Now then, now then guys and gals.....

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I haven't heard anyone say the truth should be not be heard. What I have heard is people having a problem with allegations being construed as facts.
 
It would appear that the police, the press and even Saville's family have now conceded that there is no doubt about what he was up to given the overwhelming evidence that is now coming out of the woodwork.
 
Meanwhile back on planet Earth we have some who actually believe that truth is important and should be heard. That is the only recourse that some will ever have.

Truth - as sought by Pussy Riot.



If the abuser dies then there is no case to answer. Let's just hope that Putin does not die while Pussy Riot are still in jail eh Bellow? Now that would cause you some issues would it not.

Putin dying would be a gift to the world.

Putin dead. No case to answer so forget the entire business and carry on.

I think you will find that Pussy Riot were the accused - not Putin.

Your response exemplifies perfectly why some victims would stay quiet and shows your true standing in this kind of case.

So how come I personally know so many who have been abused if my attitude is, as you imply, one of suppression? Why would they let me know of their abuse if I am as you say?

Perhaps it is you feeling suppressed, unbelieved.
Trust me here. When you are right and nobody wants to believe you are right that is a terrible place to be. Sometimes just hearing that you are believed gives you justice.
 
All gone very quiet on here.

As more emerges we see what has already been said & rubbished on this thread...

There was one day where nobody posted on this thread! It's like you are revelling in your previous speculation and wish to bathe in the glory you feel now attaches to it :dk:
 
While it appears that victims are now " coming out of the woodwork" and a few will certainly be opportunists, perhaps even fraudsters, out for what they can get in the way of compensation I'm sure the majority will be genuine. Of the few I have seen most appeared not be interested in money but rather to expose J Saville's true nature.
When people ask "why did they wait till he was dead to make such accusations -- and could no longer be brought to book----- and of course cannot defend himself?" is to misunderstand the fundamental abuser/victim dynamic where the victim is literally " held in thrall" by their abuser - often too scared, ashamed or guilty to speak out for fear of the consequences. Its often only with the death of the abuser the fear is removed and the victim is finally "released" to tell their story
 
Im not sure I buy that as an explanation for all of them, maybe for the odd frail one but not for all of these supposed genuine victims.
 
The thing is that this was an open secret.

I heard a former BBC staff member on the radio this morning saying that all 24,000 BBC employees during the 1980's would have known something was going on as it was often talked about and joked about by people on every level.

It matters not that Saville is unable to answer these allegations, the growing evidence is becoming more and more irrefutable as each day goes by.
 
The thing is that this was an open secret.

I heard a former BBC staff member on the radio this morning saying that all 24,000 BBC employees during the 1980's would have known something was going on as it was often talked about and joked about by people on every level.

It matters not that Saville is unable to answer these allegations, the growing evidence is becoming more and more irrefutable as each day goes by.

I keep hearing that "people joked about...." and all that says to me is that whatever they were joking about cant have been as serious as some of the things alleged now.
 
It matters not that Saville is unable to answer these allegations, the growing evidence is becoming more and more irrefutable as each day goes by.
It can't get any more irrefutable Sp!ke as there is no material evidence either way and the accused is dead. All we have is witness statements.
 
No it doesn't.

It's just a matter of making sure that everybody is treated as fairly as possible and making sure that the fact that somebody is not about to face the allegations in person doesn't skew the outcome.

The momentum at the moment is that with the weight of publicity that there is now a presumption of guilt. If he were alive then the reporting would be more careful and there would be a trial pending and a once that was conducted a subequent verdict - and at this time we'd be reminding ourselves that he was still presumed innocent while waiting for that process to complete.

Now because the alleged perpetrator is dead that process isn't available.

So he is being treated differently.

And I am uncomfortable with that on *principle*.

So you think that making very obvious sarcasm out of of child abuse is acceptable?

You may well be uncomfortable. That does not give any credence to have sarcastic pops at victims of child abuse.
 
So you think that making very obvious sarcasm out of of child abuse is acceptable?

Where on earth did you get that idea?

You may well be uncomfortable. That does not give any credence to have sarcastic pops at victims of child abuse.

Seriously. What on earth are you on about?:eek:
 
The actions of his family in destroying the grave speak volumes, and given the avalanche of statements its reasonable to speculate that there were victims within his own family too
 
The actions of his family in destroying the grave speak volumes, and given the avalanche of statements its reasonable to speculate that there were victims within his own family too

I think on the basis that these people may be identifiable that such speculation is possibly intrusive.

It is down to those who were affected as victims or witnesses to make their own decisions as to how they might proceed - and if unsolicited questions are to be asked it's for formal investigators rather than the public or media.
 
Yes, completely independent witness statements from a steadilly growing number of people. Statements which cooberate each other.
That's what I mean. It's not "growing more and more irrefutable" it was completely irrefutable the minute a statement showed up. What can possibly prove innocence?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom