loaf Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Good to hear. Now all you have to do is catch up with the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think Esther Rantzen's reaction in the documentary is quite telling - "the jury is no longer out", she looked ashamed, as if she'd always known, as maybe many others did too. Whilst the original Ali G isn't here to defend himself it looks as though there'll be more than enough witness and victim testimony to prove what he was. The Jersey home is also another point of interest. An investigative journalist has been banned from Jersey and the UK after trying to lift the lid on what went on - Saville was also linkied to the original investigation there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Esther Rantzen's refusal to act on hollie greg abuse and emails suporting this puts her in the gatekeepers position childline prob set up to protect the elites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuter ede Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 What is interesting about the JS story is that the Jersey home keeps coming up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 more than enough witness and victim testimony to prove what he was. I think they'll need more than that. Theres a thing called evidence which is useful in this kind of situation. Witness and victim testimony can be falsefied, or incorrect. Until some concrete eveidence if found/produced, I am sceptical of the sudden out pouring of witness and victims. And since I have heard that Max Clifford is getting involved....well its not like he has been involved in tarring peoples name before has he....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 If people knew about what was going on then surely they should have at least warned Jimmy Saville that they did at the time. It would have possibly curbed his activities at least? I agree with MDO, too many sudden appearances of witnesses and victims who "couldn't come forward while he was alive"! Come on now, these are serious allegations, if he was guilty of them what was the problem with going to the police at the time? He was hardly going to cause problems for anyone when under investigation. If people wouldn't believe the allegations then, why would they believe them now? Is it because he isn't here to answer or defend himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 I've always been suspicious of all those people acting tirelessly for some cause or other. The way we're going I reckon Santa Claus will be exposed before Xmas . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 theres one fourum thats been telling the js story for the past 5 years plus police knowing of his nature going back 40 years then theres operation ore and the tony blair d notices the establishment close ranks to protect those in the club whilst gg fs js are cannon fodder . recent example hillsborough bloody sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I suspect Max and MDO wouldn't accept any evidence. At the start it was, "it's just a few people's word" now they're suspicious that there's lots of people coming forward to confirm the original claims. Max Power asks why they couldn't come forward earlier, well some did but were disbelieved, others were frightened that a lone voice would be disbelieved. If you're in an isolated position how do you stand alone against a powerful man? So when as has happened lately you see people relating similar experiences to you and being believed it gives you courage to relate yours. It's just a shame that some people's default response to abuse is to be skeptical, precisely the feared reaction that kept them quiet so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I suspect Max and MDO wouldn't accept any evidence. Photographs, video recordings, voice recordings, written confessions by the "accussed". This is evidence. People coming out of the wood work isn't evidence. If sufficently motivated (greed and getting their 15 minutes of fame are common motivators) people will say anything about anyone. As someone in the public eye (well not extactly seeing as he is dead) JS makes a very easy target, add to that his charity work and "Jim'll Fix It" and he becomes all the more juicey as a target as he has farther to fall. I have said before, if some actual evidence is presented, then yes treat him as the monster he is being painted to be. Until then, innocent until..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 something said by someone is just as much evidence as photo's etc. Its just it may be easier to discredit or that different weight is given to it by the jury. Many of the historic abuse cases have been proved on the verbal evidence of witnesses, corroborated by the similar fact evidence of another victim with no artefacts, recordings or pictures. Anyway there won't be a trial. one thing for ceratin, you can try and convict a corpse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think Esther Rantzen's reaction in the documentary is quite telling - "the jury is no longer out", she looked ashamed, as if she'd always known, as maybe many others did too. Whilst the original Ali G isn't here to defend himself it looks as though there'll be more than enough witness and victim testimony to prove what he was. The Jersey home is also another point of interest. An investigative journalist has been banned from Jersey and the UK after trying to lift the lid on what went on - Saville was also linkied to the original investigation there. That's just it though - the jury is no longer out because there is no jury. If these allegations are to be believed this man has been molesting children for almost 40 years and yet not once has it even got to court. Now he's dead it appears that most people have found him guilty without even the chance to defend himself. It seems a strange kind of justice to me. It's not often I agree with MDO but I think he's pretty spot on with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuter ede Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 There appears to be a local link. According to press reports she came from Peel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think Esther Rantzen's reaction in the documentary is quite telling - Oh not her. Cannot abide that woman and her bleeding heart mock sincere voice. Never forgave her for ruining Braden's Week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 If sufficently motivated (greed and getting their 15 minutes of fame are common motivators) people will say anything about anyone. People would want the "fame" of having been sexually molested??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.