Savile again

[Big Tone]

This forum must have the only people in the UK who thinks Jimmy Savile is a decent chap. What plonkers

I 100% agree with that, hear that tone 100%

I’ll let you off with that one. I haven’t said he’s a decent chap or anything like! I’ve said I think he’s probably guilty as hell; I think is how I put it. Note “probably” because I want to see the outcome and/or extent of these allegations. That’s what I have said at the start and I’m sensible enough to realise my opinion doesn’t actually represent a fact on the matter or any possible outcome. Do you have a crystal ball or something?

The way people have jumped to conclusions and trial by media is disgusting and voyeuristic in a way that sickens me, but typical in today’s world sadly. Let’s turn a very serious matter into a circus by getting everyone on board to say guilty shall we? N.B. It is not that I think you’re wrong about him, it’s the way in which you and others reached a conclusion ages ago and before a thorough investigation. This forum must have the only people in the UK whom think all wot the media says and all witness accounts are gospel.

With respect, you didn’t just jump the gun you stole it and ran off up the track before the other athletes knew what was happening. You have a knack of when you want someone’s opinion you’ll give it to them. If someone disagrees with you or sees things differently they must be an idiot. Well if you don’t like someone’s style then at least listen to the substance...

Deep breath - They are still allegations, the news reports still refer to them as allegations and an impartial investigation hasn’t finished so some, many or all of them may remain allegations however unlikely that may be! Very unlikely IMHO, but I’m prepared for what might be called the worst case scenario. I’m not an idiot or misguided fool because I say this, and I’d hate to offend anyone who has been affected, but I think it’s a reasonable and completely impartial stance.

The opinions here are so polarised I feel the middle ground has been excavated and dumped in a landfill site far far away.

 

[ajstoneservices]

Deep breath - They are still allegations, the news reports still refer to them as allegations and an impartial investigation hasn’t finished so some, many or all of them may remain allegations however unlikely that may be! Very unlikely IMHO, but I’m prepared for what might be called the worst case scenario. I’m not an idiot or misguided fool because I say this, and I’d hate to offend anyone who has been affected, but I think it’s a reasonable and completely impartial stance.

I honestly can't see a problem with taking that stance. I wonder how many proclaiming the allegations as fact from the start would be happy if the media and authorities, their old (ex) friends, the man in the street treated them or their family, friends in the same way savile has been.

What difference will it make to any of us if after investigation his guilt is or isn't proved. Those that have made up at this stage are not likely to change it when all the facts are known.

When you have trial by media people at the top start running scared and want to be seen to be doing what's right in the mind of the mob. Time and again they get it wrong as a result. As a result we see that the Police have trouble policing youngsters, teachers have trouble teaching them and carers have trouble caring for them. Those at the top can't even get it right about dogs when the mob is howling.

We are now going to see an investigation headed by a retired judge and child protection specialist (whatever that is) into how the BBC treated children back in the 70's. Why? wtf for? because they want to be seen to doing the right thing..........................................now, today.

 

[chapeau]

Well he either did it or he didn't there is no middle ground and ridiculous at this stage to suggest there is.

 

[sooey]

Saville 'Did It'. Of that there is no doubt. What I don't get is why people still defend his reputation. Are they saying that there's nothing wrong with kiddie fondling?

I think it's more a case of people trying to appear "sophisticated" and less easily led, so much so that they don't look at the big picture. Which is simple Savile was a vile beast, and dangerous to everyone's kids.
Hence.....

The way people have jumped to conclusions and trial by media is disgusting and voyeuristic in a way that sickens me, but typical in today’s world sadly. Let’s turn a very serious matter into a circus by getting everyone on board to say guilty shall we? N.B. It is not that I think you’re wrong about him, it’s the way in which you and others reached a conclusion ages ago and before a thorough investigation. This forum must have the only people in the UK whom think all wot the media says and all witness accounts are gospel.

 

[Big Tone]

Saville 'Did It'. Of that there is no doubt. What I don't get is why people still defend his reputation. Are they saying that there's nothing wrong with kiddie fondling?

Finally we have it - Reductio ad absurdum

Savile kiddy fondled and if you don’t agree then you endorse kiddy fondling.

Savile kiddy fondled
We’re defending Savile?
We kiddy fondle

The classic Straw man argument. How utterly stupid!

 

[Big Tone]

Well he either did it or he didn't there is no middle ground and ridiculous at this stage to suggest there is.

The middle ground, as I see it and keep saying, is that no-one knows what happened or to what extent if 'it' did. It’s all very salacious and soap opera, just like the O.J. Simpson case which got on my last nerve!

What I don’t understand is what on earth do you or sooey have to gain by pre-judging this??? If it’s just so you can say “I told you so” well excuse me - I’m not saying he's not guilty and I don’t think anyone else here has Now that would be foolish.

 

[Nige F]

Stop lowering the Tone of the " debate"

 

[sooey]

It's very simple tone, I'm not going to say "if" savile was a perv or "if" savile did this or that when it's so obvous that he was and he did.
Even if I thought that by saying that I could appear all sophisticated and "grown up"
I'm in good company mind you, he has been named as a pervert by MPs, BBC spokespersons, Leading police officers among others.
As for prejudging, he's never going to face a judge so I don't think so.

 

[Big Tone]

Stop lowering the Tone of the " debate"

Well I hope not Nige. The last thread on this was terminated because some people started throwing their toys out the pram in a pi$$ing contest and e-slagging match instead of constructive criticism and civil debate. Ajstoneservices made a fair criticism of my posts and I saw how I came across as contradictory. I explained myself and, I hope, clarified it.

I’m just asking for clarification now. What is to be gained by pre-judging this case the way some have? Is the process, (oh no not that again), working too slowly for their appetite...

 

[Big Tone]

It's very simple tone, I'm not going to say "if" savile was a perv or "if" savile did this or that when it's so obvous that he was and he did.
Even if I thought that by saying that I could appear all sophisticated and "grown up"

You can call me pedantic but I not going to succumb to sophistry. The outcome isn’t ‘out’ yet so by my definition it’s still an ‘if’.

As for prejudging, he's never going to face a judge so I don't think so.

Now you have taken what I said out of context; confusing Judge, spelt with a capital, with your judging. I apologised when I did that to you so... (cough).

 

[sooey]

You can call me pedantic but I not going to succumb to sophistry

Now you have taken what I said out of context; confusing Judge, spelt with a capital, with your judging. I

You're pedantic

 

[Big Tone]

Typical, the last bastion of a flagging argument.

What’s next, a hissy fit which will terminate this thread too, like the last one you started in a kind of pro-active self abortion...

 

[sooey]

Now you have taken what I said out of context; confusing Judge, spelt with a capital, with your judging.

You accuse me of prejudging a man who can never be prosecuted and therefore can never be judged. Except by posterity.
Then you accuse me of taking your remarks out of context when I point out your obvious mistake.

I apologised when I did that to you so... (cough)

Let's have this straight too shall we...what you did to me was base a post making a supposedly derogatory point about my opinions on your total misunderstanding/misreading of what I had actually written and about whom I had actually written it. I should think you apologised, but that was nothing to do with "taking something out of context". More like "trying to make a point based on a lie", albeit an accidental one I'm sure.

 

[sooey]

Typical, the last bastion of a flagging argument.

What’s next, a hissy fit which will terminate this thread too, like the last one you started in a kind of pro-active self abortion...

Now you're beginning to sound like alumni.

 

[Big Tone]

You accuse me of prejudging a man who can never be prosecuted and therefore can never be judged. Except by posterity.

No I haven’t. Do keep up. You have prejudged the nature of the crimes and the outcome before others; others whom will be infinitely more informed than you or me. That’s arrogant! Are you running the investigation too now?

Then you accuse me of taking your remarks out of context when I point out your obvious mistake.

You knew full well what I meant by prejudgment, your prejudgement, not how I expect a dead man to stand before a Judge. (Duh). Call it out of context or deliberately being obtuse, I don’t mind, but anyone else would have understood that.

Let's have this straight too shall we...what you did to me was base a post making a supposedly derogatory point about my opinions on your total misunderstanding/misreading of what I had actually written and about whom I had actually written it. I should think you apologised, but that was nothing to do with "taking something out of context". More like "trying to make a point based on a lie", albeit an accidental one I'm sure.

It was accidental, trying to speed read through it all and work at the same time. It was just the third of three points I made which was wrong in my haste, a mistake I apologised for.

Is it your intention to dwell on that forever, because if it is I can tell you I don’t intend to keep a log of every faux pas you make or use attack as the best form of defence. You know why? I am more interested in the case; not in going to war with you every day and arguing about an argument ffs.