On another site I posted about Savile being a nonce hours after he pegged.I got flamed by people who thought that he was a great guy. It's interesting now to look back over the thread and see how it changed in the week after.
John Lydon was going to expose Savile in an interview in 1978 on the BBC. But, surprise, surprise the BBC axed it. The BBC were complicit in covering up a disgusting *****phile who ruined so many young peoples lives. The BBC are an absolute disgrace and have been for decades.
Poor Diego thought he was clever by picking up on one word and using it to try and discredit. Sadly he’s not thought it through and turns out by ignoring rumours you can be an enabler for nonces. Ohh
According to Diego they were right though.. as Lyndon had heard rumours. You’re absolutely right they should have investigated this.
Yup, they covered it up. Decades later certain BBC "stars" of the time admitted they knew what was going on but wouldn't speak up for fear of losing their jobs. They are equally complicit in ruining lives. Utterly disgraceful.
Sarah Vine on the box. Losing The Govester appears to have magically turned her from an old crone into a "wid"
They were more than rumours. It was common knowledge in a lot of circles, and was reported way back in the 70's, but senior management in a number of institutions did **** all.
Did they have definitive proof? Did they see it first hand? Are you certain of that? if not it it can be classed as rumours. Like what you’re suggesting now is a rumour. Anyway this is pure semantics. On both of these situations there should be an investigation to try and find the truth. Saville used his fame, his circle of friends to intimidate.. so his position of power. We need to hold those in power to account.
Yep, they had definite proof, and witnessed it, no rumours for the most part, more corroborating evidence. The staff in question refused to work at the same time as him as a consequence, and the management agreed, and allowed them to leave when he arrived, which implies that they accepted the evidence, but did nothing about him. Yes, it should have been investigated and reported by various institutions, and it's shameful that it wasn't. Makes you wonder what they and the Directors of Public Prosecution were thinking, or afraid of.
Well one party leader was for a time a significant part of that system, and in a key position, so your claim that 'we are all aware' is simply hogwash. There are others from both parties that have helped block more recent inquiries into other perverts, so getting party political simply contributes to the problem persisting.
I thought that was what you were trying to imply. He was not the reviewing lawyer in the case. It’s been absolutely busted and even members of the Conservative party spoke up against the implications against Starmer.
Likewise you’re hatred of all things Labour is so evident you’re happy to support an implication that has been busted so much so that Johnson’s own mps spoke against him, and if it was valid why has he not followed it up? Ohhhh
Again, lose your political blinkers, and face the reality that your deluded version of posters is wrong, and maybe there's a conversation to be had. Until then, you just come across as a dull, bigoted ****er.
So if it’s such a valid point why have the conservatives not followed it up? Surely if Starmer was so guilty they’d follow it through rather than some of the party speak against Johnson’s comment… Can you explain where I have been bigoted? Examples would be good.. or is this another situation like when you couldn’t demonstrate hypocrisy. I’d suggest you lose credibility by making such unfounded comments… but you don’t have any.
Here we go again. You've been doing the same tired ****e that's failed for a decade. You get examples, and then deny that's what they are. I can only assume you do it because you're so desperate for attention, and want to disrupt yet another thread with personal pap, because you haven't a clue about the issues. On this occasion, your bigotry manifests with your insistence on other peoples views and motives. bigotry /ˈbɪɡətri/ noun obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. Now you'll do a little jig and claim a meltdown, or some such tedious ****e.
Can you show an example of where you’ve showed an example of my hypocrisy about those posts or bigotry. The above does not demonstrate bigotry in the slightest. We know you can’t so why don’t you just post a bunch of anti Labour stuff to demonstrate just how politically neutral you are. Oh and as for attention don’t bother responding then, simple, not sure I’ll be able to get over it though
