Jimmy Savile

His old darts quiz was like cat nip for fanny back in the day.

You cannot spread bet such accusations or can you ?

Word, DLT can't be expected to remember all the birds he sexually assaulted over a 3 yr period. That is v.unreasonable! Bird needs to narrow it down a bit! I dunno how she can go to police + say oh yeah DLT probably raped me in 2002 or 2003 or whatever. I mean, she can say that but how can it end up in court?

So is an indecent assault like pinching a buttock?

And sexual assault involves what? It's obviously not as serious as rape...

So the BBC News front page is running with stories on William Roche, Dave Lee Travis, Rolf Harris & now Freedie Starr.

What a sick country!!

So is an indecent assault like pinching a buttock?

 

And sexual assault involves what? It's obviously not as serious as rape...

This is an interesting point Jonnyboy so I thought I would Google it. It appears that the most common sexual assault is when someone stops kissing you back and then you grab their chest or something but they are not up for it anymore. Like Biff and Micheal J Fox's mum in Back to the future.

Remember Jonny, It's not sex when he changes his mind.

So the BBC News front page is running with stories on William Roche, Dave Lee Travis, Rolf Harris & now Freedie Starr.

 

What a sick country!!

Meat for the grinder. Do you think it really starts and ends with television entertainers and radio DJs?

In potentially related news, Lord McAlpine, named and unnamed as a paedophile during the Steven Messham revelations, has died.

Perhaps it's just coincidence, but Gordon Anglesea, former Chief Superintendant was arrested last month on historical allegations of sexually abusing kids in the North Wales care system.

http://paddyfrench1.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/gordon-anglesea/

It'll be interesting to see what revelations shake out of a trial, if it happens.

One comment I've seen made a few times is that the Beeb paid McAlpine off quick-smart, yet haven't given any compensation to Savile's victims yet.

 

One comment I've seen made a few times is that the Beeb paid McAlpine off quick-smart, yet haven't given any compensation to Savile's victims yet.

These are slightly different though aren't they mate?

These are slightly different though aren't they mate?

Yes. One camp are a bunch of abused kids; one could argue that the code of silence prolonged that and left the door open for more victims. They haven't received any money as of yet.

The other was named as a paedophile by Newsnight. He was very quickly unnamed in pretty much the only scenario (mistaken identity) that'd avert further scrutiny and got paid off immediately.

This article, published in 1990 (and never contested in court by McAlpine) is some grim reading.

http://scallywagmagazine.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/scallywag-magazine-article-on-lord.html

So was he a paedo or not? Now he's croaked we can slander him as much as we like right?

I wonder who the beloved pop star helping yewtree officers with their enquires is. Somebody who likes young ones, no doubt.

Careful now. Lawyers were out in force yesterday.

From what I've heard from someone who worked in the same industry as the person who no one wants to name it would be no surprise if it was him.

I find Esther Rantzen's part in this very suspicious.

So called child rights campaigner, instrumental in setting up Childline, keeping schtum for years.

I've heard it suggested that Childline may be an establishment front aimed at preventing anyone really important from getting into trouble. Similar has been suggested for the more general Crimestopppers. Now neither of these claims are based on anything else than shoddy maths ( 2 + 2 = 5, maybe ), but I do find the extent of Savile's victims amid the existence of a nationwide help-line specifically set up to combat child abuse difficult to reconcile. Makes me wonder why Childline wasn't the prism for these revelations.

I'm with you Pap. I always thought Hearts of Gold was just a set up for dirty old gits to pin stuff on prepubescent chests. HANG HER!

I'm with you Pap. I always thought Hearts of Gold was just a set up for dirty old gits to pin stuff on prepubescent chests. HANG HER!

 

Well, contestants were brought to the BBC under false pretenses....

What is this news about a beloved pop star ? can't see anything in the press,

If the cats post is a subtle clue then I'm genuinely surprised for one

What is this news about a beloved pop star ? can't see anything in the press,

 

If the cats post is a subtle clue then I'm genuinely surprised for one

Daily Mail (Britain's least accurate newspaper).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550486/Beloved-pop-star-abused-10-year-old-boy-Alleged-victim-witness-spoken-Savile-police-officers.html

Tell me it's not Cliff? My mum will be devastated!

Tell me it's not Cliff? My mum will be devastated!

Some people....tut.

Some people....tut.

Probably needs a little more than that - prison or at least a community sentence.

What is this news about a beloved pop star ? can't see anything in the press,

 

If the cats post is a subtle clue then I'm genuinely surprised for one

Who is to say it's a male, it could be a devil women with evil on her mind.

Heh.

Gratz to SaintWeb moderators. Obviously, they're a lot "harder" bunch than the libel-fearin' mods I've seen crack down on clues elsewhere

Roache not guilty. Ive no idea if he did it or not, but seems to me its almost impossible to convict someone of that kind of offence from 48 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034

Roache not guilty. Ive no idea if he did it or not, but seems to me its almost impossible to convict someone of that kind of offence from 48 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034

So if Saville was alive, he may well get off.

So if Saville was alive, he may well get off.

Probably the case against Saville was stronger because of the sheer number involved and the fact that a lot of the cases were much more recent than Roache (all prior to 1971).

Roache not guilty. I've no idea if he did it or not, but seems to me its almost impossible to convict someone of that kind of offence from 48 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034

Well the Judge directed a 'not guilty' verdict on one charge, and the jury seem to have collectively developed the idea that he didn't do it, based on the evidence presented to them. So perhaps he didn't ?

Wether Roache did it or not you have to question why the plod thought they had a case with such flimsy evidence. One woman had "no actual memory" of the offence, one couldn't even remember how old she was.

It seems to me the police are just trying to cover up their own historical failings and bringing pointless cases to court. There needs to be an inquiry and the police who didn't act back then should be put behind bars. Nothing will happen though because the plod will just close ranks and protect their own as usual.

Well the Judge directed a 'not guilty' verdict on one charge, and the jury seem to have collectively developed the idea that he didn't do it, based on the evidence presented to them. So perhaps he didn't ?

I just think if a crime was committed recently memories are fresh and facts / alibis / accusations / witnesses are checkable - so a not guilty verdict would be a good indication. With a crime committed 48 years its more a reflection of absence of evidence.

One of the problems with historical cases such as Roach’s is people’s perception of how memory works. Most of us are convinced we have perfect recall; for instance, I can remember what happened around me at Wembley when Bobby Stoke’s scored in 1976 as if it happened yesterday – or at least I think I can. But I read a while back that memories aren’t like dvds that we store away and retrieve at a later date in perfect condition: they’re more like stuff we place on a compost heap – some memories take a long time to decompose, whereas others break down and sometimes imperceptively combine with others. And every time we recall a memory it becomes subtlety corrupted by our current perceptions and prejudices etc.

There is a story about a psychologist whose mother committed suicide when her daughter was just a young girl. When she was in middle-age the psychologist was chatting to her uncle when he suddenly mentioned that it must have been terrible for the psychologist to have been the one to have discovered her mother’s dead body. This was the first time that the psychologist had learnt that she had been the one to discover her mother – she had previously had no recollection of the event. However, over the next two weeks or so she had vivid flashbacks of discovering her mother – she assumed that these were memories she had subconsciously suppressed for all those years. But she later learnt her uncle had been mistaken: she had not been the one to discover her mother’s body – the sudden flood of recent memories, although very real to her, had been nothing more than false memories prompted by the power of suggestion.

If I remember where it was that I read this, I shall come back and leave a reference.

Here are some of the quotes from the bbc site

In court, the woman making the rape claims changed her mind about how old she was at the time.

Another woman initially told police she was warned about Mr Roache by actor Johnny Briggs, who played Mike Baldwin, but when it was discovered he was not in the show at the time she said the warning had come from a different actor.

A fifth indecent assault charge was dropped due to insufficient evidence after the woman, who accused him of abusing her in his car, told the court she had "no actual memory" of the episode.

it's amazing it even got to court based on that lot

Should have never have got to court. Those woman should be on trial now.

One of the problems with historical cases such as Roach’s is people’s perception of how memory works...... And every time we recall a memory it becomes subtlety corrupted by our current perceptions and prejudices etc.

 

There is a story about a psychologist whose mother committed suicide when her daughter was just a young girl. ....But she later learnt her uncle had been mistaken: she had not been the one to discover her mother’s body – the sudden flood of recent memories, although very real to her, had been nothing more than false memories prompted by the power of suggestion.

 

If I remember where it was that I read this, I shall come back and leave a reference.

That's an interesting anecdote, but you would have expected Police questioning of a victim whilst gathering evidence would have been geared to highlighting where any inconsistencies lie, and looking to iron them out. Or if they don't then the CPS do.

Is somewhat similar to our old managers experience.

Wether Roache did it or not you have to question why the plod thought they had a case with such flimsy evidence. One woman had "no actual memory" of the offence, one couldn't even remember how old she was.

 

It seems to me the police are just trying to cover up their own historical failings and bringing pointless cases to court. There needs to be an inquiry and the police who didn't act back then should be put behind bars. Nothing will happen though because the plod will just close ranks and protect their own as usual.

You have absolutely no understanding of the criminal justice system

CB I'm surprised this came to trial . So many inconsistencies from the claimants that the CPS should have thrown out . But as some one else said they were probably covering their own backs on previous cases they chose not to proceed with .

In the roach case it was claimed an assault to place on x date in his gold rolls . Turned out this was impossible as it was many years later he had a rolls

I certainly believe there should be total anonymity in these cases until they are found guilty . Still there are those on here and else where believe roach is guilty even though he has been proven as innocent

Stuox are you suggesting the met copper who lied re the Mitchell case is innocent ?

It Is people like him that have seriously damaged the respect and trust we should have in our police service .

I find Esther Rantzen's part in this very suspicious.

 

So called child rights campaigner, instrumental in setting up Childline, keeping schtum for years.

 

 

I've heard it suggested that Childline may be an establishment front aimed at preventing anyone really important from getting into trouble. Similar has been suggested for the more general Crimestopppers. Now neither of these claims are based on anything else than shoddy maths ( 2 + 2 = 5, maybe ), but I do find the extent of Savile's victims amid the existence of a nationwide help-line specifically set up to combat child abuse difficult to reconcile. Makes me wonder why Childline wasn't the prism for these revelations.

I think that scenario unlikely, having had cause to visit Esther Rantzen's place in the New Forest. The part of her house I was working in held all the childline files, and from the way her housekeeper and staff spoke I wouldn't believe there was anything remotely sinister about the organisation she set up.

I think that scenario unlikely, having had cause to visit Esther Rantzen's place in the New Forest. The part of her house I was working in held all the childline files, and from the way her housekeeper and staff spoke I wouldn't believe there was anything remotely sinister about the organisation she set up.

By place do you mean house? If you do, why does she have childline files in her house?

Wether Roache did it or not you have to question why the plod thought they had a case with such flimsy evidence. One woman had "no actual memory" of the offence, one couldn't even remember how old she was.

 

It seems to me the police are just trying to cover up their own historical failings and bringing pointless cases to court. There needs to be an inquiry and the police who didn't act back then should be put behind bars. Nothing will happen though because the plod will just close ranks and protect their own as usual.

I thought it was the CPS not the police that decide if there is enough evidence. They obviously decided it wasn't "pointless".

You have absolutely no understanding of the criminal justice system

He is not alone

One of the problems with historical cases such as Roach’s is people’s perception of how memory works. Most of us are convinced we have perfect recall; for instance, I can remember what happened around me at Wembley when Bobby Stoke’s scored in 1976 as if it happened yesterday – or at least I think I can. But I read a while back that memories aren’t like dvds that we store away and retrieve at a later date in perfect condition: they’re more like stuff we place on a compost heap – some memories take a long time to decompose, whereas others break down and sometimes imperceptively combine with others. And every time we recall a memory it becomes subtlety corrupted by our current perceptions and prejudices etc.

 

There is a story about a psychologist whose mother committed suicide when her daughter was just a young girl. When she was in middle-age the psychologist was chatting to her uncle when he suddenly mentioned that it must have been terrible for the psychologist to have been the one to have discovered her mother’s dead body. This was the first time that the psychologist had learnt that she had been the one to discover her mother – she had previously had no recollection of the event. However, over the next two weeks or so she had vivid flashbacks of discovering her mother – she assumed that these were memories she had subconsciously suppressed for all those years. But she later learnt her uncle had been mistaken: she had not been the one to discover her mother’s body – the sudden flood of recent memories, although very real to her, had been nothing more than false memories prompted by the power of suggestion.

 

If I remember where it was that I read this, I shall come back and leave a reference.

The memory-as-a-compost-heap metaphor and the story about the psychologist are both referenced in “The Self Illusion: Why There is No ‘You’ Inside Your Head” by Bruce Hood.

The psychologist in the story is Elizabeth Loftus. She is an American cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory. She has conducted extensive research on the malleability of human memory, and is best known for her ground-breaking work on the misinformation effect and eyewitness memory, and the creation and nature of false memories, including recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. As well as her prolific work inside the laboratory, Loftus has been heavily involved in applying her research to legal settings: she has consulted or provided expert witness testimony for hundreds of cases, and has been recognized throughout the world for her work, receiving numerous awards and honorary degrees. – from Wikipedia.

Interestingly, rereading Loftus’s story last night, I discovered that I had made an error in my post: her mother drowned in a swimming pool; there was no mention of her committing suicide. Yet when I posted yesterday, I was convinced that I was giving a true, accurate and reliable recollection of a story that I’d first heard less than 2 years ago; indeed so convinced, I would have been prepared to swear on oath.

But as Loftus said, when discovering she’d fallen victim to false memories: “The most horrifying idea is that what we believe with all our hearts is not necessarily the truth.”

I thought it was the CPS not the police that decide if there is enough evidence. They obviously decided it wasn't "pointless".

It doesn't matter what the people call themselves PCS or Police, fact is something is wrong when for decades they didn't think it was worth following up and all of a sudden it is because of the publicity of one high-profile case.

You either have innocent people having their good name needlessly ruined by people with vendettas or real crimes being ignored for decades because the police didn't want to prosecute famous people - either way people have f*cked up and should pay the penalty. Any plod that didn't want to prosecute because the person was famous should end up behind bars because they have been complicit in the future crimes.

I see one of the accusers in the Bill Roache case has sold her story to the Sunday People . Appears in this sundays edition

They have kept her anonimity

Sorry I dont by the anonimity issue now , he has been cleared of the charges

as for the police etc , who said they dont do anything wrong

they trump up a drink drive charge

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-anti-fracking-protester-sue-greater-6676499

so Stuox are you still saying the police are doing a good job in up holding the law of the land

From my own expoeience they are heavy handed on innocent folk but quiet happy have a laugh and a joke with seriel criminals

Looks like Stuart Hall got unlucky with his jury?

as for the police etc , who said they dont do anything wrong

they trump up a drink drive charge

next time you are pulled over for drink driving refuse the breath test, its ok they will let you go as you said you haven't been drinking.

Looks like Stuart Hall got unlucky with his jury?

I thought he pleaded guilty, didn't he? Must be kicking himself now...

Looks like Stuart Hall got unlucky with his jury?

Or perhaps DLT was not guilty.

Or perhaps DLT was not guilty.

i dunno how they could ever expect to prove one way or another when the accusation was DLT prob sex crimed me in 1978 or 1980 or something, somewhere round then hard to be sure he definitely done it tho, honest, he prob jiggled my boobs or something.

(i never watch the news or nothing, this is based on my knowledge of the case as overheard people chatting bout it in McD)