Red-Robbo Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Interestingly, there are hundreds of blogs and message board messages now appearing on the Internet relating to perversions perpetrated by Tony Blair, Jimmy Savile and the BBC high command. Read Ishtar's Gate and the Anti-D Notice thread at the link below...... http://www.ishtarsga...D-Notice-Thread ......."The victims should realise that they're going to be collected up and shuffled off out of media awareness as soon as possible, no doubt with offers of compensation which will take years to materialise, to buy silence. The only information that's going to spill will be on the internet. Otherwise it will be daily boring waffle sounding the same each day designed to send everyone to sleep, referring only to the 'JImmy Savile' enquiries, when paedophilia is a universal of the British system of power. Victims should set up their own blogs, and release their information on the internet themselves publicly. The victims must realise by now they can't trust the BBC or the government, surely. Get online now. Forget the offers of money. Go public. Or be squashed once more." Hundreds of blogs on the internet are written by idiots and crackpot conspiracy theorists - and you appear to be reading most of them! Without going into the full insanity of the link you posted here, allow me to explain in brief terms how John Harris's blog post is fatally flawed (before we get as far as the bit where he claims that Dennis Nilsen (name spelt wrong in the blog) was a member of the SWP "a Labour Party affiliated organisation" ): 1) D-Notices are voluntary guidance. They cannot be used to force anyone not to publish anything. 2) Do you honestly think that there are many - if any - British journalists who, if they received a guidance notice from the government saying, "we'd rather you didn't mention anything about senior politicians implicated in a child porn website", wouldn't think "great story!" and publicise the whole thing to hell? I know I would. 3) The notices are drawn up by the Defence Press Advisory Committee - a cross-party board - and including the views of the chiefs of Defence staff and the Guild of Editors. Tony Blair can't order a D-Notice. And, as the name suggests, they are all defence related. You couldn't say "don't publish anything about Operation Ore because of the Iraq War". It just would not wash. 4) The Sunday Times and The Sun DID see the full 1,000 page list of suspects. They were leaked to the paper by a copper who was subsequently sacked. They highlighted the presence of "a British rock legend" in the list (Pete Townshend) and various other worthies, but had nothing about "senior Labour Party figures". As Tory leaning papers, they certainly wouldn't have hushed something like that up. 5) Operation Ore began 4 years before the second Gulf war. So, in terms of theories, it has just a smidgeon less credibility than David Icke's giant intergalactic shapeshifting lizards one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Hundreds of blogs on the internet are written by idiots and crackpot conspiracy theorists - and you appear to be reading most of them! Without going into the full insanity of the link you posted here, allow me to explain in brief terms how John Harris's blog post is fatally flawed (before we get as far as the bit where he claims that Dennis Nilsen (name spelt wrong in the blog) was a member of the SWP "a Labour Party affiliated organisation" ): 1) D-Notices are voluntary guidance. They cannot be used to force anyone not to publish anything. 2) Do you honestly think that there are many - if any - British journalists who, if they received a guidance notice from the government saying, "we'd rather you didn't mention anything about senior politicians implicated in a child porn website", wouldn't think "great story!" and publicise the whole thing to hell? I know I would. 3) The notices are drawn up by the Defence Press Advisory Committee - a cross-party board - and including the views of the chiefs of Defence staff and the Guild of Editors. Tony Blair can't order a D-Notice. And, as the name suggests, they are all defence related. You couldn't say "don't publish anything about Operation Ore because of the Iraq War". It just would not wash. 4) The Sunday Times and The Sun DID see the full 1,000 page list of suspects. They were leaked to the paper by a copper who was subsequently sacked. They highlighted the presence of "a British rock legend" in the list (Pete Townshend) and various other worthies, but had nothing about "senior Labour Party figures". As Tory leaning papers, they certainly wouldn't have hushed something like that up. 5) Operation Ore began 4 years before the second Gulf war. So, in terms of theories, it has just a smidgeon less credibility than David Icke's giant intergalactic shapeshifting lizards one. The problem is the fact that Jimmy Savile was able to sexually assault children on BBC premises with impunity - do you accept this is true? I don't think there's any doubting that complaints were made to Police over a 50 year period and Jimmy Savile was never ever prosecuted due to 'lack of evidence'. In my opinion, Jimmy Savile was being protected from prosecution by people with power or in power over that time period. In this respect, Tony Blair as a highly trained liar (a lawyer) is most definately a suspect........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 The problem is the fact that Jimmy Savile was able to sexually assault children on BBC premises with impunity - do you accept this is true? I don't think there's any doubting that complaints were made to Police over a 50 year period and Jimmy Savile was never ever prosecuted due to 'lack of evidence'. In my opinion, Jimmy Savile was being protected from prosecution by people with power or in power over that time period. In this respect, Tony Blair as a highly trained liar (a lawyer) is most definately a suspect........ you should be banned for your own good, Posting wild conpescy thoerys as fact can lead to libel and end up costing yourself alot of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 The problem is the fact that Jimmy Savile was able to sexually assault children on BBC premises with impunity - do you accept this is true? I don't think there's any doubting that complaints were made to Police over a 50 year period and Jimmy Savile was never ever prosecuted due to 'lack of evidence'. In my opinion, Jimmy Savile was being protected from prosecution by people with power or in power over that time period. In this respect, Tony Blair as a highly trained liar (a lawyer) is most definately a suspect........ If some of the stories are true he was able to have sex with and grope underage girls on NHS premises and in his own houses and, according to a story in the Mail last week, in an ITV studio with impunity too! However, the fact that a swarm of lawyers have descended like sharks scenting blood, spreading the mantra "you might be able to make some money out of this" means I do not necessarily believe a number of these alleged victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 If some of the stories are true he was able to have sex with and grope underage girls on NHS premises and in his own houses and, according to a story in the Mail last week, in an ITV studio with impunity too! However, the fact that a swarm of lawyers have descended like sharks scenting blood, spreading the mantra "you might be able to make some money out of this" means I do not necessarily believe a number of these alleged victims. For political reasons and as an English patriot I hope that the victims of Jimmy Savile get the chance to sue Tony Blair. I've never felt so proud to be Bristolian in my entire life as when I heard that Tony Blair's limousine courtege was bricked when it trundled through Southmead when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. Those Bristolian patriots should be given full battle honours and treated as civic dignatories for their heroic deed. ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 For political reasons and as an English patriot I hope that the victims of Jimmy Savile get the chance to sue Tony Blair. I've never felt so proud to be Bristolian in my entire life as when I heard that Tony Blair's limousine courtege was bricked when it trundled through Southmead when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. Those Bristolian patriots should be given full battle honours and treated as civic dignatories for their heroic deed. ......... How do you square that most of Savile's abuse was carried on in the 70s and very early 80s (some supposedly earlier) with the fact that this was before the time Blair was a "powerful person" or indeed even an MP (or a lawyer!) Sort of takes the wind totally out of the sails of your wild conspiracy theory. I mean, I don't like Blair either, but I have the feeling that you'll be telling me he was Jack the Ripper and the brains behind the Third Reich next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted October 30, 2012 Admin Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 I mean, I don't like Blair either, but I have the feeling that you'll be telling me he was Jack the Ripper and the brains behind the Third Reich next. Your telling us he wasn't?? It would have been nice to see something stick to cheesy, phoney, teflonTony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Your telling us he wasn't?? It would have been nice to see something stick to cheesy, phoney, teflonTony It might be William "we are just good friends" Hague who is having to do some explaing, according to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224167/Former-Minister-says-Thatcher-aide-paedophile-preyed-boys-home--Hague-known.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted October 30, 2012 Admin Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 It might be William "we are just good friends" Hague who is having to do some explaing, according to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224167/Former-Minister-says-Thatcher-aide-paedophile-preyed-boys-home--Hague-known.html I assume that there are some very nervous folk out there, too many cover ups or blind eyes turned ( I'm not accusing Blunkett) seem to be gradually surfacing. Interesting look back in the current edition of Private Eye, where they've reprinted a section of 'Heir of Sorrows' from Dec 1990 - a very enlightend satire on Saville given what we know now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 It might be William "we are just good friends" Hague who is having to do some explaing, according to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224167/Former-Minister-says-Thatcher-aide-paedophile-preyed-boys-home--Hague-known.html There be mentioning of 'D-notices' in the public comments section of the Daily Mail article you gave that link to. You did chastise me earlier in this thread for mentioning D notices that seem to be being used to cover up paedo activity amongst the corrupt elite of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 How do you square that most of Savile's abuse was carried on in the 70s and very early 80s (some supposedly earlier) with the fact that this was before the time Blair was a "powerful person" or indeed even an MP (or a lawyer!) Sort of takes the wind totally out of the sails of your wild conspiracy theory. I mean, I don't like Blair either, but I have the feeling that you'll be telling me he was Jack the Ripper and the brains behind the Third Reich next. Also from the Daily Mail article you gave the link to: "Last week, Labour MP Tom Watson stunned the Commons when he asked David Cameron to examine historic allegations about a high-level paedophile ring linked to a former Downing Street aide – who he later clarified was not Morrison. Last night Labour MP Khalid Mahmood said of the allegations about Morrison: ‘These are extremely serious claims. The evidence files should be reopened to ensure that there has not been an establishment cover-up at the heart of Westminster’." ........all this pre dates the Blair regime and yet Tony Blair allowed himself to be photographed with Jimmy Savile????!!!! Don't forget that Blair and his team were the masters of the cover up especially regarding their cover up of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - or rather the lack of them - to get us involved in what was an illegal war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Also from the Daily Mail article you gave the link to: "Last week, Labour MP Tom Watson stunned the Commons when he asked David Cameron to examine historic allegations about a high-level paedophile ring linked to a former Downing Street aide – who he later clarified was not Morrison. Last night Labour MP Khalid Mahmood said of the allegations about Morrison: ‘These are extremely serious claims. The evidence files should be reopened to ensure that there has not been an establishment cover-up at the heart of Westminster’." ........all this pre dates the Blair regime and yet Tony Blair allowed himself to be photographed with Jimmy Savile????!!!! Don't forget that Blair and his team were the masters of the cover up especially regarding their cover up of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - or rather the lack of them - to get us involved in what was an illegal war. Let's face it, as most of these allegations about Savile haven't surfaced until the last few weeks, I think politicians just thought they were getting publicity by being photographed with a charity fundraising TV star. Some politicians even spent a number of New Years Eves with the big I love you: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Let's face it, as most of these allegations about Savile haven't surfaced until the last few weeks, I think politicians just thought they were getting publicity by being photographed with a charity fundraising TV star. Some politicians even spent a number of New Years Eves with the big I love you: Yes, the big I love you had the perfect cover for his paedo activities. Charity fundraiser, an aunty BBC TV host, and feted by various Lab-Con politicians. Mrs Thatcher may have worn the trousers amongst her male Tory cabinet but she wasn't - literally - a cross dresser as Princess Tony Blair allegedly was - as alleged by a poster on the superbly controversial 'ishtarsgate.com' website...... "Tony Blair while Prime Minister put a D Notice on Operation Ore the US backed investigation into pedophilia, this was to protect high flyers in Britian from investigation, one of whom was Jimmy Savile who abused boys and girls for many years. Tony himself was known as the cross dresser "Miranda " at college and has a criminal record for worrying men in public toilets, the BBC hid up the sex crimes of people like Jimmy Savile because the BBC is the voice of government." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 What a load of drivel you do post, RG. Go look up what D-Notices actually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 What a load of drivel you do post, RG. Go look up what D-Notices actually are. Attack the post and not the poster. I'm just wondering if Ishtar (the Babylonian Babe) is my long lost older sister. She certainly seems to be running a rather controversial website at Ishtarsgate.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Attack the post and not the poster. I'm just wondering if Ishtar (the Babylonian Babe) is my long lost older sister. She certainly seems to be running a rather controversial website at Ishtarsgate.com. Not an attack, mate, I like you. I seriously recommend you cut through the conspiracy theory bs and look into what D-Notices are. You'll discover that - despite their scary sounding name - they are merely voluntary guidance issued by a committee of MPs, civil servants, military people and journalists. You are trawling the outer, barmiest fringes of internet blogging. Nothing wrong with that, but apply good journalistic practices at all times. What are your source's sources? What is their agenda? Where is the evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Not an attack, mate, I like you. I seriously recommend you cut through the conspiracy theory bs and look into what D-Notices are. You'll discover that - despite their scary sounding name - they are merely voluntary guidance issued by a committee of MPs, civil servants, military people and journalists. You are trawling the outer, barmiest fringes of internet blogging. Nothing wrong with that, but apply good journalistic practices at all times. What are your source's sources? What is their agenda? Where is the evidence? Lighten up Red-Robbo and have a laugh. There are some pretty clever people around posting on the 'barmiest fringes' of the Internet, including Ishtar the 'Babylon Babe' whose threads and comments probably sail very very close to the truth......... According to Wikipedia, Ishtar approaches the gates of the underworld and demands that the gatekeeper open them: If thou openest not the gate to let me enter, I will break the door, I will wrench the lock, I will smash the door-posts, I will force the doors. I will bring up the dead to eat the living. And the dead will outnumber the living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Let 'em come. I have a foot long meat cleaver and a job lot of bamboo pits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 And the dead will outnumber the living. Sounds like a crowd at the Memorial Stadium... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226833/BREAKING-NEWS-Senior-political-figure-outed-paedophile-Newsnight-investigation-tonight.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 http://www.dailymail...s_campaign=1490 Hilarious the Mail criticising someone for not naming an alleged abuser - who they also don't name!!! Blame our ludicrous libel laws for that. The same laws that awarded Lance Armstrong money after a paper revealed a book in the US contained a claim that he had taken drugs. If you want to know who the politrician is, go on Twitter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Hilarious the Mail criticising someone for not naming an alleged abuser - who they also don't name!!! Blame our ludicrous libel laws for that. The same laws that awarded Lance Armstrong money after a paper revealed a book in the US contained a claim that he had taken drugs. If you want to know who the politrician is, go on Twitter... Red-Robbo, fair play to you for defending the BBC when very few others have. However, let's remember that the BBC threaten and harass people daily - if you choose to not own a TV set or pay a licence fee to the BBC you are continuously harassed and sent threatening warnings of fines and imprisonment. The BBC knew about known sex offenders like Jimmy Savile, the evidence is too strong too ignore, but it seems that various high profile employees of the BBC - despite being filthy rich - have taken it upon themselves to defend a corrupt and rotten to the core organisation. Not only is the BBC completely bias and fails daily to provide a balanced news service, but the quality of the bulk of BBC programming has become so dire and poor that it is no better than even the lowest funded foreign broadcasting corporation, this in itself is quite an achievement - and something the BBC ought to be ashamed of. Anyone who still pays £145.50 per year on the BBC/gov tax - INCLUDING ME !!!!! - is a complete idiot, because we are paying for something we already own and have paid for. Although, good luck avoiding all the threats if you choose not to pay the licence fee, something the BBC High Command have clearly never experienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Red-Robbo, fair play to you for defending the BBC when very few others have. However, let's remember that the BBC threaten and harass people daily - if you choose to not own a TV set or pay a licence fee to the BBC you are continuously harassed and sent threatening warnings of fines and imprisonment. The BBC knew about known sex offenders like Jimmy Savile, the evidence is too strong too ignore, but it seems that various high profile employees of the BBC - despite being filthy rich - have taken it upon themselves to defend a corrupt and rotten to the core organisation. Not only is the BBC completely bias and fails daily to provide a balanced news service, but the quality of the bulk of BBC programming has become so dire and poor that it is no better than even the lowest funded foreign broadcasting corporation, this in itself is quite an achievement - and something the BBC ought to be ashamed of. Anyone who still pays £145.50 per year on the BBC/gov tax - INCLUDING ME !!!!! - is a complete idiot, because we are paying for something we already own and have paid for. Although, good luck avoiding all the threats if you choose not to pay the licence fee, something the BBC High Command have clearly never experienced. Nice to see that you continue to fall for the propaganda.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Nice to see that you continue to fall for the propaganda.... Now that the impartiality of the BBC has been called into question they really do need to make a greater effort to convince us of lack of bias. Spreading their recruitment advertising more evenly rather than placing most of it with the Guardian would be a start. And to people who argue it's placed there because the Guardian has a larger 'media' section I would suggest that the reason it is so big is because of the amount the Beeb chooses to allocate. With regard to bias, and in particular the EU, as you know a pet topic of mine and, as it envelops our whole status as a soveriegn nation state and is consequently the only issue worth voting on, I suspect that the BBC will play a far more subtle role this time around rather than the blatant scare tactics they used before. I've already noticed interviewers demanding to know whether someone is pro-Europe or against Europe rather than asking their opinion on the European Union. There are many I'm sure who love Europe but object to the vast EU bureaucracy. These issues aside, as the trend accelerates for people to choose to allocate less and less of their leisure time to watching the TV then the imposition of a Govenment supported tax in the form of a licence fee becomes increasingly unsupportable. In effect the cost of the licence fee is increasing as we choose to use TV less frequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Now that the impartiality of the BBC has been called into question they really do need to make a greater effort to convince us of lack of bias. Spreading their recruitment advertising more evenly rather than placing most of it with the Guardian would be a start. And to people who argue it's placed there because the Guardian has a larger 'media' section I would suggest that the reason it is so big is because of the amount the Beeb chooses to allocate. With regard to bias, and in particular the EU, as you know a pet topic of mine and, as it envelops our whole status as a soveriegn nation state and is consequently the only issue worth voting on, I suspect that the BBC will play a far more subtle role this time around rather than the blatant scare tactics they used before. I've already noticed interviewers demanding to know whether someone is pro-Europe or against Europe rather than asking their opinion on the European Union. There are many I'm sure who love Europe but object to the vast EU bureaucracy. These issues aside, as the trend accelerates for people to choose to allocate less and less of their leisure time to watching the TV then the imposition of a Govenment supported tax in the form of a licence fee becomes increasingly unsupportable. In effect the cost of the licence fee is increasing as we choose to use TV less frequently. It isn't increasing Marshy. It's been frozen for 5 years. At the same time, the BBC has had to take on the World Service (hitherto funded by the Foreign Office), the cost of the digital changeover (including adapting transmitters for 4G phones) and it has been forced by the government to pay Sky and Virgin Media to carry its channels. Everyone I know who is still there is moaning about the resouces squeeze on the frontline staff. Of course, as I've argued before, what it really needs is a very wide-rangeing audit of the BBC by people who know about management, contracts and news gathering. There's far too many middle-managers and executives in non-jobs. Sky News runs its 24-hour service with much fewer staff than its non-commercial counterpart. My guess would be that you could lop a third off the licence fee without changing the output one iota, just by clearing out non-job managers and renegotiating support contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 It isn't increasing Marshy. It's been frozen for 5 years. At the same time, the BBC has had to take on the World Service (hitherto funded by the Foreign Office), the cost of the digital changeover (including adapting transmitters for 4G phones) and it has been forced by the government to pay Sky and Virgin Media to carry its channels. Everyone I know who is still there is moaning about the resouces squeeze on the frontline staff. Of course, as I've argued before, what it really needs is a very wide-rangeing audit of the BBC by people who know about management, contracts and news gathering. There's far too many middle-managers and executives in non-jobs. Sky News runs its 24-hour service with much fewer staff than its non-commercial counterpart. My guess would be that you could lop a third off the licence fee without changing the output one iota, just by clearing out non-job managers and renegotiating support contracts. I probably didn't explain myself that well. What I meant to say was that even though the fee has been frozen it is still costing us more in real terms because there is an increasing tendency to watch less TV, and especially the BBC. The cost per hour of viewing has increased if you like. Completely agree with what you say about the need for a cost-cutting exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 I probably didn't explain myself that well. What I meant to say was that even though the fee has been frozen it is still costing us more in real terms because there is an increasing tendency to watch less TV, and especially the BBC. The cost per hour of viewing has increased if you like. Completely agree with what you say about the need for a cost-cutting exercise. Has it? I'm shocked. Does that mean real time watching or general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 I probably didn't explain myself that well. What I meant to say was that even though the fee has been frozen it is still costing us more in real terms because there is an increasing tendency to watch less TV, and especially the BBC. The cost per hour of viewing has increased if you like. Completely agree with what you say about the need for a cost-cutting exercise. You make a reasonable point Marshy. Of course it needs to be said that audiences for other BBC services, including radio, online, digital TV (including the UK branded channels) and iPlayer services (developed by the BBC as open source, so everyone benefits) is growing massively - and of course the Beeb is obliged to do other things, like maintain transmitters etc. Ultimately, I think Mark Thompson (former director general) bottled it when he had a money saving review a few years ago and announced that the Beeb would concentrate on supplying content not available from the commercial sector - and then tried to axe two stations that provided something unique (Six Music and Asian Network) and slashed Online - while leaving BBC1, Radio 1 and 2 untouched! As I've said before, I wouldn't mind seeing BBC1 (which eats up half the budget) die, but I do support the principles of public interest broadcasting. One of the things I was involved with just before I left, was a project to make the entire BBC archives (thousands of classic shows) available for free online. The whole thing is mired in contractual wrangles ATM, but if it comes off I think most people would agree it would benefit the nation. It's an ideological argument as to whether you oppose the licence fee - and I do respect those that don't, there are reasonable grounds. But it's a fact that a licence fee arrangement is mandatory in most of the Western World and even in countries where it isn't (like the US), your taxes are still used to pay for PBS, Voice Of America and for various subsidies and tax breaks to the big networks and local broadcasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 I have a foot long meat cleaver So have I after looking at the picture in Gobbo's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted November 22, 2012 Report Share Posted November 22, 2012 http://news.sky.com/story/1014875/savile-would-walk-in-on-women-having-a-bath She said: "He would come in when you'd be having a bath ... he would just walk in." Speaking anonymously, she said Savile once tried to touch her breast - and when she reported him she spent months in solitary confinement. Lawyer Liz Duck said she was representing nine women who claimed they were abused by Savile at Stoke Mandeville. "Some of them have had their lives destroyed (by Savile)," Ms Duck said. "Several of the victims did report matters to members ... no action was taken." No doubt all 9 contributing a nice little legal aid earner to Ms Duck, hoping for a big compo payment. These people should of come forward when the man was alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.