http://lifeonchildreninthemix....RCH_FREEMASONRY.html

As for John Leslie, there werent children involved

I agree with this. However why connect Jimmy Saville to it in any way?

Yes, just rape charges so thats allright.

No of course it isnt right ! But the thread is about JS and children. Yes it may have wondered off to "trial by media/internet" , but abusing children and being accused of raping grown women, are separate issues, albeit very serious, but two different issues , none the less IMO 

1. That was the tenor of the thead from the very first post - the man was being condemned without evidence, based on rumour. It didn't wander off. I pointed out that that was what was going on.

 

2. "Raping grown women" ? What? I find that comment bizarre and somewhat offensive. Perpetrators of both crimes go on the Sex Offenders register, they're separate offences but of equal gravity. Abuse is abuse.

The point i was making, as i made clear, that this thread is about Jimmy Savile. Of course abuse is abuse in all levels. What i said was, child abuse and adult abuse is two different issues as regards the context of this thread. You are slightly moving the goal posts.............

Both acts are abhorrent,imo perpetrators of either should get life.I could be wrong but what I think Sky was trying to say is that the systematic abuse children ,of vulnerable children,,being passed around to these sick barstewards as insignificant playthings where they are repeatedly raped sodomised and tortured does make it more sickening especially when it is covered up.Rape is about control more than the act,the abuse of children  is about something different altogether.

Yes it is two different issues x

Off to make the tea!  

Not really... you're missing the main point.

 

The reason I mentioned other media figures accused or convicted of sexual offences was to make the point - like them, surely Jimmy Saville would have had a charge brought against him at some stage??? This was in response to the suggestion that he was being protected because of his supposed influence/money.

 

I didn't like Jimmy Saville until I saw the biographical profiles of him following his death. I'm pretty sure I read even Louis Theroux said nice things about him then - and he did the infamous interview. Jimmy Saville struck me as a good man, a humanitarian. He was a chrisitan who actually put his ideals into practice. Sure he was odd and eccentric. I kind of admired him for going his own way and not following convention, actually. 

 

Some grubby little blogger [The Merovee "article" quoted at length in this thread] throwing nasty and salacious accusations at him doesn't diminish Jimmy Saville i.m.o. He made a fortune and gave it away. He could have built up an empire being such a gifted entrepeneur, but put his hard work into good causes. He led a hard early life, down the mines for several years resulting in an injury which nealry paralysed him. By all accounts his mother was a cold fish who wasn't impressed by his achievments. Maybe he was always trying to gain her love and approval, and thats why he called her "The Duchess" and was somewhat obsessed with her

 

Jimmy Saville - an odd man but a fundamentally good man, thats my view. 

Fair enough Rosie, and a good post 

I also said in a previous post, that anyone being Knighted, goes thru rigorous checks, so seems unusual that he would be given that honour if something wasnt right. 
I am neither condoning nor condemning , but i do question certain behaviour and comment on that. As is forum life  

Well said Skylark  

Sorry if I was rude, 'tis my Irish temper 

I am Scottish, got one of them too  Nae probs 

JS never touched me up so I know nothing but i have heard things about him but just it down to him being a dirty old man..I never wrote the article just put it here for people to read..it does'nt mean I believe or disbelieve....

Jimmy Saville - an odd man but a fundamentally good man, thats my view. 

 

 

That reminds me of the landlord in the Joanna Yates case.He was eccentric,and some defined him as odd,when he was arrested,wrongfully,I remember folk commenting how he *Looked* like he was capable of things,his face plastered all over the papers and he was innocent .

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - not sure where I stand on this TBH - he appeared to me a grubby, perverse individual. But .............he did a lot for charity - for that he is respected and revered but ..........innocent till proven guilty I suppose.

I think he was awarded major damages from the scummy News of the world etc.

And rightly so Katty,if they hadn't arrested and successfully prosecuted the real killer there always would have been fingers pointed at  that poor man,

Thats a good comparison, Lee. Poor man. I'm glad he sued them and won.

You know.... you only have to go and walk around the National Spinal Injuries Unit at Stoke Mandeville to see the good he did.

True and that counts for a lot but if he is/was guilty of sexuAL  crimes against minors does that exonerate him? 

One last point. This story surfaced as a result of an attack on the BBC by the Telegraph who alleged that the Beeb had spiked a Newsnight investigation into certain individuals.