Options

Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile?

13334363839187

Comments

  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 592
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Here's a snippet that hasn't been picked up by the newspapers yet.

    Whether the DJ concerned was Jimmy Savile is unclear at this stage. However in the first three months of 1971 he presented five episodes of Top of the Pops.

    In recent news articles the BBC claims it has nothing on file. But if this incident was him and was reported in The Guardian, how could the BBC not have details of it on file?

    http://www.g7uk.com/photo-video-blog/20120517-15-year-old-girl-committed-suicide-in-1971-after-dancing-on-top-of-the-pops-and-spending-the-night-with-well-known-dj.shtml
  • Options
    Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    Not as an actual employee of the BBC though.

    Sorry, he was fronting a BBC show it was more than just TOTP too, employee or self employed makes no odds to those watching, he's still a representative of the BBC in their front rooms.
  • Options
    End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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 tell you again, it doesn't have to be.
  • Options
    End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.

    The point was to show that allegations against the dead have been made without them having the chance to defend themselves. It's not unique to Savile.
  • Options
    Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    I tell you again, it doesn't have to be.

    Why then in your view does it not have to be.

    In your view what constitutes guilt or innocence.
  • Options
    Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    The point was to show that allegations against the dead have been made without them having the chance to defend themselves.

    Only where irrefutable evidence is available.
  • Options
    Prince MonaluluPrince Monalulu Posts: 35,900
    Forum Member
    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.

    You really are trying to wind me up now aren't you, nobody is quite this dappy., I'm not buying this act anymore.
  • Options
    End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Only where irrefutable evidence is available.

    Like what? DNA in itself is not irrefutable evidence.
  • Options
    Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    Like what? DNA in itself is not irrefutable evidence.

    It was in the case you linked to.

    How many cases have there been where DNA if available has not been irrefutable evidence.?:confused:
  • Options
    End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why then in your view does it not have to be.

    In your view what constitutes guilt or innocence.

    Not sure what you're on about again. All I have consistently said is that the fact someone is dead shouldn't prevent allegations about them being heard.
  • Options
    Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    Not sure what you're on about again. All I have consistently said is that the fact someone is dead shouldn't prevent allegations about them being heard.

    Yes but you have linked to DNA evidence without proving a link to Jimmy Savilles case.

    Allegations then is all they can ever be unless evidence is available.

    And on that basis i am uncomfortable with a character assasination.
  • Options
    End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It was in the case you linked to.

    How many cases have there been where DNA if available has not been irrefutable evidence.?:confused:

    Many. In these cases, the accused is able to argue why their DNA was found were it was.
  • Options
    End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes but you have linked to DNA evidence without proving a link to Jimmy Savilles case.

    Allegations then is all they can ever be unless evidence is available.

    And on that basis i am uncomfortable with a character assasination.

    Please stop playing dumb. I will not explain my point for linking that article to you again.
  • Options
    Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    Many. In these cases, the accused is able to argue why their DNA was found were it was.

    Can you link to some cases where DNA evidence has not proved crucial.
  • Options
    NosnikraplNosnikrapl Posts: 2,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rgs_uk wrote: »
    Here's a snippet that hasn't been picked up by the newspapers yet.

    Whether the DJ concerned was Jimmy Savile is unclear at this stage. However in the first three months of 1971 he presented five episodes of Top of the Pops.

    In recent news articles the BBC claims it has nothing on file. But if this incident was him and was reported in The Guardian, how could the BBC not have details of it on file?

    http://www.g7uk.com/photo-video-blog/20120517-15-year-old-girl-committed-suicide-in-1971-after-dancing-on-top-of-the-pops-and-spending-the-night-with-well-known-dj.shtml

    No idea but apparently NOTW were onto this story but were never able to substantiate anything sufficiently to publish a story. Lets be honest if Murdoch could make a story stand up against BBC he would have gone for it full guns blazing.
  • Options
    End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can you link to some cases where DNA evidence has not proved crucial.

    No! Take that whatever way you like.
  • Options
    Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    No. Take that whatever way you like.

    Really after saying this.;)

    Many. In these cases, the accused is able to argue why their DNA was found were it was.
  • Options
    Saltydog1955Saltydog1955 Posts: 4,134
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    End-Em-All wrote: »
    Not sure what you're on about again. All I have consistently said is that the fact someone is dead shouldn't prevent allegations about them being heard.

    Absolutely.

    Why shouldn't they have their say? OK, there are some who'll never be satisfied whatever comes out, but I honestly believe that nobody would be sick enough to go and fabricate something like this then appear on TV.
  • Options
    End-Em-AllEnd-Em-All Posts: 23,629
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Absolutely.

    Why shouldn't they have their say? OK, there are some who'll never be satisfied whatever comes out, but I honestly believe that nobody would be sick enough to go and fabricate something like this then appear on TV.

    Oh I believe there are people who will do just that given the chance but I still think allegations like this should be heard especially given that the rumours have apparently been doing the rounds for decades.
  • Options
    Saltydog1955Saltydog1955 Posts: 4,134
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can you link to some cases where DNA evidence has not proved crucial.


    Guildford Four
    Birmingham Six

    Innocent people convicted as the science of DNA wasn't around at the time or was in its infancy.
  • Options
    Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Guildford Four
    Birmingham Six

    Innocent people convicted as the science of DNA wasn't around at the time or was in its infancy.

    Indeed they were innocent though found guilty in a court of law.

    You have not provided any evidence where DNA is available it has not been found to be crucial however .;)
  • Options
    Saltydog1955Saltydog1955 Posts: 4,134
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Indeed they were innocent though found guilty in a court of law.

    Though you have not provided any evidence where DNA is available it has not been found to be crucial.;)

    Er, I don't have to answer to you, or be harrassed for 'answers'.

    Putting a 'wink' smiley doesn't make it any better.
  • Options
    Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Er, I don't have to answer to you, or be harrassed for 'answers'.

    Putting a 'wink' smiley doesn't make it any better.

    No you are correct of course but that does not make your argument valid smiley or not. How am i "harrasing you"..

    On the other hand it does not make my agument valid either but then again saying somebody is guilty of ex ex ex years after their death without any proof is not good reasoning either.

    Note i have not added a wink.
  • Options
    NosnikraplNosnikrapl Posts: 2,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Absolutely.

    Why shouldn't they have their say? OK, there are some who'll never be satisfied whatever comes out, but I honestly believe that nobody would be sick enough to go and fabricate something like this then appear on TV.

    The same rules about libel should apply to the dead as they do to the living. The only reason this is being aired is because Jimmy Saville is dead & they can say what they like without challenge. Do you think that is fair? If there is wrongdoing it needs to be told but I am concerned about open season on the dead from the tabloids. Hey - we can say what we like nobody can stop us. Hmm......
  • Options
    ee-ayee-ay Posts: 3,963
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rgs_uk wrote: »
    Here's a snippet that hasn't been picked up by the newspapers yet.

    Whether the DJ concerned was Jimmy Savile is unclear at this stage. However in the first three months of 1971 he presented five episodes of Top of the Pops.

    In recent news articles the BBC claims it has nothing on file. But if this incident was him and was reported in The Guardian, how could the BBC not have details of it on file?

    http://www.g7uk.com/photo-video-blog/20120517-15-year-old-girl-committed-suicide-in-1971-after-dancing-on-top-of-the-pops-and-spending-the-night-with-well-known-dj.shtml



    The young girls diary was read in the coroners court, I'm sure if the DJ had been named the coroners court would have been aware of who it was.

    In my link there is a page on the right hand side where you have to slide the pane about to read the whole article.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19710409&id=zjpSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=t3UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7264,8199171
This discussion has been closed.