Obit: RIP Sir Jimmy Savile of BBC [2011]

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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:59 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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 - 12:40 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:43 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 03:25 AM

I still don't believe that 14 year olds becoming engaged was *that* common. I was a young person during the time of Gary Glitter and I didn't know any young person who was engaged at 14, or 15, or even 16.

And as for social attitudes being safer for young people now I completely disagree, as these days it IS considered 'normal' for 14 year olds to be having sex, which it wasn't back then.

The constant cry of 'It's what youngsters do' is heard these days, and it sickens me, for so many of those young people are merely having sex because their peers are. They don't want to, they don't feel loved or cared for, because it's now become a bodily function and little else. They're taught goodness knows what by schools, often with teachers feeling *very* uncomfortable at what they're being told to teach, yet still those teachers teach it, rather than stand up and say "You know, this is peverted!"

If I went up to a young person and started telling them what teachers tell them in school sex lessons, I'd probably be arrested, but heyho, such is the crazy way the world has now become...

Sadly, the sex industry is creating 'fodder' for the paedophiles, for young girls now see nothing wrong (even if they don't like it) in having sex at an earlier and earlier age, whilst society looks on and remains silent or totally apathetic.

We have spent way too long protecting paedophiles whilst NOT protecting the children and young people from them.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 03:53 AM

'that common' is how common. sadly amogst certain strata of society its always been pretty common. I doubt if a teacher in a posh grammar school would encounter it more than once or twice a year, but in the sec mods, it was pretty much a fact of our childrens lives.

As far as childrens behaviour and sexuality is concerned - I think the media are actually holding the line as much as possible.

My middle class friends used to ask me when Grange Hill started on TV - do modern children REALLY behave like that? And teachers smiled grimly knowing that Grange Hill was a highly edited version of reality.

As ben Elton, at the time commented, the only playground in England where the kids don't say Fuck. And that was thirty years ago.

get a grip Lizzie...!

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Musket
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:22 AM

I am indebted to the clairvoyants on this thread who know the mind of Saville. Also, having been married twice, I am glad I am not single, as that seems to be a preposition for being a paedophile according to some...

The Saville affair should not, in my opinion, be a catalyst to ensuring the appropriate authorities do what they should be doing, as that would mean no more than a rejigging of priorities rather than facing the real issue.

If you read the reports of safeguarding boards, and as a regulator in the field I am somewhat familiar with their work, protecting children and vulnerable adults in a meaningful way takes money. Big money. Money that is not there. Money that police, NHS, social services, private sector providers Uncle Tom Cobbley and all simply do not have.

Hand wringing is all well and good, but the situation needs addressing for the future, not just to sell newspapers today. Kneejerk outrage does not protect a single person. Rather, as in the case of The News of the World when they started a crusade, you end up with paediatricians being beat up in the street.

This is too important for media and "disgusted of Suburbia" to set the agenda. Any money coming forward needs targeting where it is needed, not finding quick results based on improvements already there. it is far harder for a Saville now than when he was in his "prime" and I am concerned that to get votes at the next election, claiming credit for what is already in place whilst spending money at it to show you have done something.... All too familiar, and all on the basis that irrational reactionary idiots are the only people who vote.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:33 AM

I think this thread has now taken a very interesting turn, and has provoked much thought in my (rather old) head. We seem to be considering the different mindsets of young girls and young teens regarding having sex, from the sixties/seventies compared to the present day.
There does seem to be one constant, which is adulation of 'stars' and desire for contact with 'celebrities' and the media. There appears to be a tendency for lassies to follow wealthy and famous men around (eg footballers, singers etc) and to be prepared to have sex with them in an effort to participate in their hedonistic lives.
There are two points (IMO) to consider. One is, how do we feel about legally underage yet physically mature young girls doing this, albeit voluntarily? And is it actually abuse on the part of the (usually older) men who enthusiastically take up their offers? The married teacher for example who took his young pupil to France was pursued relentlessly and arrested for it. Yet quite young girls drink and have sex all over the place (in local parks for instance) and no-one appears to do anything about it. What constitutes abuse?

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 05:54 AM

Al, I went to the toughest school in the neighbourhood, and not a single person from my entire school year was engaged at 14 or 15...I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it was not common back then, in my opinion.

I feel very angry about it, Eliza, for our children these days are being groomed, without the shadow of a doubt, by some very dodgy people in the media, the music and sex industry...and most worringly, the Toy and Fashion industry...

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 06:11 AM

That, Eliza, is a very pertinent question - but only in part to Savile.

Some of Savile's victims were unwilling, some (possibly not many of the present complainants) willing or even enthusiastic.

Some were young but physically mature - others prepubertal.

Some were women or girls, at least one a boy.

The broad brush is not wholly appropriate. And the "hand on your ha'penny" brigade have no idea about youthful sexuality.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 06:15 AM

I agree with you Lizzie. Even though girls nowadays mature physically at a much younger age, that does not (IMO) automatically mean that they should start having sex. It IS only sex, as they are far too young to form lasting relationships with men when they're in their early teens. There is, as you say, a plethora of profitable industries based around early sexualising of girls. Their childhood is so brief, if you blink you miss it. My neighbour's little girl is nine, but she is allowed make-up, nail varnish and sexy clothes. It almost seems as if we're creating a Paedophiles' Paradise. I know people groan when oldies like me start up, "When I was young..." BUT, when I was young, we girls had absolutely no thought in our heads about sex, men, alcohol etc right up until the age of seventeen or eighteen. We wore children's clothes and did tons of sport and hobbies, Girl Guides, Church activities etc. We were never bored and we enjoyed a long and happy childhood. It's a very old-fashioned word, but we were PURE.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: theleveller
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 09:21 AM

Eliza and Lizzie, I think you're painting in very broad brush stokes here and I do feel that that can give a dangerous impression of what's happening amongst our young people. Just to put things in perspective, the rate of teenage pregnancies has been falling sharply, with 2010 being the lowest year since 1969. Children certainly have minds of their own when it comes to what they want to wear but it doesn't mean they are all being sexualised. I have a daughter who is 13 in a few days and her style is very much tomboy (she had to be positively bullied into wearing a bra).

Nor, Eliza, do I recognise your description of what teenage girls were like in the 60s (and I lived in the wilds of Yorkshire).

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 10:00 AM

Eliza,

Yes, there is a certain pressure for children to dress "sexily" at inappropriate ages, but from my own experience, that's largely down to parents colluding with the idea of peer pressure. People who bring their kids up not to "follow the herd" usually have significantly fewer problems.

However,as the Leveller, I find your description of what young girls were like in the 60s unrecogniseable. My first proper girlfriend was *just* 16 when we met, and hadn't been sexually active beyond a bit of snogging and fumbling before that, but both of her 2 best friends had lost their virginity at 15. All 3 were at an academically selective ("Grammar" in the UK sense) school. Several of the girls in my class at a (different but equally highly regarded) Grammar school had lost their virginity at 15. We even lost one from the "L" (for Latin, hence the most academic stream) Form at 14 when she became pregnant. Things were much less restrained at the Secondary Modern down the road!

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 10:48 AM

I did one of my teaching practices in a remote Lincolnshire village in 1968.

The thing at the the time was heuristic learning, the children taught themselves by looking at their own environmant. S o the thing to do in an old school was to throw open the school logbook.

I suggested this to the the elderly headmaster, and he explained in as kindly a manner as possible that would not be possible. most of the children I would be teaching had families who had been run in and reprimanded for incest, under age sex, gawd knows what.

Later that year the kindly old Headmaster was fired for inappropriate sexualised behaviour with the children.

I'm not saying your wrong. But maybe - people just weren't on the lookout for it, Lizzie. that stuffwas certainly going on.

Yousee some kids were reckoned to be working men by they were fifteen. the past is a different country. My Mum was working in an office and iot was full of fifyeen year old girls. this was in the days before computers. letters and envelopes were typed.

I was in the posh grammar school, yet one of my classmates in thethird year had to leave to get a job, and support his child got with one of the girls in my Mum's office.

well it was all going on in Lincolnshire - I guess you just missed out.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,your willie
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 11:29 AM

L.C.    I see that under pressure you allow the mask to slip. In your post 5.05 12.10 you freely use the "f" word. When I used it in a direct quote in an earlier part of this thread you came over all holier than thou and were followed in your criticism by a number of sycophantic numpties.
Where now is your much vaunted balanced judgment?.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Jack Campin
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 12:50 PM

My neighbour's little girl is nine, but she is allowed make-up, nail varnish and sexy clothes. It almost seems as if we're creating a Paedophiles' Paradise.

A paedophile's paradise is just as likely to be filled with children wearing age-appropriate children's clothes. If you're attracted to children, chances are you'll want them to look like children. There are some illuminating comments in Tony Parker's book "The Twisting Lane" (interviews with imprisoned sex offenders) about what the interviewees fancied.

I find pre-teens wearing nail polish much less disturbing than adult porn models shaving their pubic hair.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 12:52 PM

I can't imagine why some of you feel I'm not telling the truth about us girls in the early sixties. I don't presume to relate what other people in other parts of the country were up to, but I can assure you (though you tend to doubt my word) that my friends and I led lives just as I describe. This was in Middlesex, we were not particularly well-off, just ordinary families. I went to a grammar school, and there truly was none, absolutely none of the sexualisation going on described in other posts. Our parents weren't repressive or overly religious. We really did spend our leisure time at various sports, horse-riding, swimming, ice-skating etc and were all involved with the local C of E church. We were also in the Guides, and I helped with a Brownie pack and a Sunday school. My evenings were taken up with tons of homework and study. We didn't wear make-up or even nylons, just short socks. When we left the area to go to college or University, we were without a doubt still virgins. I had never even been out with a boy, and certainly not kissed anyone. I was nineteen when a lad first kissed me (nothing more!) at Edinburgh Uni. But we were happy and enjoyed our long and innocent childhoods. I can see that it was different for some of you in your own areas, but this is how it was for my friends and I.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 12:59 PM

"make-up, nail varnish and sexy clothes" exactly what I remember a friend of ours complaining of a neighbour's 9-yr-old daughter being allowed to wear to pre-teen discos provided in the children's annexe of a local pub/hotel in Ruddington, near Nottingham,, must be all of 35-40 years ago now. Nothing new, whatever anyone may claim.

~M~

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 01:44 PM

I do hope during the BBC inquiry they address their attitude to females. They turned a blind eye to abuse for a number of years.

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 02:05 PM

About 20 years ago I was not happy about the dancing the 11 year old girls who went to the local dance school did in assembly. Not exactly Pan's People, but should they have been doing the sort of thing that pops up on Strictly? Not that they knew what they were doing, of course. They were having fun.

Penny

Subject: RE: Jimmy Savile :-( UK disc jockey
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Oct 12 - 04:36 PM

Eliza - I doubt your history. Give dates. I lived in Middlesex from 1948 to 1953 and from 1956 to about 1968. Quite a high-priced street and mostly high priced schools involved - although the father of one of my mates just up the road was a dustman and the father of one immediately opposite a very street wheeler-dealer. At the bottom of the road lived the estranged wife of the founder of a nationally known transport company, and in the next street over the family of an England soccer manager. From 1961 (when I was 13) sex was the main point of interest. I was not as successful as some of my friends but I could give names (mostly of their conquests, not mine) - although I won't. I have no idea where your little house on the prairie version of reality comes from.