Have we done Jimmy

Anyway, he always struck me as a hands-on childrens presenter.

Well Gambo seems to have been waiting for this to surface:

Huffington Post

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 hands-on childrens 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:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Iyad+Albattikh&rlz=1C1CHMO_en-gbGB492GB492&oq=Iyad+Albattikh&sugexp=chrome,mod=1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

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 – Member

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

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 ALLEGED 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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19788721

Surrey Police questions JS in 2007.

of course he did charity work, so he must be okay?

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.

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

You’re right. It would be much better if I waited until they were dead and then named them all individually. Silly me.

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.

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 THE TRUTH

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