re: Allegations about Jimmy Saville: covered up?
 

What a load of kestrelx!

re: Allegations about Jimmy Saville: covered up?
 

Back in 1971 a pretty dancer who always danced on Top of the Pops comitted suicide and left a diary saying she had been used for sex by several DJ's. Her claims were never even investigated by the Police.

But it begs the question was Savile part of a ring within the BBC - which could explain why no body blew the whistle earlier on.

Claire McAlpine: A 15-year-old who killed herself after leaving a diary naming DJs as abusers. Disturbing questions about John Peel. So how many starts WERE involved? | Mail Online

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

Apparently the charity's using his name are going to change them, in the light of these allegations.

Jimmy Savile charitable trusts to drop his name and give money to abuse victims - Telegraph

And on the outcome of the Police investigation, perhaps he may lose his honours!? :rolleyes:

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

I see the Sun newspaper has decided Sir Jim is guilty....
Why bother with due process and investigations, lets go straight to sentencing.
After all the Sun has NEVER lied has it....:(

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

Would you rather this came out after his death. Or it come out before and the guy be publicly humiliated in the last years of his life?

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

Before of course so he could be taken through the justice system and punished if guilty.

The BBC appear to think he is guilty - why else would they issue an apology?

Your post sounds like you think its better now when he can't be held accountable for his actions.

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

My question is posed at the people who are upset that people are coming out with this stuff. From the perspective of someone who doesn't believe it and is a big fan of his - it's better he died before it came out.

That's the point; of course I think they should have come out while he was still alive.

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

The fact they didn't come out before his death, puts doubt on the credibility to me, The Sun n other papers will run with guilty cos it sells papers, as we have seen before, I am not sure one way or other of his guilt, What really makes me laugh though, is some on here who really slag the media,seem to think they tell the truth this time, Ironic or what?:rolleyes:

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

I'm with you Neil...and of course saying 'sorry' for someone elses misdeeds is so comforting...not to those who need the comfort, but for those saying sorry.
Somehow the word 'Sorry' has been devalued because of this trend(maybe the 'Blame and Claim' brigade have something to do with it)...or I am I on my own in this respect.

The man is dead...they can strip of his honour...he won't be bothered......and if there is any true judgement then I am sure he will have been judged already...by his maker.

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

People did complain before he died actually - he was questioned under caution about complaints by a girl at a home and also about the Jersey home incidents but there was insufficient evidence apparently.

Also last year just after he died (but have been being planned before he died) a Newsnight program containing 8 people claiming allegations, was shelved by the BBC last December!

Jimmy Savile: Questions about why BBC dropped Newsnight investigation - Telegraph

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

Whenever I see any news report my 'credibility scale' kicks in.

It can be illustrated as being from 1 - 10
1 = I accept it as true----------------- 10 = it must be lies.

In between there are various shades of half truths.

Where you decide on the scale is always subjective and should not be fixed. Your opinion can change as more info comes your way.

At present my view on this Jammy Saville topic is that we are being told half truths.
Whether you consider half truths as deception in another form, is dependent on how flexible your opinion can be.

I don't regard it as healthy to have perception fixed at any point on the scale.

In the past I have pointed out when lies have been so blatantly exposed that #10 has been the only conceivable option.
http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...ies-48617.html


PS some people opt out of forming any opinion because they aren't interested, and find it more comfortable being that way

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

Not seeing sufficient evidence that would stand up in a court of law, is not in my opinion opting out,its pretty logical to me, but some folk deal more towards conspiricy.:p

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

I just watched the documentary shown about the positive side of his life before all this came out. Pan's People didn't have a bad word to say about him - non of them (the 3 that were interviewed) told of being gropped or being man-handled!:confused:

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

I don't recall any of Pans People being under age 16.

Re: Sir Jimmy Saville
 

I'm amazed that people are still daft enough to come on here and defend the late Yorkshire paedo on the basis that guilt can not be proven in a court of law. I suppose on the same basis Adolf Hitler was not guilty of any crimes in his period as fuhrer.