News coming through that he has passed away. R.I.P. Jimmy.

Official

A mate of mine met him a few times, described him as a thoroughly unpleasant man away from his tv persona.

I heard exactly the same from a guy who knew him.

GOD "fixed it" for him

He made alot of guys and gals happy ! Apparently ! And I started smoking cigars because it looked cool as he did once over ( I stopped again recently).
Funny what is acceptable. Smoking in the underground and on planes was ok, as well as Jimmy sitting kids on his knee with a big unlit cig on! (and Jim Davidson) hard to figure now.
Abit like our F1 India thread. Now if there was something misspelt or abbreviated mmmm?
R.I.P Jimmy

I'm old enough to remember him on TOTP before Jim'll fix it. Personally I always thought he was a . Not that he was alone in that, so was DLT, Noel Edmonds, Tony Blackburn...in fact, FFS Radio 1 DJs have always been knobs.

Was it DLT that said ' falling down water wawa oops '?

Couldn't agree more, I switched to Capital on the day it launched

I'm sat here while Ms RK is watching today's Deal or no Deal, and I can categorically state that Noel Edmonds still is a [cloud9]...

I met him once, he came into my work and was a real creep, sleazed over all the females and kissed their hands. Didn't even aknowledge any of the guys. Also, he didnt even reply when i wrote in and wanted to be a transformer for a day.....

Lucky for you - you might have got to spend a day plugged into the the national grid.

I wrote to Jim'll fix it - he lied, and what's more he never even acknowledged my request!

Back in the 70's when live bands played in the pubs, I used to do a jingle jangle jewellery kind of a rendition on stage when the bands weren't playing.Looking back....oh dear Good fun at the time though...

I don't know

Isn't that thought to be a hoax?

Unlike the pic of him, frank Bruno and Peter sutcliffe!

Rumours of necrophilia as well
One DJ said of him 'I don't take death threats very seriously but if it comes from Jimmy Saville, then I do'

They certainly aren't taking any chances that he escapes!

Zombie Saville...

Saying that I did watch the documentary on Friday about him.

He didn't seem that strange. Did a lot of work for Charity, enjoyed himself and lived his life the way he wanted.

Attention twelve months ago!
But obviously not as long as some.

Quite surprised that there was hardly any discussion on this topic on here. Can only lead one to conclude that everyone agrees with the way it has all panned out. Either that or the media frenzy has people so scared to even comment for fear of being implicated.

Is that alone not a subject worthy of comment?

There seems to have been hardy any decent FCCUK discussions - arguments of late. Everyone must be so content?

This was a hoax from 1999 was it not? I'm sure I heard a Paul Merton interview recently where he confirmed that.

I am disgusted that if Saville was what he now stands accused of, that he got away with it. He died content with no regret. At first I kind of understood how people could have been afraid to come forward and expose him whilst he was alive. I, as I suspect many of you, thought it was perhaps a small number of meek people. The kind of victims you would expect a sick sod to target. This was one reason why I could accept that even when someone did publically challenge Saville with previous allegations, and Police investigations, these people still didn't come forward to the police and support their fellow victim. However as weeks have gone by and this number has swelled to over 300 alledged victims I find it most unusual that none of these 300 took an oppotunity to speak up. Many of those who have now found a voice seem to be far from the meek victims. Some say they have spent their life hating Saville with some seeming pleased he has now been exposed and his reputation destroyed.

My colleague attended a few TOTP screenings and said Saville was there. He has suggested he too could say he was a victim and that there is nobody who could now challenge that. For me it seems quite clear that something has gone on with this odd Saville fellow. Am I alone in seeing it all as a bit of a witch hunt before any "evidence" has been presented though? I suspect there will be evidence and would hope that this evidence is taken to form part of some sort of legal process that gives a definitive legal outcome. I remain massively uncomfortable with trial by media, based upon rumour and accusations rather than burdon of proof. I am especially suspicious considering most of the media have spent years exposing peoples sexual exploits of minor celebs, but failed to expose this aledged illegal sexual behaviour.

Shame on you the British media.

Merton confirm on HIGNFY the other week that it was a hoax

The quick look I did on Google did seem to confirm it as a hoax, claimed by a number of BBC comedy writers.

Not sure there's much more to say, is there Bob? He was a wrong 'un that was allowed to get away with it because he was "famous".

I have edited my post above...

The term "Allowed" tends to suggest many people knew and overlooked. People keep talking about rumours, surely it is rumours that spark journalists into exposing all manner of things. How could everyone involved in the media ignore these rumours?

I couldn't accept that Rantzen woman saying she had heard rumours. Surely someone in her position would have done everything she could to have got to the bottom of these rumours whilst the man was alive. To come out and say what she has after he has died is almost as sick as the allegations against him. She set herself up as a child champion, it would seem she was far from that!

Totally agree with that Bob.

Well, since even Newsnight had an investigation pulled - and after Savile's death at that - it seems there wasn't much appetite to expose him.
Allegedly if journalists threatened to print anything, he would say: "OK, run the story, then explain to the hospitals/sick kids why the money I raise has dried up".
I also think there was a bit of collective self-delusion going on.
I'd be interested to hear what Louis Theroux thinks...
Trial by media? Not really. Not yet, anyway.

Hey, he wasn't all bad. He fixed it for me to learn to milk a cow whilst blindfolded.

Good olde BBC Ulster

Rumours were rife - I saw rumours about Saville posted on Usenet groups move than a decade ago, but what you going to do about it?

^ It would have taken a brave journo to take on the task and put his or her career on the line, let's not forget he was a 'national treasure' until a couple of months ago.
Not to mention his alleged links to the Irish mafia, which was also a well known secret.

You knew and you did nothing??!!?!!11!one! That makes you worse than Saville (according to the media).

Slightly funny, slightly icky!

http://www.bitterwallet.com/billy-savile-wants-to-visit-the-theme-hospital/60456

haha
I loved that game as a kid!

I truly don't get this argument that a "National Treasure" makes you safe. Princess Dianna was a national treasure but her reputation was totally destroyed and torn to bits by the media well before she died.



But is that not what an investigative journalist is supposed to do? Journalist have recently been exposed for doing things that were illegal in order to get stories aired that had far less public interest than this. I would suggest that taking a huge scalp such as Saville would have been far more lucrative in selling papers. Let's not forget this fellow used to be a guest of Royalty and Mrs T. Many Journalists would have done all manner of things to have had the credit for exposing his secrets.

Bob , I agree entirely, that was my point!
The fact that the chairman of Children in need wouldn't let Savile anywhere near the charity because there was 'something creepy' about him, should have had alarm bells ringing all over fleet street. One of the highest profile charity raisers in the country with Jim'll fix it connections?!

Celebrity paedophiles

NSFW, contains strong language.

Death by media is certainly happening. Exactly the same logic is being used by the papers as always happens when something which might embarrass an organisation: since [some members of a group] do [unpleasant things] therefore all [members of the group] do them.

So since Savile has been accused, and one or two others, not only was the BBC a hotbed of this activity but it actively encouraged it.

Bollocks. That argument was flawed in Aristotle's day, and it's just as flawed now. The BBC at the time - I joined it in 1978 and was there until 2010 - had around thirty-five thousand employees. I can speak from personal experience when I say that while the BBC had a reputation (in the papers, naturally) as the biggest gay hangout in London, the people there were just the same as those in Shepherd's Bush Market or High Street Kensington.

I believe I have posted previously on the rumoured availability of the audience of Top of the Pops; I cannot offer any comment as to their ages or indeed what it was that they got up to - though the rumours were indeed that they were as a rule not backward in coming forwards.

But while I do not condone the behaviour alleged to Savile (and on the couple of occasions I met him I disliked him intensely) there is a difference between 'I was abused' and 'I was a star-struck kid who actively sought out both the groups of the time and the DJs who played their music'. And I wonder how many people have moved from one group to the other...

Jeez

I personally think this business of whether the BBC should have screened a tribute or a piece of investigative journalism is being blown out of all proportion.

It doesn't change what happened, and criminal investigations are a job for the Police.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been out painting "Peedo skum" on my front door and putting my own windows in. In light of this now being all my fault I feel it's the least I can do.

They're already planning to dig him up and burn him. Burning is too bloody good for him, if you ask me guv.

Personally, I strongly suspect that the sort of behaviour being attributed to Savile was pretty rife in the music business, and that he is being singled out and demonised as if it were not. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his critics were just as bad.

Also, I have to keep coming back to this: Is child abuse more heinous than murder? How does that work, exactly?

How old was Mandy Smith when she was carousing with Bill Wyman in the 1980s (in very public gaze)? 13 years old.

John Peel. Allegedly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20251939

Pathetic - If I were in charge of ITV I'd resign in embarrassment.

I thought Cameron handled it incredibly well given what a silly stunt it was

Yes, I thought so too.

I am trying to imagine how Schofield feels about himself after that. I'd be embarrassed and ashamed.

Firstly, what's the PM doing on This Morning? Secondly, did Philip Schofield really just hand CMD a piece of paper with names of people that are rumoured on the internet to be involved with paedophilia and ask him what he's going to do about it?! Absolutely ridiculous.

He should have said he was going to get the cabinet and a lot of pitchforks to go and torch their houses.

I think it's more shocking that the shadow business secretary implied that Schofield is a serious broadcast journalist.

We should all have seen the signs. He was crying out for help while he was alive;

Agreed.

Should be sent to the jungle in Australia and be eaten instead of kangaroo testicles by other morons..... and watched by other morons...

You have to wonder what the hell Schofield expected the PM to do... Whatever he said he was doomed; the best thing he could have done was what he did: by refusing to look at it he could safely ignore commenting on those names.

People have been leaping on the 'witchhunt against gays' comment as if the PM has some prejudice there, but again I think he was correct - hoi polloi out there seems to associate paedophilia with homosexuality and, as always, can't separate the concept of 'someone who is X did Y' from 'all X do Y'.

Mind you - the intelligence of a mob is that of its least bright person divided by the number in the mob... logic is not expected to be its strong point.

A few years ago the net was a wash with rumours that Philip Schofield and Jason Donovan were in a relationship.
When Schofield was confronted with this information, he stated there was no truth in the rumours and that it was just 'internet gossip'

My guess would be that the statistics might back up the hoi polloi assumption in the case of offences against young boys - I can't imagine many women or straight men would be involved. Obviouisly in offences against girls the opposite would be expected.

No, that would be "All those who do Y are X"

Subtly different

I think she meant:



In fairness, he did apologise:



So it was all the cameraman's fault

So am I right in thinking that you associate paedophilia with homosexuality then?

I think he meant that a homosexual man would have sex with a boy, a hetero man with a girl, which seems to have some logic. Given that to me there is no logic in being attracted to a child

Cameron's response to Schofield which seems to have upset everyone was to state the dangers of assuming all paedos are homosexual. Given he appears to have upset everyone with that statement it would appear the common belief is that they are.

What he actually meant was that in general most sex offences with boys would have been perpetrated by gay men. What he didn't mean was that most gay men would have perpetrated sex offences with boys.

Exactly my point.

From what I saw Schofield was saying here's a list of tories who are suspected of child sexual abuse. It was Cameron, trying to deflect the issue, who brought up the 'is it because they is gay?' angle.

What isn't being said, apart from one sentence in an interview with Stephen Messham, is that its all about the bloody freemasons.

I'm sure I've read that with paedophilia, little distinction is sometimes made by the perpetrator as to the gender of the child. A paedophile who has offended against boys might well lead an apparently heterosexual adult sex life and not regard himself as homosexual.

If true, it's yet another reason to avoid the spurious linking of the two.

^ at last, the voice of reason.

There's no logic in any attraction - nobody makes a conscious decision as to what age, gender, size or fetish is going to attract them.

Absolutely, I was just referring to the fact that my previous statement shouldn't be read as meaning I thought that there was any logic to paedophilia.

Regardless of the drive, paedophilia is deviant behaviour. In my eyes inexcusable, regardless of sexual orientation. Other behaviours I also consider to be distasteful are not in the same league. If you wish to have a relationship with your dog/mum/dead girlfriend/best mate that's up to you, just not my bag.

Bold to emphasise that this is my opinion, others are entitled to a relationship with their dog/mum/dead girlfriend/best mate. Although remember no matter how enjoyable you may find any of these, only the last option is legal

I heard or read something many years ago,that one of the reason's men are attracted to beautifull women is that they look most child like !!

Strange i know.

Or they look like thier mum, apparently

Yes, sorry if I was not clear on that

There is a considerable difference between seeking, grooming and abusing persons you know to be under the age of sexual consent, and having sex with someone who is under the age of consent. Both are crimes but one is significantly more intentional than the other, much like the difference between murder and manslaughter I guess.

It seems clear that some famous people have had sexual contact with some of those who were star struck, it also seems clear that some of those people were under the legal age of consent. It is absolutely the responsibility of an adult to not seek to take advantage of young people and to ensure that persons they seek to have any sexual contact with are of legal age. We will probably never truly know if any of these persons making allegations were asked their age, and if they were, then told the truth. Young folk often inflate their ages in order to get what they want. I was drinking in Pubs well before I was 18. I never smoked but many of my friends were, and well before they were 16. Many girls and boys also seek to “Attain adulthood” well before they are 16 too, this is nothing new. From my last year at School I worked evenings as a DJ with a mobile disco and also in two clubs in the town with the over 18 age restriction. I would regularly see girls who I knew were several years younger than me in the clubs seeking men. Many of them were most successful in their regular endeavours.

One lesson you would have thought we would have learned throughout all this would to not be thrusting young girls into similar situations. This could start by not pandering to the idolisation of POP stars. Just this week though I saw the Surprise programme on ITV. It gave two young schoolgirls the opportunity to meet their POP idols. Both girls declared which one of the hunky fellows they “Liked the most” and he was immediately requested to sit between the two girls on the sofa. What do the TV people think it is these young girls would like from their idol, far more than just sitting I suspect

100% agreement, Bob.

As you say, it is the adult on the occasion whose responsibility it is to ensure that their acts are legal - but as you also say - how many people of *either* sex are actively engaged in activities not legal for their age? If I walk down to half the pubs in town I'll guarantee that many of the youngsters there are under age (which of course is different for different activities - go figure) and without knowing them personally how might one be expected to know their true age?

Again - this is not condoning abuse. It's hard to see, though, how someone deliberately pretending to be older than they are, and instigating a relationship which is strictly illegal, *is* abuse (even though the law has to define some limit).

I think the definition probably needs to include 'who is the controlling party?' somewhere. I suspect that in the case of Savile and others like him, the factor in his/their behaviour was not 'she's under age, woohoo!' but more likely 'she will do what I tell her to.'

As I said: I was around Television Centre at the time. I was certainly aware of the rumours - but to me that was all they were. Even in my late teens and early twenties I was uncomfortable with these kids, mostly girls, and I avoided them and the places they might be found. So, I have no direct experience. Nonetheless it still strikes me that there's the difference between 'seeking out' and 'being controlled' - and one question which hasn't been asked: how many of those people now complaining have moved, in their minds, from the first group to the second in the intervening years? How many are remembering memories of memories of memories? Forty years is a long time...

Anyone remember the Orkney child abuse events in the early nineties? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5272092.stm ? We should learn from that and not leap to conclusions.

You've been dipping into your "Essay concerning Human Understanding", by John Locke, again, haven't you.

I told you - it is for Christmas day!

Dear Noel Edmonds,

Please give me £100k or I will say you w***** me off on Swop Shop. Is it a deal, or no deal?

Yours,

Brewster

Did he give you a Crinkly Bottom too?

Heh. I was tickled listening to Radio 2 this afternoon, when they played John Lennon and Elton John recording of "I Saw Her Standing There."

With the immortal lines:

#She was just seventeen
#If you know what I mean

<nudge nudge wink wink?>

He was too sly on his own turf. It was nearer Dangly End.

Apparently Savile's career really took off in 1967 when, backstage at Top of the Pops, he introduced Cream to the Small Faces.

To be fair, though, I think we are are only talking about minor aberrations.

Oh, bravo. Well played, sir.

With the news that the police have now arrested Dave Lee Travis can anyone here think of a male Radio DJ from that era who wasn't creepy?

Maybe I should stress that I'm saying creepy in a vaguely uncomfortable sense. Obviously we would never state or imply that anyone had done anything nasty in an abuse of children/trust kind of way...

[Lawyers: Have I covered my arse. So to speak...?]

Bloody hell, DLT, the hairy monster. Used to be the best show on the radio....

Oh dear

I thought it was the Hairy Cornflake, but maybe I'm just naive...

While we are going around arresting tedious DJ's, can someone arrange for a knock on the door at Steve Wright's house? Surely producing the same show, every day, for endless decades is a crime against the nations ears?

I will have to write to my Police and Crime Commissioner if not.

After one bearded, ex-Radio 1 DJ has been arrested Noel might be sending me that cheque after all.

Hope they round up Moyles and the Ginger [cloud9] while they're clearing DJ Dross. And Baker.

Thought of one! Simon Mayo. He's alright. Apparently...

There was talk of interviewing Simon Bates but the old bill couldn't hack the 45 minute sob story they would have got....

DLT.

Wackwackoops.

Timmy Mallet. For being a .

There's speculation that he was a cereal offender.

Quack Quack oops...

The BBC have withdrawn tonights edition of TOTP hosted by DLT.
"In its place we are showing next week's edition of TOTP presented by Kid Jensen."
They forgot to add the word 'hopefully'

Bruno Brookes & Adrian Juste?

TOTP from 1977 was on BBC4 last night presented by David 'Kid' Jenson. Like Savile, he was surrounded by hordes of adoring teenage girls

Does anyone know if Wilfred De'ath was a producer of TOTP?

A bit of a porn flake, then?

More than a nice crispie.


Perhaps he preferred Grope Nuts.