Overheard At Yate v Gloucester Tonight: Jimmy Saville To Be Investigated By Police

[Loose]

Loosely - Like I said it's good to see you taking it seriously, what if it was your daughter who was abused by either Savile or Gadd, wouldn't you want to see them brought to book

 

Well Rhodesly - Comments like this one and too many to mention do little to convince that you are taking this seriously. TW@T.

 

I feel sorry for Jimmy Savile, he's barely cold in the ground and, despite all the millions he raised for charity, he's being taken to pieces, disgusting!

[Rhodes]

Loosely – But we’re not talking about Jimmy Savile are we, we’re talking about Gary Glitter, try to keep up!

[Loose]

Loosely – But we’re not talking about Jimmy Savile are we, we’re talking about Gary Glitter, try to keep up!

 

How strange, I thought you mentioned Savile. Yes, here we are TW@T.

 

Loosely - Like I said it's good to see you taking it seriously, what if it was your daughter who was abused by either Savile or Gadd, wouldn't you want to see them brought to book

[Loose]

Anyway, enough of Rhodesly's twaddle, reading the link below, if anyone has the time or the stomach for it we can quite easily see why anyone working for an institution so riddled with deviants such as Rhodesly's workplace might find the subject one to distract and obfuscate over.

 

 

A good read, perhaps understanding the culture of the BBC leading up to Savile's time will explain why not just the BBC allowed him to get away with so much:-

 

http://media.lrb.co.uk/2012-10-27-andrew-ohagan-light-entertainment.html

[Rhodes]

Loosely - Why can’t you just post something constructive and relevant about the case rather than keep trying to score points, there’s much to discuss. I’ll start the ball rolling, do you agree with Chris Patten’s stance, he seems very open and transparent doesn’t he.

[Loose]

Well if you want to start with something constructive then try and be more accurate in your posts, show a bit of humility once in a while when you've been proved wrong, apologise and move on rather than try and score points yourself.

 

I've no time for Chris Patten or any of the BBC ex-governors now coming out of the woodwork saying that they knew something was wrong with Savile's behaviour but didn't speak up. Cnuts and cowards the lot of them and of course running true to form they are all scrabbling to cover their own or even group arses.

 

Paul Gadd is simply low hanging fruit for the police to have a chat with, he's been named, he's got a record. Anyone who couldn't see him being taken in for questioning would be imbecilic whilst the rest of us are quietly hopeful that the authorities are going to take this a bit more seriously and prosecute any and all of the offenders retired or within the BBC and establishment currently looking for rocks to crawl under or hide in the open by pointing the finger first. That even if they are dead and buried their reputations are shattered and we can call a sex offender a sex offender. Witch hunt? No, the institutionalised abuse that's been going on needs exposing to the full.

[HKP]

But its not just the BBC Goverors that may have known something... Esther Rantzen has said she knew what he was up to but had no evidence.

[Loose]

But its not just the BBC Goverors that may have known something... Esther Rantzen has said she knew what he was up to but had no evidence.

 

Yes, you are right, it's not just the BBC Governors but they are where the buck stops. Producers through production assistants to "stars" and Heads of Departments saw, heard of, knew what was going on within that time frame and if not facilitating and directly aiding abuse some were responsible and had a duty to bring it to an end, the ones who can't be prosecuted should have their careers ended and be outcast with society. Even dear old Esther. Crocodile tears imo.

[Eastside Urchin]

Oh dear

[Rhodes]

Loosely – That’s more like it, well done and you make some good constructive points however I don’t necessarily agree that Paul Gadd is simply ‘low hanging fruit’ as you put it, there’s no smoke without fire is there!

[Loose]

Loosely – That’s more like it, well done and you make some good constructive points however I don’t necessarily agree that Paul Gadd is simply ‘low hanging fruit’ as you put it, there’s no smoke without fire is there!

 

I'm not sure you understand what is meant by "low hanging fruit" Rhodesly. Low hanging fruit is the easiest plucked from the tree. Gadd having been named in the documentary, already having an existing record for these types of offences is easy pickings, not a lot of hard work in identifying and certainly not part of the establishment.

 

If you wanted an easy scapegoat you'd go no further, or if you like, "the sacrificial lamb" being hung out to dry. Perhaps the red top reading brigade might be happy to look no further but ideally rocks should be lifted, victims should be assured that naming further names will not bring them further into vulnerability. At the same time corroboration and any possible further evidence combined to make cases against others involved or similarly practising and then finally in eliminating any existing culture within not just the BBC and Entertainment Industry but also figures within and without the Establishment who not only helped procure victims but turned a blind eye need prosecuting where applicable or naming and shaming. Where you've got an organisation involved with children or the vulnerable you don't want people involved who have already been found wanting in the protection stakes.

[Rhodes]

Loosely – That’s all fascinating stuff but, like I said, at the end of the day there’s no smoke without fire

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

David Icke mentioned as far back as 1992 that Jimmy Saville was a 'danger to children'.

 

http://rinf.com/alt-news/media-news/mainstream-media-police-bbc-protected-savile-since-the-80s/16746/ makes for uncomfortable reading.

[Loose]

Loosely – That’s all fascinating stuff but, like I said, at the end of the day there’s no smoke without fire

 

Yes, we all know it's your favourite saying but it doesn't mean much on its own does it? What smoke, Glitter being named?

 

Of course, but he's an obvious, easy facking catch being a recorded past offender. Where is the shock in that? Let's see the police go after the rest as well eh? Or would you rather that be forgotten about?

 

Maybe you are just deliberately being imbecilic.

[Rhodes]

Loosely - There was more to it than the Police turning up at Gary Glitter's Marylebone flat for the fun of it and carting him off for questionning, there have been pictures on tv of him and Savile together in the early 70's at the BBC studios for Top Of The Pops so, like I said, there's no smoke without fire.

[Loose]

Loosely - There was more to it than the Police turning up at Gary Glitter's Marylebone flat for the fun of it and carting him off for questionning, there have been pictures on tv of him and Savile together in the early 70's at the BBC studios for Top Of The Pops so, like I said, there's no smoke without fire.

 

Yes Rhodesly, you must be the last person in the free world to have posted this on a forum. But well done for catching up.

 

NB. Is it me or are you back on the approved posting again? What have you done this time?

[Rhodes]

Loosely – I was simply stating fact that’s all, I thought that’s what you like to deal in so I really can’t win with you can I. The trouble with you is that you come across as a know all who has an opinion on everything as if you know how to solve the World’s problems overnight, your two year venture into running a Football Club for example proved that you should sometimes take a back seat.

[Rhodes]

Who heard Caroline's interview with Max Clifford earlier this morning, he showed his true sinister colours and she really took him to the cleaners like I've heard no interviewer do before!

Did anybody happen to hear Caroline Barker interview Max Clifford on Radio 5 Live Breakfast at the weekend, he totally and surprisingly fell on his sword, admitting that anything went in the early 70's and that it was more or less the done thing what Savile did with young girls, when Caroline took him to task on his comments he threw all his toys out of the pram and had a go at her for daring to question him.

[Loose]

Loosely – I was simply stating fact that’s all, I thought that’s what you like to deal in so I really can’t win with you can I. The trouble with you is that you come across as a know all who has an opinion on everything as if you know how to solve the World’s problems overnight, your two year venture into running a Football Club for example proved that you should sometimes take a back seat.

 

Oh dear Rhodesly, there's that chip on your shoulder again. It seems that you'd like to be right all the time, however your short lived stints as unofficial nobody at more clubs than Tiger Woods perhaps proves that you should take a back seat.

[Loose]

Is it me or are you back on the approved posting again? What have you done this time?

 

Rhodesly - you seem to have missed answering this polite question, given your new expertise in stating facts isn't it a bit remiss and hypocritical to be so frugal with a couple?