Now its Rolf Harris.

[Buce]

Say it ain't so...not cliff.. I thought he was still a virgin.

Didn't he bone Una Stubbs?

[johnny the fox]

Didn't he bone Una Stubbs?

No way. they all slept in separate tents on summer holiday.. ask melvyn hayes.

[Steven]

No way. they all slept in separate tents on summer holiday.. ask melvyn hayes.

Did he bone Melvyn Hayes?

[johnny the fox]

Did he bone Melvyn Hayes?

Well if he did ,he must of had a good reason.

[MPH]

A lot of speculation on the web that it's Cliff Richard.

I had read that too. He apparently frequented the hostel often that a lot of the alleged peado crimes took place..

[WhatsHisName]

''Leon Brittan Exclusive: Tory peer questioned by police over rape allegation'' http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-lord-brittan-questioned-by-police-over-rape-allegation-9587245.html

''Police raid offices in parliament of Labour peer Lord Janner as part of inquiry in historic child sex abuse claims''http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665005/Police-raid-offices-parliament-Labour-peer-Lord-Janner-inquiry-historic-child-sex-abuse-claims.html

May 'to outline wide-ranging child abuse inquiry'

Westminster child abuse allegations: Theresa May to make Commons statement http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/westminster-child-abuse-allegations-theresa-may-to-make-commons-statement-9588363.html

[Guest MattP]

Surely only a may matter of time before Cliff is pulled in.

[Finnegan]

Say it ain't so

Calm down he's not even sixty yet.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I cannot be bothered to see if it's been mentioned here already but someone who's come up in rumours before is about the right age and arguably fits the 'darling of the BBC' description, well better than Sir Cliff anyway.

Only noteworthy in that it came from my journalist friend who mentioned Rolf long before the handcuffs clicked shut. I don't really believe it, but I didn't really believe it about Rolf to start with either

[Mike Oxlong]

David Cameron saying on the news "We are absolutely determined to get to the bottom of this"

Errm, I think you'll find your predecessors got there before you mate!

[FoxesAreBlue]

I'm sorry.

I know this is a few days old now but this just has me in stitches every time I think of it!

It just... I don't know... "fits".

That alligator/croc photo is just perfect!

[The Horse's Mouth]

Jesus Christ, these jokes are even worse than the Savile lot.

[Orkneyfox]

Fortunately Terry Wogan is 75!

Looking at celebs born those years it is shocking to see several famous ladies for whom I had a fancy now being that age e.g Faye Dunaway and Julie Christie.

[Orkneyfox]

Surely only a may matter of time before Cliff is pulled in.

or off?

[separator]

Surely only a may matter of time before Cliff is pulled in.

A video for the conspiracy theorists maybe... Cliff Richard, Jill Dando murder, paedophile rings... time will tell I guess...

[yorkie1999]

She could have done a much better thing by telling the police at the time. I'm amazed in this case and in the Savile case how it was just an open secret that he was sexually assaulting people and nobody did anything about it.

I don't think the police would have taken much notice of someone who was a sex advice columnist for men only and had just written a book called "What are these strawberry's doing on my nipples, i need them for the fruit salad"....

[Alf Bentley]

Re. Saville, there's an interesting interview here with John Lydon (Johnny Rotten) dating from 1978 (!):

(jump to 0:50 - 1:30 for the Saville bit)

Apparently it was recorded for BBC Radio but wasn't broadcast.

OK, Lydon was in the music industry so in the position to hear a few rumours from mutual contacts, but he'd have hardly been moving in the same circles as Saville. So, you'd have to assume that some people who did move in the same circles as Saville must have known a hell of a lot.....and said nothing, as many clearly did with Harris, too.

I can understand people who were abused feeling too vulnerable and powerless to reveal anything, but what does it say about humanity that even secure, middle-aged people with professional careers kept their lips zipped?

[Bellend Sebastian]

Re. Saville, there's an interesting interview here with John Lydon (Johnny Rotten) dating from 1978 (!):

(jump to 0:50 - 1:30 for the Saville bit)

Apparently it was recorded for BBC Radio but wasn't broadcast.

OK, Lydon was in the music industry so in the position to hear a few rumours from mutual contacts, but he'd have hardly been moving in the same circles as Saville. So, you'd have to assume that some people who did move in the same circles as Saville must have known a hell of a lot.....and said nothing, as many clearly did with Harris, too.

I can understand people who were abused feeling too vulnerable and powerless to reveal anything, but what does it say about humanity that even secure, middle-aged people with professional careers kept their lips zipped?

The more of these things that come out, the more I think that people's default position when confronted with something wrong is to pretend it's not happening.

We're fantastic at demanding justice (from a distance) and there's never any shortage of people to bang on the sides of the G4S van as it takes the suspect to and from court, but to be the one that points the finger in the first place, therefore opening yourself up to scrutiny and presumably by default becoming a witness isn't especially attractive. In cases where it's someone famous/powerful/famous and powerful it's even more of a turn off.

At work and in other spheres I've seen first hand countless times where things have been brushed under the carpet for the sake of an easier life - perfectly predictable behaviour when the misdemeanours are small and twatty, but on the odd occasions when it's been more serious - and on one occasion when it was very serious (not involving anything of a sexual nature, I hasten to add) the response was exactly the same - hope that it's a one off, nothing bad comes of it and we can all move on and forget it.

I'm no Norman Tebbit fan, but I respected his honesty when he said this week that there was evidence of inappropriate stuff going on in Westminster, but the first instinct was to protect the establishment and not rock the boat, so to speak. With someone like Saville, who's going all over the country being a wrong 'un, it's even harder, because you've probably got dozens or even hundreds of people who see a bit of something funny going on but not the whole picture - it never gets to a level where people think they have no choice but to act. If it was that widely known there was probably a lot of folk hoping that someone else would grass him up rather than them having to do it.

A lot's been said about folk coming out of the woodwork after these things come out, and getting slagged off for not saying something sooner, or being accused of just doing it for money (which for me as often as not says as much about the life motives of the person making that assertion as who it's being leveled at), but it's infinitely easier to speak out once you know it's not just you saying something

[Alf Bentley]

The more of these things that come out, the more I think that people's default position when confronted with something wrong is to pretend it's not happening.

We're fantastic at demanding justice (from a distance) and there's never any shortage of people to bang on the sides of the G4S van as it takes the suspect to and from court, but to be the one that points the finger in the first place, therefore opening yourself up to scrutiny and presumably by default becoming a witness isn't especially attractive. In cases where it's someone famous/powerful/famous and powerful it's even more of a turn off.

[...]

I'm no Norman Tebbit fan, but I respected his honesty when he said this week that there was evidence of inappropriate stuff going on in Westminster, but the first instinct was to protect the establishment and not rock the boat, so to speak. With someone like Saville, who's going all over the country being a wrong 'un, it's even harder, because you've probably got dozens or even hundreds of people who see a bit of something funny going on but not the whole picture - it never gets to a level where people think they have no choice but to act. If it was that widely known there was probably a lot of folk hoping that someone else would grass him up rather than them having to do it.

A lot's been said about folk coming out of the woodwork after these things come out, and getting slagged off for not saying something sooner, or being accused of just doing it for money (which for me as often as not says as much about the life motives of the person making that assertion as who it's being leveled at), but it's infinitely easier to speak out once you know it's not just you saying something

Re. the bit in bold: It wouldn't necessarily have required someone to go to the police and testify in court, or to know the whole picture. If even a small number of people had gone to their line management to say that Saville was having sex with underage kids, then management would have been in a position to do something about it - even if it was only warning him about his conduct and ensuring that others kept an eye on him, rather than involving the police.

I do think that part of the explanation is a shift in attitudes over recent decades. Although sex with pre-pubescent children would have been seen as despicable in the 70s/80s and breaching the age of consent (16) was a crime, my recollection is that there was a significant minority, at least, of men who would have seen sex with 14 or 15-year-old girls as no more than "a bit naughty" at worst. I certainly remember several men feeling confident enough, in public, to repeat the old saying that "if there's grass on the pitch, she's old enough to play"...and I came from a reasonably sheltered background.

I'm sure Tebbit is right that the establishment's instinct would have been to cover things up - and maybe Saville's bosses would have done likewise, but would they really have been able to do nothing if several people came to them with similar stories about him? Even though attitudes may have been different, he was still committing crimes.

If Lydon, then a 21-year-old punk rock singer who had little contact with Saville, clearly knew what was going on, then it's reasonable to assume that quite a lot of other people knew even more. If Lydon was prepared to go on record about it, why weren't any of those other people prepared at least to report it to management, if not the police? Presumably many of them were people of more mature age with responsible positions and personal credibility. I take your point that many would have opted to keep their heads down and hope that someone else dealt with it.....but for everyone to take that approach?!?

I agree with your final point - that it's hard to be the first to step forward. But there must have been dozens of people who either saw something dodgy going on or were reliably informed about it. I've not paid close attention to the detail of these cases, but I did see someone interviewed who admitted having seen Saville emerge from the back of his van where he'd clearly been screwing an obviously under-age girl. I think the bloke just said something like "She looks a bit young, Jim!, and he effectively replied "So what?". Maybe I'm wrong and only that bloke and John Lydon knew what was going on....but it seems more likely that many dozens of people knew. Why did none of them do anything effective about it? Maybe I'm just a naive idealist?

Take an extreme parallel, though: when the Nazis took over Germany and then France, some people joined in with the atrocities and many just kept their heads down, but some others did try to combat them by various means....a much more personally perilous course of action than just reporting one (admittedly powerful) man who might harm your career...

Hopefully the enquiry will explain how such conduct could continue unobstructed for decades.

[fuchsntf]

I doubt very much that it's a one generation thing. It has always happened and will always happen. I'm ashamed to say it as human being but this kind of thing is a part of human nature it's what people are born with, and as long as those kind of people become rich and famouse they will use that fame and fortune to indulge their sexual preferences. The only difference is that the powers that be have seen fit to do something about it this time around . but it won't stop it.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Stuff like the age of consent is a relatively modern construct, and although intended to protect younger folk it doesn't take people's urges away. Where the problem seems to come is in situations where people get into positions of power over their targets - be it an MP in Westminster, a Radio 1 DJ inexplicably given the run of institutions, some priests running a children's home, and (probably most depressing of all), domineering parents in dysfunctional families etc etc, where you basically do whatever the **** you like because who's going to stop you? Our indulgence of celebrity certainly seems to have strengthened the position of the likes of Harris* and Saville, to the point it's hard to get your head round.

*Rolf not Keith

I agree really with both of you.

Its just out of frustration, that this generation was the 'love not war', the time youth was to be heard,

Children and abused organisations, really started to take off, womens movements.We started to understand, that honour

In a title, was meaningless that doctors and lawyers, were no better or worse than ourselves.

Even our parents, the war generation, knew and realised the propaganda was open to interpretation in the various newspapers, and taught their children, to read between the lines, whether broadsheets, or redtops.

We somehow believed the 60s the 70s new openess of our society,and press would stop or prevent, all types of corruption, hidden abuse at all levels. One question that must come up, with all the journalists who easily whipped up

Sleasy stories of the times, missed this, or were other criminal activities conveniently ignored.

Papers like the People, The Sketch, News of the world, The Sun, never picked up on it.Whos foot was on editors necks.

Celebrities who had an idea, but were warned off.

Freedom doesnt seem to prevent suppression, from above.

[WhatsHisName]

OK, Lydon was in the music industry so in the position to hear a few rumours from mutual contacts, but he'd have hardly been moving in the same circles as Saville. So, you'd have to assume that some people who did move in the same circles as Saville must have known a hell of a lot.....and said nothing, as many clearly did with Harris, too.

I can understand people who were abused feeling too vulnerable and powerless to reveal anything, but what does it say about humanity that even secure, middle-aged people with professional careers kept their lips zipped?

''The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'' ~Edmund Burke

It was gossip amongst many people. with some knowing more than others, but NOBODY did anything !.

[sphericalfox]

Re. the bit in bold: It wouldn't necessarily have required someone to go to the police and testify in court, or to know the whole picture. If even a small number of people had gone to their line management to say that Saville was having sex with underage kids, then management would have been in a position to do something about it - even if it was only warning him about his conduct and ensuring that others kept an eye on him, rather than involving the police.

I do think that part of the explanation is a shift in attitudes over recent decades. Although sex with pre-pubescent children would have been seen as despicable in the 70s/80s and breaching the age of consent (16) was a crime, my recollection is that there was a significant minority, at least, of men who would have seen sex with 14 or 15-year-old girls as no more than "a bit naughty" at worst. I certainly remember several men feeling confident enough, in public, to repeat the old saying that "if there's grass on the pitch, she's old enough to play"...and I came from a reasonably sheltered background.

I'm sure Tebbit is right that the establishment's instinct would have been to cover things up - and maybe Saville's bosses would have done likewise, but would they really have been able to do nothing if several people came to them with similar stories about him? Even though attitudes may have been different, he was still committing crimes.

If Lydon, then a 21-year-old punk rock singer who had little contact with Saville, clearly knew what was going on, then it's reasonable to assume that quite a lot of other people knew even more. If Lydon was prepared to go on record about it, why weren't any of those other people prepared at least to report it to management, if not the police? Presumably many of them were people of more mature age with responsible positions and personal credibility. I take your point that many would have opted to keep their heads down and hope that someone else dealt with it.....but for everyone to take that approach?!?

I agree with your final point - that it's hard to be the first to step forward. But there must have been dozens of people who either saw something dodgy going on or were reliably informed about it. I've not paid close attention to the detail of these cases, but I did see someone interviewed who admitted having seen Saville emerge from the back of his van where he'd clearly been screwing an obviously under-age girl. I think the bloke just said something like "She looks a bit young, Jim!, and he effectively replied "So what?". Maybe I'm wrong and only that bloke and John Lydon knew what was going on....but it seems more likely that many dozens of people knew. Why did none of them do anything effective about it? Maybe I'm just a naive idealist?

Take an extreme parallel, though: when the Nazis took over Germany and then France, some people joined in with the atrocities and many just kept their heads down, but some others did try to combat them by various means....a much more personally perilous course of action than just reporting one (admittedly powerful) man who might harm your career...

Hopefully the enquiry will explain how such conduct could continue unobstructed for decades.

I think you the reason why people didn't take this open secret to the press/police is that the circle of 'friends' that Saville had who themselves were involved with all looked after each other. I have no doubt in my mind when someone went to their boss and said, you'll never guess what Jimmy is doing, they were told to shut up if they wanted a quiet life, and to keep their job in the industry, Jimmy has some 'powerful friends'.

At the minute this review of where the missing files have gone will take years and years to come out. Behind the scenes straws are being selected, or selected names being chosen on whom to hang out to dry to save the others from recrimination and justice.

These files, if they ever show up, and I'm doubtful, will be heavily stripped down to save the dignity of no doubt some higher than high individuals.

[Grandad.]

A video for the conspiracy theorists maybe... Cliff Richard, Jill Dando murder, paedophile rings... time will tell I guess...

Sickening.

I said from day one Cliff will be named, I remember hearing when this all came out that Cliff was going to be the next big name and Police were in fact due to fly out to Barbados to question him, then again it all went quiet.

There has always been something about Cliff, before I watched that video that made me think he was a nonce, now I'm sure of it.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Re. the bit in bold: It wouldn't necessarily have required someone to go to the police and testify in court, or to know the whole picture. If even a small number of people had gone to their line management to say that Saville was having sex with underage kids, then management would have been in a position to do something about it - even if it was only warning him about his conduct and ensuring that others kept an eye on him, rather than involving the police.

I do think that part of the explanation is a shift in attitudes over recent decades. Although sex with pre-pubescent children would have been seen as despicable in the 70s/80s and breaching the age of consent (16) was a crime, my recollection is that there was a significant minority, at least, of men who would have seen sex with 14 or 15-year-old girls as no more than "a bit naughty" at worst. I certainly remember several men feeling confident enough, in public, to repeat the old saying that "if there's grass on the pitch, she's old enough to play"...and I came from a reasonably sheltered background.

I don't disagree with your first paragraph, but the same thing I was alluding to I think applies even if it's passed up the line, which for all I know it might have been, perhaps repeatedly. There comes a point where it has to be escalated - either through confronting him, going public, or to the police or whatever, and it's that taking it up a level from which christ knows what might happen that people are reluctant to do. I'm sure I read that he was reported to the police on more than one occasion, but it seems that perhaps they didn't fancy it either.

I certainly agree with your second paragraph, and think the change in attitudes you're talking about is even more recent. I don't recall there being much in the tabloid press about paedophiles prior to the year 2000 - it's only since that the tabloids have really got excited about it all