Jimmy Savile

[Peter Mugridge]

Maybe they did but they just didn't say it publicly until tonight?

 

[wintonian]

Why do they still talk about "Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh" - they have been dead for Centuries

Why do we refer to King Henery VIII and his wives?

The last time I checked he was no longer king and most of these 'wives' died a horrible death and should be referred to as ex-wives.

 

[Bungle73]

Why do we refer to King Henery VIII and his wives?

The last time I checked he was no longer king and most of these 'wives' died a horrible death and should be referred to as ex-wives.

Henry VIII had 6 wives, only two of which were executed.

 

[SS4]

Henry VIII had 6 wives, only two of which were executed.

The trick there is the changeable definition of "horrible". If Wintonian had said executed you'd be right but horrible is open to interpretation

 

[Eagle]

The trick there is the changeable definition of "horrible". If Wintonian had said executed you'd be right but horrible is open to interpretation

Two beheaded, two from cancer and two from complications after childbirth, as it happens. All pretty horrible.

 

[Flamingo]

When Gary Glitter was asked by police if he had the same activities as Jimmy Savile, he replied "Close, but no cigar"...

 

[yorksrob]

When Gary Glitter was asked by police if he had the same activities as Jimmy Savile, he replied "Close, but no cigar"...

B-boom tsh !

 

[Flamingo]

B-boom tsh !

Thank you, I'm here all week!

 

[SS4]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20116281

Savile's Glencoe home vandalised

Abusive slogans have been spray-painted on a house in the Scottish Highlands which belonged to disgraced TV presenter Jimmy Savile.

I'm appalled but not surprised.
The precedent is frightening TBH, someone wanting revenge calls you a sex offender and your life is ruined regardless of a trial.

 

[Oswyntail]

....I don't think it's right they demolished his head stone before anything has been proven. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?!

I suspect the family knew long before now what was going on - as it seems he was molesting his neice.

....The irony is outstanding given the Catholic Church's reputation for child molesting.

Let us be accurate here. It is not the Church that has the reputation, but some of the priests - the Church covers things up (btw you mean "Roman Catholics", as "Catholic" refers to the whole of Christianity)

Note how they're not waiting for proof but I suppose if Catholics listened to evidence there'd be no catholics.

Ha! But they do listen to evidence, just not evidence that you accept.

I really despise this media witch hunt though :cry:

And the irony here is that you have just been quoting "evidence" from nothing less than a media witch hunt:roll:

 

[wintonian]

Let us be accurate here. It is not the Church that has the reputation, but some of the priests - the Church covers things up (btw you mean "Roman Catholics", as "Catholic" refers to the whole of Christianity)

My understanding is reputation is a result of how others perceive an individual(s) or organisation.

Therefore if people perceive the catholic church to be/ not to be or have/ have not done something then they have a reputation for that regardless of accuracy or truth.

 

[ainsworth74]

But they do listen to evidence, just not evidence that you accept.

If you are referring to the Bible as evidence then that is most certainly not evidence of anything like what the Church (be it Catholic or any other) claims to be fact.

 

[Flamingo]

Getting off thread a bit...

 

[PaxVobiscum]

If you are referring to the Bible as evidence then that is most certainly not evidence of anything like what the Church (be it Catholic or any other) claims to be fact.

I see evidence of drifting quite far off topic.

 

[Oswyntail]

If you are referring to the Bible as evidence then that is most certainly not evidence of anything like what the Church (be it Catholic or any other) claims to be fact.

There are many different types of evidence, for instance "scientific" evidence, historical evidence, cumulative evidence, even evidence from absence. This is relevant to one's assessment of both the Catholic Church and Jimmy Savile. If, as popular culture at present seems to demand, we are to rely almost exclusively on "scientific" evidence (a Manichaean "can we prove does he or does he not exist", "can we prove he did or did not do it") then the Church is wrong and Savile is innocent. But other types of evidence are available, including cumulative evidence, and interpreted evidence. We should always have an open mind and accept and interpret what evidence is available, all of it. After all, to "prove" something actually means to test it, not establish conclusive truth - which is, after all, impossible.

I hope I have wrenched this at least partly on topic again

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Well played sir!

 

[wintonian]

I Suppose you could call that the Duckworth-Lewis answer - long winded and complicated but right in the end.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[ainsworth74]

But other types of evidence are available, including cumulative evidence, and interpreted evidence. We should always have an open mind and accept and interpret what evidence is available, all of it. After all, to "prove" something actually means to test it, not establish conclusive truth - which is, after all, impossible.

Unfortunately there is very little evidence of any sort for God.

However, this is not the thread for this, so continuing with the theme of coming back on topic

If, as popular culture at present seems to demand, we are to rely almost exclusively on "scientific" evidence (a Manichaean "can we prove does he or does he not exist", "can we prove he did or did not do it") then the Church is wrong and Savile is innocent.

This is true. No matter what the media may claim he remains innocent until proven guilty. I was reading the Daily Mail Online yesterday (I had reasons other than the news to be there honest!) and they had an interesting take on his innocence by referring to him as 'Jimmy Savile, the accused pervert'. Nothing at all prejudicial in that language!

 

[Flamingo]

Well, lots of people in history committed crimes and never went on trial, but the evidence against them would make any reasonable person conclude they had committed them.

I think everybody will just have to wait to see what evidence is proffered against Jimmy, but the professionals so far seem to think they have enough to reach a conclusion. Lets wait and see.

 

[swj99]

they had an interesting take on his innocence by referring to him as 'Jimmy Savile, the accused pervert'. Nothing at all prejudicial in that language!

I like that.

Savile's Glencoe home vandalised

I'm sure that's really going to upset him.:roll:

 

[Eagle]

And it continues...

Freddie Starr arrested in Jimmy Savile abuse inquiry

Entertainer Freddie Starr has been arrested in the police inquiry into sex abuse claims against Jimmy Savile.

Mr Starr, from Warwickshire, was arrested by Operation Yewtree officers on suspicion of sexual offences and has been taken into police custody locally.

He has denied claims he groped a 14-year-old girl in a BBC dressing room.

[...]

The Metropolitan Police said officers arrested a man in his 60s, from Warwickshire, at 17:45 GMT in connection with the investigation. Police said the individual fell under the strand of the investigation termed "Savile and others".

Full article

 

[Stephen55a1960]

Apparently, Newsnight claim, to have evidence of a living politician's alledged wrongdoings.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20116281

I'm appalled but not surprised.

Perhaps the understanding of another matter that occurred there at Glencoe on 13th February 1692 might well put the matter in the link into a better perspective as being somewhat trivial in comparison.

 

[wolfman]

Apparently, Newsnight claim, to have evidence of a living politician's alledged wrongdoings.

a very high ranking tory who was active at a welsh childrens home.rumour has it its.............see twitter.

 

[Temple Meads]

I was reading the Daily Mail Online yesterday

Quick - someone remove this man's moderator privileges

 

[wintonian]

a very high ranking tory who was active at a welsh childrens home.rumour has it its.............see twitter.

There's no shortage of slimy characters there but even I wouldn't accuse them of something this serious.

 

[Johnuk123]

BBC Director General George Entwistle resigns, I wonder if the Guardian's George Monbiot will do the decent thing and join him.

 

[wintonian]

There's some quite bizarre stuff going on at news.bbc.co.uk this morning.

 

[jon0844]

This whole thing is getting beyond a joke.

I feel for George - even if he is the head honcho, if people didn't tell him anything before broadcast, perhaps deliberately, then it seems unfair that he has to go when he might have been able to actually step in and take action.

Nevertheless, the BBC's handling has been pretty awful. For one, they're trying way too hard to show that they care about integrity when still making mistakes.. and nobody wants them to hijack every single programme (HIGNFY for example) to do it. Has it been fitted in to an EastEnders storyline yet?

I am disgusted by the likes of The Sun and Sky that have milked this story to extremes, and I thought it was particularly funny that on the same day they publish the incredibly insulting and OTT (i.e. over the top to Joe Public and only such a big deal to the newspaper owners) story about the resignation, they'd been printing stuff like this:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=T...GKmi0QW-woGYDw&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1213&bih=1323

http://mymarilyn.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/public-mauling-of-chris-jefferies.html

http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2011/01/02/chris-jefferies-and-trial-by-media/comment-page-2/

They did a long, attacking and scathing interview with Lord Patten but soon after, it was edited so that it sounded like he was just there to say he wasn't going to listen to the advice of a Mr Murdoch organisation. Then at 2am, they're still running the edited interview and showing an update outside the BBC (pre-recorded, but not actually stated) to suggest this was a story carrying on throughout the light.. when most people really don't give a **** about all this.

Anymore than they really were about the phone hacking scandal - another chance for one big media organisation to get one over another, even though the eventual truth would likely show them all at it. A classic way to deflect attention away from yourself.

Sky even did an interview with a man who was happy to speak on camera about being taken into London to be abused weekly by men of influence, smiling as he spoke of the abuse but said it was something he couldn't tell anyone about (until now, clearly) and how he felt special for being chosen..

It seemed to me like someone who was making things up as he went along. I sincerely apologise if that's not the case, but it didn't add up - any more than when Sky interviewed some supposed rioters from London last year who were trying badly to talk 'street' and seemed more likely quite well educated kids acting so Sky could get the inside scoop on the psyche of a rioter.

Also, as some people are saying (but seemingly being ignored) everyone seems to be unconcerned with the bigger issues at hand - namely the people who were abused (or tackling the hard facts, even being said by many professionals, that a lot of claimants are likely to be fake).

What about the social networking sites? Even today we're still seeing people talking as if Lord McAlpine probably did do it - and the assumption that all Tory MPs do it, along with judges etc. Heck, let's name anyone in a position of power. Everyone's a paedo! This is one of a long line of problems that has started from the likes of Twitter. I am not saying we censor people, but people need to be educated to realise that they are liable to prosecution for libel. The average person has an awful lot of power given to them these days to talk to the world, but many have never been given any sort of advice on the boundaries.

 

[kylemore]

There's some quite bizarre stuff going on at news.bbc.co.uk this morning.

If I hear the phrase "Wrongfully Accused" just one more time I'll explode!

They didn't even name the man for goodness sake.

What we're witnessing is a desperate staged damage limitation event.

This is a Madhouse (UK)