Jimmy Savile Discussion: "Dr" Fox cleared of all charges

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Scotticus Erroticus
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Scotticus Erroticus » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:17 pm

Poser wrote:I take your point, Cal, but the corporation also had its knuckles rapped massively over McAlpine, so the hesitancy could be attributed to that.

I do see what you're getting at, though, and it does seem odd. At least the Mail is here to keep us all right. :shifty:



Image

ImageImage
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Cal » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:19 pm

KKLEIN wrote:As was discussed on Sky News last night, most of the major news outlets aren't covering the story.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen ... a-scandal/

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Moggy » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:31 pm

Cal wrote:
Moggy wrote:Wait, is Cal now arguing that the BBC should hound people over paedophile allegations? :?


Not at all. But it strikes me that in Lord McAlpine's case there was no evidence at all against him. The NCCL's involvement with PIE, on the other hand, is a matter of public record. Do you not think it odd that where there is clearly a public record the BBC should be doing it's best to look the other way?


As KKlein points out, most of the news is not covering this story and the BBC got themselves in trouble over the McAlpine stuff. I wouldn't blame them for being a bit hesitant.

It also sounds like a non-story. Some MPs in the 70s (I don't see them being Labour as too relevant) might have been close with a group that advocated silly things. Where’s the juicy story?

User avatar
Poser
Banned
Joined in 2008
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Poser » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:38 pm

Cal wrote:
KKLEIN wrote:As was discussed on Sky News last night, most of the major news outlets aren't covering the story.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen ... a-scandal/


I guess that answers the question, then. A matter of record, yes, but the fact that she no longer campaigns for this stuff - and is firmly against it - is also a matter of record.

I think it's an interesting sidenote rather than a story.

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Cal » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:53 pm

Moggy wrote:As KKlein points out, most of the news is not covering this story and the BBC got themselves in trouble over the McAlpine stuff. I wouldn't blame them for being a bit hesitant.

It also sounds like a non-story. Some MPs in the 70s (I don't see them being Labour as too relevant) might have been close with a group that advocated silly things. Where’s the juicy story?


Perhaps, perhaps.

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: A silence that grows ever more deafening

But now the dam appears to be bursting. As well as Conservative-leaning newspapers and Tory MPs, even the liberal media have joined the cry, with commentators at the Guardian, Observer, and Mirror – Fleet Street’s most prominent Labour cheerleaders – all urging the three to come clean. Only the BBC has failed – predictably and shamefully – to report any aspect of this hugely important story. Just imagine the feeding frenzy at Broadcasting House if the same charges had been levelled against three members of the Tory elite. So how long do Miss Harman, Mr Dromey and Miss Hewitt think they can remain silent? Miss Hewitt may have left the political stage, but the other two are in Labour’s vanguard. Does Ed Miliband really want this sordid affair hanging over his party as it prepares for a general election? In the eloquent words of Sunday Mirror columnist Carole Malone: ‘How can they ever be taken seriously on ANY issue if they stay silent on this one?’

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z2uG3LkRnK

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Moggy » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:06 pm

Cal wrote:
Moggy wrote:As KKlein points out, most of the news is not covering this story and the BBC got themselves in trouble over the McAlpine stuff. I wouldn't blame them for being a bit hesitant.

It also sounds like a non-story. Some MPs in the 70s (I don't see them being Labour as too relevant) might have been close with a group that advocated silly things. Where’s the juicy story?


Perhaps, perhaps.

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: A silence that grows ever more deafening

But now the dam appears to be bursting. As well as Conservative-leaning newspapers and Tory MPs, even the liberal media have joined the cry, with commentators at the Guardian, Observer, and Mirror – Fleet Street’s most prominent Labour cheerleaders – all urging the three to come clean. Only the BBC has failed – predictably and shamefully – to report any aspect of this hugely important story. Just imagine the feeding frenzy at Broadcasting House if the same charges had been levelled against three members of the Tory elite. So how long do Miss Harman, Mr Dromey and Miss Hewitt think they can remain silent? Miss Hewitt may have left the political stage, but the other two are in Labour’s vanguard. Does Ed Miliband really want this sordid affair hanging over his party as it prepares for a general election? In the eloquent words of Sunday Mirror columnist Carole Malone: ‘How can they ever be taken seriously on ANY issue if they stay silent on this one?’

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z2uG3LkRnK


commentators at the Guardian, Observer, and Mirror


Are these commentators at those papers actual journalists or columns like the Charlie Brooker one? Not that it makes much difference, but I don't think the BBC is set up the same way.

It still seems like a non-story to me and I would say the same if it was Tories, Liberals or UKIP.

This message brought to you by NAMBLA.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Moggy » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:08 pm

And they have reported on it now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26320942

User avatar
Irene Demova
Member
Joined in 2009
AKA: Karl

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Irene Demova » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:14 pm

I'm surprised you're going this hard about the links Cal, if anything given your past posts here I'd have thought you might somewhat sympathise with the pedophile rights side of things.

I'm not too clued up on it but a similar thing happened in the past with the NAMBLA brush being used to tar huge swathes of writers, poets and the like who'd supported the organisation on ideological grounds due to their ties with the initial campaigning alongside the gay rights movement.

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Cal » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:23 pm

Moggy wrote:And they have reported on it now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26320942


Labour leader Ed Miliband has defended Harriet Harman after reports that a group she used to work for had links to paedophile rights campaigners. He said his deputy was "somebody of huge decency and integrity - I don't set any store by these allegations".


They're not 'allegations', though. Ed Milliband and the BBC know that they are a matter of public record. :fp: The deceit is breathtaking.

Also: Irene Demova, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of NAMBLA. They were a misguided bunch of sex pests in the 70s and 80s and they are (if they still exist) the same today. I don't 'sympathise with the paedophile side of things'. I don't support or condone the sexual abuse of anyone, let alone children below of the age of consent. Arguing that it wouldn't be illegal for me to have sexual relations with a consenting 16 year old boy in the UK as of right now is not the same as defending the indefensible.

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Hexx » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:31 pm

Wait. Nambla wasn't made up by South Park.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Moggy » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:49 pm

Cal wrote:They're not 'allegations', though. Ed Milliband and the BBC know that they are a matter of public record. The deceit is breathtaking.


The first link you posted describes this as "accusations". Is Spiked breathtakingly deceitful?

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Cal » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:50 pm

Moggy wrote:
Cal wrote:They're not 'allegations', though. Ed Milliband and the BBC know that they are a matter of public record. The deceit is breathtaking.


The first link you posted describes this as "accusations". Is Spiked breathtakingly deceitful?


Good point. But the matter of public record remains in both instances.

User avatar
SEP
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by SEP » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:53 pm

Hexx wrote:Wait. Nambla wasn't made up by South Park.


Sadly not.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Moggy » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:56 pm

Cal wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Cal wrote:They're not 'allegations', though. Ed Milliband and the BBC know that they are a matter of public record. The deceit is breathtaking.


The first link you posted describes this as "accusations". Is Spiked breathtakingly deceitful?


Good point. But the matter of public record remains in both instances.


To save me trawling through Daily Mail bile, what is the public record? That they were members of a group 40 years ago that had links to another group within which some people wanted a change in the law?

User avatar
Memento Mori
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Emperor Mori

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Memento Mori » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:56 pm

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Hexx wrote:Wait. Nambla wasn't made up by South Park.


Sadly not.

Well I think they made up the North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association but yeah the other one is unfortunately real.

User avatar
Lagamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Lagamorph » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:58 pm

So Dave Lee Travis is to face a retrial on the 2 outstanding charges against him
I have to say I'm genuinely surprised. I honestly thought that after being cleared of 12 other charges the remaining 2 would be dropped. Unless there's some new evidence come to light then I can't really see what a retrial is going to accomplish.
I'm also doubtful of the ability for a fair trial to be had, as the jury will be almost certainly be biased by the fact that he was cleared of 12 very similar charges.

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by captain red dog » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:44 pm

I'll just drop this here:

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Teacher-ch ... story.html

I know it's a cliché, but NICE!

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Cal » Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:50 pm

Moggy wrote:To save me trawling through Daily Mail bile, what is the public record? That they were members of a group 40 years ago that had links to another group within which some people wanted a change in the law?


The Mail discovered that during the 1970s and 80s, Miss Hewitt described PIE – granted formal ‘affiliate’ status from 1975 to the mid-Eighties – in glowing terms as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children’. NCCL archives showed how the pressure group lobbied Parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to ten if the child consented and ‘understood the nature of the act’. It also called for incest to be legalised in what one MP called a ‘Lolita’s charter’.

Miss Harman, as NCCL legal officer, tried to water down child pornography laws. NCCL lawyers acted for PIE members who were questioned by police over their disgusting behaviour.

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/article ... group.html

BBC Newsnight at last began covering a story already more than a week old tonight with a filmed studio interview between Harperson and Newsnight's Laura Kuenssberg. Harperson refused - despite being asked repeatedly to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer - to admit that the NCCL's affiliation with PIE had, in hindsight, been a huge mistake. You can catch the interview on iPlayer (from tomorrow onward, probably).

As I said, the Labour-leaning NCCL's support of a gang of organised paedophiles (of which Jimmy Savile is now claimed to have been a member) is a matter of public record. Unlike the allegations the BBC gleefully (and disastrously) made against Lord McAlpine (Conservative).

The NCCL is now known as 'Liberty'.

‘In stark contrast, Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, which took over the NCCL’s mantle, has condemned the historic links with PIE as a “source of continuing disgust and horror”


Seems odd, then, that Harperson cannot find in herself to simply apologise for an appalling historical lack of judgement.

Albert
Moderator
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Albert » Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:06 am

Is this the same women who said it was a good day to bury bad news during 9/11?

User avatar
Herdanos
Go for it, Danmon!
Joined in 2008
AKA: lol don't ask
Location: Bas-Lag

PostRe: Jimmy Savile Discussion: Ian Watkins guilty
by Herdanos » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:25 am

Cal, this is on the BBC News site now. Thoughts?

Generating Real Conversations About Digital Entertainment

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Garth, Holpil, Met, Mr Grimm, SEP, Tsunade, Zilnad and 158 guests