Jim Davidson denies Falklands questioning

Daily Echo: Jim Davidson Jim Davidson

A lawyer for the entertainer Jim Davidson today said his client has not been interviewed over an alleged historic sexual offence carried out in the Falkland Islands.

Davidson, who was yesterday rebailed by detectives from Operation Yewtree - the probe launched in the aftermath of the Jimmy Savile scandal - was originally arrested by Scotland Yard in January over allegations of historic sexual offences against women in the UK.

The 59-year-old, who lives in Stockbridge, Hampshire, has not been charged and has been bailed to July.

Today it was reported that Yewtree detectives were carrying out an investigation on behalf of the Royal Falklands Island Police into an accusation that the comic indecently assaulted a woman while he was on tour and entertaining British troops.

Davidson's solicitor Henri Brandman said: "Jim continues to vigorously deny the allegations that have been put to him and is helping the police as fully as possible in their inquiries.

"He has not been charged with any offence.

"Jim has not been interviewed in respect of any alleged incident with a woman suggested to have taken place in the Falkland Islands about 30 years ago.

"Unless and until he is interviewed on that subject, neither he nor I can make any comment in that respect."

A Falklands police spokesman said: "The Falkland Islands Government have been made aware of allegations made against Jim Davidson.

"We have asked the Metropolitan Police to make enquiries relating to these allegations.

"We await the outcome of the investigation."

So far 12 people have been arrested as part of Operation Yewtree.

A number of high-profile figures from the entertainment industry have been arrested as part of the investigation, which is being run in three strands: allegations against Savile, allegations involving Savile and others, and allegations involving others.

The dozen arrests include former pop star Gary Glitter, DJ Dave Lee Travis and comedian Freddie Starr.

All deny any wrongdoing.

PR guru Max Clifford was charged with 11 historic counts of indecent assault against teenage girls.

The 70-year-old, who is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on May 28, has vowed to clear his name, describing the allegations as ''a load of nonsense''.

Earlier this week, veteran comedian Jimmy Tarbuck was arrested at his home in south-west London in connection with a historic child sex abuse allegation by North Yorkshire Police after receiving information from Scotland Yard detectivesworking on Yewtree.

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:56pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried. Jayne388
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Sat 11 May 13

userds5050 says...

Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
Shut it.
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]Shut it. userds5050
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

userds5050 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
Shut it.
Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made !

I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ?

Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse.

I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.
[quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]Shut it.[/p][/quote]Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made ! I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ? Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse. I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything. Jayne388
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Sat 11 May 13

froots says...

Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
Too long, didn't read.
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]Too long, didn't read. froots
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Sat 11 May 13

froots says...

Jayne388 wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
Shut it.
Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made !

I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ?

Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse.

I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.
He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read.

Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text.
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]Shut it.[/p][/quote]Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made ! I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ? Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse. I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.[/p][/quote]He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read. Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text. froots
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Sat 11 May 13

IronLady2010 says...

Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu.

One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin.

Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point.

http://www.huffingto
npost.co.uk/2012/11/
18/rod-hull-used-emu
-puppet-_n_2153817.h
tml
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu. One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin. Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2012/11/ 18/rod-hull-used-emu -puppet-_n_2153817.h tml IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Sat 11 May 13

andysaints007 says...

Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
The most boring post ever submitted to this forum - gop away before you send us all to sleep you idiot
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]The most boring post ever submitted to this forum - gop away before you send us all to sleep you idiot andysaints007
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Sat 11 May 13

Linesman says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu.

One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin.

Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point.

http://www.huffingto

npost.co.uk/2012/11/

18/rod-hull-used-emu

-puppet-_n_2153817.h

tml
So would you if you had Rod Hull's hand rammed as far up the same part of your anatomy as the Emu did.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu. One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin. Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2012/11/ 18/rod-hull-used-emu -puppet-_n_2153817.h tml[/p][/quote]So would you if you had Rod Hull's hand rammed as far up the same part of your anatomy as the Emu did. Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

froots wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
Shut it.
Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made !

I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ?

Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse.

I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.
He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read.

Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text.
Froots, there are some things in life that cannot be adequately summed up in a few words.

We seem to live in an age of Twitter-like brevity, and "quick fixes", which may suit some but not others.

Short attention spans contributes hugely to poor education.

Thank-you for your explanation, but clearly you and userds5050 have nothing of value to contribute.
[quote][p][bold]froots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]Shut it.[/p][/quote]Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made ! I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ? Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse. I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.[/p][/quote]He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read. Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text.[/p][/quote]Froots, there are some things in life that cannot be adequately summed up in a few words. We seem to live in an age of Twitter-like brevity, and "quick fixes", which may suit some but not others. Short attention spans contributes hugely to poor education. Thank-you for your explanation, but clearly you and userds5050 have nothing of value to contribute. Jayne388
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Sat 11 May 13

Reality-man says...

Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
You need to get out more
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]You need to get out more Reality-man
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Sat 11 May 13

S Pance says...

Well, my sources suggest there will be more arrests to come, some *major* household names will be included.

It's certainly an interesting point, should the work of these alleged offenders be erased from history?

I'd argue that trying to erase these people from history will lead to them and their rumoured deeds being forgotten and thus similar things are likely to occur again in the future.

We should learn from history but the only way we can do this is if it's an exact record of what occurred, warts and all.
Well, my sources suggest there will be more arrests to come, some *major* household names will be included. It's certainly an interesting point, should the work of these alleged offenders be erased from history? I'd argue that trying to erase these people from history will lead to them and their rumoured deeds being forgotten and thus similar things are likely to occur again in the future. We should learn from history but the only way we can do this is if it's an exact record of what occurred, warts and all. S Pance
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

Reality-man wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
You need to get out more
I thought we were here to discuss the topic. You and one or two others seem to want to discuss ME !

Why should my social life concern you ?
[quote][p][bold]Reality-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]You need to get out more[/p][/quote]I thought we were here to discuss the topic. You and one or two others seem to want to discuss ME ! Why should my social life concern you ? Jayne388
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Sat 11 May 13

100%HANTSBOY says...

@ Jayne338

If there's one thing more boring than your post,it's everybody quoting it!
@ Jayne338 If there's one thing more boring than your post,it's everybody quoting it! 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Sat 11 May 13

S Pance says...

Open your eyes sheeple, do your own searches on Google and perhaps realise how widespread this issue is..
Open your eyes sheeple, do your own searches on Google and perhaps realise how widespread this issue is.. S Pance
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

There is a little group who patrol this forum looking for opportunities to abuse serious commenters.

They have nothing to say, nothing to contribute, and are hoping to start a verbal fight.

They are probably angry because they wanted to use this post to yell and shout and swear in the name of summary justice for "pervs".

Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.

Don't waste your time trying to engage me further.
There is a little group who patrol this forum looking for opportunities to abuse serious commenters. They have nothing to say, nothing to contribute, and are hoping to start a verbal fight. They are probably angry because they wanted to use this post to yell and shout and swear in the name of summary justice for "pervs". Oh dear, what a shame, never mind. Don't waste your time trying to engage me further. Jayne388
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Sat 11 May 13

IronLady2010 says...

Jayne388 wrote:
There is a little group who patrol this forum looking for opportunities to abuse serious commenters.

They have nothing to say, nothing to contribute, and are hoping to start a verbal fight.

They are probably angry because they wanted to use this post to yell and shout and swear in the name of summary justice for "pervs".

Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.

Don't waste your time trying to engage me further.
If you say more than 3 words it confuses some people. You have been warned ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: There is a little group who patrol this forum looking for opportunities to abuse serious commenters. They have nothing to say, nothing to contribute, and are hoping to start a verbal fight. They are probably angry because they wanted to use this post to yell and shout and swear in the name of summary justice for "pervs". Oh dear, what a shame, never mind. Don't waste your time trying to engage me further.[/p][/quote]If you say more than 3 words it confuses some people. You have been warned ;-) IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Sat 11 May 13

Linesman says...

I can't help finding it rather amusing that the person whose catchphrase was 'Nick Nick' has been Nicked!
I can't help finding it rather amusing that the person whose catchphrase was 'Nick Nick' has been Nicked! Linesman
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu.

One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin.

Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point.

http://www.huffingto

npost.co.uk/2012/11/

18/rod-hull-used-emu

-puppet-_n_2153817.h

tml
After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself.

There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu. One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin. Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2012/11/ 18/rod-hull-used-emu -puppet-_n_2153817.h tml[/p][/quote]After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself. There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all. Jayne388
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

andysaints007 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
The most boring post ever submitted to this forum - gop away before you send us all to sleep you idiot
You seem to be following me around and insulting me quite needlessly. I do not insist you read my posts. Others read them, apparently with interest.

I know how to clone your nickname and make you look quite ridiculous here. Please don't tempt me.
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]The most boring post ever submitted to this forum - gop away before you send us all to sleep you idiot[/p][/quote]You seem to be following me around and insulting me quite needlessly. I do not insist you read my posts. Others read them, apparently with interest. I know how to clone your nickname and make you look quite ridiculous here. Please don't tempt me. Jayne388
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Sat 11 May 13

IronLady2010 says...

Jayne388 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu.

One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin.

Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point.

http://www.huffingto


npost.co.uk/2012/11/


18/rod-hull-used-emu


-puppet-_n_2153817.h


tml
After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself.

There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all.
Silly Billy! Re-read what I said...... It was Emu that went for the groin, I've not accused Hull of anything ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu. One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin. Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2012/11/ 18/rod-hull-used-emu -puppet-_n_2153817.h tml[/p][/quote]After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself. There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all.[/p][/quote]Silly Billy! Re-read what I said...... It was Emu that went for the groin, I've not accused Hull of anything ;-) IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Sat 11 May 13

froots says...

Jayne388 wrote:
froots wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
Shut it.
Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made !

I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ?

Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse.

I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.
He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read.

Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text.
Froots, there are some things in life that cannot be adequately summed up in a few words.

We seem to live in an age of Twitter-like brevity, and "quick fixes", which may suit some but not others.

Short attention spans contributes hugely to poor education.

Thank-you for your explanation, but clearly you and userds5050 have nothing of value to contribute.
Well, I'm sure insulting everyone will demonstrate how clever you are. Well done. Guess you're not that bothered if anyone reads your tedious posts.
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]froots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]Shut it.[/p][/quote]Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made ! I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ? Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse. I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.[/p][/quote]He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read. Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text.[/p][/quote]Froots, there are some things in life that cannot be adequately summed up in a few words. We seem to live in an age of Twitter-like brevity, and "quick fixes", which may suit some but not others. Short attention spans contributes hugely to poor education. Thank-you for your explanation, but clearly you and userds5050 have nothing of value to contribute.[/p][/quote]Well, I'm sure insulting everyone will demonstrate how clever you are. Well done. Guess you're not that bothered if anyone reads your tedious posts. froots
  • Score: 0

9:38pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu.

One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin.

Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point.

http://www.huffingto



npost.co.uk/2012/11/



18/rod-hull-used-emu



-puppet-_n_2153817.h



tml
After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself.

There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all.
Silly Billy! Re-read what I said...... It was Emu that went for the groin, I've not accused Hull of anything ;-)
LOL ! Sorry, Iron Lady. I was thinking about what to say to andysaints and co., and missed the joke !

And yes, Hull almost convinced himself that Emu was a real force in his life, not just a puppet, didn't he ? Also, people are mentioning a certain Cliff Richard ! If all these accusations turn out to be true, well, I don't know what to say. It is very, very upsetting.

By the way, a certain "Billy" says hello, and hopes you are well. He's an old colleague of mine. We were at training college at the same time, and have kept in touch.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu. One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin. Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2012/11/ 18/rod-hull-used-emu -puppet-_n_2153817.h tml[/p][/quote]After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself. There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all.[/p][/quote]Silly Billy! Re-read what I said...... It was Emu that went for the groin, I've not accused Hull of anything ;-)[/p][/quote]LOL ! Sorry, Iron Lady. I was thinking about what to say to andysaints and co., and missed the joke ! And yes, Hull almost convinced himself that Emu was a real force in his life, not just a puppet, didn't he ? Also, people are mentioning a certain Cliff Richard ! If all these accusations turn out to be true, well, I don't know what to say. It is very, very upsetting. By the way, a certain "Billy" says hello, and hopes you are well. He's an old colleague of mine. We were at training college at the same time, and have kept in touch. Jayne388
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Sat 11 May 13

IronLady2010 says...

Don't bring Cliff Richard into it, my mother will shoot you, she's a massive fan, bless her, old age and all that.

WB Billy, always good to see an old face on here to lighten things up :-)
Don't bring Cliff Richard into it, my mother will shoot you, she's a massive fan, bless her, old age and all that. WB Billy, always good to see an old face on here to lighten things up :-) IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Sat 11 May 13

lovetheladies says...

Jayne388 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu. One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin. Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2012/11/ 18/rod-hull-used-emu -puppet-_n_2153817.h tml
After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself. There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all.
Silly Billy! Re-read what I said...... It was Emu that went for the groin, I've not accused Hull of anything ;-)
LOL ! Sorry, Iron Lady. I was thinking about what to say to andysaints and co., and missed the joke ! And yes, Hull almost convinced himself that Emu was a real force in his life, not just a puppet, didn't he ? Also, people are mentioning a certain Cliff Richard ! If all these accusations turn out to be true, well, I don't know what to say. It is very, very upsetting. By the way, a certain "Billy" says hello, and hopes you are well. He's an old colleague of mine. We were at training college at the same time, and have kept in touch.
shut it Jayne
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu. One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin. Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2012/11/ 18/rod-hull-used-emu -puppet-_n_2153817.h tml[/p][/quote]After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself. There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all.[/p][/quote]Silly Billy! Re-read what I said...... It was Emu that went for the groin, I've not accused Hull of anything ;-)[/p][/quote]LOL ! Sorry, Iron Lady. I was thinking about what to say to andysaints and co., and missed the joke ! And yes, Hull almost convinced himself that Emu was a real force in his life, not just a puppet, didn't he ? Also, people are mentioning a certain Cliff Richard ! If all these accusations turn out to be true, well, I don't know what to say. It is very, very upsetting. By the way, a certain "Billy" says hello, and hopes you are well. He's an old colleague of mine. We were at training college at the same time, and have kept in touch.[/p][/quote]shut it Jayne lovetheladies
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

froots wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
froots wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
Shut it.
Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made !

I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ?

Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse.

I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.
He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read.

Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text.
Froots, there are some things in life that cannot be adequately summed up in a few words.

We seem to live in an age of Twitter-like brevity, and "quick fixes", which may suit some but not others.

Short attention spans contributes hugely to poor education.

Thank-you for your explanation, but clearly you and userds5050 have nothing of value to contribute.
Well, I'm sure insulting everyone will demonstrate how clever you are. Well done. Guess you're not that bothered if anyone reads your tedious posts.
What are you on about ? I have simply replied to the insulting remarks aimed at me, started by you, andysaints and userds5050. That hardly counts as "everybody", does it ?

People do read my posts, I think, and they talk to me. Like all posts, they're on offer, reading them is not compulsory.

Nobody talks to you three, though, do they ? Nowhere on this entire forum is there a discussion between any of you and anyone else.

How do you define tedious ?

Well you are either jealous of my ability to communicate ideas, or you are just trying to undermine my confidence. Probably both.

Compared to some of the trolls on ICQ you are mere fluffy bunnies ! A tiny bit irritating, but mainly fluffy !
[quote][p][bold]froots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]froots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]Shut it.[/p][/quote]Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made ! I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ? Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse. I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.[/p][/quote]He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read. Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text.[/p][/quote]Froots, there are some things in life that cannot be adequately summed up in a few words. We seem to live in an age of Twitter-like brevity, and "quick fixes", which may suit some but not others. Short attention spans contributes hugely to poor education. Thank-you for your explanation, but clearly you and userds5050 have nothing of value to contribute.[/p][/quote]Well, I'm sure insulting everyone will demonstrate how clever you are. Well done. Guess you're not that bothered if anyone reads your tedious posts.[/p][/quote]What are you on about ? I have simply replied to the insulting remarks aimed at me, started by you, andysaints and userds5050. That hardly counts as "everybody", does it ? People do read my posts, I think, and they talk to me. Like all posts, they're on offer, reading them is not compulsory. Nobody talks to you three, though, do they ? Nowhere on this entire forum is there a discussion between any of you and anyone else. How do you define tedious ? Well you are either jealous of my ability to communicate ideas, or you are just trying to undermine my confidence. Probably both. Compared to some of the trolls on ICQ you are mere fluffy bunnies ! A tiny bit irritating, but mainly fluffy ! Jayne388
  • Score: 0

10:20pm Sat 11 May 13

IronLady2010 says...

Jayne388 wrote:
froots wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
froots wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable.

Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion !

But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt.

People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law.

Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it.

Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork.

Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
Shut it.
Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made !

I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ?

Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse.

I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.
He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read.

Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text.
Froots, there are some things in life that cannot be adequately summed up in a few words.

We seem to live in an age of Twitter-like brevity, and "quick fixes", which may suit some but not others.

Short attention spans contributes hugely to poor education.

Thank-you for your explanation, but clearly you and userds5050 have nothing of value to contribute.
Well, I'm sure insulting everyone will demonstrate how clever you are. Well done. Guess you're not that bothered if anyone reads your tedious posts.
What are you on about ? I have simply replied to the insulting remarks aimed at me, started by you, andysaints and userds5050. That hardly counts as "everybody", does it ?

People do read my posts, I think, and they talk to me. Like all posts, they're on offer, reading them is not compulsory.

Nobody talks to you three, though, do they ? Nowhere on this entire forum is there a discussion between any of you and anyone else.

How do you define tedious ?

Well you are either jealous of my ability to communicate ideas, or you are just trying to undermine my confidence. Probably both.

Compared to some of the trolls on ICQ you are mere fluffy bunnies ! A tiny bit irritating, but mainly fluffy !
I remember using ICQ before facebook was even thought about, is it still going?
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]froots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]froots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]Shut it.[/p][/quote]Wow ! What a thoroughly enlightening and inspired contribution you have made ! I'm baffled. What moral or legal right do you have to command me to withhold my opinion on an open forum that encourages people to express their views ? Be careful. You are heading in the direction of infringement of site terms by harassing other users with mild abuse. I'm not interested in your rudeness, but I would be glad to know what you disagree with. "Shut it" doesn't really say anything.[/p][/quote]He's probably more telling you to keep your posts brief, which is sound advise if you have anything of worth to say, and expect it to be read. Can you sum up your initial post in fewer words? I'm not trawling through that wall of text.[/p][/quote]Froots, there are some things in life that cannot be adequately summed up in a few words. We seem to live in an age of Twitter-like brevity, and "quick fixes", which may suit some but not others. Short attention spans contributes hugely to poor education. Thank-you for your explanation, but clearly you and userds5050 have nothing of value to contribute.[/p][/quote]Well, I'm sure insulting everyone will demonstrate how clever you are. Well done. Guess you're not that bothered if anyone reads your tedious posts.[/p][/quote]What are you on about ? I have simply replied to the insulting remarks aimed at me, started by you, andysaints and userds5050. That hardly counts as "everybody", does it ? People do read my posts, I think, and they talk to me. Like all posts, they're on offer, reading them is not compulsory. Nobody talks to you three, though, do they ? Nowhere on this entire forum is there a discussion between any of you and anyone else. How do you define tedious ? Well you are either jealous of my ability to communicate ideas, or you are just trying to undermine my confidence. Probably both. Compared to some of the trolls on ICQ you are mere fluffy bunnies ! A tiny bit irritating, but mainly fluffy ![/p][/quote]I remember using ICQ before facebook was even thought about, is it still going? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:34pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Don't bring Cliff Richard into it, my mother will shoot you, she's a massive fan, bless her, old age and all that.

WB Billy, always good to see an old face on here to lighten things up :-)
Billy is banned for life, Iron Lady. He can't post here. Dan Kerins has cancelled his account, at his own request. And I'm NOT letting him use my ID and get me into trouble with others ! It is a shame because the BillyTheKid character was just a fun idea that went terribly wrong. When he tried to recant, no one would trust him. Obviously.

I like Cliff's early stuff, but not things like "Congratulations". Do have a look on the net. There are some posts that look a little bit ominous. Believe me, I hope that they are not true, because Cliff was our answer to Elvis. He gave credibility to British rock n roll. Without him we only had Tommy Steele, and the ailing Billy Fury as serious contenders.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Don't bring Cliff Richard into it, my mother will shoot you, she's a massive fan, bless her, old age and all that. WB Billy, always good to see an old face on here to lighten things up :-)[/p][/quote]Billy is banned for life, Iron Lady. He can't post here. Dan Kerins has cancelled his account, at his own request. And I'm NOT letting him use my ID and get me into trouble with others ! It is a shame because the BillyTheKid character was just a fun idea that went terribly wrong. When he tried to recant, no one would trust him. Obviously. I like Cliff's early stuff, but not things like "Congratulations". Do have a look on the net. There are some posts that look a little bit ominous. Believe me, I hope that they are not true, because Cliff was our answer to Elvis. He gave credibility to British rock n roll. Without him we only had Tommy Steele, and the ailing Billy Fury as serious contenders. Jayne388
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

And yes, ICQ is bigger, better, and even more awful than ever ! LOL ! You still get torn to shreds on "Movies" by American trolls ! In the other rooms they spend 90% of the time saying hello and goodbye to one another as a thousand visitors drop in and out, and the other 10% on sexual innuendo ! LOL !
And yes, ICQ is bigger, better, and even more awful than ever ! LOL ! You still get torn to shreds on "Movies" by American trolls ! In the other rooms they spend 90% of the time saying hello and goodbye to one another as a thousand visitors drop in and out, and the other 10% on sexual innuendo ! LOL ! Jayne388
  • Score: 0

10:44pm Sat 11 May 13

IronLady2010 says...

Jayne388 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Don't bring Cliff Richard into it, my mother will shoot you, she's a massive fan, bless her, old age and all that.

WB Billy, always good to see an old face on here to lighten things up :-)
Billy is banned for life, Iron Lady. He can't post here. Dan Kerins has cancelled his account, at his own request. And I'm NOT letting him use my ID and get me into trouble with others ! It is a shame because the BillyTheKid character was just a fun idea that went terribly wrong. When he tried to recant, no one would trust him. Obviously.

I like Cliff's early stuff, but not things like "Congratulation
s". Do have a look on the net. There are some posts that look a little bit ominous. Believe me, I hope that they are not true, because Cliff was our answer to Elvis. He gave credibility to British rock n roll. Without him we only had Tommy Steele, and the ailing Billy Fury as serious contenders.
I can't say I'm familiar with Sir Cliff, I know of his music and that dreaded Mistletoe and Wine.........

I can only comment on what my mother says and she believes he's still a virgin and would eat him, given half the chance.

Personally, that lisp drives me up the wall.
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Don't bring Cliff Richard into it, my mother will shoot you, she's a massive fan, bless her, old age and all that. WB Billy, always good to see an old face on here to lighten things up :-)[/p][/quote]Billy is banned for life, Iron Lady. He can't post here. Dan Kerins has cancelled his account, at his own request. And I'm NOT letting him use my ID and get me into trouble with others ! It is a shame because the BillyTheKid character was just a fun idea that went terribly wrong. When he tried to recant, no one would trust him. Obviously. I like Cliff's early stuff, but not things like "Congratulation s". Do have a look on the net. There are some posts that look a little bit ominous. Believe me, I hope that they are not true, because Cliff was our answer to Elvis. He gave credibility to British rock n roll. Without him we only had Tommy Steele, and the ailing Billy Fury as serious contenders.[/p][/quote]I can't say I'm familiar with Sir Cliff, I know of his music and that dreaded Mistletoe and Wine......... I can only comment on what my mother says and she believes he's still a virgin and would eat him, given half the chance. Personally, that lisp drives me up the wall. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:59pm Sat 11 May 13

Jayne388 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Don't bring Cliff Richard into it, my mother will shoot you, she's a massive fan, bless her, old age and all that.

WB Billy, always good to see an old face on here to lighten things up :-)
Billy is banned for life, Iron Lady. He can't post here. Dan Kerins has cancelled his account, at his own request. And I'm NOT letting him use my ID and get me into trouble with others ! It is a shame because the BillyTheKid character was just a fun idea that went terribly wrong. When he tried to recant, no one would trust him. Obviously.

I like Cliff's early stuff, but not things like "Congratulation

s". Do have a look on the net. There are some posts that look a little bit ominous. Believe me, I hope that they are not true, because Cliff was our answer to Elvis. He gave credibility to British rock n roll. Without him we only had Tommy Steele, and the ailing Billy Fury as serious contenders.
I can't say I'm familiar with Sir Cliff, I know of his music and that dreaded Mistletoe and Wine.........

I can only comment on what my mother says and she believes he's still a virgin and would eat him, given half the chance.

Personally, that lisp drives me up the wall.
If the net is to be believed, he's not a virgin, but quite which side he's been batting for we don't know ! LOL !
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Don't bring Cliff Richard into it, my mother will shoot you, she's a massive fan, bless her, old age and all that. WB Billy, always good to see an old face on here to lighten things up :-)[/p][/quote]Billy is banned for life, Iron Lady. He can't post here. Dan Kerins has cancelled his account, at his own request. And I'm NOT letting him use my ID and get me into trouble with others ! It is a shame because the BillyTheKid character was just a fun idea that went terribly wrong. When he tried to recant, no one would trust him. Obviously. I like Cliff's early stuff, but not things like "Congratulation s". Do have a look on the net. There are some posts that look a little bit ominous. Believe me, I hope that they are not true, because Cliff was our answer to Elvis. He gave credibility to British rock n roll. Without him we only had Tommy Steele, and the ailing Billy Fury as serious contenders.[/p][/quote]I can't say I'm familiar with Sir Cliff, I know of his music and that dreaded Mistletoe and Wine......... I can only comment on what my mother says and she believes he's still a virgin and would eat him, given half the chance. Personally, that lisp drives me up the wall.[/p][/quote]If the net is to be believed, he's not a virgin, but quite which side he's been batting for we don't know ! LOL ! Jayne388
  • Score: 0

1:28am Sun 12 May 13

Jayne388 says...

Apologies to posters. This is a message for Iron Lady.

I feel a bit bothered that you think I'm Billy. I mean Jayne isn't my real name any more than Iron is yours. But my real personality is behind Jayne. My friend, who played Billy, wanted to come here tomorrow as me to convince you I wasn't Billy ! LOL ! He felt he could do it better than me !
This is doing my head in ! My friend and I have fallen out a little over this, nothing serious, he'll get over it.
I should never have mentioned Billy, as he is not behind my comments. I'm Jayne and that's that.
If "BillyTheKid" comes back here in any shape or form, you won't recognise him because he was created for a bit of fun last year. He was my friend "in role". He was acting. He was no more Billy than John Thaw was Kavanagh QC.

But I've had enough. I love discussions and debate, but I don't want to see the inane remarks of little ankle-biting nitwits like andysaints. I'm too old for that sort of nonsense.

So I'm out. If I pop back in the future, it won't be as Jayne. Trouble is no one wants to discuss anything in depth. Shame.

Bye, Iron Lady, nice meeting you.
Apologies to posters. This is a message for Iron Lady. I feel a bit bothered that you think I'm Billy. I mean Jayne isn't my real name any more than Iron is yours. But my real personality is behind Jayne. My friend, who played Billy, wanted to come here tomorrow as me to convince you I wasn't Billy ! LOL ! He felt he could do it better than me ! This is doing my head in ! My friend and I have fallen out a little over this, nothing serious, he'll get over it. I should never have mentioned Billy, as he is not behind my comments. I'm Jayne and that's that. If "BillyTheKid" comes back here in any shape or form, you won't recognise him because he was created for a bit of fun last year. He was my friend "in role". He was acting. He was no more Billy than John Thaw was Kavanagh QC. But I've had enough. I love discussions and debate, but I don't want to see the inane remarks of little ankle-biting nitwits like andysaints. I'm too old for that sort of nonsense. So I'm out. If I pop back in the future, it won't be as Jayne. Trouble is no one wants to discuss anything in depth. Shame. Bye, Iron Lady, nice meeting you. Jayne388
  • Score: 0

7:05am Sun 12 May 13

Pikey-Biker says...

lovetheladies wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Jayne388 wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.
You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu. One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin. Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2012/11/ 18/rod-hull-used-emu -puppet-_n_2153817.h tml
After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself. There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all.
Silly Billy! Re-read what I said...... It was Emu that went for the groin, I've not accused Hull of anything ;-)
LOL ! Sorry, Iron Lady. I was thinking about what to say to andysaints and co., and missed the joke ! And yes, Hull almost convinced himself that Emu was a real force in his life, not just a puppet, didn't he ? Also, people are mentioning a certain Cliff Richard ! If all these accusations turn out to be true, well, I don't know what to say. It is very, very upsetting. By the way, a certain "Billy" says hello, and hopes you are well. He's an old colleague of mine. We were at training college at the same time, and have kept in touch.
shut it Jayne
Nice and polite I see!
[quote][p][bold]lovetheladies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I was really shocked by the Jimmy Savile affair, mainly over the number of offences and the long period of time over which they took place. Shocked, but not surprised as he always struck me, in TV interviews, as being a bit of a weirdo. Being a weirdo is not unusual in the entertainment world, and it does not mean you are a potential sex offender, but it does make people feel uncomfortable. Now I absolutely loath, to the depth of my soul ( ! ), Jim Davidson and Rolf Harris. I find Davidson obnoxiously crude and unfunny, and Rolf Harris' minimal, untalented repertoire an affront to the expectations we have of entertainers. Ironic, that, as I expect most of you know, Davidson does a particularly vulgar micky-take of Harris in one of his sketches. My own eccentric view is that they both ought to be prosecuted for crimes against comedy, but that's just my opinion ! But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they are likely to be sex offenders. Let's hear the evidence and let the courts decide before we start assuming their guilt. People get extremely fierce and angry about all forms of sexual abuse, particularly if it involves children. And rightly so. No matter how various sexual behaviours might be explained and defended, human beings of all ages have rights, particularly the right to refuse. Abuse of those rights must be punishable in law. Extenuating circumstances ? The pressures of stardom, overwhelming and uncontrollable passions, the effects of excessive use of drugs and alcohol - one or all of these may EXPLAIN behaviour, but not EXCUSE it. Once justice has been dispensed, how do we regard the "art" of the guilty ? Gary Glitter was at the heart of Glam Rock. Can we, realistically, eradicate his contribution ? Lewis Carroll appears to have had an obsession for the little girl who was the inspiration for his "Alice" books. Should those books be removed from bookshelves ? The work of Eric Gill is deeply woven into type face design. Do we stop using the printed word until all traces of his influence have been removed ? Perhaps we may have to learn a new skill, namely to separate, in certain cases, the achievements from personal behaviour. Will it boil down to degree ? As far as we know, Lewis Carroll did not actually carry out any abuse, so maybe we can be comfortable with the "Alice" books. But with the graphic artist Michael Ovenden, the details of his conviction might be just too much to tolerate, and negate any appreciation we might have had for his artwork. Let's hope posters here will contribute something that will advance the debate on sex abuse and its punishment, rather than just resorting to graphic descriptions of preferences regarding torture for perpetrators, thus jumping the gun in the cases of those who have yet to be carged and tried.[/p][/quote]You failed to mention Rod Hull and Emu. One thing I always remember is that Emu always went for the groin. Just as I type this I stumble across this, kind of proves a point. http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2012/11/ 18/rod-hull-used-emu -puppet-_n_2153817.h tml[/p][/quote]After a lot of internet searching, it seems the only people to suggest that Hull was up to no good are Eric Bristow and yourself. There's a lot of speculation about various stars in blogs by half-wits, but that is about all.[/p][/quote]Silly Billy! Re-read what I said...... It was Emu that went for the groin, I've not accused Hull of anything ;-)[/p][/quote]LOL ! Sorry, Iron Lady. I was thinking about what to say to andysaints and co., and missed the joke ! And yes, Hull almost convinced himself that Emu was a real force in his life, not just a puppet, didn't he ? Also, people are mentioning a certain Cliff Richard ! If all these accusations turn out to be true, well, I don't know what to say. It is very, very upsetting. By the way, a certain "Billy" says hello, and hopes you are well. He's an old colleague of mine. We were at training college at the same time, and have kept in touch.[/p][/quote]shut it Jayne[/p][/quote]Nice and polite I see! Pikey-Biker
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Sun 12 May 13

justanotherview says...

Generally safe to assume that if the word "boring" is used in criticism, it comes from an adolescent. They don't have the background knowledge and experience to appreciate that there may be more than one answer to the same question, or that some things need more time to say.

And that old chestnut "childish". Used by young people to humiliate adults who are winning the argument.

My advice to Jayne, should she want it ? Be selective here, focus on the serious pieces, and ignore the dross.
Generally safe to assume that if the word "boring" is used in criticism, it comes from an adolescent. They don't have the background knowledge and experience to appreciate that there may be more than one answer to the same question, or that some things need more time to say. And that old chestnut "childish". Used by young people to humiliate adults who are winning the argument. My advice to Jayne, should she want it ? Be selective here, focus on the serious pieces, and ignore the dross. justanotherview
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Sun 12 May 13

Jayne388 says...

justanotherview wrote:
Generally safe to assume that if the word "boring" is used in criticism, it comes from an adolescent. They don't have the background knowledge and experience to appreciate that there may be more than one answer to the same question, or that some things need more time to say.

And that old chestnut "childish". Used by young people to humiliate adults who are winning the argument.

My advice to Jayne, should she want it ? Be selective here, focus on the serious pieces, and ignore the dross.
Thanks for the advice. With the benefit of hindsight, it makes sense.

I get quite involved in some discussions, but when people start having a go for no real reason, it hacks me off.

Perhaps I'll stay, and try being "selective".
[quote][p][bold]justanotherview[/bold] wrote: Generally safe to assume that if the word "boring" is used in criticism, it comes from an adolescent. They don't have the background knowledge and experience to appreciate that there may be more than one answer to the same question, or that some things need more time to say. And that old chestnut "childish". Used by young people to humiliate adults who are winning the argument. My advice to Jayne, should she want it ? Be selective here, focus on the serious pieces, and ignore the dross.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the advice. With the benefit of hindsight, it makes sense. I get quite involved in some discussions, but when people start having a go for no real reason, it hacks me off. Perhaps I'll stay, and try being "selective". Jayne388
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Mon 13 May 13

froots says...

Jayne388 wrote:
Apologies to posters. This is a message for Iron Lady.

I feel a bit bothered that you think I'm Billy. I mean Jayne isn't my real name any more than Iron is yours. But my real personality is behind Jayne. My friend, who played Billy, wanted to come here tomorrow as me to convince you I wasn't Billy ! LOL ! He felt he could do it better than me !
This is doing my head in ! My friend and I have fallen out a little over this, nothing serious, he'll get over it.
I should never have mentioned Billy, as he is not behind my comments. I'm Jayne and that's that.
If "BillyTheKid" comes back here in any shape or form, you won't recognise him because he was created for a bit of fun last year. He was my friend "in role". He was acting. He was no more Billy than John Thaw was Kavanagh QC.

But I've had enough. I love discussions and debate, but I don't want to see the inane remarks of little ankle-biting nitwits like andysaints. I'm too old for that sort of nonsense.

So I'm out. If I pop back in the future, it won't be as Jayne. Trouble is no one wants to discuss anything in depth. Shame.

Bye, Iron Lady, nice meeting you.
Confirmed sighting of Billy "I'm never coming back here" The Kid. Heh.
[quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: Apologies to posters. This is a message for Iron Lady. I feel a bit bothered that you think I'm Billy. I mean Jayne isn't my real name any more than Iron is yours. But my real personality is behind Jayne. My friend, who played Billy, wanted to come here tomorrow as me to convince you I wasn't Billy ! LOL ! He felt he could do it better than me ! This is doing my head in ! My friend and I have fallen out a little over this, nothing serious, he'll get over it. I should never have mentioned Billy, as he is not behind my comments. I'm Jayne and that's that. If "BillyTheKid" comes back here in any shape or form, you won't recognise him because he was created for a bit of fun last year. He was my friend "in role". He was acting. He was no more Billy than John Thaw was Kavanagh QC. But I've had enough. I love discussions and debate, but I don't want to see the inane remarks of little ankle-biting nitwits like andysaints. I'm too old for that sort of nonsense. So I'm out. If I pop back in the future, it won't be as Jayne. Trouble is no one wants to discuss anything in depth. Shame. Bye, Iron Lady, nice meeting you.[/p][/quote]Confirmed sighting of Billy "I'm never coming back here" The Kid. Heh. froots
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Mon 13 May 13

Jayne388 says...

froots wrote:
Jayne388 wrote:
Apologies to posters. This is a message for Iron Lady.

I feel a bit bothered that you think I'm Billy. I mean Jayne isn't my real name any more than Iron is yours. But my real personality is behind Jayne. My friend, who played Billy, wanted to come here tomorrow as me to convince you I wasn't Billy ! LOL ! He felt he could do it better than me !
This is doing my head in ! My friend and I have fallen out a little over this, nothing serious, he'll get over it.
I should never have mentioned Billy, as he is not behind my comments. I'm Jayne and that's that.
If "BillyTheKid" comes back here in any shape or form, you won't recognise him because he was created for a bit of fun last year. He was my friend "in role". He was acting. He was no more Billy than John Thaw was Kavanagh QC.

But I've had enough. I love discussions and debate, but I don't want to see the inane remarks of little ankle-biting nitwits like andysaints. I'm too old for that sort of nonsense.

So I'm out. If I pop back in the future, it won't be as Jayne. Trouble is no one wants to discuss anything in depth. Shame.

Bye, Iron Lady, nice meeting you.
Confirmed sighting of Billy "I'm never coming back here" The Kid. Heh.
Don't keep on Georgem !

Billy The Kid is banned. My friend is not going to resurrect "last year's man", for goodness sake ! Anyway, he can't access the site anymore because his email address is blocked.

Billy The Kid as a bona fide poster never existed. Sometimes there were three or four of us round my friend's computer, deciding what Billy's response should be. We had a good laugh developing Billy's character and personality, and his eventual demise.

If that makes you feel humiliated, that really is too bad. You, Georgem, and Stillness, Rightway, Clausentum, and Lone Ranger got your just deserts for being so vile. Your bluff was called. Some rats got stamped on !

Perhaps you don't understand the concepts of role play, and character acting. BillyTheKid was in a shoot-out with the above, and was finally laid to rest by Sheriff Dan Kerins ! LOL !

Get over it, Georgem, Froot, or whatever you are calling yourself at the moment.

I'm Jayne. Talk to me. Reply to my posts. Try as I might, I can't play Billy. What was that name he kept calling you ? Something to do with some science fiction writer. I'll have to phone my friend and see if he remembers.

Anyway, I'm fair-minded. Nice to meet one of Billy's old adversaries !
[quote][p][bold]froots[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jayne388[/bold] wrote: Apologies to posters. This is a message for Iron Lady. I feel a bit bothered that you think I'm Billy. I mean Jayne isn't my real name any more than Iron is yours. But my real personality is behind Jayne. My friend, who played Billy, wanted to come here tomorrow as me to convince you I wasn't Billy ! LOL ! He felt he could do it better than me ! This is doing my head in ! My friend and I have fallen out a little over this, nothing serious, he'll get over it. I should never have mentioned Billy, as he is not behind my comments. I'm Jayne and that's that. If "BillyTheKid" comes back here in any shape or form, you won't recognise him because he was created for a bit of fun last year. He was my friend "in role". He was acting. He was no more Billy than John Thaw was Kavanagh QC. But I've had enough. I love discussions and debate, but I don't want to see the inane remarks of little ankle-biting nitwits like andysaints. I'm too old for that sort of nonsense. So I'm out. If I pop back in the future, it won't be as Jayne. Trouble is no one wants to discuss anything in depth. Shame. Bye, Iron Lady, nice meeting you.[/p][/quote]Confirmed sighting of Billy "I'm never coming back here" The Kid. Heh.[/p][/quote]Don't keep on Georgem ! Billy The Kid is banned. My friend is not going to resurrect "last year's man", for goodness sake ! Anyway, he can't access the site anymore because his email address is blocked. Billy The Kid as a bona fide poster never existed. Sometimes there were three or four of us round my friend's computer, deciding what Billy's response should be. We had a good laugh developing Billy's character and personality, and his eventual demise. If that makes you feel humiliated, that really is too bad. You, Georgem, and Stillness, Rightway, Clausentum, and Lone Ranger got your just deserts for being so vile. Your bluff was called. Some rats got stamped on ! Perhaps you don't understand the concepts of role play, and character acting. BillyTheKid was in a shoot-out with the above, and was finally laid to rest by Sheriff Dan Kerins ! LOL ! Get over it, Georgem, Froot, or whatever you are calling yourself at the moment. I'm Jayne. Talk to me. Reply to my posts. Try as I might, I can't play Billy. What was that name he kept calling you ? Something to do with some science fiction writer. I'll have to phone my friend and see if he remembers. Anyway, I'm fair-minded. Nice to meet one of Billy's old adversaries ! Jayne388
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree