Jimmy Savile accused of sex abuse in the Midlands
 

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/t...#ixzz28cUtyg3j


That must be about 8 police forces involved now !

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....

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

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

:conf:

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:

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.

So how much do you think each was paid and what was the total cost at, say, 1970 prices ?

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)

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!

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......

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.

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

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.

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 .....

Sandi Toksvig claims she was groped while broadcasting
 

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:

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:

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

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.

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.

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

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:

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

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

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:

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.