Considering a very thorough inquiry, with lots of evidence that backs up claims that he did dope, I'd say it is more likely that he did rather than didn't. But it reallyt isn't the same thing. Armstrong is only responsible for ruining his own life. By accusing people of being child abusers when at present there isn't any evidence to back up those claims is deplorable. Lance Armstrong can still get a job. Someone wrongly accused of child abuse will have their name tarnished forever.
Also when it comes to situations involving doping it is not a court of law that pronounces guilt or innocence it is the anti-doping authorities in a particular country. Therefore the 'innocent until proven guilty' basis of law does not apply.
Sorry! Oops. Used the wrong word. Should have been "declaring innocence". I was thinking about something else!
You were probably closer than you think. The word you may of been thinking of is not confess but profess. He has time and again professed (declared) his innocence.
You really are fickle. Infact I'd go as far as a bit gullible. You name people quite openly as if you have some kind of priviledged information regarding the outcome of any police investigation or inquiry. You ignore facts such as Chinnery interviewing Savile regarding known rumours yet constantly brandish and twist any negative story in order to achieve some kind of self righteous and self indulgent comment.
Again you’re quoting me despite banning yourself from doing so. No wonder it’s difficult, nay impossible, to take anything you say seriously. You flip flop more than Mitt Romney. Quite free with the insults as well aren’t you - I take that as a sign of desperation as you can see the BBC crumbling under the weight of all this horror and know that heads will roll leaving you looking like you’ve comprehensively backed the wrong horse.
Chinnery didn’t interview Savile, he asked him “What’s all these rumours Jimmy”. Savile replies “There’s nothing to them” and that’s the end of it. He took a paedophile’s word that he wasn’t abusing kids. Idiot.
We get it, you are the sole executioner of the BBC. You have leather mask and guillotine at ready.
Again with the ludicrous hyperbole! Last time anyone not a card-carrying fan of the BBC was typified by you as pitchforked Frakenstein villagers marching on Broadcasting House with torches set to burn it down. You really do pull out some desperately polarised imagery in order to support your incessant defence of a fatally compromised organisation don’t you?
If you actually heard the news today you would know that Freddie Starr has asked to speak to the police as he has done for weeks. He has time and time again confessed his innocence in sexual abuse. He wants to clear his name. Until the police arrest him, charge him and a jury finds him guilty based on sound evidence, I am happy to believe him.
This is the same Freddie Starr who denied appearing on the show in the first place, denied ever meeting the girl and only when confornted with filmed evidence by C4 did he admit it was true. You believe him because it suits you to do so as it again lets the BBC off the hook. Fascinating (REALLY, really fascinating) how you’re so ready to believe Starr who has already lied about that as opposed to Karin Ward, who’s been widely praised for her courage, who says:
“I was horribly, horribly humiliated by Freddie Starr, who had a very bad attack of wandering hands and groped me, and I didn’t like him because he smelled like my stepfather and it frightened me and freaked me out, and I rebuffed him.”
"Oh it's just his ways. Everyone knows what he's like. He doesn't mean anything by
it!"
Aka The historical BBC defence.
I think tickets are still available for the “Savile is Innocent” exhibition so maybe you should go because after all if Savile is innocent then the BBC is too and that’s really the assertion you’ve been relentlessly pushing throughout this whole scandal isn’t it?
.....
What a shame they can’t sack Rippon twice over when the time comes:
Newsnight’s editor stopped his journalists’ investigation into paedophilia allegations against Jimmy Savile just two days after the BBC published its Christmas schedule, which included tribute programmes to the late presenter.
Savile has never been convicted of any of these alleged offences and never will be.The majority of them did not take place on BBC premises or involve the BBC.An employer cannot possibly be responsible for what an employee does in his or her private life although there is an obligation not to do anything which brings the employer into disrepute. Bit late for that now.
... He took a paedophile’s word that he wasn’t abusing kids. Idiot.
He took the word of an alleged dirty old man that he wasn’t abusing kids. Without any solid evidence at the time that sounds entirely reasonable presumption of innocence.
Perhaps he didn't have a crystal ball, Tardis or time travelling DeLorian car, with him at the time so he couldn't look 50 odd years into the future.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I haven't got the patience to read through over 20 pages. The tribute programme that the BBC chose to show instead of the Newsnight investigation, was hosted by Shane Richie, who used to be married to Coleen Nolan, who was nearly molested by Savile. Strange or not? I would've thought that during their marriage, she would've told him about Savile's inappropriate behaviour towards her when she was a kid. I wonder how Richie feels now since all of this has come out?
He took the word of an alleged dirty old man that he wasn’t abusing kids. Without any solid evidence at the time that sounds entirely reasonable presumption of innocence.
Wow - Criminals denying their wrongdoing. Shocker - Who could’ve anticipated that? What did he expect him to say? “I admit it, I’ll turn myself in immediately”? Chinnery was wrong, weak and wrong and so keen to avoid dragging the BBC’s name through the mud that he wanted to believe Savile. If there was enough to raise the matter in the first place then neither Chinnery, nor the BBC, should’ve taken Savile’s word as reason to drop it.
Wow - Criminals denying their wrongdoing. Shocker - Who could’ve anticipated that? What did he expect him to say? “I admit it, I’ll turn myself in immediately”? Chinnery was wrong, weak and wrong and so keen to avoid dragging the BBC’s name through the mud that he wanted to believe Savile. If there was enough to raise the matter in the first place then neither Chinnery, nor the BBC, should’ve taken Savile’s word as reason to drop it.
If anyone wants a sound defence of why nobody dared to prosecute Savile when he was still alive, then read this article, though be warned that it does contain strong language (as a continuity announcer might say):
Savile was also a freemason as well as having numerous political connections which may reveal themselves as part of the ongoing police investigation; who knows what or who may be forced out of the woodwork as a consequence?
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I haven't got the patience to read through over 20 pages. The tribute programme that the BBC chose to show instead of the Newsnight investigation, was hosted by Shane Richie, who used to be married to Coleen Nolan, who was nearly molested by Savile. Strange or not? I would've thought that during their marriage, she would've told him about Savile's inappropriate behaviour towards her when she was a kid. I wonder how Richie feels now since all of this has come out?
I never knew Colleen Nolan was married to Shane Ritchie! She never mentions it.
Savile has never been convicted of any of these alleged offences and never will be.The majority of them did not take place on BBC premises or involve the BBC.An employer cannot possibly be responsible for what an employee does in his or her private life although there is an obligation not to do anything which brings the employer into disrepute. Bit late for that now.
The BBC may never recover it's reputation after this shameful litany of aiding and abetting savile's crimes. The BBC is now where the Catholic church is in Ireland and elsewhere, just as saville's name is in the same state of disrepute as the offending clerics. Perhaps the famed 'Third Secret of Fatima wasn't the one about John Paul II being shot at, but the future downfall of the Church itself and it's financial ruin following legal pursuit for it's catalogue of abuse. They'll never own up to it if proved true.
It is hilarious that at least one poster thinks the BBC is "fatally compromised". Fatal means death. If anyone thinks the BBC won't be around this time next year as a result of this crisis, they are delusional!
Yes, the BBC is undergoing a crisis. People will inevitably lose their jobs. But, considering more people STILL watch BBC News more than any other News broadcast, I'd say the "public have lost trust in the BBC" statement is a media illusion rather than fact.
Of course the News of the World was ''fatally compromised'' in the phone hacking scandal - Murdoch closed it down. I don't recall one News International title investigating another as BBC programmes did.
He was nothing more than a Radio/TV presenter who was arguably reasonably good at his job. When the time came to end Jim'll Fix It his career at the BBC largely fizzled out. .
Everyone has a lifespan in their career, but the charity work sustained him post-TV. He became a national treasure.
It doesn't. The BBC are very happy to state that he receives a fee for his presenting duties, unlike everyone else who presents on the programme.
Although obviously, like the rest of us, he can choose to do whatever he wants with his own income, but AFAIK he's never stated that he donates it to CiN.
But why does he get a fee? I like Wogan, but I'm sure someone else would do it for free.
Save your scorn of Esther Rantzen. She may have been one of many who didn't pursue rumours, but without Esther there would be no Childline. Those of us who remember it's inception, remember, for the first time, it being somewhere a child could contact without the dread that they wouldn't be believed.
Yes, she founded Childline and I remember its inception, but at the same time, she's ignored other children being abused.
It is hilarious that at least one poster thinks the BBC is "fatally compromised". Fatal means death. If anyone thinks the BBC won't be around this time next year as a result of this crisis, they are delusional!
Yes, the BBC is undergoing a crisis. People will inevitably lose their jobs. But, considering more people STILL watch BBC News more than any other News broadcast, I'd say the "public have lost trust in the BBC" statement is a media illusion rather than fact.
Yeah, The Sun's been going on every day about how the BBC's totally corrupt and what not. Like The Sun's squeaky clean.
It doesn't. The BBC are very happy to state that he receives a fee for his presenting duties, unlike everyone else who presents on the programme.
Although obviously, like the rest of us, he can choose to do whatever he wants with his own income, but AFAIK he's never stated that he donates it to CiN.
If true, it just goes to show how greedy some celebrities are.
If anyone wants a sound defence of why nobody dared to prosecute Savile when he was still alive, then read this article, though be warned that it does contain strong language (as a continuity announcer might say):
Savile was also a freemason as well as having numerous political connections which may reveal themselves as part of the ongoing police investigation; who knows what or who may be forced out of the woodwork as a consequence?
IAre you sure he was a freemason , because historically the two dont exactly dance down the street hand in hand in a loving relationship and the Catholic church is very anti Freemasonary
Comments
Considering a very thorough inquiry, with lots of evidence that backs up claims that he did dope, I'd say it is more likely that he did rather than didn't. But it reallyt isn't the same thing. Armstrong is only responsible for ruining his own life. By accusing people of being child abusers when at present there isn't any evidence to back up those claims is deplorable. Lance Armstrong can still get a job. Someone wrongly accused of child abuse will have their name tarnished forever.
I think that's probably a dead cert
Also when it comes to situations involving doping it is not a court of law that pronounces guilt or innocence it is the anti-doping authorities in a particular country. Therefore the 'innocent until proven guilty' basis of law does not apply.
You were probably closer than you think. The word you may of been thinking of is not confess but profess. He has time and again professed (declared) his innocence.
Confess
Profess
Again you’re quoting me despite banning yourself from doing so. No wonder it’s difficult, nay impossible, to take anything you say seriously. You flip flop more than Mitt Romney. Quite free with the insults as well aren’t you - I take that as a sign of desperation as you can see the BBC crumbling under the weight of all this horror and know that heads will roll leaving you looking like you’ve comprehensively backed the wrong horse.
Chinnery didn’t interview Savile, he asked him “What’s all these rumours Jimmy”. Savile replies “There’s nothing to them” and that’s the end of it. He took a paedophile’s word that he wasn’t abusing kids. Idiot.
Again with the ludicrous hyperbole! Last time anyone not a card-carrying fan of the BBC was typified by you as pitchforked Frakenstein villagers marching on Broadcasting House with torches set to burn it down. You really do pull out some desperately polarised imagery in order to support your incessant defence of a fatally compromised organisation don’t you?
This is the same Freddie Starr who denied appearing on the show in the first place, denied ever meeting the girl and only when confornted with filmed evidence by C4 did he admit it was true. You believe him because it suits you to do so as it again lets the BBC off the hook. Fascinating (REALLY, really fascinating) how you’re so ready to believe Starr who has already lied about that as opposed to Karin Ward, who’s been widely praised for her courage, who says:
You’re at it again!! You’re aware this kind of stuff just makes you look totally ridiculous, right?
So now I’m admonished for not putting random other facts into a single post am I?
Aka The historical BBC defence.
I think tickets are still available for the “Savile is Innocent” exhibition so maybe you should go because after all if Savile is innocent then the BBC is too and that’s really the assertion you’ve been relentlessly pushing throughout this whole scandal isn’t it?
.....
What a shame they can’t sack Rippon twice over when the time comes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9637079/Jimmy-Savile-Newsnight-investigation-halted-two-days-after-BBC-Christmas-schedule-announced.html
Keen to please his masters wasn’t he?
He took the word of an alleged dirty old man that he wasn’t abusing kids. Without any solid evidence at the time that sounds entirely reasonable presumption of innocence.
Perhaps he didn't have a crystal ball, Tardis or time travelling DeLorian car, with him at the time so he couldn't look 50 odd years into the future.
Wow - Criminals denying their wrongdoing. Shocker - Who could’ve anticipated that? What did he expect him to say? “I admit it, I’ll turn myself in immediately”? Chinnery was wrong, weak and wrong and so keen to avoid dragging the BBC’s name through the mud that he wanted to believe Savile. If there was enough to raise the matter in the first place then neither Chinnery, nor the BBC, should’ve taken Savile’s word as reason to drop it.
The BBC had their own working Tardis at the time!
You don't mean that one piloted by the creepy looking old man?
If anyone wants a sound defence of why nobody dared to prosecute Savile when he was still alive, then read this article, though be warned that it does contain strong language (as a continuity announcer might say):
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/good-morning-sinners-warren-ellis-jimmy-savile-and-the-price-of-silence
Savile was also a freemason as well as having numerous political connections which may reveal themselves as part of the ongoing police investigation; who knows what or who may be forced out of the woodwork as a consequence?
I never knew Colleen Nolan was married to Shane Ritchie! She never mentions it.
Probably because he left her for another woman.....
The BBC may never recover it's reputation after this shameful litany of aiding and abetting savile's crimes. The BBC is now where the Catholic church is in Ireland and elsewhere, just as saville's name is in the same state of disrepute as the offending clerics. Perhaps the famed 'Third Secret of Fatima wasn't the one about John Paul II being shot at, but the future downfall of the Church itself and it's financial ruin following legal pursuit for it's catalogue of abuse. They'll never own up to it if proved true.
Really? Crikey, she kept that quiet, too!
Yes, the BBC is undergoing a crisis. People will inevitably lose their jobs. But, considering more people STILL watch BBC News more than any other News broadcast, I'd say the "public have lost trust in the BBC" statement is a media illusion rather than fact.
Everyone has a lifespan in their career, but the charity work sustained him post-TV. He became a national treasure.
But why does he get a fee? I like Wogan, but I'm sure someone else would do it for free.
Yes, she founded Childline and I remember its inception, but at the same time, she's ignored other children being abused.
Yeah, The Sun's been going on every day about how the BBC's totally corrupt and what not. Like The Sun's squeaky clean.
If true, it just goes to show how greedy some celebrities are.
IAre you sure he was a freemason , because historically the two dont exactly dance down the street hand in hand in a loving relationship and the Catholic church is very anti Freemasonary