|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 7, 2024 16:30:37 GMT
Of course the victims knew what he had done to them that is obvious even to me, as for who knew for certain what he was up to I have no idea , nor am I going to assume or guess either As the title of the thread is “The Real Reason Jimmy Savile Was Never Caught...” it kind of takes you out of the debate You are free to assume as much as you like , you may be right , your may be wrong |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2024 16:39:08 GMT
I have no doubt that some knew what he was up to, especially in the BBC he may have been protected but who knows for certain it’s too late now. All of the victims knew what he was up to and a lot of that was passed upstairs. There is no way in Earth that the police, hospital officials and/ or government did not know . Indeed. Thatcher's own husband has been accused by the woman interviewed in the first video in this thread, of having a paedophile interest in young boys. And Thatcher herself knighted one of her own paedophile MPs, after she already knew of his interest in young boys. And had Saville round for Christmas no fewer than ten times. It is not just the Tories. There have been paedophiles in Labour too. And the lard arsed Cyril Smith in the Liberals. Indeed the once prominent Labour figure Harriet Harmon appears to have had too close for comfort dealings with an organisation known as PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, which openly campaigned for lowering the age of consent to 10 and championed the sexuality of children. Saville himself was an obvious creep. I was one of many kids in the 70s who felt creeped out by him and struggled to understand his appeal. And clearly there have been many over the years who knew all too well what kind of person Saville really was yet anyone who tried to speak out was quickly silenced. Its like most of us could see what a creep he was, most people around him knew what he was but anyone speaking out was quickly shut down. Meanwhile, he had access to Downing Street, Chequers, and Buckingham Palace, almost at will. And appeared to have the police in his pocket too. Hiding in plain sight? He was barely hiding at all. And was allowed to carry on, the truth about him only coming out when he was dead and unable to tell tales. It seems highly likely to me that our society included influential paedophiles in high places, protected by the apparatuses of the state, which reached into royalty, parliament, Downing Street and the cabinet. A powerful paedophile ring of the rich and powerful, facilitating and protecting each other. I believe Saville was protected because he knew too much, and could have blown the roof off if he told us what he knew and might well have done if he himself had been prosecuted. So the powerful paedophiles in high places had to protect him to protect themselves and could only allow the truth about him to come out once he could no longer spill the beans, ie once he was dead. And more children who might have been protected were abused by him as the inevitable cost |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2024 16:40:18 GMT
As the title of the thread is “The Real Reason Jimmy Savile Was Never Caught...” it kind of takes you out of the debate You are free to assume as much as you like , you may be right , your may be wrong Thank you . That’s very kind . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 17:15:14 GMT
One alleged abuse was with some young girls where Jimmy was talking to them about Noel Edmunds and how he would be jealous if they preferred to marry Noel as opposed to him. Accusers on here should watch that clip because Jimmy was very skilful in putting it across in an entertaining way which was on their level without being crude. Anyone who watches that and is suspicious of Jimmy should get their head looked at because they have the problem, not him. It's the hyper-feminist - all men are rapists mindset which does it.
One reason I believe Jimmy was hated by these feminists is because he epitomised the father-child relationship. Children need a male role model and they are denied it in today's fascist women's lib society. Feminists exploit women's naturally protective nature towards children and use it to smear men. He was kind of stealing the limelight from their uber-feminist programme.
With all due respect. You are talking out of your arse . What is the point of leaving such a useless criticism to my explanation? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2024 17:22:05 GMT
With all due respect. You are talking out of your arse . What is the point of leaving such a useless criticism to my explanation? It was the most appropriate response . I suspect that whatever is posted about “ Jimmy” you will find an excuse to dismiss it . There is a huge body of evidence that” Jimmy” was a prolific sex abuser but you seem to have convinced yourself it was false ,a misunderstanding or some sort of feminist plot against him. In other news the Cambridge rapist was just a misunderstood and maligned old fashion romantic . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 17:23:14 GMT
It’s not just the mail. There are allegations from everywhere Saville was and across decades . Yes there were lots of rumours over the years he did rub shoulders with Royalty and Politicians due to his Charity work but I doubt if they were actual friends acquaintances yes ,he could have been taken to task back in 2009 when Surrey Police submitted a Case File to the CPS relating to Sexual Assault on a child. However due to the age of the victim and vulnerability the CPS could not proceed no victim able or competent or willing to give evidence no charges can be brought. He allegedly sexually 20 children under the age of 10 years and 10 boys even an adult Nurse who refused to give evidence After his death the Met Police and other Police Forces as part of Operation Yew Tree conducted a full investigation which identified over 300 of his victims, as very few came forward whilst he was alive it was not possible to arrest or charge or him, the NHS also mounted a full investigation as well. The amazing thing is out of 300, not one came forward at the time and not one was heard screaming as he allegedly "sexually abused" them in places where people were about, like the hospital mentioned earlier. Either he was top MI5 talent or someone is shitting us. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 17:24:51 GMT
What is the point of leaving such a useless criticism to my explanation? It was the most appropriate response . OK but it leaves me thinking this was because you did not have a counter argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2024 17:30:15 GMT
It was the most appropriate response . OK but it leaves me thinking this was because you did not have a counter argument. I did have a counter argument . There are scores of counter arguments of “ Jimmy was misunderstood “ “ or “ Jimmy was a victim of feminists “ You just responded to one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2024 17:34:01 GMT
Yes there were lots of rumours over the years he did rub shoulders with Royalty and Politicians due to his Charity work but I doubt if they were actual friends acquaintances yes ,he could have been taken to task back in 2009 when Surrey Police submitted a Case File to the CPS relating to Sexual Assault on a child. However due to the age of the victim and vulnerability the CPS could not proceed no victim able or competent or willing to give evidence no charges can be brought. He allegedly sexually 20 children under the age of 10 years and 10 boys even an adult Nurse who refused to give evidence After his death the Met Police and other Police Forces as part of Operation Yew Tree conducted a full investigation which identified over 300 of his victims, as very few came forward whilst he was alive it was not possible to arrest or charge or him, the NHS also mounted a full investigation as well. The amazing thing is out of 300, not one came forward at the time and not one was heard screaming as he allegedly "sexually abused" them in places where people were about, like the hospital mentioned earlier. Either he was top MI5 talent or someone is shitting us. The only one shitting anyone here is you doing it to yourself. Saville hobnobbed with royalty and prime ministers and had the protection of the police. Were I one of his victims I would have waited until the bastard was dead before saying anything too. Anyone who did speak out over the years was silenced or disbelieved. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 17:52:32 GMT
OK but it leaves me thinking this was because you did not have a counter argument. I did have a counter argument . There are scores of counter arguments of “ Jimmy was misunderstood “ “ or “ Jimmy was a victim of feminists “ You just responded to one. I know there is a ton of evidence, but every time I take the time to investigate a line of it I find out it is piss weak and can often easily be explained in more mundane ways. I accept Jimmy was a bit cheeky, could be a bit crude from his working class roots, was a close friend of Charles and was in with the politicians too, but nowhere have I seen conniving evidence he raped an underage child. I keep on getting everyone freaking out that i don't readily accept something I have no basis for accepting. This whole thing is getting to be a cult.
One thing I did hear which had nothing to do with Jimmy so it was a separate source, was that in the early 70s at Radio One, and I think more widely since the staff tended to switch from 1 or 2 sometimes, was that 'everyone was having sex with everyone else' or that was at least the general atmosphere of the time and place. There was nothing illegal about it since the staff were all of the age and consenting, but in today's social climate I guess a lot of that would be "sexual abuse", but looking through the lens of the swinging 60s, it would have been described as "hip". It was the same people, but looked at from two different cultural perspectives, one then and the other now. We have swung the complete other way where simply looking at someone the wrong way can get you into trouble according to the signs at British Rail stations. Anyhow, just bear in mind Jimmy was one of those at Radio One back then and my intuition is he would have a bit of that thing too. What man wouldn't?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2024 17:59:05 GMT
I did have a counter argument . There are scores of counter arguments of “ Jimmy was misunderstood “ “ or “ Jimmy was a victim of feminists “ You just responded to one. I know there is a ton of evidence, but every time I take the time to investigate a line of it I find out it is piss weak and can often easily be explained in more mundane ways. I accept Jimmy was a bit cheeky, could be a bit crude from his working class roots, was a close friend of Charles and was in with the politicians too, but nowhere have I seen conniving evidence he raped an underage child. I keep on getting everyone freaking out that i don't readily accept something I have no basis for accepting. This whole thing is getting to be a cult.
One thing I did hear which had nothing to do with Jimmy so it was a separate source, was that in the early 70s at Radio One, and I think more widely since the staff tended to switch from 1 or 2 sometimes, was that 'everyone was having sex with everyone else' or that was at least the general atmosphere of the time and place. There was nothing illegal about it since the staff were all of the age and consenting, but in today's social climate I guess a lot of that would be "sexual abuse", but looking through the lens of the swinging 60s, it would have been described as "hip". It was the same people, but looked at from two different cultural perspectives, one then and the other now. We have swung the complete other way where simply looking at someone the wrong way can get you into trouble according to the signs at British Rail stations. Anyhow, just bear in mind Jimmy was one of those at Radio One back then and my intuition is he would have a bit of that thing too. What man wouldn't?
Let’s get this right . You think that raping little girls and/ or touching their genitalia when they are in hospital can be excused as cheeky, crude behaviour due to working class roots ? Also Younseem to be claiming that little girls were regularly having sex with middle aged men in the 70s so “Jimmy” was just like everyone else ? Wtf? ”Sixteen persons reported being raped by Savile under the age of 16 and four of those were under the age of ten. Thirteen others reported serious sexual abuse by Savile, including four under-ten-year-olds.” Wiki |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 18:27:31 GMT
I know there is a ton of evidence, but every time I take the time to investigate a line of it I find out it is piss weak and can often easily be explained in more mundane ways. I accept Jimmy was a bit cheeky, could be a bit crude from his working class roots, was a close friend of Charles and was in with the politicians too, but nowhere have I seen conniving evidence he raped an underage child. I keep on getting everyone freaking out that i don't readily accept something I have no basis for accepting. This whole thing is getting to be a cult.
One thing I did hear which had nothing to do with Jimmy so it was a separate source, was that in the early 70s at Radio One, and I think more widely since the staff tended to switch from 1 or 2 sometimes, was that 'everyone was having sex with everyone else' or that was at least the general atmosphere of the time and place. There was nothing illegal about it since the staff were all of the age and consenting, but in today's social climate I guess a lot of that would be "sexual abuse", but looking through the lens of the swinging 60s, it would have been described as "hip". It was the same people, but looked at from two different cultural perspectives, one then and the other now. We have swung the complete other way where simply looking at someone the wrong way can get you into trouble according to the signs at British Rail stations. Anyhow, just bear in mind Jimmy was one of those at Radio One back then and my intuition is he would have a bit of that thing too. What man wouldn't?
Let’s get this right . You think that raping little girls and/ or touching their genitalia when they are in hospital can be excused as cheeky, crude behaviour due to working class roots ? Also Younseem to be claiming that little girls were regularly having sex with middle aged men in the 70s so “Jimmy” was just like everyone else ? Wtf? He was 42 when he joined Radio 1. Yes I can imagine girls working in Radio One in their 20s would have fancied him. He was a superstar and had a lot of money and fame. Anyhow, i just said that chances are he was having some promiscuous sex during his time as a DJ. This was how it was in swinging London in the 60s. There was a boom in youth fashion and there were many fashion photographers who were doing the same to those they photographed. Jimmy was a bit of a one for parties and having fun.
Still though I have not got any evidence he was touching up underage girls. Do you have any?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 18:33:21 GMT
The amazing thing is out of 300, not one came forward at the time and not one was heard screaming as he allegedly "sexually abused" them in places where people were about, like the hospital mentioned earlier. Either he was top MI5 talent or someone is shitting us. The only one shitting anyone here is you doing it to yourself. Saville hobnobbed with royalty and prime ministers and had the protection of the police. Were I one of his victims I would have waited until the bastard was dead before saying anything too. Anyone who did speak out over the years was silenced or disbelieved. It strikes me as very odd that this has flipped to become the extreme opposite of what you claim was the case. From hushing up over 300 people to splashing it on every front age of the gutter press. We have obviously become such an open and honest society since then!
First law of bullshit: if everyone is pressuring you to believe something then it is bound to be a lie. We see this at the moment in the 'what is a woman' debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2024 18:34:34 GMT
Let’s get this right . You think that raping little girls and/ or touching their genitalia when they are in hospital can be excused as cheeky, crude behaviour due to working class roots ? Also Younseem to be claiming that little girls were regularly having sex with middle aged men in the 70s so “Jimmy” was just like everyone else ? Wtf? He was 42 when he joined Radio 1. Yes I can imagine girls working in Radio One in their 20s would have fancied him. He was a superstar and had a lot of money and fame. Anyhow, i just said that chances are he was having some promiscuous sex during his time as a DJ. This was how it was in swinging London in the 60s. There was a boom in youth fashion and there were many fashion photographers who were doing the same to those they photographed. Jimmy was a bit of a one for parties and having fun.
Still though I have not got any evidence he was touching up underage girls. Do you have any?
Sixteen persons reported being raped by Savile under the age of 16 and four of those were under the age of ten. Thirteen others reported serious sexual abuse by Savile, including four under-ten-year-olds.” Wiki Anyway now we know that you think that little girls were regularly having sex with middle aged men in the 70s . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 18:46:22 GMT
He was 42 when he joined Radio 1. Yes I can imagine girls working in Radio One in their 20s would have fancied him. He was a superstar and had a lot of money and fame. Anyhow, i just said that chances are he was having some promiscuous sex during his time as a DJ. This was how it was in swinging London in the 60s. There was a boom in youth fashion and there were many fashion photographers who were doing the same to those they photographed. Jimmy was a bit of a one for parties and having fun.
Still though I have not got any evidence he was touching up underage girls. Do you have any?
Sixteen persons reported being raped by Savile under the age of 16 and four of those were under the age of ten. Thirteen others reported serious sexual abuse by Savile, including four under-ten-year-olds.” Wiki Anyway now we know that you think that little girls were regularly having sex with middle aged men in the 70s . OK I got that ref in wiki but the source (146) reports the following.
And there is also an archive backup of the pdf which has been removed.
This raises more questions than it answers.
Anyhow, don't say I don't check this stuff. I try and be balanced and diligent.
|
|
