Jimmy Savile: New Report Claims He Performed Sex Acts On Dead Bodies [Archive] - Page 2?login=1 - ThisisBigBrother.com

Omah

05-10-2012, 11:20 PM

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/350386/Nurse-I-saw-Jimmy-Savile-molest-young-patient

A retired nurse watched in horror as Sir Jimmy Savile molested a vulnerable young woman hospital patient while working as a porter, writes Paul Jeeves.

June Thornton, now 80, said when she tried to report the DJ’s indecent assault to a senior nurse the matter was ignored.

The former York Hospital nurse threatened to “scream the place down” if Savile came near her bed as she recovered from a back injury at Leeds General Infirmary in 1972.

More than 40 women and one man – a school tutor – have now made allegations against the Jim’ll Fix It star.

Mrs Thornton said she saw Savile kissing and groping a woman who she believed was recovering from neurosurgery. “He should be stripped of his knighthood,” she added.

The claims came as another North Yorkshire woman said she was touched inappropriately by Savile in a lift at the hospital in 1973. The woman, now 55, said she was 16 when the abuse happened.

Obviously, this is just another paid-for tissue of lies and part of the conspiracy to besmirch the sacred reputation of St James of Savile ..... :pipe:

Livia

05-10-2012, 11:33 PM

No one believes he was a saint. Most people, myself included, think he was awful and creepy. But once again, here's someone who saw everything - a nurse, presumably not a stupid woman - who's complaint was "ignored". Forty years later she's remembered how horrified she was.

Omah

05-10-2012, 11:51 PM

Jimmy Savile publicly denied having known her

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213621/Claire-McAlpine-A-15-year-old-killed-leaving-diary-naming-DJs-abusers-Disturbing-questions-John-Peel-So-starts-WERE-involved.html

Back in the Seventies, when Jimmy Savile was at the height of his fame, he was interviewed by a newspaper about the death of a teenage girl.

The youngster was Claire McAlpine. She was just 15 years old and had been a regular dancer in the audience of Top Of The Pops.

On the morning of March 29, 1971, Claire, a former convent school pupil, was found lying on the floor of her bedroom at home in Watford, Hertfordshire, by her distraught mother. She had taken a fatal overdose.

Near her body was a bottle of tablets and her red diary. ‘Don’t laugh at me for being dramatic, but I just can’t take it any more,’ Claire wrote.

It was her last heartbreaking entry to her parents before she killed herself.

On the preceding pages, she had named a string of radio disc jockeys — and other showbusiness personalities, all household names — who, she claimed, had ‘used’ her.

One of the DJs, she said, had taken her to his house for the night and given her a pill which made her feel like she was ‘floating on a cloud’. Another had also invited her back to his ‘sumptuously furnished’ residence.

Savile, then in his 40s, who presented Top Of The Pops, was asked during the interview if he knew or remembered Claire from the show.

‘I studied a photograph of Claire very closely,’ he replied. ‘I cannot recollect ever seeing the girl in my life. They say she came from Watford. I don’t know anyone who lives in Watford.’

The inquest into Claire’s death was held shortly after the article appeared. The coroner ruled that Claire committed suicide after deciding her ‘day-dreams’ of becoming a pop star would never come true.

Claire’s diary was scrutinised by Scotland Yard, but no action was taken against the DJs, who, she alleged, had ‘used’ her for their own sexual gratification.

They were never even questioned, let alone identified. ‘It would be ridiculous to connect anyone or anything mentioned in her diary with reality,’ a police spokesman said at the time.

Or, to put another way, Claire was a portrayed as a troubled fantasist. Her death, however tragic, had nothing to do with a sex scandal involving the showbusiness establishment.

Suicide: Claire McAlpine, 15, pictured dancing in the Top Of The Pops audience just weeks before she died

A picture from Top of The Pops in 1971 shows Claire McAlpine, centre, dancing on stage with Jimmy Savile, third from right, only weeks before she died

Claire is very pretty, blonde, and wearing hotpants - not exactly forgettable .....

Bizarre: Late BBC Radio DJ John Peel, who died in 2004, poses wearing a schoolgirl uniform in 1973

Peel, awarded the OBE in 1998, is perhaps best remembered for his Saturday morning programme Home Truths on Radio 4 in which he talked about family life to Middle England.

But as a young man, he worked in Texas as a local radio station DJ and self-appointed ‘Beatles expert’.

When he was older, he recalled some of the ‘perks’ of the job in several newspaper interviews in the Seventies and Eighties.

Girls, some as young as 13, he said, used to queue up outside his studio to offer him sexual favours. ‘Well, of course, I didn’t ask for ID,’ he said.

‘All they wanted me to do was to abuse them sexually which, of course I was only too happy to do.

‘It was the glamour of the job . . . but frustratingly, American girls of that period — as they do now, actually — had this strange notion of virginity as a tangible thing which you surrendered to your husband on your wedding night.

‘So they would do anything but s*** you. They’d give you a b*** *** before they’d s*** you.’

Even now, and allowing for Peel’s famously sardonic humour, it is troubling that those words came from Radio 4’s cuddly champion of middle-class values. One of the girls who queued up outside his studio was a girl called Shirley Anne Milburn. She and Peel were married in Texas on September 29, 1965.

Peel was 26 years old. Shirley Anne was just 15.

‘She lied about her age and so did her family,’ he would later declare.

Of course she did, John ..... :rolleyes:

Livia

05-10-2012, 11:55 PM

Wow, you're really sucking all this up, aren't you Omah. Obviously if someone is famous, dead and had a dick, they were a paedophile.

Mrluvaluva

06-10-2012, 12:00 AM

And yet now somebody elses name is being rubbished who cannot defend himself.

Omah

06-10-2012, 12:09 AM

Wow, you're really sucking all this up, aren't you Omah. Obviously if someone is famous, dead and had a dick, they were a paedophile.

Obviously, you're exaggerating ..... :laugh3:

Munchkins

06-10-2012, 12:14 AM

Omah

06-10-2012, 12:30 AM

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-why-child-abuse-allegations-1362756

Savile was a bully who both threatened his victims and cowed the Press at a time when we were, whatever Lord Justice Leveson has been told on the subject, a lot more likely to do as they were told.

Even if you'd found a damaged 14-year-old prepared to be named, who could withstand accusations she had invited it, provided photographic proof, and been able to persuade a newspaper it could appall the nation and its readers, Savile was a man of wealth and influence who would have sued her, the newspaper, and everyone else he could find.

If Savile had faced charges, we'd all have to watch him skip up the courthouse steps with his cigar and jewellery giving a thumbs-up for weeks on end and hear him do that stupid half-yodel in the witness box while claiming he wasn't there, didn't do it, or they pounced on him.

Perhaps women only feel safe to say it now he's dead.

Perhaps even now, with anonymity and more understanding, they wouldn't want to sit in court and be cross-examined or have their motivation and sexual history questioned.

Perhaps if there was a court case there'd only be four women coming forward rather than 40.

Perhaps, if he was still alive, we'd not have heard any of this at all.

Some victims have now had their say and avoided cross-examination, but they've had to wait decades and while they kept their mouths shut, who knows how many more girls were attacked.

Exactly .....

Munchkins

06-10-2012, 12:31 AM

But if all these allegations are true, it really is awful :(

Omah

06-10-2012, 12:38 AM

But if all these allegations are true, it really is awful :(

Even if only some are true ..... :sad:

Mrluvaluva

06-10-2012, 12:44 AM

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-why-child-abuse-allegations-1362756

Exactly .....

Oh so now the press have had no say in the matter until now due to oppression? Do you really believe that?

Omah

06-10-2012, 01:25 AM

Oh so now the press have had no say in the matter until now due to oppression? Do you really believe that?

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

Jake.

06-10-2012, 08:35 AM

Mhm i dont like the character assasination
all the good he did do is now all forgotten, and the media can spin and twist as much as they want to
i would have been interesting if this case happened when he was alive, and disgusted

The matter of it is, if he did sexually assault young men and woman, he doesn't deserve the good stuff he did to be remembered.

Livia

06-10-2012, 08:44 AM

The matter of it is, if he did sexually assault young men and woman, he doesn't deserve the good stuff he did to be remembered.

Again... IF.

Lots of evidence for the good works, none for the bad stuff except a gaggle of unsubstantiated claims and tittle-tattle blown out of proporation by the scummiest sections of the press.

Omah

06-10-2012, 08:49 AM

– judging by audience reaction to jokes cracked off air on The News Quiz

Simon Hoggart

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/oct/05/jimmy-savile-rumours-simon-hoggart?newsfeed=true

Since it is, quite rightly, open season on Jimmy Savile, I might add my two penn'orth. I thought he was a terrible disc jockey, boring, repetitive and more interested in himself than any record or guest. Compared with, say, Kenny Everett, who was a blazing talent, he was uninventive and predictable. He was the kind of person often described as "larger than life", which usually means a "tedious old show-off".

He was almost inarticulate. "Now then, now then," is not exactly the wittiest catchphrase. I once saw him interview a retired military officer for Jim'll Fix It, or "Jim'll Fix It If The BBC Can Get It For Free", as it should have been called. The old chap had a collection of Victoria Cross medals. "Now then, general, are any of these here medals any more different from the rest than what the others are?" he inquired.

People praised him for his charity work but, with some people, charity can be a form of aggression. The message is, "I'm helping you, so love me." And he made sure we all knew about it. Doing good by stealth was not his style.

Oddly enough his lascivious tastes were better known than you might imagine. When I chaired The News Quiz, we used to occasionally say things at the recording which we knew would be cut, but which might pique the audience into laughing even louder. Once I said something like, "Yes, it's about Jimmy Savile, Britain's best-loved celebrity paedophile." I expected a gasp, but instead got a knowing laugh. Almost everyone, it seemed, had heard the stories.

Owzabowthathen ..... :idc:

Jake.

06-10-2012, 08:49 AM

Livia

06-10-2012, 08:51 AM

I seriously doubt that all 40 people are liers. Some, yes maybe, but some of the others could be hard working, honest people who were assaulted by this man back in the day. Also that conversation posted between him and that female is a bit disturbing!

You don't know though, do you. You don't know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these things are true. It wouldn't be the first time people jumped on a bandwaggon. One piece of evidence. Just one. That's all I need to change my mind.

Jake.

06-10-2012, 08:54 AM

You don't know though, do you. You don't know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these things are true. It wouldn't be the first time people jumped on a bandwaggon. One piece of evidence. Just one. That's all I need to change my mind.

But you don't know that it didn't happen? To assume that every single one of these alleged victims is lying is hardly fair imo. He might not have literally raped everysingle one of them, but sexual assault can be anything from groping to rape. And how can you get evidence for that kind of thing?

Omah

06-10-2012, 09:06 AM

Again... IF.

Lots of evidence for the good works, none for the bad stuff except a gaggle of unsubstantiated claims and tittle-tattle blown out of proporation by the scummiest sections of the press.

"the scummiest sections" that I have quoted from are the BBC, C4, Daily Record, Mirror, Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Express, Independent and Guardian - other posters have used other sources ..... :pipe:

Nedusa

06-10-2012, 09:54 AM

But you don't know that it didn't happen? To assume that every single one of these alleged victims is lying is hardly fair imo. He might not have literally raped everysingle one of them, but sexual assault can be anything from groping to rape. And how can you get evidence for that kind of thing?

I agree with your comment above that the sheer numbers now coming forward lend more weight to the likelihood that he probably was a dirty old man , but as I've said before in this thread I would need to see one piece of solid evidence beyond testimony from any of his alleged victims before I would assume his guilt. And even then I'm still not happy with the very long time interval since these alleged crimes were committed , coupled with the fact the man is dead and cannot defend himself.

Easy to make up allegations against a dead person ( no legal comebacks re slander or libel)

Jake.

06-10-2012, 10:01 AM

What evidence would surfice? You can't just assume that every single 'victim' is an attention seeking ***** hoping to make a dime. It must have originated from somewhere, and I think its a tad ridiculous to write off all allegations on the grounds on 'no evidence'. Savile was hardly going to write down in his notepad 'assaulted a girl today! hope no body finds out though!'

Nedusa

06-10-2012, 10:06 AM

But allegations are just that allegations not evidence of guilt. Even though the sheer number of allegations seriously suggest there is some truth to the stories, without evidence we must reserve judgement otherwise we would end up in a very scary place, a place some people might argue we have already arrived at.

Jake.

06-10-2012, 10:10 AM

Will have to agree to disagree then, I'm certainly not writing off all 40 allegations on the basis of 'no proof', the sheer amount of allegations is pretty much proof in itself.

Pyramid*

06-10-2012, 10:43 AM

I dont take anything the tabloids write as proof of anything.
jimmy saville worked with kids for 50 years , raised £40 million for charity. now after hes dead a few women decide to sell diirty stories about him to tabloids? where have they been for 40 years? why didnt they do it when he was alive to answer these questions and to seek justice in courts? I think the way theyve gone about it is disgusting. a dead man cant defend himself. I got my jim'll fix it badge, I was inspired by his magnificent deeds and charity work and probably benefitted from it in one way or another. none of these unsubstantiated trial by tabloid, kangaroo court angry mod rule lurid claims will make a tiny difference to my opinion of sir jimmy. provide evidence, some proof, take it to the courts and then we will see if he is guilty or not. I seem to recall michael jackson was accused by even more people, thnakfully he was alive to defend himself and he was in fact cleared 100% innocent. both whacky, both eccentric, both vastly rich , both made tens of millions for charities. but neither has been proven guilty of any paedophilia. these are easy targets for the get rich quick chavs in america and uk. if there is a genuine victim, she or he needs to get to the police and provide as much evidence as possible and fight in court. sadly its still 30 years too late. doing it for money through the tabloids gets no respect from me.

My thoughts on the matter highlighted above.

I never liked the man, always thought there was something untoward, but I find this witch hunt now that he is dead a bit hard to swallow, especially with the 'alleged' numbers now coming forward.

find it hard to believe that so many 'abused' managed to keep their mouths shut for so many years and only managed to find their voice now that the man is dead and cannot defend himself.

Hard thing for a dead man to try to prove his innocence......

I'm perturbed that none of them managed to utter a word when all the coverage of Jonathan King came to light in 2001 - would have been the ideal time for the lid to be lifted...... but I cannot recall this ever coming to light way back then, when someone else in the business was being charged with the same thing.

Nedusa

06-10-2012, 10:47 AM

Will have to agree to disagree then, I'm certainly not writing off all 40 allegations on the basis of 'no proof', the sheer amount of allegations is pretty much proof in itself.

No I take your point I really do, he is most likely guilty as charged the weight of allegations are pretty overwhelming , but what worries me is the idea that without evidence, without a trial , without his right to defend himself he is guilty on the say so of a number of women.

It's more about the point of law and not wanting to set a legal precedent where providing you have enough people saying something is true it then becomes true. Other cases may come to light where a group of vindictive people could allege all sorts against a third party, and that person could be found guilty on allegation alone.

Kazanne

06-10-2012, 10:57 AM

Suze

06-10-2012, 11:12 AM

Wonder how people would react if it was their daughter/sister/mother,would they still tell them to just 'leave it' as they have no proof?or advise them to go to the police,I am not having a pop at anyone here,I am just curious as to how we would feel and what advice we would give them and how we would deal with it.I hear now a male has also complained.

I sort of agree with you there, Kazanne. Also maybe not much can be done with those who are no longer here to defend themselves apart from strip their awards maybe, but even that will make no difference now except maybe to the family and friends of them, but those who were victims would have a bit of peace of mind to know that it is being looked into at last. And maybe those who tried to sweep it under the carpet about what they knew and if true, then let young children suffer at the hands of those who should have known better, well maybe those left can be brought to some kind of justice. I have to say that Esther rantzen speaking out now whilst at the time turning a blind eye to anything, totally disgusts me, as she was a champion of so many things and has children of her own.

It is easy to say why now, but the truth of the matter is that if a lot of what is coming out is true, then Jimmy Savile and possibly others seem to have held a lot of sway in the world of media, and any victims might have seen no point in trying for justice at the time. Some obviously did try, and little came of it, so that must have put others off trying.

On the subject of the rags, scum as they are, I don't blame some of the percieved victims taking the rags monies for interviews, after all the rags would print stuff anyway, so why not make some money from the rags.

Kazanne

06-10-2012, 11:21 AM

I sort of agree with you there, Kazanne. Also maybe not much can be done with those who are no longer here to defend themselves apart from strip their awards maybe, but even that will make no difference now except maybe to the family and friends of them, but those who were victims would have a bit of peace of mind to know that it is being looked into at last. And maybe those who tried to sweep it under the carpet about what they knew and if true, then let young children suffer at the hands of those who should have known better, well maybe those left can be brought to some kind of justice. I have to say that Esther rantzen speaking out now whilst at the time turning a blind eye to anything, totally disgusts me, as she was a champion of so many things and has children of her own.

It is easy to say why now, but the truth of the matter is that if a lot of what is coming out is true, then Jimmy Savile and possibly others seem to have held a lot of sway in the world of media, and any victims might have seen no point in trying for justice at the time. Some obviously did try, and little came of it, so that must have others off trying.

On the subject of the rags, scum as they are, I don't blame some of the percieved victims taking the rags monies for interviews, after all the rags would print stuff anyway, so why not make some money from the rags.

It's all very messy Suze,I read today that John Peel is now in the frame too as is Freddie Star(who is very much alive)the BBC seems to be more at blame here for seemingly covering up complaints,I just think there must be something in it for so many to come forward,the dead cannot be punished,but it may appease some of the victims to get it off their chests{so to speak).

Livia

06-10-2012, 11:26 AM

But you don't know that it didn't happen? To assume that every single one of these alleged victims is lying is hardly fair imo. He might not have literally raped everysingle one of them, but sexual assault can be anything from groping to rape. And how can you get evidence for that kind of thing?

Maybe I am looking at this a different way than some of you are because of my profession. But people have to be proved to be guilty. No one has to prove themselves to be innocent, that isn't how the law works. And to have waited decades until he died seemms very suspect to me. No one - not one person - came forward at the time. And yet, suddenly, there are tens, of not hundreds of people with a story to share with the nation.

Livia

06-10-2012, 11:28 AM

Livia

06-10-2012, 11:31 AM

joeysteele

06-10-2012, 11:40 AM

That isn't how the law works, thank God.

... and may it never be so that the law ever does work that way too. I agree with your posts on this issue.

Omah

06-10-2012, 11:41 AM

And to have waited decades until he died seemms very suspect to me. No one - not one person - came forward at the time.

Another one of the alleged victims, Charlotte, says she was 14 when she was indecently assaulted by Jimmy Savile in a caravan parked in the grounds of her residential school said she was punished for making a complaint against Savile at the time.

She said:

“I was taken upstairs to the isolation unit, left there for two or three days and said that I could come back into the building when I refrained from saying such filthy things and retract the accusations and you know, that was it.

When I came out I just didn’t say anything more because I hated it in the isolation unit, it was a padded cell.

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-09-30/bbc-jimmy-savile-accused-of-sexually-abusing-girls-in-itv-exposure-documentary/

Livia

06-10-2012, 11:43 AM

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-09-30/bbc-jimmy-savile-accused-of-sexually-abusing-girls-in-itv-exposure-documentary/

If a complaint was made at the time there will be documentary evidence somewhere. I look forward to seeing something. Anything.

Omah

06-10-2012, 11:47 AM

I wonder how people would react if it was their son/brother/father who was dead, unable to defend themselves and being accused of being a paedophile and a pervert by people who did not speak out in his lifetime.

I wonder how people would react if it was their daughter/sister/mother who was, as a child, unable to defend themselves from the sexual attentions of a middle-aged smelly paedophile and pervert, but who was not believed by people who sanctified Savile in his lifetime.

Omah

06-10-2012, 11:51 AM

If a complaint was made at the time there will be documentary evidence somewhere. I look forward to seeing something. Anything.

"there will be documentary evidence somewhere"

Really ? As if ..... :rolleyes:

Even before shredders were invented, there were fires and furnaces ..... :laugh2:

Livia

06-10-2012, 11:52 AM

I wonder how people would react if it was their daughter/sister/mother who was, as a child, unable to defend themselves from the sexual attentions of a middle-aged smelly paedophile and pervert, but who was not believed by people who sanctified Savile in his lifetime.

You have just repeated the post of Kazanne's I replied to which raised the very points you are repeating.

I would believe the claims. I really would... if there was ONE bit of real evidence. One. Not quote after quote from the tabloids.

Jake.

06-10-2012, 11:53 AM

Things were far less documented back in those days. Look at the Moores Murders. They got caught because of something ridculous I think.

Livia

06-10-2012, 11:54 AM

"there will be documentary evidence somewhere"

Really ? As if ..... :rolleyes:

Even before shredders were invented, there were fires and furnaces ..... :laugh2:

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.

Omah

06-10-2012, 11:59 AM

Will have to agree to disagree then, I'm certainly not writing off all 40 allegations on the basis of 'no proof', the sheer amount of allegations is pretty much proof in itself.

That isn't how the law works, thank God.

Well, yes it is, actually :

The vast majority of sexual offences committed against children and young persons are committed by family members or by persons well known to the victim. Most of those who are convicted of sexual offences against children and young persons are convicted primarily because the jury believes the complainant’s evidence and does not believe the defendant’s denial. The defendant may allege that the abuse simply did not occur or that it was not the defendant who was responsible. Most offences are committed when the victim and offender are alone, and there is rarely any scientific or other corroborative evidence. It follows that a key issue in most applications to the Commission will be the complainant’s credibility.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/casework/sexual-offences.pdf

Nedusa

06-10-2012, 12:00 PM

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.

I agree, just because 40 people say something happened doesn't prove that it happened..!!!

Tom4784

06-10-2012, 12:01 PM

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.

Tom4784

06-10-2012, 12:01 PM

Mrluvaluva

06-10-2012, 12:01 PM

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

06-10-2012, 12:02 PM

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/forums/showpost.php?p=5529335&postcount=298

Pyramid*

06-10-2012, 12:05 PM

Omah

06-10-2012, 12:06 PM

Exactly my point. Isn't censorship oppression?

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

Mrluvaluva

06-10-2012, 12:08 PM

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

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

06-10-2012, 12:12 PM

Omah

06-10-2012, 12:14 PM

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

06-10-2012, 12:25 PM

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*

06-10-2012, 12:29 PM

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

06-10-2012, 12:38 PM

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

06-10-2012, 12:40 PM

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*

06-10-2012, 12:51 PM

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

06-10-2012, 03:52 PM

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 ..... :idc:

arista

06-10-2012, 04:28 PM

Yes Utter Stink.

cassieparis

06-10-2012, 06:42 PM

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

06-10-2012, 07:57 PM

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

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

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.

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

06-10-2012, 09:29 PM

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

06-10-2012, 09:42 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopmusic/9591157/Jimmy-Savile-hid-in-the-dazzle-of-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

06-10-2012, 11:50 PM

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/jimmy-savile-almost-100-victims-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.”

:eek:

Livia

07-10-2012, 12:17 AM

"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

07-10-2012, 01:13 AM

"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 ..... :suspect:

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

Omah

07-10-2012, 01:21 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213931/Little-slaves-sordid-boasts-dark-truth-friend-Jimmy-Savile-biographer.html#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

07-10-2012, 01:27 AM

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

07-10-2012, 01:32 AM

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.

MTVN

07-10-2012, 02:11 AM

I bet it'll have reached 250 by the end of next week

Me. I Am Salman

07-10-2012, 02:22 AM

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

Ohh I read it wrong

Nedusa

07-10-2012, 06:49 AM

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 07:05 AM

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.

I don't disagree. I simply pointed out that the police are not beyond lying and fabricating the truth, tampering with evidence when it suits their own purpose.

This story is becoming a bit ridiculous now, I mean where would he have found the time to molest so many women/girls, over a hundred victims and rising more coming out of the woodwork with each passing day. I shudder to think how many more victims will come forward in the coming weeks, could top the 1,000 mark. Now I see why he had to run all those marathons to keep his fitness levels high due to the demands of his molesting activities.

This story is descending into parody.......

The higher the number grows, the more I have a tendency to think this is a prime example of people jumping on the bandwagon - and if there is any truth to 'real victims' and that may be the case that there are genuine folk out there - all this will do is weaken their positions - I find it hard to believe that so many people kept their mouths shut for decades, when they would have , long have reached adulthood and have been in a position to take action years ago, but didn't.

joeysteele

07-10-2012, 09:16 AM

This is really either very serious or farcical now. I still at this point lean more and more to the latter.

Omah

07-10-2012, 09:38 AM

The more I read about this, the worse it seems to get. Why Freddie Starr would seek an injunction against "false allegations" is beyond me. I am sure it now just makes him look more guilty in some peoples eyes.

Comic Freddie Starr launched a foul-mouthed tirade against a woman who is said to have claimed he abused her in Jimmy Savile's BBC dressing room.

The comedian called the woman in a TV documentary about Savile a "*******ing liar".

Starr, 69, opened his stage show by attacking the Jim'll Fix It star by mimicking his "now then, now then, now then" catchphrase and muttering "******* off you *******".

He then turned on the woman who is said to have claimed Starr tried to grope her in Savile's dressing room in the 70s when she was a 14-year-old pupil at a special needs school in Surrey.

A High Court injunction Starr obtained stopping the allegations being made public was overturned on Thursday, a day after the ITV Savile documentary was screened.

Starr said: "This woman's a *******ing liar. She's got a book coming out and thought people wouldn't notice.

"Well my brief noticed it and got an injunction on ITV to stop their broadcast of me being mentioned on that show.

"I've never been to the BBC.

"She said my breath smelled of alcohol. I don't drink. I might p*ss the bed but I don't drink."

I expected no less from the aging Starr ..... :rolleyes:

He was certainly on BBC's "Wogan" in 1984 :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00nyyt7/Wogan_25_12_1984/

Omah

07-10-2012, 09:48 AM

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/pm-calls-for-savile-sex-abuse-probe-16220812.html#ixzz28bZopRko

Prime Minister David Cameron has called for allegations of sexual abuse against former DJ Sir Jimmy Savile to be fully investigated.

Mr Cameron said that the claims from a number of women which have emerged over recent weeks that they were abused by Savile as teenagers were "truly shocking".

And he said that the allegations should be looked into by the BBC - which employed Savile at the time - and, if necessary, by the police.

Mr Cameron told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: "I think it is pretty shocking, the allegations that we are reading. They need to be properly looked at, properly investigated.

Bandwagon for Cameron ..... :pipe:

thesheriff443

07-10-2012, 09:52 AM

if found out to be true each person that makes an alligation would be due compensation.

Omah

07-10-2012, 10:05 AM

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 11:00 AM

This story is becoming a bit ridiculous now, I mean where would he have found the time to molest so many women/girls, over a hundred victims and rising more coming out of the woodwork with each passing day. I shudder to think how many more victims will come forward in the coming weeks, could top the 1,000 mark. Now I see why he had to run all those marathons to keep his fitness levels high due to the demands of his molesting activities.

This story is descending into parody.......
Paedophiles can be prolific in their activities simply due to the general public's inability to believe child molesters typically and notably have exceptional quantities of gall. Confessed and long uncaught paedophiles will sometimes admit that their victims run into the hundreds.
1 radio one roadshow alone could generate a large number of incidents. Jimmy Saville worked at many.
A couple of visits to Haut de la Garrenne and to Duncroft Approved School could have also provided a number of attacks. Jimmy Saville was a regular visitor to these places of protection and his attendance is corrobarated.
Hundreds of visits to children's wards over decades and decades could as well provided the same "opportunities" Jimmy Saville made thousands of these visits. Years and years of inviting young girls to his dressing rooms which is again corroborated could have provided him with further chances to molest
Paedophiles get away with it precisely because of the disbelief that they could have been so prolific 1000 victims over 40 years would mean attacking 2 children a month.

Nedusa

07-10-2012, 11:56 AM

Paedophiles can be prolific in their activities simply due to the general public's inability to believe child molesters typically and notably have exceptional quantities of gall. Confessed and long uncaught paedophiles will sometimes admit that their victims run into the hundreds.
1 radio one roadshow alone could generate a large number of incidents. Jimmy Saville worked at many.
A couple of visits to Haut de la Garrenne and to Duncroft Approved School could have also provided a number of attacks. Jimmy Saville was a regular visitor to these places of protection and his attendance is corrobarated.
Hundreds of visits to children's wards over decades and decades could as well provided the same "opportunities" Jimmy Saville made thousands of these visits. Years and years of inviting young girls to his dressing rooms which is again corroborated could have provided him with further chances to molest
Paedophiles get away with it precisely because of the disbelief that they could have been so prolific 1000 victims over 40 years would mean attacking 2 children a month.

No no no I simply don't buy it ... Some of his alleged victims may have put up with his advances because of who he was but not all and considering the sheer numbers involved some of them would certainly have complained and once a few complaints had been received, the Police would have been duty bound to investigate regardless of his celebrity.

As I said earlier this story is starting to stretch credulity to its limits....!!!

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 11:58 AM

Paedophiles can be prolific in their activities simply due to the general public's inability to believe child molesters typically and notably have exceptional quantities of gall. Confessed and long uncaught paedophiles will sometimes admit that their victims run into the hundreds.
1 radio one roadshow alone could generate a large number of incidents. Jimmy Saville worked at many.
A couple of visits to Haut de la Garrenne and to Duncroft Approved School could have also provided a number of attacks. Jimmy Saville was a regular visitor to these places of protection and his attendance is corrobarated.
Hundreds of visits to children's wards over decades and decades could as well provided the same "opportunities" Jimmy Saville made thousands of these visits. Years and years of inviting young girls to his dressing rooms which is again corroborated could have provided him with further chances to molest
Paedophiles get away with it precisely because of the disbelief that they could have been so prolific 1000 victims over 40 years would mean attacking 2 children a month.

Are you seriously trying to state that the 'new' figure of hundreds (pending, thousands) of 'children' who have been adults for decades: that they ALL managed to keep this to themselves for several decades.

I find that very difficult to believe to be perfectly honest with you - given that some of these adults may be in the very professions that would allow them to bring this to the public domain and to raise the allegations many many years ago.

Nah: I'm not buying this 'en masse' abuse. Not saying something didn't go on - but the higher the figures rise: the less they ALL kept schtoom for decades - the less I'm inclined to believe.

billy123

07-10-2012, 11:58 AM

if found out to be true each person that makes an alligation would be due compensation.If thats the case count me in!

"Saville tickled my dinkle"

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 12:00 PM

If thats the case count me in!

"Saville tickled my dinkle"

I'm getting the feeling here that if the man so much as 'looked at them', some of these 'alleged abused' will now have exaggerated that in their own minds to having far worse.

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 12:03 PM

No no no I simply don't buy it ... Some of his alleged victims may have put up with his advances because of who he was but not all and considering the sheer numbers involved some of them would certainly have complained and once a few complaints had been received, the Police would have been duty bound to investigate regardless of his celebrity.

As I said earlier this story is starting to stretch credulity to its limits....!!!

My thoughts exactly: but put over far more eloquently by you !

Omah

07-10-2012, 12:12 PM

some of them would certainly have complained and once a few complaints had been received, the Police would have been duty bound to investigate regardless of his celebrity.

Some of them did complain - the trouble is, back in those days, the police were (mostly) a rule unto themselves and corrupt into the bargain - "duty bound" was a phrase long passed into oblivion along with "Dixon of Dock Green" and "fair cop, guv" ..... freemasonry and funny handshakes were the order of the day - "fit-ups" were standard procedure to reduce crime-rates ..... :wink:

billy123

07-10-2012, 12:14 PM

I'm getting the feeling here that if the man so much as 'looked at them', some of these 'alleged abused' will now have exaggerated that in their own minds to having far worse.Im not sure what can come of it.
It worrys me to a degree that serious implications now seem to be treated the same as the gossip columns by some people. There are some that seem to revel in these stories like its a feature in ok magazine.

The whole way some people seem excited by this story really creeps me out.

Omah

07-10-2012, 12:54 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213931/Jimmy-Savile-Little-slaves-sordid-boasts-dark-truth-friend--biographer-Dan-Davies.html#ixzz28cJodIEf

In 1992, Professor Anthony Clare also tried to get behind the mask, interviewing Jimmy for his In The Psychiatrist’s Chair series on Radio 4. They discussed his emotionally and materially deprived upbringing – as the unwanted, youngest child of seven – and why he had remained so determined not to show or share his feelings.

But Jimmy simply refused to lay his psyche bare, feinting and ducking and, when all else failed, shutting up shop entirely.

‘There is something chilling about this 20th Century “saint’’ which still intrigues me to this day,’ concluded Britain’s best-known psychiatrist at the end of a particularly prickly encounter.

TWENTY YEARS ago, the Prof would have been one of the few who could see in the kingdom of the blind ..... :cool:

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 01:08 PM

Are you seriously trying to state that the 'new' figure of hundreds (pending, thousands) of 'children' who have been adults for decades: that they ALL managed to keep this to themselves for several decades.

I find that very difficult to believe to be perfectly honest with you - given that some of these adults may be in the very professions that would allow them to bring this to the public domain and to raise the allegations many many years ago.

Nah: I'm not buying this 'en masse' abuse. Not saying something didn't go on - but the higher the figures rise: the less they ALL kept schtoom for decades - the less I'm inclined to believe.
Just because their abuse wasn't general knowledge doesn't mean that these women (and interestingly many men who will not come forward) didn't tell anyone.
His name and the names of others connected to him have been recalled continuously over the decades. His victims have been telling people in positions of power for many many years. Some who have known of these accusations have avoided him some have dismissed him and made jokes about his activities. Jimmy Saville remained notorious amongst Social Service and child protection circles for decades because his name just kept cropping up time and time again. There is a vast difference between keeping schtoom and being silenced by dismissal and an air of the crimes committed against them being utterly and completely inconsequential and perhaps fantasy.

I am not saying that his victims were silent on a personal level. Although victims of abuse are often encourage by skeptics abuse deniers and disbelievers to shut up. Particularly if those in power who knew of the accusations did nothing to protect future victims.

I am saying that few people did anything about it and in some cases covered it up at the level of media and press. Silencing these victims at this level.

Now that Jimmy Saville and those he pimped for are dead his victims are being encouraged at a media level to speak up. There are few left of any consequence to prosecute. How convenient.
This type of crime will happen time and time again and children won't tell because it's their word against their cunning adult abuser. It's just easier to say your piece when their dead and can't hurt you anymore.

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 01:11 PM

Im not sure what can come of it.
It worrys me to a degree that serious implications now seem to be treated the same as the gossip columns by some people. There are some that seem to revel in these stories like its a feature in ok magazine.

The whole way some people seem excited by this story really creeps me out.

I concur.

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 01:16 PM

Just because their abuse wasn't general knowledge doesn't mean that these women (and interestingly many men who will not come forward) didn't tell anyone.
His name and the names of others connected to him have been recalled continuously over the decades. His victims have been telling people in positions of power for many many years. Some who have known of these accusations have avoided him some have dismissed him and made jokes about his activities. Jimmy Saville remained notorious amongst Social Service and child protection circles for decades because his name just kept cropping up time and time again. There is a vast difference between keeping schtoom and being silenced by dismissal and an air of the crimes committed against them being utterly and completely inconsequential and perhaps fantasy.

I am not saying that his victims were silent on a personal level. Although victims of abuse are often encourage by skeptics abuse deniers and disbelievers to shut up. Particularly if those in power who knew of the accusations did nothing to protect future victims.

I am saying that few people did anything about it and in some cases covered it up at the level of media and press. Silencing these victims at this level.

Now that Jimmy Saville and those he pimped for are dead his victims are being encouraged at a media level to speak up. There are few left of any consequence to prosecute. How convenient.
This type of crime will happen time and time again and children won't tell because it's their word against their cunning adult abuser. It's just easier to say your piece when their dead and can't hurt you anymore.

Nah. still don't 'buy it'.

Perhaps the reason all these folk kept 'schtoom'.... was because their were PAID to keep schtoom.......... stranger things have happened in life. and it is SO VERY EASY to lay the blame on one party, having cashed the cheque, having banked the money: when the offending party is dead, making food for the worms and cannot defend themselves.

If those that were abused felt to bad about it: why keep their mouths shut unti the man died? Possibly: just possibly: becuase they were paid to keep their mouths shut, but Mr JS isn't here to prove that?

there's a little thought for you....................

Omah

07-10-2012, 01:24 PM

Nah. still don't 'buy it'.

Perhaps the reason all these folk kept 'schtoom'.... was because their were PAID to keep schtoom.......... stranger things have happened in life. and it is SO VERY EASY to lay the blame on one party, having cashed the cheque, having banked the money: when the offending party is dead, making food for the worms and cannot defend themselves.

If those that were abused felt to bad about it: why keep their mouths shut unti the man died? Possibly: just possibly: becuase they were paid to keep their mouths shut, but Mr JS isn't here to prove that?

there's a little thought for you....................

Who paid them?

Let's have proof of THAT allegation ..... :pipe:

Any link with tangible evidence will do ..... :laugh2:

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 01:27 PM

Nah. still don't 'buy it'.

Perhaps the reason all these folk kept 'schtoom'.... was because their were PAID to keep schtoom.......... stranger things have happened in life. and it is SO VERY EASY to lay the blame on one party, having cashed the cheque, having banked the money: when the offending party is dead, making food for the worms and cannot defend themselves.

If those that were abused felt to bad about it: why keep their mouths shut unti the man died? Possibly: just possibly: becuase they were paid to keep their mouths shut, but Mr JS isn't here to prove that?

there's a little thought for you....................
I am not sure what you are saying.
Paid to be quiet because....?
Are you saying the victims of JS were paid to remain silent about it?

Omah

07-10-2012, 01:31 PM

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news/savile-abuse-claims/49426/jimmy-savile-%E2%80%98molested-girls-while-he-broadcasted%E2%80%99#ixzz28cT8Zk7T

Savile might have molested young girls while recording radio broadcasts of his show Savile’s Travels, according to The Sunday Telegraph. The paper has heard the tapes, which date back to 1975. In one, a girl can be heard screaming as Savile tells her: “Watch how I operate… I better play a record with the other hand.”

On its' own, such a recording may be "innocent", but, taken along with others (e.g. "get off my backside"), it seems very sinister and sleazy ..... :yuk:

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 01:31 PM

Who paid them?

Let's have proof of THAT allegation ..... :pipe:

Any link with tangible evidence will do ..... :laugh2:

Either discuss this in a serious manner Omah or refrain from your very childish and immature smileys...... I see absolutely nothing to be giving it the :laugh2: as some form of answer to a very possible situation.

It's childish, it's immature and does nothing to give credence to what you are attempting to say.

bottom line is: these 'alleged victims' can scream from the hilltops, they can say what they like: they can take whatever payments the media want to offer them for their 'alleged' stories..... for that is all that the are... ALLEGED. Given that the person they are vilifiying is dead and cannot offer any defence.

Omah

07-10-2012, 01:35 PM

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/10/07/jimmy-savile-accused-of-sex-abuse-in-the-midlands-66331-31982101/#ixzz28cUtyg3j

METROPOLITAN Police detectives investigating allegations of sexual abuse by the late Sir Jimmy Savile have been contacted by two victims in the Midlands.

It is understood that the two people claim they were abused by the TV star, and contacted their local police forces in the West Midlands and Staffordshire.

The two forces then passed their details on to the London cops who are leading the investigation.

That must be about 8 police forces involved now !

Omah

07-10-2012, 01:39 PM

Either discuss this in a serious manner Omah or refrain from your very childish and immature smileys...... I see absolutely nothing to be giving it the :laugh2: as some form of answer to a very possible situation.

It's childish, it's immature and does nothing to give credence to what you are attempting to say.

bottom line is: these 'alleged victims' can scream from the hilltops, they can say what they like: they can take whatever payments the media want to offer them for their 'alleged' stories..... for that is all that the are... ALLEGED. Given that the person they are vilifiying is dead and cannot offer any defence.

You are flailing in the dark with your preposterous, unsubstantiated and laughable allegations ..... if you cannot provide evidence of any description then your assertions have no credence whatsoever and deserve to be treated with the hilarity they deserve ..... :joker:

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 01:46 PM

You are flailing in the dark with your preposterous, unsubstantiated and laughable allegations ..... if you cannot provide evidence of any description then your assertions have no credence whatsoever and deserve to be treated with the hilarity they deserve ..... :joker:

Empty vessels Omah....

Ithinkiloveyoutoo

07-10-2012, 01:47 PM

100 victims?! Wow, Saville was a busy man.

Omah

07-10-2012, 01:49 PM

Empty vessels Omah....

Just one link will do ..... who's paying who?

:conf:

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 02:03 PM

Omah

07-10-2012, 02:13 PM

I still don't get what Pyramid is saying.
Someone paid an alleged victim of child abuse or an exploitative accuser (who was never touched) money to never say the name of JS? ...and now these people want to be paid again?

I think that's about the gist of it ..... all the current accusers/corroboraters got paid unspecified amounts, in the past, by a person or persons unknown, to say nothing bad about any experiences with Jimmy the Saint ..... "stretches credulity to its limits....!!!", doesn't it ..... :laugh:

07-10-2012, 02:30 PM

I think that's about the gist of it ..... all the current accusers/corroboraters got paid unspecified amounts, in the past, by a person or persons unknown, to say nothing bad about any experiences with Jimmy the Saint ..... "stretches credulity to its limits....!!!", doesn't it ..... :laugh:

I think Pyra's raised an interesting idea and I think you're being too quick to laugh it off. If indeed he did molest people and he was scared that his crimes would catch up with him, he could very well have paid off these young women to keep quiet. I'm pretty certain at least some of these 100+ victims are bull****ting, there is absolutely no way they were all keeping quiet until he died to tell their stories. This stretches back over DECADES, there is just no way they didn't tell anyone who could do anything. Go to the bloody police if you're reporting a crime, don't go through the media because it instantly cheapens your claim. Perhaps Jimmy paid people off, perhaps someone connected with the BBC paid them off, but in my opinion this is just another example of gold diggers cashing in on a media scandal.

Omah

07-10-2012, 02:47 PM

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 02:49 PM

I think Pyra's raised an interesting idea and I think you're being too quick to laugh it off. If indeed he did molest people and he was scared that his crimes would catch up with him, he could very well have paid off these young women to keep quiet. I'm pretty certain at least some of these 100+ victims are bull****ting, there is absolutely no way they were all keeping quiet until he died to tell their stories. This stretches back over DECADES, there is just no way they didn't tell anyone who could do anything. Go to the bloody police if you're reporting a crime, don't go through the media because it instantly cheapens your claim. Perhaps Jimmy paid people off, perhaps someone connected with the BBC paid them off, but in my opinion this is just another example of gold diggers cashing in on a media scandal.

If this is what Pyramid is saying I don't follow the logic.
Hundreds of people paid to be quiet for something that Pyramid believes could not have happened to hundreds.

THERE WEREN'T SILENT. DISBELIEF DENIAL and DISMISSAL shut out their voices at the level of media and press.

Why not understand that when a paedophile enters a children's home and is left to his own devices that he could assault tens of people in a few hours. Make that monthly visits over a decade .........

It is this very treatment of inconsequence disbelief and denial that makes seemingly successful "normal" people kill themselves.

How many people did Barry Bennell assault molest and rape while coaching pre adolescents over his career ? He himself claims it was hundreds. I have heard only 2 come forward. Where did he get the time with all his football coaching??? tsk!

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 02:49 PM

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 02:52 PM

If this is what Pyramid is saying I don't follow the logic.
Hundreds of people paid to be quiet for something that Pyramid believes could not have happened to hundreds.

THERE WEREN'T SILENT. DISBELIEF DENIAL and DISMISSAL shut out their voices at the level of media and press.

Why not understand that when a paedophile enters a children's home and is left to his own devices that he could assault tens of people in a few hours. Make that monthly visits over a decade .........

It is this very treatment of inconsequence disbelief and denial that makes seemingly successful "normal" people kill themselves.

How many people did Barry Bennell assault molest and rape while coaching pre adolescents over his career ? He himself claims it was hundreds. I have heard only 2 come forward. Where did he get the time with all his football coaching??? tsk!

the logic is very simple. It is a consideration .

I do not believe for one second that supposed abuse took place with hundreds of people who decided - individuually but ultimately, collectively: to keep their traps shut about it unless there was a good reason for them to keep their mouths shut over decades.

there you have it.

Omah

07-10-2012, 02:58 PM

No more than all these 'hundreds' of people now crying about it after them man is dead and not in a position to answer / defend himself.

That's what I consider laughable......

Hitler's dead and not in a position to answer / defend himself.

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 03:01 PM

the logic is very simple. It is a consideration .

I do not believe for one second that supposed abuse took place with hundreds of people who decided - individuually but ultimately, collectively: to keep their traps shut about it unless there was a good reason for them to keep their mouths shut over decades.

there you have it.

But I don't have it because it doesn't make sense.
How are you so sure they were silent? One comes forward and is disbelieved the others return to the shadows that abuse deniers have created for them.
I have known about the accusations of paedophilia by JS for decades because his victims did speak out. The police did not listen. Like you they were incredulous and amused.However the difference maybe that their amusement began during JS's lifetime.

Omah

07-10-2012, 03:08 PM

If this is what Pyramid is saying I don't follow the logic.
Hundreds of people paid to be quiet for something that Pyramid believes could not have happened to hundreds.

Let's consider the cost :

Example :

100 children and 100 sets of parents/protectors @ say £1000 = £100,000 (1970) equivalent to £1,300,000 (2010)

1000 children and 1000 sets of parents/protectors @ say £1000 = £1,000,000 (1970) equivalent to £13,000,000 (2010)

Then, of course, there's the pay-offs to relatives, friends, TV, radio, papers, police, etc, etc .....

So paying-off is not really feasible ..... and, of course, someone would always "grass" to double their money .....

Omah

07-10-2012, 05:20 PM

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

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?"'

Comedian Sandi Toksvig says she was groped by a "famous individual" while she was broadcasting in the 1980s.

Toksvig, 54, said when she told staff, "everybody thought it was amusing".

The comments follow claims by BBC Radio 6 Music DJ Liz Kershaw that she was "routinely groped" during her time at Radio 1 in the 1980s.

Toksvig, who now presents several programmes on BBC Radio 4, said the allegations of inappropriate behaviour at the BBC "did not surprise me at all".

"I had heard those stories when I was working at the BBC," she added.

Yeah, I know - Sandi Toksvig ..... :rolleyes:

But if that's what happened to her, I believe her - and if that was still happening in the "enlightened" 80's, what was happening in the '60's and '70's ..... :conf:

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 06:30 PM

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 06:33 PM

Hitler's dead and not in a position to answer / defend himself.

Good grief. Goodwins Law..... I'm not even going to go into a reply to your obtuse comment - so absurd it is.

But I don't have it because it doesn't make sense.

How are you so sure they were silent? One comes forward and is disbelieved the others return to the shadows that abuse deniers have created for them.

I have known about the accusations of paedophilia by JS for decades because his victims did speak out. The police did not listen. Like you they were incredulous and amused.However the difference maybe that their amusement began during JS's lifetime.

Where have I said any of this amuses me? It doesn't, in the slightest. I am amazed that hundreds (thousands according to your calculations) kept schtoom - and not one of them kicked up hell and went to the press decades ago.

If you look back on what I have written throughout this thread - you will have noted that I did in fact make reference to the police not doing their job - quite some posts back - it was something I have given consideration to, so let's not make out that I am shirking off the entire situation - I could not have made that clearer.

I have also stated that I'm of the opinion that there may have been genuine cases: I don't believe there are the amount that is claimed for the reasons I have given.

Like I said earlier: all these 'hundreds' of people had 40plus years to speak out when they were long into adulthood, when the man was alive - the press would have been as interested ten years ago (or more) as they are today.

You believe otherwise and have your reasons for that which I understand, I have my reasons for my view.

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 06:35 PM

This debate is a nonsense. Posters in one thread claiming innocent until proven guilty is the up most tenet of the law.
Then in this thread claiming hundreds of hysterical laughable attention seeking middle age women must be guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
:confused:

That's correct. that's the way the law works and thank god for that - innocent until proven guilty. It's hard for a dead man to defend themselves: it's also very easy to point the finger at a dead man.

Omah

07-10-2012, 06:37 PM

Good grief. Goodwins Law..... I'm not even going to go into a reply to your obtuse comment - so absurd it is.

Of course it is - it's as absurd as your plea for the dead Savile ..... :joker:

them man is dead and not in a position to answer / defend himself.

As you know, everybody dies - some people get talked about after their death and some don't - some get sactified after their death, some get desecrated - some even get disappeared ..... but no saint (that I've ever heard of) had the opportunity to plead his case for non-sanctification after his death ..... :laugh2:

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 06:42 PM

Of course it is - it's as absurd as your plea for the dead Savile ..... :joker:

It is absolutely pointless trying to have a reasonable discussion with you Omah, it really is.

Omah

07-10-2012, 06:51 PM

That's correct. that's the way the law works and thank god for that - innocent until proven guilty.

Yet, as I've pointed out elsewhere, the courts of law do not recognise "innocence" but only "guilty or not" .....

Omah

07-10-2012, 06:56 PM

It is absolutely pointless trying to have a reasonable discussion with you Omah, it really is.

You started the absurdity with the preposterous claim, without a shred of evidence, that ALL of Savile's victims and accusers had previously been paid to keep quiet ..... :pipe:

Perhaps the reason all these folk kept 'schtoom'.... was because their were PAID to keep schtoom.......... stranger things have happened in life. and it is SO VERY EASY to lay the blame on one party, having cashed the cheque, having banked the money: when the offending party is dead, making food for the worms and cannot defend themselves.

If those that were abused felt to bad about it: why keep their mouths shut unti the man died? Possibly: just possibly: becuase they were paid to keep their mouths shut, but Mr JS isn't here to prove that?

there's a little thought for you....................

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 07:09 PM

Where have I said any of this amuses me? It doesn't, in the slightest[/B]. I am amazed that hundreds (thousands according to your calculations) kept schtoom - and not one of them kicked up hell and went to the press decades ago.

You believe otherwise and have your reasons for that which I understand, I have my reasons for my view.

You have used the word laughable in a number of posts. Laughable = amusing fun mocking comical entertaining asinine etcera etcera etcera. It is from here that I derive amusement.

In 2000 Louis Theroux made a mocking doc'that targeted the rumours of JS's necrophilia and his paedophile nature. If victims were silent for decades as you suppose how did these rumours on which Theroux based his mocking arrive?

Somebody talked about JS's paedophile nature but according to you not the victims nor perhaps the mythical 100s. Yet ask a 1980s social worker how many times his name was mentioned and they'll blush.

I would like to offer you an insight into the nature of society's treatment of abuse victims particularly pubescent girls. Their sexual status is often viewed as laughable....... and by some not taken seriously.

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 07:25 PM

You have used the word laughable in a number of posts. Laughable = amusing fun mocking comical entertaining asinine etcera etcera etcera. It is from here that I derive amusement.

In 2000 Louis Theroux made a mocking doc'that targeted the rumours of JS's necrophilia and his paedophile nature. If victims were silent for decades as you suppose how did these rumours on which Theroux based his mocking arrive?

Somebody talked about JS's paedophile nature but according to you not the victims nor perhaps the mythical 100s. Yet ask a 1980s social worker how many times his name was mentioned and they'll blush.

I would like to offer you an insight into the nature of society's treatment of abuse victims particularly pubescent girls. Their sexual status is often viewed as laughable....... and by some not taken seriously.

Twisting people's words, taking them out of context and throwing a spin on them to suit your own agenda doesn't work with me I'm afraid.

I'll refer back to a certain Mr Jefferies who had all sorts of people coming out of the woodwork when he was arrested - people quoted as stating he'd let himself into their rented flat unannounced, that he acted bizarrely, that there was something odd about him etc: and the man was innocent.

A documentary can be made by anyone if there are enough people around who want to talk or embellish and or exaggerate. There may indeed be genuine cases but I don't believe it's anywhere close to what is being thrown around. All the more so when Theroux's documentaries are often tongue in cheek and as you point out: mocked people rather than be a serious documentary. If you want me to change my opinion based on a tongue in cheek documentary, I'm not going to be doing that.

Not only that - now we have all sorts throwing in their tuppeniesworth: all these people who were 'in the know', who claim they were fully aware of what JS was allegedly upto for decades - and they did nothing about it all those years ago, and kept quiet all this time - all these hundreds of victims, dozens upon dozens of people who were 'aware', were allegedly party to all of this - even despite allegations made in the past when the man was alive: all of these hundreds of people still though it best to keep quiet?

I take on board your points, but I don't necessarily agree with them and I'm afraid that at this stage: the jury's out at this end.

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 07:28 PM

That's correct. that's the way the law works and thank god for that - innocent until proven guilty. It's hard for a dead man to defend themselves: it's also very easy to point the finger at a dead man.

So his accusers are also innocent by this logic. Yet you accuse the 100s of being GUILTY before proven.

of fantasy at best or perverting the course of justice at it's worse.
I no longer am confused. Evidence of who we were in life does not entirely disappear with death they are all kinds of records that show who we were.

Corrobaration is a key element in paedophile cases because victims are so often derided mocked viewed as absurd and laughable. Condemned for not providing enough evidence to prove guilt.

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 07:34 PM

So his accusers are also innocent by this logic. Yet you accuse the 100s of being GUILTY before proven.

of fantasy at best or perverting the course of justice at it's worse.
I no longer am confused. Evidence of who we were in life does not entirely disappear with death they are all kinds of records that show who we were.

Corrobaration is a key element in paedophile cases because victims are so often derided mocked viewed as absurd and laughable. Condemned for not providing enough evidence to prove guilt.

I'm making no accusations. I'm offering my view on what I find hard to believe - there is a huge difference but again you twist words to suit your own agenda. I have repeatedly given several reasons for my point of view being as it is and nothing you will say, and certainly not in the manner in which you are doing so, is likely to change my view anytime soon.

As for perverting the course of justice: yes: those who were in the know and did nothing about it - have something to answer for. If there is truth to all of this saga, those who were in the 'know' in effect helped these 'hundreds' of victims to be abused in subsequent years. Is your need for justice directly towards those persons also: should they be hauled up in court for allowing alleged sex acts and sexual abuse to continue when they did nothing about it?

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 07:59 PM

I'm making no accusations. I'm offering my view on what I find hard to believe - there is a huge difference but again you twist words to suit your own agenda. I have repeatedly given several reasons for my point of view being as it is and nothing you will say, and certainly not in the manner in which you are doing so, is likely to change my view anytime soon.

As for perverting the course of justice: yes: those who were in the know and did nothing about it - have something to answer for. If there is truth to all of this saga, those who were in the 'know' in effect helped these 'hundreds' of victims to be abused in subsequent years. Is your need for justice directly towards those persons also: should they be hauled up in court for allowing alleged sex acts and sexual abuse to continue when they did nothing about it?

I haven't twisted your words. You denied them and I then reminded you. Reminding is not twisting.

If I have an agenda then it is to highlight those that would laugh mock and dismiss victims of abuse for not getting their perpetrator caught. Because they and their fellow victims number in the hundreds.

If I have an agenda it is to challenge those that would make abused victims liars because they number 100 plus.

If I have an agenda it is to challenge those that think it's easy for the victims of abuse to bring justice upon their charity champion perpetrator and his likes.

If I have an agenda it is challenge those that would seek to blame anyone but the perpetrator.

My agenda is to speak out in a society that disbelieves that dead men got away with murder.

If anyone has colluded with a perpetrator of child abuse willingly then they are as guilty. However society's passive collusion is something that isn't chargeable.

You believe in the tenet, innocent before proven for JS but not for his accusers You have indicated that some must be lying. Guilty of an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Yet they haven't been tried. The twist is yours.

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 08:19 PM

I haven't twisted your words. You denied them and I then reminded you. Reminding is not twisting.

If I have an agenda then it is to highlight those that would laugh mock and dismiss victims of abuse for not getting their perpetrator caught. Because they and their fellow victims number in the hundreds.

If I have an agenda it is to challenge those that would make abused victims liars because they number 100 plus.

If I have an agenda it is to challenge those that think it's easy for the victims of abuse to bring justice upon their charity champion perpetrator and his likes.

If I have an agenda it is challenge those that would seek to blame anyone but the perpetrator.

My agenda is to speak out in a society that disbelieves that dead men got away with murder.

If anyone has colluded with a perpetrator of child abuse willingly then they are as guilty. However society's passive collusion is something that isn't chargeable.

You believe in the tenet, innocent before proven for JS but not for his accusers You have indicated that some must be lying. Guilty of an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Yet they haven't been tried. The twist is yours.

You aren't going to sway me. I've got my own thoughts on this and you have yours and I have denied not one thing.

If you feel so strongly about this and have such an agenda to work to, then perhaps an entertainment forum with a fairly small & limited membership isn't the most fruitful of places to be. One small hint though: best you don't exaggerate too much as you have in the highlighted part above: as it implies that JS was also a murderer. That really does weaken your agenda somewhat.

cassieparis

07-10-2012, 09:21 PM

You aren't going to sway me. I've got my own thoughts on this and you have yours and I have denied not one thing.

If you feel so strongly about this and have such an agenda to work to, then perhaps an entertainment forum with a fairly small & limited membership isn't the most fruitful of places to be. One small hint though: best you don't exaggerate too much as you have in the highlighted part above: as it implies that JS was also a murderer. That really does weaken your agenda somewhat.

Stop now!

I won't be pushed away because you now think a forum entitled "serious debates and news stories" no longer applies to my view and is for lighter entertainment posts.

You'd like me to go else where with my agenda? I have and I do. I also like to share them here. I think I'm allowed.

What you purport to believe is between you and your conscience. I don't have an intention to sway you but I will continue to challenge views within a discussion that dismisses people who want to report abuse as fantasists.

My intention is to highlight your view so the forum can debate the dismissal and the incredulity as well as my own views.

As far as agendas are concerned. we both have them. I've shared mine.

100 plus victims maybe too many for you to acknowledge. It's not for me.

Pyramid*

07-10-2012, 09:41 PM

Stop now!

I won't be pushed away because you now think a forum entitled "serious debates and news stories" no longer applies to my view and is for lighter entertainment posts.

You'd like me to go else where with my agenda? I have and I do. I also like to share them here. I think I'm allowed.

What you purport to believe is between you and your conscience. I don't have an intention to sway you but I will continue to challenge views within a discussion that dismisses people who want to report abuse as fantasists.

My intention is to highlight your view so the forum can debate the dismissal and the incredulity as well as my own views.

As far as agendas are concerned. we both have them. I've shared mine.

100 plus victims maybe too many for you to acknowledge. It's not for me.

Deary me.

Challenge all you like, my point remains: I'm sure there are more salient forums that your voice will be heard with far more enthusiasm - I'm also entitled to say that - as you are entitled to say what you have, it doesn't detract from the fact that I disagree with you.

I'd appreciate if you can try to post without getting personal - it's uncalled for, unecessary and does nothing to strengthen your position in the discussion - particulary as you're casting insults upon me when you know nothing about me.

I'm not acknowledging 100 plus victims, however much you shout about it - that's it in a nutshell really. Oh, and I have not at any stage called any 'victims' fantasists as you have attributed to me. Perhaps it may be an idea to stick to what I have said, rather than what I haven't. Also: the forum is not here to discuss my 'dismissal' as you put it.

Omah

07-10-2012, 10:04 PM

If you feel so strongly about this and have such an agenda to work to, then perhaps an entertainment forum with a fairly small & limited membership isn't the most fruitful of places to be.

I'm sure there are more salient forums that your voice will be heard with far more enthusiasm.

IMO, I believe you are out of order with that suggestion ..... :suspect:

Kizzy

07-10-2012, 11:22 PM

I don't find it unusual..
Some things were hidden and those in the know were at risk of being at best disbelieved and at worst blacklisted.
This behavior is still tolerated and has been buried for years by the powers that be.

Nedusa

08-10-2012, 12:14 AM

Yeah, I know - Sandi Toksvig ..... :rolleyes:

But if that's what happened to her, I believe her - and if that was still happening in the "enlightened" 80's, what was happening in the '60's and '70's ..... :conf:

Really !!! Probably a case of wishful thinking ...!!!!

arista

08-10-2012, 06:18 AM

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2012/10/7/197069/default/v1/daily-mirror-october-8-1-329x437.jpg

The BBC just needs to do what is asked
we the Public fund it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-bbc-snub-david-1366691

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1366584.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Jimmy+Saville+with+Colleen+Nolan
"Crrep show: Coleen Nolan at 14 with Savile"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/audio/2012/oct/05/channel4-bbc
Media Talk Broadcast debates Newsnight dropping the Savile Docu

Omah

08-10-2012, 09:22 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/08/jimmy-savile-bbc-investigation

The BBC director general, George Entwistle, has promised to investigate the mounting allegations of sexual abuse by Sir Jimmy Savile, but only when the police investigation has been completed.

Entwistle told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday that he did not want to compromise the police inquiry.

Entwistle said the police are also looking at the people who worked with Savile and examining whether criminal charges will be brought against them.

Entwistle, who rose through the ranks of the BBC as a journalist, said he had not about heard the rumours of sex abuse until late last year but conceded: "Jimmy Savile was regarded as by a great many people as odd, a bit peculiar and that was something I was aware some people believed."

On Sunday, former director general Mark Thompson said "I never heard of any rumours nor received any complaints or allegations [about Jimmy Savile] while I was director general at the BBC," said Thompson.

How come everybody and his dog at the BBC, except those in charge, knew the rumours about Savile's "prediliction" and joked about them (but not, obviously, to Savile's face)?

:rolleyes:

Kizzy

08-10-2012, 11:21 AM

Have you seen ' red riding'? everything was corrupt from the top down then, the victims had no chance.
Now it is out they can plead ignorance and innocence when faced with the accusations.

Omah

08-10-2012, 01:06 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19870676

Mark Easton

When I was a cub reporter on my local newspaper in the late 70s, I returned from the magistrates court with what I thought was a front-page story. A councillor had appeared on charges of sexual assault on young girls, an alleged abuse of power that had left me shocked.

But my disgust turned to outrage when the news editor told me they wouldn't be running the story. "Our readers don't want to hear about that kind of thing," he said. I remember he used the word "paedophilia" - a term I hadn't heard before. Whatever it meant, it was not a subject deemed worthy of space in that evening's paper.

It is a reminder of just how attitudes have changed. Many readers will recall how, 40 or 50 years ago, children were warned about the uncle with "wandering hands", the local flasher who hung around the playground or the PE teacher who took particular pleasure in getting small boys to do naked press-ups (that happened at my school).

But all too rarely were these kinds of concerns taken to the authorities. In fact, one suspects that the police would have regarded accusations of such improper behaviour as domestic or trivial. Rather like my news editor, the desk sergeant would probably have shrugged and suggested the complainant worried about proper crime.

The Jimmy Savile story takes the sexual politics of the present day and applies them to another age. The teenage groupies in the 60s and 70s who hung around the pop scene, hoping a bit of the glamour and excitement would rub off onto their own lives, were entering very dangerous territory - a world where sexual liberation was colliding with traditional power structures.

It is obvious now that many young lives were seriously damaged by powerful men who took advantage of the new freedoms and opportunities, exploiting their position without thought for their responsibilities. The sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll philosophy glorified hedonic pleasure, living for the moment and to hell with the consequences.

But consequences there were for the victims, if not for the perpetrators.

Today, of course, the word paedophilia is a familiar term in the news lexicon. Those found guilty of crossing the boundaries face the full force of public condemnation as well as the full force of the law. There is nothing trivial or domestic about the sexual assault or rape of children.

A similar cultural change can be seen with the sexual politics of the office. Many career women over the age of 50 will have a story of being touched up or groped by some senior colleague at work. From the 60s until relatively recently, there existed a pervasive attitude that unwanted sexual advances were an irritant rather than a disciplinary matter or a crime.

Although the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 did provide some protection for women in the workplace, it was not until the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that employers were obliged to take seriously the issue of female staff being bullied or sexually harassed in the office.

Bosses covered their legal obligations by introducing equal opportunities policies and training sessions, requiring staff to discuss and consider the meaning of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in the work-place. I think this open debate had a much bigger impact on male behaviour in the office than the threat of legal action.

The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations of 2005 provided clear protection for any woman subjected to "unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her".

The TUC has said that law means "that if, for example, a colleague persists in making remarks about what nice legs a female employee has, or her boss promises her promotion if she goes away with him for the weekend, she should be able to claim that this is sexual harassment".

JS would be wrung out and hung up to dry today ..... :hmph:

arista

08-10-2012, 04:19 PM

The JS Charity group
is thinking of changing its name

They should do it fast.

Omah

08-10-2012, 07:21 PM

The comic, who lives in Studley, Warwickshire, said he hadn’t even met the girl who accused him of drunkenly molesting her at the bash and went on to brand Savile - whom he claims to have only met twice - as a ‘phoney’ and a ‘boring, boring man’.

‘I’ve only met Jimmy Savile maybe twice. He came to see me with his mother at one of my shows. I always thought he was a flash b*****d, but I wanted to meet him before I cast aspersions on his character.

‘The other time was when he came into mine and my partner’s men’s clothing shop in Leeds. We were sat in the shop and he walked past, looked in and came in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213390/Freddie-Starr-denies-claims-groped-girl-14-dressing-room-Jimmy-Savile-Gary-Glitter.html#ixzz28jlqWloG

He met JS more than twice - archive footage shows him guesting on a JS show ..... and more - Karin Ward, who has accused him, can be seen no more than a few feet from FS .....

Other archive footage shows a one teenager asking JS about his dreadful treatment of women, and another asking about the contradiction of his exploits in his "passion-wagon" and his professed Roman Catholicism, which makes JS angry enough to verbally demean the latter in front of the camera .....

http://www.channel4.com/news/jimmy-savile-sex-abuse-allegations-freddie-starr

waterhog

08-10-2012, 10:01 PM

sorry George Entwistle - Jimmy cannot fix it 08.10.12

yes you are going,
this is not your call,
but there will be questions,
this is going to be no smooth fall.
its not good enough,
just to late for a full inquiry,
i was removed from POV,
for just being a bit fiery.
this is different,
children were involved,
shame on the BBC,
this story won't ever be dissolved.
who new whats what,
did they ever voice,
were they shown the door,
or given the silent choice.
were there any complaints,
who dealt and followed,
did George over look it,
was it his authority or borrowed.
BBC fix it,
unlike Jimmy Saville you have to be held account,
its time to beg,
get off your high horse "say sorry" and dismount.

(simple question - how do you feel about the BBC now ? has this coming out about Jimmy
changed any views of yours ?)

Omah

08-10-2012, 11:47 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214785/Freddie-Starr-forced-admit-mistaken-TV-footage-unearthed-1974.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Freddie Starr was last night forced to admit being ‘mistaken’ after footage from 1974 showed him alongside the teenage girl who now claims he abused her.

Starr had strenuously denied ever meeting Karin Ward - who claims he tried to molest her in Sir Jimmy Savile’s BBC dressing room.

The comic had also insisted he only met Savile twice in his life, and had never even been to the BBC.

But last night he was proved wrong on all three counts after watching 1974 footage unearthed by Channel 4 News.

It showed Starr appearing on one of Savile’s BBC shows, Clunk Click - the very episode Ms Ward says was being filmed the day she was abused.

Standing next to him was a 14-year-old Miss Ward, in a yellow blouse and long brown hair.

Last night Starr’s lawyers issued a statement admitting the mistake - but still strenuously denying the ‘awful allegation’ of abuse.

Good for Karin, Bad for Starr ..... :idc:

cassieparis

09-10-2012, 06:54 AM

Deary me.

Challenge all you like, my point remains: I'm sure there are more salient forums that your voice will be heard with far more enthusiasm - I'm also entitled to say that - as you are entitled to say what you have, it doesn't detract from the fact that I disagree with you.

I'd appreciate if you can try to post without getting personal - it's uncalled for, unecessary and does nothing to strengthen your position in the discussion - particulary as you're casting insults upon me when you know nothing about me.

I'm not acknowledging 100 plus victims, however much you shout about it - that's it in a nutshell really. Oh, and I have not at any stage called any 'victims' fantasists as you have attributed to me. Perhaps it may be an idea to stick to what I have said, rather than what I haven't. Also: the forum is not here to discuss my 'dismissal' as you put it.

Other than challenge your disbelief that Jimmy Savile has victims that exceed 100 where have I been personal?
Please site one incident of this or stop trying to malign me.

Stop pretending that I have pointed insult at you at some point in this debate. I haven't.

Point out one personal assessment of you outside of my summary of your illogic in an argument.

If you don't like my challenging your disbelief that's too bad. But come out and just say that your sensitive to having your argument destroyed.

It's called debate and that is exactly what I have tried to engage you in but for some reason you cannot.

You ask me to leave the forum twice now while I am doing exactly what it say's on the tin. If you cannot debate don't.
:idc:

Omah

09-10-2012, 09:39 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9595365/Jimmy-Savile-could-be-stripped-of-knighthood-David-Cameron-hints.html

David Cameron raised the prospect today of Sir Jimmy Savile being posthumously stripped of his knighthood in the wake of allegations of sexual abuse against young girls.

The Prime Minister stopped short of revealing whether he felt the former DJ should lose the honour, but suggested that the case should be considered by a Whitehall committee which has the power to recommend forfeiture.

His comments came after the chairman of the BBC Trust gave his backing to inquiries by police and the corporation.

Lord Patten said the allegations against Savile could not be excused as behaviour from a time when "attitudes were different".

He told a business dinner in Cardiff last night that it was "no excuse to say 'That was then' in the 1960s, '70s and '80s, and attitudes were different then.

"It's no excuse to say 'I'm sure the same thing used to happen with pop groups and others at the time'. Those things may be true but they don't provide an excuse."

The radio and TV presenter and charity fundraiser, who died in 2011, has been accused by a growing number of women in the last few weeks of sexual abuse over a number of years.

Mr Cameron told ITV1's Daybreak programme today: "These stories are deeply, deeply troubling and I hope that every organisation that has responsibilities will have a proper investigation into what happened, and if these things did happen, and how they were allowed to happen, and then of course everyone has to take their responsibilities."

Asked if Savile should lose his knighthood, Mr Cameron said: "We have something called a Forfeiture Committee. It is not chaired or sat on by me but it is responsible for looking at honours and the removal of honours, and obviously they have to do their job too."

Not just the knighthood ..... ALL honours ..... :mad:

chuff me dizzy

09-10-2012, 09:57 AM

cassieparis

09-10-2012, 12:58 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214785/Freddie-Starr-forced-admit-mistaken-TV-footage-unearthed-1974.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Good for Karin, Bad for Starr ..... :idc:
Wow! More corroboration.
Why would a this man think that there wouldn't be any evidence?

Why do they continue to think that it's a simply case of their word against another?

Foolish at the very least. Pernicious at its worst.

It's going to be very bad indeed for one of these perverts. That is, when a mature women produces some of the clothes she was attacked in at 12 or 13 years old and it has JS all over it.

joeysteele

09-10-2012, 01:34 PM

Well he isn't Sir Jimmy Savile anymore now, he is dead, he was Sir Jimmy Savile while he lived after getting the honour.It isn't a title he could hand down to family.

They can certainly revoke the honour but now with absolutely no effect to him personally. Whatever he did,good and bad remains as part of his life, his title, as was said above, virtually ceased to have any real meaning once he died.
Okay, they may have to remove the Sir from his gravestone but there it is.

Quite frankly there are many people who get Knighted these days who I would never even consider giving such honours to,they are near given out willy nilly these days anyway,even demanded to be given out as in the campaign to get Bruce Forsyth his Knighthood.

This has become a near circus of events now as to all these stroies and allegations. Still at the end of the day,the person all need to hear from is Jimmy Saville and that is now impossible.

Omah

09-10-2012, 02:48 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887019

Police investigating alleged sexual abuse of girls by the late Jimmy Savile are pursuing 120 separate lines of inquiry, Scotland Yard has said.

Commander Peter Spindler, head of specialist crime investigations, said police had recorded eight allegations against Sir Jimmy, including two rapes.

He later told the BBC there could be up to 30 victims, spanning four decades.

Police said it would be a joint inquiry with children's charity the NSPCC and it would be named Operation Yewtree.

During a press briefing at the Metropolitan Police headquarters in London, police said the alleged victims were mainly girls who were aged between 13 and 16 at the time.

Cdr Spindler said of the eight criminal allegations, six were alleged indecent assaults on young teenage girls.

He praised the alleged victims for "shining a light" on the abuse.

"Information is coming in as we speak probably," said Cdr Spindler.

"The reality is this really has captured the public's mind. We are getting calls from victims, from witnesses and third parties who believe they know something about it."

He said Sir Jimmy's pattern of offending behaviour appeared to be on "a national scale" and he had a "predilection for teenage girls".

Cdr Spindler said the first allegation dated back to about 1959 but most seemed to be in the 70s and 80s.

Where are the nay-sayers now ..... :hmph:

Omah

09-10-2012, 03:12 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215096/Freddie-Starr-suffered-heart-palpitations-child-abuse-allegations-claims-fiancee-defends-television.html#ixzz28oYgDYSM

Freddie Starr suffered heart palpitations sparked by the stress of being 'wrongly' accused of trying to grope a 14-year-old girl at a Jimmy Savile sex party, his fiancée revealed.

Today, speaking live via telephone on ITV's This Morning, Starr's fiancée Sophie Lea, 34, told reporters he had suffered heart problems and was too ill to make a statement.

Speaking outside the couple’s £1m mansion in Studley, Warkwickshire, Miss Lea, who became pregnant with his fifth child last November, said: 'We are devastated by the allegations which Freddie has always denied.

'He has never molested a woman and nor would he ever do so. Freddie has suffered heart palpitations, he is in bed and will not be going out for the rest of the week.

'The allegations made by this woman have not been investigated by the police but we would welcome a police investigation so he can clear his name.

'Freddie asked his agent if he had ever appeared on Clunk Click with Jimmy Savile and he said no, how is he supposed to remember something that happened 40 years ago?

'I understand the woman [Karin Ward] has a book coming out soon. We are going to hire private investigators to clear Freddie’s name.'

Apparenly Starr remembers meeting Savile's mother and Savile coming into his shop years ago - seems like he's got selective memory ..... :rolleyes:

"Taking to his bed" is the last resort of a drama queen ..... :laugh2:

Omah

09-10-2012, 03:21 PM

This from BBC Look North

The Cabinet Office advises that dead people cannot be stripped of honours as "when you die, your knighthood ceases to exist".
So the Prime Minister's suggestion in interviews this morning that the Honours Forfeiture Committee should look at Jimmy Savile's honour, is incorrect.

The Queen has the sole authority to rescind a knighthood - she should set a new precedent and decree that any official reference to Savile and knighthood should be amended (the title either to be deleted or "Rescinded" to be included) ..... :pipe:

arista

09-10-2012, 04:08 PM

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/09/article-2215096-156C48E8000005DC-956_636x382.jpg
"My poor Freddie has suffered
heart palpitations since child abuse allegations,
claims fiancée, 34, as she defends him on TV"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215096/Freddie-Starr-suffered-heart-palpitations-child-abuse-allegations-claims-fiancee-defends-television.html#ixzz28oof01LM

His ticker is giving him problems.

Ithinkiloveyoutoo

09-10-2012, 04:08 PM

If I was one of the victims I would be angry all this is happening now. What's the point? He's dead. Although, I suppose if in the end they prove he was guilty it would give the victims some peace of mind.

Kizzy

09-10-2012, 04:25 PM

Nedusa

09-10-2012, 04:40 PM

Hmmmnn... Maybe they're trying to bring Freddie Star into the frame, maybe people will come forward and say he was involved with JS almost like a Celeb molesting ring at the BBC. At least he can defend himself but no wonder he is a worried man, even if he was never directly involved ,if his name is bandied around along with JS then his name and reputation will be ruined regardless of any possible charges being brought.

No wonder he is having palpitations he is about to literally lose everything if he gets tied into this sordid mess.

Omah

09-10-2012, 04:41 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19889974

Sir Jimmy Savile's grave in Scarborough is to be dismantled after allegations he sexually abused girls, it has been confirmed.

The undertaker who dealt with Sir Jimmy's funeral last year said the triple headstone at Woodlands Cemetery would be removed.

Police are investigating the alleged sexual abuse of girls by the DJ and presenter following claims made in an ITV documentary last week.

He died last year at the age of 84.

One of the headstones bears the epitaph "it was good while it lasted".

..... and now I hope he's rotting in hell ..... :hmph:

arista

09-10-2012, 04:42 PM

Savile is reported as Rape of 14 year old girls

That is enough to say he was Evil.

Yes best to get rid of that Tacky Grave Stone
as soon it will get attacked and for good reason.

waterhog

09-10-2012, 06:36 PM

Hmmm, well i'm not going to condemn freddie without trial but this 'stress' related heart problem..
I can't help but think it's a desprate attempt to avoid being confronted on the issue.
Being convicted of abuse after he has passed may not mean a lot to the public but i'm guessing to the victims it will be huge.

well said kizzy - i to think this is going to take its toll on freddie now and quilty or not - i am sure this is going to be punishing on his body. and i am sure those who have come out with these alligation will get great comfront from that.

joeysteele

09-10-2012, 09:39 PM

I have thought about this all day off and on,talked to a fair number of people and following the Police statement tonight, I do have to admit that I now think there is far more substance to these allegations than I believed likely to be.

I am someone who likes to be sure of facts whenever possible but I think the Police clearly feel he would have cases,not just a case, to answer to where he still alive.
That is now enough for me on this issue, clearly Girls underage have been it would now seem, subjected to abuse and worse by Jimmy Savile.
They cannot get justice now really, however as with the Catholic Church abuses of Children, they are able to speak out and are now believed too by the Police from the accounts they have given.

I clearly was wrong to seemingly dismiss a lot of these allegations so my hands go up now,retracting all my earlier comments as to this.
I was wrong as to Jimmy Savile and I hope the genuine cases of complaint from his victims at least now get some peace and closure to the whole sordid mess.
Vey fitting to remove the headstone too.

We are not able to see the evidence the victims have provided and given account of to the Police.
However,I do strongly trust the Police in the main and have no doubt that they would have made the statement they did today without being sure that they were dealing with factual complaints against someone who had aat the very least abused underage Girls and at worst gone even further.
Really awful and I guess the full facts are even more awful too.

billy123

10-10-2012, 07:16 AM

No doubt there must be pretting damning evidence against him its just the trial by chavs that people find offensive there are some that revel in it like its nothing more than gossip column jeremy kyle style news.
ugggh these kind of numptys turn my stomach.

There is a time to shut your trap and let justice take its course and show a level of decorum some people just dont respect that time and that includes sections of the media.
It speaks volumes about their intelligence as much as anything else.

This is my last comment on the serious subject due to active trolls on this section of tibb.

the truth

10-10-2012, 07:28 AM

what are the charges and claims made against these men in totality

Omah

10-10-2012, 07:41 AM

Omah

10-10-2012, 07:48 AM

what are the charges and claims made against these men in totality

Police have already formally recorded eight criminal allegations – two rapes and six of indecent assault.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215324/Jimmy-Savile-allegations-Unmask-OTHER-BBC-child-abusers-Police-reveal-shocking-scale-Savile-abuse-launch-hunt-accomplices.html#ixzz28sdi511E

arista

10-10-2012, 07:56 AM

"Jimmy Savile’s headstone taken away at 1am, smashed up and dumped in a skip once its inscription is removed with grinders – with his family’s blessing"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215324/Jimmy-Savile-allegations-Unmask-OTHER-BBC-child-abusers-Police-reveal-shocking-scale-Savile-abuse-launch-hunt-accomplices.html#ixzz28sdGFvIm

"Yesterday the BBC faced renewed
questions over its ‘extraordinary’ decision to
drop a Newsnight investigation into the claims almost a year ago."

Omah

10-10-2012, 07:56 AM

http://news.sky.com/story/995632/jimmy-savile-headstone-removed-by-family

His family said it took the decision to remove his headstone, which bears Savile's image and lists his accomplishments, as a mark of respect to others buried in the cemetery.

"(We) are deeply aware of the impact that the stone remaining there could have on the dignity and sanctity of the cemetery," a statement released on behalf of the family said.

"Out of respect to public opinion, to those who are buried there, and to those who tend their graves and visit there, we have decided to remove it."

Scarborough Borough Council said the work was carried out shortly before midnight - ahead of the scheduled time of 7.30 on Wednesday morning - to minimise disruption and potential vandalism. Police shut the gates of the cemetary as it took place.

Despite making the request, his family did not know it would be removed under the cover of night and the decision to do it then was made by the council and funeral directors.

The inscription on the headstone will be removed and the stone broken up and disposed of in a skip, and the grave will remain unmarked.

Good

Marc

10-10-2012, 08:22 AM

Freddie Star must have been guilty as well, just look at the guy

Marc

10-10-2012, 08:24 AM

Who puts a face on a grave stone anyway? :conf2: Just tacky

Kazanne

10-10-2012, 08:28 AM

Who puts a face on a grave stone anyway? :conf2: Just tacky

I disagree with that we have a photo on one of our family members child who was murdered,we don't consider it 'tacky' at all

Kazanne

10-10-2012, 08:29 AM

Freddie Starr is another odious creep imo,and he must be cacking himself at the moment.

Marc

10-10-2012, 08:32 AM

I disagree with that we have a photo on one of our family members child who was murdered,we don't consider it 'tacky' at all

Really, just seems creepy to have their face there in, the whole area is sad and scary. Not really somewhere you'd want to see a smiley face looking up at you.

Well obviously that's my feeling. Don't want to annoy you with me thinkings

Kazanne

10-10-2012, 08:34 AM

Really, just seems creepy to have their face there in, the whole area is sad and scary. Not really somewhere you'd want to see a smiley face looking up at you.

Well obviously that's my feeling. Don't want to annoy you with me thinkings

You haven't annoyed me Marc ,people deal with things differently.:hugesmile:

Marc

10-10-2012, 08:35 AM

Freddie Starr is another odious creep imo,and he must be cacking himself at the moment.

this.

very much this.

he just looks like a paedophile

AnnieK

10-10-2012, 08:42 AM

I disagree with that we have a photo on one of our family members child who was murdered,we don't consider it 'tacky' at all

Some can be very tasteful and a fitting tribute to the person although I agree with Marc that JS' was quite tacky looking...(but maybe that is because now all this has come to light it seems to have been in bad taste :conf:)

Also, sorry that you have had such a tradgey Kazanne...:hug:

Marc

10-10-2012, 08:45 AM

Maybe because JS has such a cheesy face

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01587/jimmy-saville3_1587590a.jpg

Kazanne

10-10-2012, 10:17 AM

Some can be very tasteful and a fitting tribute to the person although I agree with Marc that JS' was quite tacky looking...(but maybe that is because now all this has come to light it seems to have been in bad taste :conf:)

Also, sorry that you have had such a tradgey Kazanne...:hug:

It was a long time ago now annie,i was a teenager,but the feelings in the family are still raw,it never really goes away.Our pic is a small picture and not etched into the stone like Savilles,and thankyou annie:xyxwave:

arista

10-10-2012, 10:39 AM

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2012/10/9/197479/default/v1/daily-mirror-front-page-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2012/10/9/197481/default/v1/the-sun-front-page-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2012/10/9/197480/default/v1/daily-mail-front-page-1-329x437.jpg

Livia

10-10-2012, 10:54 AM

I am a bit alarmed at the people on here saying someone must be guilty because he's "creepy" and "looka like a paedophile". I hope to God you're never picked for jury service.

Incidentally, It's no one else's business what someone chooses to put on a grave or memorial.

Suze

10-10-2012, 10:56 AM

I disagree with that we have a photo on one of our family members child who was murdered,we don't consider it 'tacky' at all

I have to agree, I don't find it tacky at all. Many graves have a deceased loved ones photo on the headstones now. The photo is usually encased in something to protect it from the elements, it gives a face to the name of that person. Over time images in our minds can easily fade a little, and a photo is a lovely reminder of them imo.

Kazanne

10-10-2012, 11:01 AM

10-10-2012, 11:05 AM

There are photos of both of my grandparents on my dad's side at their graves, I think it's touching.

Nedusa

10-10-2012, 11:18 AM

Freddie Star must have been guilty as well, just look at the guy

Really...!!???!!! So whats the Paedophile "look" then....????

Nedusa

10-10-2012, 11:23 AM

this.

very much this.

he just looks like a paedophile

Seriously....!!!!! I hope you're being sarcastic, I guess given your position on TiBB you probably are, but people who make frivolous comments like these can do so much damage.....!!!!

chuff me dizzy

10-10-2012, 11:53 AM

I felt sick when I saw Savilles heroes funeral on news, KNOWING this documentry was waiting in the wings

Marc

10-10-2012, 11:55 AM

Livia

10-10-2012, 12:06 PM

Well obviously I'm making a passing judgement as a joke, I would make a perfect Juror.

You were too subtle for me.

joeysteele

10-10-2012, 12:13 PM

I have to agree, I don't find it tacky at all. Many graves have a deceased loved ones photo on the headstones now. The photo is usually encased in something to protect it from the elements, it gives a face to the name of that person. Over time images in our minds can easily fade a little, and a photo is a lovely reminder of them imo.

I agree with you and kazanne, my Grandparents grave has a picture of them on as you point out encased to protect it from the elements,in fact a great many graves in the cemetery have photos of the people on them.
Everytime I go there, I find it I have a good feeling to see the photo of my Grandparents there too alomgside their names.

Marc

10-10-2012, 12:28 PM

You were too subtle for me.

One of my many amazing characteristics

Shaun

10-10-2012, 02:04 PM

oh god, digging up graves? what's next? deleting all old TOTP footage?

Livia

10-10-2012, 02:11 PM

And all before he's actually been found guilty of anything.

GiRTh

10-10-2012, 02:32 PM

AnnieK

10-10-2012, 02:35 PM

Can he actually be found guilty of a crime though if he is dead - this is a serious question as I am unsure of the law - can you be posthumously convicted of a crime?

GiRTh

10-10-2012, 02:39 PM

Can he actually be found guilty of a crime though if he is dead - this is a serious question as I am unsure of the law - can you be posthumously convicted of a crime?No. Only living people can be arrested and appear in court.

arista

10-10-2012, 02:41 PM

"SAVILLE: I do feck miners, that's quite correct. I have always done so."

Yes he was a Peadophile
with BBC backing and a Massive Charity.

On the news today one hospital he visted
the nurses did not want to be the chosen one
to go with to a back room with that dirty bastard

chuff me dizzy

10-10-2012, 02:53 PM

InOne

10-10-2012, 02:55 PM

Its a pity its too late to hang the dirty old gett

It's not the 50's Chuff, he wouldn't be hanged even if he was alive now.

chuff me dizzy

10-10-2012, 02:57 PM

It's not the 50's Chuff, he wouldn't be hanged even if he was alive now.

Mores the pity :idc:

Shaun

10-10-2012, 02:57 PM

oh wow (@ that transcript, GiRTh)

Kate!

10-10-2012, 03:02 PM

omg, my eyes have really been opened now after reading that transcript. Paul Merton really doesn't give a feck what he says does he? Good for him I say. Jimmy comes across as very menacing. :eek: Would have been very very uncomfortable sitting in that particular audience.

arista

10-10-2012, 03:04 PM

Yes Shaun
if only it had a Secret Film of it.

As a Out Take - Test
it shows the Justified Anger Merton has with Savile

Kizzy

10-10-2012, 03:13 PM

my god! respect to paul and ian for saying their piece =D

chuff me dizzy

10-10-2012, 03:14 PM

Has anyone seen THIS (http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rogerb/jokes/HIGNFY.txt)
#
An actual Transcript of recording of HIGNY when Jimmy Saville was on. Doesn't look like Paul Merton likes him at all. I wonder why?

Where did you find that ? :shocked:

Jake.

10-10-2012, 03:18 PM

arista

10-10-2012, 03:23 PM

"respect to paul"

Yes Kizzy he knew about Savile
so the stink was next to him.

Omah

10-10-2012, 03:23 PM

oh god, digging up graves? what's next? deleting all old TOTP footage?

Just editing Savile out will do ..... :pipe:

arista

10-10-2012, 03:54 PM

A Nurse was just on SkyNews
who could not stop Evil Savile

Me. I Am Salman

10-10-2012, 05:06 PM

What'll happen to Jim'll Mix It vans?

GiRTh

10-10-2012, 05:17 PM

Where did you find that ? :shocked:Just googled 'Jimmy Saville' and it came up.

Omah

10-10-2012, 05:47 PM

Just googled 'Jimmy Saville' and it came up.

Must be due to your browser or postcode or both - I don't get it ..... :nono:

Me. I Am Salman

10-10-2012, 06:04 PM

That transcript thing is apparently a hoax.

MTVN

10-10-2012, 06:11 PM

Yeah it's fake

Kizzy

10-10-2012, 06:23 PM

What a shame..Was the name of the girl in the transcript made up then?
Girth check your sources =(

chuff me dizzy

10-10-2012, 07:17 PM

Just googled 'Jimmy Saville' and it came up.

Yes i googled that girls name in it and it did same with me

King Gizzard

10-10-2012, 08:00 PM

http://i.imgur.com/xRTfp.jpg

Kazanne

10-10-2012, 08:30 PM

http://i.imgur.com/xRTfp.jpg

:joker::joker::joker:I see what you did there :joker:

King Gizzard

10-10-2012, 08:32 PM

Unfortunately I can't take the credit, it's just something from twitter :(

arista

10-10-2012, 09:04 PM

Jimmy Savile 'Molested Brain-Damaged Patient'

http://news.sky.com/story/995919/jimmy-savile-molested-brain-damaged-patient

Its getting worse each day.

Omah

10-10-2012, 10:50 PM

Jimmy Savile 'Molested Brain-Damaged Patient'

http://news.sky.com/story/995919/jimmy-savile-molested-brain-damaged-patient

Its getting worse each day.

Blimey ..... :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Omah

10-10-2012, 11:32 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9600123/Jimmy-Savile-did-ward-rounds-at-Stoke-Mandeville-to-find-young-girls-to-abuse.html

Jimmy Savile did 'ward rounds’ at Stoke Mandeville to find young girls to abuse

Stoke Mandeville hospital is under pressure to set up an inquiry after it was claimed that nurses knew Sir Jimmy Savile went on “ward rounds” to find young patients to abuse.

Ithinkiloveyoutoo

10-10-2012, 11:37 PM

The ability to molest is a disease. How can anyone that's actually sane have the heart to hurt a brain-damaged person, and then afterwards put on a face to face the world. It's gotta to be some kind of mental disability within themselves. ALL THOSE MOLESTERS.

arista

11-10-2012, 05:21 AM

CharlieO

11-10-2012, 06:37 AM

this all makes me feel so ill

Jake.

11-10-2012, 07:38 AM

And people said that he wasn't a nice chap! :idc:

Vanessa

11-10-2012, 08:07 AM

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 08:53 AM

Omah

11-10-2012, 08:59 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/11/jimmy-savile-sex-abuse-claims

Stoke Mandeville hospital and Leeds General Infirmary, where Jimmy Savile worked for charity, are the centre of the latest allegations of child abuse with claims the former TV star molested patients at both hospitals.

An ex-patient at a third hospital, Broadmoor, claimed Savile groped her while she watched TV.

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 09:00 AM

Pretend you're asleep, he's here: What Stoke Mandeville nurses told the patients when Savile came calling

"Former patients claim Jim'll Fix It star
was free to abuse sick and
disabled children at the hospital
Wheelchair-bound Caroline Moore
was 13 when Jimmy Savile abused her
in a hospital corridor at Stoke Mandeville"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215910/Jimmy-Savile-What-Stoke-Mandeville-nurses-told-patients-Jimll-Fix-It-star-came-calling.html#ixzz28xrr4aIq

So these nurses (plural) allegedly knew what was going on: allowed JS to allegedly 'abuse' their young very seriously ill patients when the 'want took him', and they all kept their mouths shut because he rasied funds for the hospital? :conf:

Very odd state of affairs.

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 09:02 AM

Prime example of people believing everything that they read and take it as gospel.

THAT 'actual transcript' was a hoax.OK I know now but when I googled 'Jimmy Saville' it was like the fourth thing that came up. At that time there was no reason not to believe it and the hoax claims were not confirmed. I was not under the impression that my journalistic integrity was going to be questioned. I was under the impression that this was a forum and people could post pretty much what they liked just as long as it was within the rules of the forum.

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 09:05 AM

So these nurses (plural) allegedly knew what was going on: allowed JS to allegedly 'abuse' their young very seriously ill patients when the 'want took him', and they all kept their mouths shut because he rasied funds for the hospital? :conf:

Very odd state of affairs.Not really that odd. The man was like a Saint in many people eyes.

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 09:07 AM

OK I know now but when I googled 'Jimmy Saville' it was like the fourth thing that came up. At that time there was no reason not to believe it and the hoax claims were not confirmed. I was not under the impression that my journalistic integrity was going to be questioned. I was under the impression that this was a forum and people could post pretty much what they liked just as long as it was within the rules of the forum.

My point being: all it takes is one person to put up something that is false - and as can be seen by the comments put up after you posted this: the people who commented on it - believing it to be a true & genuine transcript and jumping on the pitchfork crew bandwagon...... because they simply believe anything /everything that is being presented, as factual.

That's my point in all of this whole sorry saga.

I do feel that there may indeed have been some serious misdoings of some sort on the part of JS - to what extent, I'm unsure: however it shows that such 'links and stories' do nothing but fan the flames - when there is absolutely no substance to it (ie: the link) - which then discredits any other possible 'real and truth' behind the story.

You see where I am coming from?

Marc

11-10-2012, 09:10 AM

I just had the news on and heard about allegations of him molesting sick children in hospital :sad: if this is true then this guy was disgusting

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 09:10 AM

My point being: all it takes is one person to put up something that is false - and as can be seen by the comments put up after you posted this: the people who commented on it - believing it to be a true & genuine transcript and jumping on the pitchfork crew bandwagon...... because they simply believe anything /everything that is being presented, as factual.

That's my point in all of this whole sorry saga.

I do feel that there may indeed have been some serious misdoings of some sort on the part of JS - to what extent, I'm unsure: however it shows that such 'links and stories' do nothing but fan the flames - when there is absolutely no substance to it (ie: the link) - which then discredits any other possible 'real and truth' behind the story.

You see where I am coming from?Not really. This is neither a court of law or a news outlet.
At the heart of this case are about 30 women who have never met each other who all have strikingly similar stories about what Jimmy Saville did to them. There may be some embellishment but I doubt all 30 of them simply thought of the same lie.

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 09:12 AM

Not really that odd. The man was like a Saint in many people eyes.

Nurses who allege that they knew what he was like, what he did, what he was capable of (allegedly) warning young ill patients to pretend to be asleep - whilst allowing JS to (allegedly) carry on with other young ill patients instead - well, he wouldn't have been regarded as a 'Saint' in their eyes.

Also beggars belief that these nurses were so 'aware' that they allowed others to fall 'victim' when these nurses claim to have known what was going on.

If nursing staff weren't prepared to protect such young vulnerable patients under their care - I hope they are very ashamed of themselves if there is truth to any of this: for they allowed subsequent abuse to continue instead of kicking up a massive stink .... all because it surrounded 'money for the hospital'.

does this mean they were prepared to 'sacrfice' some 'victims' so the fundraising and monies being raised by JS woud continue?

Doesn't that mean they have something as serious to answer to...ie: perverting the course of justice and allowing a known abuser onto their wards?

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 09:13 AM

Not really. This is neither a court of law or a news outlet.

I'm aware of that..... and I'm glad you proven what I've said since the start of the thread.

It only takes one person to put up something that is completely and utterly false: and for others to follow blindly - believing it to be the truth and jump on the story without knowing the facts.....

In reply to your edit on your post since I quoted it: with you now mentioning the 30 women that police are investigating their stories: that's not what I am speaking of: I was specifically directing back to you quoting a very incorrect and untruthful article: believing it to be true and others thinking the same.

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 09:17 AM

Nurses who allege that they knew what he was like, what he did, what he was capable of (allegedly) warning young ill patients to pretend to be asleep - whilst allowing JS to (allegedly) carry on with other young ill patients instead - well, he wouldn't have been regarded as a 'Saint' in their eyes.

Also beggars belief that these nurses were so 'aware' that they allowed others to fall 'victim' when these nurses claim to have known what was going on.

If nursing staff weren't prepared to protect such young vulnerable patients under their care - I hope they are very ashamed of themselves if there is truth to any of this: for they allowed subsequent abuse to continue instead of kicking up a massive stink .... all because it surrounded 'money for the hospital'.

does this mean they were prepared to 'sacrfice' some 'victims' so the fundraising and monies being raised by JS woud continue?

Doesn't that mean they have something as serious to answer to...ie: perverting the course of justice and allowing a known abuser onto their wards?Who knows what kind of pressure the nurses were under. In that day and age he was one of the biggest stars in this country. In those days we had three channels no internet, no cable. Stars in those days were real stars and were virtually untouchable. No Only way is Essex z Listers back then. A couple of nurses couldn't take on Jimmy Saville.

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 09:20 AM

Who knows what kind of pressure the nurses were under. In that day and age he was one of the biggest stars in this country. In those days we had three channels no internet, no cable. Stars in those days were real stars and were virtually untouchable. No Only way is Essex z Listers back then. A couple of nurses couldn't take on Jimmy Saville.

Well if the 'reports' are to be believed: everyone and their granny knew about what JS was upto.

No one is THAT powerful.

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 09:24 AM

I'm aware of that..... and I'm glad you proven what I've said since the start of the thread.

It only takes one person to put up something that is completely and utterly false: and for others to follow blindly - believing it to be the truth and jump on the story without knowing the facts.....

In reply to your edit on your post since I quoted it: with you now mentioning the 30 women that police are investigating their stories: that's not what I am speaking of: I was specifically directing back to you quoting a very incorrect and untruthful article: believing it to be true and others thinking the same.My bad I posted the article but as I said before there was no reason to doubt it at the time. It was one of the lead stories that came up when I Googled Jimmy Saville.

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 09:26 AM

Well if the 'reports' are to be believed: everyone and their granny knew about what JS was upto.

No one is THAT powerful.OK if you say so. So enlighten us with your opinion. If no one is THAT powerful then what do you think is going on here? Are you saying none of it is true? I'd like to know your stance you seem to be - as usual- arguing for the sake of it.

Omah

11-10-2012, 09:38 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9600881/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-new-allegations-presenter-abused-sick-children.html

One woman said Savile took advantage of her when she was 13 years old and in a wheelchair at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in 1971.

Caroline Moore, now 53, recalled an episode in which Savile approached her silently as she sat alone in a corridor.

She had been recovering in the children's ward at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in 1971 following an operation to fuse her spine.

"I was quite shy and lonely,” she said. “I don’t remember him saying anything to me but he leant down and I was excited because I thought he was going to give me a wee peck on the cheek.

"But he took my face in his hands and rammed his tongue down my throat. I was shocked.

"I had never been kissed and I didn’t really know what had happened – only that it made me absolutely shudder.

"Afterwards he just walked off as if nothing had happened."

Ms Moore, paralysed from the chest down following a car accident when she was 20 months old, said she had been left "haunted" by the incident.

:yuk:

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 09:42 AM

OK if you say so. So enlighten us with your opinion. If no one is THAT powerful then what do you think is going on here? Are you saying none of it is true? I'd like to know your stance you seem to be - as usual- arguing for the sake of it.

I do say so and my opinion is that I am happy to wait until correct and full investigations have taken place: without jumping on bandwagons and believing every single little thing that happens to be posted online - and that is what I believe 'is going on here'.

I am not saying any of what has been stated is untrue: what I AM saying is that too many people seem too quick to conclusions..... as has been shown by you putting up a false untrue link: and many others (not on here, on the internet I mean) - have also been duped into believing such drivel.

that's not arguing Girth, despite your penchance for trying to make it so: what I've just stated above it the truth of the matter.

All I have said in the past few posts happens to be my opinion, of which I'm entitled as is anyone on here to state: and my opinion I feel is a a healthy opinion (in my view).

I do believe in there's no smoke without fire: but I also believe in facts and real hard evidence being sought out and determined without any shadow of doubt - rather than sucking in anything and everything that's put out as being the truth.

Kizzy

11-10-2012, 09:45 AM

Nurses who allege that they knew what he was like, what he did, what he was capable of (allegedly) warning young ill patients to pretend to be asleep - whilst allowing JS to (allegedly) carry on with other young ill patients instead - well, he wouldn't have been regarded as a 'Saint' in their eyes.

Also beggars belief that these nurses were so 'aware' that they allowed others to fall 'victim' when these nurses claim to have known what was going on.

If nursing staff weren't prepared to protect such young vulnerable patients under their care - I hope they are very ashamed of themselves if there is truth to any of this: for they allowed subsequent abuse to continue instead of kicking up a massive stink .... all because it surrounded 'money for the hospital'.

does this mean they were prepared to 'sacrfice' some 'victims' so the fundraising and monies being raised by JS woud continue?

Doesn't that mean they have something as serious to answer to...ie: perverting the course of justice and allowing a known abuser onto their wards?

Have you checked the reliability of this source pyra?
I commented on a post yesterday before I had, would you like to borrow my pitchfork? =)

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 09:48 AM

I do say so and my opinion is that I am happy to wait until correct and full investigations have taken place: without jumping on bandwagons and believing every single little thing that happens to be posted online - and that is what I believe 'is going on here'.

I am not saying any of what has been stated is untrue: what I AM saying is that too many people seem too quick to conclusions..... as has been shown by you putting up a false untrue link: and many others (not on here, on the internet I mean) - have also been duped into believing such drivel.

that's not arguing Girth, despite your penchance for trying to make it so: what I've just stated above it the truth of the matter.

All I have said in the past few posts happens to be my opinion, of which I'm entitled as is anyone on here to state: and my opinion I feel is a a healthy opinion (in my view).

I do believe in there's no smoke without fire: but I also believe in facts and real hard evidence being sought out and determined without any shadow of doubt - rather than sucking in anything and everything that's put out as being the truth.you initially made a point that a couple of people had already made. ie that the article has now been discredited. If you'd have agreed with the others - who got there first BTW - then OK but you decided to quote my article. Like it was actually news that it has now been disproved. Hence me jumping to the supposedly false opinion that you were arguing - again - for the sake of it. I also believe in fact and that article is the first thing I've posted for years that I was not sure about.

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 09:54 AM

Have you checked the reliability of this source pyra?
I commented on a post yesterday before I had, would you like to borrow my pitchfork? =)

I'm putting over an opinion - and am perfectly entitled to do that Kizzy. It is a fact: these supposed nurses have in effect covered up for JS if there is any truth in the allegations: they too then have to bear a responsibility to those place in their care & protection........ it could be said that they were willing to 'sacrifice' some other victims.

Unfortunate Kizzy if you don't like me saying that, but that's very much something that should be considered in all of this. I'm not happy in jumping the gun: I'm happy to suggest other things that may have impacted as a question for discussion which is precisely what my post reference the nurses and those in the know possibily having to be also held accountable.

'all these people all supposedy in the know'....and yet it all stayed so quiet? That is a point for discussion - regardless of what one believes in all of this.

So yes, I do believe there is much muck raking to go on.

I'll pass on the pitchfork: as I'm quite happy to debate and discuss ALL angles of this story: without doing as others have done: and JUMP to conclusions - but instead, I am willing to discuss other aspects of what is 'allegedly' coming to light.

After all: is is a discussion thread.

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 09:56 AM

you initially made a point that a couple of people had already made. ie that the article has now been discredited. If you'd have agreed with the others - who got there first BTW - then OK but you decided to quote my article. Like it was actually news that it has now been disproved. Hence me jumping to the supposedly false opinion that you were arguing - again - for the sake of it. I also believe in fact and that article is the first thing I've posted for years that I was not sure about.

I haven't been on the thread for a few days - that's the way it works.

As I say: it's a typical example of someone putting up for public consumption: false information and people believing it as gospel without as second thought.

It's a valid point and it remains a valid point: what other information that's being published is incorrect - but people are blindly accepting it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 09:59 AM

I'm putting over an opinion - and am perfectly entitled to do that Kizzy. It is a fact: these supposed nurses have in effect covered up for JS if there is any truth in the allegations: they too then have to bear a responsibility to those place in their care & protection........ it could be said that they were willing to 'sacrifice' some other victims.

Unfortunate Kizzy if you don't like me saying that, but that's very much something that should be considered in all of this. I'm not happy in jumping the gun: I'm happy to suggest other things that may have impacted as a question for discussion which is precisely what my post reference the nurses and those in the know possibily having to be also held accountable.

'all these people all supposedy in the know'....and yet it all stayed so quiet? That is a point for discussion - regardless of what one believes in all of this.

So yes, I do believe there is much muck raking to go on.

I'll pass on the pitchfork: as I'm quite happy to debate and discuss ALL angles of this story: without doing as others have done: and JUMP to conclusions - but instead, I am willing to discuss other aspects of what is 'allegedly' coming to light.

After all: is is a discussion thread.Thats waffle.

What crime do you think the nurses have committed or do you think they should be given a stern talking to or named and shamed? I dont see the point you're trying to make here.

Niamh.

11-10-2012, 10:01 AM

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 10:02 AM

Thats waffle.

What crime do you think the nurses have committed or do you think they should be given a stern talking to or named and shamed? I dont see the point you're trying to make here.

Try reading back a few posts Girth.

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 10:02 AM

It did make for a pretty funny read though ;)

Yeah, really funny reading lies made up about someone ......

If that's your bag I suppose.

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 10:03 AM

I haven't been on the thread for a few days - that's the way it works.

As I say: it's a typical example of someone putting up for public consumption: false information and people believing it as gospel without as second thought.

It's a valid point and it remains a valid point: what other information that's being published is incorrect - but people are blindly accepting it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.I've already made this point. There will obviously be some embellishment but the heart of the case seem to either be true or based on an amazing lie that 30 women all thought of at the same time.

Vanessa

11-10-2012, 10:04 AM

I think there's some truth to the allegations. Police say that there could be between 20/25 victims. All young teenage girls. :(

GiRTh

11-10-2012, 10:06 AM

Try reading back a few posts Girth.Huh. I'm asking which of these options do you believe to be true? No need to read back I'm trying to get you to actually make a point regarding your stance on this matter. Why do you keep mentioning the nurses who covered it up? Do you think they are actually guilty of a crime? You're the one who needs to read back.

Pyramid*

11-10-2012, 10:08 AM

I've already made this point. There will obviously be some embellishment but the heart of the case seem to either be true or based on an amazing lie that 30 women all thought of at the same time.

I think there's some truth to the allegations. Police say that there could be between 20/25 victims. All young teenage girls. :(

quite some difference in the totals - ranging from 20 to hundreds to thousands having taken into account some of the comments regarding the numbers invovled (throughout the thread).

Girth: the point I am focusing on is those, (by your own admission) that there will ''Obviously be some embellishment''..... for whatever reason.

That is the very thing that is likely to damage this investigation - and tarnish it. I do believe there may indeed may be something untoward: but the more embellishment that is taking place; the more harmful that may be to any truth behind all of this and will suffice in only damaging the investigations - THAT is my very point.