Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile? (Part 7)

18081838586139

Comments

  • CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    Wonder if any of the Sunday papers will print it?

    Doubtful, for reasons already discussed.
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If such a dreadful thing were to happen.

    Who would want to be known as "The newspaper that drove the popular entertainer, Mr X, to suicide"?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 17,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    nanscombe wrote: »
    If such a dreadful thing were to happen.

    Who would want to be known as "The newspaper that drove the popular entertainer, Mr X, to suicide"?

    I agree. Just thinking that there may be one rogue editor/newspaper owner who would be tempted.
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hanging, drawing and quartering, with their head stuck on a pike, would not be an unfitting fate for them.
  • BadcatBadcat Posts: 3,684
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nanscombe wrote: »
    Hanging, drawing and quartering, with their head stuck on a pike, would not be an unfitting fate for them.

    Provided they are guilty of course.
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Badcat wrote: »
    Provided they are guilty of course.
    I think he was talking about the newspaper owner:rolleyes:.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 87,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    1997 ITV documentary about paedophile rings in Amsterdam & London.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5uZbbxHFKHQ
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cryolemon wrote: »
    That's the key though, whether a "reasonable person" (i/e someone who hasn't had legal training) would know that retweeting it was potentially libellous.


    In those cases (i/e people with very few followers) he'd have been better off not even mentioning them in the first place, for the reasons you mention in the rest of the post, because it draws attention to him. Saying he was going to sue 15,000 people got much attention than if he'd gone after one or two specific people who started it or were well known.

    Before that reasonable person gets as far as legal repercussions should they not stop and think whether there is any evidence , and then is it morally right to spread or repeat ? you dont need legal training for that.
  • BadcatBadcat Posts: 3,684
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jzee wrote: »
    I think he was talking about the newspaper owner:rolleyes:.

    Ahhh! I THAT case, let me get my knives.... :D
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jzee wrote: »
    I think he was talking about the newspaper owner:rolleyes:.

    Indeed I was. :D

    Badcat wrote: »
    Ahhh! I THAT case, let me get my knives.... :D

    A few on here have not been backward in naming him either. ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,978
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, but the newspapers are now saying the guy (arrested) is 83 now, a certain someone just had a birthday, they are dropping clues. I bet they are itching to name him, I wonder why they are not, if there is nothing stopping them doing so.
  • EVILSPEAKEVILSPEAK Posts: 980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've just read that this 83 year old arrested a few days ago is dyslexic.

    Rofl
  • sahisahi Posts: 185
    Forum Member
    Anyone have a link to the 'Brand X' episode Russell Brand mentioned those two names in? Not sure if that episode has even been broadcast yet, or if they're even going keep that bit in.
  • davidmcndavidmcn Posts: 12,073
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sahi wrote: »
    Anyone have a link to the 'Brand X' episode Russell Brand mentioned those two names in? Not sure if that episode has even been broadcast yet, or if they're even going keep that bit in.

    It was reported as just chat with the studio audience between takes, not part of the programme (not that it would be likely to be broadcast anyway!).
  • J.RJ.R Posts: 2,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Personally I don't think any of them (or any man) should be named - unless they are a current danger to the public or their victim. Where it's historic 'crimes' like these I see no reason at all. If and when they are found guilty fare enough. This latest man is reported to be in a very fragile state - what will be achieved by naming him now? There are a few on the list I don't like but even so have been surprised by it. This one though has left me gobsmacked and in total disbelief. Of course it's possible - but what if it's not true, what a totally dreadful thing to happen to him at his time of life. If it's not true and he were found innocent (or most likely unproved) it will still ruin his good name, mud sticks sadly. I also find it wrong that if he were to be found totally innocent - as in the accusations were untrue - he could not name and shame his accuser. How can that be right. I gather it is not a major offence he has been accused of so isn't it fairer to stop trying to reveal his name - isn't all the gossip bad enough.
    I am, by the way, speaking as a woman who had some very unpleasant experiences with older men when I first started work as a naive 16 year old. I know exactly how repugnant it was - and frightening because you don't know how far they will take it etc. The worst was a father of a school friend!! Even so the world has moved on, thank God. If they are found guilty name them but until then remember they are innocent until proven guilty and the way things are going someone (who may be proved innocent) will be driven to their deaths.
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    "Telling a lifelong showbiz pal of the entertainer about her fears, she said: “My poor husband. It’s terrible, we’ve been up all night worrying about it.”

    The showbiz pal – an internationally known singer who has played the London Palladium – said : “It was important him and his wife know that I am there if ever they need my support and help.

    “His wife was grateful for my call, thanked me for it and said it was good to know who their real friends were. My family is confused and upset, too, because we’ve known them and enjoyed their company for over 50 years."



    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/operation-yewtree-wife-celebrity-83-1794742
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jzee wrote: »
    Has anyone been seeing the stuff on twitter, surely if Harris is never even found guilty of anything he could basically sue all these people as McAlpine did?

    Personally i find those tweets both vile and cruel, and i really hope that the claims made are wrong, i hope he sues the lot of them :mad: Twitter or and social site is not the place to publicly out anyone based on half a story :mad::mad::mad:
  • dorydaryldorydaryl Posts: 15,927
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    skp20040 wrote: »
    Some of thos etweeters are pathetic to my mind, ok if a person is found guilty then have a go , but most of them are looking for things where they dont exist, as I have said before some people are actively enjoying this, its their latest hobby.

    So true. Some of those tweets are really spiteful and from a bunch of people who actually know nothing more than anyone else does but choose to embellish it and have a person 'convicted and punished' online, just for sport. Some of those tweeting, themselves, are possibly more sexually 'deviant' than the person they are accusing.
  • CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    dorydaryl wrote: »
    So true. Some of those tweets are really spiteful and from a bunch of people who actually know nothing more than anyone else does but choose to embellish it and have a person 'convicted and punished' online, just for sport. Some of those tweeting, themselves, are possibly more sexually 'deviant' than the person they are accusing.

    That's potentially just as libellous as they are.
  • dorydaryldorydaryl Posts: 15,927
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cryolemon wrote: »
    That's potentially just as libellous as they are.

    Perhaps you need it explaining. My comment was meant to be ironic, not a statement of fact. It was actually meant to be a play on the person-in-question's presumed 'innocence-until-proven-otherwise' rather than an accusation against others. They can sue me if they like...they won't get much, sadly!;)
  • Vodka_DrinkaVodka_Drinka Posts: 28,739
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Swinetown wrote: »
    Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, but the newspapers are now saying the guy (arrested) is 83 now, a certain someone just had a birthday, they are dropping clues. I bet they are itching to name him, I wonder why they are not, if there is nothing stopping them doing so.

    I believe he has a history of depression and some have suggested he is suicidal. If he's named publicly and then ends up topping himself it would have serious repercussions and the whole investigation could lose public sympathy.
  • CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    dorydaryl wrote: »
    Perhaps you need it explaining. My comment was meant to be ironic, not a statement of fact. It was actually meant to be a play on the person-in-question's presumed 'innocence-until-proven-otherwise' rather than an accusation against others. They can sue me if they like...they won't get much, sadly!;)

    I doubt they could, since you didn't mention anyone specific. I was just pointing out that libel applies to everyone, not just celebrities.
  • Pink KnightPink Knight Posts: 24,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sahi wrote: »
    Anyone have a link to the 'Brand X' episode Russell Brand mentioned those two names in? Not sure if that episode has even been broadcast yet, or if they're even going keep that bit in.

    The two names as mentioned in another post were mentioned in a break in recording.
    If you go on one of the usual conspiracy forums, one name has been suggested. It would probably be wise not to type the name in a post, as it could be just someone putting hearsay and that name together with the Brand story.
    If there is any truth in the name put forward, I think it would be a similar surprise to the alleged 83 year old already questioned.
  • Dave1979Dave1979 Posts: 1,804
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Where did the separate Rolf Harris thread go I wonder?
  • dorydaryldorydaryl Posts: 15,927
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cryolemon wrote: »
    I doubt they could, since you didn't mention anyone specific. I was just pointing out that libel applies to everyone, not just celebrities.

    True, true *nod*.:sleep:
This discussion has been closed.