Jimmy Savile - A British Horror Story.

[pete lashmar]

I'm not completely sure of the time line but I think the police only became interested once the journalist that was looking into his crimes aired his findings in an ITV documentary. Had the journalist not gone public with his evidence, who knows whether or not the police would have reopened their investigation on Jimmy Savile?

Yes, from the Netflix documentary it was a journalist that used Friends Reunited and saw all the accusations and then followed it up, the cases then started to get reported in the press and to the police and escalated more and more until we got to the true facts of how widespread it was.

Without the internet he may never have been uncovered.

 

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

I used to love watching Jim'll Fix It back in the 1980's.

Now it turns my stomach to think of the hurt he inflicted on his victims.

I will never watch anything with him in it again and that includes any documentary about his evil life.

 

[Willie Oleson]

This comment is only about Part I, but I've seen something similar on youtube so I know what to expect from Part II.
I'm not sure if I had ever heard of Jimmy Savile before the controversy. Maybe in passing or a Top Of The Pops clip in which he featured.
We had our own celebrities doing those kind of shows therefore there was no need to focus on his achievements on Dutch television.
Even before my time in 1962 they did a fundraising TV marathon to build a health care community for handicapped people. Of course it doesn't compare to the magnitude of the Stoke Mandeville project but it happened 10 years earlier in a much smaller nation.

Interesting name, btw. Savile -> As Evil. And suprised it's pronounced as Savill, not Saveele.

So the first part is about the public persona and I didn't know he was that important.
There are many successful entertainers and entrepreneurs in the world, but what really surprised me was to see how he played that persona consistently and exhaustingly.
I mean, even The Beatles didn't actually have to do something when they were in public, but JS could never not be the JS persona, not for a single moment.
Public figures of the authority kind benefited from his success to make themselves look more charismatic, and this is the point when I think "who's using who?".
More jaw-droppingly, he became an adviser to the members of the Royal House!
I mean, oh my god, he really was the British answer to Rasputin! On television!

The crimes are shocking, but I wonder if the biggest shock is in the betrayal.
Every time something like this happens, and it's happened a lot because of MeToo, I don't see a celebrity "who did that", but a celebrity "who got caught".
Despite the many shocking revelations, it instantly makes me think of all the potential celebrity crimes that are not being exposed.
What I mean to say, and this is going to sound very bizarre, it's almost as if their biggest crime is getting caught. Because it ruins it for everybody, not just the evil-doer.
Tiger Woods really ruined it for all the many other adulterous celebrity husbands. And of course they have to play along and say things like "that terrible Tiger Woods, what an awful thing to do".
No, I don't buy it.

At the start of the video it was hinted at that he became this powerful phenomenon in order to do whatever he wanted to do.
But that seems like an extremely elaborate scheme to me.
It's like Ben Carrington saying "I'm going to build myself an empire and then use that to destroy Blake". That's ridiculous.
I wonder if it was the opposite for Jimmy Savile: a monster, a psychopath who used his skills to become a decent human being, even if it was only the façade thereof.

The word "power" is usually connected with the effect it has on people without power, or a tool to protect and maintain a fortune/business, but not what it means to the powerful person him/herself.
I think the most euphoric aspect of power is the feeling of being absolutely untouchable, which is probably the closest we'll ever get to immortality.
This "proves" that, apart from divine power, all human power is inherently wrong - as long as we don't confuse power with authority because authority exists for a good reason. Well, ideally.

JS was very clever to throw the press a few bones. After all, that excuse of "I'm too busy to be married" is not going to be accepted forever.
Even if I consider all the terrible things that had already happened, I think this was the point when his true psychopathic nature became more apparent. Possibly combined with that feeling of being untouchable. It's a brilliant smoke screen and a step ahead of those who were trying to deconstruct the Jimmy Savile myth.
Heck, I can imagine that the confessions of those personality flaws could make him even more relatable.
However, it didn't stop some people from connecting the dots. That was the end of Part I.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Aaand Part II

Just as it happened because of MeToo, they got the ball rolling because of people connecting on the internet.
It would take another (or several) re-investigation(s) and more witnesses to be taken seriously, but at that time Jimmy Savile had already died.
I wonder, would it have mattered if they had arrested him a few years before he died?
Would it really take away everything he's already had, and all the sins he had enjoyed? Would it have been satisfying to humiliate a person who's nearing the end of his ride, a person who's never had a guilty conscience to begin with?

Of course there's the other side of the story and we can only hope that it's brought some peace and closure to the victims who have carried those awful memories for such a long time.
The netflix documentary is different from the one I've watched on youtube. The youtube version was far more horrific as it implied that other adults were involved at the time of the sexual crimes.
I recall a man telling his story of abuse that includes his own family, they would frequently deliver him to Savile and his gang, and he also mentions what and how it happened. Really dark, sick stuff.

The last act of the documentary looks very rushed. We get precisely two public reactions by people on the street - and nothing from other celebrities.
I also think that, had JS been arrested in the 1980s, it would have rubbed off very very badly on some important people who deserved the humiliation.
It's possible that some of them knew but probably not from the very beginning. It's a tricky situation if you want to maintain the status quo.
On the other hand, if Savile had become a serious liability they probably would have killed him in a tragic accident, and they wouldn't even have to feel bad about it.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The youtube version was far more horrific as it implied that other adults were involved at the time of the sexual crimes.
I recall a man telling his story of abuse that includes his own family, they would frequently deliver him to Savile and his gang, and he also mentions what and how it happened. Really dark, sick stuff.

There just seems to be something about powerful men and baby raping. Apparently, it's really a thing. A big, big pattern.

Presumably, it's about malignant narcissism and the taste for basking in unlimited power. Which requires the abuse of the most vulnerable. For its own sake.

The wrongness of it is the entire point (not just a preference for unaged bodies).

I have no doubt that EYES WIDE SHUT is totally real.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Presumably, it's about malignant narcissism and the taste for basking in unlimited power. Which requires the abuse of the most vulnerable

Hm. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the desire to dominate the strongest? Like, gladiator porn? Or is that gay?

I guess there were no forbidden fruits for a man like Savile therefore he created them. It's all about the extreme kink of it.
And if you can't avoid the narrative then make sure to control it. I guess the only way to keep it up was to joke about it and to behave openly provocative.
Kinda like saying: look, this is me on my worst behaviour, no need to look any further than this.
A bad alibi is still an alibi.
And sex humour was very popular in the seventies and eighties so maybe that helped.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Hm. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the desire to dominate the strongest?

It's just about hurting the innocent. For fun. Because they're innocent. It's not about conquering tough, and therefore worthy, victims or adversaries.

I once said on the Jeffrey Epstein thread that: I suspect the child-molestational tendencies of highly-successful men, usually narcissist sociopaths by nature, is not just about an attraction to underaged bodies, but a desire to do it because it's fundamentally wrong (and I don't mean 15 years old adolescents, but pre-pubescents).

In that way, it's akin to murder: a lot of people who kill like to kill specifically because of the wrongness of it... If they could think of anything worse, they'd do that. (And sometimes they do).

It has to do with Luciferian human ego... The parable of Lucifer was that of all of God's creations, Lucifer was the most beautiful, with the greatest potential, because Lucifer was the one creature who had the Knowledge of Good & Evil (like that fig in the Garden of Eden). But possessing the Knowledge of Good & Evil means you have the choice between the two -- a choice often guided, and corrupted, by ego... And when Lucifer first came into consciousness, he looked around the universe, he observed that he himself was indeed the most beautiful and powerful of all of God's creatures --- except for God Himself; so Lucifer felt an immediate resentment of, and sense of competition with, his Creator. Lucifer then set out to rebel against God and all of His moral laws (those laws requiring the valuation of all other life, especially, one assumes, all human life).

Thus, Lucifer was cast out and down to run the Underworld, and run it he does. Life on Earth is the result. Where murder, mass murder, and various other atrocities are committed not despite their wrongness but because of it, causing the perpetrators to feel an adrenalin and endorphin-fueled exhilaration from their evil deeds due to their rejection of God's Will and objective morality. They're trying to feel unlimited autonomy by doing the worst things they can -- because they know it's wrong and desire the damage that it causes.

Do all such perpetrators think this out consciously? Probably not most of them. But that's still what they're doing, and it's still why they're doing it.

Serial killers -- who do belong to the same species as the rest of us -- rarely have any regret or remorse for their actions; in fact, they are usually quite nostalgic about their crimes, elated by the memories... And why? Their narcissistic compulsion to feel that sense of unlimited autonomy only derived by ruining things as thoroughly and as salaciously as possible... It's their way of gleefully saying "eff you!" to God (regardless of whether they think in traditionally religious terms or not). Destruction -- ideally, destruction of the most innocent and the most vulnerable -- is their sincerest desire.

Baby-raping is like that. It's like murder (and, no doubt, some of these victims are murdered). So it's not simply about an attraction to hairless bodies unfettered by age and time... It's a desire to ruin and destroy. For its own sake.

They're trying to create Hell on Earth, for whatever brief time they can, with themselves in control of it. And they like it a whole helluvalot.

And anybody who thinks this theory is a twisted over-analysis isn't paying attention to the planet on which they live.

Everything is Biblical. The Valley of the Shadow of Death is here.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Serial killers -- who do belong to the same species as the rest of us -- rarely have any regret or remorse for their actions

And it would be awkward for them to see a psychiatrist.

Destruction -- ideally, destruction of the most innocent and the most vulnerable -- is their sincerest desire.

Apparently he also molested a brain-dead woman and I wonder, how much is there left to destroy?
And everybody's vulnerable. A man's vulnerability is his Man Card, but it will take more power to destroy him than to destroy a child.
And that's exactly why so many people think they can get away with it. Because it's easier to manipulate a younger victim into silence.
Your link with "power" doesn't quite work for me.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And it would be awkward for them to see a psychiatrist.

Apparently he also molested a brain-dead woman and I wonder, how much is there left to destroy?
And everybody's vulnerable. A man's vulnerability is his Man Card, but it will take more power to destroy him than to destroy a child.
And that's exactly why so many people think they can get away with it. Because it's easier to manipulate a younger victim into silence.
Your link with "power" doesn't quite work for me.

I don't think the culprits are looking for a fair fight.

Not all sex is about power, but sexual abuse is.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Not all sex is about power, but sexual abuse is.

Paedophilia is a sexual orientation, but inherently considered abuse because it's morally, biologically and legally wrong. (just like homosexuality was considered a dangerous and blasphemous perversion for a very long time, and according to many religions it still is).
But the intent of paedophilia isn't necessarily abuse.
Since it's not possible for them to practise their sexual orientation in a normal and legal way, it can only be done in a conniving or aggressive way, to take advantage of the situation.
Sex as a substitute for power can happen in every sexual orientation. I find it hard to believe that all paedophiles do it to satisfy their lust for power.
I'm pretty sure that many of these people would not choose to be the way they are, and the best-case scenario is for them to be on a constant sex-diet.
They shouldn't do it, they shouldn't watch it. They're only allowed to fantasise about it because their thoughts is nobody else's business.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Paedophilia is a sexual orientation, but inherently considered abuse because it's morally, biologically and legally wrong. (just like homosexuality was considered a dangerous and blasphemous perversion for a very long time, and according to many religions it still is).
But the intent of paedophilia isn't necessarily abuse.
Since it's not possible for them to practise their sexual orientation in a normal and legal way, it can only be done in a conniving or aggressive way, to take advantage of the situation.
Sex as a substitute for power can happen in every sexual orientation. I find it hard to believe that all paedophiles do it to satisfy their lust for power.
I'm pretty sure that many of these people would not choose to be the way they are, and the best-case scenario is for them to be on a constant sex-diet.
They shouldn't do it, they shouldn't watch it. They're only allowed to fantasise about it because their thoughts is nobody else's business.

Do you think these organized pedo circles amongst men in power are simply about dudes who like 'em young?

We're not talking about someone finding someone a little too young legally to be a wee bit more attractive "than they should." These are organized rape rings. And of course that's about power and not just preference.

And do you really want to make the comparison between that and gay oppression??

 

[Willie Oleson]

Do you think these organized pedo circles amongst men in power are simply about dudes who like 'em young?

Are you sure that organized pedo circles are always men in power?

These are organized rape rings. And of course that's about power and not just preference.

But if they are powerful men then....they already have power.
Isn't the only true power here in the fact that they know how to get away with it?

And do you really want to make the comparison between that and gay oppression??

Oppression is oppression. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not.

People are complicated and messy, not one-dimensional cartoons. I think you're making it a little bit too easy for yourself.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

But if they are powerful men then....they already have power.

For powerful sociopaths, no power is enough.

Oppression is oppression. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not.

Really?

People are complicated and messy, not one-dimensional cartoons. I think you're making it a little bit too easy for yourself.

You obviously realize your argument is shaky. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making defensive assertions that the deeper, more complex argument is the one that's "one dimensional(ly) cartoon(ish)" or claim that I'm somehow "making it a little easy on (my)self" in some way. (Which makes no sense, and you very well know it).

I'm not doing that to molesters. You're doing that to me.

But what can one expect from a passive-aggressive/oppositional-defiant Sagittarian with a modicum of cleverness?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]