Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TheBlueCat

******** Obituary

Recommended Posts

It's a bit of a mess as a piece of writing but it gives an interesting sense of a particular period of history. I imagine similar things will be written about the Tony Blair era at some point in the future too:

http://is.gd/OnvMZz

edit: he's dead now ffs, we can stop censoring his name!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet some of them wish they didn't settle now....

"Judges are prevented from delivering a verdict on libel cases if the person bringing the claim before the court dies before the judgment is handed down, the High Court has said."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all second or third hand stuff but I read somewhere that when the bloke who had identified Lord M as his abuser was shown a picture of him he said that it wasn't him at all.

Somebody else had told him that's who it was and he'd taken their word for it.

Smear campaign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all second or third hand stuff but I read somewhere that when the bloke who had identified Lord M as his abuser was shown a picture of him he said that it wasn't him at all.

Somebody else had told him that's who it was and he'd taken their word for it.

Smear campaign?

It could have been someone trying to settle an old score I guess - there are plenty of people on left from the 80s who would do pretty much anything to get back at Thatcher and her entourage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all second or third hand stuff but I read somewhere that when the bloke who had identified Lord M as his abuser was shown a picture of him he said that it wasn't him at all.

Somebody else had told him that's who it was and he'd taken their word for it.

Smear campaign?

You mean the police officer? This was far more interesting than all twitter nonsense. Why had the police mis-idenitified the suspect, if you where the victim and a police officer told you the name you'd believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the police officer? This was far more interesting than all twitter nonsense. Why had the police mis-idenitified the suspect, if you where the victim and a police officer told you the name you'd believe it.

The police might have gone through some pictures with an alleged victim they were interviewing, but that they should've named names beggars belief.

That character is not a remotely credible witness.

Will the HPC censor blank out his late lordship's name?

Exorcism

Q: What’s the difference between Jimmy Savile and Lord ********?

A: Lord ******** is alive to defend himself.

Probably not the only difference. But had ******** not been alive, where would his name be now?

To recap the story as it stands today: ******** briefly stood accused of kiddy-fiddling, based apparently on the word of one unreliable witness (“victim”) given credence by a BBC programme. The witness has now withdrawn the accusation on the basis of mistaken identity leaving no case against him, and the BBC with some serious egg on its face and a director general fallen on his sword.

The original accusation turns out to have been worse-than-flimsy: the police interviewed the “victim”, showed him a picture which he identified as his attacker, and then told him the picture was ********?!!??! How the **** did that turn into a story worth taking seriously? The late, great Arthur Miller had the answer, and so do we if we call ********’s accuser “Abigail”. Though that too would be inaccurate: pointing the finger at one man is not the same as kicking off the whole witch-hunt, and that’s been happening for years (as witness the absurdity of the red tape binding any adult contact with children outside the family context).

As for Savile? I have absolutely no idea: I never saw him or his TV programmes when he was alive, and I hadn’t even heard of his charity work until the whole kiddy-fiddling story suddenly filled the “news”. Noone is defending him, and there are hundreds of accusers against him: doesn’t all that put his guilt beyond doubt? It’s even been suggested his body might be dug up: a witch-hunt has turned into an exorcism!

The sceptic should at least question whether the case against him is proven. And I can only conclude that the evidence falls short. Most if not all of it is heavily tainted by compensation: if the powers-that-be had been interested in the truth, the very first thing they needed to do was rule out this expectation of personal financial advantage to his accusers!

And as to why noone is (so far as has been reported) defending him, Miller again has an answer: who wants to share Proctor’s fate? In the thick of a witch-hunt, even the wronged ******** wouldn’t dare say a word against his accuser lest he be reviled as insensitive to a victim. How much less then would anyone dare question a Savile-accuser’s compensationreward, let alone defend him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is like a complex quiz show. Names blanked out, link to an article behind a paywall.....

do I win a prize if I work it all out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.