Off Topic Messages

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:10 pm

ColinB wrote:
debtd1 wrote:
Mike S wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:no-one in their right mind can seriously shove their fingers in their ears after four weeks of evidence against Savile has been brought before us.

How many times do I have to say it? Trial by media should not be confused with a trial in a court of law where all allegations and those bringing them would be rigorously questioned to determine the character and motivations of the accusers, together with the consistency of their account.


I do agree with that, the media are a*sholes for it..........


But the media haven't dreamt up the 200+ victims & witnesses who have now spoken.


maybe they havnt........but they love going for the jugular. 'Any' celeb who's on a pedestal they take great delight in pulling them off

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:10 pm

................................
Last edited by debtd1 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:10 pm

..............................
Last edited by debtd1 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:10 pm

...........................
Last edited by debtd1 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:10 pm

..............................
Last edited by debtd1 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:10 pm

.....................
Last edited by debtd1 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:10 pm

..........................
Last edited by debtd1 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:10 pm

...................
Last edited by debtd1 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:10 pm

duplicate post

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:14 pm

I like the way you got your point across Deb

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:15 pm

ColinB wrote:
debtd1 wrote:
Mike S wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:no-one in their right mind can seriously shove their fingers in their ears after four weeks of evidence against Savile has been brought before us.

How many times do I have to say it? Trial by media should not be confused with a trial in a court of law where all allegations and those bringing them would be rigorously questioned to determine the character and motivations of the accusers, together with the consistency of their account.


I do agree with that, the media are a*sholes for it..........


But the media haven't dreamt up the 200+ victims & witnesses who have now spoken.


But where were those media years ago?
Did nobody talk to the media when it supposedly happened?
Did the media, just like the police, ignore it at the time?
Why come forward after someone died and at an old age too?
What is to gain by all this exposé? Jimmy Saville won't stand in front of a judge, the people who supposedly knew but did nothing will not stand in front of a judge after all these years.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:15 pm

Sooner be page 10 and Delboy can treat us with some much needed humor

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:16 pm

lol..........sorry Ken, Internet playing up :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:18 pm

debtd1 wrote:lol..........sorry Ken, Internet playing up :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

It does that sometimes ,bloody thing

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:27 pm

I fail to see where this has been trial by media anyway. This isn't a case where the media has decided that Savile was guilty prior to evidence coming forward. The evidence is there and we have all seen it - not just through sensationalised newspaper reports, but also through the testimony of the victims, the abusers, Savile's Colleagues, witnesses and the police.

If we can compare this to trial by media in the Michael Barrymore case, for example, the differences are quite obvious. Barrymore was tried and convicted by the press long before the evidence was brought before the papers. A man was found dead in his pool at a party that involved drugs. It wasn't even ever ruled that the man was murdered, the inquest gave an open verdict - and yet literally within days Barrymore had been convicted by the press of the murder.

The differences between the two cases are startling:

For Savile we have victims, witnesses, police and circumstantial evidence on camera stating what happened - for Barrymore there were none of the above. For Savile, the police, government and other bodies have confirmed that crimes took place - in the case of Barrymore they have not, with the exception of drugs offenses. 200 victims coming forward is very different to one man dying in a pool at a drug-fuelled party.

The Savile case is very different to what has gone before - for once the press has made up their minds AFTER they have seen evidence and not before. For once the press haven't decided Savile's guilt, the victims that have come forward have done that for us.

To put it another way, with your own view of this case, we should presume Hitler was not guilty of war crimes because he was never able to stand up in a court and defend himself.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:51 pm

Stating Hitler was innocent because he never stood trial is not really true because there is evidence of his crimes. Lots of evidence!
With Jimmy Saville it is 200 people saying he grabbed underage people and even that he visited the morgue for sexual actions.
I have no idea how underage these kids were at the time.
Like stated before in this thread, there is a difference whether they are 8 years old or 15 years old, although both is underage.
It is also quite a difference if the underage is 15 and the "adult" 16, 17, 18 or 24, 25 or even older.
I start to question (sexual or otherwise) relationships even if it is with consent when the underage and the "adult" differ 10 years or more.
So a 24 year old Elvis and a 14 year old Priscilla is a no no to me.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:38 pm

zolderopruiming1 wrote:Stating Hitler was innocent because he never stood trial is not really true because there is evidence of his crimes. Lots of evidence!
With Jimmy Saville it is 200 people saying he grabbed underage people and even that he visited the morgue for sexual actions.
I have no idea how underage these kids were at the time.
Like stated before in this thread, there is a difference whether they are 8 years old or 15 years old, although both is underage.
It is also quite a difference if the underage is 15 and the "adult" 16, 17, 18 or 24, 25 or even older.
I start to question (sexual or otherwise) relationships even if it is with consent when the underage and the "adult" differ 10 years or more.
So a 24 year old Elvis and a 14 year old Priscilla is a no no to me.


Yes, but the 24 year old Elvis with a 14 year old Priscilla would have been legal in Germany at the time any relations were taking place.

If you have no idea how underage the kids were then you surely haven't watched any of the coverage regarding the situation and so it seems rather strange that you feel qualified to comment on the thread? As you would know had you seen the news or the Panorama programme on Monday, the kids range from 8 and upwards. You would also know that the activities were non-consensual in the case of all those who have spoken on TV - unless you think someone being fondled who was mentally ill can be considered consensual, or a nine year old boy giving oral sex in a dressing room could have been consensual.

People here are questioning what the people coming forward are gaining from this, and I repeat again that the WITNESSES stand to gain nothing - they don't get paid for their interviews, they don't stand to receive compensation. And even those that have come forward to say that they had a good idea of what was going on have nothing to gain at this stage and everything to lose from those asking the question "why didn't you do something?"

Considering you are saying you could say Hitler was guilty because there was enough evidence, but not Savile seems ridiculous. How many people's testimony do we actually need? Even half of the people coming forward are jumping on the bandwagon and hoping for compensation and never even met Savile, that still means that over a hundred people were abused by him. The BBC has stated that he was confronted twice on the issue. The police launched an investigation. Other people went to the police but officers were told to drop the case by their superiors. People who worked with Savile have come forward to say they knew what was going on. A Nationwide reporter has said that Savile openly admitted to having sex with young girls, but he thought he was joking. Witnesses have come forward to say that they saw him abuse children.

How much evidence would you actually like?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:10 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
zolderopruiming1 wrote:Stating Hitler was innocent because he never stood trial is not really true because there is evidence of his crimes. Lots of evidence!
With Jimmy Saville it is 200 people saying he grabbed underage people and even that he visited the morgue for sexual actions.
I have no idea how underage these kids were at the time.
Like stated before in this thread, there is a difference whether they are 8 years old or 15 years old, although both is underage.
It is also quite a difference if the underage is 15 and the "adult" 16, 17, 18 or 24, 25 or even older.
I start to question (sexual or otherwise) relationships even if it is with consent when the underage and the "adult" differ 10 years or more.
So a 24 year old Elvis and a 14 year old Priscilla is a no no to me.


Yes, but the 24 year old Elvis with a 14 year old Priscilla would have been legal in Germany at the time any relations were taking place.

If you have no idea how underage the kids were then you surely haven't watched any of the coverage regarding the situation and so it seems rather strange that you feel qualified to comment on the thread? As you would know had you seen the news or the Panorama programme on Monday, the kids range from 8 and upwards. You would also know that the activities were non-consensual in the case of all those who have spoken on TV - unless you think someone being fondled who was mentally ill can be considered consensual, or a nine year old boy giving oral sex in a dressing room could have been consensual.

People here are questioning what the people coming forward are gaining from this, and I repeat again that the WITNESSES stand to gain nothing - they don't get paid for their interviews, they don't stand to receive compensation. And even those that have come forward to say that they had a good idea of what was going on have nothing to gain at this stage and everything to lose from those asking the question "why didn't you do something?"

Considering you are saying you could say Hitler was guilty because there was enough evidence, but not Savile seems ridiculous. How many people's testimony do we actually need? Even half of the people coming forward are jumping on the bandwagon and hoping for compensation and never even met Savile, that still means that over a hundred people were abused by him. The BBC has stated that he was confronted twice on the issue. The police launched an investigation. Other people went to the police but officers were told to drop the case by their superiors. People who worked with Savile have come forward to say they knew what was going on. A Nationwide reporter has said that Savile openly admitted to having sex with young girls, but he thought he was joking. Witnesses have come forward to say that they saw him abuse children.

How much evidence would you actually like?


The fact I have no idea how young the children were in the case of Jimmy Saville, is because the reports here (I'm not in the UK) only stated "minors".
Since anyone under 16 is considered a minor......
The real shame is that nobody did anything when they learned about it.
It is generally known artists/celebrities often have sex with minors. I have seen on TV a documentary about The Rolling Stones where 2 of them say they were in the USA in a hotel room and phoned down to the doorman saying "Can you send that girl in the blue dress up to our room?". They had 3 or 4 girls a day each!
I know a young Dutch singer who ended his career in the fifties (!) because he was sexually approached by "producers" and such.
Some female singers are known to have a boost in their career when they pose sexy i.e. barely dressed for a certain photographer.
If you know all filth that is going on in showbizz you are not surprised it is called "sex, drugs and rock & roll"...............
And if no one stops these people while they're at it.........

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:09 am

:shock: The stuff on Savile in newspapers around the world is incredable today.....here is just 2 paragraphs from a major article i read today!~
"Three inquiries have been announced - two by the BBC and one into why an earlier investigation into Savile by Surrey police in 2007 was not followed up by the Crown Prosecution Service. By Thursday this week a criminal investigation by Scotland Yard and other forces had 300 potential cases on file.

"There is no doubt Savile was one of the worst paedophiles in criminal history," said Commander Peter Spindler, the head of the investigation. Arrests of other abusers linked to Savile are expected imminently, some of them, apparently, household names."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/bbc-in-a-sp ... z2AT8Y5kZm

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:58 am

Watch this. This is sickening. This might just be the episode of 'Top of the Pops' that I may have attended back in the seventies and was allegedly abused by Savile. I know exactly what this poor girl must now be going through. Read my earlier post for the full, horrifying story of what could possibly have happened.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... on-tv.html

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:38 pm

Delboy wrote:Watch this. This is sickening. This might just be the episode of 'Top of the Pops' that I may have attended back in the seventies and was allegedly abused by Savile. I know exactly what this poor girl must now be going through. Read my earlier post for the full, horrifying story of what could possibly have happened.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... on-tv.html

Shouldn't that be: Read this. This is sickening?

Perhaps you could claim a percentage from her passing off your idea? Thanks for posting anyway. It serves as a perfect example of how ridiculous this whole affair has become.

Only 300 'claims' so far. C'mon everyone, put your minds to it, there's still notoriety and cash to be had......

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:48 pm

Mike S wrote:
Delboy wrote:Watch this. This is sickening. This might just be the episode of 'Top of the Pops' that I may have attended back in the seventies and was allegedly abused by Savile. I know exactly what this poor girl must now be going through. Read my earlier post for the full, horrifying story of what could possibly have happened.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... on-tv.html

Shouldn't that be: Read this. This is sickening?

Perhaps you could claim a percentage from her passing off your idea? Thanks for posting anyway. It serves as a perfect example of how ridiculous this whole affair has become.

Only 300 'claims' so far. C'mon everyone, put your minds to it, there's still notoriety and cash to be had......


You are seriously starting to freak me out with your pish. You either just enjoy arguing for the sake of it or there is something more sinister !.

Which is it?

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:33 pm

It is interesting that the Crown Prosecution Service is now investigating why no prosecution towards Savile took place in any of the FIVE different police investigations about him over the last three decades.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:03 pm

Mike S wrote:
Delboy wrote:Watch this. This is sickening. This might just be the episode of 'Top of the Pops' that I may have attended back in the seventies and was allegedly abused by Savile. I know exactly what this poor girl must now be going through. Read my earlier post for the full, horrifying story of what could possibly have happened.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... on-tv.html

Shouldn't that be: Read this. This is sickening?


No, if you bothered to open the link up there is a video clip.

Sally James did a similar thing to me when i was on Tiswas.

My mates were well jealous.

Re: Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:24 pm

Read this blog. Very interesting regarding the background of this story: Parts 4 & 5 relate to the Savile saga. A Yorkshire based Sky journalist today tweeted that researching the records of the Duncroft School is too "time consuming". This is because the evidence would prove what has been alleged in the press to be false. A long read but well worth it if you're interested in the post-death assassination of Savile.

http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/pas ... part-four/