[cassieparis]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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*]

Originally Posted by cassieparis

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]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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*]

Originally Posted by cassieparis

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]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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*]

Originally Posted by cassieparis

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]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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 .....

[Kizzy]

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]

Originally Posted by Omah

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

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 .....

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

[arista]

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

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-david-1366691


"Crrep show: Coleen Nolan at 14 with Savile"



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/audi...5/channel4-bbc
Media Talk Broadcast debates Newsnight dropping the Savile Docu

[Omah]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...-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)?

[Kizzy]

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]

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 .....

[arista]

The JS Charity group
is thinking of changing its name


They should do it fast.

[Omah]

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/arti...#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-s...-freddie-starr

[waterhog]

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]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=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 .....

[cassieparis]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

[Omah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ron-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 .....

[chuff me dizzy]

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.

[cassieparis]

Originally Posted by Omah

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml



Good for Karin, Bad for Starr .....

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]

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]

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 .....

[Omah]

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

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

[Omah]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

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) .....