Operation Yewtree

[Vieil Homme]

Originally Posted by Chris

Why is it beyond you that Merton and Hislop would deny it? Remember Mr Occam ... The simplest solution is usually the right one. They deny it, because it didn't happen. All other solutions require a convoluted explanation as to why they would expect to get away with lying about something that would have occurred before a live audience and would still exist on tape in the BBC archive.

Savile was on HIGNFY in 1999 but the alleged conversation you refer to never took place. The transcript that is doing the rounds on various websites at the moment identifies itself as having happened, but not broadcast. In fact, it never happend at all. It was written by a comedy troupe called "Some of the Corpses Are Amusing" for an April Fool prank that they eventually never pulled.

There is an interview with them here: http://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com/...-news-for-you/

---------- Post added at 08:45 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ----------

By way of corroboration, there is at least one reference to SOTCAA as "Notorious "Jimmy Saville" transcript forgers" far back as 2000: http://www.ntk.net/2000/11/17/

Point taken but as I said It's the kind of thing you witness and never ever forget. I'm not saying the transcript is 100% true just the part I have quoted and the bit I can't.

Like I said lets keep it open and see what pans out. The HIGNFY show can be seen on YouTube about 09:17 in LINK and there is another section where Savile talks about his caravan and what he does in said caravan.

The Savile can of worms has brought others out. The latest is John Peel who had a fling when he was 30 with a 15 year old girl that went on for a few weeks in 1969. A BBC spokesman said: 'Clearly, in the event of proven allegations of sexual abuse the BBC would reconsider its decision on the naming of part of our new building.

Who's next to fall?

Originally Posted by Vieil Homme

Point taken but as I said It's the kind of thing you witness and never ever forget. I'm not saying the transcript is 100% true just the part I have quoted and the bit I can't.

Like I said lets keep it open and see what pans out. The HIGNFY show can be seen on YouTube about 09:17 in LINK and there is another section where Savile talks about his caravan and what he does in said caravan.

The Savile can of worms has brought others out. The latest is John Peel who had a fling when he was 30 with a 15 year old girl that went on for a few weeks in 1969. A BBC spokesman said: 'Clearly, in the event of proven allegations of sexual abuse the BBC would reconsider its decision on the naming of part of our new building.

Who's next to fall?

strange that your link is no longer available due to copyright all of a sudden

Originally Posted by Vieil Homme

Point taken but as I said It's the kind of thing you witness and never ever forget. I'm not saying the transcript is 100% true just the part I have quoted and the bit I can't.

Like I said lets keep it open and see what pans out. The HIGNFY show can be seen on YouTube about 09:17 in LINK and there is another section where Savile talks about his caravan and what he does in said caravan.

The Savile can of worms has brought others out. The latest is John Peel who had a fling when he was 30 with a 15 year old girl that went on for a few weeks in 1969. A BBC spokesman said: 'Clearly, in the event of proven allegations of sexual abuse the BBC would reconsider its decision on the naming of part of our new building.

Who's next to fall?

Fact: Savile was on HIGNFY in 1999.
Fact: He got a hard time from Deyton, Hislop and Merton.

However, the "transcript" is 100% fiction. It's not helpful to the discussion to use a work of fiction to explain your memories of a factual event, especially when so many idiots have been on Twitter this week, circulating the "transcript" as if it is a record of a factual event.

In fact, it is not even a transcript; for it to be a transcript, it would have to be a written record of an actual spoken conversation, and it isn't.

When you say, "let's keep it open and see what pans out," it sounds as if you still want to believe that the "transcript" is true, or at least that it is representative of some hidden truth. It is not. It is an artwork. The reason it works so well, and has taken in so many people this week (and did so in late 1999 when it was first "discovered" where it had been "hidden" on the SOCAA website), is that played on an unspoken unease a lot of people felt about Savile even back then, and of course what a lot of people in his orbit had good reason to believe was true.

The best lies (and the best hoaxes) always contain sufficient truth to make them believable. The "transcript" is an extremely good hoax because while the conversation it relates did not occur, what it insinuates about Savile, it now appears, most certainly did.

[Vieil Homme]

Originally Posted by martyh

strange that your link is no longer available due to copyright all of a sudden

Now thats not fair I hope some of you did see it before it got taken down....

Originally Posted by martyh

strange that your link is no longer available due to copyright all of a sudden

YouTube is getting hotter on removing breaches of copyright. I suspect the bots act on newly-uploaded material whilst leaving historic content alone, unless they get a specific complaint. If the HIGNFY clip has recently been uploaded by someone trying to inform the current discussion, then I would expect to see it spotted and removed by the copyright bots within a short time. I've had a video from a school halloween party taken down before, because YouTube identified the soundtrack and determined that it does not have a deal with the record label that would allow the video to be played in the UK.

[Vieil Homme]

Originally Posted by Chris

Fact: Savile was on HIGNFY in 1999.
Fact: He got a hard time from Deyton, Hislop and Merton.

However, the "transcript" is 100% fiction. It's not helpful to the discussion to use a work of fiction to explain your memories of a factual event, especially when so many idiots have been on Twitter this week, circulating the "transcript" as if it is a record of a factual event.

In fact, it is not even a transcript; for it to be a transcript, it would have to be a written record of an actual spoken conversation, and it isn't.

When you say, "let's keep it open and see what pans out," it sounds as if you still want to believe that the "transcript" is true, or at least that it is representative of some hidden truth. It is not. It is an artwork. The reason it works so well, and has taken in so many people this week (and did so in late 1999 when it was first "discovered" where it had been "hidden" on the SOCAA website), is that played on an unspoken unease a lot of people felt about Savile even back then, and of course what a lot of people in his orbit had good reason to believe was true.

The best lies (and the best hoaxes) always contain sufficient truth to make them believable. The "transcript" is an extremely good hoax because while the conversation it relates did not occur, what it insinuates about Savile, it now appears, most certainly did.

I found the clip on Youtube and gave it a mark. The only bit that was missing was the scaithing remarks.... As I have said a few times I am not claiming the script is one 100% true only the part I quoted. I 100% remember it being shown.

They have now in their wisdom removed the copy from YouTube due to copyright or they don't want people to see the truth.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Vieil Homme

The Savile can of worms has brought others out. The latest is John Peel who had a fling when he was 30 with a 15 year old girl that went on for a few weeks in 1969. A BBC spokesman said: 'Clearly, in the event of proven allegations of sexual abuse the BBC would reconsider its decision on the naming of part of our new building.

Who's next to fall?

I think he married her (aged 15).

[Vieil Homme]

Originally Posted by danielf

I think he married her (aged 15).

Sorry I'm he married her ????

Peel had unprotected sex with the teenager shortly after boasting on-air that he had been suffering from a venereal disease.
They split up when her mother found out about the relationship. But she discovered she was pregnant shortly after, aged 16, and had a ‘traumatic’ abortion at a clinic in Ealing.

‘I was devastated when I found out I was pregnant,’ she said. ‘I didn’t even think about telling John. I just wanted it to be over.’
When Mrs Nevin wrote to Peel out of the blue 30 years later mentioning their ‘brief affair’, he replied expressing his relief that she was not writing to confess she had his secret child.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz29AkP1SfO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[danielf]

Different girl perhaps.

United States
<snip>

According to Peel, he had a lot of affairs with young girls and women. In an interview with the Guardian in 1975 he stated: "All they wanted me to do was abuse them, sexually, which, of course, I was only too happy to do".[12] In 1989 he told another journalist: "Girls used to queue up outside oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older."[12]

While in Dallas, in 1965, he married his first wife, Shirley Anne Milburn, then aged 15, in what Peel later described as a "mutual defence pact". The marriage was never happy and although she accompanied Peel back to Britain in 1967, they were soon separated. The divorce became final in 1973. Shirley Anne Milburn later took her own life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peel#United_States

There appears to be little reason to assume that John was predatory though, unlike Savile.

Well still think it is down to different attitudes back then because if any of those cases had happened in the last decade there would have been furore throughout the press about it especially with certain newspaper's proven predilection for phone hacking and other misbehaviour.

Otherwise I think we would have read more about it at the time.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well still think it is down to different attitudes back then because if any of those cases had happened in the last decade there would have been furore throughout the press about it especially with certain newspaper's proven predilection for phone hacking and other misbehaviour.

Otherwise I think we would have read more about it at the time.

Well, the simple fact that Peel was able to marry a 15 year old shows you that attitudes were different back then. That's not to say no-one objected. If I'm not mistaken is was illegal in some states in the US, so Peel had to be careful crossing state boundaries.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

We're still allowing Muslim men to marry 12 year olds, if not in this country there are plenty of others. If that isn't child abuse I don't know what is.

Right. We've got a thread about a former UK national treasure being outed as a rapist and paedophile and you manage to bring Islam into it. Well done! Not...

Originally Posted by danielf

Right. We've got a thread about a former UK national treasure being outed as a rapist and paedophile and you manage to bring Islam into it. Well done! Not...

Godwins law .What is the equivalent for Islam ...........or Thatcher

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Vieil Homme

And you know this for a fact! HIGNFY S17 e7 It's the kind of thing you witness and never ever forget. Why both Ian Hislop and Paul Merton have said it's a hoax is beyond me but that part transcript I posted IS verbatim. Time will tell as I can't be the only person to view the show. The other nagging fact is Savile was on Mertons team not Hislops and I thought at the time it was a bit OTT

Just keep an open mind it will all come out in the wash.

Where you there? If you weren't, how do know it happened?

Ian Hislop and Paul Merton probably were there. Also, they have nothing to gain by lying about it, and rather a lot to lose (particularly Ian Hislop who would certainly be giving Private Eye's enemies a serious amount of ammunition if he were found to be lying).

As such, I believe they are not lying.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by danielf

Right. We've got a thread about a former UK national treasure being outed as a rapist and paedophile and you manage to bring Islam into it. Well done! Not...

Child abuse, paedos, children, underage.
I see the connection. besides we had catholics in the thread and you didn't flinch