The guy from The Sun doing the paper review on Sky News says the reason they haven't touched the story is because there is no way of proving the veracity of the allegations.
Ok but what is the point? she says they say he says.
Without nobody answering in a court of law.
Can you imagine the furore if the BBC had been exposed as employing a man with a sexual penchant for young girls?
As their charter is granted to them by the Government, heads would have rolled and many, many people sacked. It was in their interests to keep it under wraps.
Especially as the rumours surrounding Jonathan King and Saville appear to be very similar : grooming teenagers, showering them with presents, offering them lifts in flashy cars etc. One wonders how King got caught and Saville got off scott free, if he was really doing what was alleged.
I don't know anything about the King case, what he did, how it came out.
If the rumours were apparently so rife/believable, how did the press not copp on and start rooting through his bins, etc.
Media people aren't known for being discrete, especially when you've got crews standing around for ages.
That said, Frankie Howerd being gay and wearing a syrup wasn't headline news as far as I know, neither was his aggressive propositioning of male co stars, that was well known in showbiz circles.
Can you imagine the furore if the BBC had been exposed as employing a man with a sexual penchant for young girls?
As their charter is granted to them by the Government, heads would have rolled and many, many people sacked. It was in their interests to keep it under wraps.
They did Jonathon king was employed on top of the pops.;)
Ok but what is the point? she says they say he says.
Without nobody answering in a court of law.
Speaking out may finally bring closure to the alleged victims. Some will believe their story. Others wouldn't. Not all accused face court before their death as this recently "solved" case shows:
Speaking out may finally bring closure to the alleged victims. Some will believe their story. Others wouldn't. Not all accused face court before their death as this recently "solved" case shows:
That said, Frankie Howerd being gay and wearing a syrup wasn't headline news as far as I know, neither was his aggressive propositioning of male co stars, that was well known in showbiz circles.
Homosexuality was against the law in those days though and men had to be discreet about it. Since then it's been legalised, but to my knowledge - and I'm not just talking about Savile's alleged crimes here - sexual activity with underaged girls hasn't.
The guy from The Sun doing the paper review on Sky News says the reason they haven't touched the story is because there is no way of proving the veracity of the allegations.
Ex: News of the World. Said they knew of the allegations but they were never able to establish the truth of them. Now he is dead papers can publish what they like as you can't libel the dead. Nice. So very much seems that this has been well investigated previously by NOTW. Proof of nothing except that it hasn't been ignored. They have outed others over the years.
So? The alleged killer could have had an innocent explanation as to why his DNA was found at the crime scene but he didn't get the chance. He's dead but in his death has been "shown" to be a killer. "Where is the justice", I hear you cry.
Can you imagine the furore if the BBC had been exposed as employing a man with a sexual penchant for young girls?
As their charter is granted to them by the Government, heads would have rolled and many, many people sacked. It was in their interests to keep it under wraps.
BIB You've tried this one before, do you have any proof the BBC knew anything or that it actually happened?
If not you might want to think about changing the tone of that, so it doesn't quite imply the BBC was involved in a cover up.
What furore and head rolling are you on about?
Simply for employing someone like that.
If there was a cover up, claims ignored, then there might be some head rolling.
Given the number of people working for the BBC there are probably a few working there now.
The point that End-it All was trying to make with that link was about the fact that not all accused face trial before their death, not about DNA evidence.
The point that End-it All was trying to make with that link was about the fact that not all accused face trial before their death, not about DNA evidence.
So? The alleged killer could have had an innocent explanation as to why his DNA was found at the crime scene but he didn't get the chance. He's dead but in his death has been "shown" to be a killer. "Where is the justice", I hear you cry.
I ask again is Jimmy Savilles DNA likely to be an issue proving beyond doubt he did the crimes he is alleged to have done.?
I ask again is Jimmy Savilles DNA likely to be an issue proving beyond doubt he did the crimes he is alleged to have done.?
*facepalm*
Ever heard of lateral thinking?
Ask yourself if DNA evidence is still going to be in existence on these women 30 years on. Of course it won't. That wasn't the point that End it All was trying to prove anyway.
Comments
I think we all deserve to know as licence payers who covered this up at the BBC.
I take it you would agree with this.
With some folks it wouldn't matter what was placed as evidence, they still wouldn't believe it.
But should be heard anyway in my opinion.
Now i would have beleived it or not had he of been charged or exposed during his lifetime.
Ok but what is the point? she says they say he says.
Without nobody answering in a court of law.
Definitely.
Sorry, I genuinely don't understand that.
Well during Savilles lifetime he would have been charged and a court case would have meant a barrister grilling him as to the truth.
He is no longer with us so how would he get a fair hearing.
Can you imagine the furore if the BBC had been exposed as employing a man with a sexual penchant for young girls?
As their charter is granted to them by the Government, heads would have rolled and many, many people sacked. It was in their interests to keep it under wraps.
I don't know anything about the King case, what he did, how it came out.
If the rumours were apparently so rife/believable, how did the press not copp on and start rooting through his bins, etc.
Media people aren't known for being discrete, especially when you've got crews standing around for ages.
That said, Frankie Howerd being gay and wearing a syrup wasn't headline news as far as I know, neither was his aggressive propositioning of male co stars, that was well known in showbiz circles.
They did Jonathon king was employed on top of the pops.;)
Not as an actual employee of the BBC though.
Speaking out may finally bring closure to the alleged victims. Some will believe their story. Others wouldn't. Not all accused face court before their death as this recently "solved" case shows:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12407345
Linking the yorkshire ripper and Jimmy Saville is a bit far fetched.
Did you read the story in the link?
Homosexuality was against the law in those days though and men had to be discreet about it. Since then it's been legalised, but to my knowledge - and I'm not just talking about Savile's alleged crimes here - sexual activity with underaged girls hasn't.
Yes it was about DNA evidence.
Has any DNA been provided against Jimmy Saville.?
Ex: News of the World. Said they knew of the allegations but they were never able to establish the truth of them. Now he is dead papers can publish what they like as you can't libel the dead. Nice. So very much seems that this has been well investigated previously by NOTW. Proof of nothing except that it hasn't been ignored. They have outed others over the years.
So? The alleged killer could have had an innocent explanation as to why his DNA was found at the crime scene but he didn't get the chance. He's dead but in his death has been "shown" to be a killer. "Where is the justice", I hear you cry.
BIB You've tried this one before, do you have any proof the BBC knew anything or that it actually happened?
If not you might want to think about changing the tone of that, so it doesn't quite imply the BBC was involved in a cover up.
What furore and head rolling are you on about?
Simply for employing someone like that.
If there was a cover up, claims ignored, then there might be some head rolling.
Given the number of people working for the BBC there are probably a few working there now.
Thank you
I ask again is Jimmy Savilles DNA likely to be an issue proving beyond doubt he did the crimes he is alleged to have done.?
*facepalm*
Ever heard of lateral thinking?
Ask yourself if DNA evidence is still going to be in existence on these women 30 years on. Of course it won't. That wasn't the point that End it All was trying to prove anyway.
Of course not so what was the point of posting a article linking DNA with solving a crime if its not relevant in this case.