Jimmy Saville exposed

Dravokivich · 02-10-2012 3:12pm

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Yeah, you'd think there would be some sort of Garda vetting scheme put in place..........

My point was in reference to anyone, not just males and not that it doesn't occur.

ejmaztec · 02-10-2012 3:15pm

Fuinseog wrote: »

why do they wait until he is dead before attacking him?

surely his friends in high places would have known?

having said that plenty of people in this country defended cathal o searcaigh and David norris for their interest in young boys.

Some of them could have been up to their eyeballs in it as well, for all we know.

At the height of his fame, I think a lot of people thought he was gay, because he lived with his mother and wasn't married, and were clueless as to what he supposedly got up to with young girls because that must have been kept well under wraps.

Spread · 02-10-2012 3:24pm

getz wrote: »

he was rarther partial to dead people to

Cannibalism or Necrophilia?

getz · 02-10-2012 3:25pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

Some of them could have been up to their eyeballs in it as well, for all we know.

At the height of his fame, I think a lot of people thought he was gay, because he lived with his mother and wasn't married, and were clueless as to what he supposedly got up to with young girls because that must have been kept well under wraps.

when we were out drinking with him in the early 60s it did not show ,but as i said before he was the asst manager of a dance hall in manchester and could have most any girl he wanted,so we never really expected him to pick up the kind of birds we did,saying that two other minor celebrities at that time would also turn up and they never had a girl on their arms,one was a singer called frank ifeld a ausy and a mad scot called lonny donigan dont know if any of you remember them

Ashbourne hoop · 02-10-2012 3:26pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

My point was in reference to anyone, not just males and not that it doesn't occur.

Women need Garda clearance too.

getz · 02-10-2012 3:27pm

Spread wrote: »

Cannibalism or Necrophilia?

not cannibalism but i am sure its all going to come out

M cebee · 02-10-2012 3:30pm

all these jobs need clearance now,don't they?

jimmy saville was more your roving pied-piper type paedophile wasn't he? rather than an employee

the fact that he was moving around and his influence prob helped kept him out of trouble

Biggins · 02-10-2012 3:31pm

I've read a number of accounts of supposed victims and in a few of their retelling of incidents, they mention that while they were assaulted by Saville there was another person in the room at times doing something to another under-age person - that older adult person being stated as also there, was still alive.

I wonder are the police now at least looking into this?

ejmaztec · 02-10-2012 3:33pm

getz wrote: »

when we were out drinking with him in the early 60s it did not show ,but as i said before he was the asst manager of a dance hall in manchester and could have most any girl he wanted,so we never really expected him to pick up the kind of birds we did,saying that two other minor celebrities at that time would also turn up and they never had a girl on their arms,one was a singer called frank ifeld a ausy and a mad scot called lonny donigan dont know if any of you remember them

One of my grannies was a fan of that guy and would never shut up about him, I think he came from Coventry, before he moved to Aus.

M cebee · 02-10-2012 3:36pm

he was quite obviously a roving paedophile

i wonder how many complaints were made over the years and what action was taken?

you'd at least expect that now in 2012 -people with suspicions would pass info onto police
i heard of one in 2007 and an investigation ensued

Spread · 02-10-2012 3:37pm

[MOD SNIP]

Dravokivich · 02-10-2012 3:38pm

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Women need Garda clearance too.

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?

ejmaztec · 02-10-2012 3:40pm

M cebee wrote: »

he was quite obviously a roving paedophile

i wonder how many complaints were made over the years and what action was taken?

you'd at least expect that now in 2012 -people with suspicions would pass info onto police
i heard of one in 2007 and an investigation ensued

The cops have probably got a list of well known public figures who could be connected to a Jimmy Savile enquiry, and are waiting for them all to die before doing anything about it.

M cebee · 02-10-2012 3:51pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

The cops have probably got a list of well known public figures who could be connected to a Jimmy Savile enquiry, and are waiting for them all to die before doing anything about it.

prob plenty of cops on the list too

but they don't have to sit on a story of course, like the media here

they can act ,although lack of evidence is prob an issue

Ashbourne hoop · 02-10-2012 4:11pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... there's been many problems with women involved in sexually abusing kids as well. I'd be off the opinion that anyone who works with children require some formal vetting. As a safe guard for them, as much as the children.

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?

I took from your first post that you were giving an opinion that anyone who works with children should be vetted, I took that to mean that you didn't know/realise that there is vetting in place for everyone who works with children.

humanji · 02-10-2012 4:25pm

Just to note folks, unless someone is proven of being guilty of a crime, don't make claims against them.

fionnsda · 02-10-2012 5:22pm

Spread · 02-10-2012 5:32pm

humanji wrote: »

Just to note folks, unless someone is proven of being guilty of a crime, don't make claims against them.

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

fionnsda · 02-10-2012 5:40pm

humanji wrote: »

Just to note folks, unless someone is proven of being guilty of a crime, don't make claims against them.

Whats he gonna do haunt us!:)

4zn76tysfajdxp · 02-10-2012 5:46pm

fionnsda wrote: »

Whats he gonna do haunt us!:)

No. He'll haunt your children.

ejmaztec · 02-10-2012 5:48pm

fionnsda wrote: »

Whats he gonna do haunt us!:)

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

Guy:Incognito · 02-10-2012 6:11pm

Spread wrote: »

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

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.

ejmaztec · 02-10-2012 6:15pm

fionnsda wrote: »

Whats he gonna do haunt us!:)

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

Spread · 02-10-2012 6:22pm

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

ejmaztec · 02-10-2012 6:29pm

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

Spread · 02-10-2012 6:40pm

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!

Our man in Havana · 02-10-2012 6:41pm

The dead can't sue.

ejmaztec · 02-10-2012 6:55pm

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

AlarmBelle · 02-10-2012 6:58pm

Our man in Havana wrote: »

The dead can't sue.

aren't there some circumstances where living family can?

Jellicoe · 02-10-2012 7:00pm

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

Biggins · 02-10-2012 7:02pm

Jellicoe wrote: »

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

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

02-10-2012 7:02pm

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.

Handsome Bob · 02-10-2012 7:12pm

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.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 02-10-2012 7:16pm

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.

Seedy Arling · 02-10-2012 7:42pm

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

Our man in Havana · 02-10-2012 8:06pm

Nope. Only the living can be defamed.

Ghandee · 02-10-2012 9:24pm

Ffs, not another Saville inquiry?

daysleeper · 02-10-2012 9:44pm

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.

Varied · 02-10-2012 9:49pm

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.

Hootanany · 02-10-2012 10:09pm

Does he mention it in the book.

M cebee · 02-10-2012 10:34pm

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

Varied · 02-10-2012 10:45pm

M cebee wrote: »

delete your cookies after you check out the kiddieporn

What will I use for bait?!

tony1kenobi · 02-10-2012 11:34pm

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?

Spread · 02-10-2012 11:54pm

Varied wrote: »

What will I use for bait?!

Eminens

Wattle · 03-10-2012 1:27am

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?

mccarthy37 · 03-10-2012 9:36am

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.

AlarmBelle · 03-10-2012 1:09pm

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

Seedy Arling · 03-10-2012 1:15pm

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...

geeky · 03-10-2012 1:28pm

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.

Oscar Bravo · 03-10-2012 11:45pm

On ITV1 now....

Jimmy Saville exposed

Comments