Jimmy Savile

I met him once at Stoke Mandeville - strange man. I've got a photo of him and me somewhere.

apparently made over 40m for charity....wierd but great man RIP

How long before the leeches start selling their stories about his private life? Sad to say but i'm sure there will be people looking to make money from this.

RIP Jimmy

Please show some respect for the big man's memory. No silly jokes please... and yes, that means you, and you and you and ba ba ba bam

Have met him a couple of times

Rather strange but generally inoffensive

First time was outside BBC Leeds when I was a student.

A gang of us were looking at his convertible Roller. He was absolutely fine and was happy for us to sit in it provided ...'you don't nick anything!!...

A bit of an eccentric, but a legend in his time.

Rip Sir Jimmy

Invented discos, for that I thank him.

Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter, Jonathon King...........

/\Now.then, now.then, now then.

Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter, Jonathon King...........

Really? On what evidence, or is that an opinion you have formed about an elderly man who has never married?

Really? On what evidence, or is that an opinion you have formed about an elderly man who has never married?

And really really really loved his mum.

That'll teach you for ignoring my letters

A very good friend of mine for the last 30+ years was his secretary at Stoke Mandeville for many years. Eventually she was so sickened that she had to leave. All I will say is that there are a lot of facts about JS to come out. Most of them would have seen him join a lot of his compatriots at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

---

I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=50.920700,-1.431004

RIP Jimmy,

I have just told my wife what DSM has posted and she was as shocked as me.

However as I totally respect DSM, someone who as far as I can tell only posts what he

knows is 100 per cent I await further news with interest.

There was a spoof about him, written by Chris Morris and The Day Today crew. Google paul merton jimmy saville and you'll find the "transcript".

I have no idea why they did this. However I have wondered whether it was an oblique attack about something they actually believed to be the case, thats the only reason I can think of for them dreaming it up. Take a look, its interesting reading.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rogerb/jokes/HIGNFY.txt

Good innings, did so much for charity.

RIP Sir Jimmy

Rubbishes the paedo rumours here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,178381,00.html

and that HIGNFY transcript is a fake. Personally I don't believe it.

Until someone's got some proper evidence, perhaps everyone should stop casting these horrible allegations around?

Been told by a couple of journalists about all the allegations. Is it common knowledge? The have I got news for you transcript is real it seems. But they're all running nice obituaries so who knows.

Rubbishes the paedo rumours here:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,178381,00.html

 

 

and that HIGNFY transcript is a fake. Personally I don't believe it.

That transcript was a wind-up. Saw a few links about it when he cropped up on c*ntscorner.com, it looks convincing but it was actually written by Chris Morris's team.

If there was any truth in the transcript, I'm sure that the NOTW would have tapped a few phones and dug up some dirt on him.

Dodgy ****er.

if theres any truth to said allegations im removing the 'legend' i put at the beginning of the thread ..! would be quite a shock what with him being a sir etc?! he deffinately was a true british eccentric ...a weird guy! jim wont be fixing anything for saints from now on however! lol

I think that without any evidence, it's disgusting to go around accusing someone just because he is a bit odd.

Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter, Jonathon King...........

I saw him on a beach in Jersey when I was about 12 or 13. He was getting to grips very nicely with a hot bit of stuff. All over her he was.

I'm not bothered about his death, as I am not a fan. However, he definitely looked like a normal hot blooded male in that particular candid moment.

I think that without any evidence, it's disgusting to go around accusing someone just because he is a bit odd.

Absolutely what I was thinking reading this thread. It shows the worst side of the internet. A lot of people making very unpleasant insinuations and suggestions without even a hint of anything to back them up, just rumour and "a friend of a friend" stories. The more this sort of crap goes on, the more people start to refer to it as "well-known" and so it becomes assumed that it's true. Not one single event has been referred to here, just vague rumours.

Even the original post for that transcript said it was a spoof, but it's a stupid unpleasant spoof and a quick search shows how much damage it's already doing as it's being used by people as pathetic as posters on here as evidence.

Rubbishes the paedo rumours here:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,178381,00.html

 

and that HIGNFY transcript is a fake. Personally I don't believe it.

You did notice that article is from April 2000??

You did notice that article is from April 2000??

What difference does that make?

Some narcissists are ostentatiously generous – they donate to charity, lavish gifts on their closest, abundantly provide for their nearest and dearest, and, in general, are open-handed and unstintingly benevolent. How can this be reconciled with the pronounced lack of empathy and with the pernicious self-preoccupation that is so typical of narcissists?

The act of giving enhances the narcissist's sense of omnipotence, his fantastic grandiosity, and the contempt he holds for others. It is easy to feel superior to the supplicating recipients of one's largesse. Narcissistic altruism is about exerting control and maintaining it by fostering dependence in the beneficiaries.

But narcissists give for other reasons as well.

The narcissist flaunts his charitable nature as a bait. He impresses others with his selflessness and kindness and thus lures them into his lair, entraps them, and manipulates and brainwashes them into subservient compliance and obsequious collaboration. People are attracted to the narcissist's larger than life posture – only to discover his true personality traits when it is far too late. "Give a little to take a lot" – is the narcissist's creed.

This does not prevent the narcissist from assuming the role of the exploited victim. Narcissists always complain that life and people are unfair to them and that they invest far more than their "share of the profit". The narcissist feels that he is the sacrificial lamb, the scapegoat, and that his relationships are asymmetric and imbalanced. "She gets out of our marriage far more than I do" – is a common refrain. Or: "I do all the work around here – and they get all the perks and benefits!"

Faced with such (mis)perceived injustice – and once the relationship is clinched and the victim is "hooked" – the narcissist tries to minimise his contributions. He regards his input as a contractual maintenance chore and the unpleasant and inevitable price he has to pay for his Narcissistic Supply.

After many years of feeling deprived and wronged, some narcissists lapse into "sadistic generosity" or "sadistic altruism". They use their giving as a weapon to taunt and torment the needy and to humiliate them. In the distorted thinking of the narcissist, donating money gives him the right and license to hurt, chastise, criticise, and berate the recipient. His generosity, feels the narcissist, elevates him to a higher moral ground.

Most narcissists confine their giving to money and material goods. Their munificence is an abusive defence mechanism, intended to avoid real intimacy. Their "big-hearted" charity renders all their relationships – even with their spouses and children – "business-like", structured, limited, minimal, non-emotional, unambiguous, and non-ambivalent. By doling out bounteously, the narcissist "knows where he stands" and does not feel threatened by demands for commitment, emotional investment, empathy, or intimacy.

In the narcissist's wasteland of a life, even his benevolence is spiteful, sadistic, punitive, and distancing.

Well, if he was 'guilty' of being a narcissist (sauce for this C&P please, not ketchup), there's no reason to villify him from the facts we know. I don't know if any 'dirt' exists on him, but he was definitely an elemental, energetic force. Can't really describe him as likeable, but he was remarkable - let's not forget he was a pro wrestler at one point as well! Talk about energy! Think Steve Jobs may have been described similarly, but he didn't work with children and thus open an avenue to slurs.

obviously just adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 3.9 but sometimes posthumous investigations can run smoother as the 'accused' can't use their influential friends to protect them.

a little digging (pardon the pun( reveals that mr saville obe had an injunction stopping him being associated with the horrendous acts carried out on minors at Haute de la Garenne in spite of the fact that he was a regular visitor years before the revcealations... as were ex pm edward heath and wilfred brambles reportedly. i read somewhere that certain members of the yachting community would visit off-shore and children from the home would be offered a days sailing as treats only to end up being buggered and assaulted but those cheeky chappy masons influence spreads far and wide apparently. if i were one to play word games i might conclude that a few of the inhabitants may have woken up to the odd cloudy morning.

sir jimmy famously was a big figure in dance hall days and then discoteques, he was a regular at a very famous nightclub in the early days as were his friends from the industry tam paton and jonathan king and fluffy freeman. jimmy persey tells a colourful tale or two about the special backstage areas of the walton hop.

he was not shy in telling people that he had the ear of the queen, maggie t to name but 2, now why might that be? could be a simple case of him being by far the most famous charity fundraiser (40m) and that would fir with them having good pr people, association with such a generous man can do no harm to ones public image i guess... personally, i would not be too quick to make that conclusion, partly due to him being a member of one of the most secret select and knight of malta, people think that the da vinci code was an eye opener.

anyway, rip jimmy saville obe.

Ooh, someone's been reading the David Icke forum!

Surely what we need to know us whether he bummered shape shifting lizards or not?

R.I.P.

I shall leave his judgment to a higher authority.

Absolutely what I was thinking reading this thread. It shows the worst side of the internet. A lot of people making very unpleasant insinuations and suggestions without even a hint of anything to back them up, just rumour and "a friend of a friend" stories. The more this sort of crap goes on, the more people start to refer to it as "well-known" and so it becomes assumed that it's true. Not one single event has been referred to here, just vague rumours.

 

Even the original post for that transcript said it was a spoof, but it's a stupid unpleasant spoof and a quick search shows how much damage it's already doing as it's being used by people as pathetic as posters on here as evidence.

To be fair, those paedo rumours were doing the rounds long before the internet was a gleam in anyones eye. That spoof transcript would never have been written if the rumours hadnt already existed.

So, who's looking forward to Wednesday's programme?

if theres any truth to said allegations im removing the 'legend' i put at the beginning of the thread ..! would be quite a shock what with him being a sir etc?! he deffinately was a true british eccentric ...a weird guy! jim wont be fixing anything for saints from now on however! lol

Looks like someone needs to update the opening post!

Been told by a couple of journalists about all the allegations. Is it common knowledge? The have I got news for you transcript is real it seems. But they're all running nice obituaries so who knows.

No its not. Its a well known spoof designed to pull in a gullible journo and rehashed by gullible net surfers.

He was a bit weird, single and did kids programs so quite clearly a paedo. No other possible explanation. Living with his mum and doing lots of work for charity was obviously just a front. Paedophile hunters, the 21st century cris de coeur that many people seem to take an unhealthy interest in. Odd.

So there is a programme outing him Wednesday? Only broadcast after his death? Surely if they thought they had credible evidence it would have been broadcast whilst he was alive? The fact that the producers didnt feel they would win a libel case where the burden of proof was simple balance of probability should tell you something.

He was obviously a bit of a wrong 'un in some respects. This youtube clip from the Louis Theroux documentary about him shows a much darker side to his public persona;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84u9WnylT60

He admitted (during his dance hall management days) how he used to treat troublemakers, by tieing them up in the cellar and "acting as judge, jury and executioner".

He was a bit weird, single and did kids programs so quite clearly a paedo. No other possible explanation. Living with his mum and doing lots of work for charity was obviously just a front. Paedophile hunters, the 21st century cris de coeur that many people seem to take an unhealthy interest in. Odd.

 

So there is a programme outing him Wednesday? Only broadcast after his death? Surely if they thought they had credible evidence it would have been broadcast whilst he was alive? The fact that the producers didnt feel they would win a libel case where the burden of proof was simple balance of probability should tell you something.

I think it's very sad. There is no way we can find out the truth and he can't defend himself so they should have either come forward when he was alive or let it go IMO.

The question of 'why now, when he can't defend himself,' keeps occuring to me.

The thing is, he wouldn't have been the only guilty party, anyone who would have known about this and not have come forward with the information would have been indirectly responsible for any abuse occuring from that point onwards. This puts every colleague, chauffuer, aide and senior BBC employee who would have been privy to any relevant information into an extremely dim light.

A combination of their own guilt/culpability and the ongoing thrall this man may have had over them could have been enough to keep things quiet..... Not that this is in any way right.

My personal feeling; if there is a cloud of smoke, you bet there's fire.

I think some did come forward when he was still alive but the police took no action

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/uk/sir-jimmy-saville-was-questioned-by-police-over-sex-assault-at-children-s-home-1-2558300

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/paul-gambaccini-claims-sir-jimmy-savile-used-charity-work-to-prevent-sexual-abuse-of-schoolchildren-being-exposed-8191761.html

No action was taken because all claims were unsubstantiated and could not be confirmed. Now he's dead that doesn't matter

Jersey police have referred some allegations to the Met in connection with that children's home on Jersey that was in the news a few years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19806312

Jersey police have referred some allegations to the Met in connection with that children's home on Jersey that was in the news a few years ago.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19806312

There is a picture of him with kids at that care home. He denied he ever went there until he was shown the photo. There's a great thread about this on the David Icke forum.

There is a picture of him with kids at that care home. He denied he ever went there until he was shown the photo. There's a great thread about this on the David Icke forum.

There's a David Icke forum!?

The question of 'why now, when he can't defend himself,' keeps occuring to me.

 

The thing is, he wouldn't have been the only guilty party, anyone who would have known about this and not have come forward with the information would have been indirectly responsible for any abuse occuring from that point onwards. This puts every colleague, chauffuer, aide and senior BBC employee who would have been privy to any relevant information into an extremely dim light.

 

A combination of their own guilt/culpability and the ongoing thrall this man may have had over them could have been enough to keep things quiet..... Not that this is in any way right.

 

My personal feeling; if there is a cloud of smoke, you bet there's fire.

So because hundreds of people havent reported anything, that is proof that hundreds are guilty? Way to go, wave goodbye to logic central.

So because hundreds of people havent reported anything, that is proof that hundreds are guilty? Way to go, wave goodbye to logic central.

Not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that this guy (if the rumours are true...) will have needed to have a vast amount of influence and thrall over a lot of people. It's why the question in itself over the timing is a concern for me. As he is dead there would be less damage done now in coming forward, yet if people let it fly then they would surely not want to be associated. Anyone who could have interfered then but didn't due to fear of damage to employment, reputation, well-being will not come out of this smelling of roses.

There would only be one true guilty party, but to sit back and let it happen would also be terrible.

So, either there really has been the mother of all cover-ups or this is a really cheap way to get a story.

I think it's very sad. There is no way we can find out the truth and he can't defend himself so they should have either come forward when he was alive or let it go IMO.

Surely if someone can be pardoned posthumously, they can be exposed?

Just out of interest, has anyone seen evidence that the transcript is a spoof and/or that Paul Merton has distanced himself from it?