What does that matter, Tubby?

I am not saying that it isn't. His is as much a support of Peel as Burchill's is a hatchet job). The difference between his ands Burchill's, of course, is that his isn't being dressed up as journalism and being paid for it. He is, at least, admitting that his research comes from Googling rather than relying in the sort of snide insinuation that Burchill and her ilk deal in.

Of course, the Mail piece might be a better researched balanced piece of investigative journalism that will lead onto the substantiated accusations that we are seeing with Saville

Brandenburger Toro wrote:


Eh? I'm only responding to that one aspect of Burchill's article. Not trying to rubbish all of it by picking on only one bit.

I think he's having a dig at MsD, not you.

Ah, OK.

I usually see sarcasm a mile off because I use so much of it.

At the risk of sailing down the river to Nam, why didn't any of Saville's, Peel's or whoever's victims come out with their claims when these people were alive? Why wait so long to come out with these revelations?

People have been looking to string up Saville for being a bit dodgy or slightly paedo for ages. He wasn't married! He had a funny haircut! You had the fake HIGNFY script and the Louis Thereaux documentary which was heavily suggestive but proved Saville was a bit of a sad loner in his old age, but nothing more.

Why weren't these accusations brought forward when he was alive, when he could respond to them? The reaction of almost everyone I come across that Saville is guilty as charged is quite shocking, like a modern day witch hunt.

I think some of those TOTP clips of Saville grabbing young girls are as dodgy as anyone else does, but wasn't that his whole gig? Sort of like Screaming Lord Sutch, he was bit weird and creepy, but you sort of supported him because he was genuinely eccentric and fun.

Sure, if you're a 14 year old girl being abused by Saville, there's little to laugh about. But I think the internet and press hysteria is distasteful considering the man is dead and nobody publicly confronted him with these accusations when he was alive.

If that documentary can be believed – and the greater suggestion is that it can – then several girls tried to complain about Savile’s behaviour and were either laughed out of the room, or in the case of at least one Duncroft student, were placed in solitary confinement. Utterly despicable behaviour by all concerned, not just Savile.

I worked on a number of TV shows at the BBC during the nineties and 2000s, and his reputation was still an open secret everywhere. Savile was media royalty back in the day and clearly used his charitable stunts to make himself bulletproof: in terms of his activities there, it appears that many were frankly too scared of the guy’s standing to speak out.

Both Sandi Toksvig and Liz Kershaw have spoken out this week about the environment of ‘male sleaze’ rife at the corporation, and both have suggested that their complaints (about others) were dismissed out of hand. The likelihood is that they – and most definitely the variety of runners, APs and other production staff who have since come forward – would have been sacked there and then had they taken things further.

Given what she clearly knew - and what she stands for - quite why Esther Rantzen remained quiet is somewhat baffling to me, however.

Obviously, I've not seen the documentary and it's probably very damning.

But the whole "Radio 1 was very sleazy and male dominated" stuff I also don't understand as a unique case. Practically everywhere was male dominated and sleazy up to the 80s. Sadly, most places are still like that where I live, you'll regularly see businessmen in their 50's going for lunch with female admin-assistants who are barely in their twenties and the sycophantic office mentality here is horrible.

The fact that the public at large is now repulsed by the thought of male-dominate, sexist workplaces, which were basically common practice over two decades ago, is something which should be celebrated. Much like racism at football, Britain has advanced but the problem hasn't completely disappeared. But I get the impression from the outside looking in on the UK that these witch-hunts, be it Saville or the whole of The Ukraine, serve only to cleanse the guilt of many people who turned a blind eye to such behaviour not so long ago.

Perhaps this has been covered already, but I can guess that Savile might be an imposing, if not intimidating, character. He used to manage dancehalls and ballrooms in the 1950s. It would be a surprise if he didn't have some shady connections.

The Louis Theroux documentary was interesting and, of course, hinted at a lot of this stuff but, I assume, he didn't have access to any of the info. In that, I think he admitted to throwing people down the stairs of nightclubs he was a bouncer at.

Fussbudget wrote:


I think this is a common misconception, to be honest. There's no reason why inherited influences on behaviour, supposing they exist, should be thought of as more exculpatory than environmental ones.

Fussbudget wrote:


There's some evidence, I believe, that the answer may be yes, at least in some cases. Which kind of illustrates my point, I think: even if it turned out that paedophilic tendencies were entirely inherited, that wouldn't make child abuse OK.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

I read Fussbudget's comment to mean "which is conveniently used [in popular discourse] to exonerate them…". If that's the case, the misconception is not Fussbudget's, though it's present all over our culture.

True, but (a) we shouldn't assume your man there shares this misconception, and (b) this is in any case strictly irrelevant to the question of how far fancying girls in their early teens is an inherited trait; that's an empirical question.

(Strictly, a suite of empirical questions, depending on exactly what's being claimed.)

As I said on the thread about Megan Stammers, what matters is what you do. What Savile did was a crime, even if he really felt impelled to do it, and whatever may have been the source of such a feeling. What we need to look at is mostly, I think, the impunity with which he operated.

laverte wrote:

Yes thank you that's what I meant, I didn't make that all that clear. I just got a bit annoyed because I couldn't really see the relevance to this conversation of whether or not such a trait is "hard wired", unless one misinterprets it to mean that older men lusting after 16-year-olds is in fact completely natural (that old chestnut), and therefore all fine and dandy. Which in fairness might not have been where Needless Name Change was going with that.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

I didn't mean to imply you did, but the argument was going too much in the direction of focussing on details in the Burchill article, which is an opinion piece.

There's a lot more evidence from other sources, including his own utterances and writings, that he did have a thing for schoolgirls into his forties and did have sex with them, until his late 20s, at least.

I stick with what I wrote originally* - I'm more pro than anti Peel, but older men publicly creeping after young girls is a bit yuk, and he (at least until now) got a pass on it where others don't.

* in the Most Loved Brits thread

Wyatt Earp wrote:

Agree, that's where the focus should be.

Smashie & Nicey fight back

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/95...vile-witch-hunt.html

'Sexism' is one thing, physical assault is another. I agree that male-dominated workplaces and sexism - even borderline misogyny - were virtually accepted during the seventies, but I don't think groping women's breasts or sexually assaulting them in other ways was ever considered 'just the way it is' at most places of employment.

Mike Smith should be more careful with what he says: any predatory atmosphere wouldn't have manifested itself in his world. Whether Liz Kershaw 'names names' or not is up to her: it's better for any BBC inquiry that she does, of course, but I'm guessing that she still finds it difficult to confront - and would certainly find it near-impossible to prove all these years later. So what is Smith implying? That she shouldn't say anything at all if she doesn't have that proof to hand?