Jump to content

Jimmy Savile

sperm_john

By sperm_john,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Tokyo-Saint

Tokyo-Saint

Posted
Posted
I'm starting to wonder how i managed to reach puberty without getting bummed. Does this mean I'm ugly?

 

You are the Anastasia Steele of this board bear. I got bummed by John Major while on a school trip in the early 90's. It was seen as a right of passage for both me and 'big John'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
I think we have to keep an open mind pap but we must also be allowed to poke fun at the conspiracy theorists as well. They are not above the satire law, especially when making outlandish statements.

 

Half of the government went to Eaton and we all know about private schools and the 'power showers' (copyright fresh meat). However to say that there is a massive government peodo ring is definitely outlandish.

 

Some questions I would ask:

 

1) Is everyone in on it?

2) What happens if you get to the higher ranks of government or civil service and you are not a peodo?

3) With so many government leaks and journalists disparately looking for scandal (using both legal and illegal methods) how where they able to keep this one quiet?

4) Does the Queen know?

5) How does it work with a coalition government? Do both leaders get to bum young boys or are the lib dems pushed out as per usual?

6) Was this mentioned in an episode of 'yes Minster' I missed?

 

That's a healthy enough attitude, Tokyo.

 

Interesting you note the Queen. According to some of these reports, a D-Notice was issued to prevent certain details of Operation Ore, an investigation into child trafficking and abuse, from being published.

 

http://www.tpuc.org/node/34

 

That doesn't say a lot, admittedly - but under the terms of D-Notice, records are sealed for 100 years. Now, I understand that we were on the run up to war, but I don't get why the details of a child sex investigation need to be sealed for a century.

 

I'd like to know whether that D Notice even exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
A lot of what is contained in that has been alluded to in a lot of other publications/articles & reports.

 

The speculation/allegations of a D Notice I have alluded to before, Dunblane & NATO links have all seen some comment elsewhere.

 

Going back to that Telegraph link I posted about 10 days ago re the Children's home in Jersey (somebody went at me from a it was ll Masons) it cannot have been.

 

To find childrens' teeth & bones - to not investigate that and to remove Top Cops, - also something that was mentioned yet never followed up - the Sending of kids to the Sailing Club for the rich and famous.

 

(Now who was in power famous and into Sailing and certainly at an Aid level indirectly mentioned in some of this stuff?)

 

Ah that explains everything then...

 

What's your take on all of it? Is there any way to find out if a D Notice exists? I know FOI is excluded when national security considerations apply, but that justification has been woefully overused.

 

Murky stuff.

 

I know that competing theories about popular events aren't as unwelcome in the Arab world. Does that sort of thing flow through to the ex-pat community?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
What's your take on all of it? Is there any way to find out if a D Notice exists? I know FOI is excluded when national security considerations apply, but that justification has been woefully overused.

 

Murky stuff.

 

I know that competing theories about popular events aren't as unwelcome in the Arab world. Does that sort of thing flow through to the ex-pat community?

 

Ah my take....

 

Weeeellllll. Thing is having spent so long here I worked out that the worst thing about the UK are Politicians and "The Old School System". I've said it many a time on here, give me a Leader with a Vision for his people than a bunch of muppets who's only mission in life is to say things that persuade a bunch of suckers to let them stay on a gravy train.

 

So you have laws that mean even IF I found out about a D-Notice because I accessed the information out of the UK I still couldn't post about it on a UK run forum.

 

Thing is though we DO see two sides of everything. We see the Beeb/Sky News and the Brit Press - (and as an example, THEIR view on for eg "Israel") and we see the local version.

 

You lot would NEVER understand (you'd argue it was against your freedoms etc) BUT the REAL difference here is we see news. Yes it may have a "censorship" angle, yes it may have a "one sided angle" BUT and here is the rub, we never get Spin. (Example - all those Labour Camp horror stories, they were reported here, no comments were made, they went away, changed the laws and built them accomodation. Sure it is grim by your standards by by the standards of a Mountain Village in Nepal or a slum in Mumbai? It is heaven, as are the wages) You lot? well you get the impartial BBC version, or the Grauniad Version, or The Sun Version. You DON'T get "The News"

 

So what do we think? What I have espoused on here - everything smells murkier than a pcfc takeover.

 

DO we have conflicting theories on events? Hell yes. eg Syria. Assad is an idiot. BUT (and the Brit Press IS starting to give this more coverage) the revolution there is more likely to see Al Qaeda running the country than "The People". Oh yeah they may have a vote (at Gunpoint) and become a Muslim State, but for the heart of Christianity? No, game over, the Christians will all be forced out, the last Aramaic village will be lost and some of the great places in Christianity will be gone to us.

 

Going back to the pre-invasion days when I was lucky enough to meet a lot of the people actually working for PEACEFUL change in that Nation, they were open in their views and debated at length. Yes Sadam was "evil" yet he never killed as many as have been killed since the Invasion. Iraq WAS Secular and safe for Christians, Coptics & Druze as well as Sunni & Shia and Kurds & Arabs. (Yeah it was safe as long as you only spoke indoors of course) BUT if you kept silent you had a life, since the Invasion, even IF you kept silent you ran the risk of being blown up on the way to Church, who WAS actually right in that debate

 

Thing is here we DO have forums now good old 7 Days Letters page (can often be like reading the main board with stupid whingeing Poms & other ex pats complaining this is not Blighty/Aus) BUT the thing is opinion DOES get debated and (many don't believe this) those debates DO impact on new legislation here. Hell, my newco is one example of that.

 

Look. Power ALWAYS corrupts UNLESS you are a special person. As ex pats we get that so much better once we see balanced non politicised media reporting on the UK.

 

Masons, Eton, Old School ties? The Catholic Church? C'mon people, wake up.

 

Saville had POWER and he had friends with POWER. The truth will NOT come out, even IF every file was opened, careers would end unexpectedly, people will fall off ladders or have car crashes in Paris.

 

The rumours will be discredited, Jimmy will be sacrificed *****il the next expose comes along) but the whole mess will always be speculation and D-Notices.

 

FFS ask yourselves - What it would mean to discover that blog was true? Dear Lord, the entire Country could collapse. The US blackmailed UK?

 

So yeah theories make good books that's all that will ever happen.

 

(And back on our side of the street. Yes we will discuss many local issues. Many times we will :rolleyes: at stuff. No we will not go and write about it on blogs or forums. We know our place. The difference between us and you lot is you all still THINK you have freedom and "Leaders with Vision" - Conspiracy theories? That's the biggest one - Thought Police - Orwell had it nailed.

We understand, we break the rules and discuss matters of no business to us? We get sent somewhere even worse - The UK)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted

Thanks for taking the time to give a full account of your feelings, Phil. I suspected that your outside perspective might give you a different viewpoint; it's not uncommon with people who have horizons that are broader than the UK. I've been lucky enough to meet people from all over the world. You don't have to go too far to get "different news", or know that many nationalities. Get outside of this media bubble and opinions differ wildly from the mainstream.

 

I happen to share your view that we'll never get to the absolute truth. I always have a sneaking suspicion that some of the stunning revelations of enquiries are enough truth for heartfelt public acts of contrition, enough omission to keep any big time players out of the spotlight.

 

The question you pose, what would happen if we were blackmailed into the Iraq War, is a massive one, and not just for the UK; the US too. It's claim to be leader of the free world would be as tenuous as any claim of a special relationship between our two countries. I have no doubt that such a situation is plausible. In some senses, it even fits the facts. A (supposedly) left of centre UK government had no business being in cahoots with Bush and his neocons, yet it concocted evidence so that we could go to war with a bit of legitimacy. That never felt like a natural fit. It kinda works if that story is true.

 

Completely agree with you on the qualities of our leaders too; right now, I'd say that Miliband has more substance - but I'm almost at the point where if someone said "My policy is to build a tunnel to Ireland", I'd go for it. It's something tangible :) Our choices amount to choosing a different set of people to ride the neo-liberal machine, turn up on Question Time and twiddle with the knobs of Britain for the next five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Quote "and twiddle with the knobs of Britain for the next five years."

 

Not perhaps the best choice of words in a thread like this ??? :lol::lol:

 

I look forward to your well written summary of the invisible hierarchy then, SiP. Show us how it's done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

more interested in the 80 year old tree lobster myself. Whilst knowing very little about the Savile case I'd doubt if there are very many "pop and Tv stars" who didn't profit from under age groupies.

Edited by Window Cleaner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
more interested in the 80 year old tree lobster myself. Whilst knowing very little about the Savile case I'd doubt if there are very many "pop and Tv stars" who didn't profit from under age groupies.

 

What about yourself Windas? I heard you were quite prolific back in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

 

Given that Saville wasn't convicted of any of the crimes I don't see how someone can sue a dead man for an offence that may or may not have happened whilst he was alive?

 

It's typical of today's world that people are falling out the trees now to say "Jimmy touched my ass" when there is money up for grabs when they were not interested when it could have saved somone else from being abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Given that Saville wasn't convicted of any of the crimes I don't see how someone can sue a dead man for an offence that may or may not have happened whilst he was alive?

 

It's typical of today's world that people are falling out the trees now to say "Jimmy touched my ass" when there is money up for grabs when they were not interested when it could have saved somone else from being abused.

 

You don't have to be convicted of a crime to have done something. Many guilty people were lucky enough to be found 'not guilty' in a criminal court but were found to have been guilty by a civil court/tribunal. Oj Simpson, John Terry etc.

 

The victims will try to bring a damages claim against the estate. They won't have it easy though as the allegations all appear to be statute barred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Given that Saville wasn't convicted of any of the crimes I don't see how someone can sue a dead man for an offence that may or may not have happened whilst he was alive?

 

It's typical of today's world that people are falling out the trees now to say "Jimmy touched my ass" when there is money up for grabs when they were not interested when it could have saved somone else from being abused.

 

You say that aintforever, and to an extent you're right; there may be some cases where compensation is incorrectly awarded.

 

That said, Jimmy doesn't need the money, doesn't have any kids, seems to have given a lot away to private individuals, some in the places that he was conducting the abuse (those people need to be investigated as potential enablers, IMO).

 

I suppose that the tragedy is that a lot of money was bequeathed to charities, who will now lose out as the money is chewed up on compensation claims. That's on Jimmy, not the victims. If he hadn't built his entire life around abusing youngsters, there would be no compensation to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...