I have had enough of Phillip sodding Schofield and his apologist attitude towards Jimmy Savile

[BupcakesAndHaunting]

Last week, it was saying how sorry he felt for JS's family to the VICTIMS of JS fgs, basically saying that he knew the layout of the dressing rooms at the BBC and he can't imagine that happening and no-one seeing and now, just, he said "But that's what television and radio was like in those days"

Errr, no Phil. Rape/molestation has ALWAYS been wrong, you daft twat. Yes, they were sexist times but there is a world of difference between sexual assaults on underage girls and sexist banter/inequality in the workplace.

And you have young daughters IIRC, Phillip. Shame on you.

Child abuse has always happened Chickens. In every culture in every generation.

I think it was easier to cover it up in the 80s. Rape was still legal within marriage and domestic abuse was seen as nobody's business.

Certainly where I worked as a naive 18/19yo in Manchester I was flashed at, my appearance commented on and sexual harrassment was rife. Bosses would ask secretaries to order them prostitutes and generally you were made to think that this was normal practice.

If it happened now I would report, no question about it. But back then I was scared, didn't have a lot of confidence and thought that I would be laughed at or told I had no sense of humour.

There was one chap though, he worked in accounts. He came to my rescue on several occasions. He told me that it was NOT acceptable and that I shouldn't have to put up with it. He would walk out when the men started their dirty talk and certainly had no reservations in speaking out. He was sacked on a made up charge. When he left, I left.

It's a shame there weren't more people like him back then.

The law in the 80s however was that underage sex was illegal. Never mind that there was a culture of acceptance and sexism, these were professional people, University educated a lot of them, hardly lacking in confidence. They knew it was wrong but did nothing.

Sparklingbrook The only one I can think of has the initials RC

It wasn't seen as rape though, Chickens. It was seen as legitimate sex as a woman could not legally refuse her husband sex.

I do think that this should be thoroughly investigated. JS is dead, but many of his contempories aren't. The victims of abuse should be given the chance to achieve some justice. Anyone know how the law works with regards to historical allegations? How do the police make a case without physical evidence?

the record bloke?

I sincerely hope RC doesn't get dragged into any of this.

MrsjREwing yes - not that I'm saying it's him of course, just that he was the only one I could think of.

That very attitude, Buppers, tells us everything we need to know about how rape was viewed, though. It seems that unless you were dragged down an alley way, you were 'willing'. The rapist/abuser didn't even really have to consider himself such, and could keep his healthy 'lad' ego happy. It makes me feel quite queasy, tbh.

Janet Street-Porter and Esther Rantzen now coming out to say they heard the rumours and I think Esther is saying she knew a little more?

Why oh why didn't someone do something?
These were vulnerable kids, many of them from broken homes and many of them already victims of abuse. Their lives have been ruined. One woman committed suicide.

A lot of people at the BBC have a lot of questions to answer. I hope they are kept awake at night by their conscience.

Yes but an adult having sex with underage girls has always been illegal and classed as rape, as a childcannot consent to having sex with an adult.

Like I said, JS and his crew KNEW they were doing wrong or else it wouldn't have been covered up with threats of broken limbs/withdrawal of charity funding. If it was so liberal and the done thing, JS would have been all "yeah and what of it?" when pulled up on it. He KNEW he was raping. He KNEW he was molesting children. Fair enough it may not have been taken as seriously then as it is now, but everyone still knew it was wrong.

I think nothing was done because men held the power and the power balance suited them very much, thank you very much, and women felt powerless to intervene as their concerns were minimised ('She's a groupie, was up for it' etc fucking etc). I'd like to think it wouldn't happen now, but I have a depressing feeling that it might given the right circumstances.

I would be devastated if a member of my family acted the way js has, however I am not sure saying it in front of his victims was Philip schoffields finest moment (Idiot!)
Mrshardigan raises a good point, I would be thinking did he touch my kid etc. It makes me so fucking angry that he has got away with it and has nothing to answer for.

I think it does happen now - look at Rochdale.

But the thing about underage girls is that it sounds as though they were all teenagers. And we are back to the historic "they wanted it, they were willing, girls are very mature you know " argument.

Just like the DM comments on the girl who ran off with her teacher - this is 2012 and she was only 15, but she was still considered to be willing and a lot of people thought they should be left to it.

The attitude then was appalling (look at Elvis Presley - how old was Priscilla? and Billy Wyman and Mandy Smith - she was only 13).

Teenagers were thought (in those days) to be fair play.

Priscilla was 14, elvis was 24

I hope that such an 'open secret' wouldn't be tolerated now, iyswim. I am amazed that someone with such a high profile was basically allowed to do what the hell he wanted without any intervention. BUt I read the extract from JS's autobiography where a WPC did want to prosecute him, but was talked out of it otherwise 'half the station' would also be in the shit Despite the law, it seems that young underage girls were seen as 'fair game' to some. It seems to me that that attitude was more widespread back then, and I would like to think that now it would be less tolerated.

YY Mary. I think you're saying what I want to say, but better. I need biscuits.

I haven't seen anything Esther has said. Can someone put it in nutshell for me?

maryZed, the 3 cases you mentioned - the teens were all willing. The 15yo planned and willingly ran off with her teacher, Priscilla willingly married Elvis as did Mandy Smith with Bill Wyman.

These girls did not. They were raped and sexually assaulted. They did not give consent, they did not ask to be abused. They were passed around like objects.

Yes margery, and I've just checked, Mandy Smith was 13, Billy Wyman was 47

And her mum knew all about it and was fine with it because he was rich and famous.

sparkling, she knew of the rumours but said she didn't act because she had no 'evidence'.

"For decades, nobody said anything, at least not publicly, not officially. Everyone knew ? that is, everyone in the television and pop music industries knew. The rumours swirled around him, that he sexually abused young girls. A journalist friend told me in the 1970s about a little girl with a heart defect. Jimmy had helped her to have the defect surgically corrected. A newspaper heard about his generosity and contacted the girl?s family to run the story, but the family refused to talk to them because they were sickened by what they knew he had done to her to make her ?earn? the operation."

To be fair, she does say that she wishes she could turn the clock back.

That Bill Wyman thing defies belief, and now he's 'Mr Happily Married With Kids Part of the Establishment'. Sometimes the truth is just an inconvenience.

Oh, no Rhubarb, you are reading me wrong. I'm not doubting them at all. I'm not saying they weren't raped and assaulted, they definitely were. What happened to so many young girls was terrible.

What I am saying is that as far as everyone else was concerned, there was a tolerance of sex with teenagers, and there was a blurry line between willing and persuaded and another blurry line between over-persuaded and raped. People crossed those lines all the time, while justifying it to other people, and sometimes to themselves by saying "they enjoy it really" .

What happened was utterly appalling.

The attitude at the time, however, was that they were obviously willing or they wouldn't have been there. Which is terrible, as they were put in positions they couldn't get out of, and if they had complained their complaints would have been dismissed.

Oh no. Makes her Childline charity seem a bit now doesn't it.

PS is currently blowing Maltesers in the air.