Allegations about Jimmy Saville: covered up? - Page 17

Less · 07-10-2012, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

Gotta remember he was 40 in 1966 and presenting Top of the Pops - in this day and age no way would a 40 year old be allowed to present a pop program. So he was effectively an old man at the peak of his career in today's terms.

Also he peroxided his hair, it's not that blonde color naturally is it.

Personally I think he's very dodgy...

What a load of kestrelx!

kestrelx · 07-10-2012, 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinness

Gotta remember that the majority of TV presenters in 1966 were around 40. The only TV for kids was watch with mother and crackerjack, which was presented by Eamonn Andrews who was 44 at the time..different time..different criteria...context..context..context!!!

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

kestrelx · 07-10-2012, 23:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

No we aren't, and I dropped a stitch on my knitting while watching this unrevealing thread, speed up the tumbrels the blade on Madame guillotine is getting rusty from lack of use.

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!?

Boeing Guy · 08-10-2012, 06:24

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....

kestrelx · 08-10-2012, 07:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

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....

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?

Neil · 08-10-2012, 07:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

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?

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.

kestrelx · 08-10-2012, 07:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

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.

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.

cashman · 08-10-2012, 09:50

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?

Margaret Pilkington · 08-10-2012, 09:53

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.

kestrelx · 08-10-2012, 10:15

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

MargaretR · 08-10-2012, 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

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?

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

cashman · 08-10-2012, 12:16

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.

kestrelx · 08-10-2012, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

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.

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!

MargaretR · 08-10-2012, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

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!

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

Tealeaf · 08-10-2012, 18:34

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.