What I found most offensive about the farce of a documentary was that it was unnecessary in that it offered no new information or insights.
Bearing in mind that most people think that it was discussing minors being sexually attacked, its only purpose must have been to titillate peculiar people.

Honey wrote:
What I found most offensive about the farce of a documentary was that it was unnecessary in that it offered no new information or insights.
Bearing in mind that most people think that it was discussing minors being sexually attacked, its only purpose must have been to titillate peculiar people.

There are numerous articles praising Savile after he died.

Green Man wrote:
Honey wrote:
What I found most offensive about the farce of a documentary was that it was unnecessary in that it offered no new information or insights.
Bearing in mind that most people think that it was discussing minors being sexually attacked, its only purpose must have been to titillate peculiar people.

There are numerous articles praising Savile after he died.

Some by the same people who said they knew all the time.

Green Man wrote:
Honey wrote:
What I found most offensive about the farce of a documentary was that it was unnecessary in that it offered no new information or insights.
Bearing in mind that most people think that it was discussing minors being sexually attacked, its only purpose must have been to titillate peculiar people.

There are numerous articles praising Savile after he died.

I was told to mind my own business by an ABC (Australia's national broadcaster) radio presenter to ask "author" Dan Davies when he interviewed him, why he described Savile as having " a heart of gold" and other such praises just after he died but turned on sixpence and wrote a book condemning Savile once the "scandal" broke.

This really exampled the shocking mind set that the media engaged in: this presenter who has since passed away was one of Australia's most respected broadcasters- I regularly listen to him.

My request was entirely reasonable yet the presenter went on to interview Davies in the most glowing terms basically describing Davies as a "close associate" of Savile and therefore an expert and whatever Davies claimed was factual.

I don't think many of us can recall the attacks if anyone dared drift from the required script that "Savile had raped the nation" was subject to.

Even asking a quite reasonable question: such as if you knew Savile so well why did you never speak up and warn people if what you now claim is true?

I think the case of Jimmy Savile, whatever the truth demonstrated that the British media had reached a climax after his death in that whatever falsehoods or perversion of the truth they presented was accepted verbatim.

Hysteria ruled and the media (including the BBC to their own detriment eventually) amplified the claptrap and rumour and simply accepted any claim made without proof and often with available information to the contrary (the false claims of where Top of The Pops was filmed for example)

One could see the public's mentality had changed little over 300 years from when poor ladies. perhaps who owned a black cat would be accused of Witch craft and burnt at the stake.

Absolutely Hedda but times have changed slightly (libel laws) in that the "over the garden fence" tendency has adapted to prefer dead people. Or convicted (rightly or wrongly) people. There is a streak in humanity which can never be suppressed but it's interesting how many end up with Karma kicking in. As I'm sure it did 300 years ago when those evil housewives got cancer and died. Or, like Witchfinder General, found themselves on the stake. Someone should do a study of the fate of false accusers. I bet the majority died, entered jail or found ruin one way or the other.

Couldn't describe it better myself.

I struggle to understand the obsession that drives these people to make such repetitive documentaries. They give no alternate view and when a few brave souls give another side to the situation, they're ignored or not "used" in the final cut.

An example is the drama staring Steve Coogan, there'll be nothing new as the writer, producer research team don't want to hear from any of us. Stupidly I've tried far too many times. Those who have have said "if you're looking for dirt on SJS you've come to the wrong place, but if you want the truth I'm happy to talk" their reply was "thank you for your time" and they never got back in touch.

I know of one claimant who is allegedly very excited indeed to be portrayed in this drama. Dear God!

We'll never have a safe voice.

Until it happens to you - or to someone near you - you would never believe it. Right up to my 2001 trial I really believed that, ultimately, police want to find the truth and juries will decide accordingly. I got convicted with no proof or evidence at all - not just were the accusers lying but in most cases their stories were totally fake with some simply exaggerated. "If it never happened there cannot be proof it did" I thought, naively. Luckily by 2015 I'd found the reality.

Amanda wrote:
Couldn't describe it better myself.

I struggle to understand the obsession that drives these people to make such repetitive documentaries. They give no alternate view and when a few brave souls give another side to the situation, they're ignored or not "used" in the final cut.

An example is the drama staring Steve Coogan, there'll be nothing new as the writer, producer research team don't want to hear from any of us. Stupidly I've tried far too many times. Those who have have said "if you're looking for dirt on SJS you've come to the wrong place, but if you want the truth I'm happy to talk" their reply was "thank you for your time" and they never got back in touch.

I know of one claimant who is allegedly very excited indeed to be portrayed in this drama. Dear God!

We'll never have a safe voice.

"We'll never have a safe voice."

Amanda, you will. I myself was fully convinced of the allegations against your late uncle and even participated in giving voice to the slanders on social media. I now deeply regret this. I simply disbelieve the vast majority of the allegations made against him, almost all of which were made at a time when he was no longer around to defend himself (similar to Ted Heath, albeit to a lesser extent in Heath's case). The fact that I've changed my mind shows that people can be convinced - when they examine the actual evidence. And there isn't any. As you are aware, bloggers such as Rabbitaway, Moor Larkin and the late Anna Raccoon have done a fantastic job probing the claims.

I'm generally a fan of Coogan and it's disappointing to hear that he has associated himself with this project. I won't be watching it.

That's good to hear tdf. Moor & Rabbit have done a wonderful job, I'm immensely grateful.

I've only had one "failure" when I'm telling someone about the "other side" - it's literally scores of people. They fall into these categories....

1. I never believed any of it anyway
2. Thanks, I'll go read those blogs
3. I'm speechless, I can't believe what I've just heard

You'd be amazed who has never believed any of it, how sad they have to stay silent.

I'll say one thing for The Met and the Media, you've done a brilliant, I bet you exceeded your own expectations.

A big thing is put on the fact that Sir Terry Wigan banned JS from Children in Need right at the start, why?

Because he was a dirty old pervert ? No.

1. JS was from another time and would never of fitted in with that laid back style.

2 the newcomer Commie-Idians way of attack would of seen JS as soon old school possibly making it too variety and definitely not hip enough.

3. Jimmy had had his day in all honesty and it would of all been about Jimmy not the cause.

4. Jimmy would of come in done his bit, hugged cuddled space invaded and gone he would not of hung around. New format new faces.

Nothing to do with anything other than JS was an oddball old school prefab wysiwyg no more.

'M' wrote:
A big thing is put on the fact that Sir Terry Wigan banned JS from Children in Need right at the start, why?

Because he was a dirty old pervert ? No.

1. JS was from another time and would never of fitted in with that laid back style.

2 the newcomer Commie-Idians way of attack would of seen JS as soon old school possibly making it too variety and definitely not hip enough.

3. Jimmy had had his day in all honesty and it would of all been about Jimmy not the cause.

4. Jimmy would of come in done his bit, hugged cuddled space invaded and gone he would not of hung around. New format new faces.

Nothing to do with anything other than JS was an oddball old school prefab wysiwyg no more.

Is it true that JS was banned? Or just more fairy-tale?

Honey, I am in possession of a tape recording of the James Whale Radio Show television programme which was broadcast on the night of Children In Need in 1988.

Jimmy Savile was a guest on Whale's show and during the course of it they do a historic live linkup with the CiN show taking place on the other side at the same time. Terry Wogn and JS have a convivial conversation, bantering like two men who know each other very well.

So no, complete lie that Savile was somehow "banned" from Children In Need. And he'd appeared on the show a few years earlier as well.

Agreed TBS though I don't have that recording.

Him being banned is a complete "urban myth" There are so many of these and I'm being kind calling them that when in actual facts they are nothing but lies.

It's so exhausting!

Thank you, TBS. I suspected it was a load of baloney.

TBS wrote:
Honey, I am in possession of a tape recording of the James Whale Radio Show television programme which was broadcast on the night of Children In Need in 1988.

Jimmy Savile was a guest on Whale's show and during the course of it they do a historic live linkup with the CiN show taking place on the other side at the same time. Terry Wogn and JS have a convivial conversation, bantering like two men who know each other very well.

So no, complete lie that Savile was somehow "banned" from Children In Need. And he'd appeared on the show a few years earlier as well.

Maybe convert the audio to MP3 or Flac and upload to Youtube. I wonder if James Whale remembers it ? He is not a DJ I actually remember very well - that's just me.

Oh Amanda, the myths just pile up and it just seems impossible to get any traction in persuading people of their true nature.

What continues to grind my gears is John Lydon continually being credited with "calling him out" and being "banned by the BBC" in revenge for shattering this taboo. When of course neither of these things happened.

He certainly sneered at him and described his "cruel eyes" in an interview which has somehow become conflated with saying "he interferes with children". He admitted in one autobiography that he'd never met the man and was merely talking shit, flailing at a beloved establishment figure as befitted his image a disrespectful punk rocker. And of course that "BBC ban" never materialised, it quickly being realised that the Sex Pistols were harmless but actually gave worthwhile entertainment. So he was hardly off screen, even when he left and formed PiL instead.

I'm fairly certain he's slightly embarrassed by the deception now but is forced to go along with it, asked in interviews about his "perceptiveness" and foresight.

The other day I ever saw tweets from one person I follow defending Lydon against some attack or other, concluding "well he called out JS, so he clearly is a good person deep down". People are even citing a lie as proof of his moral superiority! It genuinely is ridiculous.

Screw you John Lydon. You are a liar.

TBS wrote:
Oh Amanda, the myths just pile up and it just seems impossible to get any traction in persuading people of their true nature.
Maybe someone could create a myth-busting website. The blogs are great but you can't just dip into them and I'm not sure how easy they are to find in the first place. A myth-busting website could provide short and snappy info, FAQs, etc., and contain links to the blogs for anyone interested in reading further.

I agree Jo, I'd happily answer any questions, I've often thought of a Q&A session.

If you read Moor Larkin/Spirit of Savile blog over the last few days regarding the funeral, certain myths were dispelled and it's a joy to do it.

I'm sick and tired of reading rubbish and lies.

Other than unfair legal restrictions regarding false accusers, I'll answer anything and if I don't know for certain, I'll say so.

TBS wrote:
Oh Amanda, the myths just pile up and it just seems impossible to get any traction in persuading people of their true nature.

What continues to grind my gears is John Lydon continually being credited with "calling him out" and being "banned by the BBC" in revenge for shattering this taboo. When of course neither of these things happened.

He certainly sneered at him and described his "cruel eyes" in an interview which has somehow become conflated with saying "he interferes with children". He admitted in one autobiography that he'd never met the man and was merely talking shit, flailing at a beloved establishment figure as befitted his image a disrespectful punk rocker. And of course that "BBC ban" never materialised, it quickly being realised that the Sex Pistols were harmless but actually gave worthwhile entertainment. So he was hardly off screen, even when he left and formed PiL instead.

I'm fairly certain he's slightly embarrassed by the deception now but is forced to go along with it, asked in interviews about his "perceptiveness" and foresight.

The other day I ever saw tweets from one person I follow defending Lydon against some attack or other, concluding "well he called out JS, so he clearly is a good person deep down". People are even citing a lie as proof of his moral superiority! It genuinely is ridiculous.

Screw you John Lydon. You are a liar.

When I saw Lydon on TV he always come across angry but he calls it an "energy" why would he give airtime to a broadcaster if they banned him in the past. Sir Alex Ferguson boycotted interviews for years on the BBC, purely out of principle. It's like if you had a bad experience in a restaurant, you won't go back no matter what ! Yet Lydon has done numerous stuff for the BBC in the last 30 years or so.

If Lydon was banned in 1978 by the BBC why was he on Jukeboy Jury in 1979 on the BBC ? Surely the BBC would shelved the edition or at least they would wiped the tape which was a process that was still done until the early 1980's.






PIL - On the BBC in 1980



With the arrogant Jonathan Ross in 2001

Amanda wrote:
I agree Jo, I'd happily answer any questions, I've often thought of a Q&A session.

If you read Moor Larkin/Spirit of Savile blog over the last few days regarding the funeral, certain myths were dispelled and it's a joy to do it.

I'm sick and tired of reading rubbish and lies.

Other than unfair legal restrictions regarding false accusers, I'll answer anything and if I don't know for certain, I'll say so.
Thanks for the tip. These blogposts are really interesting.