Savile Row

[Gill Smith]

I'm sorry

It was too good to miss

--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

[Mike Hall]

Jimmy Savile is now becoming passe. Is there anyone out there whom was
not kiddy-fiddled by him? I'm wondering whether I should fake being a
victim just to fit in with everyone else!

Seriously though, the tale is now that
a) he targeted vulnerable kids whom people did not believe
b) he was an enormous larger-than-life celebrity and people were blinded
by that
c) he did so much for charity, running more marathons than anyone, the
newspapers feared to investigate
d) the paedophile wing of the IRA had his back
e) a BBC paedophile ring also protected him
f) he had the police in his pocket as many of them were perverts too
g) his family ignored his perversion because of the money he brought in
h) after his death, the BBC executive board still protected his good name

It would be unbelievable as a film plot. Was Jimmy Savile a genius whom
turned his skills to being a pervert?

I definitely don't believe the tales about Wilfred Bramble, if the
"dirty old man" was a dirty old man, he would have been outed.

I am pretty certain Freddie Starr tried it on with the besotted 14
year-old. Was it even illegal then?


Mike Hall (whom was probably too old, at the age of 15, for Jimmy Savile
to fancy when he came around to his school)

[sutartsorric]

On Monday, October 22, 2012 10:08:13 PM UTC+1, Mike Hall wrote:

> I am pretty certain Freddie Starr tried it on with the besotted 14
>
> year-old. Was it even illegal then?
>

No, you're thinking of that bloke from The Kinks.

[jbm]

On 22/10/2012 19:04, Gill Smith wrote:

Sorry, it's already been done in another thread along with the follow up:

Suit yourself.

jim

[Brian Watson]

"Mike Hall" <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%Aihs.15562$ti6....@fx20.am4...

> I definitely don't believe the tales about Wilfred Bramble, if the "dirty
> old man" was a dirty old man, he would have been outed.

I believe he was outed as being gay, and an older man being gay has always
been the sort of thing that made good cannon fodder for the Sunday rags.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

[Brian Watson]

"Mike Hall" <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%Aihs.15562$ti6....@fx20.am4...

> Mike Hall (whom was probably too old, at the age of 15, for Jimmy Savile
> to fancy when he came around to his school)

How about Mike Hunt <snigger>

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:08:11 +0100
Mike Hall <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Jimmy Savile is now becoming passe. Is there anyone out there whom was
>not kiddy-fiddled by him? I'm wondering whether I should fake being a
>victim just to fit in with everyone else!

You have to wonder how come so many "victims" en masses decided not to press
the matter over those 30 years. Were they all "blinded" by his fame? Pull
the other one. Seems like the usual compensation chasers are crawling out
of the woodwork.

>I am pretty certain Freddie Starr tried it on with the besotted 14
>year-old. Was it even illegal then?

At 14 its still not illegal in over half of europe.

B2003

[Halmyre]

Tracksuit yourself, more like.

--
Halmyre

[Mike Hall]

It looks like Peter Rippon agreed with you:
http://www.channel4.com/news/jimmy-savile-newsnight-peter-rippon-email-kill-story

Does anyone know for a fact it was actually illegal then to grope a
14-year-old (willing or unwilling)? The sexual offences laws have been
upgraded significantly in the last 25 years, it previously being
perfectly legal for anyone under the age of 14 (maybe 13) to rape anyone
until fairly recently and husbands to rape wives (even if legally
separated).


Mike Hall

[sutartsorric]

I am not sure that groping was the most serious offences that have been alleged. Demanding a blow job from a 14 year old with the promise of a free ticket to TOTP as a reward, sounds pretty dodgy to me.

Even more so when the DJ making the demand was probably older than the girls' parents.

Although, of course that was the point of using approved schools, hospitals and mental institutions. The childrens' parents were not around, and possibly not alive. If the victim complained, no adult at the institution would believe them anyway.

[John]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:08:11 +0100, Mike Hall
<tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:


>Seriously though, the tale is now that
>a) he targeted vulnerable kids whom people did not believe

Do you believe this woman?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19905006

>b) he was an enormous larger-than-life celebrity and people were blinded
>by that

Almost certainly the case. Esther Rantzen being a case in point. She
knew the rumours, but dismissed them for that reason.

>c) he did so much for charity, running more marathons than anyone, the
>newspapers feared to investigate

I don't know about fears, but from what I have read the rumours were
certainly there. Of course rumours have to be proved, and they would
have had to have some damned good evidence to disgrace the someone as
enigmatic as JS. From what I can see the evidence is strong enough
now, but I fully accept that Jimmy can't defend himself.

It says something of the power and status of the man (£40 million to
charity remember) for these victims to take this long to speak out and
I guess it's easy to dismiss those allegations for that reason.

Remember though that two of his victims dd go to the police,
seperately, but the CPS decided there wasn't enough evidence (his age
was also a factor I believe)

And yes, I do agree with you that it's been whipped up into a media
frenzy, but if it helps just one real victim to speak out (a heck of a
lot more easier nowadays than it was in the 60's and 70's) then all is
not lost.

>d) the paedophile wing of the IRA had his back

Not heard that, nor do I believe it

>e) a BBC paedophile ring also protected him

Not enough evidence to support it from what I can see, allegations so
far made only involve 3 people, and not by all complainants. The
police investiagtion may uncover further details, I don't know.

>f) he had the police in his pocket as many of them were perverts too

Nope, but I believe there should be an investigation into why two
seperate allegations, to two seperate police forces, wasn't picked up
on in 2007/8

The whole saga could have been blown open then and JS charged with the
offences alleged.

>g) his family ignored his perversion because of the money he brought in

I don't believe his family had an inkling. They were very swift to act
when it became apparent this was more than just a handful of star
struck teenagers, and credit to them for that (although imo they went
too far in erasing any trace of a gravestone, a discreet one wouldn't
have gone amiss.

>h) after his death, the BBC executive board still protected his good name

Absolutely, this has now been proved with the Newsnight fiasco.

>It would be unbelievable as a film plot. Was Jimmy Savile a genius whom
>turned his skills to being a pervert?

At worst he used his charity efforts as a cover for his (alleged)
abuse. More likely he was in some way appeasing his guilt (just an
opinion)

My first knowledge of JS possibly being a predator was watching a
Nolans clip on youtube about 3 years ago in which Coleen made rather
derogatory comments about him, so I am not surprised by the
allegations. 3m 10s in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JygLGzNhiD8

--
John

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:56:03 +0100
John <focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>At worst he used his charity efforts as a cover for his (alleged)
>abuse. More likely he was in some way appeasing his guilt (just an
>opinion)

Quite possibly. He had access to kids via his TV and radio shows so he didn't
need to do all the charity work , he certainly didn't need to do all the runs.

There seems to be this simplistic childish view in the media that people are
either saints or sinners, whereas in reality we're all a mixture of the two in
varying degrees. Regardless of what saville did to these kids , there are
probably people alive today who wouldn't be if it wasn't for his charity
fun raising work. The media should remember that.

B2003

[sutartsorric]

You don't know a lot do you?

Try reading Saviles' autobiography for a start.

And I think that the family probably did know quite a lot, especially as Jimmy's brother was done for similar offences many years ago.

[sutartsorric]

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 5:04:59 PM UTC+1, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:


>
> There seems to be this simplistic childish view in the media that people are
>
> either saints or sinners, whereas in reality we're all a mixture of the two in
>
> varying degrees. Regardless of what saville did to these kids , there are
>
> probably people alive today who wouldn't be if it wasn't for his charity
>
> fun raising work. The media should remember that.
>
>
>

So, if Harold Shipman had given loads of money to charity we should just ignore his crimes?

Is that what you are saying?

[Jerry Brown]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:56:03 +0100, John
<focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>My first knowledge of JS possibly being a predator was watching a
>Nolans clip on youtube about 3 years ago in which Coleen made rather
>derogatory comments about him, so I am not surprised by the
>allegations. 3m 10s in
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JygLGzNhiD8

In my case I think it was about the same time, in a Viz strip of all
things. Someone (Roger Mellie maybe) is interrupted and told to switch
on the TV as JS is on and is "telling everything".

BTW, back in the seventies he did some sort of event at the youth club
my mother ran, and she didn't notice any untoward behaviour. The
clientele there were late teens though, so possibly out of his field
of interest.

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

[John]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:04:53 +0000 (UTC), bolta...@boltar.world
wrote:

I agree with that

--
John

[michael adams]

"John" <focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:huid88ht5mbe51krc...@4ax.com...

Nevertheless there are probably far more people alive today
as the result of charity work done by people who didn't
take advantage of vulnerable (as in complete awe of a
famous person like Savile) teenagers.

And presumably if you include his charity work, the work he
did in hospitals and Broadmoor then potentially that gave him more
opportunity to get up close and personal with people - as he
apparently did with that brain damaged girl.

The much used shot of Savile wheeling that patient through
that dark hospital corridor with a leer on his (Savile's)
face, isn't exactly doing his cause much good. either.

Presumably a lot of Scoutmasters did a lot of good with their
charity work as well, teaching the boys how to light fires
and tie knots. Until that is, they were arrested.


michael adams

...

[Max Demian]

"Mike Hall" <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:mNxhs.66186$9W6...@fx08.am4...

> On 23/10/2012 09:42, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:08:11 +0100
>> Mike Hall <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> I am pretty certain Freddie Starr tried it on with the besotted 14
>>> year-old. Was it even illegal then?
>
>> At 14 its still not illegal in over half of europe.
>
> It looks like Peter Rippon agreed with you:
> http://www.channel4.com/news/jimmy-savile-newsnight-peter-rippon-email-kill-story

"...well, it was 40 years ago... the girls were teenagers, not too young..."

40 years ago even the tabloids wouldn't have described JS as a paedophile,
just a lech and a dirty old man. Now even the BBC disregards the
distinction.

> Does anyone know for a fact it was actually illegal then to grope a
> 14-year-old (willing or unwilling)?

Groping an under 16 was indecent assault, though whether you would have been
done for it would depend on relative ages, attitude of the girl's parents,
and even whether the girl consented.

> The sexual offences laws have been upgraded significantly in the last 25
> years, it previously being perfectly legal for anyone under the age of 14
> (maybe 13) to rape anyone until fairly recently

It wasn't legal, it just wasn't rape. You could still be done for indecent
assault, though leniently through the juvenile courts.

> and husbands to rape wives (even if legally separated).

I don't know about the 'legally separated' bit. A judge could order that
'conjugal rights' be re-established.

--
Max Demian

[Gill Smith]

"michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rMudnTEV4KtgUhvN...@brightview.co.uk...

>
> Presumably a lot of Scoutmasters did a lot of good with their
> charity work as well, teaching the boys how to light fires
> and tie knots. Until that is, they were arrested.

who'd be a Scoutmaster these days, with all the baggage that carries?

come to think of it, who'd a be a journalist?

--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

[Mike Hall]

On 23/10/2012 21:40, Max Demian wrote:
> "Mike Hall" <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> The sexual offences laws have been upgraded significantly in the last 25
>> years, it previously being perfectly legal for anyone under the age of 14
>> (maybe 13) to rape anyone until fairly recently

> It wasn't legal, it just wasn't rape. You could still be done for indecent
> assault, though leniently through the juvenile courts.

No, they were not been prosecuted at all. There were 12 year old
delinquents raping grown women and the police not being able to do a
thing about it since boys of that age were considered "incapable of
sexual crimes" at the time, save lobbying social services for them to be
put into "secure" care.


Mike Hall

[michael adams]

"Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:OY6dnUKLt6-knxrN...@brightview.co.uk...

Or a BBC Director-General.

Some people have all the luck.


michael adams

...

>
> --
> http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
>

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:40:44 +0100
"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>"...well, it was 40 years ago... the girls were teenagers, not too young..."
>
>40 years ago even the tabloids wouldn't have described JS as a paedophile,
>just a lech and a dirty old man. Now even the BBC disregards the
>distinction.

Peados are the modern day witches - something for the drooling masses and
their media cheerleaders to vent on and make themselves feel self righteous.
Someone who had sex with a 14 year old where is perfectly legal - eg germany
& italy - would be branded as a peado here. Similarly someone who had sex with
a 17 year old here would potentially get 20 years if they did it in the USA.
Its all a bunch of random lines drawn in the sand.

B2003

[CD]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:28:38 +0100, Brian Watson wrote:

> I believe he was outed as being gay, and an older man being gay has always
> been the sort of thing that made good cannon fodder for the Sunday rags.

I saw a documentary about Steptoe & Son years ago, Corbett hated doing it,
but had become typecast & couldn't get another gig to save his life.

It had Galton & Simpson on it, they were the only ones to turn up at
Brambell's funeral IIRC.

[Mike Hall]

And in many third world countries 8 year old girls find themselves being
married off to old men. No, the line in the sand has to be drawn and 16
is the age we prime kids for maturity in the UK.

Consent age between teacher and pupil is 16 in Italy and in Germany (in
practice). No one gets 20 years for consensual statutory rape in
America btw!


Mike Hall

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:47:25 +0100
Mike Hall <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Peados are the modern day witches - something for the drooling masses and
>> their media cheerleaders to vent on and make themselves feel self righteous.
>> Someone who had sex with a 14 year old where is perfectly legal - eg germany
>> & italy - would be branded as a peado here. Similarly someone who had sex
>with
>> a 17 year old here would potentially get 20 years if they did it in the USA.
>> Its all a bunch of random lines drawn in the sand.
>
>And in many third world countries 8 year old girls find themselves being
>married off to old men. No, the line in the sand has to be drawn and 16
>is the age we prime kids for maturity in the UK.

We don't prime them for anything. And it doesn't mean its the correct age for
it to be drawn at, its just what the UK considers a best fit. Other countries
have other ideas.

The truth is some people are ready for sex much younger than 16 and others
arn't ready until much older. Branding say a 20 something old man who had
consensual sex with a 15 year old girl as a paedo is just ridiculous. The
maturity of the girl needs to be taken into account. And of course the
hypocricy is as soon as the girl is legal then its all nudge nudge wink wink
from the media - eg with emma watson IIRC.

B2003

[GordonD]

"Mike Hall" <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:NOOhs.7658$nB6....@fx21.am4...

> On 24/10/2012 09:54, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:40:44 +0100
>> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> "...well, it was 40 years ago... the girls were teenagers, not too
>>> young..."
>>>
>>> 40 years ago even the tabloids wouldn't have described JS as a
>>> paedophile,
>>> just a lech and a dirty old man. Now even the BBC disregards the
>>> distinction.
>>
>> Peados are the modern day witches - something for the drooling masses and
>> their media cheerleaders to vent on and make themselves feel self
>> righteous.
>> Someone who had sex with a 14 year old where is perfectly legal - eg
>> germany
>> & italy - would be branded as a peado here. Similarly someone who had sex
>> with
>> a 17 year old here would potentially get 20 years if they did it in the
>> USA.
>> Its all a bunch of random lines drawn in the sand.
>
> And in many third world countries 8 year old girls find themselves being
> married off to old men. No, the line in the sand has to be drawn and 16
> is the age we prime kids for maturity in the UK.

For some things. They can legally have sex but they can't hire a video and
watch other people doing it.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

[Max Demian]

"Mike Hall" <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:NOOhs.7658$nB6....@fx21.am4...

> On 24/10/2012 09:54, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:40:44 +0100
>> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> "...well, it was 40 years ago... the girls were teenagers, not too
>>> young..."
>>>
>>> 40 years ago even the tabloids wouldn't have described JS as a
>>> paedophile,
>>> just a lech and a dirty old man. Now even the BBC disregards the
>>> distinction.
>>
>> Peados are the modern day witches - something for the drooling masses and
>> their media cheerleaders to vent on and make themselves feel self
>> righteous.
>> Someone who had sex with a 14 year old where is perfectly legal - eg
>> germany
>> & italy - would be branded as a peado here. Similarly someone who had sex
>> with
>> a 17 year old here would potentially get 20 years if they did it in the
>> USA.
>> Its all a bunch of random lines drawn in the sand.
>
> And in many third world countries 8 year old girls find themselves being
> married off to old men. No, the line in the sand has to be drawn and 16
> is the age we prime kids for maturity in the UK.

Children are kept as infants as long as possible - usually until they are 18
when they are turned loose. Apart from adult things like smoking and
drinking, they are even dissuaded from doing kiddie things like using glue
and knives. (Remember balsa wood aircraft?)

--
Max Demian

[Mike Hall]

On 24/10/2012 13:44, GordonD wrote:

> For some things. They can legally have sex but they can't hire a video
> and watch other people doing it.

They can. They can't legally watch anyone enjoying sex, but sex
education videos with models can be rated 15. Still, I think most kids
think that hiring videos is something dinosaurs used to do, which is why
no one important is that bothered about it.


Mike Hall

[Brian Watson]

"CD" <n...@way.ok> wrote in message
news:bknju3o7b1jh$.1juxfnmvrlw7c.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:28:38 +0100, Brian Watson wrote:
>
>> I believe he was outed as being gay, and an older man being gay has
>> always
>> been the sort of thing that made good cannon fodder for the Sunday rags.
>
> I saw a documentary about Steptoe & Son years ago, Corbett hated doing it,
> but had become typecast & couldn't get another gig to save his life.

That's not what Harry's daughter said recently. She said the two of them got
on fine while the radio and tv versions were running.

Her version was that when the two of them toured the stage version,
Brambell's drinking had become so serious that her dad got cross because
Brambell couldn't remember his lines.

[John]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:56:03 +0100, John
<focus594...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Nope, but I believe there should be an investigation into why two
>seperate allegations, to two seperate police forces, wasn't picked up
>on in 2007/8

It has now been announced that the Director of Public Prosecutions is
to lreview these cases.

I hadn't realised Keir Starmer read this newsgroup :-)

--
John

[AlanG]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:44:52 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>> And in many third world countries 8 year old girls find themselves being
>> married off to old men. No, the line in the sand has to be drawn and 16
>> is the age we prime kids for maturity in the UK.
>
>
>For some things. They can legally have sex but they can't hire a video and
>watch other people doing it.

They can get married but cannot buy a set of cutlery with which to
eat. Can't buy paints and adhesives to decorate a home. Can't buy a
screwdriver to hang curtains. Can't buy a pair of scissors to trim
wallpaper. etc. etc. etc

[sutartsorric]

On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:37:26 PM UTC+1, John wrote:

>
>
> I hadn't realised Keir Starmer read this newsgroup :-)
>
>
>
> --
>
> John

You might be surprised, if you knew the truth.

[Halmyre]

On Oct 25, 8:32 am, AlanG <inva...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:44:52 +0100, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com>

Can get sent to Afghanistan to fight a war, but can't vote for the
politicians who sent them there.

--
Halmyre

[AlanG]

They can vote at 18.
AFAIAA they cannot serve in combat areas under 18.

[Basil Jet]

But do those who sign up at the age of 17 automatically have the right
to leave when they hit 18, or are they bound to serve politicians that
they never had the opportunity to vote against?

[AlanG]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:49:03 +0100, Basil Jet <no...@none.spamspam.com>
wrote:

No

I don't know about now but when I joined almost 50 years ago your
actual service with the colours didn't start until you were 18 and you
didn't get to vote until you were 21. You could be hanged for murder
at 18 too.

[GordonD]

"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7s0n88lkd16l0h31v...@4ax.com...

Even if you didn't do it.