• 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

The allegation appears to be a garbled response (either misunderstood, or deliberately misreported) to an element of the Ray Teret case.

Teret had provable connections to Savile, and on one of the wall's of Teret's flat - above his record shop in Sale - were found names and telephone numbers that had since been covered in wallpaper. I believe only two were ever traced to victims willing to appear in Teret's subsequent trial (although there is little doubt that other abused young women were on that list).

The sober reality appears to be that Teret used the wall as a contact list; there were definitely victims listed, but there appears to be no actual proof that all the numbers were connected to abuse - and the idea that there was a list of guilty celebrities appears to be complete fantasy.

Remarkably, there's footage of the actual uncovering of the graffiti - recorded as part of the BBC's excellent documentary series The Detectives. (Of course, being the BBC I'm sure that'll pull some triggers, but any alleged conspiracy would also have had to involve Greater Manchester Police and two proven victims as well.)

To my mind, there's something much more horrific in the quiet reality of this reveal (at around 54:00 onwards) than there is in the grand guignolesque tabloid (mis)reporting, which always - it seems to me - appears to value the naming of Names far more than it values the actual victims of the abuse.


I think there were another two episodes dedicated to the Teret case - well worth tracking down.

Some evidence, at last. Even so, “Denise woz ere 7.9.75” is hardly damning: tree trunks and walls all over the world record as much info.

Also, interesting that Tenet was JS’s chauffeur (and flatmate?). There’s something actionable here, and l’d be interested to see what the police were able to make of it.

maximus otter
 
Some evidence, at last. Even so, “Denise woz ere 7.9.75” is hardly damning: tree trunks and walls all over the world record as much info...

Yes, in and of itself, not really indicative of much. But my impression was that a significant part of the initial purpose of the search and discovery was that prior knowledge would be one proof that some (then alleged - now proven) victims had been inside the flat. Any actual contact details (all obscured in the documentary) were then used to try and track other potential victims.
 
Course there is no such thing as a paedophile ring, Not at all. Nothing to see here, people, just move along now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...hile-ring-met-police-serving-chief-inspector/

The reason I put this here is that I just don't see how Savile got away with what he 'allegedly' did unless other people were prepared to ignore it - one possible reason for doing so being their own activities weren't up to scrutiny.
 
Well, in one documentary, Savile proudly declared that he'd 'high up' friends in the Greater Manchester police.
 
Course there is no such thing as a paedophile ring, Not at all. Nothing to see here, people, just move along now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...hile-ring-met-police-serving-chief-inspector/

The reason I put this here is that I just don't see how Savile got away with what he 'allegedly' did unless other people were prepared to ignore it - one possible reason for doing so being their own activities weren't up to scrutiny.
Han't seen this until just now. Horrific.

However, the officers under investigation are charged with possessing child sex abuse image rather than actually assaulting children.
That's bad enough of course especially considering their occupation.

One wonders what happened to their co-accused serving Chief Inspector Richard Watkinson.
 
Well, in one documentary, Savile proudly declared that he'd 'high up' friends in the Greater Manchester police.
Yup, he often made similar claims. By 'friends' he could have meant anything from old schoolfriends to people he had personally compromised with involvement in crime.

Compromising people is easy if you're ruthless enough. You don't even have to make them do anything really bad: just talking them into turning a blind eye to others' offending once or twice might be enough.
 
I'm not sure the Steve Coogan drama about Savile, due out sometime this year, is a good idea:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-air-this-year-despite-concerns-over-reaction
Techy and I very much enjoyed The Crown and looked forward to the last series, where, we were promised, a prominent individual would be depicted advising and mediating between Prince Charles and Princess Diana.

We eagerly anticipated the tracksuits, jangly gold chains and cigars.

Spoilered for those who haven't seen it yet -

What did we get? John Major, ably played by Jonny Lee Miller. :chuckle:

About as diametrically opposed a personality to Savile's as one could imagine.

Not an arm-licking or goosing in sight. Netflix weren't going there. :dsist:


:rollingw:
 
It's not just that.
The fact that it was commissioned by the BBC - the very corporation that was accused of turning a blind eye to Savile's crimes, sounds like a red flag to me.

The BBC is not a single entity as in "being", it has thousands of employees. How many of those responsible for covering up/turning a blind eye are even there anymore?

I don't know that there should be a drama, documentaries are enough but I don't see that it's too much of an issue that the BBC is making it. It's not something that I'd commission were I in charge but I don't think it's inherently "dodgy" as it were.
 
It's not just that.
The fact that it was commissioned by the BBC - the very corporation that was accused of turning a blind eye to Savile's crimes, sounds like a red flag to me.

If they didn't, "people" would say they were ignoring it and sweeping it under the carpet.
 
The BBC is not a single entity as in "being", it has thousands of employees. How many of those responsible for covering up/turning a blind eye are even there anymore?

I don't know that there should be a drama, documentaries are enough but I don't see that it's too much of an issue that the BBC is making it. It's not something that I'd commission were I in charge but I don't think it's inherently "dodgy" as it were.
A drama is a great idea. We'll be able to see how Savile went about his offending. Survivors of his abuse have been consulted so the scenes of it, if there are any, will be accurate.

Having been constantly harassed as a teenager by apparently respectable men who took their cue from creatures like him, I'm wondering what the 'Savile move' was that he bragged about.
Was it like Trump's self-described pussy grab? Did Savile do that to teenagers? Will we learn what went on?

Some of Savile's victims asked to meet Coogan in his Savile get-up. What followed has not been made public.

Coogan himself took care to chat with the younger actors before filming scenes, reminding them that he was still just Steve and not Savile, and everyone was doing a job of acting.

The subject has been covered before, notably by Floodlights, the BBC2 drama about the abusive football coach Barry Bennell.

Here's a Guardian article about it:
‘Secrets kill’: the harrowing drama about sexual abuse in football

Everything rings true – at times, grotesquely so. Bennell (played by Jonas Armstrong) is astonishingly, authentically repulsive: wheedling, bantering, manipulating, terrifyingly changeable in tone and mood; playing his young charges off against each other; and exploiting his gatekeeping power and sinister charisma to the full.
'gatekeeping power and sinister charisma' - does this sound familiar?
 
I am unsure as to why they want to make a film about a child molester and why someone would want to play that part
Especially as all opportunities to investigate him at the time were turned down from the highest level so we can never really know what happened, although there is more than enough evidence that he was a wrong'un.

But whether he was just a systematic groper or something far far more serious is ever going to lie in the 'unsolved'. I know I believe he was everything that he has been insinuated to be, but there will never be verifiable truth, same as for certain other very powerful figures. (child homes, Jersey, cough cough)

I have personal experience, as a child, of how certainly back then, maybe even now, people in positions of power - even if it is just your maths master - can deflect any and all accusations made against them.
 
It's drama, all about the power: who holds it and what they can do with it.
In literature and drama we expect redemption. There won't be much here, and that will be real enough.

I am unsure as to why they want to make a film about a child molester and why someone would want to play that part
Actors love to portray unpleasant characters. It's acting, it's what they do. :)
We'd be stuffed for entertainment if they only wanted to play loveable characters. They can't all be Tinky Winky.
 
Especially as all opportunities to investigate him at the time were turned down from the highest level so we can never really know what happened, although there is more than enough evidence that he was a wrong'un.

But whether he was just a systematic groper or something far far more serious is ever going to lie in the 'unsolved'. I know I believe he was everything that he has been insinuated to be, but there will never be verifiable truth, same as for certain other very powerful figures. (child homes, Jersey, cough cough)

I have personal experience, as a child, of how certainly back then, maybe even now, people in positions of power - even if it is just your maths master - can deflect any and all accusations made against them.
Yes it was completely different back then. Thankfully attitudes are changing somewhat, as we have seen recently, but it'll never be a perfect world. I honestly doubt that the revolting JS would have got away with it for so long in the current climate.
 
I'm not sure the Steve Coogan drama about Savile, due out sometime this year, is a good idea:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...-air-this-year-despite-concerns-over-reaction
If it's handled well, and from what has been released it is, then it HAS TO BE SAID. No glossing, no evasive words or implication.
If this happened then it has to be said!
If the BBC are doing it then I, personally, think it's a step in a right direction. It wasn't only the BBC that enabled him - the government of the day, the NHS ... shit, even the prison system! As long as BBC productions DON'T try to gloss over or play down the Corporation's involvement - even unwittingly as may be - then I'd consider this to be a form of exculpation.
 
If it's handled well, and from what has been released it is, then it HAS TO BE SAID. No glossing, no evasive words or implication.
If this happened then it has to be said!
If the BBC are doing it then I, personally, think it's a step in a right direction. It wasn't only the BBC that enabled him - the government of the day, the NHS ... shit, even the prison system! As long as BBC productions DON'T try to gloss over or play down the Corporation's involvement - even unwittingly as may be - then I'd consider this to be a form of exculpation.
Will be interesting to watch just to see how much "mea culpa" there is... Think the BBC had a whole culture of this - as I posted upthread, somewhere, child actor who worked there in the 1980s I knew, had a few stories.
 
Will be interesting to watch just to see how much "mea culpa" there is... Think the BBC had a whole culture of this - as I posted upthread, somewhere, child actor who worked there in the 1980s I knew, had a few stories.

Exactly.
But will the BBC have the cojones to air their exceedingly soiled linen in public or will it be more apologism than apologies?
It's probably going to be worth a watch to find out, but it does sound a bit like the Vatican producing a documentary about abuse of choir-boys or Iran making a film about women's rights.
 
Exactly.
But will the BBC have the cojones to air their exceedingly soiled linen in public or will it be more apologism than apologies?
It's probably going to be worth a watch to find out, but it does sound a bit like the Vatican producing a documentary about abuse of choir-boys or Iran making a film about women's rights.
Yes. I'm interested to see it and see what spin they put on it but it might be more trustworthy if it was, say, Channel 4...
 
I've just read an interview (on Yahoo news) with a survivor of Savile who decided to let her story be told in the docu-drama. At first she was understandably freaked out when she saw Coogan in costume and using his voice but, after a while, she had a long talk with the actor about her feelings and why did he choose to play the monster.
No details but she said she was satisfied with the answers he gave to give the go-ahead to use her abuse in the programme.
 
Talking with a friend the other day about the Coogan/Savile programme and we agreed that this was one time when a list of numbers to call if you needed help was necessary for victims.

Then we got on to people who are or who potentially are paedophiles. It doesn't seem likely that it is a choice so they must at some time realise that they are, for whatever reason nature or nurture, wired differently, for want of a better term to the majority of the population.

Is this a realisation in early life, at about the time adolescents realise they are hetero or gay, etc. or is it a later development and if you are otherwise a basically decent person with these illegal leanings or urges how do you get help? I'm assuming there must be people who feel like this and not all paedophiles have a mindset, like Savile and Glitter that they can do what they like.

The disgust and anger manifested by the rest of the population is going to make it difficult to confide in anyone so do you get driven “underground” much as gay people were a few decades ago?

Anyone or organisation offering help is likely to be vilified and what help can be offered? If you can “cure” paedophilia can you by implication“cure” being hetero or gay? No, but that's a dangerous path to go down.

If there is no help, then what can be done with or for these people and if there is how is it accessible? If it isn't then surely we are effectively driving them towards criminal behaviour and endangering others.

I'm not being an apologist for Savile and his like who may have been beyond any help from day one but just wondering about people who may be resisting or trying to resist urges they know to be wrong.

Personally I feel the same revulsion others do but in the present climate of help lines for people who are traumatised by naughty words there seems a gap here.

I'm also not going to try looking anything up for obvious reasons.
 
A very worthy and valid post, Tunn11, and you are right, it leads to some very potentially worrying ideas.

(I had a friend who had some rather odd urges, but she only ever gave into them in parts of the world where it was not illegal...or, dare I say, particularly immoral...)

(And I dont think that is the answer these days)
 
Anyone or organisation offering help is likely to be vilified and what help can be offered? If you can “cure” paedophilia can you by implication“cure” being hetero or gay? No, but that's a dangerous path to go down.

If there is no help, then what can be done with or for these people and if there is how is it accessible? If it isn't then surely we are effectively driving them towards criminal behaviour and endangering others.
I believe the helpline recommended by (a general helpline I volunteer with) is called Stop It Now. So you could safely google that if you want to see what they offer.
 
If you can “cure” paedophilia can you by implication“cure” being hetero or gay? No, but that's a dangerous path to go down.

If there is no help, then what can be done with or for these people and if there is how is it accessible? If it isn't then surely we are effectively driving them towards criminal behaviour and endangering others.
I don't want them 'helped', I want them permanently kept away from children.
 
Back
Top