Chasing Jimmy Savile’s chums

29 October 2012

6:15 PM

29 October 2012

6:15 PM

And still it goes on and on. Apparently Jimmy Savile was banned from Children In Need because it was thought he was a bit creepy. Did he try to touch up Pudsey, or something? I think we are getting ourselves into a self-righteous frenzy here. Savile was unspeakably ghastly. He was unspeakably ghastly before these latest allegations and he’s – probably, almost certainly – even worse now. But are we really going to exact revenge on pop stars who may have fondled a fourteen year old girl forty years ago? Were there any of those glam rock stars – Gilbert O’Sullivan excepted – who didn’t fondle fourteen year old girls? How many of the girls, at the time, were discomfited by this?

When I was fourteen most of the girls I knew dreamed of being shagged by Donny Osmond or David Cassidy. Or, for the slightly brighter ones, Bolan. It was a given. And if I had the chance at that age to shag Suzi Quatro I would undoubtedly have done so. Do we now decide that those aspirations don’t count? Savile’s crimes may well have been – almost certainly were – of a different order, preying on the vulnerable and the institutionalised. But the rest of it?

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Nydiamond
  • Anon

    This whole thing against Jimmy Savile is utter lies and bullshit and whoever started it ought to be ashamed of themselves…

  • rndtechnologies786

    Good thought.

  • ls

    He was innocent

  • Tom C

    “When I was fourteen most of the girls I knew dreamed of being shagged by Donny Osmond or David Cassidy.”

    So what’s your point? Leaving aside the fact that being enjoyably shagged and being forcibly molested are entirely different things, does the term “age of consent” ring any bells at all, Rod?

    The question of whether consent is given, and that of whether the consentee is qualified to give it, are entirely separate from one another. If one of these besotted girls had acted on her fantasies by confronting her idol, throwing her wet knickers at him and screaming “Take me NOW”, it would have made not an iota of difference that in the eyes of the law she is incapable of knowing her own mind. It is the responsibility of a responsible adult to exercise the judgement which she lacks.

  • The Royal missing link

    Well I must say…..there are a lot of foul mouthed people on here, I am totally shocked I would have expected better from spectator readers…oh well, you never can tell.

    From one who drank from jam jars.

  • Baron

    This has absolutely nothing to do with the Yorkshire albino,, but is a matter of the blog’s set-up. The number of posting goes up, to find the newest takes perhaps not hours, but certainly more than a minute or ten, even selecting the ‘newest’ unde ‘discussion’ helps not much. Who has the time to do it over and over again?

    Why not go back to what we had before, have the entries in chronological order?

  • TarquinFauntleroy

    Actually Eddie, I think you may be a bit of a woofter. You have a an inbuilt dislike of females. This may derive from an early experience, I’m not sure. Are you single? Are you married or in a long term relationship. We have read your stuff for about a year now and we need to know. Tell us all your wisdom Eddie- you are an ex teacher who has written an un published book or something? I’m not being rude Eddie, but Christ, you do go on a bit sometimes.- regards

  • Dogsnob

    I recall commenting on these pages, when the nation – well Leeds – was, upon his death, hailing him as some kind of angel; that he always struck me as being just one wrong word away from unspeakable violence.
    But credit where credit is due, thank you so much Jimmy. I have bought me a blonde wig, a big cigar, a garish tracksuit and trainers and a bit of fake bling; all of which I am wearing now. Them trick or treaters is in for one firkin shock.

  • A respected Female

    Only a male who possibly has little respect for teenagers or women in general could have written this article. Savile’s behaviour was manipulative and totally psychotic. All men around him were spineless in not condemning his behaviour. Is that what you are doing too? Too frightening to contemplate. One or two women who gave thedesire creeps who bribed them cannot be blamed for their innocence of thought, only to see this betrayel.

  • Forest Fan

    Yes, we do have an age of consent but it conveniently
    ignored (in my experience) time and time again by parents who let their
    fourteen year old daughter shag an eighteen year old youth….even letting them
    do it under their own roof.

    How freaky looking or how old does the adult have to be
    before the parent(s) start to get worried? If there is to be an age of consent
    then the parent(s) should also be held accountable.

  • lisa bunting

    It’s not so much a matter of girls being discomfited, though clearly a number were, it’s about adult males knowingly touching up and shagging underage girls and then saying it was ok because they wanted to. It was illegal then, it is illegal now – even if it wasn’t, should we be ok with men targeting underage girls and claiming no responsibility for their actions while the girls are blamed for being all starry eyed about celebrities and eager to please- they are not a hard to group to impress and can be very emotionally vulnerable, that’s why we have an age of consent in the first place..

    • Colonel Mustard

      Yes, what is missing here is the responsibility of the men as well as the girls.

  • David Lindsay

    Figures of the gravity of Peter Wilby, Charles Moore (in this magazine, and for two weeks running) and Peter Hitchens have all cast grave doubts on this.

    When the Police investigated Savile and found nothing, it was not in the 1970s. It was in 2007, when hundreds of people had been convicted of child abuse decades earlier.

    One really does have to wonder.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Thank goodness David Lindsay is not drafting laws. Unfortunately there are plenty like him who are. Could he explain rationally how a 21 year old in love with a 17 year old would be criminal for kissing and a 20 year old in love with a 17 year old would not? And that is before we get onto the question of defining a “sexual act”.

      • Baron

        Colonel, sir, you certain it isn’t our David drafting the laws, in particular tax laws?

        You right, the State should fix the age of consent, and that’s it, why is everyone worried about age difference provided both are above the age of consent ? Whether a 90 year old man marries a 20 year old ain’t anyone’s business, if both are sane, neither was coerced.

        What should be worrying us is the dishing out of pills to 12-year olds, no parents consent required. If things do go wrong though, it’s the parents who get kicked. A weird societal morality if there ever was one.

  • John Mackie

    On a related note – I do NOT look forward to watching the BBC spray millions of our license payer fees around by way of compensation to hundreds of (once mainly silly) girls who will only have to present some weak ‘evidence’ of once having been in the audience of TOTP with lurid claims of his abuse.

    They spend our money like water and will no doubt attempt to wash and cleanse themselves of their own lefty permissive sins using our money. Lashings of it.

    Watch this space.

    • Baron

      John, there’s always the possibility the license will get hiked to cover the cost, and why not, it’s the BBC.

  • Carolyn

    Of course fourteen year old girls may fantasise about having sex with pop idols. However they are children and are not able to give consent. Your remarks are disgraceful. I work with children and adults who have been sexually abused and the damage and destruction it leaves in its’ wake is immeasurable. Yes every paedophile whether current or forty years ago should be found and made to face justice.

    • William Reid Boyd

      Every paedophile certainly, but not every adult who may have had sex with a girl minor aged 14 or so 40 years ago. Perhaps today, but not then. In those days standards were not so high and defenses claiming that the seducer thought the girl was of age stood a reasonable chance of success.

      The age of consent is a difficult one. Our recorded society managed to get on for some 1500 years without needing such a concept. It was the late Victorian reformers who introduced the idea, and they were not concerned with young adoloscent girls making poor choices when giving their consent but with controlling child prostitution. In those days a malnourished street child of 16 might barely have completed puberty. The same reformers today might well have chosen 14 as the age of consent, as it indeed is in some developed nations.

      Left to myself I would legislate the age of consent as 18. I’m clear in my mind it should be an essentially legal construct. I suggest you should clarify it in your mind as well Carolyn.

      • Colonel Mustard

        I concur. But I believe society must be consistent in the degree of responsibility given to children under that age – and adult responsibility to them. It is simply no good making the age of consent 18 but then treating 10 year olds as if they were fully-grown adults in so many other aspects of their lives. That is a mixed message.

        But it is not just high standards at work. There is undeniably an element of hysteria in all this and it clouds reason.

        • Poppy Swanky for Romney

          Yeah. I LOVE the law that says that 18-year-olds may vote, marry, work for a living, and die for their country but MAY NOT have a drink in the United States of America. Utterly ridiculous. Either raise the voting/serving/marrying age or lower the age at which they can drink!

          • The Shambolic Skeptic

            I agree Amanda, but….

            I grew up in New York state in the 70’s and drinking age then was 18. Most of us survived, but some did not. There were horrific cases of cars full of ‘kids’ driving home from the bars late at night smashing up their cars killing all inside.

            There are only so many of those awful scenes politicians can stand and the law was eventually changed to 21. There was no constituency for maintaining the 18 year old drink age limit.

            It’s not the drinking, it’s the driving.

            • Poppy Swanky for Romney

              Oh, I know Jeff, but the times have moved on. The solution was to educate people about drink driving — it wasn’t only kids doing it, after all — and to stiffen the penalties for so doing. We’ve done all those things. But to tell a young soldier that he may not drink to the health of his country is unkind, in my opinion. And all it does is make illicit what ought to be a normal adult’s activity, done in moderate manner. This is why I agree that children of a certain age should be (mildy, briefly) introduced to alcohol: normalizes it, shows them how to drink and when.

              • The Shambolic Skeptic

                Kids drink plenty these days, but generally at home or in a dorm room çause the pubs will not serve them.

                Hence they stay home and don’t drive.

                Not defending it, just where we are at the moment.

                • Poppy Swanky for Romney

                  I think England, and Europe generally, have different attitudes to drink. There is still an uptightness in America that is reflected in all sorts of things, including wine shipment laws, surgeon general’s warnings, etc. I find the suspicion of alcohol rather over the top.

                  Fact is, people will always drink and drive because they think they can. I entirely disapprove of it*, but I know they do. Respectable middle-aged types, too. I’ve been to wine tasting-restaurant outings in which the imbibers drive themselves home while hubby and I are taking a taxi. It’s not just about young people.

                  *Apart from the risk posed to anyone else, even if one thinks one is sober enough to drive, the law will disagree and then you could ruin your life by going to jail for it. I don’t know why people with families and good lives would take such a risk. They’re fine as long as there’s no accident or no roadblocks. Then it’s all over….

                • The Shambolic Skeptic

                  True enough. Many drink and drive when they know they shouldn’t. One of the pleasures of living in London is public transport is convenient and plentiful so there’s never an excuse to do the wrong thing.

            • Poppy Swanky for Romney

              P. S. MADD has also, since its formation, gone off the deep end, and I DO think they are against drink as such, not just against drunken driving.

  • Kolnai

    Great stuff, Rod. A little maid dreamed it, so Jimmy Fixed It….and her. For good. Only herself to blame, isn’t it?

    70s pop culture was sick unto its boots? Whatever. Who cares? All in the past, you see? Nothing to see here nowadays…unless you count R Brand and J Ross (and their many confederates) of course. But still brought to you courtesy of the latest bunch of regressed penis-packing pals at the Beeb! Hooray for England’s merry men!

    Pre-pubes rejoice! You have nothing to lose but your maidenheads! (and your parents’ licence fee of course).

  • John Steadman

    I don’t think you are going to be Commenter of the Week, again, Rod, but it needed saying.
    And notice how all those paragons of rectitude now pointing the finger would certainly have shopped Savile if they had been around him at the time, at the BBC or in the schools or the hospitals, while all those around them were cowed by such little considerations as the great man’s QC, enormous and wholly intimidating media exposure and all the associated stress, and the possibility of loss of livelihood.
    But the witch-hunt is on now, and and we might expect to see now some geriatric 60s and 70s movers and shakers hauled before the 20-teeny courts bristling with lawyers armed with the new morality – virtuous, and vengeful, and blind to cultural change.
    “Self-righteous frenzy” undeed.

  • thamesA

    Are you out of your mind? children remember this kind of thing, believe me, and its traumatic even if “consensual”.
    Kids agree sometimes in fear. Or desperate hope to be “loved” even by a pedophile.
    I can only imagine you wrote this piece to be controversial. Shame on you. Really.

  • Adrian Harper

    Rod do you want an inquiry into the cover up by senior tories in the early 1990s of top thatcher aide Peter Morrison on sex with under age boys charges?

  • Julian

    It’s one thing for a teenage girl to dream of shagging her idol, it’s another thing entirely for her idol to take advantage of that. The former in no way excuses the latter. That’s why we have the concept of the age of consent. I know that you never miss an opportunity to take the contrary view, but this is far too close to the arguments often put by paedophiles, that if they want it there’s nothing wrong with it.

  • An Accountant

    Gilbert Osullivan…….well, I nearly ran his daughter over one evening in Jersey when he was taking her for a cycle and exercising very little parental control on a dangerous stretch of road.

  • Jez Davis

    Aaahh: the ‘we all like Gene Hunt, don’t we?’ defence. Hard to identify how many points have been missed here, though the ‘controversial’ brief was nailed nicely.

    Not particularly edifying stuff Rod, not at all.

  • Mr Grumpy

    I guess I must have missed the piece where you told us that Catholic priests shagging fourteen year olds is no big deal so long as it’s consensual. And that in any case we shouldn’t be too hard on any individual priest because, well, it’s the culture, innit?.
    Pity, I could have saved myself a lot of self-righteous frenzy.

  • Fern Anita Charlotte Norfolk


    I’m female. And I almost completely disagree with what you’re saying.

    What’s quite interesting is that you are blaming everyone affiliated. Everyone with some power or authority that was aware about Jimmy Savile, but that the same time you are almost assuming that everyone in the position was a man and chose not to speak out.
    You yourself are actually being incredibly sexist in what you are thinking.
    Many of those affiliated were male, many were also female. Some attempted to speak up, some chose to keep quiet.
    It has nothing to do with gender, it’s an indivuals decision, regardless of gender.

  • Arthur

    The thing with this is, how far back do we go? Do we kick up a fuss about 6th-century Arabs having sex with 9-year-olds, for instance? How brave are we?

    • Julian

      Or how stupid, irrelevant, and racist are we?

  • Eddie

    Absolutely agreed, Rod. The assumption is that teenie girl groupies are somehow ‘victims’. Well, having been in a band myself many moons ago, and witnessing what happens, I have to say that it is often the other way round, with young male performers having to take avoidance action to get away from these voracious nymphos!

    This is so true:

    ‘But are we really going to exact revenge on pop stars who may have fondled a fourteen year old girl forty years ago? Were there any of those glam rock stars – Gilbert O’Sullivan excepted – who didn’t fondle fourteen year old girls? How many of the girls, at the time, were discomfited by this?’

    Might as well male a great big bonfire of old vinyl singles and all videos of Top of the Pops and pop music footage from the 60s and 70s (oh wait – the BBC did that anyway!).

    We need to be get real here, and also separate artists from the art they create. So what if Presley or Lennon or Beethoven shagged a groupie? For a young man who has gone from a nobody to a rich and famous pop star to shag pretty girls is not really a crime, not even if the girl is 14 or 15 (and many look older).
    We need to stop thinking these girls are victims or that they were 5 years old. 15 is not 5!
    Even if they raped and roasted newborn babies their music would be the same anyway.

    • sarah

      “Absolutely agreed, Rod. The assumption is that teenie girl groupies are somehow ‘victims’. voracious nymphos!” etc…

      That’s not what he said, Ed’.

      You need to understand something: Rod Liddle isn’t your friend, he thinks you’re poisonous and stupid too.

      Why do you think he ignores you? No matter how much you hang around him trying to get his attention like an incontinent Labrador?

      “For a young man who has gone from a nobody to a rich and famous pop star
      to shag pretty girls is not really a crime, not even if the girl is 14
      or 15 (and many look older).”

      Yes it is Eddie. Yes it is a crime.

      • runcorn

        Thank you Sarah for being balanced and lucid. A bloke.

        • MonstaMash1998

          @all above. LOL arguing on the internet !

      • TarquinFauntleroy

        Christ Sarah, you sound like the worst example of a placard waving finger wagging harridan. A true exponent of ‘wimmins issues’ along the lines of Millie Tant.

        • sarah

          And I’m supposed to take seriously the opinion of somebody who’s only knowledge of this subject is the straw feminist from the pages of Viz? With the vocabulary of a cliche?

      • Eddie

        Oh HILARIOUS! Psycho Sarah is so fucking DELUDED and NUTS that she thinks she has a hotline to Rod Liddle’s brain and can read his mind and so knows his opinions of everything before he expresses them!
        I address posts to many people here, occasionally the author of the article, as do others. Which Rod sometimes responds to. And let’s not forget, FUCKTARD, that it was YOU who first posted a reply to Rod in this instance. I VERY much doubt Rod agrees with many of your manhating weirdo opinions, but I do not KNOW he doesn’t – because I do not assume Rod is my friend and we have some sort of relationship which you very oddly do!
        Sarah you really are mental.
        Get help eh?
        And read the law: if a man shags a 15 year old who looks 16 and she has told him that then he will not be charged. That is called common sense, love.

  • Luca

    I wonder if Bill Wyman is one of those Max Clifford was talking about when he said:

    “stars, some of whom were still big names, had approached him to handle any fallout from inquiries. He said they were worried because at their peak they had lived a hedonistic lifestyle where young girls threw themselves at them but they “never asked for anybody’s birth certificate”.”

    No, he can’t have meant Bill Wyman because he must have asked for Mandy Smith’s birth certificate when he married her. And he knew she was 13 when he told her to lie about her age. So he knew she was 14 when he had sex with her at his mansion.

    Maybe he’s heard from Jagger and Bowie who both knew her age and used to tease Bill about it?

  • Sarah

    “And if I had the chance at that age to shag Suzi Quatro I would undoubtedly have done so. ”

    The difference is that you didn’t have that chance. The 24 year old Suzi Quatro didn’t feel up, snog or have sex with 12, 13 or 14 year old boys as far as I know. Her entourage didn’t supply her with them. So you never had to find out how discomforted you would have been by the fulfilment of your teen dream.

  • sir_graphus

    I bet there are several 70s popstars & DJs who are quite pleased they’re dead.

  • Sarah

    “Apparently Jimmy Savile was banned from Children In Need because it was thought he was a bit creepy. Did he try to touch up Pudsey, or something?”

    I think what this suggests is that the organisers of Children in Need were aware of the rumours about Savile’s child-rapey ways rather than actually witnessing him in light-comedy action with their mascot. But you already knew that didn’t you.

    But hey, light comedy always has a place in sex crime, these victims and lobbyists are altogether too po-faced about it. It was probably better in the 60s when girls weren’t so discomforted, or something.

  • Iain

    To discomfit means to defeat. It has nothing to do with causing discomfort. Not a lot of journalists know that.

    • nankipoo

      That word had changed its original meaning by the time Jane Austen was using it, pedant.

    • C Cole

      Definition of discomfit (from

      verb (discomfits, discomfiting, discomfited) [with object]

      make (someone) feel uneasy or embarrassed: he was not noticeably discomfited by her tone


      Middle English (in the sense ‘defeat in battle’): from Old French desconfit, past participle of desconfire, based on Latin dis- (expressing reversal) + conficere ‘put together’ (see confection)

      The words discomfit and discomfort
      are etymologically unrelated but in modern use their principal meanings
      as a verb have collapsed into one: ‘make someone feel uneasy’.

  • Tron

    The Left really make me laugh.
    When the phone hacking at the NOTW story broke everyone said the top management, including the Murdochs, must have known about it. That was and is the story.

    Now that Savile’s abuse of young girls at the BBC for 40 years is revealed by ITV, the same people are saying ” I can’t believe anyone in authority at the BBC knew anything at all.”

    • opinebre49

      And didn’t they get stuck in to rocket-speed arrests of the hackers. Is foot-dragging going on or what?

  • Caroline Redbrook

    The Jimmy Savile scandal underscores the need to get accused pedophiles like Sylvain Kustyan off the streets and away from our children. This French native and elementary/ middle school teacher has been formally charged with two counts of 1st Degree Sodomy of a ten-year-old little boy. This 6′-7″ giant is the author of a leading children’s textbook series, published by a well-known publishing house that has been made aware of the charges against Kustyan. Unfortunately, he is currently on the lam

  • William Reid Boyd

    Well, we will have to see what the BBC culture enquiry brings forth, but on the whole I’m inclined to agree.

    I have to say I’m a little wary of the belated revelation that Children In Need was an oasis of enlightenment during all this time. Was that minuted somewhere I wonder … “the board resolved to tell that perv Savile to go jerk” sort thing? I suspect we shan’t be getting to see hard copy.

  • Wilhelm

    When Rupert Murdoch found out wrong doing at one of his newspapers, he closed it down. When is Christopher Patten going to close the BBC down ?

  • Wilhelm

    Consider this, if Jimmy Saville was a RACIST and he espoused his racist views to all and sundry, and everyone at the BBC knew he had these views, it was an open secret. Do you think Saville would have lasted at the BBC for 50 years ? No, he would have been fired on the spot.

    • roger

      I’ve not yet seen any evidence he was a racially equal abuser, his ‘tastes’ seem a bit racist as well. The BBC 30 years ago was a very racist place as well as elitist and sexually strange.

  • Wilhelm

    The only amusement of this whole sordid affair is listening to the supercilious egotistical obnoxious little creep BBC radio 5 presenter Nicky Campbell say ” I joined Radio 1 when Jimmy Saville left.” In other words Campbell is covering his arse and knows nothing. I think he’s said the phrase 927 times.

    • TarquinFauntleroy

      Yes, I met the twat in a bar at Clapham circa 1996- loved himself dearly. Really top class dick.

  • extradebaby

    Savile’s “chums” may have included people in an organised paedophile ring, some of whom may still be alive. Yes, they deserve to be chased, and that is nothing to do with pop stars thirty or forty years ago having sex with willing groupies. this is about rape, child molestation, and how a transparent sex abuser was able to go all over the whole country apparently at will in hospitals,care homes and TV studios committing sexual atrocities for the better part of fifty years,

    • Eddie

      Yep, but worth remembering too that, however much people dislike the fact, most child abuse whether violent, emotional or sexual is done in the home by family members. A miniscule amount of abuse is carried out by strangers who do not know the child, and a small amount by people such as teachers, care workers, nurses etc. Children who are abducted are almost always abducted by family members (mothers, fathers) and the abduction of a child by a stranger is really very rare and the frequency of such abductions has not changed since records began.

      One big danger here is the way hysteria about child abuse is destroying trust in society (Anthony Seldon writes well on this) and makes all children anxious and fearful of adults, thus infantlising them (why 21 year olds behave like 13 year olds maybe?).

      Overprotection of children which does not allow them to experience, assess and manage risk also puts them at greater risk: this is why when children are finally allowed out by themselves at sceondary school aged a large number get knocked over and injured/killed on our roads. I was walking toi school and back aged 8 iun the 70s. I learnt how to cross the road safely. I learnt how to talk to and assess adults – today teenagers have the mental development of toddlers really. Because of paranoid parenting. Not to mention the obsesity epidemic!

      All those parents keeping their little ones safe from the harmful humanity of the outside world are harming their children way more than most strangers ever would – and ironically their orca-fat kiddies are instead of playing outside just playing with themselves watching internet porn ort playing violeent video games! Parents abuse their children more than anyone else, and most these days are getting it so wrong by following the hysterical lead of a ratings-hungry media.

      Statistically, the best way of protecting children from abuse is to take them away from their parents.

      But much easier to create a bogie man and demonise men than accept that men are no more likely to abuse children than women, and even with sexual abuse, the context created by women (singl mother with multiple boyfriends) is what causes abuse to happen. Abuse is 5 times higher in step families too: Cinderella was right after all.

      Needless to say, there are plenty of manhating feminist groups who enjoy making all men suspected rapists and paedophiles; if women were similarly unfairly suspected and branded, they wouldn’t be so happy huh? But then, when were they ever moral or consistent?
      Mothers who brand all men as paedos should remember though that one day their sons will grow up to be similarly under suspicion. Or he may well grow up to be a child abuser – or maybe he already is (one third of child sex abuse is done by other youngsters).

      • roger

        So children abused in a family are taken away and put in the care system where abuse inside and around care homes is known to be rife. The system is broken and fixes don’t seem to be working, just look at the recent Rochdale case.

        • Eddie

          My point is this: If babies were taken from unfit mothers early then
          1) they wouldn’t be damaged for months/years and then go into care at say aged 5 as damaged kids difficult to adopt and often destined for bad things;
          2) they could be adopted by the many couples who’d love to adopt a baby – there are hardly any babies up for adoption these days because of the politicall correct, feminist policy of always keeping the baby with the mother, however unfit.
          Worth remembering that most care homes and workers in them were and are not paedophiles, though there has been abuse – but many kids in those homes could have been adopted as babies and avoided the care system completely!
          Abuse will always happen no matter what: but we should remember the fact that most abuse takes place in the home, that most abusers are parents or step parents or boyfriends of the single mother. That is what all statistics show.
          But I agree that better care home systems are needed – Germany has some good ideas, with teenagers homes where they can live semi-independently. But frankly, some damaged youngsters will always get into trouble: they would inside or outside the care system.

      • JanCosgrove1945

        Eddie let’s examine your statement about numbers of abusers and where they abuse. It’s a commonplace that the majority of abusers are in domestic situations, such as family, close friends of/neighbours etc. On that basis you are correct. 6.3% of abusers come from professional situations. And a small % are total strangers. So let us assume that the domestic-situated abuser might abuse 1, 2, 3 children over, say, 10 years. Strangers – well, who knows, but I’d guess their crimes are more likely to be reported. Let’s however, look at the professional abuser – I include in this not only paid people but also volunteers who have access via institutions. What can we say about the number of victims they will abuse over a similar period? Too little data I have to say. But, over ten years, maybe 5, 10, 20 children. Over twenty years, rather more. I would hazard that if we look at the number of child victims, that 6.3% account for a large % of victims, not abusers.

        I undertook some projections, they can be found at Fair Play for Children’s Publications page online, plus a critique by someone who understands stats better than me, but one could easily arrive at 50%+ being down to that small minority depending on what victim rate one adopts. Is there any data on victim rate? Very little. But an academic study in the US where unadmitted offences were the subject of disclosure by paedophiles suggested that the 150 surveyed admitted to abusing over 22,000 children – I couldn’t believe that as it suggested 150 kids each on average. But now with suggestions of Savile abusing 300, who knows?

        What comes out every time is that where children have no voice, no redress or channel, where heads are turned the other way, way the ‘good name’ of the institution comes first, then abuse can flourish and escape detection for decades. Ireland has its history, centred on the Catholic Church, it’s happened in the States where also Boys Scouts of America is in the firing line, and there is of course the recent scandal of Sandusky at Penn State University – all characterised by cover up and denial of justice.

        Jersey, Rotherham, North Wales, BBC, 2 NHS Hospitals, Birmingham, Islington …. maybe Tory grandee ….. what more is to come? Oh don’t forget Kincora. Plus unresolved matters surrounding a footballer who died. All this suggests that a major Public Inquiry is needed so we can find out the truth for once and for all.

      • Sylvia Bangkok

        What you say is so darn true … I walked to school at the age of six … so did my brothers and sisters; no mollycoddling for us … we were well aware of the ways of the world before we hit our teens but knew how to take care of
        ourselves. I also remember the ‘groupies’ who were delighted to sleep with anyone they deemed ‘famous’ … We all thought Jimmy Saville a revolting guy to be avoided. I am sorry for the poor kids in the hospitals he abused but where on earth were the staff???

  • John Henry

    I am in quite perfect agreement. As is ever the case, the witch hunt surrounding this affair has succeeded only in highlighting the fact that the vast majority of the public have no sense of moral subtlety. There seems to be a substantial body of opinion abroad that is incapable of distinguishing the difference between an adult engaging in erotic behaviour with a consenting teenager, and a revolting Yorkshireman forcing his foul self upon unconsenting children. I can only assume that Calvin is to blame for this latest of proofs of the appaling lack of philosophical imagination displayed by the English people. He usually is.

    • Sarah

      Shut up Eddie. Nobody is ever going to think it’s okay for you to go out with kids because no adult woman will come within 500 metres of you.

      • Eddie

        Sarah – you do not know me and I sincerely hope I never meet you (though a quick visit to the local centre for deranged old manhating harridans at the council or one of the few remaining wimmins studies courses will reveal a few other weirdos like you).

        You are SO deluded that you somehow thing you speak for every poster here and also Rod himself. Jeez.

        And now you are accusing me of abusing children too!

        SICK SICK SICK SARAH – you SAD NUTJOB PERVERT! Go hang yourself love and do the world a favour.

        It is because of feminist cunts like you abusing the word ‘abuse’ and making false accusations of rape and abuse, then no-one believes REAL victims of abuse.

        I would support making it a criminal offence to make false accusations of rape or child abuse against men; minimum sentence: 10 years.

        You’d like it in prison Sarah – lots of butch muff and no men!

  • Martin A

    If I were to organise discos for youg girls, knowing that the DJ was sexually abusing them, I would rightly be charged with aiding and abetting him.

    The BBC made Savile a star and then, for years organised programme sets that gave him access to young girls. The BBC should be charged, as a corporate body, with aiding and abetting his crimes. The DG of the time was no doubt oblivious to the goings on – but plenty of lower level managers knew. Their failure to convey this to the top management was the BBC’s failure and does not lessen its guilt. Most or all of those managers are no doubt retired now but that does not absolve the BBC – it remains guilty of its crime.

    • Baron

      Martin A, sir, you have encapsulated the case in just five sentences, thank you, you’re a star.

      The only slight flaw in your argument is that the BBC isn’t run by an evil man, foreign to the boot, successful on top of if, but a number of likable chums, who believe to have the right to impose their take on the world on the plebeian us, but resist the notion of BBC corporate responsibility, hence nothing will be done.

    • John

      I knew about Savile 20 years ago, as a BBC producer friend told me. Everyone of my acquaintance in the TV and music biz knew about Savile. As soon as he came on the telly, or a picture appeared for whatever reason, the nonce jokes started rolling out. Maybe I should go to jail for not going to the police!

      • Luca

        Why didn’t you go to the police?

        • Jez Davis

          The lack of a little thing called ‘evidence’, presumably.

          • Luca

            It’s up to the police to find the evidence. The legal system to test it.

            If you heard on the grapevine that somebody was abusing kids, would you just ignore it?

            • Jez Davis

              No, but it’s not the same thing.

              Being in a group of people that make sick jokes about someone is not in itself reason to go to the police about that person. John says ‘everyone…knew’. If ‘everyone…knew’ about him abusing kids within the walls of the BBC, then yes, the police should’ve been informed – but only if people were willing to go on the record.

              But if ‘everyone…knew’ simply means that everyone had been told by a friend of a friend and everyone made sick jokes, then no – I’d suggest it wasn’t reason to go. The police would have had nowhere to start an investigation – random questioning of all in sundry in case someone happens to say something interesting not being their usual line of inquiry. Though it may have been reason to question the source of the jokes and demand to speak to BBC superiors – on the record.

              • Luca

                You would go to the police and say that you have heard credible rumours of child abuse and you name names. The police start with the interviewing process with them. If that fails, you hire a BBC undercover reporter to film what’s going on – care home style.

                • C Cole

                  The police did investigate Savile, didn’t they? More than one force looked into his activities, and at one point it was recommended that he be prosecuted – though in the end the CPS decided not to proceed. Which is where the row over the dropped Newsnight investigation comes in. All these matters are now set to be investigated, and rightly so. Rod’s point above is, how broadly focused should that investigation be? Legitimate areas of concern should not be allowed to shade into a witch hunt through mission creep or retrospective opportunism. Will common sense be allowed to prevail, though?

                • C Cole

                  By common sense, I have in mind something approximating to JS Mill’s harm principle.

                • Brass Monkey

                  Unlikely! Common sense died when PC was born.

              • Swanky for Romney

                Don’t agree, really. Luca’s point stands. If there was a serious chance that — all these people talking about the Savile fellow but not about other fellows, who might have been personally obnoxious but stuck to grown-up consenting women — then a professional investigator could have taken that as a start. If there was nothing to find, the investigator would find that out, too. That’s why they’re professionals.

            • C Cole

              Our current libel laws tend not to encourage that sort of speculation. How likely would the police be to start investigating someone on the grounds of rumour and hearsay, as opposed to an actual complaint?

            • JanCosgrove1945

              Let’s see the evidence come out. What were police all over the UK told and did they bother to share it? The one single issue underpinning Cullen (Dunblane) and Bichard (Soham) was SHARING of information. Both of those inquiries made that the key to principal recommendations – CRB, Vetting and Barring, shared data etc. Obviously too many people were busy not listening.

        • John

          Yeah, “officer, I’ve heard on the grape vine down the pub that Jimmy Savile’s a kiddy fiddler”. No evidence whatsoever, no testimony from a victim, nothing. That’ll work.

          Senior executives at the BBC knew for years he was doing this, and a number of people at the corporation are now on record as witnessing behaviour commensurate with him being a nonce. Witnesses. I’m being told in the pub.

          • Luca

            And it’s because everyone had that attitude that he got away with it for decades. When you hear jokes of kiddy fiddling on the grapevine next time, don’t just laugh it off, stop and say “where did you hear that?” and then go and ask them the same question.

          • Swanky for Romney

            I don’t understand the particular fear of telling police what you know — as little as that might be — ‘I’ve heard this said and lots of people have said it, and I feel it would be irresponsible to ignore it’. I had a man approach me in a supermarket when I was 19 and looked younger, asking whether he could take photos of me for some reason. I moved on quickly and contacted the police. They had me go through a number of photos on file to determine whether he was one of their perps. A girl had recently been raped and murdered and the pretext was a photography session. I thought it might have been him — and so did the police. Nobody had any evidence. What we had were warning signs and suspicious behaviour. That was enough. No one at the police accused me of wasting their time or being paranoid.

          • roger

            To do anything, to destroy their big ‘star’ ,would have given ammunition to the Mary Whitehouse supporters who the BBC loved to piss over whenever possible. The permissive and ‘gay’ agenda had a great focus in the BBC, we often forget how political these people were in forcing their aims.

        • Eddie

          “Why didn’t you go to the police?”
          If a teacher or other professional suspects any abuse is going on, it is their duty to report it; in fact, if they do not, they can be held responsible.
          Why the hell then are the same standards not applied for the people who now say they knew Savile was abusing underage teens?
          The sad effect of all this Savile hysteria is that the usual idiots will use it to demonise men and introduce yet more misandrist attitudes and suspicions to anyone working with youngsters – something men have to face day in day out (and which some sick women really enjoy). We also have to be careful about false accusations here: they do often happen. Just look at some divroce cases in the US where the mothers deliberately try and introduce the suspicion of abuse into child custody court cases (of 400 cases where such suspicions were raised – for example speaking in hushed tones about how daddy was naked in the bathroom with the children – only 1 of 400 has led to charged. That suggests a lot of lying women out there.)
          Revenge of spurned women must be watched and kept in check here – because making an accusatiin against a colleague you hate means yyour victim (the accused innocent man) has to prove his innocence – and there is NO deterrent at all to stop you attempting this abuse by falseely accusing a man or engaging in a witch hunt or trying to ruin a man’s career. I have seen this happen and know female teachers who would – believe me – try stuff like this.

          • Valerie

            Teacher’s duty is to report to the school’s child protection officer who usually passes it on to Social Services who take the decision not to do anything.

    • Peter Martin

      ‘I think we are getting ourselves ‘

      Always interesting what ensues when one of those within the media bubble get all-inclusive all of a sudden.

      ’”It wouldn’t have happened in my day because the guy would have been at a governors’ meeting and he would have been asked by people like me ‘Why?’”

      I am a bit confused as to the definition of ‘days’ in BBC Governor world, though.
      This appears to have been an era when folk didn’t know anything because that was just what went on, but folk still asked questions?

      Or are we to presume that Lord Patten’s ‘Only ve ask ze qwestions’ edict applies also to Governors?

      How very…unique.

    • FRANKP1

      “If I were to organise discos for young girls, knowing that the DJ was sexually abusing them, I would rightly be charged with aiding and abetting him”.

      Actually you would probably be charged with ‘procuring’ in a perfect world, but that’s what the BBC, commercial TV & radio and film & theatre impresarios have been doing that since broadcasting, couch-casting, and let’s face it showbiz across the board, began, usually with impunity.

      “Don’t put your daughter on the stage, Mrs Worthington” warbled gay Noel (who was no better’n he should have been himself) – and certainly don’t let her (or your son, come to that) visit the studio of Top of the Pops, he might have added.

      For my sins, I recently watched, on Sky Arts, a DVD of Andy Williams at the Albert Hall, circa 70s. During the intro to the concert, the dwarf crooner was filmed entering the arena and was mobbed by hundreds of fully grown women, who mauled, kissed and groped him all the way up the steps; same thing when he ran down the aisle to the stage: drooling females from the age range of teenage to menopausal – and beyond, drooling and hysterical.

      And what about the birds who showered Tom Jones with their knickers for about half a century ( or maybe more – and still do, despite the fact that he obviously needs formaldehyde now to keep his corpse from rotting)?

      Why are we surprised that youngsters followed the example of their big sisters, mums and grannies, even, by throwing themselves at slebs and slobs of showbiz? Or that nonces availed themselves of the forbidden fruits?

      This sudden epidemic of moral outrage is as nauseating as the noncing itself.

      Where were the sanctimonious when Mary Whitehouse was crucified by Hugh Carelton-Greene for pointing this all out at the time?

      Broadcasting House and the Doughnut have always been ‘whited-sepulchres’.

      Philip Larkin’s ‘Annus Mirabilis’ seems to have been taken too literally.

    • brotherbaldrick

      Martin A, you are bang on! Time to bring the whole ugly social marxist edifice down!

      • Brass Monkey

        I’ll drink to that! BTW is drinking still allowed?

    • Billy Coyle

      Stop paying the BBC THEIR PROGRAMS ARE CRAP. BUT BE CAREFULL YOU MAY GET YOUR CAR CLAMPED.Wonder who though that one up,Tory arseholes

  • Adam Nixon

    Joking aside, the question of whether children dream of such things is neither here nor there. They cannot consent until they are 16. The whole point of having an age of consent is that children under 16 are deemed not to know whether they want sex or not. Whatever they may say, however keen they may be, they are unconsenting. That is the law.

    • stupidboy

      In Canada, although the legal age of consent for girls was raised from 14to 16 in 2008, eager 14 year old girls are still available to 18 year old men, and willing 15 year old girls can be had by 19 year old men.

      Yet they apparently aren’t old enough to legally consent….. confused?

    • Bene

      Remember Bill Wyman? And the 14-year-old Mandy Smith? it was in the papers..but who charged BW with illegal, under-age sex? What message did that send! And remember the Left-wing Labour group (with Harriet Harman and other well-known Labour women) which urged a change in the Law to enable child/adult sexual relationships, which they claimed were only harmful when the authorities intervened… There were some dangerous ‘progressives’ then, and no doubt now, too.

      • sarah

        He had an entourage who protected him too, and a PR machine which went into overdrive to discredit Mandy Smith as an unbalanced teen temptress who lied about her age. It largely worked, he got away with it and that media legacy is still with us. Her autobiography tells a different story though, she claims he asked her age on the first night he met her, that he was a controlling and manipulative man (he was 47, she was 13 so that goes with the territory), protected by other powerful people who knew exactly what was going on and that she and her mother became very ill. And for all the media faux outrage at the time, she was offered a modelling and pop contract.

        I see a similar thing happening here with Max Clifford’s recent statements about young girls who looked older than their years “throwing themselves” as young innocent men, and women coming forward with dishonest accounts to claim compensation. And depressingly few people are questioning that hackneyed narrative. It’s the oldest two-pronged trick in the book to discredit and blame the victims of sexual assaults. It’s really important we don’t fall for it this time.

        • Bene

          What excellent points Sarah makes in each post.
          The protective PR is very effective for all these people, as it has been paid to be.
          Curiously, Mandy Smith was married to Bill W, and later on, he married her mother. The long-lasting effect on her took years to overcome.
          Someone has pointed out the dreams of a child are miles removed from the reality of J Savile, surely our job as society is to be that protection between the two extremes.

          • Eddie

            “The long-lasting effect on her took years to overcome.”

            Yeah, and Bill Wyman’s never been the same since either!

            The assumption that the teenage girl who pursues a pop star and gets what she wants is somehow a ‘victim’ is laughable. Best to to believe the desperate pity party craving for victimhood of a woman whose status as a victim is now the foundation of her career eh? Some would say Mandy Slutsmith got lucky really.

            Portaying all men as the baddies and all women and poor wickly innocent victims is best left in wimmin’s studies workshops circa 1973 eh? Most women see it as absurd and would not blame their son, father, brother for having sex with a groupie who was over 14 years. No-one forced Mandy Randy to hunt and then shag a pop star – and use him, actually, to get money and fame. She couldn have stayed at home doing her homework – but no doubt her slut of a mother had dreams for her lickle gel…
            Really, it’s all evolutionary fact: men with status (usually older) attract youger fertile women and lots of them. To portray men who have sex with younger women as somehow doing something wrong is silly: they are merely pawns in an evolutionary game.

            Aged 14,15,16 is NOT ‘a child’ – maybe in law, but not in reality. That is why judges have discretion as does the DPP.

            • Sarah

              “Her slut of a mother.”
              “Mandy Randy”

              I’d say Jesus loves you, but he really doesn’t.

              Do me a favour and don’t murder any of your motel guests tonight. Just stay in watching torture porn or something.

              • Eddie

                Sarah. Get help. Now.

                Anyone who sees Mandy Randy as a victim is a moron. You, then.

                But hey, in planet Sarah all men are monsters and all women are victims huh?

                Get this through your ranting ugly twisted little head: women can be JUST as immoral and abusive as men, and men can be just as much victims as women.
                Got that? Now, go cuddle a plastic baby and pretend to feel like the whole woman you will never be.
                Envy is a terrible thing Sarah. How normal women HATE sad bitches like you. really.

                • TarquinFauntleroy

                  calm it down a bit Eddie- are you a battyman or something? This whole bashing women is tiresome. Womes are generally nice please, so geddit

                • Eddie

                  Yes, and I never said they were not! I am not bashing women, I am bashing manhating sexist twisted abusive feminists who want to create a society where all men are seen as rapists and paedos and constantly have to prove they are not.
                  Most women are nice yes – and that is why they do not want their fathers, sons, brothers etc to be unfairly labelled as paedophiles and abusers because of some hysterical manhating feminist campaign. Most women do not hate men; most women are not manhating feminists nutters like Sarah: something the twisted hissing sisters just do not get!
                  Most abuse of children is done by women, incidentally – all those babies and children killed are not killed by strange men at all, but by their mothers or by mummy’s latest boyfriend(s).
                  I would like to see equality: demonising men as the feminasties want to do is the opposite of that. And not rational when one looks at who abuses children and where – in the home, usually, and often mothers. Our single mother family and step-family worshipping society creates a context where abuse is more likely to happen (step families have 5 times the abuse rate).
                  Men are being treated unfairly here, to the detriment of children – who are overprotected, smothered, send to man-free zones called schools and made to consider all men as abusers and women as innocent victims. Yeah right.
                  And why don’t we arrested Germane Greer anyway? She has professed attraction to underage boys and has admitted ‘raping’ men against their will too, I believe.

                • Sue Ward

                  And on planet Eddie all women are lying sluts who hate men and 13 year old girls deserve no protection form predatory men?

                • Eddie

                  Sue – no, not at all. Stop parroting Psycho Sarah’s lies and look ate what I actually post (not what that bonkers bitch says I post).

                  But really, on every estate their are young teen girls with slutty mothers with multiple ‘lovers’ – and that is one main cause of child abuse actually, loose slutty mothers who allow scores on men into their homes where they can happily rape another man’s children.

                  I believe everyon should have protection from abusers. But really, a man who gets targeted by a teen girl at a nightclub is NOT a victim in any way shape or form.

                  What would Mandy be doing now if she’d never met Bill Wyman? Living on an estate with several coffeee-coloured babies by several different one nigyt stands, probably.

                  This is really not a black and white issue, and no, I do not think pop stars who shagg teenage groupies are guilty of doing anything wrong, actually.

                  I also note that those women who have sex with underage males never go to prison and thjose women who facilitate sex abuse of other men’s children get off scott free too usually.

  • John Paul Jones

    These were indeed vulnerable girls and boys. They were also under age. Now the average 14 year old may have dreamt of being “shagged by Donny Osmond or David Cassidy. Or, for the brighter ones Bolan. But children who have these dreams are still children and it is for adults to protect them and not to take advantage of their naive fantasies. Rod you cannot absolve the liberal establishment of responsibility on the grounds of “it was the culture at the time”. It was the culture at the time in Nazi Germany to gas Jews, gays, homosexuals, communist, gypsies etc. So do just shrug our shoulders Road and say OK. In the southern states of the USA black men were sterilised on illegally. Does the liberal establishment, led by the BBC say, you know what it was part of the racist culture at the time, so do not waste time and energy on it.

    • DrCrackles

      Whilst homosexuals were targeted by the Nazis they were treated in the same way as political prisoners. The fate of such prisoners was not gassing as you describe it, but more likely extermination through work. The camps they attended differed from outright Extermination camps, such as Treblinka, where gassing was used. I make the above point not to downplay the suffering homosexuals experienced, but rather to correct the outcome of revisionism, which tends to treat all groups that suffered in the same way. If we do even bother to understand the Nazi camp system and how its victims were graded and processed we cannot hope to do justice to the memory of those who suffered.

      • John Paul Jones

        Thanks for the correction. It was most informative. I will of course keep it in mind for future reference.

      • Robert Dammers

        Indeed, my father was a political prisoner in Dachau. It was grim, but the Red Cross had some access, and such prisoners still had some legal status. Nonetheless he was close to death at the liberation. His first wife, who was Jewish, did not survive Auschwitz, and could not have been expected to. His “crime” was to have been married to a Jew, and to have protected other individuals from capture.

    • rod liddle

      I’ve never absolved the liberal establishment of anything; and its liberality is something to do with it. I just suspect that as John henry says there is a certain difference in the crimes alleged to have been committed.

      • Sarah

        Well the best place to find out if there is a true rather than perceived difference between the predatory behaviour of Savile and the behaviour of rock bands and their entourages, is most likely via the legal system. Rather than via the Max Clifford system. Or via the popular status quo on asking for it system.

        • Eddie

          Sarah – men are predatory because that is the innate instinct. If men cease to be so, they get mocked and demeaned by women as being ‘wimps’.
          You stupidly do not differentiate between an ABUSER who rapes children, and a man who chases young sexy women.
          You silly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
          Lots of women LOVE being pursued and chased by men. I know a couple of middle-aged women who used to be pretty but who are now old frumps and they really miss that attention actually.

          • Fergus Pickering

            And I know a lot of old men who are impressively ugly. What exactly is your point? You sem to be saying that rape is innate to the male species and therefore it’s OK. Or are you saying something different? I think you have taken on board some very plebbish opinions. Is it your upbringing?.

  • Clutterbust

    Those who favoured Bolan were exceptionally bright

  • Baron

    Quite right, the wider the net reaches the less likely it is the main culprits, those who knew of Sir Jimmy’s abuse, did nothing, will get spanked.

    And also, on an equally serious matter, shouldn’t the BBC put a halt to the two (is it three, now, four?) enquiries into the affair? They’re unnecessary, a waste of money, time, many a man’s good night sleep. Fraser has given space in this week’s Diary to Nick Robinson, the younger brother of sergeant Bilko, this is what the clone of the much loved comedian says: “The reason I can still smile in this crisis in the corporation is that nothing I have seen suggests the Auntie is guilty of either of the charges that really matter: knowingly covering up sexual abuse or halting a journalistic enquiry to put out a tribute to a cheesy and sleazy celebrity”.

    It’s always possible the man’s blind, of course, but if not, he has singlehandedly discovered the truth the costly enquiries are most likely to come up with, too.

  • Sarah

    “When I was fourteen most of the girls I knew dreamed of being shagged by Donny Osmond or David Cassidy. Or, for the slightly brighter ones, Bolan. ”

    The operative word is “dreamed”. Girls dream of meeting and being romanced by their prince charming,m that’s what children do. There’s not a 14 year old girl in the world who dreams of being mistreated as sex fodder by four-man bands of narcissists and and their various hangers on though.

    They were immune in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. Perhaps they thought they’d always be immune. Turns out they’re not. The men who are running to Max Clifford’s (who’s helpfully doing his PR job of putting out preemptive statements about innocent fumblings, helpless young men, memory loss and unreliable, voracious female witnesses which apparently convince journalist who ought to know better) have guilty consciences and the rising fear because things are finally catching up ith them. The worm has turned and it’s not going to look like their Two Ronnies fantasy, it’s going to look like accountability.

    • Peter Crawford

      Sarah, he is dead. You can’t get much more immune than that.

      • Sarah

        Rod isn’t talking about Saville though, he’s talking about his chums, ie. the men on the periphery who may have had a go with some of his extras and left overs. Then he has in mind all those 60s and 70s crooners and boy bands who have run to daddy at the PR spin factory. They who used to proudly boast to music magazines about mistreating women, mainly young groupies. No doubt some of it crossed the line to rape.

        People like Alex from Blur who boasted about going through a line of girls and telling the ugly ones to fuck off and letting the pretty ones stay for sex. People like the rock star who told NME his band made a teenage girl lick their semen up from a bowl on the floor like a cat, people like another band of who made a young girl answer a call from her worried mother on a phone they had shoved up her friend’s vagina as they all watched.

        I don’t think even Rod thinks that is what young girls’ dreams were made of.

        I would have hoped a professional cynic would have recognised a PR exercise when they saw one.

        • Baron

          Sarah, if what you say is true, in public domain, it should have been already looked into. Nevertheless, it’s still anywhere near a 40 year abuse of vulnerable girls and boys under the protection of those who knew or should have known.

          • Sarah

            Yes it should have been looked into, but that is why women’s groups and lobbyists exist. Until very recent years it wasn’t looked into. It was just the way things were, men had sexual needs and rights, girls and women had a duty to dodge them. If they failed in that enterprise, then they would be held socially accountable or probably weren’t discomfited by it, or something.

            Without wishing to be over dramatic, I believe what we are witnessing here is a cultural change of historic significance. This is the first time we’ve been in a position to start prosecuting men for this type of behaviour. There is enough momentum, public consciousness about women’s rights and enough legislative, media and political power to make it a possibility. Of course you will get some people from Rod Liddle’s and Max Clifford’s generation who will provide drag on that process, but that’s all part of it.

            I hope some of these bands, rock stars, roadies, producers, tv execs, politicians, presenters, comedians, doctors, police, do get held to account. No matter how many get pulled into the Savile scandal by association you can be sure it will just be the tip of an iceberg. I hope lawyers are at this very moment unearthing back copies of NME to find those interviews.

            • Eddie

              Wht is TRULY disgusting and vile if the way various special interest groups – eg the feminists – are using this and other examples of child abuse to promote their manhatig agenda of puritanical feminism and misandry.

              Time for the feminist lobby to fuck off andf keep their noses out. The Jimmy Savile affair and all other child abuse cases are dirtied by being trampled over by manhating feminists who want revenge on all men.

              Go on a slut walk Sarah – slut off some of that insame manharting energy eh? Fact is: you hate ALL men and ALL men are guilty in your eyes becaus ethey have committed the crime of possessing a fully functioning penis!


              • sarah

                Never mind Eddie. Virgins are safe.

                • Eddie

                  Well, as per usual, everything you write i virgin on the ridiculous, love – not to mention the fact that it’s all a load of manhating cobblers.

                  It is not wrong for men to have sex with women; and when men get money and fame, guess what:? They young WAG women appear as if by slutty magic! Note the poor old men who get shunned and mocked by women, who then win the lottery and have to fight the fillies off! PURE evolutionary instinct – and you cannot fight biological fact, no matter how much you hate that reality.

                  YOur vanity and buffoonery is proven here:

                  ‘Without wishing to be over dramatic, I believe what we are witnessing here is a cultural change of historic significance. This is the first time we’ve been in a position to start prosecuting men for this type of behaviour.’
                  I can assure you Sarah that no-one – not even a mad manhating deluded feminasty like you – can change biology or instinct. In your ideal world, all men would be arrested and imprisoned just for being men – maybe you’d keep them all in some sort of special camp and extract their sperm – like a milking shed crossed with some sort of warped Butlins. In your dreams, sister!
                  No judge and no female jury would ever find a man who’d shagged a groupie (who was willing) guilty of anything. Would women want all their sons, fathers, brothers, partners to face charges for drunken youthful indiscretions? You seem to forget Sarah that you are in a VERY small minority here – and that most women do not agree with you (thank crikey!). Most women are normal and have families – they know men cannot be blamed for having sex with a few loose girls on their journey through life (that is NOT rape or abuse – it is just life and if anything, the men are the victims and probably catch all sorts of nasties from these groupies – not to meantion the paternity suits…)

          • TarquinFauntleroy

            Baron my old blogging friend, I’v known you through thick and thin for three long years on this Goddam blogging site and blow me if you aint joined the natives on this child sex Jimmy Savile thing. Baron, I always had you down as a freedom luvvin cowboy like me, but no. You turned out rotten as a turnip in hell Baron. Blah blah children this an children that, I jus dunno where you stand Baron? I’m a simple ole cattle man Baron- I’ don’t touch no cattlemans daughter till he says its OK, an if I do , I expec my ass to be kicked into hell.

            • Baron

              TarquinFauntleroy, first, change your name by deed poll, second, do posting that don’t get redacted, third, stop encouraging the Rottveiler here, forth, wise up, it ain’t the peado’s blood Baron’s after, he’s dead, it’s his Grand Protector that needs its balls snipped. Comprende?

        • Buck

          I knew Alex back in the Brit Pop years, and although he ‘pulled’ plenty of girls, he was too pis*ed 99.9 % of the time to do anything about it. And when he wasn’t blind drunk, his ever present girlfriend kept him on a tight leash.

          • Alex on a Fire of Cheese

            Buck – but Sarah and the feminasty screaming shrieking witches of fuckwit want to conduct a witch hunt against ALL men who are, according to their twisted bitter bonkers logic, all utterly immoral, evil, vile, monsters (which doesn’t really square with their claimed desire for ‘equality’ but never mind…).
            The only thing that will make the sad psychotic small minority of wimmin who are mental feminist fucktards happy is the public castration of all men accuses by women of anything (without evidence of course). I think that would kill 90% of the make population, which would then mean 4th rate mediocre women could get to the top in careers (now the able people are taken out).
            Alex James would be burned alive on a pyre of cheese in Sad Psycho Sarah’s cheese-dream nightmare world! Let’s just leave her fantasies to churn and bubble in her sad lonely mentalist head huh? But she’s is great comedy, that’s for sure!

        • Eddie

          Sarah, like many mad feminists you are contradicting yourself: on the one hand you say women are stronga and independent and should be equal to men; at the same time you infatilise women by portraying them all as wickle girlies who can’t possibly look after themselves.
          So which is it?
          Also, very many young men these days get fondled and abused by raucous, leery, drunken women when at work in bar jobs. OK with you eh?

          • Kingstonian

            Eddie, most times I enjoy reading your posts and most times you talk a lot of sense. And then there are the times you go off on one, usually in reply to a female contributor, and you post a whole lot of shite.
            Like your reply to Sarah..

            • Eddie

              No shite in what I say. {sycho Sarah’s default position is a hatred of men, demonising them and blaming all the sins of the world upon them; for her women are always the victims. That is 1) sexist, against both men and women, and 2) wrong.
              I am one of the few people who is not getting hysterical and stupid regarding this whole Savile affair.
              A bit of common sense is sorely needed here.

              • TarquinFauntleroy

                According to the papers this morning he fingered some girl in Broadmoor and then jangled the keys at her through her cell door window where she was banged up for six months after complaining. The guy was a sick evil bastard and most likely should have been a patient in there rather than being put in charge. You couldn’t make it up- its a real demonstration of how celebrity and being on the TV seems to create some sort of aura in the eyes of the general population. If anything good could come out of these revelations maybe its that the star struck Joe Public will take a look at the wannabe arseholes on our screens and treat them with a little less fawning adulation.

                • Eddie

                  If that is true, the the staff there – and at hospitals and charities and the BBC who knew abuse was taking place – should be arreasted and questioned.

                  I am not Savile’s defence counsel here – I am talking generally that 1) we need evidence not rumours; 2) that for feminist lobby to use this in order to do down men and portray all men as rapists is sick; 3) that the mob is the mob and it is never rational and will happily lynch the innocent too; 4) 15 year olds are not children as 5 year olds are and many look much older – the law thus has to treat men and boys fairly, not demonise them and ruin their lives, and that many girls like that are not victims at all.

                  And really, many MANY men have bad experiences when younger – they just don’t wallow in victimhood and self-pity like feminists, or talk about it.

                  The feminists paradox is that they call for women to be treated equally, and then treat them unequally by demanding they need to be treated more gently than men because they are just wickle girls who can’t look after themselves.

                  Needless to say, despite the mental lies of mad Sarah, I am, never and have never defended any child abuser including TV ‘talent’. I just find the way pressure groups and lobbyists are trying to piggy back on the whole Savile affair UTTERLY sick and an insult to any victims of abuse. Nothing will satisfy saddos like Sarah until all males who some mad woman accuses of ‘abuse’ is publicly castrated. Women can and do lie about such things and perception is all: a drunken fumble when kids is not ‘rape’, apparently, despite the girl consenting (well she changes her mind 20 years later so it become rape huh?)
                  COMMON SENSE is needed here! Let’s live in the real world. PURLEASE!

                • TarquinFauntleroy
                • Eddie

                  That article says he allegedly touched a girl’s breast – nothing about ‘fingering’. It is also an ALLEGATION, not a fact, and is reported in the papers (the same papers which constantly lie to sell mopre copy: child abuse is a big seller, as all TV producers know – and they exploit this shamelessly)
                  But hey, who cares about evidence or truth when you can have some good ole-fashioned mob-fuelled bullying!
                  No idea if this is all true – but there is a teeny weeny fing called EVIDENCE, y;know – and mental deluded people and proven liars are not really reliable witnesses, especially when compensation is in the offing!
                  A great many people are jumping on the ‘I was abused’ bandwagon – and wear it as a badge of pride even!
                  What troubles me most of all is that IF there was abuse going on a great many people at hospitals, the BBC, chariries and now Broadmoor say they knew it was going on. Right – let’s ARREST those people and question them, and charge those who knew and said nothing for being complicit in child abuse. Ditto for all women who facilitate their ‘partners’ to abuse children and say nothing.
                  It is criminal behaviour – and for example, if you know a murder has happened and say nothing, then you too can be charged with murder. What’s the difference here? The silence of cowards allowed abuse to continue and they should all hang their sorry heads in shame: and many of them (most in hospitals) will be women, too – just to the usual feminasties realise that women are no more moral than men here!

            • Sarah

              He’s a thoroughly nasty sexist, racist, wannabe snob.

              Which wouldn’t be so bad if he was remotely intelligent or nuanced, but he’s thick and utterly unimaginative. He doesn’t ever talk any sense. Not a single thing he says is based on anything other than what he pulls out of his backside and tabloids.

              He’s a misogynist, the old fashioned full blown, Eve tempts Adam and has a defective soul, kill prostitutes kind.

              He spends literally hours trawling this site for stories about women, girls or sex abuse where he can puke up his ridiculous bile.

              It’s something to do with his upbringing, the whole father abandoning him, blaming his single mother who used him as a quasi husband, Oedipal thing. I just hope that when he was let go from his part-time “lecturing” job, he was added to the central register.

              • Eddie

                Yes, dear. Let it out, there’s a good psycho.

                You Sarah are truly mental and a LIAR – I am not racist or sexist. You are.

                Do us all a favour love and get help, Take some tablets maybe. One or two bottles perhaps?

                Your libel and slander is just plain boring – and if you stated that to my face or wrote it down, I could sue you sideways, you silly bint.
                And now you accuse me of being a paedo on the sex offenders register because you disagree with my opinions on this site – and thus Sarah you sick twisted fuckwit do you and your manhating muff-yawning sisters trivialise and devalue the real abuse of children which, incidentally, is mostly done by women, not men.
                But I am very happy that you spend all day long here ranting your feminist drivel and putrid vile misandry rather than ruining any man’s life of thinking you could ever possiblky be a normal woman with a family. Far better for any child tobe raped and murdered by some sicko than to end up abused by a manhating feminist monster like Psycho Sarah, for sure.

                • TarquinFauntleroy

                  are you a battyman dough Eddie?

                • Eddie

                  I believe batman is American, and I am British born and bred. I did watch the movie though and once saw a bat. Does that count?

              • TarquinFauntleroy

                But you are a daft twat as well Sarah- did you go to Leicester Polytechnic?- duh, fuckwit numbnuts no-brain daft bint. All men are nasty rapist evil walking women haters. Really Sarah, your mummy and daddy have a cottage in Snowdonia and you may inherit one day, but in the meantime you are going to bitch about men and shale gas and nuclear power etc. You love wind power and ‘global warming’ and still take your washing back to mummy at the weekend. You and Eddie should organise a double room at the Brighton Premiere. You could enjoy a halal kebab at the end of the Pier.

                • TarquinFauntleroy

                  No offence Eddie, I’m thinking Sarah loves it doggie style though, all lefty Greenpeace girls I’v ever shagged love it that way. Only Tory girls do it face to face. Its an evolutionary fact.

                • Eddie

                  I don’t eat Halal, mate. But I eat Sarah (“fuckwit numbnuts no-brain daft bint”) for breakfast regularly on here though…

          • sarah

            They are not women, they are 13 and 14 year old girls. And no person whether a child or an adult can look after themselves against a group of powerful, wealthy, well-connected, corrupt, abusive individuals.

        • Alex

          “People like Alex from Blur who boasted about going through a line of girls and telling the ugly ones to fuck off and letting the pretty ones stay for sex”
          Yeah an a good fing too eh?

          Whas wrong? Was you one of the ugly munts what got told to fuck off? Envy’s a terrible hard fing innit?

          Rape? Since when was a groupie spreadin her legs willingly rape?

          I fink you’re a right weirdo – some frigid hag what sees all men as rapists and finks women are more moral and superior. A world run by mad feminists like you would be like north Korea – but worse! Why are you sisters always so hysteristical and het up? Some serious issues in your brain, dolly bird!

          Me, I don’t care so long as I gets me muff-diving in! HA!

          • Sarah

            God Eddie, is that your best effort at street talk? Your plain mind shines through every one of your alter egos.

        • Secsiman

          “Rod isn’t talking about Saville though, he’s talking about his chums, ie. the men on the periphery”

          And the WOMEN! Tut tut – you are SO sexist! All those WOMEN who knew what was happening and said nothing. All the BBC women, the nurses at Stoke Manderville (all women I think), the wives and girlfriends who knew, and last by not least the alleged victims whose cowardly silence allowed others to be abused for decades.
          Just like all the WOMEN who know sex abuse is happening between their latest ‘partner’ and another man’s kids (the kids’ father usually is banned from seeing his children of course but their mother can invite a paedo recently released from prison into her home to rape another man’s children. No wonder some men crack and kill em all!

      • Fergus Pickering

        We could always dig him up and chop his head off. Isn’t that what they did to Oliver Cromwell.

    • M’luddite

      So, you admit to being a worm previously then?

  • Roddy Campbell

    fondled = shagged ~= raped? Dreaming of Donny = consenting with Savile? Steady on.

  • Forest Fan

    I know where you are coming from Rod.

    What amazes me nowadays is how many eighteen, nineteen, twenty
    year old lads go out with fourteen and fifteen year old girls and hardly
    anybody including the parents blink an eye.

    I understand this isn’t molestation but surely it isn’t

    • Adam Nixon

      It is not only molestation, it is child sex. In law, a 14 or 15-year-old cannot consent to a sexual act.

      • stupidboy

        In Canada, although the legal age of consent for girls was raised from 14 to 16 in 2008, eager 14 year old girls are still available to 18 year old men, and willing 15 year old girls can be had by 19 year old men.

        Yet they apparently aren’t old enough to legally consent….. confused?

      • Forest Fan

        Adam..I agree. If it was so clear cut there would be less of a problem. How come some parents let their underage daughters go out with adult men? (Elvis). How old does the adult man have to be before it is seen as being a bit pervy?

    • Sue Ward

      My husband refused to allow his 15 year olde daughter to sleep with her 22 year old boyfriend under our roof. She moved back in with her permissive, chavvy, mother and hasn’t spoken to us for 4 years.

      • Baron

        Sue, be patient, she’ll come back to you either with or without him.

      • Swanky for Romney

        You/he did the right thing.