Jimmy Saville report released.

fryup

as if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth...listen to him talking about morality, 50sec in...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFbICUjFuI4

:rolleyes:

Froyo

Pathetic people of AH using sick children's suffering to have a pop at the church. Well done.

Aidric

Seems Jimmy was pretty prolific in his depravity. I wonder just how much was known and how many facilitators there were.

StinkyMunkey

Froyo wrote: »

Pathetic people of AH using sick children's suffering to have a pop at the church. Well done.

Cause we all know the church are guilty of absolutely nothing.

mikom

Froyo wrote: »

Pathetic people of AH using sick children's suffering to have a pop at the church. Well done.

"Now then, now then, now then"

Doc Ruby

All of the evidence for his crimes existed long before he died. Nobody gets away with that unless they were protected, especially a high profile celebrity like him. Complaints from victims being ignored? This is systemic institutional corruption right down to the ground.

Makes you wonder what else is going on behind the curtain right now, and who's doing what.

asherbassad wrote: »

You could probably entrust your kids into the care of the local gang of goth guys and girls. Goths look spooky but they're really gentle, caring, intelligent people. If anything your kid would be told great mythology stories and be given a cool henna tattoo.

Funnily enough some of the most normal well balanced people I know have blue hair/tattos/piercings and wear white makeup with black clothes constantly.

3ndahalfof6

The thing is he is dead, nothing can be done to him and there will be no ease for the victims who suffered by his actions, the thing now is how many other jimmy like types are out there in tv land,

and will the powers to be pin point them, my heart goes out to anyone who has suffered from this type of abuse, from anyone, not just scumsaville.

mcmoustache

Froyo wrote: »

Pathetic people of AH using sick children's suffering to have a pop at the church. Well done.

This is a discussion about a paedophile (see title). It's natural for such a discussion to include paedophilia in general as well as how society deals with it.

People will naturally wonder how such a guy could get away with it for so long and given what the RCC got away with for so long in this country, it's hardly surprising that people will make comparisons - especially in trying to explain how he got away with it.

One more thing: Nobody here is using the suffering of sick children for anything. If anyone is trying to use the suffering of children to make a point, it's you.

mikom

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Young-Christians-Annual-Jimmy-Savile-/00/s/NDI5WDY3NA==/$%28KGrHqF,!jMFBkL010gZBQfElEvy4!~~60_12.JPG

ejmaztec

Froyo wrote: »

Pathetic people of AH using sick children's suffering to have a pop at the church. Well done.

That's standard procedure in AH because most of the people here are obsessed with anything even remotely connected to the Catholic church.

If a priest's dog happened to bite someone, the entire Catholic church would get the blame on here.

jaykay74

ejmaztec wrote: »

If a priest's dog happened to bite someone, the entire Catholic church would get the blame on here.

Only if they move the dog to another diocese

mikom

ejmaztec wrote: »

If a priest's dog happened to bite someone, the entire Catholic church would get the blame on here.

Depends.
Was the person that got bitten enticing the dog?

Madam_X

Yeh we know the catholic church covered up similar appalling acts, nobody has suggested otherwise. I don't see the point in mentioning it. It's like a discussion on Fred West and someone saying "Well Larry Murphy did similarly sick stuff". Kinda random.

I'm an atheist btw so I'm not saying the above merely due to bias.

mcmoustache

ejmaztec wrote: »

That's standard procedure in AH because most of the people here are obsessed with anything even remotely connected to the Catholic church.

If a priest's dog happened to bite someone, the entire Catholic church would get the blame on here.

Oh would you grow up.

Have you even read the thread or even know what it's about?

Would you be surprised if a discussion on Jeffrey Dahmer contained posts about Ted Bundy? Would your persecution complex be stimulated if a discussion on Stalin contained comparisons to Hitler?

There are some serious questions being asked in this thread about how a creep like Saville got away with so much. Here in Ireland we've had our own experiences with this kind of stuff and it's hardly surprising that we would draw on those experiences to make sense of what happened across the water.

mikom

Madam_X wrote: »

Yeh we know the catholic church covered up similar appalling acts, nobody has suggested otherwise. I don't see the point in mentioning it. It's like a discussion on Fred West and someone saying "Well Larry Murphy did similarly sick stuff". Kinda random.

Random?
Both tradesmen.
Fred West a builder, and Larry Murphy a carpenter.

ejmaztec

mcmoustache wrote: »

Oh would you grow up.

Have you even read the thread or even know what it's about?

Would you be surprised if a discussion on Jeffrey Dahmer contained posts about Ted Bundy? Would your persecution complex be stimulated if a discussion on Stalin contained comparisons to Hitler?

There are some serious questions being asked in this thread about how a creep like Saville got away with so much. Here in Ireland we've had our own experiences with this kind of stuff and it's hardly surprising that we would draw on those experiences to make sense of what happened across the water.

There's no need to get upset with my pointing out some hard facts.

As I'm not religious, persecution doesn't enter into the situation. :P

Ush1

Obviously Saville was a deeply evil man, and what is insane is the kind of culture of cover up/ignore by the police and BBC.

As the quote goes, there's two type of evil, evil men and when good men do nothing.

Madam_X

Ush1 wrote: »

Obviously Saville was a deeply evil man, and what is insane is the kind of culture of cover up/ignore by the police and BBC.

As the quote goes, there's two type of evil, evil men and when good men do nothing.

Anyone who knew and could do something about it deserves consequences. However there are bound to have been people who knew and tried to do something but could only get so far because of whatever obstacles they faced. I don't believe for a second absolutely everyone who knew just stuck their heads in the sand. Why would they all be different to all of us who are sickened by it?
Same time though, perving on underage girls in the 60s and 70s in showbiz circles, possibly later, was unfortunately more accepted. Just look at the groupie culture.

Not forgetting one of his alleged victims was a very young boy btw.

otto_26

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I see his "work" with children was recognised by that paedophile organisation, the catholic church.

Knighted by the Pope

I assume you refuse to watch the BBC and it's programmes anymore?

clairefontaine

Madam_X wrote: »

Anyone who knew and could do something about it deserves consequences. However there are bound to have been people who knew and tried to do something but could only get so far because of whatever obstacles they faced. I don't believe for a second absolutely everyone who knew just stuck their heads in the sand. Why would they all be different to all of us who are sickened by it?
Same time though, perving on underage girls in the 60s and 70s in showbiz circles, possibly later, was unfortunately more accepted. Just look at the groupie culture.

Not forgetting one of his alleged victims was a very young boy btw.

When you have cover ups to that level and extent, and the same applies to the church scandals or any institutional scandals, my suspicion is that the person at the center, in this case Saville had some kind of information on various individuals who were part of the powers that be. There is more to this than meets the eye. It will come out eventually.

AlekSmart

clairefontaine wrote: »

When you have cover ups to that level and extent, and the same applies to the church scandals or any institutional scandals, my suspicion is that the person at the center, in this case Saville had some kind of information on various individuals who were part of the powers that be. There is more to this than meets the eye. It will come out eventually.

Whilst not exactly my Newspaper of choice,The Sun's story does raise some,perhaps politically significant,contacts made by Saville..

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4671341/Evil-MP-Cyril-Smith-and-Jimmy-Savile-were-close-friends-for-four-decades.html

Ush1

Madam_X wrote: »

Anyone who knew and could do something about it deserves consequences. However there are bound to have been people who knew and tried to do something but could only get so far because of whatever obstacles they faced. I don't believe for a second absolutely everyone who knew just stuck their heads in the sand. Why would they all be different to all of us who are sickened by it?
Same time though, perving on underage girls in the 60s and 70s in showbiz circles, possibly later, was unfortunately more accepted. Just look at the groupie culture.

Not forgetting one of his alleged victims was a very young boy btw.

I don't buy that for a second.

On the BBC report there was a policeman who reported it and they simply said they didn't believe him.

You can be sickened by something but still not have the bottle and the lack of self preservation to stand up against it. Groupie culture is one thing, what Saville done was depraved in the extreme.

clairefontaine

AlekSmart wrote: »

Whilst not exactly my Newspaper of choice,The Sun's story does raise some,perhaps politically significant,contacts made by Saville..

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4671341/Evil-MP-Cyril-Smith-and-Jimmy-Savile-were-close-friends-for-four-decades.html

I wouldn't necessarily dismiss a tabloid, they often get to things first.

Those photos are creepy. He has this secret, arrogant smile of someone who gets away with a lot of things.

Pottler

Dodge wrote: »

Is there really a need to rank how disgusting acts like this are?

Can you not discuss the issue at hand without bringing ALL other horrific acts into it?

Saville's abuses are a big enough subject without the need for wehere they fit in the global scheme of horror

You spelt "where" wrong, but worse, you defended another bunch of paedophiles indirectly. If anyone wants to bring in some other bunch of cnuts and shine a light on them, good for them. I seriously question the intent of your post. And the agenda that may be behind it. Personally, I welcome any and all "bringing in" of cnuts that deserve to be exposed, vilified and prosecuted.

Lagoona Blue

He makes me sick to my stomach . There was a screenshot of him on the BBc news earlier , with a cigar in his mouth , his rotten teeth and that secret evil smile, and of course those pervy 'short ' shorts he used to wear . made me want to puke . It's such a pity he's dead and got away with it .

The stories coming out are shocking especially the poor kids in hospitals :mad:. How the hell was he able to be alone with all these kids ? I've a feeling the reason this was kept so quiet when he was alive is because he wasn't alone , the truth is yet to come .

clairefontaine

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't buy that for a second.

On the BBC report there was a policeman who reported it and they simply said they didn't believe him.

You can be sickened by something but still not have the bottle and the lack of self preservation to stand up against it. Groupie culture is one thing, what Saville done was depraved in the extreme.

Yes. Until you are in this position, you cannot know how much people don't want to believe you. And they wont believe it and then the victim gets worn down and isolated in the pain and isnt motivated to go further, especially against someone who is perceived to be very popular and powerful.

Especially back then, before scandals had broken and there was still huge shame and self blame around it, general ignorance on the topic, and powerful people were protected.

If you look at the Irish scandals, people knew, the guards knew, and no one did anything about it. Some tried but failed because the govt [the guards] didnt respond. When you read the actual reports like Ferns as an example you can see how this all worked.

Lagoona Blue

Lagoona Blue wrote: »

He makes me sick to my stomach . There was a screenshot of him on the BBc news earlier , with a cigar in his mouth , his rotten teeth and that secret evil smile, and of course those pervy 'short ' shorts he used to wear . made me want to puke . It's such a pity he's dead and got away with it .

I'm sure what we consider pervy in hindsight was considered eccentric at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

Madam_X

Pottler wrote: »

You spelt "where" wrong, but worse, you defended another bunch of paedophiles indirectly. If anyone wants to bring in some other bunch of cnuts and shine a light on them, good for them. I seriously question the intent of your post. And the agenda that may be behind it. Personally, I welcome any and all "bringing in" of cnuts that deserve to be exposed, vilified and prosecuted.

There's no agenda - Dodge is simply remarking on the way a "yeh he was bad but no worse than the catholic church" comment was made on a thread not about the catholic church. We know the catholic church hid and accommodated just as bad - nobody said it didn't. Why say it unless to use this report as a platform to have a go at the catholic church, which IMO is in bad taste: using the plight of his victims to bash a different organisation. And I'm hugely critical of organised religion and detest the cc as an institution.

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't buy that for a second.

On the BBC report there was a policeman who reported it and they simply said they didn't believe him.

You can be sickened by something but still not have the bottle and the lack of self preservation to stand up against it. Groupie culture is one thing, what Saville done was depraved in the extreme.

You reckon NOBODY who knew and was as repulsed as we are now, tried to speak out but could only get so far? But that policeman whom you mentioned did.

Of course what Savile did was more evil than consensual groupie culture, but all I'm saying is: because it was more acceptable then to perv on young girls in showbiz environments would have made it easier for him to get away with it, and even small things we would notice as inappropriate now, would have been deemed innocuous then.

Pottler

Froyo wrote: »

Pathetic people of AH using sick children's suffering to have a pop at the church. Well done.

Surrey?? As in is this post for real?? Also Madam X, how exactly do you know what "dodge" meant? Or is my view on what he "meant" pretty much as valid as yours? Bad taste?? What, unlike abusing kids?? bad taste me whole.

Ush1

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes. Until you are in this position, you cannot know how much people don't want to believe you. And they wont believe it and then the victim gets worn down and isolated in the pain and isnt motivated to go further, especially against someone who is perceived to be very popular and powerful.

Especially back then, before scandals had broken and there was still huge shame and self blame around it, general ignorance on the topic, and powerful people were protected.

If you look at the Irish scandals, people knew, the guards knew, and no one did anything about it. Some tried but failed because the govt [the guards] were in cahoots. When you read the actual reports like Ferns as an example you can see how this all worked.

So where is the line drawn? People who knew it was wrong and stood by because of excuses? Like the archbishop moving Brady around?

Put it this way, I'd rather lose my job and whatever comes with that than having to look myself in the mirror and think there was something more I could have done for those kids.

PC CDROM

The word "abused" has been so fuked these days, it is actually abused.

Madam_X

Ush1 wrote: »

So where is the line drawn? People who knew it was wrong and stood by because of excuses? Like the archbishop moving Brady around?

Put it this way, I'd rather lose my job and whatever comes with that than having to look myself in the mirror and think there was something more I could have done for those kids.

But obviously there were plenty of people who'd have thought the same as you - why wouldn't there have been; how were people different to you back then? - however they, like that cop, were met with a wall.

ascanbe

Big, big buddy of/protected by a number of very, VERY high up people in British society.
The case of the Haute de la Garenne childrens home on the island of Jersey that briefly made news a few years ago, before instantly, and mysteriously, disappearing, is well worth investigating.
And then there's Kincora House in N. Ireland, amongst others.

clairefontaine

Ush1 wrote: »

So where is the line drawn? People who knew it was wrong and stood by because of excuses? Like the archbishop moving Brady around?

Put it this way, I'd rather lose my job and whatever comes with that than having to look myself in the mirror and think there was something more I could have done for those kids.

Well you'd have to believe them first. Imagine a child or parent comes to you and claims a current popular tv star has done something to them. [Just pick any tv star in your imagination] Particularly a star that has set up kids charities or works with kids and is very much trusted by the nation and by you.

And this child or this parent comes and tells you this. You are going to start out not wanting to believe it, one because its so horrific and two because it;s accusing somebody you trust of something horrific. And then lets say it's from a child - oh kids with their imaginations...oh they make stuff up...and they don't have credibility, especially without evidence, and without evidence, without things other than stories to go to the police with you are opening yourself up to a libel/slander suit. It is not until there are many mother verifiable victims/witnesses who can come together, that you have a chance. That is why they get away with it for sooo long and have sooo many victims [on average about 60 girls and or 100 boys] before they get caught.

Not only that but they are very good at picking their victims, weak vulnerable voiceless people and kids, like the kids in the hospital, like kids who need the extra attention with low confidence, for whatever reason. And especially kids with low credibility And they are even less likely to speak up.

What I am saying is yes, you are right, people need to speak up, but other people need to believe them, and other people need to be ready to hear it and not always dismiss it as crazy hysteria, which is probably what people were afraid of. Same as today.

The best we can do now is learn from it and all the other scandals.

Madam_X

Pottler wrote: »

Surrey?? As in is this post for real?? Also Madam X, how exactly do you know what "dodge" meant? Or is my view on what he "meant" pretty much as valid as yours? Bad taste?? What, unlike abusing kids?? bad taste me whole.

I'm familiar with Dodge's posts and views so it's a confident guess. And I don't hope (like you seem to do) that he's a paedo defender.
What's the point in bringing in the catholic church so? Is it maybe one of those silly "we can't talk here, look at what the church did!" angles (of course we can criticise similar in other countries).
I say bad taste in the sense that using this case as an excuse to randomly catholic church bash... just undermines what savile's victims suffered.

If there was a discussion on paedo priests and someone said "it's terrible, but jimmy savile and the BBC cover-up was as bad" I'd be "wtf?" too.

Ush1

Madam_X wrote: »

But obviously there were plenty of people who'd have thought the same as you - why wouldn't there have been; how were people different to you back then? - however they, like that cop, were met with a wall.

I see your point but what's changed from then to now? Is it the ever shifting moral zeitgeist? Could the cop have went to more papers and national or international press? There was already multiple reports by the time he spoke.

What is the loss vs gain in such a situation?

cazzak79

I wonder when he was over here did he abuse

Busted Flat.

Could this be true, could this have happened, I just Googled it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20many%20%20pedophiles%20have%20got%20royal%20titles&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2F21stcenturywire.com%2F2012%2F10%2F15%2Fjimmy-savile-doorman-to-the-cesspit%2F&ei=0Z_wUJ7tJdCXhQeRsoD4AQ&usg=AFQjCNEYhCSjDdHtdPO5xalVw9O6GzD61Q

Pottler

Madam_X wrote: »

I'm familiar with Dodge's posts and views so it's a confident guess. And I don't hope (like you seem to do) that he's a paedo defender.
What's the point in bringing in the catholic church so? Is it maybe one of those silly "we can't talk here, look at what the church did!" angles (of course we can criticise similar in other countries).
I say bad taste in the sense that using this case as an excuse to randomly catholic church bash... just undermines what savile's victims suffered.

If there was a discussion on paedo priests and someone said "it's terrible, but jimmy savile and the BBC cover-up was as bad" I'd be "wtf?" too.

No, having a functional brain, I can evaluate two seperate entities without excluding one or the other. I believe the issue of child abuse encompasses many facets. To disbar one from a discussion on the grounds of "bad taste" is to me a spurious arguement - and is yet another barrier to discussion.

If all discussion was welcomed and encouraged, the taboo attached to the subject by previous generations might finally be laid to rest and children who are the victims of these insidious criminals might feel more confident in coming forward. ALL discussion of this issue is valid in my opinion, ALL perpetrators are fair game for discussion and the more discussion and openness on this difficult subject, the better. No matter what status the perpetrator might hold, either institutional or populist.

Ush1

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well you'd have to believe them first. Imagine a child or parent comes to you and claims a current popular tv star has done something to them. [Just pick any tv star in your imagination] Particularly a star that has set up kids charities or works with kids and is very much trusted by the nation and by you.

And this child or this parent comes and tells you this. You are going to start out not wanting to believe it, one because its so horrific and two because it;s accusing somebody you trust of something horrific. And then lets say it's from a child - oh kids with their imaginations...oh they make stuff up...and they don't have credibility, especially without evidence, and without evidence, without things other than stories to go to the police with you are opening yourself up to a libel/slander suit. It is not until there are many mother verifiable victims/witnesses who can come together, that you have a chance. That is why they get away with it for sooo long and have sooo many victims [on average about 60 girls and or 100 boys] before they get caught.

Not only that but they are very good at picking their victims, weak vulnerable voiceless people and kids, like the kids in the hospital, like kids who need the extra attention with low confidence, for whatever reason. And especially kids with low credibility And they are even less likely to speak up.

What I am saying is yes, you are right, people need to speak up, but other people need to believe them, and other people need to be ready to hear it and not always dismiss it as crazy hysteria, which is probably what people were afraid of. Same as today.

The best we can do now is learn from it and all the other scandals.

If a child came to me with a story of being abused I would not be of the frame of mind to "not want to believe it", no matter the vividness of imagination.

Trusted by a nation doesn't come into it, he's a human and is capable of doing bad deeds so any claim of that nature would set off alarm bells. Ask yourself why would a child claim such a thing? Especially sexual abuse.

I'm not saying paint them as guilty instantly but people and especially police have many means to detect serious crimes. Certainly over such a long time period around one high profile individual. The fact is we're talking about this after he is dead.

It's not crazy hysteria if there is evidence, and evidence needs to be brought instantly to light.

Madam_X

Ush1 wrote: »

I see your point but what's changed from then to now? Is it the ever shifting moral zeitgeist? Could the cop have went to more papers and national or international press? There was already multiple reports by the time he spoke.

What is the loss vs gain in such a situation?

I don't know. Maybe it's because we're more aware of what could be going on behind closed doors now, we're more questioning and cynical. This of course goes to far when you consider the way totally innocent men can be viewed with suspicion.
I'm glad there is so much more awareness now obviously, and what was deemed just a laugh then is inappropriate now. I worked in a place years ago where I was told that up to the 80s it was just the norm to get groped. :eek:

The price though is as I said, men e.g. working with children being viewed with suspicion; men doing something totally innocuous like making a jokey comment being viewed as sexually harassing etc.

FoxyVixen

Candie wrote: »

I'm sure what we consider pervy in hindsight was considered eccentric at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

I doubt it was nor will ever be considered eccentric no matter what time or era it occurred in. Ignorance would be a better word to describe it.

What I'm curious to know is if any of the higher echelon of the BBC was involved. Saville made alot of money for the tv bosses, I'm sure when money is on the table a blind eye can be turned quite quickly.

Saville acted on his disturbing thoughts on children who were on their deathbeds. A childs innocent mind would struggle to comprehend what was happening to them, never mind a poor vulnerable individual at deaths door. A childs "rambling" could have easily been dismissed while the critical task of monitoring their health was at hand.

Can't remember but someone mentioned how could he have been alone with the children. Why wouldn't he?! He was a charitable do-gooder out to bring wishes (although now we see it as nightmares) to children. Nurses could have been called out of the room to more pressing matters.

More importantly, a paedophile will ALWAYS find a way.

clairefontaine

Ush1 wrote: »

If a child came to me with a story of being abused I would not be of the frame of mind to "not want to believe it", no matter the vividness of imagination.

Trusted by a nation doesn't come into it, he's a human and is capable of doing bad deeds so any claim of that nature would set off alarm bells. Ask yourself why would a child claim such a thing? Especially sexual abuse.

I'm not saying paint them as guilty instantly but people and especially police have many means to detect serious crimes. Certainly over such a long time period around one high profile individual. The fact is we're talking about this after he is dead.

It's not crazy hysteria if there is evidence, and evidence needs to be brought instantly to light.

I agree with you, but I am outlining why people can be passive about it. It wont be helpful to you to judge others by what you would do. I know many people who were sex abuse victims and whose parents didn't believe them. I can understand the denial because no one wants to think this is happening to their child.

Evidence means physical evidence or more than one eye witness. Like a rape or sex assault accusation, its one person's word against another without physical evidence, and in public scenarios you risk defamation and are labelled a hysteric. It was when more than one came forward that this was able to be taken seriously.

People know things but they are afraid of more powerful people so their silence is guaranteeed.

FoxyVixen

FoxyVixen wrote: »

I doubt it was nor will ever be considered eccentric no matter what time or era it occurred in. Ignorance would be a better word to describe it.

What I'm curious to know is if any of the higher echelon of the BBC was involved. Saville made alot of money for the tv bosses, I'm sure when money is on the table a blind eye can be turned quite quickly.

Saville acted on his disturbing thoughts on children who were on their deathbeds. A childs innocent mind would struggle to comprehend what was happening to them, never mind a poor vulnerable individual at deaths door. A childs "rambling" could have easily been dismissed while the critical task of monitoring their health was at hand.

Can't remember but someone mentioned how could he have been alone with the children. Why wouldn't he?! He was a charitable do-gooder out to bring wishes (although now we see it as nightmares) to children. Nurses could have been called out of the room to more pressing matters.

More importantly, a paedophile will ALWAYS find a way.

Actually, I was referring to the cigar chomping and shorts wearing as described in the post I quoted.

I would never describe the perverted, criminal and predatory preying on children for sexual gratification as eccentric.

Madam_X

Pottler wrote: »

No, having a functional brain, I can evaluate two seperate entities without excluding one or the other. I believe the issue of child abuse encompasses many facets. To disbar one from a discussion on the grounds of "bad taste" is to me a spurious arguement - and is yet another barrier to discussion.

If all discussion was welcomed and encouraged, the taboo attached to the subject by previous generations might finally be laid to rest and children who are the victims of these insidious criminals might feel more confident in coming forward. ALL discussion of this issue is valid in my opinion, ALL perpetrators are fair game for discussion and the more discussion and openness on this difficult subject, the better. No matter what status the perpetrator might hold, either institutional or populist.

I'm not suggesting one bit that the priests who abused and the organisation that aided them can't be discussed. I'm only questioning why they were brought up in the way they were brought up on this thread.

sharpey85

Jimmy Saville was a profiteer.

Its the very sad world we live in that, the very people who (most definitely knew and) would be heard chose to turn their ear all for the sake of money and reputation.

but sadly this was very much the case. I just hope whoever else was involved, and I believe their is many, come to justice.

FoxyVixen

Candie wrote: »

Actually, I was referring to the cigar chomping and shorts wearing as described in the post I quoted.

I would never describe the perverted, criminal and predatory preying on children for sexual gratification as eccentric.

Apologies, mis-read

clairefontaine

Madam_X wrote: »

I don't know. Maybe it's because we're more aware of what could be going on behind closed doors now, we're more questioning and cynical. This of course goes to far when you consider the way totally innocent men can be viewed with suspicion.
I'm glad there is so much more awareness now obviously, and what was deemed just a laugh then is inappropriate now. I worked in a place years ago where I was told that up to the 80s it was just the norm to get groped. :eek:

The price though is as I said, men e.g. working with children being viewed with suspicion; men doing something totally innocuous like making a jokey comment being viewed as sexually harassing etc.

There is more awareness but there is also a lot of ignorance.

According to US statistics which might be different to Irish ones, can't find Irish ones, which are not politically correct, but they are statistically correct, one out of every ten men is a child molester and there is one per square mile.

The problem is people are lost as to what signs to look for, so that's where the ignorance comes in and then we are lost as to what to do about men and access to children.

There are some jokey comments that are totally inappropriate and shouldn't be said around kids. I know someone who went to one of these famous Irish boarding schools and on arrival to the boarding school, the priest [who later turned out to be one of the notorious priests of that school] explained to him what a fanny is. Odd and inappropriate and covert molestation, like making sexual jokes with your child is covert incest. The only thing I could say is trust your gut and prevent.

Its very easy to get time alone with a child. It only takes a few minutes and there are plenty of opportunities in various contexts to do so.

Saville was very wealthy and connected, that's how he got away with it, thats how most people get away with things who are wealthy and connected.

Doc Ruby

FoxyVixen wrote: »

A childs innocent mind would struggle to comprehend what was happening to them, never mind a poor vulnerable individual at deaths door.

Maybe that's why he targeted them. Jesus H Christ that is nasty. Guaranteed he was protected by powerful people, which begs the question as to why. My suspicion is that its a lot nastier and deeper than just saville.

clairefontaine wrote: »

According to US statistics which might be different to Irish ones, can't find Irish ones, which are not politically correct, but they are statistically correct, one out of every ten men is a child molester and there is one per square mile.

Can you find a link for those statistics please? Also why are you confining this to men, plenty of women molest children too.

FoxyVixen

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Maybe that's why he targeted them. Jesus H Christ that is nasty. Guaranteed he was protected by powerful people, which begs the question as to why. My suspicion is that its a lot nastier and deeper than just saville.

It's exactly why he chose them. He assaulted those he knew wouldn't speak out or who wouldn't be believed. He was an opportunist of the sickest degree.

He was certainly protected. Guaranteed those who aided and abetted him are still alive and can feel the noose tightening. My main worry and concern is that they'll have the power to escape even now and this case will only highlight how far paedophiles can get away with it.