|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2024 18:51:00 GMT
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.
Yes suggesting that Saville might be a victim of feminists and little girls were at it with middle aged men in the 70s is a balanced view gleaned by diligence . Maybe we should look again at the Asians grooming gangs . Perhaps they were the victims of toxic feminists and teen nymphos just like Saville ….oops Jimmy . |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 7, 2024 19:21:39 GMT
Cyril Smith and Jimmy Savile knew members of the establishment. Gary Glitter wasn’t so connected. Could that explain one’s prosecution and the other two apparently being protected…?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 19:26:25 GMT
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.
Yes suggesting that Saville might be a victim of feminists and little girls were at it with middle aged men in the 70s is a balanced view gleaned by diligence . Maybe we should look again at the Asians grooming gangs . Perhaps they were the victims of toxic feminists and teen nymphos just like Saville ….oops Jimmy . It was the staff of Radio One who were all having sex, and often in the offices and the like. You can't get employment at the BBC unless you are of working age, so this is how I know it was legal, albeit not quite in keeping with the BBC rules I guess.
The thing is the vast majority of men are heterosexual and are not attracted to little girls. They are most attracted to girls in their early 20s which is the peak age of fertility for females. That's just biology. It's a big jump to make from imagining he was quite normal to believing he was a paedophile.Where I think the tabloids are exploiting this is the crossing of wires in the brains of proles. You see on the one hand he was from a DJ background and they are often sex symbols to also being a children's entertainer. It's credible to see how he could make the transition because Radio One does have a lot of young people in their audience, like 12-14 year olds . In the 70s I listened to Radio one at the age of ten. However the cross wire thing is where they equate sex symbol with child entertainer and come up with paedophile. This may explain how so many can believe it, but I really can't find and reliable evidence. Most is based on gossip.
Also his way of coming across to the kids does not have the kind of psychology which is typical of known paedophiles. You can often detect their heads are messed up and tend to be emotionless. Think of the kind that often taught in public schools. They were overwhelmingly homosexuals and drove fear into the children. Blair's old school is a known positive in this regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2024 19:34:01 GMT
Yes suggesting that Saville might be a victim of feminists and little girls were at it with middle aged men in the 70s is a balanced view gleaned by diligence . Maybe we should look again at the Asians grooming gangs . Perhaps they were the victims of toxic feminists and teen nymphos just like Saville ….oops Jimmy . It was the staff of Radio One who were all having sex, and often in the offices and the like. You can't get employment at the BBC unless you are of working age, so this is how I know it was legal, albeit not quite in keeping with the BBC rules I guess.
The thing is the vast majority of men are heterosexual and are not attracted to little girls. They are most attracted to girls in their early 20s which is the peak age of fertility for females. That's just biology. It's a big jump to make from imagining he was quite normal to believing he was a paedophile.Where I think the tabloids are exploiting this is the crossing of wires in the brains of proles. You see on the one hand he was from a DJ background and they are often sex symbols to also being a children's entertainer. It's credible to see how he could make the transition because Radio One does have a lot of young people in their audience, like 12-14 year olds . In the 70s I listened to Radio one at the age of ten. However the cross wire thing is where they equate sex symbol with child entertainer and come up with paedophile. This may explain how so many can believe it, but I really can't find and reliable evidence. Most is based on gossip.
Also his way of coming across to the kids does not have the kind of psychology which is typical of known paedophiles. You can often detect their heads are messed up and tend to be emotionless. Think of the kind that often taught in public schools. They were overwhelmingly homosexuals and drove fear into the children. Blair's old school is a known positive in this regard.
Oh do you take the words of Radio 1 staff that BBC employed middle age men were at it with horny under age girls in the 70s but dismiss the many claims of children that they were abused by “ Jimmy”. The rest is cod Psychology at best. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2024 19:43:25 GMT
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.
Second law of bullshit. When someone in the face of all the evidence to the contrary insists upon protesting the innocence of an acknowledged paedophile, we have to wonder at their motivations. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 19:52:41 GMT
It was the staff of Radio One who were all having sex, and often in the offices and the like. You can't get employment at the BBC unless you are of working age, so this is how I know it was legal, albeit not quite in keeping with the BBC rules I guess.
The thing is the vast majority of men are heterosexual and are not attracted to little girls. They are most attracted to girls in their early 20s which is the peak age of fertility for females. That's just biology. It's a big jump to make from imagining he was quite normal to believing he was a paedophile.Where I think the tabloids are exploiting this is the crossing of wires in the brains of proles. You see on the one hand he was from a DJ background and they are often sex symbols to also being a children's entertainer. It's credible to see how he could make the transition because Radio One does have a lot of young people in their audience, like 12-14 year olds . In the 70s I listened to Radio one at the age of ten. However the cross wire thing is where they equate sex symbol with child entertainer and come up with paedophile. This may explain how so many can believe it, but I really can't find and reliable evidence. Most is based on gossip.
Also his way of coming across to the kids does not have the kind of psychology which is typical of known paedophiles. You can often detect their heads are messed up and tend to be emotionless. Think of the kind that often taught in public schools. They were overwhelmingly homosexuals and drove fear into the children. Blair's old school is a known positive in this regard.
Oh do you take the words of Radio 1 staff that BBC employed middle age men were at it with horny under age girls in the 70s but dismiss the many claims of children that they were abused by “ Jimmy”. The rest is cod Psychology at best. I recall it came from a pretty authoritative person which I recall was in Radio One at the time. I can't recall who it was, but do recall them describing it in a video interview, hence giving me more confidence since I am able to hear the confession. The reliability of it comes down to the fact is was not related to a case like Jimmy where it is highly political. I think it was in some documentary on 60s London and what the scene was at the time. Perhaps they might have exaggerated a bit, but I'm confident enough to believe it was a regular thing.
By the way, do you recall the case of Dave Lee Travis? He was of the same generation of Radio One DJs. Nice guy I reckon and someone who was a favourite DJ of mine when I was living at that time. However, he had a little problem, didn't he. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 7, 2024 19:55:18 GMT
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.
Second law of bullshit. When someone in the face of all the evidence to the contrary insists upon protesting the innocence of an acknowledged paedophile, we have to wonder at their motivations. The motivation of not believing it all or having a different opinion you mean? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2024 20:14:14 GMT
Second law of bullshit. When someone in the face of all the evidence to the contrary insists upon protesting the innocence of an acknowledged paedophile, we have to wonder at their motivations. The motivation of not believing it all or having a different opinion you mean? Well the evidence does seem to be overwhelming at this point, which suggests some ulterior motive for refusing to accept it. And arguing against it. Even if that motive is nothing more sinister than a conspiracy theorist thought process as a default setting. What about you? Do you think 300 people are lying? Do you think the brave few who came forward at the time and were dismissed were lying even then? Do you think all those celebrities who knew what was going on but were ignored or silenced if they spoke up were lying? It is exactly this disbelief of victims which allowed so many paedophiles to get away with it for so long. Add to that Saville's powerful connections and his potential ability to outspend victims in the civil courts, all at a time when kiddy fiddling tended to be brushed under the carpet, and we can see how nonces got away with it even in plain sight back then. But there is no need to rush to their defence now and assume that the hundreds of alleged victims are in fact the liars. When that indeed looks most unlikely. Those who assume today that hundreds of former kids and other witnesses are lying, rather than the accused, are themselves lending credence to the standard nonces defence even today. We need to take victims seriously. Thankfully most people today do. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 7, 2024 20:18:49 GMT
Oh do you take the words of Radio 1 staff that BBC employed middle age men were at it with horny under age girls in the 70s but dismiss the many claims of children that they were abused by “ Jimmy”. The rest is cod Psychology at best. I recall it came from a pretty authoritative person which I recall was in Radio One at the time. I can't recall who it was, but do recall them describing it in a video interview, hence giving me more confidence since I am able to hear the confession. The reliability of it comes down to the fact is was not related to a case like Jimmy where it is highly political. I think it was in some documentary on 60s London and what the scene was at the time. Perhaps they might have exaggerated a bit, but I'm confident enough to believe it was a regular thing.
By the way, do you recall the case of Dave Lee Travis? He was of the same generation of Radio One DJs. Nice guy I reckon and someone who was a favourite DJ of mine when I was living at that time. However, he had a little problem, didn't he. Ok , it was one bloke from the BBC v all of the victims over many years . I get it . Yup, Dave Lee Travis not being a hard core nonce like “ Jimmy” makes “ Jimmy “ not a hard core nonce. ….jeez. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 7, 2024 20:22:54 GMT
The motivation of not believing it all or having a different opinion you mean? Well the evidence does seem to be overwhelming at this point, which suggests some ulterior motive for refusing to accept it. And arguing against it. Even if that motive is nothing more sinister than a conspiracy theorist thought process as a default setting. What about you? Do you think 300 people are lying? Do you think the brave few who came forward at the time and were dismissed were lying even then? Do you think all those celebrities who knew what was going on but were ignored or silenced if they spoke up were lying? It is exactly this disbelief of victims which allowed so many paedophiles to get away with it for so long. Add to that Saville's powerful connections and his potential ability to outspend victims in the civil courts, all at a time when kiddy fiddling tended to be brushed under the carpet, and we can see how nonces got away with it even in plain sight back then. But there is no need to rush to their defence now and assume that the hundreds of alleged victims are in fact the liars. When that indeed looks most unlikely. Those who assume today that hundreds of former kids and other witnesses are lying, rather than the accused, are themselves lending credence to the standard nonces defence even today. We need to take victims seriously. Thankfully most people today do. Never liked Saville nothing to do with later allegations I just thought he was a prat,I also thought your comment to bvl could be misinterpreted is all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2024 20:40:15 GMT
Well the evidence does seem to be overwhelming at this point, which suggests some ulterior motive for refusing to accept it. And arguing against it. Even if that motive is nothing more sinister than a conspiracy theorist thought process as a default setting. What about you? Do you think 300 people are lying? Do you think the brave few who came forward at the time and were dismissed were lying even then? Do you think all those celebrities who knew what was going on but were ignored or silenced if they spoke up were lying? It is exactly this disbelief of victims which allowed so many paedophiles to get away with it for so long. Add to that Saville's powerful connections and his potential ability to outspend victims in the civil courts, all at a time when kiddy fiddling tended to be brushed under the carpet, and we can see how nonces got away with it even in plain sight back then. But there is no need to rush to their defence now and assume that the hundreds of alleged victims are in fact the liars. When that indeed looks most unlikely. Those who assume today that hundreds of former kids and other witnesses are lying, rather than the accused, are themselves lending credence to the standard nonces defence even today. We need to take victims seriously. Thankfully most people today do. Never liked Saville nothing to do with later allegations I just thought he was a prat,I also thought your comment to bvl could be misinterpreted is all. Fair point. For the purposes of clarification, I am not trying to insinuate the BvL or anyone else on here is a nonce and realise my words could be misinterpreted in that way. I do though suspect ulterior motives related to a desire to shore up a conspiracy theorist mindset, which tends to have as a default setting an assumption that the consensus is always wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 7, 2024 22:14:55 GMT
Never liked Saville nothing to do with later allegations I just thought he was a prat,I also thought your comment to bvl could be misinterpreted is all. Fair point. For the purposes of clarification, I am not trying to insinuate the BvL or anyone else on here is a nonce and realise my words could be misinterpreted in that way. I do though suspect ulterior motives related to a desire to shore up a conspiracy theorist mindset, which tends to have as a default setting an assumption that the consensus is always wrong. I don't have any ulterior motive. It is what I think, having investigated it. Nothing anyone has said has swung my view any further in the guilty direction. I have a different view on each of the alleged paedophile/sexual abuse/rape etc cases. Some I believe and others I don't. What you say there though is wrong. I'm not always anything in my beliefs. I try and be honest. Sometimes that falls in agreement with others and sometimes not. |
|
