Jimmy Savile And Other Paedophiles

[GarethRDR]

Diet paedophile.

[coda]

What (if anything) is the technical term for someone like him, because as was said about the maths teacher in France recently, none of the victims were pre-pubescent and therefore he is (or was) not technically a paedophile.

Hebephilia, which I hadn't heard of until this thread.

[BOF]

Ah, cheers. A new word on me too

[privateer]

I haven't really read up on any of this, what is the age of the kids that he is supposed to have fiddled with?

is he being accused of being a full on pedophile or is he being accused of being into people just under the legal age?

In essence, he is accused of being a paedophile who preyed on pubescent girls but it wouldn't surprise me if the gender didn't matter to him that much.

It's not bad enough that he molested children...he might have also been gay? That's the last straw for me! :shock:

As predicted, the first male has spoken out.

Now a MAN claims he was groped by Jimmy Savile, aged 12, as Scotland Yard leads inquiry into sex abuse allegations against the BBC star

A male teacher has claimed Jimmy Savile molested him when he was just 12 after they met on a family day out.

The school tutor, who is now in his 40s and didn't want to named, is the first man to come forward to allege that he was assaulted by the DJ.

So far more than 40 women have reportedly come forward to accuse the TV star of child abuse.

The man told the Daily Mirror: 'We met Jimmy on a day out. I was with my family and he came over and sat with us. I could feel him rubbing my leg under the table – and then moving up to my crotch.

'When I told my family later, they didn’t take it seriously. They said I was imagining it or exaggerating and that Jimmy Savile was a good man.

'But I’ve always known he was a paedophile and I’m glad that all of this has finally surfaced.'

Mail quoting Mirror story

[Jimzk5]

appears a string of djs were in a sex ring at the bbc, including john peel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213621/Claire-McAlpine-A-15-year-old-killed-leaving-diary-naming-DJs-abusers-Disturbing-questions-John-Peel-So-starts-WERE-involved.html

[Richard]

Pissed off with sick jokes about this and people thinking they are funny

[snowychap]

..

[thetrees]

appears a string of djs were in a sex ring at the bbc, including john peel.

http://www.dailymail...E-involved.html

I think that the press are in danger of running away a little bit with this.

Whilst John Peel in particular is held in great reverence by many (not me, i am indifferent), I think that there is a difference between a sexually active teenager throwing themselves at 'celebrities' and offering sexual favours, and the accusations thrown at Savile alleging that he forced himself upon young girls and women, which is unacceptable regardless of the age of the victims.

If Savile and others, living or dead, are found to have been guilty of aggravated sex offences, then they should rightly be pilloried and charged if necessary. But if young men have been accepting favours on offer largely because of their status, from attractive women who may have appeared 'old enough', then that is separate and should be viewed as such.

If it is found that John Peel and others raped women and young girls as Savile is alleged to have done, then they should rightly be categorised with him. If not, the it would be a total injustice to their reputation to do so.

[The_Rev]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill?cat=lifeandstyle&type=article

Posting from my phone, hence the ugly URL but this article from January 99 is getting some traction on social media today. As someone who's formative years were spent listening to John Peel I have to confess to being somewhat heartbroken.

[Jon]

http://m.guardian.co...le&type=article

Posting from my phone, hence the ugly URL but this article from January 99 is getting some traction on social media today. As someone who's formative years were spent listening to John Peel I have to confess to being somewhat heartbroken.

Bloody hell.

[mjmooney]

John Peel never made any secret about his youthful indiscretions. And I think there is a difference between (possibly underage) groupies who are blatantly out to have sex with a celeb, and kids being exploited against their will. I'm not saying that the former is laudable, but it is perhaps forgiveable. As McMurphy says in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next":

She was fifteen years old, going on thirty-five, Doc, and she told me she was eighteen, she was very willing, I practically had to take to sewing my pants shut. Between you and me, uh, she might have been fifteen, but when you get that little red beaver right up there in front of you, I don't think it's crazy at all and I don't think you do either. No man alive could resist that, and that's why I got into jail to begin with. And now they're telling me I'm crazy over here because I don't sit there like a goddamn vegetable. Don't make a bit of sense to me. If that's what being crazy is, then I'm senseless, out of it, gone-down-the-road, wacko. But no more, no less, that's it.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

it does strike me as a case of different time, different morals.

i reckon there are a lot of men who made it big in the 60s/70s who are reading some of these articles and getting a little nervous.

(in reference to john peel, rather than savile, i should add).

[bickster]

Jerry Sadowitz in 1987 had this to say (NSFW) about Jimmy Savile.

[peterms]

Why would those managers who asked for the rumors to be checked be so readily satisfied?

It seems reasonable to suspect that it was because if the newspapers weren't running a story, it wasn't going to embarrass the BBC. In short, the reputation of the BBC (and perhaps its survival) was judged to be more important than the welfare of some of the most vulnerable.

My guess would that if managers had asked for this to be checked out, they would have been hoping and praying that it came back in a way which didn't require action on their part. Why? Because such action would have been politically dangerous (taking on a more powerful person), organisationally dangerous (same reason the press didn't act - fear of libel charges and the consequent cost, they say), massively timeconsuming, unpopular (like any "politically correct" action before the prevailing culture is ready for it, by which time it's no longer "politically correct"). I suspect, with no inside knowledge or special insight, that the reputation of the beeb was of less concern that these more mundane thoughts.

If that is in fact the case, then how can one not conclude that it arises from a rottenness in the institution? Perhaps the BBC was (is?) in the habit of promoting sociopaths into management*. Perhaps it may simply be that because the BBC views itself as fulfilling a mission of such great (yet perhaps unappreciated) importance that embarrassments are to be avoided at any cost**, even if that cost is allowing a rapist to walk free to rape again.

It is worth wondering whether a corporation which, if it doesn't institutionally encourage that value judgment (that its reputation is worth letting kids get raped), is not interested in discouraging that value judgment, should be the holder of a substantial privilege.

Here you seem to slip into suggesting that this was specific to the BBC. It plainly wasn't. It is notable that people who dislike the beeb either for political reasons or (as I think in your case) for reasons of political philosophy, seem to imply that this is specific to the BBC, without ever actually attempting to show that this is so. There was a R5 interview (which you probably wouldn't have had the chance to hear) with a tory MP, where the interviewer asked why he was suggesting it was a BBC problem, when at the same period women were being routinely sexually assaulted by MPs in the Houses of Parliament. The MP pretended not to have heard, and continued his assault on the beeb. His refusal to address the issue was interesting.

It would fit with everything I've ever heard or seen, to think that the BBC (very) Light Entertainment Division of the 70s and 80s and 90s and probabaly now, saw and sees itself as partly in tune with the times, partly a pathbreaker, always in the forefront of cool and hip. Just like a million other tawdry assorted meeja types, ad execs, artists, lecturers, post-ironic situationist hairdressers, and all the rest of the self-styled cultural iconoclasts. If the mood of the moment was about causal sex with people without worrying too much about checking the id for the exact age (and yes, it largely was), then don't be too surprised if the people working there act accordingly, or try to be slightly more "liberated" than the norm.

Your leap from what happened, to questioning the licence fee is unjustified, misleading, and just plain wrong. It will not serve us better, nor be a better defence aginst rape, to have a commercial broadcaster swallowing every word of a right-wing sponsor.

That, strangely enough, is nearly word-for-word the argument that Penn State apologists deploy to argue that the university (or even more specifically its athletic department or still more specifically the football program) should not be punished because the people who were specifically involved in the malfeasance are no longer there and that the students, current players, fans, and businesses that depend on those are being unfairly punished.

It's also the argument that Goldman Sachs apologists deploy to argue that GS shouldn't be punished, but only those employees who committed various frauds. At least some current shareholders and employees had no role in the illegalities, so why should they suffer?

I'm not familiar with the Penn State argument, so bear with me. If someone commits a murder in a house, moves on and can't be caught or dies before charges can be brought, would it make sense to demolish the house? Probably most people not afflicted with a very literal set of religious sensibilities would say "no". Is the football programme (indulge my spelling) the unwitting channel for this act, or does something about it facilitate, enable, even encourage the act? Presumably that is the key question.

Your argument seems to me to seek to imply, rather than prove, that the beeb was a causative factor rather than just the channel through which this pretty unsavoury popular culture found expression. You do need to make that case, if that is your view.

Goldman Sachs, however, is a "controlling mind" in the way which receivers of broadcasts are not.

If corporate entities are to be viewed as people, then they should stand punishable.

I agree.

Returning to Goldman, it is the case that taxes on banker bonuses have enabled New York State's welfare state for some years up to 2008; with the loss of those taxes NYS has had to cut certain elements of that state. It can quite fairly be said that the poor of the State of New York have been victimized not by Goldman but by the investigations etc. which have resulted in reduced bonuses. Is that a reason not to proceed with those investigations?

If any part of your argument against looking into the extent to which institutional issues at the BBC contributed to the cover-up is a potential loss of the fine programming from the BBC, then you are, I would suggest, saying that if children have to be raped to keep the BBC broadcasting, that's a price well worth paying.

The Goldman argument is spurious, and depends on counting some things and not others. (I recognise that you put it forward for comparison, rather than recommending it).

The argument about the BBC is wholly different. In an orgnisation owned by us, the public, there has been a failure of managerial duty. Should that be open to remedy by being sued, as well as other channels? Yes, and so it is. Should we treat the BBC in some fantasy manner, as though it were really owned by private interests and therefore the owners could be punished for their lack of oversight? Probaly not. Would it make any sense at all to deprive the nation of its broadcaster because of the actions of some individuals? Well, if that rule counts across the board, we'd have precious few private companies left.

But it makes even less sense in the public sector. It is quite reasonable to say that the major shareholders in Goldman and others have some say in how they operate. We have, for example, interviews with major shareholders before agms, asking if they will put pressure on the company to do this or that. As a beeb licence payer I am one of scores of millions. There is no connection between my action and what the beeb does. That's a factor of ownership, not a judgement.

[BOF]

Savile abuse claims: Police pursue 120 lines of inquiry

Savile abuse claims: Police pursue 120 lines of inquiry

Police say there could be as many as 30 victimsContinue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Could Sir Jimmy Savile lose knighthood?
  
• Savile allegations 'will not go away'
  
• Profile: Sir Jimmy Savile
  

Police investigating alleged sexual abuse of girls by the late Jimmy Savile are pursuing 120 separate lines of inquiry, Scotland Yard has said.

Commander Peter Spindler, head of specialist crime investigations, said police had recorded eight allegations against Sir Jimmy, including two rapes.

He later told the BBC there could be up to 30 victims, spanning four decades.

Police said it would be a joint inquiry with children's charity the NSPCC and it would be named Operation Yewtree.

During a press briefing at the Metropolitan Police headquarters in London, police said the alleged victims were mainly girls who were aged between 13 and 16 at the time.

Cdr Spindler said that of the eight criminal allegations, six were alleged indecent assaults on young teenage girls.

He praised the alleged victims for "shining a light" on the abuse and said they would be looking for an "acknowledgement and a recognition of what happened to them".

"You really shouldn't underestimate the impact even after so many years of reliving these experiences and then to watch the public debate unfold and it has been quite significant," Cdr Spindler told reporters.

"It will be traumatic for some, if not all, of them."

He said Sir Jimmy's pattern of offending behaviour appeared to be on "a national scale" and he had a "predilection for teenage girls".

Cdr Spindler said the first allegation dated back to about 1959 but most seemed to be in the 70s and 80s.

In an interview with the BBC after the briefing, he said it was quite clear Sir Jimmy was a "predatory sex offender" who "perpetrated four decades of abuse".

Police 'assessment'

The briefing was told that a range of different names had been reported to police, as well as Sir Jimmy's.

Cdr Spindler said police were not investigating the BBC.

But he said Scotland Yard had been in contact with ITV and the BBC to gather information. He said they were also contacting alleged victims the organisations have been talking to to see if they would co-operate.

Police said they had recorded eight allegations against Sir Jimmy

Asked if allegations related to any institutions other than those mentioned in previous claims - the BBC, Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne, or Duncroft Approved School in Staines, Surrey - he said he had contacted Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Leeds Royal Infirmary.

Cdr Spindler said police wanted a swift conclusion to what he described as an "assessment" rather than an investigation.

He said it was being carried out by Scotland Yard and being led by its serious case team, which looks at complex and historical cases.

Seven staff are working on it, and this would be increased to 10 on Wednesday, he added.

Cdr Spindler said a provisional search of Scotland Yard's records could not find any record of any previous investigation into Sir Jimmy, and they were only aware of the previous involvement of Surrey Police.

The aim of the investigation is to produce a final joint report with the NSPCC, looking at the lessons learned and sharing the findings with other relevant agencies, he said.

Police hope to produce the report by the end of next month.

Peter Liver, of the NSPCC, said the charity had had 17 calls to its helpline directly related to the allegations.

'Comprehensive examination'

On Monday, chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, said any BBC inquiry would take place after the police investigation.

He said the corporation must "command credibility" in how it dealt with the allegations.

Earlier on Monday, BBC director general George Entwistle promised a "comprehensive examination" of allegations that Sir Jimmy abused girls while working for the corporation.

He also apologised to women involved "for what they've had to endure here".

Sir Jimmy died in October 2011, at the age of 84.

The face of Top of the Pops in the 1960s, he hosted TV favourite Jim'll Fix It on BBC 1 in the 1970s and 1980s and was knighted in 1990 for his charity work.

But recently allegations have spread about serious sexual assaults on under-age girls at the height of his fame.

Some of the allegations - publicised in an ITV documentary - refer to incidents on BBC premises.

[snowychap]

In an interview with the BBC after the briefing, he said it was quite clear Sir Jimmy was a "predatory sex offender" who "perpetrated four decades of abuse".

Well, there we have it then.

Yes, he quite probably is and the allegations which the police have received (together with the rumours and so on) very likely point straight to that conclusion but I do find it slightly worrying that a senior police officer is quite happy to go on record and say that on the basis of one side of evidence (albeit a large body of evidence) heard.

[mjmooney]

The headstone is being removed from his grave.

[TheDon]

Well, there we have it then.

Yes, he quite probably is and the allegations which the police have received (together with the rumours and so on) very likely point straight to that conclusion but I do find it slightly worrying that a senior police officer is quite happy to go on record and say that on the basis of one side of evidence (albeit a large body of evidence) heard.

Indeed, Innocent until proven guilty, unless you're dead... or a suspected pedophile, doubly so if you're a dead suspected pedophile.

I find it worse than slightly worrying that people are running around ready to give Savile the Cromwell treatment based on the one sided revelations in a documentary.

I just find it hard to believe that after the countless years of rumours going around (which were pretty much the same as go on about any odd looking bloke) the only time people come forward and say that this actually happened are when the guys dead. I don't buy for one minute that people were scared of Jimmy **** Savile to the point where they couldn't say anything until the guy was unable to defend himself.

The volume of accusations as well says nothing, once the story broke there was always going to be countless of people saying "it happened to me!" because it's always the way with these things, people on the look out for a compensation payout. But no, because so many people have came out and said it now, it clearly must be true.

Trial by media of the worst kind.

[peterms]

I do find it slightly worrying that a senior police officer is quite happy to go on record and say that on the basis of one side of evidence (albeit a large body of evidence) heard.

Though the normal reason for the police (and everyone else) not rushing to pronounce someone's guilt is to avoid prejudicing a fair trial. Since there can't be a trial, that doesn't stand.

What I find worrying is not so much the comments by the police, as the likelihood that they knew about a lot of this over a long period, and did nothing.

[snowychap]

Though the normal reason for the police (and everyone else) not rushing to pronounce someone's guilt is to avoid prejudicing a fair trial. Since there can't be a trial, that doesn't stand.

The normal reason for them not rushing to pronounce it, yes.

This may suggest (thus only 'slightly worrying') the normal practice is for them to 'decide' upon someone's guilt before a conviction, for them to 'know' who dunnit and so on.

The worrying corrollary of all of this is that the public look at people arrested and view them as guilty (because why would they arrest them otherwise); look at those charged (the CPS have enough evidence to think a prosecution is likely) and so on.

What I find worrying is not so much the comments by the police, as the likelihood that they knew about a lot of this over a long period, and did nothing.

To a certain extent (but in reverse), see above.