***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 4 *****
Ongoing debate.
www.thepoke.co.uk/2012/10/10/jimmy-savilles-headstone-removed/
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 13 Oct 12 at 23:05
|
Zero said:
"Ok madf, are you saying that JS did not do any of things about which he stands accused, or you don't believe any of them? "
Neither.
I have no idea whether any of them are true, some are true or all are false.
And until something is proven I will continue with that approach..
I am mindful of previous accusations of child molestation which in the case of the Orkney one were officially approved by Social Services.. and subsequently proven to be rubbish..
tinyurl.com/9g6bwqh
I am also mindful of the claims of abuse at children's care homes at Haut de la Garenne which were eventually found correct - up to a point - but included allegations of murder - which were not.
So I take the view of an interested but neutral bystander...
|
>> I have no idea whether any of them are true, some are true or all
>> are false.
>>
>> And until something is proven I will continue with that approach..
That's exactly my view. Innocent until proven guilty. I'll believe he was guilty when (and if) "the law" says he was guilty.
|
>> That's exactly my view. Innocent until proven guilty. I'll believe he was guilty when (and
>> if) "the law" says he was guilty.
>>
You cannot try a dead man.
|
Mark - "The only thing that seems to be wrong is people acting upon assumption that he is guilty or that he is not when in reality they have no idea".
Do you think the police have some idea?
|
>>Do you think the police have some idea?
I don't know, but as far as I know they haven't been writing graffiti on stuff. I have seen them saying that they are pursuing lines of inquiry.
And the police being absolutely convinced of something doesn't necessarily make anybody guilty of anything? Nor is it to be ignored of course.
Let us remember that there is frequently a difference between what someone says and what is reported that they said.
But presumably the purpose of an investigation is for them to not only get an idea, but to be able to substantiate it.
Why are people uncomfortable with the idea of the investigation? Unless they're fearful of course. Surely that is exactly the right thing to do?
And if they are supportive of an investigation, why react before its complete?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Oct 12 at 16:50
|
>> Why are people uncomfortable with the idea of the investigation? Unless they're fearful of course.
I think some of it is just the cost to them, the taxpayer, if they don't think it's going to serve any useful purpose.
|
>>
>> Do you think the police have some idea?
>>
This may give a clue as to what the police think! - see thread Vol 2
"At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender," said Commander Peter Spindler, head of specialist crime investigations, in an interview with the BBC."
|
>> >> Do you think the police have some idea?
>> >>
>>
>> This may give a clue as to what the police think! - see thread Vol
>> 2
>>
>> "At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile
>> was a predatory sex offender," said Commander Peter Spindler, head of specialist crime investigations, in
>> an interview with the BBC."
Yes, I'd repeated that recently - that's why I asked Mark the question. But it might just be someone speaking out of turn.
|
>>"At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Saville was a predatory sex offender,"
I don't really understand why he said that.
What does he mean "at this stage"? Does he mean at the next stage it might not be so clear?
And if he really means just "from what women are telling us " is that his required standard of proof for the statement "it is quite clear"?
And "predatory sex offender" is a pretty specific description, does he understand it?
All in all, it would seem an unwise comment made to appeal to the emotions and avoid them getting any flack for any shortcomings on previous investigations.
Its difficult to understand why the "head of specialist crime investigations" should be giving an interview to an organisation on the receiving end of some of the accusations.
Most unwise.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Oct 12 at 16:56
|
>> Most unwise.
>>
...or most sure.
|
>>...or most sure.
Of which?
Most sure that the BBC were not guilty of anything and so giving them an interview is fine, or most sure that whether or not they were guilty, talking to them "officially" about the investigation was fine?
And does "most sure" now count more than the result of an on-going investigation? Do the police now talk about these investigations before they complete? I'd kind of assumed that they were as close mouthed s they could be until things were official.
Do the police often give interviews to organisations accused of crimes about the investigation into THAT crime?
|
|
This was an official Police statement. No senior officer would make an on the record statement of that nature without authorisation.
|
|
I need to go and read it, which I haven't yet. I'd taken from here that it was an interview.
|
|
From a conversation with two people in the "know" - this was a very, very considered and carefully worded statement from the Met.
|
|
Which as I said, begs the question, if they are so sure so quickly this time, why were they not sure the previous two times.
|
In the sun today a nephew said it was true, but do the sun write the truth?
Yesterday Savile’s nephew Adrian Marsden, 56, from Leeds, said: “The family have made the right decision taking the headstone down and smashing it. It leaves a bad taste seeing things that celebrate his life when he has done what he has done.
“There’s no way it’s not true. This has brought real shame on the family.
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4583268/Jimmy-Saviles-gravestone-is-smashed-and-dumped-in-skip.html
|
|
I don't think that even Murdoch's organ would print that sort of statement unless it had a basis in truth.
|
>> I don't think that even Murdoch's organ would print that sort of statement unless it
>> had a basis in truth.
Oh they would. And have in the past.
|
>>unless it had a basis in truth.
Every accusation or otherwise has quote marks around it. They are reporting what others have said.
It'd difficult to show that they have acted inappropriately. they could show that the person had said it, that there were no signs of malicious bias, and that it was in the public interest to report it.
Just because the Sun is very smart and has great lawyers, doesn't make them very nice or very truthful.
They know exactly what they are doing and are writing for their audience. And they are very, very good at it.
It'd stop some way short of assuming something was true just because it seemed to be in the papers.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Oct 12 at 17:09
|
>> They know exactly what they are doing and are writing for their audience. And they are very, very good at it.
>> It'd stop some way short of assuming something was true just because it seemed to be in the papers.
Yes, there's a bit of a media feeding frenzy going on and it is distasteful. The thing that makes it especially distasteful is the years of promotion by all the mass media, broadsheet press included, of this man and his vacuous discourse as if there was nothing obviously wrong with him quite apart from his lusts and fumblings.
But it seems to me a lot of this stuff was waiting to come out. It also seems that a lot of people who met Savile day to day didn't take to him at all, to put it mildly.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 11 Oct 12 at 17:15
|
I'm assuming that this is it... If it isn't I'd appreciate a link.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887019
I would take it from that interview that they believe him to be guilty, but they are very careful as to what they actually say.
somebody mentioned a radio interviow which I can't find.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Oct 12 at 17:23
|
>> I'm assuming that this is it... If it isn't I'd appreciate a link.
>>
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887653
|
What a strange and not very nice world we live in...how have we got ourselves here?
40/50 years ago no-one could summon up the courage to report something wrong, when they did they were cast aside for money. the rest knew it would happen that way and resigned themselves to doing nothing.
Now, 50 years later we can put so much energy into protesting 'fairness' 'guilt' and 'innocence until proven guilty'
We express our views yet fail to remember what it would have been like to be the person who lived in fear...fear of going against the grain, fear of speaking up for what we all knew was wrong.
We're lucky, our children are safe in hospital but as always, it's a double edged sword.
This isn't just about JS, it's about all those people who did nothing about it, in positions of authority and trust, they are every bit as guilty, if not more.
Pat
|
>>This isn't just about JS, it's about all those people who did nothing about it, in positions of authority and trust, they are every bit as guilty, if not more.
I agree, and potentially one of those is the BBC.
|
It most certainly is and also Stoke Mandeville Hospital
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Thu 11 Oct 12 at 17:29
|
>> potentially one of those is the BBC.
'Potentially'? The beeb was Savile's main protector although he had others. Our official broadcasting network is plastered with excrement from head to foot. Stand by for apologies on air and crocodile tears.
Suppressing the Newsnight investigation and bulldozing ahead with the hagiogaphic tribute looks particularly bad if only as an example of disastrous judgement, and may involve people still at the beeb.
|
|
Spot on A.C.Jim might have been the tip of the iceberg,they all keep stom like the three wise monkees.
|
Maybe disastrous judgement based on what we now know, but at the time it was probably a good decision, for whatever reason (taste maybe?).
I don't but the conspiracy theories I'm afraid.
|
>>
>> Suppressing the Newsnight investigation and bulldozing ahead with the hagiogaphic tribute looks particularly bad if
>> only as an example of disastrous judgement, and may involve people still at the beeb.
>>
I would expect someone at the BBC is at present - after hours- going through old files and shredding papers... (just like the Dept of Transport are likely to have done over the West Coast bid).
|
Blimey, desperate times indeed when the RC Church tales action against JS. I thought they had enough of their own problems to attend to.
"And the Catholic church also turned its back on him.
"Insiders say they are considering stripping Savile of a Papal knighthood he was granted by Pope John Paul II in 1990. A spokesman said: “It may have to be reviewed.”
(From www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker/ )
It also mentions the Sophie grope. Which to me seems more like an over-the-top character acting out his character rather than anything sinister. Spin, spin...
|
The Sophie link from above:
www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/276510/JIMMY-SAVILE-GROPED-ROYAL/
The trouble is, every rumour then has now become "it was an open secret". "He liked them young" was probably said of many DJs at the time, now it is "evidence".
It seems quite likely that there was evidence aplenty, but if there was it is now being trampled underfoot in the rush by all the people who did nothing and said nothing to say "everybody knew".
He was certainly a slithy tove. The trouble is that nobody is absolutely sure what that is, and amidst all the hyperbolic sensationalism we probably never will be.
There can't possibly be a satisfactory conclusion to this. The investigation needed to be done before the TV expose, not after.
|
>> www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/276510/JIMMY-SAVILE-GROPED-ROYAL/
The headline says "Jimmy Savile Groped Royal" but the first sentence of the article says "SIR Jimmy Savile tried to grope a young royal ............ " The Daily Star makes no distinction between "groped" and "tried to grope". I'm pleased I don't buy it.
|
>> >> www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/276510/JIMMY-SAVILE-GROPED-ROYAL/
>>
>> The headline says "Jimmy Savile Groped Royal" but the first sentence of the article says
>> "SIR Jimmy Savile tried to grope a young royal ............ " The Daily Star makes
>> no distinction between "groped" and "tried to grope". I'm pleased I don't buy it.
>>
Under the Star's article is the banner, "Also in the Star, more Kate topless pics".
You really couldn't make it up, as the man said.
|
The thing that always freaked me out about Savile was his weird body shape:
He always wore adult-sized tracksuit tops, but somehow managed to squeeze into kids bottoms.
/fetches coat.
|
>> /fetches coat.
I'm going to give you a scowly face for that, not for any matter of taste, offence or decency, but just because its a god awful joke.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 11 Oct 12 at 21:49
|
>> I'm going to give you a scowly face for that, not for any matter of taste, offence or decency, but just because its a god awful joke.
+1
|
>> The thing that always freaked me out about Savile was his weird body shape:
>>
>> He always wore adult-sized tracksuit tops, but somehow managed to squeeze into kids bottoms.
Dear oh dear Lygonos,
Good to see medical humour matches police (and no doubt armed forces) humour.
That's so bad i'll award it a green thumb.
|
Police soon getting on to this case it would appear, pity they and social services weren't so quick on the draw when some young girls in Rochdale and other large towns could have done with some protection in recent years.
|
>> Our official broadcasting network
>> is plastered with excrement from head to foot. Stand by for apologies on air and
>> crocodile tears.
>>
I wonder again what exactly is the point of the BBC? Why do we have to pay for it?
|
>> I wonder again what exactly is the point of the BBC? Why do we have
>> to pay for it?
It's optional isn't it? Not much point in having a TV if you aren't going to watch BBC;-)
I suppose it could be funded from a levy on the commercial broadcasters. That would be fair - given their influence on the mob, they should fund an independent not-for-profit BBC to provide the decent content that they can't do profitably. In return the BBC could be banned from doing the popular tripe that the independents can make money out of and they can make more profit and pay more tax. Everybody wins.
The worst options would be to scrap it, or make it subscription - either would destroy the good bits. Best left as it is.
Anyway you'll get a free TV licence eventually (maybe not, it's probably on the cut list for all but the feckless).
|
I now have a free TV licence, so that is my interest declared!
I object to the compulsory nature of the TV tax and in view of that I think that the BBC should be funded, as are the ITV & SKY groups, by advertisements or subscription.
This could be to my financial disadvantage as I might possibly wish to subscribe to certain elements of the BBC output.
It would lessen my viewing pleasure as most adverts are truly terrible & intrusive, but I think the principle of no TV tax is worth it.
Last edited by: Roger on Fri 12 Oct 12 at 09:16
|
>>I object to the compulsory nature of the TV tax
Taxes tend to be compulsory. Actually it isn't a tax, and it isn't compulsory.
>> I think that the BBC should be funded, as are the ITV & SKY groups, by advertisements or subscription.
It wouldn't be a BBC then, would it? There's no shortage of what you describe, and most nights they can't provide a watchable programme between them. Might as well just scrap it.
And what do you think we who pay could subscribe to for £3 a week Roger? Not much I imagine.
And you're willing to "lessen [your] viewing pleasure" for a principle that benefits nobody?
That takes contrariness to a new level!
And another thing - No Representation Without Taxation! - you don't even pay ;-)
|
Roger: the TV tax is not compulsory. I do not pay it.
|
What's the TV license come out at? £3 a week?
I'd pay that just for the radio stuff.
|
|
As far as I know, one does not need a TV license to watch programes "on demand" (as opposed to live streaming) over the net. Nor does one need one for internet radio.
|
>> As far as I know, one does not need a TV license to watch programes
>> "on demand" (as opposed to live streaming) over the net. Nor does one need one
>> for internet radio.
Not needed for radio at all, radio licence abolished in 67(?). Watch again on demand is also out of scope. Daughter saved herself (or rather me) cost of a licence for room ni halls on that basis.
|
|
How long before somebody markets a 'delay box' so all internet TV is deemed to be 'not live' - what ever that means. Probably sold for less than the annual licence:)
|
You cannot avoid paying by watching time-shifted TV. You may be able to avoid it depending on how you receive the program, irrespective of when you watch it.
|
>>>You cannot avoid paying by watching time-shifted TV
That needs clarifying. You can if it is done from an online source. From the horses mouth at TV Licensing...
**If you only stream TV programmes online after they’ve been broadcast – through on-demand services like YouTube, BBC iPlayer and 4oD – you don’t need to be covered by a TV Licence**
Our TV service is mostly via BT with a vision box which sources on-demand from BBC, ITV, CH4, CH5 via our broadband. So it could meet the no-licence requiurements if you never watched live.
However of course we have a licence. No idea what it costs but peanuts for the BBC content (radio alone as others have said).
Last edited by: Fenlander on Fri 12 Oct 12 at 10:54
|
>>>You cannot avoid paying by watching time-shifted TV
>
>That needs clarifying.
As I went on to say....
>>You may be able to avoid it depending on *how* you receive the program, irrespective of when you watch it.
And your BT Vision box has a digital receiver. And that matters. The licence is charged for watching, or recording, programs when they are broadcast.
I think that in fact to avoid paying you would have to have no tuner/receiver, receive all your content via a broadband connection, AND watch it time-shifted - or if not time shifted, certainly not at the same time as it is being broadcast to receivers.
|
By the way, may I compliment the forum in general on this spectacular piece of topic drift.
It’s a pleasure to watch experts at work.
|
|
Typical, grab all the plaudits why don't you
|
|
Let's leave your plaudits out of this, grabbed or ungrabbed.
|
|
Which reminds me - does it matter if a recent new window didn't have a FENSA certificate I wonder?
|
|
Not really - only if you're selling and are asked. Even if you haven't you can buy insurance cover at sale time to disclaim any problems.
|
Rob
Could you drop me an email I've mislaid your address.
|
Only when you come to sell the property. Windows fall under building control. A FENSA certificate falls within the requirements. You can get an indemnity at the time of sale for about £70. Had the issue when we sold Mother's property as she had one or two outfits/jobbers fitting windows at random intervals and not a certificate in sight. One bedroom window didn't even have fire escape hinges fitted. Wonder why the fitter didn't return my calls.
|
I have a con-fession to make, I have never mentioned this to anyone before, not even to my dog.
In the Autumn of 1969, Jimmy Sav-vile touched my buttox!!
I have obviously never really had closure on this, and now am con-sidering seeking compensation from the BBC.
I shall disgust this matter later on this evening, with my dog.
:-))
|
|
Thats what J.S did! pretend he was "discussing" things with 11yr olds! (allegedly)
|
A thought about this JS thing and the investigation;
Let's assume that JS was guilty for a moment.
I realise that one of things that I do think is good about the media storm is this;
This investigation isn't aimed at Saville, he's dead. Its not aimed at anybody who is likely to abuse a child, since it won't stop them.
However, with a bit of luck, it will scare the crap out of anybody who turned a blind eye and make them fear being discovered and publicised.
Because fear is what motivates a "blind eye" - typically fear of speaking up. But if the fear of being hunted down at some point in the future exceeds the fear of "telling tales" now, then we've probably achieved something.
|
>>
>> Because fear is what motivates a "blind eye" -
>>
More usually it's secret agreement, I think.
|
Yes its fear. But in their world it was a selfishly driven fear. Fear of not getting plumb parts, roles, or positions - Charity money and influence, if they spoke up.
Self centred personal greed more like it.
Edit, I'll temper that a bit for some of the 'witnesses" who may have been more principled. Their organisation or reporting chain provided no means, process, policy or mandate to alert things upwards.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 13 Oct 12 at 19:34
|
No, I doubt its secret agreement. I am familiar with their environment, and that is unlikely to be the case.
Its more like Zero said; fear of not being included in the in-group, fear of not getting the best roles or positions, fear of being whispered about and all that stuff; The need to be accepted and acceptable.
That very much fits with what I know of their environment.
|
>> I shall disgust this matter later on this evening, with my dog.
MAN 'INCITED DOG TO MOLEST POLICE OFFICER'S LEG'
A Mr Perro (of Polperro, Cornwall) was charged last night with inciting a domestic animal to molest a police officer's leg.
'The dog, A Rhodesian ridgeback, was seen in an agitated state with a man who appeared to be murmuring obscene anecdotes into its ear. When I remonstrated with Mr Perro, reminding him of recent government guidelines on suitable topics for conversation with family pets, the animal approached me growling and molested my right leg with great vigour and persistence. It was clear that Mr Perro's conversation had inflamed the animal's passions. Cornwall police are seeking compensation for cleaning bills and public humiliation.'
Mr Perro and the dog were being held in separate cells in Polperro Babylon HQ late last night.
|
Rhodesian Ridgebacks are as nasty as Dobermans.
I have a scar on my left buttock from an attack from one. Very sharp teeth...
(I also have scars on my legs from: Alsatians and spaniels !).
The joys of running in the countryside when owners' pets think you are going to attack their owner so get their retaliation in first..
I should say my psyche is even more scarred from these experiences but it ain't. I now kick any dog that attacks me..on the nose. They don't like it.
|
|
Come to run on Anglesey - our Spaniels would ignore you !
|
Every dog has sharp teeth, they are designed to crunch through bones. Dobermans and RR's are not naturally nasty, so clearly you are flapping about like game. Impersonation of a DoDo probably.
Kick one of my sporting Malinois on the nose and it will have your leg off.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 12 Oct 12 at 18:51
|
|
Malinois.I have known this dog as a Belgian sheperd from Mechelen in Vlamingen.I'm surprised the French name is used from the Dutch speaking part of Belgium.Just a observation.
|
Its a variant of the Belgian Shepherd. Along with the Groenendael, Laekenois and the Tervuren.
|
|
Excellent copy, Sire, I can see howl you earn't your corn :)
|
|
And it's high time Lord Charles 'came out' too IMO.
|
|
I always knew there was something fishy about that bird.
|
I wonder who at the BBC chose this image for Savile?
news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63466000/jpg/_63466921_63466912.jpg
Might portray him accurately?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 12 Oct 12 at 21:01
|
|
The first "poster" to that article is a "Toad Hall" - it couldn`t be? could it!
|
I must say that his grave looks very sad and desolate without the stone.
Just a small hole and no bush................still, I'm sure that's how he would have wanted it.
Ducks for cover .
Ted
|
Don't know if anyone saw 'have I got news for you' last night but they brought up the out-take hoax referred to previously in this thread (vol 1):
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=8395&m=269455&v=e
and after a general Savile discussion went on to tear into Mail Online and their hypocrisy. Got a bit tense at times, but worth a look if you didn't see it (from 9:50):
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=8395&m=269455&v=e
Last edited by: Focus on Sat 13 Oct 12 at 11:13
|
|
Yes, I saw HIGNFY and wondered how they would deal with the Jimmy Savile revelations; like everyone else who has pondered the story, I sensed a mixture of revulsion and, at the same time, a certain discomfort in damning the recently deceased. Ian Hislop alluded to something that I have wondered at i.e. that he remained a 'popular' media figure though nobody actually liked the bloke.
|
>> that he remained a 'popular' media figure
>> though nobody actually liked the bloke.
Perhaps nobody who knew him liked him, but I guess they were overruled by the viewing figures. As I kid watching Jim'll Fix It I thought he was great and didn't see any of the 'creepiness' that might be obvious now. It was a very popular programme, and presumably at least some of that popularity had to be attributed to the presenter. I even listened to his 'old record club' radio show.
|
>> I thought he was great and didn't see any of the 'creepiness' that might be obvious now<<
Same with me, but the ole woman said he used to give her the creeps, woman's intuition maybe.
|
Again, when young and watching him on TOTP and Jim'll Fix it, I had no clue about abuse or anything, but I didn't like him, and did think he was creepy.
My wife who had never heard of him before a few years ago reacted very strongly about how weird/ creepy/ slimy he was when she first saw him on the television. She was also very surprised that he was allowed to work with children.
Telling her about all the charity work didn't help.
But here's what I wonder;
- did we feel he was creepy because underneath it all he was a sexual abuser?
- or is it just very easy to believe that he was a sexual offender because we thought he was creepy?
|
Does this man beast look like someone who would murder two young girls:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ian_Kevin_Huntley_portrait.
One really can't judge a book by its cover - even I could possibly look 'normal' with a shave and a haircut.
:}
|
He was definitely a bit odd. No evident close friendships. BBC guy said they'd get him to a publicity shoot and as soon as business was done, while others went off for a coffee or something stronger he'd suddenly be not there. But there's nowt wrong with being a loner; happiest in own company even if it is odd.
Not my favourite ToTP presenter by a long chalk. But then he was old as my parents, and family arrived late for them.
Until all this came out though I'd had JS down as asexual. The sort who wasn't bothered or whose thought on being introduced to facts of life was yuk.....
|
Wifey says a black man (Author & Poet) on question time this Thursday just gorn said that he watched an interview with JS and it came across (to him) that he had no feelings for anybody and he thought that's one dangerous man.
But (and it's a big but) he never said anything to anyone because ... it ... was ... Jimmy Savile.
|
>> Don't know if anyone saw 'have I got news for you' last night but they
>> brought up the out-take hoax referred to previously in this thread (vol 1):
>> www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=8395&m=269455&v=e
Considering that his surname was spelled incorrectly, I would question whether it came from an authoritative source.
|
>> >> Don't know if anyone saw 'have I got news for you' last night but
>> they
>> >> brought up the out-take hoax referred to previously in this thread (vol 1):
>> >> www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=8395&m=269455&v=e
>>
>> Considering that his surname was spelled incorrectly, I would question whether it came from an
>> authoritative source.
Hoaxes rarely come from an authoritative source. (unless its political spin of course)
|
|
Savile looked creepy as did Gary Glitter, but it now turns out that John Peel's liking for schoolgirls resulted in getting a 15 year old pregnant and Led Zep's Robert Plant had a 14 year old girlfriend at one stage. Throw Bill Wyman into the mix and there were more than just the odd weirdo from the music world who didn't let the age of consent bother them.
|
|
And although he has denied any wrong-doing, Freddie Stars current wife is 30+ years younger than him! - makes Megan Stammers/Forrester Affair seem trivial!
|
And then there's other cultures...
One of the captions: 'Child mothers: Asia, a 14-year-old mother, washes her new baby girl at home in Hajjah while her two-year-old daughter plays'
tinyurl.com/9t72q39 (Mail)
|
>> Savile looked creepy as did Gary Glitter, but it now turns out that John Peel's
>> liking for schoolgirls resulted in getting a 15 year old pregnant and Led Zep's Robert
>> Plant had a 14 year old girlfriend at one stage. Throw Bill Wyman into the
>> mix and there were more than just the odd weirdo from the music world who
>> didn't let the age of consent bother them.
The Wyman thing's another one that comes up as odd to my way of thinking. Don't know about Plant (incidentally The Lad saw him & Page at the Led Zep film première at Hammersmith last night).
Peel OTOH was famous in his late twenties and as anyone who saw the R1 roadshow in the seveties can vouch there was a groupie thing around some of the presenters. It wasn't surprising if some of them were a bit slapdash about young women and the age of consent.
|
|
Esther Rantzen was the subject of some vitriol in Private Eye last week. Appearing on the ITV documentary which sparked all of this, she said that there had been rumours of "goings on" for 40 years at the BBC - PE quite rightly questioned why she didn't report it up the chain, especially s seeing as she was being humped by one of their senior people (Desmond Wilcox) - she made an appearance on the BBC News (24) today - despite ham-fisted interviewing by a newscaster she was pushed into a corner by her....she'd have been better keeping her gob shut.
|
I saw the Headline in the Sun today damning Esther for that very fact - which is a bit rich because the same newspaper spiked a story by one of it's own reporters making the allegations that are now in the public domain, on the grounds that Savile was too popular and a backlash might hurt sales.
And if the Sun knew about it I'd be surprised the Eye didn't. Fleet Street (as was) is a very small world.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Sat 13 Oct 12 at 18:05
|
"Steven George, who was known as Alison Pink while at the hospital and has since had a sex change, described how he felt after the abuse.
He said: "It was like another insult. I'm in a top security hospital and someone has got to me again. When does it stop?"
I never realised they put people in Broadmoor to avoid them being molested....
In the same article...
"Janet Cope, 71, who was Savile's personal assistant for 30 years, said she visited Broadmoor with him, adding: "I knew he had the keys but didn't think anything of it."
She said of the continued claims: "I don't believe it, but I wasn't with him 24/7.""
I realise she's is probably his most loyal fan, butif he was a bad in as public a way as he's been made out, I'd have thought she of all people might have known.
And finally, "The University of Bedfordshire said an honorary award it gave Savile in 2009 in recognition for his fundraising would be rescinded". Let's hope no-one rescinds the funds he raised eh?
PS The article links to a Sun article which says "Lawyers revealed victims had contacted them about compensation claims potentially worth tens of thousands of Pounds each.
Solicitor Liz Dux said the BBC had a duty of care to anyone who came into contact with Savile, who died a year ago aged 84.
She said of compensation claimants: “They want some form of recognition as to what has happened to them in the past.
Ho-hum.
|
Compensation claims against the BBC means that the taxpayer will paying.....
Compensation claims against the NHS means that the taxpayer will be paying....
Compensation claims against the police means that the taxpayer will be paying
FFS
|
|
I have never understood how monetary compensation can cure hurt feelings, or non-financial "bad things".
|
>> I have never understood how monetary compensation can cure hurt feelings, or non-financial "bad things".
How else do you deal with such things except by trying to put a cash value on them? If you're hurt in a not your fault car collision you'd expect compensation for lost earnings and costs of hospital visits etc.
Is the pain and suffering from your broken legs a non financial 'bad thing'?
|
Ref: HIGNFY
I sought it out.
Quite remarkable how they handled it. Very good job. And I for one will avoid the Mail Online like the plague (although I'm not sure I've ever read it).
However, did you notice how strong Clare Balding's response was? There's a story behind that, I feel.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 13 Oct 12 at 22:31
|
|
Yes - there's probably a back story. Good programme though !
|
Jimmy Savile. Vol 3. - madf
