IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Lance Armstrong
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
The Astrological Twin |
According to my maths, if JS molested, say 1 girl a week from 1958 to 2010, there should be 2700 "victims". What are the odds on none of those going public or to the Police? What are the chances of them all being silent? Did NONE of them have older brothers, sisters, Mums, Dads, teachers, Aunties, Uncles they told? ..... and none of those responsible adults spoke up?
If they kept quiet, was it because they actually were not, and are still not, traumatised by their contact with Jimmy Savile?
If they were truly traumatised, wouldn't at least one GP have been told as a victim went for treatment / counselling?
This hysteria will hurt kids. No adult in their right mind would want to work with kids in this climate.
I hope anyone found making false claims is dealt with severely. |
|
Scruffy Man from Dorking |
But you've been known to have a tongue like a whiplash - in fact, you're even quite proud of the fact.  |
|
JK2006 |
Ah Angel; now 40 official complaints; the publicity about me provoked 27 false allegations; I gather exactly the same number John Leslie and Matthew Kelly received.
I reckon most genuinely believe their claims. When a 9 year old saw an old man in a hospital kissing a sick child on the cheek, she probably thought it was shocking and disgusting. As she grew older, her life experience told her it wasn't so she increased the activity to justify her genuine shock. Over the years that grows and grows. Triggered by a news story - hundreds come forward.
Some might be absolutely true, down to the last detail. Some totally imagined. Some simply exaggerated - whether intentionally or unintentionally. I just saw the disabled actress in an interview - basically saying he touched her knee and shoulder on live TV and she felt uncomfortable. That, to her, was abuse; fair enough.
The good thing about this is it leaves us with two conclusions. Either they are basically true, in which case the cover up was extraordinary. More than Max Clifford could ever have managed. Hacks, tabloid editors, BBC, ITV, police, judges, CPS, social workers, doctors - all bought off or silenced.
Or most - if not all - are inflated or invented and he simply liked young girls of 16, 17, 18, 19... some of whom actually wanted him too.
You take your choice and reach your own conclusions. The police say the facts prove his guilt, but police are not keen on evidence, investigation or proof. Claims are so much easier. They feel we should abandon bloody courts, judges and juries. |
|
Angel |
In The Know wrote:
Angel wrote:
Can we honestly say that JS has not been abusing? I'm really fighting the urge to think of him as an innocent but there's too many now coming out the woodwork. I'm beginning to believe the "victims" argument that they wouldn't be believed given JS's Sainthood status. And that's not taking into account the psychological effect genuine "victims" display.
see what I mean, angel - its 340 Savile "leads" now !!!
Simply mass hysteria and wanting to get in on the act.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19930250
IA I totally understand your point but surely the amount of people making the accusations must have some weight. Many of those doing so are/were intelligent's in respected positions. It just doesn't add up, to me anyway. Not wanting to bring JK into this but this story blows his out the water. ITK if this was all based on hysteria then surely we'd all be claiming to be abused by JS. You do love to simplify. |
|
In The Know |
The BBC has learned that some of the women making abuse claims may seek compensation from the BBC and from Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
Child abuse lawyer Liz Dux, who has been contacted by several of the women in the past few days, told BBC Radio 4's the World at One: "The case would be against the BBC or the hospital because essentially they would be held vicariously liable in law for the acts of someone like Savile who was acting as their agent.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19930250
NOW THERE'S A SURPRISE ! - not !!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
