Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile of BBC [2011]

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 03:11 AM

they decided not to act on it because they decided it was "consensual" and therefore not worth acting upon (which should put paid once and for all to any idea that the culture or nationality of the perpetrators had anything to do with their decision).

They may say that and it may be true, but the jury is still out.
As the victims were legally unable to give consent, I do not believe it.
"Cultural sensitivities" still an issue?

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 07:12 PM

My mention of under-age engagements in 70s West country
was simply meant to emphasise the point
that in a cultural & social climate
where some parents so readily consented to a 14 year old daughter
becoming engaged to an older man with good 'prospects';

- tacitly agreeing to what might go on in the back of his car
[or even downstairs on the sofa, or in her bedroom]

"well it's sort of ok, as long as they're careful, they will be getting married..." -

while family and neighbours are accepting it as nothing really out of the ordinary.

Then it's so much easier for devious predators like Saville and Glitter
to take advantage of vulnerable young 'willing' teen victims
if all around are habitually turning a blind eye to their rich celebrity lifestyle 'peccadilloes'..


Btw, I will hazard a guess that Glitter probably avoided too much negative attention in Wedmore
by refraining from targeting girls from nearby middle class village families,
when he could so easily trawl the seaside resorts
and 'less salubrious' lower status communities only a few miles drive away....???

But that's just pure speculation based on nothing but vague memories of local hearsay back in the early 80's...

Though I do recall hearing about girls, one local 15 year old who I knew by name,
boasting about being taken out glamorous partying with Gary Glitter.

But that was some years before news media revealed the full extent of his sordid crimes.

Social attitudes are more black and white nowadays,
which regarding the safety of minors
can surely only be for the better.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 06:55 PM

This thread is about Jimmy Savile. I wonder if the med elf removed every post that is not specifically about Jimmy Savile, how many posts would be left. Once again, the political hatred of mudcatters has dug it's teeth into this thread and shows what Mudcat is so bad at.

I am not condoning anything that he did and am very upset at the level that he stooped to. He was somebody i looked up to, but as time has shown, that was a miatake on my part.

Please Ladies and Gentlemen, can you please stick to the Subject and stop bringing in your political hatred, that has nothing to do with this thread.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: selby
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 06:07 PM

Very true Eliza in an earlier post someone said that they had knowledge of engagements i was only agreeing . But it lead me to the fact around where i live girls do get pregnant to get a house and life off benefits thread drift I know a social comment possibly.
Keith

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 05:36 PM

But presumably those girls getting 'engaged' (which I deplore) isn't the same thing as undergoing unwanted and disgusting abuse by an unsavoury and perverted satyr? Isn't there a vast difference?

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: selby
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 04:55 PM

i agree with the statement made about girls of 14 getting engaged I certainly know of girls who did this and married at 16 (1967) .Unfortunately today I know of girls who at 16 have babies by different partners and believe they are living a good life
very sad.
Keith

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 02:43 PM

Not offended, Michael, merely pissed off. I write as I write, as is natural to me and I'll never write any other way, no matter how much it drives people up the wall...Fought long and hard to do so..

Sorry...I get a bit grumpy about it as I've had years of The Moaning Minnies going on and on and on to the point of Insanity about it..

xx

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 02:34 PM

I'm a book critic, Lizzie; so I can't help remarking people's styles. It's my job.

Sorry indeed though if you were offended.

☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 02:27 PM

Michael, you should follow my posts more closely, for you'd see that I sometimes make such mistakes...I always apologize for them, whilst never commenting on anyone's writing style. Thank you.

punkfolkrocker, you did say 'engaged' and I therefore apologize for my mistaken post above.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 02:26 PM

The BBC have just announced the names of the people who will probably be paid a fortune to prop up their champagne and caviar lifestyles from licence payers' monies.

They must be secretly thanking Saville to help line their slimy pockets.

Or will the highest paid execs and actors etc. pay it out of their own pockets because I don't remember personally covering up Saville's behaviour, so no way should I be indirectly 'fined'.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 12:45 PM

Lizzie ~~ He said "engaged" {with the quotes}, not married. In general as you know I feel your points are good even if your expression of them sometimes tends to the verbose ~~ that's your style, to which you are quite entitled. But misreading, misquoting the previous poster, and then aTTACKING HIM FOR WHAT HE DIDN'T SAY IS UNCHARACTERISTICALLY CARELESS OF YOU, AND LAYS YOU OPEN TO THE IRRITATING* Lizzie-baiting which some seem to take so strange a pleasure in.

Best wishes as ever

~Michael~

*Sorry, just a Caps Lock error

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 12:45 PM

"the law took these offences seriously....."
Depends who you mean by 'the law' Howard.
Last Friday's Times disclosed that the reason for the apparent disinterest (to the extent of boredom) by the authorities in the Lancashire and Yorkshire procuring of underage girls for sex was that even though it was technically against the law, they decided not to act on it because they decided it was "consensual" and therefore not worth acting upon (which should put paid once and for all to any idea that the culture or nationality of the perpetrators had anything to do with their decision).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 12:40 PM

Ms Cornish, you are wrong.
I wrote 'engaged' not married, work out the subtle implications.
I also write from personal knowledge and observation
of growing up in a council estate
in such an area.

In the early 80s Glitters house parties were openly gossiped about
and laughed off as if he were merely a local 'dirty old man';
or more accurately
the lascivious wealthy Village Squire..
The accepted pub attitude seemed to be
"good luck to him, the randy old bugger"

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 12:24 PM

Oh for goodness sake! Girls did NOT get married at 14 back in the 70s. Not legally at least...and Gary Glitter used to live not far from my brother, in the Mendips in Somerset, where I can assure you there was not a Church in the County churning out 14 year old brides! YEESH!

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 12:16 PM

perhaps I need to clarify my comment..

The 70's cultural climate of permissiveness
and 'flexible' attitude to media representations of desirable 'jailbait'
was a convenient smokescreen for extreme deviant perverts
like Saville
to continue to perpetrate their crimes off the radar,
relatively unseen by 'normal decent' society...

Plus a general ingrained attitude amongst all strata of society
to avoid 'getting the police involved'...???

In my part of the West country it was not that uncommon
for girls of approx 14 to get swept of their feet,
and with their parents permission,
get 'engaged'
to guys in their 20's with jobs, smart clothes, and cars...

Unsurprisingly, that's near enough the part of the country
Gary Glitter moved to.........

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 11:54 AM

We now have an allegation of his abuse of a nine year-old little Cub Scout who was subjected to disgusting acts by Savile. He was apparently told not to tell, because no-one would believe his word against the 'star's.' The man was without any shadow of doubt a paedophile. That ghastly chap Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail seems to feel that as the monster is dead, there's no need to pursue these allegations. I do hope the organisations who 'knew and did nothing' will however be investigated and brought to book. Times have changed, I agree, but is/was it EVER totally OK to take advantage of very young teenagers? Those who are telling of their experiences did not offer sex, they merely wanted to meet the fellow and be on TV. To be attacked like that was a terrible and traumatising shock to each one of them.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 11:34 AM

Yeah, who really cares why the poster LizzieCornish dislikes "Liz", it's all got nothing to do with the discussion on this thread. She can disappear for months but within ten minutes of LizzieCornish posting anything on this site, up pop members of the LizzieCornish fan club!

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 11:05 AM

Why does it bother you so much Puzzled of Barnsley, this thread is about a predatory serial rapist paediphile called Jimmy Savile, not Lizzie Cornish, what did you not understand about that ?

Dave H

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 11:04 AM

GUEST,Puzzled of Barnsley

whoever you really are
you're being a bit of a wanker.

And now back to the discussion...

Back in the 70s & early 80s,
let's not forget the huge commercial popularity
of photographer David Hamilton's books and movies.
and the books of Anaïs Nin..

Without question, there was an acceptable popular culture
celebrating & exploiting under-aged sexuality.

These books and movies were openly available
in high street book retailers and cinemas.

My mum was even sent the Anaïs Nin books as some kind of free promotional offer
from a mainstream mail order book club...????

oh, but that's "Art".....

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 11:02 AM

Because, Lizzie is my name, as Puzzled, is yours.

My father was free to call me any name he so choose. I call both my children by names other than their full Christian names. It is called a form of endearment, names we use for those we love best...

However, as you're puzzled about the reasons as to why Savile did what he did, I expect you'll remain puzzled about this too....

Probably best to start a separate thread about it. I only accept being called 'Liz' by a very few people in my life, all of whomm I love and respect.

Case Ended.
Verdit: Innocent.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 10:48 AM

Then remove EVERY mirror from your house.

Very good, Liz :-) Keep it up for a while and I may even revert to MY schooldays!

DtG

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Puzzled of Barnsley
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 10:35 AM

"Al, Lizzie is just fine and does not offend me in any way."

Why should it offend you? Apparently it isn't your name!!!!

But I would love to know why Liz (which isn't your name) offends you - and Lizzie (which isn't your name either) doesn't offend you.

Puzzled.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Puzzled of Barnsley
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 10:31 AM

"Because the guy was a pervert. What part of 'pervert' don't you understand?"

OK you may be right. One of my questions solved.

The other question was about Ms. Cornish. She has so far not explained why her father called her Liz when apparently it isn't her name.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 08:46 AM

Yes, he WAS single all his life.

Again, let's look at the Sociopathic mind, shall we, the kind of mind that cannot bear intimate relationships, for 'love' is NOT on their radar, it is not there at all in their brains, never has been, never will be. It is simply a case of 'no lights being on in that room of their brain'...

He got *exactly* what he wanted, which was sex and sexual gratification from what he did in his Secret World.

He would also have got a very peverse sense of satisfaction that 'the world', for the most part, was totally unaware of his secrets, which made them all the more orgasmic...

Al, Lizzie is just fine and does not offend me in any way.

Richard, I was a teenager in the late 60s and early 70s and I never threw myself at anyone, nor allowed anyone to throw themselves at me. Those who tried a quick grope on the dancefloor, usually total strangers whom I had not met until that dance, found themselves dancing totally alone within seconds of what they had done...

Do not think that all young women were 'desperate for it' or 'at it like dogs', because we weren't, most of my friends included. Times were FAR more innocent back then to how they are now....and I went to the toughest school in the neighbourhood, not some protected private girls school.

There will ALWAYS be people who worship at the Altar of Celebrity, feeling themselves 'touched' by that 'sense of celebrity' through the actions of those whom they profess to adore...

There are others, particularly back then, when life was a lot more innocent, who would have felt overwhelmed with disbelief at what this man did to them, being unable to tell him to feck off, as most women would these days, or take him to court etc..

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 08:34 AM

"If crowds of girls were throwing themselves at celebs (and I don't deny it by the way) why did Jim not choose them all the time instead of some whom (as we now learn) were uncomfortable with it."

Because the guy was a pervert. What part of 'pervert' don't you understand?

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 08:34 AM

I hope I didn't offend you - I might have called you Liz, Lizzie, something like that.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Howard Jones
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 08:22 AM

He was single all his life, which suggests that he may not have been able to form or sustain adult sexual relationships. Whether as Lizzie suggests he didn't want them, I don't know - I suspect he may have done, but found the use of power and control more effective than having to deal with a woman on an equal footing.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 08:17 AM

On this week's Have I Got News, Hislop and Merton discussed Savile and the transcript posted earlier.
They were very clear it was a hoax.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 07:59 AM

>>>No stalking.

No list.

I just don't suffer fools gladly.

DtG <<<<



Then remove EVERY mirror from your house.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 07:57 AM

Jones is ABSOLUTELY right - "Groupies were regarded as part of the scene, and a perk of being what we now call a celebrity". The cutoff point for age was puberty (plus a little bit) - the "if it's red then it's ripe" view.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 07:57 AM

Because this evil man got his kicks from doing what he did to those who were either incapable of putting up a fight, or even telling anyone about it, or those he knew he was scaring half to death...

Which part of the paedophile/sociopathic personality don't you understand? He didn't WANT an ordinary relationship, not even one where there was no emotional connection to 'willing' girls, he wanted to be the one to hold the Power, the Fear, the Control...the SECRET.

It was the very fact that his victims were unwilling or immensely vulnerable that he got his orgasms from...

Evil Personnified.....

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Puzzled of Barnsley
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 07:30 AM

Seems to me that if Ms. Cornish's real name is not Elizabeth there is no reason for her father to call her Liz.

Unless that is her name. In which case why is she objecting to people calling her by her real name?

Strange.........

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Puzzled of Barnsley
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 07:27 AM

If crowds of girls were throwing themselves at celebs (and I don't deny it by the way) why did Jim not choose them all the time instead of some whom (as we now learn) were uncomfortable with it.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Howard Jones
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 06:06 AM

Michael, the law took these offences seriously, but I don't think society, or at least the younger generation, did. Groupies were regarded as part of the scene, and a perk of being what we now call a celebrity. I suspect that many of those around Savile may have been a bit uncomfortable at the young age of some of the girls but wouldn't have regarded it in the same light as we do today. Especially as crowds of girls were throwing themselves at the celebrities, although as I said before in most cases probably without a full understanding of the possible consequences.

Of course, the question is how many older and wiser heads at the BBC were aware, and whether it was a matter of a blind eye being turned or the matter just not being taken seriously. The other question is why didn't it come to light as the pendulum of public opinion swung the other way? Savile seems to have been careful to cover his tracks and whilst there were rumours and allegations there seems to have been little hard evidence - unlike Gary Glitter, who got careless.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 05:24 AM

No stalking.

No list.

I just don't suffer fools gladly.

DtG

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 05:19 AM

You are not right about the 60s & 70s, according to my recollections, Howard. I don't know your age: but they are nothing but an eye-blink ago to me. Such offences were not taken any more lightly or matter-of-factly by the law then than they are now. There was the fuss about the visiting rock-singer with the 14-yr-old wife, for instance. Why do you think Savile took so much care to cover his tracks that the truth is only just coming to light, if, as you say, attitudes were so laid-back that no-one would have cared had they known? And how long do you think this permissive attitude lasted? ~ didn't help G Glitter in 1990s, did it?

~M~

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 05:05 AM

>>>>Liz,

You also know that it upsets me when others refer to me in this manner, which is, of course, why you do it.

Of course I do. Isn't your whole point? If people give an excuse to abuse you, then it is your own fault?

As I said before,I will leave it to people to read the thread and decide for themselves for themselves what your views are. I have no need to enhance or embellish it.<<<



Go and STALK someone else! I'm sure I'm not the only one on your 'list'.

That's the polite version.

The other version is:

Fuck OFF!

Thank you.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Howard Jones
Date: 16 Oct 12 - 04:36 AM

It is very difficult to look back on this without colouring it with modern attitudes. Things were very different in the late 60s and 70s. It was post-Pill and pre-AIDS, and amongst the younger generation sex was thought of as a good thing. Pop stars and DJs, most of whom were little more than kids themselves, had girls throwing themselves at them - although many of these probably didn't fully understand the implications and just wanted to get close to their heroes.

Savile was older than most, and it seems took advantage of this youth culture. However I suspect that many who knew about his activities may have thought his behaviour a bit near the knuckle but probably didn't regard it as wicked, the way we would now. "Child abuse", "sexual harassment" and "paedophile" weren't part of the vocabulary. "Rape" was being dragged into the bushes by a stranger, and I doubt whether many would regard coerced, as opposed to forced, sex as rape. On the other hand, attitudes towards women generally were fairly primitive. Feminism was still a minority shouting from the sidelines and wasn't being taken very seriously.

Unfortunately, these things just weren't taken as seriously at the time as they are now. My guess is that it wasn't that people were turning a blind eye but that they simply didn't regard it as a serious matter, and assumed that the girls knew what they were getting into.

Whether it was just the attitudes of the times or whether it was taken seriously but covered up, either way the BBC will now be judged by modern attitudes and is in for a pasting.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 11:20 PM

FWIW, I am with Lizzie on this one, as anyone who read that other thrwead will know.

~M~

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 07:43 PM

BTW - Your 'permission' to call you anything at all is completely irrelevant considering that I know your name is neither Lizzie or Cornish. But I will, for now, respect your anonymity.

:D

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 07:30 PM

Liz,

You also know that it upsets me when others refer to me in this manner, which is, of course, why you do it.

Of course I do. Isn't your whole point? If people give an excuse to abuse you, then it is your own fault?

As I said before,I will leave it to people to read the thread and decide for themselves for themselves what your views are. I have no need to enhance or embellish it.

And I want neither your respect or love. I reserve that for people that matter to me.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:39 PM

(not sure what happened to the post above, so here it is again)

You know, it is the way of the cyber-bully to use only a certain part of what someone has said in order to paint them in the dark colours they so love to try and paint their prey in.

Here is the full version of what I said, Dave, and please note the very first part of the paragraph which, of course, you chose, as ever, to leave out:

>>>"It will always be, ultimately, the man's fault, of course it will, BUT women need to get real, need to become far more responsible again, stop acting like hookers 'just because we can and we want to' and put some bloody intelligence and self-respect back in their heads, rather than constantly thinking it's their 'right' to tease a man as much as they want, or to get utterly plastered to the point where they can't even remember what they did, who they may have done it with, or even if they did it willingly or not."<<<

And don't call me Liz, for there is only one person on here who I am happy to call me by that name, which was the name my Dad always called me by. Therefore, only a person for whom I have the highest respect and/or love has 'my' permission to call me by that name.

You most certainly have neither my respect, nor my love.

You also know that it upsets me when others refer to me in this manner, which is, of course, why you do it.

Go and write in the Cyber-Bully thread, for you may feel more at home there, although Savile was a nasty piece of work...so.......

Thank you

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 05:30 PM

You know, it is the way of the cyber-bully to use only a certain part of what someone has said in order to paint them in the dark colours they so love to try and paint their prey in.

Here is the full version of what I said, Dave, and please note the very first part of the paragraph which, of course, you chose, as ever, to leave out

>>>"It will always be, ultimately, the man's fault, of course it will, BUT women need to get real, need to become far more responsible again, stop acting like hookers 'just because we can and we want to' and put some bloody intelligence and self-respect back in their heads, rather than constantly thinking it's their 'right' to tease a man as much as they want, or to get utterly plastered to the point where they can't even remember what they did, who they may have done it with, or even if they did it willingly or not."<<<


And don't call me Liz, for there is only one person on here who I am happy to call me by that name, which was the name my Dad always called me by. Therefore, only a person for whom I have the highest respect and/or love has 'my' permission to call me by that name.

You most certainly have neither my respect, nor my love.

You also know that it upsets me when others refer to me in this manner, which is, of course, why you do it.

Go and write in the Cyber-Bully thread, for you may feel more at home there, although Savile was a nasty piece of work...so.......

Thank you

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 04:56 PM

Exploitation, one of the fundamentals of capitalism.
there is a similarity, once you stop respecting peoplPeople no longer get treated with respect they can become a way to be exploited to make money, or an object to exploit for sexual gratification

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 03:49 PM

I think Lizzie might have a point - if the same set of rules applied to men.
I can think of dozens of derogatory words that are used to describe women who 'put it about' - wonder why I can only think of terms of admiration that describe the the same behaviour in men?
The logical conclusion to Lizzie's argument is that men will continue to dictate what women wear and how the behave.
Modern society continues to present women as 'available' and while that remains the case women will continue to be the target of male predators   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 02:38 PM

Oh, sorry, and if anyone doubts the veracity of what I say, please don't take mine or Liz's word here. Read the thread. Bit of a marathon but a real eye opener for anyone who thought Victorian Values were a thing of the past.

D.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 02:33 PM

You were not the only one supporting that view, Liz. So don't think it is to have dig at you. It isn't. It is just to point out that some people believe that those who put themselves at risk , such as these young people did, must be in some way culpable. There are umpteen examples of people spouting the same rubbish but you said it quite sucinctly just above.

I went on to say, as I recall, that if you behaved in a certain way, you were inviting trouble.

or

BUT women need to get real, need to become far more responsible again, stop acting like hookers

Sum up your views quite nicely. Need I say any more?

As to trying to lower you in the eyes of many - I have absolutley no need to do so. People have already made up their minds and nothing any of us say or do will alter their opinions of either of us. I do think you need to get over the fact that not everyting is about you though. There are a number of people with the same wretched view.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 01:40 PM

Eliza, just so that you know, and I'm sorry you've been dragged into this...

Dave put that thread on there to have a dig at me, as ever. I'm surprised no-one else mentioned it until you did, which must have been driving him more than a little nuts, for my goodness he so *wanted* to paint me, yet again, in the blackest light he can find.

If you read that thread, which has nothing to do with this thread, it was about whether women could ever be guilty of inviting rapists into their lives.

I said that I was extremely worried about how many young women dress these days, and behave, getting drunk as skunks, falling down legless, or into the back of taxis etc, even passing out completely, week in, week out..being overtly sexual to the point of the worst kind of lager lout behaviour, making lewd sexual comments to men etc...

I went on to say, as I recall, that if you behaved in a certain way, you were inviting trouble...and my goodness, but the heavens did open!

Today it is very popular to become aghast at this, for women have created a situation where they now feel that they can be as bloody irresponsible as they so choose whilst maintaining they have every right to lead a man on, to behave in the most outrageous manner without any risk of anything happening to them. They may well give out the message to a man that they are, to use a modern day expression, 'up for it', then change their mind at the last moment or cry 'rape' after, as has happened in some cases. YES, of COURSE they are at liberty, always, to change their minds, but at some point, the chances may well be that they are going to do this with a man who refuses to see it in that way and, having been taunted, played with and sexually aroused, 'loses it completely'....

And at that point Responsibility for their actions must come in, for even the most Stupid person can't truly believe that ALL women are safe from ALL men???

And yes, I know that women get raped who are dressed incredibly demurely, who do not invite any man to even look at them in a sexual manner, but I'm not talking about that kind of situation, but the one that is played out on our town and city streets every weekend these days. Down here in Torquay the churches have volunteers who go round picking the drunken women up off the streets, I kid you not, giving them blankets to keep them warm and who do their best to ensure these young women, who are completely out of it, get home safely.

This NEVER used to happen, EVER, in our towns and cities.

It will always be, ultimately, the man's fault, of course it will, BUT women need to get real, need to become far more responsible again, stop acting like hookers 'just because we can and we want to' and put some bloody intelligence and self-respect back in their heads, rather than constantly thinking it's their 'right' to tease a man as much as they want, or to get utterly plastered to the point where they can't even remember what they did, who they may have done it with, or even if they did it willingly or not.

WTF has happened to us, as a Species, that we think this is OK? It's NOT ok at all! It's shocking and it's deeply dangerous, for there will ALWAYS be predatory men out there just watching and waiting...so why the hell put yourself in such a stupid situation in the first place?

The vicious, violent and serial rapists will show no respect for any woman whatsoever and will always try to blame them, but sadly, the women who DO behave in such a way as I've mentioned above, give the rapists back-up for their sick words because some of them DO behave as if they're asking for it...

Trust me, I've travelled home on late trains before now and the behaviour from some young people takes my breath away and makes me shudder, for if *I* can see the Danger, WHY CAN'T THEY?

Women have totally lost the plot in my opinion, and are seen by many men these days as nothing more than something to have a quick shag with, not even a someone, just a something. I feel that many young women actually hate behaving/dressing this way, but get forced into it by a society that has become overtly sexual, to the point of almost 'bullying' women into behaving this way.

I spoke to someone a while back on the internet who commented on a blog I did called 'Bums, Boobs and Brains' and she said that she too was worried sick about what was going on, and, on going out with some friends, many of whom were dressed more for a porno movie than a night out, she asked them why they dressed and behaved this way, knocking back the drinks etc..Many of those women then admitted that actually, they didn't feel very happy about what they were doing...

It starts very early on in life with our young girls being surrounded by sex everywhere, from magazines, TV, CD lyrics, Pop Stars dressed in a way no decent hooker would even dream of, Soaps, which often have the most appalling storylines in...and of course, toys, such as The Bratz Dolls, which have been toned down a little recently, but were one a Paedophile's Dream, for the Bratz Dolls taught little girls very early on that they were on the planet merely to puff out their chests, wiggle their bums, pout their lips and dress in the most common, sexually 'inviting' and dangerous way possible to attract the Bratz Boys, who, of course, thought all the Bratz Girls were hot stuff....

Paedophiles R Us at work......

Dave will stop at nothing to try to lower me in the eyes of many, and I've no doubt he'll try to spin the words I've put here to say I 'support' rapists. I do NOT, in ANY WAY, never have, never will. But I DO support women being taught/given back self-respect and responsibility again and for them to realize that first and foremost they are a human being, with a mind and a soul, as well as a body...and that they are NOT there purely for men to salivate over, or use for a quick shag on a Saturday evening round the back of the club...

Never EVER knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation through your own actions, without being able to accept that YOU were the one who decided to take those actions, which may, or may not, have gone on to lead to some terrible things happening.

And now, back to Savile the Sociopath..and for those who keep asking "HOW could this have happened???" PLEASE look up what Sociopaths do, for he fits the bill 100%, for so very often they are intelligent, gifted, charming, manipulative, ruthless, scary, highly sexed with no feeling whatsoever towards their victims, intimidating, with no sense of emotion, nor remorse for whatever they may do. All of these things enabled Jimmy Savile to do what he did, to those he did it to, for probably most of his life.

There is no excuse for those who knew, but kept silent.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Silas
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:44 PM

Pot/Kettle - never more appropriate.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Oct 12 - 12:38 PM

It's old Ponsy's own functions I am more concerned with ~~ for which Asinorum [or at least the genitive singular - Asini? ~~ forgotten most of my Lat Gram after all these years] seems a perfect label.

Can't address the rude pig directly, it will be noted. Too unmannerly a little twerp.