credente Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 There were picture of three of his victims - as they were at the time and the way they look today. Sort of: Now- then, now-then, now-then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Tony Blackburn will be next on the ................................... We lost the swear filter, and although I didn't agree with 'need' for its removal, within limits, I accept the decision. But this filthy excuse for a post is way too far from decency for me. I really hope that it's removed. I truly wouldn't want to be part of any forum where this is deemed acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Tony Blackburn will be next on the ................................... Agree with Addie. Admittedly, I did laugh when I read it; but that says more about me. Ban him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I hear some dyslexic parents have gone and filled in jimmy somerville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I hear some dyslexic parents have gone and filled in jimmy somerville. He'd enjoy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 More BBC scandal Rod Hull accused of fisting a helpless bird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I read in Suzanne Moores Guardian column today that Savile was known in the business as 'Jim'll Fuck It". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentience Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Well it's pity that he's not here to see his reputation torn apart, but you seem to suggest that the victims of this vile man should keep quiet to protect his posthumous reputation. That can't be right can it? Imagine if we took the same approach to a dead priest or teacher? The system that allowed them impunity would get away with it. In fact, isn't a lot of history dead men behaving badly. Better stop teaching in case we malign their reputations. My point was quite simple, it is easy for anyone to say anything about someone if they are now dead and have no chance to refute the allegation amongst their peers. He is now an allegedly vile man, who literally cannot stand up to defend himself. The time to ascertain guilt and innocence was when he was alive. You seem, by the tone of your response, to suggest he was guilty. Which sort of actually underlines my point, you probably have never met the man, yet when someone pops out of the woodwork years later (whether with true or false allegations about anyone) the lynch mob approach too often wins over and opinions are won over, but of course justice loses out, as it possibly missed catching and punishing him if these allegations had been found to be true. Of course if he was guilty, Jebus will by now have sent him somewhere where things are hot - and I don't mean Stringfellows. Superb post....the guy is dead....he's guilty.....you can say whatever you want, and assume whatever you like...oh he's definately guilty....because the 'rags' give you the evidence...seriously???!! Come on, surely there must be at least one or two posters out there who can see beyond this 'marketing and selling of (poor old trees) news(sic) papers' Look also at the rather tenuous links to those other high profilers, in both entertainment and politics...easy pickins to sell newsprint when they are no longer with us, and you know what.... always has it been thus.....shamefull...don't be so easily led, THINK AS AN INDIVIDUAL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 So all those women saying what happened to them are lying? Isn't that what the establishment and the powerful always say in cases like that? The testimony is that he abused these girls in the BBC, in schools, in Kids Homes, but lets ignore that, and that it seemed to be an open secret and all the people complicit in it because dear old Jimmy's dead and you're a free thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 It is difficult for us to comprehend now but in those days of the 60's and 70's people did turn a blind eye to these things. I can remember a guy who used to fiddle with boys around 13 when I was at school, not a teacher. Many people knew about him and i remember my parents telling me to keep clear of him. Even laughing when i told them that i thought he was after a friend of mine! The lads father worked with this man and was aware of his attraction to his son but people didn't seem to worry like they do now? He wasn't the only bloke with a reputation and we used to dare each other to knock on doors and run in the sure knowledge that you wouldn't be able to sit down if you got caught! I'm not saying that it wasn't wrong but obviously things such as this were taken in a different context then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 We had a teacher who always used to swim naked (it was an all boys school) and would encourage us to do the same. Anytime anyone forgot their kit there'd be no question of a loan set! We all thought it was a bit weird at the time but that was all. If I heard now that a teacher was encouraging my son to join him skinny dipping I'd probably have a slightly stronger reaction. MP is right when he says attitudes have changed - doesn't make what Jimmy Savile allegedly did right, but that's the way it was over 30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 So all those women saying what happened to them are lying? Isn't that what the establishment and the powerful always say in cases like that? And no-one has ever lied to get their 15 minutes of fame when accusations against famous people start flying. Again, I refer to the John Lesley case, one false accusaion breeds many more. Don't get me wrong if JS is guilty, then lets scrub him from the history books, but I'd prefer to see a bit more actual evidence before deciding. Stories from red-top news papers dont normally count in this situation. Its not like the Sun hold a grudge or anything is it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 But MDW it's not the tabloids that broke this story, it was the Oldie Magazine, then Newsnight (till it was spiked), and finally an ITV documentary. Subsequently, revelations have come from ITN, Channel 4 News, and the broadsheets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 There's no smoke without fire but it's been proven that people can have false memories of certain situations and believe them implicitly. Celebrities are easy fall guys for this type of thing and forty year old allegations which have never been documented can hardly be totally reliable. Who is there to defend Jimmy Saville against these charges? He certainly can't speak up for himself so people are now given free rein to air all of their allegations, true or false. I think that bearing in mind attitudes at the time and the time which has elapsed, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Who was there to defend children when they were abused by a powerful, famous man? Is it not possible that these allegations have come out now because he's not here to use his influence to get it spiked. We can't have a world where you can behave as viley as you like, provided you can hush it up until you die. Because afterwards the beloved pervert's reputation is intouchable. You ask that we give him the benefit of the doubt. But you've not supplied any doubt other than some half baked notion that the girls and BBC staff are all lying. To make that allegation a little more palatable you allude to false memory syndrome but that relates to planted memories. People don't tend to spontaneously falsely remember being abused by a famous TV Presenter, and those memories aren't then supported by many other people's simillar false memories and the memories of non-abused witnesses. The other doubt you raise is that these were different times. Not so different that the acts described were legal or acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.