Jimzk5 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 ah, you spotted me deliberate mistake. well done sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 That ITV programme was a predictably grim watch. 'Uncle Jimmy' with Gary Glitter as guest on his children's show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Amazing how he got away with it, the dirty old ****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 As I said on page one last year... A very sinister man . I think this is just the tip of the iceberg too with regards to the things he did . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 Jimmy Savile Jerry Sandusky I'm waiting for the expose that Johann Sebastian Bach was a pedophile. Seriously, though, it is almost eerie, some of the similarities between Savile and Sandusky. Sandusky, for instance, published this autobiography Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 It seems that a lot of people knew, but no one wanted to come forward. It was quite clear in that scene with Glitter, that those young girls were very uncomfortable around Savile.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 See any of that Kenny Everett night on BBC4 last night? They showed a 1973 TOTP where (I know he was gay, but...) he was leering all over these young girls, and said to one of them: "Mmmm, what a fine pair of udders you have". Wouldn't get away with it nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Some interesting stuff out there about Savile taking kids from Haut la Garenne to visit Morning Cloud, and a cover-up organised by the illegitimate child of George V who became a soviet spy and Keeper of the Queen's Pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyClarke Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Just watched the programme, evidence is pretty damning, strange that Esther Rantzen was quite happy to be filmed basically calling him guilty. It seems he was put on a pedestal that nobody dared knock him off, for various reasons, even a suggestion that the BBC had covered things up in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaForever1970 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 4, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 4, 2012 Well that was some strong stuff last night. Horrible that he was let get away with it. I never had him as a particularly physically imposing character but it appears as though plenty of the adults were physically scared of telling on him. And the clip of him and Glitter was fairly chilling. His defence of Glitter was damning too if anyone had any doubts to that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I have neither seen the programme nor read this thread, so of course I'm going to be in a minority again... I don't wish to be insensitive, or perhaps I'm just stupid or missing something obvious... but I just don't get the point of going into all this after the fellow is dead. After all it's not as if it happened recently and there was no time to charge him... this was already ancient history when he died. What will really piss me off, is if we start spending money on another bloody inquiry. Am I the only one who feels like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 4, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 4, 2012 Watch the programme A.J. And it's not about him at this point. It's about the victims. People who are very much not dead and who felt they couldn't speak about it until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think exposing the truth was a good thing, and to change the public image of this Horrible, Vile Human being. Also it is good for the victims to finally get their say on the matter, when they felt they couldn't when he was alive.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I'm going to be brave here, and I'm only really saying this for the sake of conversation... But. Is it fair to come to such damming conclusions when the guy is no longer around to defend himself? Everyone, myself included, is pretty set on the idea that he was a vile human being, but it's a pretty one sided arguement when there's no one around to defend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 I have neither seen the programme nor read this thread, so of course I'm going to be in a minority again... I don't wish to be insensitive, or perhaps I'm just stupid or missing something obvious... but I just don't get the point of going into all this after the fellow is dead. After all it's not as if it happened recently and there was no time to charge him... this was already ancient history when he died. What will really piss me off, is if we start spending money on another bloody inquiry. Am I the only one who feels like this?If there was a cover up at the BBC, and/or other public figures were involved, then it needs investigating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 4, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 4, 2012 Is it fair to come to such damming conclusions when the guy is no longer around to defend himself? It's perhaps not ideal, but that's not to say it's unfair. The Q.C. eloquently explained why both the volume of complaints and more importantly the similarities of the attacks allied to the 3rd party eye witness corroborations made it definitely grounds for arrest had he been around. But the sad thing is the nature of the affect it had on the victims means this never would have happened while he was still around. We can't dismiss what happened to the women just because this P.O.S. is now dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Watch the programme A.J. And it's not about him at this point. It's about the victims. People who are very much not dead and who felt they couldn't speak about it until now. I hear what you're saying... but with so many victims, it seems extraordinary they could not put a case together when he was still alive; and whilst recognising how difficult it is to empathise with the victims of such crimes, I still don't entirely understand why they couldn't speak out earlier. Incidentally, I used to see him once a year at the Dunhill cigar tasting in Jermyn Street, and though never swapping more than a few words with him, he always struck me as rather creepy.... then again, I feel like that about most notherners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyClarke Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think it is a fair point that making allegations against somebody who is no longer able to respond is perhaps unfair. However, it is not quite as simple in this case, we are not talking about somebody coming along with a pack of lies to try to make some money off somebody who is dead. These are people who have corroborated one anothers stories, there is evidence from adults who were around him at the time the allegations date from etc etc. Nobody (except ITV and that might change if anyone does an exclusive for a paper/magazine) appears to be gaining from this and the accusers are remaining anonomous, simple case that those who lived in fear for one reason or another are now strong enough to come forward, if Savile's death prompted them to gain that courage it doesn't make it any less relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaForever1970 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Odd program i agree with these thoughts... Half of it men who knew Savile saying "I saw him in bed with a 12 year old. It didn't feel right somehow but I went home and had my tea and everything was fine then" Half of it women who said "I went to his dressing room, he took me behind the curtain and stuck a hand on my booby and 2 hands down my knickers. It was awful. I hated it. I then went back every week for the next 5 years" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts