So are we seeing yet another crook or the delight in pulling down heroes or a combination of the two?

We are seeing how the media always wins.

build them up..Jimmy Savile, Lance Armstrong, JK..and tear 'em down.

It's a win win situation!

And one of the reasons never to take your image seriously; I laughed when they called me a pop star and sex symbol so it meant nothing when they called me a Vile Pervert.

As an observer of the species it's interesting to watch the strange, creepy souls who take joy from the downfall of celebrities; they never are aware of their own sickness; they jeer and scream and hurls insults or bricks without knowing how much they reveal about themselves.

When the authorities take the URLs of trolls, it's not because they want to protect people from being insulted; more often than not trolls are thinking they conceal their own sins by shouting about others. That's how they track the rioters, abusers, offenders.

We are seeing what professional "sport" is really like.

I wonder how many Olympians .........

JK2006 wrote:
And one of the reasons never to take your image seriously; I laughed when they called me a pop star and sex symbol so it meant nothing when they called me a Vile Pervert.

As an observer of the species it's interesting to watch the strange, creepy souls who take joy from the downfall of celebrities; they never are aware of their own sickness; they jeer and scream and hurls insults or bricks without knowing how much they reveal about themselves.

When the authorities take the URLs of trolls, it's not because they want to protect people from being insulted; more often than not trolls are thinking they conceal their own sins by shouting about others. That's how they track the rioters, abusers, offenders.

that is why I always read the 'comments' (until I feel a bit queasy)as it's illuminating to see there are people out there who are unbelievably vicious and nasty but not as many as tabloids would have you believe.

I reckon the great masses don't really give a stuff about what others do.

JK2006 wrote:
So are we seeing yet another crook......?

Yes, I think we are.

But, as I type, Joey Barton is making a staunch defence of LA on his Twitter account.

How, I wonder, will Marseilles (his latest club) react to his stance on the worst ever scandal to hit French sport?

The Lance Armstrong and Jimmy Savile situations are so similar
- Rumours and suspicions have been circulating for many years
- Nobody ever came forward and made a statement during the height of their fame
- Current media stories are based solely on witness statements
- No "hard" evidence exists in either case
- Both individuals raised a lot of money and awareness for charity.
- The behaviour involved in both offences was prevelent in their respective fields (underage sex in the music industry & drug use in bicycle racing)

.....yet "In The Know" seems to support one but not the other, slightly biased me thinks.

There comes a time when so many different and/or respected people come forward making the same argument you have to believe what they are saying is true unless of course you are wearing blinkers.

Goodness Gracious wrote:
.....yet "In The Know" seems to support one but not the other, slightly biased me thinks.

Has not an inquiry decided that one is guilty whereas the other is subject purely to rumour gossip and (endless) speculation?

you are wearing blinkers.

Specsavers ?

Based on LA and JS I am now of the opinion that nobody on this forum thinks that anyone could ever be guilty of any crimes. In fact its all the media's fault. BS if you will.

Oddly when I read the posts most seem to feel either could be guilty or innocent - we simply don't know but don't want to go along with the majority media condemnation until we know more Angel.

No.

Eventually, the media and the relevant authorities got both cases right.

The big AND only question is - why did they take so long?

Angel wrote:
Based on LA and JS I am now of the opinion that nobody on this forum thinks that anyone could ever be guilty of any crimes. In fact its all the media's fault. BS if you will.

I'm sure we think many people are guilty of dreadful things. Tony Blair for instance most certainly should face a war crimes trial.

Most of the commentary seems to be about the excesses of the media to create an impression.

The media is complicit in many crimes though. Apart from Armstrong, the combined media participated in the so-called cover-up of Savile as they are now daily reporting that most of Britain was in on the secret about Savile's alleged life.

For instance the ex-editor of The Sun Neil Wallis claims he could never have 'exposed' Savile because of the crippling costs of a libel action. He neglects to explain why then, The Sun promoted Jimmy Savile for decades knowing he was an alleged pedo.

my blessed Angel even dear old Catholics have a term for it : the sin of omission

The GOOD side of these scandals... I often feel it's like lancing a boil; I watch the poison in the soul of so many human beings come spilling out; bile and hatred; viciousness (like those Tweets about Tom Daley); the sheer acid in the soul of the few gets allowed to spew out harmlessly... not a bad thing.

Angel wrote:
Based on LA and JS I am now of the opinion that nobody on this forum thinks that anyone could ever be guilty of any crimes. In fact its all the media's fault. BS if you will.

Have to disagree with you, angel.

I have appeared on a Jury - AND found the defendent guilty !

I think most on here can recognise the difference between a clear-cut case (with evidence !) and irrational complaints (never made at the time !) which have snowballed.

In fact, there is something wrong with you if you HAVENT made a complaint (now) about Savile !

JK2006 wrote:
Oddly when I read the posts most seem to feel either could be guilty or innocent - we simply don't know but don't want to go along with the majority media condemnation until we know more Angel.

The committee investigation Armstrong say their evidence is "compelling and convincing".

If its not, why is Armstrong not suing ?

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.

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.

If he was a Saint before ... why not now?
What - apart from joining the throngs now seeking publicity - has made it easier for them to come forward (apart from the fact that they can now hide behind others)?

I'm reminded in all this of the hysteria surrounding Diana's death ... when you were "not normal" unless you were wandering around wailing and pinning flowers to a railing somewhere.

Mass hysteria does occur ... all it needs is for someone to start it off.

On a slightly different level ... what about the London riots? Yet again, people (many of whom would not have done anything like that normally - and would never have started it off) joined in when they saw others taking part.

Its all part of the "need to belong and not stand out" mentality that the plebs have, terrified to be different / individual - just look at the way they follow fashion ! One lad walks around with his arse hanging out of his jeans and they ALL follow suit. Its sheep mentality.

Its lack of individuality and the need (fear) to not stand out.

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.

You're missing the point of this forum again Angel.
Do you remember how many weirdos reported JK after it all came out in the meejah? Most were dismissed as ridiculous,even by the CPS/police.And then add how many made court,and were thrown out there.
Jimmy Saville may well be guilty,but in fairness only after a jury has found to that affect,not because of mass hysteria.
This is one of the few places that doesn't toe the meejah line,and believes in seeing real evidence.You are of course free to make up your own mind.

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

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 !!!!!!