/ A different slant on Saville maybe?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
Lukas V-L - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:

Not really, doesnt take into account the whole molesting patients while working as a porter tho does it.
EeeByGum - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard: Reading that, you do have to wonder what exactly was good about being a rock star. Sounds like a rather sad existence to me.
Parrys_apprentice - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:

newsflash:

rock stars / celebrities have free access to lots of willing young ladies and get what they like from that situation.

Savile - seems he wasn't out of the ordinary culture, apart from his access was to minors.

I'm sure he was less evil, just thoroughly misguided and in a situation where it was too easy, perceiving these young girls as being as willing to their hero as all the other groupies around. He seems to have forgotten the difference between kids and grown-ups, but the moral culture that bred such activities was already set.
Mike Stretford - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Parrys_apprentice: wtf
Parrys_apprentice - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Papillon: i don't know what I meant either.
Talius Brute - on 29 Oct 2012
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Parrys_apprentice:

I have to say, and I am sure I might upset some here, I dont think Saville thought he was evil. I dont think any peadophile is evil. They are simply fulfilling a need. As sick as it is. People use people all the time. Sad, but true. I am not defending anyone, simply expressing an opinion
In reply to Blizzard: Maybe having the tendency isn't evil, but acting on it most definitely is!
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Evil is a very strong word. Wrong, I prefer. True. I have lots of insane thoughts but I don't act on them.
EeeByGum - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Parrys_apprentice:

> I'm sure he was less evil, just thoroughly misguided and in a situation where it was too easy, perceiving these young girls as being as willing to their hero as all the other groupies around. He seems to have forgotten the difference between kids and grown-ups, but the moral culture that bred such activities was already set.

You almost seem to be defending him. Just because a lot of willing girls are "up-for-it" does not mitigate what happened. Just because everyone was supposedly doing it does not mitigate what happened. Just because he did a lot of good, does not mitigate what happend. What he did was wrong. It was wrong then and it is still wrong. End of.
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Talius Brute:


couldnt access the link :(
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:

No I am not defending him. Just speaking my mind. Sorry you seem to find it offensive. Everyone was obviously up for it in the 70's. Things have changed. I'm not saying what he did was right. Thats for sure. I think when you start investigating lives no one is whiter than white.
EeeByGum - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard: Nah - not offended at all. I can't really believe it either, but at the end of the day, as adults it doesn't require much metal ability to know that some things are really wrong whether it is willingly thrown at you or not.
Mike Stretford - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard: Don't think you're offending people, I'd be suprised if you do. You're just talking shite.
elsewhere on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:
> Everyone was obviously up for it in the 70's.

That's not what some of the complainants are saying.
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to elsewhere:

Think about this then.

You are single. You are in your twenties. You have lots of money. You have women throwing themselves at you. Some underage. How do you know?

Are you always going to say no?

I might be talking some shite, but as a man, and men can think with what is between their legs, what are you going to do? Dont pretend to be self righteous about this, if I woman plays the game and makes it obvious she wants more, and she is pretty, are you really going to say no?

AND NO I dont think SAVILLE was right, and he had a problem. But given the above scenerio, and had you read a link I posted earlier, and you were rich and famous, I'm sure you'd get yourself into proverbial shit.
Escher - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard: There's more to it than happening to get your sexual kicks from children. It is about control and abuse of power too, that is a major factor missing from what you are talking about. They are telling their victims that they will kill them if they tell or that no-one will believe them thus completely undermining their self worth which results in life long issues with trust and self confidence and much more.

It wasn't a case of Savile just fancying young girls and acting on it in what he might consider a consensual way, he sought out vulnerable people at institutions so he could have power over them. Many people get their kicks from diminishing others and look for easy targets that they can bully and control. If you think that seeking out disturbed kids in Broadmoor is the same as groupies throwing themselves at rock stars, well what can I say.
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Escher:

Well I wouldnt know about that as I dont do things like that. You seem to know a lot more about it than me. I have never once defended the man.
Escher - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard: What are you insinuating? That anyone who knows about how bullies and abusers behave is one themselves?
elsewhere on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:
According to some of the complaints Saville was molesting girls on hospital wards, patients at Broadmoor hospital, at a childrens home and a cub scout.

Those are not borderline cases of potential misjudgement about age.

There's nothing self righteous about declining to abuse children or hospital patients.


Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Escher:

I am not incinuating anything. I dont know the mind of a child molester, nor did I know all the details. Nor am I following the whole thing as closely as you. Here I am defending myself. Wish I'd never started the ruddy thread. I wont say any more on the matter from now. Hope the thread gets pulled.
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:

PS did you actually READ the telegraph article?
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:
I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to bring a level of open enquiry and balance to the debate. No body sees themselves as evil (unless they are suffering from some psychosis or other) and I too feel that the term evil is a convenient mask for not trying to understand peoples motives. I think Savile followed the same line as all dictators have in history. He was given access to vulnerable people and the means and opportunity to exploit that. I would far rather try to understand what it is that prompts someone to abuse their power. I don't think it affects everyone but the old phrase "power corrupts" rings true here.
I have to say that I am also not exactly surprised at the hypocrisy of the papers in shouting cover up when they themselves had evidence which they buried (source: Private Eye)
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:
Never try to bring reason to a witch hunt.
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Thankyou for bringing some common sense to this thread.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Was he given access to vulnerable people or did he seek access out and knew by putting himself in those positions of trust he could have his cake and eat it? We're not talking about a guy who might have recklessly slept with a few fifteen-year-olds but someone who, if allegations are to be believed, molested helpless or even comatose patients in their hospital beds. I'm pretty sure Rick Parfitt didn't mean THAT when he said they were all 'at it' in the '70s.
Blizzard - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I dont know what Rick Parfitt was getting at. I read the article at face value. The thing that sticks in my mind was 'everyone was at it' or words to that effect. Life was different back then. More importantly though. Esta Ransen knew all about it, why didnt she blow the bloody whistle. I couldnt live knowing about shit, not doing anything.
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Interesting point I guess we will never know seeing as how he is dead. Unless he wrote it in a diary or something.
In reply to Blizzard: I think you are at crossed purposes. There is a difference between consensual sex between older men and younger but legal girls (which is what Parfitt was on about, I think), older men having consensual sex with underage girls (which he may have been referring to) and sexual acts on underage girls without consent (which is what it appears Savile was up to).
ads.ukclimbing.com
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Should all allegations be believed at face value?
we like the allegations as they deliver what we want to believe
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
interesting article here from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20093812
Chris.Allott - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:
Those with the tallest foreheads....are the most likely to get the top of their heads blown off!
Bruce Hooker - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:

> Life was different back then.

Do you think it is any different today in the same sort of circles? In Italy, for example, Berlusconi is still in trouble for a "romp" with a 15 year old - looking at her photo she certainly doesn't look under age!

I suspect life goes on and people in the same situation still do much the same, AIDS might make a slight difference, I suppose... apart from the stuff in hospitals and such, I doubt that Broadmoor (if it still exists) will hand over a set of keys to a pop star again, hopefully.
MJH - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
> Should all allegations be believed at face value?

Well they should be investigated at face value. Belief shouldn't really come into it.

> we like the allegations as they deliver what we want to believe

What utter nonsense - the allegations are horrific and I (and I assume anyone of sane mind) would much rather they hadn't happened. Nothing to do with whether we want to believe them.
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to MJH:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
> [...]
>
> Well they should be investigated at face value. Belief shouldn't really come into it.
>

Yes but I was talking about belief and the propensity for people to believe what is said without question.

> [...]
>
> What utter nonsense - the allegations are horrific and I (and I assume anyone of sane mind) would much rather they hadn't happened. Nothing to do with whether we want to believe them.

Just basic psychology. It is precisely because the allegations are so horrific that people want to believe them. Because it feeds into the sense of drama and horror and moral outrage.
elsewhere on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Prior to the story going public, Newsnight and subsequently ITV journalists found a number of people independently corroborating the story so it's reasonable to assume the allegations can be broadly be taken on face value.
In reply to elsewhere: Yeah, and he hasn't denied it...
elsewhere on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
If they're not broadly genuine allegations,...
who do you think is involved in the conspiracy or is there some other simpler non-conspiracy explanation?
In reply to elsewhere: I haven't got a clue what you're talking about - I was joking; he's dead!
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to elsewhere:
To be clear I am not saying that the allegations are untrue. But I have come across many people who were only too willing to seize them as gospel from the off and accept them unquestionably. Whether the allegations are true or not it is the unwillingness to question that one should guard against.
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
seance anyone?
johnj on 29 Oct 2012 - 88-111-136-79.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to elsewhere)
> To be clear I am not saying that the allegations are untrue. But I have come across many people who were only too willing to seize them as gospel from the off and accept them unquestionably. Whether the allegations are true or not it is the unwillingness to question that one should guard against.

So if that is the case either way there is a conspiracy, which could be:

1, The powers that were knew all along and covered up the story as Jimmy was the fix it man and he had friends in very high places.

or

2, Jimmy was about par for the course, and the powers that are decided to stir up a whole tangled web of claim and counter claim to use this as a smokescreen to take our focus off the real news.
Sir Chasm - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne: Do you want to believe allegations because they're horrific?
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to johnj:
You may be on to something there john
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Me? I keep an open mind and watch to see what develops
Sir Chasm - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne: Well yes, you. Unless it's other "people" you're ascribing that trait to.
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Oh definitely other people. I have seen it at first hand a lot.
SecretSquirrel - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:
An interesting point on the news just now (BBC radio 2), despite all his other charity work apparently he was never allowed to be involved with BBC Children In Need because of suspicions about him. No specific allegations at that time, but the organisers "thought he was creepy". (A sentiment I've thoroughly agreed with since long before any of this came out.)
Duncan Bourne - on 29 Oct 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
interesting especially when looked at along side the Louis Theroux interview.
Blizzard - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Just read an interesting article in the Independant, which made the point

Has anyone got any HARD EVIDENCE about what Saville actually did???

Not hearsay, which is what a lot of people including me are relying on. Apparently there is film evidence- not that I have actually seen it ( him groping someone and laughing when on Jim will fix it)
MJH - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard: Testimony from victims is not hearsay.
John_Hat - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:

To be honest the evidence in most sex crimes often comes down to two people with vastly differing views of what actually occurred.

Given one of the parties is dead, what we are getting is obviously only one side.

HOWEVER the sheer volume plus the part corroboration by a number of people in the BBC does rather indicate that if he was around to defend himself its difficult to see what defence he could make.
Blizzard - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to John_Hat:

Ok. In light of the hundreds of people that are claiming they have been played with, Mr Saville was obviously a perv who was guilty as sin itself. Lets assign this thread to the dustbin.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:

Finally.
SecretSquirrel - on 30 Oct 2012
In reply to Blizzard:
The thing is, its quite easy to believe. Shocking, definitely - particularly the extent of the allegations against him. But surprising? Not entirely, because there was just something rather creepy and unsavoury about him.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.