What we are having is a public trial in the media and people, like yourself, are convinced of his guilt by allegations of events that happened 40 years ago. I'm not saying that they are lying, but I am concerned that everyone is being far to premature in pronouncing guilt when an investigation hasn't even got off the ground. The actual programme that started all this is not even two weeks old.:rolleyes:
Until solid evidence comes out that can convince me that any of these accusations hold water, I reserve the right to not blindly follow the pitchfork brigade.
I think people like you will never believe anything no matter what and how much evidence is presented. To the likes of you it's always a case of ''He's dead and he can't defend himself'' or ''It's just allegations''.
Try telling that to the people he abused. :mad:
If you have any concrete proof that he abused anyone, let's hear it. The world is full of bandwagon-jumpers who fancy the idea of a spot of fame or victimhood - even some cash for a racy story.
I was never much of a fan of Savile's, but so far all we have are allegations and hearsay. I'd be quite prepared to believe the man was a dirty old goat, but we seem to have adopted a rather unhealthy 'judge & jury' attitude on this.
I so agree with that...... People are so ready to believe anything these days. We need a proper investigation not a witch hunt which is just what we are getting - and it is seriously worrying.
So you believe JS has been delierately targetted because he held unorthodox views? Or do you not know the definition of witch-hunt and just reached for the nearest emotive insult?
If you have any concrete proof that he abused anyone, let's hear it. The world is full of bandwagon-jumpers who fancy the idea of a spot of fame or victimhood - even some cash for a racy story.
I was never much of a fan of Savile's, but so far all we have are allegations and hearsay. I'd be quite prepared to believe the man was a dirty old goat, but we seem to have adopted a rather unhealthy 'judge & jury' attitude on this.
BiB - In that case it shouldn't be too far a step to believe the accusations of the women who he's alleged to have abused?
FS on This Morning now. A bit hesitant, but not a reason to think he's an abuser.
If you have any concrete proof that he abused anyone, let's hear it. The world is full of bandwagon-jumpers who fancy the idea of a spot of fame or victimhood - even some cash for a racy story.
I was never much of a fan of Savile's, but so far all we have are allegations and hearsay. I'd be quite prepared to believe the man was a dirty old goat, but we seem to have adopted a rather unhealthy 'judge & jury' attitude on this.
Do you actually think there is CCTV evidence or a secret diary with admissions?
Multiple first-hand accounts does form more than rumour and you are making allegations against all those who have given those accounts. The police have stated what they think, yet you seem to know better, including accusing people of lying for fame and money.
Accepting those accounts does not make someone a pitchfork wielding maniac, anymore that it does to think Lord Lucan murdered his nanny.
Am angry after reading this on Guardian online site. Pete Townshend talking about his new book that has just come out.
the interviewer is asking him about his arrest in 2003 when he was used his credit card for child porn site. The interviewer mentions Jimmy savile. Townshend replies that he can't comment on that because he knows too much.
I hope the police find out about that remark and take him in for questioning.
I think people like you will never believe anything no matter what and how much evidence is presented. To the likes of you it's always a case of ''He's dead and he can't defend himself'' or ''It's just allegations''.
Try telling that to the people he abused. :mad:
Allegedly. And as far as I can tell no evidence has yet been produced
Do you actually think there is CCTV evidence or a secret diary with admissions?
Multiple first-hand accounts does form more than rumour and you are making allegations against all those who have given those accounts. The police have stated what they think, yet you seem to know better, including accusing people of lying for fame and money.
Accepting those accounts does not make someone a pitchfork wielding maniac, anymore that it does to think Lord Lucan murdered his nanny.
BIB - I'm suggesting that it is perfectly possible for these people to be lying to achieve fame, notoriety or compensation. It does happen, you know.
There is a very good chance they are telling the truth, but until further investigation and serious questioning and investigation has taken place we should not be reaching for the pitchforks.
Am angry after reading this on Guardian online site. Pete Townshend talking about his new book that has just come out.
the interviewer is asking him about his arrest in 2003 when he was used his credit card for child porn site. The interviewer mentions Jimmy savile. Townshend replies that he can't comment on that because he knows too much.
I hope the police find out about that remark and take him in for questioning.
Perhaps you could post a link to that so that people can make up their own minds.
BIB - I'm suggesting that it is perfectly possible for these people to be lying to achieve fame, notoriety or compensation. It does happen, you know.
There is a very good chance they are telling the truth, but until further investigation and serious questioning and investigation has taken place we should not be reaching for the pitchforks.
Perhaps lay off the insults. There's no need to try and bolster your view by that sort of cheap rhetoric.
I can't help feeling the family (not to mention the media) are being somewhat premature in all this. So far we are dealing with allegations and rumours, nothing has been proven. Rather than rush to remove and destroy the headstone, perhaps the family would have been better advised to cover it until any investigation comes to a conclusion?
After all, if Savile were still alive he would be taken to court so his alleged victims could put their side of the story and he would put his. As he is dead, all we have are allegations and no proof either way.
He put his side when he was alive. He said he didn't do it.
I think its safe to proceed on the basis that he would say he didn't do it.
As for the headstone, his family say they want to respect public opinion.
If that's the case then fine, I think it may also be that they don't want it vandalised and other people who use the cemetery are unhappy about the yob element the headstone attracts
I think people attacking monuments is awful behaviour. And I say that as one who thinks the balance of probability suggests JS was a sexual abuser of children
He put his side when he was alive. He said he didn't do it.
I think its safe to proceed on the basis that he would say he didn't do it.
As for the headstone, his family say they want to respect public opinion.
If that's the case then fine, I think it may also be that they don't want it vandalised and other people who use the cemetery are unhappy about the yob element the headstone attracts
I think people attacking monuments is awful behaviour. And I say that as one who thinks the balance of probability suggests JS was a sexual abuser of children
Me, too. I have no problem with people who do that being called names but being persuaded that Savile was an sex offender, as the police say they are, doesn't make someone a pitchfork abuser.
BIB - I'm suggesting that it is perfectly possible for these people to be lying to achieve fame, notoriety or compensation. It does happen, you know.
There is a very good chance they are telling the truth, but until further investigation and serious questioning and investigation has taken place we should not be reaching for the pitchforks.
Who is reaching for pitchforks. This man is dead, he cant be tried, he cant be imprisoned or pitchforked.
An investigation is taking place and a conclusion will be drawn but he wont suffer one way or another, so your defence of him seems pointless, although I have no doubt you feel it is warranted.
People are just discussing what they think about the allegations and that has opened the debate wider regarding sexual abuse in general. It's quite interesting, I don't know why some FMs have to make statements to protect people who don't need protecting, it seems patronising and defensive.
Genuine question- Why do you (and others who do it) feel propelled to make remarks about pitchforlks when you and everyone else knows he wont be tried or subjected to any punishment?
What we are having is a public trial in the media and people, like yourself, are convinced of his guilt by allegations of events that happened 40 years ago. I'm not saying that they are lying, but I am concerned that everyone is being far to premature in pronouncing guilt when an investigation hasn't even got off the ground. The actual programme that started all this is not even two weeks old.:rolleyes:
Until solid evidence comes out that can convince me that any of these accusations hold water, I reserve the right to not blindly follow the pitchfork brigade.
That in itself is an insult. To say that these women are ''bandwagon jumpers'' is as good as saying they're lying.
As I said ^ plenty of FM's have previously posted their own stories of abuse and groping, including myself.
I'd ask again - are we all liars?
Is that it? The world IS full of bandwagon-jumpers! I did not accuse Savile's accusers of lying, I just said it was possible. It is. People do. No insult at all, except in some rather over-sensitive people's minds.
Me, too. I have no problem with people who do that being called names but being persuaded that Savile was an sex offender, as the police say they are, doesn't make someone a pitchfork abuser.
I've just addressed that issue of pitchforks. It puzzles and interests me.
I'm off out. I hope to have a answer when I return later
Is that it? The world IS full of bandwagon-jumpers! I did not accuse Savile's accusers of lying, I just said it was possible. It is. People do. No insult at all, except in some rather over-sensitive people's minds.
There maybe hundreds of bandwagon jumpers, but it doesn't apply here. They have stories which all tally with each other - the manner of abuse, how and where it took place, all practically identical.
If you wanted to be a 'bandwagon jumper' wouldn't you choose a story that was less harrowing? To have to relive this abuse must be dreadful for these women.
Try walking a mile in their shoes - but I seriously doubt that you can.
There maybe hundreds of bandwagon jumpers, but it doesn't apply here. They have stories which all tally with each other - the manner of abuse, how and where it took place, all practically identical.
If you wanted to be a 'bandwagon jumper' wouldn't you choose a story that was less harrowing? To have to relive this abuse must be dreadful for these women.
Try walking a mile in their shoes - but I seriously doubt that you can.
And perhaps you should try the same in the shoes of an innocent man accused of kiddy-fiddling.
On balance I reckon there is some truth in this story, but we need a proper investigation before we condemn him forever.
Comments
DId you see the programme last week?
If you have any concrete proof that he abused anyone, let's hear it. The world is full of bandwagon-jumpers who fancy the idea of a spot of fame or victimhood - even some cash for a racy story.
I was never much of a fan of Savile's, but so far all we have are allegations and hearsay. I'd be quite prepared to believe the man was a dirty old goat, but we seem to have adopted a rather unhealthy 'judge & jury' attitude on this.
So you believe JS has been delierately targetted because he held unorthodox views? Or do you not know the definition of witch-hunt and just reached for the nearest emotive insult?
BiB - In that case it shouldn't be too far a step to believe the accusations of the women who he's alleged to have abused?
FS on This Morning now. A bit hesitant, but not a reason to think he's an abuser.
Multiple first-hand accounts does form more than rumour and you are making allegations against all those who have given those accounts. The police have stated what they think, yet you seem to know better, including accusing people of lying for fame and money.
Accepting those accounts does not make someone a pitchfork wielding maniac, anymore that it does to think Lord Lucan murdered his nanny.
the interviewer is asking him about his arrest in 2003 when he was used his credit card for child porn site. The interviewer mentions Jimmy savile. Townshend replies that he can't comment on that because he knows too much.
I hope the police find out about that remark and take him in for questioning.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/oct/09/pete-townshend-who-i-am
Allegedly. And as far as I can tell no evidence has yet been produced
BIB - I'm suggesting that it is perfectly possible for these people to be lying to achieve fame, notoriety or compensation. It does happen, you know.
There is a very good chance they are telling the truth, but until further investigation and serious questioning and investigation has taken place we should not be reaching for the pitchforks.
Perhaps you could post a link to that so that people can make up their own minds.
Genuine question - what insults?
And the testimonies of the abused women and the fact that there are so many of them and their stories all tally, isn't enough for you?
I sometimes think some people won't be satisfied unless Savile's corpse could be reanimated and put in the dock. :rolleyes:
He put his side when he was alive. He said he didn't do it.
I think its safe to proceed on the basis that he would say he didn't do it.
As for the headstone, his family say they want to respect public opinion.
If that's the case then fine, I think it may also be that they don't want it vandalised and other people who use the cemetery are unhappy about the yob element the headstone attracts
I think people attacking monuments is awful behaviour. And I say that as one who thinks the balance of probability suggests JS was a sexual abuser of children
What? I don't understand. What insult have I used?
That in itself is an insult. To say that these women are ''bandwagon jumpers'' is as good as saying they're lying.
As I said ^ plenty of FM's have previously posted their own stories of abuse and groping, including myself.
I'd ask again - are we all liars?
Who is reaching for pitchforks. This man is dead, he cant be tried, he cant be imprisoned or pitchforked.
An investigation is taking place and a conclusion will be drawn but he wont suffer one way or another, so your defence of him seems pointless, although I have no doubt you feel it is warranted.
People are just discussing what they think about the allegations and that has opened the debate wider regarding sexual abuse in general. It's quite interesting, I don't know why some FMs have to make statements to protect people who don't need protecting, it seems patronising and defensive.
Genuine question- Why do you (and others who do it) feel propelled to make remarks about pitchforlks when you and everyone else knows he wont be tried or subjected to any punishment?
Me too......
Is that it? The world IS full of bandwagon-jumpers! I did not accuse Savile's accusers of lying, I just said it was possible. It is. People do. No insult at all, except in some rather over-sensitive people's minds.
I've just addressed that issue of pitchforks. It puzzles and interests me.
I'm off out. I hope to have a answer when I return later
There maybe hundreds of bandwagon jumpers, but it doesn't apply here. They have stories which all tally with each other - the manner of abuse, how and where it took place, all practically identical.
If you wanted to be a 'bandwagon jumper' wouldn't you choose a story that was less harrowing? To have to relive this abuse must be dreadful for these women.
Try walking a mile in their shoes - but I seriously doubt that you can.
And perhaps you should try the same in the shoes of an innocent man accused of kiddy-fiddling.
On balance I reckon there is some truth in this story, but we need a proper investigation before we condemn him forever.