MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 19,948
It's usually the ones you most suspect.
Yes, because of all his charity work.Was he knighted?
If this is proven true then it should be stripped immediately.Yes, because of all his charity work.
No, not by a long long long way. If these stories were true then it could be argued that the only reason he was doing the charity work for children hospitals and children's TV shows was to put himself in a powerful position from which he could carry out his abuse. IMO the fact he was taking praise for helping children while destroying others makes it worse.It does raise the interesting question about whether ruining the lives of, say 12 girls, is balanced out or not by all the lives he touched with his charity and broadcasting work.
I don't know....just wondering aloud. Humans are such complex and weird animals. He was driven to do all of this good.....far more so than any of us, yet he has allegedly committed these terrible crimes.
As there can never be any Court case now, he'll never be convicted (or cleared) of anything.No, not by a long long long way. If these stories were true then it could be argued that the only reason he was doing the charity work for children hospitals and children's TV shows was to put himself in a powerful position from which he could carry out his abuse. IMO the fact he was taking praise for helping children while destroying others makes it worse.
I hadn't heard about that. What the feck? Did they start discovering things that some higher up decided would be best "left alone"?He always seemed a bit creepy and these latest revelations aren't decreasing that impression. I'm guessing that things won't look better for him after Wednesday's documentary. Not looking good for the BBC pulling their own investigation earlier this year either.
Whatever you feel about Lance Armstrong's doping, it in no way compares to a paedophile child molester.Parallels with Lance Armstrong here. A **** of personality created by charity, that works to protects them from the criticism and accusation, to a point. Pair of psychopaths, probably.
are you really saying that a pro cyclist, that used drugs to enhance his performance, is the same has an alleged sexual predator, who had a liking for young girls.Parallels with Lance Armstrong here. A **** of personality created by charity, that works to protects them from the criticism and accusation, to a point. Pair of psychopaths, probably.
He's obviously not comparing the offences, just the fact that they were both protected from criticism to an extent because of their charity work, which is a valid observation.are you really saying that a pro cyclist, that used drugs to enhance his performance, is the same has an alleged sexual predator, who had a liking for young girls.
Sorry but I think your way off the mark.
Thank you.He's obviously not comparing the offences, just the fact that they were both protected from criticism to an extent because of their charity work, which is a valid observation.
It is really quite unbelievable that people knew or suspected it at the time & nothing was done about it.Paul Gambaccini has been speaking about it too :
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...-sex-life-claims-dj-paul-gambaccini-1-4979182
Fair point , I will withdraw my statement.He's obviously not comparing the offences, just the fact that they were both protected from criticism to an extent because of their charity work, which is a valid observation.
That was a strange one all right. He used to sit outside Highbury & Islington tube station every day on a stool chatting to anyone who'd listen.The Arthur Mullard one shocked me...this is bad though.
He couldn't possibly look any more like a molester.It's usually the ones you most suspect.
Michael Jackson?He couldn't possibly look any more like a molester.
The only real surprise is that he liked girls and not boys by the look of him.He couldn't possibly look any more like a molester.
How did I miss these tell-tale signs?Michael Jackson?
I mean the guy had a freaking funfair called Neverland and a pet monkey.
You were just flattered he was showing you some attention.How did I miss these tell-tale signs?
It does beg the question, doesn't it? He seems to be saying they were all scared of Savile as he had tremendous influence. However, as Savile didn't socialise with the other radio and TV presenters anyway, they didn't get involved.It is really quite unbelievable that people knew or suspected it at the time & nothing was done about it.
Honestly, what a twat Gambaccini and others are that they & others knew what was going on but did nothing & now suddenly after his death they are starting with this.
Where were you 30 years ago then?
Salving the collective conscious of the beeb if you ask me.It does beg the question, doesn't it? He seems to be saying they were all scared of Savile as he had tremendous influence. However, as Savile didn't socialise with the other radio and TV presenters anyway, they didn't get involved.
the Papa John Phillips one (from the mamas and papas) is such a weird horrible one...if its true.The Arthur Mullard one shocked me...this is bad though.
I think you'll find that some of 'these people' came forward many years ago. He was interviewd by detectives back in 2007 as that first article states.http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/sep/28/jimmy-savile-abused-girls-alleged?newsfeed=true
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-documentary-tv-star-1351439
So what's going on here?
Why are these people coming forward after he is dead when he can't defend himself? If they wanted justice why wait until he dies?He was a peculiar man who lived his life differently to normal people so I wonder if he is just an easy target.
Or are these claims true?