Jimmy Saville exposed

T-K-O

They are not all victims some are producers / staff who all of a sudden decide to speak up.

I have no doubt that Saville is guilty but I do not believe half of the crap they are trying to feed the gen pop.

I understand the 70's was a different time but these producers / Ester Ranzen et al - they are just as guilty. The neck of them to come out now.. Anything to get their ugly mugs in the paper

M cebee

T-K-O wrote: »

They are not all victims some are producers / staff who all of a sudden decide to speak up.

I have no doubt that Saville is guilty but I do not believe half of the crap they are trying to feed the gen pop.

I understand the 70's was a different time but these producers / Ester Ranzen et al - they are just as guilty. The neck of them to come out now.. Anything to get their ugly mugs in the paper

esther rantzen is a c**t
she had me fooled with that childline BS

saviour of the nation's children

T-K-O

M cebee wrote: »

esther rantzen is a c**t
she had me fooled with that childline BS

saviour of the nation's children

She's not alone. In the videos above, there is an old guy not far off savilles age telling his 'story'.... again why now.

The media is a joke giving these people time on air. Report it to the police and fcuk off

T-K-O

It is beginning to look like lots of people knew what was going on...

IMO they didnt say anything because they didnt care. Saville is dead and the gen pop cant handle that these people didnt care.

Solution:lets all say we were afraid to tell or we knew but we didnt really know ??

Da Shins Kelly

I really can't believe that this didn't come out years ago. I don't really get why nobody ever said anything before, while he was alive, and then there may have been a chance to prosecute. I mean scandals about world leaders have had an easier time coming out. It's all so strange.

T-K-O

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I really can't believe that this didn't come out years ago. I don't really get why nobody ever said anything before, while he was alive, and then there may have been a chance to prosecute. I mean scandals about world leaders have had an easier time coming out. It's all so strange.

Exactly, sure some people were scared.

There were different times back then but the people who have stories to tell (the enablers) are not the meek little lambs the would lead us to believe.

Da Shins Kelly

T-K-O wrote: »

Exactly, sure some people were scared.

There were different times back then but the people who have stories to tell (the enablers) are not the meek little lambs the would lead us to believe.

I'm sure they're not. Watching that HIGNFY clip and hearing them talk about his biography and television appearances where he references what he was up to and saying how he was basically hiding in plain sight makes it even more weird. I'm not old enough to remember him from back in the day, but I saw him on Louis Theroux's documentary and thought he was a creep then. It all seems like it was very obvious and yet none of the victims publicly came out with the accusations until now. Like you say, different times and fear, I suppose.

THIS is the juicy stuff:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mp-paedophile-ring-linked-ex-pms-aide-080948913.html

"He said that the paedophile, who worked with children, boasted of a key aide to a former PM who could help get hold of indecent images of children."
Mr Watson made clear he was not referring to the former MP Sir Peter Morrison, Margaret Thatcher's parliamentary private secretary and deputy chairman of the party.
Mr Watson raised the Righton case after he was contacted by people close to the investigation who said they could not understand why the wider paedophile network had not been properly investigated.
The MP has also written to the Met Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe with more details about the case.
His office was bombarded with calls on Wednesday as speculation mounted about exactly who he had been referring to. "I'll say more when I can but this may not be for some time," he wrote.

This question really needs to be answered. Why exactly were none of these cases followed up? I wonder if we'll ever know. It wasn't Gary Glitter or Freddie Star with the ability to cover up something this big.

T-K-O

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I'm sure they're not. Watching that HIGNFY clip and hearing them talk about his biography and television appearances where he references what he was up to and saying how he was basically hiding in plain sight makes it even more weird. I'm not old enough to remember him from back in the day, but I saw him on Louis Theroux's documentary and thought he was a creep then. It all seems like it was very obvious and yet none of the victims publicly came out with the accusations until now. Like you say, different times and fear, I suppose.

I am uncomfortable with that excuse, sure it applies but not to that extent.

Da Shins Kelly

T-K-O wrote: »

I am uncomfortable with that excuse, sure it applies but not to that extent.

Well, I mean the victims not the people involved in the cover up. I can imagine young people being afraid to confront a public figure with accusations like that. I mean we're talking 13/14 year olds, or around that age group.

billybudd

T-K-O wrote: »

Exactly, sure some people were scared.

There were different times back then but the people who have stories to tell (the enablers) are not the meek little lambs the would lead us to believe.

people putting careers before whats right, quite sickening and still quite rampant.

T-K-O

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Well, I mean the victims not the people involved in the cover up. I can imagine young people being afraid to confront a public figure with accusations like that. I mean we're talking 13/14 year olds, or around that age group.

Again some but not all. Compare it to Catholic Priests in this country. They were the ultimate power at the time. If you are a similar age to me < 30 we cannot begin to understand their status.

However some people went against the grain and did complain. I find it hard to believe that NO ONE did the same in the UK.

Unless the Police have something to answer for.... Jaysus, there is no end to this

T-K-O

billybudd wrote: »

people putting careers before whats right, quite sickening and still quite rampant.

And now they have to cheek to give C4 / Sky news the 'exclusive'

Makes me want to vomit.

Da Shins Kelly

T-K-O wrote: »

Again some but not all. Compare it to Catholic Priests in this country. They were the ultimate power at the time. If you are a similar age to me < 30 we cannot begin to understand their status.

However some people went against the grain and did complain. I find it hard to believe that NO ONE did the same in the UK.

Unless the Police have something to answer for.... Jaysus, there is no end to this

I guess it'll all become apparent in time. It's all so, so weird.

billybudd

T-K-O wrote: »

And now they have to cheek to give C4 / Sky news the 'exclusive'

Makes me want to vomit.

Yep and the media are just as bad if not worse, daily mails description of that young girl fanning is alarming, they should be prosecuted for it but they wont be.

Spread

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I really can't believe that this didn't come out years ago. I don't really get why nobody ever said anything before, while he was alive, and then there may have been a chance to prosecute. I mean scandals about world leaders have had an easier time coming out. It's all so strange.

You've never heard of the Masons?

oppenheimer1

billybudd wrote: »

people putting careers before whats right, quite sickening and still quite rampant.

Its easy for people here to take the moral high ground now, especially considering that they didn't have to confront the situation. Why would someone put their career in jeopardy to follow up allegations that were most likely going to be ignored?

Hiding in crowds happens every day. I've seen people panned out in the street and people walk on by, not wanting to get involved. This is the same thing/mindset.

T-K-O

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its easy for people here to take the moral high ground now, especially considering that they didn't have to confront the situation. Why would someone put their career in jeopardy to follow up allegations that were most likely going to be ignored?

Hiding in crowds happens every day. I've seen people panned out in the street and people walk on by, not wanting to get involved. This is the same thing/mindset.

Very true.
However with so many victims and so many others getting their say in, do you believe that they all said nothing to protect their careers??

Sure people are like that but like I said about the Catholic church... There is always one. Where is the one?

Either the police covered some of this up OR half of the stories are complete BS

billybudd

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its easy for people here to take the moral high ground now, especially considering that they didn't have to confront the situation. Why would someone put their career in jeopardy to follow up allegations that were most likely going to be ignored?

Hiding in crowds happens every day. I've seen people panned out in the street and people walk on by, not wanting to get involved. This is the same thing/mindset.

Its easy to say nothing.

Lingua Franca

It's often harder to say something.

Imagine that you knew a beloved institution was preying on children. Imagine that institution was extremely well connected and well thought of. Imagine you had to put your neck absolutely on the line to speak out at this evil and not being believed. Imagine then being mentally flayed alive and your career almost destroyed for it.


Imagine being Sinead O'Connor in 1992.


I remember what happened to her and all of the crap she took for what she said. It was unrelenting and vicious.

And it took years before we all found out she was right.

fryup

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Imagine being Sinead O'Connor in 1992.

I remember what happened to her and all of the crap she took for what she said. It was unrelenting and vicious.

And it took years before we all found out she was right.

yes, esp in this country

K-9

Children should be seen and not heard would have played a big part in it.

starbelgrade

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's often harder to say something.

Imagine that you knew a beloved institution was preying on children. Imagine that institution was extremely well connected and well thought of. Imagine you had to put your neck absolutely on the line to speak out at this evil and not being believed. Imagine then being mentally flayed alive and your career almost destroyed for it.


Imagine being Sinead O'Connor in 1992.


I remember what happened to her and all of the crap she took for what she said. It was unrelenting and vicious.

And it took years before we all found out she was right.

Sinead O'Connor likes to think of herself as the "lone voice in the wilderness" speaking up against the abuse that the Catholic Church carried out. This is complete bollox - there were several high profile court cases and enquiries into child abuse in the early 90s and RTE ran a series of programmes on the subject.

O'Connor was just one of the voices at the time speaking out against the Church, but she was the only one who portrayed herself as some kind of moral martyr & for some reason can't comprehend why she then got treated like one.

mikom

Freddie starr ate my underage hamster.

Ash.J.Williams

starbelgrade wrote: »

Sinead O'Connor likes to think of herself as the "lone voice in the wilderness" speaking up against the abuse that the Catholic Church carried out. This is complete bollox - there were several high profile court cases and enquiries into child abuse in the early 90s and RTE ran a series of programmes on the subject.

O'Connor was just one of the voices at the time speaking out against the Church, but she was the only one who portrayed herself as some kind of moral martyr & for some reason can't comprehend why she then got treated like one.

I don't remember Sinead thinking herself as anything, she spoke up and paid the price for it.

nucker

T-K-O wrote: »

Very true.
However with so many victims and so many others getting their say in, do you believe that they all said nothing to protect their careers??

Sure people are like that but like I said about the Catholic church... There is always one. Where is the one?

Either the police covered some of this up OR half of the stories are complete BS

This is what I am thinking, half the staff in Broadmoor were to have alleged to have said that he was "psychopath and should be locked up" which begs the question, if that is the case, why didn't they lock him up? It is seemingly like a lot of BS because of an allegation or two against children. I think it's too easy to go down to a mob mentality when someone goes and accuses someone of abusing children. One thing that some people seem to forget is that, Savile can't defend himself. His behaviour may of been seen as weird or creepy, but a lot of innocent people have been accused and even convicted wrongly of murder just because of the way they look or behave

I can't believe the amount of people of accusing Savile of abusing them, they also want to sue the BBC and the NHS for Savile's alleged abuse against them. Though I can understand if he actually did abuse them with the institutions knowledge and complicity, they should, but over 300? Sheesh, and no one in the BBC or NHS complained to the Police? Only now that one person had the courage to allege that he abuse them, that they now all come out of the woodwork? Does it mean that they should be prosecuted for their complicity for keeping this from the police at the time?

Dodge

nucker wrote: »

Only now that one person had the courage to allege that he abuse them, that they now all come out of the woodwork? Does it mean that they should be prosecuted for their complicity for keeping this from the police at the time?

Are you for real? Seriously

As for your other, more rational, points; they've all been covered here and elsewhere. have you learned NOTHING for the numerous abuse scandals in Ireland, Britain and elsewhere? There are loads of reasons why people feel they can't/shouldn't say something at the time of their abuse.

Likewise there are loads of people who 'feel' they know whats happening but don't say anything because they clearly don't 'know' whats happening

Some people knew. Of course they did. So the issue now is to find out why. was it fear? Was it 'part of the culture' there? Was it that they too were involved? Was it that they felt their complaints would be ignored?

Lingua Franca

starbelgrade wrote: »

Sinead O'Connor likes to think of herself as the "lone voice in the wilderness" speaking up against the abuse that the Catholic Church carried out. This is complete bollox - there were several high profile court cases and enquiries into child abuse in the early 90s and RTE ran a series of programmes on the subject.

O'Connor was just one of the voices at the time speaking out against the Church, but she was the only one who portrayed herself as some kind of moral martyr & for some reason can't comprehend why she then got treated like one.

You appear to be projecting. And also proving my point.

Anyway, you're wrong. The only voices speaking out that early on were victims, who were being totally ignored. Sinead O'Connor raised her head above the parapet for them, and she did so in October 1992, a good 2 years before RTE first made a programme on the subject.

A government report last year proved that the church was still sweeping it all under the carpet and moving paedophile priests around until the mid 90s.

The full extent of the horror, that it was historical, worldwide, institutionalised and common knowledge right up to the highest echelons of the church and very deliberately covered up, wasn't public knowledge until after the turn of this century. Sinead scandalised the Catholic world by ripping up a pic of the pope whilst making these claims back in 1992.



In other news: https://twitter.com/iainoverton/status/264308253033381888

iguana

T-K-O wrote: »

However some people went against the grain and did complain. I find it hard to believe that NO ONE did the same in the UK.

Unless the Police have something to answer for.... Jaysus, there is no end to this

They did. There were a number of official allegations made against Saville before his death that never led to prosecutions. He was officially investigated in 2007 by Surrey police but the CPS didn't prosecute due to insufficient evidence. There are some questions being asked about that investigation as certain avenues that should have been explored by the police weren't.

dickwod1

"Sir" Jimmy Saville was knighted by the Queen even though the dogs on the street knew he was a peado,
He cannot have his knighthood rescinded but on this occasion the Brits aren't calling him "Sir" anymore?
They get annoyed when we don't call them "Sir" or "Lord" even though we don't have the same crap in our country.
But we (aka RTE - The Irish media - Etc.) like sheep have also stopped calling him "Sir" Jimmy Saville aswell.

Now don't get me wrong this "Sir" Jimmy Saville scumbag makes me sick to the pit of my stomach and everything (charity wise) he ever done has no credit or merit whatsoever.

But this "Sir" crap that our media copy (or don't if the Brits don't) annoys me.

Rant over!

--Kaiser--

Someone approached Rolf Harris in a shop recently and asked him
"Didn't you do 'Two Little Boys'?"
"No" Rolf says "You must be thinking of Jimmy Savile"

Babooshka

nucker wrote: »

I can't believe the amount of people of accusing Savile of abusing them, they also want to sue the BBC and the NHS for Savile's alleged abuse against them. Though I can understand if he actually did abuse them with the institutions knowledge and complicity, they should, but over 300? Sheesh, and no one in the BBC or NHS complained to the Police? Only now that one person had the courage to allege that he abuse them, that they now all come out of the woodwork? Does it mean that they should be prosecuted for their complicity for keeping this from the police at the time?

It only takes a few minutes to shove your hand down someones knickers... have you watched the Panorama episode? He had free reign on taking young girls out from the home they were in, in his car, whenever he wanted to, that's plenty of opportunity in just that institution alone. No doubt there will be a handful of opportunists or mentally ill attention seekers jumping on the bandwagon, but the majority corroborate each others versions of the abuse allegations and it is now quite obvious that he was fiddling a lot of places he had no business fiddling.

mikom

dickwod1 wrote: »

"Sir" Jimmy Saville was knighted by the Queen even though the dogs on the street knew he was a peado,
He cannot have his knighthood rescinded but on this occasion the Brits aren't calling him "Sir" anymore?
They get annoyed when we don't call them "Sir" or "Lord" even though we don't have the same crap in our country.
But we (aka RTE - The Irish media - Etc.) like sheep have also stopped calling him "Sir" Jimmy Saville aswell.

Now don't get me wrong this "Sir" Jimmy Saville scumbag makes me sick to the pit of my stomach and everything (charity wise) he ever done has no credit or merit whatsoever.

But this "Sir" crap that our media copy (or don't if the Brits don't) annoys me.

Rant over!

The "Sir" now stands for "Sure I Raped".

nucker

Babooshka wrote: »

It only takes a few minutes to shove your hand down someones knickers... have you watched the Panorama episode? He had free reign on taking young girls out from the home they were in, in his car, whenever he wanted to, that's plenty of opportunity in just that institution alone. No doubt there will be a handful of opportunists or mentally ill attention seekers jumping on the bandwagon, but the majority corroborate each others versions of the abuse allegations and it is now quite obvious that he was fiddling a lot of places he had no business fiddling.

Maybe, that's correct but I've still found that people tend to accuse innocent people of being creepy just because of a newspaper headline, the Joanne Yeates case comes to mind

Babooshka

nucker wrote: »

Maybe, that's correct but I've still found that people tend to accuse innocent people of being creepy just because of a newspaper headline, the Joanne Yeates case comes to mind

Yes people do, there's a circus surrounding every scandal. Doesn't mean that no crime happened though.

AnonoBoy

Iain Overton tweeted the following this morning:

If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.

So it looks like there's lots more to come in the wake of the Saville case. Not sure if this is related at all but we shall see tonight I suppose.

nucker

Babooshka wrote: »

Yes people do, there's a circus surrounding every scandal. Doesn't mean that no crime happened though.

I would never say that there is no crime, that would be silly, but to accuse people of being "creepy" without or even with evidence is just silly, doesn't solve the problem

Spread

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Iain Overton tweeted the following this morning:



So it looks like there's lots more to come in the wake of the Saville case. Not sure if this is related at all but we shall see tonight I suppose.

Looks like Rt Hon Gentleman and Tory Grandee (at least 10 letters after name including PC) will be on the back foot for a long time.

T-K-O

nucker wrote: »

This is what I am thinking, half the staff in Broadmoor were to have alleged to have said that he was "psychopath and should be locked up" which begs the question, if that is the case, why didn't they lock him up? It is seemingly like a lot of BS because of an allegation or two against children. I think it's too easy to go down to a mob mentality when someone goes and accuses someone of abusing children. One thing that some people seem to forget is that, Savile can't defend himself. His behaviour may of been seen as weird or creepy, but a lot of innocent people have been accused and even convicted wrongly of murder just because of the way they look or behave

I can't believe the amount of people of accusing Savile of abusing them, they also want to sue the BBC and the NHS for Savile's alleged abuse against them. Though I can understand if he actually did abuse them with the institutions knowledge and complicity, they should, but over 300? Sheesh, and no one in the BBC or NHS complained to the Police? Only now that one person had the courage to allege that he abuse them, that they now all come out of the woodwork? Does it mean that they should be prosecuted for their complicity for keeping this from the police at the time?

totally agree and Yes they should be prosecuted especially those celebs who 'knew'

T-K-O

iguana wrote: »

They did. There were a number of official allegations made against Saville before his death that never led to prosecutions. He was officially investigated in 2007 by Surrey police but the CPS didn't prosecute due to insufficient evidence. There are some questions being asked about that investigation as certain avenues that should have been explored by the police weren't.

So that would lead me to believe that there was not enough evidence or the police are part of the circle.

For record I believe saville did some of these things but a lot of the stories just don't add up.

Half of these people didn't say anything because they didn't know or have information but now he is dead these people can say what ever they like.

AlarmBelle

Spread wrote: »

You've never heard of the Masons?

how come they cannot stop it now?

gbee

AlarmBelle wrote: »

how come they cannot stop it now?

Because there exists secret societies and cults going back 2,000 years from Roman times where we get the word paedophilia from ~ to recap back in those years all intercourse with anything was 'legal' ~ emperors, governors and people in authority enjoyed any lifestyle they liked.

Children from town would be gathered up for orgies and usually returned with a coin or two or a gold trinket if the child has given pleasure, parents would groom and encourage their children to give pleasure.

ALL THIS CHANGED with one psychopathic emperor who horrified the townsfolk by throwing the used children off his castle battlements to their deaths ~this was the horrific part, and the act got associated with horror since.

Throughout history we have secret societies, devil cults, witch covens and religions that offered solace and they exist today too.

Hootanany

gbee wrote: »

Because there exists secret societies and cults going back 2,000 years from Roman times where we get the word paedophilia from ~ to recap back in those years all intercourse with anything was 'legal' ~ emperors, governors and people in authority enjoyed any lifestyle they liked.

Children from town would be gathered up for orgies and usually returned with a coin or two or a gold trinket if the child has given pleasure, parents would groom and encourage their children to give pleasure.

ALL THIS CHANGED with one psychopathic emperor who horrified the townsfolk by throwing the used children off his castle battlements to their deaths ~this was the horrific part, and the act got associated with horror since.

Throughout history we have secret societies, devil cults, witch covens and religions that offered solace and they exist today too.

Link please

gbee

Hootanany wrote: »

Link please

For what?

It's history.

Hootanany

Which Emperor then.

Richard tea

gbee wrote: »

For what?

It's history.

You have offended a Mason:eek:

GRMA

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Iain Overton tweeted the following this morning:



So it looks like there's lots more to come in the wake of the Saville case. Not sure if this is related at all but we shall see tonight I suppose.

Lord MacAlpine... so they say on twitter.

gbee

Hootanany wrote: »

Which Emperor then.

Sorry, right now I can't find it and I don't have it in favourites. It used be the top search, now there are thousands. It does come up often, but there is a tsunami of hits.

I'll look over some of my older posts over the weekend.

Pompey Magnus

Hootanany wrote: »

Which Emperor then.

Sounds like what Emperor Tiberius was accused of doing at Capri.

My name is URL

gbee wrote: »

ALL THIS CHANGED with one psychopathic emperor who horrified the townsfolk by throwing the used children off his castle battlements to their deaths ~this was the horrific part, and the act got associated with horror since.

Throughout history we have secret societies, devil cults, witch covens and religions that offered solace and they exist today too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse#As_a_moral_panic