Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

l'angelo mysterioso

THE JIMMY SAVILLE THREAD

324 posts in this topic

I'm glad I went to University because some of my mates who did the YTS (mid '80's) were treated terribly. Workplace bullying and abuse seemed to be a right of passage but it still doesn't explain why a number of celebs. were paedophiles.

my maste was a fitter at Ackton Hall colliery. On his first day hee was roasted on the workshop fire.

If you are a female fresher at any given university in the UK the 'rights of passage' can be very distressing.

I went to UNi in the late 70s, nothing like this went on

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/slut-dropping-and-pimps-and-hoes--the-sexual-politics-of-freshers-week-8203400.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the same one in the early 70s, and can confirm that nothing like this went on.

We still all acted like birks though.

it was the early seventies when i went, what was i thinking of.

we probably stood shoulder to shouldfer at the queens hall bar, trying to score two bottles of newcy off maggie slocombe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was the early seventies when i went, what was i thinking of.

we probably stood shoulder to shouldfer at the queens hall bar, trying to score two bottles of newcy off maggie slocombe

I never liked Newcastle Brown. I used to drink half of bitter (Websters I think in the Union Bar) with a bottle of Mackeson combined in a pint glass. Mind you, we often got a bottle of Clan Dew to drink before we went out (to save money!!!)

In 1971/1972:

Beer was 14p a pint in the Union Bar; a curry was 19p in the Sheesh Mahal; grant was £14 per week; we rented a flat just off Lumb Lane at £5 per week between four of us (asked to leave halls of residence B) ). Scoop-neck t-shirts and loon pants about £2.50 (??) apiece. We were the richest working class students that ever lived.

We used to dare each other to go to the Queens pub on Lumb Lane for the last half hour; prostitutes often didn't bother to drink in there ... they just stood leaning against the back wall talking until a bloke came and asked them to go outside. Fifteen minutes later, twenty at most, they'd be back leaning against the wall. You weren't allowed to take your empty glasses back to the bar; they had to be collected by Big Anna ... a huge scary Polish old woman who couldn't talk properly ... and then you had to give her 20p apiece at shut tap. Anna had allegedly been a "patient" in a Nazi experimental hospital; her tragedy still brings a lump to my throat all these years later. We don't know how lucky we are to be born British.

We watched at least two bands every week. I never had to pay at University Great Hall concerts because I did disco lights in the Small Hall ... two different coloured vegetable oils trapped between three microscope glass plates and placed in front of a high powered lamp ... Hey man, we're talking psychedelic bubbles here. Far Out. :happy:

Played rugby league Wednesdays and rugby union Saturdays. One or two Wednesday away trips on the same bus as the Girls Hockey team.

Spent quite a few Friday nights going to the disco, then sleeping on the floor between girls beds in the women's dormitories at Bingley Teachers Training College ... trying to avoid the Matron (very Carry On!!!). Generally thrown out at about 3am and had to wait in freezing cold Bingley centre till 5am when the bus taking Bus Service personnel to work picked us up (no charge) and the busmen all teased us about failing to cop off again (no change there then!! :D )

A gang of schoolgirls doing their A levels at St Josephs College (very posh in those days) used to skive off to come and clean our flat. Fortunately they used to fetch Jackie magazine and suchlike for us to read while they were cleaning. To be fair, we did make them cups of tea and cheese on toast or (our culinary specialism) a bowl of tinned soup with a bag of chips tipped in. One of those girl skivers is now a high powered solicitor. Not sure about the rest, though they were all really nice ... probably have horses, at least two houses and play golf.

My flatmates were Sunderland fans. Two of them got arrested for stealing a red-and-white roadworks plank. When arrested, they were stood holding it upright while standing in the queue of people waiting for the bus home! Then Sunderland got to the FA Cup Final; one of them dug out his suitcase ready for the trip to London and found an unpleasant "present" left in it by another lad who came to stay at weekends ... clue; it was brown and pointed at both ends. Forty years later, the lad in question denies to this day that it was him who did it. The lad with the suitcase has been married for over thirty years to the Bingley College student that he copped off with.

We are all still friends and about a dozen of us have a reunion in Bradford every other year at August Bank Holiday, including one who's the chief executive of a large medical company who comes over from Canada. We have all had reasonably successful careers. One of the lads who purloined the plank is a professor.

I can't think why I got a rubbish degree!!

I think "What Me And My Mates Got Up To As Students" would be a good thread for the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never liked Newcastle Brown. I used to drink half of bitter (Websters I think in the Union Bar) with a bottle of Mackeson combined in a pint glass. Mind you, we often got a bottle of Clan Dew to drink before we went out (to save money!!!)

In 1971/1972:

Beer was 14p a pint in the Union Bar; a curry was 19p in the Sheesh Mahal; grant was £14 per week; we rented a flat just off Lumb Lane at £5 per week between four of us (asked to leave halls of residence B) ). Scoop-neck t-shirts and loon pants about £2.50 (??) apiece. We were the richest working class students that ever lived.

We used to dare each other to go to the Queens pub on Lumb Lane for the last half hour; prostitutes often didn't bother to drink in there ... they just stood leaning against the back wall talking until a bloke came and asked them to go outside. Fifteen minutes later, twenty at most, they'd be back leaning against the wall. You weren't allowed to take your empty glasses back to the bar; they had to be collected by Big Anna ... a huge scary Polish old woman who couldn't talk properly ... and then you had to give her 20p apiece at shut tap. Anna had allegedly been a "patient" in a Nazi experimental hospital; her tragedy still brings a lump to my throat all these years later. We don't know how lucky we are to be born British.

We watched at least two bands every week. I never had to pay at University Great Hall concerts because I did disco lights in the Small Hall ... two different coloured vegetable oils trapped between three microscope glass plates and placed in front of a high powered lamp ... Hey man, we're talking psychedelic bubbles here. Far Out. :happy:

Played rugby league Wednesdays and rugby union Saturdays. One or two Wednesday away trips on the same bus as the Girls Hockey team.

Spent quite a few Friday nights going to the disco, then sleeping on the floor between girls beds in the women's dormitories at Bingley Teachers Training College ... trying to avoid the Matron (very Carry On!!!). Generally thrown out at about 3am and had to wait in freezing cold Bingley centre till 5am when the bus taking Bus Service personnel to work picked us up (no charge) and the busmen all teased us about failing to cop off again (no change there then!! :D )

A gang of schoolgirls doing their A levels at St Josephs College (very posh in those days) used to skive off to come and clean our flat. Fortunately they used to fetch Jackie magazine and suchlike for us to read while they were cleaning. To be fair, we did make them cups of tea and cheese on toast or (our culinary specialism) a bowl of tinned soup with a bag of chips tipped in. One of those girl skivers is now a high powered solicitor. Not sure about the rest, though they were all really nice ... probably have horses, at least two houses and play golf.

My flatmates were Sunderland fans. Two of them got arrested for stealing a red-and-white roadworks plank. When arrested, they were stood holding it upright while standing in the queue of people waiting for the bus home! Then Sunderland got to the FA Cup Final; one of them dug out his suitcase ready for the trip to London and found an unpleasant "present" left in it by another lad who came to stay at weekends ... clue; it was brown and pointed at both ends. Forty years later, the lad in question denies to this day that it was him who did it. The lad with the suitcase has been married for over thirty years to the Bingley College student that he copped off with.

We are all still friends and about a dozen of us have a reunion in Bradford every other year at August Bank Holiday, including one who's the chief executive of a large medical company who comes over from Canada. We have all had reasonably successful careers. One of the lads who purloined the plank is a professor.

I can't think why I got a rubbish degree!!

I think "What Me And My Mates Got Up To As Students" would be a good thread for the forum.

go for it

I went to Macs an outstation of Leeds Uni to do teacher training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In April 1978, Harriet Harman wrote the NCCL’s response to the Protection of Children Bill, which was put before Parliament in order to tighten the laws on child pornography by banning indecent images of under-16s. She suggested that pornographic photographs or films of children should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In April 1978, Harriet Harman wrote the NCCL’s response to the Protection of Children Bill, which was put before Parliament in order to tighten the laws on child pornography by banning indecent images of under-16s. She suggested that pornographic photographs or films of children should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.

Unbelievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently one well known bbc broadcaster has also said it was well known that the childrens favourite "uncle dick"has he called him was also abusing kids too.It can only be uncle Mac I remember him being on in the 50s and 60s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently one well known bbc broadcaster has also said it was well known that the childrens favourite "uncle dick"has he called him was also abusing kids too.It can only be uncle Mac I remember him being on in the 50s and 60s.

Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently one well known bbc broadcaster has also said it was well known that the childrens favourite "uncle dick"has he called him was also abusing kids too.It can only be uncle Mac I remember him being on in the 50s and 60s.

Internet gossip has it down to someone a bit younger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the appalling dave Lee Travis has spent a week denying that he was involved in aanything offside when he was at the beeb.

according to this week's Private Eye, there was an official instruction that he wasn nevee to be allowed to be alone with a woman whilst on BBC property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*And* he was a Catholic http://www.catholich...ing-daily-mass/

That raises some interesting questions; was he driven to do all the good things he did out of good old fashioned catholic guilt, acknowledging deep down to himself that he wa a bad person? It also begs the question, in the light of what we know now what do we make of all his efforts for charity, do we dismiss them? Are they now unimportant? I supposed you'd have to ask all those who have benefitted over the years about that, but it is something of a quandary. It is somewhat reminiscent of the Dennis Potter play, "Brimstone and Treacle" which still messes with my head when i think about it. The play questions if something evil results in something good is it still evil. Saville seems a bit like this; extreme good and extreme bad at one and the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That raises some interesting questions; was he driven to do all the good things he did out of good old fashioned catholic guilt, acknowledging deep down to himself that he wa a bad person? It also begs the question, in the light of what we know now what do we make of all his efforts for charity, do we dismiss them? Are they now unimportant? I supposed you'd have to ask all those who have benefitted over the years about that, but it is something of a quandary. It is somewhat reminiscent of the Dennis Potter play, "Brimstone and Treacle" which still messes with my head when i think about it. The play questions if something evil results in something good is it still evil. Saville seems a bit like this; extreme good and extreme bad at one and the same time.

people didn't have to suffer though did they? savile could have done his charitable things come what may. The idea that you can 'buy' your evil actions via someperverted yin and yang pact with the devil can't be right. If Savile thought that and it was his motivation for doing his charitable works then that makes him more evil, since he has exploited the people who benefitted for his ownj evil ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't know why Saville did charitable works: maybe it was to ease his conscience, maybe it was simply to gain opportunities to abuse, maybe it was just good publicity, maybe (unlikely) he actually thought that it was the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't know why Saville did charitable works: maybe it was to ease his conscience, maybe it was simply to gain opportunities to abuse, maybe it was just good publicity, maybe (unlikely) he actually thought that it was the right thing to do.

or a combination of all the above. IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my maste was a fitter at Ackton Hall colliery. On his first day hee was roasted on the workshop fire.

If you are a female fresher at any given university in the UK the 'rights of passage' can be very distressing.

I went to UNi in the late 70s, nothing like this went on

http://www.independe...ek-8203400.html

Nothing like that went on in the mid 90s either. But we did have a pretty wild time, and I imagine you could easily have written stories that made out that things like that went on. There was a sluts and vicars party that I recall. Not tasteful, but we were all 19 for God's sake.

I do recall that freshers were considered fair game by both genders. One of my (male) friends hooked up early with a very attractive Rhodes scholar from Canada who was five years older and spent most of the next two terms in bed with her. I know for a fact that he looks back on those times very fondly. I also know for a fact that a number of women look back fondly on the tricks she taught him.

For a long time, the women in the college maintained a book containing a record of their sexual encounters, complete with grades for the chap's technique and ability. I've seen it, but wasn't allowed to read it. I am assured, by my wife, that no man has ever read it. Switch that around, make it the men marking the women and it could be construed to be deeply unpleasant. But it wasn't. It was just 20 years being daft.

One of the big problems here, it seems to me, is the definition of "unwanted sexual contact" It could include all sorts of things that range from genuinely disturbing events driven by misogyny that need dealing with swiftly and harshly, to the upsetting, but generally harmless, clumsiness of 18 year old boys who are still nervously working out how to approach women sexually, combined with 18 year old girls who are trying to do the same thing in the opposite direction.

The plain fact is, as people work this stuff out in their late teens and early twenties, there is going to be unwanted sexual contact from time to time and people are going to get upset about it. What matters is how far that goes before it stops and how much respect the people involved have for each other.

Having said all that, it is worth noting that in my time there were a couple of men whose behaviour in this area was generally regarded as unpleasant. They were largely ridiculed as I recall. One of them is now a somewhat infamous Tory MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the key is largely about power here. The women you mentioned had power in numbers. The men I think of had power in their positions in the workplace. Jimmy Savile had power in celebrity. The important factor here, IMO, is for the focus to be on ensuring that no matter how much power a person may have, they never have enough to be able to 'take liberties' without there being appropriate consequences and that those they are 'taking liberties' with, know they can ensure those consequences are brought about.

I absolutely agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like that went on in the mid 90s either. But we did have a pretty wild time, and I imagine you could easily have written stories that made out that things like that went on. There was a sluts and vicars party that I recall. Not tasteful, but we were all 19 for God's sake.

I do recall that freshers were considered fair game by both genders. One of my (male) friends hooked up early with a very attractive Rhodes scholar from Canada who was five years older and spent most of the next two terms in bed with her. I know for a fact that he looks back on those times very fondly. I also know for a fact that a number of women look back fondly on the tricks she taught him.

For a long time, the women in the college maintained a book containing a record of their sexual encounters, complete with grades for the chap's technique and ability. I've seen it, but wasn't allowed to read it. I am assured, by my wife, that no man has ever read it. Switch that around, make it the men marking the women and it could be construed to be deeply unpleasant. But it wasn't. It was just 20 years being daft.

One of the big problems here, it seems to me, is the definition of "unwanted sexual contact" It could include all sorts of things that range from genuinely disturbing events driven by misogyny that need dealing with swiftly and harshly, to the upsetting, but generally harmless, clumsiness of 18 year old boys who are still nervously working out how to approach women sexually, combined with 18 year old girls who are trying to do the same thing in the opposite direction.

The plain fact is, as people work this stuff out in their late teens and early twenties, there is going to be unwanted sexual contact from time to time and people are going to get upset about it. What matters is how far that goes before it stops and how much respect the people involved have for each other.

Having said all that, it is worth noting that in my time there were a couple of men whose behaviour in this area was generally regarded as unpleasant. They were largely ridiculed as I recall. One of them is now a somewhat infamous Tory MP.

I spent my entire three years70-73 looking for love, finding it and then losing it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who?

he was quite a legend in the 50s and 60s and even the 40s I think.He used to present a childrens radio record request program on a saturday morning.Anyway a well know news correspondent has said it was common knowledge throughout the beeb that he was at it too.He called him uncle dick,but the CID dont have to be called in to know who he was referring to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet gossip has it down to someone a bit younger.

Really!well if thats true I offer my posthumous apologies to uncle Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That raises some interesting questions; was he driven to do all the good things he did out of good old fashioned catholic guilt, acknowledging deep down to himself that he wa a bad person? It also begs the question, in the light of what we know now what do we make of all his efforts for charity, do we dismiss them? Are they now unimportant? I supposed you'd have to ask all those who have benefitted over the years about that, but it is something of a quandary. It is somewhat reminiscent of the Dennis Potter play, "Brimstone and Treacle" which still messes with my head when i think about it. The play questions if something evil results in something good is it still evil. Saville seems a bit like this; extreme good and extreme bad at one and the same time.

Maybe it goes back the indulgencies they had in pre reformation times,where wealthy noblemen and land owners would build churches and donate land for monastries to be built,in order to buy grace fr themselves to get to heaven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent my entire three years70-73 looking for love, finding it and then losing it again.

Isn't that a blues record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017