Millions watched as Jimmy Saville molested me

reply to post by Phenomium


You're still attempting to derail this thread and make this into a "man versus woman" issue. The issue is sexual predators and that there is mounting evidence that this dude was one....on a big scale.

It just so happens his profile is such that his targeted victim group were girls/young women between about 12 and 19.

That's THIS predator. Others, such as Sandusky, have a profile that indicates their target group is that of young boys. This is not a gender issue. It's a sexual predator issue.

ATTENTION!!!!!!

This is the topic:
Millions watched as Jimmy Saville molested me


Members are urged to post ON TOPIC and ignore off-topic efforts to derail the thread.

There will be consequences to further bickering, off topic and rude posts.

You are responsible for your own posts.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

This thread will be closed briefly to allow members to read this post.




reopened at 2.52pm EDT

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


While I was typing a reply, you closed the thread. It was topical and well stated....but got lost to the dustbin of the internet.

reply to post by A boy in a dress




Indeed.... the heady days of the 80's are mentioned here.

Officers in London were ­ inquiring into allegations made by a teenage rent boy that a Cabinet minister had been abusing him.

The youth claimed to be one of a number of boys regularly having sex with rich and powerful men in the 1980s – some of whom would fly to the illegal orgies from Europe.

As well as the Cabinet minister – who is still alive – he pointed the finger at judges, European bigwigs and senior civil servants.

He told his story to detectives, who are understood to have received other allegations against the minister.
But a former detective who worked on the case revealed they were ­suddenly told to halt the probe.


The furious ex-policeman said: “It wasn’t that we ran out of leads but it reached a point where a warning to stop came.

“It was a case of ‘get rid of everything, never say a word to anyone’. It was made very clear to me that to ­continue asking questions would ­jeopardise my career.”

www.dailystar.co.uk...

Originally posted by King Seesar
Where to begin....ok first....

dayve: Come on dude use some sense you could tell she didn't like it, it was obvious shock she was going through and nobody gave her a book on how to react when some person inappropriately touches you, besides she went to the producers of the show and told them what happen in anger and they told her to get lost....

Idk what video you where watching, to me it look like he MIGHT have grabbed her ass and she jumped, she still had a smile on her face. Call it shock or whatever, i think some people put too much thought into it. Its no more than flirting. Who knows what they do behind the stage

reply to post by dayve



I call it "dominance". To do that on live TV is degrading to her, a dominating action.

Even in that time.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan





I would add to that "and sheer arrogance"

He would refer to himself as 'King Jimmy' and i think he took great pleasure in being

blatant on camera

I'm King Jimmy Look what i can do and no one can stop me

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by dayve

 

I call it "dominance". To do that on live TV is degrading to her, a dominating action.

Even in that time.

Maybe. I'm sure theirs more to the story. To me its mutual whatever... Someone might see it as something else, only those two know. But if she didn't like it, she hid it well....

Originally posted by dayve

[ I'd have done the same thing, except with the girl standing in front.... Giggidy.......

'Idk what your talkin about.... If you even watch the video you would see she is laughing... If he had his hand up her skirt against her will she would have not been so happy and it would be obvious.... Dont gimme that **** n pretend like anything i said is advocating 'molestation'..... You have some issues, thats beyond this subject.... Deal with it, then come back n debate about what happen in this video.' - dayve



If Savile was molesting the girl to his right and you said that you would have done the same thing, 'except with the girl standing in front', tell me how that is not advocating molestation?

Now you may be acting stupid by pretending that the only thing happening in the world negatively against Savile is this video, and if this video was the ONLY thing people have against him, I could see your point more clearly, but this is not the case. Currently there is a speculation that at least 3 hundred victims of Savile are speaking, with more expected.

www.cbsnews.com...

With this fact, the content of the video in this thread becomes a lot more serious. Your suggestion is that she was laughing, and therefore MUST be having a good time. There are different types of laughter that perform different functions.

loreskinaite.blogspot.com...

Notice the description of 'Nervous Laughter'

"People laugh when they need to project dignity and control during times of stress and anxiety. In these situations we usually laugh in a subconscious attempt to reduce stress and calm down. However, it often works otherwise. Nervous laughter is often considered fake laughter and even heightens the awkwardness of the situation."

My only issue regarding your posts is that you assume knowledge of a situation that you know nothing about. If you were asking questions about the situation I would not single you out, but you somehow 'know' that she was on drugs and having a good time, which is something you can only speculate. On top of this, your language comes off very callous and immature for the subject matter. Considering that this is your approach to this subject, it does not surprise me at all that your response to me was from an offensive position and not defensive. It is not surprising that your suggestion that it is ME with the issues, even though it is you that plainly said that you would act in the exact manner that Savile did in the video.

Originally posted by dayve

Originally posted by King Seesar
Where to begin....ok first....

dayve: Come on dude use some sense you could tell she didn't like it, it was obvious shock she was going through and nobody gave her a book on how to react when some person inappropriately touches you, besides she went to the producers of the show and told them what happen in anger and they told her to get lost....

Idk what video you where watching, to me it look like he MIGHT have grabbed her ass and she jumped, she still had a smile on her face. Call it shock or whatever, i think some people put too much thought into it. Its no more than flirting. Who knows what they do behind the stage

But she didn't like it that is why she told the producers about it as i stated earlier, i get what your saying that they may have knew each other in that kind of way off screen and could have been good friends so it may have been a flirt/joking thing.... but it's not the case that's why she complained about it to the producers of the show.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by newcovenant

The pedophile bandwagon?
What are we in church?

The real question is, why did the establishment cover up for him?

The establishment was part of it. Savile had access to young people all over the place and he harvested them for himself and others. Savile was even a Papal Knight! How the hell do you get that honour by running sponsored marathons?

reply to post by King Seesar


We only have her word on the matter that she complained, She got paid by the newspaper to run the story and seeing that the man can not defend himself she could say anything really.
I wonder how many of the people coming forward are telling the truth, why didn't they come out and say something before eh? but when compensation is mentioned loads more come out of the woodwork.
The whole situation stinks.

reply to post by Ml5edT0death


He raised over 40 million for charity.
2nd.

There are a few 'die hard' posters on this thread, who with their attitude come off as

supporters of molestation and have the 'macho' stance of 100 years ago when women

were considered 'property'

I am posting some remarks from post's on this thread at the end of my post 'you know

who said them.' When that is the concensus of 'male' opinion in the 21st centuary will

any one be supprised that these indecent assaults go unreported....


# Look at her facial expression and hand movement - that is not indecent assault

# She is 19 and she didn't seem horrified...

# To me it was mutual if she didn't like it she hid it well

# She had a smile on her face...it is no more than flirting

# It appears to be a funny moment for her

# If he had his hand up her skirt against her will she would not have looked so happy

# She was not being molested. If his hand was up her skirt more power to him

# She does appear to be on crack

# The girl was not molested, assualted or abused as far as the video showed


NOT MUCH CHAUVINISM THERE THEN???

no...no chauvinism at all..

Man what a bunch of a-holes writing that stuff.

At 19 she's not exactly world-wise, and if a national celebrity is feeling her up live on national TV in the 70's at a time when it wasn't yet the done thing to make millions suing then WTF is she supposed to do?

the neanderthal misogynists on here are a sad indictment on man (sic) kind (no - quite cruel actually!)! (apologies to any neandethals!)

reply to post by boymonkey74


I agree with you the whole thing is a mess if only he was still alive then some questions would get answered, but people have been complaining about this type of thing with people in power for a long time now like i said in a earlier post read Brice Taylor's book Thanks For The Memories so if anything good can come of this then maybe some of these high powered pedophile rings will be exposed.


I also said in that same earlier post that your innocent until proven guilty and people should refrain from lynching this guy's memory until we get more soild proof because what if he is innocent or better yet lets say a alive person gets blamed for this and then people trash this person and this person is innocent his life is now runied and he's traumatized for life...

Things to think about....

To all those who question how she was smiling watch this and listen to the commentary by the girl involved. This is from a documentary shown long before Savile was outed for the vile predator he was.. This girl was undoubtedly under age at the time and Savile later brazenly "invited her back to his hotel", in front her sisters.

From about 3 mins 3;25 onwards

reply to post by FireMoon

That wasn't the girl involved. The girl in the OP is named Sylvia Edwards and according to the article she went to the show with a friend not her sisters.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by newcovenant

The pedophile bandwagon?
What are we in church?

The real question is, why did the establishment cover up for him?

Shrug. Why did the establishment cover Ted Kennedy's tail? If you are rich and connected you can get away with a lot.