IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Sir Jimmy R.I.P, Jim won't Fix It any more
Turin Machine
post Oct 30 2011, 08:35 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,682
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



A 'tool' of the establishment !! Come the revolution brothers !

Wow, sorry, just for a moment I was channeling RG. Phew ! glad thats over !


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Oct 17 2012, 07:31 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



QUOTE (gel @ Oct 29 2011, 05:42 PM) *

Really?

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 30 2011, 10:23 AM) *
He was somebody we grew up with. Whether that be in the 60s or 70s or even 80s.

Some seem to have had certain aspects of 'growing up' thrust upon them.

QUOTE (Vodabury @ Oct 29 2011, 05:51 PM) *
Sad.

I have a photo of him with my Mum taken in the 1970's - he in his "trademark" tracksuit and holding a big cigar. A real character.

RIP

Were you there, and how old were you? It may not have been your Mum he had his eyes on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Oct 17 2012, 07:44 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 17 2012, 08:31 PM) *
Really?

Are these yours?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Oct 17 2012, 08:03 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 17 2012, 08:31 PM) *
Really?


Some seem to have had certain aspects of 'growing up' thrust upon them.


Were you there, and how old were you? It may not have been your Mum he had his eyes on.




Aren't you trying to be clever after the event? I noticed you didn't comment at the time on how bad he was when this tribute was first put up. Hindsight is a wonderful thing for some.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Oct 17 2012, 09:21 PM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



I agree with GMR, what's your point?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Oct 17 2012, 09:35 PM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



Please understand - I do not in the slightest condone messing with children ......

That said, a number of allegations were fully (I hope) investigated and found to be short on evidence when the fella was alive. Now he is dead and the libel laws don't apply the newspapers are pumping out allegations and various witnesses are coming forward. Not just victims, but witnesses. I really struggle that people could not raise their voices if they saw things going on - it offends my expectations of the moral courage I hope such folk would possess.

A dead man cannot be convicted, and (I hope) the CP arrangements in the Beeb and the hospitals have all moved on in any case - most of the allegations are years and years ago, and some venues have closed. Maybe some live offenders will be nicked (good), and hopefully convicted.

I am uncomfortable that there seems to be an unquestionable 'fact' that he committed every act against every victim. Any question that the evidence should be challenged? I know the police officer leading for the MET has announced the guilt, but even that was very early on in what will be an extremely complex enquiry.....

Just thinking. Maybe I shouldn't. Maybe the Lynch Mob had a purpose.......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
x2lls
post Oct 17 2012, 10:16 PM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,605
Joined: 25-November 09
Member No.: 511



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Oct 17 2012, 10:35 PM) *
Please understand - I do not in the slightest condone messing with children ......

That said, a number of allegations were fully (I hope) investigated and found to be short on evidence when the fella was alive. Now he is dead and the libel laws don't apply the newspapers are pumping out allegations and various witnesses are coming forward. Not just victims, but witnesses. I really struggle that people could not raise their voices if they saw things going on - it offends my expectations of the moral courage I hope such folk would possess.

A dead man cannot be convicted, and (I hope) the CP arrangements in the Beeb and the hospitals have all moved on in any case - most of the allegations are years and years ago, and some venues have closed. Maybe some live offenders will be nicked (good), and hopefully convicted.

I am uncomfortable that there seems to be an unquestionable 'fact' that he committed every act against every victim. Any question that the evidence should be challenged? I know the police officer leading for the MET has announced the guilt, but even that was very early on in what will be an extremely complex enquiry.....

Just thinking. Maybe I shouldn't. Maybe the Lynch Mob had a purpose.......



From what I read, many did report, but were ignored or not believed, and THAT is being investigated. Even some members of the police had doubts but were overruled. That is what happened to the girls who were victims in the recent case in Bradford (I think). They were already from dysfunctional families or had been in trouble with the law. They simply didn't think they would be believed or had already had negative experience of the establishment.
As previously stated here, hindsight is a wonderful thing.


--------------------
There their, loose loser!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Oct 17 2012, 11:30 PM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



I'm uncomfortable about the 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' aspect of all this and there's more than a nasty smell of tabloids stirring anything to keep the story going....

But I don't expect Esther Rantzen thought for a moment she would also be swept up in the feeding frenzy of the Jimmy Saville affair in the way that it's turning out for her. Calls for her to resign from her position with the ChildLine charity are gaining pace. The old dear was probably looking forward to a few weeks of extra publicity, Newsnight and other current affairs chat show appearances to discuss what a nasty fella JS and instead she's being given the treatment herself over why she didn't say anything when it was reported to her.....

Whatever happened to that investigative journalism she was so keen to champion? Normally very quick to dish out her opinions on others caught in the spotlight, but perhaps even for her the great Sir Jimmy was beyond reproach....

Being smug and self righteous can be a pain sometimes.....

But hang on.... She knew about his activities, but could do nothing about it?
Oh, if only she'd been married to a Very Senior BBC executive... say the Head of General Features, responsible for commissioning many programmes perhaps.....

Oh, wait a minute.....


Not only was she in a position to make her misgivings known, it was her duty as the head of a Children's charity.

She's not laid 6ft under. She (and other minor celebs like her who are scuttling out from their stones to tell of their misgivings when working with Saville) is in a better position than Jimmy Saville to answer why they never made more of a fuss about it. You can't tell me that this wouldn't have made a juicy scoop for a News of The World journo if there was a shred of evidence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Oct 18 2012, 12:08 AM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 17 2012, 09:03 PM) *
Aren't you trying to be clever after the event? I noticed you didn't comment at the time on how bad he was when this tribute was first put up. Hindsight is a wonderful thing for some.


If I'd wanted to join in the 'tribute' at the time, I would have.

Having watched the Louis Theroux program where he spent time in J.S's company, and it was revealed he'd lived with the body of his deceased mother before reporting her demise, the fact that her complete clothing collection was still there, and he still sent it out to be dry-cleaned every year. His defence of Gary Glitter, ("he just watched a few 'dodgy films' and was only vilified because he was a celebrity... It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is up to him as a person. But he didn't do anything wrong.") along with some very strange behaviour, led one to believe he was a pretty 'rum cove' indeed.

Readers of the Guardian will know that in 2007 Savile was interviewed under caution by police investigating an allegation of indecent assault in the 1970s at the now-closed Duncroft Approved School for Girls near Staines, Surrey, where he was a regular visitor.

Then, in 2008, Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne. Savile initially denied visiting Haut de la Garenne, but later admitted that he had done so, following the publication of a photograph showing him at the home surrounded by children. I believe Savile let that one drop.

Rather than just jumping on the usual 'my condolences' band wagon, some, when offered the chance to join in the 'love in' for J.S. just held their own council, and let others look a bit silly. Both at the time, and indeed now.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 18 2012, 05:07 AM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Clearly you felt strongly about it so keeping your council at the time hasn't exactly helped your cause! A comment then might, just might have had a more beneficial outcome. To me, the commercial aspects have been the worse; continued harping on with what in many cases are ungrounded allegations, was done simply to sell newspapers. Equally, breaking the story so late, not only puffed up an obscure TV documentary, but enabled the auction of personal effects to take place undisturbed. Whole thing leaves a nasty taste.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Newbelly
post Oct 18 2012, 07:55 AM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 389
Joined: 23-March 12
Member No.: 8,669



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 18 2012, 01:08 AM) *
If I'd wanted to join in the 'tribute' at the time, I would have.

Having watched the Louis Theroux program where he spent time in J.S's company, and it was revealed he'd lived with the body of his deceased mother before reporting her demise, the fact that her complete clothing collection was still there, and he still sent it out to be dry-cleaned every year. His defence of Gary Glitter, ("he just watched a few 'dodgy films' and was only vilified because he was a celebrity... It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is up to him as a person. But he didn't do anything wrong.") along with some very strange behaviour, led one to believe he was a pretty 'rum cove' indeed.

Readers of the Guardian will know that in 2007 Savile was interviewed under caution by police investigating an allegation of indecent assault in the 1970s at the now-closed Duncroft Approved School for Girls near Staines, Surrey, where he was a regular visitor.

Then, in 2008, Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne. Savile initially denied visiting Haut de la Garenne, but later admitted that he had done so, following the publication of a photograph showing him at the home surrounded by children. I believe Savile let that one drop.

Rather than just jumping on the usual 'my condolences' band wagon, some, when offered the chance to join in the 'love in' for J.S. just held their own council, and let others look a bit silly. Both at the time, and indeed now.


I think you mean "counsel"?

I do not understand the purpose in bringing this thread to life again - other than jumping on a bandwagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Oct 18 2012, 10:27 AM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 18 2012, 06:07 AM) *
A comment then might, just might have had a more beneficial outcome.


And how exactly would me expressing the view ' He was a pretty rum cove' have changed any outcomes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 18 2012, 11:11 AM
Post #33


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 18 2012, 11:27 AM) *
And how exactly would me expressing the view ' He was a pretty rum cove' have changed any outcomes?


Simply we might not have suffered the hysteria we are seeing now. Myriad enquiries at large expense are being launched - to what end? Does anyone seriously expect such things never to happen again? If so, dream on! Still, it has certainly helped sell a good few newspapers, lined the pockets of a few legal advisors, and provided some mass entertainment. Bread and circuses, thats all they want!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weavers Walk
post Oct 18 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-November 10
Member No.: 1,234



'On The Edge', you didn't answer the question. Which, as I understand it was how would he or she stating that Jimmy Savile was a 'pretty rum cove' on a provincial forum after the guy was dead have changed ANY outcomes?

I'm sure that those who suffered at the hands of Savile and have grown up traumatised by it, would be interested to hear you put their suffering under the heading 'bread and circuses' and 'mass entertainment'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Oct 18 2012, 12:42 PM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



We'll be hearing from kids who were molested in the 1970s by Santa in the grotto at Camps next - you know Santa made them sit on his lap......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Oct 18 2012, 01:22 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 18 2012, 01:42 PM) *
We'll be hearing from kids who were molested in the 1970s by Santa in the grotto at Camps next - you know Santa made them sit on his lap......


Quite so. And the generously constructed bar maid at the Robin might be claiming that patrons used to linger just too long taking their change.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HJD
post Oct 18 2012, 03:47 PM
Post #37


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 5-September 09
Member No.: 322



QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 18 2012, 02:22 PM) *
Quite so. And the generously constructed bar maid at the Robin might be claiming that patrons used to linger just too long taking their change.


Funny, i was thinking only the other day that i have'nt been in that pub for a while ...........
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Oct 18 2012, 04:01 PM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 18 2012, 01:08 AM) *
If I'd wanted to join in the 'tribute' at the time, I would have.

Having watched the Louis Theroux program where he spent time in J.S's company, and it was revealed he'd lived with the body of his deceased mother before reporting her demise, the fact that her complete clothing collection was still there, and he still sent it out to be dry-cleaned every year. His defence of Gary Glitter, ("he just watched a few 'dodgy films' and was only vilified because he was a celebrity... It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is up to him as a person. But he didn't do anything wrong.") along with some very strange behaviour, led one to believe he was a pretty 'rum cove' indeed.

Readers of the Guardian will know that in 2007 Savile was interviewed under caution by police investigating an allegation of indecent assault in the 1970s at the now-closed Duncroft Approved School for Girls near Staines, Surrey, where he was a regular visitor.

Then, in 2008, Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne. Savile initially denied visiting Haut de la Garenne, but later admitted that he had done so, following the publication of a photograph showing him at the home surrounded by children. I believe Savile let that one drop.

Rather than just jumping on the usual 'my condolences' band wagon, some, when offered the chance to join in the 'love in' for J.S. just held their own council, and let others look a bit silly. Both at the time, and indeed now.




Who is looking "silly"? I just said we grew up with him and we did; whether one likes him or not.

You mean you kept your own "council" [sic] until it was safe to come out of the woods? That was very brave of you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HeatherW
post Oct 18 2012, 06:42 PM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 4-July 10
Member No.: 988



Jimmy Savile was everywhere in the 60s and 70s. What does surprise me is that people are now coming out of the woodwork saying he did this or that. Very shocking. But I have noticed that too many people are being clever after the fact, but said nothing before hand. As on this forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rusty Bullet
post Oct 19 2012, 01:23 PM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Inside WBC
Member No.: 53



QUOTE (HeatherW @ Oct 18 2012, 07:42 PM) *
Jimmy Savile was everywhere in the 60s and 70s. What does surprise me is that people are now coming out of the woodwork saying he did this or that. Very shocking. But I have noticed that too many people are being clever after the fact, but said nothing before hand. As on this forum.


I think a number of people thought he was 'a bit odd' beforehand. Some here just seem to be attacking the messenger because they got caught up in the hype.

You think some things should have been said before a thread was started entitled Sir Jimmy RIP?

O.K.

Let's see how long this stays up...

One website has for quite a while been inundated with complaints (mainly sexual) against members of the broadcasting / entertainment fraternity. Indeed, Private Eye have recently been re-publishing some of their findings.

On a separate note (obviously) here is a list of names that have occurred most in their inbox.

Dave Lee Travis
Bobby Ball
Mike Read
Pete Murray
Noel Edmonds
Rolf Harris
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 10:02 AM