Don't blame the victims! Jeez! The problem isn't so much the kids who didn't come forward (refer to Edna's post for the various reasons), but the adults who knew but didn't do anything as they were worried about the effect that upsetting Savile could have on their careers.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Jimmy Saville: Disgusting
- Thread starter bhadebenhams
- Start date
Paris
Well-known member
It's all if, buts and maybes.
ITV, tabloid newspapers running with this story. I think that says a lot. Anti-BBC etc.
I can see Edna's point though about looking at something like this from both sides and as others have said the fact that he is not here to defend himself.
ITV, tabloid newspapers running with this story. I think that says a lot. Anti-BBC etc.
I can see Edna's point though about looking at something like this from both sides and as others have said the fact that he is not here to defend himself.
chimneys
Well-known member
- Jun 11, 2007
- 3,592
Perhaps its not that different to the Catholic priest scandal? Many of those abused kids were only listened to and believed many years after the abuse took place, as the abusers were also very well respected pillars of the community.
Lets not forget a lot of these accusations date from the 70's, a very different world than today.
shoreham moonraker
New member
- Apr 11, 2009
- 1,374
Dear Jim
Please could you fix it for me, I love a girl in my maths class and would love to take her away on holiday.
thank you
Jeremy Forrest
Aged 30
Please could you fix it for me, I love a girl in my maths class and would love to take her away on holiday.
thank you
Jeremy Forrest
Aged 30
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,272
They are children. He was a rich & famous celebrity. Abusers achieve their aims by intimidating their victims into silence. They convince them it's normal. That it's their "special secret". That their parents will be angry if they tell them. That it's their fault. That they deserve it. They make them feel that if they come forward, everyone will find out and point the finger at them and think they're dirty and stupid. That's the nature of sexual abuse: it's a taboo. Why do you think the Catholic church is only now acknowledging case after case of historic child abuse? Dodgy Scout leaders? Rogue "uncles", youth workers, the list goes on. All those factors I've already mentioned are probably magnified tenfold when the alleged perpetrator is somebody famous. "Who will believe me, over someone like that?" would go through your mind.
I cannot even begin to fathom why you find it hard to see why a child- or any victim of sexual abuse, in fact- would be frightened to say something until years later. Perhaps only now they feel safe enough to do it. Or they'd managed to push it to the far recesses of their minds, buried it and only had to deal with it again once their abuser's name crops up. Or they've finally realised that they weren't alone in being victims, and have found courage in knowing that others have come forward.
Yep I heard the one about him having to be escorted away from the morgue. Still they got the money towards a new childrens ward - which I'm sure was of no personal interest to him.
You mean 'alleged' victims. I'm not blaming a 14 year old or anything, but if someone was abused 30 years ago and they have now come forward, would it not have been better for them to come forward 10 years ago when the allegations could have been put to him. Or maybe 20 years ago, and saved others being abused.
That's not correct is it, they're not children.
I didn't say that so don't put words into my mouth thanks.
Yes, all possible, although it seems unlikely an adult would think they were the only one, given the rumours about him.
Well yes, ideally that would have been the case. But, for whatever reasons, they didn't. Re-read Edna's posts as to the possible reasons, she puts it better than I can. And at least they're coming forward now, surely you can't want it all swept under the carpet? The victims, sorry 'alleged' victims (but possibly just a load of attention-seeking slappers desperate for a type of Jeremy Kyle-style fame) may want to achieve some level of closure.
cloud
Well-known member
It's not as simple as that. And I am speaking as someone who has seen a child being abused/groomed for abuse, and even his aunts/grandparents tried to cover it up and deny it. Their own son was also abused, and they didn't report it because they "didn't want to be in the papers".
And Edna is spot on about the way abusers try to manipulate the situation, using guilt, secrecy and power trips.
To be honest I hope they strip him retrospectively of his OBE.
But as has been pointed out Savile was a man with an inordinate amount of influence (including having the ear of Thatcher when she was PM) for someone who was basically just a jumped-up disk jockey. It would be a very brave person who would put their career on the line just for the sake of one person or incident; they would have had to have hoped that others would come out of hiding as well.
Yes, ideally. I'm not suggesting otherwise, and I don't need to re-read Edna's post, I agree with the possibilities as to why it wasn't reported, if indeed it happened.
Of course not, better out now than never, but I'm not sure what can be achieved - they won't get closure as no one will be able to accept their story.
No I know it's not. It's bloody irritating though, that if the allegations are true, he was allowed to just carry on.
How the hell could they do that without a trial, which they can't have?
Why would their career be on the line, their name would have been kept out of the public domain.
Firstly it wouldn't have to be in the public domain for people to know who'd grassed him up. Secondly it might have to be in the public domain; you could hardly send a young girl on her own into the witness box, Savile's lawyer would have made mincemeat of her, at the very least he'd want to know who'd put her up to it.
But we're now well into the realms of conjecture. You're just going to have to accept that reporting child abuse by a well known, well liked and well respected figure isn't quite the same as grassing up an asylum-seeking benefit scrounger.
Why won't anybody believe their story?
The Brighton Bear
Come on Kylie, get a grip
So, can anyone advise me on how I change my username
It's okay. You haven't got the CORRECT spelling. You are quite safe. No-one will even think of associating you with the late Jimmy Savile.
bob monkhouse
Hmmmm........
Always thought he was a bit iffy after watching that Louis Theroux documentary on him a few years ago
El Sid
Well-known member
Interestingly this story was not mentioned on BBC 6pm news - but is lead story on ITN
Who said it would have to be a young girl? If it was 10, 20 years after the event, they're not going to be young any more. Also, if you were a victim, you could tell the police and also explain that you wouldn't be going to court if others didn't come forward. If several did that (because the papers make it sounds like there'd have been a lot of victims), then things would be different.
Welcome to the start of this thread. The whole thing is conjecture, and always will be.
Is it possible for this to be proven in court now? If it isn't, he will always be innocent in the eyes of the law, so stories will be unproven and we'll never know.