pap

I'm a little disappointed that you have created a new thread, Bearsy. Strikes me as exactly the sort of information that would enrich and nourish the Ramirez Off Topic Thread. The off-topic part of Ramirez's brain makes sadface.

Interesting background piece? Or just someone getting things a bit wrong? http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/07/jimmy-savile%E2%80%99s-obituaries-mentioned-his-charity-work-but-why-the-conspiracy-of-silence-about-his-faith/

Maybe he hadn't when he started this thread back in 2011.

You are continually ignoring the fact that people did try to come forward and it never went anywhere. You're also ignoring the fact that the investigation into Savile began a year ago. It appears that the testimony from the five women on the ITV show has encouraged others to speak out. One of the women, Carole Wells, said she spoke out because she didn't want people not to believe the women's stories. I would not consider her motives shameful. I think you've come to accept that Savile is looking increasingly guilty. There's just too much evidence. The only thing that appears to be shameful at this point is the extent of Savile's alleged abuse.

It's actually worse than that. There is no way that Savile could have gotten away with the stuff at the Duncroft school without some form of complicity from some of the staff there. The account of the woman who was put in an isolation unit suggests it could have been covered up from the very top in that school. Those girls had literally no protection. Fish in a barrel. The fact that he visited the Jersey kids home linked to all the child abuse is a bit worrying. He initially denied ever going, and had to climb down from that claim eventually. It might be a 2+2=5 assumption, but again, it's odd that he went there. Conceptually, Savile's charity work isn't much different from the likes of paedophiles who nestle within the Catholic church. Put yourself in a position of trust with access to children. The charity work arguably puts Savile in a more powerful position, as organisations will often have relied on his funding and been compromised in their responsibilities. Doesn't suit anyone in that position to believe that Savile was into underage girls, or indeed, was forcing himself upon them. The other things you've got to consider are the cultural differences between the times and Savile's power to keep a lid on things. I don't think we can be too harsh on people because the allegations never made it all the way to a criminal case. Some tried, but there was never the groundswell of witnesses or evidence around to make it happen. A girl can make as many complaints as she likes, but if you've got people in positions of authority at Duncroft saying she's lying, or putting her in an isolation unit until she changes her story, it's not surprising that nothing ever got off the ground.

I'm not quite sure whether hypo has taken offence at Janet Street Porter or has somehow confused trousers' sign-off with a bit of a bad joke. Anyway, trousers is quite correct:- http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-jimmy-savile-child-sex-1361230?google_editors_picks=true 40 people have since come forward, including two cases reported to Hampshire Police.

She's not the first person from Duncroft school to have made allegations against Savile. I do find it "odd" that a major celebrity would choose to spend so much time at a girl's boarding school.

This, maybe? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-saw-jimmy-savile-and-gary-1359297

This "he can't be guilty because he's dead" argument is a bit of an odd one too. Does that mean that if someone murders someone, and then dies before getting caught, they're innocent?

Crack commandos so proficient that they could unload magazines of automatic gunfire at the villains and never kill anyone. The show made a point of showing you that too, with the camera panning back to show people dusting themselves off after being in the midst of a violent explosion. Man with questionable stylings drives car of questionable sexuality. Michael Knight, eh? Big hair, leather jacket with the sleeves rolled up to his elbows and more makeup than most of the women on the show. It also continued the fine tradition out of creating a villain using nothing more than camera tricks and a goatee. Numerous attempts to resurrect this show. I remember my Wigan mate losing his sh!t over Team Knight Rider ( "It's like Knight Rider, but thurra team!" ). I believe they all failed because they never respected the big hair and rolled up sleeves on leather jackets of the original show. Utter pap. Substitute masturbatory material for lads who couldn't get girlfriends/porn.

Elementary is not a remake of Sherlock, just a similar treatment of the same source material. Apart from the fact it is a bit unoriginal, it has been getting good reviews, the attitude very much being "Sherlock is better but it's nice to have this too". I may give it a go.

Met to lead sexual abuse complaints investigation http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/04/jimmy-savile-sexual-abuse

Savile was investigated in the 1970s for sexual assault. Didn't go anywhere, but the accusations are not new. Even if no-one had come forward while he was alive, I would not have been surprised. There is the account of the woman who says she was placed into an isolation unit until her silence was guaranteed. Many would not have come forward through fear, shame or a mixture of both. I found the Gary Glitter bit troubling because up until that point, even with all the evidence so far, I felt it gave an indication into how Savile views the world. The bloke wasn't arsed about the fact that Glitter had child pornography on his computer. He doesn't think that Glitter deriving gratification from it is wrong, nor does he make any attempt to suggest that Glitter is not guilty. He's not suggesting the media planted the evidence, and he hasn't condemned his mate for harvesting the images. From Savile's words, you'd think the only thing that Glitter did wrong was take his computer into PC world. That is way off the generally accepted moral compass. The argument over his guilt will soon become academic, especially with a co-operative BBC in the mix.

Savile is unable to respond, as you well know. What's your point?

That is certainly one reading of the situation. I'm sure the expansive innards of SaintsWeb can cope with another. I've never lost sleep over your judgment, Tim. If that were the case, I'd have been an insomniac for some time. Most of the time, I have no problem with your posts or what you say. I've even agreed with a lot of them. That's difficult to reconcile with the nastier side of your output. Even now, you're lashing out with "less clever than I thought" or "more disingenuous", vague smears in lieu of anything concrete. Let's contrast that with the post that provoked that response. Didn't call you anything, didn't say you were anything - just reproduced things you wrote. You done yourself up mate, with predictable hysterics ensuing. Returning to the topic, it's pretty clear that you haven't seen the Exposure : "The other side of Jimmy Saville" programme from last night. You pulled your usual "ignore the question" trick and didn't give us a firm answer. For your benefit then, here's what was on the programme. Former BBC employee claims Savile was with 14 year old girl at BBC Yorkshire just after show wrapped. Former BBC producer Wilfred De'Ath claims Savile was with, and slept with a girl as young as 12 ( 14 maximum ). Said Saville made no secret of predilection for young girls. Manchester journalist Alan Leeke speaks of Savile taking young girls ( never went for girls younger than 20, apparently ) Testimony from two women who claim to have been sexually assaulted and or raped, with some degree of commonality in their accounts. Fourteen year old Nolan sister says Savile was all over her during Top of the Pops. Testimony from woman who claims she was groomed by Savile at fourteen years old. Testimony from woman who claims she was invited to Savile's caravan when she was fourteen. Kicked off after Savile touched her breast, dragged out of caravan - put in isolation unit until she agreed to keep her silence. Testimony from woman who was abused in back of Savile's car. 1974. Claims Savile liked having her finger in his anus. Savile on Gary Glitter Now, my opinions have in part, been informed by this show. One always has to be careful when assessing the merits of the accounts - the stuff with Esther Rantzen at the end is emotive, and she speaks of there always being rumours, but it doesn't really add to the burden of proof. For me, Savile's own words on Gary Glitter were most troubling. They demonstrate a significant deviation from a "normal view" on Glitter's crimes, wouldn't you say? Ah, I forget. Never going to get a response from you again, am I? Toys well and truly out of the pram. Oh well, I'm calling it. pap pwned buctootim on 4th October 2012. True story. Turkish would be proud.

Try that again, son - without the provable hypocrisy. Really fascinating to see the way your mind works, sir.

Grievance? You have me all wrong, sir. I admit I like arguing with you though. I wrote a couple of weeks ago that I was looking forward to you having a bad day. Seems that day has arrived! C'mon Tim, what else do you have for me? Are you going to stick with imaginary daughters and the backhanded character assassination or are you going to twist and try for something new? I do so love you when you're snarky!

I like both The Shield and Sons of Anarchy. A hallmark of both shows is that Kurt Sutter (creator) unnecessarily plumps for conflict over plausibility. Cool, you want to do a series in Northern Ireland? There are umpteen ways to do that which make sense! The Shield was probably more authentic than SoA, but even that show kept spinning things out with a new crisis every week. All that tension got a little wearying. The Wire is awesome. Much of that is inspired by real Baltimore people. David Simon, creator of that show, was a journalist at the Baltimore Sun, so you get a sense of place that feels unique.

I see Colinjb has bigged up Babylon5. My advice to less nerdy types is to get on it if you have never seen it. Has my 100% geek seal of approval, a bit of ropey acting at times, but equally, has some of the best performances I've ever seen too. A planned 5 year series, it features plot lines that take SEASONS to pay off, but damn, what pay-offs.

While proficient in many things, getting to the bottom of other posters' fears is slightly outside my comfort zone. Only you can tell us why you ignored Jonnyboy's post and chose to weigh in on my follow-up instead. I'm all ears, babes x

Translation: pap gets on my tits. I'm not brave enough to have a go at JonnyBoy.

Something that I realised pretty late on in The Wire was that I enjoyed watching every character, even if I didn't like the character. Epic show.

Nah, it's alright - I understand now. buctootim only takes the hump if it's me that says something that he considers offensive

Sons of Anarchy is not excellent from beginning to end! Parts of it are a f**king travesty! "I'll steal your baby! etc etc". On balance, a good show though. The Wire is excellent, but the first four episodes are hard work first time out because of all the street slang. Stick with it, and it's one of the best shows ever made.

High school chemistry teacher finds out he has terminal cancer, starts cooking crystal meth with one of his former students. Or as Vince Gilligan, the show's creator says:- "You will see Mr Chips turn into Scarface".