RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (Full Version)

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



Message


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.




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 5:58:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia


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.



What do you mean by that?

Oh you mean like a mole on one of his balls or whatever, gotcha.




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 6:00:53 PM)

A birth mark on his penis.




horribleives -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 6:01:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

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.


Innit.




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 6:07:17 PM)

Well you say 'enlightened times', but you gotta be careful these days with how you act, what you say and how you interact with people or before you know it you're in the bosses office accused of all manner of things [8|]

Going back to Clifford...I think 27/48 years ago is pushing it really, I mean seriously, who cares?. Its just funny how all this comes out now as if its a good time to make some money out of it.




adambatman82 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 6:16:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Well you say 'enlightened times', but you gotta be careful these days with how you act, what you say and how you interact with people or before you know it you're in the bosses office accused of all manner of things [8|]


Oh Phubbs, what is it you've been accused of?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Going back to Clifford...I think 27/48 years ago is pushing it really, I mean seriously, who cares?.

The victims? Their families? The general public? I can only speak for myself, but I think it's a Very Good Thing if a guilty figure is brought to task, irregardless of how long it's been since the crime was committed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs
Its just funny how all this comes out now as if its a good time to make some money out of it.


That seems like quite a cynical attitude really. I've never been in the position of a sexual abuse victim, so can't really begin to understand how something like that makes you feel. Perhaps it's only now that they feel as though it's safe to come forward? Or they've only just mustered up the courage to speak up, in the wake of other high profile incidents of similar accusations?




porntrooper -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 6:23:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Going back to Clifford...I think 27/48 years ago is pushing it really, I mean seriously, who cares?. Its just funny how all this comes out now as if its a good time to make some money out of it.


Really? You don't think maybe the victims might care?




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 6:25:43 PM)

Not been accused of anything just pointing out the accusation happy society we live in these days.

27-48 years ago!!!! nah.




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 6:33:30 PM)

That is where it is difficult. It is a question of what actually is alleged to have occurred and if force or coercion was used. That sort of thing can leave mental scars of long lasting nature. I seem to remember it was just recently a choir master was found guilty of abuse thirty or so years ago (which sadly resulted in the person who was abused committing suicide shortly after giving evidence). Abuse is a terrible thing which can seriously damage a person. From that case it does appear to be a case of proving the person had contact with the accuser mixed with evidence of opportunity and then it comes down to how reliable and believable the evidence given by the person making the accusation is. It appears to be a very hit and miss thing which presumably is like Russian roulette and depends on the makeup of the jury as one jury may give one verdict on the evidence and change a couple of people and they dynamic alters and it could be a completely different verdict.




porntrooper -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 6:41:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Not been accused of anything just pointing out the accusation happy society we live in these days.

27-48 years ago!!!! nah.


Accusation happy society? You don't think that if someone feels they're a victim of a crime they should be able to come forward to have the matter investigated?

You think that a victim of a sexual assault will just forget about it over time and just shrug it off?

I'm as cynical as anyone, but this is just a fucking horrible attitude to have. Sadly it's one that isn't uncommon, I am seeing it more and more on Twitter and such. Even fucking Alan Sugar was beating this drum last week. Fuckwits that seem to roll out this kind of argument always seem to sign it off with a 'if they're guilty I hope they rot' style comment, but how the fuck can we identify them as guilty if a victim doesn't come forward and an investigation is not carried out? Do I think those accused should be named in public to face judgement by the press and the fuckwitted Facebook loving public? No, the accused should have some form of anonymity until proven guilty. The public at large are a depressing, braindead bunch when it comes to stuff like this, seemingly getting high on their self righteousness by posting endless 'Like if you think this paedo should die' pictures all over the fucking shop. Boils my piss.




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2013 6:44:35 PM)

^^ I agree, but its that 48 years bit that gets me, that is a long ass time!





Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125