pigeonblasterian Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Remember Savile was raising money for charity while molesting young children.His charity work was a deception to hide the evil person he really was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 And this is my point.... my wife met JS when she was a kid perhaps she should approach the press with a story? only if genuine then why should she be forced to stay quiet on the subject. Perhaps had she been fiddled with your opinion would be different, some of these people have lived with this for most of their lifetime, and now are feeling able to come out about it as they know they were far from alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 And this is my point.... my wife met JS when she was a kid perhaps she should approach the press with a story? With no way of refuting allegations, I wonder what proportion of the new 'victims' coming forward are genuine... A court will look at evidence and find for the victim if the evidence stacks up... the Media will pay for a victims story as long as it is 'relevant,' 'of the moment' and 'unlikely to drop them in the ****!' I'm not saying we should simply look away but sometime, just sometimes... certain actions cause FAR more harm than good and I just feel that this is one of them... What if it was my wife or daughter? what if it was your daughter being refused life saving surgery at Stoke Mandeville because there were not enough beds due to donations dissapearing! We need to look to the future not the past... we can only have an impact on one of them! I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree with you on ethical grounds. When I did economics at university we used to discuss this kind of thing all the time. Made me uncomfortable then, and it makes me uncomfortable now. The truth is, in my opinion, an absolute defence. If you are telling it, a societal judgement that it's 'not for the greater good' isn't for me. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree with you on ethical grounds. When I did economics at university we used to discuss this kind of thing all the time. Made me uncomfortable then, and it makes me uncomfortable now. The truth is, in my opinion, an absolute defence. If you are telling it, a societal judgement that it's 'not for the greater good' isn't for me. Sorry. and I agree with you completely.... if he were alive and could answer the charges and face punishment....... but he isn't and he can't..... therefore, the ones that get punished for what he allegedly did are the kids that won't get the care or treatment they would if ITV et al hadn't used it as a ratings booster... Are you are telling me that's ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 what if it highlighted just one kiddie fiddler that was currently under the radar and still working with children Vipa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 and I agree with you completely.... if he were alive and could answer the charges and face punishment....... but he isn't and he can't..... therefore, the ones that get punished for what he allegedly did are the kids that won't get the care or treatment they would if ITV et al hadn't used it as a ratings booster... Are you are telling me that's ok? You are putting words into my mouth to support your argument and your assumption that charities will suffer if people come forward. I suggest you have no evidence of this, therefore please, with respect, do not attempt to include me in your own assumption. Hitler wasn't alive to answer his charges was he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Not all the girls that have come forward are looking for 15 mins of fame. A few want to remain anonymous. I will keep an open mind until evidence either way is proven. Jimmy should not be judged by rumour, but in contrast, just beacuse he seemed a "good guy" and a tireless charity worker, if the rumours are proven to be true then that does not excuse him. I also met him whilst in hospital and used to see him running throug my village. Edited October 3, 2012 by keg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 the problem is whats the proof on offences committed 50 years ago, its not exactly going to be DNA it is one persons word against a dead person. But there are a few too many people coming forward for it all to have no basis. Probably also the reason people haven't come forward, as has been shown the police couldn't get anywhere with investigations and even if they knew he was guilty prooving it is another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peskyfoxs Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) As my work involves working on cases of abuse/indencent images I think its very importnat that any abuse, even if the assused is deceased, is investigated. Whats to say if the allegations are correct that he didn't meet up with someone in the 80's or 90's to abuse children ? That other person may still be active in abuse. There is the chance that children being abused or at risk of abuse from the friendly old neighbour might just have a normal childhood if they are stopped? With most of the pedophile cases I have the displeasure of working on the accused are in contact with others who either abuse or who feed the vile trade in indecent images of children. Charity donations may well reduce but the chance of saving another child from abuse is something you might not have though of ? Edited October 3, 2012 by Peskyfoxs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Well said Pesky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peskyfoxs Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Well said Pesky. Thanks .. not sure everyone sees the Big picture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeonblasterian Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 http://www.scotsman.com/news Jimmy Savile statue removed from childrens swimming pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 As my work involves working on cases of abuse/indencent images I think its very importnat that any abuse, even if the assused is deceased, is investigated. Whats to say if the allegations are correct that he didn't meet up with someone in the 80's or 90's to abuse children ? That other person may still be active in abuse. There is the chance that children being abused or at risk of abuse from the friendly old neighbour might just have a normal childhood if they are stopped? With most of the pedophile cases I have the displeasure of working on the accused are in contact with others who either abuse or who feed the vile trade in indecent images of children. Charity donations may well reduce but the chance of saving another child from abuse is something you might not have though of ? You are of course right... BUT.... and it's a BIG BUT.... this should all be dealt with and investigated by the Police and other interested authorities... once that has been done and proof beyond reasonable doubt has been established.. THEN.... AND ONLY THEN... should a TV show be allowed to do a prime time expose... as it happens.. it is being done the other way round... it is already trial by media and the public have already made up thier minds based on heresay and tabloid rumour & presumption, this even before the program airs but hey, the viewing figures will be massive! And... looking at the later post by pigeonblasterian, the aftermath is already starting to show it's face... just because they no longer want to be associated with him, even though, as of yet, he hasn't actually been proved to have done anything wrong! And Thunderbird... I am not putting words into your mouth at all... I am just unravelling what you posted. If I have misunderstood it I appologise and if so, please explain your meaning In the words of a great Vulcan.... 'sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 shocking stuff: http://timesopinion.tumblr.com/post/32804536645/jimmy-saviles-affections-laid-bare-by-jimmy-savile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 And Thunderbird... I am not putting words into your mouth at all... Well, asking me to confirm whether I want charities to suffer certainly seemed like that. I am just unravelling what you posted. If I have misunderstood it I appologise and if so, please explain your meaning In the words of a great Vulcan.... 'sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!' I don't think my words need unravelling any more than I already have stated. It just seems we don't agree, which is fine. I usually enjoy your posts but on this we must agree to differ. For the avoidance of doubt, I do understand your point and in other circumstances...well....they would be other circumstances. But in this case I don't agree with it. On this the powers that be should be following the truth, as far as they humanely can, and if that exposes others wrongdoings then good. If it costs money then fine. There are worse things on which to spend money, such as (mentioned in the news last week) paying an NHS 'brand manager' a hundred grand a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I appreciate I have already said my piece that I feel he is definitely guilty but this recording only goes to confirm my thinking http://soundcloud.com/musiclibraryfinland/savilles-travels-get-off-my Truly shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 As my work involves working on cases of abuse/indencent images I think its very importnat that any abuse, even if the assused is deceased, is investigated. Whats to say if the allegations are correct that he didn't meet up with someone in the 80's or 90's to abuse children ? That other person may still be active in abuse. There is the chance that children being abused or at risk of abuse from the friendly old neighbour might just have a normal childhood if they are stopped? With most of the pedophile cases I have the displeasure of working on the accused are in contact with others who either abuse or who feed the vile trade in indecent images of children. Charity donations may well reduce but the chance of saving another child from abuse is something you might not have though of ? What you say is absolutely true and in the JS case there are references to "other well known TV personalities" also being involved. In those days every celeb had a secret. Have we forgotten the scenes of fans and groupies beseiging the hotels and homes of pop stars? How old were a lot of them? There is even stuff about Ted Heath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeonblasterian Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 After watching the documentary on Savile last night it only confirmed what a vile person he really was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegasus bridge Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 After watching the documentary on Savile last night it only confirmed what a vile person he really was. especially the bit with him and glitter together, arms round young girls. I think it should be investigated, especially if anyone implicated is still alive (like that paedo Glitter). i think the victims of this need some form of closure on it, and i'm sure this would go some way to delivering that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storme37 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 gary glitter has expressed his disappointment in taking his computer to pc world.... he should av asked if jim l fix it .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Sweepy Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Abuse is not something that just gos away . You can suffer in silence for the rest of your life and not tell anyone To speak of it whilst that person is still alive for many is too painful and would be like being abused all over again Once the abuser has passed away then in some parts its like being giving your life back again . they are out of your life and though you are scar for life. You can feel from that moment on you can move on This could be why these woman now feel they can talked about it. Also the brain is a wonderful thing for years it can block out certain parts of your life that has caused you pain and it takes something like this to release those mermories Though i do hope whatever money they get from this they give to a child abuse charity so some good do come out of all this if it was me the money would just make me feel so dirty and because it came from him i wouldnt even want too touch it xxxSuzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 I tend to think what is done and gone is best to forget about it and move on to dwell on things just makes it all the worst in the end. I always thought that he was a bit odd could it be that all of the good work that he did was in a strange way his way of giving something back for bad things that he may have done to others. In a way its like thoughts of revenge if someone has done something to upset you there are two ways that you can deal with it you can let it fester inside of you and spend your life thinking of ways to get your own back on them or you can put it out of your mind and get on with life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 See Freddie Starr has now been named as linked with it FWIW I call him guilty at this point as by all accounts he has had a super injunction protecting him up until now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storme37 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 where did you read that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 Could be a busy week at Carter Ruck if accusations are made a bit too freely about living celebrities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.