He's one of those celebrities who haven't really crossed over the Atlantic, so could one of our Brit posters offer a comparable American celebrity so we can understand how big this is? Was he as big in the UK as, say, Dick Clark was in the US?
The Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal in the UK
|by Anonymous||reply 106||01/11/2013|
We do know Gary Glitter though, and he's been arrested in some unspecified connection to the case.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||10/28/2012|
But isn't Gary Glitter always being arrested?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/28/2012|
Jimmy Savile stuck up for that nasty little worm when he was arrested for having child pornography on his computer. He has done far worse in Thailand and should be rotting in prison. Hopefully they lock him up for good this time.
Savile was at his height in the 70s. He presented a music show and a kids tv show which helped children live some dream activity. I hated the show and Savile was a slime ball. I think he got away with so much because of the charity work he did. There were always rumours about him though. You should watch Louis Theroux's documentary about him if you can.
It is a massive story because it seems so many people knew about him or at least strongly suspected but they never came forward out of fear or uncertainty about what they thought they knew. The stories about him are horrendous. Nasty creature.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/28/2012|
There's a thread about Savile and other scandals at Harry's Place. Check out a thread by "Sackcloth and Ashes" about another children's show pedophile. You can search for the term "Auntie Gladys" to find the post.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/28/2012|
I've never heard of Dick Clark, OP, but Savile was a major tv personality.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/28/2012|
Jimmy Savile is unknown in the US, but was huge in the UK. The US equivalent would've been if Mr. Rogers was exposed as a kiddie diddler. That would have been a huge story.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||10/28/2012|
Jimmy Savile was very known in the UK. Had connections right up to the royal family. This threatens to be a very big story involving many still alive and may bring down the government unless the establishment shuts it down again.
You can see the kiddie fiddler at work below, right in front of the TV cameras. Hiding in plain sight.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/28/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/28/2012|
The US version may have been Casey Kasem in that era, though Savile was more famous. Today, maybe Ryan Secrest, though Savile probably fits somewhere between those two. I've only ever seen him on old TOTP episodes. He had weird platinum blond hair.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/28/2012|
The govt was supposed to be brought down with the Murdoch cell phone spying scandal and all their connections to the govt. Will anything bring it down?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/28/2012|
R5, I didn't think there was anyone who hadn't heard of Dick Clark. Lucky you!
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/28/2012|
Yank here, but I listen to LBC radio on my computer. So many hosts and callers saying "everybody knew" back then but nothing was done because Savile was such a big deal. (Also, women at the BBC were supposed to just laugh it off when they got felt up by pig colleagues.)
Even some of Savile's relatives are now saying they knew about this freak - he molested some of them - but his hush money was too much to turn down. Christ.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/28/2012|
Kind of like how they protected James Levine in New York.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/28/2012|
It's like Big Bird being outed as a child molester.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/28/2012|
Probably like Soupy Sales or Captain Bob on Howdy Doody.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||10/28/2012|
"Also, women at the BBC were supposed to just laugh it off when they got felt up by pig colleagues"
I'm sure they were called uptight, sex negative man-hating feminists.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||10/28/2012|
I've seen film footage and photos of this Jimmy Savile character (I'd never heard of him before this). And I'm amazed that this very ugly (that platinum hair!), very untalented, very unappealing, quite repulsive man was so beloved by the British. I mean, LOOK at the fucker! He was ghastly! There's footage of him actually feeling up a young girl, right on camera! She's jerking around with a smile frozen on her face (she was on tv, after all) and you can see he's doing something with his arm behind her. It's horrible to witness. In another clip he's got his arm around a 14 year old girl, squeezing the life out of her. She too had a smile frozen on her face, petrified with embarrassment and disgust.
This freak was able to molest God knows how many young girls and get away with it. People KNEW he was a pedophile, but did nothing about it. He wasn't exactly discreet; he frequently was quite blatant but his abominable behavior was just dismissed as being "just Jimmy." What the fuck is wrong with the British? They just saw him as some kind of amusing eccentric I guess, albiet one with a distinct fondness for sex with 14 year old girls. Unbelievable.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/28/2012|
There was no Captain Bob Smith on Howdy Doody. His name was Buffalo Bob, the clown was Clarabell, with Princess Summer Winter Spring and the Flubadub and Mr. Bluster. I was on that show in 1948 in the RCA/Rockefeller Building. I was 5 years old, but told them I was six so I could be in the peanut gallery.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/28/2012|
Jimmy Savile is to pop music as Jerry Sandusky is to college football.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/28/2012|
[quote]People KNEW he was a pedophile, but did nothing about it. He wasn't exactly discreet; he frequently was quite blatant but his abominable behavior was just dismissed as being "just Jimmy." What the fuck is wrong with the British?
Same thing that's wrong with the Catholic Church, or the Univ. of Pennsylvania, or the Boy Scouts of America.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/28/2012|
[quote]We do know Gary Glitter though
No one under 50 knows who he is.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||10/28/2012|
[quote]The US equivalent would've been if Mr. Rogers was exposed as a kiddie diddler.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/28/2012|
Savile's dead body was driven through the streets last year where everyone came out and saluted him off a la Princess Diana. That's how huge he was.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/28/2012|
Thanks for the correction, r18. What was it like to be on the show? I watched in the mid-fifties. Always wanted to be in the Peanut Gallery.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/28/2012|
What was his appeal?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/28/2012|
R17, he was incredibly manipulative and also blackmailed many into not revealing things. Threatened to cut off the millions raised for Stoke Mandeville hospital and other places. Managed to convince people that no-one would believe them. Wrote things off as a joke and put things down to his eccentricities. Also, while many of the girls were underage many, many were not and there was a horrible groupie label put on the young women. It incredibly difficult to explain the mind set but as someone mentioned before there was a sort of attitude where the girls were seen as uptight if they didn't just accept it. I was reading somewhere else that there were still boundaries to be drawn at the time with sexual freedom etc and it was maybe difficult for many of the women then as there was some expectation of promiscuity which the women themselves definitely weren't comfortable with but possibly felt that atthe time was par for the course. This would explain some lack of reporting as would shame at what had happened.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/28/2012|
I wonder if there are heterosexuals who are are thinking "this is why they hate us".
|by Anonymous||reply 27||10/28/2012|
[quote]Kind of like how they protected James Levine in New York.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/28/2012|
He actually had a long affair with an adult woman, who says she had no idea that he was abusing kids.
She also said that she aborted his baby!
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/28/2012|
So, who blew the whistle on this guy? I can't find any details on line.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/28/2012|
[quote]It incredibly difficult to explain the mind set but as someone mentioned before there was a sort of attitude where the girls were seen as uptight if they didn't just accept it.
And you can hear and see it still in some of the comments on other websites - men whining that "hysterical feminists" are ruining everything and are sullying Sa-vile's good name, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/28/2012|
"Also, while many of the girls were underage many, many were not and there was a horrible groupie label put on the young women."
I said this in the Angelica Houston/Roman Polanski thread but girls who are raped or molested by men are often attacked and accused of being "sluts" or "prostitutes" (even if they are preteens who just entered puberty, like, yesterday) and people will excuse the perpetrator by saying the girl looked or dressed older than her age. No one accuses male victims of being sluts who dressed too sexy. This is why celebs trip over themselves to defend Roman Polanski as just a wild 'n' crazy hedonist who didn't commit "rape rape" while no celebrity will defend Jerry Sandusky.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/28/2012|
There are more of us than you can imagine, r27:)
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/28/2012|
Only in Great Britain could this astoundingly ugly, outlandishly kooky person be declared "a national treasure" and pose as a role model. Kinda like puffy, unwashed and uncoiffed Rebekah Brooks earning the title of "flame-haired temptress."
Jimmy knew the deluge was coming. At an interview before his death he said whatever came out after he died would be irrelevant and that he didn't care.
I had a boss from the BBC here in the US -- heavy-drinking 300-lb guy who hit on women in the office and helped himself to massive corporate perks. He could barely run a small team, but after making his bones in America he now has over 3,000 people under him at the UK BBC. I can totally see him sweeping something like this under the rug -- boys will be boys and all that.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||10/28/2012|
I remember first visiting the UK in the 80's, seeing him on TV and thinking he looked incredibly creepy. It seemed bizarre to me that he'd be on a show with children. What is it with British culture allowing such freaks to be TV stars?
|by Anonymous||reply 35||10/28/2012|
lol, first paragraph, R34
|by Anonymous||reply 36||10/28/2012|
Worldwide, the hierarchies of media, government, sports and entertainment, for the past seventy years or so, have been run by an organized network of pedophiles for pedophiles. Get used to the concept. It's all starting to be revealed.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/28/2012|
I feel for him. It's obvious people are attacking him because he loved children and they loved him and he was a great person and they are all jealous.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||10/28/2012|
"Only in Great Britain could this astoundingly ugly, outlandishly kooky person be declared "a national treasure" and pose as a role model. Kinda like puffy, unwashed and uncoiffed Rebekah Brooks earning the title of 'flame-haired temptress.'"
Heh. Yep, and only in Great Britain could Robbie Williams be considered attractive. He's got the face of a ferret. There's a reason he never made it big here in the US.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||10/28/2012|
"Worldwide, the hierarchies of media, government, sports and entertainment, for the past seventy years or so, have been run by an organized network of pedophiles for pedophiles."
Only in your bizarre fantasies. What's weird is that the stereotype used to be that all pedophiles were social outcasts who lived in their moms' basements and now people think that pedophiles are these super powerful people. There may be a few high profile pedophiles but most of them are ordinary people. Most pedos aren't guys like Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile. Most them are not any more powerful or successful than anyone posting here.
(And, LOL @ r38! What's funny is that Michael had the same M.O. as Savile - visiting sick kids in the hospital, presenting himself as a charitable saint who loved children - but his image has been wiped clean in death while the opposite has been true for Savile)
|by Anonymous||reply 40||10/28/2012|
He sounds like a delightful Lewis Carrol-type character, whose eccentricities can be excused because he's such a magical wit.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||10/28/2012|
[quote] I remember first visiting the UK in the 80's, seeing him on TV and thinking he looked incredibly creepy. It seemed bizarre to me that he'd be on a show with children. What is it with British culture allowing such freaks to be TV stars?
I agree. If I saw someone that looked like he did, I would run across the street to get away from them. The first time I ever saw this guy was 15 yrs ago when I visited England. My first thought was, "That guy is a child molester". I didn't know a thing about him, but that was my first thought
|by Anonymous||reply 42||10/28/2012|
"I remember first visiting the UK in the 80's, seeing him on TV and thinking he looked incredibly creepy. It seemed bizarre to me that he'd be on a show with children. What is it with British culture allowing such freaks to be TV stars?"
Here in America, we made Michael Jackson into a star, a man who looked like something from the Kabuki Theater. Savile looked normal next to Jackson.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||10/28/2012|
Wikipedia says he was friends with Maggie Thatcher...
|by Anonymous||reply 44||10/28/2012|
R43, you're a moron. Jackson didn't always look as he did and uhhh, he wasn't the star of a long-running TV show with children. Your analogy is an epic fail. Try again, luv.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||10/28/2012|
Man, Gary Glitter is such a fucking mess. Just die already!
|by Anonymous||reply 46||10/28/2012|
"Jackson didn't always look as he did"
Neither did Savile. I mean, I doubt he was born with that fright wig on his head.
Try again, luv.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||10/28/2012|
He always did look creepy, R47, luv.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||10/28/2012|
When Louis met Jimmy - Jimmy Savile Documentary.flv
|by Anonymous||reply 49||10/28/2012|
This scandal is off the charts, and now merely a matter of containment. Savile was unique: a predatory sociopath - some now hint strongly at psychopath - who lived most of his life in the public gaze.
Getting Away With It was his biggest talent. He appeared to have all of the UK's biggest institutions - The Royals, The BBC, The NHS, The Police, The Press - where he wanted them. How? A combination of 'Good Works' and hard-core inside information. There's a reason he sometimes referred to himself as The Godfather.
It'll be extremely interesting to see how much, in the internet age, the breadth and depth of the scandal can be contained. Savile boasted of spending eleven New Years' holidays with the Thatchers. There are now very strong rumours linking at least three more of Thatcher's closest aides with paedophilia. A question about this was raised in Parliament last Wednesday to pin-drop silence.
Many think there's a reason the grand home of former (now dead) PM Edward Heath is now suddenly announced to be wound up as a 'visitor attraction.'
Currently the national focus is on fiercely blaming the BBC for giving this grotesque a platform for so long. Justifiably. But there are other powerful institutions, and people, quite as culpable for enabling him. It wasn't the BBC who gave him a Knighthood, or a Papal Knighthood.
Savile was a unique criminal for decades: nobody knew how to handle him, so his power, influence and freedom made him untouchable. The repercussions could be immense; but there will of course still be plenty of powerful attempts to limit damage to reputations, 'in the public interest.' We'll see.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||10/29/2012|
What pisses me off the most is the fact that he's now dead and can't be held accountable. Would love to see him humiliated and dragged through the streets by an angry mob a la Sandusky.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||10/29/2012|
It seems even the dead were not safe from Jimmy - it is now reported he used to like visiting morgues and being left alone with the corpses .... and he was able to get away with it!
|by Anonymous||reply 52||10/29/2012|
Did Jimmy Savile know Michael Jackson?
|by Anonymous||reply 53||10/29/2012|
BBC.Panorama.2012.Jimmy Savile.What the BBC Knew.576p.mkv You can watch for free
|by Anonymous||reply 54||10/29/2012|
Second stream BBC.Panorama.2012.Jimmy Savile.What the BBC Knew.576p.mkv You can watch for free
|by Anonymous||reply 55||10/29/2012|
It's scary. He's my type physically. Lots of sexy shirtless shots when you search..He seems to have been into girls. I'm lucky enough to have found sever guys that resemble him that have been into me. Unfortunately, they've all had huge egos and have proven to be unfaithful.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||10/30/2012|
"It's scary. He's my type physically."
You leave this place and NEVER come back, ya hear?!!
|by Anonymous||reply 57||10/30/2012|
So, when people say there are pedophile rings in powerful places, maybe what they are saying is actually true??
|by Anonymous||reply 58||10/30/2012|
Of course, r58.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||10/30/2012|
"So, who blew the whistle on this guy?"
Pay attention, R30: it was 14-year old girls.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||10/30/2012|
Thank goodness we never had strange looking men on t who hung around children
|by Anonymous||reply 61||10/30/2012|
I lived through the 70s and never heard of a musician named Gary Glitter. It wasn't until he began his life of arrests for pedophilia that I first heard of him.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||10/30/2012|
30 October 2012
The names of two new high-profile celebrities are to be handed to police investigating the Jimmy Savile sex abuse allegations, the Standard can reveal today.
The alleged victims of the two stars have come forward in the last 48 hours and are yet to talk to Scotland Yard detectives.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||10/30/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 64||10/30/2012|
Sorry this link should work:
|by Anonymous||reply 65||10/30/2012|
Rock groups used to sleep with underaged girls all the time, the younger the better. It wasn't considered a crime back then. It was wrong, but so was heroin and drunkenly smashing up hotel rooms. They did it anyway. They tried to get as many underaged notches on their thighs as they could.
This guy was just another music industry guy who wanted to fuck young girls. Will they start going after Jagger, Robert Plant, jimmy Page, Pete Townshend, Roger Daltrey and scores of lesser known rock musicians?
|by Anonymous||reply 66||10/31/2012|
I'm intrigued and horrified by R50's post.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||10/31/2012|
"Will they start going after Jagger, Robert Plant, jimmy Page, Pete Townshend, Roger Daltrey and scores of lesser known rock musicians?"
Why not? If those guys were going after underaged boys, people would call them "monsters"
No one would defend you if you slept with a young boy, so why do the people here bend over backwards to defend guys who go after young girls? People slapped the "pedophile" label on Mark Foley because he had a web chat with 16/17 year old boys...he didn't even have sex with them. Let's get this straight...if you are a gay men into 17-year-old boys, you're a pedophile, but if you're a rocker who sleeps with 14-year-old girls then you're an awesome dude!
Jimmy Savile wasn't just into sex with willing groupies, anyway, he FORCED HIMSELF on girls and young women. He raped females and groped them against their will.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||10/31/2012|
We don't know if Townshend's gone after boys or not. I would never have thought it up until his child porn incident.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||10/31/2012|
The media branded pedophiles as creepy loners who creep around playgrounds for a reason: So you don't suspect pillars of your own community as pedophiles and prevent them from having access to your own kids (still thinking they are safe, learn something, have family friendly fun, etc.) or suspect something because they help orphans or troubled children.
Pedophiles form benefitial alliances with greedy, self serving people to build an influencial, important, and powerful network no outsider on his own can tear down.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||10/31/2012|
"Pedophiles form benefitial alliances with greedy, self serving people to build an influencial, important, and powerful network no outsider on his own can tear down."
ROFLMAO. Most pedophiles are far from powerful.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||10/31/2012|
r71, when they are part of an underground pedophile network they are. When one of their own gets attacked these networks have connections to police force and other authority figures that can bully any threat into submission and retreat.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||10/31/2012|
The Sandusky incidents, like the church scandals, do give creedence to r70's point.
It's amazing to me, with Sandusky especially, how brazen it was. I mean the guy would fuck 10 year olds in a college shower! He clearly presumed (correctly) that those in high places would look out for him and look the other way.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||10/31/2012|
"It's amazing to me, with Sandusky especially, how brazen it was. I mean the guy would fuck 10 year olds in a college shower! He clearly presumed (correctly) that those in high places would look out for him and look the other way."
Some people have trouble distinguishing myth from reality. He brought that "ten-year-old" (who probably wasn't even ten, anyway, no one knows who he was or how old he was) into the shower at, like, 9pm on a Friday when he assumed no one would be there. He wasn't thinking "Hmmm....I'll fuck this kid during peak hours when the locker rooms are busy and tons of people can watch me do it!"
"The Sandusky incidents, like the church scandals, do give creedence to R70's point."
No, they don't. There was no "network of pedophiles" covering up for Sandusky. The people who covered up for him were non-pedophiles who just wanted to protect their college and their football program from scandal. The church covered up for pedos because they wanted to protect the reputation of the church.
99% of people arested for sex offences against children are not wealthy or powerful people. They are not big time football coaches or priests. They are average people, the vast majority of whom do not belong to super secret "networks." Many of them are arrested for molesting people in their own family.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||10/31/2012|
[quote]Some people have trouble distinguishing myth from reality. He brought that "ten-year-old" (who probably wasn't even ten, anyway, no one knows who he was or how old he was) into the shower at, like, 9pm on a Friday when he assumed no one would be there. He wasn't thinking "Hmmm....I'll fuck this kid during peak hours when the locker rooms are busy and tons of people can watch me do it!"
Ten was McQueary's estimate of the child's age. Clearly, the point is that he was a child and quite diminutive next to Sandusky.
It may have been 9:00 on a Friday night, but Sandusky probably knew that being encountered by janitorial staff was a possibility. It's when they do their jobs and clean the showers and he was indeed seen by one of the janitors in addition to McQueary who happened to come to the lockeroom.
This sounds very risky and brazen to me. And making obvious sounds of sexual intercourse in a shower room? That would resonate a lot which it did and drew McQueary's attention to investigate.
The brazeness seems to stem from being in positions of power and just feeds on itself. Savile and Sandusky -- sociopaths who relished the power of their positions and really pushed it as far as they could. Savile in particular seemed to drop hints almost and couple that with flaunting his connections and coercing through witholding his charitable involvment. It was part of his amusement at others' misfortune.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||10/31/2012|
"Ten was McQueary's estimate of the child's age"
At various points he has given the kid's supposed age as "8-13" or "10 or 12." He freely admits that he didn't get a good look and wasn't in the shower room very long. Just another example of the media passing speculation off as fact.
"Savile and Sandusky -- sociopaths who relished the power of their positions and really pushed it as far as they could"
Please, Sandusky in particular is definitely not a sociopath. He did horrible things but he is not a sociopath. "Sociopath" is a favorite word of dataloungers who throw it around without knowing what it means (like the word "pedophile"). Most people who commit crimes, even heinous ones, are not sociopaths.
Here at the datalounge, everyone in the world is either a sociopath or a pedophile. The Onion News Network did a really funny video segment about a right wing hysteric who wrote a book called "Muslims, Muslims Everywhere." It was a really funny parody of right wing fears about Muslims. If the datalounge ever wrote a book it would be called "Pedos, Pedos Everywhere."
|by Anonymous||reply 76||10/31/2012|
It wasn't that long ago that we had an infestation of pedophiles in our nation's preschools. I suggest people taking the issue of pedophilia lightly shine a light back on the horrifying years of the '80s where widespread ritual abuse shocked the nation. Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it!
|by Anonymous||reply 77||10/31/2012|
r74 your bizarre hairsplitting over victims ages as 'myth vs reality' is ... troubling.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||10/31/2012|
[quote]Please, Sandusky in particular is definitely not a sociopath. He did horrible things but he is not a sociopath. "Sociopath" is a favorite word of dataloungers who throw it around without knowing what it means (like the word "pedophile"). Most people who commit crimes, even heinous ones, are not sociopaths.
Well, being the know-it-all that you are, wouldn't you know that Sandusky fits nearly all of the DSM-V diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder AKA sociopathy? Right down to the risk taking.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||10/31/2012|
R76 is definitely pedo.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||10/31/2012|
When the Victim #1 told his school principal what Sandusky was doing to him, and even though the victim's mom was right there with him, the principal told them to go home and think about what they were saying...
These networks are enabled even by those not taking part in the activity
|by Anonymous||reply 81||10/31/2012|
[quote]99% of people arested for sex offences against children are not wealthy or powerful people.
Key word here is "arrested." The wealthy and powerful are far less likely to come to the attention of law enforcement.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||10/31/2012|
[quote]And I'm amazed that this very ugly (that platinum hair!), very untalented, very unappealing, quite repulsive man was so beloved by the British.
We're talking about the British here. It's like looking in a mirror for them. Ditto Gary Glitter, who was huge in the UK in the 1970s as well, all the while looking like something out of a gypsy carnival. As bas as this scandal is, can you imagine how much greater the howling if they had been diddling little boys?
|by Anonymous||reply 83||10/31/2012|
Was Des Kay on "Little Britain" supposed to be Jimmy Savile?
|by Anonymous||reply 84||10/31/2012|
[quote]He wasn't thinking "Hmmm....I'll fuck this kid during peak hours when the locker rooms are busy and tons of people can watch me do it!"
WTF r74. No, he was probably thinking "if i do this kid in the shower and get caught, nothing will happen to me".
He obviously wasn't trying to be seen, but he was clearly unconcerned with whether he would be. The McQueary incident happened over 10 years ago. And this was *after* Sandusky been caught -- and reprimanded several times -- for showering with young boys.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||10/31/2012|
"Will they start going after Jagger, Robert Plant, jimmy Page, Pete Townshend, Roger Daltrey and scores of lesser known rock musicians?"
They already caught Pete Townshend with kiddie porn, but he managed to talk his way out of it (Roger Daltrey was one of the high-profile people who vouched for him.)
Pedos are highly opportunistic predators, and I can believe that quite a few of them have gone into rock specifically to have access to lots and lots of drug-addled, poorly parented underage boys and girls who'd be pathetically grateful for any attention from one of the big men onstage.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||10/31/2012|
I was a big pete townsend fan. Then he got busted. I wasn't sure what to believe. When he was on The View recently, they set him up to 'clear the air' (of course, as he had a book to sell) and his explanation of the arrest was something like "Oh it's on the internet, and you just hit that button out of curiosity, and then bam you've done it".
I really couldn't believe my ears. Only pedos are curious about pics of kids. To go through the trouble of giving a credit card? Lost all respect for him.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||10/31/2012|
r87, yeah, it was about on a par with Jerry Sandusky saying "I slipped on the tiles and my cock went up the kid's ass and I was just jiggling around trying to get loose."
|by Anonymous||reply 88||11/01/2012|
Thanks, r68, for pointing out one of the many double standards on this board.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||11/01/2012|
which celebrity will be arrested next?
|by Anonymous||reply 90||11/15/2012|
R86, I wanted to believe PT bc he is gay friendly and... it was the early days of the internet. I mean who didn't see something they DID NOT want to see in the early days of the internet?!! I remember people sending me links to goatse and tubgirl in my email (ha fucking ha). Trauma and brain bleach.
But the credit card thing saddens me....
|by Anonymous||reply 91||11/15/2012|
I don't think there is an American equivalent to Jimmy Savile. Sort of a combination of Michael Jackson and, as a previous poster said, Big Bird, Ryan Seacrest and a high level politian. He had connections with the royal family, hosted a slew of kid's and teen shows, was nationally renowned for his charity work (which was just a cover to get access to easily abusable kids). Everyone knew who he was.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||11/16/2012|
I lived right through Jimmy Savile's peak period, and with hindsight it is hard to explain how he did it. He was always a bit creepy and unattractive. He had had polio as a child, and had had a poor start in life (he worked in a mine for a while), so he was cut a bit of slack. Then he was obviously eccentric, and that bought him a bit more slack. The UK had just come through the Swinging Sixties, and sexual and social mores were more fluid, and that provided yet more slack. And then there was the relentless charity work, which meant people tended to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he got to mix with celebrities and royals, and I guess he got them to endorse his charities and by extension himself I doubt he was really "friends" in the true sense with the Queen or Maggie Thatcher, but he had access to them via the "good works". And finally the fact is that for many ordinary people it was a more innocent time. They genuinely weren't aware of paedophilia at large in the community. They also had much greater trust in authority: there was a sense that if the Queen was seen having dealings with someone, or the BBC allowed them on the air, then they must be all right.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||11/16/2012|
I get tired of hearing on here that the 70's rock stars screwing underage girls was accepted or not criminal. Like it was normal during that time. WRONG. I am female and I was 13 in 1975. It was not normal or accepted except in their very secretive world. They were protected just like Saville was protected. My friends and mine parents would be upset when as freshmen we dated or were serious about juniors or seniors because of the age and "experience" difference. Remember, in those days you did not see pregnant teens walking around at school and we were worried if our parents even found out we had sex they would kick us out. I never even heard about what Townsend, Steven Tyler and Zep were up to until decades later.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||11/16/2012|
"shine a light back on the horrifying years of the '80s where widespread ritual abuse shocked the nation"
You mean "when ALLEGATIONS of widespread ritual abuse shocked the nation"
It was The Crucible on national TV...
|by Anonymous||reply 95||11/17/2012|
"The UK had just come through the Swinging Sixties, and sexual and social mores were more fluid, and that provided yet more slack."
Oh, please. Savile was first investigated by the police IN THE 1950s. He didn't just start molesting or raping girls during the 60s. Roman Polanski defenders use the same line of reasoning - It was the 70s! He was a wild 'n' crazy free spirit!
|by Anonymous||reply 96||11/17/2012|
I don't think R93 was saying that at all. Rather, that since mores about sex had changed, people weren't as likely to scrutinize Savile's activity more during the '60s and '70s. You kind of make the argument for R93 because he was scrutinized during the '50s and not again until recently.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||11/17/2012|
"You kind of make the argument for R93 because he was scrutinized during the '50s and not again until recently."
Um, no. He was investigated MANY times over the decades.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||11/17/2012|
"LONDON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - The late British TV presenter Jimmy Savile physically abused hundreds of people over six decades, according to a police-led report on Friday which said he carried out attacks at the BBC and at hospitals where he did voluntary work.
Of his victims, 73 percent were under 18 and 82 percent were female. The oldest was 47 and the youngest just 8.
"Savile's offending footprint was vast, predatory and opportunistic," Commander Peter Spindler told reporters.
Savile, one of the BBC's biggest stars of the 1970s and 80s received a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth for charity work. He died in 2011, aged 84, a year before allegations about his abusive behaviour emerged in a TV documentary.
Friday's report said he had committed 214 criminal offences including 34 rapes or serious sexual assaults across the country.
His offending first occurred in 1955 in the northern English city of Manchester and the last attack was in 2009, the report said. He abused people at the BBC from 1965 including in 2006 at the last recording of popular weekly show Top of the Pops.
He also targeted people at hospitals over 30 years from 1965, including at the renowned Great Ormond Street children's hospital in London.
"It is now clear that Savile was hiding in plain sight and using his celebrity status and fund-raising activity to gain uncontrolled access to vulnerable people across six decades," the report said.
In all, 600 people had come forward to police with information of which 450 related to Savile.
The report, issued jointly by London police and the NSPCC children's charity, said it was likely there would be more victims who did not feel able to come forward.
Friday's report is one of 14 launched since the allegations about Savile emerged, including four at the BBC.
The revelations about Savile plunged the BBC into weeks of turmoil and led to resignation of the publicly funded broadcaster's director general just 54 days into his job."
|by Anonymous||reply 99||01/11/2013|
There have been rumors that Savile was also into doing, uh, THINGS, with dead bodies. I vaguely remember hearing something about him being allowed into hospital morgues or mortuaries to do...what? Yes, it's being said that in addition to be a relentless pedo he was also into necrophilia. I could believe that. That freak looked like his was capable of anything.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||01/11/2013|
"In all, 600 people had come forward to police with information of which 450 related to Savile."
Uh...how do they know all of these people are telling the truth?
It's pretty easy to lie about someone who is dead and can't defend himself against any accusations.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he was a rapist and a molester but that doesn't mean people are incapable of lying....
|by Anonymous||reply 101||01/11/2013|
And your point is, R101?
|by Anonymous||reply 102||01/11/2013|
Another old dude in television is now under investigation in the UK. The UK = the Catholic Church
|by Anonymous||reply 103||01/11/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 104||01/11/2013|
did david bowie and iggy pop also screw underage girls?
|by Anonymous||reply 105||01/11/2013|
They screwed the same underage girl, R105: Sable Starr.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||01/11/2013|