Jimmy Savile accused in ITV documentary

Savile's Headstone Removed By Family

The late television star's headstone is removed at his family's request after police revealed details of new sex abuse claims.
6:04am UK, Wednesday 10 October 2012

Scotland Yard says up to 25 young girls were allegedly targeted by the late television star over a period dating back to 1959.

His family said it took the decision to remove his headstone as a mark of respect to the families of those buried in the cemetery.

"The family members are deeply aware of the impact that the stone remaining there could have on the dignity and sanctity of the cemetery," a statement released on behalf of the family said.

"Out of respect to public opinion, to those who are buried there, and to those who tend their graves and visit there, we have decided to remove it."

Scarborough Borough Council said the work was carried out shortly after midnight.

A number of memorials to Sir Jimmy have also been removed, including an inscription on the wall at Leeds Civic Hall in recognition of his charity work, and a street sign in Scarborough, North Yorkshire.

This is a disgrace, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Other than Innocent until Proven Guilty.

Sabot wrote:
This is a disgrace, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Other than Innocent until Proven Guilty.

It seems to be the in thing nowadays to desecrate graves and memorials. I can think of dead people who have been far more evil, Stalin for instance, whose grave is as it was when he was put in it. So far only allegations, what kind of society have we now become that a family has to remove a memorial for fear of retaliation for as yet unproven guilt? LL

Lamplighter wrote:

Sabot wrote:
This is a disgrace, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Other than Innocent until Proven Guilty.

It seems to be the in thing nowadays to desecrate graves and memorials. I can think of dead people who have been far more evil, Stalin for instance, whose grave is as it was when he was put in it. So far only allegations, what kind of society have we now become that a family has to remove a memorial for fear of retaliation for as yet unproven guilt? LL

Especially when his guilt never can be proven according to The Law that we hold so dear, LL. This is little short of a Witch Hunt, and he is already guilty in the eyes of too many.
I have never been a great fan of Esther Rantzen, but this is the pits, bloody hypocrite. Whether for knowing and doing nothing, or just for attempting to cover her arse doesn't really matter. But I hope someone drags her in front of an Inquiry and demands that she tells what she supposedly knows.
And just what is the likelihood of anyone admitting that they saw him do these things? That'll be them down the pan.
I just don't know about the girls themselves, but you can bet your sweet life they they won't all be telling the truth.
Sheesh. This is going to be a horror story.

Maybe he is guilty, ma petite, but I refuse to condemn anyone just on the words of people who may well be out for financial gain. I remember once hearing a very well-known rock star saying that, despite him being married, he would have groupies throwing themselves at him non stop; let's face it, men will take it when it is offered like that, won't they? And some of these girls do see a quick leg over as a possible way to the top. Also, Savile was a single man, a very rich, very famous single man with apparently no visible partner so he would be a target from day one. As you say, how can it ever be proven? And now I see other people are being dragged into this; branded as possible kiddie fiddlers,; when will it stop? As for anyomne seeing him at it, well, there is Gary Glitter, I suppose, but I can't see him getting any further involved than he already is. LL

Lamplighter wrote:Maybe he is guilty, ma petite, but I refuse to condemn anyone just on the words of people who may well be out for financial gain. I remember once hearing a very well-known rock star saying that, despite him being married, he would have groupies throwing themselves at him non stop; let's face it, men will take it when it is offered like that, won't they? And some of these girls do see a quick leg over as a possible way to the top. Also, Savile was a single man, a very rich, very famous single man with apparently no visible partner so he would be a target from day one. As you say, how can it ever be proven? And now I see other people are being dragged into this; branded as possible kiddie fiddlers,; when will it stop? As for anyomne seeing him at it, well, there is Gary Glitter, I suppose, but I can't see him getting any further involved than he already is. LL

Sadly, I do believe that some men will take it if it is thrown at them, and that some women have made their way to the top doing this. It's a fact of life, and who should judge either party.
The point in this case is that it will be Jimmy Saville who won't get a right to reply.
And in the event that he was guilty, which will never be proven, then there are many out there who are every bit as bad.

Sabot wrote:

Lamplighter wrote:Maybe he is guilty, ma petite, but I refuse to condemn anyone just on the words of people who may well be out for financial gain. I remember once hearing a very well-known rock star saying that, despite him being married, he would have groupies throwing themselves at him non stop; let's face it, men will take it when it is offered like that, won't they? And some of these girls do see a quick leg over as a possible way to the top. Also, Savile was a single man, a very rich, very famous single man with apparently no visible partner so he would be a target from day one. As you say, how can it ever be proven? And now I see other people are being dragged into this; branded as possible kiddie fiddlers,; when will it stop? As for anyone seeing him at it, well, there is Gary Glitter, I suppose, but I can't see him getting any further involved than he already is. LL

Sadly, I do believe that some men will take it if it is thrown at them, and that some women have made their way to the top doing this. It's a fact of life, and who should judge either party.
The point in this case is that it will be Jimmy Saville who won't get a right to reply.
And in the event that he was guilty, which will never be proven, then there are many out there who are every bit as bad.

If you are born in poverty or on the wrong side of the tracks, how can anyone who has had a good childhood and life condemn them for using any possible methods to pull themselves up into the sublight? I do not condone murder as a way to the top, but if the only way to better yourself is to do things other people may find abhorrent, why should any of us condemn them? There but for the grace of the Great Maker, go I. LL

I wouldn't mind a Quid for every time I've been groped, LL. And it hasn't left any great scars on me. I was told about dirty old men when I was well under age, and this is what most gropers are.
Rape of a Minor is a difficult question, and not always the entire fault of the man. Of course a man should know better, but then so often, so should the girl. Morals seemed to go out of the window with the advent of The Pill, although often it was fear of pregnancy that kept young women in check. Nowadays it's all, "Never mind dear, it wasn't your fault. Have a Flat and a financial hand out."
In France the parents are expected to support their recalcitrant teenaged daughters. And mostly they do. I have been to a couple of fascinating Weddings where The Bride and Groom get married, and then they have The Christening immediately afterwards.

This is like nothing so much as the Salem Witch trials, where stupid, hysterical girls were automatically believed every time they pointed at someone and shrieked, Witch!

With a touch of McCarthyism thrown in, as guilt is now being pronounced by the slightest association.

Have they all forgotten the hysteria over the supposed 'Satanic abuse' in Orkney so quickly? There really can be smoke without the slightest glimmer of a flame.

Agree - if anyone should be dragged into court, it's Rantzen. If there is truth in these stories, then she was the one person who, because of her position, could have acted. She was powerful in her own right, and by her marriage to Desmond Wilcox.

She did nothing - till now. You have to ask why. And why she thinks destroying Childline was worth getting her name in the papers again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215591/I-told-I-innocent-What-Freddie-Starr-wants-gravestone-dies-heart-attack-child-abuse-allegations.html

It's odd that the police haven't spoken to him about the allegations; it may have been a mistake to drag in someone who is neither dead nor a convicted paedophile.

It is only going to take one of those being dragged into this to go to law, and the wheels are going to fall off this rather nasty bandwagon. Still, it gave the Mail an excuse to print yet another picture of Savile in his underwear.

http://news.sky.com/story/995919/savile-denied-child-abuse-in-2007

Savile Denied Child Abuse In 2007
2:03pm UK, Wednesday 10 October 2012



Email
A 2007 radio interview with Sir Jimmy Savile in which he denies rumours that he was a child abuser has emerged.

The interview came as Greater Manchester Police said they had received two seperate complaints of sexual abuse relating to the late TV presenter dating back to the 1960s.

They have been passed on to the Metropolitan Police, who have so far recorded two criminal allegations of rape and six allegations of indecent assault against the former Top of the Pops presenter.

Five police forces are involved in the investigation in total.

Charities also say they have received dozens of phone calls relating to the Jim'll Fix It star, who died aged 84 last year.

More follows...

--------------

I also saw it reported that no fewer than FIVE police forces had investigated allegations like these when he was alive, and nothing came of it. Now, one force covering up, yes, two, maybe, but five?

There's something hinky here.

I have no doubt he was a serial groper of any female who got within tentacle-length and didn't give him a slap; he may well have been worse than that - that is a matter for the investigating authorities.

But - why now? And what the Hell is Rantzen's game? If it didn't seem so stupid, I would speculate that she is trying to divert attention from herself.

Charities also say they have received dozens of phone calls

Isn't that what happens whenever there is a celebrity involved in something dodgy, or for that matter whenever a murder happens or a robbery takes place and is reported in the papers? There's always someone ready to telephone with 'information', isn't there? I have just seen a picture of this woman who is finger pointing at Freddie Starr - how many of you can remember what you were doing, or even who you were with 10 years ago, let alone 40? And would someone like him, a rising star with a hectic celeb life remember? Sorry, my skeptic node is now in full swing. LL

Freddie Starr seems beyond angry, and apparently is also hiring his own investigators.

I can see one or two people who have scrambled on this particular bandwagon living to regret it, LL. Reading round the media comments boards, people do seem to be saying, Hey, hold on a minute...

My own feeling is that there are a handful of incidents that bear proper investigation - without the media stoking the flames.

But if proper investigations show that Rantzen in particular knew all along and didn't bother - then just watch how quickly the lynch mob turns on her.

This is going to collapse into a Farce. And a lot of people are going to be held to account for what they now say they know, or knew. And absolutely no one is going to get a fair trial.

Rantzen in that era:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Rantzen

In 1968 Rantzen started an affair with Desmond Wilcox, who was the head of her department and was married at the time to her friend Patsy who also worked at the BBC.[6] After several years they decided to live together, and informed BBC management of their relationship.[7] Management's solution was to move the entire production team of That's Life! out of Wilcox's department. What they didn't consider was that the new arrangement meant that Rantzen and Patsy were now working in the same department, causing both women concern.[7] Patsy Wilcox had always refused to divorce her husband, but agreed when Rantzen became pregnant.[8] After Rantzen and Wilcox married in December 1977,[9] BBC management moved her back into General Features department run by him.

But a weak lickle ickle woman like her couldn't possibly speak up against Evil Men? Bollocks!

I suspect she is on very, very thin ice. She isn't coming out of this well so far, and if it turns into a fiasco, as it is liable to, she may well end up having to give HER gongs back.

Can't wait for Esther Rantzen and her Ilk to be called to testify. Very funny, that is going to be.

Oh My. "Give her Gongs back." And the rest of them. I can hardly believe this is happening.
They didn't really think it through, did they.

People who start witch-hunts never do, Sabot.

Rantzen seems to have achieved the remarkable feat of being the object of EVERYONE'S ire. The people taking a wait-and-see-what-the-police-say approach are disgusted with her hypocrisy in pouring petrol on the fire.

The people screaming for Savile to be dis-interred and posthumously executed a la Oliver Cromwell are starting to also scream for her head for doing nothing about what was allegedly going on right under her nose.

Latest:

Jimmy Savile 'Molested Brain-Damaged Patient'
Sky News – 50 minutes ago

Sir Jimmy Savile molested a brain-damaged hospital patient, according to fresh claims against the presenter.
Former nurse June Thornton was recovering from an operation at Leeds General Infirmary when she says she saw Savile abuse the young girl.
"She had brain damage, and Jimmy Savile came in and kissed her," she said.
"He started kissing her neck, running his hands up and down her arms, and then started to molest her. **Because I was laid flat on my back there was nothing I could do."
It comes as Greater Manchester Police revealed they had received two separate complaints of sexual abuse relating to the late TV presenter dating back to the 1960s.
They have been passed on to the Metropolitan Police, who have so far recorded two criminal allegations of rape and six allegations of indecent assault against the former Top of the Pops presenter.

** She wasn't flat on her back for years afterwards, was she? And where was her mouth at the time? LL

Quite, LL. And judging from the reaction that that tale is getting on various message boards, it may well be an allegation too far.

Perhaps all these people coming out of the woodwork with various 'allegations' should be told to tell the police about it, instead of the media?

Or don't they fancy that quite so much, as they could then face charges of wasting police time -or covering up criminal activities?

That's it, that's the last straw. This is getting stupid now.

I think I'll save The Star for tomorrow. I'm having enough trouble dealing with The Birch and Bennett Show at the moment.

http://news.sky.com/story/996356/abuse-claims-savile-had-keys-to-broadmoor

Abuse Claims: Savile Had Keys To Broadmoor
A health trust reveals Jimmy Savile had keys to a high-security hospital where he volunteered and has been accused of abuse.

Jimmy Savile had keys to a high-security hospital, where he worked as a volunteer and has been accused of carrying out abuse.

The TV presenter volunteered at Broadmoor, in Crowthorne, Berkshire, from the 1960s and would have been able to access patients' rooms.

One victim claimed the Jim'll Fix It star shoved his hand up her nightdress after walking in on a group of girls watching television.

Alison Pink, who has since had a sex change, told The Sun: "I felt absolutely disgusting afterwards - like I had been used as a piece of meat for his sexual gratification."

So, if 'she' is 'Alison' now, then she must have been a bloke when she was in the lock-up for the criminally-insane?

This is getting sillier by the day.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4583268/Jimmy-Saviles-gravestone-is-smashed-and-dumped-in-skip.html

School's Miss: It's hard to believe
EXCLUSIVE by TOM MORGAN
A FORMER housemistress at the notorious Duncroft School where Jimmy Savile is said to have abused girls told The Sun last night: “I find it very hard to believe.”

Doubts ... Janet yesterday
Janet Figgins, 69 — who worked there in the 1960s and 70s — told how the perverted BBC star would turn up in a gold Rolls-Royce and have his picture taken with the youngsters.
But she said claims of widespread abuse by Savile were “floods of fancy”. She insisted: “These girls were always on about dirty old men but they never said anything about Jimmy Savile.”
She added: “Approved schools were like junior prisons. All the girls were locked in, they were very carefully monitored.

“They were never left on their own. There’s no way Jimmy Savile abused them in that building.”
The Sun revealed the first picture of Savile at the girls’ school in Staines, Surrey — cuddling youngsters on a sofa while holding a cigar.
Mrs Figgins, from Egham, said: “He didn’t do any work at the school. He just popped in and visited.”
And she added: “I don’t feel guilty because I think I did my job properly and I don’t think anything did happen in the school. Certainly not on my watch.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4583268/Jimmy-Saviles-gravestone-is-smashed-and-dumped-in-skip.html#ixzz28zc5aVSu

Some progress - they've finally admitted it was an Approved School, not a 'boarding school' or 'care home'.

I can see this ending in - nothing. And the papers like the Mail and Sun having to make hefty donations to charities - and pay for a new headstone.

Where it leaves Rantzen and co, I do not know.