Serj Tankian Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256223/BREAKING-NEWS-Comedian-Jim-Davidson-arrested-suspicion-sexual-offences-Jimmy-Savile-detectives.html this has been going on for a bit now wonder when the charges will come
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 We can safely say that no black or Asian children were touched up then...
Tommy Wiseau Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 If you could choose one person to get disgraced and locked away, that vile **** of a man would be near the top
The Mighty Thor Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 We can safely say that no black or Asian children were touched up then...
Hømme Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I had a feeling his name would appear at some point.
H J Simpson Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 puts a whole new spin on 'no-dad waistcoat'
ToadKiller Dog Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 What's even more criminal is that he was once voted Britians funniest man ! .
Serj Tankian Posted January 2, 2013 Author Posted January 2, 2013 seen that there is a famous name from his day on suicide watch in the priory on fiddling charges and cabt arrest him till he is out of the priory he is 84 . Someone else arrested yesterday from showbiz circles . Paul Daniels admittting kissing school girls .
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Wonder if big Walter knew he'd been nick nicked?
Zico Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 puts a whole new spin on 'no-dad waistcoat' Puts a new spin on his 'hilarious' nick-nick catchphrase. Aye, right in the nick-nick you racist bell-end.
Ulysses Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 A couple of posts have had to be removed by the moderators. The next person to speculate on a name, hint at a name or drop clues to a name will be out of here. I won't close the thread yet, though maybe I should - I have a feeling a moderator will close it just after issuing a ban.
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Uly, not questioning your removal (and apologies) but the way you have written that sentence implies that I can't link the Herald Sun Melbourne story about Operation Yewtree as it all but names a suspect. Your clarification would be appreciated and I can PM the link if that helps?
Ulysses Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Uly, not questioning your removal (and apologies) but the way you have written that sentence implies that I can't link the Herald Sun Melbourne story about Operation Yewtree as it all but names a suspect. Your clarification would be appreciated and I can PM the link if that helps? I got your PM, thanks, and I read the article. It doesn't name anyone, and the article doesn't appear to be in breach of defamation law either in Australia or Canada. So there's no reason not to post the link. Of course, some poor gom will then pounce and say a name - but as I often say, you can't always protect people from themselves.
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 http://www.heraldsun...o-1226528150895 Here's the link I was talking about. From this it is easy to speculate on who another suspect is but I will say no more than that.
Ulysses Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 ....but I will say no more than that. And I'm sure no-one else will either.
leginten Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 The BBC news has just carried a report on Jim Davidson's arrest. Curiously enough, the name of the broadcasting corporation itself wasn't mentioned once in the report. A remarkable omission. Coming soon: more reports on institutional scandals where you have to guess the name of the institution involved. Should certainly keep viewers on their toes.
Serj Tankian Posted January 2, 2013 Author Posted January 2, 2013 he was due to star in cbb starting this week .
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 he was due to star in cbb starting this week . I think that's an appropriate sentence.
Groot Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 http://www.heraldsun...o-1226528150895 Here's the link I was talking about. From this it is easy to speculate on who another suspect is but I will say no more than that. I'll not speculate on names but if its who I think it is I'll be surprised if its true tbh
scott_jambo Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I'll not speculate on names but if its who I think it is I'll be surprised if its true tbh Why?
Boomstick Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 So...am I right...? In order to be loved by the British public in the 70s and 80s you had to pump children? Britain, you sicken me.
2NaFish Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 THE GENERATION GAME! Been on a boat in the north sea waiting to post that for hours now.
Sarah O Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 So...am I right...? In order to be loved by the British public in the 70s and 80s you had to pump children? Britain, you sicken me. Another reason we should be Independent. Less beasts. :'>
Guest GhostHunter Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Please refer to Ulysses' earlier post(s) The BanHammer is poised.
Craig_ Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I'll not speculate on names but if its who I think it is I'll be surprised if its true tbh I'd also be pretty surprised. Bear in mind though that just because they're to be questioned, doesn't mean they're directly involved...
The Gasman Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I'd also be pretty surprised. Bear in mind though that just because they're to be questioned, doesn't mean they're directly involved... I would guess that for every one who is a suspect, there must be dozens who are being questioned as potential witnesses and for back ground evidence. I would also suspect that many of those being "outed" on the Internet will be completely innocent of any wrong doing - not that that will stop the cyber vigilantes from wanting them named, shamed, tarred, and feathered.
Martin_T Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 This is all becoming a bit McCarthy-ist, with sex abuse instead of communism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
2NaFish Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I would guess that for every one who is a suspect, there must be dozens who are being questioned as potential witnesses and for back ground evidence. I would also suspect that many of those being "outed" on the Internet will be completely innocent of any wrong doing - not that that will stop the cyber vigilantes from wanting them named, shamed, tarred, and feathered. says the man with thousands of posts on the rangers tax thread calling for jailtime? THEY WERE INNOCENT!! FREE MINTY AND COISTY!
Jambo-Chappy Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 http://www.heraldsun...o-1226528150895 Here's the link I was talking about. From this it is easy to speculate on who another suspect is but I will say no more than that. That one's quite a shock. Can't imagine it being true.
Gizmo Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 This is all becoming a bit McCarthy-ist, with sex abuse instead of communism. http://en.wikipedia....iki/McCarthyism Isn't it just. Can imagine anyone involved in any form of 70s kids television is just waiting for the inevitable knock at the door. The Police and authorities involved in this witch-hunt must know the hysteria which surrounds any mention of paedophilia. If there was not enough evidence to proceed in the 70s against any allegations, then smearing the names of various celebrities who, it seems, may be guilty of nothing more than association with Saville (who, let's not forget, has not been found guilty of anything yet, though the press have dispensed their own trial and sentence it seems) is just mischief-making. . It makes me wonder what the real motivation is for deliberately tarnishing the reputation of these people? it appears to be no more than a petty "we (ie the BBC and the Police) are getting grief, we can't prove you were involved but we'll get you by leaking your name/arresting/harassing you anyway". None of this pathetic side-show will do anything whatsoever to help any genuine victims of child abuse.
Tommy Wiseau Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Innocent until proven guilty is all well and good, but the yardstick for me is whether they look like a beast when you look at videos/photos of them with the knowledge they might be beasts. Infallible.
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 If there was not enough evidence to proceed in the 70s against any allegations, then smearing the names of various celebrities who, it seems, may be guilty of nothing more than association with Saville (who, let's not forget, has not been found guilty of anything yet, though the press have dispensed their own trial and sentence it seems) is just mischief-making. . So you think Saville may be innocent? Interesting.
Gigolo-Aunt Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Should not laugh as its obviously very serious stuff but being referred to as "Jimmy Savile Police" puts pictures in my head of a special branch of the police who carry ID cards with Jimmy's face on it.
Gizmo Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 So you think Saville may be innocent? Interesting. Do you think trial by media is the way forward?
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Do you think trial by media is the way forward? No. Do you think Jimmy Saville the beast is innocent?
Chester™ Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Can a trial be brought against Savile with him being deid?
The Gasman Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 says the man with thousands of posts on the rangers tax thread calling for jailtime? THEY WERE INNOCENT!! FREE MINTY AND COISTY! Well, obviously, that's different....
Gizmo Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 No. Do you think Jimmy Saville the beast is innocent? A bit of a loaded question! There is certainly some evidence at his own hand which damns him on at least one occasion. The rest seems to be a mixture of people making posthumous claims, celebrities saying they "had heard rumours/innuendo" and circumstantial evidence. It appears damning when taken as a whole, and certainly one can draw one's own conclusions from what has been reported. But then again, this is the same press that smeared the likes of Arthur C Clarke after his death when he couldn't defend himself - I really have very little faith or trust in what passes for journalism in this country. Would you convict Jimmy Saville on the evidence of the press?
17,763
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.