Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jimmy Saville exposed

Options
1…78101213…50

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,974 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    fionnsda wrote: »
    Whats he gonna do haunt us!:)

    We'll kick him in the ghoulies if he tries that.


  • Options
    #273
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Spread wrote: »
    Does that mean that we have to say, "the alleged plaintiff, one Jack The Ripper etc" when discussing Jack The Ripper? :confused:

    Probably not s good example seeing as saying "jack the ripper is a peodo" isnt defaming or otherwise bad mouthing anyone in particular. If you knew his identity and named him,thats different.


  • Options
    #274
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,974 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    fionnsda wrote: »
    Whats he gonna do haunt us!:)

    Great idea for a film, Jimmy Kruger'll Fix It


  • Options
    #275
    Spread
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭Spread


    Has anyone else noticed that "Ivy, I smell jam" is an anagram of the alleged nonce?


  • Options
    #276
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,974 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Spread wrote: »
    Has anyone else noticed that "Ivy, I smell jam" is an anagram of the alleged nonce?

    We probably would have done if there'd been two Ls in Savile.:P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Spread
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭Spread


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    We probably would have done if there'd been two Ls in Savile.:P
    Thank you for your harmonious retort ejmaztec. We seem to be referring to different people. I was talking about the OP's subject.
    OK then .......... Evil as Jimmy. Gotcha!


  • Options
    #278
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    The dead can't sue.


  • Options
    #279
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,974 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Spread wrote: »
    Thank you for your harmonious retort ejmaztec. We seem to be referring to different people. I was talking about the OP's subject.
    OK then .......... Evil as Jimmy. Gotcha!

    Much better effort, always glad to be of assistance.:P


  • Options
    #280
    AlarmBelle
    Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭AlarmBelle


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    The dead can't sue.
    aren't there some circumstances where living family can?


  • Options
    #281
    Jellicoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 492 ✭✭Jellicoe


    Who were the other presenters of his 70's programme Clunk Click ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Jellicoe wrote: »
    Who were the other presenters of his 70's programme Clunk Click ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clunk_Click_Every_Trip


  • Options
    #283
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If the libel reason is the only reason for not coming forward it's not enough for me. It only requires balance of probability and if none could show that then I'm not gonna decide someone is a paedo.

    That said, I heard he wasn't allowed into mass for years, the priests would always row about who got to hear his confessions.


  • Options
    #284
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    You're reading more into my post differently to what I've written.

    I responded to someone who presented men as a threat with vetting a requirement for any men who have a job around/directing children. All I said, that it's "anyone" who can be a threat and any vetting should be for "anyone."

    I never said, there's no vetting.

    I never said only men are getting vetted.

    What are you at?

    My background is in social care and you're right, both women and men are vetted. The one difference though that I found is that when it comes to working with children, a female with no experience working with a child is much more likelier to be recruited than a male with no experience working with a child.

    I dare say that a male with no experience working with children will automatically be eliminated from the recruitment process. He has zero chance of getting an interview.


  • Options
    #285
    4zn76tysfajdxp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,944 ✭✭✭✭4zn76tysfajdxp


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That said, I heard he wasn't allowed into mass for years, the priests would always row about who got to hear his confessions.

    It's terrible when jealousy comes between friends.


  • Options
    #286
    Seedy Arling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,002 ✭✭✭Seedy Arling


    King Rhythmic Turbine wrote: »
    Deleted User wrote: »
    That said, I heard he wasn't allowed into mass for years, the priests would always row about who got to hear his confessions.

    It's terrible when jealousy comes between fiends.

    Fyp


  • Options
    #287
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Nope. Only the living can be defamed.


  • Options
    #288
    Ghandee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,653 ✭✭✭Ghandee


    Ffs, not another Saville inquiry?


  • Options
    #289
    daysleeper
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭daysleeper


    Varied wrote: »
    Well if he said its for research purposes and wikipedia said so then I should shut my mouth then :eek:

    :rolleyes:

    Oh shush. I quoted wiki because it outlines what happened in the most basic of terms. Perhaps you should do some research of your own into Pete's story before you go shooting your mouth off.
    tony1kenobi wrote: »
    Can you send me a link to where I can buy that book?I've been keeping an eye out for it for ten years but can't find it anywhere.

    It's almost like it doesn't exist.

    Is this the one ya mean? It only officially came out a week or two ago, but I think he'd been saying for years that it'd be out by the end of the year so maybe that's where the confusion stems from.


  • Options
    #290
    Varied
    Closed Accounts Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Varied


    daysleeper wrote: »
    Oh shush. I quoted wiki because it outlines what happened in the most basic of terms. Perhaps you should do some research of your own into Pete's story before you go shooting your mouth off.

    Yup, I'll make sure and look up some child porn and make the same excuses.

    "Oh I was only facilitating child porn for research!"

    "Oh thats ok then, case dismissed!"

    *Everyone applauds*

    It wasn't enough to know that child porn is plain wrong, he needed to access it with his credit card, for RESEARCH purposes.


  • Options
    #291
    Hootanany
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    Does he mention it in the book.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    M cebee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭M cebee


    Varied wrote: »
    Yup, I'll make sure and look up some child porn and make the same excuses.

    "Oh I was only facilitating child porn for research!"

    "Oh thats ok then, case dismissed!"

    *Everyone applauds*

    It wasn't enough to know that child porn is plain wrong, he needed to access it with his credit card, for RESEARCH purposes.

    delete your cookies after you check out the kiddieporn


  • Options
    #293
    Varied
    Closed Accounts Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Varied


    M cebee wrote: »
    delete your cookies after you check out the kiddieporn

    What will I use for bait?! :confused:


  • Options
    #294
    tony1kenobi
    Registered Users Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭tony1kenobi


    daysleeper wrote: »
    Is this the one ya mean? It only officially came out a week or two ago, but I think he'd been saying for years that it'd be out by the end of the year so maybe that's where the confusion stems from.

    No that isn't the one I mean.I mean the one about raping children that he was researching when he was paying to look at pictures and videos of children being raped.With his own credit card.On his own computer.As per the findings of Operation Ore.

    Do you have a link to that book?


  • Options
    #295
    Spread
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭Spread


    Varied wrote: »
    What will I use for bait?! :confused:

    Eminens :D


  • Options
    #296
    Wattle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭Wattle


    Varied wrote: »
    Yup, I'll make sure and look up some child porn and make the same excuses.

    "Oh I was only facilitating child porn for research!"

    "Oh thats ok then, case dismissed!"

    *Everyone applauds*

    It wasn't enough to know that child porn is plain wrong, he needed to access it with his credit card, for RESEARCH purposes.

    You've obviously got a bee in your bonnet about this but police determined that he had no case to answer. Are you saying you know better than them?


  • Options
    #297
    mccarthy37
    Registered Users Posts: 646 ✭✭✭mccarthy37


    Strange how quite the BBC are about all of this claiming they knew nothing. When they first exposed the abuse scandal by the Catholic church and that organization denied any knowledge of wrong doing they were well able to
    investigate and expose the evil culprits. Now the shoe is on the other foot they are acting just like the Catholic Church. Call in the police and stop saying they will investigate this themselves or have they learned anything from the past.


  • Options
    #298
    AlarmBelle
    Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭AlarmBelle


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    Nope. Only the living can be defamed.
    what i was thinking of is in a book on writing a friend has.It says re libel
    you cannot libel a dead person. However you have to be careful that what you say about the departed does not reflect badly on someone still living...there are circumstances in which they could sue


  • Options
    #299
    Seedy Arling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,002 ✭✭✭Seedy Arling


    The whole thing seems to be screaming cover up from the BBC. Looks like they swept it under the carpet and then tried to forget about what happened and hoped it went away.

    Seriously sickening the way people with position in society use their influence for nefarious means. Absolutely disgusting. Suppose we'll know more after tonights documentary. Or maybe not...


  • Options
    #300
    geeky
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If the libel reason is the only reason for not coming forward it's not enough for me. It only requires balance of probability and if none could show that then I'm not gonna decide someone is a paedo.

    That said, I heard he wasn't allowed into mass for years, the priests would always row about who got to hear his confessions.

    Actually, under British law, the alleged libeller/defamer has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what they printed/broadcast was fair.

    It's given rise to a problem called Libel Tourism, which clogs up the British court system. But it makes lawyers very rich, so there's not much clamour for reform.

    But just get a serious investigative journalist or even a satirist like Ian Hislop started, and you'll realise how weighted the system is against the publisher.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    Oscar Bravo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,064 ✭✭✭✭Oscar Bravo


    On ITV1 now....


Advertisement