Jimmy Saville exposed

WindSock

Seems like he was made a very powerful figure. A nicotine stained, golden haired idol. Watched the Theroux documentary. Creepy chap, all too aware of his infallablity. Odd attitude toward women, called them all 'headaches', apart from Mother Dearest of course.

Rookster

Rascasse wrote: »

Here's the allegation about Freddie Starr: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217004/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Karin-Ward-accuses-Freddie-Starr-pouncing-her.html

BBC DG has said they are investigating claims against 8 to 10 individuals. In addition to Savile and Starr there are stories about 'Fluff' Freeman, DLT, and Jonathan King. I wonder who the others are and where it ends?

Never trust a guy that does not drink. All paedos seem to be t-total.

iguana

WindSock wrote: »

Did either of last night's programmes say why they waited till he was dead for the revelations to be made public?

There were plenty of allegations before he died but without proof it wasn't possible to publicise them as it would be defamatory. People are entitled to their good name and don't have to prove their innocence, so if you want to say something bad about them, you better be able to back it up in court. The speed with which the Newsnight special was being prepared suggests that the journalists behind it were ready with their story and waiting for him to die. Possibly for years.

Rascasse wrote: »

Here's the allegation about Freddie Starr: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217004/Jimmy-Savile-scandal-Karin-Ward-accuses-Freddie-Starr-pouncing-her.html

BBC DG has said they are investigating claims against 8 to 10 individuals. In addition to Savile and Starr there are stories about 'Fluff' Freeman, DLT, and Jonathan King. I wonder who the others are and where it ends?

There were allegations of abuse made to the police about Terry Nutkins while he was still alive. Since his death a number of women have publicised their allegations.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Has the Irvine Welsh book Ecstasy been mentioned here?

I remember reading it in the late 1990s though never made the connection with Savile.


Its incredible stuff, I'd love to hear what Welsh has to say about it now.....but obviously he was trying to get he message out. The Freddie Royle character is very clearly based on Savile.


“Yes, the trustees knew all about Freddy Royle, Glen reflected bitterly. They knew the real secrets of the chat-show host, the authors of several books, including Howzat! – Freddy Royle On Cricket, Freddy Royle’s Somerset, Somerset With a Z: The Wit of the West Country, West Country Walks With Freddy Royle and Freddy Royle’s 101 Magic Party Tricks. Yes, those trustee bastards knew what this distinguished friend, this favorite caring, laconic uncle to the nation did with the stiffs they got in here. The thing was, Freddy brought millions of pounds into the place with his fund-raising activities. This brought kudos to the trustees, and made St Hubbin’s Hospital a flagship for the arm’s-length trusts from the NHS. All they had to do was keep schtumm and indulge Sir Freddy with the odd body.”http://dangerousminds.net/comments/irvine_welsh_on_jimmy_savile_was_savile_a_necrophiliac_then_or_what

I very briefly worked in the media out of college and I heard about crimes committed by a well known person which appears to be an open secret in certain circles. (It's not sexual abuse of children but it is pretty bad.) I heard it from three completely separate sources and the third source was very believable. I hate knowing this but I can't say it as I'd be breaking the law. Luckily for me it's not a crime that's ongoing so by keeping quiet I'm not allowing it to continue. However a few years ago a book came out which was written by someone who is very likely to be aware of the rumours and the central plot and one of the main characters seemed based on this story. One day when this person is dead the allegations will very probably come out and people will be asking the same questions about this book. I guess it comes from the frustration of knowing something horrible about someone who is very admired by a lot of people. You want to let it out, so you skirt as close to letting the public know as you can.

IvyTheTerrible

iguana wrote: »

There were plenty of allegations before he died but without proof it wasn't possible to publicise them as it would be defamatory. People are entitled to their good name and don't have to prove their innocence, so if you want to say something bad about them, you better be able to back it up in court. The speed with which the Newsnight special was being prepared suggests that the journalists behind it were ready with their story and waiting for him to die. Possibly for years.


There were allegations of abuse made to the police about Terry Nutkins while he was still alive. Since his death a number of women have publicised their allegations.



I very briefly worked in the media out of college and I heard about crimes committed by a well known person which appears to be an open secret in certain circles. (It's not sexual abuse of children but it is pretty bad.) I heard it from three completely separate sources and the third source was very believable. I hate knowing this but I can't say it as I'd be breaking the law. Luckily for me it's not a crime that's ongoing so by keeping quiet I'm not allowing it to continue. However a few years ago a book came out which was written by someone who is very likely to be aware of the rumours and the central plot and one of the main characters seemed based on this story. One day when this person is dead the allegations will very probably come out and people will be asking the same questions about this book. I guess it comes from the frustration of knowing something horrible about someone who is very admired by a lot of people. You want to let it out, so you skirt as close to letting the public know as you can.

Would it be libelous to tell us the name of the book? You have me intrigued!

iguana

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Would it be libelous to tell us the name of the book? You have me intrigued!

I'd say so. The book is written as fiction so if I said I believed it's based on real actions made by a real a person in a similar situation I'd possibly be defaming both the author and the person in question.

Ash.J.Williams

iguana wrote: »

There were plenty of allegations before he died but without proof it wasn't possible to publicise them as it would be defamatory. People are entitled to their good name and don't have to prove their innocence, so if you want to say something bad about them, you better be able to back it up in court. The speed with which the Newsnight special was being prepared suggests that the journalists behind it were ready with their story and waiting for him to die. Possibly for years.


There were allegations of abuse made to the police about Terry Nutkins while he was still alive. Since his death a number of women have publicised their allegations.



I very briefly worked in the media out of college and I heard about crimes committed by a well known person which appears to be an open secret in certain circles. (It's not sexual abuse of children but it is pretty bad.) I heard it from three completely separate sources and the third source was very believable. I hate knowing this but I can't say it as I'd be breaking the law. Luckily for me it's not a crime that's ongoing so by keeping quiet I'm not allowing it to continue. However a few years ago a book came out which was written by someone who is very likely to be aware of the rumours and the central plot and one of the main characters seemed based on this story. One day when this person is dead the allegations will very probably come out and people will be asking the same questions about this book. I guess it comes from the frustration of knowing something horrible about someone who is very admired by a lot of people. You want to let it out, so you skirt as close to letting the public know as you can.

tell us who it is in cockney rhyming slang?

AlarmBelle

iguana wrote: »

I'd say so. The book is written as fiction so if I said I believed it's based on real actions made by a real a person in a similar situation I'd possibly be defaming both the author and the person in question.

can you pm the name of the book.

Ash.J.Williams

WindSock wrote: »

Seems like he was made a very powerful figure. A nicotine stained, golden haired idol. Watched the Theroux documentary. Creepy chap, all too aware of his infallablity. Odd attitude toward women, called them all 'headaches', apart from Mother Dearest of course.

His true colours were shown when he arranged for louis and the crew to film inside the hospital. It appeared that the hospital were reluctant until he brought up all the money and machines he raised for them!

niallo27

iguana wrote: »

I'd say so. The book is written as fiction so if I said I believed it's based on real actions made by a real a person in a similar situation I'd possibly be defaming both the author and the person in question.

Can you tell us what the crimes were.

Lingua Franca

Madam_X wrote: »

Yeh there haven't been allegations against Starr so people should ease off on him. Just because he's the same vintage and looked/acted odd doesn't mean it's a dead cert he was abusing kids.

I get your point and would agree but he's already been in the news in connection with Savile and child abuse, specifically with Karin Ward. She hasn't publically named him. As far as I can tell, he is the one who has gone public about it, first to deny ever having been on the show, meeting Karin or even spending time with Savile, only to retract it via a lawyer when footage emerged of him sat next to Karin Ward on Savile's show Clunk Click.

Of course that's not proof of anything more than faulty memory as yet, but Freddie Starr publically connected himself with the Savile story and so I think it's fair to speculate why a lingering shot of him was including in the show. Not least because every single other person on that show was identified or blurred out. Freddy Starr was shown in slo-mo but not named.

Easy Rod

iguana wrote: »

I'd say so. The book is written as fiction so if I said I believed it's based on real actions made by a real a person in a similar situation I'd possibly be defaming both the author and the person in question.

MM?

Spread

Not much of a plot .......... Eminem caught playing with little M&Ms

marky1905

Bit of a joke there, no worse than the other ones flying bout. Still everyone acts outraged, just ragin cause they didn't get their Jimmy Saville pantomime court case for the daily dose of entertainment, woulda be even bigger than Wacko Jacko's!!!!

Dodge

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Freddy Starr was shown in slo-mo but not named.

It really was quite pointed IMO. They broke the Karin Ward interview up. She obviously spoke about Savile. Then she name Glitter. Later she spoke of a 'celebrity' that abused her. It felt like they editted out his name at the start of her story. (As in she named him but they didn't show that bit)

My wife thought she was refering to Glitter but I thought it was some one else, a third 'celebrity' as she refered to glittera coulpe of times, but these were different allegations

The shot of Freddie Starr sealed it for me.

Lingua Franca

That's what I thought. They didn't show any other celebs on that show, although they'd have had different ones every week.

I also think she has named him and the Beeb has edited it out. Hell, even Freddie Starr thinks that.

humanji

marky1905 wrote: »

Bit of a joke there, no worse than the other ones flying bout. Still everyone acts outraged, just ragin cause they didn't get their Jimmy Saville pantomime court case for the daily dose of entertainment, woulda be even bigger than Wacko Jacko's!!!!

Don't bother posting in this thread again.

Jimoslimos

Regardless of the decision taken to shelve/cancel the programme last year, the most important questions for the BBC to answer are;

1) Why, when there was serious doubt over Savile's character did they allow the tribute to be screened? It would have been a no-brainer to quietly axe that programme. I seriously doubt anyone would have missed that gormless cnut Shane Ritchie on Boxing Day.

2) More seriously, the abuse seems to have been carried out in many cases on BBC property by BBC employees. While it may have been impossible to prove or even involve police at the time, should the BBC have taken a more proactive role in monitoring Savile's behaviour whilst he was employed there. The BBC had a duty of care to protect children on their property.


I know people are throwing about names of unpopular celebs like confetti but I get the feeling that further revelations might reveal less pantomime villain type characters than Savile. In many ways it is surprising that a man as universally disliked, and with no friends like JS could escape unscathed until after death. Just a hunch.

midlandsmissus

Easy Rod wrote: »

MM?

How did you get Eminem from that?

Iguana you won't be done for libel when you are under an anonymous username on here.

And if it was an open secret in media circles, it should be out there.

Can you tell us what the crimes were?

humanji

For legal reasons, it would be best for people to stop asking Iguana about this subject.

Easy Rod

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How did you get Eminem from that?

Iguana you won't be done for libel when you are under an anonymous username on here.

And if it was an open secret in media circles, it should be out there.

Can you tell us what the crimes were?

It's not the person's initials.

Guess i went too abstract.

midlandsmissus

Easy Rod wrote: »

It's not the person's initials.

Guess i went too abstract.

Im confused, why did Spread guess Eminem, and where did you get MM from?

Spread

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Im confused, why did Spread guess Eminem, and where did you get MM from?

Spread worked out Eminem (M and M) - possibly due to reading too many AC mysteries in my formative years.

The OP got his MMs out of a packet.

High 5s all around!

WindSock

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

His true colours were shown when he arranged for louis and the crew to film inside the hospital. It appeared that the hospital were reluctant until he brought up all the money and machines he raised for them!

He had everyone by the balls with the amount of money he raised for charities.
'ah but he does good work though'

Reminds me a bit of the Cathal O'Searcaigh scandal. Makes you wonder how many people abuse their positions of seemingly goodwill to satisfy their own sinister needs. You can never question a good, selfless person.

*goes off to do some fundraising*

fryup

Jimoslimos wrote: »

In many ways it is surprising that a man as universally disliked, and with no friends like JS could escape unscathed until after death. Just a hunch.

no friends?....oh he had friends alright....friends in high places..why do you think he got away with it for so long

Handsome Bob

If these people who were in the know such as journos were aware of the principles behind working with people at risk, they would have known someone's safety should never be compromised. It doesn't matter how much Jimmy Savile raised for charity as there will always be someone next in line who can raise just as much. Indeed, I'd say there would have been plenty lining up to do their bit (either out of sincerity or opportunism) had the whistle been blown earlier on him.

Jimoslimos

fryup wrote: »

no friends?....oh he had friends alright....friends in high places..why do you think he got away with it for so long

I'm not sure you could call them 'friends', 'acquaintances with similar interests' perhaps or 'potential blackmail targets' might be more fitting.

Rascasse

fryup wrote: »

no friends?....oh he had friends alright....friends in high places..why do you think he got away with it for so long

And within the law, as he boasted in his autobiography in 1976:

A high-ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me a picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home. ‘Ah,’ says I all serious, ‘if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward’. The law lady, new to the area, was nonplussed. Back at the station she asked ‘Is he serious?’

It is God’s truth that the absconder came in that night. Taking her into the office I said, ‘Run now if you want but you can’t run the rest of your life.’ She listened to the alternative and agreed that I hand her over if she could stay at the dance, come home with me, and that I would promise to see her when they let her out. At 11.30 the next morning she was willingly presented to an astounded lady of the law. The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues for it was well known that were I to go, I would probably take half the station with me.

AlarmBelle

S. De Sousa wrote: »

If these people who were in the know such as journos were aware of the principles behind working with people at risk, they would have known someone's safety should never be compromised. It doesn't matter how much Jimmy Savile raised for charity as there will always be someone next in line who can raise just as much. Indeed, I'd say there would have been plenty lining up to do their bit (either out of sincerity or opportunism) had the whistle been blown earlier on him.

Journalist do not care, and even if they do they will do as told by editors and will go with the flow.

M cebee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AIjtAUEzD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUuOIXLawg&feature=relmfu

the caravan clip was shown last nite

freddie starr hates paedophiles- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYlcg1APhl0

Zebra3

getz wrote: »

is hard to believe how many people were involved,when the tory party conferences were held in blackpool ,the PMs yacht would be normally moored offshore,a credible witness a former member of the special boat service assigned to guard the boat,says saville was regularly seen taking young boys on board the yacht the morning cloud,when they were at a conservative party conference,in addition ,saville was allegedly-well known for supplying a number of high profile MPs with children for them to sexually abuse ,with high profile connections like that,there would be little chance of him being prosecuted,

You're talking about the late Ted Heath, right?

His name has been "randomly" thrown into interviews by Esther Rantzen and others when they are being interviewed about what Savile got up to.

The sh** will really hit the fan when the names of those he was supplying with kids become public.

Rascasse

Zebra3 wrote: »

You're talking about the late Ted Heath, right?

His name has been "randomly" thrown into interviews by Esther Rantzen and others when they are being interviewed about what Savile got up to.

The sh** will really hit the fan when the names of those he was supplying with kids become public.

That story about Heath has so many holes that no right person would take it seriously. The fact the only reference for it is conspiracy theory websites tells you all you need to know.

M cebee

Zebra3 wrote: »

You're talking about the late Ted Heath, right?

His name has been "randomly" thrown into interviews by Esther Rantzen and others when they are being interviewed about what Savile got up to.

The sh** will really hit the fan when the names of those he was supplying with kids become public.

it will if the TH rumours are true
it would seem logical that savile may also have been supplying children to others in positions of power

purplepanda

A very disturbing picture on the UK Telegraph website :mad:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100184881/when-jimmy-savile-met-peter-sutcliffe/#disqus_thread

btard

purplepanda wrote: »

A very disturbing picture on the UK Telegraph website :mad:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100184881/when-jimmy-savile-met-peter-sutcliffe/#disqus_thread

I hear Sutcliffe is desparately trying to distance himself from Saville.

WakeUp

purplepanda wrote: »

A very disturbing picture on the UK Telegraph website :mad:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100184881/when-jimmy-savile-met-peter-sutcliffe/#disqus_thread

When or should I say if the entire monster network is exposed - Jimmy Vile was being protected by the powers that be in my opinion some of them involved too - its gona be shattering. I think the BBC is on trial the amount of people being accused by the victims is somewhere in the 100s now I think fcking sicko peado ring unbelievable this was let continue for so long unless people where willfully ignoring it.

Thats a very very weird picture of Saville and Sutcliffe and if it wasnt weird enough already the rippers 3rd victim Irene Richardson was found in Roundhay Park directly across the street from Saviles flat where he lived. Coincidence perhaps but strange all the same. This whole Savile thing is freaking me out how many people are involved how high does it go and to what levels of society. Dirty fcking peado scum if this story somehow drifts out of the news with only a few peados exposed then imo it will have been covered up even further on purpose. All peados should die.

purplepanda

Can anyone really be that surprised at the revalations & rumours surrounding some senior figures in the British establishment, after the Catholic Church scandals in Ireland & Belgian establisment paedophile ring exposed a few years back?

The dogs on the street knew some of these accusations decades ago.

Spread

Rascasse wrote: »

That story about Heath has so many holes that no right person would take it seriously. The fact the only reference for it is conspiracy theory websites tells you all you need to know.

I think that Sailor Ted was a good old fashioned wooftah and not a paedophile. If he was, Thatcher would have used it in her putsch.

Lordfranto

King Rhythmic Turbine wrote: »

Just saw this paragraph:



Jesus christ.

now if thats not a fcking nutter i dunno what is. i mean that smacks of necrophelic tendancies. its über creepy to say the least.

Jimoslimos

Spread wrote: »

I think that Sailor Ted was a good old fashioned wooftah and not a paedophile. If he was, Thatcher would have used it in her putsch.

I think this is part of the problem with a lot of the theories and accusations flying about. In many peoples minds there was no distinction between paedophile and homosexual. All were lumped together under the heading 'sexual deviant'.

King of Kings

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I think this is part of the problem with a lot of the theories and accusations flying about. In many peoples minds there was no distinction between paedophile and homosexual. All were lumped together under the heading 'sexual deviant'.

"in many"
come on that's lame reasoning - in the minds of some religious nuts maybe.
But the vast majority of people don't think that way no matter what their view on homosexuality

smash

So now there's necrophelia claims... Ffs

Rascasse

King of Kings wrote: »

"in many"
come on that's lame reasoning - in the minds of some religious nuts maybe.
But the vast majority of people don't think that way no matter what their view on homosexuality

Today yes, but not in the 60's and 70's when Heath was in front line politics.

getz

purplepanda wrote: »

A very disturbing picture on the UK Telegraph website :mad:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100184881/when-jimmy-savile-met-peter-sutcliffe/#disqus_thread

havent you spotted the masonic hand shake ?or do you think it was just a coincidence

smash

getz wrote: »

havent you spotted the masonic hand shake ?or do you think it was just a coincidence

I think you're paranoid!

getz

smash wrote: »

I think you're paranoid!

smash mate both sutcliffe and frank are admitted freemasons,as for jimmy ,no one as yet proved it, as for mr heath[ a mason], he was a reguler visitor to kincord boys [east belfast] remember that case ? and also visited the haut la garend childrens home in jersey,

smash

getz wrote: »

smash mate both sutcliffe and frank are admitted freemasons,as for jimmy ,no one as yet proved it, as for mr heath[ a mason], he was a reguler visitor to kincord boys [east belfast] remember that case ? and also visited the haut la garend childrens home in jersey,

I don't really think it has anything to do with it though.

smurgen

don't you think they should have some sort of special grave yards or something for these sort of creeps? Imagine having to spend eternity next to one of them!

getz

smash wrote: »

I don't really think it has anything to do with it though.

the jersey childrens home case ,was without doubt a masonic outrageous cover up,

bfocusd

smurgen wrote: »

don't you think they should have some sort of special grave yards or something for these sort of creeps? Imagine having to spend eternity next to one of them!

I wouldn't even give them the respect of burying them, I'd incenerate the f*ker

Neeson

His penis should go on display in the London Museum of Modern Art.