|
Post by helrunar on Aug 12, 2020 0:50:17 GMT
Thanks, pulphack. I'm very sorry if you knew somebody who was one of Savile's victims. My comments were based off the Daily Mail piece Dem posted.
It's always helpful when somebody takes time out to help me understand the context of things specific to UK culture and recent history I never knew about.
All the best,
Steve
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Aug 12, 2020 6:17:28 GMT
Good to hear from you, Mr. Hack! There were always stories, and people ask why no-one said anything. Well, because the victims weren't listened to, those who knew something was going on did not have concrete proof (these days he'd be outed by smart phone in an instant) and he also had powerful friends. He once said he spent Xmas at No10 wiht the Thatchers and was laughed at - when the cabinet papers were released thrity years later, turns out he was telling the truth. He made a lot of money for good causes, and this gave him power and access. He was also quick to threaten litigation, and had a substantial fortune to splash on the most powerful lawyers. On at least one reported occasion, policed advised a victim against making a fuss as Savile's legal team would tear her to pieces in Court. Why, with so many important questions unanswered did the coverage suddenly cease? Savile's relationships with various Prime Ministers; Thatcher's insistence on the "national treasure" receiving a knighthood, despite him having been turned down (why?) on three successive occasions; why was a DJ with no medical qualification given the run of Broadmoor, a maximum security psychiatric hospital? The guy even had his own set of keys. It's as if the various media lost interest as one and moved on to the real stories, like who do you think will win The X-Factor, etc. Most abuse stuff - like the Carl Beech stuff - is delusional crap. Not sure I agree with that. Do you mean the 'Satanic'/ 'Royal/ Parliamentary paedo-ring' conspiracies, or abuse claims in general?
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Aug 12, 2020 9:11:39 GMT
Morning Dem. Of course I was referring to the royal/satanic/parliamentary crap as being all balls. My God, it even made me feel sorry for Harvey Procter, and that took some doing!
As far as abuse allegations generally, they should always be taken seriously and investigated until proven or otherwise.
However, whereas the default in the past was that all accusers were liars, it has swung the other way* so that the accused are automatically made guilty before any investigation, which is equally absurd. The sane approach is to the accusation seriously, investigate, but for the investigating team not to make allegations; but rather gather fact, evidence and information before charging, or not. Which didn't happen in the case of Carl Beech, as we know... Coppers in pursuit of promotion ran to the press, or so it seemed (and did well from it).
(* this is a generalisation, I know, as there are still pockets of the old attitudes extant, but no real balance or reason. Human beings, eh?)
Now then, now than, as for JS - yes, there are so many unexplained things about the kinds of access and protection he had. Money and friends account for part of it, but I wonder if there were just a few people who he roped into his excesses (understatement)who were then blackmailed into influencing otherwise unaware parties. It wouldn't take more than a few people for the malign influence to spread without those further down the chain having no idea what they were actually condoning. Just a supposition, but that could account for the general 'untouchable' aura without all of those acting that way being completely culpable (rather than purely by default).
JS was - I hope - an anomaly of evil (now there's a title!)rather than the norm.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 12, 2020 15:18:14 GMT
Good to hear from you, Mr Hack!
It is strange how these cases often seem to be so similar. Just see the mess in Belgium with Dutroux.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Aug 18, 2020 9:16:39 GMT
JS was - I hope - an anomaly of evil (now there's a title!)rather than the norm. God, but you'd hope so. Old or young, male or female, healthy or disabled, living or dead - if even a fraction of the claims are true, the man lived to abuse. And received a knighthood for it - not to mention various honorary doctorates, the green beret (!), and the equivalent of a Papal knighthood. Jim'll Fix It even won the Mary Whitehouse seal of approval ("I don’t know anything about Jimmy’s lifestyle and, in any case, it’s no business of mine" ( Quite Contrary: An Autobiography, 1993). No wonder Dr. Valerie and cronies were so desperate to involve him in their "Satanic Ritual Abuse" fantasies. Ironically, just as the various media belatedly realised they'd been taken for a ride and performed an abrupt u-turn, a bunch of disaffected Scandinavian teens were taking their Venom albums to heart. No child abuse, but plenty of murder, church burning and graveyard desecration to be getting on with: Lords of Chaos.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Oct 1, 2020 19:14:23 GMT
Dan Davies - In Plain Sight: The Life and Lies of Jimmy Savile (Quercus, 2015: originally 2014) First charity shop find since January - a 600+ page dissection of a modern day Saint and 'national treasure' who was also allegedly Britain's most prolific sexual abuser of the twentieth (into twenty-first) century. Our story begins with the midnight dismantling of a seriously ostentatious memorial in Woodlands Cemetery, Scarborough, just three weeks after it had been erected, a chapter that reads like the prologue to a horror novel. Dan Davies makes no claim to impartiality. In his youth, he attended a Jim'll Fix It shoot in Shepherds Bush as a Christmas treat. For some reason, he took an instant dislike to this most benevolent of TV superstars and began compiling a 'dossier.' "As a child of the seventies and eighties, I had heard the playground rumours about Britain's favourite Uncle; we all had. Jimmy Savile was a weirdo and possibly worse; a poofter, a necrophiliac or a child molester." Davies informed friends that he would one day use his dossier to bring Savile down. In Plain Sight was a long time in the making. In 2004, while working as a writer on Jack magazine, Davies interviewed Savile for the first of several times at his 'Friday morning club' get together. The perma shell-suited celeb had his heavy - a retired cop - frisk the bewildered author on arrival. Am about a third of the way into it, and surprised to have lasted this far - it really is an upsetting read. We've flitted to and from a Savile reign of terror at the Duncroft Approved School for Girls; Thatcher's aggressive petitioning for Savile to receive a Knighthood; the ultra-violent Mecca dance hall years; his miraculous escape from death in the coal mine; the BBC's disastrous decision to shelve a Newsnight exposé of Savile's alleged serial child abuse as it would be in bad taste (he'd only just been buried) and might scupper their scheduled Christmas Jim'll Fix It tribute edition. A swift consultation of index suggests book is mercifully free of Dr. V. Solanis and her perennial 'Satanic Ritual Abuse!' accusations, but vigilance is advised. I should also point out that In Plain Sight is not without its critics, and some maintain that Savile is the innocent victim of an impossibly convoluted smear campaign (but why?). Indeed, this blogger has long pursued a 'Justice for Jimmy Savile' campaign.
|
|