Off Topic Messages

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:21 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
zolderopruiming1 wrote:
The Pirate wrote:
Mike S wrote:After that, of course, it will be onto someone else. At the moment preliminary work is being carried out on John Peel (also deceased dammit) but Freddie Starr's looking good......

What's to investigate with Peel? He admitted himself that when he was a young DJ he'd get lots of offers of 'sexual favours' from young girls, many of which he gratefully accepted without asking their ages. His first wife was 15! He was a young man in his 20s in the age of 'free love', if John Peel was ever to have been investigated then he'd have had to get to the back of a very long queue.

Savile was an evil, creepy middle aged man who miraculously managed to wangle himself a TV show in which he was parachuted into the middle of a bunch of young kids and then given the power to make their dreams come true, and by extension make them incredibly grateful to him in the process. Talk about putting a fox in charge of a hen house...


So it is alright when the young girls offer it?


Well, it's true that not everything can be black and white. Such as the case of the teacher who is charged with "child abduction" after going to France with his pupil-girlfriend. Officially it's abduction - but how can it be if she went willingly? The law doesn't allow for any shades of grey.


agree with that........at 15 she isn't a 'child'.....she's a 'young woman' by todays standards. they can be very flirtatious, sexy,devious, and know what they want.........

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:46 pm

The Pirate wrote:
Mike S wrote:After that, of course, it will be onto someone else. At the moment preliminary work is being carried out on John Peel (also deceased dammit) but Freddie Starr's looking good......

What's to investigate with Peel? He admitted himself that when he was a young DJ he'd get lots of offers of 'sexual favours' from young girls, many of which he gratefully accepted without asking their ages. His first wife was 15! He was a young man in his 20s in the age of 'free love', if John Peel was ever to have been investigated then he'd have had to get to the back of a very long queue.

Quite so.....even though you appear unaware of the hypocrisy of your position.

However you have raised a very important point. Namely that the culture and standards of behaviour were very different then. What was deemed 'acceptable' amongst the pop star fraternity and young teenage groupies at that time, is not tolerated in any form today which, insomuch as there is any truth in these allegations, could at least explain why this kind of behaviour went unchecked for so long.

Another striking point from these recent 'allegations' is that this behaviour seems to have been carried out openly and in full view which again appears to confirm that this behaviour was indeed tolerated, albeit with a nudge and a wink....or a grimace depending on the witness. Also some of those making the claims have admitted that they were happy to exchange this kind of attention for the benefits on offer. e.g. access to the pop stars of the day and a pathway into a celebrity lifestyle which in some cases apparently continued for some time.

In the end, you have to ask what possible benefit there is in raking up the distant past (20+ years ago) and submitting it to the standards operating today. Beyond money and publicity for those making the accusations and a bonanza for the tabloid press, it is difficult to see the benefits of a public enquiry which will involve the costly diversion of police resources and how it can possibly be in the public interest, particularly at a time when resources are stretched.

In short.....it's all too long ago and the star witness is no longer with us.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:59 pm

debtd1 wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
zolderopruiming1 wrote:
The Pirate wrote:
Mike S wrote:After that, of course, it will be onto someone else. At the moment preliminary work is being carried out on John Peel (also deceased dammit) but Freddie Starr's looking good......

What's to investigate with Peel? He admitted himself that when he was a young DJ he'd get lots of offers of 'sexual favours' from young girls, many of which he gratefully accepted without asking their ages. His first wife was 15! He was a young man in his 20s in the age of 'free love', if John Peel was ever to have been investigated then he'd have had to get to the back of a very long queue.

Savile was an evil, creepy middle aged man who miraculously managed to wangle himself a TV show in which he was parachuted into the middle of a bunch of young kids and then given the power to make their dreams come true, and by extension make them incredibly grateful to him in the process. Talk about putting a fox in charge of a hen house...


So it is alright when the young girls offer it?


Well, it's true that not everything can be black and white. Such as the case of the teacher who is charged with "child abduction" after going to France with his pupil-girlfriend. Officially it's abduction - but how can it be if she went willingly? The law doesn't allow for any shades of grey.


agree with that........at 15 she isn't a 'child'.....she's a 'young woman' by todays standards. they can be very flirtatious, sexy,devious, and know what they want.........


Yes, how she is regarded by law is very different, of course. As Colin points out, by law she can't give "consent", but of course that doesn't mean that any actions are non-consensual in reality.

The problem, of course, is that the law regarding sexual issues has a relatively arbitrary cut off point at the age of 16 as to whether consensual sex can take place. Whether that cut-off is right or wrong or somewhere in the middle is something else entirely. As a gay man growing up the in 1980s, the law said I couldn't have sex until I was 21 (not that I had the opportunity!!), but then that was lowered to 18 and then again to 16. By assuming the law is always right, does that mean the 21 year-old age limit was right in the 1980s, but 16 is right now? And, of course other countries have different ideas - the age of consent across Europe ranges from 13 (in Spain) to 18 (in Malta). But which one is right?

The problem with the UK law is that it is very black and white. "This is wrong; this is right". In other countries this is not the case. In Austria, the age of consent is 14, but 'if one of the partners is younger than 16 years of age and “not sufficiently mature to understand the significance of the act”, then the act is punishable' (stolen from wikipedia, which hopefully can be trusted in this instance!). According to Wikipedia, Bulgaria has a similar clause in their law. While Finland's age of consent is 16, sex between might not be punished if "there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved".

These and other countries appear to make allowances for the fact that different people grow up and mature at different times. We don't all go through our teenage years maturing and growing at the same rate. A boy or girl of 15 might well be more mature as a person than someone of 21. Of course the big issue with the recent case of the teacher is the fact that he was a teacher - if it was simply a 30 year old office worker running off to France with his 15 year old girlfriend, it would barely have made the news.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:00 pm

Once again on the news tonight, a policeman has come forward saying that a report made by concerned staff at a hospital where Savile volunteered was ignored by the policeman's superiors.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:20 pm

It's astounding me the volume of people who 'knew'.....and did nothing. He wasn't 'God'......he might have been a huge celebrity.....but come on!!!!

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:07 pm

Mike S wrote:In the end, you have to ask what possible benefit there is in raking up the distant past (20+ years ago) and submitting it to the standards operating today.


I'm amazed you're still trying to stand your ground on this one. The man was a complete toe-rag that duped a generation into thinking he was mr wholesomeness and charity. Why do you seem to want to stay duped, Mike?

How many reports of him trying to french-kiss sick children in wheelchairs will it take for you to start to think "y'know what, I think I'll stop saying Savile's being maligned now, he probably wasn't that nice after all".

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:11 pm

Mike S wrote:
The Pirate wrote:
Mike S wrote:After that, of course, it will be onto someone else. At the moment preliminary work is being carried out on John Peel (also deceased dammit) but Freddie Starr's looking good......

What's to investigate with Peel? He admitted himself that when he was a young DJ he'd get lots of offers of 'sexual favours' from young girls, many of which he gratefully accepted without asking their ages. His first wife was 15! He was a young man in his 20s in the age of 'free love', if John Peel was ever to have been investigated then he'd have had to get to the back of a very long queue.

Quite so.....even though you appear unaware of the hypocrisy of your position.

No, what I am saying is that there's nothing to investigate. Everything he did, he freely admitted. He wrote about it in his autobiography, and the fact that it happened was hardly surprising, what with it being the 1960s. There's no hypocrisy on my part, I'm not passing comment on whether it was right or wrong.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:30 pm

The Pirate wrote:
Mike S wrote:
The Pirate wrote:
Mike S wrote:After that, of course, it will be onto someone else. At the moment preliminary work is being carried out on John Peel (also deceased dammit) but Freddie Starr's looking good......

What's to investigate with Peel? He admitted himself that when he was a young DJ he'd get lots of offers of 'sexual favours' from young girls, many of which he gratefully accepted without asking their ages. His first wife was 15! He was a young man in his 20s in the age of 'free love', if John Peel was ever to have been investigated then he'd have had to get to the back of a very long queue.

Quite so.....even though you appear unaware of the hypocrisy of your position.

No, what I am saying is that there's nothing to investigate. Everything he did, he freely admitted. He wrote about it in his autobiography, and the fact that it happened was hardly surprising, what with it being the 1960s. There's no hypocrisy on my part, I'm not passing comment on whether it was right or wrong.


So in his autobiography he wrote something akin to "I forced myself onto helpless children at the hospital. I forceably french-kissed them and molested some that were brain-damaged?"

I'm sorry for the bluntness of the above, but he really wrote that? Yeah, right.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:35 pm

poormadpeter wrote:So in his autobiography he wrote something akin to "I forced myself onto helpless children at the hospital. I forceably french-kissed them and molested some that were brain-damaged?"

I'm sorry for the bluntness of the above, but he really wrote that? Yeah, right.


Read back a few posts bud, The Pirate's talking about John Peel, not Savile.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:59 pm

Bill Tanner wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:So in his autobiography he wrote something akin to "I forced myself onto helpless children at the hospital. I forceably french-kissed them and molested some that were brain-damaged?"

I'm sorry for the bluntness of the above, but he really wrote that? Yeah, right.


Read back a few posts bud, The Pirate's talking about John Peel, not Savile.


Ah yes sorry!

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:41 am

Bill Tanner wrote:
Mike S wrote:In the end, you have to ask what possible benefit there is in raking up the distant past (20+ years ago) and submitting it to the standards operating today.


I'm amazed you're still trying to stand your ground on this one. The man was a complete toe-rag that duped a generation into thinking he was mr wholesomeness and charity. Why do you seem to want to stay duped, Mike?


If 'sexual abuse' had been as widespread as people are now 'remembering,' it is simply inconceivable that no-one out of the multitude of people he met or had dealings with voiced any significant concern at the time. Especially given that the activity he is being accused of does not appear to have been conducted in a covert way, but in full view of whoever was around at the time.
Bill Tanner wrote:How many reports of him trying to french-kiss sick children in wheelchairs will it take for you to start to think "y'know what, I think I'll stop saying Savile's being maligned now, he probably wasn't that nice after all".

Every story has two sides, so it seems only fair that before jumping to conclusions, those making allegations should be subjected to proper scrutiny and that we should hear Jimmy Savile's account, who I'm quite sure would mount a vigorous defence, were he around today. The fact is we're short of a defence witness which is why it is currently open season to present unsubstantiated stories as hard evidence. Not the best basis to establish the truth as I'm sure you would agree?

Incidentally I heard the 'C' word mentioned for the first time today regarding those making the allegations . Yup, you've guessed it - compensation. Not only fashionable but also extremely lucrative to be seen as a 'victim' in today's culture it appears.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:25 am

Mike S wrote:Every story has two sides.


This story has more than two sides.

The Metropolitan Police is now leading an inquiry into claims of abuse against the Leeds-born presenter and is pursuing 120 separate lines of inquiry

Let's wait and see what the police find out, eh Mike?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:54 am

JS.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:14 am

At what point in this thread are jokes allowed?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:59 am

Mike S wrote:
Bill Tanner wrote:
Mike S wrote:In the end, you have to ask what possible benefit there is in raking up the distant past (20+ years ago) and submitting it to the standards operating today.


I'm amazed you're still trying to stand your ground on this one. The man was a complete toe-rag that duped a generation into thinking he was mr wholesomeness and charity. Why do you seem to want to stay duped, Mike?


If 'sexual abuse' had been as widespread as people are now 'remembering,' it is simply inconceivable that no-one out of the multitude of people he met or had dealings with voiced any significant concern at the time. Especially given that the activity he is being accused of does not appear to have been conducted in a covert way, but in full view of whoever was around at the time.
Bill Tanner wrote:How many reports of him trying to french-kiss sick children in wheelchairs will it take for you to start to think "y'know what, I think I'll stop saying Savile's being maligned now, he probably wasn't that nice after all".

Every story has two sides, so it seems only fair that before jumping to conclusions, those making allegations should be subjected to proper scrutiny and that we should hear Jimmy Savile's account, who I'm quite sure would mount a vigorous defence, were he around today. The fact is we're short of a defence witness which is why it is currently open season to present unsubstantiated stories as hard evidence. Not the best basis to establish the truth as I'm sure you would agree?

Incidentally I heard the 'C' word mentioned for the first time today regarding those making the allegations . Yup, you've guessed it - compensation. Not only fashionable but also extremely lucrative to be seen as a 'victim' in today's culture it appears.


Clearly you didn't the see the police officer on the BBC today who said that nurses from the hospital reported Savile, only for his superior officer not to believe the stories and no investigation took place. As stated earlier in this thread, reports were made but for some reason ignored or not investigated properly - which also means an investigation needs to be made as to what went wrong within the police.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:54 am

Delboy wrote:At what point in this thread are jokes allowed?


Who says it's a joke?
A 24 year old man with a 14 years young girl IMO is bad, even if it is with consent. If he'd been Michael Jackson we'd all condemn it.
Then there were the young girls at Graceland when the "men" were in their 20's, 30's, 40's.
Even at 42 Elvis had a 19 years young girlfriend.

With dirtbags we say "he likes them young", with Elvis we say "He wanted to mold them into how he wanted a woman to look and that was impossible with women his own age". Double standard?!

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:25 pm

Bill Tanner wrote:Let's wait and see what the police find out, eh Mike?

The Police will only find out what people decide to tell them. However the accuracy and truthfullness of their statements can never be properly tested without a defence statement from Jimmy Savile.

Bear in mind his current accusers have had up to 40 years to raise their complaints, during which time society has changed dramatically, with child abuse taking centre stage as an important issue. He even worked alongside Ester Rantzen who started the child support group Childline for many years - she also was unaware of any firm evidence suggesting he abused children during the period concerned.

As I have said before, it's ancient history now, no one can honestly say they are still smarting from any wounds even if there is any truth in these allegations and crucially he's no longer around to defend himself.

Concentrate instead on the enjoyment he bought to millions as a unique personality and TV host, together with his extroadinary work as a charity fundraiser but above all....let him rest in peace.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:40 pm

poormadpeter wrote:Clearly you didn't the see the police officer on the BBC today who said that nurses from the hospital reported Savile, only for his superior officer not to believe the stories and no investigation took place.

Actually I did, but the fact of the matter is that a one minute uncorroborated soundbite is no substitute for hard evidence. Without proper verification providing both the names of the complainant and superior officer, the complaint itself and the actual reason it was not followed up, this story can only be treated as a casual recollection and most definitely not an indication of guilt.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:44 pm

Delboy wrote:At what point in this thread are jokes allowed?

Page 10

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:57 pm

Mike S wrote:As I have said before, it's ancient history now, no one can honestly say they are still smarting from any wounds even if there is any truth in these allegations and crucially he's no longer around to defend himself.


Good grief! A man abuses under-age girls and you're saying they've 'got over it by now'? I'm astounded by your lack of compassion for the victims of this vile creature.

Mike S wrote:Concentrate instead on the enjoyment he bought to millions as a unique personality and TV host, together with his extroadinary work as a charity fundraiser but above all....let him rest in peace.


Good luck with that.

I'm done batting back and forth on this one guys. This thread's starting to creep me out.

Love on!X

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:06 pm

Mike S wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:Clearly you didn't the see the police officer on the BBC today who said that nurses from the hospital reported Savile, only for his superior officer not to believe the stories and no investigation took place.

Actually I did, but the fact of the matter is that a one minute uncorroborated soundbite is no substitute for hard evidence. Without proper verification providing both the names of the complainant and superior officer, the complaint itself and the actual reason it was not followed up, this story can only be treated as a casual recollection and most definitely not an indication of guilt.


Could I ask you a very simple question?

Let's pretend that Savile WAS still alive but protests his innocence. How would we know any more about whether he was guilty of not?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:48 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
Could I ask you a very simple question?

Let's pretend that Savile WAS still alive but protests his innocence. How would we know any more about whether he was guilty of not?

Any criminal prosecution would rigourously examine the evidence to try to establish the hard facts, as well as the credibility of all parties involved, with the defendant being entitled to a presumption of innocence until a guilty verdict was reached.

Proper interrogation of those making claims would help to establish the reliability of those making allegations together with their evidence, rather than the current situation where every story is being accepted entirely on face value to back up a presumption of guilt.

Following due process could also result in surprising changes. For instance, Esther Rantzen might have been called as a defence witness rather than being filmed emoting on cue and pronouncing him guilty solely on the basis of allegations made in a lightweight TV show.

The net result is that he has been denied a proper hearing and a fair trial, resulting in his reputation being destroyed with no means of redress - now that is a scandal.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:12 pm

the scandal is he was never brought to justice when it was going on all them years ago.and alot of the kids didnt understand wht he was doin maybe.....and bbc ignored it all.....thts just my opinion.....i remember when i was about 8...went to me mums auntie..she showered me..i have vague memories of her doin something to me tht wasnt right...now if someone said she done some thing years later to them..id be..omg she did it to me as well....and thts wht is happening here i think..its triggering peoples memories...over 40 now have come forward i heard...even 1 is wrong...hes guilty in my book...but hes dead now..so who gets the blame?its a media frenzy at mo..sells papers etc....

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:46 pm

Mike S wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Could I ask you a very simple question?

Let's pretend that Savile WAS still alive but protests his innocence. How would we know any more about whether he was guilty of not?

Any criminal prosecution would rigourously examine the evidence to try to establish the hard facts, as well as the credibility of all parties involved, with the defendant being entitled to a presumption of innocence until a guilty verdict was reached.

Proper interrogation of those making claims would help to establish the reliability of those making allegations together with their evidence, rather than the current situation where every story is being accepted entirely on face value to back up a presumption of guilt.

Following due process could also result in surprising changes. For instance, Esther Rantzen might have been called as a defence witness rather than being filmed emoting on cue and pronouncing him guilty solely on the basis of allegations made in a lightweight TV show.

The net result is that he has been denied a proper hearing and a fair trial, resulting in his reputation being destroyed with no means of redress - now that is a scandal.


The evidence will be rigorously examined? How exactly? The only evidence there would ever be was the victims themselves and those that have already come forward to say they witnessed such behaviour. There can be no DNA evidence etc after all this time. So the victims would testify as to what happened, Savile would say it was a pack of lies, as would a couple of character witnesses. That's roughly what would happen in a trial. And that would tell us what that we don't know already?

Unless you have been living in a bubble for the last week, you would realise that the TV show from last week is the tip of the iceberg. Hospital staff have come forward to say that they witnessed such behaviour, as have other patients. While one could argue that those claiming to be the victims could be lying through their teeth in order to get compensation or money from the press for their stories, those witnesses being interviewed for news programmes have nothing to gain - they receive no payments etc.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:21 pm

poormadpeter wrote:The evidence will be rigorously examined? How exactly?

By cross examination under oath to determine the credibility of the witness and the consistency of their account.
poormadpeter wrote:The only evidence there would ever be was the victims themselves and those that have already come forward to say they witnessed such behaviour. And what would that tell us what that we don't know already?

In the absence of tangible evidence, legal process would seek to examine who was the most credible witness.

poormadpeter wrote:Unless you have been living in a bubble for the last week, you would realise that the TV show from last week is the tip of the iceberg. Hospital staff have come forward to say that they witnessed such behaviour, as have other patients.

Oh yes, lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon since the media circus came to town, (even more since the prospect of compensation has been mentioned you will note) but once again their accounts have not been put before a court for proper scutiny. Also remember that the converse argument to - he must be guilty, look at all the people coming forward - is that - it is simply unbelievable that abuse was carried out on this scale and for so long without action being taken to stop it.

The "He was too powerful" explanation is ridiculously weak. After all we're talking about a high profile TV personality here, not the head of the mafia. What I suspect this stands for is that no tangible proof was available to support rumour and gossip circulating which would be accepted by a court at the time.....which is a different matter altogether and brings me back to my original argument:

Jimmy Savile is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law....which of course will never happen.Trial by media in the court of public opinion is no substitute. In fact it's a cowardly act since his whole lifetime's work has been undermined and his reputation destroyed without allowing him the right of reply.