Is there anyone else in the world who suspects these reveal more about the complainants and the effect of media publicity than they do about Savile? Or does everyone believe every word? I say this having not bothered to obtain or read these reports and neither do I intend to; I have neither the time nor the inclination.

For all I know they may all be 100% true or 100% fiction. To be honest - they are of little or no interest except as an example of a "good story" (that I'm bored by).

Anatomy of a witch hunt is what's needed. Mass hysteria and how to recognize it from within are worth looking at in terms of a detailed analysis of Savile.

They call it moral panic. A Scottish University is currently examining the phenomenon. But you won't read much about that in the media, which is totally responsible for it. It is such a good story, even if totally fictional. Isn't it time they resurrected Satanic Abuse (these days called Social Networks)?

To be blunt, its a bit peculiar to lock people up in mental institutions because they are insane and then believe them when they come out with daft stories.

Yet not one single "victim", teacher, parent, nurse, doctor, BBC employee, hospital porter, or anyone from the many charities JS was involved with made a report at the time. Colour me sceptical. This was the age of the Mary Whitehouse and the News of the World, scandal was their business. The journalists must have been fast asleep (or more likely, drunk) to miss such a scoop.

The sinister side of this, is that if a man such as Sir Jim can be painted as a predatory sex offender, then all men are regarded as a danger, especially to children - no matter how virtuous they are. The "victims must be believed" mantra has now been firmly implanted in the nation's consciousness. I don't know how this is going to be undone.

It seems to me that this moral panic, if that's what it is, and it certainly seems disproportionate, is based upon a concern to regulate male sexual desire in an age when feminism has come to the fore and the traditional institution of marriage has declined, creating a kind of sexual free for all. Traditional conceptions of female sexual purity and male sexual agency have been coupled with the feminist desire to empower women and with religious notions of sex as sin reappearing in secular guise, to produce a total demonisation of male sexual desire, shifting the blame for sex, always a dark force, from women's bodies unto men's minds.

Homosexuality was once the bete noir that paedophilia, or ephebophilia, has now become.

I have no doubt the media desires a good story, but there are many good stories, and it remains to be discovered why they choose the ones they do.

The whole thing stinks! There's no way anyone would given this kind of access. Not even the PM would be allowed this.

a pal just had a twitter battle with Jim Gamble.

this ghastly ex-cop claimed the 'Savile cover-up' could happen again. when asked for proof he got very stroppy and blocked.

That sort of sums it up. The parties involved with vested financial interests are driving this and there are heaps of them. Just as Gamble must desperately promote this Savile insanity to keep himself in paid work as a "child protection expert" the media is loving it.

I'll tell you how to protect kids :"don't talk to fucking strangers and don't leave the fucking front garden you brats"!!!

Gamble claims Savile was an "opportunity abuser" which explains why he "abused" 2 year olds, 5 year olds, teens, boys , girls, the insane, old pensioners pissing in their hospital beds and possibly Margaret Thacher for all we know (maybe Denis too ) etc etc

sheer utter madness.

Really all this Savile stuff is so far fetched that i find it very difficult to believe. And since he is dead I find it so uninteresting.
When he died there wsnt a single pornographic image found anywhere connected to him. For such a hideous beast,necrophile,paedophile,and now ofcourse suspected murderer
I find it quite astonishing that he had no pornography in his possession (nor human bones or meat i his fridge)

So how much of this stuff can actually be true?


very little i expect... if any.

There is still no evidence just empty words.

My main concern is that the Government have immediately said there will be compensation for these victims - paid from JS's estate, and if there is not enough money there, more money will come from the taxpayer.
Like the BBC, everyone seems happy to shell out money to victims who have made accusations, but without those accusations having been established as fact.
Compensation claiming will become, if it has not already, a profession

Oh it already has, Gnomo, as I predicted it would 14 years ago. One of my claimed "victims" (thrown out by the court) admitted as much to a stranger - plus media fees of course (£36,000).

It beggars belief but what confuses me, even more than that all this ghastliness escaped without a single complaint at the time, is how everyone can simply accept it NOW without a word of doubt.

Look at the compo angle as a 'sweetener' - this is all about pushing totalitarian new laws through and smashing legal and moral precedents. The compensation - which will no doubt be legislated out of the park once everything is in place - is just there to buy the false allegations from the greedy short-sighted proles and rev up the coffers of conscience-free multi-mational law firms. 'Wealth' will be proved to be a finite resource anyway - the 'greys' are being targeted primarily due to be the only ones to have personal wealth outside of the 'elite' (the real 'elite', not the working class blokes in the right place at the right time to become DJ's & TV hosts) and that elite won't ever get fingered (save the odd sacrificial lamb) as everyone under about 45 is mortgaged to the hilt and will be forevermore.

The last gasps of a desperate society. Those of with enough years left need to get the hell of the three main English-speaking countries and somewhere more civilised and discerning, there is nothing left here but trouble.

On Sky news we were warned of "shocking details of Savile's behaviour" and then there was none.
Apparently, Savile "said" that his large jewelry was made from the glass eyes of dead people.

Where is this jewelry? Have they thought to check it?

Eager to please it's readership, the Daly Mail has already published photos of them. However, the ring in question used an glass eye from a friend of his, and for all we know, or will ever know, he may have had permission to take it after he died.
This fact does not make it any less 'creepy' but is an example of how the media are distorting anything to do with JS, happy in the knowledge they risk no legal action from his Family

Oh look! You can buy glass eye jewelry all over the place. It's quite cute.

www.etsy.com/search/handmade/jewelry?q=prosthetic+eye



Sorry. Forgot the link.

Gnomo wrote:
Eager to please it's readership, the Daly Mail has already published photos of them. However, the ring in question used an glass eye from a friend of his, and for all we know, or will ever know, he may have had permission to take it after he died.
This fact does not make it any less 'creepy' but is an example of how the media are distorting anything to do with JS, happy in the knowledge they risk no legal action from his Family


It is easy to imagine how someone might joke about prising a glass eye from a corpse.
Many many years ago I somehow persuaded a friend that I had acquired Mick Jagger's foreskin after his "recent circumcision".
She wore it round her neck for ages. It was actually a bit of dried chicken skin.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
www.etsy.com/search/handmade/jewelry?q=prosthetic+eye



Sorry. Forgot the link.

JS was always flamboyant so him wearing one of these just means he had a variety of taste in rings etc.

Someone I know has the ashes of his dog as a diamond ring.

MWT just tweeted this, he wrote it on the eve of the first Exposure documentary from 2012
www.williams-thomas.co.uk/sites/default/files/Exposure.pdf