Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the sir jimmy savile obe thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Previously the human detritus known as Richard Littlecunt has said this about Harris

...Not to mention all those feeling the collars of ageing celebrities accused of ‘historic’ sex crimes. I wonder if those Met officers swanning round Australia interviewing women who claim to have been touched up by Rolf Harris four decades ago could have been better deployed on anti-terrorist surveillance duties in South London.

Perhaps The cunt can now do a column about how going after paedophiles and molesters is political correctness gone mad. You can't even have sex with a 13 year old these days without some fucking social worker jumping out at you, banging on about so-called "rights".
Click to expand...

Liitlejohn lives in Florida.
Florida is one of the main "trans-shipping" points for children trafficked from central and south America into the USA.
Coincidence? I think not...:hmm:
 
The Home Affairs Committee is meant to be looking into "Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming", the witness is Simon Danczuk MP (he co-wrote the book "smile for the camera" about Cyril Smith).

I don't seem to be able to watch it,I though these committee meeting were streamed live, it says the meeting started at 2:47 UK time (his evidence should start at 4:15) :confused:
 
Doctor Carrot said:
Does Australia have any former celebrities who are recently uncovered as paedos? What about France? USA? Portugal? and so on. Are they on the same scale as here? If not why not?
Click to expand...

According to the GF there was a case in Portugal with a famous TV person but they got off. Their driver, prosecuted for similar crimes, was convicted. There was some grumbling about the rich/famous getting away with stuff apparently, though their career was destroyed. Don't know the name or nature of the abuse but can ask!
 
Doctor Carrot said:
Are they on the same scale as here? If not why not?
Click to expand...

The scale of stuff thats been exposed in the UK post-Savile seems to be exaggerated in some peoples minds. In terms of the ratio of famous people questioned by yewtree etc to the total number of celebrities from those eras, we aren't actually dealing with a very high ratio at this point. The most staggering thing in terms of scale has been the number of Saviles victims.

I'm trying to determine what it is about the culture of Britain at the time that allowed this? There's been talk of it being 'a different time' back then but I'm not sure it was that different with regards to kiddie fiddling? Or maybe it was? I'm trying to determine whether the cover up of it, the missed opportunities to expose it and to bring these people to justice then etc was/is an English disease so to speak or was it something wider in western culture?
Click to expand...

To look at it properly from certain angles, we probably need to make a distinction between 'kiddie fiddling' and sexual activity with people who are under the age of consent, but not pre-pubescent.

Full on 'kiddie fiddling' would always have been met with revulsion, but in the past this would have been masked by a failure to talk about the issues in any detail or depth, and a strong emphasis on 'stranger danger' rather than attacks by people the victim knew, abuse of power, celebrity etc. And tabloids would have been far more fixated on attacks where the victims were murdered.

But the idea of sex with school girls who had gone past the point of growing breasts etc was certainly treated very differently in popular culture at the time. There is no shortage of examples, will post again if more detail required, but much of it played perfectly into the smutty titillation of the Carry On variety. Some may argue that this played into some stereotypes about 'repressed englishmen who had innuendo in place of actual nudity etc', but that isn't sufficient for me to make proper comparisons with other developed nations, I can't do that topic justice right now. We've come a long way but this isn't fixed yet either, e.g. that Britney Spears video and some other stuff tends to demonstrate societies that have not fully dealt with some massive contradictions on this front.

Certainly at some points some of the bullshit that came with 'free love', widespread availability of the pill, etc, would have played into things, in the UK and elsewhere, especially before the balance of power was somewhat rebalanced by concepts of equal rights, and what a womans place in society is, should or could be.

Because I wonder how far all this is gonna go. Big rock bands around that time weren't exactly saints and they had a lot of underage groupies, will they be classed as being sexually abused? Will any of them come forward now? I guess not but it's not beyond the realms. It's not as if any of them were as bad as Ian Watkins lately but part of the revulsion of the Watkins case included his sexual contact with 16 year old school girls whereas this was just the norm for bands back in the 60s and 70s.
Click to expand...

It's much less likely that groupie-related phenomenon will end up properly under the spotlight. In great part because victims coming forwards now involves factors such as whether victims of unequal power relationships actually see themselves as victims.

I'd also wonder about the exact extent that such phenomenon have disappeared as attitudes have changed. Stricter corporate and image management, fear of press exposure, backlash due to evolved social attitudes and other factors such as scarier sexually transmitted diseases have probably played a part in making this stuff less rampant. And it's certainly going to be done less blatantly now, not going to get so many people bragging about it in autobiographies for example. But it probably still occurs a fair bit, and I really question whether Ian Watkins would have been brought to justice if he hadn't targeted the babies and young children of fans - he may well have continued to get away with engaging in sexual activity with the young fans themselves.
 
Doctor Carrot said:
That's catholic church sexual abuse. I mean celebrities. Does Australia have any former celebrities who are recently uncovered as paedos? What about France? USA? Portugal? and so on. Are they on the same scale as here? If not why not? I'm trying to determine what it is about the culture of Britain at the time that allowed this? There's been talk of it being 'a different time' back then but I'm not sure it was that different with regards to kiddie fiddling? Or maybe it was? I'm trying to determine whether the cover up of it, the missed opportunities to expose it and to bring these people to justice then etc was/is an English disease so to speak or was it something wider in western culture? Because I wonder how far all this is gonna go. Big rock bands around that time weren't exactly saints and they had a lot of underage groupies, will they be classed as being sexually abused? Will any of them come forward now? I guess not but it's not beyond the realms. It's not as if any of them were as bad as Ian Watkins lately but part of the revulsion of the Watkins case included his sexual contact with 16 year old school girls whereas this was just the norm for bands back in the 60s and 70s.

I'm not directing these questions at you specifically, Edward I'm just thinking aloud as it were!
Click to expand...
"Is any of these yew tree arrests and trials in the news abroad?"
Fair enuff...but this is what I was replying too ...dunno why I put in the wiki link.

As far as celebs. there's not been any in the news except Rolf H. on the front pages (much the same as the sun and mail over there, same photo too )
No celebs have been pinched at all ...not yet anyway.

Dr. Carrot ... I took out the Wiki link to the RCC, nothing to do with celebs.
 
Last edited:
elbows said:
The scale of stuff thats been exposed in the UK post-Savile seems to be exaggerated in some peoples minds. In terms of the ratio of famous people questioned by yewtree etc to the total number of celebrities from those eras, we aren't actually dealing with a very high ratio at this point. The most staggering thing in terms of scale has been the number of Saviles victims.



To look at it properly from certain angles, we probably need to make a distinction between 'kiddie fiddling' and sexual activity with people who are under the age of consent, but not pre-pubescent.

Full on 'kiddie fiddling' would always have been met with revulsion, but in the past this would have been masked by a failure to talk about the issues in any detail or depth, and a strong emphasis on 'stranger danger' rather than attacks by people the victim knew, abuse of power, celebrity etc. And tabloids would have been far more fixated on attacks where the victims were murdered.

But the idea of sex with school girls who had gone past the point of growing breasts etc was certainly treated very differently in popular culture at the time. There is no shortage of examples, will post again if more detail required, but much of it played perfectly into the smutty titillation of the Carry On variety. Some may argue that this played into some stereotypes about 'repressed englishmen who had innuendo in place of actual nudity etc', but that isn't sufficient for me to make proper comparisons with other developed nations, I can't do that topic justice right now. We've come a long way but this isn't fixed yet either, e.g. that Britney Spears video and some other stuff tends to demonstrate societies that have not fully dealt with some massive contradictions on this front.

Certainly at some points some of the bullshit that came with 'free love', widespread availability of the pill, etc, would have played into things, in the UK and elsewhere, especially before the balance of power was somewhat rebalanced by concepts of equal rights, and what a womans place in society is, should or could be.



It's much less likely that groupie-related phenomenon will end up properly under the spotlight. In great part because victims coming forwards now involves factors such as whether victims of unequal power relationships actually see themselves as victims.

I'd also wonder about the exact extent that such phenomenon have disappeared as attitudes have changed. Stricter corporate and image management, fear of press exposure, backlash due to evolved social attitudes and other factors such as scarier sexually transmitted diseases have probably played a part in making this stuff less rampant. And it's certainly going to be done less blatantly now, not going to get so many people bragging about it in autobiographies for example. But it probably still occurs a fair bit, and I really question whether Ian Watkins would have been brought to justice if he hadn't targeted the babies and young children of fans - he may well have continued to get away with engaging in sexual activity with the young fans themselves.
Click to expand...
Not sure I am very happy with a distinction between "proper kiddie fiddling" and sex with teenagers. There are probably lots of different shades of paedophilia but they are all paediliopha. Cultural mores as to what constitutes paedophilia may have changed, although I'm not sure the opinion of the man and woman in the street will necessarily have changed too much over the last 50 years. I think you'd need a time nachine to check. But yeah I think it's a bit of a dangerous distinction to start making. Seems from Savilke and Harris that opportunity more than preference dictates action in the main. Although not followed the details too closely.
 
8115 said:
Not sure I am very happy with a distinction between "proper kiddie fiddling" and sex with teenagers. There are probably lots of different shades of paedophilia but they are all paediliopha. Cultural mores as to what constitutes paedophilia may have changed, although I'm not sure the opinion of the man and woman in the street will necessarily have changed too much over the last 50 years. I think you'd need a time nachine to check. But yeah I think it's a bit of a dangerous distinction to start making. Seems from Savilke and Harris that opportunity more than preference dictates action in the main. Although not followed the details too closely.
Click to expand...
This is always a dangerous area of discussion, but hey ho.

It is socially unacceptable for people to engage in sexual behaviour with post-pubescent individuals, but - from a biological/physiological point of view - not actually aberrant.

It IS aberrant to find a pre-pubescent individual sexually attractive (which is precisely what paedophilia is, forget your red-top redefinitions), and clearly from there also aberrant AND socially unacceptable to act on that attraction.

There is a distinction. Many might not like the distinction, and it's certainly true that plenty of society is more than happy to elide it, but it exists.

I am not saying that "socially unacceptable" is somehow acceptable, though - there are many reasons, social, psychological and medical, why it shouldn't be open season on any post-pubescent individual, but if we somehow try to shoehorn the idea of someone finding such an individual sexually attractive into the same category as someone finding (say) a five year old attractive, we are creating some very unhealthy parallels. Not least of which is that it would be quite normal to see a post-pubescent person and experience that flicker of attraction, without doing anything about it: if we then try and tell people that such a flicker is, essentially, paedophilia and no less abhorrent than wanting to have sex with a five-year-old, we are creating all kinds of potential for guilt, misunderstanding, confusion, and so on.

In the case of both Savile and Harris, given the ages of some of their victims, there is a clear element of paedophilia operating, though neither seems to have been particularly bothered either way about the ages of their victims. It might even be (perhaps more so in Harris' case) that it wasn't so much paedophile attraction as a shattering lack of selectivity - he saw a body, he grabbed at it.

I know these distinctions seem artificial, especially in the full flood of our social outrage at how someone like this could do what they did, but I think it is important to maintain some kind of perspective, and not fall into the fetid tabloid trap of somehow painting everything in black and white absolutism.
 
8115 said:
Not sure I am very happy with a distinction between "proper kiddie fiddling" and sex with teenagers. There are probably lots of different shades of paedophilia but they are all paediliopha. Cultural mores as to what constitutes paedophilia may have changed, although I'm not sure the opinion of the man and woman in the street will necessarily have changed too much over the last 50 years. I think you'd need a time nachine to check. But yeah I think it's a bit of a dangerous distinction to start making. Seems from Savilke and Harris that opportunity more than preference dictates action in the main. Although not followed the details too closely.
Click to expand...
The age of consent in the UK isn't the age of consent across the world. In many cultures people are married much younger than the UK's age of consent.
 
There's some kind of natural age of ok-ness? Which harks back to when we were hunter gatherers or something? Not sure. My gut instinct is that the overwhelming imperative are the cultural standards of the society and time, if that makes sense.
 
8115 said:
Not sure I am very happy with a distinction between "proper kiddie fiddling" and sex with teenagers. There are probably lots of different shades of paedophilia but they are all paediliopha. Cultural mores as to what constitutes paedophilia may have changed, although I'm not sure the opinion of the man and woman in the street will necessarily have changed too much over the last 50 years. I think you'd need a time nachine to check. But yeah I think it's a bit of a dangerous distinction to start making. Seems from Savilke and Harris that opportunity more than preference dictates action in the main. Although not followed the details too closely.
Click to expand...

In what way is it actually dangerous to discuss this distinction? And I can certainly inspect the recorded cultural artefacts in order to establish some stuff, I don't need a time machine for that. And what do I find when I look? Plenty of smutty innuendo that involved school-girls who had gone through puberty, displayed physical signs of this, and were often portrayed as being sexually aware to one extent or another. I find no such smutty innuendo when it comes to pre-pubescent kids. Hence my entire reason for needing to make the distinction when answering questions related to cultural shit of that era.
 
8115 said:
There's some kind of natural age of ok-ness? Which harks back to when we were hunter gatherers or something? Not sure. My gut instinct is that the overwhelming imperative are the cultural standards of the society and time, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Yes. Underneath all the social conditioning is the natural development of sexual characteristics - those being the attributes that the majority - the "normal" - part of the species respond to as sexual signs, signals, cues, etc.

Responding - albeit not necessarily acting on - such signs, signals and cues - is not abnormal. Responding - and certainly acting on - the behaviours of a pre-pubescent child most certainly is abnormal.
 
existentialist said:
Yes. Underneath all the social conditioning is the natural development of sexual characteristics - those being the attributes that the majority - the "normal" - part of the species respond to as sexual signs, signals, cues, etc.

Responding - albeit not necessarily acting on - such signs, signals and cues - is not abnormal. Responding - and certainly acting on - the behaviours of a pre-pubescent child most certainly is abnormal.
Click to expand...
Not a hundred per cent sure that I'd agree with that, apart from obviously yes to the last sentence.
 
article_img.jpg


Wonder if they compared notes.....
 
Last edited:
gabi said:
He's certainly appeared on the beeb thousands of times, and is very definitely a household name. If the twitter rumours are true anyway.
Click to expand...
Keep trying to guess and haven't got a clue :rolleyes: maybe I'm not following the correct people on twitter
 
Interesting reprint of an article with Jimmy Saville from 2010.

So being awarded a knighthood was a joy and an honour. More interestingly, he says it was also a relief. For the past several years, tabloid journalists have been saying that he must have a serious skeleton in his cupboard, otherwise he would have got a knighthood by now. “Ooh ay, I had a lively couple of years, with the tabloids sniffing about, asking round the corner shops – everything – thinking there must be something the authorities knew that they didn’t. Whereas in actual fact I’ve got to be the most boring geezer in the world because I ain’t got no past. And so, if nothing else, it was a gi-normous relief when I got the knighthood, because it got me off the hook.”

What he says about tabloid journalists is true. There has been a persistent rumour about him for years, and journalists have often told me as a fact: “Jimmy Savile? Of course, you know he’s into little girls.” But if they know it, why haven’t they published it? The Sun or the News of the World would hardly refuse the chance of featuring a Jimmy Savile sex scandal. It is very, very hard to prove a negative, but the fact that the tabloids have never come up with a scintilla of evidence against Jimmy Savile is as near proof as you can ever get.

[...]

Touring the Stoke Mandeville wards with him is a disconcerting experience: when he coos over a young woman paraplegic “A-ha, now I can have my way with you, my dear!” one can only pray that she appreciates the joke. I remember the most frightening thing anyone ever said to me was when I was being wheeled in for a back operation and the junior doctor remarked cheerily, “We’ll have you walking again in two weeks – and if we don’t we’ll send Jimmy Savile to visit you.” Much as I admire Sir James Savile, he is someone I never ever want to be visited by.
Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...vile-from-1990-has-a-new-meaning-9571057.html
 
Last edited:
The Broadmoor shit needs its own investigation beyond Savile.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...hospital-visit-with-jimmy-savile-9576747.html

Rolf Harris visited Broadmoor Hospital and may have been able to watch female patients undress, an independent investigator who compiled the report into Jimmy Savile’s activities has conceded.

The West London Mental Health NHS Trust confirmed to The Independent that Harris is understood to have visited the hospital in 1973 accompanied by Savile. A spokesperson for the Trust said the disgraced entertainer was escorted by staff at all times and there was no suggestion of inappropriate behaviour or incident during the visit.
Click to expand...

It states: “Until at least the late 1980s, female patients were obliged to strip completely to change into nightwear and to take baths, watched by staff. We conclude that Savile would sometimes attend wards at these times and watch.”
Click to expand...

One ex-patient, Steven George, who attended Broadmoor before undergoing a sex change, claimed Harris turned up one evening “out of the blue” as patients were getting ready for bed – outside of the 10am to 4pm visiting hours.

George, born Alison Pink, said of the visit: “He was being shown around by Savile in an understated way. Normally stars only came if they were there for an official performance but Harris didn’t do one.

“It was also unusual because visitors would come at visiting hours, between 10am and 4pm, but they came in as we were getting ready for bed.”
Click to expand...
 
existentialist said:
<snip>
It might even be that the only reason we're here where we are in the UK is because Savile was such an egregious case - someone who was almost open about his abuse, but so successful at preventing people from doing anything about it that, when he died, there was a kind of pent-up tidal wave of disclosure that just HAD to emerge. If we hadn't had a Savile, then maybe - chilling as the thought is - the Eric Halls and Rolf Harrises of this world would have eventually died, perhaps with a few post-mortem mutterings about some dubious behaviour, but little more than that.
Click to expand...

index.jpeg Monster. But not that kind of monster.
 
Dogsauce said:
A lot changes in two years, doesn't it? He was treated like a hero on death in Leeds, lying in state.

Wonder how the people who won stuff in the auction of his possessions now feel?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19043994
Click to expand...
I think the lying in state was a bit of a last gasp - as I remember, even before that, the ugly stories were beginning to surface. By the time he was there, the beginnings of a societal "Ew" seemed to me to be starting.

There was a bit of a sense that, amongst a small and diminishing group of people, they were going to carry on at least with the process of burying him, as if nothing was wrong. Probably quite understandable - they probably just need to get through that bit. And I don't see any signs of those people saying, now, "Hang on a minute, you've got it all wrong". I expect that even they have recognised in the face of all the evidence (and what they may have suspected, anyway, and perhaps denied to themselves) that this isn't just a bit of a post mortem smear campaign.
 
gabi said:
He's certainly appeared on the beeb thousands of times, and is very definitely a household name. If the twitter rumours are true anyway.
Click to expand...
This is the 73yr old who the police say itsn't a household name? Was this the same bloke who whispered in your ear that bowden is bent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
Sir mark rowley's time is up
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
GarveyLives
G
blossie33
Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked to the UK as a child
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Lord Camomile
Lord Camomile
Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
Pickman's model
sir stephen house's time is up
Replies
5
Views
570
GarveyLives
G
T & P
Arise Sir Tony (Blair)
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
367
Views
13K
gosub
gosub
Back
Top Bottom