Jimmy Saville

Status
Not open for further replies.
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. :rolleyes:
No, it's obvious i have made no statement on his past behaviour - i have no knowledge of it.
However, based on your own comments, you have already decided - without any evidence or facts to show one way or the other.

Odd that you pillory others for showing the same tendencies.

Based on your comments and views, i'd say you really are a Sun reader afterall, just too scared to come forward and say it.
 
Sponsored Links
However, based on your own comments, you have already decided - without any evidence or facts to show one way or the other.
So you don't class numerous alleged victims testimonies as evidence? Interesting thought. :rolleyes:

Based on your comments and views, i'd say you really are a Sun reader afterall, just too scared to come forward and say it.
And you accuse me of making assumptions. :LOL: :LOL:

Big Tone has made a valid point regarding his doubt, you are just making yourself look dense.
 
However, based on your own comments, you have already decided - without any evidence or facts to show one way or the other.
So you don't class numerous alleged victims testimonies as evidence? Interesting thought. :rolleyes:

Based on your comments and views, i'd say you really are a Sun reader afterall, just too scared to come forward and say it.
And you accuse me of making assumptions. :LOL: :LOL:

Big Tone has made a valid point regarding his doubt, you are just making yourself look dense.
Struggling with clarity i see.
"Based on your comments and views, i'd say....."

This is significantly different to the definitive stance you take.

As for statements given to press/tv/journalists being evidence. What can one say? May as well close down the Legal system.
 
Struggling with clarity i see.
"Based on your comments and views, i'd say....."

This is significantly different to the definitive stance you take.
Justify your wild assumption however you may it's still a wild assumption. :rolleyes:
As for statements given to press/tv/journalists being evidence. What can one say? May as well close down the Legal system.
I think you'll find that at least one up to now of the alleged victims has made a statement to the police.
But whether they make their statements to the police or to a tv journalist who you may or may not like doesn't really matter now that he's dead and can't be prosecuted.
They still deserve to be heard,and as I've said, I believe them. I think many others do as well. What you wish to believe is up to you.
 
Sponsored Links
IF I'd have been "just assuming" I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place. :rolleyes:
That's exactly what you've done throughout this topic...and the one about the father/kids in the other thread.

You've convinced yourself - without a shred of verifiable evidence - that your assumptions are fact.

A bit like 99% of people assumed Saddam had nuclear weapon factory .
Look what happened to him
 
A bit like 99% of people assumed Saddam had nuclear weapon factory .
Look what happened to him
Yes, I think the time to get really bent out of shape is after it’s proven, if it ever is.

Remember the case of Jefferies and how he was persecuted just because he came across as strange, taciturn and ‘looked the type’.

There’s an expression about making assumptions. (ass/u/me) Done it myself more than once in my lifetime :oops:
 
That's a really well balanced honest Post BT.
We all like to think we are a good judge of charactor. But- as we get older some of us really we are not. Me especially.
My best pal (nowdays) seemed dodgy to me when I met him.
i got it totally wrong .

At one point- I thought sooey was a pleasant sort of guy .
Just goes to show how wrong people can be .
 
If you want to be my official troll son put your address up and I'll send you the form. :LOL:
Though judging by that last effort I wouldn't hold out much hope, there's a few ahead of you in the queue.
Never mind though you were at the back of the queue when they dished the brains out too weren't you. Shame they only had a chimpanzee's left when it was your turn. :LOL:
 
Anyway as I was saying !!.
Everyone is innocent- until 'proven' guilty .

Best to stick to the PROVEN facts.

Remember- 'talk and accusations' are cheap.

Careless talk- costs lives-- and reputations .
 
If you want to be my official troll son put your address up and I'll send you the form. :LOL:
Though judging by that last effort I wouldn't hold out much hope, there's a few ahead of you in the queue.
Never mind though you were at the back of the queue when they dished the brains out too weren't you. Shame they only had a chimpanzee's left when it was your turn. :LOL:

You must have lots of paper for your forms and lots of ink in your printer sooey.
Chill out a bit buddy. It's not as if anyone takes you seriously .
 
I know he has not been proved guilty but I think he done it...on sky news police forces have been advised to prepare to more alleged victims... this is not just one or two women but there was at least five and possible more...you guys think what you want but there is plenty of smoke there and I am pretty sure he done it
 
A police statement said: "In March 2008 a 59-year old woman reported to Sussex Police that she had been indecently assaulted by a man at a location in Worthing on a date sometime between May 1970 and September 1970.

"Initial inquiries were made but the woman made it clear at the outset that she was unwilling to co-operate in any investigation or to support any prosecution, and it was therefore not possible to pursue the matter.

"We take all such reports seriously, however long ago the period they relate to, but in this case it was not possible to progress any investigation."

So, on the basis of such definitive evidence people are banged to rights guilty eh?
 
somewhere between May and sept 1970 / ? 42 years ago .

How many people can remember what they did between those dates ?.

5 people have surfaced with complaints ?.

For a old guy who is/was known to millions that is a miniscule miniscule number.
But- I am sure - the wharped minded people who have nothing better to do will be crawling out of the woodwork after tonights comedy show very soon indeed.
Everyone likes to be famous for 15 minutes in their life . :cry:
 
thought i was hearing things but on the news tonight im sure i heard the name of another has bean 'celeb' mentioned.
and the name was posted up on this thread earlier. :eek:
 
Never mind though you were at the back of the queue when they dished the brains out too weren't you.

More insults?

I think you've made a case for yourself being the one at the back of the queue for brains.

Instead of reasoned, balanced argument, those of little intelligence just hurl insults at those they disagree with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top