Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think that Saville was NEVER a "Much loved family favourite"???

684 replies

MrsWinnibago · 26/06/2014 13:33

Sorry to start a thread about this sick, awful animal but they just said on Radio 4 that he was a much loved family favourite.

I CLEARLY remember watching him on Jim'l Fix It and thinking "Oh he's HORRIBLE!"

I hated him...he was frightening and I could see that some children were very scared of him on that show.

Did ANYONE actually enjoy his "performances" and appearances?? I don't think so.

I think the establishment kept him where he was...on TV and in positions of power because he knew too much about THEIR activities.

And it's funny how it all came out once he was dead and couldn't name anyone else.

I challenge anyone to think back and remember how much they "loved" him at the time before his activities were known.

OP posts:
melika · 28/06/2014 11:41

I never liked him but his programme was good and we watched it as a family. I used to think back then I would be uncomfortable to meet him.

But how the hell did he get away with all that shit? Dead bodies! I wish we could dig him up and quarter him and put his head on the gates of Buckingham Palace for all to see his rotting head.

Unfortunately he wouldn't know a thing about it:-(

ppeatfruit · 28/06/2014 11:41

The creep thing is purely retrospective

No Hak I'm older too and I clearly remember my dm and me thinking and saying he looked vile and his eyes were dead.

PhaedraIsMyName · 28/06/2014 11:44

TeWi what lack of sensitivity and tact?

I never liked Savile. I never saw what the attraction was. He was never a "family favourite" either in my mother's household or mine. Similarly Bruce Forsyth, Cilla Black, Simon Cowell, Allan Carr, to list just a few hugely popular entertainers are not "family favourites" for us either.

fatlazymummy · 28/06/2014 11:52

Hakluyt I think you're wrong about the grandpa figure thing. I didn't know anyone who thought that of him. If they did then they must have had really strange relatives.
Of course it's difficult to openly criticise someone who devotes so much of their life to raising money for charity in such a public way. He knew that of course , and so did other psychopaths . John Wayne Gacy comes to mind.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 28/06/2014 11:56

There is a very interesting article in the Times today, about how he got away with his abusive activities for so long. The writer suggests it is because he befriended those at the top and the bottom - for example, becoming friendly with the porters at LGI - buying them a tv for the porters' room, turning a blind eye to them bringing women in etc, and his friendships with people in positions of power.

The porters enabled what he was doing - they saw that he was cherry-picking the jobs that involved the women's and children's wards, they appeared outside linen closets to remove his victims, as soon as he had finished - and the author suggests they did this partly because he had given them friendship and gifts like the TVs, and partly because he had a hold over them - they had broken hospital rules and he could have shopped them - and given his friendships with those in power at the hospital, he could have got them sacked.

With the nursing staff, he wielded the same power - the power to get someone sacked, if they complained - but apparently there were some wards he avoided, where 'It's just Jimmy' and the power of his celebrity didn't work. Some Sisters did stop him going on their wards - but he was very good at finding those who would turn a blind eye.

Suzannewithaplan · 28/06/2014 12:04

I wish we could dig him up and quarter him and put his head on the gates of Buckingham Palace for all to see his rotting head

You do?

Personally I find that primitive and barbaric, and suggestive of an unhealthy interest in dead bodies

GenuinelyMaryMacguire · 28/06/2014 12:06

what she says ^

Suzannewithaplan · 28/06/2014 12:07

SDT, he knew exactly and precisely who and how to manipulate, it was a finely honed skill, everything carefully orchestrated.

CarpetBagger · 28/06/2014 12:11

STDG I agree, and he befriended or was jovial with lots of people but one must rememeber it was quite rampant back then...the 60's liberation, slap and tickle going on all over the place, women easy game, bits of meat and so on...carry on films...

corporal punishment in shcools, etc etc...

Suzannewithaplan · 28/06/2014 12:12

He took risks, did things in plain sight, let some people know knowing that he had the power/ ability to get away with it.
Probably it gave him a sense of mastery and accomplishment, a sense of superiority.

Suzannewithaplan · 28/06/2014 12:15

As if he had the ring of Gyges, absolute power corrupts absolutely

Moln · 28/06/2014 12:28

You know I can't recall what I thought of him I certainly liked Jim'll Fix It. But him, not too sure, I met him when I was 7, didn't like him, felt afraid of him.

When it all finally came out I didn't feel suprised at all. Celebrities I would be very amazed to hear such things about would be the likes of Roy Castle and Johnny Ball, I definitely like them.

The whole cover up and enabling of Saville's abuse is disturbing and incomprehensible, but sadly not an situation that is exclusive to this case.

TeWiSavesTheDay · 28/06/2014 12:34

What do you mean what lack?? Have you read some of the posts towards people who have said they were victims??

Why JS was allowed into positions of power is a very good question worth debating, it just has fuck all to do with being critical of people who find the 'i always knew he was creepy' line personally upsetting.

CarpetBagger · 28/06/2014 12:37

Suzannewithaplan

he said in interview he wanted and was after the ultimate freedom he spoke in riddles and was never clear.
He said long ago he used to tie people up in the basement of the clubs he worked at and when the police said he was too rough on someone, he threatened not to protect their daughters.

hackmum · 28/06/2014 12:38

SDTG: "Some Sisters did stop him going on their wards - but he was very good at finding those who would turn a blind eye."

That's very interesting. But depressing too that they knew what he was like so stopped him going on their wards, but were presumably too afraid to report him or have him stopped altogether. Reading what you say about the porters too makes me realise that there must have been hundreds of people who knew what he was like and who either actively enabled him or did nothing to stop him. Quite frightening.

fatlazymummy · 28/06/2014 12:53

I used to be a nurse , and the thoughts of this person being allowed to freely roam around hospitals actually makes me feel physically nauseous. Any patient is in a vulnerable position,some more than others, and every employee should do their utmost to protect them.

ppeatfruit · 28/06/2014 13:00

True carpetbagger Also we mustn't forget that at that time (and before of course) priests and churchmen\women were also abusing their powerful positions dreadfully.

CarpetBagger · 28/06/2014 13:14

yes Pea I said that earlier, it was a different time, cheeky chaps....I can imagine people thought he was a cheeky chappy with a twinkle....carry on films, matron stopping the fun on the wards.

Not only priests and nuns but normal teachers....The childrens home on jersey, cyril smith, other childrens homes, people with LD in homes....that ring that was exposed in North wales....

abuse was rife.

victrixludorem · 28/06/2014 13:20

I thought everyone knew JS was loathsome but then I was best friends with the daughter of a producer of TOTP so perhaps I had inside info that I don't remember getting. When he died, I was flabbergasted at various celebrities exalting him and saying how tragic his death was and, when the allegations began to surface, saying one should not speak ill of the dead rather than considering the allegations properly.

ppeatfruit · 28/06/2014 13:22

Interesting about it being the 60s carpet (freedom and all that) .Only freeedom for the powerful to do what they wanted .No one believed the victims. It does make me sick to think about it fatlazy

auntjane2 · 28/06/2014 13:37

I actually met JS once, albeit extremely briefly, on a train from London to Leeds. He was "off duty" at the time and charming - he knew how to be charming, and fooled many people very successfully for a very long time. According to some reports, anyone who spoke out against him was themselves victimised and one nurse in Leeds was sacked for making "silly comments".

MeltedLolly · 28/06/2014 13:38

I can't believe the lack of sensitivity and tact towards people who were actually victims in this thread

And I can't believe the kind of patronising view that just because I am a victim of a crime that other people can't discuss that class of crime or that group of criminals. There is nothing on this thread that would insult or hurt or alienate every victim of csa. I would even go as far as to say that I think most wouldn't have any issue with it.

What do you mean what lack?? Have you read some of the posts towards people who have said they were victims??

yes, and I also read a victim of csa trying (very impolitely and very forcefully) to stifle discussion because the OP's innocent enough pov view differed from hers. Not every victim of csa has an issue with what is being discussed in this thread. I am all for cutting people some slack in a topic that is emotional to them, but really, do I get to throw a wobbler now if someone in all innocence call's me Melted or Lolly instead of my full "title"?

When we begin to feel too emotional that a topic isn't going the way we would like it to, imo it is better to step away from it than to try to control it by throwing accusations around that are solely aimed to make people with a view that is different to our own feel guilty and unable to respond without being accused of being insensitive to victims.

When a post is too sensitive for me, and believe me, there are enough of them around, I either stop reading them, or continue to read but not respond.

Or if I do post, I try to come at it form an angle of "I have experienced this, I can add to the discussion by bringing in one person's personal view point". That will never mean though that everyone who has that experience will think or react the same as me.

Darkesteyes · 28/06/2014 14:00

DH said he thinks Savile should be exhumed and reburied in unconsecrated ground.

Pagwatch · 28/06/2014 14:42

Hmm. Well I was pretty irritated but I'm not sure that constitutes shutting down discussion.
And I've already apologised once (in my comments to carpetbagger) if I had expressed my comments as being true of everyone with my history but I am happy to do so again.

I'm sure we all intend to simply ignore difficult subjects but I would be pretty surprised if everyone studiously and calmly closes threads which are making them cross. Perhaps I'm really unusual - 'poster gets annoyed by incredibly emotive thread' shocker

limitedperiodonly · 28/06/2014 15:03

I might have missed it but I don't see where pagwatch was trying to shut down discussion.

She said she felt irritated by the self-congratulatory note that was creeping into some posts about having spotted him as a wrong'un (my word, not hers) from the telly.

So was I, and I'm not the victim of abuse. Others have said it too.

As I've said, no doubt that was not your intention, OP, but it's there and it's distasteful - or are we not allowed to say that on your thread without being accused of being drunk, goady, gagging or oversensitive?

Those are all accusations that have been chucked about by various people, including you.

I've no objection to Savile and this subject, being discussed, but I am going to object to the way some posters are discussing it. Telling people who don't like it to hide the thread is trying to shut down discussion, isn't it?