• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "There can be only one?"

Collapse

  • mantis
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    What is there to cover up - the fact that a number of girls - some of who were under the age of consent fell for the 'charms' of mister saville and now regret it and see it as an opportunity to get some money?
    Wow - what a horrible little person you are, guessing you don't have children of your own - or don't give a tulip about other people?

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    Who did know?
    there were a number of credible complaints placed against him with a number of police forces. There had been some before.

    There was also rumours that would unseat / cause investigation of a person in almost any organisation caring for children.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    Who did know?
    I'm sure I knew the rumour and innuendo from 2002 at the very latest. Depends when I first met Rev Goatboy....

    and no, before anyone asks, I don't know which cabinet minister...

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    They did know, at least in 2007, but suspicions abounded much earlier.
    Who did know?

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    sadly turning a blind eye is not a crime.

    and there will be awful trouble trying to prove people helped him - unless some of the victims come forward and identify them.....

    it is a sad sordid affair but the only people to win will be the lawyers who make a fortune.
    possibly not for much longer BBC News - Not reporting child abuse 'should be criminal offence'

    Leave a comment:


  • jmo21
    replied
    there was a photo of a newspaper interview with Jim Davidson doing the rounds yesterday where he is talking about a woman who was paralytically drunk (not under age) who he let sleep it off in his hotel room.

    "And I never even touched her, even though she wouldn't have known anything about it, that's how much a gentleman I am" or words to that effect is the quote.

    Now we all knew he was a massive arsehole, but I can't get my head round that quote, yeah, well done for not raping her Jim.

    Every now and again I've heard people say "It was a different time, things were different back then" - yep, Saville was the tip of a very nasty iceberg

    Leave a comment:


  • original PM
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    The people that helped him / ignored him are still alive and sitting comfortably. Lets make life unpleasant for them.
    sadly turning a blind eye is not a crime.

    and there will be awful trouble trying to prove people helped him - unless some of the victims come forward and identify them.....

    it is a sad sordid affair but the only people to win will be the lawyers who make a fortune.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarillionFan
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    The people that helped him / ignored him are still alive and sitting comfortably. Lets make life unpleasant for them.
    Yeah. The Rolf Harris should be made to pay!

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    And as Ian Hislop said on HIGNFY there were rumours - but that is all they were, rumours and so nothing was done.

    He was a dodgy sleazy fecker but I do not see what anything is going to achieve now he is dead.
    The people that helped him / ignored him are still alive and sitting comfortably. Lets make life unpleasant for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • original PM
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    They did know, at least in 2007, but suspicions abounded much earlier.
    And as Ian Hislop said on HIGNFY there were rumours - but that is all they were, rumours and so nothing was done.

    He was a dodgy sleazy fecker but I do not see what anything is going to achieve now he is dead.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    A big whitewash by whom? There seems to be this idea that somebody in overall authority "should have known", but as we don't live in a Big Brother society who could that person possibly be?

    Maybe a few people knew something and shouldn't have kept quiet, and maybe the police could have done more, though they can only do so much with rumour and insinuation, but the real reason he got away with it for so long is that the victims didn't come forward. Which is understandable, but what other answer is a single public enquiry going to come up with?
    They did know, at least in 2007, but suspicions abounded much earlier.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    so lots of little cover ups or one big whitewash?
    A big whitewash by whom? There seems to be this idea that somebody in overall authority "should have known", but as we don't live in a Big Brother society who could that person possibly be?

    Maybe a few people knew something and shouldn't have kept quiet, and maybe the police could have done more, though they can only do so much with rumour and insinuation, but the real reason he got away with it for so long is that the victims didn't come forward. Which is understandable, but what other answer is a single public enquiry going to come up with?

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    What is there to cover up - the fact that a number of girls - some of who were under the age of consent fell for the 'charms' of mister saville and now regret it and see it as an opportunity to get some money?
    You missed the fact he preyed on children in Stoke Mandeville and other hospitals? Or that he was clearly identified to the police and authorities as a pervert but they decided not to pursue it. Every official involved should be prosecuted.

    I agree some of the girls he had sex with were healthy 16 year olds that he wasn't in a privileged position with and that is 'sad not bad' they shouldn't get a penny.

    But it seems an appreciable number were under age or under his power he was well aware of the situation which makes it rape.

    Leave a comment:


  • vwdan
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    What is there to cover up - the fact that a number of girls - some of who were under the age of consent fell for the 'charms' of mister saville and now regret it and see it as an opportunity to get some money?
    You don't seem to understand how the age of consent works or what it implies.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    What is there to cover up - the fact that a number of girls - some of who were under the age of consent fell for the 'charms' of mister saville and now regret it and see it as an opportunity to get some money?
    the fact that everyone turned a blind eye because child abuse wasn't an "issue" then but is now.

    There is a general problem of attaching today's standards to yesterday's history and people don't seem to understand that the best they can hope for is yep, well, um, oops, probably shouldn't have done that...

    Also I can't see how you have 1 big inquiry until every party involved has investigated their part and can accurately state what happened?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X