-
Posts
-
Savile’s headstone is to be removed by his family.
And I notice that Freddie Starr and Dave Lee Travis are in the spotlight now.
How much further can this go..?@terry wrote:
Savile’s headstone is to be removed by his family.
And I notice that Freddie Starr and Dave Lee Travis are in the spotlight now.
How much further can this go..?I think that everyone who groped anyone in the whole period of the 1970s should now be exposed and punished – and punished very severely. I was in my 20s in this period, and was too repressed to grope anybody, but I did see a lot of it at parties. Those people are sick, very sick individuals.
Also the 1960s.
Sir Jimmy’s gravestone was inscribed ‘it was good while it lasted’.
Also the 1980s.
Actually, the parties I went to in the 1960s were quite rowdy too. At the start of the decade, I remember all the grownups dancing in a ring as they sang the hokey-cokey (in, out, in out, shake it all about seemed to get a particularly loud laugh). Was there any groping, then??
Coping with Uncle Bertie may have been a necessity, though, given the repressions of the age. Thank God we’re not repressed now!!!
I think I’m having a sense of humour failure…I’m afraid there are some things that I don’t think should be joked about and made light of and abuse is one of them.
On Monday I had coffee with an old friend…. I haven’t seen her for a ages so we were doing catch up. In her younger days she worked front of house at two night clubs in Leeds the Intime and later at Cinderellas Rockerfellas owned by Pete Stringfellow…
Jimmy was a regular at both clubs….. and my friend said far from grooming girls he had a queue of admirers she said they were like groupies…. he had girls eager to be his next conquest. The entrance age for the clubs was 18…. but everyone knew a lot of the girls were much younger even though they looked 18 and older….. don’t get holier than thou about that as apparently that happens even now and clubs are full of underage girls.
Now you can say well a man of Jimmy’s age should not have taken advantage of his fame and position….. he should have left these girls well alone…. and I would agree with you on that…. but in the real world, I wonder how many men would have? Im not saying he was an angel not at all….. and some women have said they were raped…. so that’s terrible……of course i do not condone that…. its interesting though that all the people who I know who also knew jimmy personally have a different recollection than the media portrayal.
I am not going to be Jimmy’s defense here I didn’t know the man well enough to be that… however one last point. My daughter is stunning, Im not just saying that because Im her mum…. she is stunning. In all the times she met jimmy …. and I have thought this through so many times recently….. he never once acted inappropriately…. I know I was always there so maybe you could say well he wouldn’t would he….. but I never felt uneasy… never once.
What will be will be now as far as his reputation is concerned and if he did even a tiny amount of what he has been accused of he deserves whatever comes his way…. but in the way you are all saying why didn’t anyone speak up? I would feel silenced if I didn’t tell you my experiences of the man…. even though they don’t conform to the present media portrayal.
Mrs T of course you have the right to share your experiences of the man and I have no doubt that he had the ability to portray this image, after all how would he have been so successful and revered if he hadn’t had that ability? However what you describe is typical of abusers. To the outside world they can appear charming, kind, considerate, and to a large degree that’s why it is difficult for the victims to come forward – they know how the person is perceived and they think that people won’t believe them. None of us ever sees the whole person no matter how close we might be and how well we might think we know someone. We see facets of them and form our perceptions on those facets, we will never see the whole person though so our perceptions will always be flawed.
A man may be seen by his mother as a loving son, by his wife as a loyal and supportive partner, by his colleagues as a firm but fair boss, by his mates as a good laugh to share a beer with, by his son as a great dad…and by his daughter as the man who uses her and abuses her. We all see facets, never the whole person.
I’m glad he never acted inappropriately with you daughter…maybe she was too close to home?
Mrs T, could you please stop doing >……. it’s very annoying :wink:
On a serious note…we will all have our opinions, due to experiences etc……. I think he is guilty as hell of abuse on a mass scale…how sickening it went on for so long…beggars belief that so many different institutions: the hospital, the bbc, the care homes and schools “overlooked” it….one could argue that maybe he wasn’t guilty because so many institutions were involved how on earth could he have got away with it…
Whatever the outcome of the police investigation….he will be known as a paedophileHumour is essential when it comes to sex.
Not abuse.
Believe it or not, I don’t support rape or child murder.
But was he guilty? He’s dead, so can’t defend himself.
Maybe he was guilty. But the hypocrisy surrounding this whole case stinks.
I think that if you look at celebrities like the Beatles or the Stones, and what they got up to in their parties, then a whole can of worms could come out.
I do not want to go back to the days when piano legs had to be covered, or a sharia-type law of appropriate behaviour is imposed. The sketch I pointed to was part of a reaction to such a repressive period, and came in the aftermath of the ending of the Lord VChamberlain’s rules of censorship and the Lady Chatterley trial.
I do not want to go back to those days, and those rules. The feminist campaigns of the 80s which identified male sexuality with evil and hero-worshipped Mary Whitehouse was an abomination to me then, and I welcomed the reaction among young girls to such taliban-style campaigns.
That doesn’t mean I support abuse.
But I don’t want to go back to the censorship days.
Commander Spindler said at least five forces – the Met, Surrey, Sussex, Northamptonshire and Jersey – are investigating allegations that the late Jimmy Savile systematically abused teenage girls during his career as DJ.
As well as claims relating to abuse at the BBC, Jersey’s Haut de la Garenne children’s home, and Duncroft Approved School for Girls near Staines, Surrey, police have contacted Stoke Mandeville Hospital and Leeds Royal Infirmary, where Savile did charity work.
After the inquiry, Scotland Yard will produce a joint report with the NSPCC to look for lessons that can be learned and conclusions drawn.
Commander Spindler added that the alleged victims would be kept at the “heart” of the investigation.
“It’s vital that they get the support, the recognition and the acknowlegdment they deserve,” he said.
“There cannot be justice for them, Savile is dead, but we will make sure that they remain at the heart of our inquiry and that they are actually believed.”
From my memory, underage girls were seen as part of the rewards for pop bands in the 60s. There was certainly plenty of opportunity.
I do hope that any allegations about Sir John Lennon, Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Ringo Starr, Sir Mick Jagger aren’t being covered up!
I’m sure none are made, though, as these gentlemen were surely saintly when it came to girls.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!