Options

Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile? (Part 6)

19798100102103163

Comments

  • Options
    Jo MarchJo March Posts: 9,256
    Forum Member
    I know JS and SH were big names at the BBC at one time they were hardly ever off the telly. But both presenters (I don't mean to sound insulting here but can't find another way to describe them) but they became well past their sell by date years and years ago.
    Again because its all very well for me to sit here and judge the victims but because these two presenters were legeneds at one time but not in the past decade or two I wouldn't say.
    Stuart Hall's football reports on 5 Live are very entertaining.
  • Options
    nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Chop! Chop! I see the axeman's been at it again.
  • Options
    Angelica1973Angelica1973 Posts: 352
    Forum Member
    Blimey, I blinked and missed the cull !
  • Options
    Black VelvetBlack Velvet Posts: 702
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Have lost a few posts myself over the past few days. It's not always easy to know if you have stepped over the line with something you think is okay but to the mods it isn't.
    With being young in the seventies something on the news last night the report said that we are judging the past with today's standards.
    It just really made me think about the past and puts back then in a bad light morally. To be honest the more that keeps coming out the more it makes me feel ashamed of the past.
  • Options
    Angelica1973Angelica1973 Posts: 352
    Forum Member
    I've been trying to be cautious with this thread, and contacted a forum member today about a post I wanted to share and if he thought I would get banned/get the thread shut down and the advice I was given was probably best not to. It was a link to a factual website, all public record, prosecutions, which the media has not covered. The reason I wanted to post it was to highlight hush ups in the media about living CONVICTED high profile criminals vs. public outrage and exposure among those dead.

    If anyone wants the link, please PM me, but I suspect it's already common knowledge and we just shouldn't refer to it.
  • Options
    Black VelvetBlack Velvet Posts: 702
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've been trying to be cautious with this thread, and contacted a forum member today about a post I wanted to share and if he thought I would get banned/get the thread shut down and the advice I was given was probably best not to. It was a link to a factual website, all public record, prosecutions, which the media has not covered. The reason I wanted to post it was to highlight hush ups in the media about living CONVICTED high profile criminals vs. public outrage and exposure among those dead.

    If anyone wants the link, please PM me, but I suspect it's already common knowledge and we just shouldn't refer to it.

    I assume that the owners of this site have warned the mods to be vigilent just in case anything is posted here that could get the owners into bother etc. That being why pages and posts are being deleted?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 466
    Forum Member
    Well This Thread Seems All But Dead Now.
  • Options
    jamtamarajamtamara Posts: 2,250
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Good to see this is happening at last, I hope Springfield Hospital in Tooting will follow their example and set up a helpline for people abused by Johnny Savile too. I'm sure these helplines will be confidential, like medical records are, although I expect anyone who phones them will have to identify themselves.

    Just got back from our fundraising event for Kids Company, which raised a couple of hundred quid. Our next performance will be a guerilla gig in the canteen at Springfield hospital during the lunch hour, just to keep the pressure up!

    As one of Johnny Savile's victims myself, it will give me great pleasure to force them to listen to a few poems like this one -

    The trouble with people like me is
    We don't take rape lying down'
    We don't like being screwed
    By an unpleasant dude
    Or anyone else around town...
    hydon wrote: »
    Well This Thread Seems All But Dead Now.

    Exactly. One poster's two highly offensive and frankly ignorant, in the true sense of the word, posts about a victim of Johnny Savile as opposed to Jimmy have gone though. Which is good.

    I am quoting the original post from Eleanor which is still there.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12
    Forum Member
    Hello everyone,

    I have really appreciated and "enjoyed" (not sure that is the right word but more erudite FM may be able to help me out) the contributions and thoughts of all on this thread.

    However, it seems to me that the ability to now discuss what we really should be discussing has been somewhat emasculated by the over-reaction to the Newsnight programme on an (UN-NAMED) high profile figure from the 80s.

    Call me suspicious, but there is a rather unsatisfactory and, now, rather deflated air about the whole debate both on here and in the wider public consciousness.

    I am not after the vicarious thrill of seeing all sorts of names bandied about to titillate, I am interested in seeing lessons learnt and wrongs righted, toerags exposed and a better and clearer understanding of what is and is not right emerging form this dreadful mess.

    It isnt and I suspect now won't, and all because names were bandied about, sometimes by TV presenters who should be ashamed of themselves.

    All rather disapointing and not the best advert for full and frank debate I'm sure we all wanted.

    Lessons learnt ??

    thanks to all who did so much research though, and also to those who had the courage to go against the general tide and say "hang on a minute here, innocent until...".

    Regards

    Andy
  • Options
    IzzySIzzyS Posts: 11,045
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Its a shame if the thread dies out - I think its quite important to highlight the general topic of child abuse, otherwise it feels almost akin to turning a blind eye somehow :( is there any specific clarification on whats allowed to be posted and what isn't, has anyone asked? it'd be a shame for the topic to die out if its only one or two specific references that aren't allowed... also if links are posted, usually on websites there's a disclaimer that the website isn't responsible for the content provided by external sites and you click links at your own risk, pretty much but I suppose that might not hold up in court (if it ever got to that level) because they'd claim by posting a link, your effectively promoting whatever content exists there? :-/
  • Options
    sangrealsangreal Posts: 20,901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Have lost a few posts myself over the past few days. It's not always easy to know if you have stepped over the line with something you think is okay but to the mods it isn't.
    With being young in the seventies something on the news last night the report said that we are judging the past with today's standards.
    It just really made me think about the past and puts back then in a bad light morally. To be honest the more that keeps coming out the more it makes me feel ashamed of the past.

    Yup, a fair few of us have lost some posts. Most of which were pretty harmless.
    We could do with some specific guidelines....

    The 70s were a completely different time to today.

    Just compare the kind of popular stuff that was on tv back then....
    The Benny Hill Show, Carry On films (and various spin-offs), On The Buses, Dick Emery...
    Plenty of sexual innuendo, lewd/crudeness, sexism, etc.
    Not to mention other non-pc stuff like Black+White Minstrel Show, Love Thy Neighbour, Mind Your Language, Captain Pugwash (with names like Master Bates & Seaman Staines, on a children's show), etc. *

    *[ETA: see posts below]

    Plenty of tales from women across the country about bosses/co-workers' wandering hands in the workplace....

    Scandals & cover-ups have been going on for many years.

    Some we get to know about (Profumo, Watergate, Sleaze (Archer, Aitken, Major/Currie, etc), Cash For Honours, MPs Expenses, etc).

    Some we get to hear about 20-50 years after (Savile, Sandusky, Jersey/N Wales Children's Homes, Hillsborough, etc).

    Some we only get partial details, not all (cover-ups of cover-ups).

    Some we never get to hear about, where they stay consigned to the tinfoil hat and conspiracy theory blogs/sites/etc.

    I guess it depends on the political agenda at the time, and what the PTB decide (or what they can no longer hide).

    Yes, the world has changed a lot since the 70's, but without going into much detail, some things never change...

    More transparency? Yeah, maybe... we sure can see right through them...
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 81
    Forum Member
    jamtamara wrote: »
    Exactly. One poster's two highly offensive and frankly ignorant, in the true sense of the word, posts about a victim of Johnny Savile as opposed to Jimmy have gone though. Which is good.

    I'm glad I didn't see them.

    As my friends and family will confirm, I told them what happened more than twenty years ago, but my complaints about being raped by Johnny Savile were treated like typical symptoms of insanity by the powers that be at Springfield...until his name and the fact that he was sacked in 1980 was mentioned in the Press in October. Being vindicated after so long has been an extraordinary experience.
  • Options
    LilaethLilaeth Posts: 750
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sangreal wrote: »
    Yup, a fair few of us have lost some posts. Most of which were pretty harmless.
    We could do with some specific guidelines....

    The 70s were a completely different time to today.

    Just compare the kind of popular stuff that was on tv back then....
    Captain Pugwash (with names like Master Bates & Seaman Staines, on a children's show), etc....

    No, that's an urban myth! They were Master Mate, Tom the Cabin Boy, Pirate Barnabas and Pirate Willy... :)
  • Options
    IzzySIzzyS Posts: 11,045
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I was going to say, how do we know so much has changed, could it be that people have figured out better ways to keep things hidden? lets hope thats not the case(!). If the public don't keep complaining about such scandals, bring up the issue and question things then it could easily get forgotten/overlooked. Things are so litigious these days, this is an issue for society. Having said that, I can very much understand being careful about naming people, if they turn out to be innocent, being named as a child abuser or sex offender can surely damage your reputation perhaps irrevocably, so you do have to be careful...I feel a bit uncomfortable if the police release names of people being questioned, incase they turn out to be innocent, people might question them just for being linked to such an investigation but on the other hand, if their name being disclosed leads to more people getting in contact and corroborating stories and giving them extra evidence that leads to a conviction then thats good. Ah who knows, its a bit of a minefield :-/ (aka don't mind me *shuffles off momentarily*).
  • Options
    sangrealsangreal Posts: 20,901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lilaeth wrote: »
    No, that's an urban myth! They were Master Mate, Tom the Cabin Boy, Pirate Barnabas and Pirate Willy... :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Pugwash#Libel_case_regarding_double_entendres

    Ohhh! Looks like you are right. Oh well, you live and learn, lol.
    Thanks for correcting me :-)

    I never actually watched it (thought it was crap, lol), just assumed those names were right. I was obviously duped... :-)
  • Options
    IzzySIzzyS Posts: 11,045
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Stephen Dickson (50) jailed for the abduction and rape of a teenage girl in Aberdeen http://bbc.in/Uj5j78

    https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/statuses/277080735268081667
  • Options
    Angelica1973Angelica1973 Posts: 352
    Forum Member
    I'll chance this as I am fairly sure I can't be sued, some very kind FM's have been in touch and altough one isn't a solicitor, he knows what he is talking about, so here goes

    http://labour25.com/
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 87,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Some background on the latest name in the frame
    http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/max-clifford-pamela-bordes-oliver-north.html?spref=tw


    Can the Metropolitan Police justify Max Clifford’s arrest?
    Posted on December 7, 2012
    By Iain Gould, Solicitor
    http://iaingould.co.uk/2012/12/07/can-the-metropolitan-police-justify-max-cliffords-arrest/
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 87,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
  • Options
    DE53DE53 Posts: 2,641
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'll chance this as I am fairly sure I can't be sued, some very kind FM's have been in touch and altough one isn't a solicitor, he knows what he is talking about, so here goes

    http://labour25.com/

    :eek: OMG
  • Options
    DavidTDavidT Posts: 20,316
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DE53 wrote: »
    :eek: OMG

    That's just a small list.There's another one showing convicted politicians of all parties and levels and its huge. I suspect that's the one a previous poster was referring to.
  • Options
    Black VelvetBlack Velvet Posts: 702
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think I read that the trial will be sometime in the new year. The ones that have been named will be tried but how on earth are they going to get a conviction on JS and CS as both are deceased?
    I would like to think that compared with the time that I was young in back in the seventies that at least the victims can come forward and something is done. The past is guilty for turning the other way and sweeping it all under the carpet. Would like to think that this isn't the case anymore?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,073
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'll chance this as I am fairly sure I can't be sued, some very kind FM's have been in touch and altough one isn't a solicitor, he knows what he is talking about, so here goes

    http://labour25.com/

    That list is taking the piss. Jesus, the internet.

    It ties in paedos with people against gay penguins for gods sake. You also cant die of something called 'full blown AIDS'. The whole article is by an idiot for idiots.
  • Options
    Black VelvetBlack Velvet Posts: 702
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sangreal wrote: »
    Yup, a fair few of us have lost some posts. Most of which were pretty harmless.
    We could do with some specific guidelines....

    The 70s were a completely different time to today.

    Just compare the kind of popular stuff that was on tv back then....
    The Benny Hill Show, Carry On films (and various spin-offs), On The Buses, Dick Emery...
    Plenty of sexual innuendo, lewd/crudeness, sexism, etc.
    Not to mention other non-pc stuff like Black+White Minstrel Show, Love Thy Neighbour, Mind Your Language, Captain Pugwash (with names like Master Bates & Seaman Staines, on a children's show), etc. *

    *[ETA: see posts below]

    Plenty of tales from women across the country about bosses/co-workers' wandering hands in the workplace....

    Scandals & cover-ups have been going on for many years.

    Some we get to know about (Profumo, Watergate, Sleaze (Archer, Aitken, Major/Currie, etc), Cash For Honours, MPs Expenses, etc).

    Some we get to hear about 20-50 years after (Savile, Sandusky, Jersey/N Wales Children's Homes, Hillsborough, etc).

    Some we only get partial details, not all (cover-ups of cover-ups).

    Some we never get to hear about, where they stay consigned to the tinfoil hat and conspiracy theory blogs/sites/etc.

    I guess it depends on the political agenda at the time, and what the PTB decide (or what they can no longer hide).

    Yes, the world has changed a lot since the 70's, but without going into much detail, some things never change...

    More transparency? Yeah, maybe... we sure can see right through them...

    What you are saying is right. Looking back to the seventies
    being a young woman back then taking off the rose tinted glasses and rembering the way it actually was being a female back then wasn't a whole lot of fun.
This discussion has been closed.