DLT cleared

Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks. How many more?

sphinx wrote:Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks.  How many more?

good news, I thought Dlt was a decent bloke..

sphinx wrote:Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks.  How many more?

I've told you all - let's have another trial - of all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks.  How many more?

I've told you all - let's have another trial - of all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile.

That's a perverse argument just because he is dead and can't be tried doesn't mean he is innocent. He was lucky to get away with it.

Thesewere unlucky to be taken to court because what they were accused of was hardly the same.

I've got job lot of 1000 "Free DLT" T shirts any takers.

labour revival wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


I've told you all - let's have another trial - of all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile.

That's a perverse argument just because he is dead and can't be tried doesn't mean he is innocent. He was lucky to get away with it.

Thesewere unlucky to be taken to court because what they were accused of was hardly the same.

Get away with what?

sphinx wrote:Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks.  How many more?

I've said this already; out of all these many, many girls, accusing these many stars, surely they can't all be lying,

Is it a case of after all this time there's just not enough evidence? Which is very different to innocence.

eddie wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks.  How many more?

I've said this already; out of all these many, many girls, accusing these many stars, surely they can't all be lying,

Is it a case of after all this time there's just not enough evidence? Which is very different to innocence.

And therefore there should have been no court case.

eddie wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks.  How many more?

I've said this already; out of all these many, many girls, accusing these many stars, surely they can't all be lying,

Is it a case of after all this time there's just not enough evidence? Which is very different to innocence.

AND it would have been the same for Sir Jimmy Savile.

BigAndy9 wrote:

eddie wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks.  How many more?

I've said this already; out of all these many, many girls, accusing these many stars, surely they can't all be lying,

Is it a case of after all this time there's just not enough evidence? Which is very different to innocence.

And therefore there should have been no court case.

He's due back in court in about a months time to hear the courts decision on whether he will face a retrial on the two charges on which the jury couldn't reach a verdict so he's not out of the woods yet.

BigAndy9 wrote:

eddie wrote:


I've said this already; out of all these many, many girls, accusing these many stars, surely they can't all be lying,

Is it a case of after all this time there's just not enough evidence? Which is very different to innocence.

AND it would have been the same for Sir Jimmy Savile.

Yes, you're right.
It's all wrong but you know what I believe Andy? Fate has a way of doing the right thing most of the time....and if any of them are guilty, they will pay.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks.  How many more?

I've told you all - let's have another trial - of all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile.

I honestly don't know why you feel the need to defend this guy Andy

I tend to agree with Eddie on this one.

feelthelove wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


I've told you all - let's have another trial - of all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile.

I honestly don't know why you feel the need to defend this guy Andy

I tend to agree with Eddie on this one.

Hi FTL, I just called you a loose woman on the other thread hahahaha


I just think so many accusations....surely they're not all lying???

eddie wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

I honestly don't know why you feel the need to defend this guy Andy

I tend to agree with Eddie on this one.

Hi FTL, I just called you a loose woman on the other thread hahahaha


I just think so many accusations....surely they're not all lying???

The DLT thing seems a bit like a cultural difference between the PC view of today and the more laddish days of the 70s. He really doesn't seem to be a bad one. Andy is just being silly over Saville.

Also lest we forget these are litigious times with people chasing money. There's no smoke without fire really. How many women have accused men of rape to be found to be lying later. It seems to me some women can be very careless sometimes with mens reputation you sexist pig.

eddie wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thats another star cleared of historic sex attacks.  How many more?

I've said this already; out of all these many, many girls, accusing these many stars, surely they can't all be lying,

Is it a case of after all this time there's just not enough evidence? Which is very different to innocence.

I would say its more a case of their memory of what happened has changed - or the interpretation has changed. In the 1960s when a girl was in an over 18s party and threw herself at someone they were considered blame free - and that did happen. If that girl 40 years later has decided she was the victim it seems that the jury still disagrees.

feelthelove wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


I've told you all - let's have another trial - of all the women who have accused Sir Jimmy Savile.

I honestly don't know why you feel the need to defend this guy Andy

I tend to agree with Eddie on this one.

ftl - what I am defending is what should be the legal position, the police's position and the media's position - that Sir Jimmy Savile has not been found guilty of anything, alive, or dead.

It is disgusting that the media and anybody else is allowed to publish the fact that "he was the most prolific sex fiend in the UK" etc etc.

They legally can't say that about anybody unless they have been found guilty in a court of law - they shouldn't be saying it about him.

That's what I defend - it is wrong!

eddie wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

I honestly don't know why you feel the need to defend this guy Andy

I tend to agree with Eddie on this one.

Hi FTL, I just called you a loose woman on the other thread hahahaha


I just think so many accusations....surely they're not all lying???

Well, no one is perfect hey   

I agree, I can't believe why anyone would want to lie about something like this.  So much smoke and no fire? Seems a little odd to me.  I also believe that times have changed significantly though.  What was deemed to be "acceptable" and not widely defined as "abuse" 40 years ago has changed.  Of course none of that makes it right, times have changed for the better.  Many of the abused coming forward now simply wouldn't have been believed or taken seriously during those times.

BigAndy9 wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

I honestly don't know why you feel the need to defend this guy Andy

I tend to agree with Eddie on this one.

ftl - what I am defending is what should be the legal position, the police's position and the media's position - that Sir Jimmy Savile has not been found guilty of anything, alive, or dead.

It is disgusting that the media and anybody else is allowed to publish the fact that "he was the most prolific sex fiend in the UK" etc etc.

They legally can't say that about anybody unless they have been found guilty in a court of law - they shouldn't be saying it about him.

That's what I defend - it is wrong!

If he was alive he would have the right to take legal action against those publisher's for libel, I wonder if he would have had the nerve.  In death I guess the duty to defend his rights would fall with his family Andy who are notably absence.

Do you honestly think that if they believed he was innocent they wouldn't be exploding with rage and defending him?  I certainly would, very telling  

feelthelove wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

ftl - what I am defending is what should be the legal position, the police's position and the media's position - that Sir Jimmy Savile has not been found guilty of anything, alive, or dead.

It is disgusting that the media and anybody else is allowed to publish the fact that "he was the most prolific sex fiend in the UK" etc etc.

They legally can't say that about anybody unless they have been found guilty in a court of law - they shouldn't be saying it about him.

That's what I defend - it is wrong!

If he was alive he would have the right to take legal action against those publisher's for libel, I wonder if he would have had the nerve.  In death I guess the duty to defend his rights would fall with his family Andy who are notably absence.

Do you honestly think that if they believed he was innocent they wouldn't be exploding with rage and defending him?  I certainly would, very telling  

I believe they did at first, but like so many things today, they then changed their minds.

Or had their minds changed...

A bit like our children, being fed mind-altering politics at school!

Well, we will have to see what happens at the end of the month with the 2 that the jury couldn't decide about.

Sassy wrote:Well, we will have to see what happens at the end of the month with the 2 that the jury couldn't decide about.

Of all those hat have been charged I find it surprising he is the focus of such venom.

BigAndy9 wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

If he was alive he would have the right to take legal action against those publisher's for libel, I wonder if he would have had the nerve.  In death I guess the duty to defend his rights would fall with his family Andy who are notably absence.

Do you honestly think that if they believed he was innocent they wouldn't be exploding with rage and defending him?  I certainly would, very telling  

I believe they did at first, but like so many things today, they then changed their minds.

Or had their minds changed...

A bit like our children, being fed mind-altering politics at school!

I'm sorry Andy but this is something completely different.  Bearing in mind all the work Jim did for charity etc there is no way his family would have allowed his name to be dragged though the mud. They would be kicking off big time and rightly so.

If your family who love you and are very proud of your life time achievements are not prepared to speak out for you what does that indicate? Would you have given up so easily???? They chucked in the towel within days  

I think you've posted more support for him than the lot of them altogether.

What venom? Very sad about him and Rolf Harris

feelthelove wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I believe they did at first, but like so many things today, they then changed their minds.

Or had their minds changed...

A bit like our children, being fed mind-altering politics at school!

I'm sorry Andy but this is something completely different.  Bearing in mind all the work Jim did for charity etc there is no way his family would have allowed his name to be dragged though the mud. They would be kicking off big time and rightly so.

If your family who love you and are very proud of your life time achievements are not prepared to speak out for you what does that indicate? Would you have given up so easily???? They chucked in the towel within days  

I think you've posted more support for him than the lot of them altogether.

Well said.

eddie wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

I'm sorry Andy but this is something completely different.  Bearing in mind all the work Jim did for charity etc there is no way his family would have allowed his name to be dragged though the mud. They would be kicking off big time and rightly so.

If your family who love you and are very proud of your life time achievements are not prepared to speak out for you what does that indicate? Would you have given up so easily???? They chucked in the towel within days  

I think you've posted more support for him than the lot of them altogether.

Well said.

The lack of support from the family says it all in my opinion Eddie 

feelthelove wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well said.

The lack of support from the family says it all in my opinion Eddie 

I think you're right. Not one word of support.....

eddie wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

The lack of support from the family says it all in my opinion Eddie 

I think you're right. Not one word of support.....

I've already told you - they did support him.


"The nephew of the late broadcaster Sir Jimmy Savile has said his family is ''disgusted and disappointed'' that allegations his uncle sexually abused school girls have been made when he is no longer around to defend himself.


Roger Foster was responding to allegations in a TV documentary about Sir Jimmy's behaviour from a number of women. "


But later found that there are hateful people out there who will firebomb your home for such support.

BigAndy9 wrote:

eddie wrote:


I think you're right. Not one word of support.....

I've already told you - they did support him.


"The nephew of the late broadcaster Sir Jimmy Savile has said his family is ''disgusted and disappointed'' that allegations his uncle sexually abused school girls have been made when he is no longer around to defend himself.


Roger Foster was responding to allegations in a TV documentary about Sir Jimmy's behaviour from a number of women. "


But later found that there are hateful people out there who will firebomb your home for such support.

DLT is another matter, and I don't like anyone convicted of this kind of thing without evidence, I know not the facts of DLT, but your post regarding Savile is an insult to all his victims Andy, all those victims miles apart with more or less the same story are not lies...and had he been alive ,he would have been convicted this time around due to the growing evidence from the length and breadth of Britain.

Ahhh JD....herein lies the problem...since he is dead...he cannot be tried in a court of law and thus his guilt or otherwise properly determined. Instead what has happened is the he has posthumously been subject to "trial by media" which brooks NO defense, indeed will allow no defence and is of highly subjective accuracy.

I know where you are coming from about the victims BUT, similar things have happened to innocent LIVING people in the past with no proper right of reply or recompense (that landlord that the media accused of killing a young lass)

now i would say bother the victims in this case...why? because if this kind of thing is allowed to continue there will be an even more important victim...Justice itself.

when media moguls are allowed to do this, without intervention then we, all of us become at risk.