Jimmy Saville

141 to 160 of 310 messages
M.r Zuvai    pirate
03/11/2011 at 12:24
^ fair shout
03/11/2011 at 12:26

That is so obviously faked Mr Z.  The badge cuts across the girl in the foreground, has no shadow, is clearer than the rest of the image, isn't even a real JFI badge.  And there is no way of verifying where the shot was taken.

Even it it was at that home, what does that prove?  I've been to Auschwitz - I'm neither Jewish nor a Nazi. Surely visiting homes, school and youth clubs was all part of what the show and JS was about.

03/11/2011 at 12:41
I don't think it is faked - doesn't it come from the Sun who linked him to the care home - implying he was part of the abuse without actually saying so much. He's supposed to have got an injunction to stop them doing so. Far as I remember initially he denied visiting the place before the photo was made public.

Of course I'm sure not everyone who visited that care home was a paedophile/child abuser and as a celebrity who did charity work he's just the kind of person who might quite innocently visit somewhere like that.
cougie    pirate
03/11/2011 at 12:46
That photo doesn't appear to be from HDG ? And as BDB points out - the sign is superimposed.

Its basically just a photo of Savile with some children. Shock horror !
M.r Zuvai    pirate
03/11/2011 at 12:58

the process of splicing a label onto a photograph has been around a lot longer than photoshop

but as i already accepted from BDB that doesn't appear to be from HDG

03/11/2011 at 13:00
cougie wrote (see)
 Its basically just a photo of Savile with some children. Shock horror !

irrefutable proof.

what was a grown man doing anywhere near children?

M.r Zuvai    pirate
03/11/2011 at 13:02
Badly Drawn Bloke wrote (see)

Even it it was at that home, what does that prove? I've been to Auschwitz - I'm neither Jewish nor a Nazi. Surely visiting homes, school and youth clubs was all part of what the show and JS was about.

well, if it is him at HDG (that photo in itself isn't proof) then it does raise questions as to why he raised an injection to prevent the Sun reporting he ever went there

my honest opinion is that if there was any credible evidence the CPS would have acted on it - i just saw the picture and thought it would interest the people in this discussion

03/11/2011 at 13:05
M.r Zuvai wrote (see)

well, if it is him at HDG (that photo in itself isn't proof) then it does raise questions as to why he raised an injection to prevent the Sun reporting he ever went there

don't you think in the light of his charity work and his good reputation that it is no surprise he did not want to tarnish his name by being associated with the place?

the story at the time was obviously malicious, a hatchet job to make out there was more to it.

there have certainly been far more frivolous injunctions raised in recent years in the cause of protecting people's reputation.

cougie    pirate
03/11/2011 at 13:08
Mr Zuval - you talk as though the injunction is fact ? Where is this from ?
M.r Zuvai    pirate
03/11/2011 at 13:13
M.r Zuvai wrote (see)

my honest opinion is that if there was any credible evidence the CPS would have acted on it - i just saw the picture and thought it would interest the people in this discussion

M.r Zuvai    pirate
03/11/2011 at 13:13

i'm done

03/11/2011 at 13:17
If there is any substance behind these rumours (and that's a big if) I'd expect one of the Sunday papers to do a big expose in the coming weeks. If JS did have an injunction against the Sun publishing stories linking him to HDG, it will fall away now he's dead. Similarly, you can't slander the dead, so there's nothing stopping anyone publishing now. If there is anything to publish that is.
03/11/2011 at 13:27
Mr. Majestic wrote (see)

Nobody's perfect.

But on balance I'm sure, through 'entertainment' and fund raising, he brought happiness to more people and in greater measure than sadness through any badness he may have done.


Tell that to someone who had their childhood blighted, sullied and destroyed by an adult who imposed their sexual desires on them.   A truly shocking, ludicrous comment. 

As for the JS debate - all I can say is that its very easy, and cynical, to use suggestion, rumour and inuendo to drag someone's name through the mud with no real evidence and the guarantee of no come back from the person accused. 

cougie    pirate
03/11/2011 at 13:28
And if its just an injunction (and superinjunctions didn't exist back in the day ?) then you'd have had someone report on the existence of it ?

03/11/2011 at 13:44

I've not read every post on this thread, and I have no knowledge or even suspicion about what JS may or may not have done to who, but I can't let one thing pass:

References to Colin Jackson and Rock Hudson, almost comparing them to a Gary Glitter and/or someone who allegedly might or might not have been a paedophile???  From my understanding (and I may be missing something, because I haven't bought a "newspaper" in about 7 years), Rock Hudson was outed as having been gay, and there is apparently some references in CJ's autobiography that may back up rumours that he is also gay.

There's a huge difference between being gay and being a paedophile - or have we rewound the best part of a century?

03/11/2011 at 14:05
Nessie - the Rock Hudson/Colin Jackson thing came up (I posted it) as a comment on there possible being "skeletons in the cupboard" not of the fact that they are gay or a paedo. I couldn't care less if someone is gay and wonder why, these days, those who are still want to hide the fact.

I used those as examples of the fact that some people (JS included perhaps) seem to be able to keep "revelations" out of the public domain whist behind the scenes, the reality may be different. RH managed to keep the fact that he was gay well hidden from the world, and his fans, until he developed AIDS, yet behind the scenes many of his film contemporaries knew but buried the info.

I'm not entirely sure where the Gary Glitter thing came from in the context of that discussion as he is a convicted paedo - not hearsay, but convicted.



seren nos    pirate
03/11/2011 at 14:07

nessie...........it was just refferring how people can keep things secret for so many years.....nothing about what they were keeping secret.........

you are right that they are totally different things................but it amazing how people can keep secret things out of the media for so many years.........

if that fact is that they are gay then they should have the right to keep it secret if they wish

03/11/2011 at 14:19
seren nos wrote (see)

if that fact is that they are gay then they should have the right to keep it secret if they wish

why?

seren nos    pirate
03/11/2011 at 14:26

because that is a fact that does not affect anyone else.........the same as if I wish to sleep with socks on or not or if i prefer to be spanked or whipped......it doesn't affect people life or job

If on the other hand your secret is to do with children or abuse of an adult without their consent...then you have no right to have that as a secret

M.r Zuvai    pirate
03/11/2011 at 14:27
^^ not sure if trolling or didn't understand seren ....
Edited: 03/11/2011 at 14:28
141 to 160 of 310 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums