Jimmy Saville

161 to 180 of 323 messages
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
03/11/2011 at 14:35

no, i was being serious for once.

 as said above there is nothing wrong with being gay, it is not equivalent to being paedophile or abuser so why the big secret?

i think all the secrecy and living a lie, wanting to be seen as being straight, is a bad example to young people who might be coming to terms with their sexual identity.

so why is it such a big deal if someone is outed?

03/11/2011 at 14:36
skotty wrote (see)
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?


Why is it in the public interest to know if someone, anyone, is gay? 
03/11/2011 at 14:39

Sorry skotty, cross post. 

I do think however that the person should ahve the right to chose.  It doesn;t necessarily mean that they want to keep it secret as such, just that they don't want to discuss it.  Thats no different to someone who may want to keep a new heterosexual relationship from their peer group - I know I didn't tell anyone about Mr CD until we'd been together for several months!  It wasn't because I wanted to keep it secret, I just didn't see what business it was of anyone else.

03/11/2011 at 14:40

why is it is public interest to know who katie price is sh@gging this week?

 the secrecy is what is making it newsworthy.

03/11/2011 at 14:41
skotty wrote (see)

 as said above there is nothing wrong with being gay, it is not equivalent to being paedophile or abuser so why the big secret?


Because it's got absolutely nothing to do with what said person does in their public life, and everything to do with the most intimate matters of what they get up to in their personal life, I would've thought.

03/11/2011 at 14:42
"so why is it such a big deal if someone is outed?"

so why is it such a big deal if they want to keep it quiet?

the argument cuts both ways.

as CD says - it's choice
seren nos    pirate
03/11/2011 at 14:44
skotty wrote (see)

why is it is public interest to know who katie price is sh@gging this week?

 the secrecy is what is making it newsworthy.


she wants this to be made public and is pushing it into the media............thats abig difference................yes there are people hooked on celebrity that want to read every detail of anyone who has ever been on tv...........

but doesn't mean they have a right..............they can settle for the details supplied by the attention whores and leave the kiss and tells of those who wish to remain away from the media

03/11/2011 at 14:49
Until the word is free of prejudice, gay people will always think twice about being public about their sexuality. A good friend of mine is gay and quite cautious about letting certain people in her life know, primarily because she doesn't know how they will react and whether they will treat her differently. In an ideal world, she shouldn't have to worry, but prejudice abounds and I completely understand her decision not to put herself in a position when she's vulnerable.

There's a very famous US actor who has relocated to the UK. Rumours abound about his sexuality. He neither denies or confirms the rumours, he believes it's not relevant to his work. He made a pass at my male friend a few years ago. It's common knowledge that he's gay, but other than a few excitable tabloid editors, does anyone care?
Edited: 03/11/2011 at 14:51
03/11/2011 at 15:00

talking about the celebs, do you really believe that even now in the 21st century that it can really harm their career as actor or singer to be outed before they have achieved a certain status within their profession?  

03/11/2011 at 15:17
Unfortunately, yes.  It shouldn't but there are still people in this world who find it unpalatable to even consider that someone may be gay.  Two of the girls in my office for a start. 
161 to 180 of 323 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 Forums