[billy123]

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm do you not remember the whole injunction and super injunction scandal recently?? yes, the authorities CAN cover things up. especially when a celebrity is involved.

I must have missed the bit where i said they couldnt i could have sworn the sentiment was didnt.

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, why would you not care? If it's true then it's very important and you SHOULD care.

Once again you comletely miss the point that was it makes no odds to me if he was or he wasnt. The claims were raised with the law 40 years ago and went nowhere on the basis they were nothing but baseless claims.

The bbc was in the process of making a programme about the claims a year ago only to drop it after speaking to the people who made the claims.

Now he is dead ITV have picked up the baton and interviewed the people who made the claims hence the tabloid title "FRESH CLAIMS" yep its only fresh claims because a struggling tv station made them repeat the claims a good old media trick to make it sound like its not old news only dumbtards fall for that one and there are plenty about.

I coudnt care a dick about his legacy or his reputation but these same claims were laughed away when he was alive its just scummy behaviour from a struggling tv station to get the claims repeated within a year of his death because they know nobody can refute them.

Its nothing but profiteering whether he was guilty or not and thats just a disgusting mentality.

It just doesnt sit well with me it was looked at when the claims were made it was investigated by the police and came to nothing but now he is dead and a bit of money can be made out of it a tv station desperate for money can act as judge,jury and executioner.

[arista]

"bit of money can be made out of it a tv station"

No this is on at 11:10PM on weds.

Are you saying Esther Rantzen has it wrong?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...th-I-wept.html

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by bobnot

I must have missed the bit where i said they couldnt i could have sworn the sentiment was didnt.

Once again you comletely miss the point that was it makes no odds to me if he was or he wasnt. The claims were raised with the law 40 years ago and went nowhere on the basis they were nothing but baseless claims.

The bbc was in the process of making a programme about the claims a year ago only to drop it after speaking to the people who made the claims.

Now he is dead ITV have picked up the baton and interviewed the people who made the claims hence the tabloid title "FRESH CLAIMS" yep its only fresh claims because a struggling tv station made them repeat the claims a good old media trick to make it sound like its not old news only dumbtards fall for that one and there are plenty about.

I coudnt care a dick about his legacy or his reputation but these same claims were laughed away when he was alive its just scummy behaviour from a struggling tv station to get the claims repeated within a year of his death because they know nobody can refute them.

Its nothing but profiteering whether he was guilty or not and thats just a disgusting mentality.

It just doesnt sit well with me it was looked at when the claims were made it was investigated by the police and came to nothing but now he is dead and a bit of money can be made out of it a tv station desperate for money can act as judge,jury and executioner.

Got to pull you up here ,Bbc bought the show after commisioning it, but Saville died the week it was due to be shown ,so they refused to show it, it was then sold to Itv

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Zee

I have a personal connection to the Hollie Greig case people were mentioning on the previous page and I'm certain that it's not true, or at least what is being told to the media is not completely true. As for this case - I don't know whether or not to believe these women, simply because of the timing of this media scandal. Surely this would have been a news story before now. It's not like the media are afraid to report on celebrities with alleged paedophilic tendencies: see Gary Glitter. I dunno, I don't want to doubt people who say they are the victims of sexual abuse, because it's a very serious matter, but I think it's pretty bad journalism regardless of what's true and what isn't.

So the Maddie case is true, Holly case isnt true,Gary Glitter is a Saint ,whats your take on Saville is he a Saint too ? wake up ,live in the real world, child abuse is alive and kicking in UK and coverd up daily by men in grey suits

[Nedusa]

This is an interesting situation and we should be asking the question who stands to gain from this story ?

The alleged perpetrator of these crimes is dead so cannot defend himself but more importantly cannot be punished. The alleged victims of these crimes will never have justice as they did not pursue JS when he was alive. Why did they not pursue him surely there was enough evidence from 5 separate victims for the police to charge him at least with suspicion, but no nothing ever came of it. So why now ?? Why produce a TV programme that purports to deal with the issues of Child abuse but does so by focussing on a dead mans alleged crimes.

Sensationalist TV perhaps, the victims they will have to suffer all the memories rehashed again (if the abuse was true) so why would they do this , are they getting paid for appearing in the programme.

And why would the BBC air this programme which as I've said is based on heresay. Lets hope more info comes to light before we continue with this witch hunt and destroy the good name of Sir Jimmy Saville...!!!

[Omah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9578...ing-wrong.html

Sir Jimmy said the convicted paedophile just watched a few "dodgy films" and was only vilified because he was a celebrity.

His views have come to light in a new documentary which also accuses the Jim'll Fix It star of molesting young girls – and raping a teenager – at the height of his fame as a TV presenter.

Glitter was jailed for four months in 1999 for downloading 4,000 images of children and then deported from Vietnam for assaulting two girls aged 10 and 11 in 2008.

The programme records Sir Jimmy as saying a year later: "Now Gary, all he did was to take his computer into PC World to get it repaired.

"They went into the hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police and the police then 'Oh we've got a famous person ... Oh my goodness, yeah we'll have them'.

"But Gary has not sold 'em, has not tried to sell 'em, not tried to show them in public or anything like that. It were for his own gratification.

"Whether it was right or wrong is, of course, it's up to him as a person. But they didn't do anything wrong but they are then demonised."

"If you said to that copper, what's Gary Glitter done wrong? Well nothing really. He's just sat at home watching dodgy films."

Jeez .....

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Ithinkiloveyoutoo

No but I'm afraid. I just google it and the titles "the deeply upsetting story of Holly Grieg" is already making me sad.

Originally Posted by Omah

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9578...ing-wrong.html



Jeez .....

The problem with the quote you have just posted is that it connects JS in the minds of the viewers with Gary Glitter a convicted Paedophile. Yet who knows if the comments he was said to have made were actually made. Now because of this supposed comment people will now think he is the same as Gary Glitter.

These are classic smear tactics used to paint a picture in keeping with the aims of the programme, yet no solid evidence as of yet supports this contention.

I find this whole story suspicious to say the least, maybe I'm wrong but as of yet nothing of substance has been produced to substantiate these claims..!!!

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

The problem with the quote you have just posted is that it connects JS in the minds of the viewers with Gary Glitter a convicted Paedophile. Yet who knows if the comments he was said to have made were actually made.

Glitter was jailed for four months in 1999 for downloading 4,000 images of children and then deported from Vietnam for assaulting two girls aged 10 and 11 in 2008.

The programme records Sir Jimmy as saying a year later: "Now Gary, all he did was to take his computer into PC World to get it repaired.
.
.
.
.
.
What's Gary Glitter done wrong? Well nothing really. He's just sat at home watching dodgy films."

Presumably the "record" will show Savile saying those very words .....

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

This is an interesting situation and we should be asking the question who stands to gain from this story ?

The alleged perpetrator of these crimes is dead so cannot defend himself but more importantly cannot be punished. The alleged victims of these crimes will never have justice as they did not pursue JS when he was alive. Why did they not pursue him surely there was enough evidence from 5 separate victims for the police to charge him at least with suspicion, but no nothing ever came of it. So why now ?? Why produce a TV programme that purports to deal with the issues of Child abuse but does so by focussing on a dead mans alleged crimes.

Sensationalist TV perhaps, the victims they will have to suffer all the memories rehashed again (if the abuse was true) so why would they do this , are they getting paid for appearing in the programme.

And why would the BBC air this programme which as I've said is based on heresay. Lets hope more info comes to light before we continue with this witch hunt and destroy the good name of Sir Jimmy Saville...!!!

He was not dead when this was started, he was not dead when Coleen Nolan said he had touche her ,It just baffles me that people fall for the 3 card trick ,they do not realise the cover up what goes on

[chuff me dizzy]

http://spudgunsspoutings.blogspot.pt...this-then.html

[Omah]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

http://spudgunsspoutings.blogspot.pt...this-then.html

Not Uncle Dick, too .....

[Kazanne]

This Morning debating this now.

[arista]

Yes the Detective is there

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes the Detective is there

Sounds dodgy to me Arista,his 'cleaning' lady unwittingly dropped him in it i think.

[Omah]

It seems that nobody messed with Uncle Jim because :

a) he was a master manipulator

b) he could afford to sue anybody

Who was the lady whose BBC producer father allowed her to mix with every DJ EXCEPT JS ?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Sensationalist TV perhaps, the victims they will have to suffer all the memories rehashed again (if the abuse was true) so why would they do this , are they getting paid for appearing in the programme.

none of whom have been paid for their revelations,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz282cgoWo5

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Omah

It seems that nobody messed with Uncle Jim because :

a) he was a master manipulator

b) he could afford to sue anybody

Who was the lady whose BBC producer father allowed her to mix with every DJ EXCEPT JS ?

Can't remember Omah,but i did hear her say that

[Omah]

Paul Gambaccini claims Sir Jimmy Savile used charity work to prevent sexual abuse of schoolchildren being exposed

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-8191761.html

Broadcaster Paul Gambaccini has added to the allegations that Sir Jimmy Savile sexually abused schoolchildren, claiming the star used his charity work and ‘imperial personality’ within show business to prevent his private life being exposed.

Speaking ahead of an ITV documentary that claims Savile abused schoolgirls during his many years of stardom, Gambaccini said his former Radio 1 colleague played tabloid newspapers “like a Stradivarius” in order to keep the abuse secret.

Speaking on ITV1’s Daybreak programme this morning, Gambaccini said he had been waiting 30 years for the allegations to come out.

He alleged that at one point Saville was about to be exposed by a tabloid newspaper, but arranged an interview with a rival tabloid which had the effect of stopping the negative article.

Gambaccini went on: “On another occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said 'well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville - do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations'. And they backed down.”

Savile had raised millions of pounds over the years for his pet cause, Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

Gambaccini added: “It comes out when he's dead because Jimmy Savile had an imperial personality in show business; I'm not talking about personal life. You just didn't mess with Jim. He was the governor, because after all he had been the first great club DJ, he had been the originator of Top of the Pops presentation, and you just let him have his turf. And none of us were interested in going there because he was away from us. At social occasions we would all be together, but Jim would not be and he had his own life.”

[Livia]

Trials by media are dispicable and unfair, and when the accused is dead it's taken to an even lower point. And Esther Rantzen throwing her weight behind these claims shows us just what that woman will do to keep her career alive far past it's sell-by date.

[Z]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

So the Maddie case is true, Holly case isnt true,Gary Glitter is a Saint ,whats your take on Saville is he a Saint too ? wake up ,live in the real world, child abuse is alive and kicking in UK and coverd up daily by men in grey suits

Are you following me around the forum? I'm flattered.

Where on earth did I say 'Gary Glitter is a saint'?!? You're reading my post completely the wrong way, I don't even know where to begin.

Jimmy Savile is dead. Whether it's true or not, there is no way for him to defend himself or admit to his guilt - only the words of people who say they are victims. This is a crime that cannot be resolved, or this is an allegation that cannot be refuted, because the main body of evidence, i.e. Jimmy Savile, is no longer there. I mentioned Gary Glitter to show that the British media have no problem with reporting on celebrities who are accused of committing crimes of this nature. That's why I find it strange that this story has only been reported now, after Jimmy Savile's death, when Gary Glitter, who is still alive, has been outed as a child molester and from what I gather, quite rightly so. Why did nobody try to do this while Jimmy was alive? I understand that victims need to come to terms with things in their own time, but it was a very long time ago - Jimmy hadn't been a staple part of broadcasting for a long time before he died - I find it hard to believe that his influence was so strong that no one dared rat him out while he was still alive.

I'm more than aware that child abuse is a problem in this country. So many cases of child abuse rings are being uncovered in recent times - I'm absolutely 100% not denying that, I'm surprised you think that that's what I'm saying. My issue with this case is purely the timing of it. Nothing, legally, can be done to make things better for them. They can't get any closure because he's dead. All this has done is bring attention to them, probably in a negative way in the long run, and I think that's just going to make it worse for them.

The Hollie Greig case, as I said in my last post, I have a personal connection to, and while I'm no legal expert in any capacity, I just believe from the bottom of my heart that the story does not add up on the side of the alleged victim and her mother.

There's absolutely no need to bring up what I said in another thread that has nothing to do with this one. You don't even remember what I said, do you? I just reckoned that they were being lambasted for not showing the right amount of emotion and that I thought they were being punished over and over again for a mistake - other posters thought they were just being neglectful, I disagreed, and I've not bothered to post in there again because it can only go round in circles. I'd like to respectfully ask you to not target me again in this way over my views, because it's not relevant to this particular discussion.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Zee

Are you following me around the forum? I'm flattered.

Where on earth did I say 'Gary Glitter is a saint'?!? You're reading my post completely the wrong way, I don't even know where to begin.

Jimmy Savile is dead. Whether it's true or not, there is no way for him to defend himself or admit to his guilt - only the words of people who say they are victims. This is a crime that cannot be resolved, or this is an allegation that cannot be refuted, because the main body of evidence, i.e. Jimmy Savile, is no longer there. I mentioned Gary Glitter to show that the British media have no problem with reporting on celebrities who are accused of committing crimes of this nature. That's why I find it strange that this story has only been reported now, after Jimmy Savile's death, when Gary Glitter, who is still alive, has been outed as a child molester and from what I gather, quite rightly so. Why did nobody try to do this while Jimmy was alive? I understand that victims need to come to terms with things in their own time, but it was a very long time ago - Jimmy hadn't been a staple part of broadcasting for a long time before he died - I find it hard to believe that his influence was so strong that no one dared rat him out while he was still alive.

I'm more than aware that child abuse is a problem in this country. So many cases of child abuse rings are being uncovered in recent times - I'm absolutely 100% not denying that, I'm surprised you think that that's what I'm saying. My issue with this case is purely the timing of it. Nothing, legally, can be done to make things better for them. They can't get any closure because he's dead. All this has done is bring attention to them, probably in a negative way in the long run, and I think that's just going to make it worse for them.

The Hollie Greig case, as I said in my last post, I have a personal connection to, and while I'm no legal expert in any capacity, I just believe from the bottom of my heart that the story does not add up on the side of the alleged victim and her mother.

There's absolutely no need to bring up what I said in another thread that has nothing to do with this one. You don't even remember what I said, do you? I just reckoned that they were being lambasted for not showing the right amount of emotion and that I thought they were being punished over and over again for a mistake - other posters thought they were just being neglectful, I disagreed, and I've not bothered to post in there again because it can only go round in circles. I'd like to respectfully ask you to not target me again in this way over my views, because it's not relevant to this particular discussion.

Your post echos a lot of the sentiments I have with this story. If this man was a vile sexual predator using his fame and media presence to suppress any real investigations by the authorities, then certainly he should have been exposed, charged and if proven in a court of law heavily punished and of course his OBE recinded and his name and reputation rightly destroyed.

However, the man is no longer alive to answer to these allegations and this simple fact alone means before any public announcements are made there would have to be some pretty damming evidence. I don't see any such evidence only his alleged victims word against him coupled with hearsay and gossip from other people. Of course his word can now never be heard so this becomes very one sided against this man.

The only outcome of this will be to blacken JS name and reputation for as we all know there's no smoke without fire and mud sticks. This is what worrys me the most. Does that mean now that all dead people celebs or otherwise are fair game for this type of media assassination...!!!

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Omah

Paul Gambaccini claims Sir Jimmy Savile used charity work to prevent sexual abuse of schoolchildren being exposed

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-8191761.html

I've just seen this Omah,surely everyone can't be wrong, there was 'something' not quite right about him,just because someone makes loads of money for charities,does not make them above reproach,his lifestyle was strange to say the least,I am not accusing him,but have NEVER liked the bloke,and am not really surprised at this.

[arista]

Yes Docu 11:10PM
weds night ITV1HD

One key is the former BBC worker

[Livia]

How come then, that no one spoke out during his lifetime? I mean, was he so scary and powerful? How come everyone now knows that it was true because it was " creepy" and yet no one thought it was right to put a stop to it while it was happening? Or is now now an easy target because he can't clear his own name?

If so many people now have evidence that he was guilty, by not submitting it at the time surely they are guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice by withholding evidence.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

How come then, that no one spoke out during his lifetime? I mean, was he so scary and powerful? How come everyone now knows that it was true because it was " creepy" and yet no one thought it was right to put a stop to it while it was happening? Or is now now an easy target because he can't clear his own name?

If so many people now have evidence that he was guilty, by not submitting it at the time surely they are guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice by withholding evidence.

Yes millions loved his Jim will fix it - he used his power
SkyNews has found out the Police did interview him (2007)
but they dropped it , due to lack of enough paperwork on it.