Frederick Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I believe 10 Police Officers are now tasked with investigating the crimes of the late Jimmy Saville Given the costs involved I would have thought they would be more gainfully employed in catching the sex offenders that are alive and within the community who need to see what the inside of a courtroom looks like . What is going to be gained by taking evidence from dozens of women who now appear to be lining up to say what he did to them 40 odd years ago.? The bloke is dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Sorry but I disagree.The reason I disagree is because many of these women (as they are now) were not believed and punished for telling people they had been abused. They deserve the recognition of the fact that it did actually happen and that they should be believed (he said getting in touch with his feminine side). I am sure the 'ladies' on the forum can explain it better than I why it should be investigated. I do however believe you to be correct that more resources should be employed by the police to capture paedophiles in general. I also believe that the current current Home Secretary, who yesterday stirred the Tories loins with a speech about Law and Order, will change the 'tariffs' with regards to the these people to a far higher amount that the people demand for such an horrific crime. The law must be seen to correctly punish those who take advantage of children's vulnerability and innocence. To me a sentence of 18 months (Simon Crisp) is woefully inadequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 They all want their ''15 mins of fame''.How good an investigation can it be when the ''accused'' can't be interviewed / questioned.Even if they decide ( as the Media and Police seem to already have done ) that he was ''probably'' guilty - what then ?Innocent until proven guilty seems to have become an outdated concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote user="powerdesal"]They all want their ''15 mins of fame''. [/quote]Now you have gone and upset me with that comment, it is absolutely shameful and I expected better.[:@]There should be an investigation but normally if you have this amount of people saying "its a duck" then odds on it is a duck. I think we should really wait and see what happens now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I make no apologies for having and stating my opinion.I find it odd that so many women are now coming forward, new ones almost daily. The phrase '' climbing on the bandwagon'' springs to mind. Particularly as the accused cannot answer any of the claims.I hold no brief for Jimmy Saville but am concerned about the ''trial by media'' of someone who can't answer back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nectarine Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I know several people in the media who have, for years, said that Savile was a sex pest, particularly with younger girls. Apparently it was quite well known in broadcasting circles, but Savile was seen as untouchable due to his fame and also his charity work. My friends say he also had links to some pretty nasty underworld characters so I doubt many would want to be the first to denounce him.But regardless of that, now he's gone it seems that those rumours are true. I agree that it's a shame he's not here to defend himself - these accusations should really have been made years ago. But I can also understand coming up against a wall of silence if you decided to accuse "Saint Jimmy".Yes I think these women should be able to have their say, they've probably said it for so long and not been believed or been hush-hushed. It validates them. And as for the late Jimmy Savile, well it seems there's an overwhelming body of evidence against him which would have been difficult to defend if he were still alive.Frankly I always thought he was creepy. Good at publicity, a great charity raiser .... but something very seedy and unpleasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 On a similar note, what are the chances of Mark Bridger getting a fair unbiased trial ?There can be no jury in the country that will not have been exposed to the media trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suein56 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote user="nectarine"]...But regardless of that, now he's gone it seems that those rumours are true. [/quote]And, if the newspapers are to be believed, there are also complaints against other 'sex pests' who were in the vicinity ie JS's dressing room, at the time of the alleged incidents. These men are still alive and cases could be made against them. So the net of corruption could be wider than at first appears.Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think from the volume of his former colleagues now coming forward that he probably was a sex pest, and probably guilty of having sex with under age girls.I make two points, what does it say about the morality of his peers and the closed shop around him that they have taken all these years and after his death before speaking out? People like Esther Rantzen are not backwards about coming forwards especially with her involvement in childrens charities, childline etc.Groupies were very much part of the music scene in the 70's and 80's and were rightly or wrongly seen as perks of the job, in fact not a lot has changed except for now they are likely to sell their story via Max Clifford the next day and if they were under age then they hit the jackpot like that half cast French girl and the footballer whose names I am pleased to have forgotten.Amongst the rush of "victims" (most of whom are now around 60) who have come forward since his death and perhaps significantly since the value of his estate has been known, is it beyond the realms of possibility that some of them may have gone willingly with this man, may have even lied about their age?If that were true who would be the victim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The last thing most of these women want is '15 mins' of fame, far from it as in many cases they will have previously have been made to feel it was somehow their fault and feel guilty. The fact is that the age of consent is 16, what he (alledgedly) did was was wrong, and is still wrong. It was abuse...why on earth should the victim keep quiet ?I wonder if there are 10 police engaged in enquiries because there are other people, still alive, who are being investigated ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Of course these investigations are necessary. The fact that Jimmy Saville cannot be prosecuted makes no difference to the fact that allegations have been made and must be looked into.How can any improvements and changes be made without any investigation? How can vulnerable young girls be protected without finding out how they were put at risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 One does wonder what the heck has been going on in the BBC. Perhaps boys should be included in the victims too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 According to the lunchtime news a boy has reported being abused by JS.Surely there should be a policy of never having under age people in dressing rooms unless accompanied by a responsible adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The question some ask is why didn't these girls come forward at the time?Back then it was a different world. To make such a serious allegation as some of these girls made then about JS was often met with disbelief and worse in some cases resulted in humiliation and in one case a couple of days in solitary confinement. For many years JS was seen as a saint and as is well known he carried out lots of activities to raise money for different charities. To accuse such a person with his 'saintly' position in society at the time was almost criminal in its self. It is clear from some of the comments these girls, or women as they are now, have made that they did in fact come forward at the time but their claims were dismissed out of hand.There may well be one or two amongst those who have come forward who are making false statements but likewise in my, and the police eyes, some were and are definitely telling the truth. Yes it is a shame he is dead and cannot defend himself nor answer for his crimes but one could say the same about Hitler yet it does not detract that from the facts we know, he was a war criminal of horrific proportion.As I said before the justice for the victims is not the punishment of JS but the fact that they are finally, after so many years, recognised and believed.I am glad somebody has mentioned Esther Rantzen. My feeling towards her cannot really be summed up in words. She knew what had happened and what was happening yet decided her job was more important to her than speaking out to support the victims. In my mind she is a hypocrite, even more so because knowing this she went on to create Childline. I am sorry but it was her duty to speak out at the time and not to do so makes her effectively an accomplice.I wish my vocabulary was large enough to express my absolute disgust at this form of crime. Like many men I suspect it is incomprehensible in my mindset to understand these people and what they do, I really can't understand it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think was on Monday that Jeremy Vine gave Ester Ranzen a really hard time, she insisted it was just rumour and she had no facts to report.As for Mark Bridger, I suspect there is a lot more known by the police than they are letting on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Well she has changed since then. To many links to list so just google her name, even on BBC radio she said she knew about it and that now, in hindsight, perhaps she should have spoken out, nearly forty years later! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 40 years Ester Rantzen was a young woman trying to make her way in a male dominated industry - I don't doubt she would have been ignored or even vilified, however since then she must have opportunity to do something about it......that's what rubs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Well i have to say it was your liberated generation that began the whole free love thing! I agree with Chancer, would any of these awe struck young girls have lied about their age and with hormones raging they may just have been willing at the time but afterwards felt ashamed and dirty so rather than accept what they did they lay the blame elsewhere. Plenty of groupies did all sorts of things some still illegal and some still laugh about it. Do we put the whole music business and entertainment world under the spotlight?For information there were rules about minors and they were chaparoned around the BBC everywhere and only allowed at certain times of the day but a naughty girl or girls could get into a grown mans dressing room if they wanted to but they would have been braking the rules.At my school and probably plenty of others there were always some girls who were prepared to do anything for attention, I remember one who boasted there was nothing you could do to her that would embarrasse her over sex, plenty tried!ko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I must admit that I am both surprised and somewhat ashamed to read some of the comments on this thread. Ashamed because there have been times when I really started to believe that perhaps the past 30 or so years had brought about a degree of enlightenment with regard to the treatment of women or girls abused by sexual predators and rapists. No, It seems the "she must have been asking for it" culture still prevails.It is a great pity that these allegations did not come to light during Savile's lifetime, but there again, who would have believed them? How much credence would have been given to the word of a young girl back then? Well, it appears that for some, at least, the word of these people today carries no more weight than it might have done 30 years ago. It is very little wonder that, even in this day and age, women are so reluctant to report sexual abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Don't read it too much like that betty as it is a bit of a generalisation, sad to say it doesnt make it right though its the difference between being an adult and knowing the rules and being a teenager and not. I am sure that there were innocent casses but there are girls who not only ask for it but instigate it and that is also a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote user="You can call me Betty"]I must admit that I am both surprised and somewhat ashamed to read some of the comments on this thread. Ashamed because there have been times when I really started to believe that perhaps the past 30 or so years had brought about a degree of enlightenment with regard to the treatment of women or girls abused by sexual predators and rapists. No, It seems the "she must have been asking for it" culture still prevails.It is a great pity that these allegations did not come to light during Savile's lifetime, but there again, who would have believed them? How much credence would have been given to the word of a young girl back then? Well, it appears that for some, at least, the word of these people today carries no more weight than it might have done 30 years ago. It is very little wonder that, even in this day and age, women are so reluctant to report sexual abuse. [/quote]Spot on Betty. It is a shame that some just don't get what it is really about. It is also sad that there are still some people that think if a girl wears a short dress, even though she is only 11 years old, she is clearly 'gagging for it'. [:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I dont think that there have been any references to "she must have been asking for it" or even anything that could be (mis) construed as such like comments on how a girl or woman dressed. I think that groupies or their modern day kiss and tell celeb chasers probably do ask and in very plain language for what they want.Regarding the culture of "Oh you know what so and so is like" to me that is a warning that you should know what to expect with X or Y person, to a degree thats part of gaining experience and worldy wiseness with the caveat that as long as X or Y understands, accepts and respects the answer "NO!"As a guy all my life I have been shocked at how much certain "charmers" get away with and just how blatant they can be, I would never dream of acting in the way that they do and would expect to be brought to account if I did. It seems that if they are attractive/rich/famous its acceptable but were it to come from me then I would be (perhaps rightly) be called a letch, perv, dirty old man etc. TBH I have only ever heard the phrase "Oh you know how he is" used by women and in a condoning manner, when the guy isnt a charmer/good looking/rich/famous then its an altogether different dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I too am shocked and saddened by some of the comments on this thread.Let me tell you what happened to me in my first job. I was 16, had plenty to say for myself, I was quite good looking, I had a nice figure, I flirted and I was unbelievably ignorant about sex. Each day in the canteen the same slime ball used to try to get behind me in the queue. He used to stand very close, much too close because we weren't so crowded that he needed to press against me. I thought he had something in his pocket ! The whole thing made me feel very uncomfortable. It never crossed my mind to complain to anyone else about it, but in the end I was so exasperated that I asked him very loudly to stop pressing himself up against me.His answer, " Oh you really think you're something don't you. Who on earth would want to press up against you ? Don't flatter yourself." I felt a complete fool. Women don't report things because somehow they are made to feel they are to blame.Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nectarine Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I worked in advertising in the 1970s ... oooh that was man-dominated. A senior director - a very large American chap who enjoyed his food! - took me out for supper to talk about my aspirations in advertising and in the firm. At one point he suggested we retire to his hotel room and take it further ... I must have looked quite shocked (I was only 19 at the time!, still a bit green) and he said, very politely "I can see you are worried, my dear, but let me assure you that I am very light on my elbows".I didn't know whether to be more shocked or laugh, but declined his suggestion. To his credit, he said "oh well you didn't mind me asking, did you" and was extremely well behaved all evening. He never acted any differently towards me, was always polite and helpful. I left a few months later for another job and he gave me a lovely reference.Was it harassment? Well I guess if I'd thought that my future career depended on it then it could have been ... as it was, I think he was just a man who thought that, if he asked 100 women, at least one might say "yes". !. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It seems to be being stated as a truism that, if a young girl IS "asking for it" (and a couple of people, at least, on this thread, imply that some of those coming forward must have been) then an older, wiser, more responsible man in a position of power and authority is doing nothing wrong by giving it to them. I am not convinced that in such circumstances the ability - or responsibility - to say "NO" rests entirely with the female. THAT is what I mean by "she was asking for it". Even if that's true, there is no obligation on the part of the man to comply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now