Quote:
Originally Posted by Vieil Homme
Point taken but as I said It's the kind of thing you witness and never ever forget. I'm not saying the transcript is 100% true just the part I have quoted and the bit I can't.
Like I said lets keep it open and see what pans out. The HIGNFY show can be seen on YouTube about 09:17 in LINK and there is another section where Savile talks about his caravan and what he does in said caravan.
The Savile can of worms has brought others out. The latest is John Peel who had a fling when he was 30 with a 15 year old girl that went on for a few weeks in 1969. A BBC spokesman said: 'Clearly, in the event of proven allegations of sexual abuse the BBC would reconsider its decision on the naming of part of our new building.
Who's next to fall?  |
Fact: Savile was on HIGNFY in 1999.
Fact: He got a hard time from Deyton, Hislop and Merton.
However, the "transcript" is 100% fiction. It's not helpful to the discussion to use a work of fiction to explain your memories of a factual event, especially when so many idiots have been on Twitter this week, circulating the "transcript" as if it is a record of a factual event.
In fact, it is not even a transcript; for it to be a transcript, it would have to be a written record of an actual spoken conversation, and it isn't.
When you say, "let's keep it open and see what pans out," it sounds as if you still want to believe that the "transcript" is true, or at least that it is representative of some hidden truth. It is not. It is an artwork. The reason it works so well, and has taken in so many people this week (and did so in late 1999 when it was first "discovered" where it had been "hidden" on the SOCAA website), is that played on an unspoken unease a lot of people felt about Savile even back then, and of course what a lot of people in his orbit had good reason to believe was true.
The best lies (and the best hoaxes) always contain sufficient truth to make them believable. The "transcript" is an extremely good hoax because while the conversation it relates did not occur, what it insinuates about Savile, it now appears, most certainly did.