Millions watched as Jimmy Saville molested me

page: 3
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


It was show called just like mom. It was in the 80s


Just Like Mom was a Canadian television game show which ran from 1980 to 1985 on CTV. A total of 595 episodes were taped at CFTO-TV in Toronto, Ontario. It was hosted by Stephen Young during the show's first season, but from the second season it was hosted by the husband-and-wife duo of Fergie Olver and the show's creator Catherine Swing. Dave Devall announced the series for its entire run. The format was to determine which child and mother knew each other the best through answer-matching as well as the memorable Bake-off Challenge. Three teams, consisting of a young child and his or her mother (or occasionally father), competed on each episode. Repeats aired on GameTV from 2008 to 2010.


And to be honest, I don't remember it as it is portrayed here. They were a husband and wife duo hosting the show and everything seemed quite innocent.
edit on 27-10-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komonazmuk

Originally posted by Xaphan
He's still not as creepy as this guy.



KUHREEEPIEEEE

Dirty old man -The Mother on there called that spot on, Where's Chris Hansen when you need him?



This site is has seriously become like Ebaums World.




posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


That guy is disgusting! I can't believe what I just saw, how he could be so seedy to those little kids (while on TV!) and get away with it.

Wonder if he was ever charged with anything that happened backstage.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I love how they just start with all this abuse crap after he died... What is that going to change now? They should have all come forward when he was still alive.

Still all bad of course and i hope he went to hell for it. But this big hype is far too late.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Seremela
 
People did come forward when he was alive and weren't believed. One girl was admitted to a Channel Islands asylum as mentally ill for making the allegation. The rumours were flying for almost his entire career.

You may or may not know that the climate for reporting sexual abuse was way, way different to today. The victim was often looked at as a liar or willing participant and would not want others to know about any sexual activity. It isn't so long ago that judges were debating if female rape victims were at fault for wearing sexy clothes.

With upwards of 300 individuals and arrests pending, it's unlikely to be a huge hoax. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by ollncasino
 


The even bigger question is why do the cabal/illuminati/whatever cover up for anybody? Because they can and they do - all the time.


Let's not forget that everyone covers up crimes - in New Zealand 2 infant twins died after receiving head injuries -


The police believe that, while the infants were in hospital prior to their deaths, the family was uncooperative with any investigation.[14] Pita Sharples, the co-leader of the Māori Party, said the family had agreed to talk to police on 26 June,[15] but this did not happen.[16] Following the deaths, Sharples said he was disgusted by the Kahui family's behaviour. He claimed some members of the family were more interested in going "to the pub and have a drink" than coming forward to police.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seremela
I love how they just start with all this abuse crap after he died... What is that going to change now? They should have all come forward when he was still alive.


The BBC was about to run an expose of him when he died, and it was "pulled" because of the "timing" - IIRC it has just been shown.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Get real. She's moving around. There's no indication he's doing anything. He might be but we can't see anything. She could be strung out on drungs for all we know. And she's smiling the whole time, so if something is going on she loves it!



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I posted on page two of this thread that a current article listed that he was awarded commendations by the Queen and the Catholic Church. Anyone who knows their cabal/illuminati/whatever roll call will know the connections and join the dots on why he got away with his repugnant behaviour for so long.

You cite a news article about people who appear not to have been interested in caring for their babies. It's all Child abuse and predators have no empathy or conscience. Psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists - learn all about their pathological traits and it will help you understand truly heartless behaviours.

This Saville creature was no doubt one of the above listed soulless pretend human beings.

Much Peace...to all Children everywhere...



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
LOL. What the hell. Is this from the 70s? It's insane that if she actually wanted recourse she didn't get any. Also what does it mean 200 kids? This lady was an adult. Why didn't she sue him?

If he can molest children all his life and never be prosecuted, even though many knew about it, what chance would anyone have with a lawsuit?

This pervert was shielded from justice by many people, celebrities and the rest of them, they are to blame for this too.

Everyone who knew what was going on are every bit as guilty as Saville, if not more so - they were all in a position to go to the police and put a stop to what they knew was happening, but they all did nothing.


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


Sick


It is obvious that she is trying to escape!!

I find it hard to comprehend how anyone could say that she 'loved' it.


Truly disturbed by defenders of that abuser.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
People forget that victims often feel a guilt that they encouraged it even though they have done nothing wrong. Many did go to the police and were told "no evidence" - so they have had the abuse happen to them and no-one believes them.

This was a truely sick time where Jimmy Saville had the programs that involved children - "Top of the Pops" and "Jim'll fix it". There are blogs that intimate the other people involved. We know of Jonathan King and Gary Glitter who were also charged of paedophilic behaviour at this time.

Please, please don't think that the victims are coming out of the woodwork to "jump on the bandwagon". My own sister told me of her child abuse only when she reached the age of 40 - mainly because she had seen so much of child abuse and convictions on the TV, it gave her the strength to speak out loud. I have no doubt that she would be telling her story to me (and going to the police) after the positive response from the police and public to be taken seriously.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by ollncasino
 


When people laugh it can be for many reasons other than amusement. People sometimes laugh when they are embarrassed, uncomfortable, have just said or done something stupid, don't know what has happened.

Just because an older man touched a young girl on her bottom and she laughed - does not signify that she enjoyed what happened.

I wonder where the spirit of this repugnant man is now? Makes you wonder whether there really is a hell and if he had a pass to get straight in.

Much Peace...


This is true, I laugh quite often when I'm uncomfortable, anxious or even frightened it's really not a conscious reaction, and at times it can lead to more embarrassment for instance undercover encounters during my youth lol.

All joking aside, this is a terrible thing. I can't believe he had the guts to do this on camera. I'm even more surprised with such a group of people no one noticed it. How ever I have noticed humans have this weird camera fascination, if you put them in front of it the majority of them will focus almost entirely on the camera, or attempt to do something Impressive/funny/trendy(cool).

So I suppose I can see how it could have gone unnoticed.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by gort51


Seriously, Is the World better off now with ALL the civil liberties restrictions?


Are you effing kidding me? I've been 19 for several years now...almost 2 decades. And you've never had the civil liberty to sexually molest me. When a man performs this type of groping without consent, it does not matter what the age or sex of the victim is...it's sexual molestation.

Stop defending this pervert. You're freaking me out.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Im SURE i watched something about jimmy and his wandering hands and "alleged" incidents on a TV show some time ago (perhaps a year or more) which i cant seem to find, but jimmy was still alive at the time i remember.

Something about a dance studio, so why it wasnt properly investigated then, like we are now i cant understand (ignoring the fact it should have been done 40 years ago of course....)




posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Get real. She's moving around. There's no indication he's doing anything. He might be but we can't see anything. She could be strung out on drungs for all we know. And she's smiling the whole time, so if something is going on she loves it!


A known sex offender on a national TV show standing next to a woman who is squirming around to avoid something and the conclusion is 'she was on drugs' or that this is evidence of overt political correctness (for other posters) ... I don't understand that.

Possibilities:

1. It's live TV. It's one take. The show runner/director says to you, 'I need ten or so women to look around, be happy, and quiet whilst we run the shot before credits, avoid staring at the camera ... don't mess it up' ... what do you do? She doesn't want it but laughs it off trying to be professional.
2. She enjoyed it, but it's clear evidence that the BBC actually must have known something. It really isn't acceptable to grope someone on live TV, and if Saville was doing that live on television imagine how bold he might be behind closed doors with no one watching?

What he did was unpro as all hell. What she did was actually fairly professional on a live one take shot based on the instructions probably given to her.

Either way it's evidence of the BBC and Saville's colleagues not noticing the plainly obvious.

Side note: and what other posters are saying is accurate too ... laughter/involuntary smiling is caused by touching at times, it doesn't mean it is desired. If you've ever been held down and tickled then you have an idea.
edit on 27-10-2012 by Pinke because: Side note



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by gort51
 



I remember a high school teacher that use to rub his hands up 14 year old girls legs, while they stood next to him at his desk.....Of course back then us young guys would be saying...lucky bugger he can do that....Not, oh look at that old perve...etc...It was different times (better), people were free, New York was a hovel, Rubbish and pollution was every where.....Well at least we cleaned that up....


Um, yeah thats creepy not to mention an ethics violation. You sound like a pedophile yourself.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 3chainz
 
No need for the ill-mannered comment. Isn't it more likely he was a 14 year old boy if the girls in his class were 14 years old?

Where you a pedophile to find girls your own age attractive?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


He's longing about the "good ol days" where old teachers could molest young girls and no one would care......(pretty sure those days didn't exist but other in his head). Go read his creepy post. He's also defending whoever this Savile guy is for molesting this woman on TV.
edit on 27-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-10-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Threegirls
 
& pinke

Escaped what exactly? If anything is happening, and we don't know if it is, it's blocked out by the person in front. What we see is a blury pic of someone squirming in there seat. There's no way that would hold up in court very well especially since you can't see any touching. It likely might have happened, so at worst he could be guilty in the public realm but in court it wouldn't fly. There has to be real evidence. This isn't real evidence, it's just based on assumption.
edit on 27-10-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join