Jimmy Savile

Jogon · Post by **Jogon** » Mon 14 Jan, 2013 9:40 pm

Not a bit drapesy, all good stuff.

Phallica2000 · Post by **Phallica2000** » Tue 15 Jan, 2013 1:49 am

Oh dear. No doubt this thread took a different direction when his multiple crimes were outed...

String o' beads · Post by **String o' beads** » Tue 15 Jan, 2013 9:26 am

Jogon · Post by **Jogon** » Tue 15 Jan, 2013 9:56 am

Geordie-exile wrote: Phallica2000 wrote: Oh dear. No doubt this thread took a different direction when his multiple crimes were outed... Have you even read the thread? 'ALLEGED' multiple crimes would be the applicable phrase. That is the whole point. Geordx - you have just cut straight to the heart of it.Allegation = Fact = CrimeClaimant = VictimFor attempting to point this out some readers will completely miss the point and bristle with indignation."Why is jogon seeking to defend Jim Sav?" they'll think, wrongly.-------------------------------------------------------------If, as a research paper/thesis, I'd produced a report like Yewtree (a Met Police-NSPCC co-production), I'd have to make clear in the pre-amble that:--I'd spoken to 450 "claimants"-I'd not sought corroboration or verified the claims (because)-Claimants (probably) hadn't consulted with each other (and)-All 450 were telling the truth-Therefore there were 450 "victims" (and so)-450 Crimes CommittedIt would have been chucked out/binned/ungraded for the various leaps of faith. ---------------------------------------------------------------Also, why and how could I possibly be embarrassed by my RIP and sympathy when he passed away. That was correct at that time.

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 15 Jan, 2013 11:29 am

Hi Jogon, yes the fact in reality is that in the chaps absence it is unlikely that anything will can ever be proven in fact - one way or the other. Everything seems to come down to the balance of probability on this in the end, and different individuals will take a different standpoint according to what they have read or heard and that is human nature. I for one do not feel qualified to judge.Non the less, even when remembering the many good things which came from the guy, I feel saddened by this turn of events and sickened that they could well be true, but still it wouldn't really be appropriate to use here for a right and wrong battle between individuals points of view - they can of course be made as with anything else but we should perhaps leave it as that.Emotions understandably run high on this subject and it would be easy to make the mistake of attacking others for their opinions rather than keeping to JS as the subject. Let's try to remember this and keep it peaceful and at least hope that lessons are learned by establishments to prevent even a suggestion that anything of this nature can arise in the future.(BTW Jogs, I have a small item from Norfolk that might apeal to you if we all manage to meet up sometime )

Post by **cnosni** » Tue 15 Jan, 2013 1:18 pm

Jogon wrote: Geordie-exile wrote: Phallica2000 wrote: Oh dear. No doubt this thread took a different direction when his multiple crimes were outed... Have you even read the thread? 'ALLEGED' multiple crimes would be the applicable phrase. That is the whole point. Geordx - you have just cut straight to the heart of it.Allegation = Fact = CrimeClaimant = VictimFor attempting to point this out some readers will completely miss the point and bristle with indignation."Why is jogon seeking to defend Jim Sav?" they'll think, wrongly.-------------------------------------------------------------If, as a research paper/thesis, I'd produced a report like Yewtree (a Met Police-NSPCC co-production), I'd have to make clear in the pre-amble that:--I'd spoken to 450 "claimants"-I'd not sought corroboration or verified the claims (because)-Claimants (probably) hadn't consulted with each other (and)-All 450 were telling the truth-Therefore there were 450 "victims" (and so)-450 Crimes CommittedIt would have been chucked out/binned/ungraded for the various leaps of faith. ---------------------------------------------------------------Also, why and how could I possibly be embarrassed by my RIP and sympathy when he passed away. That was correct at that time. Indded,you should not be embarrassed by the RIP,it is pretty much the sentiment shared by a lot of people when he died.I can se you are not trying to defend JS,you are rightly pointing out that nothing has been proved in law and i share your concerns quite that this is a report,and i have to say a very,if not too speedy report,that looks to me like a cover up for the Police and the establishment who had had previous and old allegations made against Savile that were,for whatever reason,swept under the carpet. However im a little confused over your position with regards to the victims,alleged or of,of Jimmy Savile.What im confused about is if you believe that some or all of the allegations made by the "victims" are true or not.If all of them are fabricated then then you are right,there are no victims.But if only one was not fabricated then they are a victim,irrespective of whether or not there has been a trial or an enquiry.If you,like i,believe that there are people within this 450 claimants are telling the truth,then Savile is responsible for those actions,and though one can never actually say in law, "guilty", as he was never taken to trial,one could say he was guilty in the broadest sense in that he commited the crimes.Believe me ,im no push over when it comes to bleeding hearts,but some of those who have been brave enough to come on TV,in disguise or not,and state what has happened to them deserve my admiration and respect,because i dont think i would have the bottle to do the same.That doesnt mean we should all be happy with the Yewtree report,"oh theres a victim,heres an enquiry,thats it" but lets at least say that if we do believe there are victims then they deserve support.

Post by **cnosni** » Tue 15 Jan, 2013 1:23 pm

Geordie-exile wrote: Phallica2000 wrote: Oh dear. No doubt this thread took a different direction when his multiple crimes were outed... Have you even read the thread? 'ALLEGED' multiple crimes would be the applicable phrase. That is the whole point. Well i think you wouldnt have to have read all the thread to work out it would have taken a different direction,and for that matter it did take a different direction.

String o' beads · Post by **String o' beads** » Tue 15 Jan, 2013 1:44 pm

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Tue 15 Jan, 2013 2:09 pm

Looks like the Police still have some answers to give though.Fresh questions raised on Jimmy Savile links to top cops.Jimmy Savile boasted about his links to senior police officers in Leeds while he was being investigated over sexual abuse allegations.http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-5314536

Jogon · Post by **Jogon** » Tue 15 Jan, 2013 2:16 pm

Praise the Lord that I was >fast< on cross country.Our 1971 route went right by his flat