MovieChat Forums > Happy Valley (2014) Discussion > Catherine mentioning Jimmy Savile!

Catherine mentioning Jimmy Savile!


Catherine told Frances that she wouldn't have gone for Tommy if he looked like Ian Brady or Jimmy Savile.

Duff line. Jimmy Savile got away with what he did precisely because people did find him attractive (bizarre but true). And presumably Myra Hindley fancied Ian Brady back in the 1960s. Think again Catherine.

reply

Yes!

That did not go unnoticed by newspaper reviewers, too.

Cor! As one news writer said about Auntie Beeb, that was "BOLD!"

Wow, talk about indicting yourself openly for having such an alleged abuser within the ranks.

Wonder how many discussions there were in the writer's room and with producers before that was allowed in the script.

reply

Surprised they didn't use that opportunity for one last shot at Jeremy Clarkson. Hey Beeb, how's that working out for you with Top Gear gone? ;-)

I think my percentage of Chimp DNA is higher than others. Cleaver Greene

reply

Savile got away with what he did mainly because he could (being a popular tv presenter) and because so many people turned a blind eye to it for decades.

You've got to know the rules before you can break 'em. Otherwise, it's no fun. - Sonny Crockett

reply

^^^ This. I don't think Savile's getting away with it was because anyone found him attractive.




I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

reply

Hated that inclusion, whether he was guilty or not, I have yet to see any concrete evidence for all these accusations, and he certainly has not been found guilty in a court of law; the others had.



Only those with no valid argument pick holes in people's spelling and grammar. 

reply

Oh please...you are kidding right? Hitler was never found guilty in a court of law so I suppose that's ok too?

I have found within the ranks of Happy Valley posters a higher than average idiot rating. It's as if Happy valley is the UK equivalent of something like The Walking Dead board where the sexist (both ways), the deviant and the trolls are finding a home. They must have migrated from The Fall board between series. So many are looking to be offended by x, y and z, so they can parade their offense like a badge and blame men or Women for all their ills. Oh, and Jimmy Savile was a nonce and a rapist, the worst of his kind, deal with it. Using fame and influence to get away with it for decades. Don't make a fool of yourself for even seeming to be an apologist.

'tler

reply

I have yet to see any concrete evidence for all these accusations


But the people investigating the claims have. Fred West was never convicted in a court of law either, so I suppose we should continue to presume him innocent.


I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

reply

She also said he was 'pretty', which Saville and Brady weren't, so it wasn't a duff line. I think that the point the writer was making was that despite Royce being a monster, like Saville and Brady, he is, in a very significant way, different to those two.

reply

I'm a heterosexual male so maybe not the best judge, but was 1960s Ian Brady not a good-looking guy?

reply

I think Brady just looks like a creep! He was known in his neighbourhood under the nicknames "Dracula" & "The Undertaker" because of his old fashioned 3 piece suits & very long coats & that was a long time before they found out he was a murderer. Brady was also really anti-social even to his work colleagues & even his boss. From what I have read he sounds like a right weirdo!

I cannot live without my life! I cannot live without my soul....... Heathcliff, Wuthering Heights

reply

Brady circa 1960's was average-looking.

reply

I'm a heterosexual male so maybe not the best judge, but was 1960s Ian Brady not a good-looking guy?



He had pretty-ish facial features when he was young.
______________________
“Daydreaming subverts the world.” ~ Raoul Vaneigem

reply

I don't know anyone at all who found Jimmy Saville "attractive" That has nothing to do with his crimes but to do with the fact was a odd looking bugger.


reply

But the people investigating the claims have.


Have they? Is this the same evidence that claimbed he was doing things with terminally ill people and even the deceased? What evidence is there here, Doris Stokes?

Whatever supposed to have happened happen many many years ago. What evidance is it? filmed, recorded. Other than that you have hearsay nothing more.

Without a confession it is one persons word against another, and one of those people has died and it was AFTER his death that suddenly all these claims came about.

Guilty or not, nobody in the public has seen a lick of evidence against him, as such, his name should not have been used in this program.

Put it another way, would you execute some one because some poeple SAID he did things 40 - 50 years ago with out concrete evidence?

As her the Hitler comment, there was more than enough REAL evidence.

Only those with no valid argument pick holes in people's spelling and grammar. 

reply

You don't regard the testimonies of those abused as evidence? The statement of the police officer who sought to blow the whistle because of what he knew? One of his chums was in fact prosecuted (and convicted) and Savile identified as one of the people taking part in the abuse. The chum certainly didn't seek to exonerate him, as he certainly could have.

It wasn't me who brought up a court of law; I simply pointed out that it wasn't in fact an indicator of innocence.


I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

reply

I think she meant how they looked now/at the end of their lives ie disgusting. Savile was not an attractive man, are you kidding me? Fred West was disgusting too. Ian Brady today probably looks rather wretched.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Higgins was right.
http://www.facebook.com/BringZackBack

reply

You don't regard the testimonies of those abused as evidence? The statement of the police officer who sought to blow the whistle because of what he knew? One of his chums was in fact prosecuted (and convicted) and Savile identified as one of the people taking part in the abuse. The chum certainly didn't seek to exonerate him, as he certainly could have.


No, I would call that accusations, not evidence and certianly not proof.

This would have to be judged in a court of law, and it seems a little odd that even after all this time no court case has happened, people can be tried in absentia, I assume there just isn't suffcient evidence for this.

But remember the original point I made, those others were PROVEN guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', the mentioning of Saville is just a buzz name of the moment.

Has regarding Fred West, on the documenteries that I have seen, would it suprise you to learn that most of his victems were originally willing? for some bizarre reason, not only did they find him attractive enough to go home with, have sex with even though he had a wife, but then to get involved in there kinky sex session, which, was initially instigated by Rose West. Whatever it was they saw in this man it is how he (and wife) managed to trap so many young girls. It just turns out that copious amount of sex with young girls in thier 20's wasn't enough for these people and they wanted more and more to the point they had to use their own daughters.




Only those with no valid argument pick holes in people's spelling and grammar. 

reply

my advice to people is to leave this thread alone. People like nimmy are far too prevalent on imdb. Attention seekers with warped little minds. Not just that, but they are looking for an argument, only the most attention starved mind would want an argument over whether Savile committed crimes. Like an irritating 13 year old making daft statements to visitors so that they get noticed.

The good thing is you can always put them on ....Block

'tler

reply

people can be tried in absentia


He isn't absent, he's dead. Being tried post mortem isn't really the same thing, is it?

would it suprise you to learn that most of his victems were originally willing?


Well he would say that, wouldn't he? They're dead, they can't speak for themselves. In any case I'm pretty sure they didn't consent to being killed and buried in the cellar or back yard; Heather sure as hell wasn't just an unfortunate victim of sex games gone wrong, was she? And he'd killed long before the goings on at Cromwell Street. The fact remains that he is accepted as a killer without ever being convicted in a court of law, an criterion you seem to think is essential. Beyond that I really don't see what point you're trying to make in referring to the victims' alleged sexual proclivities or what that has to do with Savile, many of whose victims weren't legally able to consent to anything at all.


I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

reply