www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572584...ed-Jimmy-Savile.html

andrew wrote:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572584...ed-Jimmy-Savile.html




"Savile visited the home and it is feared he abused youngsters there"

The police investigating Haut de la Garrenne in 2007/2008 said in 2012 that there were no allegations against Jimmy Savile at that time (despite a big investigation going on in regard to child abuse at the home), all they had was the Sun newspaper trying to drop hints and printing stories that he "refused to help the police with their enquiries" when the man incharge of the investigation himself said he hadn't even been asked to help them with their enquiries, when he threatened to sue, they quickly backed down and then went harrasing the woman miss 'A' in the levit report to go to the police about him, when she only wanted to make a bit of money by selling a (not very convincing) story about him making a pass at her in a his caravan when she was 20 (and a married woman - shock). I'm pretty sure that's how the Duncroft women were dragged in too as it all happened in the same time period and miss 'A' became part of the same police investigation as the 3 (not very convincing) Duncroft accusers (they'd actually contacted the whole year of '79 and all they got was 3, one changing her story several times, and one bringing her own sister in after she claimed her self not to have been there when Jimmy Savile was their - her sister's story was changed quite a bit from what she told the police in 2008 to what was claimed in the ITV Exposure 'documentary' too), I don’t know about Ms 'B'
'B' and Ms 'C', but i'm sure that's a scam too, probably the same women, or inspired by the women (and certainly using the same tatics, as those that went to the Mirror in 1994, but chickened out when they were told they'd have to be legally responsible for their claims...

Bergerac? A shepherd in French. Buggering sheep? Surely there would be no danger in accusing everyone if the sheep are now dead (presumed guilty)?

I can see no point in editing Bergerac, Savile was never convicted and evidence is very shady and contradictory.

Seems totally stupid especially as it is still being run on other channels.
So not completely banned just by the BBC.

Why cant those who might be upset just not watch it? It is easy enough to avoid. I have managed to never see a single episode.

If we are going to ban shots of upsetting locations we might as well go the whole hog and never show the House of commons (Alfred Billson died casting his vote) Buckingham palace (Edward VII) Windsor castle (The Queen Mother) St James's Palace (Bloody Mary) St James's park (some poor bloke whose body lay there for three years) Every hospital,several football stadiums, and practically every main road in the country!

I agree Honey, Channel 4 edit Simpsons has there are shots of the Twin Towers, news on TV shows the hospital where someone has died to neglect. I always told if you don't like what is on TV switch off.

Was Jimmy Savile even ever in Bergerac? Or is it just the home (that was apparently turned into the police station for Bergerac), that gives people bad memories? It's just Bergerac was on tv ages ago, would the time to have complained about it not been back then? Do these traumatised people really need to watch re runs of Bergerac for the umteenth time if it upsets them that much? Does anyone?