[Tom4784]

I'll await what the police's conclusions are, they're the ones who has access to all the statements and evidence (if there is any) not a bunch of manipulative rags that have declared innocent people guilty of crimes they didn't do in the past.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by Omah

No ..... AFAIK, "oppression" is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner, e.g. over slaves

Exactly my point. Isn't censorship oppression?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Livia

Firstly, the emoticons to not strengthen your argument, quite the reverse.

If there is no evidence, then in the law there is no claim to answer. I have not made that up.

Rubbish, see post above :

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...&postcount=298

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'll await what the police's conclusions are, they're the ones who has access to all the statements and evidence (if there is any) not a bunch of manipulative rags that have declared innocent people guilty of crimes they didn't do in the past.

that's on the premise that they haven't been tampered with...........

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

Exactly my point. Isn't censorship oppression?

You said that, I certainly didn't, so therefore that's not what I meant .....

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by Omah

You said that, I certainly didn't, so therefore that's not what I meant .....

You were basically pulling me up and stating I had not used the word in it's correct context. As far as I am concerned I have.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'll await what the police's conclusions are, they're the ones who has access to all the statements and evidence (if there is any) not a bunch of manipulative rags that have declared innocent people guilty of crimes they didn't do in the past.

Exactly so.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

You were basically pulling me up and stating I had not used the word in it's correct context. As far as I am concerned I have.

It may be in its correct context but not in mine ..... you are inferring an incorrect context.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

that's on the premise that they haven't been tampered with...........

More chance of that happening with the rags then with the Police.

I do find your unwavering faith in a bunch gossip rags but distrust of the Police amusing.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

More chance of that happening with the rags then with the Police.

I do find your unwavering faith in a bunch gossip rags but distrust of the Police amusing.

Where did I say I put my faith in a bunch of gossip rags??


Glad I amuse you Dezzy...I do aim to please.

The police aren't beyond such things, let's not pretend that they are - as are the gossip rags as you put it.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by Omah

It may be in its correct context but not in mine ..... you are inferring an incorrect context.

And that makes complete sense in relation to your initial reply to my post...

[Tom4784]

Ah, I read your name as Omah for some unknown reason.

I'll put more faith in the police then the gossip rags any day.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Ah, I read your name as Omah for some unknown reason.

I'll put more faith in the police then the gossip rags any day.

That'll be an apology then eh...


Hillsborough proved much - mostly that when it suits, the police will tamper with evidence if and when it suits them, when they've been at fault for not dealing with things in the manner in which they should have.

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19856081

Ms Kershaw, 54, who joined Radio 1 in 1987, said the station had changed out of all recognition since the 1980s.

She described the atmosphere at Radio 1 at the time as "intimidating".

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme she remembered an unnamed presenter fondling her breasts while she was on live radio.

"I couldn't say anything, I couldn't even explain because I was broadcasting to the nation," she said.

"When I complained to somebody they were incredulous and said 'Don't you like it? Are you a lesbian?"'

Ms Kershaw, who arrived at Radio 1 around the time Sir Jimmy was leaving, said: "The rumours were there, the jokes were there. It was an open secret.

"Round Radio 1 everyone joked about Jimmy Savile and young girls. The main jokes were about his adventures on the Radio 1 Roadshow. It was massive then.

"It was rather like the X Factor going round the country then. Can you imagine the X Factor judges rounding up the contestants and asking for sexual favours after the show? I don't think so," she added.

The Lancashire-born Ms Kershaw, who joined from BBC local radio in West Yorkshire, said: "When I walked into Radio 1 it was a culture I have never encountered before.

"I have always said it was like walking into a rugby club locker room and it was very intimidating for a young woman."

Of course, Liz Kershaw must have been paid to say that .....

[arista]

Yes Utter Stink.

[cassieparis]

The law says innocent until proven guilty.
However with the crimes perpetrated by paedophiles the victims are often silenced till the perpetrator is dead and gone. Silenced until we become ourselves.
Silenced by the burning shame.
Silenced by the disbelief of others.
Silenced by the memory of a child put up against the mind of a knowing arrogant daredevil and outrageous freak.
Silenced by parents who would prefer a child who pretended it didn't happen, by a society that cannot believe that paedophiles congregate where children gather. Get right in their faces.
Silenced by their perpetrator's wanton seduction of their parents.
Silenced by fear of retribution.
Silenced by their perpetrator's power and ability to get away with it time after time.

Disturbed people make wild and unbelievable claims about dead celebrities. One could ask who disturbed them?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19856081



Of course, Liz Kershaw must have been paid to say that .....

Well excuse me for not taking the rags' word as gospel, I'd much rather wait on the official verdict from the actual people investigating the case rather then grab my pitchfork just because a stupid paper told me I should.

I apologise for being able to think for myself.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

That'll be an apology then eh...


Hillsborough proved much - mostly that when it suits, the police will tamper with evidence if and when it suits them, when they've been at fault for not dealing with things in the manner in which they should have.

One incident doesn't set the norm, You'd be foolish to trust the rags more then you would the police. If we're talking about royal **** ups then the Media has a lot more to answer for then the police.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Well excuse me for not taking the rags' word as gospel, I'd much rather wait on the official verdict from the actual people investigating the case rather then grab my pitchfork just because a stupid paper told me I should.

I apologise for being able to think for myself.

Erm, I think you'll find that I have also linked to radio, TV and Savile's own autobiography - in THREE links, I have quoted the revealing evidence of Savile's own words .....

Anyone who trusts only "the actual people investigating the case", by which I assume you mean the police, will never hear the whole story and maybe not even the real story .....

Were it not for the change in attitude of the media, there would be no "actual people investigating the case" and the possibility that there was a culture of sexual abuse, and particularly child sex abuse, at the BBC would not even be a consideration amongst the so-called "GBP", but still a secret kept by those in power and their minions .....

[Omah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/m...limelight.html

By Jenny McCartney

For those of us who grew up during the 1970s and 1980s, there is something strangely compelling about the numerous sad revelations of Jimmy Savile’s sexual exploitation of young girls. This is not because such behaviour comes as a total shock, but rather that it confirms a kind of amorphous, instinctive suspicion of Savile that pervaded my generation.

As a teenager in Belfast, I recall fellow pupils doing Savile impressions, saying in his flat Northern tones: “Now then, now then, how’s about…a spot of necrophilia?” We all fell about laughing: half of us didn’t even know what necrophilia was, and if we did, we didn’t seriously think that Savile was at it. But it touched a funny-bone, and it wasn’t the kind of joke we made about other adults on television. We certainly thought he was weird, and that something not quite right lurked in him. Indeed, his weirdness was what made him interesting.

In real life, if you saw a middle-aged man hanging about the shopping centre in a string vest and a shiny tracksuit, with a pallid face and greasy, bobbed hair like Chaucer’s Pardoner – “as yellow as wax” – you would have given him a wide berth, or your mother would have pulled you past. But there Savile was, larger than life on television, where you could goggle at him all you liked. He was the necessary link-man between star-struck children and the glittering possibility of celebrity favours: half Santa Claus, half albino Child-Catcher.

What made anyone think he was trustworthy? Well, he was on television, where costumes and eccentricity were more readily acceptable than in real life. And he was famous, so people felt that they already knew him. Trust, like suspicion, is contagious: adults naturally assumed that if he had done anything wrong it would have come to light because he was famous. In fact, the opposite was true: his fame effectively silenced everyone around him, from fellow BBC employees to the stunned teenage girls who were his prey.

Yeah, especially back then, there were none so blind as those that will not see .....

[Omah]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/jimmy-s...s-make-1365264

Nearly 100 victims have claimed they were sexually abused by Jimmy Savile... including a MAN who says the star attacked him when he was just nine years old.

John Gibbin is the first male to have officially reported an assault by the DJ to the police.

He told the Sunday Mirror that Savile lured him into the back of his Rolls Royce and fondled him.

“He was leaning over me, smelling of cigars and booze,” John, 49, reveals in a chilling interview. “I wanted to cry. I just knew this was wrong.”

The new claims have emerged as the number of women who have contacted police and the makers of last week’s bombshell TV documentary on Savile nears treble figures. Many were aged nine and 10 when they claim the TV favourite molested them at the height of his fame.

Savile, who died last year at 84, is even alleged to have abused girls into his 70s.

We can reveal a British man told Scotland Yard in 2004 he was making trips to Goa in India to have sex with children. The witnesss said Savile went to villages to pick up girls. But police said they needed more evidence.

A source close to the Metropolitan Police investigation into Savile said yesterday: “The lid has been lifted off now. The ages of many victims is particularly disturbing.”

[Livia]

"A source close to the Metropolitan Police investigation into Savile said yesterday....."

Ahhhh... the old "reliable source" who is "close to" the investigation. It must all be true.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Livia

"A source close to the Metropolitan Police investigation into Savile said yesterday....."

Ahhhh... the old "reliable source" who is "close to" the investigation. It must all be true.

If just one story is "true", Savile's sanctity is suspect .....

(Naturally, I believe it's all true and just the tip of a very, very dirty iceberg ..... )

[Omah]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz28ZVoMAnp

Tony Calder was 18 when he first met Jimmy at Decca Records in 1961. Calder, who would go on to co-manage The Rolling Stones, had just stormed out of a meeting when he bumped into the DJ – who was contracted to play the company’s records on Radio Luxembourg. ‘Jimmy said, “Come with me to Leeds for the weekend. I’ll make sure you get laid,” ’ said Calder.

Calder did go, and said for the next 18 months Jimmy became his ‘mentor’, training him up as one of his DJs.

Calder recalled that Jimmy had girls throwing themselves at him, and that he’d normally had sex with them before he ‘passed them on’.

‘They’d do what they were told,’ Calder recalled. ‘They were followers. They were his little slaves.’

He confirmed that for Jimmy, ‘the rule was: the younger the better’, although he was ‘terrified of getting nicked with underage girls’.

Calder recalled being at the table as one senior police officer was wined and dined.

He remembered Jimmy being warned about his behaviour: ‘[The police officer said] “You’ve got to cut it out,” whatever it was. [Jimmy] was taken aback.’ Once one police chief retired or moved on, Calder said Jimmy would move on to wooing the next: ‘He wasn’t stupid. Whatever he was doing, he was covering his back.’

As his flatmate, support DJ, chauffeur and sidekick, Ray Teret was better placed than most to witness what his boss was doing. Teret styled himself on Jimmy and they shared a half- derelict apartment in Salford in the early Sixties. ‘He was a pop star,’ Teret said. ‘When you’re in that business they’re always there in front of you.

‘They always wanted Jimmy’s autograph,’ said Teret, ‘and while they’re all queuing up I get chatting to them, “Who are you? What’s your name? What are you doing later? We’re staying in the caravan, do you want to come and see us at six o’clock? Bring a girlfriend.” It was that easy.’

In March 1999, Ray Teret, then 57, was jailed for six months for seducing and bedding a 15-year- old schoolgirl.

Jimmy’s older brother John Henry was fired from his job at a London psychiatric hospital for sexually assaulting a female patient. He was alleged to have lifted the patient’s smock and groped at her breasts in his office.

[Me. I Am Salman]

The man who says Jimmy went to India to sexually abuse children...why the **** is he telling the police 8 years later, or am I missing something out?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Salman!

The man who says Jimmy went to India to sexually abuse children...why the **** is he telling the police 8 years later, or am I missing something out?

He told the police in 2004, the incident has come to light in this year, 2012.