What a load of **** from Sisu. You can't accuse someone of being a **** based on them knowing a ****. That is honestly one of the stupidest things you've come out with on this site. That isn't proof, you can't look down on others for not agreeing with your unsubstantiated opinion and your premise is rubbish. I would imagine if your a ****phile you don't announce this to everyone you know. In fact I reckon it's the sort of thing one might try to keep secret, no? Why are the families of these people always so shocked and upset when it comes to light? If there own family don't know, why would anyone else? The idea that automatically people around someone must know all there secrets is a load of rubbish. The nazi stuff is boring too. Go flog a different dead horse.
No no, he was known to be a ****. Put it this way, that loon Johnny Rotten said as much to the BBC, and said it wasn't libel to say it as in it was fact. Now if they were vague stories... you don't go and say it to the BBC do you and put yourself in a legal quandry? he also called him a hypocrite because obviously Jimmy was all about the kids, whilst shagging them How do you molest hundreds of kids and no one know, kids do tell people, but no one wanted to listen Jimmy was connected and that alone is why he was not touched
No, mr rotten didn't say he was a **** in that clip, he said he had heard rumours about him getting up to all sorts and wasn't allowed to speak about it. It wasn't libel because he didn't actually make any accusation. Unless I've missed something in that clip?
Sleazy and getting up to all sorts, now. Jimmy was not married Didn't have women on his arm Didn't seem to have any sort of private life So you are saying Rotten wasn't alluding to the fact he was a ****? Then why did he say he's like to kill him Your logical thinking is like badly set up dominoes mate. I am not going to have this out with someone who comes here to intentionally disagree without basing it on any actuall thinking processes
All of which bares no relation to the daft assertion you made. Savile attained respectability, he was one of the UK's most successful charity fund raisers, he was viewed as a national treasure ffs. This gave him a Teflon coating and the murmuring voices never managed to get the **** to stick to him. Which is still a World away from your assertion that Charles was behind his elevation and is also a *****
Oh and yes, hypocrisy, "save the children" "shag the children" that was the hypocrisy Rotten mentioned
To even suggest Rotten was not talking about Jimmy's unusual tastes is ****ing laughable. So intent on being right over old BBF you defy logical thinking, it's ****ing hilarious how people can delude themselves for idiotic reasons
Take a breathe, realise I'm not one of the guys who has been arguing with you on here and realise what I'm saying is just correcting your own logic fail. I'm not suggesting he wasn't talking about saville being a ****, he may well have been. I was correcting you in regard to his libel comment being proof that what he is saying is true. That's total nonsense. He said it wasn't libel because he didn't actually make any accusation, ergo nothing he was saying was libel.
What I find funny about you is you think you are clever, and people woh think they are clever usualy are not mate. Here I am again with two people who make purile arguments based on their will to disagree with me Yet when it comes to other matters you are all so willing to believe something based on far less evidence that this subject.
Savile was a ****, everyone knew. The BEeb knew Charles knew everyone knew, keep deluding yourselves, I ma not repeating myself again. He was allowed die before being outed for fear of who he might implicate have fun ladies
I think I'm clever because I'm so god damn clever It isn't a puerile argument to say accusing someone of being a **** based on them being seen with someone who later turned out to be a **** is a load of bollocks. That isn't logic bbf that's you trying to make things fit with your own idea, rather than coming to a logical conclusion. If your going to accuse others of not using logical thinking at least make sure your making a point which isn't total rubbish!
Also, it's 100% fail when you lads start saying anyone is talking ****e or whatever when ye yourselves do not have the facts either. What you "think" is not actually fact, I am giving my opinion you give yours, but for some reason you think you opinions are in fact proof I am wrong. Food for thought. Now AFCROFLLMAO don't go off on an anti Irish rant again ok
Great way to enter a debate lad, I am totally willing to read what follows that right Not It denotes emotion and personal disposition, in other words you thought that before even clicking on this thread.
You post an absolute pile of ****e and then make out that those pointing out the fact that it's nothing more than your usual baseless ramblings cobbled together with your convenient assumption that backs your twisted viewpoint on the entire British monarchy / State, are somehow doing so with an agenda against you personally. Lay off the green you paranoid crank. On and btw, do you think that maybe if Charles had been a ***** and he needed a supplier, that he'd choose a TV celebrity who looked like a ****ing nonce to do his dirty work for him? ****ing idiot
Shh paddy! The problem is your opinion is based on a very flimsy piece of evidence and yet you put it forward as fact and call anyone who disagrees a deluded idiot. If your going to call the royal family a bunch of **** nazis you should probably expect a bit of stick back
Your ignorance has nothing to do with me. Your self delusion also has nothing to do with me. No manic laughey smiles.. they make you look insane I just say what i think and I provide the reasons for it. If you don't liek that then OK, I don't really give a monkeys. If you wish yto delude yourself into thinking there is no ****s in upper society then fine. If you don't think a large number of ****es have been protected for decades fine. But unless you can prove it is not true, then you can hardly say I am "talking ****e" But that is lost on ye
So yeah where are we again. You think I am talking ****e I think you are talking ****e. Is there any point in proceeding?
I'm not trying to say there are no ****s in the upper echelons of society. In fact most ****s are in positions of power or influence, particularly over children (no surprise there). Im saying that you can't call the royal family a bunch of ****s and anyone who disagrees is an idiot, based on Charles having known a ****phile. It's just completely ******ed logic, honestly I expect better from you!
I get what you are saying but given what I know and what is suspected, and the fact that Savile is not the only **** to be assocated with them plus Mountbatten was 100% a known ****, he even had his **** toy on the boat he was murdered on ffs. Then yes I would suspect. Given Prince Andrew also was close to a well known ****.. c'mon. That is a logical assumption 3 Royals close to ****s, Philip Andrew and Charles. Mountbatten a known ****.. It is fact the Beeb covered it up till Savile died
