-
Posts
-
@rubyred wrote:
and mrs Tea knows everyone !!
Yes and last night I went to see Jesus Christ Superstar at Manchster arena…. guess what Ruby, me and Jesus
Like that :D
=D> Good post Jen-Jen!
Maybe be didn’t fancy you Mrs T!
Special hug? What’s that mean?
@(f)politics? wrote:
Special hug? What’s that mean?
Who knows?
Maybe he was an abuser. Maybe he wasn’t. But CPS didn’t have enough evidence to bring charges in 2007. Where were all those women then?
I was always under the impression he was gay.
I wonder how long it will be before stories of that will come out.
@(f)politics? wrote:
Special hug? What’s that mean?
“special hug” meant that he had a good grope while he was at it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19788721
Surrey police has confirmed that Sir Jimmy Savile was questioned over allegations of child sex abuse in 2007.
In a statement, they said an individual was interviewed over offences which were “alleged to have occurred at a children’s home” in the 1970s.
The matter was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, which “advised there was insufficient evidence to take any further action”.
In other words it was his word against hers.
Fellow broadcaster Paul Gambaccini said he had been “waiting 30 years” for such stories to come out.
Speaking on ITV1’s Daybreak programme, he said newspapers had been primed to run similar stories while Sir Jimmy was alive, but the star had intervened to prevent their publication.
“On [one] occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said ‘well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville – do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations.’ And they backed down.”
“On [one] occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said ‘well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville – do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations.’ And they backed down.”
absolutely sickening……..i will be watching the documentary on wed.
@jen_jen wrote:
@(f)politics? wrote:
Special hug? What’s that mean?
“special hug” meant that he had a good grope while he was at it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19788721
Surrey police has confirmed that Sir Jimmy Savile was questioned over allegations of child sex abuse in 2007.
In a statement, they said an individual was interviewed over offences which were “alleged to have occurred at a children’s home” in the 1970s.
The matter was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, which “advised there was insufficient evidence to take any further action”.
In other words it was his word against hers.
Fellow broadcaster Paul Gambaccini said he had been “waiting 30 years” for such stories to come out.
Speaking on ITV1’s Daybreak programme, he said newspapers had been primed to run similar stories while Sir Jimmy was alive, but the star had intervened to prevent their publication.
“On [one] occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said ‘well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville – do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations.’ And they backed down.”
Court Usher: “Call Sir James Saville!”
Defence Lawyer: “Er, he’s dead, m’lud.”
@jen_jen wrote:
@(f)politics? wrote:
Special hug? What’s that mean?
“special hug” meant that he had a good grope while he was at it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19788721
Surrey police has confirmed that Sir Jimmy Savile was questioned over allegations of child sex abuse in 2007.
In a statement, they said an individual was interviewed over offences which were “alleged to have occurred at a children’s home” in the 1970s.
The matter was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, which “advised there was insufficient evidence to take any further action”.
In other words it was his word against hers.
Fellow broadcaster Paul Gambaccini said he had been “waiting 30 years” for such stories to come out.
Speaking on ITV1’s Daybreak programme, he said newspapers had been primed to run similar stories while Sir Jimmy was alive, but the star had intervened to prevent their publication.
“On [one] occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said ‘well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville – do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations.’ And they backed down.”
Sorry jen but ” a good grope” ? of what and on whose opinion? did his hand touch her arse, did it brush over her arse? did he touch anything else, was it just that a cheeky grope ? is that really sexual abuse ? i mean really? or just a cheeky old man being well cheeky?
At the end of the day if it bothered them that much and was that serious they could have come out then, and even if he did badly sexually abuse someone or many like properly physically assault/ abuse them, what good exactly is this going to do any of them now? Plus it’s their word and maybe a few that decide to jump on the media bandwagon’s word, against a dead man who cannot answer for himself or indeed serve a sentence, and so no justice will be done anyway, really don’t see the point in this at all.
And if anyone says it will stop other celebs thinking they can do the same, no it will just make them think if they push hard enough nothing will come out or happen until they are dead so why worry….previos case was dropped because of a lack of evidence, so what ? wait until he can’t reply and argue against whatever evidence people think up, try and remember? possibly fabricate? They should Drop it now in my opinion, pervy old man or not nothing to be gained from this.Do I really need to go into detail on what he did to her?
It was not a hand touching or brushing her ass, it was not just a cheeky grope, it was not a cheeky old man being well cheeky – not that that should have gone uncommented on. It was full-on molestation, not once but twice, and he was well known for it.It did bother her, enough to go to her superiors and ask for advice, and they made it clear that his support and charity work was more important to them, to the point of implying that her job might be at risk.
He was known for this kind of behaviour but his high profile and the good work that he did made him practically untouchable.
What good is it going to do his victims to talk about it now? Probably a hell of a lot more good than it’s done them bottling it up all these years. Anyone who has ever been a victim of abuse of any kind will understand the need to speak out once they feel safe enough to do so, it’s just a shame that in this case they had to wait until he was dead to feel that safety and for anyone to be prepared to listen and not be blinded or threatened by the public image and the risk of losing all those charitable donations.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!