Of course not there is no need to go all stroppy on me i will watch the oprogamme thrursday and see if it offers further insight.
Menories fade in the years although if there was a full independant enqirey i would accept its findings on the matter.
Including those ate the BBC who seemd to know but including it.
I'm not getting stroppy, I just don't know why you can't see there's no comparison between the experience of a consenting adult who lied because she was ashamed and the testimonies of a group of women who may have been sexually abused when they were children.
How can there be an independent inquiry when the BBC say they have no record of what went on? It doesn't mean to say nothing went on because there's no records, but more like they have no records because no one reported it seemingly because of a culture of ''hear all, see all, say nowt''.
If you were one of these women do you think any amount of cash would pay you for repeated sexual abuse?
Get real.:rolleyes:
I think it is you thank need to get real. Your posts are being taken less & less seriously by folks on here as you are unable to move away from a single tram line. No discussion just repeating time & time again the same stuff.
You've read some blogs. You believe them totally without question. You are not prepared to accept anyone could have ulterior motives. You believe that being on tv is the way for these girls to deal with the trauma. etc. etc. Your opinion but others think differently. Please stop rolling eyes at anyone who isn't prepared to accept exactly what you believe.
I think we under-estimate how cheaply people can be bought when "it's a good story" - historic sex cases can't be proven or disproven. How many enemies did Jimmy make during his career? How many people have a vested interest in enacting the ultimate revenge by destroying his legacy and also having a swipe at the BBC into the bargain?
Lots - and lots of powerful people to boot.
Anyone involved with Max Clifford, The Sun and/or ITV is neither trustworthy nor credible.
I'm not getting stroppy, I just don't know why you can't see there's no comparison between the experience of a consenting adult who lied because she was ashamed and the testimonies of a group of women who may have been sexually abused when they were children.
How can there be an independent inquiry when the BBC say they have no record of what went on? It doesn't mean to say nothing went on because there's no records, but more like they have no records because no one reported it seemingly because of a culture of ''hear all, see all, say nowt''.
Well Paul Gambacccini seemed to know something not sure about Ester Rantzen though.
As i say i think its fair i watch the show to see what it comes up with that seems fair to me.
I read this article a few months ago and thought of this thread! The person who wrote it is insistent that JS was a closeted homosexual, I really don't know if that's accurate but I do believe he was protected by a hierarchy and became almost untouchable and this article explains that a bit.
“One of those who stood most to lose was Sir Edward Heath prime minister from 1970-74, who was known to visit the Jersey care home the Haute Garrene among others to take young boys on boating weekends on his yacht called ‘Morning Cloud’, or as bodyguards referred to it, ‘Morning Sickness’.”...
I think it is you thank need to get real. Your posts are being taken less & less seriously by folks on here as you are unable to move away from a single tram line. No discussion just repeating time & time again the same stuff.
You've read some blogs. You believe them totally without question. You are not prepared to accept anyone could have ulterior motives. You believe that being on tv is the way for these girls to deal with the trauma. etc. etc. Your opinion but others think differently. Please stop rolling eyes at anyone who isn't prepared to accept exactly what you believe.
And you never repeated yourself? You've gone on about 'tram lines' before I believe. I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours. I'd reiterate what I said to another fm who seemingly finds me repetitive/boring - ignore me if you will and I'll do the same to you.
I read this article a few months ago and thought of this thread! The person who wrote it is insistent that JS was a closeted homosexual, I really don't know if that's accurate but I do believe he was protected by a hierarchy and became almost untouchable and this article explains that a bit.
It's actually quite a good read if you have the time to get through it, it goes into the history and the corrupt nature of our monarchy
I've seen some of that article posted on other sites, so I think he's copying and pasting a lot of it. Some of it's fair enough, but some does descend a bit into David Icke territory.
I think we under-estimate how cheaply people can be bought when "it's a good story" - historic sex cases can't be proven or disproven. How many enemies did Jimmy make during his career? How many people have a vested interest in enacting the ultimate revenge by destroying his legacy and also having a swipe at the BBC into the bargain?
Lots - and lots of powerful people to boot.
Anyone involved with Max Clifford, The Sun and/or ITV is neither trustworthy nor credible.
Are you saying his alleged victims are not credible and are just taking revenge because of some ulterior motive?
I think we under-estimate how cheaply people can be bought when "it's a good story" - historic sex cases can't be proven or disproven. How many enemies did Jimmy make during his career? How many people have a vested interest in enacting the ultimate revenge by destroying his legacy and also having a swipe at the BBC into the bargain?
Lots - and lots of powerful people to boot.
Anyone involved with Max Clifford, The Sun and/or ITV is neither trustworthy nor credible.
I have an open mind when it comes to this case and if someone comes to me with a reason why these women are all lying I will fully take it on board; but none of the reasons you have listed there are viable to me
You really believe all of these women and eye witnesses having a vested interest in "enacting the ultimate revenge by destroying his legacy"? Hmmm, no sorry, I don't buy that one. These stories have been out there for years.
I've seen some of that article posted on other sites, so I think he's copying and pasting a lot of it. Some of it's fair enough, but some does descend a bit into David Icke territory.
Yes!! It really does at the end!! It made me laugh though
A bit off topic really but to any older members who remember the younger JS. What on Earth made women/girls fawn over him, I mean from what I can gather he was never overly pleasing on the eye?
I asked the question that if Jimmy Savile had looked like James Dean would he be on the end of this right now? Some posters gave some really intelligent answers but I can't remember them now as it was so long ago
I've heard it's said that there was less an emphasis placed on male looks back in the past, could quite possibly be true, I certainly can't imagine someone who looked like Savile getting into a similar kind of position now. I think the fact Savile was a bachelor may have made it (or now make it) easier to make allegations about him, than if he was married with kids and grandchildren, in fact that may be why one of his other co accused has not been named.
I was offered a contract to work on a radio programme presented by Savile, but after meeting himand hearing him boast of having 'had' four 14 year old girls in his trailer that morning, I declined it. When I challenged him, his defence was that it kept him young and that the 'man upstairs' allowed him these discretions, in return for his 'good works'.
That is actually very interesting and may give an insight into his psyche and why he seemed to be so without guilt or shame over his behaviour. I wonder if it isn't a very distorted idea he got from his Catholic upbringing (his mother was Irish in origin) about doing Penance and how that would make up for doing wrong?
I want to think that no one would be that evil to lie and bad mouth a deceased, innocent man. Why would anyone do that, especially one whom undeniably did a lot of good in his life. That would be totally twisted.
Sorry to break it to you but people who have made a point about dedicating their life to charity, especially children's charities have been found to be abusers, notably recently in the case of the American football coach Jerry Sandusky in the states.
On the ITV news now - many more allegations coming out and more people coming forward. Savile believed he was too valuable to the BBC apparently and thought he was untouchable. Police interviewed Savile in 2007 about the allegations at Duncroft.
His former producer Wilfred D'Ath making claims. Didn't grass him up as he was frightened of him and Savile had 'rough friends'. Gambaccini also saying Stoke Mandeville and other charity donations would dry up if he'd been found guilty.
BBC looks as if they'll have to face an enquiry. Also more women may be coming forward with fresh allegations.
A bit off topic really but to any older members who remember the younger JS. What on Earth made women/girls fawn over him, I mean from what I can gather he was never overly pleasing on the eye?
How many have come forward in 40 years - 5 is it - if the abuse was as rampant as some people make out you'd think there'd be more
I actually disagree with that. For every woman who plucks up the courage to go to the authorities I can imagine there being 10 women just trying to get on with their lives.
Comments
I'm not getting stroppy, I just don't know why you can't see there's no comparison between the experience of a consenting adult who lied because she was ashamed and the testimonies of a group of women who may have been sexually abused when they were children.
How can there be an independent inquiry when the BBC say they have no record of what went on? It doesn't mean to say nothing went on because there's no records, but more like they have no records because no one reported it seemingly because of a culture of ''hear all, see all, say nowt''.
I think it is you thank need to get real. Your posts are being taken less & less seriously by folks on here as you are unable to move away from a single tram line. No discussion just repeating time & time again the same stuff.
You've read some blogs. You believe them totally without question. You are not prepared to accept anyone could have ulterior motives. You believe that being on tv is the way for these girls to deal with the trauma. etc. etc. Your opinion but others think differently. Please stop rolling eyes at anyone who isn't prepared to accept exactly what you believe.
Lots - and lots of powerful people to boot.
Anyone involved with Max Clifford, The Sun and/or ITV is neither trustworthy nor credible.
Well Paul Gambacccini seemed to know something not sure about Ester Rantzen though.
As i say i think its fair i watch the show to see what it comes up with that seems fair to me.
http://www.ccs-rochford.co.uk/spivey/?p=3786
It's actually quite a good read if you have the time to get through it, it goes into the history and the corrupt nature of our monarchy
And you never repeated yourself? You've gone on about 'tram lines' before I believe. I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours. I'd reiterate what I said to another fm who seemingly finds me repetitive/boring - ignore me if you will and I'll do the same to you.
Whoops! I did it again.:rolleyes:
I've seen some of that article posted on other sites, so I think he's copying and pasting a lot of it. Some of it's fair enough, but some does descend a bit into David Icke territory.
Are you saying his alleged victims are not credible and are just taking revenge because of some ulterior motive?
I have an open mind when it comes to this case and if someone comes to me with a reason why these women are all lying I will fully take it on board; but none of the reasons you have listed there are viable to me
You really believe all of these women and eye witnesses having a vested interest in "enacting the ultimate revenge by destroying his legacy"? Hmmm, no sorry, I don't buy that one. These stories have been out there for years.
Yes!! It really does at the end!! It made me laugh though
But before that it was actually quite informative
A fresh case for you Richard:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211365/Adam-Scott-Innocent-man-spent-FIVE-MONTHS-prison-forensics-mix-meant-falsely-accused-rape.html
Yes that was because of a blunder ie human error.
That is actually very interesting and may give an insight into his psyche and why he seemed to be so without guilt or shame over his behaviour. I wonder if it isn't a very distorted idea he got from his Catholic upbringing (his mother was Irish in origin) about doing Penance and how that would make up for doing wrong?
Sorry to break it to you but people who have made a point about dedicating their life to charity, especially children's charities have been found to be abusers, notably recently in the case of the American football coach Jerry Sandusky in the states.
Yes because they are his enemies and they are enacting the ultimate revenge by destroying his legacy and having a swipe at the BBC at the same time.
Oh because these women hate the BBC too.
I'm glad you recognised that
His former producer Wilfred D'Ath making claims. Didn't grass him up as he was frightened of him and Savile had 'rough friends'. Gambaccini also saying Stoke Mandeville and other charity donations would dry up if he'd been found guilty.
BBC looks as if they'll have to face an enquiry. Also more women may be coming forward with fresh allegations.
Worzel Gummidge was much more attractive http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=worzel+gummidge&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4ADRA_enGB457GB457&biw=1152&bih=542&tbm=isch&tbnid=M86t31TTVtSdFM:&imgrefurl=http://le-grove.co.uk/2010/08/21/we-need-a-big-win-and-i-think-well-smash-them/&docid=bY89XFs2FlkcvM&imgurl=http://le-grove.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/worzel.jpg&w=280&h=390&ei=qwVqULyxCIvM0AXw8oCICA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=252&vpy=2&dur=3229&hovh=265&hovw=190&tx=102&ty=146&sig=103637677060029897886&page=1&tbnh=154&tbnw=127&start=0&ndsp=11&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0,i:156
Seen if before i take the mail.;)
But in ordinary areas ie where trhere was no blunder DNA evidence is crucial these days blunders not withstanding.
How many have come forward in 40 years - 5 is it - if the abuse was as rampant as some people make out you'd think there'd be more
According to tonight's ITV news more women will.
I wonder why?
The cynic is me suspects it's people jumping on the bandwagon a bit like the Salem witch trials
I actually disagree with that. For every woman who plucks up the courage to go to the authorities I can imagine there being 10 women just trying to get on with their lives.
It wouldn't have been easy to say anything about a very famous do-gooder would it? they must have thought they wouldn't be believed.
That was never the argument