Jimmy Savile: predatory rapist or sexually active celebrity?

I note that Damian Thompson’s Telegraph blogpost accusing the late Jimmy Savile of ‘disgusting sexual practices’ had its comment thread closed within minutes. This is either because (1) the comment threads were descending into a predictable stream of ignorant paedomania or (2) a lawyer somewhere at the Torygraph pointed out that the article was evidence-free and highly defamatory.

For once, the lawyer was right: The headline alone – ‘the BBC was at the centre of a shocking paedophile cover-up’ – is unproven and inaccurate given the contemporary definition of ‘paedophile’.

Now I see in the Guardian a ludicrous piece by Dan Sabbagh, in which he asserts that ‘”it was well known to most at the BBC that Savile had an interest in pretty teenage girls”. Count me in on that hobby: when I was sixteen, I had a 24/7 obsession with teenage girls. Earlier in the piece – right at the outset to be precise – Sabbagh again asserts that ‘A brave woman came forward on Tuesday and told the Daily Mail she had been raped by Sir Jimmy Savile when she was 15 and on work experience at the BBC.’

There’s a first: all of a sudden, The Grauniad thinks the Daily Mail is an oracular source of information. And ‘a brave woman’….is she? How does Sabbagh know? Why could she not be a fame-by-proxy attention seeker? Talking of attention seekers, I note also that Esther Rantzen had this to say to Sky News:

“For the first time there’s more than one single child complaining. There are five adult women producing very similar statements about the way they were attacked. You see, one child’s word against the word of a television icon, one who was renowned for raising money for charity, who knew everyone from the Prime Minister to Princess Diana, who was knighted by the Queen and the Pope, I think no single complainant dared speak out before. There were always rumours that he behaved very inappropriately, sexually, with children.”

OK, let’s deconstruct that one: ‘there’s more than one single child complaining’. No Esther, sorry: there are no children complaining here: they were 14 or more years old at the time, and they’re middle-aged now. Or how about ‘no single complainant dared speak out before’? Cobblers: as Rantzen herself admits, “there were always rumours”. A serious complaint against Savile would’ve been welcomed with open arms – certainly by the Manchester constabulary, who had been trying to nab Savile on statutory rape charges for decades.

And there’s the nub of it: statutory rape. Hands up all those blokes who have never been guilty of it, knowingly or otherwise.

There are some very complex issues in play here, and we must examine them frankly…not run away to hide behind the sexually manic hypocrisy of those two very odd bedfellows, ice-cold feminism and faux tabloid sanctimony.

Real paedophilia – and the truly deranged blokes who worm their way into social care systems, teaching and grooming rings – is something I have posted about and railed against since 2006, when I first came across irrefutable evidence of its endemic presence in our society. Before that, I had interviewed paedophiles as part of a research study in the 1980s, and formed the view that their conviction – nay, absolutely certainty – that innocent infants enjoyed being penetrated was creepy beyond belief. Further, the cunning I saw in these perverts convinced me that mainstream paedophiles suffer from a form of psychopathy: one which, in certain circumstances, can become murderous.

But was Jimmy Savile a predatory rapist paedophile? I very much doubt it.

From the late 1950s until around 1964, Savile was the resident DJ at Belle Vue’s Teen & Twenty Disc Club in Manchester. My elder brother – aged around 15 – went there with his mates to pick up teenage girls. From 1963 until some time after 1966, Savile owned Beat City, a basement disco in Manchester’s financial area. The Slog – aged around 15 – went there with his mates to pick up teenage girls. Back then, Jimmy Savile was in his mid thirties.

It was perfectly obvious to everyone at the time (including a shy teenager by the name of George Best) that the DJ was a celebrity, and attractive to young girls. Throughout his DJing sessions, Savile was besieged by girls asking for his autograph. More often than not, he’d pick two or three out and chat them up. More often than not, he’d disappear with them at the end of the session. I don’t think any of us imagined that the sexual activity to come later would represent rape.

Many of you will find this crude, but it needs to be recorded: a Mancunian guitarist later to become famous confided in me at the time, “Jimmy likes his girls slim and tight”. There was a nod and a wink….but no sense of his tastes being a perversion. If anything, I detected a sense of envy.

Homosexual givers, lest we be in any doubt, like their boys slim and tight too. Are we really looking at anything different here?

The key issue is consent.

The Law chooses to draw the line between statutory rape and paedophilia at age 14. For once, the law displays some common sense in doing so. The overwhelming majority of females in 2012 are ovulating by the age of 14. This doesn’t mean they are adults; but equally, it doesn’t mean that they are sexually innocent.

Some of the hypocritical hacks having a field day at the moment should think on this: I have a close chum who seven years ago married a girl thirty years his junior. At the time, he was 60 and she was 30. When he was 45, she was 15. When Jimmy Savile was 37, many of the girls invited to his bedroom were 15. But none of them were 7.

Apologies to regular Sloggers who’ve read this before, but I must nevertheless repeat it: if having sex with a 15-year-old is paedophiliac, then most of Europe’s royal families are the progency of perverted rape.

Part of me detects a degree of ageism in all this. Rich older women attracting toyboys are an object of amusement….for those who aren’t older women. Rich old men marrying nubiles are an object of amusement….for those who aren’t older men. If Jimmy Savile can be shown categorically to have forcibly had sex with girls aged ten, then I will pipe down and admit I was wrong. But if all that comes of this moral incontinence is feeble judgementalism, then I shall remain unimpresssed.

106 thoughts on “Jimmy Savile: predatory rapist or sexually active celebrity?

  1. “”For once, the lawyer was right: The headline alone – ‘the BBC was at the centre of a shocking paedophile cover-up’ – is unproven and inaccurate given the contemporary definition of ‘paedophile’.””??

    “unproven and inaccurate??”
    Well that’s a tad strong John given your recent Groucho comments!!

    I used lived next door to Jimmy for a year in the sixties as I’m sure I told you. His sex life was always a mystery. And he was always a bit creepy to my mind. So nothing would surprise me in any direction.
    It would be nice [yes NICE] to know the truth.
    But I ain’t that bothered – whatever.

  2. Now then, now then, guys and gals. Goodness gracious, as it happens, I imagine that Jimbo certainly took advantage of the many girl groupies who eagerly follow pop-celebs.
    But what’s it got to do with paedo’s?
    Newspapers and Bleeding Heart Esther need a cause and dead men can’t sue.
    “Now look at them yo-yo’s that’s the way you do it;
    You play the guitar on the MTV:
    That ain’t workin’ that’s the way you do it;
    Money for nothin’ and chicks for free.”
    How’s about that then?

  3. One wonders how many rock bands and performers may have ‘dallied’ with underage groupies during and after the 60s. Quite a few I suspect. But I hardly think they would have used any coercion.

  4. I don’t know why you are comparing yourself to him, I don’t think what you did as a teenage boy is the same as what he was doing as a fully grown man. I dont think for one second that you would ever do anything like that, or ever would have either, people dont change that much.

    Esther Ranzen doesn’t sound like she’s getting on any bandwaggon, she sounds genuine to me. I don’t understand why people are having a go at her.

    I hope the police will look at Jimmy Saviles activities at childrens homes including Haut de la Garenne. I don’t understand why people would want to think that anyone who got abused by him or any of his associates via contact from lock up childrens homes were asking for it, because once you were locked into Pindown it was really hard to escape, because round some of them there was a big high fence with barbed wire at the top, like a prison, which is what they were, prisons for children.

    • zoompad

      “Esther Ranzen doesn’t sound like she’s getting on any bandwaggon, she sounds genuine to me. I don’t understand why people are having a go at her.”

      Being genuine and jumping on the bandwagon aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. Many people’s opinions are affected more by what appears to be the prevailing thinking than by what they have surmised themselves from the evidence available. Moreover, many people exaggerate and misuse the information available because they see it as being helpful to the promotion of some other hobby-horse of theirs. In this case, John Ward is quite right – there’s all the difference in the world between having consensual sexual relationships with 14 or 15 year-old girls, and the cultivation, exploitation and enforcement of young children by sick and pathological men. To treat the two as equivalent is to miss the very different nature of the two behaviours, and to fail to respond appropriately to either. Still, that’s the modern world, and it’ll take a few more policy misjudgements before it finally twigs that we’re better off dealing in reality than in mythology.

      • And I am glad that Esther Ranzen has spoken up about this, and I hope she will go further and say something about the Newsnight program she was on with Stuart Syvret and Frank Walker, because we still aren’t allowed to know who nominated Frank Walker for an OBE and I think we should be allowed to know that.

      • Sorry, should have included the link, for people who dont remember the Newsnight program Esther Ranzen was in with Stuart Syvret and Frank Walker, after which Frank Walker was mysteriously nominated for and awarded an OBE, and Jeremy Paxman was repremanded and was hardly on Newsnight for about 2 years (which I why I stopped watching it) http://youtu.be/ghJrJEUNxBY

  5. There writes a man whose not watched a nine year old daughter die from the trauma of such people when many years older. Your arguments omit the use of “celeb” status to take whatever is on offer and discard, just as carelessly. So in your eyes the law with regard to the age of consent is bunkum? This piece is an ill thought out and pompous post which denies all sense of unhappiness and sadness Savile and his ilk meted out. No probs, he was a celeb, sex for sex’s sake, “they asked for it”, did they? If so, fine, bring it on and to hell with how they might end up. After all, just a bunch of groupie slappers, John. Who cares how old.
    You have diminished sorely in my eyes with this post.

    • Oldrightie

      Maybe I shouldn’t have allowed myself to be drawn into this one, but John isn’t saying paedophilia bad, statutory rape OK. He’s saying that they are different – they’re not two sides of the same malignancy. And he’s saying that the treating of the two as equivalent leads to a misdiagnosis of the causes of the two separate problems, and to a faulty and inappropriate response to each of them.

      There are only a tiny number of dangerous paedophiles in the whole country, yet at a guess 50% of the entire male population has had sex with a girl under the age of 16. There’s no comparison..

      • Simon :
        The last time I had my hands inside a 15 year old girls knickers, I was 16.
        But a 36 year old man (on a 12,13,14 year old??) Get a grip man you’re making excuses. So powerful was this man at the BBC back then, no-one dared touch him. Now they regret it.

      • I know what he was trying to say, but it didn’t come accross very well. I know that the paedophile networks would like the two to be jumbled together, they want it to be legalised to be able to have sex with really little children. I read Thomas O Carrolls horrible book and some of the other pro paedophile literature. They wangle their way into child protection and make a big noise about child protection issues that I suspect they have already had a hand in, and paedophiles are so two faced and shameless. I dont really think John put what he was trying to say very well, but I know he isn’t really wanting to make light of child abuse.

  6. Its a shame that the same rules of brutal exposure rules don’t apply to politicians. When they are in power they can avoid critisicm a bit like JS and once they are out everything is shut away under the guise of national security.

    Unfortunately for JS there is no locking away of secrets only to unearth them 30 years later. So mere mortals get pilloried either during their lifetime on on death but nothing sticks to Politicos for the Irak war and all the deaths,Kellys suicide. By the time their secrets are exposed the culprits are probably dead or gaga.

      • @Kit Green. My thoughts exactly. An elephant has been put into the room to distract attention from the goings on in Rochdale, & now Oxford.
        Jimmy Savile may have been carrying on with girls almost young enough to be his daughters, but that’s not the point, my friends. When the ‘Establishment’ don’t like where the news is taking things, it seems to be standard practice to get people talking & thinking about something else. Also it makes the point that ‘our people are no different to Them, we produce paedos too’.

      • @ Mo

        You and Kit might both be correct but it doesn’t change the issues, I hope.

        What it might suggest is that ‘the establishment’ has lots of this up it’s sleeve for just the right moments. If that iscorrect it sort of corroborates what many of us suspect about the establishment in the first place.

  7. Too much here to get into and try to put into perspective without having one’s own blog. So I’ll content myself with the following:

    “….statutory rape. Hands up all those blokes who have never been guilty of it, knowingly or otherwise.”

    Me first chum and that includes the changing definitions up until today. You have clearly led a very different lifestyle to me. I won’t judge you or anyone else on that basis if only because it can be dangerously arrogant to judge others by one’s own standards. But I will disagree with your implication.

    “There are some very complex issues in play here, and we must examine them frankly…”

    I’ll agree with that but add that it might be best to start from a blank sheet and not be tempted to use our own attitudes and experiences as the base line of what is acceptable.

    Other than that, I am reminded just how different are the lives that we all lead and given some of the *stuff* I have *dealt with* over the years, I’m perplexed that can still come as a surprise to me.

  8. Telegraph: Mr De’Ath, a former BBC producer, told ITV that he warned Sir Jimmy he was “living dangerously”.

    He said: “I know for a fact that Jimmy spent a night in a rather squalid hotel with a girl who was at the most 12, or probably 10, and I said to him, ‘Jimmy you are living dangerously. Surely you must realise you’re living dangerously?’.

    “All he said was, ‘Oh no no no. I’m much too valuable to the BBC for them to do anything to me.’

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9580659/We-were-abused-by-Sir-Jimmy-Savile-too-More-damaging-revelations-about-the-Jimll-Fix-It-star.html

  9. John I just think you are working too hard to be a contrarian here. I had never heard of Savile till he died but he was obviously some sort of Tall Poppy, too hot to handle for whatever reason, who should have been mowed down a long time ago.Better late than never.

  10. Oldrightie writes :
    “You have diminished sorely in my eyes with this post.”
    I agree 1000%.
    Stick with political and economic analysis JW. Attempting to spin Jimmy Savills wrongdoing as just a young man having fun with consenting 14 year olds is nauseatingly abhorrent.

  11. The Law chooses to draw the line between statutory rape and paedophilia at age 14.

    I thought there was no ‘fixed rule’ but a general acceptace that paedophilia was pre-pubescent, post-pubescent was underage sex, with 12 being viewed as the key age. Then tempered by the age difference between the victim and the perpetrator.

  12. This seems to me to be one of those ‘stories’ where a small and pretty insignificant piece of history is ‘revisited’ against present day values and criteria. In my early twenties, I went to a lot of London blues clubs, Fleetwood Mac, Groundhogs, Mott the Hoople, Black Sabbath, Curved Air…you name it……I rekon that a lot of the girls were somewhere between 15 and 19……..a fair number of them went along, done up to the nines in the hopes of dancing at the front, getting noticed and getting asked backstage…and we guys would sometimes get lucky hanging out near the stage door for those who had it closed in their face…..sometimes for a great night out…sometimes a bit more…sometimes something lasting longer..

    The very last thing that any of us would dream of doing was to ask any girl her age, anymore than we would ask her if she was old enough to have a drink…and besides, they would probably have lied anyway…….15 always wanted to look and act 18-21 in any night out……none of them would admit to being 15…now would they ?

    This is not to condone Jimmy Saville, or anyone else, but lets be careful about making contemporary judgements against a background where todays teenagers need an age ID card to get past the heavies on the door, let alone to buy a drink, and where the law that says that 15yrs and 364 days is child molesting and 16yrs and 1 day is just fine and dandy…..As a father of a lovely 19 yr old daughter, I have seen this issue from both sides, but John is right that any bigoted and holier-than-thou opinion here needs a good healthy debunk….or at least a few questions…….maybe Saint Jimmy of Manderville did enjoy the company of teenage girls….but as JW says…did’nt we all once ?

      • Nah! By my late 20s and early 30’s I had an Advertising Photography Studio in Oxford Street opposite the 100 Club and was teaching PT at a very eminant Saaff London Art School. Female students, models and I were all just a little bit more toned down by then….but we were still all having a great party.on down at every chance…..

        I never really did holier-than-thou, and still am lucky enough have lots of alumni in their 20’s & 30’s regularly dragging me off for a jar and chat about their work and ideas……..the difference between my teen years and 61 is that the company of beautiful, talented and/or very clever alumni today means so much more than a quick trip back to the student hostel ever did 35 years ago….but I guess that sort of wisdom is wasted on the young !.

      • Shades of ;Blow Up’ then? I’m with you GrahamD, but I’m also aware of ‘them’. It won’t hurt any of us to accept that there were some of ‘them’.

      • Full stop

        What are you proposing? That a thirty-something having sex with an eager and willing 15-year old is no different from a sick and pathological man cultivating and exploiting young children?That these are equivalent? That the thirty-something is likely also to have a predisposition to molest young children.

        Come on!

        The first is the sort of thing that happens in life, has always happened, and, OK, sometimes leads to unwelcome results. In all honesty, what activity doesn’t? It’s the equivalent of supplying 17 year olds with beer and cider at an end-of-term gig, whereas the paedophile’s behaviour is more comparable to supplying them with hard drugs, and paying them to get hooked on them. To my mind, even if neither behaviour is exactly praiseworthy, or even condonable, there’s no comparison in their respective severities.

      • Hello SS, I hadn’t realised I’d been making or drawing comparisons.

        In fact I was trying hard not to be judgmental in any degree. But if the published accounts are correct then Sir Savile was preying on vulnerable girls as well as whatever he was doing with those who might be described differently.

        Salve your consciousness anyway you like, but I see a problem with the ‘vulnerable’ bit. don’t you? Perhaps you haven’t read the reports in the press I have.

      • By the way SS, uncorroborated first hand accounts are not ‘hearsay’, which is not normally admissible fort very good reasons. Regardless of whether the perpetrator is deceased.

    • Graham D:”….maybe Saint Jimmy of Manderville did enjoy the company of teenage girls….but as JW says…did’nt we all once ?”

      I didn’t. But it wasn’t for the want of trying!

  13. Well there must be a few ageing rock stars wondering if a knock on the door is coming soon then. If you read the biogs of the time, under age groupies were de rigeur. I think particularly of Led Zeppelin – its pretty clear that they were ‘entertaining’ teenage groupies from the late 60s right though the 70s.

    As for JS, it seems rather obvious that the TV companies were unprepared to make these allegations while he was alive, and waited til he was dead to broadcast them. That for me says all I need to know.

    • But Jim they weren’t aging rock stars then and besides Savile didn’t just concentrate on the moths that fluttered around his bright light did he? If the accounts are correct he actively cultivated the youngsters that were vulnerable. Is that not different?

  14. So are you saying that when Savile was 50, 60, or 70 years old it was still ok for him to be groping 12,13 and 14 year old girls if he so wished?

  15. @ FullStop. No, of course it doesn’t change the issues. However, it is rather odd that this has only been brought up now, when Jimmy Savile has been dead for quite a while. Why wasn’t it brought up either before, or as soon as he was laid to rest?
    Nothing like that ever happened to me, so I can’t say how I would have felt, but surely outrage doesn’t take that long to come out?
    I expect someone will shoot me down on that…..

    • “I expect someone will shoot me down on that…..”

      I wouldn’t dream of shooting anyone down on any aspect of this but I would say that from experience of dealing with victims of all sorts of offences, only they can understand how they endure in silence.

      Sadly, generally if they did try to ‘tell’, the normal response from trusted adults would teach them quickly the error of their ways. Or they expected the response to be such.

      It really is a case of ‘if you haven’t dealt with victims’ you probably wouldn’t understand how they can be so easily controlled by the perpetrator.

      • I should have added that regardless of how well they were dealt with after complaint, if prosecution resulted, the Criminal Justice system would soon have taught them how foolish they were to speak up.

        Now don’t all rear up, I’m not saying that the CJS shouldn’t be a high standard of test, it should, but that doesn’t change the fact that it can destroy victims for the second time.

        I think it comes under the ‘Life’s a bitch’ heading followed by ‘there but for the grace of….etc’.

    • The reason this has only emerged now is precisely because Savile is now dead.
      Had it occurred when he was alive, once cornered, his ‘defence’ would have consisted of a list of names also involved in the process, a list which would have brought serious embarrassment to much of the establishment, some at very high level. Which is why it was suppressed so long by so many of the agencies of power (BBC, Police, Government etc.).
      Dead men can’t talk – that’s why it waited so long to emerge – at least now the prime ‘witness’ can’t implicate the rest.

  16. “But was Jimmy Savile a predatory rapist paedophile?” Lord knows. Perhaps he was, but then again perhaps not.

    Unless incriminating videos come to light showing Sir J in flagrante with a nymphet, or unless Sir J left a DNA sample that can be used to determine the paternity of illegitimate offspring born as a result of rape of a minor, we can’t really tell for certain one way or the other, and everything will continue to depend entirely on hearsay.

    Yes, it’s awful when the dead get unfairly slagged off, but it’s a sport that has been going on since time immemorial, and no doubt Sir J’s relatives will soon spring en masse to his defence, as will fellow “celebrities”, hitherto silent, who may or may not have considered jail bait to be fair game all those years ago. But does this seedy stuff really matter? Aren’t there other important issues that are more deserving of discussion? Why should we be concerned with what the not-entirely-likeable Sir J got up to in the tinsel days of his fame? Can we now move on?

    • Quite right Houndstooth, and the bankers and poly’s have brought the Globe to within an inch of disaster but come on, that’s been the way for years, let’s move on. Much more important issues to deal with, eh?

    • “Unless incriminating videos come to light showing Sir J in flagrante with a nymphet, or unless Sir J left a DNA sample that can be used to determine the paternity of illegitimate offspring born as a result of rape of a minor, we can’t really tell for certain one way or the other, and everything will continue to depend entirely on hearsay.”

      ” flagrante with a nymphet” ,or, abusing a child!

      What are you saying,that before TV and DNA knowledge nobody could be convicted with evidence?

      • All that I’m saying is that allegations that Savile was a paedophile can’t be substantiated without supporting evidence, and so far, there hasn’t been any supporting evidence. Allegations based on hearsay remain what they are: allegations.

  17. There’s one thing that bemuses me about all this. Just after Savile died last years, there was something in the press, not to my knowledge denied, that he was great friends with Denis and Margaret Thatcher, and spent many a Christmas with them at Chequers when she was Prime Minister. SURELY if there was any suspicion that Savile was a dangerous child-molester, it would have been brought to Mrs Thatcher’s attention? And if this was the case, SURELY she wouldn’t have taken the political risk of associating with Savile, no matter how much of a friend he had become?

    Maybe the Chequers story is not true, though.

  18. I hope this story breaks open this countries collective conscious on the unspoken and hidden child abuse in this county, what could be more rotten!

    Two million people went on the anti war march in February 2003, What would happen if ten million or twenty million or more went outside to protest in unison.

  19. John, with respect your wrong on this one. The labels and nuances are irrelevant, it appears (and your confirming it) that Jimmy Saville was a nasty predator who used his fame to exploit juvenile, vulnerable young girls.
    Personally I think there is a world of difference between a horny 15 year old and a manipulating 30 year old. I have a feeling this story is going to run and run and I welcome it. With luck other nasty bastards will be exposed

    Girls are traded as a commodity across the world these days. People like Jimmy Saville fuel that trade.

  20. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
    ― Martin Luther King Jr., I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World

    “Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.”
    ― Martin Luther King Jr.

    “On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right?

    There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.”
    ― Martin Luther King Jr.

  21. I was abused by the head master of the primary school at the age of ten. He took all the young boys into the woods for a session of masturbation .I never thought much about the incidents as it came under the heading of sex education ,I did feel quite shocked and numb at the time ,but it was his wife that I was most scared of ,she was vicious as she knew what her husband was up to ,no one said anything as it was a taboo subject and anyway who would have listened in 1956 .

  22. Well I have enjoyed the debate but where I am it is now 2200hrs and I must be up at 0500, so if I now ignore any responses please note the hour and be assured it is because I am trying to sleep. Not easy when I remember some of the comments here.

  23. John, how can you think it is remotely relevant that you wanted to grope (and the rest) teenage girls when you were a young teenager? If you really don’t know the difference between this and what is being claimed about Savile’s activity with girls as young as 12 ( but to my mind and the mind of the makers of the law, 15 is no different) , then I despair. Clearly you are not alone in this view. But I am glad to see that I am not alone in mine,which is that such attitudes to the availability/ willingness of immature girls ( and absolutely the same in boys where relevant) display a serious misunderstanding of both the emotional and developmental situation of young adolescents, a disregard for the law, and a moral sickness.

  24. And by the way, the idea that because a girl is ovulating she is fair game, and bound to know the rights and wrongs of sexual activity and what it might entail, is shocking in the extreme. For a start girls become sexually mature as young as nine years old now, and 11 is commonplace; and anyway why is a girl somehow miraculously transformed by the start of her menstrual cycles into a fully functioning woman with a complete understanding of adult behaviour? She might well have been sexually innocent too, things were very different back then. I was told ” the facts of life ” by my older brother when I was 14 and had been ovulating for three years. You just don’t know what you are talking about. I agree that this is much less likely nowadays, but are you happy for people to capitalise on this sad fact by failing to acknowledge the responsibility not to exploit?

  25. The more I look at your post the more angry I feel. I am sorry, but you say that unless JS can be shown to have ” forcibly had sex with girls aged 10″ you are not bothered by his alleged behaviour. So you think having sex with a willing 10 year old, or for that matter 11, 12 year old is OK? This is certainly paedophilia. Paedophiles do not always rape in the sense of forcing physically ( of course it is legal rape)- they have ways of persuading kids that they should do what they want, and kids can be persuaded quite easily by fear not to shout or object.

    • Smallvoice.

      I have been giving this a lot of thought since our earlier exchanges & I have been persuaded by your arguments. I have come to the conclusion that it is simply wrong for much older men to have sex with 14 yr old girls, no matter how willing.

      I have been looking back at the men that I once knew who did this sort of thing, & it has made me realise that none of them were worth much, they were all weak & survived our very rough school using flattery, although one of the trio was a bully. I remember thinking later that it must make them feel very powerful to be able to impress the little girlies, mostly I never gave it much thought, they were all none entities, described by many as ‘ w**kers ‘.& all mouth, they would probably have made good DJ’s.

      My then wife commented after a chance meeting on a night out with one of these thirty something characters with what looked like a schoolgirl on his arm, she said words to the effect of ‘ Who was that a***hole, can’t he handle a real woman, Did you see ? he wouldn’t even look me in the face, poor kid, it should’t be allowed ‘

      She was one hell of a woman.& her statement now sums it up for me.

      Strange what unlocks memories.

      This subject will have me late for work.

    • I share your anger.

      Seems to be far more to this on a number of levels. A lot of middle aged men have been screwing underage girls and JW is making them feel better by saying it really is OK. Forget that Jimmy Savile raped 12 year olds because that would spoil old men’s guilt free memories (which probably today are the stimulus of their fantasies)

      Potentially, we are looking at a systemic problem where our care homes have been used for decades as the happy hunting grounds of wealthy and powerful perverts. But it’s easier for JW to focus exclusively on ‘groupies’.

      Well, this will blow wide open. It won’t be long before the MSM openly speculate about Saville’s true role as a pimp as well as a predator. How long before the truth about Haute de la Garenne comes out ? How long before former Prime Minister Edward Heath is thrown into the mix ?

      It is because of the ‘insider’ attitudes of people like JW that this was all covered up until after Savilles death.

  26. “Barbara Richards left an annotation (14 March 2012)

    Dear Madeline Greenhalgh,

    You have not personally reassured me of anything.

    Ralph Underwager was certainly involved in the BFMS, and the BFMS has tried to distance itself from Ralph Underwager, since he made those disgraceful comments for that Dutch sex magazine. I can well understand why the BFMS would want to do that.

    Whilst he was alive Ralph Underwager repeatedly advised his followers to be bold, and they have certainly heeded his advice.

    It is dreadful for child abuse victims to have to put up with being persecuted, plotted against and called disgraceful names by devotees of False Memory Syndrome. False Memory Syndrome has to be one of the cruelest methods of psychological torture ever invented.

    Members of the BFMS have certainly been lobbying Parliament to prevent the UK police from doing their duty in investigating the Pindown child abuse, and the evidence for that is in Hansard.

    I prefer to wait for the charity commission to give their answer on this matter than take your response as the truth Madeline Greenhalgh.”

  27. Now I know why my husband says:
    ‘Now then, Now then , how’s about that’ ….as he undresses in front of me before bed.

  28. If you had a 15 year old daughter would you want me fawning over her John? I’m only 26 from your point of view that’s ok right? Hell maybe while she’s doing her homework me and you can go for a beer? I usually like your blog but the article makes you look like an idiot.

  29. I am quite frankly disgusted by this article.

    To attempt to justify the disgusting behaviour of an ageing pervert groping young girls and putting his hands down their knickers and getting away with it because he was a celebrity and because that’s what you did when you were 14 years old it pathetic.

    I hope a lot more people come forward and reveal what a nasty piece of work this perve really was! Or is it ok to do this in your book John? It seems so.

    I wonder if he was a member of the Groucho Club?

  30. Sorry this is nonsense. Even IF you leave aside the girls’ age and the fact that many of them were vulnerable in other ways, it appears Savile did not act with their consent. As well as that, he was protected by the media, police and others because he was clever and famous. It is outrageous this was allowed to go on and another damning indictment of our media.

  31. Brave of you to try and take on this topic John. But I think your title already lets you down. “Jimmy Savile: predatory rapist or sexually active celebrity?”. By the sounds of it things are more complicated than the two options you are giving and at various points in history he was possibly either of the above, a dirty old man or paedophile. In your shoes I’d want to keep as wide a separation between myself and him as possible. Otherwise you end up like people who start a sentence saying “Hitler wasn’t all bad, just look what he did for…”.

    The only thing I can say in his defense is that this scandal is still in a very early stage, so let’s not lynch him until it is a bit clearer what he was up to, with whom and what facilitation/cover up took place. I can imagine, that if he got away with it as a young DJ and kept getting away with it as he got older, then before you know it you might have a geriatric pervert with a sense of overentitlement and immunity from prosecution on your hands. I think I’ll go outside and be sick now…

  32. Posted by someone on Max Kieser

    “” It’s just the tip of the iceberg. That’s why there’s a D notice on the whole UK media about reporting on child sex abusers in high up places. That’s why Ms Goodman gets her visa pulled without explanation. You have people being jailed on breach of the peace charges in Scotland for distributing leaflets exposing top people in organised child sex crime. (The Hollie Grieg case).

    Saville was protected because people who live in glass houses cannot afford to throw stones. (Saville was very close to Gary Glitter and another child rapist who was a Radio one (BBC) DJ known as DLT Dave Lee Travis).

    The only reason that this has had a lid on it this long is because this is such a horrible can of worms to open, most of the public are repelled away from it. There’s around 60,000 kids in the UK that get taken away from their parents using secret courts. You start with local councils and then work your way up to the very top. Then you find out it’s so-called royalty too.”

    At 15m50s

    http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-339-keiser/

  33. It never ceases to amaze me the way in which men seek to make allowenes for engaging sexual with children ( yes under the age of 18 CHILD).

    Your statements are disrespectful to all people who have ever fallen victim to the likes of jimmy,and show the shallowness of your thought process! To imply that young girls were basically asking for it by attending events in hope of seeing celebrities leaves me completely lost for words!! It simply shows that we have done little to move away from women being viewed, simply as piece of meat.

    Comparing what other people do in order to justify the view that sleeping with a 15 year old is acceptable, shows your intelligence is probably as small as your penis!

    These were young girls,as a society we should be making a statement loud and clear that we do not accept the explotation of the innocent!! Ovulation my dear does not make you mentally capable of consenting to sex with a grown man and I would love to know the science behind its ability to remove your sexual innocent.( load of shite)

    What men like you need to realise is that teenage girls should not be treated in the same way you view them in twisted porn films!! But should have their innocences and dignity preserved at all times and only when we stop making allowances for men’s sexual deviance will this ever happen!

  34. Sorry John. Your moral compass has deserted you on this one. Mature men should know better than to exploit immature women. Sexual apetites be damned. Their sexual gratification comes at what cost to the emotional and sexual development of that young person? Sir Jimmy seems to have been protected in life but now in death he can implicate no-one and so many stories are now coming out. Surely this is the kind of abuse of power, of abusers in power collaborating and conspiring that you tend to be on the other side of.
    Watch JS pawing 14 year old Colleen Nolan’s tit and jiggling it – youtube. His closeness to Glitter and defense of his ‘dirty movies’ -various press. The alleged out takes from HIGNFY. Why did the Murdoch press drop the pursuit of the Jimmy and the Jersey care home – which he denied going to but there are photos of him there. Gambo – dull but nice and a trustworthy source and the rest of the stuff bleeding out of the Beeb. The various police investigations that went to the CPS but came back. So many anecdotes being posted about his nasty predatory ways. Sir Jimmy is not someone you want to base a moral argument on. Consider your position, please.

  35. I am so glad I have some support on this one- I was beginning to wonder whether I was the only person who reads the slog with a shred of decency over this issue of underage sex. The whole question of teens having relationships with each other is completely different- my own daughter was sexually active at an early age with her long term, wonderful and talented boyfriend who I adored. Obviously I told her that sex was a dangerous and unwise thing for a young couple at school, and I was not aware at the time that it was definitely happening, but I don’t think either of them were perverts or immoral people, just very young and too rebellious against advice.
    Once a person (male or female) is past the age of majority , they should have the restraint to avoid questionable age gaps until the other partner is over 18, and once you are dealing with under 16s it is a totally different ball game.
    Surprising that JW is not replying to all this criticism, and perhaps not surprising that he has produced a slew of new posts on top of this one, more than even his normal prolific output. I will not be visiting this blog any more, as views on this subject and also on the Islamic question make me very uncomfortable, and I don’t think I would like JW much if I met him.

    • Small voice,

      Perhaps JW only replies when you agree with him ?

      Yes, the slew of new posts is interesting. It the best way of burying bad news (or bad posts)

      I’ve noticed over the last few weeks that JW is more inclined toward popularist (read: controversial) articles All the better for ratings

      You are certainly not alone, infact looking at those that are criticising JW’s attitude, the biggest kick in the balls for JW is that it is his regular ‘sloggers’ that are criticising (not the usual spamming suspects)

      Email me. If you are curious you’ll find me easily enough. And zoompad also.

      • I don’t like what John said on this thread, and I’ve said so, in fact I think what he said stinks, and made me really upset to read it, but I don’t want to talk about him in secret email conversations behind his back, if I have anything to say about him I would rather say it out in the open. Anyway, John did try to expose the Pindown scandal, and for that I feel eternally grateful to him, because most people run a mile when you mention Pindown and Secret Family Courts. I suppose all the stuff that has come out is a massive shock for everyone to get their heads round. John has been honest about his own teenage years, and I really respect that, and I remember when I was a girl that boys were encouraged to sow their wild oats, and girls were told to keep their legs together, so the kids of the past were given conflicting advice, depending on what sex they were.

      • Zoompad,

        I don’t want to talk to you about JW behind his back.

        I want to talk to you about Pindown.

        I want to write an article about it for my blog

  36. Very bad piece of writing/post, John.

    Like the post that Mr EUReferendum condemned you for last year (economics/banking/world governments subject….regards ‘knowing’ a date that the banks were going to collapse), you should have just had a(nother) drink and left this one. You tried to intellectualise the matter and failed…..move on and wait for the ‘truth’ to come out and then post on it, ffs.

    Doesn’t mean to say i’ll put an embargo on reading what you have to say – just that sometimes you reach beyond your ability….we all do it but at least recognise your boundaries.

    JS

  37. I have never read such clap trap. Point 1 the girls were under the legal age for sex. Point 2 all of the girls (now grown women) were forced against their will to perform various sex acts. This constitutes rape couple with under age victims which means paedophilia! My concern is there will be coverup and obfuscation. I believe the rabbit hole goes much much deeper and we may never know the full extent of the crimes carried out by Saville and other deviants.

  38. I think it is irrelevant to make a distinction between ‘real’ paedophilia and Jimmy Savile’s activities. One girl said Savile pinned her up against a wall and raped her. This led to pregnancy and an agonising illegal abortion. Obviously, she must have ‘begun ovulating’ or it could not have happened. Did that make it better for her? No; it made it worse. I don’t care if teenagers, technically underage, experiment with each other if it is consensual and does not lead to an STD or pregnancy. But I don’t think we should be so relaxed about much older exploitative adults. Nor was this a case of statutory rape. It was simply rape.

    Furthermore three male people have now come forward to say that Savile sexually exploited them at the ages of twelve, nine and nine respectively. This is undoubtedly paedophilia.

    Marianne

    • Sorry, but like so many people when it comes to this issue, you’re not making sense and you didn’t read the piece properly.
      As to Savile being a paedophile, I’ve already said I was wrong. Which pound of additional flesh did you want exactly?

  39. JW, Thank you for being big enough to admit you were wrong about Jimmy Savile being a paedophile. It’s true I gave your piece a cursory reading but I think I make perfect sense in saying that if you rape a girl over puberty and make her pregnant, it is not an excuse to say tIhat at least it wsn’t literally paedophilia. Which bit of that makes no sense?

    Perhaps we misunderstand each other because of a cultural gap. Am I right in thinking you are a citizen of the USA? In the UK we do not have a concept of statutory rape as such nor do we make the legal distictions between those under or over 14.
    I gave your piece a cursory reading as I thought a fuller one might have roused uncomfortable emotions such as anger. it’s possible I really might have missed something. I don’t know what. But I still think that even if raping fertile teenagers without a condom is not technically paedophilia, it is a very bad thing to do. Are you really saying that this opinion is senseless?

    Marianne using Roger’s computer

  40. Pingback: EXCLUSIVE: Jimmy Savile on Jimmy Savile | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction

  41. Pingback: John Ward – Exclusive: Jimmy Savile On Jimmy Savile – 24 January 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  42. Pingback: THE PAEDOFILE: MAIL ON SUNDAY SPLASHES WITH VINDICATION OF RACCOON DOUBTS ABOUT BREADTH OF JIMMY SAVILE’S CRIMES | The Slog.

  43. Pingback: John Ward – The Paedofile: Mail On Sunday Splashes With VIndication Of Raccoon Doubts About Breadth Of Jimmy Savile’s Crimes – 19 October 2014 | Lucas 2012 Infos

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s