Jimmy Saville

@mrs_teapot wrote:

@anc wrote:

@mrs_teapot wrote:

@rubyred wrote:

Hello everyone I am new here, so cannot possibly know things. But due to a sixth sense and being her before as many other people, I know fine well who the insigator/agitator are ( is).. my good mate mrs Teapot, will tell you I am ace. as she never Once sussed the Tinkerbell/Will routine. But that is ok.. I heard earlier on that Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter may have appeared In Unison. This may appear as somewhat a shock.

Hello everyone.. This ruby Beast just might have sussed me ! and in a few weeks time she Might even Gloat to Mrs teapot.. ” TOLD YE SO ” ..SO RECCOMENDS MRS tEA TELL nothing !

hello everyone.. sussed !

Well you lost me ruby … I just accept people for who they say they are here… Iv been down the track of suspecting people are not who they say they are …. it gets you nowhere, I have no issues with you or ang… life is too short.

Well, Mrs T, you got me wrong! BIG TIME! :lol:

You are a one off anc :D I have never thought you were anyone else but you :?

hmmm interesting emit, suggesting you or I am confused?! I’m certainly not! :wink:

oh dear! oh dear! :roll:

I found this interesting, it might not have been much, but not everyone did nothing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20120302

For those who don’t follow links, The first part of the story goes . . .

A former BBC governor for Wales and Children in Need chairman says he had suspicions about Jimmy Savile more than a decade ago and would not allow him any involvement with the charity.

Sir Roger Jones heard of rumours from London staff, and the charity decided not to allow Savile “anywhere near” it.

He said he did not tell management because he did not have evidence Savile abused children while a BBC employee.

Police believe Savile may have abused as many as 300 people over 40 years.

Sir Roger’s comments come on the day the investigation into the BBC’s child protection and whistle-blowing policies begins.

He was a member of the board of governors between 1997 and 2002, and said he would have stepped down from his Children in Need role if Savile had become involved with the charity.

Well, it is the Jimmy Savile thread, not the “who are you and what the hell did you say about me” thread

@wordsworth60 wrote:

I found this interesting, it might not have been much, but not everyone did nothing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20120302

For those who don’t follow links, The first part of the story goes . . .

A former BBC governor for Wales and Children in Need chairman says he had suspicions about Jimmy Savile more than a decade ago and would not allow him any involvement with the charity.

Sir Roger Jones heard of rumours from London staff, and the charity decided not to allow Savile “anywhere near” it.

He said he did not tell management because he did not have evidence Savile abused children while a BBC employee.

Police believe Savile may have abused as many as 300 people over 40 years.

Sir Roger’s comments come on the day the investigation into the BBC’s child protection and whistle-blowing policies begins.

He was a member of the board of governors between 1997 and 2002, and said he would have stepped down from his Children in Need role if Savile had become involved with the charity.

Well, it is the Jimmy Savile thread, not the “who are you and what the hell did you say about me” thread

Mmmm…..

Not exactly a surprise. I think that there will be a stream of people voicing their suspicions, and a search for who to blame.

The real culprit will still be a culture where the victims themselves did not feel that they could come forward. People in positions of responsibility might have had suspicions but a suspicion is just a libellous allegation without proof.

It’s not so much that people should have spotted that Savile was a paedophile, more that his victims should have understood that what happened to them was abuse (whatever they did to put themselves into compromising situations) and should have known that they could put their hands up and be heard.

Some people think lots of people are bit creepy. It’s the voice of the abused that allows good people to act, but the abused have to feel able to speak and know that they will be protected. False accusations do sometimes happen but that is the price of being open to hearing the real ones.

The failure then was not just of individuals, or even of institutions, but also of a wider society who the victims felt they couldn’t turn to. It is difficult to find a single reason, but people not believing “problem” children, winks and nudges about pop stars “liking them young”, ideas that teenagers were sometimes “looking” for it, or just plain apathy, could all have contributed.

I would hope that society as a whole tries to learn from this, rather than just blaming the great and the good, so that people can feel action has been taken and that makes it OK. Everyone should ask what would they do to make others able to trust them with the most terrible secrets, and how they would help.

It’s not just Jimmy Savile, there are other victims out there who stay quiet, sometimes all their lives. This has to be for them too.

Although it has not been the main thrust of my posts, I agree entirely with the points you make, Scep, about “a repressive hypocrisy towards teenagers”, and I share your concerns about the agenda of the people pursuing the witch-hunt.

The black and white portrayals of the evil abusers, and seeking the ultimate sanctions against those held to be to blame, fits an anti-permissive agenda perfectly. Real life is far more complex. We can’t solve any of this by being a less overtly sexual society, and disappearing into a fantasy of purity where children can lead their innocent lives without molestation. Children are sexual beings, who are injured by the assault and betrayal which abuse brings, rather than pure flowers tainted by sexuality. Equally teenagers are not unsullied creatures incapable of lies or false accusations. These realities are difficult and uncomfortable for some people.

That is why a call for a more rounded understanding of all the complex issues is better than trying to “burn the evil out”. It is less comfortable for sure, but we might that way make something of what has become a cringe-worthy circus show.

Over optimistic maybe but you’ve got to try.