Jimmy Saville

he decided in the end not to do that one and wrote a drugs sex and rock and rioll one...........apparantley through some kind of rainbow theraphy he has discovered that he was abused when younger

Having looked into his case more deeply than a headline in the Sun, from interviews with him where he quite candidly explains himself, I stand by him as a straight up guy and refuse to join the red top reading masses of would be lynch mobbers.

He admitted he had entered his details into the site, but he also immediately exited and tried to cancel whatever it was he had entered his details for. He accepted the police caution because he knew that taking it to court and having it dtagged out and so on would have destoryed him personally. He also accepted it was a huge and regrettable mistake to research in the way he did.

But when it comes to a joke I believe that anyone and everything's fair game.

TroyDiablo wrote (see)

I stand by him as a straight up guy

 

Indeed...

Troy.on the radio 4 interview he dedn't show any regret..the interviewer was trying to say with hindsite was it a silly thing to do.something he should have left to the authorities....and he just got angry on the interview............made him look guilty rather than inncoent......i wasn't convinced at all

Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)

Just because you believe someone should be considered innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that it was wrong to think that when the evidence mounts up against them. I still believe Stevie G was right to think that at the time.
JS is dead now but what should be looked into is the culture that allowed his behaviour to go on. People who behaved badly during those times will be shitting themselves now. A certain hamster eating comedian being just one of them. Of course he is innocent until proven guilty too.

Not for the first time you have it pretty spot on old son.

Silly me for thinking innocent until proven guilty eh, should probbaly think the worst of people to start with!

My attitude was exactly the same as Stevie's. I defended Saville against what I thought might be this country's gutter press and people who were out for whatever they could get after his death.

More fool me.

What a disgusting 'man'. At least some of those who covered for him might now get their comeuppance. Hope it's not just the little guys as usual. 

I think the BBC's in trouble. makes Sky look like a guardian of the truth.

seren nos wrote (see)

Troy.on the radio 4 interview he dedn't show any regret..the interviewer was trying to say with hindsite was it a silly thing to do.something he should have left to the authorities....and he just got angry on the interview............made him look guilty rather than inncoent......i wasn't convinced at all

What do you think he was guilty of?

I listened to the interview and I thought that, over the years, he has has been consistent about what happened. If this were a Jimmy Saville situation and there were more than one incident then it would be different. But there wasnt porn on his computers and that is consistent with him saying that he didnt download images.

"All thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded"  as they keep telling us in their info-mercials

Correct. When it's proven, then feel free to slate him until you feel proud.

I've always been a great believer in the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy which for the majority of cases holds true as they are usually about single incidents that people pass judgement on without knowing all the facts.   viz. all the inference that the teacher who abducted the 15 yr old schoolgirl was having sex with her - yet there is nothing as yet that's come out either in the press or in any court case (that will come in due course) to say that this is true/false.

but when there is a wealth of evidence - hearsay, inference, whispers, allegations, press reports etc - about a person(s) floating about then I tend to park the innocence approach on the side.   the jungle tom toms have been beating for a very long time with Saville and Armstrong - and others who fall into that category - so you have to suspect there is a very real element of truth in the allegations.   it just needs a catalyst to bring them into the open.

no smoke, no fire

Lirish wrote (see)

Apparently he managed to go even quicker if there was a small child running in front of him......

It seems from the evidence that's coming to light that Mr Savile was a highly unsavoury character to say the least, but I still think this comment was in extremely bad taste, being made the day after his death was announced.  I can't blame StevieG for taking exception to it.

The most shocking part of the whole thing is that so many people seemed to know about his behaviour, but nothing was ever done about it. Such a shame that he wasn't caught and made to face up to this before he died.

Oh, and I think Stevie G was right to find that comment in bad taste. It was made based on nothing but rumour at that time.

I find it amazing  how well Jimmy hid this molesting character behind the cunning guise of a child molester.