Page 16 of 18

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:49 pm
by Govangirl
Well, I'm definitely with Mrs Gizmo!

odds wrote:It would seem that theses cases were put forward just to keep the masses happy and divert attention away from the real paedos that are in the public office.

Pete.


I agree with that. The way I see it, in the current witch hunt the CPS have gone overboard in trying to prosecute those who decades ago were taking advantage of young ladies who were eagerly throwing themselves at these stars. I remember my friend and I meeting DLT in a greet-and-meet session in Sauchiehall Street in the 70s. We were dressed in duffle coats and as unglamorous as they come so he completely ignored us - was actually very rude to us really. However, the dozen or so young madams :lol: dolled up in their best Biba were all over him and he had three of them on his lap at one point. He was VERY attentive to them! My point is that I believe that he was only guilty of being that kind of man and I have known lots of them over the years - no woman could have lived through the 70s and NOT known them! The CPS have confused these with cases involving children. The evidence against Stuart Hall was damning and I'm absolutely 100% certain that the evidence would have been there for Savile if he was still with us.
Hall's verdict, like others in recent cases, i.e. the recent headmaster and priest,in my opinion just remind us that it is wrong to bury allegations merely because they date back many years. One of the judges in these cases said that a long custodial sentence was necessary because of the "lasting effect" that the abuse had had on the victims. Just because a long time has gone by and the grown-up victims forget some of the facts, it is not a reason to say, "Sorry, it's too difficult" at least not in my book.

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:22 pm
by odds
Govangirl wrote:I remember my friend and I meeting DLT in a greet-and-meet session in Sauchiehall Street in the 70s. We were dressed in duffle coats and as unglamorous as they come so he completely ignored us - was actually very rude to us really.


I'm sure you would look glamorous even in a duffle coat :P

Pete.

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:09 pm
by Govangirl
Odds, you are absolutely right, I should be more confident. I look every bit as good in a duffle coat as I do in a denim jacket:

Image

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:13 am
by LANDROVER ROGER
Excellent post Govangirl.Thank you for posting.Are you really blonde?

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 1:59 am
by odds
LANDROVER ROGER wrote:Excellent post Govangirl.Thank you for posting.Are you really blonde?


And wrinkly :D

Pete.

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:28 am
by EMDEE
Govangirl wrote:Odds, you are absolutely right, I should be more confident. I look every bit as good in a duffle coat as I do in a denim jacket:

Image


How could the man resist GG? :lol:

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:13 pm
by Govangirl
Oh yes Emdee, I get LOTS of men staring at me all the time like that so I must obviously be irresistible!!! :lol:

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:47 pm
by four eyes
i note Harriet Harsperson and co might be in the soup,ref their previous ties to the Paedophile information exchange!
Then again its probably just a conspiracy theory! Oh no its in the Daily Fail it must be true! :<> Government paedos who would have thought it! :shock:

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:49 pm
by four eyes
Govangirl wrote:Oh yes Emdee, I get LOTS of men staring at me all the time like that so I must obviously be irresistible!!! :lol:

Any chance of a Date Mary Doll? :)

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:08 am
by Govangirl
Ma date book is fu' Four Eyes but ah bet every wan o' your four peepers wur oan that photie o' mine, it's a guid auld stoater!!!! Mary Doll hus goat nuthing oan masell!!!

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:11 am
by LANDROVER ROGER
Springsteen concert was it?

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:46 pm
by bill
So Dave Lee Travis has to stand trial over the two assault cases which the jury could not reach a verdict on. Out of the original twelve assault charges ten were not guilty verdicts.I just cannot see the validity of pursuing these two ,as there will be no new evidence.

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:22 pm
by lochend
bill wrote:So Dave Lee Travis has to stand trial over the two assault cases which the jury could not reach a verdict on. Out of the original twelve assault charges ten were not guilty verdicts.I just cannot see the validity of pursuing these two ,as there will be no new evidence.

Bill the police hate to be proved wrong,they will hound this poor wretch until he is completely broke.He had to sell his house to fund his first defence.As you suggest they have no new evidence,they just hope a new jury might see it their way! The police are still smarting over their laxity over the Saville allegations that were ignored for decades.

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:45 pm
by four eyes
Forget that circus,the real story is still being covered up.The government paedos are still there.Wake up this is all a horse and pony show for fooks sake!

The elmhouse cover up the Jersey cover up etc and the people in power are where you need to focus.Do you really think the fat B&B owner from tuscany was innocent? Those in power and the security services are colluding to keep a lid on it all,disinformation is rife. The Hareperson affair is causing a few to reassess what they read,but on the whole the public are still blind to the truth.
la-la-la were not listening,conspiricty theorist nutters bla bla bla.

Re: Sir James Saville

PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:51 pm
by four eyes
bill wrote:So Dave Lee Travis has to stand trial over the two assault cases which the jury could not reach a verdict on. Out of the original twelve assault charges ten were not guilty verdicts.I just cannot see the validity of pursuing these two ,as there will be no new evidence.

mmmm so in a previous life you were a cps type person or you know something we dont? You get the law not justice in court Bill Guess Jacko aint a kiddie fiddler or OJ a murderer then.Its easy to be an armchair critic but many guilty walk free due to the vagaries of the law,so try to maintain a critical mind.