Jump to content

Jimmy Savile

sperm_john

By sperm_john
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
so the jury can get a unanimous decisicion so they can now go for the split decision. wheres the fairness in that

 

Your either guilty or not guilty. I see the jury is not a 5o -50 split on gender,

 

Do you have any idea how the justice system works?

pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Do you have any idea how the justice system works?

 

I think everyone is learning.

 

I found out about a third verdict yesterday that I was previously unaware of.

 

Jury nullification. Defendant found guilty but jury acquits anyway. Happened to Clive Ponting, who leaked documents concerning the sinking of the Belgrano to the public.

Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

Hypo, I have a broad understanding of the justice system but dont hace a ck=lue about the final workings of the justice system

 

and I wrote my comment before I knew the outcome of the DLt verdict.

 

up here we have differnt terms , admonished and not proven.

 

Now what does not proven mean guilty or not guilty. depends which advocate you have defending or prosecutiong you

 

Time for an electronic fag, :smug:

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Hypo, I have a broad understanding of the justice system but dont hace a ck=lue about the final workings of the justice system

 

and I wrote my comment before I knew the outcome of the DLt verdict.

 

up here we have differnt terms , admonished and not proven.

 

Now what does not proven mean guilty or not guilty. depends which advocate you have defending or prosecutiong you

 

Time for an electronic fag, :smug:

 

'Not proven' is a verdict that is only possible in Scotland. In England you're either guilty or you're not.

Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

thanks for that whitley

 

I was referring to scotland thats where I live.

 

Like you your either guilty or not guilty. but hopefully the double jeopardy laws up hill will diasappear of the statutes and some serious criminals can be convicted instead of getting off on a technicality

Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted

I'm out of the loop a bit here, being overseas and all. I'm also too lazy to read the whole thread or do the research.

 

Can anyone give a list af all the proven paedos and miscreants here please to keep me up to date?

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
Can anyone give a list af all the proven paedos and miscreants here please to keep me up to date?

 

You mean paedos and miscreants on this on this thread, or on Saintsweb generally?

  • 1 month later...
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted

Can someone please explain to me why the police, bbc, politicians... any other body would protect these people?

 

I accept these things happened but why the hell were they protected? I just don't understand. Most coppers would give you a parking ticket for parking on your own drive, so what was "In it" for the establishment to protect these people.

 

Am I being really thick.....I just don't get it.

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
Can someone please explain to me why the police, bbc, politicians... any other body would protect these people?

 

I accept these things happened but why the hell were they protected? I just don't understand. Most coppers would give you a parking ticket for parking on your own drive, so what was "In it" for the establishment to protect these people.

 

Am I being really thick.....I just don't get it.

 

Especially for a complete non entity like Cyril Smith. Pretty sickening stuff.

pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Can someone please explain to me why the police, bbc, politicians... any other body would protect these people?

 

I accept these things happened but why the hell were they protected? I just don't understand. Most coppers would give you a parking ticket for parking on your own drive, so what was "In it" for the establishment to protect these people.

 

Am I being really thick.....I just don't get it.

 

Leverage is more important and a lot cleaner than a criminal conviction.

 

One person who comes out of this episode with no credit is Esther Rantzen. The founder of Childline, a national child protection charity, appears on TV after Savile's death and bashfully admits that everyone, including her, knew what was going on at the time.

 

Incredible.

 

Why didn't Rantzen grass Savile up? Some would suggest self-interest, others have gone as far as suggesting that Childline was a front organisation with a side-aim of protecting high-profile paedos. Personally, I think she knows it wasn't just Savile, and that going after him would make no long-term difference.

 

People in positions of influence have been building these sort of networks for years, and using them to gain the whip hand when keeping people in line. Ted Heath is credited with introducing a dirt book. I'm sure I've linked this before, but this is a good read.

 

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/the-dirt-book-how-the-sexual-abuse-of-children-is-used-for-political-gain/

 

In short Gemmel, some of the people running the country don't really think like the rest of us, and haven't done for a while.

Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Especially for a complete non entity like Cyril Smith. Pretty sickening stuff.

 

It was hot on the heels of the Jeremy Thorpe case , to have allegations like this over another senior liberal would have been disastrous for them. Bearing in mind they only had a handful of seats at the time, it would probably have finished them off.

scotty

scotty

Posted
Posted
It was hot on the heels of the Jeremy Thorpe case , to have allegations like this over another senior liberal would have been disastrous for them. Bearing in mind they only had a handful of seats at the time, it would probably have finished them off.

 

 

The speed with which that William Hague story got buried was a wonder to behold, what was it, a couple of days in the papers? then nothing. They can usually kill a story if they really want to.

pap

pap

Posted
Posted
The speed with which that William Hague story got buried was a wonder to behold, what was it, a couple of days in the papers? then nothing. They can usually kill a story if they really want to.

 

Must have missed that one. Fancy giving a precís?

Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Must have missed that one. Fancy giving a precís?

 

It wasn't a peado thing, he booked to share a hotel room with a male aide.

 

My mate in the press told me years ago Hague batted for the other side ( I actually posted it on a saints web 2010 election before this story broke). Said that his marriage was politically motivated , and that the rumours he'd heard ( but could not publish due to a certain thing called libel) were of a " relationship" between Hague and a famous ex Olympic runner.

pap

pap

Posted
Posted
It wasn't a peado thing, he booked to share a hotel room with a male aide.

 

My mate in the press told me years ago Hague batted for the other side ( I actually posted it on a saints web 2010 election before this story broke). Said that his marriage was politically motivated , and that the rumours he'd heard ( but could not publish due to a certain thing called libel) were of a " relationship" between Hague and a famous ex Olympic runner.

 

Oddly enough Lord D, did a spot of research into this myself.

 

Hague was heading up the North Wales child abuse inquiry and allegedly stifled claims that led away from North Wales.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9663457/William-Hague-stifled-1996-paedophile-report-says-victim.html

http://21stcenturywire.com/2012/10/29/what-did-hague-know-former-minister-says-thatcher-aide-was-paedophile-who-preyed-on-boys-home/

  • 2 weeks later...
Saint in Paradise

Saint in Paradise

Posted
Posted

The Judge in the M Clifford case explains things:-

 

http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-max-clifford

Summary

 

SENTENCING REMARKS

1. You have been convicted of eight offences of indecent assault. These offences

may have taken place a long time ago when inappropriate and trivial sexual

misbehaviour was more likely to be tolerated or overlooked, but your offending

is not trivial but of a very serious nature and any perception to the contrary on

your part is misconceived.

 

There are another 63 paragraphs to read hence why I have only posted the link

not the whole lot.

gaz

gaz

Posted
Posted

Anyone else find it slightly strange that no musicians or sports stars have been linked or arrested with any sort of historical accusations? Surely they'd have an equal opportunities as those convicted so far (especially musicians with the fans), I can think of a few sports personalities who would have had younger admirers' attentions.

Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
Anyone else find it slightly strange that no musicians or sports stars have been linked or arrested with any sort of historical accusations? Surely they'd have an equal opportunities as those convicted so far (especially musicians with the fans), I can think of a few sports personalities who would have had younger admirers' attentions.

 

It's more "consenting" I'd imagine. Most slappers or groupies are proud to have bedded a rock star or a footballer.

  • 1 month later...
Wurzel

Wurzel

Posted
Posted
f^cking hell, just F^cking hell.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28034427

 

He assaulted patients in bed, and claimed to have abused corpses, reviews into his conduct on NHS premises found.

Well he's not claiming that now and clearly the corpses aren't coming forward so yet again this means a third party(ies) was aware of what was going on and chose to keep it to themselves until now. WTF is the matter with these people? In my eyes anyone who helped to cover up such behaviour is just as guilty as the one carrying it out.

Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

Fair points wursel .

 

Very disgusting if he abused dead bodies .thats pretty evil and is at the serious end of depravity .

As for using dead people glass eyes as rings . I'm not sure what to think on that as there is no corroborated evidence

 

What I can't understand is . Why has no one else be bought to account unless like Saville they are no longer alive .

But I don't get that impression that's the case

andysstuff

andysstuff

Posted
Posted

This isn't the first time there have been allegations of necrophilia with him. He stayed at home with his mum's corpse for two or three days before he reported the death is memory serves me correctly.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted
This isn't the first time there have been allegations of necrophilia with him. He stayed at home with his mum's corpse for two or three days before he reported the death is memory serves me correctly.

 

 

The thought he may have done that to his mum Andy is just too sickening

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
Fair points wursel .

 

Very disgusting if he abused dead bodies .thats pretty evil and is at the serious end of depravity .

As for using dead people glass eyes as rings . I'm not sure what to think on that as there is no corroborated evidence

 

What I can't understand is . Why has no one else be bought to account unless like Saville they are no longer alive .

But I don't get that impression that's the case

 

Some pictures were published of him wearing a ring with a glass eye on it.

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
I would like to see Operation Yewtree go after more challenging and significant targets, maybe unlift those D-Notices that Blair put on Operation Ore.

 

http://www.tpuc.org/blair-covering-up-paedophile-scandal/

 

You know D notices haven't existed since 1993 and are now called DA notices? You also know DA notices (Defence Advisory notices) are not 'put on' any particular action but are voluntary guidance issued on five general themes of national security -

 

DA-Notice 01: Military Operations, Plans & Capabilities

DA-Notice 02: Nuclear & Non-Nuclear Weapons & Equipment

DA-Notice 03: Ciphers & Secure Communications

DA-Notice 04: Sensitive Installations & Home Addresses

DA-Notice 05: United Kingdom Security & Intelligence Services & Special Services

 

 

You also know that Ore falls outside the scope of DA notices, Blair never put any D notices on Ore, had no power to do so and even if he had then, because the code is voluntary and in any event the media make up the majority of the Defence Advisory committee and they are free to ignore it?

 

What drives you to write this crap Pap? bull**** or ignorance?

 

for everybody else here is the link to DA Committee website and here is the link to Tom Watson MP's thoughts on the matter. tom Watson raised the issues associated with Ore in the House of commons.

 

http://www.dnotice.org.uk/index.htm

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2013/01/comprehensive-answer-on-the-use-of-d-notices

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...