h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There is some merit in Biddy Baxter's point - Saville is dead. His knighthood died with him, so any breast-beating about posthumously stripping him of it is done out of ignorance.

On the other hand, if the investigation into him reveals complicity by some still living, then that deserves to come out. Or does it?

What some seem to be suggesting is that there should be some statute of limitations style of thing here. "It was the 60s, man", or whatever. It seems as a society we are indignant to the point of horror when it turns out, as it too often does, that a priest was into kids. We seem, however, slightly more ambivalent when it turns out a famous entertainer who had a lot of contact with young girls was... into young girls. That it was a crime then just as much as it is a crime now seems to be something we are, for some reason, not so black-and-white about. Perhaps because it involves the age of consent, which if we're honest, isn't such a black-and-white thing, as we all know perfectly well.

One does not, on one's sixteenth birthday, suddenly become emotionally mature enough to have sexual relations. And if one does, one has to wonder why one is not judged to have the maturity to watch videos of other people doing it for another two years. Personally I would have thought it made more sense to be allowed to watch it before you're allowed to do it. But here I am pretending that kids don't watch pron. Who am I kidding?

This consideration of "well, she may not *technically* have been old enough, but if she LOOKED old enough, I mean, it's not like it was little kids, if she looked over sixteen..." etc. clouds the issue, which is that whether or not they were underage, these women are relating allegations of assault and rape. It seems some are forgetting that. Underage or not, these were not, it seems, willing participants, so the collusion of others in enabling or covering it up matters, I think, a lot more than it would if the suggestion were only that a man had engaged in serial instances of consensual activity with people who were too young. That's not what's being alleged here.

Good point well made.

When it was mentioned that there could be allegations about other DJs, husband and I named exactly the same ex-Radio 1 DJ at exactly the same moment.

Mol

How telling is it that I don't know which one you mean? As in - my list of possible suspects is longer than one...

Not Smashy and Nicey! Tell me it's not true!

Mike Smith cross and defensive of the situation.

PP.

Eeeuew.

Mike Smith: "He asked himself it what Kershaw experienced was a crime, saying: “Whether it’s a crime – there we are, I’ve opened myself up now to the feminists attacking me – is it a crime? "

Is it a crime to creep up behind a woman who doesn't know you're there and stick your hand up her clothes and fondle her breasts? Because that was the very clear and unambiguous description of what happened that Liz Kershaw gave on the radio.

How desperately, wilfully blind do you need to be to have to ask whether that's a crime?

Whereas he describes "generalising from the particular" as a "heinous crime". Er... no, it's just not a valid argument, but people do it all the time. It's not a crime to say "Well, this happened to me, so it was happening everywhere." It *IS* a crime to assault someone. I never had much respect for Radio 1 DJs (who did?) but Smitty does need a club round the head with a clue-by-four.

A week or so on since this thread started

does anyone now think that Jimmy Savile wasn't a predatory sex offender?

I am also interested in, if you held the view that there was little point in going over this now, and it had been perhaps better dealt with privately, now that extent and scale of allegations and reports are coming out into the public domain, has that view now changed?

I have to admit that initially I was rather sceptical although I did say at the time that I thought that I remembered some rumblings from the 70's. I guess that I was a little concerned that people who appear odd or ecentric are often easy targets for all sorts of allegations - especially after they are dead.

That said, the enormous weight of testimony is difficult to dismiss. I'm not surprised, no. I don't think I was to start with but wary that the initial allegations COULD have been mischeivous (although I didn't see the documentary). I am more tham prepared to accept that they were not.

I am not sure what the actions of his family say. Do they accept what is being said or are they simply tring to prevent mob stupidity around places like his grave.

Authorities appear to be acceppting that he was an abuser and are currently removing plaques, changing conference room names and so forth.

When other names start to emerge as being associated with his behaviour, I suspect that there will be a new set of surprises.

PP

Well it is all still untested in a court of law - but that aside, it is starting to be in the same realms as what's just happened to Lance Armstrong.

Some brown stuff is surely going to hit the fan with regards to people responsible for dismissing or failing to investigate complaints now though.
Talking to my missus last night, she's been either hearing or reading about anecdote from Jo Whiley complaining about being molested whilst on air by a producer at Radio 1 but it falling upon deaf ears when she did complain.
So if true there was a culture of this sort of thing at Radio 1 (at least) that stretched presumably from the outset until well into the 1990s.


I'm a little worried that my childhood is going to be soon entirely expunged from history now. There does seem to be tendency to pretend these things didn't exist once such things come out. There is a Gary Glitter sized hole in my childhood that has now been widened with the even larger hole that is Jim'll Fix it (that never was). I wonder what will be sucked from history next.

"does anyone now think that Jimmy Savile wasn't a predatory sex offender?"

Speaking for myself, I'm satisfied he was. Which is to say, I've made a choice as to which of two mutually exclusive and equally unbelievable crackpot conspiracy theories I believe.

Here's a thing that occurs to me though - I had vague memories from being young of the very first time I heard the word "paedophile". It was on TV and it was in reference to an organisation called the "Paedophile Information Exchange".

In 2012, it's hard to believe this organisation could exist. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

At a time when someone could publicly set up and promote a pro-paedo activist group, is it surprising Savile could get away with what he apparently did? It's within my lifetime, but it seems like a truly alien land...

Hey, good point.

Does that mean we will never again see that fat Boy Scout trying to stuff that doughnut into his pudgy face while upside down on the Revolution at Blackpool? That'll be a sad loss to nostalgia clip-shows...

>>Authorities appear to be acceppting that he was an abuser and are currently removing plaques, changing conference room names and so forth. <<

*wonders what they will change Savile Row to*

>Does that mean we will never again see that fat Boy Scout trying to stuff that doughnut into his pudgy face while upside down on the Revolution at Blackpool? That'll be a sad loss to nostalgia clip-shows...
<



Although I thought it was the Corkscrew at Alton Towers meself...

No no, you are quite right.

It seems he never lost the weight

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-445394/Too-fat-Jimll-Fix-It-rollercoaster-stunt-reunion.html

>>Authorities appear to be acceppting that he was an abuser and are currently removing plaques../

Well that just means they realise the brand has gone seriously toxic, regardless of how guilty he was.

It's the sheer volume of allegations that's swayed me, I think. They can't *all* be from limelight-seekers. I also hadn't realised the extent to which he had friends in high places - that would explain why people who knew or suspected (as opposed to those who were victims) didn't speak up.

Still haven't seen Private Eye Must go over to Dad's this weekend.

I think the headstone removal was a very sensible response. Undoubtedly it would have been vandalised, and that would have spoiled what should be a peaceful place of reflection and private grief for all the other cemetery visitors. It's hard to tell from the brief reporting I've read, but I get the impression this was the reasoning behind the removal.

My husband sometimes creeps up behind me and ... oh, but hang on. He's my husband, I enjoy it, and I'm not broadcasting on a national radio station while it's happening. If, however, he was doing it to a work colleague, I'd expect him to be in trouble - and not just with me.

Mol

Have just seen mention of John Peel being involved in the 'culture'.

Unhappy.

PP.

It's much easier to hate an oddball like Savile than lovable old Peelie, isn't it? And don't forget that living legends like Bowie and Jimmy Page had dalliances with underage groupies, one as young as 13. There is a difference, in that it seems that many of Savile's crimes involved unwilling partners, whereas these other groupies were utterly smitten; although of course any underage person is legally unable to consent.

I don't hate Savile, I have had feelings of revulsion and anger. Yesterday I was furious, not just because he did this but for the failure of people that should and could have stopped this.

Then I was pleased with myself because despite wanting to rant I posted questions instead and found the answers to be very interesting

John Peel, I am finding that hard to get my head round, when I have I'll post. Right now I am gutted and I feel stupid and somehow taken in because this is all news to me

I think the issue of having sex with underage teens is that to a certain extent it depends on who you are, and what your relationship with the teen is, as to quite how horrifying it is. I'm not talking about Saville because, you know, rape is rape, no patter the age of the victim.

30 year old teachers running off with 15 year olds would not be acceptable if the teen was 16 either. It's not the age it's the position of authority the teacher holds and the power imbalance that brings and the influence that they can bring as a result of the power imbalance that makes it not on. I appreciate that all relationships probably have imbalances somewhere. Who has the money, age differences, personality, who is the man and who the woman, etc, but there is a reason why boss/employee relationships or rock star/ groupy encounters are icky too, and that is it. But even more so when one of the people in the relationship is very young.