Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:... I understood it. It was "Blah, blah, blah, evade the point, make pathetic half excuses BS, blah blah blah." Fair enough. Your comprehension skills are lacking. Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:If someone suspected that part of his complexity was that he fiddled with kids then they should have alerted the police. But that is "complex" because an allegation of sexually abusing children can ruin lives. If someone knew that Saville was abusing kids and did nothing then I wish there was a hell that they could burn in. Widespread knowledge = puerile gossip. I neither know, nor care, about either of their sex lives. No. Knowledge. As the former editor of the Daily Express revealed last year, he was on a cruise ship in the 1970s when the captain had to confine Savile to his cabin and then chuck him off because of his behaviour toward an underage girl. Either the former editor decided to make that up last year, for some reason, or it was the case. He did nothing about it at the time. Story here. Hitchin mentions libel laws. There have also been reports that he used his fund-raising activities to, in effect, blackmail editors not to print exposés. Story here I mentioned Savile's 1974 autobiography. Here's the relevant excerpt: in 1974, Jimmy Savile wrote:"A high ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me the picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a 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 for 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 officer 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." (p56-7)

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:... I understood it. It was "Blah, blah, blah, evade the point, make pathetic half excuses BS, blah blah blah." Fair enough. Your comprehension skills are lacking. Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:If someone suspected that part of his complexity was that he fiddled with kids then they should have alerted the police. But that is "complex" because an allegation of sexually abusing children can ruin lives. If someone knew that Saville was abusing kids and did nothing then I wish there was a hell that they could burn in. Widespread knowledge = puerile gossip. I neither know, nor care, about either of their sex lives. No. Knowledge. As the former editor of the Daily Express revealed last year, he was on a cruise ship in the 1970s when the captain had to confine Savile to his cabin and then chuck him off because of his behaviour toward an underage girl. Either the former editor decided to make that up last year, for some reason, or it was the case. He did nothing about it at the time. Story here. Hitchin mentions libel laws. There have also been reports that he used his fund-raising activities to, in effect, blackmail editors not to print exposés. Story here I mentioned Savile's 1974 autobiography. Here's the relevant excerpt: in 1974, Jimmy Savile wrote:"A high ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me the picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a 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 for 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 officer 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." (p56-7)

English comprehension. Brian Hitchens did not say that he was on that ship at that time. He said that he's known that Saville was abusing kids because he was told over 45 years ago about that incident.

Does Brian Hitchens know that Saville was a child abuser because he was told that? No, he does not. He had suspicions based on the rumour he was told, but he didn't KNOW.



Well that nails it. If Saville was shifty looking he was clearly guilty. If he was completely innocent he'd have been calm, composed and confident, like all honest people. Everyone knows that if someone can keep eye contact and be confident they are telling the truth.



A pathetic excuse.

Hitchin had a story about Saville being thrown off a cruise ship because he was pestering a 14 year old girl, didn't he?

Hitchin's could have brought forward the cruise ship captain, the ships officers, the parents of the girl, the girl.

The truth is Hitchin's is totally accepting of Saville's guilt because of a 40 odd year old captain's tale and the revelations that have surfaced since his death.



Did Gambaccini know that Saville was a peadophile? Did he know whether those stories were about under age victims?

Gambaccini worked alongside Saville. You claim that "plenty of people knew" but did nothing. Gambaccini is one of these people. Gambaccini bravely comes out and talks about a dead man, but there's no evidence that he did anything while Saville was alive and abusing people.





Now this is actual evidence.

And if I was Mr Brian Hitchin, I'd be printing that in my newspaper and outing him as the paedo he was. I wouldn't be worried about the libel laws after a paedo had just confessed in his own biography. I'd be going after him with every report that came out.

Likewise, if I was in charge of the honours, I wouldn't be replying to Thatcher that Saville was "complex" I'd have just quoted that paragraph and said that he should not and would not be considered for honours ever again.

I'm actually doing some work at the same time as responding to this. At least I found the story to link to.



To a very large extent I agree. I wouldn't ignore the libel issue altogether, though.



Correct. There isn't. What there is is an increasing body of such revelations, from a wide number of people – who don't 'have' to say anything in order to cover their own backs – that appears to stand up. As I noted earlier, I generally agree with Jerry Chicken's comments, made more than once here, that the culture on – let's call it groupies – has changed massively in just a generation and a half.

But Savile's behaviour clearly went further. But although it's quite clear that was the case, and that at least some people were aware of it etc, I suspect most people, including those in the mainstream media, considered it as unworthy of coverage.

I was doing some film reviewing, back in 1993, when I was told about Savile by a journalist on the Daily Mail, who had, until about a year before, worked for the Telegraph. His version of why it had not come out, when I asked, was that "Savile has the keys to a lot of other people's cupboards'.

I couldn't do anything: I worked for a tiny newspaper that really had no resources to either investigate anything of such a nature or to defend itself against any legal action (hence my comment on libel above).



I agree. Assuming it wasn't the work of a fantasists. But then again, it ties in with what has come out in the last 10 months.



Do you also see why, now, I don't believe that "he was complex" was the only excuse used by senior civil servants on four different occasions? And why I believe that the security forces must have known at least an element about him?

Equally, as I said earlier, that excerpt, unless pure fantasy, implicates police too.

Hitchen says that part of the reason that Saville was protected was because of the libel law.

I can understand why reports weren't published of him abusing kids if they couldn't legally back them up. You don't close a newspaper making that allegation if you can't back it up. But I have a problem with all the conversations that Hitchen's recalls having with Saville.

If I know someone is a vile paedo who abuses kids, I would have nothing to do with him. I wouldn't be able to write about all the chats I'd had with him like Hitchen does.

If I was being being invited by Cunard to give speeches and a child abuser was staying aboard those cruises in first class for free, I'd be speaking with the company and finding out what was going on. If the company insisted that it was fine that the paedo was there, I'd be withdrawing my services.

If I was the editor of The Daily Star for 7 years and the Sunday Express for a year, I might not be publishing stories outing Saville as a paedo if there wasn't the backing from the legal department, but I'd make sure Saville got so many kickings that people would be questioning why my paper hated him so much.



He was editor of The Daily Star from 1987 to 94. To show that that statement is complete and utter bs I put forward every issue of his tacky newspaper in those 7 years.



And every one of the people crawling out of the woodwork spitting on Saville's grave should be explaining what they did to expose him.



This is the same media that got Frank Bough sacked for coke and visiting brothels, but they deemed Saville fiddling with children unworthy of coverage??? Seriously, you believe that do you?



To me that reasoning is poor. As a journalist, I'd have thought that bringing down a paedo who held the keys to a lot of other people's cupboards would be a fantastic story to publish.

The only problem with that would be if the editor's or owners who were implicated.

My own personal opinion is that there was enough evidence against Savile for pub rumours, but there wasn't enough evidence to get past the legal department.



I totally accept that someone writing film reviews for a tiny newspaper cannot really do anything about a story like this. But journos working for The Sun, Star, Mirror, Mail and Express have no such excuses.



TBH I agree that it's a work of fantasy. Savile got to have sex with an attractive runaway girl (who may have been under age). He bragged about it to a high ranking female office, who he held absolutely no power over because she was new to the area. She was dissuaded from pursuing legal action against him because Savile supposedly would have taken down half the force (getting rid of a bunch of dirty cops would seem to be a happy consequence of nailing an abuser of a vulnerable girl).

And not only that, but one of the bent cops must have come and told him about all the talk in the station about him. That is unless he has astral projection powers and took a trip to the station after he'd been seeing to the girl.

All that would have been used in his defence if he was prosecuted over his autobiography. As a piece of legal evidence it's not worth much. But that is more than ample evidence to not award him a knighthood. Thatcher sees that and IMO he never gets within a mile of her again.



Thatcher's aide was saying she was exasperated Savile wasn't rightly honoured. If the civil servant knew about the rumours surrounding Saville then writing about him being "complex" is a pathetic warning that the government were going to give a child abuser a knighthood. IMO if the civil servant has heard rumours of Savile being a paedo he might reply that Saville's case is "complex", but he either talks to the aide or meets them and tells them why he won't be honoured.

The security forces. I don't believe background checks of the Prime Minister's friends, who happened to have been on TV and the radio about 20,000 times would have been overly exhaustive.

That's because he's a horrible racist cunt.

January 2010 was when the story broke alleging that Terry had an affair with Perroncel.

October 2011 was game where Terry allegedly abused Ferdinand.

I know.
Just saying.
By the way, he can bang anyones wife he wants for me.
His business.

Yup. I appreciate that.



Two things here.

First, that technically, paedophilia is an interest in or sexual activity with children who pre-bubescent (usually seen as below 13). So I think that we do have to be careful using that word.

That is not, however, to excuse Savile's behaviour, which both appears to have included some paedophilic incidents, but certainly to have predominantly been an abuse of power – and very much all about the exercise of power. I'd personally cite the classic definition of rape, that it was not about sex, but about power.

I've mentioned Jerry's points repeatedly, because I do think that the culture has changed: it's changed both on paedophilia and on that abuse of power with older, post-pubescent young people.

One of the things, viewed very much in the cold light of day, that is interesting (and you've touched on it) is that people have been come out of the woodwork to reveal their own knowledge and disapproval.

Now personally, I have little doubt that the bulk of the stories are essentially correct: they tie in with victims' stories, they don't tend to contradict each other etc. But I do wonder whether part (at least) of the motivation for so many people coming forward in the last year is actually out of fear of themselves being accused of ... well, anything from cover-ups to comparable behaviour.



I completely understand and completely concur. Again, though, the cultural shift. But yes, most tabloids have, for a very long time, thought nothing of exposing the private lives of individuals – who were not committing illegal acts.



Well yes, I do believe that, although I entirely agree with your moral/ethical appraisal. But if, as I was told, Savile was devious enough to 'have enough' on others, and had done so quite deliberately, it makes more sense. And indeed, a lot of this then makes sense of why various media bodies etc have been so desperate to pin it all on the BBC (see my initial thread title).



I'm not surre that it is. Not least because, even in a different time, why would you brag, in print, that you'd done that – and that you'd got one over on the police and that they too were doing the same?

Given a number of things I've read in the last year, well before he was famous, he was pretty close to being a gangland-style crook. I suspect (and this is subjective) that he was, if not massively intelligent, then most certainly very devious/clever, with the sort of bravado and actually slightly frightening, in-your-face persona that actually gets some people away with an awful lot.



Again, changed culture. I know it's a slightly lame analogy from an evidential perspective, but just think of Life on Mars.



Cultural difference. I don't think anyone would have taken that seriously at the time. It's actually difficult sometimes to realise how much the culture has changed since the mid-'80s. It's a huge cultural change in just a generation and a half.

On the security services: they vetted and had lists on all sorts of people – many (if not most) of whom had done nothing illegal but were 'suspect' because of their (perceived) politics. If they didn't monitor, closely, who was friends with a long-standing PM I find that hard to believe.

"The suspected victims included 28 children aged under 10, including 10 boys aged as young as 8".

When you were being told by other journos about Savile, did they use the correct terms of paedophile and hebephile, or did they just call him a pedo?



I don't particularly like the term abuse of power regarding Savile. I think abuse of power applies to teachers, doctors, police etc when they engage in sexual activity with people they are involved with in their work. This abuse of power occurs even with willing partners IMO, so it's "complex".

Savile was clearly abusing his fame to get sex, but personally I think that virtually every single famous man has done that too, and most famous women.

I don't know what Savile actually got up to. I was in the USA when most of this came out so I missed it at the time. It makes me feel ill to read about real abuse and rape victims, so it's not something I've particularly read up on.



Are people more sensitive to it now, or less sensitive? I think people are hyper-sensitive to it now. I don't know what the feelings were about it in decades past.



Paul Gambaccini didn't really reveal his knowledge, just his disapproval. Personally, I think most of the things that I've read about Savile have been people dancing on his grave, not enlightening the world to the level of protection Savile was getting.



One of the things that worries me is how can you disprove an allegation of child abuse that happened 40 years ago.

Now, for the people who are guilty of child abuse I have no sympathy. They are finally getting some payback, even though it is too late and nowhere near what they deserve.

But I just wonder how many innocent people are going to be accused, who can never properly clear their name.

My feeling about Savile is that he was always pretty weird anyway. I never really understood him. As the "great" Joey Barton said, there was always something "off" about him. He was always "different".

Just going off on a tangent here. But let's say there was a black person who was disliked by a racist for a decade. No matter what he did, the black person would always be hated by the racist. Now, after a decade the black guy is arrested over a serious crime, the racist can now justify his hate of the last ten years because he always *knew* that the guy wasn't right. But his racism was never right, it was always disgusting.

That was the kind of the feeling I get when reading Gambaccini's interview. Did people really know what he was up to back then, or is Savile just suffering because he was different, weird, strange?



Jimmy Savile was so powerful that Rupert Murdoch wouldn't take him on?

Seriously, Jimmy Savile, Jim'll Fix It Savile. The guy with the naffest tracksuit ever. The guy who lived with his mum. Murdoch was too scared to take him on, even though half of Fleet Street knew he was a sexual criminal.

And it's not just Murdoch. It's Maxwell. Eddie Shah. All of the Fleet St moguls. They'll go up against Govt's, they'll go up against the Royal family, but they won't touch Jimmy Savile because he's just too connected?

Rupert Murdoch must have been implicated, obviously. Because IMO if taking down Savile took down other powerful figures then that just makes Savile a better target to hit.



The issues I highlighted might just have been because it was a ghostwriter who was writing it and they were too much in "crime novel" mode, and not in "this is supposed to be an autobiography" mode.

I'm staggered that was in his book. I'm staggered that the publishers didn't cut that out of the book so fast that half the book went. I'm staggered that nobody cited that passage as evidence why Savile should be in jail and never on our screens again.



The Batman was real. And he was Jimmy Savile. He just used his powers to have sex with kids without being detected.



I was growing up in the 80's so I cannot compare it at all. I just think that if I'd told my dad that a guy had fiddled with me my dad would have beaten the crap out of the guy at least. I can't imagine how it would be so different.

I know that the police have changed. An accusation of sexual abuse now would be treated with 100% seriousness and I can definitely imagine a cop saying you can't trust a kid back then. But I cannot imagine it being so bad that Savile could offend such a large amount and nobody would fight back against it.



Jimmy Savile slept at Chequers for 11 New Years Eve's in a row with Thatcher and her family. I cannot believe that the security services of Britain would permit a suspected child abuser being so close to the Prime Minister and her family if they had even the slightest suspicion he was doing that.

I don't think any such term was used in the conversation – that I recall.



There's using one's position and there's abusing it. I think that the autobiography excerpt is an illustration of the latter.



The issue of child abuse was only really dragged from under the cultural carpet in the mid 1980s. Before that, it was brushed away. Victims had nowhere to go and were not likely to be believed. Or you'd get situations such as that in east London where, as an old friend once told me, when a lad reached 'manhood', he'd be told by the other men in his community that, if any bloke was rumoured to be doing something dodgy with kids, they'd go around to his house, sort him out and send him packing. In other words, pass the problem to someone else.

There have been many cases that had happened decades earlier, where people had stifled all the damage up inside themselves for decades – because it wasn't talked about etc. And then, after Childline was launched (Ester Rantzen should always be remembered for this) there was an element of a damn burst. Famously, Billy Connolly had been abused as a child by his father.

Less famously, my father, as a clergyman, got asked by a senior cleric to go and pay a pastoral visit to an elderly women in a neighbouring parish. She was rather well to do, but had never married – had never had any relationship with a man (or woman, I assume). This was in the late 1980s and she was about 80. She'd been abused by her father and had never been able to tell anyone. Childline had brought it all back, right to the surface, and she needed to speak about it to someone.

So there was massive culture change on that issue.

I do think you're right though about the hypersensitivity. I can think of four other specific cases I know about (that's a horribly large number for one person). Two are connected to my own wider family group, as it were, while two others involved people I was quite close to, but who were not family. For one of the former – the only one of the four in which social services were involved – the outcome was good and the child was kept safe. To my mind, social services did an excellent job in a situation that was not easy (these stories never make the papers, unfortunately). However, in the others, a variety of long-term problems were caused, including, in the worst case, very serious mental health issues after the abuser had died and the eventual suicide of the young woman that he had abused (his grandchild).

The point about this, though, is that in every case that I've just touched on, it was abuse (or the potential for abuse) by a family member or close family friend. Yet the 'sensitivity' these days is about 'stranger danger'. That remains very, very rare – the biggest danger to children outside the home is road traffic accidents. The overwhelming amount of abuse comes in the home.

But to continue trying to answer your question. I think that what we're now seeing is a further culture change, where we're coming across cases that were not (by and large) abuse in the way that I've outlined in those cases above, but were, say, more to do with, say, underage groupies (for want of a simplistic phrase) and also where there was, I think, a general attitude of: 'oh well, if a young person gets themselves into that position, it's their fault'. We are much more protective of young people now.

That is quite recent and you see the discussion about it happening in all sorts of ways: 'the pornification of society'; 'sexualisation': these are aspects of it. And personally, I think that there is a danger of wrapping young people in cotton wool. Of course, it all makes for good headlines for some media, while others handwring about it in a diffierent way.

But I think that the glut of accusations and charges (so I'm being very careful here) against certain celebrities is fraught with problems. One is a lack of forensic evidence, but the second is that, to use a cliché, times have changed. And I think that there is a massive danger in trying to foist the attitudes of today on to actions of 30-40 years ago.

To note: there is obviously a difference if children (ie under 13) were involved and also if admission of guilt is involved.



I do wonder whether some of this is a sort of secular confession time – seeking a sort of absolution by making one's own comments of disapproval in order to distance oneself from what was more generally going on, in light of changes to attitudes?



See above.



Some of it is scarily like a modern Salem, with nothing other than one person's word against another. Now 30-40 years ago, the adult would automatically be most likely to be believed in that situation. We have to guard against the pendulum going completely the other way.



It's not necessarily 'scared'. It's a question partly of not giving a toss. As I said, attitudes have changed.

What's happening now, though, is that Murdoch et al are using the Savile case to attack, in particular, the BBC for political reasons. Yet the point remains that they, in general, knew – and chose to do nothing about it. Now that brings us back to the cultural shift. But they can't go around blaming one organisation for not having culturally shifted earlier than they did.

Having said that, look at what the tabloids in particular do nowadays with stories about missing children: if the children in question are female and white – and especially if they are judged pretty – they will great coverage than otherwise. It is that cynical.



As I said, times were different. The police ignored a 'domestic', for instance. Many workplaces – and newspaper rooms would have come within this bracket – were a lot more 'blokey', for want of a better word. You could smoke in the office, you'd go for a bevy or five at lunch – and so forth.



If just some of what is said about Edward Heath's proclivities is true ...

Look at what's emerged about Cyril Smith.