Savile again

[killerheels]

IThe 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.

Well .. when you put it like that ... I guess,
The sum total of my argument seems to be, why was an alleged pervert allowed to get away with his crimes for all his life?
Answer: Because neither victim or one single witness came forward when he was alive. It's too late for justice now. You can't try the guy though the mud has stuck and his reputation is destroyed anyway.

Not one man or woman who saw abuse taking place before their very eyes felt incensed enough to tackle him. Not one? They all shuddered with revulsion and looked the other way.
For instance, No nurse on that hospital ward though ... Aha! I'll take my kodak instamatic to work next week and catch him in the act? Instead it's claimed the patients were told .. Pretend to be asleep, he's here.'
JS was one man. Not GOD. At the risk of sounding flippant, which I don't mean to be, he was in the wrong job. He should have been the head of MI5 .. caretaker of national security secrets.
You see ... I just sit here thinking this. Had one single adult made a fuss, just one, they might just have saved one or two or three or four more decades of allegedly abused children. Now that sticks in my craw.

To be honest there is just too much that stinks to high hell in all this.
And not just JS. But because he's gone and the villification seems to be focused solely on him I doubt we'll ever know the truth or the true scale of any others involved or how high it might have gone.

 

[alumni]

Myopic?? coming from you......kettle and teapot son, kettle and teapot.

you really should try looking back at your posts and reflect on the mindset you've adopted from the start.

You're narked because I won't go along with the 'guilty filthy pervert' route you've adopted. But then I've not said he's innocent have I?
What I have advocated is the due process of official investigation to get to the truth.

What's puzzling is you're refusal to accept anything that does not fit with your mindset.

Let's try asking you again.
Have you ever been arrested for a false accusation?
Has a daughter of yours ever been the victim of a serious sexual assault?

I've already stated my position on those so please don't adopt the moral high ground and say I'm the myopic one.

 

[Big Tone]

Soz to butt in when you've asked a straighforward question alumni..

Sooey! I think the mistake you are making is in the word allegation and confusing it with fact. We don’t have facts! We have allegations and, to-date, that’s still all we have LET’S NOT FORGET. Sorry, but that is what we have no matter how painful for you or how much it may hurt/offend anyone who has personal experience of him or suffered under these allegations of ‘truth’. You’re jumping, have jumped, the gun. Why do you put yourself ahead of the outcome of the investigation? You have acted like judge, jury and executioner almost from the start. That’s what distanced me from you, not that it matters.

When I say “I think he’s as guilty as hell” I am clear about it being my opinion, not as fact, whereas you have maintained it as fact when what you are constantly putting forward are accounts from people talking about their alleged personal account of his guilt or crime as a fact. Can’t you see the difference?

Oh killerheels, nice to have you here BTW. I feel another kindred impartial spirit is posting, like Alumni and others...

If c*nts could fly I think Savile was a squadron leader. But that’s my opinion; not a fact of who or what he may or may not really have been or done.

 

[calorific]

So when exactly would it be "safe" to call JS "guilty"? What process needs to have been concluded?

 

[ajstoneservices]

A rhetorical question.

 

[calorific]

A rhetorical question.

Not really. If the prevailing theory is now that one shouldn't refer to Saville as guilty until something has proclaimed him as guilty, then what is this something?

 

[killerheels]

Substitute the word allegedly ... that might help.
But your earlier post asked when it was 'safe' to call him guilty. And the answer to that one is it's safe now as he's dead and can't do anything about it. Which is the exact conclusion the press came to.

We need another dead suspect to compare to.
How about Lewis Carroll? Has he ever been judged guilty or is the jury still out?

 

[calorific]

Substitute the word allegedly ... that might help.

Where precisely in my previous two posts?

Anyway, how about Hitler? Did he really order the death of a large number of jews? I don't remember anyone asking him in a court of law or even under police questioning. Maybe we should use the word "allegedly" when citing cases against him.

 

[Big Tone]

Careful

 

[killerheels]

Hitler?
Yes he was dead (allegedly) at the time of the Nuremberg Trials. That's true. But I rather think once a country has declared war and built concentration camps ... it comes as no surprise to discover it was the Fuhrer who instigated and ordered these policies as opposed to say .. his gardener, or an ambitious General who repeatedly kept slipping orders past him. I think Hitler might have noticed gas chambers springing up here and there.... not to mention other incrimminating evidence lying across Europe... the odd battlefield.

Anyway didn't he make it pretty clear what he'd do with Jews in "Mein Kampf".

Do you know ... I think I must be mad. You've just compared Jimmy Savile to Hitler and war crimes and I answered it!
I need to get a life.

 

[killerheels]

Careful

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress

 

[calorific]

Careful

As you are well aware, the point I'm making is that if one is using the fact that Saville is dead to cast doubt over those who make allegations against him, then you can do exactly the same with any person who is not alive to respond.

To those apologists for him on here, inasmuch as you feel that some due "process" has not taken place, I ask again - what process would satisfy you of his guilt? Second, based on what you have heard, hand on heart, do any of you believe that he is innocent or have reasonable doubt as to his guilt?

 

[calorific]

Do you know ... I think I must be mad. You've just compared Jimmy Savile to Hitler and war crimes and I answered it!
I need to get a life.

You also need to think logically and avoid avoidance I haven't likened Saville to Hitler other than to say that they are both dead and unable to give you definitive responses that you seem to require as a pre-requisite of your verdict. It may well come as no surprise to us all that the allegations made against the fuhrer are true; the point is that it's coming as no surprise to a lot of people that these allegations against Saville are also true.

So, please try to answer the questions instead of sidestepping them. The case I cite was not an example of Godwin but an example of a notorious case within recent history. A lot was written about him, but you haven't heard it from the "horse's mouth", and you never will. So the analogy holds.

 

[killerheels]

Do you know something calorific the more you write the more I'm becoming certain I know you from elsewhere.

You could say we've run into each other before. Like a head on car crash so forgive me if I don't answer you ... yes, I'm ducking out but I'm happy to cede the discussion.

 

[calorific]

Do you know something calorific the more you write the more I'm becoming certain I know you from elsewhere.

It's of little relevance to whether Saville abused those children or not

You could say we've run into each other before. Like a head on car crash so forgive me if I don't answer you ... yes, I'm ducking out but I'm happy to cede the discussion.

Pity. I really would like to hear your replies about what due process would satisfy you, as well as whether you personally have any doubt at this moment in time as to his "alleged" (put in to appease you )guilt.