having some fascinating chats in life and on the net re: Jimmy Savile.

people have completely fixed minds about him- they believe everything said.

but their info comes form tabloid TV & newspapers. Some get really angry and quite abusive with me if I point out the inconsistencies- in fact I think one former pal won't speak to me again (no loss).

yet some even know the media lie to them- some are actually in the media and know they help publish total bullshit..but they really want to believe the Savile tale. I've had one now re-writing history and claiming he was always a despised person. they go blank if I point out, "no that's bullshit. He was a beloved personality in the UK..not by me..but evidenced by the wailing when he died and the 30,000 people at his funeral."

they demand it be true. they demand that 1000s of people ere abused, that dead bodies were interfered with.

this is really bizarre. what would Freud make of all this?

I find the same Hedda - it really is odd; makes one begin to wonder whether Hitler was really the 100% monster portrayed by "history".

No point in spoiling a good story with the truth !

The thing is that the only person who knows the complete truth is JS himself.

JK2006 wrote:
I find the same Hedda - it really is odd; makes one begin to wonder whether Hitler was really the 100% monster portrayed by "history".

Not a great comparison. There was plenty of contemporary evidence about Hitler. Relativism is as bad as dogmatism. But yes, with the Savile case, it's a sad sign of our lacy credulousness. I won't let individual journalists off the hook, though. Each one of them has the responsibility to report accurately, and yet they don't. Alleged victims are victims, alleged a users are a users, they must have a judge and jury inside their own heads. None of this should be treated as inevitable. It's a grave moral failure.

Ah no MWT - the "victims" know the truth in the individual cases too; the question must be - are their recollections correct or are they changed and influenced by a) the passage of time and b) what they read/hear/see in the media?

That is, very simply, the question that responsible media should be asking today (and every day) as should panels, judges, executives and so on.

What worries me is that nobody appears even willing to consider the possibility as Hedda has pointed out. Which disturbs me. Are we, as a species, so simplistic these days? Or are we - the tiny minority, wrong and slightly mad?

The "victims" don't always know the truth.....

According to the interview given to Hampshire Constabulary at Gosport Police Station,
the complainant was informed by a cleaner at the Royal Hospital, when he attended a
follow-up outpatient clinic, that she had seen him being sexually assaulted by Jimmy
Savile when he, (the complainant), had been an in-patient at the hospital as a result of a
road traffic accident. As a consequence of this accident, the victim has suffered brain
damage, schizophrenia and memory loss. The victim is not on any medication as he
believes that he does not need any. The victim was unconscious at the time of the
alleged assault and his account is based solely on what he says the cleaner told him that
she saw. It has not been possible to identify the cleaner. There is no information in
existence that allows us to do so.


Part of the trouble is people conditioned to 140 characters on twatter, do not have the stamina or time to read the official reports, instead relying on the gutter press for their information

There is still no evidence just people making accusations, the man is dead as a dodo he can't be on trail anyway.

I think papers should employ a small semi-autonomous group, or even just one person, to stand back and think about what's being written, providing, say, a monthly article that offers some perspective and cool judgement. The problem with newsrooms is that there's no time for reflection. It's just remorseless (in both senses of the word) activity. So once they go with a certain line then that's it. I find broadcasting journalists more exasperating, because they DO have people around them who ought to review what is being reported, and HOW it's being reported, and intervene. Even simple things like how they refer to allegations as if they're proven truths. There's simply no excuse for that.

corevalue wrote:
The "victims" don't always know the truth.....

According to the interview given to Hampshire Constabulary at Gosport Police Station,
the complainant was informed by a cleaner at the Royal Hospital, when he attended a
follow-up outpatient clinic, that she had seen him being sexually assaulted by Jimmy
Savile when he, (the complainant), had been an in-patient at the hospital as a result of a
road traffic accident. As a consequence of this accident, the victim has suffered brain
damage, schizophrenia and memory loss. The victim is not on any medication as he
believes that he does not need any. The victim was unconscious at the time of the
alleged assault and his account is based solely on what he says the cleaner told him that
she saw. It has not been possible to identify the cleaner. There is no information in
existence that allows us to do so.


Part of the trouble is people conditioned to 140 characters on twatter, do not have the stamina or time to read the official reports, instead relying on the gutter press for their information

good point about twitter and I must admit I'm almost at that stage.. I skim headlines, can't be bothered with the body of an article. And then have a cup of tea and play with the cat.

but I'm old now (but beautiful and look 20 years younger)what will happen with the yoof ???

Pru wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I find the same Hedda - it really is odd; makes one begin to wonder whether Hitler was really the 100% monster portrayed by "history".

Not a great comparison. There was plenty of contemporary evidence about Hitler...

on the contrary, I think it's a apposite comparison as Hitler is another character who people think they know all about despite all their 'knowlege' coming via propaganda/ vested-interest outlets; most see him as the personification of evil; you can say almost anything bad about him -- whoever outlandish -- and it will be believed; and almost everybody is ready to attack you if you fail to spit on him, heaven forbid try to humanize the man.

who does that remind you of?

absurdman wrote:
Pru wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I find the same Hedda - it really is odd; makes one begin to wonder whether Hitler was really the 100% monster portrayed by "history".

Not a great comparison. There was plenty of contemporary evidence about Hitler...

on the contrary, I think it's a apposite comparison as Hitler is another character who people think they know all about despite all their 'knowlege' coming via propaganda/ vested-interest outlets; most see him as the personification of evil; you can say almost anything bad about him -- whoever outlandish -- and it will be believed; and almost everybody is ready to attack you if you fail to spit on him, heaven forbid try to humanize the man.

who does that remind you of?

having dealt with a psychopathic personality now for 5 years, Hitler seems to have had all the classic symptoms and the main one being-it's never their fault. Evidenced By Adolf at the end where he blamed the entire German people rather than admit he made a mistake.

But he couldn't have done it on his own and like attracts like which is pretty evident in his case with other sociopaths like Himler.
## armies especially ones that are about to go into conflict also attract murderous sociopaths (most of psycho/socios are not murderous) as they can kill with impunity including their fellow troops.

But I can understand that perhaps Hitler didn't understand many things done in his name- such as the Final Solution, another classic indication..they never ever think through the consequences of their actions.
Thus they can invent a policy of riding a country of those they don't like and hand the dirty work or details over to others and never think about it again.

This witch hunt has so many aspects of this. Psychopaths in so many fields : child protection, police, lawyers, claimants, journalist ..an unholy alliance of forceful personalities like MWT or Dux- driven and blinkered as to what they are creating..combined with an enormous bullying against those who dare speak out against them.

Hell in a hand basket time