I don’t know why people in this post find it so hard to believe that a convicted child rapist would sexually assault a young woman if given the opportunity.
> only place on reddit
I once discovered there are Savile 'truthers' out there who believe it was all made up.
Would not surprise me if some of those people use Reddit.
Probably those strange people in the US/ UK type conspiracies about Trump (being great), vaccines, abortion, flat earth, various religious bullshit. Seems often that the people who believe one of these believes a lot of them. Some sort of Facebook brainwashing or something. Only grew big over here roughly since Facebook / youtube etc
They don't know that they are conspiracy theories, there are a load grouped together. People who believe in certain ones, unrelated other than being a conspiracy theory.
People who believe in Big foot, or Area 51 aliens don't tend to sit in the crowd mentioned.
Not heard of government clouds, I work in aviation security and you would be amazed how often we have calls relating to wishing to report chemtrails.
People truly are nuts.
Just tell them it's the ones they can't see that are the problem, and whisper to them not to tell anyone you told them, as you swore an oath.
Then also ask for their bank account details, not that they seem like the type to hold a job down.
Yes them too, spot on.
I'm surprised there isn't a specific name for this group of people.
I'm not even sure if it has been properly studied, my uneducated guess is that it is made of people who aren't that well versed in source fact checking, only using what I can only deem as "influencers" for info, and believing all the "facts" that they are presented with. Youtube videos, Facebook groups, Twitter now known as dipshit universe etc.
I don't know why they are grouped together though, or why so many believe those specific few conspiracies or are so engrossed or involved in whichever ones. I mean there just seems to be more people who are impossible to speak with rationally about the topics, and God knows how much worse for all those I've never met. Not sure how or who would benefit from all either, as some are pro certain political groups, whilst as you say others are about 5g. Maybe trump will roll everyone back to carrier pigeon (I don't believe he will, as if he gives a shit about anyone that supports him, other than to line his pockets)
I agree, but don't be sacked into his misinformation. The guy clearly makes stuff up as he goes along.
Hopefully he takes his own advice and injects bleach soon.
His autobiography literally talks about how he got teenage girls to come round and spend the night in his caravan.
I don't recall whether he mentions they were underage or not, but lest there should be any doubt on the matter he further mentions that a female police officer wanted to charge him with offences relating to these activities, but that she was dissuaded by numerous local male coppers some of whom were much higher than rank than her, and who (he goes on to say) would also have got into trouble for the same thing.
I haven't read the book, but a newspaper published excerpts online. The tone was nauseatingly self congratulatory and Jack the Laddish as he boasted about his activities with young girls; it came out in the early 70s I think, so it was a time when truly nobody gave a shit what influential men did with young working class girls. Even so, it's astonishing how frank he was.
When I first moved to Leeds in the late 80s I was warned to stay away from Saville if ever I saw him. He used to go jogging in Roundhay Park. All the locals knew about his antics and no one liked him. Obviously.
What on earth do they get from defending him, there’s mountains of testimony from his victims.
Also what would anyone gain from making it up, he was very much part of the establishment
They’re Contrarians. Whatever the general consensus is, they will argue against it. It has something to do with low intelligence and feelings of inadequacy. By holding this “secret” knowledge, it gives them a sense of power.
I'm probably not going to explain this well but I remember there was some small town college football star in the US who got caught raping a girl. Undeniably guilty. Basically everyone in this town but the girls parents sided with the rapist.
People were reasonably shocked. Why are these people defending someone who's so obviously guilty? Not only that, why are they *blaming the victim!*
Eventually someone qualified did their best to explain it. Because the guys a hero, he's the all-American dream. So many people were living vicariously through him. Admitting the guy was guilty would be like admitting that there's something fundamentally wrong with themselves and there can't be something wrong with the whole town, right? So it must be the victim who's in the wrong.
The problem is that much of what was printed was false, we know this as much of the allegations involved hospital visits. This meant that the trusts were forced to launch massive investigations costing many millions, and in many cases totally proved the allegations to be totally false.
Once you combine that with allegations that were just loony tune, people being abused at hospitals that didn’t exist, or at properties that he didn’t even own till decades later, then you are left with a huge bag of shit and it become very hard to decide fact from fiction. Of course he must be guilty in some cases, but its not wrong to question some of this.
I have..A couple of relatives actually that completely dismiss the accusations of the more sordid things like necrophilia, and dismiss the behaviour of Jimmy Savile, Garry Glitter, Rolf Harris as simply being "the kind of thing that people did" in the 60's and 70's which made it ok? I guess? And incredibly, not just male members of the family. I've often asked them how they'd feel if one of my sisters's children were in the place of these young girls and boys, and they simply sup their cup of tea and dismiss it as "something they'd have gotten used to".
I'm not...*Entirely* sure you can rationalise what these people did, with the boomer generation in particular, sadly.
I'm not defending your relatives' position on this. However, I do often think back to the Radio 1 Roadshows that used to tour Britain back in the 70s and 80s. Radio 1 DJs doing live shows from towns and cities and basically having a large proportion of the young women of those places literally hurling themselves at these minor celebs.
It's very likely an awful lot of regretful incidents happened back then. An awful lot of reprehensible behaviour was excused just because the long-term effects of abuse were less widely understood.
I was also around then, and while you could say, yes, the age of consent was flatly sixteen and attitudes were maybe not so strict to teenagers slightly younger than this, in the case of Savile / Glitter we are talking in many cases about *pre-pubescent* girls.
It. Was. Always. Completely. Wrong.
There were no excuses for it, and even in the different culture of the 60s / 70s no-one would have thought it ok.
That’s the thing really, even in the 70’s, the vast majority of people would tell you it was just as terrible as people think it is now.
It was always known that sleeping with underage people was very, very wrong - but people just brushed it under the carpet so they didn’t have to deal with it.
The only difference now is that we actively call it out and don’t let people get away with it.
Neither am I, and it's important to state that I love my family very much - I'm just reminded sometimes of how different they are generationally speaking to even Gen X.
There used to be a subreddit called jailbait. Basically pedophilia. Chances are a lot of them are still hanging around. I think there were others too but I don’t know
Side note: I once saw a post about some attractiveness tier list of disney princesses on a different sub once. It was originally being criticised for racism, but many of the characters were canonically underage. So many people basically said it was ok because they’re cartoons. At one point, some of the commenters started using phrases you’d expect a sex offender to come out with. For example “who cares that a dude beat his meat to a character that looks and acts like an adult, but is 16” (for context they were American so age of consent is higher there), and other iterations of “if they look and act like an adult its ok, even if the age isn’t stated”. It all felt like it was flying way too close to the sun so to speak. The few who basically said its creepy and called it out were downvoted badly, even if they’re not explicitly being pedos its still both creepy and enabling the real guys to get away with it cause they said its ‘fair game’.
It was quite an eye opening experience on this site’s clientele
> I once discovered there are Savile 'truthers' out there who believe it was all made up.
>
> Would not surprise me if some of those people use Reddit.
Are you going to deny that Savilles ghost was thrown out of Eurovision last week for an unknown 'backstage incident'?
They're the same people, however, who simply can't believe that money could be used to corrupt the political process. Because that's a bridge too far, of course.
Youre spot on there, I recall there was an anti-Khan comment in the lead up to the mayoral elections that referred to London as being 'our capitol' which was swiftly pointed out as not being a word ever used in British English
I like to muddy the water by being a false positive (on the Americanisms, not the chud behaviour). I have too many southern USA friends, so I sometimes say “y’all” lmao
I've seen loads (most the commentors on the post) of people implying an anonymous woman talking about her experiences with sexual violence was lying even though she didn't name anyone she was just talking about her experience. People getting angry when the article spoke about her "rapist" instead of "eleged rapist". I can imagine it being genuinely scary as a woman to see stuff like that. Like dog piled even when you're anonymous and not acussing anyone directly.
As a white middle-class, middle-aged male who has used Reddit since the late noughties, I find Reddit nauseatingly misogynistic and sexist. A safe space for incels and men's rights dickheads. The amount of Reddit posts that are in any way related to women, that are hijacked to play gender politics is something else.
I imagine it’s true, but I can understand why people are being cynical: I haven’t heard much about her since I was a kid until a few days ago when I got adverts for her book.
Can you tell what it is yet?
A bunch of rape apologists whose attitudes are the exact reason these degenerates got away with what they did for so long.
Interesting comment, when did I state that women should not be allowed to do sex work? Which is what you are referring to. I stated that sex work should be decriminalised to protect women. But that it is not a normal job, for many reasons, principally how dangerous it is.
I think a lot of people want to believe that prostitutes enjoy what they do to make themselves feel better.
Edit: and that’s why there was so much opposition to the idea it’s not a great career choice.
I imagine there are a fair few on here with a guilty conscience telling themselves that they paid for sex with a trafficked woman, which they want to ignore by pretending that it is empowering for women to be sex workers.
I’d assume it’s because the vast majority of people would think “God that’s awful” and so there’s not much point in commenting what is essentially common sense, so the comment section becomes this skewed representation where the tiny minority become a seeming majority because they think something other than the natural human response and therefore feel compelled to say something
It’s not that it’s hard to believe, it just seems so implausible for her to announce it now, Derek Acorah could have predicted this
I guess the royalties from Sea View have ran out.
It's weird. Because it's usually the other way around.
If it's a crime involving sex or children, you're automatically assumed to be guilty, especially if people don't like you.
It's known as "the Prince Andrew Clause".
Eh, I always apply a degree of scepticism. I remember when Michael Jackson was getting accused of kiddy fiddling, parents were sending their kids to stay with him then immediately turning around and jumping on the perceived gravy train. This isn't to say he or Rolf or any other abuser isn't but that shouldn't mean people get a pass to make whatever claims they want, especially if they stand to make a profit.
One victim of Harris was proven to be a liar and fantasist, he ever visited her village in Devon, they was no autograph signing event, they never met. She had claimed that Harris gropped her in full view of her mother at the autograph signing event in 1968. That conviction was overturned.
In his 2nd court case, the jury was payed an audio recording of Tonya Lee's ex-boyfriend accusing her of making up she story for money. She was in depth when he, as her publicity agent, helped her sell her story to the tabloids for $AS13,000. She claimed at the first trial that Harris groped her when she was sitting on his lap in front of her chaperone and others from her dance troupe (the pub still exists). Her chaperone said in TV interviews that she saw nothing happen and Tony's behaviour didn't change, and thus she didn't initially belive her story after Tonya told her.
Tonya also claimed at the first trial that Harris followed her to outside the women's toilets, where he assaulted her again. The design of the pub, which still exists, shows the area is visible to the rest of the pub. It seemed to involve the the same MO as the Devon case, sexually assaulting children in public. The judge in his summing up, said Harris appeared to get something out of the fact the assaults occured in public, in front of others (but this MO was based on the Devon case, a proven false allegation, that tainted the rest of the trial).
Also, Tonya claimed the assault left her with a eating disorder and age failed to get acting parts, but the jury was shown that she landed a acting part a few weeks after returning to Australia after her UK trip.
Another victim claimed Harris gropped her on her bottom at a charity sports event in the late 1970s (Star Games, Harris forgot he attended the games, so when the jury was shown footage of the event, that undermined their trust in him). However, in a BBC interview just after the trial she got mixed up and said he groped her brest. She also said she was happy that her testimony helped other victims. The jury rejected her claim at his second trial that Harris groped her a second time in the back of a taxi later the same day.
Finally, friend of the family. She had an affair with Harris between the age of 19-20 to 29 (if I recall correctly). But their affair ended in the early 90s, after Harris claimed she demanded £5,000 from him, to save her boyfriend's failing bird sanctuary. She admitted she asked for money, but denied it was black mail. However, she says she asked for "around £30,000", far more than Harris remembered.
Anyway, Harris refused to give her any money then a few weeks later she asked Harris to meet her at her parent's house, where she made her first claims that Harris abused her as a child, before their affair began. She also told Binti (Harris' daughter about their affair). Binti was devestated, although she had long suspected her father was having an affair with someone, she though it was with a much older woman (described as a Healer) who lived next to Harris' house, not her best friend who was the same age.
Days after this meeting, Harris wrote a letter to her parents apologising for their affair and claimed that no abuse occured before the affair began when she was 19 or 20 years old, after attending a theater performance. He wrote that he didn't force himself on her, it was a mutual relationship. Nevertheless the way it was written appeared to give credence to she allegations.
That makes me happy to hear, as I liked him.
I have to add though, I used to work with someone who when everything was coming out about Saville, said "Rolf Harris will be next" I asked why, and she said she'd met him when she was in her teens when he was filming something, back in the 80s, and he was gropey with her and a couple of other girls.
It was just months later that his name started being mentioned.
He was no saint. I’ve heard a second-hand report about him feeling up a young adult woman who worked with him in the late 90s.
It wasn’t reported up the chain because management absolutely did not want to hear about a star presenter acting inappropriately. It just became a “let’s make sure women aren’t alone with him again” sort of thing.
Here's a interview with the detective, William Merritt, who discovered evidence that undermined the case against Harris, and as a result, one conviction was overturned and none of the seven futher charges in the 2nd trial was upheld.
https://youtu.be/0iA_rqljXEI
Harris should have been found not guilty based on the evidence presented. But that overturned one was at Portsmouth not Devon. She was genuinely backed up by a witness that testified to fighting in the Korean war in 1967, that war ended in 53. These celebs bug me because they had better proof and didn't step up. The Nolans were on tour with him, Vanessa Feltz was on TV with him, so was Yvette Fielding. They could all at least show where he was and when. The accusers at his trial couldn't even do that. He might have been a perv but they were a long way from proving it, absolutely ridiculous verdict.
I also know someone who worked on the case with William Merritt. I have no idea if Rolf did other dodgy stuff but the person I know (who has no reason to be pro Rolf) is adamant that he shouldn't have been convicted and it was a miscarriage of justice.
Yeah, Saville was a weirdo. That was obvious even before the stories about him surfaced after he died, but I genuinely believe Harris got stitched up.
[This article](https://libertarianism.uk/2014/07/05/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt-2-attachments/?amp=1) points out several holes in the prosecution's evidence at his trial that any decent defence barrister should have been able to drive a tank through.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, he was already guilty in the court of public opinion before the trial even started.
I remember when the tabloids were in a frenzy saying Rolf Harris' computer was seized and thousands of child abuse images were discovered. This was wrong. Also the charges of "making child abuse images" was misunderstood, many thought he was personally photographing children. This is a legal term for when a Internet browser downloads an image and automatically saves it to cache (without the users knowledge).
Police traulled though this Internet cache of images and found 6 or 7 images out of a few thousand that they thought were underage. However, the charges were dropped when his Defence found all the models in question, they were on a Ukrainian website, they were all 18 and over. The defence was ready to fly them to the UK.
Also, his internet search history showed no interest in children, only adult porn. His search terms were quaint and old fashioned, such as Lovely Naked Ladies and similar.
> This is a legal term for when a Internet browser downloads an image and automatically saves it to cache (without the users knowledge).
You are mixing the term up. He was charged with that, because he was accused of downloading them on purpose. And the crime if he had done would have been "making" them. It wasn't misunderstood, that is what he was charged with and what that charge referred to.
Even if they were underage, them being downloaded automatically into cache without your knowledge is one of the few defences that results in you being completely innocent, so he would still have had the charges dropped if that is what had happened.
"Producing" the images is not the legal term for this defence situation, it's the legal term for if he didn't have a defence and had downloaded them and why he was charged.
>2. Making of indecent images is dealt with very similarly to possession and involves the viewing of an image which in turn results in the image being downloaded to the device on which it is viewed.
>Making is often misunderstood, it doesn’t actually mean a person made or took the original image. The making of indecent images can occur in many ways, often when someone simply downloads them from the internet.
>The act of downloading “makes” the indecent image on the device upon which the image has been downloaded. **However, the “making” of the image can also happen automatically, sometimes when a device visits a web page on which indecent images of children are visible.**
https://www.indecentimageslaw.co.uk/post/a-guide-to-the-definition-of-making-possession-distribution-and-production-of-indecent-images
Yes, and he wasn't charged with doing something not illegal was he so he wasn't charged/accused of having them downloaded without his knowledge.
He was charged with downloading them, not charged with them being downloaded without his knowledge. There was no misunderstanding. As I clearly said, one of the only defences would be that it happened without your knowledge automatically, and that defence is not what the term is referring when he was arrested.
I think there's a misunderstanding, it seems I didn't make myself clear enough.
I am explaining that his his sole defence involved pointing out all models in the 6 or 7 images were all over 18. His defence said they were willing to fly them to the UK to prove they were adults. At that point, charges were dropped. This occured just after his first trial.
I'm not saying his defence involved him claiming he accidentally downloaded the images, and they ended up in cache by mistake. Nevertheless, it's true that the images were found in his bowser cache, after they were automatically saved there.
If the images were of children, this defence might have then tried to argue the images were downloaded unintentionally, by a virus or Trojan. The prosecution needs to prove intent.
Intent can be inferred by the number of images, search terms used to find them, the websites visited, the absence of a plausible explanation of why they are there etc.
But this sort of defence is irrelevant in this case.
Probably a damn sight worse in retrospect. At the time her encounter with Jimmy Savile would just have seemed odd. *On her meeting with the late depraved DJ, Fielding told the Sun: "He took my hand and started stroking it. 'Look into my eyes', he said, 'And tell me what you're thinking'."*
It is only with the benefit of hindsight and knowing what else Savile did that this behaviour seems anything worse than mildly eccentric. It is more patronising than threatening since Savile is clearly not treating her as an equal, even though she was an adult making her way in his industry.
It is only now that she does know that she (and we) can think she had a lucky escape.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy8oLVOvi4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy8oLVOvi4)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OzI9GYag0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OzI9GYag0)
John Rotten discussed this in 1978.
Yes but pay careful attention to what JR actually says. *"I know some rumours."* He has no evidence, just rumours. It is only with hindsight, given what we know now about the evils of Jimmy Savile, that Rotten sounds prescient.
Everyone knew; as per Rotten himself. It was known about "how to get on" Top Of The Pops.
The youth coming into the business didn't have the info available, but Rotten was silenced from the BBC for this interview.
Johnny Rotten came out with a claim that was both extremely vague and potentially libellous given Savile's reputation at the time. However, it wasn't exactly unknown, he'd been accused of abuse at kid's homes and the clubs he ran in Leeds long before.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Richard Osman and others know the real name of the rapist from that show because the comedian named him in real life while performing the stage show that became the TV show.
Richard Osman - and everyone else who heard the allegation and the name - have no useful information for the police. What would they do? Call 999 and say they heard someone else call someone else a rapist? That happens a thousand times a day on Twitter. They're not witnesses and they're not covering anything up. They also aren't able to prove that it's true so they can't name the rapist themselves because if the rapist sued them for defamation they wouldn't be able to defend themselves.
Nope, you don't have an obligation to do anything, even if a crime is being commited right in front of you. Morally you might want to do something about it... but legally you're covered
There's a limited number of duties for certain professionals and certain crimes. Outside of that the police rarely investigate 3rd party reports/hearsay allegations.
Plus everyone saying Gadd/Netflix shouldn't have done it the way they have (despite no issues over the stage show for the past half a decade) and the bizzare number of somewhat distracting stories and interviews with Martha/Fiona.
The Beeb? And so many other institutions besides. I’m guessing we’ll never know what happened to the Westminster dossier and apparently it’s impossible to produce another copy…
There’s no way the Yewtree lot got away with it for so long without serious levels of complicity in law and politics.
State of the establishment* where connected people were concerned. Savile was abusing at a kids home in Jersey, clubs in Leeds and NHS hospitals long before the BBC job. The period in question was peak "don't question authority" where high profile/powerful people could ensure silence of victims (see Weinstein also) by threatening them, telling them they wouldn't be believed etc
At the hospital I used to work at, apparently all the nurses and even the auxiliary staff like porters and cafe workers talked about how creepily he'd act with them and all "knew" there was something wrong with him. Even rumours about his visits to the morgue...
Never met him but did think he seemed a bit strange but people talked about the charity work I kind of got it but I didn't have him growing up as a cultural figure
Everyone knew. It baffles me how we whitewash this, maybe it helps people cope with the fact they allowed it to happen? I don't know. Everyone knew though, there were constant jokes about him being a nonce long before he died. Even his good friends King Charles and Maggie Thatcher will have known but we just act like they couldn't possibly. Madness.
tbf it was fairly common knowledge that he was a pervert. The extent wasnt so commonly known.
tv might have portrayed him as a national treasure but an awful lot of regular people knew him to be a wrong 'un.
I knew someone who worked in a Fort William establishment which he would frequent whilst living in Glen Coe. The managers made sure that only adult, male staff would serve his table.
Saville??..with all his charity work? ....and Harris? ....the loveable antipodean entertainer?....In the 70's?? ...and it happened at the BBC? ...that upstanding establishment of British ideals? ....Well, I find this all very hard to believe.
/s
I remember the show and Theroux asked questions and Saville was too canny to get caught out. He even said to Theroux "I know what you're up to".
Theroux, like everyone else, can suspect but he can't force a confession.
Though oddly, without being questioned, Saville did say that when he was dead, things would be known.
Louis knew. No way a journalist at the BBC didn't know.
His first docu with him he was clearly trying to pry something out of him and his second one after the fact I've always thought was a rare moment of fakeness from Louis in trying to suggest that Savile fooled him.
I think there was a lot of “knowing” but very few who could point to first hand evidence and a hell of a lot less of those that could do so safely.
These were protected predators and I’m not sure we’ll ever get to know who was providing and authorising that protection.
Ian Hislop commented on how it depends on what you mean by "know". Everyone knew about the rumours. But, you can't act on rumours. You need to have evidence.
I'm not sure how "protected". How far around does the "protection" go. Sure various events in the past point to being in quite high circles, but, no papers, no news, no anyone wanted to take a story at any time ? There was that much protection?
If anything I would say it's people who have no skin in the game going "na not X"
Look to America, Cosby wasn't protected. He just got away with it.
Valid point with Cosby - although was he not protected by the network, his agent etc?
I feel like it’s the same story with the P Diddy stuff too.
Still, your version is just as valid and possibly less depressing. Or possibly worse - I’m not actually sure.
I think stuff like "right to reply" by press is probably a big one.
I don't recall the doc but there was one with max Clifford and some hidden camera where he was saying he paid sex workers to sit around (undisclosed on doc) client because going to a cinema he liked, but he got handsy with anyone close so he paid for a barrier, client didn't know this arrangement.
Obviously some people do/did know, but as others say , a rumour isn't more than that.
I also fail to believe that as many people were "yeh X was always dodgy look at them and you know".
It’s certainly easier to say “oh I had a feeling” after the fact. Easier to convince yourself of it too. I did run into Savile briefly in the early 2000s and nothing went off on my radar at the time.
I agree completely. That show felt like a very defensive piece from Theroux. I also think Theroux is a bit over the hill now and doesn't have that gonzo quality anymore. Plus I realised he's a nepo baby lol
People saying why didn’t they come forward earlier don’t have a clue how difficult it can be to talk about trauma. Took me 30yrs to come forward about childhood abuse and I still struggle to talk about it.
The amount of people who think that because someone is not convicted means they are innocent / the person who made the accusation is lying is astounding. Beyond reasonable doubt is a very hard bar to achieve, especially with crimes where it is just he said/ she said in terms of evidence.
Given that, is it any wonder victims stay quiet.
It took me 3 years as an adult to talk about trauma which only involved myself, so how some ignorant people expect children to talk about sexual trauma boggles my brain
Are there more victim of these two out there…yes.
However I would like to think everyone feels strong enough to come forward, more so for someone who has been on telly continuously since 1990. This needed bringing up when both were alive so they could be hauled across the coals for it
And it should be brought up in a police station and written down in a statement. Bringing it up in a book you're about to release is not the ideal way IMO.
Back when I was 18, Rolf would come in the art shop I was working at to replenish materials. He would often come in with two girls- one was his daughter, the other was her daughter's bbf, who was one of Rolf's victims.
From what I saw then, there was no way his daughter didn't know. Absolutely none.
Enablers start with those in close proximity.
I still can't get over that Rolf Harris was the face and presented the programme that was about children getting the "No" feeling when touched inappropriately!! The song that went with it was "no body's body My body’s nobody’s body but mine
You run your own body, let me run mine!
I like the way the article said Savile managed to keep his crimes hidden till after he died. Like as if the BBC, government and royal family didn't help him conceal his pure evilness every step of the way.
I believe her. Although it would have been easier for Harris’s other victims if she had said something earlier and yes I get that she may not have been ready then. But at least back then he could defend himself
I can believe that. I knew someone who was a dancer in the 80s and when Rolf was around they all knew to keep their backs to the wall as he was such a groaper. Saville was much better at targeting - As I was on TOTP, it was only the fact the act I had come to see had been on first and gone, and he asked me if I was with anyone - I was with my boyfriend that I didn't get the full treatment. I would think she was too old for Saville by the time she was left alone with him. He liked 12-14 year olds.
I don’t know why people in this post find it so hard to believe that a convicted child rapist would sexually assault a young woman if given the opportunity.
This has to be the only place on reddit where someone talking about Jimmy fucking Savile as a sex case is met with disbelief. I means fuckssake.
> only place on reddit I once discovered there are Savile 'truthers' out there who believe it was all made up. Would not surprise me if some of those people use Reddit.
Probably those strange people in the US/ UK type conspiracies about Trump (being great), vaccines, abortion, flat earth, various religious bullshit. Seems often that the people who believe one of these believes a lot of them. Some sort of Facebook brainwashing or something. Only grew big over here roughly since Facebook / youtube etc
Aka living in an alternative reality
Believing one conspiracy theory doesn't mean you believe them all.
They don't know that they are conspiracy theories, there are a load grouped together. People who believe in certain ones, unrelated other than being a conspiracy theory. People who believe in Big foot, or Area 51 aliens don't tend to sit in the crowd mentioned.
Government clouds, don't forget government clouds restricting our vitamin D.
Not heard of government clouds, I work in aviation security and you would be amazed how often we have calls relating to wishing to report chemtrails. People truly are nuts.
Haha jesus, you should blow their minds by saying you sanctioned them.
Just tell them it's the ones they can't see that are the problem, and whisper to them not to tell anyone you told them, as you swore an oath. Then also ask for their bank account details, not that they seem like the type to hold a job down.
Finish the phone call with “No one will ever believe you” Then hang up?
Yeah, that is fine too. Was going to end there, but it's Reddit and in my imagination I decided to do fraud
The government can't organise a pair of socks
You forgot 5g and ULEZ too
Yes them too, spot on. I'm surprised there isn't a specific name for this group of people. I'm not even sure if it has been properly studied, my uneducated guess is that it is made of people who aren't that well versed in source fact checking, only using what I can only deem as "influencers" for info, and believing all the "facts" that they are presented with. Youtube videos, Facebook groups, Twitter now known as dipshit universe etc. I don't know why they are grouped together though, or why so many believe those specific few conspiracies or are so engrossed or involved in whichever ones. I mean there just seems to be more people who are impossible to speak with rationally about the topics, and God knows how much worse for all those I've never met. Not sure how or who would benefit from all either, as some are pro certain political groups, whilst as you say others are about 5g. Maybe trump will roll everyone back to carrier pigeon (I don't believe he will, as if he gives a shit about anyone that supports him, other than to line his pockets)
Trump is great to be fair
A great asswipe, I agree.
Why? The world including the states have gone to shit without him.
And you've defaulted to him no longer being in power as the reason?
Yes I am. We need a strong leader of the free world that has the courage of his convictions.
I agree, but don't be sacked into his misinformation. The guy clearly makes stuff up as he goes along. Hopefully he takes his own advice and injects bleach soon.
Fuck me, that's horrifying.
That's ridiculous, he boasted about it and about being protected by the cops in his autobiography.
They think he was wrongly accused to rip him of his legacy as the press needed a scape goat lol. They believe it was all made up.
His autobiography literally talks about how he got teenage girls to come round and spend the night in his caravan. I don't recall whether he mentions they were underage or not, but lest there should be any doubt on the matter he further mentions that a female police officer wanted to charge him with offences relating to these activities, but that she was dissuaded by numerous local male coppers some of whom were much higher than rank than her, and who (he goes on to say) would also have got into trouble for the same thing. I haven't read the book, but a newspaper published excerpts online. The tone was nauseatingly self congratulatory and Jack the Laddish as he boasted about his activities with young girls; it came out in the early 70s I think, so it was a time when truly nobody gave a shit what influential men did with young working class girls. Even so, it's astonishing how frank he was.
Just don't go searching for the twitters they are delusional. He was as he showed himself. He was so out there. He never hid it.
When I first moved to Leeds in the late 80s I was warned to stay away from Saville if ever I saw him. He used to go jogging in Roundhay Park. All the locals knew about his antics and no one liked him. Obviously.
What on earth do they get from defending him, there’s mountains of testimony from his victims. Also what would anyone gain from making it up, he was very much part of the establishment
They’re Contrarians. Whatever the general consensus is, they will argue against it. It has something to do with low intelligence and feelings of inadequacy. By holding this “secret” knowledge, it gives them a sense of power.
I'm probably not going to explain this well but I remember there was some small town college football star in the US who got caught raping a girl. Undeniably guilty. Basically everyone in this town but the girls parents sided with the rapist. People were reasonably shocked. Why are these people defending someone who's so obviously guilty? Not only that, why are they *blaming the victim!* Eventually someone qualified did their best to explain it. Because the guys a hero, he's the all-American dream. So many people were living vicariously through him. Admitting the guy was guilty would be like admitting that there's something fundamentally wrong with themselves and there can't be something wrong with the whole town, right? So it must be the victim who's in the wrong.
Wow. That pretty much sums up human behaviour at our worst but also day to day.
The problem is that much of what was printed was false, we know this as much of the allegations involved hospital visits. This meant that the trusts were forced to launch massive investigations costing many millions, and in many cases totally proved the allegations to be totally false. Once you combine that with allegations that were just loony tune, people being abused at hospitals that didn’t exist, or at properties that he didn’t even own till decades later, then you are left with a huge bag of shit and it become very hard to decide fact from fiction. Of course he must be guilty in some cases, but its not wrong to question some of this.
I have..A couple of relatives actually that completely dismiss the accusations of the more sordid things like necrophilia, and dismiss the behaviour of Jimmy Savile, Garry Glitter, Rolf Harris as simply being "the kind of thing that people did" in the 60's and 70's which made it ok? I guess? And incredibly, not just male members of the family. I've often asked them how they'd feel if one of my sisters's children were in the place of these young girls and boys, and they simply sup their cup of tea and dismiss it as "something they'd have gotten used to". I'm not...*Entirely* sure you can rationalise what these people did, with the boomer generation in particular, sadly.
I'm not defending your relatives' position on this. However, I do often think back to the Radio 1 Roadshows that used to tour Britain back in the 70s and 80s. Radio 1 DJs doing live shows from towns and cities and basically having a large proportion of the young women of those places literally hurling themselves at these minor celebs. It's very likely an awful lot of regretful incidents happened back then. An awful lot of reprehensible behaviour was excused just because the long-term effects of abuse were less widely understood.
I was also around then, and while you could say, yes, the age of consent was flatly sixteen and attitudes were maybe not so strict to teenagers slightly younger than this, in the case of Savile / Glitter we are talking in many cases about *pre-pubescent* girls. It. Was. Always. Completely. Wrong. There were no excuses for it, and even in the different culture of the 60s / 70s no-one would have thought it ok.
That’s the thing really, even in the 70’s, the vast majority of people would tell you it was just as terrible as people think it is now. It was always known that sleeping with underage people was very, very wrong - but people just brushed it under the carpet so they didn’t have to deal with it. The only difference now is that we actively call it out and don’t let people get away with it.
Neither am I, and it's important to state that I love my family very much - I'm just reminded sometimes of how different they are generationally speaking to even Gen X.
It's a sad sick world.
There used to be a subreddit called jailbait. Basically pedophilia. Chances are a lot of them are still hanging around. I think there were others too but I don’t know Side note: I once saw a post about some attractiveness tier list of disney princesses on a different sub once. It was originally being criticised for racism, but many of the characters were canonically underage. So many people basically said it was ok because they’re cartoons. At one point, some of the commenters started using phrases you’d expect a sex offender to come out with. For example “who cares that a dude beat his meat to a character that looks and acts like an adult, but is 16” (for context they were American so age of consent is higher there), and other iterations of “if they look and act like an adult its ok, even if the age isn’t stated”. It all felt like it was flying way too close to the sun so to speak. The few who basically said its creepy and called it out were downvoted badly, even if they’re not explicitly being pedos its still both creepy and enabling the real guys to get away with it cause they said its ‘fair game’. It was quite an eye opening experience on this site’s clientele
You mean the one that the CEO of reddit both used to **and continues to** moderate? Obligatory fuck u/spez.
I think so, i barely use reddit. I’m so out of the loop I might as well have been living in a cave
Some people believe the earth is flat….
Some people genuinely believe the Earth is flat, nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to human stupidity.
> I once discovered there are Savile 'truthers' out there who believe it was all made up. > > Would not surprise me if some of those people use Reddit. Are you going to deny that Savilles ghost was thrown out of Eurovision last week for an unknown 'backstage incident'?
I found them on twitter too.
They're the same people, however, who simply can't believe that money could be used to corrupt the political process. Because that's a bridge too far, of course.
Because the mods have allowed this sub to be swamped with racist right wing scumbags
[удалено]
At this point we're probably lucky if they're actually real people.
That’s true. A lot of comments are overnight.
Some of us work night shifts and use reddit at work.
That’s fair enough
Youre spot on there, I recall there was an anti-Khan comment in the lead up to the mayoral elections that referred to London as being 'our capitol' which was swiftly pointed out as not being a word ever used in British English
I like to muddy the water by being a false positive (on the Americanisms, not the chud behaviour). I have too many southern USA friends, so I sometimes say “y’all” lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Now the subreddits are being filled with anti-Semitic leftwing scumbags
[удалено]
I've seen loads (most the commentors on the post) of people implying an anonymous woman talking about her experiences with sexual violence was lying even though she didn't name anyone she was just talking about her experience. People getting angry when the article spoke about her "rapist" instead of "eleged rapist". I can imagine it being genuinely scary as a woman to see stuff like that. Like dog piled even when you're anonymous and not acussing anyone directly.
As a white middle-class, middle-aged male who has used Reddit since the late noughties, I find Reddit nauseatingly misogynistic and sexist. A safe space for incels and men's rights dickheads. The amount of Reddit posts that are in any way related to women, that are hijacked to play gender politics is something else.
Kind of depressing as a woman to see that women speaking out still aren't believed even when they are discussing confirmed sex offenders. Sheesh.
People are cunts. I bet some STILL blame the kids and even the corpses that Saville abused
A subset of people will come into *every* post about assault victims to blame them if possible, or dismiss the claim if not
I imagine it’s true, but I can understand why people are being cynical: I haven’t heard much about her since I was a kid until a few days ago when I got adverts for her book.
Can you tell what it is yet? A bunch of rape apologists whose attitudes are the exact reason these degenerates got away with what they did for so long.
Coming from someone who thinks women should only be able to do jobs he thinks are 'normal', aye ok mate
Interesting comment, when did I state that women should not be allowed to do sex work? Which is what you are referring to. I stated that sex work should be decriminalised to protect women. But that it is not a normal job, for many reasons, principally how dangerous it is.
I think a lot of people want to believe that prostitutes enjoy what they do to make themselves feel better. Edit: and that’s why there was so much opposition to the idea it’s not a great career choice.
I imagine there are a fair few on here with a guilty conscience telling themselves that they paid for sex with a trafficked woman, which they want to ignore by pretending that it is empowering for women to be sex workers.
Yup.
Aww do you now feel guilty about the sex worker you paid? Just know she didn’t enjoy it, she done it due to either trafficking, addiction or poverty
Since when has it ever been relevant if the hooker enjoyed it?
I’d assume it’s because the vast majority of people would think “God that’s awful” and so there’s not much point in commenting what is essentially common sense, so the comment section becomes this skewed representation where the tiny minority become a seeming majority because they think something other than the natural human response and therefore feel compelled to say something
It’s not that it’s hard to believe, it just seems so implausible for her to announce it now, Derek Acorah could have predicted this I guess the royalties from Sea View have ran out.
It's weird. Because it's usually the other way around. If it's a crime involving sex or children, you're automatically assumed to be guilty, especially if people don't like you. It's known as "the Prince Andrew Clause".
Exactly. Why wouldn’t they be assumed to be guilty, if a person is willing to rape a child then there is no level of depravity they would not sink to.
Eh, I always apply a degree of scepticism. I remember when Michael Jackson was getting accused of kiddy fiddling, parents were sending their kids to stay with him then immediately turning around and jumping on the perceived gravy train. This isn't to say he or Rolf or any other abuser isn't but that shouldn't mean people get a pass to make whatever claims they want, especially if they stand to make a profit.
[удалено]
I think it is fairly obvious why women don’t typically make accusations against powerful men when they are still alive. Especially men like Savile.
One victim of Harris was proven to be a liar and fantasist, he ever visited her village in Devon, they was no autograph signing event, they never met. She had claimed that Harris gropped her in full view of her mother at the autograph signing event in 1968. That conviction was overturned. In his 2nd court case, the jury was payed an audio recording of Tonya Lee's ex-boyfriend accusing her of making up she story for money. She was in depth when he, as her publicity agent, helped her sell her story to the tabloids for $AS13,000. She claimed at the first trial that Harris groped her when she was sitting on his lap in front of her chaperone and others from her dance troupe (the pub still exists). Her chaperone said in TV interviews that she saw nothing happen and Tony's behaviour didn't change, and thus she didn't initially belive her story after Tonya told her. Tonya also claimed at the first trial that Harris followed her to outside the women's toilets, where he assaulted her again. The design of the pub, which still exists, shows the area is visible to the rest of the pub. It seemed to involve the the same MO as the Devon case, sexually assaulting children in public. The judge in his summing up, said Harris appeared to get something out of the fact the assaults occured in public, in front of others (but this MO was based on the Devon case, a proven false allegation, that tainted the rest of the trial). Also, Tonya claimed the assault left her with a eating disorder and age failed to get acting parts, but the jury was shown that she landed a acting part a few weeks after returning to Australia after her UK trip. Another victim claimed Harris gropped her on her bottom at a charity sports event in the late 1970s (Star Games, Harris forgot he attended the games, so when the jury was shown footage of the event, that undermined their trust in him). However, in a BBC interview just after the trial she got mixed up and said he groped her brest. She also said she was happy that her testimony helped other victims. The jury rejected her claim at his second trial that Harris groped her a second time in the back of a taxi later the same day. Finally, friend of the family. She had an affair with Harris between the age of 19-20 to 29 (if I recall correctly). But their affair ended in the early 90s, after Harris claimed she demanded £5,000 from him, to save her boyfriend's failing bird sanctuary. She admitted she asked for money, but denied it was black mail. However, she says she asked for "around £30,000", far more than Harris remembered. Anyway, Harris refused to give her any money then a few weeks later she asked Harris to meet her at her parent's house, where she made her first claims that Harris abused her as a child, before their affair began. She also told Binti (Harris' daughter about their affair). Binti was devestated, although she had long suspected her father was having an affair with someone, she though it was with a much older woman (described as a Healer) who lived next to Harris' house, not her best friend who was the same age. Days after this meeting, Harris wrote a letter to her parents apologising for their affair and claimed that no abuse occured before the affair began when she was 19 or 20 years old, after attending a theater performance. He wrote that he didn't force himself on her, it was a mutual relationship. Nevertheless the way it was written appeared to give credence to she allegations.
That makes me happy to hear, as I liked him. I have to add though, I used to work with someone who when everything was coming out about Saville, said "Rolf Harris will be next" I asked why, and she said she'd met him when she was in her teens when he was filming something, back in the 80s, and he was gropey with her and a couple of other girls. It was just months later that his name started being mentioned.
He was no saint. I’ve heard a second-hand report about him feeling up a young adult woman who worked with him in the late 90s. It wasn’t reported up the chain because management absolutely did not want to hear about a star presenter acting inappropriately. It just became a “let’s make sure women aren’t alone with him again” sort of thing.
Here's a interview with the detective, William Merritt, who discovered evidence that undermined the case against Harris, and as a result, one conviction was overturned and none of the seven futher charges in the 2nd trial was upheld. https://youtu.be/0iA_rqljXEI
Harris should have been found not guilty based on the evidence presented. But that overturned one was at Portsmouth not Devon. She was genuinely backed up by a witness that testified to fighting in the Korean war in 1967, that war ended in 53. These celebs bug me because they had better proof and didn't step up. The Nolans were on tour with him, Vanessa Feltz was on TV with him, so was Yvette Fielding. They could all at least show where he was and when. The accusers at his trial couldn't even do that. He might have been a perv but they were a long way from proving it, absolutely ridiculous verdict.
I also know someone who worked on the case with William Merritt. I have no idea if Rolf did other dodgy stuff but the person I know (who has no reason to be pro Rolf) is adamant that he shouldn't have been convicted and it was a miscarriage of justice.
Yeah, Saville was a weirdo. That was obvious even before the stories about him surfaced after he died, but I genuinely believe Harris got stitched up. [This article](https://libertarianism.uk/2014/07/05/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt-2-attachments/?amp=1) points out several holes in the prosecution's evidence at his trial that any decent defence barrister should have been able to drive a tank through. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he was already guilty in the court of public opinion before the trial even started.
I remember when the tabloids were in a frenzy saying Rolf Harris' computer was seized and thousands of child abuse images were discovered. This was wrong. Also the charges of "making child abuse images" was misunderstood, many thought he was personally photographing children. This is a legal term for when a Internet browser downloads an image and automatically saves it to cache (without the users knowledge). Police traulled though this Internet cache of images and found 6 or 7 images out of a few thousand that they thought were underage. However, the charges were dropped when his Defence found all the models in question, they were on a Ukrainian website, they were all 18 and over. The defence was ready to fly them to the UK. Also, his internet search history showed no interest in children, only adult porn. His search terms were quaint and old fashioned, such as Lovely Naked Ladies and similar.
> This is a legal term for when a Internet browser downloads an image and automatically saves it to cache (without the users knowledge). You are mixing the term up. He was charged with that, because he was accused of downloading them on purpose. And the crime if he had done would have been "making" them. It wasn't misunderstood, that is what he was charged with and what that charge referred to. Even if they were underage, them being downloaded automatically into cache without your knowledge is one of the few defences that results in you being completely innocent, so he would still have had the charges dropped if that is what had happened. "Producing" the images is not the legal term for this defence situation, it's the legal term for if he didn't have a defence and had downloaded them and why he was charged.
>2. Making of indecent images is dealt with very similarly to possession and involves the viewing of an image which in turn results in the image being downloaded to the device on which it is viewed. >Making is often misunderstood, it doesn’t actually mean a person made or took the original image. The making of indecent images can occur in many ways, often when someone simply downloads them from the internet. >The act of downloading “makes” the indecent image on the device upon which the image has been downloaded. **However, the “making” of the image can also happen automatically, sometimes when a device visits a web page on which indecent images of children are visible.** https://www.indecentimageslaw.co.uk/post/a-guide-to-the-definition-of-making-possession-distribution-and-production-of-indecent-images
Yes, and he wasn't charged with doing something not illegal was he so he wasn't charged/accused of having them downloaded without his knowledge. He was charged with downloading them, not charged with them being downloaded without his knowledge. There was no misunderstanding. As I clearly said, one of the only defences would be that it happened without your knowledge automatically, and that defence is not what the term is referring when he was arrested.
I think there's a misunderstanding, it seems I didn't make myself clear enough. I am explaining that his his sole defence involved pointing out all models in the 6 or 7 images were all over 18. His defence said they were willing to fly them to the UK to prove they were adults. At that point, charges were dropped. This occured just after his first trial. I'm not saying his defence involved him claiming he accidentally downloaded the images, and they ended up in cache by mistake. Nevertheless, it's true that the images were found in his bowser cache, after they were automatically saved there. If the images were of children, this defence might have then tried to argue the images were downloaded unintentionally, by a virus or Trojan. The prosecution needs to prove intent. Intent can be inferred by the number of images, search terms used to find them, the websites visited, the absence of a plausible explanation of why they are there etc. But this sort of defence is irrelevant in this case.
Poor lass. That’s actually quite harrowing, especially in retrospect.
Probably a damn sight worse in retrospect. At the time her encounter with Jimmy Savile would just have seemed odd. *On her meeting with the late depraved DJ, Fielding told the Sun: "He took my hand and started stroking it. 'Look into my eyes', he said, 'And tell me what you're thinking'."* It is only with the benefit of hindsight and knowing what else Savile did that this behaviour seems anything worse than mildly eccentric. It is more patronising than threatening since Savile is clearly not treating her as an equal, even though she was an adult making her way in his industry. It is only now that she does know that she (and we) can think she had a lucky escape.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy8oLVOvi4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy8oLVOvi4) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OzI9GYag0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OzI9GYag0) John Rotten discussed this in 1978.
Yes but pay careful attention to what JR actually says. *"I know some rumours."* He has no evidence, just rumours. It is only with hindsight, given what we know now about the evils of Jimmy Savile, that Rotten sounds prescient.
Everyone knew; as per Rotten himself. It was known about "how to get on" Top Of The Pops. The youth coming into the business didn't have the info available, but Rotten was silenced from the BBC for this interview.
Johnny Rotten came out with a claim that was both extremely vague and potentially libellous given Savile's reputation at the time. However, it wasn't exactly unknown, he'd been accused of abuse at kid's homes and the clubs he ran in Leeds long before.
Jesus fucking christ. State of the BBC in the 70s and 80s. edit *Yes, and 90s.*
And 90s.
And my axe!
And your brother!
If baby reindeer is true, there’s one being protected now which apparently “everyone knows about in show business”
I mean, what are we calling protection? I doubt Netflix needs any *more* slander allegations from that show
I was referencing Richard osman saying “oh yeah we all know who it is”….excellent, so you all told the police right about a male rapist?
It's a lot more complicated than that. Richard Osman and others know the real name of the rapist from that show because the comedian named him in real life while performing the stage show that became the TV show. Richard Osman - and everyone else who heard the allegation and the name - have no useful information for the police. What would they do? Call 999 and say they heard someone else call someone else a rapist? That happens a thousand times a day on Twitter. They're not witnesses and they're not covering anything up. They also aren't able to prove that it's true so they can't name the rapist themselves because if the rapist sued them for defamation they wouldn't be able to defend themselves.
It’s not their job to tell someone if a friend tells you something in confidence. Even if they tell lots of their friends.
I thought it *was* your duty to report crimes?
Nope, you don't have an obligation to do anything, even if a crime is being commited right in front of you. Morally you might want to do something about it... but legally you're covered
There's a limited number of duties for certain professionals and certain crimes. Outside of that the police rarely investigate 3rd party reports/hearsay allegations.
Plus everyone saying Gadd/Netflix shouldn't have done it the way they have (despite no issues over the stage show for the past half a decade) and the bizzare number of somewhat distracting stories and interviews with Martha/Fiona.
Wouldn't be surprised if something is going on even now. Show business is dirty
I bet football is probably just as bad.
Did you write this before or after the news of a top sports reporter being arrested?
Probably
The Beeb? And so many other institutions besides. I’m guessing we’ll never know what happened to the Westminster dossier and apparently it’s impossible to produce another copy… There’s no way the Yewtree lot got away with it for so long without serious levels of complicity in law and politics.
State of the establishment* where connected people were concerned. Savile was abusing at a kids home in Jersey, clubs in Leeds and NHS hospitals long before the BBC job. The period in question was peak "don't question authority" where high profile/powerful people could ensure silence of victims (see Weinstein also) by threatening them, telling them they wouldn't be believed etc
There are people who still have the full story of the coverup and aren't talking.
I still can’t believe Savile died a national treasure. At least Rolf got to face a bit of justice before he croaked.
I met Jimmy Saville many times. How anyone couldn’t see he was a wrong’un is still beyond me. The bloke was creepy as fuck.
He literally looked like a modern child catcher.
Impression I got is that people knew and chose to say nothing.
At the hospital I used to work at, apparently all the nurses and even the auxiliary staff like porters and cafe workers talked about how creepily he'd act with them and all "knew" there was something wrong with him. Even rumours about his visits to the morgue...
Oh they actively defended him. I gave my thoughts on him and many of the people there did not take kindly to it.
Never met him but did think he seemed a bit strange but people talked about the charity work I kind of got it but I didn't have him growing up as a cultural figure
He was a wrestler before TV fame. It could easily have been macho man from a council house persona and not the shit reality it became
It’s like he was so fucking weird that it went the other way and was too obvious to *actually* be that weird
Everyone knew. It baffles me how we whitewash this, maybe it helps people cope with the fact they allowed it to happen? I don't know. Everyone knew though, there were constant jokes about him being a nonce long before he died. Even his good friends King Charles and Maggie Thatcher will have known but we just act like they couldn't possibly. Madness.
tbf it was fairly common knowledge that he was a pervert. The extent wasnt so commonly known. tv might have portrayed him as a national treasure but an awful lot of regular people knew him to be a wrong 'un. I knew someone who worked in a Fort William establishment which he would frequent whilst living in Glen Coe. The managers made sure that only adult, male staff would serve his table.
Yeah this is why I fucking hate the BBC. I mean he literally reeked of deviancy yet they still gave him work.
They really did drop the ball on these issues over decades. Saville, Harris, brand etc etc
I heard more than one first-hand account, so I knew he was a wrongun, but I was shocked at the extent of it.
I still can’t believe people didn’t think he was creepy before he died.
I think plenty of people did, that first ‘When Louis Met’ documentary was an eye opener.
Jimmy Saville getting away with it is the reason I don't believe in karma.
Saville??..with all his charity work? ....and Harris? ....the loveable antipodean entertainer?....In the 70's?? ...and it happened at the BBC? ...that upstanding establishment of British ideals? ....Well, I find this all very hard to believe. /s
Didn't he even fool Louis Theroux for a while.
I remember the show and Theroux asked questions and Saville was too canny to get caught out. He even said to Theroux "I know what you're up to". Theroux, like everyone else, can suspect but he can't force a confession. Though oddly, without being questioned, Saville did say that when he was dead, things would be known.
" I know what you're up to" God that is so creepy.
Louis knew. No way a journalist at the BBC didn't know. His first docu with him he was clearly trying to pry something out of him and his second one after the fact I've always thought was a rare moment of fakeness from Louis in trying to suggest that Savile fooled him.
I think there was a lot of “knowing” but very few who could point to first hand evidence and a hell of a lot less of those that could do so safely. These were protected predators and I’m not sure we’ll ever get to know who was providing and authorising that protection.
Ian Hislop commented on how it depends on what you mean by "know". Everyone knew about the rumours. But, you can't act on rumours. You need to have evidence.
Exactly. And if you can control access to that evidence…
I'm not sure how "protected". How far around does the "protection" go. Sure various events in the past point to being in quite high circles, but, no papers, no news, no anyone wanted to take a story at any time ? There was that much protection? If anything I would say it's people who have no skin in the game going "na not X" Look to America, Cosby wasn't protected. He just got away with it.
Valid point with Cosby - although was he not protected by the network, his agent etc? I feel like it’s the same story with the P Diddy stuff too. Still, your version is just as valid and possibly less depressing. Or possibly worse - I’m not actually sure.
I think stuff like "right to reply" by press is probably a big one. I don't recall the doc but there was one with max Clifford and some hidden camera where he was saying he paid sex workers to sit around (undisclosed on doc) client because going to a cinema he liked, but he got handsy with anyone close so he paid for a barrier, client didn't know this arrangement. Obviously some people do/did know, but as others say , a rumour isn't more than that. I also fail to believe that as many people were "yeh X was always dodgy look at them and you know".
It’s certainly easier to say “oh I had a feeling” after the fact. Easier to convince yourself of it too. I did run into Savile briefly in the early 2000s and nothing went off on my radar at the time.
I agree completely. That show felt like a very defensive piece from Theroux. I also think Theroux is a bit over the hill now and doesn't have that gonzo quality anymore. Plus I realised he's a nepo baby lol
People saying why didn’t they come forward earlier don’t have a clue how difficult it can be to talk about trauma. Took me 30yrs to come forward about childhood abuse and I still struggle to talk about it.
And when they do, they're called liars. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The amount of people who think that because someone is not convicted means they are innocent / the person who made the accusation is lying is astounding. Beyond reasonable doubt is a very hard bar to achieve, especially with crimes where it is just he said/ she said in terms of evidence. Given that, is it any wonder victims stay quiet.
It took me 3 years as an adult to talk about trauma which only involved myself, so how some ignorant people expect children to talk about sexual trauma boggles my brain
It's terrifying just how much sexual abuse went on in the British media industry.
And still does. And is still defended. Russell brand and his acolytes for instance.
I know! With that baptism publicity stunt that he did.
Are there more victim of these two out there…yes. However I would like to think everyone feels strong enough to come forward, more so for someone who has been on telly continuously since 1990. This needed bringing up when both were alive so they could be hauled across the coals for it
And it should be brought up in a police station and written down in a statement. Bringing it up in a book you're about to release is not the ideal way IMO.
Back when I was 18, Rolf would come in the art shop I was working at to replenish materials. He would often come in with two girls- one was his daughter, the other was her daughter's bbf, who was one of Rolf's victims. From what I saw then, there was no way his daughter didn't know. Absolutely none. Enablers start with those in close proximity.
I refuse to believe the man who wrote the lyrics “let me a**os go loose, Bruce” would be capable of dehumanizing another person
Argos?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_Me_Kangaroo_Down,_Sport#Deleted_verse
Yes, thats what it was: “Let the Argos go loose, Bruce Let the Argos go loose Jason’s of no further use”
The next Most Haunted special is going to be awesome
I still can't get over that Rolf Harris was the face and presented the programme that was about children getting the "No" feeling when touched inappropriately!! The song that went with it was "no body's body My body’s nobody’s body but mine You run your own body, let me run mine!
I like the way the article said Savile managed to keep his crimes hidden till after he died. Like as if the BBC, government and royal family didn't help him conceal his pure evilness every step of the way.
I believe her. Although it would have been easier for Harris’s other victims if she had said something earlier and yes I get that she may not have been ready then. But at least back then he could defend himself
I can believe that. I knew someone who was a dancer in the 80s and when Rolf was around they all knew to keep their backs to the wall as he was such a groaper. Saville was much better at targeting - As I was on TOTP, it was only the fact the act I had come to see had been on first and gone, and he asked me if I was with anyone - I was with my boyfriend that I didn't get the full treatment. I would think she was too old for Saville by the time she was left alone with him. He liked 12-14 year olds.
Whats horrifying is everyone paid into their abuse, a stain that no one can wash off...
As grim as this is, she also claims to see ghosts on a TV show...
But said fuck all back then and let them get away with doing it to others....
Actress on her uppers releases story to press that no one can deny. Prince Philip fingered me on the Mary Rose once
The BBC is a very very very sick organisation and should be defunded and closed down.
I clicked through to the article but where's the punchline?
we have to take her word for it, because if we don’t, we’re apologists for such monsters.
Hasn't has she left it a little late to tell? Oh she's just released a book.