Whether people choose to mount a defence would very much depend on how much money they have to waste on solicitors Makes no odds to accusers without real proof when they know the defence would break the bank. This story should never have been made public when there is no proof. It always was and always will be a one sided account.
Based on this thread, I think it's clearly, actually, a two-sided account.
On the one side are:
The police (who have labelled him a predatory paedophile, presumably based on a huge amount of evidence that they haven't yet presented publicly because investigations are ongoing and can't be jeopardised).
His relatives (who have apologised for him being a predatory paedophile, presumably based on a huge amount of evidence that the police have told them about, and which hasn't yet presented publicly because investigations are ongoing and can't be jeopardised).
The BBC (ditto).
The Government (ditto).
The vast majority of the public (who can see the way this is going).
And on the other side:
You, and allegedly 'quite a few' of your friends, who unless you can present 100% conclusive evidence of, I can only assume to be, at best, imaginary.
:rolleyes:
<edit> Unlike the Savile proof which is obviously going to come with time, there is no need for you to withhold the evidence of all these people you know as it jeopardises nothing.
Based on this thread, I think it's clearly, actually, a two-sided account.
On the one side are:
The police (who have labelled him a predatory paedophile, presumably based on a huge amount of evidence that they haven't yet presented publicly because investigations are ongoing and can't be jeopardised).
His relatives (who have apologised for him being a predatory paedophile, presumably based on a huge amount of evidence that the police have told them about, and which hasn't yet presented publicly because investigations are ongoing and can't be jeopardised).
The BBC (ditto).
The Government (ditto).
The vast majority of the public (who can see the way this is going).
And on the other side:
You, and allegedly 'quite a few' of your friends, who unless you can present 100% conclusive evidence of, I can only assume to be, at best, imaginary.
I'm with the general public on this.
However, ...
Time to leave it to the Police, I think.
Time to leave it to the police has long gone. The police (or rather the former detective who presented the programme) were at fault for bringing it to public attention before a full investigation had ever taken place.
p.s it never was a two-sided account because the accused has never had the chance to challenge these stories.
Yeah yeah that's why they removed his gravestone and his nephew has said he is disgusted by what he did.
Only two of his relatives were in favour of the grotesque headstone in the first place. The majority of the rest of his relatives were not and with all that’s come out since it’s clear why not.
There are a lot of people extremely worried right now about getting a knock on the door.
Only two of his relatives were in favour of the grotesque headstone in the first place. The majority of the rest of his relatives were not and with all that’s come out since it’s clear why not.
There are a lot of people extremely worried right now about getting a knock on the door.
p.s it never was a two-sided account because the accused has never had the chance to challenge these stories.
You are wrong, in fact he was the main one who - looking back - exposed himself for what he was while alive by seeking to dismiss allegations that had never been put to him by the interviewers concerned (e.g. the knighthood, hating kids, necrophilia, paedophilia etc etc etc).
You are wrong, in fact he was the main one who - looking back - exposed himself for what he was while alive by seeking to dismiss allegations that had never been put to him by the interviewers concerned (e.g. the knighthood, hating kids, necrophilia, paedophilia etc etc etc).
p.s it never was a two-sided account because the accused has never had the chance to challenge these stories.
You close your eyes and ears to the truth because you know full well Savile was confronted with the stories about his predelictions while he was alive by both journalists and the police and he denied them (he’s on record as doing so). So there you go, I’ve just taken even that pitiful defence away from your relentless support of Savile, the “predatory sex-offender” and ”the most prolific sexual predator” in UK history.
You are wrong, in fact he was the main one who - looking back - exposed himself for what he was while alive by seeking to dismiss allegations that had never been put to him by the interviewers concerned (e.g. the knighthood, hating kids, necrophilia, paedophilia etc etc etc).
Louis Theroux did ask about his hatred of kids. The fact that he then chose to speak about paedophilia doesn't suggest he was guilty of it but as the man himself said "we live in a strange world and as a single man ....". Fact is if people are not in a relationship they are seen as "odd" and open to suspicion. Cue anyone and everyone who wants to put 2 and 2 together and make 5.
You close your eyes and ears to the truth because you know full well Savile was confronted with the stories about his predelictions while he was alive by both journalists and the police and he denied them (he’s on record as doing so). So there you go, I’ve just taken even that pitiful defence away from your relentless support of Savile, the “predatory sex-offender” and ”the most prolific sexual predator” in UK history.
He may have been confronted with ONE story (apparently a case was dropped due to insufficient evidence) but not the ones that have crawled out of the woodwork since he died. That is what is so distasteful about the whole thing - that they waited until he died and was unable to mount a defence - therefore it is totally one-sided.
He may have been confronted with ONE story (apparently a case was dropped due to insufficient evidence) but not the ones that have crawled out of the woodwork since he died.
Nice similie. Now you’re likening the victims to cockroaches to add to all the other offensive slurs you’ve used against them and yet still, not a single condemnation of Savile.
Savile was interviewed by the police more than once. IIRC his first contact with them over such allegations dates back to 1959.
Nice similie. Now you’re likening the victims to cockroaches to add to all the other offensive slurs you’ve used against them and yet still, not a single condemnation of Savile.
Innocent until or unless, proved guilty. If or when there is cast iron proof I will condemn him but accusations alone are not proof.
He may have been confronted with ONE story (apparently a case was dropped due to insufficient evidence) but not the ones that have crawled out of the woodwork since he died. That is what is so distasteful about the whole thing - that they waited until he died and was unable to mount a defence - therefore it is totally one-sided.
The exposure program was starting to be made before he died btw
Innocent until or unless, proved guilty. If or when there is cast iron proof I will condemn him but accusations alone are not proof.
How convenient for you seeing as he’ll never be found guilty to your satisfaction because being dead means he can’t even be charged, let alone convicted.
You’ve denied and/or rubbished everything that’s been put forward to date so there’s no reason to assume anything subsequently revealed would equate to proof in your eyes. You’ll just continue defending a paedophile and rapist regardless. That’s all there is to it.
Louis Theroux did ask about his hatred of kids. ..
I'm ignoring Theroux, as he was asked about it. I'm talking about the countless other times he brought up (a matter of public record) without any provocation from the interviewer.
Likewise for the necrophilia etc.
I am done with you - anyone reading with any common sense whatsoever imo can see you're just enjoying the attention here.
You don't answer straight questions.
You just twist everything you can, imo, to suit your own agenda (and I do not even like to speculate what that may be...)
I pop on here once or twice a day or so to see what the chat is about...and every time it seems like you are constantly on here, defending someone the police, the BBC, and even most of his own family, seem to have quickly accepted was a predatory paedophile.
I'm worried about you, so I won't encourage you any further.
I will stick to the other threads I think (one is in the showbusiness section) where intelligent posters seem to be having a more reasoned debate about these HUGELY important issues, and coming to reasonable conclusions based on what we all do know (for now, until the police work is done and ready to be released).
Well, as I said, in Gary Glitter's case there were computer images. In Townshend's case there was his credit card transaction and a confession. Something tangible rather than people's word would count as concrete proof.
Comments
Based on this thread, I think it's clearly, actually, a two-sided account.
On the one side are:
The police (who have labelled him a predatory paedophile, presumably based on a huge amount of evidence that they haven't yet presented publicly because investigations are ongoing and can't be jeopardised).
His relatives (who have apologised for him being a predatory paedophile, presumably based on a huge amount of evidence that the police have told them about, and which hasn't yet presented publicly because investigations are ongoing and can't be jeopardised).
The BBC (ditto).
The Government (ditto).
The vast majority of the public (who can see the way this is going).
And on the other side:
You, and allegedly 'quite a few' of your friends, who unless you can present 100% conclusive evidence of, I can only assume to be, at best, imaginary.
:rolleyes:
<edit> Unlike the Savile proof which is obviously going to come with time, there is no need for you to withhold the evidence of all these people you know as it jeopardises nothing.
Precisely
However, ...
Time to leave it to the Police, I think.
I don't understand 'time to leave it to the police'
Does that mean you think people should not talk about it now?
Its irrelevant, you are on a forum for a discussion about this particular subject, that comment is irrelevant here,
Time to leave it to the police has long gone. The police (or rather the former detective who presented the programme) were at fault for bringing it to public attention before a full investigation had ever taken place.
p.s it never was a two-sided account because the accused has never had the chance to challenge these stories.
Only two of his relatives were in favour of the grotesque headstone in the first place. The majority of the rest of his relatives were not and with all that’s come out since it’s clear why not.
There are a lot of people extremely worried right now about getting a knock on the door.
Until or unless conclusive proof is provided.
Exactly
You are wrong, in fact he was the main one who - looking back - exposed himself for what he was while alive by seeking to dismiss allegations that had never been put to him by the interviewers concerned (e.g. the knighthood, hating kids, necrophilia, paedophilia etc etc etc).
it's true that
You close your eyes and ears to the truth because you know full well Savile was confronted with the stories about his predelictions while he was alive by both journalists and the police and he denied them (he’s on record as doing so). So there you go, I’ve just taken even that pitiful defence away from your relentless support of Savile, the “predatory sex-offender” and ”the most prolific sexual predator” in UK history.
Louis Theroux did ask about his hatred of kids. The fact that he then chose to speak about paedophilia doesn't suggest he was guilty of it but as the man himself said "we live in a strange world and as a single man ....". Fact is if people are not in a relationship they are seen as "odd" and open to suspicion. Cue anyone and everyone who wants to put 2 and 2 together and make 5.
He may have been confronted with ONE story (apparently a case was dropped due to insufficient evidence) but not the ones that have crawled out of the woodwork since he died. That is what is so distasteful about the whole thing - that they waited until he died and was unable to mount a defence - therefore it is totally one-sided.
Nice similie. Now you’re likening the victims to cockroaches to add to all the other offensive slurs you’ve used against them and yet still, not a single condemnation of Savile.
Savile was interviewed by the police more than once. IIRC his first contact with them over such allegations dates back to 1959.
Innocent until or unless, proved guilty. If or when there is cast iron proof I will condemn him but accusations alone are not proof.
The exposure program was starting to be made before he died btw
How convenient for you seeing as he’ll never be found guilty to your satisfaction because being dead means he can’t even be charged, let alone convicted.
You’ve denied and/or rubbished everything that’s been put forward to date so there’s no reason to assume anything subsequently revealed would equate to proof in your eyes. You’ll just continue defending a paedophile and rapist regardless. That’s all there is to it.
I'm ignoring Theroux, as he was asked about it. I'm talking about the countless other times he brought up (a matter of public record) without any provocation from the interviewer.
Likewise for the necrophilia etc.
I am done with you - anyone reading with any common sense whatsoever imo can see you're just enjoying the attention here.
You don't answer straight questions.
You just twist everything you can, imo, to suit your own agenda (and I do not even like to speculate what that may be...)
I pop on here once or twice a day or so to see what the chat is about...and every time it seems like you are constantly on here, defending someone the police, the BBC, and even most of his own family, seem to have quickly accepted was a predatory paedophile.
I'm worried about you, so I won't encourage you any further.
I will stick to the other threads I think (one is in the showbusiness section) where intelligent posters seem to be having a more reasoned debate about these HUGELY important issues, and coming to reasonable conclusions based on what we all do know (for now, until the police work is done and ready to be released).
You should get out more. It happens a lot.
And this is a lot of evidence, whether you choose to believe so or not
Such as?
Remember...they ALL have to be lying
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bbc-director-general-george-entwistle-380344
This fool couldn’t make the correct decision if his career depended on it.....Oh, wait a second - It does!
Well, as I said, in Gary Glitter's case there were computer images. In Townshend's case there was his credit card transaction and a confession. Something tangible rather than people's word would count as concrete proof.