RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 12:06:30 PM)

Jake the Peg, Two Little Boys..... were these a cry for help? [;)]




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 12:27:01 PM)

Again - this is an allegation, please remember that in how you word any 'jokes' you come up with. In addition to which, droll though the song may be, there is no information leaked about the type of offences that are even involved here.




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 12:30:53 PM)

[8|]

I'ma bad man... a thousand apologies.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 12:37:49 PM)

Actually no - questions marks and a bad joke don't a deletion make.

Chief is a very bad man though [:D] (remember your allegation language!)




great_badir -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 1:26:03 PM)

Also no one has said (as far as I've read) that he is a nonce - these allegations could "just" be about sexual harrassment of adult women within the BBC at the time, couldn't they? (if true)

EDIT - which doesn't make it right, of course, just a whole different level of wrongness.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 1:28:51 PM)

Exactly - that's what many of these cases seem to refer to.




great_badir -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 1:32:53 PM)

Ah yes - I see I said much the same in this thread just over a month ago...




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 3:58:11 PM)

Of course, I did know all of the above guys... I was just kidding, as inappropriate as that was, of course...

Ooow, I starting and finished that with 'of course'.... cool....




DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 4:24:26 PM)

Who the hell's next? Gordon the Gopher? Did Ed the Duck lure underage mallards back to Andy's broom-cupboard?




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 4:26:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Who the hell's next? Gordon the Gopher? Did Ed the Duck lure underage mallards back to Andy's broom-cupboard?


How dare you.Leave Gordon alone!




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 5:33:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Who the hell's next? Gordon the Gopher? Did Ed the Duck lure underage mallards back to Andy's broom-cupboard?


How dare you.Leave Gordon alone!


Oh, but Ed is fair game though?




superdan -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 8:13:11 PM)

Gordon and Ed were just the sicko's who watched and wanked while Zig and Zag made children show them their pants.




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 8:20:18 PM)

And let's not talk about the what strange men with their hands to their bottoms (Gordon and Ed that is).




MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 8:23:25 PM)

I've got money on Roland Rat to be the next outed celebrity

Tell me there wasn't something strange about him hanging out with that young hamster.




superdan -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 8:24:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

I've got money on Roland Rat to be the next outed celebrity

Tell me there wasn't something strange about him hanging out with that young hamster.


He always dressed like a paedo.




kumar -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/4/2013 8:35:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: borstal

Facebook.

It kills me. Apparently Rolf is vile and sick despite not being found guilty of anything. Don't get me started on 'inspirational' posters.


"makes u think, must have had something on him in the first place to arrest him"

Thats all that matters in some cases, as i have found out today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

I was searching through Twitter and a lot of people are already convinced of his guilt.

Personally speaking I think you should undergo a moron test before you're allowed to join an social media website.


I would not be against this idea!




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (20/4/2013 11:07:56 AM)

Newspaper reports today suggest the claims against Harris are in fact one claim from a woman. So eg nothing to do with children.




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (20/4/2013 11:43:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Newspaper reports today suggest the claims against Harris are in fact one claim from a woman. So eg nothing to do with children.


Or animals. Phew.




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (24/4/2013 12:59:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Newspaper reports today suggest the claims against Harris are in fact one claim from a woman. So eg nothing to do with children.


Or animals. Phew.


[sm=happy07.gif]




emogeek -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (24/4/2013 8:58:40 PM)

Freddie Starr rearrested over "fresh allegations"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22282769




Flatulent_Bob -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (25/4/2013 8:50:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Newspaper reports today suggest the claims against Harris are in fact one claim from a woman. So eg nothing to do with children.


Further strengthens my believe that no names should be released at all and the press shouldn't be allowed to report it until the indiviuals have been charged, and the matter is going to court.

How is it in the general public's interests to be encouraged by the national media to speculate about which celebrities are child sex offenders?




Prophet_of_Doom -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (25/4/2013 9:49:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flatulent_Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Newspaper reports today suggest the claims against Harris are in fact one claim from a woman. So eg nothing to do with children.


Further strengthens my believe that no names should be released at all and the press shouldn't be allowed to report it until the indiviuals have been charged, and the matter is going to court.

How is it in the general public's interests to be encouraged by the national media to speculate about which celebrities are child sex offenders?


It's not. But it sells a lot of papers. It has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with commerce.




Chief -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (25/4/2013 1:41:53 PM)

I can confirm the view of the common man that any suspect arrested and named will be referred to henceforth as a dirty fucking paedo.




Flatulent_Bob -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (26/4/2013 12:40:22 PM)

Unrelated article but the last paragraph I found relevant.
bank note article

quote:


The Bank of England publishes a list of the names of people who the public deem to be suitable for appearing on banknotes.

Some of those who have been nominated, but have yet to make the grade, are David Beckham, Sir Jimmy Savile, Princess Diana and Sir Terry Wogan.

Historical nominations include Jane Austen, Oscar Wilde and Admiral Lord Nelson.


Don't think he'd make the list now but I'd recommend reading it.

Robbie Williams, David Beckham, Michael Vaughan and Lady fucking Diana up against William Blake, Emily Pankhurst,Thomas Barnardo, and Isambard Kingdom Brunel [:D]




emogeek -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (26/4/2013 2:06:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flatulent_Bob

Unrelated article but the last paragraph I found relevant.
bank note article

quote:


The Bank of England publishes a list of the names of people who the public deem to be suitable for appearing on banknotes.

Some of those who have been nominated, but have yet to make the grade, are David Beckham, Sir Jimmy Savile, Princess Diana and Sir Terry Wogan.

Historical nominations include Jane Austen, Oscar Wilde and Admiral Lord Nelson.


Don't think he'd make the list now but I'd recommend reading it.

Robbie Williams, David Beckham, Michael Vaughan and Lady fucking Diana up against William Blake, Emily Pankhurst,Thomas Barnardo, and Isambard Kingdom Brunel [:D]



That's a fight I would pay good money to see [:D]




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (26/4/2013 4:07:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flatulent_Bob

Unrelated article but the last paragraph I found relevant.
bank note article

quote:


The Bank of England publishes a list of the names of people who the public deem to be suitable for appearing on banknotes.

Some of those who have been nominated, but have yet to make the grade, are David Beckham, Sir Jimmy Savile, Princess Diana and Sir Terry Wogan.

Historical nominations include Jane Austen, Oscar Wilde and Admiral Lord Nelson.


Don't think he'd make the list now but I'd recommend reading it.

Robbie Williams, David Beckham, Michael Vaughan and Lady fucking Diana up against William Blake, Emily Pankhurst,Thomas Barnardo, and Isambard Kingdom Brunel [:D]



I'd love that top go to a nationwide vote just to see exactly how moronic the British public are. I'd imagine the last four wouldn't stand a chance by virtue of most people in this country having no idea who the fuck they are.




Woger -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (26/4/2013 7:21:43 PM)

Clifford has been charged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22313286




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (26/4/2013 7:46:00 PM)

I am just curious how you they are able to prove something which occurred 27 to 48 years ago? I would be genuinely interested to know the process. Presumably it is circumstantial stuff like being able to prove they were in the same place mixed with witness evidence as presumably the likelihood of actual physical evidence is very slight.




Chief -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 10:40:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

I am just curious how you they are able to prove something which occurred 27 to 48 years ago? I would be genuinely interested to know the process. Presumably it is circumstantial stuff like being able to prove they were in the same place mixed with witness evidence as presumably the likelihood of actual physical evidence is very slight.


I've thought about that as well, surely it just comes down to he said/she said?




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 5:55:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

I am just curious how you they are able to prove something which occurred 27 to 48 years ago? I would be genuinely interested to know the process. Presumably it is circumstantial stuff like being able to prove they were in the same place mixed with witness evidence as presumably the likelihood of actual physical evidence is very slight.


I've thought about that as well, surely it just comes down to he said/she said?


I understand with the Savile one it was the case that he had an intimate identifying mark which was used to weed out those who were true from those who may not have been true but I would imagine it is very, very difficult to prove the case without such a ting. Then again i am no expert in the matter and those who have actually been charged rather than just questioned must have had sufficient evidence for the CPS to feel there was a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution (not of course that such things have been proven wrong in the past). It is a very difficult situation and in some cases there incident in question appears top involve a sexual assault charge from a grope (which I believe the Dave Lee Travis incident allegedly was). I am not demeaning the effect this has but sadly in the 70's when the incidents apparently happened this was seen as an acceptable thing and I have spoken to a couple of women who have informed their bosses used to pretty much chase them around the desks when they were working in the 70's. Luckily we are in more enlightened times now.




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375