Soldato
Nobody said it's a fact, just that he's been accused.
I fail to see why these women will just start making up these things, it's not like they can get money out of him (he's dead).
Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator
- Thread starter fidget
- Start date
I fail to see why these women will just start making up these things, it's not like they can get money out of him (he's dead).
So all those women made up all those allegations ... right. It's sickening that he got away with it for so long and that people knew and did **** all. The sooner people listen to kids when they summon the courage to tell the truth the sooner these people can be controlled and the harm they do stopped.
And not often I agree with you hurfdurf but you've got it bang on there.
And not often I agree with you hurfdurf but you've got it bang on there.
Permabanned
You are essentially doing the same.
And they are alleged rape victims. No proof, yet.
As we know, Jimmy Savile was a big fan of jewellery. He loved nothing more than squeezing his fingers into a couple of tight rings.
In memorial to him J.D Sports are doing a range of Jimmy Savile memorial tracksuits.
They have an adult sized top but you have to squeeze into kids bottoms.
However, he is a bit of a hypocrite. For years he advertised British Rail trains when all along he used Virgins.
In memorial to him J.D Sports are doing a range of Jimmy Savile memorial tracksuits.
They have an adult sized top but you have to squeeze into kids bottoms.
However, he is a bit of a hypocrite. For years he advertised British Rail trains when all along he used Virgins.
Associate
When you say what "actually" happened, can we take that as what you believe actually happened, due to having watched the aired version, which goes without saying contains edits of various degrees.
No one can say what "actually" happened either way.......unless they were present when the episode was being filmed.
hmmm...the mods haven't put the banging head/brick wall smiley up yet cos I was gonna drop it here <....>
Soldato
Of course it's edited.
However, do you genuinely believe that during recording Merton, Hislop et al effortlessly flipped from "genial participation with old eccentric childhood icon" mode to "barrack the unwelcome paedo with the pus-filled ****" mode, and the production team merely snipped out all the latter bits for the broadcast version? Really?!
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,150
Cant see there ever being real evidence here other than victim statements. I guess you have to ask how many people would have to come forward before you believe them to be telling the truth.
In the Jacko cases it was a bit different as there were huge amounts (millions) of money to be made in making potentially false claims.
I don't see that being the case here - if anything the women coming out and claiming he raped them would have very little to gain from all of this...maybe a few grand from a newspaper article. Don't get me wrong i can see people doing it. I mean look at that false kidnapping that happenend a few years ago.
I haven't seen the documentary but unless some real evidence comes out this will only ever be a case of do you trust the women are telling the truth? Which can only be a personal opinion.
Question - if he was still alive and ten women came out with these accusations and it went to court would their testimony be enough to convict him? or would solid physical evidence be required?
In the Jacko cases it was a bit different as there were huge amounts (millions) of money to be made in making potentially false claims.
I don't see that being the case here - if anything the women coming out and claiming he raped them would have very little to gain from all of this...maybe a few grand from a newspaper article. Don't get me wrong i can see people doing it. I mean look at that false kidnapping that happenend a few years ago.
I haven't seen the documentary but unless some real evidence comes out this will only ever be a case of do you trust the women are telling the truth? Which can only be a personal opinion.
Question - if he was still alive and ten women came out with these accusations and it went to court would their testimony be enough to convict him? or would solid physical evidence be required?
Permabanned
Good question.
Im confident if it did it would be the first ever rape case with a conviction based solely off victim testimony.
He has admitted it in his auto biographies, what was thought of as toungue in cheek has now come to light as simply being a child molester bragging about his rape conquests, and its absolutely sickening that we live in a society that protected a child rapist to the point where he could openly taunt his victims and they only felt they could come out after he had died.
How am I doing the same? Where have I said they should behave in any way shape or form?
It's like Penn State all over again, I'm just glad it hasn't surfaced that it was institutionally covered up by the BBC like it was by the Catholic Church. It seems that his friends who did know, kept quiet and their heads should roll.
http://timesopinion.tumblr.com/post/32804536645/jimmy-saviles-affections-laid-bare-by-jimmy-savile - makes me want to throw up a bit, from his own auto biography.
Permabanned
Well for a start it doesn't say her age. Girl could be 16 for all we know.
To put the record straight, I am in no way saying he is definitely innocent. In all honesty I think the guy has always been a bit odd.
Just feel we are too quick as a nation to start accusing and condemning people with no real evidence.
This 100%
The amount of people who to this day have no idea that Michael Jackson was cleared of all charges and the majority of his accusers proved to be lying money chasing scumbags just goes to show how devastating the accusation of child molestation in itself is to a reputation/career. Most people will convict in their mind with 0 evidence just to be on the safe side
And yet we have plenty of evidence - witness testimony. As someone who has had to deal with the fallout of childabuse cases professionally - this is the problem - it is often all you have and then that testimony when given by a child is so easily disrupted by unscrupulous lawyers. Fortunately, we have got a lot better at allowing a child to give testimony and judges will severely slap down people who cross the line. But yes testimony is often enough because it can deal with specifics that could not really be fabricated or gained from anything other than those sort of events.
Oh so if they were all 16 that's ok? "Let's not jump the gun a bit here lads" you creepy rape apologist.
Permabanned
LOL.
You need to calm down and stop slinging insults there, boy.
Nowhere does it mention anything to do with rape, at all. You seem to be having trouble reading.
Man of Honour
Not even close to being the first. To point out the obvious: a huge majority of childhood abuse cases are only brought many years after the event. The abused victims are told (and effectively brainwashed into believing) that no-one would believe them. Much evidence (and some posters on this forum) suggests that this would be true. So the victims stay silent for years. But convictions have still happened in such cases. It up to what a jury believes, where the defendant is alive. When the suspect is dead, it's difficult to see what will happen.