Wow, last night finished watching the second part of the new Netflix documentary on infamous UK celebrity pedophile Jimmy Savile. Absolutely stunning that amid the decades of rumors, victim suicides, and everything else, being a treasured TV/radio personality was enough to keep Savile shielded by Britain's elite from any serious investigation. The pain is so palpable in the interviews, and the producers have done a great job of letting former Scotland Yard staff, Savile aides, and victims just talk without being interrupted by questions. Just an incredible monster.

Can any UK members shed light on how common the rumors about him were before everything came out? It must have been *extremely* frustrating working in the national pedophile unit in the 90s, knowing that nobody was going to take investigative imperatives seriously. I remember all the news about this stuff from just after his death years ago, but being from the other side of the pond, was not aware of a few key elements - his friendships with royalty, being northern giving him nearly untouchable status in Leeds, and all that. It's amazing how much our culture has changed in the west already - anyone, celebrity or not, slipping into side entrances of childrens' homes and mental hospitals on the regular today who isn't a licensed professional would be shouted out as a creep from day one.

This is in no way, shape or form any kind of defence of Savile. It is a crying shame that his true, evil nature didn't become clear until after his death. He basically got away with it.

It was, of course, a different era - a time of no social media and very much harder for victims to make their story known and more importantly, believed. Savile was able to build an impenetrable defence through his charity work, which gave him the invincible aura of "a good guy" (it's estimated he raised over £40 million in total). It was mainly this charity work which led to his royal connections, honours and, sadly, gave him access to his mainly vulnerable victims. It is unthinkable today that a celebrity would be allowed the unfettered (and unsupervised) access that he was given at the time. I have read that he could be very vindictive and if anyone should try and restrict his access, he would make it known that they were obstructing his ability to do his charitable work and have them reassigned. Too many people were afraid of upsetting him and how that might look.

Plenty of people at the time would characterise him as "a bit creepy" and "maybe a bit too fond of children" but sadly this was never taken seriously enough. It has become clear that people within the BBC were very much aware of some disturbing behaviours, but again he was protected because he was probably the BBC's biggest "star" at the time.

The failure of numerous institutions to properly investigate allegations against him is a damning indictment of the unhealthy power of celebrity that he wielded. It is truly shameful that he got away with it.

I heard the necrophilla rumours in the mid 90's, with no links to the press and their investigative powers, how come they did not ever go after him?

Same Savile who had at least two New Year Eves at the PM country residence at Chequers, she overrode four objections from the Special Branch to give him a knighthood due to their 'concerns'.
Also she appeared on his show just before the 1979 election, in a clear breach of impartiality rules.

But they would have relied on reports from local police forces, who Savile had in his pocket for decades.
When asked why images and references to Savile were included in his fictional series 'Line Of Duty', the showrunner Jed Mercurio pointed out he had read the official reports and while it was clear what Savile was getting out of complaints being ignored by their looking the other way, what were these police officers at senior rank level getting in return?

(Thatcher's own Parliamentary Private Secretary, Tory MP the late Peter Morrison, was caught having sex with an underage boy in a railway station toilet in 1987. No charges, he died of drink 5 years later, his 'preferences' were well known in Tory circles at the time. Still, whose the kid eh? Some poor one from most likely the care system so barely human in their eyes).

If the above seems very polemical, allow me to explain, I was lucky enough to be adopted at 6 weeks by loving parents, as my sister was three years before. I shudder to think about if I had ended up in the care system, which Savile and other 'respectful' pillars of the community and 'decent' family entertainers used as rape sheds.

A tabloid 'public enemy' at the time, John Lydon, AKA Johnny Rotten of The Sex Pistols witnessed Savile groping girls on a TV show and called it out in a radio interview, which got him banned.
One of his bandmates was asked about public perceptions of them, with Savile pulling the wool over so many eyes with the 'great' British public more and more I tend to believe his answer to this exchange with each passing year;
Q. What do you think the average 'man on the street' thinks about you?'
A. I've met this 'man on the street' and he's a c**t.

It was not only the broadcasters and powerful who let him succeed in getting away with it, many don't want to think much less hear it.
But if you did not think Savile was at least creepy back in the day, you are complicit too.
Oh they were SO shocked when it came out, I admit the scale of it surprised me, but when he died, 11 months before it came out, I was hearing jokes like 'hope it's not a trick for him to get into a mortuary!'

As a confident to the powerful but dim, so Savile was also a friend of Prince Charles.
I've mentioned in the 'Partygate' thread former Tory Minister Edwina Currie, when her government sacked the management at Broadmoor high security hospital, putting Savile in charge (for no other reason it seems than he hung around there so much), keys and an office. Her notes on the appointment? 'Attaboy'.
Yet still this woman is allowed on to honk support for Boris even just on Tuesday, ironically defending his lawbreaking, never being challenged and this on ITV, not the BBC, about her deep complicity with Savile.
Which returns me to my point about the wider, public complicity.
(Know why one of Johnson's nicknames is 'Spaffer?' When asked about the inquiries into historical sex abuse crimes, triggered in large part by Savile, he dismissed it as 'spaffing money against a wall')

One reporter can mark various stages of his life and career through Savile;
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... x-offender

Not fit for purpose;
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/ ... lice-abuse

This was the basis of an actual plotline in Line Of Duty;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-y ... e-33428170

I usually try not to judge a book by its cover, but that is one creepy looking dude. Pity he wasn't caught before he died. BIH!

GDB wrote:

I heard the necrophilla rumours in the mid 90's, with no links to the press and their investigative powers, how come they did not ever go after him?

Same Savile who had at least two New Year Eves at the PM country residence at Chequers, she overrode four objections from the Special Branch to give him a knighthood due to their 'concerns'.
Also she appeared on his show just before the 1979 election, in a clear breach of impartiality rules.

But they would have relied on reports from local police forces, who Savile had in his pocket for decades.
When asked why images and references to Savile were included in his fictional series 'Line Of Duty', the showrunner Jed Mercurio pointed out he had read the official reports and while it was clear what Savile was getting out of complaints being ignored by their looking the other way, what were these police officers at senior rank level getting in return?

(Thatcher's own Parliamentary Private Secretary, Tory MP the late Peter Morrison, was caught having sex with an underage boy in a railway station toilet in 1987. No charges, he died of drink 5 years later, his 'preferences' were well known in Tory circles at the time. Still, whose the kid eh? Some poor one from most likely the care system so barely human in their eyes).

If the above seems very polemical, allow me to explain, I was lucky enough to be adopted at 6 weeks by loving parents, as my sister was three years before. I shudder to think about if I had ended up in the care system, which Savile and other 'respectful' pillars of the community and 'decent' family entertainers used as rape sheds.

A tabloid 'public enemy' at the time, John Lydon, AKA Johnny Rotten of The Sex Pistols witnessed Savile groping girls on a TV show and called it out in a radio interview, which got him banned.
One of his bandmates was asked about public perceptions of them, with Savile pulling the wool over so many eyes with the 'great' British public more and more I tend to believe his answer to this exchange more with each passing year;
Q. What do you think the average 'man on the street' thinks about you?'
A. I've met this 'man on the street' and he's a c**t'.

As a confident to the powerful but dim, so Savile was also a friend of Prince Charles.
I've mentioned in the 'Partygate' thread former Tory Minister Edwina Currie, when her government sacked the management at Broadmoor high security hospital, putting Savile in charge (for no other reason it seems than he hung around there so much), keys and an office. Her notes on the appointment? 'Attaboy'.
Yet still this woman is allowed on to honk support for Boris even just on Tuesday, ironically defending his lawbreaking, never being challenged and this on ITV, not the BBC, about her deep complicity with Savile.

One reporter can mark various stages of his life and career through Savile;
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... x-offender

Not fit for purpose;
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/ ... lice-abuse

This was the basis of an actual plotline in Line Of Duty;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-y ... e-33428170

Wow... I heard of Saville but the Morrison case is something else.

...and this was at the time two 16 or 17 year old adult men (under UK law) would have been arrested for "underage sex". Simply infuriating.

I saw this trailer myself and had no idea who he was.

Quick question for anyone who's seen it: Is this a usual Netflix crime doc that can be about half the running time and is filled with fluff?

One thing I am concerned with especially here in the USA (like in Florida) is to reverse policies to give age appropriate comprehensive sex education to minors. In large part it is to pander to 'religious' voters who believe GLTBQ's are 'immoral freaks', to discourage or repress even if painful having anything but rigid definitions of male or female. If a child is ignorant of what is improper sexual behaviors some adults can take advantage of it. There is also the fear of loss of a parent, the child victim told 'to keep it a secret' of improper behaviors. Children must be taught that such acts are not secrets. There is sadly the overblown fears of false reports of assault which can have horrible affects too.

Too many around Savile also feared of losing their jobs if informed the public or even higher ups, cover ups were the rule to protect decision makers who didn't want to be told they are wrong. I wish some child victims of Saville shortly after a sexual attack told their parent(s) who would in turn do an act of violence on the Saville. Maybe if Saville or other perverts got some 'rough justice' many lives wouldn't have been damaged.

ltbewr wrote:

I wish some child victims of Saville shortly after a sexual attack told their parent(s) who would in turn do an act of violence on the Saville. Maybe if Saville or other perverts got some 'rough justice' many lives wouldn't have been damaged.

I honestly think that some parents would have dismissed their child's claim with something akin to "What, that nice Mr Savile touched you? I'm sure it was an accident." If some better parents did try and do something about it by going to the police, Savile would likely have been protected with a "Well, we looked into it and found nothing."

But yes, a bit of personal retribution would have been a good thing.

ltbewr wrote:

One thing I am concerned with especially here in the USA (like in Florida) is to reverse policies to give age appropriate comprehensive sex education to minors. In large part it is to pander to 'religious' voters who believe GLTBQ's are 'immoral freaks', to discourage or repress even if painful having anything but rigid definitions of male or female. If a child is ignorant of what is improper sexual behaviors some adults can take advantage of it. There is also the fear of loss of a parent, the child victim told 'to keep it a secret' of improper behaviors. Children must be taught that such acts are not secrets. There is sadly the overblown fears of false reports of assault which can have horrible affects too.

Too many around Savile also feared of losing their jobs if informed the public or even higher ups, cover ups were the rule to protect decision makers who didn't want to be told they are wrong. I wish some child victims of Saville shortly after a sexual attack told their parent(s) who would in turn do an act of violence on the Saville. Maybe if Saville or other perverts got some 'rough justice' many lives wouldn't have been damaged.

Another of the Savile era upstanding, popular and of course 'decent' public entertainment figures, Presenter Stuart Hall, was done for grooming and sex with underage girls, decades after the event in the wake of Savile.
A victim's father was asked 'why did you not go to the police?'
Reply was simply, 'because he was rich and famous and we were nothing'.
Note what a slap on the wrist he got, that father was right;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

ltbewr wrote:

One thing I am concerned with especially here in the USA (like in Florida) is to reverse policies to give age appropriate comprehensive sex education to minors. In large part it is to pander to 'religious' voters who believe GLTBQ's are 'immoral freaks', to discourage or repress even if painful having anything but rigid definitions of male or female. If a child is ignorant of what is improper sexual behaviors some adults can take advantage of it.

That certainly sounds like a backward step.

scbriml wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One thing I am concerned with especially here in the USA (like in Florida) is to reverse policies to give age appropriate comprehensive sex education to minors. In large part it is to pander to 'religious' voters who believe GLTBQ's are 'immoral freaks', to discourage or repress even if painful having anything but rigid definitions of male or female. If a child is ignorant of what is improper sexual behaviors some adults can take advantage of it.

That certainly sounds like a backward step.

But incorrect. To elaborate on the mislabeled "Don't Say Gay!" bill.

The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students..

Bolding mine. K to 3rd grade is kids 5 to 9 years old. Using the term minors covers up to age 18, and is misleading.

Bill summary here.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2022/html/2825

Even back when I was a kid over 50 years ago, my parents educated me on inappropriate behavior by adults, as did I with my own kids. If that pervert Savile touched me and I told my dad, he'd get an asskicking or worse before sundown.

GDB wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One thing I am concerned with especially here in the USA (like in Florida) is to reverse policies to give age appropriate comprehensive sex education to minors. In large part it is to pander to 'religious' voters who believe GLTBQ's are 'immoral freaks', to discourage or repress even if painful having anything but rigid definitions of male or female. If a child is ignorant of what is improper sexual behaviors some adults can take advantage of it. There is also the fear of loss of a parent, the child victim told 'to keep it a secret' of improper behaviors. Children must be taught that such acts are not secrets. There is sadly the overblown fears of false reports of assault which can have horrible affects too.

Too many around Savile also feared of losing their jobs if informed the public or even higher ups, cover ups were the rule to protect decision makers who didn't want to be told they are wrong. I wish some child victims of Saville shortly after a sexual attack told their parent(s) who would in turn do an act of violence on the Saville. Maybe if Saville or other perverts got some 'rough justice' many lives wouldn't have been damaged.

Another of the Savile era upstanding, popular and of course 'decent' public entertainment figures, Presenter Stuart Hall, was done for grooming and sex with underage girls, decades after the event in the wake of Savile.
A victim's father was asked 'why did you not go to the police?'
Reply was simply, 'because he was rich and famous and we were nothing'.
Note what a slap on the wrist he got, that father was right;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

I was somewhat surprised, given the ages of some of the girls involved in Hall's case, that a nasty retribution wasn't meted out in prison. His sentence still seems very lenient even after it was doubled.

Bricktop wrote:

scbriml wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One thing I am concerned with especially here in the USA (like in Florida) is to reverse policies to give age appropriate comprehensive sex education to minors. In large part it is to pander to 'religious' voters who believe GLTBQ's are 'immoral freaks', to discourage or repress even if painful having anything but rigid definitions of male or female. If a child is ignorant of what is improper sexual behaviors some adults can take advantage of it.

That certainly sounds like a backward step.

But incorrect. To elaborate on the mislabeled "Don't Say Gay!" bill.

The bill is pure recycled homophobia. Heterosexuals will not be policing their speech because it would never occur to them to do so. The whole point is to erase LGBQT voices by threatening them with lawsuits for simply existing. If you happen to mention your husband's baseball game you'll have zero problem if you're a woman. But if you're a man--who knows? Will you get sued? Will you have to defend yourself? Will you be fired? Will every last conservative baselessly tar you as a child molester (they already are)? The result is only LGBQT have to walk on eggshells, as always.. Besides the backers of the bill predictably went from "it doesn't say gay!" to "all LGBQT supporters are pedophiles" in one Nazi goosestep kickball change. Even the basis of the bill turned out to (also predictably) be a complete lie. It has and will continue to lead to stuff like this and far worse, which is 100% the intent of the GOP:

Amtrak Train Bigot Accuses Gay Dads of Being ‘Pedophiles’ Who Stole Their Own Children
https://www.thedailybeast.com/amtrak-tr ... n?ref=home

ltbewr wrote:

One thing I am concerned with especially here in the USA (like in Florida) is to reverse policies to give age appropriate comprehensive sex education to minors. In large part it is to pander to 'religious' voters who believe GLTBQ's are 'immoral freaks', to discourage or repress even if painful having anything but rigid definitions of male or female. If a child is ignorant of what is improper sexual behaviors some adults can take advantage of it. There is also the fear of loss of a parent, the child victim told 'to keep it a secret' of improper behaviors. Children must be taught that such acts are not secrets. There is sadly the overblown fears of false reports of assault which can have horrible affects too.

Too many around Savile also feared of losing their jobs if informed the public or even higher ups, cover ups were the rule to protect decision makers who didn't want to be told they are wrong. I wish some child victims of Saville shortly after a sexual attack told their parent(s) who would in turn do an act of violence on the Saville. Maybe if Saville or other perverts got some 'rough justice' many lives wouldn't have been damaged.

But wait! It gets worse! Texas went hunting for transgender children after categorizing gender affirming care as child abuse, which resulted in employees in child protective services quitting rather than enforcing this insane invasion of privacy over decisions made between a family and their physicians. That resulted in fewer employees to go after actual child abuse, including Texas' very own child abuse disaster a state run home.

Some Texas child protective services workers are quitting over transgender investigations
https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/s ... tigations/

Texas foster care under fire after Refuge sex trafficking allegations
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/20 ... 075522001/

I know nothing of Savile other than this documentary but at least here in the USA it's pretty clear people are more than happy to look the other way when it comes to child abuse *especially* if they can throw some other community under the bus in the process.

I consider convincing a 5 to 9 year old that they are of a different gender than their chromosomes say they are is child abuse. Why are you so afraid of parental consent? You can't give a kid an aspirin at school without it! And why is that the role of schools? They can't teach arithmetic but now are "experts" on what you refer to benignly as "gender affirming care" behind the parents backs.

But none of that has anything to do with the creep Savile. And kindly point out where I equated Savile with the LGBTQ community. Save your time, I didn't. But don't let that stop you pushing politicized red herrings into a thread where I suspect there is 100% agreement as to the vileness of Savile.

slider wrote:

I saw this trailer myself and had no idea who he was.

Quick question for anyone who's seen it: Is this a usual Netflix crime doc that can be about half the running time and is filled with fluff?

No fluff - it is very well made. And as I said the interviews are done particularly well.

GDB wrote:

I heard the necrophilla rumours in the mid 90's, with no links to the press and their investigative powers, how come they did not ever go after him?

Same Savile who had at least two New Year Eves at the PM country residence at Chequers, she overrode four objections from the Special Branch to give him a knighthood due to their 'concerns'.
Also she appeared on his show just before the 1979 election, in a clear breach of impartiality rules.

But they would have relied on reports from local police forces, who Savile had in his pocket for decades.
When asked why images and references to Savile were included in his fictional series 'Line Of Duty', the showrunner Jed Mercurio pointed out he had read the official reports and while it was clear what Savile was getting out of complaints being ignored by their looking the other way, what were these police officers at senior rank level getting in return?

(Thatcher's own Parliamentary Private Secretary, Tory MP the late Peter Morrison, was caught having sex with an underage boy in a railway station toilet in 1987. No charges, he died of drink 5 years later, his 'preferences' were well known in Tory circles at the time. Still, whose the kid eh? Some poor one from most likely the care system so barely human in their eyes).

If the above seems very polemical, allow me to explain, I was lucky enough to be adopted at 6 weeks by loving parents, as my sister was three years before. I shudder to think about if I had ended up in the care system, which Savile and other 'respectful' pillars of the community and 'decent' family entertainers used as rape sheds.

A tabloid 'public enemy' at the time, John Lydon, AKA Johnny Rotten of The Sex Pistols witnessed Savile groping girls on a TV show and called it out in a radio interview, which got him banned.
One of his bandmates was asked about public perceptions of them, with Savile pulling the wool over so many eyes with the 'great' British public more and more I tend to believe his answer to this exchange with each passing year;
Q. What do you think the average 'man on the street' thinks about you?'
A. I've met this 'man on the street' and he's a c**t.

It was not only the broadcasters and powerful who let him succeed in getting away with it, many don't want to think much less hear it.
But if you did not think Savile was at least creepy back in the day, you are complicit too.
Oh they were SO shocked when it came out, I admit the scale of it surprised me, but when he died, 11 months before it came out, I was hearing jokes like 'hope it's not a trick for him to get into a mortuary!'

As a confident to the powerful but dim, so Savile was also a friend of Prince Charles.
I've mentioned in the 'Partygate' thread former Tory Minister Edwina Currie, when her government sacked the management at Broadmoor high security hospital, putting Savile in charge (for no other reason it seems than he hung around there so much), keys and an office. Her notes on the appointment? 'Attaboy'.
Yet still this woman is allowed on to honk support for Boris even just on Tuesday, ironically defending his lawbreaking, never being challenged and this on ITV, not the BBC, about her deep complicity with Savile.
Which returns me to my point about the wider, public complicity.
(Know why one of Johnson's nicknames is 'Spaffer?' When asked about the inquiries into historical sex abuse crimes, triggered in large part by Savile, he dismissed it as 'spaffing money against a wall')

One reporter can mark various stages of his life and career through Savile;
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... x-offender

Not fit for purpose;
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/ ... lice-abuse

This was the basis of an actual plotline in Line Of Duty;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-y ... e-33428170

John Lydon can be grating at times, but he was spot-on criticizing both the elite and scum like Savile.

I haven’t seen the documentary (don’t have Netflix) but I do work in the coastal town of Scarborough where Saville was buried and where he spent much time in the past. I am told in the 70s and 80s it was common for him to come on a ‘night out’ and it was well publicised. Some stayed away from him but many youngsters (including pre teens) would be ‘selected’ by him and being the celebrity he was it accepted.

Let’s not pretend however that crimes like this are not going on nowadays, we only feel enlightened by our own standards, we may not seem so in 30years time.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bricktop wrote:

I consider convincing a 5 to 9 year old that they are of a different gender than their chromosomes say they are is child abuse.

No one, and I mean not a soul, is doing that.

Bricktop wrote:

Why are you so afraid of parental consent? You can't give a kid an aspirin at school without it! And why is that the role of schools?

These are the same people who lost their minds over books on black history or by black authors. It ain't about "parental consent". This is not our first right wing moral outrage hysteria rodeo.

Bricktop wrote:

They can't teach arithmetic but now are "experts" on what you refer to benignly as "gender affirming care" behind the parents backs..

Again no one is providing "gender affirming care" behind parents' backs. Texas was hunting children receiving gender affirming care from their own parents. Again nothing to do with parental consent and everything to do with the right's fear of any minority.

Bricktop wrote:

But none of that has anything to do with the creep Savile. And kindly point out where I equated Savile with the LGBTQ community. Save your time, I didn't. But don't let that stop you pushing politicized red herrings into a thread where I suspect there is 100% agreement as to the vileness of Savile.

No one said *you* equated Savile with the LGBTQ community, but the conservative asylum has mainstreamed the idea that the two are the indistinguishable, whether it's LGBQT teachers or Disney, which they've decided is a company that grooms children. And predictably this will hurt the LGBTQ community (which they like) and actual child abuse victims like those of people like Savile (which they don't care about anyway).

Bricktop wrote:

I consider convincing a 5 to 9 year old that they are of a different gender than their chromosomes say they are is child abuse.

I was unaware that the chromosomes could have an opinion on things like this. They're just biochemistry - and biochemistry is in turn just millions of years of accumulated random chance. So, like all of nature, it will never conform to our neat and tidy expectations. There are men with two X chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome,) birds that can be male on one half of their bodies and female on the other, fish that can swap between male and female based on things like the water temperature, and all-female species of lizard.

Newark727 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I consider convincing a 5 to 9 year old that they are of a different gender than their chromosomes say they are is child abuse.

I was unaware that the chromosomes could have an opinion on things like this. They're just biochemistry - and biochemistry is in turn just millions of years of accumulated random chance. So, like all of nature, it will never conform to our neat and tidy expectations. There are men with two X chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome,) birds that can be male on one half of their bodies and female on the other, fish that can swap between male and female based on things like the water temperature, and all-female species of lizard.

That's absolutely fascinating, but perhaps it's not age appropriate for 5-9 year olds. And that's what the FL law requires: That it be age appropriate.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I consider convincing a 5 to 9 year old that they are of a different gender than their chromosomes say they are is child abuse.

No one, and I mean not a soul, is doing that.

Bricktop wrote:

Why are you so afraid of parental consent? You can't give a kid an aspirin at school without it! And why is that the role of schools?

These are the same people who lost their minds over books on black history or by black authors. It ain't about "parental consent". This is not our first right wing moral outrage hysteria rodeo.

Bricktop wrote:

They can't teach arithmetic but now are "experts" on what you refer to benignly as "gender affirming care" behind the parents backs..

Again no one is providing "gender affirming care" behind parents' backs. Texas was hunting children receiving gender affirming care from their own parents. Again nothing to do with parental consent and everything to do with the right's fear of any minority.

Bricktop wrote:

But none of that has anything to do with the creep Savile. And kindly point out where I equated Savile with the LGBTQ community. Save your time, I didn't. But don't let that stop you pushing politicized red herrings into a thread where I suspect there is 100% agreement as to the vileness of Savile.

No one said *you* equated Savile with the LGBTQ community, but the conservative asylum has mainstreamed the idea that the two are the indistinguishable, whether it's LGBQT teachers or Disney, which they've decided is a company that grooms children. And predictably this will hurt the LGBTQ community (which they like) and actual child abuse victims like those of people like Savile (which they don't care about anyway).

Sure, it's all right wing drama, and no-one anywhere is teaching it. Just like CRT. Another figment of the racist right paranoia.

From the people who said Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation. Afghan withdrawal? Perfect! Southern border? Closed! Inflation? Transitory! That yellow liquid running down my leg? Rain! As Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

But we digress. Jimmy Savile was a disgusting creature.

Bricktop wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I consider convincing a 5 to 9 year old that they are of a different gender than their chromosomes say they are is child abuse.

No one, and I mean not a soul, is doing that.

Bricktop wrote:

Why are you so afraid of parental consent? You can't give a kid an aspirin at school without it! And why is that the role of schools?

These are the same people who lost their minds over books on black history or by black authors. It ain't about "parental consent". This is not our first right wing moral outrage hysteria rodeo.

Bricktop wrote:

They can't teach arithmetic but now are "experts" on what you refer to benignly as "gender affirming care" behind the parents backs..

Again no one is providing "gender affirming care" behind parents' backs. Texas was hunting children receiving gender affirming care from their own parents. Again nothing to do with parental consent and everything to do with the right's fear of any minority.

Bricktop wrote:

But none of that has anything to do with the creep Savile. And kindly point out where I equated Savile with the LGBTQ community. Save your time, I didn't. But don't let that stop you pushing politicized red herrings into a thread where I suspect there is 100% agreement as to the vileness of Savile.

No one said *you* equated Savile with the LGBTQ community, but the conservative asylum has mainstreamed the idea that the two are the indistinguishable, whether it's LGBQT teachers or Disney, which they've decided is a company that grooms children. And predictably this will hurt the LGBTQ community (which they like) and actual child abuse victims like those of people like Savile (which they don't care about anyway).

Sure, it's all right wing drama, and no-one anywhere is teaching it. Just like CRT. Another figment of the racist right paranoia.

You are 100% correct. It's literally the same people pushing the CRT hysteria.

Newark727 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I consider convincing a 5 to 9 year old that they are of a different gender than their chromosomes say they are is child abuse.

I was unaware that the chromosomes could have an opinion on things like this. They're just biochemistry - and biochemistry is in turn just millions of years of accumulated random chance. So, like all of nature, it will never conform to our neat and tidy expectations. There are men with two X chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome,) birds that can be male on one half of their bodies and female on the other, fish that can swap between male and female based on things like the water temperature, and all-female species of lizard.

You better not say any of that in Florida All children shall be known as they/them until 4th grade so as not to offend any conservatives by mentioning gender.

Bricktop wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I consider convincing a 5 to 9 year old that they are of a different gender than their chromosomes say they are is child abuse.

I was unaware that the chromosomes could have an opinion on things like this. They're just biochemistry - and biochemistry is in turn just millions of years of accumulated random chance. So, like all of nature, it will never conform to our neat and tidy expectations. There are men with two X chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome,) birds that can be male on one half of their bodies and female on the other, fish that can swap between male and female based on things like the water temperature, and all-female species of lizard.

That's absolutely fascinating, but perhaps it's not age appropriate for 5-9 year olds. And that's what the FL law requires: That it be age appropriate.

For the life of me cannot understand how lessons on basic genetics stripped down for understanding at 5-9 could not be ‘age appropriate’. Seriously - WTF? I was reading about every branch of science that piqued my interest at 7-8.

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

I was unaware that the chromosomes could have an opinion on things like this. They're just biochemistry - and biochemistry is in turn just millions of years of accumulated random chance. So, like all of nature, it will never conform to our neat and tidy expectations. There are men with two X chromosomes (Klinefelter syndrome,) birds that can be male on one half of their bodies and female on the other, fish that can swap between male and female based on things like the water temperature, and all-female species of lizard.

That's absolutely fascinating, but perhaps it's not age appropriate for 5-9 year olds. And that's what the FL law requires: That it be age appropriate.

For the life of me cannot understand how lessons on basic genetics stripped down for understanding at 5-9 could not be ‘age appropriate’. Seriously - WTF? I was reading about every branch of science that piqued my interest at 7-8.

Because ignorant adults think simply acknowledging the existence of gender is how kids catch the gay or do a transgender. It's the new antifa caravans.

You'd think I'm exaggerating but parents went into full meltdown mode over a book about unicorns and rainbows, that doesn't even mention anything LGBTQ or gender.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.6421371

"Kaylan Brazelton, a parent and educator at the school, lamented that teachers were forced to take down drawings of unicorns and rainbows that the students had created. She said it was "gut-wrenching" because the students were "so confused.""

Parents were triggered by kids' rainbow drawings. And if they're that insane over things that aren't hurting children in any way, they for sure will miss the church pastor, or family member, who make up the majority of child abusers, right in front of their face.

MaverickM11 wrote:

And if they're that insane over things that aren't hurting children in any way, they for sure will miss the church pastor, or family member, who make up the majority of child abusers, right in front of their face.

It's a breathtaking level of stupidity and dissonance.

MaverickM11 wrote:

if they're that insane over things that aren't hurting children in any way, they for sure will miss the church pastor, or family member, who make up the majority of child abusers, right in front of their face.

But the Christian church (just like Islam and other religions) is hurting children. Telling children that they’ll go to a place of eternal fire and pain for thoughts IS child abuse. Ruining children’s (and by virtue the prosperity of the future life chances by installing a method of understanding the world by “god did it” rather than actually understanding it.

Of course the behaviour of many church’s analogises the behaviour of mr Saville in that they have an outward facing veneer of virtue and kindness but inside utilise fear of authority to control vulnerable minds to achieve detestable goals.

As glaringly evil as Saville was he was just a dearth Vader to religions Emperor of moral depravity.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

if they're that insane over things that aren't hurting children in any way, they for sure will miss the church pastor, or family member, who make up the majority of child abusers, right in front of their face.

But the Christian church (just like Islam and other religions) is hurting children. Telling children that they’ll go to a place of eternal fire and pain for thoughts IS child abuse. Ruining children’s (and by virtue the prosperity of the future life chances by installing a method of understanding the world by “god did it” rather than actually understanding it.

Of course the behaviour of many church’s analogises the behaviour of mr Saville in that they have an outward facing veneer of virtue and kindness but inside utilise fear of authority to control vulnerable minds to achieve detestable goals.

As glaringly evil as Saville was he was just a dearth Vader to religions Emperor of moral depravity.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes and also due to his Catholic upbringing, Savile used his philanthropy as a shield/coping mechanism for his own denial of his depravity. Of course sicker still is he used philanthropy to gain access to more victims as well.

What's that they always say? 'Lessons will be learned'.
Nope;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-children

With the likes of this creature in office, how?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -inquiries

Like I said about a wider public complicity, I think the writer above is perhaps letting too much of the British public off the hook, though I agree on her main points and the blind and tone deaf attitude of the MP's mentioned.

Aaron747 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

if they're that insane over things that aren't hurting children in any way, they for sure will miss the church pastor, or family member, who make up the majority of child abusers, right in front of their face.

But the Christian church (just like Islam and other religions) is hurting children. Telling children that they’ll go to a place of eternal fire and pain for thoughts IS child abuse. Ruining children’s (and by virtue the prosperity of the future life chances by installing a method of understanding the world by “god did it” rather than actually understanding it.

Of course the behaviour of many church’s analogises the behaviour of mr Saville in that they have an outward facing veneer of virtue and kindness but inside utilise fear of authority to control vulnerable minds to achieve detestable goals.

As glaringly evil as Saville was he was just a dearth Vader to religions Emperor of moral depravity.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes and also due to his Catholic upbringing, Savile used his philanthropy as a shield/coping mechanism for his own denial of his depravity. Of course sicker still is he used philanthropy to gain access to more victims as well.

A lot of christians use their religion as a crutch to offset their behavior and boy did Savile make that clear "When I'm dead and I go to Heaven, and God and Saint Peter assess my life, I'll be able to say: 'On this side of the ledger is all of the stuff, all the money I have raised for charity, all the lives I've changed."

MaverickM11 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

But the Christian church (just like Islam and other religions) is hurting children. Telling children that they’ll go to a place of eternal fire and pain for thoughts IS child abuse. Ruining children’s (and by virtue the prosperity of the future life chances by installing a method of understanding the world by “god did it” rather than actually understanding it.

Of course the behaviour of many church’s analogises the behaviour of mr Saville in that they have an outward facing veneer of virtue and kindness but inside utilise fear of authority to control vulnerable minds to achieve detestable goals.

As glaringly evil as Saville was he was just a dearth Vader to religions Emperor of moral depravity.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes and also due to his Catholic upbringing, Savile used his philanthropy as a shield/coping mechanism for his own denial of his depravity. Of course sicker still is he used philanthropy to gain access to more victims as well.

A lot of christians use their religion as a crutch to offset their behavior and boy did Savile make that clear "When I'm dead and I go to Heaven, and God and Saint Peter assess my life, I'll be able to say: 'On this side of the ledger is all of the stuff, all the money I have raised for charity, all the lives I've changed."

Writing in plain sight and he said similar and often with more innuendo in interviews.
While of course and to an extent the institutions mentioned have to take a significant blame, including the political figures I have mentioned (who funnily enough are very keen to restrict blame to organizations they dislike anyway, the NHS and the BBC. If them and I don’t disagree but you too, who gave the secure hospital keys, the awards despite advice, the access?). The fact that many just do not want to face is that a major part of the public were fooled by, to the rest, an obvious wrong ‘un.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

But the Christian church (just like Islam and other religions) is hurting children. Telling children that they’ll go to a place of eternal fire and pain for thoughts IS child abuse. Ruining children’s (and by virtue the prosperity of the future life chances by installing a method of understanding the world by “god did it” rather than actually understanding it.

Of course the behaviour of many church’s analogises the behaviour of mr Saville in that they have an outward facing veneer of virtue and kindness but inside utilise fear of authority to control vulnerable minds to achieve detestable goals.

As glaringly evil as Saville was he was just a dearth Vader to religions Emperor of moral depravity.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes and also due to his Catholic upbringing, Savile used his philanthropy as a shield/coping mechanism for his own denial of his depravity. Of course sicker still is he used philanthropy to gain access to more victims as well.

A lot of christians use their religion as a crutch to offset their behavior and boy did Savile make that clear "When I'm dead and I go to Heaven, and God and Saint Peter assess my life, I'll be able to say: 'On this side of the ledger is all of the stuff, all the money I have raised for charity, all the lives I've changed."

Somehow l doubt that this form of plea bargaining is going to save him.

When Jimmy Saville is mentioned I always think of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lj8Qtkred8

mad99 wrote:

When Jimmy Saville is mentioned I always think of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lj8Qtkred8

Lawdamercy

scbriml wrote:

GDB wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One thing I am concerned with especially here in the USA (like in Florida) is to reverse policies to give age appropriate comprehensive sex education to minors. In large part it is to pander to 'religious' voters who believe GLTBQ's are 'immoral freaks', to discourage or repress even if painful having anything but rigid definitions of male or female. If a child is ignorant of what is improper sexual behaviors some adults can take advantage of it. There is also the fear of loss of a parent, the child victim told 'to keep it a secret' of improper behaviors. Children must be taught that such acts are not secrets. There is sadly the overblown fears of false reports of assault which can have horrible affects too.

Too many around Savile also feared of losing their jobs if informed the public or even higher ups, cover ups were the rule to protect decision makers who didn't want to be told they are wrong. I wish some child victims of Saville shortly after a sexual attack told their parent(s) who would in turn do an act of violence on the Saville. Maybe if Saville or other perverts got some 'rough justice' many lives wouldn't have been damaged.

Another of the Savile era upstanding, popular and of course 'decent' public entertainment figures, Presenter Stuart Hall, was done for grooming and sex with underage girls, decades after the event in the wake of Savile.
A victim's father was asked 'why did you not go to the police?'
Reply was simply, 'because he was rich and famous and we were nothing'.
Note what a slap on the wrist he got, that father was right;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

I was somewhat surprised, given the ages of some of the girls involved in Hall's case, that a nasty retribution wasn't meted out in prison. His sentence still seems very lenient even after it was doubled.

You could also include the Rotherham grooming ring, loads of people including social services and police knew what was going on but they were simply to afraid to do anything about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham ... on_scandal

Kiwirob wrote:

scbriml wrote:

GDB wrote:

Another of the Savile era upstanding, popular and of course 'decent' public entertainment figures, Presenter Stuart Hall, was done for grooming and sex with underage girls, decades after the event in the wake of Savile.
A victim's father was asked 'why did you not go to the police?'
Reply was simply, 'because he was rich and famous and we were nothing'.
Note what a slap on the wrist he got, that father was right;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

I was somewhat surprised, given the ages of some of the girls involved in Hall's case, that a nasty retribution wasn't meted out in prison. His sentence still seems very lenient even after it was doubled.

You could also include the Rotherham grooming ring, loads of people including social services and police knew what was going on but they were simply to afraid to do anything about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham ... on_scandal

I remember as far back as 20 years ago one MP in the area warned about this, Ann Cryer.
There were others too, including the man most responsible for bringing them to justice when, unlike Savile, they were alive. And the cases assembled resulted in some very long prison sentences, again unlike the celebs they caught who were still alive like Hall and Rolf Harris.
Both of those however don’t fit the British tabloid media narrative for various reasons. And where were their much vaunted investigative skills over the decades?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Cryer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazir_Afzal
(Note how Afzal was gone after by the very same racists who made capitol on those gangs, not fitting the narrative, again).

Documentaries like this one on Savile are still needed to get the public's attention and educate how we must be not be blind to the reality of too many who are sick perverts who will take advantage of their celebrity or authority to sexually assault people.

From Hollywood to hospitals, from workplaces to religious and youth organizations, rules or procedures have been put in place to reduce the risk and opportunity of sexual assault. Part is from the financial liability, especially in the USA from such assaults. Adults working with minors have to have a through background check before allowed to be employed or have any contact with minors in volunteer organization for any potential risk of a sexual criminal. Many workplaces, medical services for youths, have rules that require a 3rd person in the room to limit potential abuses and financial liability risks. Many insurers mandate such rules to protect their assets and for reasonable premiums.

We also need to continue to have comprehensive, age appropriate sexual education in our public schools to assure children know what behaviors are wrong and how to report them. Of course, there is the risk of false reports so well constructed rules are necessary.

The main goal is to protect persons from sexual abuse and the horrors it causes to the victims lives like Savile did.