Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile? (Part 2)

1127128130132133242

Comments

  • luckylegsluckylegs Posts: 7,400
    Forum Member
    tameelf wrote: »
    lucky legs the conversation was picked up by a radio ham or phone hacker its comonly known as the squidgygate tapes if you read the link at the top all will..................

    Well I read the squidqygate tape transcripts that were published at the time and I have never seen that one it must have been one not publicised at the time or if it was wasn't looked upon as significant until now.

    Or been tampered with transcript wise where did that particular transcript originate?

    I still think its muddying the waters and just go to show the manipulation JS was capable of.
  • MutterMutter Posts: 3,269
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    luckylegs wrote: »
    No but in my opinion it is.

    I didn't say I know it!

    If people want to keep muddying the waters with irrelevant relationships with influential people that JS had then go on do it but that's what the real culprits are probably hoping for so that they'll be so much shit to wade through they'll slip through the net.

    Of course JS surrounded himself with these people that was part of his ploy and cover - don't you think a lot of people are embarrassed just because they trusted him because of his iconic status a status I might add the PUBLIC gave him. But if everybody just focuses on the people he used for subterfuge you'll miss the real perpetrators.

    You got to weed out the Chaff hopefully that's what the police are doing. As for the independent inquiries I wouldn't put my hopes on those at all. Although I am happy Janet Smith is heading one of them up.
    If you didn't keep raising it, the royal connection would have dropped from the thread already!
  • luckylegsluckylegs Posts: 7,400
    Forum Member
    Mutter wrote: »
    If you didn't keep raising it, the royal connection would have dropped from the thread already!


    No it won't its been raised about 4 times now its on a continual loop. :p
  • MutterMutter Posts: 3,269
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    luckylegs wrote: »
    No it won't its been raised about 4 times now its on a continual loop. :p
    Just ignore it and it will drop.
  • luckylegsluckylegs Posts: 7,400
    Forum Member
    Mutter wrote: »
    Just ignore it and it will drop.

    Okay :)

    I'm going to take the cat for a walk.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 993
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    tameelf wrote: »
    this is bigger than the bbc far bigger than js go read about hollie greig read how this downs syndrome person medicaly cannot tell a lie she who she names i dont think this fourum is ready for this big name

    Good Lord.....I did as you asked.

    http://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/scottish-government-cover-up-of-hollie-greig-part-8/

    Gulp.......:confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    occy wrote: »
    The BBC and other broadcasters need to draw a line under this. How can anyone have a trial or enquiry if former victims keep milking it on TV. You supposed to sell the story afterwards , not before.

    They knew all along. They knew for 50 years. The only reason they're having an enquiry now is because it's in the public eye.
  • luckylegsluckylegs Posts: 7,400
    Forum Member
    Superior wrote: »

    If you're going to read that then I also advise you to read this

    http://theholliegreighoax.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-despicable-crimes-of-robert-green-4.html

    So I think the jury is still out on who is telling the truth. I have read so much crap on this case I have no idea who is actually telling the truth anymore. Why that first link was posted I have no idea it has no bearing on the JS case in hand.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    tameelf wrote: »
    this is bigger than the bbc far bigger than js go read about hollie greig read how this downs syndrome person medicaly cannot tell a lie she who she names i dont think this fourum is ready for this big name

    I think you are confusing Downs with Aspergers , it is said that those with Aspergers are thought unable to lie. ( and before anyone screams I am not saying Hollie has lied just pointing out an error , those with Downs are just as capable of lieing as any other child )
  • luckylegsluckylegs Posts: 7,400
    Forum Member
    skp20040 wrote: »
    I think you are confusing Downs with Aspergers , it is said that those with Aspergers are thought unable to lie. ( and before anyone screams I am not saying Hollie has lied just pointing out an error )

    A pretty big error on diagnosing the behaviour of Downs Syndrome people.

    I am definitely going to take the cat for a walk now I need a break from all these conspiracy theories.

    :)
  • Jo MarchJo March Posts: 9,256
    Forum Member
    I am listening to an interview with Michael Palin on 5 Live with Phil Williams.

    Phil has just asked Michael,out of the blue, if when he was working at the BBC did he ever hear any rumours about Jimmy Savile's behaviour.

    Michael hadn't, I hasten to add, but Phil should never, imo, have asked such a question
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Smallalien wrote: »
    I believe all the women who have come forward, they are plausible and corroborate each other.

    This guy though, he's the wrong age, the wrong sex. His story doesn't chime with the others as they were almost tricked into feeling that they were willing participants and Savile had done nothing wrong or he showered them with gifts to mke them willing. This man's account of him saying 'I'm Jimmy Savile, no one will believe you' and just chucking a Jim'll Fix It badge just doesn't ring true.with their accounts. He was too clever and manipulative to admit it was abuse like that.

    A lot of the reports are of him lunging at people like it was a compulsion.

    When he was a DJ on radio 1 and TOTP he had access to lots of 13-14 year old girls.

    His behaviour might, and i think likely will, prove to be a function of what he had access to.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 993
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jo March wrote: »
    I am listening to an interview with Michael Palin on 5 Live with Phil Williams.

    Phil has just asked Michael,out of the blue, if when he was working at the BBC did he ever hear any rumours about Jimmy Savile's behaviour.

    Michael hadn't, I hasten to add, but Phil should never, imo, have asked such a question

    It is all very wierd.

    I'm in to things like subliminal messages, and the front page of the Torygraph is.......well....I am sure I am just being paranoid.....lol.

    Headlines:

    Prince Charles wrote to BBC about 'output'

    followed by

    Savile scandal: Labour 'faces embarrassment'


    Pure coincidence I am sure.
  • SmallalienSmallalien Posts: 1,044
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tameelf wrote: »
    this is bigger than the bbc far bigger than js go read about hollie greig read how this downs syndrome person medicaly cannot tell a lie she who she names i dont think this fourum is ready for this big name

    So how come people in the Hollie Greig campaign have been sent to jail for harassment? These claims have been widely discredited, just because a nutjob says something on the internet doesn't make it true.
  • tamara1969tamara1969 Posts: 81
    Forum Member
    Superior wrote: »

    Have read this before and my jaw hit the floor, totally mind blowing. :eek: I felt terribly naive that so much gets 'buried' in D notices and as 'joe public' I have taken, without question, that which is spewed out for public consumption.

    Reading through things like this and another one re: Jill Dando case makes me worry for those that uncover that which those in higher places do not want uncovered.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I agree 100% - why just about everyone wants to make her a scapegoat is beyond me. She has worked tirelessly for many years it's very easy with hindsight to say 'oooh but she didn't act on this or that' - hindsight is wonderful. JS had everyone fooled. Don't understand at all why Esther Rantzen is being vilified.

    Savile didn't have everyone fooled. He had dirt on them they didn't want exposed - as they're falling over themselves to prove now.
  • luckylegsluckylegs Posts: 7,400
    Forum Member
    Smallalien wrote: »
    So how come people in the Hollie Greig campaign have been sent to jail for harassment? These claims have been widely discredited, just because a nutjob says something on the internet doesn't make it true.

    My thoughts exactly.
  • jassijassi Posts: 7,895
    Forum Member
    bubble2 wrote: »
    They knew all along. They knew for 50 years. The only reason they're having an enquiry now is because it's in the public eye.

    Why is anyone surprised?
    Paedophilia is an international issue that appears to permeate across all strata of society and probably always has done.
    I'm sure any inquiry will merely throw up a few minnows to placate the masses, while leaving the powerful to continue their activities.
  • SmallalienSmallalien Posts: 1,044
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bubble2 wrote: »
    A lot of the reports are of him lunging at people like it was a compulsion.

    When he was a DJ on radio 1 and TOTP he had access to lots of 13-14 year old girls.

    His behaviour might, and i think likely will, prove to be a function of what he had access to.

    The ones I've heard are that he found young women who were in a vulnerable position anyway (in a mental hospital, in an approved school) and then targeted them quite deliberately, giving them presents, taking them for drives in cars, he also tended to pick on those who wouldn't be believed - tearaways in approved schools or mental patients. He might have lunged at them but there was definitely a process there of grooming and isolating going on. I don't think he was stupid enough to target a little boy who had his cub leaders around him and loving parents at home who wouldn't have any reason to disbelieve this boy should he have told them what had happened.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bluescreen wrote: »
    Note JS's running mates. The person mentioned as administrator at LGI went on to run Broadmoor. "I am shocked at what I've heard and read. This is not my experience of Jimmy Savile who I met informally," he said. (My bold.) The article states that they served on the taskforce together.

    Last year, in a tribute to JS on Radio 5 Live he'd said: "I spent a lot of time with him and would say I knew him probably as well as anybody else knew him."

    He was at Leeds General before as well, blimey.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 759
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think that the fact that Saville was on such good terms with Charles and Diana in some ways shows us how hard it would have been for people to come forward.

    People, on hearing the rumours would be put off taking, or investigating further because they were friends of the heirachy and powerful people. And the journalists and police who tried were put off from taking it further.

    Is it any wonder it has taken so long to come out.

    Do I believe this is just an incident of Saville and DJs - No, I believe this goes a lot deeper.
  • SmallalienSmallalien Posts: 1,044
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mellsbells wrote: »
    I haven't defended Shy Keenan.

    My point about ER is that she should have been aware that when she stepped forward to say that she'd heard rumours over the years (not necessarily in connection with the Shy Keenan incident)....would then be held to account for why she didn't act in some way on them - whether that is pushing for an investigation or doing some investigative journalism of her own.

    She set herself up to be picked apart over her apparent lack of action, whether that is justified or not

    To be honest I think it was brave of her to admit she had heard rumours but wasn't in a position to do anything about them. That is far better than some people in much more senior positions in organisations involved in this who have denied all knowledge when even I, as a lay person not involved at all, knew about the rumours so they MUST have done.

    At least she has told the truth in saying there were rumours but that was all they were rather than lying and arse covering and pretending she hadn't heard anything.

    As she said in her interview she hears rumours about lots of people but you can't do anything about rumours, they are not proof. She's being scapegoated, there are people who knew much more than rumours who didn't act who are much more culpable than her.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jzee wrote: »
    This is a major scandal. Not only was Savile appointed head of the board that ran Broadmoor for a year, his old friend from Leeds General Infirmary was then appointed CEO!

    This was posted last night:



    Savile was a member of the Athenaeum club
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/9596850/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-causes-anguish-at-the-Athenaeum.html

    Savile was almost certainly one of these nameless officials. Franey was appointed CEO of Broadmoor by Kenneth Clarke in 1988.

    Franey is now a Tory councillor and his aim at Broadmoor, right from the start was to break the power of the Union, the Prison Officers Association, threatening to replace all the staff with military if they didn't comply. He retired early from the job amid controversy when Labour came to power in 1998 amid accusations of child pornography being distributed in Broadmoor and other accusations of mismanagement of staff.

    So the scandal that put Savile in charge of Broadmoor (where he'd been volunteering since the late 60s) involved smuggled in child porn. I wonder who brought it in?
  • What name??What name?? Posts: 26,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mellsbells wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I think that ANY BBC personality/reporter/celebrity who steps forward and makes the claim that they heard the rumours over the years, are putting themselves up to be asked why they didn't speak up before or do anything about it.
    Not by sensible people. Most people would only be judgemental of those who had ignored witness information ie somone reporting to a nurse that they had seen or been abused, or somone who themselves failed to report what they had witnessed. Even in those case I would have some understanding of those who were in a vulnerable or junior position to those they were reporting because that is a difficult thing to do something knowing or suspecting that it may backfire and adversely affect you.
This discussion has been closed.