Jimmy Savile

Thanks glitabo and when
The thing that grated with Ian Hislop's defence of the BBC, was indeed his suggestion that the newspapers were just as culpable as the BBC because they didn't publish anything.
The difference of course, which he conveniently ignored, was that JS wasn't actually working for any newspapers (at least as far as I am aware) and so they had no duty of care.
And Ian Hislop, as editor of Private Eye, should be more aware than anyone of the risks of publishing unsubstantiated accounts.
I feel a letter cancelling my subscription might be coming on!

Ian Hislop surprised me Jane. Private Eye and HIGNFY are used to taking calculated risks, and coolly claiming 'it is alleged.' I thought they would have been a bit braver in the circs. He did look uncomfortable. I guess quite a few celebs are anxious about being dragged into the dirt just because they were on the periphery at the time.

absent I agree!!

For a while HIGNFY looked like it was turning into Question Time. Like glitabo said, you can't wring any humour out of this while the cameras are rolling.

While I agree Ian Hislop did look uncomfortable he was right to say rumour alone is not enough to convict someone and it must be remembered most of the reported incidents happened thirty years ago or more. I am sure that as attitudes changed Savile became more discreet and, of course, he was getting older.

But Graham Linehan was right to talk of hiding in the open. Most people make jokes about what they may or may not do when opportunity arises. DH travelled a lot on business and we used to joke with each other and others at the opportunities this offered. I would be horrified if anyone had thought there was any element of truth in our light-hearted banter. If Savile was making remarks like that, it would justify the rumours but also neutralise them on the basis that if he plays up to them he cannot be worried by them therefore they are probably not accurate.

Yes, Flickety brushing aside rumours with bluff was very effective for JS. I remember when a group of vigilantes gathered outside a hostel where a sex offender had been outed. Two of the men shouting abuse and carrying banners were registered sex offenders themselves. When police pulled them aside discreetly, to warn them to keep a lower profile, they both had petitions that they were getting people to sign. A good way to divert suspicion.

i thort it was very tame kast night they held back not the normalhave i got news for you

Too serious to joke about.

Here's a thought/question.
We seem to have moved, during my adult life, from a slightly jovial approach to JS and others groping teenaged kids to the other extreme:
Everyone who engages in a sexual act with anyone of 15 and 3/4 is a "paedophile". Despite that fact that in many cultures, including our own in the past, this was considered a marriageable age. (bear in mind that 16 year old boys could find themselves on the sex offenders register for life if they have sex with a 15 year old girl)
and
Everyone who has ever suffered any kind of abuse in childhood is a "victim" a "survivor" and there seems to be an assumption that their life has been "devastated".
Now I will grant you that living with an abusive family member for years is probably psychologically damaging. But we probably don't know whether it is always damaging - just because therapists see lots of people with this background - are there maybe equal numbers that are fine and don't end up in therapy/ prison etc?
And is there any evidence at all that a one-off event of being groped by an adult (and for most of JS's victims it could have been a one-off) inflicts long term damage in everyone who experiences this?

JessM Food for thought there.
I do know 1 boy (15 years old) who was put on the sex offenders register for twanging a girl's bra strap in the school playground. It started off as a joke but the girl's father demanded that further action was taken. So it was.

glitabo, that is monstrous! A good telling off, preferably by a lot of girls, should have been enough.
Now a charity is demanding the head of Esther Rantzen.
I think as much, if nor more, damage can be done to a child by being interrogated about suspected abuse if it is just a one-off and not very serious. The children in the false Satanic abuse cases were wrenched from their homes and subjected to intrusive intimate examinations.
I believe the police do not pursue couples where they are both young and of similar ages and the sex was consensual. A bit of common sense.

I'd imagine that anything that happens to us as we're growing up shapes us in some way, but in greater and lesser degrees and also depends on the individual. I [stupidly] lost my virginity at 15 to someone a couple of years older [y'know, the usual ultimatum; never saw him again ], but don't think of him as a paedophile; just a cad of the highest order . Don't feel 'damaged' by it [although would have been if I'd found myself pregnant]. Probably no lasting damage other than a loss of confidence. What about the allegations about John Peel now? Am I biased in that I adored him [still do] and feel that seeing a 15 year old girl for 3 months is a relationship of some kind. I'm pretty sure that all groups at that time had girls of all ages going to their dressing room after shows [bet the Beatles weren't all that squeaky clean, either, or Hermann's Hermits]. This seems to have opened the floodgates of a witch hunt, which could overshadow the awful behaviour of this dreadful man, Savile.

Yes, Crimson, I loved to listen to John Peel on Saturday mornings.

There WAS a lot of it going on in the days of the pop tours. And the same girls would come back for more, often as not, travelling to the next town on the tour.

The jazz men tended to prefer the older, very warm-hearted female fans - read George Melly's books for the details!

I also loved Dave Lee Travis's radio show - and now he's been accused of molesting at least two women at the BBC (not underage, but young nevertheless).

Oh goodness. I have been expecting this. Suspect the culture was well embedded in the days when Liz got her breasts grabbed. Lordy lordy.

I think it was all different then. I hung around stage doors for autographs in my teens and guess would have been 'flattered' if one of the young men had flirted or made a move on me. But adult men should behave as adults and not take advantage of immature girls. What is being suggested is that when girls did want to complain that they had been taken advantage of things were hushed up...that is the bigger crime.

Why is it that I have never quite trusted Esther Rantzen? She's now bleating about possibly having to quit Childline thus freeing up paedos and abusers to do their dirty work in a world without her stewardship. Really? Isn't that a similar response to Freddy Star threatening a heart attack, if the accusations continue?

Jess, I am in agreement with you. I actually wonder whether our heavy handed approach to considering even the slightest contact that could be construed as sexual between a child and adult as a serious sexual attack by a paedophile is actually far more damaging to the young person involved than the actual event itself.

Do not get me wrong I am not suggesting that when a child complains about inappropriate contact they should be ignored, dismissed or the adult involved should not be made to face some formal procedure but I find myself thinking back to a couple of very brief minor inappropriate contact events in my childhood. A man I saw regularly at the swimming pool used to like playing with the children in the pool, he used to pick us up and hold us close before throwing us into the water. As an adult I realise he was holding us on his erection. I wasnt distressed, just puzzled and uncomfortable and I avoided him, but currently if I had told my mother, she would have reported it to the police, I would have been interviewed by carefully trained female police officers, I would have been seen by psychologists and councellors and the whole thing would have been built up is such a way that the response would be traumatising in a way the actual event that triggered it wasnt.

A serious sexual attack is something very different and should be treated very seriously

I see the loathsome Anne Atkins has jumped on board with an article in the Mail, saying she chose not to report a sex offender because he is a friend of the family. She gives her reasons and now says she will speak to the adult who disclosed this behaviour towards children years go. At first, I thought she had been misquoted, but no, she has written the article herself. Would put a link here, but my iPad won't oblige. It's front page headlines, if you feel like reading this revolting article.

I wonder how she, a sanctimonious christian, lives with the knowledge that she has prevented children outside her family circle from being protected from this man?

here's the link When

Thanks jane and when - It's mindboggling.

This is absolutely awful. In many cases a 'vulnerable' person tells about abusive incidents simply because they cannot go to the authorities themselves. They either don't know that there are authorities (in the case of a child or a person with learning difficulties) or they are afraid to do so. Even if the person isn't considered to be 'vulnerable' they may tell another because they believe that person will know how to deal with it. How can this woman sleep at night, knowing what she does know? Especially when the perpetrator is still involved with young and vulnerable people albeit at a distance?

And the loathsome Kerry Katona had an 'inident' with Savile. I feel that it detracts from how awful the sitution is when every past 'celeb' and every 'celebwhohasn'tmanagedto makethe newsforatleattwoweeks'. I bet Katie Price is seething that she doesn't seem to have a tale to tell. Going back to what Jess said, something that has concerned me is how quickly counsellors are sent into schools etc when children have been touched [not literally] by some sort of tragedy. I do wonder if some of them weren't actually traumatised but then became so or felt guikty because they weren't. Sorry if it's insensitive of me to say this, but it's just a passing thought I've had over the years. [I'm not talking about Dunblane type tragedies etc].

I have just been told that as well as an alleged Leeds fan punching Sheffield Wednesday's goalkeeper in the face and a range of other yobbish behaviour at the football match on Friday, the Leeds fans were chanting the praises of Jimmy Saville. There is still a long way to go, I'm sorry to say.