Off Topic Messages

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:53 pm

poormadpeter wrote:nothing of the sort. The police couldn't catch Sutcliffe, or didn't know who he was. That's very different to knowing and not doing anything about it.

Then I suggest that you read up about the Ripper murders and see all the major cock-ups they made that in effect allowed him to carry on killing. But rather than derail this and turn it into a discussion about Peter Sutcliffe, I would just like to know why anybody would say that the Police could be more to blame in a case of child abuse than the actual abuser. What next, 'Poor old Jimmy Savile, if it hadn't have been for the coppers he might have been able to get the medical treatment he deserved. He's actually the victim in all of this'?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:06 pm

The Pirate wrote: I would just like to know why anybody would say that the Police could be more to blame in a case of child abuse than the actual abuser.


Yea, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that one.

This thread's throwing up some mighty strange attitudes.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:12 pm

The Pirate wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:nothing of the sort. The police couldn't catch Sutcliffe, or didn't know who he was. That's very different to knowing and not doing anything about it.

Then I suggest that you read up about the Ripper murders and see all the major cock-ups they made that in effect allowed him to carry on killing. But rather than derail this and turn it into a discussion about Peter Sutcliffe, I would just like to know why anybody would say that the Police could be more to blame in a case of child abuse than the actual abuser. What next, 'Poor old Jimmy Savile, if it hadn't have been for the coppers he might have been able to get the medical treatment he deserved. He's actually the victim in all of this'?


Why does everyone have to twist words and look at them in such an idiotic way? If the police had investigated the cases properly in the 1970s, then those that followed would not have happened. Of course if Saville hadn't committed crimes they wouldn't have happened, that's just common sense, but to say the police are not to blame for someone to roam free when they knew his name, address and had multiple witnesses coming forward as evidence is absolutely ridiculous.

It also appears that numerous celebrities knew what was going on as well - and they are also to blame, and should also have it on their conscience. Janet Street Porter was on Question Time on Thursday and said that she knew what was going on but didn't report it because it was the early 1980s and she was a woman. What a ridiculous thing to say - even if you thought the whole thing would be swept under the carpet, and even if you knew that making such a report would jeopardise your career, your own conscience would/should force you to report what was going on anyway because there was always that small chance you would be taken seriously.

It seems that everyone who knew Saville is now coming forward and saying "he was a vile man" or "we knew this was going on years ago". Well, in my eyes, people who knew it was going on and didn't even try to stop or report it are just as vile.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:35 pm

i fell without with jimmy because he didnt reply to my letter...dear jimmy..can u fix it for me to sing with the Jordanaires ..
Last edited by iffypresley on Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:29 pm

poormadpeter wrote:Why does everyone have to twist words and look at them in such an idiotic way?

Who is twisting anything? You said " it is the police who have the most blame.." Which is ridiculous. You didn't say that "the police were at fault." You were quite clear in what you said.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:56 pm

The Pirate wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:Why does everyone have to twist words and look at them in such an idiotic way?

Who is twisting anything? You said " it is the police who have the most blame.." Which is ridiculous. You didn't say that "the police were at fault." You were quite clear in what you said.


Yes, that is what I have said - and then reiterated what i meant at length not once, not twice, but three times. We can play semantics if you want but my point has been made perfectly clear repeatedly. And I will say it once more: if the police knew what was going on and a proper investigation was not conducted and a known felon was not apprehended then they were not doing their job and they are to blame for the events continuing. If Saville was arrested and convicted the attacks would have stopped. There is therefore a cause and effect scenario here that has the police at the heart of it. Saville would have known that a report had been made to the police about him, and he also knew that nothing was done about it and so was free to carry on doing what he was doing.

If the police had not taken action about not arresting a known serial killer, and then that serial killer had gone on to kill again, who would have got the blame? The police, for not doing their job.

While the everyday policemen and women of this and many other countries deserve our greatest respect and thanks for the sterling work they do and the danger they put themselves in, it appears that at higher levels there is corruption, as has been seen within the hacking scandal, the Hillborough disaster and now this.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:13 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
The Pirate wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:Why does everyone have to twist words and look at them in such an idiotic way?

Who is twisting anything? You said " it is the police who have the most blame.." Which is ridiculous. You didn't say that "the police were at fault." You were quite clear in what you said.


Yes, that is what I have said - and then reiterated what i meant at length not once, not twice, but three times. We can play semantics if you want but my point has been made perfectly clear repeatedly.


Seriously though, don't you think the person that has acted with the most evil intent in the whole scenario, is Savile, and therefore, he must be the one to shoulder most of the blame?

Please say yes, because I'm starting to doubt I'm still on planet Earth.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:25 pm

Of course he is to blame if he did the crime, but the fact that he carried on offending is the blame of the police if they were aware of what was happening. We cannot logically assume that Saville was ever going to stop unless he got caught.

Let's put it another way:

A family are in bed in their house asleep.
A man goes to their house and sets fire to it.
I watch that man go to their house and set fire to it, but don't report it or do anything about it.
The people in the house die.

While the arsonist is the one guilty of the crime, who is to blame for the fire service not getting their in time to save those lives?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:31 pm

poormadpeter wrote:Of course he is to blame if he did the crime, but the fact that he carried on offending is the blame of the police if they were aware of what was happening. We cannot logically assume that Saville was ever going to stop unless he got caught.

Let's put it another way:

A family are in bed in their house asleep.
A man goes to their house and sets fire to it.
I watch that man go to their house and set fire to it, but don't report it or do anything about it.
The people in the house die.

While the arsonist is the one guilty of the crime, who is to blame for the fire service not getting their in time to save those lives?


So by your logic, the man watching should shoulder more blame than the arsonist.

I should stick to the 'all Elvis' section mate.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:43 pm

Bill Tanner wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:Of course he is to blame if he did the crime, but the fact that he carried on offending is the blame of the police if they were aware of what was happening. We cannot logically assume that Saville was ever going to stop unless he got caught.

Let's put it another way:

A family are in bed in their house asleep.
A man goes to their house and sets fire to it.
I watch that man go to their house and set fire to it, but don't report it or do anything about it.
The people in the house die.

While the arsonist is the one guilty of the crime, who is to blame for the fire service not getting their in time to save those lives?


So by your logic, the man watching should shoulder more blame than the arsonist.

I should stick to the 'all Elvis' section mate.


No, you didn't read what I asked. I asked who is to blame for the fire service not getting to them in time to save them. The fire has already been started. But I could stop it and didn't. Likewise, the police or those who knew what Saville was doing (and we are assuming his guilt here) had an obligation to stop what was going on - or at least properly investigate it.

if your kids went to a school that had knowingly hired a paedophile as a teacher and that teacher molested one of your kids, would you not blame the school?

What you are saying is that the only one to blame for a wrongdoing is the one who did the crime. I don't agree with that. In society, we have moral obligations. Perhaps that way of thinking sank without a trace years ago, but I still abide by it where possible. There is a couple with kids in the flat below me who are violent towards each other, often drunkenly. If I hear a drunken domestic taking place and the kids screaming, do I call the police to try and prevent harm coming to those kids? Of course I do. If I don't call the police and one of those kids was knocked over in the mayhem, hit his head and died, how would I feel?
Last edited by poormadpeter on Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:45 pm

poormadpeter wrote:if your kids went to a school that had knowingly hired a paedophile as a teacher and that teacher molested one of your kids, would you not blame the school?



I'd blame the paedophile most. I just don't understand why you wouldn't.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:49 pm

Bill Tanner wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:if your kids went to a school that had knowingly hired a paedophile as a teacher and that teacher molested one of your kids, would you not blame the school?



I'd blame the paedophile most. I just don't understand why you wouldn't.


Because I have trust in the school. If they knew who they were hiring and what he was then they were knowingly putting my kids in danger.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:13 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
Bill Tanner wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:if your kids went to a school that had knowingly hired a paedophile as a teacher and that teacher molested one of your kids, would you not blame the school?



I'd blame the paedophile most. I just don't understand why you wouldn't.


Because I have trust in the school. If they knew who they were hiring and what he was then they were knowingly putting my kids in danger.


Let me try again, just one last time.

If your kid was molested in school, who would be most to blame

1) The molester

2) The school.

Okay?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:27 pm

Bill Tanner wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Bill Tanner wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:if your kids went to a school that had knowingly hired a paedophile as a teacher and that teacher molested one of your kids, would you not blame the school?



I'd blame the paedophile most. I just don't understand why you wouldn't.


Because I have trust in the school. If they knew who they were hiring and what he was then they were knowingly putting my kids in danger.


Let me try again, just one last time.

If your kid was molested in school, who would be most to blame

1) The molester

2) The school.

Okay?


If the school knew that they were hiring a known paedophile then I would blame the school as much as the molestor. It is through the school's negligence that he comes into contact with my child, and they should be held to account. While the molestor is obviously guilty of the crime and obviously to blame in that sense, had the school not knowingly hired him in the first place he would not have been able to molest my child. We put our trust in institutions such as schools and the police, not in individuals, and we trust those institutions to hire appropriate members of staff and to do their duty.

Had the school not hired him, my child would not have been molested.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:32 pm

poormadpeter wrote:If the school knew that they were hiring a known paedophile then I would blame the school as much as the molestor.


Okay, thanks.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:36 pm

Bill Tanner wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:If the school knew that they were hiring a known paedophile then I would blame the school as much as the molestor.


Okay, thanks.


The most ridiculous comment in thiswhole thing came from a Lib Dem MP on Question Time, who said that the Saville case has shown how wonderful the system of CRB checks are. The CRB checks show whether you have been convicted of a crime. Saville would have passed a CRB check due to the fact that the allegations over the years had never been investigated properly.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:45 pm

poormadpeter wrote:The most ridiculous comment in thiswhole thing came from a Lib Dem MP on Question Time.



Did they say the police were to blame more than Savile? Because that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard so far.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:48 pm

poormadpeter wrote:What you are saying is that the only one to blame for a wrongdoing is the one who did the crime.



Where did I say that?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:32 am

Of course that the school would be to blame too in the example presented. If they friggin' knew that they were hiring a pedophile, they are guilty.
To me it's clear that poormadpeter isn't taking the responsability off Savile. Rather, he's saying that a "higher power" had the knowledge of what was going on and decided to not do a thing about it - willingly letting a criminal run wild and making MORE victims. Peter, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that you're saying: the pedophile is guilty - but in those cases we have someone, an institution, who had the POWER to stop such pedophile and decided to just "play along" - so in a sense they have responsability over what happened as their JOB is to DO SOMETHING about things like that in order to PROTECT US. Right? If so, I agree with you and understand what you're saying.

I mean... Heck, the pedo has some problem and surely is the "evil person" here. But we have sane people who knew what was happening and ignored it. They had the sanity to see the wrongdoings and stop such person in order to protect society - but they decided to just "let it go". Think about it.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:53 am

billyblues wrote:Of course that the school would be to blame too in the example presented. If they friggin' knew that they were hiring a pedophile, they are guilty.
To me it's clear that poormadpeter isn't taking the responsability off Savile. Rather, he's saying that a "higher power" had the knowledge of what was going on and decided to not do a thing about it - willingly letting a criminal run wild and making MORE victims. Peter, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that you're saying: the pedophile is guilty - but in those cases we have someone, an institution, who had the POWER to stop such pedophile and decided to just "play along" - so in a sense they have responsability over what happened as their JOB is to DO SOMETHING about things like that in order to PROTECT US. Right? If so, I agree with you and understand what you're saying.

I mean... Heck, the pedo has some problem and surely is the "evil person" here. But we have sane people who knew what was happening and ignored it. They had the sanity to see the wrongdoings and stop such person in order to protect society - but they decided to just "let it go". Think about it.


Thank you for the voice of reason!

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:09 am

Jesus this thread's depressing. Have people forgotten how to read?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:19 am

Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed 9 times by the police, in one interview he was wearing the boots the police were carrying a cast for them!! They were mislead by the 'Geordie' voice who said he was the ripper and yet if you listened to the voice at the time the so called ripper was incorrect in his statement, the police didn't pick up on that, so yes they are partially to blame. I lived through the whole 'Ripper' years, I was searched and interviewed, as was many Yorkshire men, but the police were incompetant 100%, you could say the police are to blame for the JFK assassination, for our US fans - Just who the hell was on the grassy knoll? It has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald could not have fired three times in succession with the gun he had at the time, so someone must have fired, come on you Americans what is the truth here?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:47 am

again on tv news tonight. this 'case' is just going to get worse and aS A ONCE FAN OF HIM THIS IS VERY SAD AND UNPLEASANT 'NEWS'
Jimmy Saville said of Elvis "He gave pleasure to millions"

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:00 am

YDKM wrote:again on tv news tonight. this 'case' is just going to get worse and aS A ONCE FAN OF HIM THIS IS VERY SAD AND UNPLEASANT 'NEWS'
Jimmy Saville said of Elvis "He gave pleasure to millions"



Very sad indeed :( , He was laid in state at the queens hotel in Leeds and taken on a final ride around the city, I attended his funeral ( stood outside the church), The whole city of Leeds was proud to have him as one of ours but now all this leaves me cold :| .

Alan.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:17 am

Chad Gates wrote:
YDKM wrote:again on tv news tonight. this 'case' is just going to get worse and aS A ONCE FAN OF HIM THIS IS VERY SAD AND UNPLEASANT 'NEWS'
Jimmy Saville said of Elvis "He gave pleasure to millions"



Very sad indeed :( , He was laid in state at the queens hotel in Leeds and taken on a final ride around the city, I attended his funeral ( stood outside the church), The whole city of Leeds was proud to have him as one of ours but now all this leaves me cold :| .

Alan.



Very sad indeed i did not want to condemn his memory based on media tabloids ! but the news is getting worse day by day,if he is guilty of these atrocities then i hope he rots in hell !!!