Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Jimmy Saville "sex fiend"?

Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
edited October 2012 in The cake stop
He was a one off and a bit strange, but to accuse a DEAD man of something when he can't defend himself is pretty low.

I don't know whether he was a sex pest or not, it just doesn't sit well with me that accusers are only now coming forward.
Tail end Charlie

The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
«13

Posts

  • Peddle Up!Peddle Up! Posts: 2,040
    Now then, now then...
    Purveyor of "up" :)
  • type Jimmy jangle in you tube...
  • time to rape a turkey?
    'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'
  • There were plenty of stories about this long before he died - just not published in the national press.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • As a DJ he was forgetful though..

    He was always getting his 7 inches lost in the 12's.
  • BobbinogsBobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    The chap dies and then a load of shoot surfaces, very poor in my opinion. Either accuse a man whilst he can defend it or don't bother.
  • davieseedaviesee Posts: 6,473
    In line with most of the above.

    Long time rumoured but the time to raise the issue was while he could either defend himself or be punished.

    It's too late now and all about generating cash. Unpleasant.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • The thing is people will sit and watch these kind of programs, it's why they get made in the first place. One of the uglier sides of human nature.
  • Well surely it depends on the evidence - it would have been better raised when he was alive but for whatever reason it wasn't - but if there is conclusive evidence there now then I don't see the problem. It's easy to say it's about money - are all the people making these claims getting paid then ?

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • davieseedaviesee Posts: 6,473
    Well surely it depends on the evidence - it would have been better raised when he was alive but for whatever reason it wasn't - but if there is conclusive evidence there now then I don't see the problem. It's easy to say it's about money - are all the people making these claims getting paid then ?
    My mention of money was more aimed at the programme makers.
    Good question though. Why didn't the people making the claims come forward earlier?
    It can't be new evidence and it is not as if the rumours are a revelation.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • finchyfinchy Posts: 6,689
    Maybe they didn't come forward because they grew up in a time when child abuse scandals where hushed up or not taken seriously. And maybe they were scared or being vilified.
  • BozmanBozman Posts: 2,570
    Bobbinogs wrote:
    The chap dies and then a load of shoot surfaces, very poor in my opinion. Either accuse a man whilst he can defend it or don't bother.

    +1
  • Shall we await the 'programme' and then see if there is an explanation for why people feel able to 'tell' now that it cannot be contested ?

    Keep an open mind and closed legs :wink:
  • cougiecougie Posts: 22,512
    A friend of mine met him when she was young. She thought he was a horrible gropy man. And she had told everyone that when it happened. I've no doubt she's right.
  • VelonutterVelonutter Posts: 4,749 Lives Here
    I have a friend who was abused as a kid, apparently he feels that some may only feel free to talk and discuss when the abuser dies and can no longer haunt them, makes sense.

    I don't know if JS was an abuser, but if he was then I hope he rots in hell, but if he wasn't then his accusers have some explaining to do!
  • Yellow PerilYellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    A tough call this one and will lead to a lot of division of opinion. Having not been abused (other than as a censored rider) it's impossible to know why these accusations haven't come out before.

    Let these people have their say, I'm struggling to see what they can gain from this other than some sort of closure if it is in fact true.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • DougallDougall Posts: 49
    Given that he was a cyclist at one point it'll no soubt give the muppets that inhabit the press another chance to spout forth their ill-informed garbage about how people who ride bikes are evil. :evil:
  • Dougall wrote:
    Given that he was a cyclist at one point it'll no soubt give the muppets that inhabit the press another chance to spout forth their ill-informed garbage about how people who ride bikes are evil. :evil:

    Fred West rode a bike, as a kid!
    Saville ;
    we know he was obsessive, about cycling,his mother,cigars,- if you look back, his children thing was also 'driven'.
  • ProssPross Posts: 25,338
    Assuming there is truth in this I can understand the victims of this sort of thing keeping quiet and then mentioning it after the person has died. However, the one woman on saw on TV was working for the BBC at the time and claims to have walked in and witnessed one of the occassions. If this is the case why has it taken her until after Saville's death to mention this? Surely she had a duty to raise it at the time rather than after his death and in not speaking up she possibly contributed to him being able to continue his behaviour. Instead she appears to have decided to keep quiet rather than risk her career but now that nothing can be done has decided to speak openly in public.

    I certainly wouldn't defend JS in this and it does appear there is a large amount of corroboration between the statements of the alleged victims but why has everyone waited until after his death to make this a public matter? Not only can he not defend himself if innocent but he can't be punished if guilty.
  • random manrandom man Posts: 1,514
    Pross wrote:
    Assuming there is truth in this I can understand the victims of this sort of thing keeping quiet and then mentioning it after the person has died. However, the one woman on saw on TV was working for the BBC at the time and claims to have walked in and witnessed one of the occassions. If this is the case why has it taken her until after Saville's death to mention this? Surely she had a duty to raise it at the time rather than after his death and in not speaking up she possibly contributed to him being able to continue his behaviour. Instead she appears to have decided to keep quiet rather than risk her career but now that nothing can be done has decided to speak openly in public.

    I certainly wouldn't defend JS in this and it does appear there is a large amount of corroboration between the statements of the alleged victims but why has everyone waited until after his death to make this a public matter? Not only can he not defend himself if innocent but he can't be punished if guilty.

    It's all speculation at the moment, but maybe this woman did raise the issue and it was all covered up. We don't know.
  • ProssPross Posts: 25,338
    It'll be interesting to hear what she says in the full interview but from the limited clips I have seen she doesn't suggest that she raised the issue. If she did and the BBC ignored her then we have a potentially very big story.
  • The girls were from a school for wayward young people, exactly the sort of troubled teen targeted by a predatory paedophile because their word would not be believed. Bravely, these girls DID report what had happened, and were punished for it:

    The testimonies of the women that appear in the Savile documentary are heartbreaking. One spoke of how she was raped by Savile, but that she blamed herself because "no one blamed him." Another was locked in an isolation unit for days at her approved school when she made allegations about Savile in the 1970s, because she was assumed to be lying, as are so many abused children both then and now.


    "No one believed me then and I don't expect anyone to believe me now."

    Unless we start listening to children, in decades to come we will be hearing the same tragic stories.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ocumentary
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 8,136
    From the BBC article...
    But fellow broadcaster Paul Gambaccini said he had been "waiting 30 years" for such stories to come out.

    Speaking on ITV1's Daybreak programme, he said newspapers had been primed to run similar stories while Sir Jimmy was alive, but the star had intervened to prevent their publication.

    "On [one] occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said 'well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville - do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations'. And they backed down."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19788721

    We all know how reliable newspapers are as a trustworthy source.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • I feel sorry for Frankie Boyle, who is crossing out "Michael Jackson" and scribbling in "Jimmy Saville" in all of his paedophile jokes.
  • rodgers73rodgers73 Posts: 2,626
    Yes, I suspect that aggressive threats of litigation stopped Saville's (alleged) abuse being revealed while he was alive, as it did with Robert Maxwell's misdeeds while he was alive, only for everyone in Fleet Street and beyond trying to distance themselves from him the day after he died.

    As well as that, there is the question of his age. I would expect his sex drive and so his desire to abuse/rape children will have faded in his later life. This may have been one of those instances where it was "all in the past" and there was perhaps not so much urgency in revealing what he had done as all it would do was put the victims through more trauma and not actually prevent any further abuse.
  • Smokin JoeSmokin Joe Posts: 5,669
    rodgers73 wrote:
    Yes, I suspect that aggressive threats of litigation stopped Saville's (alleged) abuse being revealed while he was alive, as it did with Robert Maxwell's misdeeds while he was alive,
    For a newspaper to accuse someone with the financial clout of JS of having sex with under age girls they would have to be very certain of their facts, and the people making the allegations would have to be able to provide proof. Losing a libel case is very costly.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    The Police investigated these allegations in 2007 and the CPS found insufficient evidence.

    Regardless, unless you ve first hand knowledge of this type of thing, you have no idea of the power an abuser has over you, even decades later and after their death - and a famous figure like JS (or a family friend) even more so.

    A close family member was abused by such a person and 37yrs later and 32 years after their death, he eventually told all, none of us had a clue - the shame and feelings of guilt had never left him, even blaming himself for the abusers death! (of a heart attack)
    So dont belittle these womens allegations, we will probably never know the truth, they ll be no trial, no defense and no closure.
  • An unmarried bloke, in the showbiz arena, who loved his mother, the only surprise here is that it was young girls he was attracted to!
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • Tom ButcherTom Butcher Posts: 7,137
    Well the rumours go way beyond young girls don't they.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • Well the rumours go way beyond young girls don't they.

    you can say what you like now-- he's dead, was it anything 'warm' ?
Sign In or Register to comment.