Off Topic Messages

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:36 am

CONFEDERATELVIS wrote:and they play Michael Jacksons, oh of course Jacko didn't do anything did he - stars pay millions of dollars to children in out of court settlements when they're innocent,silly me!!


Michael was declared not guilty by a jury for a reason. Thank you.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:23 am

Swingin-Little-Guitar-Man wrote:I'm very annoyed at all this crap.

Jimmy is an easy target.

He looked weird - behaved in a very quirky manner for his whole life - he never married and therefore has no very close family (kids, wives etc) - he's recently dead.


Mmmmm.

Let's make an easy buck out of ruining a man who can no longer defend himself.

The people making the allegations should have made them known at the time. Let's say, you're aware of a man abusing kids in the 70s, and then you spend the entire 80s and 90s watching him weekly on TV, presenting shows which feature him making children's dreams come true - and hearing about his endless selfless charity work for children's hospitals - you're aware of the time this guy spends with all these vulnerable kids and yet you do NOTHING and say NOTHING to prevent anything happening to them??

Bollocks to you.

It saddens me to be reading this so soon after his death. I certainly smell a rat.


:smt023

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:52 am

Cover ups happen in all countries of the world - Watergate - Hillsborough - Saddam Hussain - 911? - Birmingham 6 - All I said was if you're a pervert then u should swing!!!! And now that poor little girl in Wales, our broken screwed up society will only get worse, I pity the people of the next generation and I constantly worry for my future grandchildren, perhaps we should nuke the planet before someone else does!!

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:14 am

Scarre wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:The big question I have is "what is all of this going to achieve?" I've never had a similar situation, but I wonder why, some three decades after the event, I would spill all to the media when I knew that no justice could ever take place. I can't see where it would do me any good - or anyone else any good. It's not like this is a warning to other girls about this man...because he is dead.


1. I have no idea who this person "JS" is.

2. "What is all of this going to achieve"? The truth? Justice? What he really was like?

3. Why three decades later? I am just guessing here but...He had, perhaps more money, to spend on a trail than these girls/women.

4. Can´t see where it would do anyone any good? As an example not to go/thrust just anyone. Good enough?

5. As I earlier said, I have no knowledge of this "JS" person, just commenting on some people who act like they do...

Agreed!

The Pirate wrote:
poormadpeter wrote: The big question I have is "what is all of this going to achieve?"

I would say that if you were a woman who had been abused by somebody, and you had told your parents, and they had refused to believe you - then you spent the last 40 years hearing rumours about that person doing it to others, while at the same time he was knighted and treated like a saint... Maybe you would finally want to be proved right.

Well-said.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:19 am

CONFEDERATELVIS wrote:Cover ups happen in all countries of the world - Watergate - Hillsborough - Saddam Hussain - 911? - Birmingham 6 -

One of the most surprising cover up (for me) was the fact that Paul Newman was a bisexual. Don't get me wrong, i'm not homophobic, i'm just surpised. Of course it doesn't make him a less good actor.

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/a ... CLAIM.html

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:23 am

This isn't about sullying the reputation of a cuddly TV personality you lot have fond memories of - it's about exposing a vile despot and a cover-up that was engineered by the media for decades. Loads of people i the UK knew Saville was a deviant. The big surprise is, it's taken till now for the news to hit.

Ow's about that, then?

Sorry guys, he was vile man.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:47 am

Well said Bill - people like this don't deserve to live. Fair enough it all came out after he'd died but we can only imagine the horror of what these girls went through and possibly therefore terrified to speak out, he was probably a powerful man, he was rich and had famous friends, that's all sadly the part of the cover up. So he did voluntary work at a couple of hospitals and he was rewarded with an OBE and a knighthood.He raised millions of pounds, so do other people but they don't turn out to be perverts after they've died. He was in a perfect position, as was Gary Glitter - Jonathan King - Jacko etc, pop stars at the height of their fame, they've preyed on the vunerable fan, the bastards!!!
If Jacko was found not guilty, then why did he pay off one of his accusers????
SIR Jimmy Savile, who next - SIR Robert Black!!!!!!!!!

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:56 am

CONFEDERATELVIS wrote:Well said Bill - people like this don't deserve to live. Fair enough it all came out after he'd died but we can only imagine the horror of what these girls went through and possibly therefore terrified to speak out, he was probably a powerful man, he was rich and had famous friends, that's all sadly the part of the cover up. So he did voluntary work at a couple of hospitals and he was rewarded with an OBE and a knighthood.He raised millions of pounds, so do other people but they don't turn out to be perverts after they've died. He was in a perfect position, as was Gary Glitter - Jonathan King - Jacko etc, pop stars at the height of their fame, they've preyed on the vunerable fan, the bastards!!!
If Jacko was found not guilty, then why did he pay off one of his accusers????
SIR Jimmy Savile, who next - SIR Robert Black!!!!!!!!!


Elvis had a 14 year old girlfriend!
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.
Bill Wyman had a 13 year old girlfriend. OK, he married her when she was 19 (and he 53).
Look at the girls at a Justin Bieber concert. They're 12 years old and want nothing less than get into bed with him.
The same thing happened at Beatles concerts in the sixties.
I bet you can find lots of older women who had sex with a pop star when they were 12, 13, 14 years old.
Don't forget the Elvis groupies. :smt003

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:49 pm

Whatever the rights or wrongs of under-age relationships, it appears Saville used his fame for his own predatory habits and if that's true, he should be exposed. Dead or not.

And let's not let the fact that many of us might have happy childhood memories of watching the cheeky chappy over beans on toast on a Saturday night get in the way of the evidence. If he had a habit of preying on schoolgirls then he was a cowardly despicable man.

There'll be more to come on this I reckon.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:34 pm

That tv "expose" has created a huge impact. A memorial has been defaced and journalists are detailing more and more about Jimmy Savile and other teenage girls. How will it all end?

Will the publicity cause U-turns (eg as witnessed following Hillsborough revelations) from people? Is it possible to strip a deceased person of their knighthood etc? They certainly did that wth the living Fred Goodwin after the pressure on him was increased by public and politicians.

And what about all those rock stars from the 1960s and 1970s who had groupies - perhaps many of whom were under the age of 16 . Have the groupies also kept it quiet because they thought no one would believe them at the time? Who's next, and when?

I haven't made up my mind, though the lawyer - who has both defended and prosecuted in similar cases - said on the programme that there would have been a strong case to prosecute based on what he read.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:02 pm

Bill Tanner wrote:
Sorry guys, he was vile man.

Were you aquainted with him or did you personally witness any reprehensible behaviour?

If not, you must accept your conclusion may be flawed.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:14 pm

Suds wrote:I haven't made up my mind, though the lawyer - who has both defended and prosecuted in similar cases - said on the programme that there would have been a strong case to prosecute based on what he read.[/

No he didn't, although it is deeply concerning that you along with others may have formed this impression.

What he actually said was that given the witnesss statements, there were reasonable grounds for suspicion which could theoretically lead to an arrest (which of course was the conclusion that the programme makers wanted to hear). However he proceeded this statement by admitting that the whole case could only be classed as inconclusive without a defending statement from Jimmy Savile.

Vive la difference?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:57 pm

Mike S wrote:
Bill Tanner wrote:
Sorry guys, he was vile man.

Were you aquainted with him or did you personally witness any reprehensible behaviour?

If not, you must accept your conclusion may be flawed.


I haven't been to the moon but I'm betting it's not made of cheese.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:07 pm

Mike S wrote:
Suds wrote:I haven't made up my mind, though the lawyer - who has both defended and prosecuted in similar cases - said on the programme that there would have been a strong case to prosecute based on what he read.[/

No he didn't, although it is deeply concerning that you along with others may have formed this impression.

What he actually said was that given the witnesss statements, there were reasonable grounds for suspicion which could theoretically lead to an arrest (which of course was the conclusion that the programme makers wanted to hear). However he proceeded this statement by admitting that the whole case could only be classed as inconclusive without a defending statement from Jimmy Savile.

Vive la difference?


Yes that's more like what he said.Thanks for posting it.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:51 pm

CONFEDERATELVIS wrote:Jacko etc, pop stars at the height of their fame, they've preyed on the vunerable fan, the bastards!!!
If Jacko was found not guilty, then why did he pay off one of his accusers????


I see that you're talking about the Chandler case.

I'll just take the easy way in order to evade a headache and quote Wikipedia:

...
On January 24, 1994, prosecutors announced that they would be not bringing charges against Evan Chandler for attempted extortion as Jackson's camp has been slow to report the extortion claim to the police and had tried to negotiate a settlement with Chandler for several weeks.[76] Evan had first made his demand for a financial settlement on August 4, 1993 and the Jackson camp filed extortion charges against Evan and his attorney Barry K. Rothman in late August 1993.[77] After tape recordings supporting the extortion claim were released to the media on August 30,[78] a lawyer for Jackson explained they had not gone to the police earlier because, "It was our hope that this would all go away. We tried to keep it as much in-house as we could."[79] Jackson had already experienced years of bizarre rumors and speculation.[79] In the extortion investigation, a search warrant was never sought to search the homes and offices of Evan Chandler and Barry Rothman and no grand jury was convened when both men declined to interviewed by police.[65] In contrast, the police searched Jackson's residences solely based on Jordan's allegations reported by a psychiatrist with no particular expertise in child sexual abuse[80][81] and increased their efforts to investigate Jackson after no supporting evidence was found in their raids and after questioning almost 30 children (Jackson's phonebooks were seized) and their families, all of whom said Jackson had done nothing wrong.[77][80] Officers flew to the Philippines to interview two ex-housekeepers who had sold a molestation story to the tabloids but decided it lacked credibility.[77] Several parents also complained to one of Jackson's attorneys of aggressive investigative techniques by the police; allegedly frightening their children with lies, e.g. ‘We have nude photos of you', to pressure them into accusing Jackson[67][77] and unequivocally telling parents their children had been molested even though their children had denied being victimized.[77]

On January 25, 1994,[82] the Chandlers' lawsuit was settled out of court with $15,331,250 to be held in a trust fund for Jordan,[83] $1.5 million for each of his parents and the family's lawyer slated to receive $5 million for a total of approximately $23 million[84] (although another source showed Feldman was to receive $3 million based on a September 1993 retainer, for a total of $21 million).[85] According to some sources Evan Chandler himself is the one who initiated the settlement with Jackson's insurer.[86] This was done a few days after Jackson and his legal camp ignored a demand from Chandler's legal camp that Jackson not show pictures of his genitals to the civil jury to weigh them against Jordan's description.[87] Jackson's insurance company "negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel" and was "the source of the settlement amounts"; as noted in a 2005 memorandum in People v. Jackson.[88] It also noted "an insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance where it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements", as established by a number of precedents in California.[88] Defeating the right would involve convincing a court with the power to overrule the precedent that the earlier decision was either wrongly decided or more often, 'clearly' wrong (depending on the criteria of the court)[89] or the court must be convinced to distinguish the case.[90] That is, to make the ruling narrower than that in the precedent due to some difference in facts between the current and precedent case, while still supporting the result reached in the earlier case.[90] In 2004, Jackson's attorney Thomas Mesereau in People v. Jackson said "People who intended to earn millions of dollars from his record and music promotions did not want negative publicity from these lawsuits interfering with their profits. Michael Jackson now regrets making these payments. These settlements were entered into with one primary condition – that condition was that Mr. Jackson never admitted any wrongdoing. Mr. Jackson always denied doing anything wrong...Mr. Jackson now realizes the advice he received was wrong."[91] Jackson explained why had he tried to settle: "I wanted to go on with my life. Too many people had already been hurt. I want to make records. I want to sing. I want to perform again...It's my talent. My hard work. My life. My decision."[54] He also wanted to avoid a "media circus".[92]

Although some[who?] perceive the settlement as an admission of guilt, the settlement agreement specifically stated that Jackson admitted no wrongdoing and no liability[84][93] and legally, a settlement cannot be used as evidence of guilt in future civil and criminal cases.[94] The settlement payment was "for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrong acts of sexual molestation."[85][95] In the settlement, both parties agreed they would not speak about the case details in public but it did not prevent the Chandlers from testifying in a criminal trial or sharing information with authorities in a criminal investigation.[96] The Chandlers' lawyer Mr. Feldman explicitly stated "nobody bought anybody's silence".[97] Bribery to not testify in a trial is a felony according to California Penal Code 138.[98] Receiving such a bribe is also a felony according to this law.[98] District Attorney Gil Garcetti stated the settlement didn't affect criminal prosecution of the molestation allegations, "The criminal investigation of singer Michael Jackson is ongoing and will not be affected by the announcement of the civil case settlement."[99]

Jordan Chandler was interviewed after the settlement by detectives seeking evidence of child molestation, but "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview."[100] A Santa Barbara County grand jury disbanded on May 2, 1994 without indicting Jackson, while a Los Angeles County grand jury continued to investigate the sexual abuse allegations.[101][102] After which time the Chandlers stopped co-operating with the criminal investigation around July 6, 1994.[103] The police never pressed criminal charges.[92] Citing a lack of evidence without Jordan's testimony, the state closed its investigation on September 22, 1994.[54][104] According to the grand juries, the evidence presented by the Santa Barbara police and the LAPD was not convincing enough to indict Jackson or subpoena him,[54][101] even though grand juries can indict the accused purely on hearsay evidence.[105][106]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child ... el_Jackson

Seriously, people want money. It's easy. Michael was always seen as a bizarre figure for some - that guy's father just jumped on the chance. He clearly had something against MJ as anyone with ears can listen to in recordings of him speaking.
Gary Glitter, on the other hand, was a clear pedophile and there's a reason why he was sent to jail (I have absolutely nothing against Glitter as an artist, by the way. I actually think it's a shame that the guy did such thing).

Now please stop accusing MJ just because the media taught you it was nice to call people "Jacko". You should think over what zolderopruiming1 mentioned if you don't have proof that MJ did what you say he did (the police didn't find anything - can you?).

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:54 pm

Bill Tanner wrote:
Mike S wrote:
Bill Tanner wrote:
Sorry guys, he was vile man.

Were you aquainted with him or did you personally witness any reprehensible behaviour?

If not, you must accept your conclusion may be flawed.


I haven't been to the moon but I'm betting it's not made of cheese.

Thank you for confirming that your forthright condemnation is based on nothing more substantial than spurious gossip and hearsay from an assortment of characters whose motives are completely unknown to you.

In which case, given the briefest perusal of his life and career, I can comfortably assert that you could hardly be more wrong.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:56 pm

If these allegations are proved correct, his legacy will be completely destroyed.His charity work, where he raised millions of pounds will be forgotten about. There seems to be further allegations coming out(one including a 9yr old).

I personally believe there is something to all this. His disgusting support for Glitter certainly tells me something.
That bastard abused youngsters not just in the UK, but in Vietnam -they were only 10 !!!... It doesn't matter what age-if they are underage their underage! Yet Mr Saville states Glitter did "nothing wrong" !!!!!!!!!!!!

If the allegations are true and as has been reported- many people in power either knew or were suspicious, they should be disgusted with themselves and dealt with appropriately!

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:21 pm

daylon wrote:If these allegations are proved correct, his legacy will be completely destroyed.His charity work, where he raised millions of pounds will be forgotten about.......

These allegations will never be proved because the person concerned is not around to issue a defence statement.....which some may view as highly significant.

However, you have highlighted a prime reason why this tabloid fodder can only be unhelpful and destructive, with no positive outcome whatsoever. Not that those issuing the allegations will mind....after all there's money to be made and publicity to be had....yippee....I might be on the front page....how exiting is that!!

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:23 pm

yes i read much today in british newspapers about this very sad and the clip with glitter was 'extremely worrying' seems people such as ester ranzon now agree he was 'one of those' quite devestating actually :cry:

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:54 pm

Esther Rantzen knew Jimmy Saville for decades and is the founder of 'Childline'. She now decides to speak. Sorry but I don't buy any of this. The man is dead and cannot defend himself; further, no prosecution can be made. Very easy to target an unmarried celebrity with no kids. Does that make George Clooney a pervert?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:22 pm

Bill Tanner wrote:This isn't about sullying the reputation of a cuddly TV personality you lot have fond memories of - it's about exposing a vile despot ... Loads of people i the UK knew Saville was a deviant ... Sorry guys, he was vile man.

CONFEDERATELVIS wrote:Well said Bill - people like this don't deserve to live.

The blind hatred that some members of this forum seems to proudly display on this and other recent topics is abhorrent, reprehensible and makes one question just what type of fan did Elvis Presley attract.

What is wrong with you people?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:41 pm

I think with all the media attention and press reports about Sir Jimmy Savile, it just goes to show how powerful the press are and what they can do to a celebrity, even after they have died.

All these women who are 'victims', if they were so tramatised by what Jimmy did to them they would have spoke up before he died.

Im sure some of them have got paid a nice few quid by the press for their stories on these recent allegations :roll:

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:45 pm

Delboy wrote:Esther Rantzen knew Jimmy Saville for decades and is the founder of 'Childline'. She now decides to speak. Sorry but I don't buy any of this.

Not only that, she started off by stating that she had made her mind up not to arrive at any firm judgement because Jimmy Savile was not in a position to defend himself, but then allowed the cameras to film her reaction on viewing the accusations - lips quivering, choking back tears, looking painfully distraught - before declaring that she was completely won over, it was all true, case closed.

Moreover her reaction seemed completely over the top, to the point where she appeared to be a good deal more upset than those allegedly involved, who it must be said, did not look particularly upset as they recounted their stories.

If she had any sense at all, she would not have wanted to be associated with this character assasination, for the simple reason than his charities might suffer as a result, causing genuine deprivation to those in need....but that might have meant missing out on a fee and the chance to enhance and promote her caring persona perhaps?.... It's a tough choice sometimes.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:48 pm

the whole coverage is sad & bad indeed :smt005

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:46 pm

There's going to be some embarrassing moments coming up for the BBC in future months guys, as more 'revelations' come out. A Telegraph columnist recently wrote -

The BBC over a period of decades turned a deaf ear to rumours that one of its biggest stars was groping and raping underage girls.

The BBC moved vulnerable children into the orbit of a man rumoured to be a child molester.

The BBC suppressed a Newsnight report revealing that it employed and enabled a celebrity paedophile – using public money to do so.

This is a huge scandal. So far, only the surface has been scratched

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... -cover-up/

Like I said, there'll be more to come. If it's all hot air and everyone's lying I'll be happy to eat my words, but If I were a betting man I'd put money on Saville being a dirtbag and the BBC knew, and I bet they're squirming now.

No blind hatred from me John. I'm not one of the 'hang 'em high' brigade. I'm just a Brit who hates hypocrisy in the media.