Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BazaJT]

All this hoo ha about Jimmy Saville now doing the rounds[it may or may not be true I don't know]Why has it taken so long for them to come forward?

[TheBoy]

Corruption.

[bored bigyin54]

money 

[SteveAvfc.]

This sort of thing always happen once a celeb dies, but being honest looking at Saville you wouldn't bet against it.

[tigers_gonads]

I put my thoughts on the other thread.

We will see 

[GastronomicKleptomaniac]

The rumours have always been there. Remember that fake Have I Got News for You script?

[r1]

The rumours have always been there. Remember that fake Have I Got News for You script?

no

[GastronomicKleptomaniac]

The rumours have always been there. Remember that fake Have I Got News for You script?

no

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rogerb/jokes/HIGNFY.txt

No evidence of it having been filmed or indeed happening.

[Entwood]

Lets be totaly frank and honest here ....

ITV make documentaries, which most folks would not really be interested in....  but they need to "maximise" their profit ... so they make one about a deceased person who, a) cannot argue back, b) was held in high esteem by many people.

Further, in order to increase the charges they can make for advertising during the programme, they "leak" large parts of it, and deliberately put excerpts on their own News service, which they know is watched by millions.

So, they turn an "advert" for a programme into a "news" item ... this then gets picked up by other TV stations, the newspapers, and subsequently, the foreign press as well... so enabling them to syndicate the programme internationally .. at a great profit.

Cynical ?? Perhaps .. but why else make a documentary about a person recently deceased ??

There can be no "result" from it, in terms of prosecution/punishment. It will not prevent a single further occurence, as those who perpetrate such offences couldn't care less about the law, common decency, or publicity.

I see no "good" in this at all .. only harm to those who claim to be victims, to the family, and to the charities that he supported......   

[jonnyboyws6]

It has been suggested that a blind eye was turned to these indescretions, because anyone blowing the whistle would be responsible for losing Stoke Mandaville millions in charity money. I find that a plausible explanation of how someone with such a high profile can wield power above the law, although I have no opinion either way on the truthfulness of the allegations.

[r1]

years ago i did the london marathon and so did sir jim as normal he was surrounded by the great and the good one of who was a boxer[think it was john contey] and when they came past me sir jim was being lifted and supported almost carried[eg his feet wernt on the floor] and he looked like he was going to have a heart attack!
so things arnt always  what they seam but i agree with most people its no good doing it now as  no one benefits and he cant reply if he was guilty they had plenty of time to do something while he was alive when he was less active in his role with the hospital.i wont watch the programe its trial by tv.
R.I.P Sir Jim

[tigers_gonads]

The reason for doing it now is IF he has been an naughty boy, they may be able to flush out more of the bast*rds and
cut there gonads off and sprinkle salt into the wound    bring them to justice 

This is one potental crime that should NEVER be swept under the carpet just because the accused made alot of money for charities and was the pretty face of BBC television.

As for his family moaning and groaning about it, we all know that there have been alligations made in the past and this needs to be put too bed once and for all.

[albitz]

Im going to stick my neck out a bit here.
Reading between the lines,I get the impression that it was well known in showbiz circles what he got up to.But he was a national treasure,and also had friends in high (and low) places.He had let it be known in TV interviews over the years that he was not a person to cross and would send his "mates" round to break peoples bones if he thought they deserved it.
I saw an interview yesterday with one of his former producers at the BBC who saw him take a girl of between 10 and 12 years old to a hotel. He confronted him and told him it was madness.Savills reply was that the BBC would never allow his reputation to be harmed as he was far too valuable to them,so it appears he used his position to cover his tracks.
Its also been reported that a newspaper was going to expose him until he told them in no uncertain terms how damaging it would be for the charities he raised milions for.
The police tried to nail him 5 years ago,but the CPS decided there wasnt enough evidence to prosecute.
Imo theres little realistic doubt that hes guilty,but these programme makers should have had the balls to expose him while he was still alive,so he could then have been brought to justice.
Its the easy option to wait until hes dead and buried,so he cant bring about pressure,call in favours, etc as no doubt he would have done. He may have been a lot of things,but Im sure he was nowhere near as stupd as he looked.
It is uncannily similar to the Jonathan King story. Hopefully if there are more high profile people using their power and influence to get away with this type of thing,people will now be motivated into exposing them. That would at least provide a good reason for him now being exposed after his death imo.

[cleggy]

The reason for doing it now is IF he has been an naughty boy, they may be able to flush out more of the bast*rds and
cut there gonads off and sprinkle salt into the wound    bring them to justice 

This is one potental crime that should NEVER be swept under the carpet just because the accused made alot of money for charities and was the pretty face of BBC television.

As for his family moaning and groaning about it, we all know that there have been alligations made in the past and this needs to be put too bed once and for all.

That's the point, allegations that were investigate and no evidence or insufficient evidence found. At the moment it is rumour, unsubstatiated witness accounts, hearsay and allegations. I think that one should wait for proof before condeming someone that can't defend themselves. Of course if he is PROVED guilty then he should be condemmed and have his knighthood taken away.

[Kevin Wood]

....
Imo theres little realistic doubt that hes guilty,but these programme makers should have had the balls to expose him while he was still alive,so he could then have been brought to justice....

Programme makers exist to make money selling programmes not to right the world's wrongs. They can now do so without any repercussions, legal or otherwise, whether the allegations are true or not, that's why they didn't "have the balls" before.

However, since it's now a very one-sided "investigation" into a bloke who's dead and buried I don't see why it interests anybody.

Yes, there should be a police investigation into it, purely to determine if there is proper evidence proving that the alleged offences took place and, if so, identify any failings that might have allowed them to be brushed under the carpet, and to bring any surviving accomplices to justice.

Everything else is simply the gutter media (is there any other kind these days?) profiteering on a (no doubt exaggerated) story where there's no possibility of the accused defending himself.