You don't come across as not giving a sh*t. And by slimeballs do you mean all of the women who this scumbag abused? 
Jimmy Saville
- Thread starter sooey
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
I think you'll find I have made no comment on whether I think Saville did or did not do what some now accuse him of. Unlike you of course. You don't need evidence, just the sniff of rumour or gossip is enough for you. Odd then that only recently you were castigating others for doing the same.You don't come across as not giving a sh*t. And by slimeballs do you mean all of the women who this scumbag abused?
I didn't say you had. It's a bit more than rumour or gossip now.
And by slimeballs do you mean the women that this pervert abused?
It's a bit more than rumour or gossip now.And by slimeballs do you mean the women that this pervert abused?
I think your position could be summarised as "We shouldn't ask the question"
Sponsored Links
What I wrote
"Not that chasing 14 year old skirts is a good thing, but it's not really paedophilia."
Yes you have it wrong, try reading.
Put your glasses on and read the bolded part.
Really?
You admit to stealing glances at <16 schoolgirls.
Are you saying you do the same to 10 year olds, 5 year olds.
You filthy little pervert!
Well this is where you and I differ pal, as we all know 14 year old girls these days can look a lot older than their age. That doesn't mean that they aren't still kids who need protecting from dirty sad perverts like Savile and judging by your attitude, you.
I'll bet any money you like that that was the justification he'd use to himself. "It's not really paedophilia". Yes, it was.
Instead of sticking to your tried and failing method of just assuming. You'll see, if you look, i've referred to those people now crawling out of the woodwork claiming they knew all along.I didn't say you had.
And by slimeballs do you mean the women that this pervert abused?
But eh, never let detail and actual fact get in the way.
Fair enough, you've clarified who you meant by slimeballs. I was asking you the question because it wasn't clear, now it is and I'd agree with you about them.
IF I'd have been "just assuming" I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
IF I'd have been "just assuming" I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
sooey";p="2529640 said:
That's exactly what you've done throughout this topic...and the one about the father/kids in the other thread.IF I'd have been "just assuming" I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
You've convinced yourself - without a shred of verifiable evidence - that your assumptions are fact.
You can put whatever name you like on it but a kid is still a kid. From the stories that are coming out he was going into childrens homes looking for them ffs. As well as using his fame to abuse star struck young girls.
You are just arguing degrees of c*ntishness, saying that someone who abuses a young child is worse than someone who abuses an older child.
Maybe they are, so what? that is completely irrelevant to the fact that this guy was a child abuser and should be seen as one.
You are just arguing degrees of c*ntishness, saying that someone who abuses a young child is worse than someone who abuses an older child.
Maybe they are, so what? that is completely irrelevant to the fact that this guy was a child abuser and should be seen as one.
That's exactly what you've done throughout this topic...and the one about the father/kids in the other thread.IF I'd have been "just assuming" I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
You've convinced yourself - without a shred of verifiable evidence - that your assumptions are fact.
IF I'd have been "just assuming" I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
IF I'd have been "just assuming" I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
So you have hard, factual and verifiable evidence to support your claims and that you are not simply assuming??
It's obvious that you for some reason will never accept that he was an abuser, no matter how many people come forward to say that he was.
You're hiding behind the fact that he'll never be able to be brought to trial and have a jury convict him.
It's not me that's claiming he was an abuser, it's various women from different backgrounds. I believe them.
You can stay in lala land if you like.
B
Big Tone
I just think it’s a terrible shame that they, whoever ‘they’ are, didn’t come out sooner. If justice delayed is justice denied then it doesn’t get much worse than some sort of posthumous prosecution.
If these allegations are true then I could see how the victims could at last feel a sense of justice and closure before he died, but how that’s going to be achieved now I don’t know.
As I say, it’s nonetheless important to find out for the sake of historical records whether he was a saint or sinner; in the same way I’d want to know if Mother Teresa secretly ran a brothel.
If he’s squeaky clean then what do any of his family or friends have to fear? (Rhetorical). My one doubt about these allegations is this... If my daughter had come to me and said “daddy that man just felt my private parts” there’s no way on gods green earth I would let that go without a full investigation! No amount of threats or hush money would stop or placate me, as with any decent parent.
So why haven’t droves of parents kicked up a big stink after so many alleged allegations over so very many years? You would think some of it would stick; no-one is that Teflon coated, are they? (Michael Jackson, Clinton, Gary Glitter, Profumo....)
- Status
Sponsored Links
