[Andy2]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

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.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by Andy2

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.

''An innocent man''? Now I know you're trolling and taking the proverbial.....

'Bye. You aren't worth the candle chum.
*clicks ignore button*

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by Andy2

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.

It's an insult because it is an undermining of their viewpoint as irrational if not likening them to members of the Klu Klux Klan and other organisations. Many posters have made very reasoned posts over a very long thread and using the word pitchfork is wrong in this case.

There may be people with pitchforks such as the poster who referred to the Duncroft girls as always being drunk or taking drugs.

I have mentioned that staff gave them lithium, which is not a recreational drug. I have seen no evidence that they were 'always drunk or taking drugs'. So far so falsely allegated.

By the way, what do you make of the extraordinary quote JS made about his friend Gary Glitter? Have you read it (or heard the actual tape of him saying it) or the piece from his autobiography which is astonishing? There have been audio and visual links throughout this thread as well. I don't think you can have much background to this at all.

[nanscombe]

Originally Posted by kimindex

First-hand accounts are evidence. It's not all 'caught in the act' stuff or confessions.

And once the evidence has been investigated and assessed, by the Police, there might actually be some proof.

[Asmo]

It's hard to re-find in the deluge of stories since, but there was a report a few days ago of the Police saying a number of those interviewed independently had reported a particular (obviously not detailed) act, which he called a 'Jimmy special', providing compelling corroboration - and that was before they started describing him as 'predatory'.

[Andy2]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

''An innocent man''? Now I know you're trolling and taking the proverbial.....

'Bye. You aren't worth the candle chum.
*clicks ignore button*

There speaks a man who knows when he's lost an argument. Anyone who can't listen to a reaoned debate without flouncing out and slamming the door isn't worth the bother.

[smbmark2]

Originally Posted by Andy2

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.

And if it was your daughter ? Would he still be innocent.. don't think so t..t

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by Asmo

It's hard to re-find in the deluge of stories since, but there was a report a few days ago of the Police saying a number of those interviewed independently had reported a particular (obviously not detailed) act, which he called a 'Jimmy special', providing compelling corroboration - and that was before they started describing him as 'predatory'.

That makes more sense than a previous poster's assumption that the police are now calling him a sexual offender because of his family removing his headstone from respect for others or under pressure from the dreaded pitchforks.

It is right that this particular should be concealed from press and public - for many reasons. I hope there won't be speculation about this here, for those same reasons.

[Mellsbells]

Originally Posted by MarkBeales

Allegedly. And as far as I can tell no evidence has yet been produced

this line about being no evidence is constantly being dragged out but as a previous poster said, are you expecting a video confession? footage from a hidden camera of JS in the act? Because none of that is going to happen. Whatever he was, he wasn't stupid. He also will have seen what happened to Jonathan King and Gary Glitter. Do you really think he'd have kept anything that was remotely incriminating?

When large numbers of people come forward with accounts of abuse and many of them seem to have mentioned particular acts/behaviour from their abuser that tally with other victims........THAT is evidence.

I'm so sick of hearing the other 'why didn't they come forward sooner' line. Many did. They were ignored. By the very people that are supposed to protect them.

[Asmo]

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/201...hits-hospital/

Commander Peter Spindler, Scotland Yard's head of specialist crime investigations, said (...) "At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender."

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by Andy2

There speaks a man who knows when he's lost an argument. Anyone who can't listen to a reaoned debate without flouncing out and slamming the door isn't worth the bother.

You obviously know very very little about this thread or this poster.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by jamtamara

You obviously know very very little about this thread or this poster.

Obviously hasn't read my post about my own experience of abuse either.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by jamtamara

It's an insult because it is an undermining of their viewpoint as irrational if not likening them to members of the Klu Klux Klan and other organisations. Many posters have made very reasoned posts over a very long thread and using the word pitchfork is wrong in this case.

There may be people with pitchforks such as the poster who referred to the Duncroft girls as always being drunk or taking drugs.

I have mentioned that staff gave them lithium, which is not a recreational drug. I have seen no evidence that they were 'always drunk or taking drugs'. So far so falsely allegated.

By the way, what do you make of the extraordinary quote JS made about his friend Gary Glitter? Have you read it (or heard the actual tape of him saying it) or the piece from his autobiography which is astonishing? There have been audio and visual links throughout this thread as well. I don't think you can have much background to this at all.

Exactly. It gives the impression that, rather than having a different point of view (but the one the police agree with), those of us who think, on balance, Savile was a sex abuser are the equivalent of hysterics who are just enjoying the outrage.

There are lots of first-hand accounts, hearsay corroboration from others, what Savile said in his own autobiography, what he said about Glitter, a QC who says there are grounds for arrest and trial and now what the police say.

As with other people who didn't get to trial, a person is entitled to take a considered view and using 'pitchfork' imagery as a counter is just abusive rhetoric.

There is a lot less evidence for saying the women are chancers and liars.

[Andy2]

Originally Posted by smbmark2

And if it was your daughter ? Would he still be innocent.. don't think so t..t

I never said he was innocent. He may be innocent, he may be guilty, but IMO too many people are rushing to judgement before a proper investigation has taken place.
Like I said before, I'm quite prepared to believe he was up to something with these girls, but I refuse to join the mob.
What does t..t mean?

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by Mellsbells

this line about being no evidence is constantly being dragged out but as a previous poster said, are you expecting a video confession? footage from a hidden camera of JS in the act? Because none of that is going to happen. Whatever he was, he wasn't stupid. He also will have seen what happened to Jonathan King and Gary Glitter. Do you really think he'd have kept anything that was remotely incriminating?

When large numbers of people come forward with accounts of abuse and many of them seem to have mentioned particular acts/behaviour from their abuser that tally with other victims........THAT is evidence.

I'm so sick of hearing the other 'why didn't they come forward sooner' line. Many did. They were ignored. By the very people that are supposed to protect them.

Quite.

On the other hand he did sail close to, ETA and practically rode, the wind on several occasions with his autobiography and other statements and interviews. Many links have been given to illustrate this.

Someone used the phrase "hidden in plain sight".

[tally]

Originally Posted by Winchester Lady

It's wrong that allegations made so long after the event should be taken so seriously at this initial stage. If Savile was alive, he would be entitled to a fair trial and all that goes with due process. The police are far exceeding their role in giving immediate credence to the allegations which have not been tried in a court of law. Some or all may be true but we must not move to a system where mere allegations can be so influential - one charity considering changing its name etc.

People do tend to jump on the bandwagon in this sort of situation.

Through a police contact several years ago, I do know the names of two other showbiz people who were found to be involved with paedophile matters. One name has been fairly freely mentioned on the internet and, like Savile, had royal contact. Great judgment at the Palace! The other person is no longer on tv, although he was a household name, and I haven't heard of him for years.

I dont understand this post, the second paragraph completely contradicts the first.

Originally Posted by occy

Jimmy Savile victims should bypass the media and go straight to the police.

I agree, especially as it's "out in the open" so to speak. Women who go to the media are often afraid of reporting it to the police, but it gives ammunition to those who think they are making it up, sadly.

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

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.

Isn't that the truth. I just wish all these posters who are trying to whitewash paedophiles would take 5 minutes and google "why women are afraid to report rape and molestation". They might educate themselves before posting on here. This thread has, from the beginning been the one on DS which has been pretty fair and non hysterical and has been a pretty good debate of child and general sexual abuse. There has been no "witchhunt" just discussion of events as they've unfolded. 140 reports are dismissed as the imagination of women "eager to jump on the bandwagon"?
Please! Give me a break!

Originally Posted by Andy2

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.

If you read even from the beginning of Part 2 of this thread you'd see this has been adressed. I too am appalled when an innocent man is accused therefore I keep banging on about anonymity for all in rape trials. Of course the media wont do this, especially when it involves famous figures. It's too good a story to pass over.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by kimindex

Exactly. It gives the impression that, rather than having a different point of view (but the one the police agree with), those of us who think, on balance, Savile was a sex abuser are the equivalent of hysterics who are just enjoying the outrage.

There are lots of first-hand accounts, hearsay corroboration from others, what Savile said in his own autobiography, what he said about Glitter, a QC who says there are grounds for arrest and trial and now what the police say.

As with other people who didn't get to trial, a person is entitled to take a considered view and using 'pitchfork' imagery as a counter is just abusive rhetoric.

There is a lot less evidence for saying the women are chancers and liars.

Agree with everything you say.

What I can't understand are these - admittedly very few - people who persist in saying 'innocent until proven guilty'. As the perpetrator's no longer here to answer to his crimes, nothing should ever be done according to them. There's far too much matching evidence to say these women are lying.

[tamara1969]

Originally Posted by Andy2

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.

What a totally disgusting phrase! I find it so offensive and demeaning to any actions that involve inappropriate behaviour toward a child.

[Muggsy]

Originally Posted by Andy2

I never said he was innocent. He may be innocent, he may be guilty, but IMO too many people are rushing to judgement before a proper investigation has taken place.
Like I said before, I'm quite prepared to believe he was up to something with these girls, but I refuse to join the mob.
What does t..t mean?

That you're still insulting people that have a different view to you?

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

Obviously hasn't read my post about my own experience of abuse either.

I can understand that a few people are jumping on the end of this thread not having read it all, or others, but then to accuse people of being a mob or having pitchforks to hand is a contradiction. At least make themselves of aware of what has been discussed before making sweeping allegations themselves.

I am not part of a mob and never would be. To paraphrase Groucho Marx I disassociate myself from any mob that would have me as a member.

[Abriel]

will the charity that's considering changing it's name be returning the money he left them in his will, I wonder?

[jamtamara]

Originally Posted by tamara1969

What a totally disgusting phrase! I find it so offensive and demeaning to any actions that involve inappropriate behaviour toward a child.

Not only that, he is not actually in the frame as it were for paedophilia proper. Again, lack of knowledge is being demonstrated.

But as you say, that phrase is offensive. I find it trivialising apart from anything else.

[Ed R.Marley]

Originally Posted by tally

:
Isn't that the truth. I just wish all these posters who are trying to whitewash paedophiles would take 5 minutes and google "why women are afraid to report rape and molestation".

Jesus H. Christ, now who the hell has done that? All I have said is that I will wait before I form a final opinion.

It's comments like that which lead to the pitchfork labels. Whenever an emotive subject such as this comes up, anyone who doesn't immediately condemm the accused is automatically assumed to be with them.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by jamtamara

I can understand that a few people are jumping on the end of this thread not having read it all, or others, but then to accuse people of being a mob or having pitchforks to hand is a contradiction. At least make themselves of aware of what has been discussed before making sweeping allegations themselves.

I am not part of a mob and never would be. To paraphrase Groucho Marx I disassociate myself from any mob that would have me as a member.

If the 'bandwagon jumpers' lately on this part of the thread took time and trouble to read at least some of part one they'd see there hasn't been a 'witchhunt ' of any description.

In the main it's been a reasonable debate where people have disagreed with one another, but that's human nature. I speak as a poster who's been on this thread since its inception. I feel very strongly about Savile - and have done for many years - because of a story I was told, and I've been the victim of a groper too. Like a lot of people, I've said things would come to light after his death, and they have.

[tameelf]

for all those that say why was this not sorted while he was alive and why so long you need to read the HG abuse story but you wont find it on this site