Jimmy Saville

[The Camel]

It seems like it was an epidemic in the 70s and 80s.

From their own autobiographies, both John Peel and Ed Stewart admit (actually more like brag) about "sleeping" with underage girls.

Peel married a 15yo ffs.

[The Camel]

Danny Baker's review of Stewart's autobiography:

http://soreeyes.org/archive/2005/06/05/stewpot/

Julie Burchill on John Peel:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

[nirvana]

Danny Baker's review of Stewart's autobiography:

http://soreeyes.org/archive/2005/06/05/stewpot/

Julie Burchill on John Peel:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

Pretty surprised by the John Peel stuff - I must walk around with my eyes/ears closed

[The Camel]

While I don't blame any victims for not coming forward when he was alive (no one has ever come forward claiming Gary Glitter abused them either, have they?)

What pisses me off is people like Paul Gambaccini saying things like "I've been waiting 30 years for these stories to come out".

Well, if you knew about it 30 years ago, and it didn't come out, why didn't you say something 29 1/2 years ago?

You are guilty by association, you scumbag.

[leethefish]

The most telling thing was that I wasn't surprised when the news first broke as there was always 'something' about him.

Right now, it's developing in the same way that the Lance Armstrong story is - the scale of it is the shock.

If there was any doubt as to whether he could clear his name, I don't think his family would have taken down the headstone so quickly.

Sadly, I think it's all too true.

This ......I was not in he least bit surprised

[Tal]

Danny Baker's review of Stewart's autobiography:

http://soreeyes.org/archive/2005/06/05/stewpot/

Julie Burchill on John Peel:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

From the first review:


The book ends with him today, alone, with his whining thumb up his useless arse...

I might use that expression today. Brilliant

[Acidmouse]

While I don't blame any victims for not coming forward when he was alive (no one has ever come forward claiming Gary Glitter abused them either, have they?)

What pisses me off is people like Paul Gambaccini saying things like "I've been waiting 30 years for these stories to come out".

Well, if you knew about it 30 years ago, and it didn't come out, why didn't you say something 29 1/2 years ago?

You are guilty by association, you scumbag.

This, to me anyone who knew about this and let it slide (victims excluded) deserves to go down in jail for a long time. They are responsible for every grope/rape he did after they found out what he was like.

I met Jimmy lots of times, just glad he didn't like boys. He and my Gran used to be in St. Anns cathedral all the time, helping out, raising money and generally being a celeb.....its a real shame now all his fundraising and church work is meaningless.

[bobAlike]

Whilst I agree that he was an arse who deserved to be punished before his death and I agree that an enquiry should be held post death, pre 1980 these things happened in GB on a regular basis and was accepted in a strange kind of way. I'm definately not saying just because it was accepted back then it was right what I am saying is that you can't hold people accountable now because they knew something back then unless it was the most vile of crimes.

Obviously rape is rape and he should of had is cock chopped off.

[kinboshi]

Whilst I agree that he was an arse who deserved to be punished before his death and I agree that an enquiry should be held post death, pre 1980 these things happened in GB on a regular basis and was accepted in a strange kind of way. I'm definately not saying just because it was accepted back then it was right what I am saying is that you can't hold people accountable now because they knew something back then unless it was the most vile of crimes.

Obviously rape is rape and he should of had is cock chopped off.

Don't think there should be a statute of limitations for serious crimes - and rape is definitely a serious crime.  Same goes for anyone harbouring or abetting someone who carried out these crimes - espeically if the victims are still alive and suffering.

[Acidmouse]

I don't understand why past victims are going to the press though first instead of the police? why do we have to know about every little step of the investigation. Its sickening and vile.

[bobAlike]

Whilst I agree that he was an arse who deserved to be punished before his death and I agree that an enquiry should be held post death, pre 1980 these things happened in GB on a regular basis and was accepted in a strange kind of way. I'm definately not saying just because it was accepted back then it was right what I am saying is that you can't hold people accountable now because they knew something back then unless it was the most vile of crimes.

Obviously rape is rape and he should of had is cock chopped off.

Don't think there should be a statute of limitations for serious crimes - and rape is definitely a serious crime.  Same goes for anyone harbouring or abetting someone who carried out these crimes - espeically if the victims are still alive and suffering.

You are right Kin and I'm not saying this for the most serious of crimes but where do you draw the line? If you harboured or helped someone to cover up or commit these crimes then yes you should get the book thrown at you, but if just because you knew something happened should you still get punished?

[bobAlike]

I don't understand why past victims are going to the press though first instead of the police? why do we have to know about every little step of the investigation. Its sickening and vile.

In a ridiculous sort of way they dont trust the police???

I was talking to my wife (she's got a psychology degree and counsells children of all ages) about this and without going into too much detail she told me of a client of hers who was seriously abused in the late 70's by a family member. She went to the police and was sent back home and told to stop making stories up. This client's family were even against saying things like 'why do you want to cause trouble for the family'. Back in the day these crimes happened as regularly as they do now but people didn't really take it seriously.

[Acidmouse]

I agree but these days I think its different, for them to go first to the press BEFORE police is wrong, morally and legally.

[horseplayer]

I agree but these days I think its different, for them to go first to the press BEFORE police is wrong, morally and legally.

as somebody said above i would imagine at least some of them DID go to the police and were told to "grow up" or "Wake up"

easy to say report to the police but if you had been told to go away you probably wouldnt trust them for the rest of your life

[Acidmouse]

so what are they gaining from going to the press now? I just do not get it in 2012 them doing this.