Millions watched as Jimmy Saville molested me

she looked shocked and scared to shout over him, perhaps thats why he only did it when he was doing a bit.

Imagine you are her on the spot on live tv and hes the host and star doing a bit, i repeat on live tv.

horrible situation tbh.

so if something is going on she loves it!

reply to post by r2d246

Never mind, No one needs me to point this out..

reply to post by jcarpenter


I think what the video shows is just how inappropriate he was willing to be "openly" and according to that young woman it tramatized her. This is a wierd and disturbing story the more it unfolds it would appear his "popularity" with very powerful people was due to him providing children for them to molest.

I have even read some speculation that one reason Diana might have been killed was to prevent her from exposing the Royal's involement in this "sick" behavior, and perhaps why Saville ended up dead himself, as I understand he was under alot of heat, and was being investigated prior to his death.

That young lady, young enough to be his daughter,reacted in actually a fairly normal manner, especially in those days, I was groped on more then one occassion by older men in my youth, and squirming away and trying to laugh it off was how I handled it at the time too. What's strange is like many of the victims coming forward I never told anyone till I was an adult, and I can't even tell you why? I guess I didn't want to get my friends dads and uncle in trouble, embarress or hurt my friends, and knew my dad would have killed them.

As for the game show host, that was beyond creepy...and I can't believe those mom's just sat there and watched this freak insist on kissing thier daughters, even after they made it perfectly clear they didn't want to kiss him....I would have told that scum-bag, "HEY, she said NO ! " and marched off the set with my child.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by badgerprints
Not to be a killjoy. I don't know this guy.
The girl is wearing a pair of pants but the article says he had his hand up her skirt.
is this a joke?

She was also 19 and appeared to find the situation amusing.

Are you kidding me!? She laughed because she was shocked and embarrassed. She was obviously very uncomfortable and did not enjoy the touching at all.

reply to post by Kandinsky





12, 19, 31, 55 years...makes no difference. Someone, anyone putting their hands up

another persons clothing uninvited is an 'abusive offence' which ever way you look at it!

After reading various news accounts of these incidents involving Savile, I just watched the documentary "Exposure: the Other Side of Jimmy Savile" and have some mixed feelings about the manner in this is being portrayed throughout the media.

First and foremost I agree that Savile was a scumbag on many levels and most if not all of the incidents described could be characterized as sexual assaults. I have no love for anyone who sexually violates another individual against their will or uses their position to sexually assault another; frankly it disgusts me.

In almost all of the claims made against Savile I have read the victims almost all seem to have been 15 years old at the time they allege Savile abused them. That being said, I do have an issue with Savile being characterized as a pedophile or child molester. It is critically important to note that the age of consent in the United Kingdom is 16 years old. In the United States each State sets the age of consent, in about 60% of States that age is 18 years old. Would anyone call someone a pedophile if that individual was over 18 and in a sexual relationship with someone which began after they turned 17? Absolutely not. If I recall my college psychology courses correctly Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children, not people over 15 year olds. Just seems like the media hype machine is out of control mischaracterizing him as a pedophile rather than a serial sexual assaulter.

For the record I feel that anyone who sexually violates the innocence of a child are the worst people on the planet and the penalties for their actions should be incredibly severe.

Originally posted by MountainLaurel

I think what the video shows is just how inappropriate he was willing to be "openly" and according to that young woman it traumatized her. This is a weird and disturbing story the more it unfolds it would appear his "popularity" with very powerful people was due to him providing children for them to molest.

This is indeed a weird story and I have no doubt he was an elitist monster protected by those at the highest levels.

You describe her as a young woman and then the paragraph blends into "children". Point being: This was a woman and it was on British TV. Think Monte Python's Flying Circus. I would expect this conduct on the set.

Reading over the thread, I'm sorry now I responded. Sometimes emotions are so high that it impairs our ability to discuss an issue.

reply to post by eletheia
I agree with that...

The point I was making was that it was unfair to suggest a member is a pedo when he describes being attracted to 14 year old girls as a 14 year old boy.

If you somehow misconstrued the post as me being in favour of adults molesting children, I can only suggest you go back and read it again. It in no way endorses sexual abuse of anyone, of any age, or any gender.

I wish everyone would stop criticizing Jimmy Savile. When I was 8, he fixed it for me to milk a cow blindfolded.

In all seriousness though, megastar or not, the fact no one really kicked off at the time kind of makes this a 'what if' event? I am truely sorry for anyone who suffered at his hands (no pun intended) and his poor family must be in bits finding the man they all knew and loved was a monster, removing his graves headstone etc. The fact he raised millions for charity and plenty of people directly benefited from his efforts count for nothing now.

reply to post by NickDC202


The big problem with you analysis is that these kids, teenagers were vulnerable kids from prison like schools.
They were subject to abuse because they had no voice, they were the scum of society, or mentally damaged children.

Im 30 odd, and even though the age of consent is 16, i would NEVER dream of engaging in such antics with a CHILD. They are still kids, i believe people are vulnerable into their early twenties...especially if your upbringing was that bad you were sent to segregated schools/homes. He prayed on the young, weak and vulnerable, he was a sick vile waste of skin.

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
reply to post by NickDC202

 

The big problem with you analysis is that these kids, teenagers were vulnerable kids from prison like schools.
They were subject to abuse because they had no voice, they were the scum of society, or mentally damaged children.

Im 30 odd, and even though the age of consent is 16, i would NEVER dream of engaging in such antics with a CHILD. They are still kids, i believe people are vulnerable into their early twenties...especially if your upbringing was that bad you were sent to segregated schools/homes. He prayed on the young, weak and vulnerable, he was a sick vile waste of skin.

If you might take a moment to review my post again you will read that I am clear that those making claims against Savile are VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT by Savile. I stated that I do not condone sexual violation of anyone.

Additionally I would highlight that each individual State within the United States has different laws regarding age of consent; if you examined the age of consent in many States (and the District of Columbia) you would be shocked at some of those numbers. Furthermore the age of consent varies across the globe. You and I may not agree with the low age of consent that is the law in many States and nations around the world, however in many civilized/economically powerful nations the age of consent is socially accepted (for example 16 is the law and socially accepted throughout the UK).

While personally I would not have a sexual relationship with an individual in their upper teens because the age of consent says its ok; frankly I was once 16 and know how annoying 16 year olds are and the drama that fuels their lives so I have no interest in dealing with that.

All I am stating is that agree or disagree in the United Kingdom it is the law and socially accepted that the age of consent is 16. To paint Savile as a pedophile for SEXUALLY ASSAULTING 15 year olds is completely inaccurate. Savile was a sexual deviant who used his power to SEXUALLY ASSAULT countless individuals and his actions disgust me because no one should be sexually violated by another.

Age, race, gender. None of these matter. The crux is: A person is invading another person's personal space without their permission.

Cut the bull, people. Whether he's famous or not, whether she giggled or not, in this particular instance, it was obviously NOT previously discussed with this young woman. (now imagine THAT conversation...."and at that moment, you, Jimmy, you do whatever you can to make this girl squirm...k?")

The only pity is that he's dead now. I'd have loved to see HIM squirm like that...see if he gives a nervous giggle.
B@st@rd!!!!!!!

reply to post by NickDC202


While I somewhat understand your point, it appears his "thing" was raping teenager girls, and possibly dead people, seriously weird. In his case though it seems he recruited younger, more vulnerable kids from children's homes, runaways, etc. and delivered them to the elite. Saville's own nephew has come out and discussed the "parties" he wittnessed, although seems to be unwilling to name names.

Sure some 15 yr. olds are becoming sexual, with other kids in a similiar age range, entirely different thing then being exploited by older "freaks". .....lol...as a Mommy I can tell you 15 yr. olds are still kids !

reply to post by NickDC202




The girls were young and didn't have the confidence that comes with age to stand up to

an 'adult' and a 'famous' one at that! Girls of that age (although they think they know

everything) do not have the emotional experience to deal with those types of situations


He was WRONG because he lured them into his 'trap'...being young their only concerns

would have been the excitement of being on TV, seeing their musical idols close up,

meeting the 'famous' and dancing. I doubt their thoughts went any further than that! At

no time would they have been told 'there was a price to pay for these privilages' and

they would not have been worldly wise enough to realise this.


The 'punch line' came after the show when they were 'thrown to the wolves' as

entertainment for the boy's....And don't forget many of these girls came from homes

for disturbed and underprivilaged children. And i have read that if they complained about

Saint Jimmy they were put into isolation till they changed their minds and revised their

complaint.

reply to post by Kandinsky



Sorry i may have put it badly....I wasn't inferring that you were endorsing abuse. I was

just pushing the point that unwarrented attention was abhorrant at any age

I had to deal with his type when young - sicko - and notice how the camera person ZOOMS IN on Jimmy while the girl squirms to try to get her out of the shot - no one does a thing about it but try to cover it up

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by NickDC202

 

While I somewhat understand your point, it appears his "thing" was raping teenager girls, and possibly dead people, seriously weird. In his case though it seems he recruited younger, more vulnerable kids from children's homes, runaways, etc. and delivered them to the elite. Saville's own nephew has come out and discussed the "parties" he wittnessed, although seems to be unwilling to name names.

Sure some 15 yr. olds are becoming sexual, with other kids in a similiar age range, entirely different thing then being exploited by older "freaks". .....lol...as a Mommy I can tell you 15 yr. olds are still kids !

I do not and have not in any way condone Savile's actions. It enrages me when people use their power or position to prey on the most vulnerable. I am an advocate for much, much harsher punishments for those who are guilty of sexual abuse and sexual assault. I find those who are guilty of child exploitation and robbing a child of their innocence to be the worst people on the planet.

I agree with almost all of what you and others have posted in reply to my postings and wanted to write the above to make it crystal clear that I am in no way condoning the actions of Savile and I support and pray for all of his victims.

The real reason those in power cover up sexually related crimes is that they make great extortion-material. It's no coincidence the cabal are accused of covering up so many of those kinds of crimes.

The thing is: Why was he protected?

We need to figure THAT out - seeing that Saville is dead... much of this is going to turn into beating a dead horse (ha?) - because it aint just Saville (like how, IMO, is wasn't just Sandusky - but we sure as hell stopped there!).

The general populace has extremely short attention spans. Government and mass media know this and use it against us very well. If too much attention is focused on Saville alone without going FURTHER into this to find WHY people like this are protected and WHO or WHAT is doing the protecting it will all drown out after this one guy is vilified enough and enough lawsuits hit the BBC without concious attention on why it is ignored or allowed to happen and who else is involved.

We need to smoke out the friggin den, in other words, and not stop at what the media may be trying to turn into the buck (as in the buck stops here and only here)

Make sense?

Interesting story, and the video seems to back up the claim.

But what I'm stuck on is why no one came forward when he was alive?

More than one Sunday newspaper in the UK would have been all over the story, and he could have been prosecuted.

Its not like the tabloids wouldn't have run it is it?

Don't get it. The police reckon theres 300 cases and yet no one raised it officially until a couple of months after he was dead?