Anyway, he always struck me as a hands-on childrens presenter.
Well Gambo seems to have been waiting for this to surface:
[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/01/jimmy-savile-paul-gambaccini-child-abuse-claims_n_1928362.html ]Huffington Post[/url]
Why does it take decades for sexual abuse cases to surface, Saville had profile and, if the article in the link is to be believed, some measure of influence.
The abuse cases in the RC church have taken decades to surface, often due to the victims own denial, feeling of low self worth etc. These things seem to be pretty good at stopping people coming forward.
struck me as a [b]hands-on children[/b]s presenter.
Great work Hora. Loving it.
Hora are you suggesting that Jimmy Saville actually faked his own death, and now runs a string of Kebab houses in Rochdale?
Mrs Toast - I know what you're saying. But if there wasn't any/enough evidence to prosecute him while he was alive, then it seems pretty dubious to then be presenting what for the most part seems like gossip, as facts, on primetime television. While the person who the allegations are about is not alive to issue legal proceedings or defend themselves.
And any thoughts that it wouldn't be a load of sensationalist claptrap are negated by the fact that
a) Its on ITV. The station for people who find the Sun a bit news-heavy, and
b) It seems to involve rampant everybody-look-at-me, self-promoter Esther Rantzen as some kind of judge and jury
Plenty of reading for you here about the blunders over the Kebab Shop murderer:
The short of it is blunders in gathering evidence (they actually had secret recordings of two of the defendants admitting disposing of the body) yet due to technicalities the defendants got off....
Mrs Toast- the Rochdale issue wasn't a case of JUST the Police, it was cross-department **** ups (and probably Social services) fear of a reprise of the Oldham-style riots again (IMO).
At the very least the Police were trying, just the age-old incompetents in the force.
To summise? No one protects Paedophiles, its incompetence/bad communication that gets them off (IMO).
then it seems pretty dubious to then be presenting what for the most part seems like gossip, as facts, on primetime television
Its eye witness testimony however you wish to caricature it-
a) Its on ITV. The station for people who find the Sun a bit news-heavy, and
b) It seems to involve rampant everybody-look-at-me self-promoter Esther Rantzen as some kind of judge and jury
Yes you seem oblivious to hyperbole and over reaction unlike them 😕
binners - MemberMrs Toast - I know what you're saying. But if there wasn't any/enough evidence to prosecute him while he was alive, then it seems pretty dubious to then be presenting what for the most part seems like gossip, as facts, on primetime television. While the person who the allegations are about is not alive to issue legal proceedings or defend themselves.
And any thoughts that it wouldn't be a load of sensationalist claptrap are negated by the fact that
a) Its on ITV. The station for people who find the Sun a bit news-heavy, and
b) It seems to involve rampant everybody-look-at-me self-promoter Esther Rantzen as some kind of judge and jury
What is dubious about it? - seems you have outlined clear cut case to justify a TV programme.
I must agree. I thought it but didn't say it incase Binnes papa lazarou'd me
what does this mean?
Its [b]ALLEGED [/b]eye witness testimony however you wish to caricature it-
FTFY
If I go and tell a load of slanderous fantasist claptrap about someone in a court of law, I can be jailed for contempt. Then have private prosecutions taken against me for slander
The same applies in between episodes of Coronation Street nowadays, does it?
What is dubious about it?
Seriously?
The laws of libel and slander perhaps where the defendant has to prove the veracity of their statements on a balance of probability.
Well that's the point, isn't it? You can't libel the dead.
of course he did charity work, so he must be okay?
[quote=Junkyard ]
Its eye witness testimony however you wish to caricature it-
Thankfully, we have a place where such testimony can be scrutinised fairly and can be cross-examined. It's called a courtroom.
You've got to admire the balls of Gambacini; he goes on TV to say he knew that Jimmy was a child abuser and somehow manages to excuse the fact that he didn't call the police. Mind you, some of the stuff he said is just nonsensical:
He said Sir Jimmy was "about to be exposed" by one newspaper, but to prevent its publication he gave an interview to a rival tabloid which had the effect of stopping the negative piece.
How does that work? Surely it'd be even better if you could stick it to a rival by showing that their puff-piece interview was with a paedophile celeb.
[quote=surroundedbyhills > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19788721
Surrey Police questions JS in 2007.
I'm sure that we could come up with an extensive list of teachers, social workers, nurses, doctors and other professions all of whom have had accusations levelled at them. In the overwhelming majority of cases these are determined to be completely unfounded.
it must be true..
the evidence..
some people say they were involved and chose not to come forward until 30-40 years after it happened and then after he was dead and then chose not to tell the authorities but all felt the best way to reveal thier ordeal was to a specific tv producer at the same time from whom they probably have recieved no reward or expences for thier time
some people say they saw it
some people say they know someone who saw it
some people say the know someone who read that somebody knew someone had seen it.
having reviewed that evidence Ester says its true..
Much easier to get an audience by running to the media desperate for a bit of sensationalism??
Some interesting aspersions you are casting about these people who may well be victims of abuse.
what does this mean?
I means that you have been verbalised. 🙂
It's an honour. Don't take the responsibility lightly.
Some interesting aspersions you are casting about these people who may well be victims of abuse.
is it not the STW method of analysis
[quote=grum ]Some interesting aspersions you are casting about these people who may well be victims of abuse.
You're right. It would be much better if I waited until they were dead and then named them all individually. Silly me.
[img] 
[/img]
Maybe we could ask Esther to weigh up the aspersions, and pass judgement. Seeing as she seems to have put herself forward as some sort of Daily Mail reading, Middle England Judge Dredd, dispensing justice on her selective reading of the facts/hearsay/gossip/blatently made up stuff
You're right. It would be much better if I waited until they were dead and then named them all individually. Silly me.
I think flippantly dismissing the reasons why victims might not feel happy to come forward about being abused even years later is pretty offensive TBH. I agree that participating in a crappy ITV programme probably isn't the best way of doing it.
You're casting aspersions about the motivations of the people involved in this programme while complaining about people casting aspersions about Jimmy Saville. I would suggest the people in the programme probably have rather more basis for their aspersions than you do.
[quote=grum ]You're casting aspersions about the motivations of the people involved in this programme while complaining about people casting aspersions about Jimmy Saville.
Call it post-ironic.
Call it post-ironic.
I prefer the traditional term 'hypocrisy'.
I would suggest the people in the programme probably have rather more basis for their aspersions than you do.
and you know that how?
Given that nobody can be done for libel or slander, the level of proof required to make these allegations is... erm... non-existent
Given that nobody can be done for libel or slander, the level of proof required to make these allegations is... erm... non-existent
I'm willing to accept there might be a tiny minority of nutjobs who are willing to make up stuff like this for 5 minutes of 'fame', but a whole host of them? Really?
Seems very unlikely to me, especially when combined with the persistent rumours about him (which admittedly mostly amount to hearsay). First hand testimony isn't hearsay though.
atlaz - Member
You've got to admire the balls of Gambacini; he goes on TV to say he knew that Jimmy was a child abuser and somehow manages to excuse the fact that he didn't call the police.
Can anyone in possession of more than the barrack room law book clarify this one for me please:
If it turns out that there is hard evidence, sufficient to have convicted Sir Jimmy if he were still alive (not sure if a dead person can be convicted, suspect not as they cannot offer a defence, but that has not stopped history damning a good many people after their deaths), can Gambo be charged with an offence such as an Accessory After the Fact or Aiding and Abetting?
Ta.
Well ... lets just hope that you don't find yourself on the end of any 'persistent rumours' eh? If that's what's now deemed an acceptable level of proof required for a guilty verdict
Case dismissed!
lets just hope that you don't find yourself on the end of any 'persistent rumours' eh?
In fairness binbins, I don't think grum is saying that rumour enough is reason to decide.
Well ... lets just hope that you don't find yourself on the end of any 'persistent rumours' eh? If that's what's now deemed an acceptable level of proof required for a guilty verdict
Persistent rumours is one thing binners. Several people all giving first hand accounts of abuse is a very different thing IMO.
Your opinion seems to be mainly based on how much you hate Esther Rantzen, which is reasonable I suppose.
If only there had been any other cases exposed recently of trial by media getting the facts wrong? Maybe one where people had unfounded, unproven accusations made against them then splashed all over the popular media, clearly stating it as [b]THE TRUTH[/b]
I can't think of any though. 🙄
Ah I see, because the police and The Sun lied about Hillsborough, Jimmy Saville definitely isn't a paedo. I see your logic.
I'm not saying he definitely is, or that this TV programme is a great idea by any means - but deciding the participants are all publicity-hungry fantasists is also a bit much IMO.
On the balance of probabilities I would say it is more likely that they are not lying - but who knows?
Ah I see, because the police and The Sun lied about Hillsborough, Jimmy Saville definitely isn't a paedo. I see your logic.
The police and the Sun can answer back...
You're spectacularly missing the point.
but who knows?
Ah... your edit shows you've finally got it. THAT is the point. We don't know. Not you. Not me. And certainly not Esther bloody Rantzen.
You start trying people by media, you might as well just start assembling lynch mobs in the street and we can conduct 'justice' in that fashion from here on in
The police and the Sun can answer back...
Yup, and I feel uncomfortable about this programme too.
You're spectacularly missing the point.
There's only one way to settle this......
Is there? What? We start opposing rumours and see who most people believe 24 hours later? 😉
If only there had been any other cases exposed recently of trial by media getting the facts wrong?
I particularly liked the recent balls-up by The Sunday Times questioning if there was only "100 cod left in the North Sea" 😆
Apparently the journo make an unscientific leap relating the the age of mature Cod while browsing the data. I guess the Editor must have have been out-of-office that day. BTW, they reckon there's ~half-a-billion mature Cod in the North Sea.
Oh, and the "diseased" Scottish farmed salmon that was utterly groundless media-storming. Nearly wiped out the industry that one.
Fish Fiddler 😉
You start trying people by media, you might as well just start assembling lynch mobs in the street and we can conduct 'justice' in that fashion from here on in
You really need to calm down the wallsof democracy are not crumbling because of this
Like World in action did for the Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6 that sort of terrible lynch mob justice?
Like Journalists takling down the President in Watergate? That sort of lynch mob?
You seem to be objecting to the method of the discussion rather than actually considering whether what they say ois true
I hate the sun so if they print anything i should ignore its accuracy because they lied about Hilsborough?
It makes no sense to assume this.
Is he guilty I dont know but the method of the airing is not the critical factor its what the evidence says - yes it is unfortunate he is dead and he canot answer back and that should raise suspsicion . However to just assume it must be a lie and to not listen seems a huge leap made for reasons that are unclear [ logically] to me
Its not ideal, its not a trial but that does not make it true or false
I guess that as long as the accusers aren't being paid a fee, Esther is so outraged that she's working for free and ITV hand over the dossier of evidence to the police then we can expect some sort of justice. Otherwise, it's just folk lining their pockets at the expense of a dead man.
FWIW, I'm not being paid for my opinion either.
yes it is [s]unfortunate[/s] very very convenient indeed he is dead and he cannot answer back and that should [s]raise suspsicion[/s] set the alarm bells ringing from a few hundred miles away
Or is 8pm on ITV now the prime place to be putting our world weary cynicism to one side, and just accepting what we're being told
Its not ideal, its not a trial but that does not make it true or false
Well... Esthers statement is pretty clear....
[i]Rantzen said the testimony given by the women offers concrete evidence the allegations against Saville were true: "What these women say is so matter of fact, they corroborate each other. The style of the abuse and the attack on them was consistent one with each other.
"I'm afraid the jury isn't out any more and what upsets me so much is that not one of these children could ask for help. The abuse of power was as great as the sexual abuse."[/i]
Concrete 'evidence'? the 'jury' isn't out any more?
Oh, the ironing 🙄
Fish Fiddler
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't use "fish fingerer".
Or is that too much?
It's all codswallop.
Was it an all girls school? Daily Mail reports he had girls sent up and he'd select from these. The writer worded it spot on for maximum character assination.
Sir Philip of Schofield is casting doubt on the logistics of it all on the BBC website.
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't use "fish fingerer".
Or is that too much?
have you ever seen skate for sale ?
you will know why certain parts are removed
Schofields just trying to stop the Gordon the Gopher beastiality rumours coming out
Trial by ITV.....the same people that bring you Peter Andre 'My Life'.
Classic.
Sir Philip of Schofield is casting doubt on the logistics of it all on the BBC website.
Schofield vs Rantzen - who to believe? They're both such intellectual/moral heavyweights.
SIR Philip Schofield?!
This must have done to protect his "Argos" style joolri
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-15717221
rudebwoy - Member
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't use "fish fingerer".
Or is that too much?
have you ever seen skate for sale ?you will know why certain parts are removed
We once had a guy apply for a job as a skate(board) rep, who had been traumatised by 'discovering' a workmate sexually abusing a skate.
Couldn't fail to hire him with that qualification.
Difficult one, this.
On the one hand, he's an easy target. Eccentric old goat, liked the company of children, must be a nonce. See also, Michael Jackson. The fact that [i]no-one[/i] came out to 'tell their story' till after his death rings massive alarm bells for me. I think we can dismiss 'there were always stories' for reasons I've just mentioned; of course there's stories, he's the sort of character that attracts them, and nothing breeds rumours like other rumours.
However, on the other hand, if the equine-dentured That's Life presenter is to be believed, there are a number of corroborating stories from what are presumably unrelated people. In comparison to MJ, there's also little motive that I can see for unfounded character assassination other than five minutes of fame; apart from selling stories to the gutter press, there isn't a huge vein of gold to be tapped like there was in the MJ case. So it's harder to see what people would hope to gain by making up stories now.
So I think I'm undecided on this one. I think it's a massive shame that this is all coming out now after his death, where a) he can't defend himself and b) he can't stand trial if it turns out that he was guilty. That doesn't sit well with me at all.
Bit harsh to compare him with MJ at this stage I reckon, as MJ was clearly a child abuser. It's nowhere near that certain with old Jimmy yet.
[i]If only there had been any other cases exposed recently of trial by media getting the facts wrong? Maybe one where people had unfounded, unproven accusations made against them then splashed all over the popular media, clearly stating it as THE TRUTH[/i]
Or to put it differently
If only there had been other cases exposed recently where victims' stories had been steadfastly ignored for decades, denying them their voice, while the popular media continued to ignore them and support/venerate the other parties involved.
Bit harsh to compare him with MJ at this stage I reckon, as MJ was clearly a child abuser. It's nowhere near that certain with old Jimmy yet.
It's nowhere near certain with MJ either, of course. If I were a betting man, my gut feeling is that MJ was innocent and JS was guilty, but I'd be speculating at best based on drip-fed information from the media.
Jackson liked the company of children because he had a mental age of about 12 himself. He was bonkers in the nut, but that doesn't automatically make him a kiddie fiddler. He was also a prime target for parents who saw him as their retirement fund after little Jimmy had a sleep-over Chez Jacko.
I'm no particular fan of either (nor do I particularly dislike either, either), so I'd like to think I'm fairly ambivalently unbiased here. And obviously this is just ill-informed opinion, but I can see considerably less compelling (anecdotal) evidence for MJ's guilt than JS's.
We will now have many people who will testify how much of a bully and a narcissist JS was, that will be adults , the children will have found it impossible to defend themselves.
Sorry cougar, I'm absolutely convinced that MJ was a rampant paedophile. Nothing could convince me otherwise.
if I were a paedophile, I'd have a fun park in my garden. And a pet monkey.
Sorry cougar, I'm absolutely convinced that MJ was a rampant paedophile. Nothing could convince me otherwise.
Gary Glitter would have a go.........
"Where there is a will to condemn, there is evidence."
Jung Chang.
the children will have found it impossible to defend themselves.
So does Jimmy himself against those who we don't even know their names or whether these are witness statements verbatim or taken down by a production company for profit.
Who knows but its weird how a victim who lives a torrid, awful life thanks to an abuser who is scared she wouldn't be believed found a production company who would listen but also probably pay her.
Saying this the production company probably checked their sources- i.e. women did attend that school thoroughly (i.e. maiden names matched register - if......it still existed. If a school has closed down there will be no records left).
Hmmm cougar. I think the 'sharing a bed for cuddles' was the bit where I stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt....
If my neighbour asked me if my son could stop over and share a bed with him what would I say? I'd pick up the phone to the Police.
If someone is a successful singer - what is the difference? Does wearing white socks, pants too short and belting out catchy 80/90's pop tunes make it acceptable?
Many of those abused by priests had to 'wait' until the tide turned before they felt able to come forward, i really think Hora that you should stick to Lance as a cause celeb
Who knows but its weird how a victim who lives a torrid, awful life thanks to an abuser who is scared she wouldn't be believed found a production company who would listen but also probably pay her.
You are highly skilled expert working with victims of abuse, recognised worlwide as a legal expert on the impact of abuse on victims, the shame and how long it takes them to speak out and we thank you for your insights.
When a researchers approaches them and says we have other people speaking out and we are doing a programme are , you so berefet of social skills and understanding that you cannot see why they would take this opportunity ?
One spoke of how she was raped by Savile, but that she blamed herself because "no one blamed him." Another was locked in an isolation unit for days at her approved school when she made allegations about Savile in the 1970s, because she was assumed to be lying, as are so many abused children both then and now. "No one believed me then and I don't expect anyone to believe me now." Unless we start listening to children, in decades to come we will be hearing the same tragic stories.
Can you prove they were paid btw or are you just making an unsubstantiated leap of faith?
.......if I were a paedophile, I'd have a fun park in my garden. And a pet monkey.
If you we're a Multi Millionaire pop star with a Mental age of 12, you probably would as well ?
Do you honestly believe that Jackson had a mental age of 12?
He was a predator.
On the other hand, he did write some catchy pop songs. [i]*Billie jean is not my lover*[/i]
Sorry cougar, I'm absolutely convinced that MJ was a rampant paedophile. Nothing could convince me otherwise.
Sure, and that's your call of course. Personally, being wholly removed from the situation and not privy to any actual evidence, I doubt I'll ever be convinced one way or the other.
I think the 'sharing a bed for cuddles' was the bit where I stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt....
Like I said, he appeared to have the mind of a child. It's a bit of a leap from a "cuddle" to playing a special game that you can't tell mummy about. I'm not saying that sharing a bed with other people's children is particularly normal or desireable behaviour, it's at best monumentally naive but it doesn't automatically mean he was abusing them.
You might be right of course. As I said above, I have no idea what the truth actually is, he could've been Pedobear incarnate for all I know. I'm just not convinced that it's right to condemn someone as guilty until proven innocent just because they're a bit eccentric.
Eccentricity is fine, abusing others is not, they are not mutually inclusive or exclusive.
There is a guy who always rides in marigolds, don't think he's a threat to anyone though
Do you honestly believe that Jackson had a mental age of 12?
He certainly thought more like a child than an Adult.
He was a predator.
[img] 
[/img]
Did you honestly think MJ had learning difficulties? How did he learn his lines, routines, practice, tour etc etc?
What next, the Chewbacca defense? 😆
JS -> Guilty! 👿
Hora - Its all about motivation. Any 6 year old girl could learn every single song, with accompanying dance routine on the X factor, having viewed it only once. Seriously. its terrifying to witness
Did you honestly think MJ had learning difficulties?
I'm reasonably certain he had mental health issues. Whether or not you'd class them as "learning difficulties" is another matter.
If only there had been any other cases exposed recently of trial by media getting the facts wrong? Maybe one where people had unfounded, unproven accusations made against them then splashed all over the popular media, clearly stating it as THE TRUTHOr to put it differently
If only there had been other cases exposed recently where victims' stories had been steadfastly ignored for decades, denying them their voice, while the popular media continued to ignore them and support/venerate the other parties involved.
+1
Well put.
If you say a grown adult male has a mental age of 12 says to me that person has learning difficulties.
If a grown adult male was found to have a strong interest in young boys and you tried to explain this away you'd say 'he never grew up, he loved playing with toys and was just a big boy'.
I think don't think he was either and the latter was a cover by embarrassed fans of his pop music.