Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:

Jim'll Mix It.

Oh dear :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27:52 PM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:



Jim'll Mix It.



Oh dear :-)

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/jimll-m...637043.article

They've been around for years, i think I've used them in the distant past. I actually Googled them last week to see if they'd kept the name.

On 12/11/2012 18:52, Owain wrote:
On Nov 12, 6:27 pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:
Jim'll Mix It.
Oh dear :-)

Jim’ll Mix It’s MD Jimmy Taylor told CN he had “no intention of
changing” the brand name.

When asked whether the association with the late Jimmy Savile could
harm his business, Mr Taylor said: “What is Jimmy Savile to do with
me?”

“I am who I am. I’m in concrete, my name’s Jim.”

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/jimll-m...637043.article

Owain

I noticed a card in a local shop window, which has been there for a
while, advertising small removals, called "Jim'll Shift It", has been
removed!

Regards

Syke

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:

Jim'll Mix It.

Oh dear :-)


I saw one of their lorries in London last week. I also thought 'oh dear'!

In message ,
Onetap writes
On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27:52 PM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:



Jim'll Mix It.



Oh dear :-)

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/jimll-m...company-name/8
637043.article

They've been around for years, i think I've used them in the distant
past. I actually Googled them last week to see if they'd kept the name.

Although these sexual deviants appear to have gone down


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...KmgRi4tXdbUSLM
yfd1xULAQx3BHpyF1Vt1V3NP2uyvQf2Tw

--
geoff

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:56:49 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message ,
Onetap writes
On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27:52 PM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:



Jim'll Mix It.



Oh dear :-)

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/jimll-m...company-name/8
637043.article

They've been around for years, i think I've used them in the distant
past. I actually Googled them last week to see if they'd kept the name.

Although these sexual deviants appear to have gone down


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...KmgRi4tXdbUSLM
yfd1xULAQx3BHpyF1Vt1V3NP2uyvQf2Tw

Has anything been actually legally _proven_ against Savile, or has
much of this allegation been from an undercurrent of people trying to
"jump on the bandwagon" and gain some money from his (probably very
large) estate?

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

--
Frank Erskine

Yes I know, and there have been stories for years of people having to earn
their entry into the parties some of the stars and djs threw back in the 70s
etc.
Its all down to temptation and the purks of being famous. So many have
succumbed.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:56:49 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message ,
Onetap writes
On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27:52 PM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:



Jim'll Mix It.



Oh dear :-)

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/jimll-m...company-name/8
637043.article

They've been around for years, i think I've used them in the distant
past. I actually Googled them last week to see if they'd kept the name.

Although these sexual deviants appear to have gone down


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...KmgRi4tXdbUSLM
yfd1xULAQx3BHpyF1Vt1V3NP2uyvQf2Tw

Has anything been actually legally _proven_ against Savile, or has
much of this allegation been from an undercurrent of people trying to
"jump on the bandwagon" and gain some money from his (probably very
large) estate?

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

--
Frank Erskine

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:06:28 AM UTC, Frank Erskine wrote:

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

Frank Erskine

I think there were many allegations before he died but, since a dead person can't sue for libel, they were only published after he died.

There probably wasn't enough evidence to prosecute and the newspapers wouldn't want to get into a libel suit for something they couldn't prove. Undoubtedly, many are jumping on the 'Jim fixed me' bus.

Has anything been actually legally _proven_ against Savile, or has
much of this allegation been from an undercurrent of people trying to
"jump on the bandwagon" and gain some money from his (probably very
large) estate?

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.


It's no longer about Saville, more about all the snakes in the pit
biting each other.

On 13/11/2012 02:06, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:56:49 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message ,
Onetap writes
On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27:52 PM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:



Jim'll Mix It.



Oh dear :-)

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/jimll-m...company-name/8
637043.article

They've been around for years, i think I've used them in the distant
past. I actually Googled them last week to see if they'd kept the name.

Although these sexual deviants appear to have gone down


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...KmgRi4tXdbUSLM
yfd1xULAQx3BHpyF1Vt1V3NP2uyvQf2Tw

Has anything been actually legally _proven_ against Savile, or has

Chances are you will never be able to prove anything in the legal sense
since he can't stand trial.

much of this allegation been from an undercurrent of people trying to
"jump on the bandwagon" and gain some money from his (probably very
large) estate?

There will almost certainly be some of that happening, but it seems
unlikely that accounts for all.

The fact the various police investigations seem to be taking it
seriously would suggest that there was corroborating evidence brought by
independent witnesses / victims - and possibly with details that are not
in the public domain.

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

IIUC there was plenty of undercurrent of suggestion, rumour, doubt etc
expressed during his life time.

Many cases are going to be difficult to judge since they happened in a
very different age with very different accepted norms of behaviour.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The fact the various police investigations seem to be taking it
seriously would suggest that there was corroborating evidence brought by
independent witnesses / victims - and possibly with details that are not
in the public domain.



The police love all that. A nice little gravy train with lots of
overtime. Just add it to the list of pointless tasks they waste their
time on

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:06:28 AM UTC, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:56:49 +0000, geoff wrote:



In message ,

Onetap writes

On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27:52 PM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:







Jim'll Mix It.







Oh dear :-)



http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/jimll-m...company-name/8

637043.article



They've been around for years, i think I've used them in the distant

past. I actually Googled them last week to see if they'd kept the name.



Although these sexual deviants appear to have gone down





https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...KmgRi4tXdbUSLM

yfd1xULAQx3BHpyF1Vt1V3NP2uyvQf2Tw



Has anything been actually legally _proven_ against Savile, or has

much of this allegation been from an undercurrent of people trying to

"jump on the bandwagon" and gain some money from his (probably very

large) estate?



It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

Most was known about before he died by peole were paid off or threatened.
A friend of mine knew about his necrophilla back in 2005.

It's onyl now anyone will believe it, of course there will be peole jumping on teh bandwagon but iof they'ev been abuse they should be allowed to climb on.






--

Frank Erskine

On 13/11/2012 12:10, whisky-dave wrote:

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

Most was known about before he died by peole were paid off or
threatened. A friend of mine knew about his necrophilla back in
2005.

Not heard mention of that before... still its one way to make sure you
don't get complaints from the victim I suppose!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:30:23 PM UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/11/2012 12:10, whisky-dave wrote:



It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.



Most was known about before he died by peole were paid off or

threatened. A friend of mine knew about his necrophilla back in

2005.



Not heard mention of that before...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...s-8222948.html



still its one way to make sure you

don't get complaints from the victim I suppose!

That's true or from kids, or the majority of hospital patients
that were visited it seems.

But those in the morgue were the quietest, I was told heb was given the keys not sure why no one asked any questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azbMHP8qw6c&feature=plcp

it was a friends first attempt at music using garageband, he made a few things up but the majority was from known sources he mostly used wiki

On 13/11/2012 02:06, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:56:49 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message ,
Onetap writes
On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27:52 PM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:



Jim'll Mix It.



Oh dear :-)

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/jimll-m...company-name/8
637043.article

They've been around for years, i think I've used them in the distant
past. I actually Googled them last week to see if they'd kept the name.

Although these sexual deviants appear to have gone down


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...KmgRi4tXdbUSLM
yfd1xULAQx3BHpyF1Vt1V3NP2uyvQf2Tw

Has anything been actually legally _proven_ against Savile, or has
much of this allegation been from an undercurrent of people trying to
"jump on the bandwagon" and gain some money from his (probably very
large) estate?

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.


that would explain the investigation into why the dpp dropped the case
while he was alive then?

On 13/11/2012 10:21, stuart noble wrote:

The fact the various police investigations seem to be taking it
seriously would suggest that there was corroborating evidence brought by
independent witnesses / victims - and possibly with details that are not
in the public domain.



The police love all that. A nice little gravy train with lots of
overtime. Just add it to the list of pointless tasks they waste their
time on



Doesn't sound like a waste of time if there really was a sex ring at the
beeb.
You didn't work there so why worry?

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:29:48 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:


Most was known about before he died by peole were paid off or
threatened. A friend of mine knew about his necrophilla back in
2005.

Not heard mention of that before... still its one way to make sure you
don't get complaints from the victim I suppose!

You only get to hear about it when
Some rotten body splits on them.


G.Harman

On 13/11/2012 14:28, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/11/2012 10:21, stuart noble wrote:

The fact the various police investigations seem to be taking it
seriously would suggest that there was corroborating evidence brought by
independent witnesses / victims - and possibly with details that are not
in the public domain.



The police love all that. A nice little gravy train with lots of
overtime. Just add it to the list of pointless tasks they waste their
time on



Doesn't sound like a waste of time if there really was a sex ring at the
beeb.
You didn't work there so why worry?

I'm paying for it, that's why I worry.
A bit bloody late to be wheeling out a bunch of geriatrics isn't it? The
BBC created and nurtured the monster, and now he's dead. Let's just make
sure the current crop of non entities don't get too big for their boots.

On Nov 13, 2:06*am, Frank Erskine
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:56:49 +0000, geoff wrote:
In message ,
Onetap writes
On Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27:52 PM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Noticed in local Yellow Pages, ready mixed concrete firm called:

Jim'll Mix It.

Oh dear :-)

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/jimll-m...company-name/8
637043.article

They've been around for years, i think I've used them in the distant
past. I actually Googled them last week to see if they'd kept the name.

Although these sexual deviants appear to have gone down

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...moioKmgRi4tXdb....
yfd1xULAQx3BHpyF1Vt1V3NP2uyvQf2Tw

Has anything been actually legally _proven_ against Savile, or has
much of this allegation been from an undercurrent of people trying to
"jump on the bandwagon" and gain some money from his (probably very
large) estate?

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

--
Frank Erskine

Compensayshun...........

On 13/11/12 08:52, Onetap wrote:
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:06:28 AM UTC, Frank Erskine wrote:

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

Frank Erskine

I think there were many allegations before he died but, since a dead person can't sue for libel, they were only published after he died.

There probably wasn't enough evidence to prosecute and the newspapers wouldn't want to get into a libel suit for something they couldn't prove. Undoubtedly, many are jumping on the 'Jim fixed me' bus.

Newspapers seem ready enough to print rubbish and be sued in many other
cases. Why were they so reluctant in this case?


--
djc

On Nov 13, 4:30*pm, stuart noble wrote:
On 13/11/2012 14:28, dennis@home wrote:









On 13/11/2012 10:21, stuart noble wrote:

The fact the various police investigations seem to be taking it
seriously would suggest that there was corroborating evidence brought by
independent witnesses / victims - and possibly with details that are not
in the public domain.

The police love all that. A nice little gravy train with lots of
overtime. Just add it to the list of pointless tasks they waste their
time on

Doesn't sound like a waste of time if there really was a sex ring at the
beeb.
You didn't work there so why worry?

I'm paying for it, that's why I worry.
A bit bloody late to be wheeling out a bunch of geriatrics isn't it? The
BBC created and nurtured the monster, and now he's dead. Let's just make
sure the current crop of non entities don't get too big for their boots.

I bet Bill Oddie is glad he is out of it.

I hope that there is more to be said about the antics of Jonathon
Ross. He was always bragging about the female guests he kissed. I
wonder what else he go up to beside making abusive perverted phone
calls.

The last time I watched his show he called one guest a MILF. She
should have walked out on him but, ever the performer, she stood for
it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Eql...eature=related

This is Bill Oddie on the story. Quite a contrast (and in my opinion
fair comment) to David Icke (a man with serious problems of his own by
the sound of it.)

On 13/11/12 16:41, harry wrote:

Compensayshun...........

Was that a Cliff Richard Flop of the last century?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 13/11/2012 17:17, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Nov 13, 4:30 pm, stuart noble wrote:
On 13/11/2012 14:28, dennis@home wrote:









On 13/11/2012 10:21, stuart noble wrote:

The fact the various police investigations seem to be taking it
seriously would suggest that there was corroborating evidence brought by
independent witnesses / victims - and possibly with details that are not
in the public domain.

The police love all that. A nice little gravy train with lots of
overtime. Just add it to the list of pointless tasks they waste their
time on

Doesn't sound like a waste of time if there really was a sex ring at the
beeb.
You didn't work there so why worry?

I'm paying for it, that's why I worry.
A bit bloody late to be wheeling out a bunch of geriatrics isn't it? The
BBC created and nurtured the monster, and now he's dead. Let's just make
sure the current crop of non entities don't get too big for their boots.

I bet Bill Oddie is glad he is out of it.

I hope that there is more to be said about the antics of Jonathon
Ross. He was always bragging about the female guests he kissed. I
wonder what else he go up to beside making abusive perverted phone
calls.

The last time I watched his show he called one guest a MILF. She
should have walked out on him but, ever the performer, she stood for
it.

I had to look that up. I recorded his interview with Damian Lewis so I
could skip the smut, and the feeble attempts to be amusing, and the
other guests.

On 13/11/2012 16:51, djc wrote:
On 13/11/12 08:52, Onetap wrote:
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:06:28 AM UTC, Frank Erskine wrote:

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

Frank Erskine

I think there were many allegations before he died but, since a dead
person can't sue for libel, they were only published after he died.

There probably wasn't enough evidence to prosecute and the
newspapers wouldn't want to get into a libel suit for something they
couldn't prove. Undoubtedly, many are jumping on the 'Jim fixed me' bus.

Newspapers seem ready enough to print rubbish and be sued in many other
cases. Why were they so reluctant in this case?

They are only willing to be sued if they think they have a reasonable
chance of winning. One editor who investigated stated that he didn't
think the women who made the claims would stand up to the rigours of a
court case, so he decided not to publish.

Colin Bignell

On 13/11/2012 16:51, djc wrote:
On 13/11/12 08:52, Onetap wrote:
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:06:28 AM UTC, Frank Erskine wrote:

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

Frank Erskine

I think there were many allegations before he died but, since a dead
person can't sue for libel, they were only published after he died.

There probably wasn't enough evidence to prosecute and the
newspapers wouldn't want to get into a libel suit for something they
couldn't prove. Undoubtedly, many are jumping on the 'Jim fixed me' bus.

Newspapers seem ready enough to print rubbish and be sued in many other
cases. Why were they so reluctant in this case?


If all the information now available had been in the possession of a
team on a single newspaper, they might have done. But it was all so
spread out that none of them had the picture.

--
Rod

stuart noble wrote:

A bit bloody late to be wheeling out a bunch of geriatrics isn't it? The
BBC created and nurtured the monster, and now he's dead. Let's just make
sure the current crop of non entities don't get too big for their boots.

Here's my 2p's worth:

1. To most people Savile was a good man who was jolly and raised money
for many charities.
2. Channel 4 should not have exposed him when he was dead, destroying
most people's feelings for him. However I can see why they did, as it
certainly would be compelling viewing, including myself. It's the
modern equivalent to what the 'News of the Screws' put out daily.
3. Nobody is all good or all bad. Savile's badness was a small part of
his activities, and is nowhere as bad as killing people. He does not
warrant the term "monster" that you and others bandy about.
4. I agree there's no point in recriminations on all parties so long
after the events, being outraged with cover-ups at a time when
attitudes were different.
5. The recriminations have now escalated and are being applied to
other possible deviants, the BBC is being 'investigated' for doing
this without evidence, questions in the house etc. etc. etc.
Can we please confine ourselves to present problems rather than waste
time on a dead man?
--
Dave W

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:10:16 GMT, (Dave W) wrote:

stuart noble wrote:

A bit bloody late to be wheeling out a bunch of geriatrics isn't it? The
BBC created and nurtured the monster, and now he's dead. Let's just make
sure the current crop of non entities don't get too big for their boots.

Here's my 2p's worth:

1. To most people Savile was a good man who was jolly and raised money
for many charities.
2. Channel 4 should not have exposed him when he was dead, destroying
most people's feelings for him. However I can see why they did, as it
certainly would be compelling viewing, including myself. It's the
modern equivalent to what the 'News of the Screws' put out daily.
3. Nobody is all good or all bad. Savile's badness was a small part of
his activities, and is nowhere as bad as killing people. He does not
warrant the term "monster" that you and others bandy about.
4. I agree there's no point in recriminations on all parties so long
after the events, being outraged with cover-ups at a time when
attitudes were different.
5. The recriminations have now escalated and are being applied to
other possible deviants, the BBC is being 'investigated' for doing
this without evidence, questions in the house etc. etc. etc.
Can we please confine ourselves to present problems rather than waste
time on a dead man?

"De mortuis nil nisi bonum", as they say.

--
Frank Erskine

On 14/11/2012 00:10, Dave W wrote:

3. Nobody is all good or all bad. Savile's badness was a small part of
his activities, and is nowhere as bad as killing people.



Tell that to the victims!
You need watching as I don't think we can trust your moral judgement.

On 14/11/2012 00:49, Frank Erskine wrote:
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum", as they say.

As they _used_ to say...

Andy

On 14/11/2012 00:10, Dave W wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

A bit bloody late to be wheeling out a bunch of geriatrics isn't it? The
BBC created and nurtured the monster, and now he's dead. Let's just make
sure the current crop of non entities don't get too big for their boots.

Here's my 2p's worth:

1. To most people Savile was a good man who was jolly and raised money
for many charities.

Most people never met him and only saw the carefully cultivated public
image. Even then many, myself included, didn't like him and thought his
only redeeming feature was the work he did for charity.

2. Channel 4 should not have exposed him when he was dead, destroying
most people's feelings for him....

Why not? Any such feelings appear to have been based upon a false image.

3. Nobody is all good or all bad. Savile's badness was a small part of
his activities,...

ISTM that the whole point of most of his activities was to put him in a
position where he could indulge in his paedophilia and bully or buy off
anyone who tried to expose him.

4. I agree there's no point in recriminations on all parties so long
after the events, being outraged with cover-ups at a time when
attitudes were different....

The fact that they were different does not mean that they were right,
even at the time. Would you say that we should not be outraged at, say,
the social engineering of the Khmer Rouge, because they had a different
attitude?

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:01:16 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

If all the information now available had been in the possession of a
team on a single newspaper, they might have done. But it was all so
spread out that none of them had the picture.

He wasn't stupid.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:21:46 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

Even then many, myself included, didn't like him and thought his
only redeeming feature was the work he did for charity.

In his mind, I venture to suggest, the charity work was done out of
guilt and a way to further his public appeal. Which was the greater of
the two, I don't know.

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:41:38 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

It just seems odd that ALL accusation occured after his death.

--
Frank Erskine

Compensayshun...........

You're on the list, Harry.

On 15/11/2012 01:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/11/2012 00:10, Dave W wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

4. I agree there's no point in recriminations on all parties so long
after the events, being outraged with cover-ups at a time when
attitudes were different....

The fact that they were different does not mean that they were right,
even at the time. Would you say that we should not be outraged at, say,
the social engineering of the Khmer Rouge, because they had a different
attitude?

Indeed. Even though I accept attitudes were different; and DJs etc
probably felt it perfectly acceptable to take advantage of all the free
totty lining up at the stage doors with the pre-meditated intent of
getting jiggy with someone famous. There is a world of difference
between not asking an apparently all gown up and gagging for it teenager
exactly how she is, and trawling children's homes looking for clearly
under age children to coerce or manipulate.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/11/2012 05:34, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/11/2012 01:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/11/2012 00:10, Dave W wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

4. I agree there's no point in recriminations on all parties so long
after the events, being outraged with cover-ups at a time when
attitudes were different....

The fact that they were different does not mean that they were right,
even at the time. Would you say that we should not be outraged at, say,
the social engineering of the Khmer Rouge, because they had a different
attitude?

Indeed. Even though I accept attitudes were different; and DJs etc
probably felt it perfectly acceptable to take advantage of all the free
totty lining up at the stage doors with the pre-meditated intent of
getting jiggy with someone famous. There is a world of difference
between not asking an apparently all gown up and gagging for it teenager
exactly how she is, and trawling children's homes looking for clearly
under age children to coerce or manipulate.



Agreed with this.

The "standards at the time" argument is (morally) only a fag-paper away
from "Befehl ist Befehl". Something akin to Nuremberg Principle IV needs
to prevail, IMHO. (Had to look that up!)

--
Rod

On Nov 14, 12:10*am, (Dave W) wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
A bit bloody late to be wheeling out a bunch of geriatrics isn't it? The
BBC created and nurtured the monster, and now he's dead. Let's just make
sure the current crop of non entities don't get too big for their boots.

Here's my 2p's worth:

1. To most people Savile was a good man who was jolly and raised money
for many charities.
2. Channel 4 should not have exposed him when he was dead, destroying
most people's feelings for him. However I can see why they did, as it
certainly would be compelling viewing, including myself. It's the
modern equivalent to what the 'News of the Screws' put out daily.
3. Nobody is all good or all bad. Savile's badness was a small part of
his activities, and is nowhere as bad as killing people. He does not
warrant the term "monster" that you and others bandy about.
4. I agree there's no point in recriminations on all parties so long
after the events, being outraged with cover-ups at a time when
attitudes were different.
5. The recriminations have now escalated and are being applied to
other possible deviants, the BBC is being 'investigated' for doing
this without evidence, questions in the house etc. etc. etc.
Can we please confine ourselves to present problems rather than waste
time on a dead man?
--
Dave W

The past problems might be ongoing.
Also an example to the others.

On 15/11/2012 08:19, polygonum wrote:
On 15/11/2012 05:34, John Rumm wrote:
On 15/11/2012 01:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/11/2012 00:10, Dave W wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

4. I agree there's no point in recriminations on all parties so long
after the events, being outraged with cover-ups at a time when
attitudes were different....

The fact that they were different does not mean that they were right,
even at the time. Would you say that we should not be outraged at, say,
the social engineering of the Khmer Rouge, because they had a different
attitude?

Indeed. Even though I accept attitudes were different; and DJs etc
probably felt it perfectly acceptable to take advantage of all the free
totty lining up at the stage doors with the pre-meditated intent of
getting jiggy with someone famous. There is a world of difference
between not asking an apparently all gown up and gagging for it teenager
exactly how she is, and trawling children's homes looking for clearly

needs an "old" ^^^^ in there...

under age children to coerce or manipulate.



Agreed with this.

The "standards at the time" argument is (morally) only a fag-paper away
from "Befehl ist Befehl". Something akin to Nuremberg Principle IV needs
to prevail, IMHO. (Had to look that up!)

Its one of those argument by extension things... there was a time where
an undercurrent of sexual harassment in the workplace (and generally)
was tolerated, but that is a world away from rape or child abuse. The
difficulty now I suppose is that there is going to be a mixed class of
victims coming forward - some who have suffered from serious criminal
assaults, others may have been groped, or subjected to persistent lewd
innuendo etc in circumstances where at the time the prevailing attitudes
were "that is just one of those things you should expect".

Its probably unfair to demonise one individual for the lesser offences
now, since there were many involved in such practice at the time, and it
required a societal attitude shift over decades to change that
behaviour. IMHO it is however fair (although sadly a bit late) to vilify
them for behaviour that would have seen them imprisoned at the time -
especially when it emerges that it was a serial pattern of behaviour.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/11/2012 02:29, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:21:46 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

Even then many, myself included, didn't like him and thought his
only redeeming feature was the work he did for charity.

In his mind, I venture to suggest, the charity work was done out of
guilt and a way to further his public appeal. Which was the greater of
the two, I don't know.

I can't help but think you are being overly generous by assuming he
might have felt guilt, rather than simply choosing to do things that put
him into close contact with children.

Colin Bignell

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:21:29 PM UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/11/2012 02:29, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
In his mind, I venture to suggest, the charity work was
done out of guilt and a way to further his public appeal.
Which was the greater of the two, I don't know.

I can't help but think you are being overly generous by
assuming he might have felt guilt, rather than simply choosing
to do things that put him into close contact with children.

Possibly, possibly not. I have seen it suggested that the
reason that Catholic Church had so many paedophiles was that
some of them /knew/ their desires were transgressive, and so
were attracted to a career which required celibacy. The problem
was that when it came to it, they weren't able to maintain the
celibacy.