Discussion
Riley Blue said:
Wasn't his coffin capped with concrete because of rumours that some of his gold had been buried with him? Or perhaps it was because of fears his grave might one day be desecrated for an altogether different reason.
I must say I was amazed at how quickly his family arranged for the headstone to be removed.Breadvan72 said:
Huh? In the mores of the 1950s to 1990s, was it OK to grope minors and patients? Moral relativism is a dodgy concept here, I think.
Streaky said:
..not to judge wholly by the mores of today...
Wasn't Streaky referring to the lack of enthusiasm to accuse Savile at the time, and the actions of those who sought to cover up his actions?That was how I read it.
There WAS a different attitude by many then, both from males and females.
I used to work in a hotel, where one of the waitresses complained to the personnel manageress that a chef was picking on her.
Asked to explain what "picking on her" meant, she said he kept pinching her bottom.
The manageress responded with "What makes you think he is picking on you - he does that to ALL the female staff, including me!"
THAT sought of attitude would rarely be found in the workplace today, but WAS commonplace then - you were expected to "deal" with a good deal of bullying, and prejudice which today is legislated against.
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....I simply do not believe if he did that he was not taken to task at the time.
I know its the Daily Star, but with recent events regarding the Royals, surely they must have a credible source?????
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.
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 simply do not believe if he did that he was not taken to task at the time.
it's pretty clear he was a paedo now isn't it? And was his snotty family asking why we can't leave the poor man alone... maybe they should of stopped him bring left alone with kids and none of this would of happened...
daz3210 said:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2012-10-1...
I know its the Daily Star, but with recent events regarding the Royals, surely they must have a credible source?????
Also worth bearing in mind that Savile had close connections with the royal family. He was a confidant of the Queen and as I recall he joined them for Christmas dinner on one occasion.I know its the Daily Star, but with recent events regarding the Royals, surely they must have a credible source?????
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.Breadvan72 said:
Is groping a Countess worse than groping a non Countess? Get off yer knees, people; vive la Guillotine!
No difference at all.But to me, if she wasn't a Countess at the time of the alleged incident, the headline shouldn't be written such that it appears as such. Yet another example of our wonderful sensationalist press.
decadence said:
it's pretty clear he was a paedo now isn't it? And was his snotty family asking why we can't leave the poor man alone... maybe they should of stopped him bring left alone with kids and none of this would of happened...
There is no suggestion/allegation of him being a paedophile (yet!). But if it makes you feel happy, keep waving the pitchfork (I'm not defending the bloke one bit, what he's (allegedly) done is disgraceful, but it isn't paedophilia).daz3210 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Is groping a Countess worse than groping a non Countess? Get off yer knees, people; vive la Guillotine!
No difference at all.But to me, if she wasn't a Countess at the time of the alleged incident, the headline shouldn't be written such that it appears as such. Yet another example of our wonderful sensationalist press.
Streaky
mjb1 said:
decadence said:
it's pretty clear he was a paedo now isn't it? And was his snotty family asking why we can't leave the poor man alone... maybe they should of stopped him bring left alone with kids and none of this would of happened...
There is no suggestion/allegation of him being a paedophile (yet!). But if it makes you feel happy, keep waving the pitchfork (I'm not defending the bloke one bit, what he's (allegedly) done is disgraceful, but it isn't paedophilia).Jimmy Savile it is pretty clear was a raging Paedo....... says the Sun...(covers me)
decadence said:
Only on a forum could people when discussing child abuse pick up on the fact you can't call someone a Paedo cause the children they abused we're over a certain age! Unruddybelievable!!
Jimmy Savile it is pretty clear was a raging Paedo....... says the Sun...(covers me)
And the Sun's source is?Jimmy Savile it is pretty clear was a raging Paedo....... says the Sun...(covers me)
I posted on one of the JS threads on here last night that it's fascinating and engrossing to be able to witness the death throes of any remaining credible national media in the UK
. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff