If the girls were underage what is the parents responsibility in this situation ?? Why were underage and unaccopmpanied children allowed on BBC premises ?? and if they were allowed access who then was responsible for their safety.

I am not trying to defend anyone who might have taken advantage of their wealth, power, and position. Rather that any investigations ought to have a wider remit than a single individual and ought to include looking at those who were aware of what was happening but did nothing at the time.

I would agree with (Rocky) Bobby's Girl, and obviously (if these things are true) then Jimmy (& others I'm sure) didn't care if they were underage. I'd also say though that in some cases underage girls can look an awful lot older. I've seen 14/15/16 year old girls in nightclubs before where obviously everyone is supposed to be 18. And I could understand why the doormen had let them in, because if I didn't know they were the age they were I'd have guessed they were around 19/20. Obviously I'm not defending Jimmy as there appears to be an awful lot of allegations which, if true, are indefensible.

Please I am not defending anybody who abuse child a users they are the lowest form of life. But as somebody has said the 1970's have long since pasted and why has it taken all these people to come out with these allegations till he had died.

Very true, the age of consent in the 1970s was 16 and any behaviour of a sexual nature towards the under 16s was illegal as it is now.

What is different is the attitude towards behaviour of a sexual nature towards those who are sexually mature yet still under 16 - today it is a black and white issue, the line is drawn at 15 years and 365 days old (except on leap years) and anyone who crosses that line is liable to be placed on the sex offenders register for some years, its very clear cut and the attitude of the public is very entrenched, its wrong and no-one turns a blind eye to it anymore.

It was different in the 1970s and much as we don't like to admit it the world and this country in particular was still awakening from an age of sexual confinement, an age when, if the internet had been invented, then a topic like this would not have been permitted - there were very concerted efforts by many liberal social groups to have the age of consent lowered to 14 in the early 1970s , very serious efforts made indeed with votes being taken in parliament - one of the proposals being that there should ne NO age of consent but prohibition of certain sexual acts on those under 14.

What is also very obvious now is that there was no culture of whistleblowing, no pointing of fingers because even if you did then no-one would take you seriously, when Esther Rantzen admits that she was aware of acts of this nature but did nothing, at a time when she was hosting the UK's biggest consumer and legal rights show on prime time TV, then you can take it as read that a young girl (or boy for that matter - see Jonathan King) who "made herself available" to an adult would not have the support of the law enforcers when she changed her mind, even though the law was as clear cut as it is today.

Those are unpalatable but true facts and you only need to think about recent and numerous cases involving childrens homes and religious orders to realise that some sectors of society were above the law in this respect.

I would imagine that the reason these women did not come forward sooner could be as follows:
SIR Jimmy OBE. Decorated by the establishment, known for charity fundraising, volunteering at Leeds Hospital, public figure, powerful man. Who is going to take the word of a young girl over his? Lokk at the admiring supporters who lined the streets to wave his coffin off - would you stand against those people and decry him during his life? The abuse would be incredible. Consider those who do nothing more than die in a particularly upsetting or note-worthy fashion. Within minutes, there's a -taking FB hate page, mocking them. Imagine if you stood up against a man who was known PUBLICLY ONLY for doing good? Public villification (such as they are getting now) would be hideous and heap more misery onto the initial abuse.
Failed investigations: In the victims' mind, this probably means he would get away with any accusations/investigations held. This is the reason why, in 2012, the majority of rapes go unreported. In addition, some of the girls were in a home for troubled girls I they already have besmirched reputations. Look at thew testimony of the girl who tried to tella nd got locked in solitary for days until she recanted. Do you think other girls thought it would be worth telling the truth?
Shame/Guilt: it was my fault, I went to his dressing room/camper van/home.

Parental supervision is another matter all together. When I was 13 (in the 80s) I was allowed to go to town alone/ with friends and to the cinema etc. If I'd lived in London, I would probably have been allowed to go to a recording of TOTP - the BBC is regarded as a quality institution, and Savile a harmless eccentric. Again, the onus isn't really on me not to get abused and taken advantage of, the responsibililty lies with the adult.

Furthermore, it wasn't permissive 70s society that stuck its hand in an underage girl's pants. Lay the blame where is belongs: with the abuser. Presumably not all grown men in the 70s were kiddie fiddling, so to blame society is a red herring.

The accusations have figured children as young as 10, and Glitter was kicked out of Thailand for assaulting 10 and 11yr olds, so with them being primary school age, I don't think kiddie is an irrelevant term.
One of the women claims Savile asked her age before shoving his hand up her skirt. He absolutely knew.

Really ?

I didn't hear that bit.

Torygraph. Mostly 13/14/15, but allegedly spent the night in a squalid motel with a child 10-12 years of age. Now THERE, I have to wonder where the parents were!
And I thought the Glitter thing was pretty public knowledge - I realise this thread has been about Savile in the main, but has also covered pop stars of the time who were known to 'like them young'

rlInteresting comment in the Guardian yesterday which takes a similar view to mine ...rl

The whole thing needs a thorough investigation,and if it comes about I think there will be quite a number of household names getting a mention,but it is sickening when I think about the funeral our city gave this man.

McLaren Field, that's a great article and I think it makes some excellent points, BUT I still think a) child abuse is child abuse, no matter whether we called it that at the time and b) people who moan about the besmirching of St Jimmy's good name should give their heads a shake.

I personally havent read anywhere, "people who moan about the besmirching of St Jimmy's good name" ???
certainly not on this forum.

Rather what is troubling is the principle that someone (anyone) can be tried and convicted by the media and that allegations can be made by the very people who were aware of the abuses at the time and did nothing until he was dead.

In my book those very people should be investigated as well.

Spot on DA completely agree!!