|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 21, 2024 10:31:32 GMT
I still think Saville could have been innocent. I've not heard all the witnesses, but watched an hour long documentary of these people and none convinced me he did anything bad, rather it was interpreted after the event to be bad seeing it in a modern light. For example one of his acts which was popular with children was role playing and fantasy. He was playing with them, but anything sexual was in the context of say perhaps what you would get on Walt Disney or similar, like the fairy princess and all of that. His interaction with children also involved touching them and kissing them on the hand, whereupon they would smile with delight. He was like a father figure, but my theory is it could be the fucked up feminist mind, thinking every time a man touches a child it means he is a paedophile. It's a vile think though think, but hardcore feminists basically believe every man is a rapist. The TV documentary tried to jazz it up with the creepy mood music ,but it does not fool me. There really was not one proper smoking gun to exhibit. If there were, you could have bet they would have had it on. LOL! 
Idiot.
Yep one born every minute |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 21, 2024 10:50:03 GMT
They might have made the allegations up and if they had gone to court they could have got into serious trouble for perverting the course of justice, which is often a prisonable offence. The witnesses included some juvenile delinquents who were in this special school for ones with criminal tendencies. Lying was a way of life for these kids. I suspect when talking to their lawyer they got cold feet, or even before that. Many men have been charged and held in custody or convicted because an alleged victim has lied to the Police and the Court and yes it often means the alleged victim has been caught lying in Court and is charged with Perverting the Course of justice and sent to prison, as I stated earlier Rape is difficult to prove in Court very often its their word against the alleged rapist. I am probably wasting my time with you and your lack of understanding and knowledge even though its been right across the media for a long time when these men have been tried and found guilty If you are referring to the many young girls children that were raped repeatedly in Rotherham and area many of them were in Care Homes because their parents had basically abandoned them little or no parental control whatsoever, easy pickings for the odious men that plied them with drink and drugs and raped them multiple times. The Police did not believe the girls back then or chose not to believe them and like the Social Workers Child Welfare Workers etc all were frightened of being branded racists if they went public as the men involved were Asian men, it took a local MP that knew what had been happening for a long time to stand up in the House of Commons and make it public. Now the local Police have done their job as the many victims now adults have stood up and told the Police what happened to them in great detail, the CPS have then quite rightly put these odious men on trial and have secured convictions I just think you lack manners. I wish you could express your arguments without adding insult to your replies.
I'm not saying your above argument is wrong and it does have some credibility. Yes there is a possibility he did rape those children and because they were delinquents the police decided they were unreliable witnesses and ignored it. However my argument that they lied about being raped is also credible. As to which is more credible, well it is probably more to do with your own view than anything that nails it because there isn't proof, just evidence that could point either way. The Rotherham case is strongly known to have been ignored due the ethnicity of the offenders. I have no doubt this was the reason. You could come back and say, yes well in this case it was ignored because he was a public figure and connected to those in high places like Prince Charles. Then the other side could come back and say, well if Prince Charles was a personal friend then he would have surely spotted it if it had been true. So we have a pretty 50/50 thing and it depends on your own personal weighting of the strength of the individual arguments. My issue though is so why when it is like this are the media absolutely sure he is guilty. watching the ITV documentary was like big brother instructing me to believe it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 21, 2024 11:05:13 GMT
Many men have been charged and held in custody or convicted because an alleged victim has lied to the Police and the Court and yes it often means the alleged victim has been caught lying in Court and is charged with Perverting the Course of justice and sent to prison, as I stated earlier Rape is difficult to prove in Court very often its their word against the alleged rapist. I am probably wasting my time with you and your lack of understanding and knowledge even though its been right across the media for a long time when these men have been tried and found guilty If you are referring to the many young girls children that were raped repeatedly in Rotherham and area many of them were in Care Homes because their parents had basically abandoned them little or no parental control whatsoever, easy pickings for the odious men that plied them with drink and drugs and raped them multiple times. The Police did not believe the girls back then or chose not to believe them and like the Social Workers Child Welfare Workers etc all were frightened of being branded racists if they went public as the men involved were Asian men, it took a local MP that knew what had been happening for a long time to stand up in the House of Commons and make it public. Now the local Police have done their job as the many victims now adults have stood up and told the Police what happened to them in great detail, the CPS have then quite rightly put these odious men on trial and have secured convictions I just think you lack manners. I wish you could express your arguments without adding insult to your replies.
I'm not saying your above argument is wrong and it does have some credibility. Yes there is a possibility he did rape those children and because they were delinquents the police decided they were unreliable witnesses and ignored it. However my argument that they lied about being raped is also credible. As to which is more credible, well it is probably more to do with your own view than anything that nails it because there isn't proof, just evidence that could point either way. The Rotherham case is strongly known to have been ignored due the ethnicity of the offenders. I have no doubt this was the reason. You could come back and say, yes well in this case it was ignored because he was a public figure and connected to those in high places like Prince Charles. Then the other side could come back and say, well if Prince Charles was a personal friend then he would have surely spotted it if it had been true. So we have a pretty 50/50 thing and it depends on your own personal weighting of the strength of the individual arguments. My issue though is so why when it is like this are the media absolutely sure he is guilty. watching the ITV documentary was like big brother instructing me to believe it.
I don't suffer fools gladly especially ill informed fools , if you do not have the intelligence to understand what happened where when and how that is your problem many others do know what happened, the convictions of these men proves what they did beyond any shadow of doubt, |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 21, 2024 11:10:13 GMT
I just think you lack manners. I wish you could express your arguments without adding insult to your replies.
I'm not saying your above argument is wrong and it does have some credibility. Yes there is a possibility he did rape those children and because they were delinquents the police decided they were unreliable witnesses and ignored it. However my argument that they lied about being raped is also credible. As to which is more credible, well it is probably more to do with your own view than anything that nails it because there isn't proof, just evidence that could point either way. The Rotherham case is strongly known to have been ignored due the ethnicity of the offenders. I have no doubt this was the reason. You could come back and say, yes well in this case it was ignored because he was a public figure and connected to those in high places like Prince Charles. Then the other side could come back and say, well if Prince Charles was a personal friend then he would have surely spotted it if it had been true. So we have a pretty 50/50 thing and it depends on your own personal weighting of the strength of the individual arguments. My issue though is so why when it is like this are the media absolutely sure he is guilty. watching the ITV documentary was like big brother instructing me to believe it.
I don't suffer fools gladly especially ill informed fools , if you do not have the intelligence to understand what happened where when and how that is your problem many others do know what happened, the convictions of these men proves what they did beyond any shadow of doubt, You are very arrogant. Show me the proof that I should be aware of or take back what you say. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Sept 21, 2024 11:35:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Sept 21, 2024 11:39:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 21, 2024 11:47:10 GMT
I remember that. It seemed to go the other direction and accuse innocent people. Cliff Richard and Dave Lee Travis were falsely accused. All it says to me is the system is totally bent. Just how it is bent is still unclear. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Sept 21, 2024 12:01:01 GMT
I remember that. It seemed to go the other direction and accuse innocent people. Cliff Richard and Dave Lee Travis were falsely accused. All it says to me is the system is totally bent. Just how it is bent is still unclear. Again, idiots like you who ignore all the ones that were convicted (Stuart Hall, Rolph Harris, Cyril Smith, Max Clifford, Gary Glitter, Fred Talbot etc) and focus on the ones that were found innocent. The police investigation found that Saville sexually abused 450 people, including 328 children. Are you seriously suggesting that 450 made it up, with the resulting damage to their reputations? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 21, 2024 12:02:33 GMT
Reference 114 in your link only mentions one detail, and I quote it here.
What do you think he actually did? Like I was saying before, there is this hardcore feminist belief that all men are rapists and any touching will likely be interpreted along those lines. Would him holding the child's hand and kissing it be sexually touching? How the hell can you believe this shit when they never tell you what it was he was supposed to have done. It's just words. What does sexual assault actually mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 21, 2024 12:05:37 GMT
I remember that. It seemed to go the other direction and accuse innocent people. Cliff Richard and Dave Lee Travis were falsely accused. All it says to me is the system is totally bent. Just how it is bent is still unclear. Again, idiots like you who ignore all the ones that were convicted (Stuart Hall, Rolph Harris, Cyril Smith, Max Clifford, Gary Glitter, Fred Talbot etc) and focus on the ones that were found innocent. The police investigation found that Saville sexually abused 450 people, including 328 children. Are you seriously suggesting that 450 made it up, with the resulting damage to their reputations? I have never been told what they claimed. The police have hidden the details. We have to trust these 450 people. Yes there does seems to be a very large number, and that is one of my suspicions. No one noticing one crime is sloppy, but 450! |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 21, 2024 12:11:49 GMT
Again, idiots like you who ignore all the ones that were convicted (Stuart Hall, Rolph Harris, Cyril Smith, Max Clifford, Gary Glitter, Fred Talbot etc) and focus on the ones that were found innocent. The police investigation found that Saville sexually abused 450 people, including 328 children. Are you seriously suggesting that 450 made it up, with the resulting damage to their reputations? I have never been told what they claimed. The police have hidden the details. We have to trust these 450 people. Yes there does seems to be a very large number, and that is one of my suspicions. No one noticing one crime is sloppy, but 450!But that's the point, hence the 'cover up', most people believe that while Starmer was DPP at the time he did his utmost to sweep these investigations under the rug, the witnesses/victims were either deemed unreliable, vulnerable, and clearly didn't have the clout that Savile had, it would be a character assassination on anyone make such claims about Savile.
Savile himself all but said that if he was arrested or charged with any such offenses that he'd be dragging many more high profile people with him, at the time MPs and many more people in high places were all at it, Savile had made sure he had those people under the thumb, Starmer chose not to pursue Savile as a lot of Starmers personal freinds would be dragged in to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 21, 2024 13:29:32 GMT
I have never been told what they claimed. The police have hidden the details. We have to trust these 450 people. Yes there does seems to be a very large number, and that is one of my suspicions. No one noticing one crime is sloppy, but 450!But that's the point, hence the 'cover up', most people believe that while Starmer was DPP at the time he did his utmost to sweep these investigations under the rug, the witnesses/victims were either deemed unreliable, vulnerable, and clearly didn't have the clout that Savile had, it would be a character assassination on anyone make such claims about Savile.
Savile himself all but said that if he was arrested or charged with any such offenses that he'd be dragging many more high profile people with him, at the time MPs and many more people in high places were all at it, Savile had made sure he had those people under the thumb, Starmer chose not to pursue Savile as a lot of Starmers personal freinds would be dragged in to it.
Yes well there are many places where abuse was claimed to take place and many of these have not been held to account, including Blair's old school. Some places have actually mudered witnesses according to reports, e.g. burying them in school grounds. But of the can only give the example of sexual touching, then for one my claim is this is looking like deliberate obfuscation. I wan tot know what he touched and how he touched it. It is likely to be something so bloody idiotic that it can not be explained further, like a kiss on the hand, which was one of his mannerisms. One other thing I detest is dragging as case from 1965 in the operation Yewtree. It smells of corruption. Your view is just a copy of the mass media's story on it. He might have been the screficial lamb to protect real paedophiles in government. Oh and check the Dolphin Square case out. That's another funny one. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 21, 2024 13:49:24 GMT
But that's the point, hence the 'cover up', most people believe that while Starmer was DPP at the time he did his utmost to sweep these investigations under the rug, the witnesses/victims were either deemed unreliable, vulnerable, and clearly didn't have the clout that Savile had, it would be a character assassination on anyone make such claims about Savile.
Savile himself all but said that if he was arrested or charged with any such offenses that he'd be dragging many more high profile people with him, at the time MPs and many more people in high places were all at it, Savile had made sure he had those people under the thumb, Starmer chose not to pursue Savile as a lot of Starmers personal freinds would be dragged in to it.
Yes well there are many places where abuse was claimed to take place and many of these have not been held to account, including Blair's old school. Some places have actually mudered witnesses according to reports, e.g. burying them in school grounds. But of the can only give the example of sexual touching, then for one my claim is this is looking like deliberate obfuscation. I wan tot know what he touched and how he touched it. It is likely to be something so bloody idiotic that it can not be explained further, like a kiss on the hand, which was one of his mannerisms. One other thing I detest is dragging as case from 1965 in the operation Yewtree. It smells of corruption. Your view is just a copy of the mass media's story on it. He might have been the screficial lamb to protect real paedophiles in government. Oh and check the Dolphin Square case out. That's another funny one. I do know of one very very high profile figure who was implicated in these pedophile claims, this one figure was untouchable and I mean untouchable, I am not mentioning his name but many know it, he was one of the many who was claimed to be in this pedo ring, let me tell you to protect this one person many including Savile would not have faced any investigation or charges, as they could have implicated this one person. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 21, 2024 14:45:54 GMT
Yes well there are many places where abuse was claimed to take place and many of these have not been held to account, including Blair's old school. Some places have actually mudered witnesses according to reports, e.g. burying them in school grounds. But of the can only give the example of sexual touching, then for one my claim is this is looking like deliberate obfuscation. I wan tot know what he touched and how he touched it. It is likely to be something so bloody idiotic that it can not be explained further, like a kiss on the hand, which was one of his mannerisms. One other thing I detest is dragging as case from 1965 in the operation Yewtree. It smells of corruption. Your view is just a copy of the mass media's story on it. He might have been the screficial lamb to protect real paedophiles in government. Oh and check the Dolphin Square case out. That's another funny one. I do know of one very very high profile figure who was implicated in these pedophile claims, this one figure was untouchable and I mean untouchable, I am not mentioning his name but many know it, he was one of the many who was claimed to be in this pedo ring, let me tell you to protect this one person many including Savile would not have faced any investigation or charges, as they could have implicated this one person. Yes but you see it is the police's job to apply the law equally across the land and to investigate serious allegations. We agree the police have not done this. So far so good, but what really irks me is people then accept as proof the Yewtree investigation. If you have an unreliable witness (the police) then they don't just suddenly change their spots if they then find some dirt. I find it highly convenient they only get to work once he is dead. He may well have dropped some names, but we just don't get the proof he personally did anything wrong. In fact if he didn't, but saw abuse by others, then oh well, we will be fed some right porkies. Then it would not be a case of "if you tell on us we will tell on you". The modus operandi of using obfuscating terminology seems commonplace in all the government system these days. Not even simple words like violence mean what they used to mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 21, 2024 14:51:14 GMT
I do know of one very very high profile figure who was implicated in these pedophile claims, this one figure was untouchable and I mean untouchable, I am not mentioning his name but many know it, he was one of the many who was claimed to be in this pedo ring, let me tell you to protect this one person many including Savile would not have faced any investigation or charges, as they could have implicated this one person. Yes but you see it is the police's job to apply the law equally across the land and to investigate serious allegations. We agree the police have not done this. So far so good, but what really irks me is people then accept as proof the Yewtree investigation. If you have an unreliable witness (the police) then they don't just suddenly change their spots if they then find some dirt. I find it highly convenient they only get to work once he is dead. He may well have dropped some names, but we just don't get the proof he personally did anything wrong. In fact if he didn't, but saw abuse by others, then oh well, we will be fed some right porkies. Then it would not be a case of "if you tell on us we will tell on you". The modus operandi of using obfuscating terminology seems commonplace in all the government system these days. Not even simple words like violence mean what they used to mean. Well the untouchable person in question was not totally untouchable, well not by the law anyway. |
|
