It's all about context. As far as the allegations against Savile go, that's all they will ever be...allegations. BECAUSE THEY CAN NEVER BE PROVED IN A COURT OF LAW.
Context son, context.
Savile again
- Thread starter sooey
- Start date
It's all about context. As far as the allegations against Savile go, that's all they will ever be...allegations. BECAUSE THEY CAN NEVER BE PROVED IN A COURT OF LAW.
Context son, context.
Sponsored Links
So when did guilt be accepted without any investigation/inquiry to an allegation?
When the Sun reading scouser says so?
With these allegations, some people still around may be dragged into all this. they maybe innocent, maybe not but I'd wager anyone wrongly linked to all this will expect nothing less than a thorough and fair investigation and not just a presumption of guilt because red top readers like you say they're guilty.
Any views on the issues with the 'suspect' letter one of the witnesses produced?
And, whilst we're at it, what about her comments regarding what she knew about the other victims'?
Perhaps you'll discount that too.
When the Sun reading scouser says so?
With these allegations, some people still around may be dragged into all this. they maybe innocent, maybe not but I'd wager anyone wrongly linked to all this will expect nothing less than a thorough and fair investigation and not just a presumption of guilt because red top readers like you say they're guilty.
Any views on the issues with the 'suspect' letter one of the witnesses produced?
And, whilst we're at it, what about her comments regarding what she knew about the other victims'?
Perhaps you'll discount that too.
B
Big Tone
Well yes dad and, de-facto, there will always be that element of doubt. Because of the way he is now viewed, if another 100 girls came out tomorrow and said he ‘did’ them they would all be believed even if they’d never met him, such is the media’s insatiable thirst for dirt.It's all about context. As far as the allegations against Savile go, that's all they will ever be...allegations. BECAUSE THEY CAN NEVER BE PROVED IN A COURT OF LAW.
Context son, context.
To be honest I’m still incredulous that this case and all involved can be stymied for so very long and that he was so universally feared and/or revered that nothing ever stuck. I could understand it better it if this was the ignorant, corrupt, sexist and dictatorial 18th century.
I am not saying I don’t buy it! But in an age where people can get away with throwing eggs or ink at politicians without recourse you’ve gotta admit it’s strange that Savile was more Teflon-coated than even our own rich, powerful and hated politicians.
I’m old enough to remember the time when Jeremy Thorpe was politically hung but, meanwhile, Savile was getting away with all manner of things with complete impunity decade after decade, child after child, because people feared this powerful man like he was a Roman emperor or something.
If it really was that simple many heads should roll, heads which are alive and well today...
You are the one who exhibits all of the qualities of a "red top reader" as you disparagingly call them.
Reading things into what people say that aren't there for example. When did I say that anyone else was guilty,? When did I say that anyone else who may be found to have been involved should not get a thorough and fair investigation?
My view would be that if anyone tries to use that to somehow protest Savile's innocence in the face of all of the other evidence, they would be clutching at straws.
Alumni, your posts on this and other threads remind me of nothing so much as a piece of medium steak....Neither rare nor well done.
Sponsored Links
Of course, but will they.? That's what it's all about now. If nothing else this Savile thing illustrates how easy a twisted pervert found it to escape exposure once he'd got to be famous and influential. That doesn't say much for any of us in this so called civilised society.
This is where you and I disagree. There are so many independent and credible victims who have come forward as to leave no shred of doubt as to his nature and actions.
Of course there are bound to be some people trying it on, but anyone who makes a serious allegation will be quizzed as to where and when.
If a woman says I was 14 and went to see his summer roadshow in leicester with my mate for example, or his theatre appearance in bolton it would be easy enough to check. That at least would provide some corroboration that their story may be credible.
Big Tone, here's a story I believe 100%
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-molested-teen-moments-1378390
It's a red top story (shock, horror) but look at the woman telling it.
She's not doing it for money, she just wants to be a voice for her "lovely mum" as she called her.
That's only one example from many similar stories about this pervert, how can anyone seriously doubt? As I've said before, I don't actually think you do. That alumni worries me though, it's hard to believe anyone can be so stupid in this day and age.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-molested-teen-moments-1378390
It's a red top story (shock, horror) but look at the woman telling it.
She's not doing it for money, she just wants to be a voice for her "lovely mum" as she called her.
That's only one example from many similar stories about this pervert, how can anyone seriously doubt? As I've said before, I don't actually think you do. That alumni worries me though, it's hard to believe anyone can be so stupid in this day and age.
B
Big Tone
Well yes, that’s truly awful and I believe he’s guilty too sooey. I’m just not sure exactly of what or to what extent. But the way I see it now is if one goes to the 'nth degree and views it as if only a fraction of 1% is true, it’s damning enough!!!
It seems he didn’t actually rip their clothes off and start having intercourse, because he just couldn’t in those places and circumstances. But I’m sure, (I hope), that the witnesses who saw something but did nothing would have done something if he’d got his pants around his ankles on top of a half clad girl. Trouble is, I’m not even sure about that now, given the blind-eye accounts. Without looking it up, the definition of rape isn’t about ‘going all the way’ anyway, quite rightly, so I’m still angry at their lack of intervention.
I’m not sure what his talent was either TBH. I mean I still like some of Gary Glitter’s songs despite hating the man. Just because someone did something despicable doesn’t necessarily mean they had no talent or gift, but I think it’s known as politically incorrect to admit that these days. My friend who owns an old disco vinyl box took all the Glitter records out over that.
It’s hard to get in the mindset of these people. If they have the power, money and charisma, like Rod Stewart say, then why not be an old guy with a young woman in a legal and consensual relationship? If it’s that ‘too young look’ they’re after there are plenty women, not girls, of consensual age who look underage they could have 'got their rocks off' with.
It would all have been above board with no risk to reputation and he could have gone down as a philanthropist, but then I’m talking from a rational viewpoint. I guess it’s the same as trying to get into the mindset of a serial murderer or suicidal bomber; maybe I should be glad not to understand them...
It seems he didn’t actually rip their clothes off and start having intercourse, because he just couldn’t in those places and circumstances. But I’m sure, (I hope), that the witnesses who saw something but did nothing would have done something if he’d got his pants around his ankles on top of a half clad girl. Trouble is, I’m not even sure about that now, given the blind-eye accounts. Without looking it up, the definition of rape isn’t about ‘going all the way’ anyway, quite rightly, so I’m still angry at their lack of intervention.
I’m not sure what his talent was either TBH. I mean I still like some of Gary Glitter’s songs despite hating the man. Just because someone did something despicable doesn’t necessarily mean they had no talent or gift, but I think it’s known as politically incorrect to admit that these days. My friend who owns an old disco vinyl box took all the Glitter records out over that.
It’s hard to get in the mindset of these people. If they have the power, money and charisma, like Rod Stewart say, then why not be an old guy with a young woman in a legal and consensual relationship? If it’s that ‘too young look’ they’re after there are plenty women, not girls, of consensual age who look underage they could have 'got their rocks off' with.
It would all have been above board with no risk to reputation and he could have gone down as a philanthropist, but then I’m talking from a rational viewpoint. I guess it’s the same as trying to get into the mindset of a serial murderer or suicidal bomber; maybe I should be glad not to understand them...
He had his own campervan type thing travelling the country with a driver.
One of them quit after a year, he's now senile but his wife was telling the stories he related to her. One of the things she said was that they were as guilty as anyone for not reporting what was going on, so it can't have been easy for her to say. But from what she was saying her husband had told her Savile had plenty of opportunity to do those things, so god knows what he was getting up to in the back of that trailer.
I've been reading this thread ... it's interesting and I wasn't going to say anything as I've been hammered elsewhere for a viewpoint that's out of step with the majority. You can hammer me here. It's a free country.
I ought to say at this point that Big Tone and Alumni talk a lot of sense.
The hysteria rife in the media is getting ridiculous.
Yesterday I even saw an article on the Mail Online about JS's older brother Johnny been dismissed from his job for allegedly assaulting a psychiatric patient. The story's been pulled today.
Is no one at all bothered about the precedent that's been set here?
Is any DEAD celebrity going to become fair game for media trial and media conviction without having had the right to defend himself?
I notice just about all the headlines have dropped the 'alleged' now.
Sooey, will all due respect, a few posts back you picked a bad article to conclusively prove anything. .... though I did click on the link with an open mind.
I'm sorry but not only is the accused dead.
Even the victim is dead and this is now on the word of her daughter.
And if this is the kind of alleged incident the press are digging up they won't help the credibility of any genuine victims out there. Not when we've already got one accused of faking evidence, and another who has a new book out today who also reported another care worker (dead) in 1999 of sexual abuse, which was not pursued due to lack of evidence.
But do you know what really baffles me.
Okay ... victims not reporting the incident has been discussed to death ... but why oh why do these alleged victims keep memorabilia of the guy if he's such a perverted creep who made their skin crawl?
If he'd assaulted me I certainly would NOT. Mind you I'd have knocked his teeth into the back of his head as well .. when I was 20 or 30 or 40 and not waited until now for justice.
I'll make it clear I'm not defending the guy. I just think the whole hysterical witchhunt has got way out of hand and I'm waiting for some concrete proof relating to this original 'sex ring' and the prosecution of some of the living ... that seems to have gone very quiet and as I'm of a naturally cynical frame of mind I'm already wondering whether they'll hang out JS to dry and somehow forget the rest.
Forget Dave Lee Travis and these other claims ... that's sexual harrassment in the workplace and not to be confused with the abuse of young girls.
I ought to say at this point that Big Tone and Alumni talk a lot of sense.
The hysteria rife in the media is getting ridiculous.
Yesterday I even saw an article on the Mail Online about JS's older brother Johnny been dismissed from his job for allegedly assaulting a psychiatric patient. The story's been pulled today.
Is no one at all bothered about the precedent that's been set here?
Is any DEAD celebrity going to become fair game for media trial and media conviction without having had the right to defend himself?
I notice just about all the headlines have dropped the 'alleged' now.
Sooey, will all due respect, a few posts back you picked a bad article to conclusively prove anything. .... though I did click on the link with an open mind.
I'm sorry but not only is the accused dead.
Even the victim is dead and this is now on the word of her daughter.
And if this is the kind of alleged incident the press are digging up they won't help the credibility of any genuine victims out there. Not when we've already got one accused of faking evidence, and another who has a new book out today who also reported another care worker (dead) in 1999 of sexual abuse, which was not pursued due to lack of evidence.
But do you know what really baffles me.
Okay ... victims not reporting the incident has been discussed to death ... but why oh why do these alleged victims keep memorabilia of the guy if he's such a perverted creep who made their skin crawl?
If he'd assaulted me I certainly would NOT. Mind you I'd have knocked his teeth into the back of his head as well .. when I was 20 or 30 or 40 and not waited until now for justice.
I'll make it clear I'm not defending the guy. I just think the whole hysterical witchhunt has got way out of hand and I'm waiting for some concrete proof relating to this original 'sex ring' and the prosecution of some of the living ... that seems to have gone very quiet and as I'm of a naturally cynical frame of mind I'm already wondering whether they'll hang out JS to dry and somehow forget the rest.
Forget Dave Lee Travis and these other claims ... that's sexual harrassment in the workplace and not to be confused with the abuse of young girls.
I wasn't trying to prove anything, I gave it as an example of a story that I find emminently believable. The fact that the woman is dead and the story was related by her daughter to metaphorically deliver her mum's kick in the b*ll*x of his memory is what makes it ring so true for me.
Funny how different people view the same article in a different light.
To me .. that one really landed with both feet into the category of hearsay.
Anyone can kick a dead man in the dangly bits ... especially if the newspaper reimburse her a few grand for doing so.
Not that I'm suggesting this was the motivation. This is where I came unstuck elsewhere by implying that an alleged victim had anything less than an honourable motive.
Speaking of which ... I understand todate there are 12 allegations the police would have forwarded to the CPS ... had JS been alive.
Now I feel highly uncomfortable about this. I am, I have to say ... a big believer in trial by jury to establish guilt and a conviction (albeit it the Law is sometimes proven to be an ass in this country). This clearly can't happen with JS, short of having a seance. After all this time there is no forensic evidence ... and heaven help the poor person with a poor memory for dates .. and there has been no cross-examination of the accused or the accusers.
How do we know that JS would not have been found innocent?
I'm wondering what the eventual end objective is in this.
There'll be no trials. Is it to bolster the credibility for compensation claims?
I wish they'd flippin move on from JS and stop crucifying him everyday and pursue some more productive avenues of investigation.
To me .. that one really landed with both feet into the category of hearsay.
Anyone can kick a dead man in the dangly bits ... especially if the newspaper reimburse her a few grand for doing so.
Not that I'm suggesting this was the motivation. This is where I came unstuck elsewhere by implying that an alleged victim had anything less than an honourable motive.
Speaking of which ... I understand todate there are 12 allegations the police would have forwarded to the CPS ... had JS been alive.
Now I feel highly uncomfortable about this. I am, I have to say ... a big believer in trial by jury to establish guilt and a conviction (albeit it the Law is sometimes proven to be an ass in this country). This clearly can't happen with JS, short of having a seance. After all this time there is no forensic evidence ... and heaven help the poor person with a poor memory for dates .. and there has been no cross-examination of the accused or the accusers.
How do we know that JS would not have been found innocent?
I'm wondering what the eventual end objective is in this.
There'll be no trials. Is it to bolster the credibility for compensation claims?
I wish they'd flippin move on from JS and stop crucifying him everyday and pursue some more productive avenues of investigation.
I think that that's what the police are trying to do. The papers are trying to sell papers.
The sum total of your agument seems to be saying that providing a pervert can somehow get away with his crimes for all of his life, then his reputation can't be impugned no matter what comes out after his death.
That sticks in my craw.
You are the one who exhibits all of the qualities of a "red top reader" as you disparagingly call them.
Reading things into what people say that aren't there for example. When did I say that anyone else was guilty,? When did I say that anyone else who may be found to have been involved should not get a thorough and fair investigation?
My view would be that if anyone tries to use that to somehow protest Savile's innocence in the face of all of the other evidence, they would be clutching at straws.
Alumni, your posts on this and other threads remind me of nothing so much as a piece of medium steak....Neither rare nor well done.
I couldn't give a stuff about what you think of anything I post. Why should I take on board the rantings of a myopic narrow minded person.
Myopic?? coming from you......kettle and teapot son, kettle and teapot.
Sponsored Links
