Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator

Edrof said:
Peel? John Peel?
Click to expand...

Yarp.

According to Peel, he had a lot of affairs with young girls and women. In an interview with the Guardian in 1975 he stated: "All they wanted me to do was abuse them, sexually, which, of course, I was only too happy to do".[12] In 1989 he told another journalist: "Girls used to queue up outside oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older."[12]

While in Dallas, in 1965, he married his first wife, Shirley Anne Milburn, then aged 15, in what Peel later described as a "mutual defence pact". The marriage was never happy and although she accompanied Peel back to Britain in 1967, they were soon separated. The divorce became final in 1973. Shirley Anne Milburn later took her own life.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peel
 
elmarko1234 said:
They didn't actually name him did they? - was his name used once?.

If I recall correctly his came out against it due to the internet rumours.
Click to expand...

that still comes under libel law as people were able to find out his name after the programme was broadcast - even though people may have found out from non-bbc sources the bbc is still liable as they pointed people in the direction.
 
aardvark said:
that still comes under libel law as people were able to find out his name after the programme was broadcast - even though people may have found out from non-bbc sources the bbc is still liable as they pointed people in the direction.
Click to expand...
While I'm no law expert I'd be surprised if that held up in court.

I don't believe it's sensible to hold an organisation responsible for third parties interpretation of information presented or rumours, besides at the time it has a witness testimony - which is a form of evidence.

As I said earlier, while it was pretty poor reporting - but it's a little hysterical for them to try to push for libel - it was somebody who was abused who pointed the finger at the wrong person (assuming they are being honest about the whole thing), not a malicious plan to destroy somebody's good name.
 
elmarko1234 said:
While I'm no law expert I'd be surprised if that held up in court.

I don't believe it's sensible to hold an organisation responsible for third parties interpretation of information presented or rumours, besides at the time it has a witness testimony - which is a form of evidence.

As I said earlier, while it was pretty poor reporting - but it's a little hysterical for them to try to push for libel - it was somebody who was abused who pointed the finger at the wrong person (assuming they are being honest about the whole thing), not a malicious plan to destroy somebody's good name.
Click to expand...

they had a libel expert on radio 2 and he said it was pretty straightforward and would hold up in court - the libel laws are specifically designed to protect against this sort of thing and an organisation or individuals ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Its basically textbook libel, which makes the bbc even more stupid for doing it.

it doesn't have to be malicious - false accusations have and will affect someones life (financially) and therefore it is libel - open and shut case if McAlpine wants to pursue it (which he doesn't seem to want to anyway, just wants an apology and a token settlement).
 
Stinks of cover up, get the BBC to make a false accusation against someone they know are innocent, then play the whole "trial by twitter" card, say that it’s important to keep things private and confidential to stop this happening again. Persons they are protecting are now protected, public demand for blood diminished.

I find it hard to believe they showed a picture to the witness without actually naming him, BBC boss gets a fat payoff, and implicated MP will probably sue and get a fat payoff for his role.
 
It has been beautifully implemented.

I would've thought BBC are just feeling the government backlash for as good as outing one of the Tory nonces.

Joe public assumes it's all rubbish while the Met put more pressure on Auntie by arresting their household names.
 
Craterloads said:
Stinks of cover up, get the BBC to make a false accusation against someone they know are innocent, then play the whole "trial by twitter" card, say that it’s important to keep things private and confidential to stop this happening again. Persons they are protecting are now protected, public demand for blood diminished.

I find it hard to believe they showed a picture to the witness without actually naming him, BBC boss gets a fat payoff, and implicated MP will probably sue and get a fat payoff for his role.
Click to expand...

this is spot on.

Go look up ben fellows and who he named, funny this has now taken this right off the radar hey?

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/354771/My-hell-with-Britain-s-biggest-stars-says-Ben-Fellows

http://www.maxfarquar.com/2012/10/ben-fellows-kenneth-clarke/
 
Craterloads said:
Stinks of cover up, get the BBC to make a false accusation against someone they know are innocent, then play the whole "trial by twitter" card, say that it’s important to keep things private and confidential to stop this happening again. Persons they are protecting are now protected, public demand for blood diminished.

I find it hard to believe they showed a picture to the witness without actually naming him, BBC boss gets a fat payoff, and implicated MP will probably sue and get a fat payoff for his role.
Click to expand...

*sighs* - Or maybe you're wrong and it was just a stupid mistake. I mean, we never see folks on the internet proposing over the top and unfounded conspiracies do we...
 
What was a mistake?

Ken Clarke, McAlpine, Haute de le Garrenne, Leah McGrath Goodman, Ted Heath, Jimmy Savile, Tom Watson, Peter Morrison....
 
NeilFawcett said:
People looking for a conspiracy undoubtedly will pick on anything that backs their 'theory', and ignore everything that doesn't.

But anyway, back to those faked lunar landings again...
Click to expand...

Oh are we playing that game, why don’t you tell me about how i think the queens a lizard, that will delegitimise anything else i say, oh wait why don’t you tell me to get my tin foil hat out? That one always works :rolleyes:
 
Whatever has driven this out to begin with surely wasn't part of an agenda many years ago. It's not like it has suddenly been wrong to abuse children, or anyone for that matter. Something could have well been done about this long, long ago.
 
Craterloads said:
Oh are we playing that game, why don’t you tell me about how i think the queens a lizard, that will delegitimise anything else i say, oh wait why don’t you tell me to get my tin foil hat out? That one always works :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think you're confused... I'm the one suggesting some folks are on conspiracy overload, and a dose of 'calm down juice' is required by said internet couch detectives...
 
Talking about conspiracies here, there really was, a massive conspiracy to keep quiet over Jimmy Savilles abuses. I didnt have a clue and neither did a lot of people.

There's supposed abuses that have been covered up on one of our islands with no journalists being allowed to investigate.

Who knows what else is being kept secret. Theres no conspiracies until there are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom