On 26 Oct 2012 at 12:35am Webbo wrote:
One of the things I find most perplexing about the whole affair is why was everyone waiting until he died to release this story
On 26 Oct 2012 at 6:45am T wrote:
Maybe a lot of them did make complaints but were told to either go away or that there was no evidence and it was swept under the carpet.
Also, a lot of this happened in a totally different generation where people weren't so forthcoming about such events.
On 26 Oct 2012 at 9:12am Southover Queen wrote:
Because he was a man with immense power and the children he chose had none. Many did report it and were punished, which is what happens/happened to many abused children - they're accused of being troublemakers, or making up filthy stories, or being malicious. Don't forget this was a man with enormous fame who was also a prolific fundraiser, so you would be confronting not just him but also all the charities who benefited from his "generosity". We can now see that there was a pattern, and that the charities he supported were all actually ways of getting to more vulnerable children. He was also known to be very litigious and would have threatened anyone accusing him (especially the media) with all kinds of trouble, and in most cases there simply was no corroboration - it was all just rumour.
On 26 Oct 2012 at 9:31am Pete wrote:
I think a few interesting answers will come out of the BBC.....
On 26 Oct 2012 at 9:36am Brussel sprout wrote:
Burn him!
On 26 Oct 2012 at 9:52am maggiesal wrote:
Oww I think he will burn and continue to do so for eternity if there is any justice in this world
On 26 Oct 2012 at 10:24am Londoner wrote:
Oddly enough, a mate of mine who was in local journalism said Savile boasted to him in 1966 - that's 1966 - that he was being paid a hundred quid in cash for one of his 'free' charity appearances. Why didn't the journalist report this? Because he would never have got a story from Savile again. That's how it works. The man was a chancer just seeing how far he could go. And, as we now know, he was able to go a long way.
On 26 Oct 2012 at 10:46am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
The whole climate around abuse was different back then. It was harder for victims to be believed, and harder for them to make disclosures because it wasn't talked about: it was something secret and shameful.
Thankfully, that has changed and I think it unlikely for anyone, even someone with a high profile who was generally admired by the public, to get away with that sort of thing. One would hope that organisations that get involved with children and young people, however tangentially, have stringent safeguarding procedures in place nowadays.
On 26 Oct 2012 at 11:18am Southover Queen wrote:
They do have very strict safeguarding procedures in place, ACT. The problem is that their whole basis is a clean CRB report, and Jimmy Savile would have come back clean as a whistle. I fear that relying solely on CRB reports lends a very false sense of security.
What will probably happen in broadcasting in the future is that no "outsider" will ever be allowed to be alone with a child, no matter how clean their record. There are many television programmes which have children at their centre - documentaries like the Children's Hospital genre for instance, or some of the "Surprise surprise" type entertainment things - which have traditionally relied on anyone working directly with contributors having CRB checks but will now change their procedures. The key thing is to ensure that there are open and totally confidential reporting routes so that anyone who has a concern has a way of contacting someone without involving the people "on the ground". And once you've got that in place, how do you distinguish between the malicious and the genuine?
It seems obvious, now that we can see that hundreds of children were assaulted and that probably dozens of adults were witnesses. The trouble is that if you're apparently isolated you dismiss it as an overactive imagination or just a one-off and not something so systematic. Plus, by all accounts, Savile was very frightening when crossed.
(It's Savile, by the way, with one l - think So Vile)
On 26 Oct 2012 at 12:25pm The Original Interested. wrote:
I said weeks ago when this sorry saga first broke that the floodgates will be opened and there will be more celebrities being rightly 'outed'.
Look what's happened...Paul Gadd...Freddy Starr all being implicated.
It will be interesting to see who will next be accused of wrong doings...
On 26 Oct 2012 at 1:40pm Deelite wrote:
Just wish the scandal had broken a month or two earlier so Cliffe Bonfire Society would have had time to create a suitably damning tableau.
On 26 Oct 2012 at 1:48pm Robert wrote:
Cliff Richard - now he is squeaky clean, isn't he?
On 26 Oct 2012 at 2:34pm Purdy wrote:
When I was 14 I was abused by a man who worked for my Dad. I have never told anyone because I am so ashamed and also, at the time I didn't know that there were people out there, interested in kids-I thought he saw me as an adult and I was flattered. I totally understand why these people never came forward before. If someone came forward about this man then I probably would too, but until that time the shame will go with me.
On 26 Oct 2012 at 4:34pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Really sorry to hear what happened to you, Purdy. There is no need to feel shame, and it is never too late to get help in dealing with the effects of being abused.
If nothing else, this sorry saga shows that a clean CRB is completely inadequate in terms of safeguarding. A safeguarding procedure should include a requirement for all disclosures to be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, and for anyone with suspicions to report them. The fact that there were earlier police investigations should have been enough to ensure that he was never in a position to continue abusing vulnerable young people.
On 26 Oct 2012 at 11:30pm Anon wrote:
Does the name George Woodall mean anything to anyone?
On 27 Oct 2012 at 8:51am Bandit wrote:
Yes I remember him for no reason other than he was said to be different
On 28 Oct 2012 at 1:00am Anon wrote:
No different from JS I'm afraid.
On 28 Oct 2012 at 11:03am The Original Interested. wrote:
I remember when I was little the Pells pool was my 2nd home.
There was a creepy guy who had very dirty false teeth who took the baskets with all our clothes in. My friend and me couldn't understand why our knickers were always missing when we got our clothes back...(This wasn't Pete Streeter or any of his sons by the way)
What a job for a pervert...At a swimmimg pool.....
On 28 Oct 2012 at 2:17pm Andrew wrote:
Webbo, it's been in the papers etc. more than enough for you to be able to spell this disgusting man's surname correctly. NOT Saville or indeed Seville but Savile as in VILE.
On 28 Oct 2012 at 2:24pm Andrew wrote:
Apologies SQ.
On 28 Oct 2012 at 3:13pm Southover Queen wrote:
Oh don't worry, Andrew! No-one else takes a blind bit of notice of me anyway!
On 28 Oct 2012 at 8:07pm Bruciare il Papa wrote:
SaVILE's birthday was Halloween - you couldn't make it up could you?
On 29 Oct 2012 at 9:03pm baby vulture wrote:
disgusting man. i just wish it had come out for him to be alive. so he could suffer the consequences. i'm hoping that just maybe 1 bonfire society has had time to make a big vile savile to burn up!