Millions watched as Jimmy Saville molested me

How is this suppose to help. He was a monster to other younger people but she is 19, At that age I say good for him.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by badgerprints
Not to be a killjoy. I don't know this guy.
The girl is wearing a pair of pants but the article says he had his hand up her skirt.
is this a joke?

She was also 19 and appeared to find the situation amusing.


I find it a bit weird that some people actually gave you stars for this comment.

reply to post by 3chainz
I've read and then re-read the post in question. First time round, I could see where you're coming from and was about to remove my post.

Second time around it became a little clearer, he's not endorsing child-molestation or defending Savile per se. He's making the distinction between someone being 12 and 19 - young child versus young adult. He's saying that the 70s were a less paranoid place too.

Where he's dead wrong imo, is that just because people didn't fear the worse didn't mean it was any less unacceptable or as prevalent as today. In my opinion anyone opting to defend Savile would be advised to wait and see because this is liable to be a nasty investigation. *If* he was guilty...pedos always seems to have friends and his would be in high places.

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by Threegirls

 

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.

Look at the video this way, is it one of the dozen girls in the background making this girl seem uncomfortable, or the guy with a dirty grin, making a random comment about "how he can get used to this"- And also has over 300 sexual assault charges against him . . .

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
She should have just slapped in on live tv if she felt she was wronged...then he would have been busted and his career in shambles.

EDIT:
My comment was based on a possible retake, which would be not-happening since it was live.

So much reading and I still missed the word LIVE. Tsk. Tsk.

he has no right to touch her in any way

with that said, it looks like she is sitting down ? he probably goosed her ?

in the era of benny hill, this is really just not a story for the UK I would think

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by Threegirls

 

& pinke
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,

The woman herself, the footage, a character witness confirming prior actions, and maybe one other witness would be more than enough to claim that happened in court. Courtrooms aren't held to the same standards as science.

The woman herself I believe said it happened. The footage is there. Jimmy Saville is being investigated. The evidence is many times more compelling than Michael Jackon's case. People have believed passionately in many things with less evidence. I'm not really sure what your point is?

If your point is that she can't press a conviction? I'm not sure that really matters. Much like people point at say NASA or the CIA's historical behaviour to find clues and evidence, this is a clue that the BBC or at least someone must have been aware of this.

Kandinsky: I got to be honest, I did find the commnet about a student standing next to a teacher's desk having her legs rubbed a bit concerning. Without context it sounds mad creepy!

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by magma
Well there is the proof that he was a dirty man. He did that on live television because he could get away with it. So... Clearly this demonstrates a case that he was inclined.

Do not want to imagine what he got up to and got away with "off camera"

That's a very good point.

Apparently he felt he was untouchable.

He *was* untouchable and remained unprosecuted throughout his life.

Just like Obama, Holder and others are untouchable for fast-n-furious, murdering civilians and gargantuan fraud.

Originally posted by jcarpenter

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by magma
Well there is the proof that he was a dirty man. He did that on live television because he could get away with it. So... Clearly this demonstrates a case that he was inclined.

Do not want to imagine what he got up to and got away with "off camera"

That's a very good point.

Apparently he felt he was untouchable.

He *was* untouchable and remained unprosecuted throughout his life.

Just like Obama, Holder and others are untouchable for fast-n-furious, murdering civilians and gargantuan fraud.

Well done for adding Obama in this discussion. But you are right. He is untouchable as the US elite soldiers are untouchables for killing civilians all over the world. Done so at the express order or knowledge of any Commander In Chief since the American civil war.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by badgerprints
Not to be a killjoy. I don't know this guy.
The girl is wearing a pair of pants but the article says he had his hand up her skirt.
is this a joke?

She was also 19 and appeared to find the situation amusing.

Watching the video several times revels that the girl standing behind her looks down and sees what's happening and she breaks into a grin. I have zero doubt this guy was a monster but I think we are seeing a non-event on this specific video.

Originally posted by jcarpenter

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by badgerprints
Not to be a killjoy. I don't know this guy.
The girl is wearing a pair of pants but the article says he had his hand up her skirt.
is this a joke?

She was also 19 and appeared to find the situation amusing.

Watching the video several times revels that the girl standing behind her looks down and sees what's happening and she breaks into a grin. I have zero doubt this guy was a monster but I think we are seeing a non-event on this specific video.

edit on 27-10-2012 by jcarpenter because: (no reason given)

seeing a non-event on this specific video.

A none event? . . . .

You're own post up until you're final conclusion shown that this was 'an event'

Originally posted by Biigs
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....)

I REMEBERED!

The show was a documentary by film maker Louis Theroux. Check it out, how did this not kick start whats happening now.

He never did any prison for anything he ever did, and now hes dead they want to bring it all out. makes me sad.

Anagrams are fun.

Jimmy Saville = Save ill Jimmy...

& with correct spelling: Jimmy Savile

Jimmy Saville = Jimmy As Evil....

reply to post by Biigs


In that documentary he takes Louis to his pedo lair in the middle of nowhere.

Cant find it on youtube but i found it here for those interested in seeing it:

www.favupload.com...

The guy had money and powerful friends, he was not afraid of talking about his crimes. His autobiography is very revealing, yet he managed to evade justice for his entire life. Had he been put in front of a court, he would have got off anyway...his friends were royalty.

I really dont get those people defending this man here, on the video, and on other websites.

Imagine having a dirty, smelly old pedo sticking his hands down your pants. Imagine this person is Obama, or the Queen. What are you REALLY going to do on live tv?? What would you do fullstop??

You are going to be told you are lying, you are going to be hated by millions.

It doesnt matter her age. Sexual assault is sexual assuault!
Im sure given long enough footage of younger girls and boys in similar situations will become available for viewing.

How can anyone stick up for this mans actions??

Originally posted by badgerprints
Not to be a killjoy. I don't know this guy.
The girl is wearing a pair of pants but the article says he had his hand up her skirt.
is this a joke?

of course its a joke, Its from www.thesun.co.uk

Hmm, even if he didnt really touch her I would still beat his ass

Originally posted by n00bUK



seeing a non-event on this specific video.

A none event? . . . .

You're own post up until you're final conclusion shown that this was 'an event'

My posts on this subject are consistent.

I acknowledged the man was a untouchable monster. But the reactions of the women surrounding him on the stage make this particular event appear "acceptable" in a zany, Benny Hill kind of way. It *was* television.

I'm guessing this woman is a "me too" that is looking for a payout -- weather the payout is 10 minutes of fame or a monetary settlement.

Originally posted by cloudieallover
Why are some people so obsessed with what she could've done?
The fact is the guy molested her and hes a freak, but no. its always the victims fault because they were at the wrong place or didn't act right. The guy who molested her is excused because she didn't react how people say she should have.

Yep, I am totally with you on this. A crime is a crime. Sexual molestation is a crime. The perpetrator is always to blame. Period.

Analogy: You own a candy store. Someone pushes past you and empties the contents of the cash register into a bag and runs out the door. You are too shocked and intimidated to try to make them stop. You are no less a victim of robbery because of your lack of action at keeping their hands out of your cash register.

Comprendo, people?

Originally posted by jcarpenter
But the reactions of the women surrounding him on the stage make this particular event appear "acceptable" in a zany, Benny Hill kind of way. It *was* television.

I'm guessing this woman is a "me too" that is looking for a payout -- weather the payout is 10 minutes of fame or a monetary settlement.

To be honest, if this was a person making a mistake for the first time perhaps you might be right.

When a random person does something irresponsible that they think is funny, fair enough. If a sex offender 'grabs and lifts' ... I think that's something else?

Regardless of what the woman is attempting to do, I still find it disturbing that this was on TV and some people want us to believe the BBC had no idea.