear the touchy feely.

If you want to see cringe and a gameshow host who was creepy, possibly to a greater extent (but I have never seen Blankety Blank, so it might be the same), watch Richard Dawson.

https://gameshows.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_Dawson

Richard Dawson (born Colin Lionel Emm on November 20, 1932; died June 2, 2012) was a British-born American Daytime Emmy award-winning actor, comedian, game show panelist and host. He was best known as a celebrity panelist of Match Game and the original host of Family Feud (until 1988 when he was then proceeded by Ray Combs, but then came back later in 1994). On Family Feud, he was well known for kissing contestants for good luck.
 
1705011626470.gif
 
Frideswide said:
quoting my own post :roll:

Not here I'm sure but in general training groups (industry, unions, council staff, nhs etc) there is often a reaction to this of how awful to be so stunted you don't just know these things through empathy. [imagine hand-wringing and much high emption affect here]

The response is along the lines of if your empathy is so good, why are you so often embarassingly wrong?
Click to expand...

I am baldly upfront about it - I like to give hugs but only when they are wanted. So I ask, and if someone says "no thanks" that's as OK as if they say "yes please". I don't get offended.

I never pressure wee ones to show/give affection - it's a form of abuse to do that IMO - but love the spontaneous hugs and kisses from little people that sometimes get bestowed upon me, the pureness of the intent is a gift in itself.
 
Last edited:
I saw a criticism of Roald Dahl's stories to the effect that the inner nastiness of his bad characters is almost always manifest in their ugly appearance, and that this is generally untrue and, hence, unfair.

And then I saw this promotional photograph (no, really) of Jimmy Savile at a charity function for Help the Aged in 1999 and began to wonder whether Dahl might have spotted a smidgen of a correlation...

SmartSelect_20240207_204743_eBay.jpg
 
Paul Add aka Gary Glitter is being sued for damages by one of his victims.
He's currently in prison after being released but later bounced for reverting to his usual grubby behaviour.

Gary Glitter sued by victim over psychiatric damage caused by abuse

A victim of Gary Glitter is bringing a compensation claim against the former pop star over the psychiatric damage she suffered at his hands, a high court judge has been told.

The woman is suing Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, after he was convicted in 2015 of abusing her and two other young victims between 1975 and 1980.

“What we have is severe and profound consequences as a result of abuse that I think is fair to say is of the worst kind,” her lawyer, Jonathan Metzer, told the court during a hearing in London on Tuesday.

“In summary, it has had profound and long-lasting consequences for my client’s life ever since.”
Click to expand...
 
Nice idea. If Gadd ever manages to stay out of prison, he has no career thus no earnings. Being sued for whatever money he has in savings might be the last straw, but the damages awarded cannot leave him with nothing to live on.
 
Stormkhan said:
Nice idea. If Gadd ever manages to stay out of prison, he has no career thus no earnings. Being sued for whatever money he has in savings might be the last straw, but the damages awarded cannot leave him with nothing to live on.
Click to expand...
He'll have a State pension like the rest of us.
Yup he's elderly and probably frail, and now has this to deal with in his old age. Good.
 
Stormkhan said:
Nice idea. If Gadd ever manages to stay out of prison, he has no career thus no earnings. Being sued for whatever money he has in savings might be the last straw, but the damages awarded cannot leave him with nothing to live on.
Click to expand...
He's loaded so I believe
 
Krepostnoi said:
Now you mention it, my attention was recently drawn to an episode of Blankety-blank featuring someone who came to public prominence in their later years. That person doesn't do all that well, but I found Wogan's interactions with the episode winner to be really creepy and predatory. And yet Wogan, as far as I know, maintained a fairly spotless reputation throughout his career. So is this another record of the sexist entitlement that seems to have been typical of the time, or was there something even more dodgy to it?

Click to expand...
Think it was just the creepy 70s' zeitgeist. Plus, playing up to that "charming" persona in an era when charm was telling ladies they were pretty. Husband met him in later years at work when TW was there filming and said he was the most genuine celeb he ever met - even though elderly, had to be introduced to someone, no matter how "lowly" in the pecking order, and memorised and used their names, faultlessly. Kind, attentive, polite. Not that these things would flag that someone wasn't a pred but - no rumours before or since he died and I know others who met him who had only nice things to say about him. Unlike Savile who was widely loathed and suspected by some, of the things it later appears he did.

Re. upthread, talking about the predatory rep of DJs... wasn't Savile the first? So maybe he set the bar, there.
 
Robbrent said:
He's loaded so I believe
Click to expand...
I bet the royalties dried up though - from the UK, at least. I used to know someone who was a one hit wonder in the 70s and made enough money from plays of that one song, to pretty well live off it - apparently it was played all over Europe, moreso than here. So although you'd imagine that would be a pathetic income, maybe it's something ex pop stars begin to rely on as they get older? And Gadd won't be getting much of a payout there, these days. Although theydidcontinue singing/playing him at baseball grounds in the US, I think, some time after we knew the nature of the beast..?
 
Ghost In The Machine said:
I bet the royalties dried up though - from the UK, at least. I used to know someone who was a one hit wonder in the 70s and made enough money from plays of that one song, to pretty well live off it - apparently it was played all over Europe, moreso than here. So although you'd imagine that would be a pathetic income, maybe it's something ex pop stars begin to rely on as they get older? And Gadd won't be getting much of a payout there, these days. Although theydidcontinue singing/playing him at baseball grounds in the US, I think, some time after we knew the nature of the beast..?
Click to expand...

I believe that despite his crimes, his songs are still used by American sports teams, and, as I recall, he'd invested quite heavily in London properties.
Now, how many of them have had to be sold to pay for his legal representation, I don't know, but he still could well be wealthier than we assume.
 
Though that wealth will be ascertained in any award given by a court, should the civil action succeed.
 
“Glitter no longer owns the rights to his songs — which means he no longer receives royalties for them.

His songs are believed to be blacklisted on all UK radio stations, but there are stations in the US that still play them.

He is believed to own a flat in London - thought to be worth £2million - but it is controlled by a former associate through a company.

His net worth is believed to be in the region of £6.5million.”

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4631813/gary-glitter-net-worth-rock-roll-joker/

maximus otter
 
His songs are used still by Holwood - rock n roll part 2 for the Joker and I believe he has stuff in "meet the Fockers" as well.
Some fuss was kicked up on the release of "the Joker" and the record label claimed he wouldn't get any money - but failed to say how this would be achieved, so frankly I don't believe them.
To be honest - regardless of the individual I think whether someones income is taken from them should be a matter for the courts, not public opinion.
His original conviction was a bit odd in a way as well - he took his laptop to PC World and they "found" the incrimininating evidence on it - a decent lawyer would have had them done for planting the evidence.
Note - I'm not doubting his guilt - just I doubt he had it as his desktop wallpaper.
As a PC Techinician of 40 years who has actually been involved in a case of this nature - we do not go looking through folks files and anyone who does and it comes to light would be in a lot of trouble themselves.
In the case I was involved with, the workstation in question was actually hosting the material and we noticed the increased traffic - as a result we already had a fairly good idea what might be going on and the machine was only briefly looked at by me before being passed on to a specialist team that my University has for handling such matters.
 
Lobeydosser said:
His songs are used still by Holwood - rock n roll part 2 for the Joker and I believe he has stuff in "meet the Fockers" as well.
Some fuss was kicked up on the release of "the Joker" and the record label claimed he wouldn't get any money - but failed to say how this would be achieved, so frankly I don't believe them.
To be honest - regardless of the individual I think whether someones income is taken from them should be a matter for the courts, not public opinion.
His original conviction was a bit odd in a way as well - he took his laptop to PC World and they "found" the incrimininating evidence on it - a decent lawyer would have had them done for planting the evidence.
Note - I'm not doubting his guilt - just I doubt he had it as his desktop wallpaper.
As a PC Techinician of 40 years who has actually been involved in a case of this nature - we do not go looking through folks files and anyone who does and it comes to light would be in a lot of trouble themselves.
In the case I was involved with, the workstation in question was actually hosting the material and we noticed the increased traffic - as a result we already had a fairly good idea what might be going on and the machine was only briefly looked at by me before being passed on to a specialist team that my University has for handling such matters.
Click to expand...
Techy works in IT and tells me files on company devices are certainly browsed, if only to ensure they're not harbouring viruses.
This is for work though.
 
escargot said:
Techy works in IT and tells me files on company devices are certainly browsed, if only to ensure they're not harbouring viruses.
This is for work though.
Click to expand...
Well an Anti virus scanner would check the files - it's not like you can "see" a virus. And yes in IT we all know of the sort who would copy everything (movies, music etc) they can get their hands on (especially back in the early days)- but if they admit to it or get caught doing it nowadays it's not a "small" thing and will land you in a lot of trouble.
Returned computers for instance are wiped and re-imaged. I recall the fuss a few years ago when we had somone (important) who "lost " all their wedding day photo's and video's when their macbook drive gave up the ghost (yes, that was the only place they had them stored).
We did actually get the data recovered but it took a written assuarance to my boss from them before we would attempt it.
I've also had a Police laptop that they "forgot" about and we securely disposed of for them (drive run through a shredder).
You have to be very carefull with other folks hardware these days - Over 20 years ago I replaced a faulty hard drive for someone who was later convicted of possessing CP. It was completely dead and I simply returned the drive under warranty, I'm very glad I didn't look on that drive and wasn't too amused that it had passed through my hands - "no good deed goes unpunished" and all that.
I fix computers - I do not want to look at your data - ever.
 
Last edited:
Lobeydosser said:
Well an Anti virus scanner would check the files - it's not like you can "see" a virus. And yes in IT we all know of the sort who would copy everything (movies, music etc) they can get their hands on (especially back in the early days)- but if they admit to it or get caught doing it nowadays it's not a "small" thing and will land you in a lot of trouble.
Returned computers for instance are wiped and re-imaged. I recall the fuss a few years ago when we had somone (important) who "lost " all their wedding day photo's and video's when their macbook drive gave up the ghost (yes, that was the only place they had them stored).
We did actually get the data recovered but it took a written assuarance to my boss from them before we would attempt it.
I've also had a Police laptop that they "forgot" about and we securely disposed of for them (drive run through a shredder).
You have to be very carefull with other folks hardware these days - Over 20 years ago I replaced a faulty hard drive for someone who was later convicted of possessing CP. It was completely dead and I simply returned the drive under warranty, I'm very glad I didn't look on that drive and wasn't too amused that it had passed through my hands - "no good deed goes unpunished" and all that.
I fix computers - I do not want to look at your data - ever.
Click to expand...
Allegedly lots of porn images that were taken for private consumption (ahem) get out into the wild from stolen phones and laptops and also stuff appearing on the 2nd hand market, security is getting better but some people are a little naïve
 
One firm I worked for sold re-furbed, returned or repaired laptops. We always had to check the hard drives for 'inappropriate images', using a basic 'password cracker' on those that were protected. If we couldn't get in to the drives, or we discovered even one dodgy image, then we used a drive scrubber to wipe it all, including the O/S.
Okay, so the authorities could recover a lot but it was enough for the retail market. One of my stepsons finds this funny - he graduated with a BSc. in Computer Forensics. He's starting his Masters this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top