Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Jimmy Savile interview
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
MCR Media |
Typical outrage as usual on the Jim'll Fix It friendsreunited page
www.friendsreunited.co.uk/jim-fixed-it-f...16-a36c-9ffe00d3d39d |
|
Anon |
robbiex wrote:
I don't believe or disbelieve the headlines about Operation Yewtree, its probably a mixture of truth, exageration, and lies.
However why is it that Saville got around 450 complaints, whereas DlT only got about a dozen, Freddie Starr got a couple, and Gary Glitter (surely the easiest target of all) only has one complaint against him as far as we know.
A mixture of trawling, advertising and spin. All this talk of 'inquiries', 'the BBC, Home office and local authorities' possibilily facing 'legal' action by Elizabeth Dux right at the beginning on that "Panorama What the BBC knew" programme and she was most likely trawling for 'victims' before that on the internet etc. This talk of suing 'Savile's estate'.
The extra hysteria there was around him as apposed to the others because he is dead and he can't sue. The accusers won't even have to look at the reaction in his face.
Copy cat's, safety in number's, that's why I think there have been infinitely more accusations against Jimmy Savile than anyone else. The whole thing is a conspiracy and a set up as far as Jimmy Savile is concerned imo...  |
|
Chris Retro |
Speaking of headlines - yesterdays Sun printed the punchline to a 50 year old joke and it was debated by "investigated journalists"in the media all day as to who, what, where, why.
If that doesn't spell it out - P.I.S.S.T.A.K.E. - I don't know what will.
This country is fucked. |
|
robbiex |
I don't believe or disbelieve the headlines about Operation Yewtree, its probably a mixture of truth, exageration, and lies.
However why is it that Saville got around 450 complaints, whereas DlT only got about a dozen, Freddie Starr got a couple, and Gary Glitter (surely the easiest target of all) only has one complaint against him as far as we know. |
|
Anon |
bh wrote:
Sometimes organisations that are supposed to look after the vulnerable are do-gooders trying to look for things that aren't happening. I think there are far to many so called "do-gooders" acting on behalf of others looking for trouble for troubles sake.
I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head with that comment. |
|
|
|
