before the storm

Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile? (Part 4)

16061636566131

    • bubble2Posts: 1,095

      Forum Member
      brandon99 wrote: »
      I find it curious that Michael Crick of Channel 4 news, was able to identify and approach the person who is at centre of BBC Newsnight’s exclusive report, which presumably they were keeping well under wraps…

      They (media, politicians etc) all know. It’s just the public who don’t.

    • skp20040Posts: 47,516

      Forum Member
      Eurostar wrote: »
      They must have a strong and convincing amount of evidence if they’re prepared to take the bold step of naming someone as a paedophile. To get this one wrong would be a disastrous error on their part and do untold damage to their reputation.

      I do hope so and do hope they are not bowing to public pressure to try and placate people over their inaction last time.

    • What name??Posts: 22,411

      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      jonm01 wrote: »
      Doesn’t give him the right to talk like he is in charge of the police investigation. i.e. “More arrests to follow” etc. Why is he privvy to inside information? (or is he just Big Upping himself)

      I’m guessing that it’s because as well as being a journalist, in touch with victims who have contacted him as a first point of contact, he is also an ex-policeman who still has contacts within the police.

    • EurostarPosts: 55,364

      Forum Member
      It really would. Their reputation is already on the line, so if they haven’t got their facts straight, then there’ll be plenty of egg on plenty of faces!

      RTE Television got into huge trouble in Ireland for accusing a priest of having sexual relations with a teenage girl and fathering a child with her. Turns out they got their facts wrong and the repercussions were huge : various inquiries, senior management being fired, the programme being taken off the air, massive damages to the priest etc.

    • muddipawsPosts: 3,254

      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      twingle wrote: »
      Don’t know if this blog link has been posted on here before but it makes for a very interesting read BUT where were all the arrests and media coverage. Funny this guys’s name mentioned in here too

      http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/

      ETA read down the bottom to get the list of names

      Thats quite disturbing especially the footballer part

    • StuntyPosts: 42,567

      Forum Member
      The legal eagles will have been busy today.

      All ready for everything to hit the fan tonight, whether they reveal the subject of the allegations or not. Either way it has all become somewhat of a witch hunt and it they don’t reveal on Newsnight it will be even worse for the BBC. :( Mr Entwistle quietly bricking it I suspect.

      A big mess and nothing that Jim can fix eh!:(

    • pmaxtedPosts: 254

      Forum Member
      skp20040 wrote: »
      As long as it is actually the right person , massive pockets can never repair the reputaion of a person with these type of allegations.

      The BEEB will need oodles of evidence to lead on such a thing with Newsnight – multiple corroborated stories – they don’t want to let a living Savile get away with it this time.

    • i4uPosts: 33,432

      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      jzee wrote: »
      I think we know now that Claire Ellicott of the DM posted on the voy forum on Oct. 1st, just below Bebe Robert’s post, her story appeared on the same day, quite possibly it was Claire that contacted her not the other way round as emails are listed on that site.

      On the October 1 article there are three names credited as the reporters.

      Ooh look ….

      He’d always turn up as we were getting ready for bed

      By JAYA NARAIN

    • Penny CrayonPosts: 24,155

      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      Stunty wrote: »
      The legal eagles will have been busy today.

      All ready for everything to hit the fan tonight, whether they reveal the subject of the allegations or not. Either way it has all become somewhat of a witch hunt and it they don’t reveal on Newsnight it will be even worse for the BBC. :( Mr Entwistle quietly bricking it I suspect.

      A big mess and nothing that Jim can fix eh!:(

      Not half as much as some others I’ll bet.

    • Gerry_LivitPosts: 6

      Forum Member
      tenchgirl wrote: »
      Wait for the superinjunction

      Well I’d figure Glitter would’ve been around 20 and Starr 21 back in 1974 right? Not pedophile age label with 14-15 year girls.

    • pmaxtedPosts: 254

      Forum Member
      Wilfred Owen – the WW1 poet that was compulsory in school was a paedophile apparently – here’s one of his poems

      SWEET IS YOUR ANTIQUE BODY

      Sweet is you antique body, not yet young.
      Beauty withheld from youth that looks for youth.
      Fair only for your father. Dear among
      Masters in art. To all men else uncouth
      Save me; who knows your smile comes very old,
      Learnt of the happy dead that laughed with gods;
      For earlier suns than ours have lent you gold,
      Sly fauns and trees have given you jigs and nods.

      But soon your heart, hot-beating like a bird’s,
      Shall slow down. Youth shall lop your hair,
      And you must learn wry meanings in our words.
      Your smile shall dull, because too keen aware;
      And when for hopes your hand shall be uncurled,
      Your eyes shall close, being opened to the world.

      Wilfred Owen

    • skp20040Posts: 47,516

      Forum Member
      Well I’d figure Glitter would’ve been around 20 and Starr 21 back in 1974 right? Not pedophile age label with 14-15 year girls.

      Starr would have been 31 and Glitter 30

    • 21stCenturyBoyPosts: 39,238

      Forum Member
      Well I’d figure Glitter would’ve been around 20 and Starr 21 back in 1974 right? Not pedophile age label with 14-15 year girls.

      Starr was nearly 30

  • sozzled2dayPosts: 1,217

    Forum Member
    Well I’d figure Glitter would’ve been around 20 and Starr 21 back in 1974 right? Not pedophile age label with 14-15 year girls.

    Still under age.

    Starr is 69, so would have been 31 in ’74

    Glitter is 68, so would have been 30 in ’74.

    Quite a difference between the 20 and 21 you thought they were.

  • Jo MarchPosts: 2,165

    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well I’d figure Glitter would’ve been around 20 and Starr 21 back in 1974 right? Not pedophile age label with 14-15 year girls.

    Some folk will try and excuse anything :(

    (I see you have been corrected about the ages)

  • StuntyPosts: 42,567

    Forum Member
    Not half as much as some others I’ll bet.

    Well yes!! :eek:;)

    However two months exactly into the job and he has had rather a difficult time of it!

  • Gerry_LivitPosts: 6

    Forum Member
    Jo March wrote: »
    Some folk will try and excuse anything :(

    (I see you have been corrected about the ages)

    OK ladies stand corrected on the bad math here!

  • BeethovensPianoPosts: 11,689

    Forum Member
    Aidan11 wrote: »
    I’m not a betting man but I”ll stake my house that Newsnight don’t reveal the name tonight.

    That’s how Savile operated.

  • brandon99Posts: 313

    Forum Member
    Eurostar wrote: »
    They must have a strong and convincing amount of evidence if they’re prepared to take the bold step of naming someone as a paedophile. To get this one wrong would be a disastrous error on their part and do untold damage to their reputation.
    Aidan11 wrote: »
    I’m not a betting man but I”ll stake my house that Newsnight don’t reveal the name tonight.

    Reckon your house is safe….

    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton
    I’ve been told that tonight’s Newsnight will not name the “senior political figure” accused of being a paedophile.

  • neil_cPosts: 12

    Forum Member
    Well I’d figure Glitter would’ve been around 20 and Starr 21 back in 1974 right? Not pedophile age label with 14-15 year girls.

    According to Wikipedia, in 1974 Glitter would have been 30 and Starr would have been 31.

  • jassiPosts: 5,917

    Forum Member
    Glitter always looked younger on stage – no doubt down to the makeup. I remember being quite surprised at how old he actually was as ‘leader of the gang’, as his fans were definitely early to mid teenage.
  • IsThisNameFree9Posts: 3,603

    Forum Member
    brandon99 wrote: »
    Reckon your house is safe….

    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton
    I’ve been told that tonight’s Newsnight will not name the “senior political figure” accused of being a paedophile.

    That is from editor of the New Statesman’s Staggers blog. So a decent source. He also Tweets

    “Legal issues I’m presuming. I think the report will still run, but the figure will be unnamed. “

  • StuntyPosts: 42,567

    Forum Member
    That’s how Savile operated.

    It is all a bit sickening how wrong doings are covered up time and time again.:( There are more JS’s out there. :(😦

    brandon99 wrote: »
    Reckon your house is safe….

    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton
    I’ve been told that tonight’s Newsnight will not name the “senior political figure” accused of being a paedophile.

    So do we have to wait until this person is safely dead and buried before it is all revealed? :(🙄

    And the merry-go-round goes round and round!

  • jamtamaraPosts: 1,604

    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jonm01 wrote: »
    Doesn’t give him the right to talk like he is in charge of the police investigation. i.e. “More arrests to follow” etc. Why is he privvy to inside information? (or is he just Big Upping himself)

    What do you think of publicist Max Clifford, the ‘all powerful and knowing’ keeper of the secrets of the stars?

  • Jo MarchPosts: 2,165

    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stunty wrote: »
    It is all a bit sickening how wrong doings are covered up time and time again.:( There are more JS’s out there. :(😦

    So do we have to wait until this person is safely dead and buried before it is all revealed? :(🙄

    And the merry-go-round goes round and round!

    Unless there are allegations (which should be dealt with by the police, not Newsnight) I don’t think he should be named…if he is arrested that is a different matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s