The Jim'll Fix It Thread!!!

[GroobySteven]

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rogerb/jokes/HIGNFY.txt
wondering about the veracity of this:
Apparently, this was actually recorded during the last series of "Have I Got
News For You" when Jimmy Saville was a guest on Paul Merton's team.
Incredibly, it didn't make our screens. (It seems that Mr. Merton doesn't
like Mr. Saville very much)

Out-take 3:09'36
During the headline round:
DEAYTON: You used to be a wrestler didn't you?
SAVILLE: I still am.
DEAYTON: Are you?
SAVILLE: I'm feared in every girls' school in the country.
(Audience laugh)
DEAYTON: Yeah, I've heard about that.
SAVILLE: What have you heard?
DEAYTON: I've...
MERTON: Something about a cunt with a rancid, pus-filled cock.
(Huge audience laugh; Awkward pause)
SAVILLE: I advise you to wash your mouth out, my friend...
MERTON: That's what she had to do! (Audience laughs)
HISLOP: Weren't you leaving money in phone boxes or something?
(Saville glares at him) Or have I got completely the wrong end of the...
SAVILLE: (To Deayton, heavily) The question you asked was about wrestling.
DEAYTON: Yes. And then you mentioned girls' schools. I don't know whe...
SAVILLE: Well I understood this was a comedy programme. I realise now how wrong I was. (Audience laugh)
DEAYTON: So were you a professional wrestler?
SAVILLE: Yes I was.
DEAYTON: (To audience) Glad we got that cleared up.(Pulls face; audience giggles)
HISLOP: Feared by every girls' school in the country...
SAVILLE: That's right.
MERTON: Due to having a rancid, pus-filled cock.(Huge audience laugh)
DEAYTON: Erm...
HISLOP: You're on top form tonight, Paul...
SAVILLE: (Strangely) I'm...this is not what I...
FLOOR MANAGER: (OOV) OK, do you...(inaudible section)...shall we, for pick-ups...
MERTON: I'm terribly sorry. I don't know what came over me.
SAVILLE: A pus-filled cock, I imagine. (Shocked audience laugh)
MERTON: Oh, it's nice to see you joining in. We'd been waiting for you, you sad senile old shitter. (Audience appears to do double-take)
DEAYTON: I think we...d-d-you you want to apologise to our guest, Paul?
MERTON: Sorry, I do apologise. Sir senile old shitter, is what I meant to say.
(Audience laugh; pause) Sir senile old shitter...who fucks minors.
(Audience unrest)
HISLOP: Sorry, I'm just looking at our lawyer again. (Waves) Hello!
(Audience laughs)
DEAYTON: Shall we get back on course with this, or sha...
SAVILLE: I do fuck miners, that's quite correct. I have always done so. They can do the most wonderful things with cigars. The coal...
MERTON: What, they stick them up your senile, pus-filled arse?
(Audience laughs)
FLOOR MANAGER: (OOV): Come on...I'm getting an ear-bashing here. It's...
MERTON: Oh they want to continue. Sorry, I'll contain myself. Carry on...
DEAYTON: Right (Pause) You used to be a professional wrestler didn't you?
(Huge audience laugh)
SAVILLE: (Calmly) I did.
DEAYTON: You didn't have a nickname or anything?
SAVILLE: Yes - 'Loser'. (Audience laughs)
___________________________________
Out-take 4: 21'20
Following a discussion about caravans:
DEAYTON: Last month, Roger Moore sold his luxury caravan in Malta. Asked by the...
MERTON: I visited your caravan the other week, Jimmy.
SAVILLE: Did you really?
MERTON: Oh yes. Interesting what you can find, if you have a bit of a poke.
(Audience laugh)
HISLOP: He just told you, it was twelve years ago...
SAVILLE: No, I lived in it for twelve years.
MERTON: And fucked twelve year olds. (Audience laugh)
DEAYTON: Here we go again...I'll be backstage if anyone wants me.
MERTON: (Indicating Saville) That's what you said to the kids on your show, wasn't it?
(Audience laugh)
SAVILLE: No, they never did want me.
HISLOP: Not even Sarah Cornley?
SAVILLE: She was an exception.
DEAYTON: Who's Sarah Cornley?
SAVILLE: Sarah Cornley is...
HISLOP: About fifteen grand in damages, wasn't she?
(Uncertain audience laugh)
SAVILLE: That's right.
HISLOP: So if I was going to mention that you threatened to break her arm if she said anything...
SAVILLE: You'd be very wrong. (Pause) I said I'd break both her arms.
(Audience unease)
MERTON: Fucking hell. I mean, you're just sitting there, all shell suit and cigar wearing those fucking...I don't know what they are.
SAVILLE: Chrome-plated SC-700 sun-visors, these are. Sent to me by...
MERTON: We don't give a shit. Ladies and gentlemen, Sir James Saville OBE. Jim has fixed it for me to have my arms broken. Meet this depressing old fucked up cunt of a fucker on television who's riddled with cancer and fucking pubic lice.
HISLOP: (To lawyer again) Hello! (Audience laughs)
MERTON: Christ, I mean ha ha, big fucking joke - the fucking lawyers are involved, tee hee. It doesn't change anything.
DEAYTON: (Visibly out of character) Do you wanna stop, or...?
MERTON: No I don't fucking want to stop. It's all shit! You'll expect a comedy walkout in a minute, won't you? I mean, big bloody joke - I'm going to quote Shakespeare in a minute, how fucking out of character. And Ian knows about football - oh my fucking sides.
SAVILLE: You've never fucked anyone in your life, boy.
MERTON: Oh fuck off...
FLOOR MANAGER: (OOV) ...About five minutes, just to...(Phil Davey enters)
PHIL DAVEY: OK, well top that as they say. You're looking troubled by that, aren't you mate? I tell you, I came back from Amsterdam recently...
RECORDING PLACED ON STAND-BY; CUTS BACK TO CLOSE-UP OF DEAYTON
AWAITING HIS CUE
DEAYTON: OK. Second time lucky. (Pause) Last month, Roger Moore sold his luxury caravan in Malta. Asked by the New York Times about his relaxed acting style...

[GroobySteven]

14 and a virgin?

Don't worry, Jim'll Fix It!

[Prospero]

That is truly a good read - but could it possibly be true? Wouldn't the producer have just stopped the whole shebang there and then and told Merton to stop wasting time (as none of this would ever make it on air) ?

[GroobySteven]

That is truly a good read - but could it possibly be true? Wouldn't the producer have just stopped the whole shebang there and then and told Merton to stop wasting time (as none of this would ever make it on air) ?

Read that it's probably a work of fiction but based in fact of what a lot of people in the Beeb knew (and I don't think Merton or Hislop wanted to work with him).

[APD2]

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rogerb/jokes/HIGNFY.txt
wondering about the veracity of this:
Apparently, this was actually recorded during the last series of "Have I Got
News For You" when Jimmy Saville was a guest on Paul Merton's team.
Incredibly, it didn't make our screens. (It seems that Mr. Merton doesn't
like Mr. Saville very much)

Out-take 3:09'36
During the headline round:
DEAYTON: You used to be a wrestler didn't you?
SAVILLE: I still am.
DEAYTON: Are you?
SAVILLE: I'm feared in every girls' school in the country.
(Audience laugh)

I do remember Jimmy Saville appearing on HIGNFY in the late 90's.But he was on Ian Hislop's team-not Paul's.

The transcript is a well known hoax and it's been doing the round on the net for many years now...

The part highlighted was taken from the actual show.The rest is a fabrication...

[APD2]

But yeah,as that parody suggests, rumours about Jimmy's penchant for young girls have been going on for years in the media..


The Times went over his autobiography and found a passage,in which he appeared to confess to underage sex.It seems it wasn't considered such a big deal in those days...


Hugo Rifkind quotes from Jimmy Savile’s autobiography, published in 1974:


In today’s Times story about the allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile, David Sanderson highlighted some quotes from As It Happens, Savile’s 1974 autobiography, that nobody else seems to have picked up on. It’s strange that they haven’t, because they are startling:

[Savile] writes of an incident at the Mecca Locarno ballroom in Leeds, where he worked as a DJ during the 1950s, when a female police officer came in with a photograph of “an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home”.

Savile writes: “‘Ah,’ says I all serious, ‘if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward’.” He then writes that the girl did go into the club and “agreed that I hand her over if she could stay at the dance, [and] come home with me”. He wrote that he did then hand her over to the “lady of the law…[who] was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues, for it was well known that were I to go I would probably take half the station with me”.


I repeat, this is Savile’s autobiography. It wasn’t winkled out of him by a cunning interviewer; he didn’t let it slip when he was pissed. It wasn’t a post-modern joke.

Rather, these are words he wrote in a book, which were read by a publisher, and presumably by lawyers, and by reviewers, and by readers. One of his alleged victims even claims he gave her a copy of it, after abusing her, with the inscription “No Escape!”.

What can these words possibly mean, except for what they seem to mean? How can nobody have noticed?

Right now, many are presumably wondering how his behaviour can have been concealed for so long. But it wasn’t concealed. It was right out there, in plain view, and nobody wanted to see. I’m not sure what the lesson of all this is, but if there is one, it’s horribly bleak.

....

[jennylicious]

Some of shows record for hours to get 30 minutes. A Would I lie to you recording I went to with Angus D as the host was 3 hours. I'm not sure its real.

If that is the main site that the transcript had found, then I guess this wasn't manufactured since this new publiciity. They have done a good job making it look like a genuine site from 2003. The only suspect thing I found, apart from the fact it does look a bit too much like a 1990's cultural time capsule, is that the guy who owns the site runs what looks like a really terrible web company. The kind that nobody would ever employ based on their site.

[jennylicious]

Rather, these are words he wrote in a book, which were read by a publisher, and presumably by lawyers, and by reviewers, and by readers. One of his alleged victims even claims he gave her a copy of it, after abusing her, with the inscription “No Escape!”.

....

See that is the king of bullshit journalism that is going to leave doubt in peoples minds.

He actually wrote

"(Her name) 1 OF THE TEAM!
(NO ESCAPE!)

BELONGS TO

(Smiley face) Jimmy Savile
'Her Keeper'
xxx"

It is something he could have written to anybody on his production team. He didn't write "Your keeper". It wasn't a personal message. The 'No escape' is in reference to THE TEAM when you look at the full context. To fully qualify that as anything else requires proper discussion with the girl and examples of what he wrote in other autobiographies he may have given out to his team.

Of course, the journalists also don't mention that the girl was enamoured by his celebrity and continued a relationship with him for over 5 years.

I think its pretty clear that he was guilty of abusing girls, but deliberately ommiting things from the complete picture is absolutely the wrong thing to be doing with a man who isn't alive to answer the charges.

[Prospero]

Songs that should have been played at the wonderful Jimmy Saville's funeral.

Neil Diamond - Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3kq4FP2o)

Thank Heaven for Little Girls - Gigi (1958) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-hkjEMRZfQ)

Younger Girl - Lovin' Spoonful - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b53EbA1NBRk)

the doors - your lost little girl - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr52gvGmv5g)

[fire.starterman]

It's a fake. Paul Merton gave a interview on radio which is on you tube stating it's all made up and never actually happened. Merton said he was a strange man but no kind on conversation if this nature happened on the show.

[Prospero]

It's still funny - and its been known among people in the media for some time that saville had dubious behavourial traits.

[oifarang]

Songs that should have been played at the wonderful Jimmy Saville's funeral.

Neil Diamond - Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3kq4FP2o)

Thank Heaven for Little Girls - Gigi (1958) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-hkjEMRZfQ)

Younger Girl - Lovin' Spoonful - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b53EbA1NBRk)

the doors - your lost little girl - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr52gvGmv5g)


Not funny at all.

He was a sick fucking paedo cunt.

[Prospero]

Sorry - I agree about him being a sick sod... this was satire

[jennylicious]

Not funny at all.

He was a sick fucking paedo cunt.

There has been no evidence so far to suggest that he suffered from paedophilia.

Paedophilia is a psychiatric condition which manifests itself as a desire to have sex with people of the opposite sex who are below the age of sexual maturity.

As people have said, Jim was only interested in teenagers and he maintained relations with girls until they were into their early 20's. While the ages being quoted are on the cusp of it, the weight of evidence suggests that whatever he was, he was NOT a paedophile.

I absolutely resent people using that term incorrectly, as it dumbs down the whole problem and associates apparent sexual predators like Savile who seems to have chosen the way he acted over a group of people who did not choose.

Don't give him that excuse.

[Prospero]

Good post Jenny....

[Genetic]

Yeah Jenny is spot on. Plus there's a huge number of musicians who have written songs (as posted before) or have admitted to under age encounters. Hell, go look up the lyrics for Motley Crue's "All in the name of Rock N Roll".

[Prospero]

In the case of Jimmy Saville (who I wouldn't expect any Americans to be familiar with) there was a good deal more creepy co-ercian involved. it wasn't just the old rock'n'roll groupie thing - with willing underage girls. He is alleged to have quite deliberately created a series if scenarios where unwilling young girls were put in a situation they would really not have chosen to be in.

Mind you some of the greatest rock''n'rollers got involved with young girls. Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry his 13-year-old cousin and Chuck Berry get busted for taking a 14-year-old across the state line for dubious purposes?

[iagodelgado]

My wife went to a do where JS was the star. She was simply young (as in of legal age of consent) and TASTY. He had her given (by the bouncers), and probably 30 others as well, a business card.

It went, If you fancy a bit of fun, call this number.

A lot of birds called this number.

[Prospero]

For the benefit of the Americans - saville was a radio disc jockey. This is what he looked like. He died earlier this year.

[GroobySteven]

He never paid for any of his cigars - they were all supplied to him.

[Prospero]

He never paid for any of his cigars - they were all supplied to him.

Sad git

[Stavros]

Did Saville get away with it because he was 'too big'? Because it would damage his charities? What about the others?

NOTW editor 'spiked paedophilia scoop on Arthur C Clarke for fear of Murdoch'



The News of the World spiked an exclusive story exposing the science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke as a paedophile, according to a new book about life inside the newspaper whose closure was announced a year ago today.
In Hack, an account of his nerve-shredding days as a reporter on the News of the World and then the Sunday Mirror, Graham Johnson claims that although the NOTW prided itself on outing pederasts, editors made an exception for Mr Clarke because he was a friend of Rupert Murdoch.
Through BSkyB, the tycoon commercially exploited the futurologist's theory that satellites would be ideal for communications and praised him in public. As a result, according to Mr Johnson, who by that time had been sacked by the NOTW and had joined the Sunday Mirror, a story by reporter Roger Insall about Mr Clarke's alleged abuse of adolescent boys was never published for fear of upsetting the proprietor.
Tipped off about the story, the Sunday Mirror sent Mr Johnson to Colombo, where he extracted an confession from the author that he paid boys for sex. "I have never had the slightest interest in children – boys or girls. They should be treated in the same way. But once they have reached the age of puberty, then it is OK," Mr Clarke was quoted as saying in the Sunday Mirror. "If the kids enjoy it and don't mind it doesn't do any harm … there is a hysteria about the whole thing in the West."
Mr Clarke subsequently denied he was a paedophile, saying: "The allegations are wholly denied." But he never sued the Sunday Mirror and died aged 90 at his Sri Lanka home in 2008.
Speaking to The Independent yesterday, Mr Johnson said: "Roger [Insall] said that because Arthur C Clarke was a mate of Rupert Murdoch, the editor wasn't having any of it and despite Roger getting a lot of evidence that Clarke was a paedophile they wouldn't publish it."
Yesterday, Phil Hall, the then editor, said: "I can vaguely remember that story. I do remember that Roger Insall worked on it and I remember it was not published. My only recollection is that the only reason we wouldn't publish it was because of legal reasons."
He said Mr Murdoch never asked him to spike stories. News International, publisher of the NOTW, made no comment.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/notw-editor-spiked-paedophilia-scoop-on-arthur-c-clarke-for-fear-of-murdoch-7920816.html

[GroobySteven]

Sad git

Lucky git - wish they would supply me.

[oifarang]

There has been no evidence so far to suggest that he suffered from paedophilia.

Paedophilia is a psychiatric condition which manifests itself as a desire to have sex with people of the opposite sex who are below the age of sexual maturity.

As people have said, Jim was only interested in teenagers and he maintained relations with girls until they were into their early 20's. While the ages being quoted are on the cusp of it, the weight of evidence suggests that whatever he was, he was NOT a paedophile.

I absolutely resent people using that term incorrectly, as it dumbs down the whole problem and associates apparent sexual predators like Savile who seems to have chosen the way he acted over a group of people who did not choose.

Don't give him that excuse.

NSPCC are working with the police.

Still think he was not a Paedo ?

[Genetic]

NSPCC are working with the police.

Still think he was not a Paedo ?

You quoted someone's post but evidently didn't read it. Paedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children. The NSPCC deal with all children, therefore anyone under the age of 16. So, Savile was attracted to 13-15 year olds, who would still classify as children, but were not pre-pubescent. Therefore Savile is a Hebephile (a person attracted to 11-14 year olds) -
Hebephilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia)

[Prospero]

Thanks genetic. There obviously is a difference between the sort of sick fuck who preys on 8-year-olds and a creep who likes girls of 13, 14, 15.... who, of course, in medieval times would long since have been married.

[oifarang]

You quoted someone's post but evidently didn't read it. Paedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children. The NSPCC deal with all children, therefore anyone under the age of 16. So, Savile was attracted to 13-15 year olds, who would still classify as children, but were not pre-pubescent. Therefore Savile is a Hebephile (a person attracted to 11-14 year olds) -
Hebephilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia)

Fuck off you sad bastard.

Saville defender.


OMG what sort of morals do we have here?

[oifarang]

I am ashamed to come from the UK if others seem to except paedo cunts.

[oifarang]

You quoted someone's post but evidently didn't read it. Paedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children. The NSPCC deal with all children, therefore anyone under the age of 16. So, Savile was attracted to 13-15 year olds, who would still classify as children, but were not pre-pubescent. Therefore Savile is a Hebephile (a person attracted to 11-14 year olds) -
Hebephilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia)
Sicko

[Jericho]

Think we're arguing about semantics here, kiddies.
Whatever, he's getting a pineapple shoved up his arse daily in hell about now, so...

[Stavros]

If there is some confusion here, it may be difference between what the law -in the UK- says, and what some people see.

In the recent case of Megan Stammers, the 14-yr old schoolgirl who ran away to France with her 30 yr old teacher Jeremy Forest, some have snorted and said -why didn't they just wait until she was 16? This being the age of consent, and also the first age at which someone can legally marry. However, the law says that between 16 and 18 anyone wanting to get married must have the consent of both parents; but in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and in the amendmets that were made to the previous Act of 2000, it is illegal for someone in a position of trust -such as a teacher, a doctor, someone working in the prison service or a children's home- to have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 18.

Just because someone aged 14 looks 18 doesn't make it so; and even being 16 does not grant the freedoms some think. And don't forget that the Bush administration abducted children (as defined by US law) and imprisoned them without trial in Guantanamo Bay.

[loveboof]

Saville defender.


Sicko

lol... So knowing the correct terminology is enough to make you a 'sicko'?

Saville is possibly an ephebophile..? I have become incredibly bored with the whole story so haven't been following it.

Feel bad for the girls who were abused, but did his headstone really need to come down?!

[Genetic]

Fuck off you sad bastard.

Saville defender.


OMG what sort of morals do we have here?
At what point did I say I was defending him? I was pointing out that there are 3 different types of people who prey on children and while you may know the one term, it doesn't actually apply to all 3 types. It's why you may have noticed that no media article has actually used the term "paedophile" to describe him, because that isn't what he was. Same goes for Jeremy Forest.

You called someone else wrong because and I pointed out that you were, and always have been wrong in your claim. You can call me whatever names you want because quite frankly, you're wrong. Plus, you're obviously of low intellect or are inbred because your retorts to facts are to call me a sad bastard and a sicko.

Plus, I also know how to spell "Savile", which you apparently don't.

Yes it may be semantics, but it makes a world of difference in terms of sentencing.

[jennylicious]

Fuck off you sad bastard.

Saville defender.


OMG what sort of morals do we have here?


I am ashamed to come from the UK if others seem to except paedo cunts.


Sicko

To be precise oifarang, yes, he was a paedophile in the way the press use it to describe perverts of this kind to the layman who seek only to revile what they see as an adult sexually preying on minors. However, in terms of what the word actually means in the medical sense, it is an incorrect definition.

Nobody is accepting of his behaviour, but Paedophilia is a psychological condition. Unless you are qualified to make a psychiatric diagnosis, then any remark you make about him being a paedophile is based on your opinion as a layman and does not count for anything.

In calling him a hebephile, nobody is excepting him, or defending him, they are simply using the correct term for what he was. In fact, since it's not universally agreed to be a psychiatric condition, we can call him that. It simply means he has a predilection for girls between the ages of 11 and 13. This is completely consistent with all the evidence that has been put forward.

You're mistake is thinking just because he was more likely a hebephile, and not a paedophile, that anyone is saying what he did wasn't any less wrong. This is NOT about anyone having no morals. It's not defending him to say that someone is a hebephile not a paedophile, just like its not defending a murderer when you say he was a poisoner, not a shooter. The murders still happened. They were still wrong. Nobody is "excepting" of murder just because they want to be precise on the kind of murderer he was.

In other countries they are more enlightened on this, which is why in Germany the age of consent is 14. It may seem like that is open season on young girls, but actually had Jimmy Savile slept with a 14yo girl in Germany, it still would have been an offence. This is because their law recognises that sexual maturity is earlier than 16, but still puts safeguards in to ensure that people like Savile can't take advantage.

Jimmy Savile was a dangerous sexual predator, but there is no evidence thus far that he was interested in anyone prepubescent. That being the case, the word 'paedophile' is not technically the correct word to use at this time.

The fact is society doesn't know what we do with paedophiles or hebephile and they remain a constant danger, however if the British public come out of this knowing the difference between paedophiles and hebephiles, the greater understanding of the relative conditions will give us a better chance of deaing with the problem in the future.

So if you really hate what Jimmy did, then go and read up about hebephiles and paedophiles. Understand their differences. Know what sets them apart. So when you come in contact with one, you'll have a better understanding of how more prevelant one is than the other (there are far more hebephiles than paedophiles); You'll have a better understanding of what they are capable of (paedophiles go to great lengths to hide their tracks where hebephiles do not); You'll understand how the different age of consents around the world still protect against the peope; You'll know that their drives are different and therefore how they are dangerous and why.

If society is going to succesfully combat these people, it will not do it without greater understanding...

[oifarang]

One patient claimed he was fondled at a Stoke Mandeville fundraiser in Savile's Rolls-Royce aged 9.

The above quote is one of many allegations made to the police which to me suggest he was a Paedophile.
Unless you can be bothered to read all the allegations how can you possibly argue so strongly that he was not a Paedo?

[oifarang]

At what point did I say I was defending him? I was pointing out that there are 3 different types of people who prey on children and while you may know the one term, it doesn't actually apply to all 3 types. It's why you may have noticed that no media article has actually used the term "paedophile" to describe him, because that isn't what he was. Same goes for Jeremy Forest.

You called someone else wrong because and I pointed out that you were, and always have been wrong in your claim. You can call me whatever names you want because quite frankly, you're wrong. Plus, you're obviously of low intellect or are inbred because your retorts to facts are to call me a sad bastard and a sicko.

Plus, I also know how to spell "Savile", which you apparently don't.

Yes it may be semantics, but it makes a world of difference in terms of sentencing.

LOL

Take a look at your perfect English !

A comma before the word "and" Lol.

Infact you have used a comma so many times wrongly that you have made a fool of yourself.

[GroobySteven]

Infact you have used a comma so many times wrongly that you have made a fool of yourself.

Oh dear.

[jennylicious]

The above quote is one of many allegations made to the police which to me suggest he was a Paedophile.
Unless you can be bothered to read all the allegations how can you possibly argue so strongly that he was not a Paedo?

I am now arguing 'so strongly' that he is not a paedophile. Nobody who is qualified to diagnose him is saying it yet.

There may be a single "allegation" of him lunging at a nine year old boy in a Rolls Royce, but it is stands apart as something that doesn't follow his MMO. Which any detective will tell you means that it must be treated with a certain level of sceptisim.

The police have gone on record as saying he had a predilection for girls between 13-15.

If it is investigated and there is any basis to the claim, then there will be evidence that he may have been suffering from paedophilia. I am not saying he wasn't a paedophile. If you read my post, I said very cleary "Not at this time". I have also said that because Jimmy Savile is a hebephile, it does not mean that he wasn't a paedophile. The fact is, you have ignored that I have said this because you just want to fight your corner. It's not enough for you that I'm saying you might be right, is it? No, you think, without seeing any of the evidence or speaking to any of the witnesses first hand that you are definitely right, and anyone putting doubt on that must be pro-Savile. "He who is not with me is against me" is not the correct attitude.

The acceptance that he was preying on teenage girls has come from the weight of the evidence. This claim stands alone as the only case where the person was male and underage. If it was true, then I assure you Jimmy Savile had access to countless pre-pubescent girls and boys over the years, and we will definitely hear other complaints. So, as I said before, at this time, there is insufficient evidence to call him a paedophile.

The word 'Paedophile' is simply what the press use to generalise the issues in society because they know people hate, revile, and fear them. Nothing sells papers more than fear.

If understand you REALLY want to call him a paedophile. If it makes you happy, do it. If brandishing a word on a dead man which isn't necessarily the right one, is what you want to do, then go for it. Just don't try and demonise people who have so far only convicted the man based on the evidence put before them.

Since the man is dead, the only point of the exercise is to find the truth and learn from it. When this is over, if the Police say that there is compelling evidence to suggest that he attacked a number of girls between the age of 13-15, then we must conclude that he was a hebephile.

To conclude anything else will result in the wrong lessons learned and the right lessons missed, and nobody wants that.

[Prospero]

Oifarang... calm down. I don't see anyone here defending Saville. What I see are people arguing over semantics and language - and a precise scientific definition of what he did. None of that excuses or in anyway at all justifies him. I think we all agree the guy sounds (not yet proven though) as if he were a total scumbag.

And as for being ashamed of being british? Well sorry -I think you'll find that this sort of behaviour is pretty common anyplace you come from.

[Prospero]

Oh - and a good thoughtful post Jenny.

[Genetic]

LOL

Take a look at your perfect English !

A comma before the word "and" Lol.

Infact you have used a comma so many times wrongly that you have made a fool of yourself.
Commas before the word "and" are perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances, go and Google it.

I am a qualified secretary so I'm pretty sure that my use of commas is accurate or at least acceptable unlike your spelling. Generally if you want to be a spelling or grammar Nazi then you should at least make sure that you have spell checked your posts.

Savile abused children.
Savile is a hebephile.
Savile is not a paedophile unless the claim regarding the 9 year old proves to be true and then he will definitely qualify.

Again you can't seem to grasp this concept. What he has done is absolutely wrong and if he were still alive then yes he would be jailed. There is however, a massive difference between abusing a teenager and abusing a baby in real terms and in terms of the law.

As Prospero pointed out, there are child abusers in every part of the world as there are also people who can look objectively and factually at a crime instead of applying labels and being hysterical.

[GroobySteven]

There is however, a massive difference between abusing a teenager and abusing a baby in real terms and in terms of the law.


I'm with you on everything but this. There is no difference between abusing a child or a teenage if it's ABUSE and not consensual either in real terms, or should it be terms of the law.

[Genetic]

I'm with you on everything but this. There is no difference between abusing a child or a teenage if it's ABUSE and not consensual either in real terms, or should it be terms of the law.

I absolutely agree with you that abuse is abuse if there is no consent and I'm not saying that it's ok or even remotely acceptable to abuse a teenager. However, I do think that abusing infants and babies should have a far harsher sentence because it's inexcusable in any shape or form. Sexually abusing a 15 year old who is one month away from 16 is a very very different thing to abusing a 6 month old baby.

It's the same way murder law works. If you kill someone who is a known scumbag, you'll get 15 years less time served and you'll be eligible for early release, so you'd potentially serve 5 to 7 years. If you murder a child then you won't be released before 10 years and usually will serve a minimum of 15. It's drawing a level of distinction between the severity of the crime.

[GroobySteven]

I absolutely agree with you that abuse is abuse if there is no consent and I'm not saying that it's ok or even remotely acceptable to abuse a teenager. However, I do think that abusing infants and babies should have a far harsher sentence because it's inexcusable in any shape or form. Sexually abusing a 15 year old who is one month away from 16 is a very very different thing to abusing a 6 month old baby.

It's the same way murder law works. If you kill someone who is a known scumbag, you'll get 15 years less time served and you'll be eligible for early release, so you'd potentially serve 5 to 7 years. If you murder a child then you won't be released before 10 years and usually will serve a minimum of 15. It's drawing a level of distinction between the severity of the crime.

No no no no no no no. How can you draw a parralel between a "scumbag" and a child? Your analogy is so far off there. I know what your trying to say but I disagree. If it's non-consensual abuse it's the same. No matter how distasteful it is to our morals that someone would abuse a baby, it's no different from somebody abusing a 15 yr old who was completely non-consensual.
I think a better example of what you are trying to say, is that if a guy picked up a 15 year old in a nightclub, dressed sexy, drinking, up for it and then was accused of abuse/rape the next day it's different from somebody going out to rape a child. Of course it is. However, when it's simply a person in a powerful position abusing/raping a 15 yr old without consent there is no different.

There have always been whispers about Jimmy Saville being a kiddyfiddler. You couldn't have watched that Louis Theroux special on him and thought otherwise.

[Stavros]

The law is quite clear on it: sexual relations in the UK with someone under the age of 16 are illegal because that person is a child. A person in a position of responsibility having sexual relations with someone aged between 16 and 18 is also breaking the law, because their position of trust denies them the right to sexual relations, where consent is not the issue. The obvious positions of trust are teachers, doctors, policemen and so on, but this must now also include Television and Film staff where children are part of programmes, films etc. It may not look as if the 15 year old in a club is a child, but according to the law, he or she is. There are no excuses, not for Jimmy Savile, nor for that matter John Peel whose first wife was 15 when they married (not sure how he managed that but it happened). Incidentally, in addition to Gary Glitter and Freddie Starr, a fourth TV 'personality' - still performing- is alleged to have indulged in the Savile circus. And Seanchai is right, I remember hearing gossip about Savile as long ago as the 70s.

[oifarang]

Commas before the word "and" are perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances, go and Google it.

I am a qualified secretary so I'm pretty sure that my use of commas is accurate or at least acceptable unlike your spelling. Generally if you want to be a spelling or grammar Nazi then you should at least make sure that you have spell checked your posts.

Savile abused children.
Savile is a hebephile.
Savile is not a paedophile unless the claim regarding the 9 year old proves to be true and then he will definitely qualify.

Again you can't seem to grasp this concept. What he has done is absolutely wrong and if he were still alive then yes he would be jailed. There is however, a massive difference between abusing a teenager and abusing a baby in real terms and in terms of the law.

As Prospero pointed out, there are child abusers in every part of the world as there are also people who can look objectively and factually at a crime instead of applying labels and being hysterical.

I am guilty of poor spelling and poor grammar.

I am not guilty of being hysterical with my reaction to Savile.

He was a monster.

People like you who defend him and deflect the seriosness of his are actions are scum.

[oifarang]

I absolutely agree with you that abuse is abuse if there is no consent and I'm not saying that it's ok or even remotely acceptable to abuse a teenager. However, I do think that abusing infants and babies should have a far harsher sentence because it's inexcusable in any shape or form. Sexually abusing a 15 year old who is one month away from 16 is a very very different thing to abusing a 6 month old baby.

It's the same way murder law works. If you kill someone who is a known scumbag, you'll get 15 years less time served and you'll be eligible for early release, so you'd potentially serve 5 to 7 years. If you murder a child then you won't be released before 10 years and usually will serve a minimum of 15. It's drawing a level of distinction between the severity of the crime.
You are Paedophile scum !!!

Every google search should expose you.

[oifarang]

Ever suffered sexual abuse as a child

?

Sick fucks.

[loveboof]

I bet you read the Daily Mail Oifarang...

You knee-jerk, hysterical mong! How bout you gulp down a big ol' brandy and get some 19th century gent to firmly slap you across the cheek lol

Basically - calm down! :) Arguing over semantics does not make you a paedophile, nor does defending one (even though that is not what is happening here... nobody is defending what Savile has done)

[Genetic]

No no no no no no no. How can you draw a parralel between a "scumbag" and a child? Your analogy is so far off there. I know what your trying to say but I disagree. If it's non-consensual abuse it's the same. No matter how distasteful it is to our morals that someone would abuse a baby, it's no different from somebody abusing a 15 yr old who was completely non-consensual.

You're right my analogy was bad. What I was trying to put across is that there are severities of law. Someone who abuses ANY child deserves a lengthy sentence, but I believe (and I'm pretty sure the law works the same way) that the sentence should be longer for infants. Life isn't black or white, it's all shades of grey and some things are far worse than others. I'm not suggesting that someone abusing a 15 year old should get a slap on the wrist, I'm saying they need a lengthy custodial sentence, whereas abusing a baby should be life.




People like you who defend him and deflect the seriosness of his are actions are scum.

For possibly the 100th time, when have I defended him? I corrected your use of terminology and that's it. Read my posts you fucktard, I've repeatedly said that abusing children is wrong, at no point have I ever defended him. Even you should be able to grasp that.



You are Paedophile scum !!!

Every google search should expose you.

You posted this in reply to me saying that "abuse is abuse if there is no consent and I'm not saying that it's ok or even remotely acceptable to abuse a teenager. ". How does that make me a paedophile you fucking imbecile? I say abuse isn't acceptable and you think that condones it? Get a clue.

Why do you think I'm mentioning law on child abuse repeatedly you fucking idiot? Do you think maybe IT'S BECAUSE I WORK IN LAW, specifically law that involves the prosecution of paedophiles you retarded prick? Do you have any fucking idea of what I have to deal with on a daily basis, the fucking nightmares I constantly have, the pills and therapy to ensure that I can keep going? Why do I do this job? Because I am FUCKING GOOD AT IT. I do not trust anyone else to do it. I handle between 1 and 8 cases a week dealing with anything from sexual abuse to 8 month old babies that have had their heads stamped on til it turned into a crunchy pancake. Seeing pictures of a baby with the sharp end of a screwdriver inserted into it's anus is the kind of thing you never fucking forget.

So don't pull your retarded shit on me you cunt. I'm the guy that makes sure these cunts get sent down and sent down for a long time. I'm the guy who makes sure that these "people" never get to see their children ever again. I'm the guy who ensures mothers who were aware of the abuse but did nothing to stop it will never come into contact with a minor again.

But you know what? You carry on reading The Sun and throwing around terms you don't understand and keep on accusing people with a different opinion of being child molesters. I tolerated you calling me various names. You call me a paedo again and you best start praying to whomever you believe in that I don't find out who you really are.

[Prospero]

Wow.... powerful stuff and power to you genetic. You do an important job. The stuff of nightmares indeed for most of us.

[jennylicious]

Savile is not a paedophile unless the claim regarding the 9 year old proves to be true and then he will definitely qualify.


Even if the claim of the 9 year old is true, there is still another important question to be asked.

Reading the article, the photograph he has in front of Jimmy Saviles car clearly shows a Blue Rolls-Royce Corniche convertible Reg JS247. In 1972 he owned a White Rolls-Royce (Looks like a Silver Cloud III Drophead Coupe to me), Reg JS954.

Now while I'm open to the idea that he may have owned the Corniche in that year, and I'm sure the police have access to those records, the main question to be asked is: Why in 1972 was Jimmy Savile driving around in a Blue British Rolls Royce Corniche that has all the hallmarks of a model made no earlier than 1975?

I've been very careful to check this, and it's still theoretically possible, but only after September 1972, and it still would have been so unique that he would have had to have had it specially made in the factory. (It also would have made the car look considerably less elegant than the other Corniches made in that year). The knowledge he bought it from an East Sussex dealer almost kills that theory dead.

So while I'm not doubting the attack, if it comes to dating the picture, I'm more inclined to believe the camera. 1972? Very unlikely!

That is the problem with trial by press. Did they check this? I doubt very much that they did. Why would they? He is dead and they now have a license to make as many mistakes on a story without any fear of being sued.

The famous line "when the truth becomes legend print the legend" - doesn't sit well with me if it constitutes the only trial someone is ever going to have.