On 12 Oct 2012 at 12:52pm Mists of time wrote:
All this handwringing about Saville would be amusing if the subject wasn't so devastating for the victims. As a child in the seventies, I recall numerous occasions when paedophiles were discussed, known about etc etc in schools. It was always brushed under the carpet and, if the culprit was really brazen, they would be moved sideways. That's the way it was, I remember it so I'm pretty sure the people who were adults already back then will also remember it. Saville must have had people who were deliberately protecting him whether they realised the gravity of what they were doing is another matter. It's still going on today. I have heard of a suspected case just last week going on in Lewes involving a 60 something "pillar of society" who likes the company of teenage boys. He is being watched very closely.
On 12 Oct 2012 at 1:00pm Rookie wrote:
Over 120 "incidents" now apparently. With that many victims I can't understand how barely a whisper of this got out over the last 40 years.
On 12 Oct 2012 at 1:02pm Pete wrote:
A lot of covering up at the BBC I suspect Rookie.
On 12 Oct 2012 at 1:25pm Southover Queen wrote:
I think it's more complex than that, Pete. The earliest complaint goes back to 1959, so Savile was already successfully accessing and grooming young girls. If you watched the Exposure programme last week, it was clear that his first producer at the BBC was a rather weak character who was unable to stand up to him, and I think that very much set a pattern. By the time he'd been turned into a major celebrity (pretty quickly!) it was very hard for anyone to challenge him, either as a production person or as the child victim. He had become pretty well untouchable.
The story goes that he was a bully and very litigious into the bargain. People who did voice their concerns were threatened with libel action both by the man himself and apparently also the charities who were raking in large sums of money. He was a Knight of Realm, for heaven's sake, feted wherever he went, someone responsible for raising millions for charity. A child in a home for "troubled teenagers" wasn't going to be believed in a "his word against mine" face-off, were they?
I think there are big lessons to be learned. The BBC does now have quite a good safeguarding system in place, but it could certainly be improved. For instance, Savile would have passed a CRB check with flying colours because no complaint against him had ever been upheld, so that needs to be addressed. Perhaps there needs to be an independent reporting hotline - but how do you prevent the malicious reporting of the entirely innocent? It's easy in hindsight to see that there was a horrifying truth behind the rumours, but how do you get from the rumours to the truth?
On 12 Oct 2012 at 1:39pm Paul Gadd wrote:
Just take a look at him and what he wore. Those shorts shouted 'Paedo' on their own!
On 12 Oct 2012 at 2:37pm someone else wrote:
Mists of time - I've heard the stories about the (same, I guess) 'pillar of Lewes society'. I think he sounds like something of a weirdo, and some of what he's done should be in the public realm, but I've heard nothing to suggest that he's even vaguely like Savile.
On 12 Oct 2012 at 3:30pm Julie wrote:
I had a boss who had an "eiffel chair". He would sit on his seat and invite us girls to sit opposite in order that he could get an eyeful. no harm in it - part and parcel of the banter that went on in the early seventies (short skirts, no bras and all that).
On 12 Oct 2012 at 3:53pm steve watts wrote:
And the point you are trying to make is, Julie ?
On 12 Oct 2012 at 3:58pm not from around here wrote:
I should imagine that the point she is trying to make is that attitudes have changed and what is frowned upon now was accepted in the 70's.
On 12 Oct 2012 at 4:50pm Kettle wrote:
I remember similar 'harmless' pranks. It was cr@p.
On 12 Oct 2012 at 5:57pm Southover Queen wrote:
Hear, hear Kettle. It sounds foul, to be honest.
I don't think it was accepted so much as unwillingly tolerated. If you protested you were accused of being frigid or a lesbian. Times have changed considerably, thankfully, and there's a general support for respecting a person's autonomy. I think it's that change which might now prevent someone like Savile getting the hold he undoubtedly had.
On 12 Oct 2012 at 6:02pm Julie wrote:
At least someone gets it.
On 12 Oct 2012 at 9:26pm the old mayor wrote:
Do you think he may have his knighthood rescinded ? Can that be done ?
On 12 Oct 2012 at 9:35pm Durex wrote:
Lets hope he wore one of our night hoods ,
On 13 Oct 2012 at 9:09am Grumpy wrote:
Julie has part of the answer. Things were different in the 60s and 70s. Our generation was rewriting the rule book for social and sexual behaviour. For a time, the pendulum swung too far in the liberal direction. But even then there were limits. In the early 70s I remember being shocked to hear from someone who worked for a different part of the BBC that Savile was habitually seducing young girls after his shows. If I knew, it must have been common knowledge throughout the media world and it's reprehensible that his producers and their managers did not address this.
On 13 Oct 2012 at 9:22am steve watts wrote:
I dont remember child abuse being "accepted" in the 70s !
On 13 Oct 2012 at 9:29am Tom wrote:
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
On 13 Oct 2012 at 10:39am TDA wrote:
I sense exploding cigars on the 5th
On 13 Oct 2012 at 1:00pm not from around here wrote:
Steve Watts - don't be stupid, nobody is saying child abuse was accepted in the 70's. The point is that the atmosphere was different and therefore different things were acceptable to now. The big problem with this whole Saville thing is that in the middle of the media/bandwagon storm are some allegations of very serious sexual abuse, but as he is dead - he can neither defend himself or be investigated/prosecuted. As I said there are some extremely serious allegations being made but also some jumping on the bandwagon. One woman on BBC South East was one of his victims as she had been 'forcibly kissed' - these silly spurious allegations are in danger of masking the more serious ones I think.
On 13 Oct 2012 at 10:34pm the old mayor wrote:
Mind you, there has been no argument from his family, they have very swiftly removed his head stone, what do you think they knew ?
On 14 Oct 2012 at 1:29pm brixtonbelle wrote:
As someone who went through her teenage years in the seventies, it was pretty much endemic that a lecherous blokes could get away with a quick grope, a lunge or a fumble or more and if the girl complained she was accused of being a lesbian or frigid or a feminist (as SQ says). I experienced it myself and it was bloody awful enduring filthy comments from older blokes (usually the fathers of friends) or the constant barrage of innuendo and sexual comments/ touching. The attitude towards women and girls as someone's/ anyone's sexual property was woven into the cultural fabric of the time and accusations of abuse hard to make as girls/boys just weren't believed. Thankfully that culture has changed and these women now feel safe to come out and make the charges against Savile.
And NFAH - I don't think being 'forciby kissed' is a silly spurious allegation. Would you accept it if your teenage daughter (or wife) had been molested in that way ?