If she had started to name names on air, Dimbleby would have promptly shut her up, and Mr Carter-Ruck (the libel lawyer who kept Jimmy safe) would have been on the phone in seconds.
It comes down to the fact that all the people in the so called "know" were more worried about their jobs than saving a child from molestation. In my mind it makes them complicit!
For some yes, it does come down to that. For others it is about the fact that they were abused themselves, and scared, and bullied into keeping quiet about the abuse they suffered. I'm sure that 'in your mind' the issue is very simplistic. But actually, real life is a bit more complicated than that.
If you heard a rumour/gossip that someone in your office was a pedo, what would you honestly do? Call the police? What evidence do you have to back your accusation? None? You would then face a counter-accusation of malicious slander and find yourself fired with a reputation of being a liar and trouble maker.
Saville had influence. He could get people banned, sacked,ostracized in a heartbeat. Ordinary people wouldn't have known it at the time and, quite honestly, have trouble getting their heads around it now. It's difficult to imagine how someone could fight for justice against such overwhelming odds. Don't think God would have got a fair hearing.
Bollocks Janet. You were a BBC Executive and the Police/Press would have listened to you a damn sight more than any of the victims. Chances are, it would have made more victims come forward. You were a powerful woman in the media at the time and had a reputation for being gobby. Shame on you and the rest of them for not speaking out, particularly if you have also been a victim.
+Northern Monkey Geez Louise!!!! DO you know how hard it was Robert Hughes (Actor "Hey Dad"; mid 80s) victims to come forward? It was known "behind the scenes" what he was like, yet he still got away with molesting Sarah Monahan (played his preteen daughter on Hey Dad) among others? It's only been the last couple of years (since 2010) that he's faced justice and been gaoled. A mother of a victim later said "We first went to [New South Wales] police about Hughes in 1988 when my daughter was nine years old" and says she was told by the investigating detective "I've tried to get this guy but every time I do someone covers for him" [13] NSW Police had interviewed Hughes about claims of sexual abuse as early as 1985.[14] Then there's Rolf Harris...
+Megan Williams What's your point exactly? The whole point of my comment was to emphasise how difficult it was for victims to come forward and/or be believed. Ms Porter however knew that the stories about Savile were, and I quote, "More than Rumor" yet did NOTHING and SAID nothing despite being in powerful position within the BBC. Had she done so, it may have prompted victims to come forward and more importantly, prompted the authorities to take the allegations seriously. When challenged by audience members on this, she revealed she too had been the victim of abuse as a child, which makes her silence on the Savile "Rumors" even more despicable.
+Megan Williams Incidentally.......by "The rest of them" I refer to the countless other BBC executives who knew the Savile stories were "More than Rumor" yet chose to stay silent on the matter..........NOT the victims.
Did they have incontrovertible proof? If you go with rumour, and no substantiated proof that will stand up under cross examination, you'd get done for Defamation and slander.
+Megan Williams Ah OK.....on that basis best just say nothing and let the abuse keep happening then yeah? Hundreds of victims of Savile from the 60's through to the 90's. Who has proof until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt in Court?
Janet's answer roughly translates in my heaad as "Yes,we knew about it, but in the environment that we were in, we were more worried about potential damage to our career prospects than we were about molested children"
She would've ended up like dando if she had said anything. What's she meant to do without proof? She would be "guilty" of liable/ slander. Don't blame her blame scummy sovile
One day in Ireland Philip kearns disappeared In the 1980s. And it has been long speculated that he was abused and then murdered or he saw something happen and he was silenced. We will never know. His school bag turned up a week after he went missing. There is no link to establish him to notorious paedophile and pirate radio pioneer in Dublin eamon cook.
Handyjack right! she’s in good position to divulge what she knows but she chose to keep quiet about it...why? did jimmy gave her some of that charity fund?
And just for context, my mum now 51 has only just been able to tell my dad (married for 31yrs) and me son (29yrs old) about her abuse as a child. We are a close family and would stand by her through anything yet she has only been able to speak about it now, and she is the most honest, open and happy go lucky person you will ever meet yet it's only now she can tell her nearest and dearest
The fact is though it was rife & tolerated. I'm 58 & I remember girls from 16 to women in their 40's being groped in the work place on a regular basis in the 70's. As sick as it sounds it was just accepted. It also happened in the armed forces. Anyone not from that generation might find it hard to believe, but it was part of life. Just as teachers strapping, slapping & caning kids at school was rife & again nobody batted an eyelid. Life in many ways was far more cruel then, thats just how it was
She states,"I don't want to talk about people who are around now",when asked about prosecuting Saville. This is the scandal, those in the know won't speak up and enable the abuse.
@@mcdoodles5460 and I also find her own story of abuse sketchy, she jumped straight into that, to try to shield her from criticism, without batting an eyelid, just seemed off to me
Rotten had heard rumours like we all had! So what? Never was a secret, indeed if you read his autobiography he seems to suggest he abused a runaway girl in Leeds!
Times are totally different now. I can relate full well about being scolded if I told my mother that someone had abused me. It makes you turn a blind eye; it makes you feel vulnerable and continue being a victim. It's sad that these woman feel safe after the pervert is dead and it's a great shame that he can't be taken to task for it. But I hope younger people will understand how difficult it was for these women to come out as it were.
Janet is an interesting character shell we say. Assuming what she said is correct, that doesn't justify turning a blind eye. I think many people would have sympathy if celebrities like her would tell the truth about what really tock place, instead of these silly excuses. It was common knowledge at the BBC Jimmy was up to no good.
It’s like a pedophile who used to go to my school, he used to prey on girls and sexually abused them for years. People spoke up and they were told off, and like Savile, the pupil who did it was a bit odd, but always came across as a popular figure who would never be seen in the wrong. It really made me angry, it took 4 years before the school finally did something about it
@@Aerojet01 This is not about justification. It's about seeing the links between how we are treated by those closest to us growing up and our own resulting behaviour. What we are taught as children has enormous impact on how we feel about the world. We are either willing to see this connection or we are not.
@@carinaluxford241 I think we have to accept there are sinister people in this world. Whether it's in their DNA, neurons in the brain or social upbringing, I don't have a definitive answer. It's the people who sit back and choose to do nothing are just as bad in my opinion. That is with or without justification.
being in a younger generation, i think that sometimes we underestimate the progress and rights that females now have compared to thirty or forty years ago. In a male dominated climate of the time, Janet Street-Porter who was a junior female staff would likely have had very little recognition for her opinions. now of course we see her as a forthright figurehead, but at the time, i think things were very different. not to mention that jimmy savile was an influential and fearful man
Women have been in dominant roles my entire life (50+ years), it's high time we learn to separate real facts from those with agendas stirring it up for their own ends
She said she was an executive at the BBC at the time. Happy to stand corrected but that doesn’t sound too junior to me. And also I think her bringing up what happened to her as a child (which was not nice at all) was a complete deflection tactic to get her out of a very difficult question because as soon as she shows herself to be a victim then you can’t say anything else
She's clearing her throat because she's under pressure. She might have been younger at the time but this went on for years. She was a BBC exec from 87 to 1994 which happens to be when Saville was in Jim'll Fix It. So she had 7 years as a woman in power to say something and she said nothing. Shame on her and shame on all of those who stayed quiet.
@@dmcdmc7166 people like to sit on their high horses. Stop blaming others for the actions of another. Complicity or facilitation cannot be tangibly proven.
About 20 years ago , I was working in London on a road gang , jackhammering and digging and all that shit when cable t.v. was being introduced . We pissed a lot of people off with noise and dust and what not , but most of them were alright about it and knew we'd only be on their street for a few days and then move on to the next one . Anyway , this witch (jsp) came out of her place screaming and threatening us . Most of us ignored her as we were advised to do in such situations . One of the lads tried to explain to her what we were doing and tried to give her the number of the company rep who handled complaints , and was being very nice to her about it . She was furious and was throwing all sorts of insults about the type of people who do roadwork . She predictably said "do you know who I am ? " and Mick , the guy she was abusing snapped and answered " Yeah . You're that goofy cunt off the telly " . Everyone around erupted in laughter and she scurried off back into her den , looking like she was about to burst out crying . I kinda felt a bit bad for her , but not after seeing this .
So you were in a gang of men who said, to a woman, 'you're that goofy cunt off the telly' Everyone around erupted in laughter and she scurried off back into her den , looking like she was about to burst out crying'. Wow. You must be so proud of yourselves. I guess that showed *her* who was in control. Or maybe that's the kind of behaviour that hammers it home to women that they must not complain about abuse from men. Who knows?
@@haggishighways I pass no judgment on what kind of person she is - I don't know her. If you think she's a 'cunt', that's up to you - I assume you've met her in order to form that judgment. What I am saying is that a gang of men calling a woman 'a cunt' in public , and everybody erupting in laughter, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. How is that 'weird logic'?
@@peterowen9183 Agreed very good point. She points out the patriarchy of the BBC and how she couldn't speak up to her superiors as because she didn't have a penis her word would not have been accepted. She then gets bullied and humiliated by a man using a misogynistic term and people applaud it and still the irony of that is lost on this forum. It is indeed part of the problem and supports JSP's comment on how she as a woman was always expected to shut up and be dominated. Had she been a 6 foot 2 man built like a house would Mick have being so quick to ridicule her?
David Dimbleby seems to be treating this as to whether or not someone should be investigated for not paying his council tax...and Ken Clarke is shuffling uncomfortably on the fence---clearly knowing far more than he's willing to disclose... and poor Janet, of whom I'm not a particular fan,is somehow receiving a portion of the blame for Savile's vile acts...the very sort of thing on which he thrived!😙
99% of all those who worked for the BBC during the Jimmy Savile period knew what he was doing, but chose to turn a blind eye. All were more concerned about their own careers than what Jimmy Savile was doing to our children. As a result of the BBC covering up what Savile had done, I canceled my TV tax license a few months later. I haven't watched the BBC since.
@@peterowen9183 well people should stand up against the backwards law. I for example by law should have a tv license to use my sky go app to watch live tv. Even though you can’t even watch any bbc channels on it at all. It makes absolutely no sense to have a law that forces you to pay the bbc if you chose to watch their competition instead. How is it not an abuse of a monopoly?
@@Drenwickification You do understand that the licence fee doesn't just fund the BBC, don't you? The reason that there is a law is not because you are being forced to 'pay the BBC'. You're being 'forced to pay' for the transmission of live TV in the UK, in the same way that you are 'forced to pay' to have your bins emptied or to drive your car on public roads. It's not a 'BBC licence', it's a television licence. Hence why you still have to pay it even if you don't watch the BBC.
@@peterowen9183 but sky go isn’t broadcast over television signals, it’s broadcast over the internet. I didn’t realise my license fee was funding my internet.
And as we now know, 99% of those in government, the police, local government, charities to whom he contributed, organisers of charity events, officials at Broadmoor, doctors, nurses, NHS officials...everybody knew. So presumably you'll be refusing to pay any tax to anybody? Because they all knew. Demonising the BBC over this is just silly. Because everybody knew. How do we find a way to punish them all?
I always knew Janet Street Porter's star would descend one day, but never like this. They are all of them ever so quiet now. Look at JSP body language: Downcast eyes covered by hair, clearing the throat for the lies as she casts about for the right lines. As more revelations come out over Cameron's involvement in the John Major's Cabinet cover-up, the horror story with Leon Britten, Ted Heath and an endless laundry list of names, all elites etc., this QT was a nice "crap in your pants" moment for Ken Clarke looking like a rabbit caught in the headlights. I always detested these people years ago, and that disgust continues to grow. Extreme hatred might be a better word when you span decades.
I had to laugh at loose women the other day talking about sir Jimmy ,they said he fooled everyone including the royals ,you could tell that they did not believe the words out of their own mouths. ,still covering up,
Funny how she's so forthright that 'lots of people knew what Savile was doing and it was happening on a regular basis' but when asked what she herself knew, JSP had only heard rumours. But she's not alone in this. Esther Rantzen gave virtually (if not exactly) the same answers in an interview around the same time. Senior BBC DJ's from Savile's era have given the same answers too. Not one of these wealthy people will admit to having actual, direct knowledge of what Savile was up to.
I absolutely agree, especially in the time period of which all these offenses occurred. A pauper can never deny the King his marbles, Savile was the king who abused all around him including those those in higher powers who tried to protect him naively.
It never was deemed acceptable, I remember having a conversation with an older lady and she said abusing children was normal back then, so she basically admitted that she did that.
I don't really believe Janet Street-Porter. She says that national newspapers wouldn't print negative stories about Saville because if they did the charity money he'd raised wouldn't go to hospitals. I don't think the media cares or used to care all that much whether money goes to hospitals if they can get a good story. Also, Janet Street-Porter was a top producer and very powerful in the late 80s and 90s. I think she could have said something, and tipped people off. I appreciate that she couldn't have said anything to senior BBC men (who knew anyway) but she could have told outside media. I think the fact is that she just didn't care very much whether there was mass sexual abuse going on, didn't have the courage to stand up, and just accepted that everybody was doing it and that that was the status quo. Having said that I quite liked the way she punched back at the smug smirking girl who asked her why she hadn't said anything.
is it that easy to go to the media though? she had no proof remember-yes she heard it but likewise alot of Hollywood heard about Weinstein but without proof and running to the newspapers you are looking at slander case.
I don't like how she dragged her own history into it. That was irrelevant. When her mother slapped her, she wasn't a BBC executive. Saying the environment was totally male was also irrelevant.
@@neilgerace355 Victims did accuse him at the time he was abusing them. They got nothing. Realistically women at the time did not have a voice. I think Janet learned that in her childhood this is why she told that story about the hairdresser. She just tried to explain herself you know, the sadness in her voice says it all, I think she does actually feel guilty for not saying something. Why is all eyes on her, tho? Males should have comed forward, they were far less vulnurable! And they did not.
@@neilgerace355 They would have believed her. But I don't think they would have done anything about it. Everyone knew about it. If they truly cared the case would have been investigated long ago. We are talking around 500 victims.Yet nobody even tried to arrest him. These were different times. Now, here comes my story. When I was a teenager in Russia (about a decade ago) my friends were severely beaten up by a crazy woman that happened to be a relative of one of them. We tried to do something about it, but every single adult that knew about what has happened was pretty much like "It's all good parents have a right to punish their kids, you should not complain". I tried to explain that this woman was crazy it was not even a "punishment" she was dangerous but no one cared. It was like talking to a wall. I assume that in 1980s Britain if you as a woman accused someone like Savile the response would have pretty much been the same. Something like "It's all good, men have high libido and he is very talented, let him be". And that would have been it.
Back in the 70s and 80s no one took JSP seriously she was often the butt of many comedians jokes and often mimicked by women comedians,she had little influence back then other than to be made fun of i remember seeing her on an interview once where she was sitting next to Bernard Manning and he was being his usual chauvinist self and speaking out against feminists saying that a womans place is in the home well the audience clapped him and she looked dismayed,she couldnt even draw an audiences support about womens rights She alone would not have the power or been took seriously if she acted alone on blowing the whistle on Saville,he had a lot of power and had higher connections than her It would have took her and a few others to all get together and go public,but then could they have got the evidence to prove it as rumours are not enough and not worth risking cases of slander made against you
Exactly! I worked in TV in the 90s and beyond - if you reported every rumour you heard about a celeb to your boss you'd be a laughing stock! Why would she or any of us have reported unsubstantiated rumours - everyone heard them about Savile, it was an open secret he was dodgy. A memo went round banning him from appearing on the BBC's annual telethon 'Children In Need'. so of course everyone knew he was a pervert! Janet says he bought the tabloid's silence with the charity money he raised which is partly true. But he also had dirt on some very powerful paedos in high places, that kept him out of the police cells.
@@dadkinson I dont believe she mixed in the same circles as Saville to have had any proof . But there were others who did work closely with him who would have had more insight into what was going on. JSP heard rumours you cant do anything with rumours you need proof otherwise you risk being sued for slander ,definition of character etc and he had the millions of pounds to get the best lawyers. She may have spoken out and no one may have backed her up so why take that risk. His victims were only going to talk once he was dead which is what happened
Yeah her excuse is pathetic. She couldn’t say anything because she was a woman? So is she saying if she was a man she would have spoken out? Okay Janet….
@@dannyH84 I see. So we shouldn’t try and see how he was able to rape so many children and try and stop it from ever happening again? Do you just want children to be raked again by a presenter at the bbc?
How the hell could a decent person who was aware of the goings on stood by knowing than some innocent in the future would suffer abuse. As for the slap from her mother, a poor excuse when she later came to be an influence in broadcasting!
I would like to see the police be held accountable in some capacity for brushing off the complaints from the victims, but that's probably not likely to happen. You can understand higher management in the BBC brushing it off, because of the culture, who he was, and the conflict of interest/code of slience (BBC didn't want any negative publicity), but the police you would expect a little more of, to have at least investigated it up to a certain level. This is doable today.
Stable door and horse are words that come to mind. The responsibility lies squarely with saville,s contempraries in the public domain who knew it was going on.
People forget that even talking about paedophilia back then was very taboo. My grandmother said when she was young many people knew about pastors abusing young kids in boarding schools but if you dared even mention it you would get slapped and punished. It was 'normal' to look the other way because instead of outrage towards the paedophile, people lashed out against the person bringing it up.
It's no good sitting there playing the tough no nonsense modern woman JSP, when you were as bad as all the men who kept quiet and allowed Saville to carry on doing what he did. You were protecting your career arse and turning a blind eye. Shameful!
I agree that people are more interested in watching over their own backs than actually blowing the whistle on these sick people. I always thought that Rolf Harris was a wonderful man and he was my most favourite person. Look what he turned out to be and I am sickened by it but nobody spoke out about him because he was so famous and loved by everyone. I have noticed that no matter what a famous person does - murder, rape, child molesting or all three....nothing really happens to them. They are untouchable really because they feel they are better than you or I. They are above the law. Look at the sentence of Harris and Stuart Hall - pathetic and look at that awful creepy Max Clifford, he should have been given a lot more. I bet you they are all being looked after inside, still getting their little perks and the warders, bowing and scraping over them as if they are the bloody King of England. In the eyes of the law they are still celebrities and not criminals at all and we are only having lip service paid to us. Looked after like they are still at home. Stop worshipping these false idols and look at reality. These people are human like all of us who just happened to get the break or whatever was needed to put them where they are today. There are hundreds of Saviles, Harris' and Cliffords out there, hiding in plain sight. They should all be worried now as they could be next. I would really love it if Clifford started to sink some of his clients!
Sounds to me a like a case of career protection. Dont want to lose my job over someone elses buisness. A case of it's not right but I am not involved or affected.
@911WokeMe you are a reprobate and fool, there was and is no support for JS from me in my comment any more than there is truth in your pathological, paranoid ideas (ie. your LIES).
i saw two interviews with saville which showed his disturbing aggression and in one he talked about how if st peter would not let him into heaven he would break his thumb, not in a joking way but absolutely chillingly serious...this just reveals how sick and threatening he would be to cover up his crimes, so there is absolutely no doubt saville would of just casually said things like 'if someone ever said something bad about me i would break their legs or something like that in an aggresive manner when socialising with people of power and influence given he had the audacity to speak like that in front of the cameras. This would have been in the back of their mind when they heard things about him.
Is it right to investigate Jimmy Savile's past now he's dead? No it's not. They should have done it while he was alive. It is clear that it was well known knowledge and that he was being protected by the establishment. Having said that it's better late than never and all those involved in whatever capacity still need to answer questions and face jail time if need be...
Ken Clarke theres a man I wouldn't trust with a child David Cameron had the proof to put him away instead he gets himself up the ladder in Tory seat , we need a revolution in this country
I think Janet makes a very good point , how in those days if you said something like that , you got a slap told to shut up. I think people forget how that sort of "know your place," culture isn't the distant history we think it is. It's only very very recently that we've stopped trating people like that.
Sorry Janet, but, you seem to know a lot more about the things he was doing at the time he was doing them than your admitting to, your as guilty as all the others who kept quiet about it.
Everyon jumping on the bandwagon and going nuts. But put yourself in her shoes when you think your not going to be believed by someone you intend not to speak up.
@@gazzz-yz7xc 600 victims deserved someone to at least try and fight for them. Everyone knew and didn't want to lose there careers. Jonny rotten was one of a few that actually tried to get the word out. Others just shut up as they didn't want to Los there cushy jobs.
I remember a pedophile at my school, myself and many others spoke out and the school did not care and were basically told to stop making rumours. Not long after a girl was raped by him and groomed, it was only then that it started to be taken seriously
No one in Authority (all MEN) would have listened - that's the point. These were different times - the culture of that day was different. I admire Janet's honesty. If her voice had a chance of changing the situation she would have been vocal - that's her way. Saville was untouchable protected by his cronies & shielded by the charity millions he raised.
Rumour is not the same as evidence. You do not accuse people based on rumour but on evidence. I suspect people in the BBC actually did know and, if that's the case, then people managing Stoke Mandeville Hospital at the time or members of government knew. This goes right through the heart of establishment in that era. However, if you are not old enough to remember Jimmy Saville, you cannot imagine how big he was. He was on primetime BBC for 20 - 30 years, heading iconic programs with viewing figures regularly hitting 15 -20 million and had the ear of Thatcher. I can imagine how difficult it would be to take down a figure like that.
Not answering a "no brainer" like "should Savile be investigated after his death", clearly suggests a deliberate cover-up. Maybe even "cover my arse" by this vile woman?
2:37- "I don't want to talk about people who are around now........" So she still knows who is doing what behind the scenes! She's either lying, or is afraid of the backlash on her and losing her job. Instead of reporting sex offenders and protecting children. She says it right here FFS!
As well as being a popular BBC personality, Saville was very close to the Royal family and the Thatcher government, and I mean VERY close. He was often asked for advice by the royals, invited to many of their events and even drove them around in his Rolls Royce. He was invited to 10 Downing Street on many occasions and Thatcher pushed hard to get him a knighthood. Are you telling me that someone that close to royals and government wouldn’t have been thoroughly vetted by the very top of our secret services and police? Either there was little evidence of his many crimes, or they knew and covered it up. You decide.
i love that girls smile at the end....and thats exactly how i would of looked at the old trout....absolutely no excuse what so ever for not blowing the whistle on him....she used emotional blackmail at the end to get out of it and that girls smiled said it all...she aint fooling no one
Personally I found it sanctimonious, the fact that most people in the industry knew about it and didn't come forward reveals a lot about general human nature and that anyone we put in that industry would do the same and remain silent. I bet if that girl was under similar conditions and situated in the same time context she would have dealt with it with the same passivity as those in question.
Huh, yeah... the sanctimonious smile of a smug know-it-all who's never had to deal with such horrendous issues in her own life, yet feels ever-so-clever when she lectures others who have about how they 'should' have behaved. People like that need to check themselves a little more often; they know far less than they think they do. I bet she was proudly sitting there thinking "I would've done the right thing if it was me"... yeah, like hell you would, sweetheart. Walk a mile in that person's shoes before you think you can glibly tell them they're walking all wrong.
@@Maerahn Yes, walk a mile in a BBC executive's shoes. It must be really hard to be wealthy, rich person working in a respected position. Stop protecting ped ophile rings!
You might have to explain how you know she raped and molested hundreds of children. Can you provide first-hand, peer-tested evidence that she was involved in a paedophile ring? There's a massive difference between 'people knowing what he was like', and being able to make a substantive claim against him with evidence, statements and proof. None of the latter was available, as no-one was prepared to put their head above the parapet and risk corporate ridicule and further humiliation. Not rocket science. Put simply, you don't know what you're on about.
largeal69 if it was your child that got abused and she had opened the door on his dressing room to see him with her but failed to do or say anything ,,my guess is you would not be so flippant !!!
But she didn't open the door to any children. So your question has no value. If she had seen him do anything, she would have reported it. But she didn't. Or rather, you have no evidence that she did.
It's simple; there are two things that happened here. 1) Savile fumbled with girls, 2) Charities were helped. The first point is bad, the second point is good. They are two separate things. My point all along is that the second point shouldn't be totally forgotten in order to focus on the first.
There was a noticeable slip of the tongue right at the very end when she corrects herself after saying nobody took any notice and then said they wouldn’t have taken any notice. I think she knows that allegations were in fact made to those higher up and brushed under the carpet rather than as she and Esther Rantzen keep claiming that it was all just rumours. Their body language and stuttering and deliberating over answers given tells you all you need to know. They knew what was going on but did and said nothing. In some ways they are as culpable as Saville, Glitter and the rest of the deviants.
@@MarkHewitt Good point made Mark. One should never name names outside of the topic/thread in the discussion. I think it fair to say that one particular Lady (I'll refer to her as a Lady because she is) raised public awareness of child abuse by founding and promoting a successful charity as far back as 1986. Savile; (a great friend of the British Royals...) fooled many people using his insidious tactics.
The Great are those who refuse to be silenced, who refuse to back down, who recognise injustice toward the vulnerable and speak out to change it, against all the odds, against all protocol. This well paid woman, particularly with her own alleged personal experience of abuse, together with her standing within this corporation was perfectly placed to do so, but chose to remain silent, thus making her part of the problem. Bullies continue to bully until faced with someone, or something more formidable. In excusing herself she is the same as many others, but in this instance far worse, blaming everyone except herself meanwhile furthering her own ambitions within the same disgraceful institution that harboured these crimes.
I watched Savile: A British Horror Story on Netflix recently The most disturbing thing about it all was the way so much of the establishment pandered to Savile - people laughed at his smutty jokes, pandered to his 'eccentricities' - with only a small number of exceptions many powerful people went along with it. The notion they knew absolutely nothing of what he was doing is hard to belief. Those who ignored the reports of his victims and told them they wouldn't be believed - have a lot to answer for Why? Because he done a lot for charity? The sordid Savile saga should remind us that personality cults - the idea that individuals cannot be questioned, are very unhealthy
Every celebrity in the industry of that era knew about it and kept quiet. Some have even been knighted. And it wasn’t just celebrities, but common place for that generation. The reason they all got away with it was because it was a taboo subject and society kept it hush hush. That generation claim crimes of this nature have gotten worse over the years, but the fact is that ‘the good old days’ were a white wash and cover up for what was going on behind many a closed door. Thank goodness society now has a moral backbone to oust these old ‘has been’ celebrities and punish them accordingly. Unfortunately it’s too late for Saville, although his family should be held to account for keeping what they knew covered up for financial gain. However a positive outcome is the clear message it sends to these monsters among us all. If you commit these crimes you will forever be looking over your shoulder and waiting for that ultimate knock on the door because you will get ousted eventually no matter how old you are. The paranoias will probably cause an early death if nothing else.
My nana loathed saville. And my mum couldn't stand him. Even when I was younger something about saville gave me the creeps. When all this came to light it didn't surprise me or mum one bit
I could never understand whh he kept appearing on TV. He was awkward, stilted , uncomfortable to watch and just....weird. I was a schoolboy at the time and I remember jokes going round about Saville and patients. People knew...
@@allosaurusfragilis7782 He had power, control and high ranking people in his corner. Difficult to imagine how much clout he had in this day and age ....but thinking back to those days and with the benefit of hindsight......he was very cunning about what he was doing.
