Jump to content

Jimmy Savile

sperm_john

By sperm_john,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

solentstars

solentstars

Posted
Posted
Ok. I posted "nutter alert!" because your post about the immigrant rapists and rape victims being tarts indicated to me that you are mentally unstable. The post is below - you can read it again if you want. Another major indicator that you're a loon is the way you say that Littlejohn is "spot on again". Only a complete nutcase would ever think that Littlejohn is always spot on. Even Hypochdriac agrees on that, and he's a little bit of a nutter himself.

a.

 

 

 

 

This is also not a particularly positive response to your post.

 

 

 

I have referred to this already.

 

 

 

Not even DPS can agree with you and he's one the forums biggest Tories (in all senses).

 

Basically, Nadia, I found your post to be uninformed and stupid to he extreme.

agree but thats the daily mails core readership. the people i used to work with were some of the most stupid people i have ever met in my life all loved that hate rag.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dig Dig

Dig Dig

Posted
Posted
Oh dear.

 

I'll spell out why is think Nadia is a nutter - we do not have thousands of migrants wandering the streets of this country raping people. That is just extreme paranoia. For some reason Nadia has decided that migrants are rapists and need to be thrown out of the country. There is no evidence for this. It is a bizarre belief that singles Nadia out as a nutter. But, I might be wrong. Maybe Nadia is not alone in this belief? Do you think there are thousands of immigrants going around raping people?

 

The last bit of Nadias post says that the women were tarts when the were allegedly raped and now are just old tarts who want some money. Is that how sane people respond to women who come forward and say they have been raped? They may be making it up, they may have been raped. But why automatically dismiss it and start calling them tarts? I wonder if Nadia has considered how women who have been raped feel when they are accused of beng tarts? This also singles him out as a nutter (or *****, if you will). Maybe, he's not alone n this way of looking at rape. Do you automatically assume that women who say they have been raped are tarts and after money?

 

Im very interested to hear your views.

 

Maybe Nadia is a migrant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted

Right, dog needed a walk I needed a pint, so popped into local that allows dogs. Complete dive, but newspapers to read. Spotting mail/fail/hail read lttlejohns article. Rather than being nutty I found it pretty much spot on, certainly more entertaining than one of toynbees efforts.

 

Pretty much agreed with most of it. Why was dawn raid on 82 year old Stewart halls gaff, he's hardly likely to go on the run. Why was latest suspect arrested at airport, then a day later released on bail till march, if within one day you're bailed for 3 months isn't airport arrest a bit Ott.why police pics of house search and removing evidence, the allegation was 40 years old and he's moved dozens of times since,what evidence are they hoping to find? And finally the point that if you report a burglary from yesterday, plod aren't interested and can't don't have the man power, report a celeb from 40 years ago and its like the Sweeny. Littlejohn summised that maybe plod, having ****rd up over Saville are putting on a show. Also said something suspicious is going on here,something that was alluded to earlier in this thread. He did say that time should be no bar to charges, but how can you prove beyond reasonable doubt in a he said she said sex case from 40 years ago.

 

The article got me thinking, next time a toe rag breaks into my shed, instead of just taking a crime number, I'm going to tell them it was damaged 40 years ago by cher who after giving me a blow job against my will rode off on my bike. Maybe that way they'll do their job properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted
Right, dog needed a walk I needed a pint, so popped into local that allows dogs. Complete dive, but newspapers to read. Spotting mail/fail/hail read lttlejohns article. Rather than being nutty I found it pretty much spot on, certainly more entertaining than one of toynbees efforts.

 

Pretty much agreed with most of it. Why was dawn raid on 82 year old Stewart halls gaff, he's hardly likely to go on the run. Why was latest suspect arrested at airport, then a day later released on bail till march, if within one day you're bailed for 3 months isn't airport arrest a bit Ott.why police pics of house search and removing evidence, the allegation was 40 years old and he's moved dozens of times since,what evidence are they hoping to find? And finally the point that if you report a burglary from yesterday, plod aren't interested and can't don't have the man power, report a celeb from 40 years ago and its like the Sweeny. Littlejohn summised that maybe plod, having ****rd up over Saville are putting on a show. Also said something suspicious is going on here,something that was alluded to earlier in this thread. He did say that time should be no bar to charges, but how can you prove beyond reasonable doubt in a he said she said sex case from 40 years ago.

 

The article got me thinking, next time a toe rag breaks into my shed, instead of just taking a crime number, I'm going to tell them it was damaged 40 years ago by cher who after giving me a blow job against my will rode off on my bike. Maybe that way they'll do their job properly.

 

 

whilst littlejohn does spout a lot of guff, he has raised some valid points here. the problem is, the police are so teerified of the media that they have to demonstrate results from time to time. B cause this is such a massive enquiry that uis costing god knows how much money, they have to show some progress otherwise the press will hammer them. i hope they have got some o these nicks right because, innocent or not, the likes of Davidson and Cliffords reputations will be ruined by association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the stain

the stain

Posted
Posted
Right, dog needed a walk I needed a pint, so popped into local that allows dogs. Complete dive, but newspapers to read. Spotting mail/fail/hail read lttlejohns article. Rather than being nutty I found it pretty much spot on, certainly more entertaining than one of toynbees efforts.

 

Pretty much agreed with most of it. Why was dawn raid on 82 year old Stewart halls gaff, he's hardly likely to go on the run. Why was latest suspect arrested at airport, then a day later released on bail till march, if within one day you're bailed for 3 months isn't airport arrest a bit Ott.why police pics of house search and removing evidence, the allegation was 40 years old and he's moved dozens of times since,what evidence are they hoping to find? And finally the point that if you report a burglary from yesterday, plod aren't interested and can't don't have the man power, report a celeb from 40 years ago and its like the Sweeny. Littlejohn summised that maybe plod, having ****rd up over Saville are putting on a show. Also said something suspicious is going on here,something that was alluded to earlier in this thread. He did say that time should be no bar to charges, but how can you prove beyond reasonable doubt in a he said she said sex case from 40 years ago.

 

The article got me thinking, next time a toe rag breaks into my shed, instead of just taking a crime number, I'm going to tell them it was damaged 40 years ago by cher who after giving me a blow job against my will rode off on my bike. Maybe that way they'll do their job properly.

 

You could re-read your defence of Nadia Slim, re-read my explanation and then actually answer the questions I put to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
It's being reported on news at ten that an investigation into a peado ring in the 70' and 80 is following Tom Watsons claims re politicians are now being investigated . . Didn't someone mention this on this thread

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-launch-criminal-investigation-into-mps-child-sex-ring-8456434.html

 

" Scotland Yard tonight launched a full investigation into allegations that Conservative politicians were members of a paedophile ring which abused children in care the 1980s.

Operation Fernbridge will centre on the alleged historic sexual abuse of children at Elm Guest House, in Rocks Lane, a suburban street in Barnes, south-west London.

Residents of a nearby care home run by Richmond Council claim they were sexually assaulted at the property by a network of prominent individuals, including Tory MPs, who used their connections to escape justice."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peacey

peacey

Posted
Posted
Ok. I posted "nutter alert!" because your post about the immigrant rapists and rape victims being tarts indicated to me that you are mentally unstable. The post is below - you can read it again if you want. Another major indicator that you're a loon is the way you say that Littlejohn is "spot on again". Only a complete nutcase would ever think that Littlejohn is always spot on. Even Hypochdriac agrees on that, and he's a little bit of a nutter himself.

 

 

 

 

This is also not a particularly positive response to your post.

 

 

 

I have referred to this already.

 

 

 

Not even DPS can agree with you and he's one the forums biggest Tories (in all senses).

 

Basically, Nadia, I found your post to be uninformed and stupid to he extreme.

 

 

 

We all know that. I knew he was "SPECIAL" for sometime, but bless him anyway, he does try- :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
I don't believe this accusations. He has been married since 1958 / If its who i saw named the other day then he was 83 yesterday,

 

That doesn't give me much to go on

 

Edit yeah I already knew that. It's what everyone has been talking about through he use of clever puns...

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
I just wonder if it's starting to turn into a witch-hunt, after all the old bill royally fecked up on Savile, now they are nicking people just to show they are doing something.

 

Hmm yeah that is my worry. I mean fair enough if all these people are guilty but it may not be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Manuel

Manuel

Posted
Posted

So, are we to conclude from all this that all men will eventually be found to be rapists? Or is that all men sexually active in the 1960s will eventually be found as rapists? Or is it just those who've been on the telly, or is it radio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dingbattigger

dingbattigger

Posted
Posted

Mrs D here. Have to say that rape is NEVER acceptable but I'm very uncomfortable with all this. Back in the 60's it was the height of many young girls dreams to have sex with a 'star', maybe it still is. It was also very difficult to judge someone's age. If this was so bad why were these claims not made before? I can get that the OB messed up with Saville but with everyone? Or is this now nothing more than a witch hunt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

how ever serious the allegations , the police will be clocking up oodles of overtime with these claims and sue their own forces for tripping over steps and being bitten by fleas.

 

I am very uncormfortable the way the police now trawl for evidence through the media. Especially in the climate of compensation claims. I think it has an impact on those that have genuinely been victims of crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted

I think it's ridiculous that all these celebrities are allowed a trial by media before they have been charged or convicted of anything. I also don't understand why the likes of Rolf Harris' name was kept out of the papers for months yet people like Stuart Hall were outed straight away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andysstuff

andysstuff

Posted
Posted
Mrs D here. Have to say that rape is NEVER acceptable but I'm very uncomfortable with all this. Back in the 60's it was the height of many young girls dreams to have sex with a 'star', maybe it still is. It was also very difficult to judge someone's age. If this was so bad why were these claims not made before? I can get that the OB messed up with Saville but with everyone? Or is this now nothing more than a witch hunt?

 

/\. This

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted
Mrs D here. Have to say that rape is NEVER acceptable but I'm very uncomfortable with all this. Back in the 60's it was the height of many young girls dreams to have sex with a 'star', maybe it still is. It was also very difficult to judge someone's age. If this was so bad why were these claims not made before? I can get that the OB messed up with Saville but with everyone? Or is this now nothing more than a witch hunt?

 

I tend to agree. The alleged crime occurred some 45 years ago - why wait so long to make a complaint? Obviously we don't know the full extent of the allegations but I'm kind of uneasy that some people may well be 'jumping on the bandwagon', perhaps in the hope of compensation. Very difficult to call.

 

Tend to agree with hypo as well - the media should be shut out until at least such times as formal charges are bought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted
how ever serious the allegations , the police will be clocking up oodles of overtime with these claims and sue their own forces for tripping over steps and being bitten by fleas.

 

I am very uncormfortable the way the police now trawl for evidence through the media. Especially in the climate of compensation claims. I think it has an impact on those that have genuinely been victims of crime.

 

Maybe because those now making the allegations were dismissed by the police at the time of the alleged events - viz Jimmy Savile, the North Wales childrens' home etc., etc. So the victims go to the media instead where at least they'll get some sort of hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Maybe because those now making the allegations were dismissed by the police at the time of the alleged events - viz Jimmy Savile, the North Wales childrens' home etc., etc. So the victims go to the media instead where at least they'll get some sort of hearing.

 

Or they make it up for five minutes of fame. It works both ways...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
I read the Bill Roach had his house searched by the police today, I assume they were hoping he'd kept his 1967 diary! Not sure what else they'd be expecting to find after all this time?

 

Apparently they felt the evidence was strong enough to charge him. I fail to see how...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spudders

Spudders

Posted
Posted

"Dear diary, today after filming, a cracking chick came on to me in the pub after work. She was well up for some naughty stuff so I took her back to mine & flung it up her, she absolutely loved it. She said she was 17 years old, but she did look a bit younger, but hey, what you gonna do huh, this is the 60's and she knew exactly what she was doing judging by the way she noshed me off. Anyway, if I know woman like I think I do I can't see anything coming of it. Right diary, I'm tired so before I go to sleep I'm gonna go learn some more lines for my big scene we're filming tomorrow, me and Anne Kirkbride have a wedding scene to film. If I know tv like I think I do, I can't see anything coming of our characters Ken & Deirdre getting married, it'll never last!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint in Paradise

Saint in Paradise

Posted
Posted

How on earth can you properly defend yourself when accused of something which supposedly

happened 47 years ago especially as you are now 81 years old? I can't remember much stuff from

47 weeks ago so heaven help me if I am accused of anything from the distant past. Surely this

shows there is a case of statutory time limit within which such allegations must be brought or

forget it altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
How on earth can you properly defend yourself when accused of something which supposedly

happened 47 years ago especially as you are now 81 years old? I can't remember much stuff from

47 weeks ago so heaven help me if I am accused of anything from the distant past. Surely this

shows there is a case of statutory time limit within which such allegations must be brought or

forget it altogether.

 

Spot on.

 

There is also a massive difference between this and a crime that was reported 47 years ago. Had one of these women gone to the police in 1967 and said " i was raped" then the police would take a statement, would have taken her clothes ECT, i don't know if they had rape kits in those days, but maybe would have photographed brusies and the like. Maybe they didn't have enough to charge someone, but advances in DNA or maybe a witness came forward, then i can see no reason why charges can't be brought 47 years down the line. However, to report a crime 47 years and then expect the accused to get a fair trial is just bonkers.

 

The other thing that gets go me about it is this. Sex offenders like Saville and the like spend a life time doing it. This other guys Ken Barlow, Clifford ECT happened years ago, did they stop abusing or could the police fond no latter victims, seems strange if nobody came forward from the modern era when abuse was more acknowledged. One thing for sure abusers just don't suddenly stop.

 

What i am uncomfortable with is that because of the screw up with Saville the police are fishing, throwing names in tbe ring to see if any victims come forward.

 

There have been plenty of women used and abused, particulary in the later part of the last century. When i see what's not acceptable now and what is a crime, i cam honestly say i sailed very close to the wind when a testosterone filled young man. Since having my daughter I've thought about my past and some of the awful way i treated some girls. I've often wondered how they felt after being treated like a piece of meat and those feelings must be compounded if the user was a famous guy or a hero. I never ever did anything that was illigal then , but stupid things like walking into a bar with my "conquests" knickers on my head to the cheers of my mates. At the time I thought " sluts own fault for putting out behind the pub" . We used to have pig of the night competitions to see who could bang the ugliest one. All sorts of sheite like that demean and humilate women, but are not illigal. Maybe these guys used their fame, lied to these girls, told them to **** off, after seducing them , maybe that's it. Maybe they really do think they were raped, some seduction moves from that era are borderline nowadays, remember you could legally rape your wife back then, so it wasn't a particularly enlightened time. But i can't see how anyone can get a fair trial so long after the event or alledged event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
How on earth can you properly defend yourself when accused of something which supposedly

happened 47 years ago especially as you are now 81 years old? I can't remember much stuff from

47 weeks ago so heaven help me if I am accused of anything from the distant past. Surely this

shows there is a case of statutory time limit within which such allegations must be brought or

forget it altogether.

 

That is the sort of point max Clifford was making. Seems like a horrible person tbh but the charges against him are equally ridiculous. I'm very uneasy about people crying rape about something that happened over 40 years ago. It is impossible to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted
That is the sort of point max Clifford was making. Seems like a horrible person tbh but the charges against him are equally ridiculous. I'm very uneasy about people crying rape about something that happened over 40 years ago. It is impossible to prove.

 

Although the police are saying, with regard to Roach, that they are confident that they have enough evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...