Former British Pop Star Gary Glitter Arrested

[uty6543]

I'd have thought that the involvement of Glitter in Savile's activities would have raised a huge red flag.

Anyway, this enquiry is not so much about a pedophile but about others who knew about his abuse & either did nothing or helped to cover it up.

Also the argument that Savile is not now available to answer the charges is somehow unfair is <deleted>. Those he abused were too frightened or low down in the pecking order to come forward against a high-profile egomaniac.

The beginning of your last sentence should read Those he is alleged to have abused may have been too frightened.......... or do you not believe in the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

[khunken]

I'd have thought that the involvement of Glitter in Savile's activities would have raised a huge red flag.

Anyway, this enquiry is not so much about a pedophile but about others who knew about his abuse & either did nothing or helped to cover it up.

Also the argument that Savile is not now available to answer the charges is somehow unfair is <deleted>. Those he abused were too frightened or low down in the pecking order to come forward against a high-profile egomaniac.

The beginning of your last sentence should read Those he is alleged to have abused may have been too frightened.......... or do you not believe in the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Irrelevant. Savile is not being charged nor will he ever be. Yes, I believe he is guilty as sin & the arrest of Glitter, together with the Panorama investigation into the conveniently dropped Newsnight programme bears it out. The main purpose of the investigation now is to provide some sort of closure for the hundreds of victims & any living person found guilty of covering up the crimes should bear the full force of the law.

[GentlemanJim]

I think it is grossly unfair of the alleged victims to come forward now long after Jimmy Savile is dead and cannot defend his name. But on the other hand I hope the investigation brings people to justice that are still alive that may have assisted in any crimes that were committed.

Well I think it grossly unfair that Jimmy Saville f****d young children. Justice has no expiry date!

[Rancid]

The BBC is on constant alert for the politically incorrect, namely conservatives and mysoginists. Feminists, metromales, left wingers are all assumed to be perfectly normal, they would never do something like that. Except of course that it seems some did.

Pedophilia to an extent is protected as it is something vile that people don't want to talk about, even bringing it to light on this forum can see you banned, victims be damned. The emerging trend though is a paranoia towards men that we are all potential pedophiles, on Australian flights men who have been randomly seated next to a young girl have been asked to change their seats with all the other passengers no doubt thinking the worst. Women can now claim husbands molested the kids to try and remove visitation rights.

I don't know where it will all end however it seems a rational discourse is required confirming that most men are not pedophiles and innocent until definitely proven guilty, yet finding better screening and awareness to make it difficult for them to operate.

[uty6543]

I'd have thought that the involvement of Glitter in Savile's activities would have raised a huge red flag.

Anyway, this enquiry is not so much about a pedophile but about others who knew about his abuse & either did nothing or helped to cover it up.

Also the argument that Savile is not now available to answer the charges is somehow unfair is <deleted>. Those he abused were too frightened or low down in the pecking order to come forward against a high-profile egomaniac.

The beginning of your last sentence should read Those he is alleged to have abused may have been too frightened.......... or do you not believe in the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Irrelevant. Savile is not being charged nor will he ever be. Yes, I believe he is guilty as sin & the arrest of Glitter, together with the Panorama investigation into the conveniently dropped Newsnight programme bears it out. The main purpose of the investigation now is to provide some sort of closure for the hundreds of victims & any living person found guilty of covering up the crimes should bear the full force of the law.

How can it be Irrelevant. Are you suggesting we do away with our legal system and have trial by the Panorama TV program. No he is not being charged but his name lives on and his name should be treated as if he was alive. His family must now be suffering for the crime he may have committed.

It would be better if the energy of the investigation went after people who are still alive and still committing crimes against children including those who are covering up for others.

[theblether]

I'd have thought that the involvement of Glitter in Savile's activities would have raised a huge red flag.

Anyway, this enquiry is not so much about a pedophile but about others who knew about his abuse & either did nothing or helped to cover it up.

Also the argument that Savile is not now available to answer the charges is somehow unfair is <deleted>. Those he abused were too frightened or low down in the pecking order to come forward against a high-profile egomaniac.

The beginning of your last sentence should read Those he is alleged to have abused may have been too frightened.......... or do you not believe in the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Irrelevant. Savile is not being charged nor will he ever be. Yes, I believe he is guilty as sin & the arrest of Glitter, together with the Panorama investigation into the conveniently dropped Newsnight programme bears it out. The main purpose of the investigation now is to provide some sort of closure for the hundreds of victims & any living person found guilty of covering up the crimes should bear the full force of the law.

How can it be Irrelevant. Are you suggesting we do away with our legal system and have trial by the Panorama TV program. No he is not being charged but his name lives on and his name should be treated as if he was alive. His family must now be suffering for the crime he may have committed.

It would be better if the energy of the investigation went after people who are still alive and still committing crimes against children including those who are covering up for others.

They are investigating people who are alive, the investigation is "Saville and others".

[khunken]

I'd have thought that the involvement of Glitter in Savile's activities would have raised a huge red flag.

Anyway, this enquiry is not so much about a pedophile but about others who knew about his abuse & either did nothing or helped to cover it up.

Also the argument that Savile is not now available to answer the charges is somehow unfair is <deleted>. Those he abused were too frightened or low down in the pecking order to come forward against a high-profile egomaniac.

The beginning of your last sentence should read Those he is alleged to have abused may have been too frightened.......... or do you not believe in the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Irrelevant. Savile is not being charged nor will he ever be. Yes, I believe he is guilty as sin & the arrest of Glitter, together with the Panorama investigation into the conveniently dropped Newsnight programme bears it out. The main purpose of the investigation now is to provide some sort of closure for the hundreds of victims & any living person found guilty of covering up the crimes should bear the full force of the law.

How can it be Irrelevant. Are you suggesting we do away with our legal system and have trial by the Panorama TV program. No he is not being charged but his name lives on and his name should be treated as if he was alive. His family must now be suffering for the crime he may have committed.

It would be better if the energy of the investigation went after people who are still alive and still committing crimes against children including those who are covering up for others.

You're still missing the point. He is not alive & not being charged & Investigations ARE going after those still alive, such as Glitter, and those who covered it up. Maybe his family is suffering but it pales into comparison with the suffering of the victims & their families. The Panorama investigation was not a trial - it was an investigation into a cover up.

His name is already mud & even the Vatican has expressed regret (irony of ironies) over his catholic 'award'. From your comments you seem to have little knowledge of the case.

[uty6543]

You're still missing the point. He is not alive & not being charged & Investigations ARE going after those still alive, such as Glitter, and those who covered it up. Maybe his family is suffering but it pales into comparison with the suffering of the victims & their families. The Panorama investigation was not a trial - it was an investigation into a cover up.

His name is already mud & even the Vatican has expressed regret (irony of ironies) over his catholic 'award'. From your comments you seem to have little knowledge of the case.

khunken I think it is you that is missing the point. The point is Jimmy Savile has not been convicted and is therefore INNOCENT of any wrong doing. You claim "the Panorama investigation into the conveniently dropped Newsnight programme bears it out" Panorama investigations are not to be taken as evidence as they present their program with details that have been omitted, sensationalised or taken out of context to attract the largest number of TV viewers. Ever heard the line "never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

I do not belive the Vatican has any regrets they have been protecting pedophiles for centuries.

I am not claiming to have knowledge of the case. Knowledge comes from evidence not Panorama investigations.

And lastly why should Jimmy Saviles family be suffering at all for the crimes he MAY have committed.

[baboon]

Such a pity. I used to love his music. Wouldn`t dare listen to it now.

Why not?

Maybe he was in

''HIS GANG''

;-)

I have a two year old daughter. Your post is not funny.

[TwoDogz]

Such a pity. I used to love his music. Wouldn`t dare listen to it now.

Why not?

Maybe he was in

''HIS GANG''

;-)

Quite possibly if played backwards there is some sick and twisted message in it

[khunken]

You're still missing the point. He is not alive & not being charged & Investigations ARE going after those still alive, such as Glitter, and those who covered it up. Maybe his family is suffering but it pales into comparison with the suffering of the victims & their families. The Panorama investigation was not a trial - it was an investigation into a cover up.

His name is already mud & even the Vatican has expressed regret (irony of ironies) over his catholic 'award'. From your comments you seem to have little knowledge of the case.

khunken I think it is you that is missing the point. The point is Jimmy Savile has not been convicted and is therefore INNOCENT of any wrong doing. You claim "the Panorama investigation into the conveniently dropped Newsnight programme bears it out" Panorama investigations are not to be taken as evidence as they present their program with details that have been omitted, sensationalised or taken out of context to attract the largest number of TV viewers. Ever heard the line "never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

I do not belive the Vatican has any regrets they have been protecting pedophiles for centuries.

I am not claiming to have knowledge of the case. Knowledge comes from evidence not Panorama investigations.

And lastly why should Jimmy Saviles family be suffering at all for the crimes he MAY have committed.

To repeat: Savile has neither been convicted not found innocent - he is not on trial & that is what you fail to comprehend. He is dead & your supposed concern for his family's feelings contrasts with your apparent lack of any concern for his victims.

Did you even see the Panorama programme that you seem to think is biased? Did you see the lady who had the courage - on camera - to admit to being subject to Savile's sexual appetite? She was interviewed in the original Newsnight programme that was dropped. I am always sceptical of internal investigations & the BBC has a history of whitewashes but the Panorama programme went out of its way to be fair.

More than 300 people have come forward to give evidence, some of them who already provided evidence to Newsnight. The overwhelming evidence comes from many sources, not just Panorama.

I have no idea why you want to defend a pedophile - not just an ordinary one, but one who used his immense power, influence & profile to abuse children, some of which were in a home for 'troubled' girls & lacked any means of getting assistance, let alone justice. He was a hypocrite & pervert & that's putting it mildly.

[uty6543]

I would never defend a pedophile. Pedophiles should be locked up until the day they die. What I am defending is the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not a TV program. If you were on the jury you wouldn’t need to hear any evidence because your mind is made up already. No I do not believe that lady on Panorama until she stands up in court having sworn on the bible and her evidence is supported by other evidence. Her word on its own is not good enough.

Yes I do have concern for all victims of abuse and very little for the perpetrator. Jimmy Saviles family are now victims of his alleged crimes. Why should they be?

[khunken]

I would never defend a pedophile. Pedophiles should be locked up until the day they die. What I am defending is the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not a TV program. If you were on the jury you wouldn’t need to hear any evidence because your mind is made up already. No I do not believe that lady on Panorama until she stands up in court having sworn on the bible and her evidence is supported by other evidence. Her word on its own is not good enough.

Yes I do have concern for all victims of abuse and very little for the perpetrator. Jimmy Saviles family are now victims of his alleged crimes. Why should they be?

You are defending a principle (that I agree with) which doesn't apply in this case. This is the whole point: there will be no trial of Savile. Pinochet never faced a trial, neither did Milosivich & there are many more criminals who died before they could face a trial. Once a person cannot face a proper trial, it is open to anyone to express their opinion. If Savile was alive & facing a trial, I would use the preface 'alleged'.

Savile's family (if he has one) have to face the fact that he was a pedophile - too bad. The hundreds of victims (which you still fail to show any sympathy for) have to live with the abuse they suffered & that is partly why this case is so important - victims need some form of closure. It is doubtful that victims will be asked to swear on the bible (meaningless for non -Christians) in court as Savile can't (again) be tried.

I have my opinion on Hitler & saying he is innocent until proven guilty is ridiculous. I'm not saying Savile was in Hitler's class but the principle is the same. Yes, I'm judging Savile just as I would any dead criminal.

[asiawatcher]

Music stars, fame and the impossibility of being caught? Gotcha... And he is a repeat offender in Asia - time to put him where he can experience the abuse first hand.

[GentlemanJim]

I would never defend a pedophile. Pedophiles should be locked up until the day they die. What I am defending is the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not a TV program. If you were on the jury you wouldn’t need to hear any evidence because your mind is made up already. No I do not believe that lady on Panorama until she stands up in court having sworn on the bible and her evidence is supported by other evidence. Her word on its own is not good enough.

Yes I do have concern for all victims of abuse and very little for the perpetrator. Jimmy Saviles family are now victims of his alleged crimes. Why should they be?

Are you telling me that if someone puts their hands on a fictitious book written 2000 years ago and says they are telling the truth it lends any credibility to what they say? there seem to be many independent people verifying similar abuses as the woman on Panorama.

[tinfoilhat]

Such a pity. I used to love his music. Wouldn`t dare listen to it now.

why? how has the music changed?

[tinfoilhat]

Hopefully mr Gadd will spend his time if given any amongst the general prison population, then he can feel what its like.

you reckon a 68 year old man would get much play in prison?

[balo]

Gary Glitters music hasnt changed , even if the man is a pervert .

Just been listening to "Rock and Roll"

[TommoPhysicist]

My wife told me after 15 years of marriage that her grandfather used to do obscene things to her in the bath from the age of 6 up to 10. Her prim and proper Grandmother had an idea, but still had Grandpa bath her every night. Now my wife was no nutter and it took her 25 years to speak up. As a child she was firightened and thought it was normal, as an adult she lived in guilt and did not want to break up the family by causing a scandal. In short, don't blame the victims, they were young, and each had their own reason for not talking, and as years go on it becomes even more difficult. Needless to say that most pedo's are so manipulative, they understand the art of making the child feel bad and wrong and to tell would bring on fire and brimstone. Go figure!

Strangely enough, my former wife (after 10 years of marriage) told me her dad did stuff with her when she was little, and warned me never to leave our children alone with him. I believed her. Then after another 15 years she went to the police and said I was doing stuff with my children, <deleted>! ...... I started thinking nutter (along with sorry dad-in-law for the stuff I believed about you). Women say this bonkers sort of stuff all the time, be wary of the ones that waited, they might accuse you next. While I agree with you that pedo's are manipulative, I would also like to add to that, so are many women who are not above accusing innocent men if the mood takes them and great at crying 'on demand'. This is the great danger of believing an accusation without evidence ..... you can never tell who is the liar, that's why courts generally require evidence..

PS

Are you claiming JS threatened 300 people that he would murder their families?

PPS

In recent American divorce cases, allegedly 50% of women are now accusing their husbands of offenses against the children. Not sure I can believe all those accusations either.

Edited October 30, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[Scott]

A series of argumentative, off-topic posts have been deleted.

Let's stick to the topic. Anecdotal information can provide some understanding, but may not be relevant to the topic of this thread.