Operation Yewtree

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Maybe it is ,any decent reporter would have got the log to back his claim instead of printing "i was told by by someone about a captain......."

I don't think anyone (in his right mind) is taking that specific piece seriously. I'm certainly not.

Originally Posted by danielf

I don't think anyone (in his right mind) is taking that specific piece seriously. I'm certainly not.

Agreed ,what we need is for drivel like that to be totally separated from other articles that contain some facts and reasoned comment .Personally i am going to wait for the dust to settle and the real facts to come out before forming a judgement .Eventually the band wagon jumpers will quietly disappear leaving those with genuine complaints to be heard

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Agreed ,what we need is for drivel like that to be totally separated from other articles that contain some facts and reasoned comment. Personally i am going to wait for the dust to settle and the real facts to come out before forming a judgement .Eventually the band wagon jumpers will quietly disappear leaving those with genuine complaints to be heard

Yes, that's fair enough. I've made up my mind after doing some research earlier in the week. Like you, I was highly skeptical, but I soon found I couldn't maintain the skepticism. There's just too much incriminating stuff out there. Clearly, I don't have proof, but the image of the harmless eccentric philanthropist just isn't tenable.

This is the man who claimed, during his dance hall days, to never have thrown someone out. He'd tie them up in the boiler room till he 'was ready for them'. This is the man who, when working as a porter, would hop down to the morgue to smoke a cigar and ponder over life and death (that's from his 1973 autobiograpy). The man who, when phoned by a journalist, would remark 'she said she was 16, and I had no reason to not believe it' before a question was asked. The man who said that he claimed to not like children in a bid to throw journalists off the hunt. The man who said Gary Glitter didn't do anything wrong when he downloaded child pornography.

When you couple that with 40 allegations of abuse, and reports from people saying it was an open secret, reports from people that claim they've seen him abuse children, or saw him in bed with a 12 year old, it becomes very hard to escape the conclusion that Savile's image was carefully crafted to deflect allegations of abuse, and that he has managed to pull it off.

[devilincarnate]

I found this on WIKI (i know pinch of salt?)

Savile claimed that the key to his success on Jim'll Fix It had been that he disliked children, although he later admitted to saying this to deflect scrutiny of his personal life. He did not own a computer, explaining that he did not want anybody to think that he was downloading child pornography.
[37] In October 2012 it was reported that Savile had publicly defended the convicted paedophile pop star Gary Glitter saying that "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 they didn't do anything wrong."[38]
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. The Crown Prosecution Service advised that there was insufficient evidence to take any further action and no charges were brought.[39]

In March 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.[40] 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.[41] The States of Jersey Police said that in 2008 an allegation of an indecent assault by Savile at the home in the 1970s had been investigated, but there had been insufficient evidence to proceed.[42][B/]

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

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, that's fair enough. I've made up my mind after doing some research earlier in the week. Like you, I was highly skeptical, but I soon found I couldn't maintain the skepticism. There's just too much incriminating stuff out there. Clearly, I don't have proof, but the image of the harmless eccentric philanthropist just isn't tenable.

This is the man who claimed, during his dance hall days, to never have thrown someone out. He'd tie them up in the boiler room till he 'was ready for them'. This is the man who, when working as a porter, would hop down to the morgue to smoke a cigar and ponder over life and death (that's from his 1973 autobiograpy). The man who, when phoned by a journalist, would remark 'she said she was 16, and I had no reason to not believe it' before a question was asked. The man who said that he claimed to not like children in a bid to throw journalists off the hunt. The man who said Gary Glitter didn't do anything wrong when he downloaded child pornography.

When you couple that with 40 allegations of abuse, and reports from people saying it was an open secret, reports from people that claim they've seen him abuse children, or saw him in bed with a 12 year old, it becomes very hard to escape the conclusion that Savile's image was carefully crafted to deflect allegations of abuse, and that he has managed to pull it off.

It may be that after i do the same i come to the same conclusion ,i am a great believer in no smoke without fire but at the same time a massive sceptic of people who sit on information for decades without doing anything about it

[Gary L]

I see more evidence (not proof) appearing all the time now.
I just wish he was alive to be able to answer the allegations. and to be able to clear his name or to take the punishment he deserves (if it is proved to be true)

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

How? Such a claim could only succeed if it could be proved that the stories being written about Saville were intended to harm the ongoing business interests of his estate, and had actually done so. "Malicious falsehood" isn't simply an interchangeable complaint that remains available in circumstances where a claim of libel is not. It is quite different.

these stories if false are harming his estate, so much so his charitable trust are dropping his name perhaps and speaking of libelling the dead how did the Watson case turn out in your neck of the woods.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, that's fair enough. I've made up my mind after doing some research earlier in the week. Like you, I was highly skeptical, but I soon found I couldn't maintain the skepticism. There's just too much incriminating stuff out there. Clearly, I don't have proof, but the image of the harmless eccentric philanthropist just isn't tenable.

This is the man who claimed, during his dance hall days, to never have thrown someone out. He'd tie them up in the boiler room till he 'was ready for them'. This is the man who, when working as a porter, would hop down to the morgue to smoke a cigar and ponder over life and death (that's from his 1973 autobiograpy). The man who, when phoned by a journalist, would remark 'she said she was 16, and I had no reason to not believe it' before a question was asked. The man who said that he claimed to not like children in a bid to throw journalists off the hunt. The man who said Gary Glitter didn't do anything wrong when he downloaded child pornography.

When you couple that with 40 allegations of abuse, and reports from people saying it was an open secret, reports from people that claim they've seen him abuse children, or saw him in bed with a 12 year old, it becomes very hard to escape the conclusion that Savile's image was carefully crafted to deflect allegations of abuse, and that he has managed to pull it off.

Well put!

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:31 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

a massive sceptic of people who sit on information for decades without doing anything about it

It's a lot of people though......it's almost like they have been bottling it up.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

It's a lot of people though......it's almost like they have been bottling it up.

That's what i can't understand ,i have never seen JS as this all powerful super celebrity ,maybe that's just me i don't know and i certainly can't understand why the likes of Esther Rantzen hasn't ever said anything if she suspected ,i would say that she was a bigger and more respected celeb than Savile and had nothing to fear by outing him

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by martyh

That's what i can't understand ,i have never seen JS as this all powerful super celebrity ,maybe that's just me i don't know and i certainly can't understand why the likes of Esther Rantzen hasn't ever said anything if she suspected ,i would say that she was a bigger and more respected celeb than Savile and had nothing to fear by outing him

He may have had access to a lot of power behind the scenes. He doesn't necessarily need to have that power himself, but if he had access to those who did, he could have ended careers.

[danielf]

And how weird is this:



Frank Bruno shaking hands with Peter Sutcliffe with Jimmy Savile looking on. And I've not seen anyone argue it's photoshopped. Is this just a little eccentric, or does it add to a long list of things that, when taken together, looks deeply disturbing?

Originally Posted by danielf

And how weird is this:

Frank Bruno shaking hands with Peter Sutcliffe with Jimmy Savile looking on. And I've not seen anyone argue it's photoshopped. Is this just a little eccentric, or does it add to a long list of things that, when taken together, looks deeply disturbing?

even i will concede that is disturbing if the suns claim that jim befriended sutcliffe on previous visits is true

[Gary L]

They all complete the jigsaw puzzle in the end.

it's like the Gary Glitter, This is your life segment where the woman talks about him and all the little girls going to see him in school uniform. and Gary gestures a shush to her.

[chris9991]

Originally Posted by danielf

And how weird is this:



Frank Bruno shaking hands with Peter Sutcliffe with Jimmy Savile looking on. And I've not seen anyone argue it's photoshopped. Is this just a little eccentric, or does it add to a long list of things that, when taken together, looks deeply disturbing?

I think this is the source http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...-hospital.html

Originally Posted by danielf

And how weird is this:



Frank Bruno shaking hands with Peter Sutcliffe with Jimmy Savile looking on. And I've not seen anyone argue it's photoshopped. Is this just a little eccentric, or does it add to a long list of things that, when taken together, looks deeply disturbing?

I am actually beginning to wonder if Jimmy Savile has playing a massive joke on everyone! An attempted rehabilitation of Peter Sutcliffe? Not for the first time on here I point you towards Brass Eye.

Another thing to consider is the stuff people are now looking back on in this new context of Jimmy Savile being an alleged child abuser and finding something sinister in his previous, hitherto viewed as 'eccentric', actions. What I find funny is that these statements and actions are hardly subtle: defending Gary Glitter, making jokes about girls being under 16, chaperoning dances for at risk children 'as long as some of them stay with me, as a bodyguard haha' and denying that he ever went to that Jersey care home until a picture of him emerged as being there. It's amusing that people are now looking back at all of that and deciding that actually it's quite a bit dodgy. Reminds me of a joke The Simpsons would make, if it wasn't so serious.