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

[MrsWinnibago]

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.

The drunken goady comments came after PagWatcher demanded MrsW not use the shortened pag, she alone must use pagwatch. I think it was also unfair of pagwatch to say that those who didn’t like JS for whatever reasons were being self-congratulatory. I see no one being self-congratulatory or saying they can spot paedophiles through a tv screen, just a lot of people who didn’t like him for a multitude of reasons, I wasn’t one of those, like millions, I liked him back then. But when you start calling people’s opinions out as “smart arse retrospective observations which are more important than the distress they cause to those directly affected” well, that kind of comment does shut down discussions.

I don’t think the OP’s OP or later comments were distasteful, so since some do and some don’t – can we all just carry on with differing opinions?

I don’t think saying to someone who is possibly too emotionally involved that it might be a good idea for them to step away is being cruel or is it designed to shut down discussion. It’s just not very nice too witness someone get so emotional on a thread like this, where you know it affects them on a personal level, well that makes people shut down, because they don’t want to distress a victim who is already distressed. I think the kindest thing to say to someone like that, someone who is getting visibly distressed in a discussion, the suggestion to step away is one of the kindest that can be made under those circumstances.

Really, otherwise nothing would ever ever get discussed as every subject has the potential of upsetting someone.

Maybe if the internet had been around in the 70s and early 80s, and people could have posted messages along the lines of “AIBU to be freaked out slightly by JS”, well maybe, just maybe, a growing band of “YANBU I get that with him too” might just have affected the way he attacked with such impunity. That’s why it’s important to have the freedom to discuss, even the stuff we hate discussing.

Bluebirdy thank you. I was a bit hurt by her sudden rejection of me and don't feel I'd done anything to offend her personally.

Equally distasteful are the sneery posters refusing to believe that anyone could have felt uncomfortable about JS just because they didn't.

There are a number of survivors of abuse on this thread. Although it's bound to make the topic sensitive, it doesn't mean we get to deny other people's feelings or accuse other posters because we've read things that aren't there.

mrswinnibago apart from accusing Pagwatch of being drunk, you said this:

Are you for real? My GOD you're just coming across as weird! And Goady too

Excuse me if I take your hurt with a pinch of salt.

So if everyone at the time knew he was "creepy" and all the rest of it, how come he was an intimate friend of Prince Charls and Lady Di? How come he was made a Papal Knight, and got through all the getting necessary to become an OBE?

Equally distasteful are the sneery posters refusing to believe that anyone could have felt uncomfortable about JS just because they didn't.

Since this whole JS things has came out, it made me remember my childhood best friend, now this is going back to the time of the yorkshire ripper (mid to late 70s), and we were (roughly) under 10 at the time, and used to scare each other with all sorts of scarey figures from the yorkshire ripper to dracula to some man who (I think at the time) dumped his victims down drains or manholes, we even used to use the name of a creepy old man who lived down the road from us to scare each other. I would pester her with things like "if you wake up in the night, check under your bed for the yorkshire ripper", and I never ever understood why she would hit back some of the time with things like "and if you wake up in the night, look out that JS isn't under your bed". Now obviously, with hindsight, I can see she was freaked out by JS, not that she had ever met him. I wasn't in the least, so I simply never got what she was on about. But for her he was up there with other scarey figures like the yorkshire ripper, dracula, and the weird creepy old man down the road. I would hate for someone like my childhood best friend to express an opinion on this thread then get attacked as being distasteful or self-congratulatory.

I believe that some people genuinely found him creepy back then.

I can also see how someone who has suffered abuse themselves could see a series of posts that can be summarised as 'I thought he was creepy back then, and history has shown why I was right to feel that way', and could feel that the unspoken corollary is that they should have been similarly insightful or intuitive about the person or people who abused them.

I am sure that that is not what the OP, or anyone else who has agreed with her that they too felt he was creepy, meant to do, but this is a very sensitive subject, and the scars left by the abuse people have suffered can be incredibly painful, and whilst there is nothing wrong with discussion of JS and people's feelings about him, does people's 'right' to have such a discussion totally trump the feelings of people who are survivors of abuse?

Shouldn't we perhaps be looking for a way to have the discussion without hurting actual people?

Hakluyt I don't know...but that's the thing isn't it? The establishment is corrupt...there were politicians caught up in the fallout...the one I'm thinking of is dead now....coincidentally.

Bluebirdy the 70s were an odd time...I remember a LOT of fear as a child.

As we moved into the 80s the news was full of unemployment, riots, murders....and as kids we were pretty much powerless and nobody thought to educate us in terms of what to do in case of danger from adults we knew.

I am STILL about my 6 year old being taught about "Stranger Danger" when in fact whilst that should be taught, it is more important to teach them to be confident enough to recognise a situation turning "wrong" when it's someone they KNOW who is putting them in danger.

SDTG Of course people who have been abused have the right to air their feelings. Of course they should be recognised, listened to and respected.

However...questioning the "right" of others to discuss sensitive issues is just not on. Hiding these things went on for too many years. We didn't discuss them in the past and that empowered the very people we're threatened by.

So if everyone at the time knew he was "creepy" and all the rest of it, how come he was an intimate friend of Prince Charls and Lady Di? How come he was made a Papal Knight, and got through all the getting necessary to become an OBE?

I don't think everyone did think he was creepy. I certainly didn't. I just thought he was ? eccentric, possibly someone who put on an OTT exterior as a gimmic? Possibly a tad annoying. But no way did I think he was a paedo. And just because someone IS the friend of Charles and Di, does not mean that everyone else likes them, or no one is creeped out by them. I think Prince Charles is creepy, that doesn't mean he is. It just means I don't like him. Being the friend of Charles and Di and being knighted or whatever does not mean no one will be creeped out by that person, especially if that someone is a marmite person.

JS always was a marmite type of person. Take any other marmite person you can think of, and as many people who will knock them, there will be an equal number right along behind them to defend them. That doesn't change the fact that 99.9% of marmite people are not paedo/rapists/necrophiliacs.

I think it would be absolutely wrong if someone posted on this thread "see, I always knew he was a paedo/necrophiliac/rapist, just by looking at him on the telly I knew it". That is obviously a load of bollocks. But marmite people like JS do and always have creeped out a fair percentage of the population. For instance, as much as I liked both of them (back then, not now obviously), even I can see that JS was not ever loved by all. Much more so than say someone far less obnoxious/marmitey and generally more pleasant like Rolf Harris.

STDG, those who disliked JS and abuse survivors are not mutually exclusive groups.

I didn't say they were, Tanith.

Then why are you asking if people's rights to a discussion trump the feelings of abuse survivors? What about those survivors who are happy to take part in such a discussion? Don't their feelings matter?

He wasn't loved in our house. I didn't watch the show very often. I was very young when he was on. I had no interest in him, I used to wonder what I would like to have fixed, I thought the ribbon was cool. I could never think of anything I wanted and never wrote to him.

I was asking for sensitivity towards people who were finding the discussion painful - that's all. It was not intended as a divisive statement, and if an abuse survivor is happy to be part of the discussion, and isn't finding it painful, I don't think asking for the discussion to be carried on in a way that is sensitive towards those who are finding it painful! is trumping their needs/rights.

Then why are you asking if people's rights to a discussion trump the feelings of abuse survivors? What about those survivors who are happy to take part in such a discussion? Don't their feelings matter?

exactly that ^

I can also see how someone who has suffered abuse themselves could see a series of posts that can be summarised as 'I thought he was creepy back then, and history has shown why I was right to feel that way', and could feel that the unspoken corollary is that they should have been similarly insightful or intuitive about the person or people who abused them.

It won’t be the first time in an internet discussion that I have felt “hey wait up, I have experienced this, and you haven’t”, so when I feel that there is possibly an unspoken corollary going on, then I think the right thing to do is ask calmly and politely if that is the case. So on this thread, IF I had felt that was happening, which I didn’t at all, I would just have asked “wait up a second, are you implying in any way that you are cleverer/sharper/more intuitive than JS’s victims because he creeped you out on some level”.

It’s never right to just assume someone thinks something different to what they are stating. Sometimes they do. Often they don’t.

and whilst there is nothing wrong with discussion of JS and people's feelings about him, does people's 'right' to have such a discussion totally trump the feelings of people who are survivors of abuse?

No more than my childhood abuse trumps other people’s right to discuss abuse. I would be the first to hit the roof if anyone played the “see I was just always smarter” card, but at no time in this discussion did anyone do that, so I saw and still see no need to play the “but I was abused, so I don’t think you have a right to voice an opinion” card.

All I am saying is, can't we discuss this with some tact and sensitivity. Why am I being attacked for this?

"How come he was made a Papal Knight, and got through all the getting necessary to become an OBE?"

I would love to know the answer to that. My guess is that either the people who awarded him the OBE etc were very poor judges of character, or they knew what he was like but didn't care, or he had some dirt on very senior people. I wouldn't even discount the theory that he was part of an establishment network of paedophiles, who were all doing each other favours. Almost nothing would surprise me after the most recent revelations.

All I am saying is, can't we discuss this with some tact and sensitivity. Why am I being attacked for this?

I am sorry, it was never my intention to attack you. That is genuine. I did however feel that mrswinebago got attacked quite badly, and I just wanted to put another point of view, one not that different to hers, and one that does come from a victim, out there too.

I did not find the post needed more tact or sensitivity. I didn't see anyone being tactless or insensitive.

Thank you for that, blubirdy.

And I thank you too Bluebirdy

I loved Jim'll Fix It. I begged my Father to let me write to him, father said, "No child of mine is going anywhere near that pervert". I didn't know what he meant by hat but I knew he was serious. Years later I found out Father had worked at a hospital where Jimmy was and had heard rumours.

I don't recall my childhood feelings about Savile, just a bloke off the television, what we watched on a Saturday night.
But as an adult, early 2000's, I heard the rumours. The person who told me had been told to stay away from his caravan when she was a child in the 60's. Many people on here have said due to their parents connections their parents clearly had heard or witnessed what was going on with Savile.

Savile hopefully must have been unique in that the volume of incidents which were often public meant many people knew he was not safe, just most of us had no idea how prolific and depraved he was. If we had gossiped more maybe, just maybe, he may have been stopped? This is why we gossip, to spread information that may be of use to others, except in this day and age that's all gone a bit wrong. As a society we need to gossip, but we also need to know when to stop. We all will have different views on when to stop hopefully gossiping. But also as a society we need to make sense of what's happened, which most of us do by talking to someone.

I'm sorry you feel attacked, STDG - definitely not my intention, either. I only wanted to make the point that some abuse survivors also posted that they disliked JS and were interested in the topic being discussed.

I think people on this thread have been seeing stuff that isn't there and getting upset unnecessarily. I also think there are have been posters deliberately goading and skewing the thread.
I do agree completely with blubirdy: she has written exactly how I feel.

I wouldn't even discount the theory that he was part of an establishment network of paedophiles, who were all doing each other favours. Almost nothing would surprise me after the most recent revelations

I'm with you on that
what next :(