robroy:
He was said to have visited a few homes for foster kids where he was alleged to have taken advantage of some of them, I know if this is true it was wrong to say the least, but I couldn’t help but notice the black humour irony that the spokesman for his family on the news today was called …wait for it…Roger Foster…
At least Roger Moore didn’t speak for them!
Squiddy:
Carryfast. I’m quite shocked at your views. Switchlogic … I’m quite disappointed that you let carryfast get the rise on you YET AGAIN! You’re better than that. He is a troll. Has to be.
I don’t really give a zb wether you’re shocked by my views or not.If I was a troll I wouldn’t bother wasting my time on here telling it like it was and the reasons as to how Savile etc got away with their actions at the time.I think the discussion has moved on a bit since page 7. 
Carryfast:
Squiddy:
Carryfast. I’m quite shocked at your views. Switchlogic … I’m quite disappointed that you let carryfast get the rise on you YET AGAIN! You’re better than that. He is a troll. Has to be.I don’t really give a zb wether you’re shocked by my views or not.If I was a troll I wouldn’t bother wasting my time on here telling it like it was and the reasons as to how Savile etc got away with their actions at the time.I think the discussion has moved on a bit since page 7.
Yet you give a zb enough to defend yourself against the fact that I’m shocked by your views. Usually I would call troll, but you have a reputation so maybe you really do believe in what you’re saying
Squiddy:
Carryfast:
Squiddy:
Carryfast. I’m quite shocked at your views. Switchlogic … I’m quite disappointed that you let carryfast get the rise on you YET AGAIN! You’re better than that. He is a troll. Has to be.I don’t really give a zb wether you’re shocked by my views or not.If I was a troll I wouldn’t bother wasting my time on here telling it like it was and the reasons as to how Savile etc got away with their actions at the time.I think the discussion has moved on a bit since page 7.
Yet you give a zb enough to defend yourself against the fact that I’m shocked by your views. Usually I would call troll, but you have a reputation so maybe you really do believe in what you’re saying
Yes I do believe what I’m saying or I wouldn’t have bothered wasting my time saying it.All the evidence seems to show, that I’ve said nothing,related to the case of Savile’s actions,and the culture that allowed him to get away with it,that isn’t relevant or,arguably,accurate,depending on your point of view.Maybe if you read all 24 pages of the topic instead of just a few you might understand what I’ve said a bit better.
However the question of wether someone is shocked or not by anyone’s views often depends on wether they agree or disagree with those views.The difference is when I don’t agree with someone else’s ‘views’ I’ll argue my side not just whinge and whine about being ‘shocked’ because I don’t agree with something.
Jim’ll Fist It used to be on tv when I was a kid, and mum would often point out how miserable some of the kids were when receiving their badges. “They’re rude and ungrateful” she’d say. Perhaps they had good reason to look miserable if they’d just sucked Mr Pink Cigar on Jimmys’ “Magic Chair”…
^^^^ I remember watching it too and my dad saying a similar thing. It may all well be true, the man con’ed the World
And hearing some of the graphic stories on radio 5 live really made me think how sad and asif I used to watch that man as a child
gary glitter is first to be nicked
kemperink:
gary glitter is first to be nicked
Now thats a shock child molesting ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 
I’m surprised he’s still walking 
kemperink:
gary glitter is first to be nicked
He’ll probably defended by that zb Max Clifford.According to him they were all just ‘young blokes’ back then who never asked for the girls’ birth certificates before giving them one.Young blokes yeah right no surprise mostly,if not all,around Gary Glitter’s (and Prince Charles’) age,if not older like Savile,looking for under age girls to shag and then found them because those groupies weren’t much better than all those zb paedophiles they were shagging.I don’t remember many/any 14-15 or under 18 year old pop stars at the time and none of those birds seemed interested in ‘throwing themselves’ at any blokes of their own age like me,for a decent relationship instead of a quick shag with a 70’s paedo pop star or tv ‘presenter’. 
robroy:
kemperink:
gary glitter is first to be nickedNow thats a shock
Maybe none of them would have still been walking if they’d have ‘invited’ at least ‘some’ of those of us who were the ‘right’ age,and who should have been on TOTP,to give those girls some ‘company’,on the show,at the time. 
That’s assuming those girls would have preferred being chatted up and treated right instead of being taken backstage for a quick one with a paedo instead.
I can’t speak for everyone else but I find it quite disturbing regarding Carryfasts’ constant ranting about stars on TOTP pulling young girls. I’m getting the impression he wishes it was him doing it and I bet I’m not the only one.
Muckaway:
I can’t speak for everyone else but I find it quite disturbing regarding Carryfasts’ constant ranting about stars on TOTP pulling young girls. I’m getting the impression he wishes it was him doing it and I bet I’m not the only one.
You do realise that I’m talking about the early 1970’s when I was 14-15 myself and by ‘decent’ relationship I mean legal.
So you’re saying that any type of contact at all even between teenagers of the same age is the same as what Savile and co were looking for.In which case you’re going to also find the average mixed school disco or under 18’s party equally ‘disturbing’.You’ve really lost the plot.So you’re saying that instead of something decent with someone of their own age that what the BBC decided on and what those girls actually got and seemed to prefer instead was better.
It can’t of been that bad though. You might of been blown out but not everyone was.
There’s a ready mix firm in east London called jim il mix it I wonder if they will change the name.
It is his constant harping on about Prince Charles that gets me, do you reckon Camilla gave him the knock back at a Gymkhana? 
More likely kicked him when she was in a gymkhana
According to the evidence Camilla was never off Charles’ radar even after the ‘marriage’ with Diana. The fact is,as I’ve said,it’s not rocket science to work out all the links between the relevant time when the establishment wanted to get Charles fixed up with a mid teens girl when he was going on 30 and the goings on at the BBC at the time,being used to influence both the general public’s perceptions of the idea of such a relationship and the potential girl herself.
The result was that not only was she groomed into a loveless marriage with an old bloke who didn’t even fancy her enough to want to keep her.Many of the girls used by the establishment in the BBC publicity stunt,concerning same,obviously ended up in the hands of blokes like Savile,Gary Glitter and ‘other’ older pop ‘stars’ who’s agenda seems obvious.
kr79:
It can’t of been that bad though. You might of been blown out but not everyone was.
By the same logic it can’t have all been that bad because not every girl of my own age ended up being got at by a load of old paedo tv ‘presenters’ and pop stars. But it’s no surprise that if any of those groupies did find anyone to marry them afterwards they wouldn’t have wanted to broadcast,what they’d got up to on the BBC etc with Savile etc as teenagers, during the wedding speech 
.Which probably explains why they’ve left it until now to say something.
As for me the fact is it certainly would have been a great help if those BBC TOTP ‘partys’ every week and the open day ‘visits’ to the approved girls school had been more along the lines of a school disco just for those of school age which wasn’t available to me.Instead of them being an obvious excuse for some on camera grooming and by all accounts what seems like an off camera ■■■■■■■■■ between loads of underage teenaged ravers and Savile amongst loads of other old blokes.
That’s in addition to the possibility that the influence on the general population of teenaged girls,of my own age,by such zb going on in the media,then helped a 46 year old divorcee pull a 16 year old bird of my own age,leaving me on the shelf and him with another chance in life.
In the same tone I don’t think I would have wanted some of the things I done when I was younger broadcast at my wedding reception. I’m pretty sure most people wouldn’t either.
kr79:
In the same tone I don’t think I would have wanted some of the things I done when I was younger broadcast at my wedding reception. I’m pretty sure most people wouldn’t either.
But the difference in this case is if they had have done something similar they might have got Savile while the zb was still alive to lock up.Although I’m sure in that case they’d have known the Royal angle would have inevitably been brought into the open and just like all the other examples all the charges would still have been dropped.
But seriously it’s the reasoning,behind the difference,between those girl’s attitudes then,compared to their attitudes now to what went on,which seems to be a missing link which needs explaining. My theory is that they knew what they were doing and they also knew that no bloke with any sense would have wanted a groupy for a wife.
CF, I still cant comprehend your reasoning that 'cos bonnie prince chas wanted a ■■■■■ of Diana (in your opinion) the establishment knew off and endorsed the BBC to fill the TOTP studios with underage girls for the pleasure of a weird environment polluting DJ and his mates. I can well remember those times and to me those girls looked well fit and more than about 15 year old. There’s also a fair bit I wont be including in my memoirs as well, just like a load of others on here, but you will be able to go to your grave knowing that you are pure in heart and body. Personally I wouldn’t want to. How boring would that have been 
