Savile again

[sooey]

Here's what the BBC are saying about Savile there's no ifs buts or allegedly's here

Interviewed on a BBC program Saturday, BBC Director of Editorial Policy David Jordan gave what appeared to be the strongest confirmation yet from the broadcaster of wrongdoing on its premises.

"I think the fundamentals of the story are now well established," he said. "We now know that a number of women were appallingly sexually abused by Jimmy Savile, sometimes on BBC premises, at times during the 1960s and 1970s."

It's not great that he can never be put on trial and found guilty, but is there anyone with any serious doubt that he was a predatory beast.
I feel entitled to ask that because of the cr*p I've had to put up with off alumni and peterpisspot for suggesting it when it was so obvious from the beginning.

 

[alumni]

Here's what the BBC are saying about Savile there's no ifs buts or allegedly's here

Interviewed on a BBC program Saturday, BBC Director of Editorial Policy David Jordan gave what appeared to be the strongest confirmation yet from the broadcaster of wrongdoing on its premises.

"I think the fundamentals of the story are now well established," he said. "We now know that a number of women were appallingly sexually abused by Jimmy Savile, sometimes on BBC premises, at times during the 1960s and 1970s."

It's not great that he can never be put on trial and found guilty, but is there anyone with any serious doubt that he was a predatory beast.
I feel entitled to ask that because of the cr*p I've had to put up with off alumni and peterpisspot for suggesting it when it was so obvious from the beginning.

Well, just to keep you in the mood.
Read the quote again. It gives two different slants.

Additionally. Either this fella uses your way of thinking - rumour equals banged to rights guilty pervert or, he's working on an assumption.
No one on here, that i can recall has said he didn't do anything wrong.

For that guy to be so sure, he must know and therefore covered up and should now be down the nick explaining why.

Detail matters.

 

[sooey]

We now know that a number of women were appallingly sexually abused by Jimmy Savile, sometimes on BBC premises,

Two different slants????
That looks unequivocal to me. We know it doesn't amount to a jury's declaration of guilt after a trial. But that's a BBC spokesman accepting not only Savile's guilt, but their part in it. And consequently accepting that the police do have grounds for an investigation into the BBC itself, with obvious consequences for whoever of their staff may be found to have been involved or complicit.

No one on here, that i can recall has said he didn't do anything wrong.

I'm fully aware of that, you'd have to be a complete idiot to say that.
But the cr*p you've been dishing out on the basis that he hasn't been tried, when it was so obvious that he was guilty as soon as those women started to speak shows you for the almost complete idiot that you are.

 

[Big Tone]

In 2015 the Queen herself commented on what a despicable person he was and he should never have been knighted.

....

are you psychic

It was allegorical; a possible projection of what could happen and how over time he could easily be a distant memory or figure of ridicule. Not how he would want to have been remembered I’m sure..

 

[alumni]

I'm fully aware of that, you'd have to be a complete idiot to say that.
But the cr*p you've been dishing out on the basis that he hasn't been tried, when it was so obvious that he was guilty as soon as those women started to speak shows you for the almost complete idiot that you are.

******. You've been acting the village idiot from the off.
He's a filthy pervert you screamed. And that was before the programme was aired.

Sensible folk - so that doesn't include you - have said due process, full investigation etc etc is required. Why? to ensure anyone and everyone who may have been involved or covered up any crimes are brought to book.

And like some of us have stated. We actually know the issues people who have been abused/assaulted have. So please. Don't claim to be the caring one. You've shown your simple views for what they are.

Now, perhaps you'll be happy to let a proper investigation take place and the full picture be brought to light - something you've shown little interest in so far.

 

[sooey]

For that guy to be so sure, he must know and therefore covered up and should now be down the nick explaining why.

That guy may have been a kid or not even been born at the time, I don't know his age.

Detail matters.

By making that statement the BBC have left themselves wide open to any compensation claims that may now come in from the victims who have come forward so far, and the victims who may come forward in the future.
Do you think he made that statement lightly, or without the knowledge and permission of his higher ups?

 

[sooey]

****. You've been acting the village idiot from the off.
He's a filthy pervert you screamed. And that was before the programme was aired.

I gave my views on him once the witnesses came to light, which was leaked before the programme was aired.
Plenty of people reserved judgement, and argued their point which is fair enough.
None of them, except you and peterpisspot did so with such stupid, idiotic personal attacks.
So **** *** yourself.

 

[alumni]

That guy may have been a kid or not even been born at the time, I don't know his age.

If so, how could he 'know'?

By making that statement the BBC have left themselves wide open to any compensation claims that may now come in from the victims who have come forward so far, and the victims who may come forward in the future.
Do you think he made that statement lightly, or without the knowledge and permission of his higher ups?

Now we're getting there.

 

[sooey]

Now, perhaps you'll be happy to let a proper investigation take place and the full picture be brought to light - something you've shown little interest in so far

.

In what way has me, you or anyone else expressing an opinion on here hindered that?

 

[alumni]

****. You've been acting the village idiot from the off.
He's a filthy pervert you screamed. And that was before the programme was aired.

I gave my views on him once the witnesses came to light, which was leaked before the programme was aired.
Plenty of people reserved judgement, and argued their point which is fair enough.
None of them, except you and peterpisspot did so with such stupid, idiotic personal attacks.
So **** *** yourself.

Oh, dear.
All you wanted was a pervert - not the full picture.

Usual double standards from you again.

Oh, and please don't forget. They are still only allegations. The same ones MWT was aware of when he was working on the BBC programme about it. Odd that he sat on it don't you think? Oh sorry, no you don't think do you.

 

[alumni]

Now, perhaps you'll be happy to let a proper investigation take place and the full picture be brought to light - something you've shown little interest in so far

.

In what way has me, you or anyone else expressing an opinion on here hindered that?

Nope, struggling to see my use of the word hindered in there.
Nor any reference to it.

 

[sooey]

If so, how could he 'know'?

The same way as everyone else with a brain, it's undeniable.

Now we're getting there.

If you mean getting to a general public acceptance of savile's guilt I agree, but that happened last week.

 

[sooey]

Oh, dear.
All you wanted was a pervert - not the full picture.

In order to start getting the full picture the pervert has to first be recognised for what he was. Because once you recognise that a pervert was operating you can start asking how? who helped? That's what's happening now.
You're not very bright are you?

Oh, and please don't forget. They are still only allegations. The same ones MWT was aware of when he was working on the BBC programme about it. Odd that he sat on it don't you think? Oh sorry, no you don't think do you.

When do they stop being only allegations seeing as savile can't be tried?
What relevance has who brought the allegations to light, and who he worked for got to anything.

 

[alumni]

There you go again. discounting questions that don't fit your narrow minded thinking.

I think you should give the Jeremy Kyle show a rest and get out more.

 

[Big Tone]

In order to start getting the full picture the pervert has to first be recognised for what he was. Because once you recognise that a pervert was operating you can start asking how? who helped? That's what's happening now.
You're not very bright are you?

That sounds a bit like accusing someone of being an alcoholic and telling them “not until you admit you are an alcoholic will you start to get better”.

"So come on Alumni and Tone, just admit that you know he’s a peado perv and then we can help you both with your sickness”.

You’ve got to get up early in the morning to get that one past us sooey. The nerve