Defence of Jimmy Salville Against Allegations(54 Posts)
I am sure like many of you I have been reading the allegations that Jimmy Salville sexually abused children aged 13 and up. Moreover it is alleged that many people knew or suspected this was happening, but it still carried on.
This link takes you to a page which has links providing different information about these allegations.
But what really strikes me is if all of these people had suspicions, why did nobody raise the alarm? I can see that him being famous raises issues for some people, but for example on of the girls told the home she was in and they dismissed her alleagtions. They could easily have passed her allegations onto the police without any real issues for them. So why didnt they?
And why are some people falling all over themselves to defend him when the documentary showing the allegations hasnt even been screened yet? Surely they should watch it and decide whether they think he is guilty or not? I dont understand why some are so quick to defend a celebrity they dont personally know.
I dunno. I think I'm just despondent about it all at the moment.
When I think that if all of the incidents of sexual aggression against females were reported, the justice system would implode under the weight, I just feel like it's a losing battle to hope that women can truly feel like this is their world too.
I agree it still continues, Footlike... And social and digital media give it lots of new platforms to flourish. But I do think there is more of a language of resistance now, and plenty of people who WILL say it's wrong.
I'm not saying it's better now. Or worse. Just evolving manifestations of the same old same old.
Is it really that much different these days? Especially on a day to day level for young girls, with the phone and net stuff going on between teens (and younger) and situations like that in Rochdale, Oxford and Derby and elsewhere. Not to mention the oft spouted view of the JS victims as asking for it or money grabbing (wtf?) for coming forward now.
We really shouldn't get complacent. The bodies of females are still seen as fair game.
It just was not talked about. It was a dirty secret. Now, society has it on the agenda always. Men still abuse but it is acknowledged, mostly, as such- abuse.
There has been progress, undoubtedly. But allowing gender inequality to continue keeps abuse alive in my opinion. That's broadly how I see it, though of course there are many micro issues, it's not mono causal. But I think sexism is at the bottom of it.
I agree that the 70s was a quite hideous period of laissez faire over young girls' bodies. We were basically preyed upon.
Still goes on, for sure, but there's more social condemnation of it.
I grew up in the 70s and, was sexually abused. And groped a few times. It was so scary but I felt unable to say anything. The message I got, and see also that lots of girls got, was that girls were dirty and whatever happened was your fault/ you wouldn't be believed. So you kept it as your guilty secret and it damaged you.
I still feel guilty and bad about what happened, but these women speaking out has helped me enormously. So many of us suffered, it wasn't just me! I know this logically but this has given me a bit of a boost for some reason. And made me really fucking angry with all the apologists
I heard the rumours years before too. I remember feeling sickened at all the glowing obituaries in the tabloids when they must have been well aware of his history. I can't believe he got away with it simply because of his charity work, he must have had something over some 'high ups' in the media world, and once he died they had no reason to protect his reputation any more.
I do believe these girls and I do believe they have a right to be heard and helped. I also believe there are those out there who protected him who should be exposed BUT I am also a pragmatist who thinks a police investigation into a man who can never be convicted is a mismanagement of time and resources that should be spent dealing with active dangers now and helping stop this happening to someone else. If the BBC want to "clean house" and redeem themselves that is to be encouraged but why bring in the police?
MrsC you've no reason to feel ashamed. There was no point you taking it any further, because you would have been punished for doing so. That's one of the ways men have kept control of women and children - punished them for pointing out their abuse of them.
TBH I don't think we've come that far. What happened to you would now be treated with some seriousness, but if it was another pupil, it would still be treated as a minor incident, to be dealt with by the school, rather than the sexual assault it is.
I was a teenager in the 70s and it is unbelievable how much things have changed with this regard, thank goodness.
When I left school at 16 I started work and after a few weeks my supervisor (who was in his 50s and a retired fireman) put his hand inside my bra one day when we were alone. I was so upset and told my mum and dad. My dad went to work with me the next day to confront this man. He admitted it and my dad threatened him with the police. Our manager advised my dad that a court would 'wipe the floor with me' and it would be better left alone - so it was. I had to work with that man until I found a new job. I have often thought we should have done more but that is how things were handled then. To be honest I feel ashamed, even now, that I didnt take it further.
Halloweeny I doubt if anyone spoke up simply because that culture of male entitlement and victim-blaming was so entrenched. Coupled with the sexual revolution which was all about men fucking women (and girls) on their terms, chances are anyone who spoke out wd have been labelled hysterical, prudish, uptight and slanderous. But I guess we might find out if anyone did in the next few weeks
some of them probaby DID speak up at the time and were shot down (remembers the woman who was gang raped in insular rural village I lived in and was ran out of town as everyone involved was someone at the police stations son/god son/nephew etc )
I was a tad surprised on QT last night when Janet Street-Porter said it was part of the culture of Light Entertainment for inappropriate behavior, including Saville.
I wondered why she wasn't asked to take the other names of abusers to the police.
Bossybritches22 Also paedophiles were strangers in flasher macks, not, as known now, more likely to be Uncle Billy from next door Bit unsure about this. "Wicked Uncle Ernie" was a recognisable figure in Tommy, which was released in 1969.
I think it is also really important to remember how far we have come with child protection policies and training.
I reported to a teacher at my boarding school that I had been raped and I thought I should go to the police and he councelled me against it. that wasn't in the dark ages it was in 1985.
I KNOW that in that exact instance now, things would have been handled very differently (thankfully)
it is RIGHT that visitors to school are dealt with with caution no matter who they are or how famous they are.. it wasn't always so.
it is RIGHT that all this bloody box ticking and arse covering goes on with regard to spending time with children. It is very hard to judge the past by todays standards.
I just really hope that these ladies start to get some peace, support, help finally after all these years of torment and seeing the man being held up as some sort of saviour.
Halloweeny that thing about taking half the police station -Savile actually boasted about it in his autobiography quoted here
Exactly Widow - very depressing.
Some of the most vitriolic "why did they not speak up earlier* posts I've read in Twitter for example are from women & men too young to remember JS & how he was everywhere in the 70's & 80's in an era that was not as celebrity obsessed as now, no social media, so TV & radio were THE media.
Also paedophiles were strangers in flasher macks, not, as known now, more likely to be Uncle Billy from next door.
He was a very influential, charming man who made a great show about his good works & pillar of the community persona. As many of them do grooming people to trust him & get him what he wanted when he wanted it. He thought he was inflammable.
Very very difficult to prove and very VERY easy with hindsight & our greater awareness to point fingers.
God, this whole story is depressing. I can't believe how much victim blaming, and "14 year olds aren't always out of bounds" is going on. Yuck.
DH pointed out that Gambaccini's defense, at least earlier on could well be that as a gay man he was in an exceptionally vulnerable position career wise.
Doesn't mean that he's not a coward who put his career above the safety of young girls though.....
"I'm intrigued that this has come up in the media now."
I read that it was because the BBC weren't cooperating with the documentary that another channel is airing because the BBC have already scheduled a JS tribute over the christmas holidays!
I also read that while it was "known", he was in "rings" with lots of police men so laughed off any question of being arrested saying he'ld take half the station with him if he was taken in
The doccumentary was just going over old ground, and perhaps some victims only felt safe comming forward now that he's dead too as he obviously has a lot of connections!
It seems that Savile was not only a powerful figure (and had massive public support for his charity work and public larger-than-life persona) but also a very scary character who could turn very nasty. In the program with Paul Theroux he said that when he was running northern dance halls and someone crossed him he would tie them up in the basement and "deal with them" later.
Probably many people felt intimidated from saying anything before his death, where there might have been a danger of public opprobium and/or reprisals.
This would excuse the former residents of children's homes not speaking out. It would not excuse celebrity associates of JS though it might go some way towards explaining it.
Has anyone asked Gambaccini and Rantzen why they kept quiet?
I read that Gambaccini said that he was scared of Saville so that's why he waited until Savilles death.
Rantzen gave an interview to sky news saying that she just heard gossip and that she didn't see anything nor any of the victims came to her, but after watching the doc she now says that she believes the women.
I'm intrigued that this has come up in the media now. When I was in my late teens I babysat for a family that ran an advertising agency. They were running an ad campaign for a childrens charity. when they suggested getting Jimmy Saville in to do the advert they were told categorically that he could not be used because he was known to be "inappropriate" with children. This was 20 years ago. This seems to have been one of those secrets that an awful lot of people knew about.
Has anyone asked Gambaccini and Rantzen why they kept quiet?
It would be an interesting way to highlight the need to not turn a blind eye to speculation: to get both of them to speak about why they kept quiet.
I'm not talking about hounding them, I'm talking about them being honest, us understanding the context and difficulties, and awareness being raised.
I was not aware that there were rules regarding commenting on posts. It's a pretty shocking thing to say, I thought. Shall just poke my nose out.
I heard these allegations twenty five years ago, when I was a student. I'm not surprised to hear them raised again now for one simple reason - you cannot libel the dead.
But WTF Leithlurker, I missed the bonkers allegation about Ted Heath and the EEC. That is, erm, entertaining?!
Join the discussion
Please login first.