Jimmy Saville

[daz3210]

I'm pretty perturbed by what I have heard today.

Esther Rantzen has been on Radio today saying she knew of the abuse years ago. If that is the case, why as a champion of childline has she been mute on the matter?

Edited by daz3210 on Wednesday 10th October 09:52

[daz3210]

y2blade said:

daz3210 said:

I'm pretty perturbed by what I have herd today.

Esther Rantzen has been on Radio today saying she knew of the abuse years ago. If that is the case, why as a champion of childline has she been mute on the matter?

Because she's a **** perhaps?

Part time rug muncher has more than four letters. And I did hear a rumour she was such at one time.

[daz3210]

y2blade said:

Welcome to the 21st century.
You do know it is acceptable to be a Homosexual these days don't you?

Certainly.

And I respect the rights of others to be so, all I ask is that it is not forced upon me.

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

You do seem to have just a little bit of a thing about gay people, Daz. No one is forcing anything on you.

Do you think so?

And no, no-one on PH is forcing anything upon me, that is how I like it.

I have had work colleagues in the past who have been gay, I have many good (and some fairly close) friends who are openly gay. But, we don't really discuss it. They are just friends, and what way of life they chose outside the direct relationship with myself is their concern. I am aware of their 'persuasion' (sorry if that sounds prejudiced, honestly its not meant to be), but that is the end of it. If on the other hand they were constantly saying, come on try it, you may like it - that is forcing it upon me.

[daz3210]

I have to also wonder, it was ITV that aired the documentary, presumably they commissioned it too.

Do they have anything to gain by bringing down the BBC?

[daz3210]

I assume 'The Green Room' is like a lounge where folks wait to be called to the studio?

What I find strange is that if there was gossip at all, how did the tabloids (at least) not get hold of it? Although I do believe that Sir Jimmy did at one point take out a case against the Sun.

Let's face it, newspapers have a history of not letting untruths get in the way of what they think is a good story.

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/oct/09/j...

So, in a round about way, is that suggesting that the tabloids were also frightened about the repercussions simply because no-one was prepared to testify?

[daz3210]

otolith said:

Perhaps too many people thought it would not be in their interests to blow the whistle on a national treasure?

Why should his status make him untouchable?

Then again we have an ex-PM who lots of people think should be charged with war crimes...

[daz3210]

Jasandjules said:

daz3210 said:

Then again we have an ex-PM who lots of people think should be charged with war crimes...

Well I think that an Ex-PM should be charged with war crimes.

But as to Saville, you have to consider the question of who would most people believe? One young girl or a rich and famous charity fundraising celeb?

But maybe if one had stood up, they would have come out of the woodwork just as they are doing now.

As for the folks who mentioned the internet. Is that as much as saying the internet would have resulted in this coming out at the time? The internet has existed for over 20 years as far as I understand it.

[daz3210]

Mill Wheel said:

Wonder who it was though....

John Wayne Bobbitt?

[daz3210]

Exactly right Durzel.

But, I have (yet another) a question.

If in the fullness of time an investigation proves that the allegations are most likely right, if the likes of Rantzen (who has admitted to) knowing about it, but not doing anything about it does it give rise to any potential for proceedings along the lines of aiding the offence(s)?

[daz3210]

Do you honestly believe she was actually naked!??????????

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

Er, no.

Me neither.

The thing is that everyone looks at situations differently.

As adults we can see 'downsides' to certain situations that kids just find funny.

I can vaguely remember watching Tiswas, if I were to watch it now as an adult my response to it would likely be entirely different.

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

The going rate for a Papal K is about 50K, paid via Fr Michael Seed.

It is interesting to see who has his name linked with that chap too. None other than the saintly Mr Blair...

[daz3210]

The girl to the rear right of Sir Jim has a contented look on her face.....

[daz3210]

Mill Wheel said:

Only in the interests of research - and I WAS accompanied by my wife who added her expert opinion!

What was the wife's opinion?

[daz3210]

streaky said:

PS - we'll know it's really bad when Cameron apologises for the BBC's (in)action - S

But why does Cameron need to apologise? IF it is true it should be the bosses of the BBC. Talking of which, wasn't Rantzen married to a BBC high up at one stage?

[daz3210]

I simply cannot believe the latest claim. Apparently Sir Jim groped Sophie, Countess of Wessex.

I simply do not believe if he did that he was not taken to task at the time.

[daz3210]

Mill Wheel said:

daz3210 said:

I simply cannot believe the latest claim. Apparently Sir Jim groped Sophie, Countess of Wessex.

I simply do not believe if he did that he was not taken to task at the time.

Not just for Streaky....

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2012-10-11

I know its the Daily Star, but with recent events regarding the Royals, surely they must have a credible source?????

[daz3210]

decadence said:

You do realise she wasn't born into the royal family don't you? She used to work in TV. if Savike was goosing her she want a Countess at that point...

I didn't read it that way. The way I heard it reported was he had groped the Countess. As you say, if it was in the distant past, she wasn't a Countess at that point.

decadence said:

it's pretty clear he was a paedo now isn't it?

No, its pretty clear there are allegations, but nothing is proven at this time. That is why we have investigations ongoing.