egafd.com

Another great institution is about to be dragged through the mud. Yes, I know he was a bit weird and kept his dead mother's corpse in one of his bedrooms, well ok he kept her clothes and stuff in one of his bedrooms, but surely the accusations creeping out about our Jim are an outrageous slur.

Our Jim, using his "Tarzan yodel" and his position as top DJ and suggestively dangling his gong to entice underage girls back to his lair? Surely not! Little did I know when I helped to build his, Jim'l' Fix It" chair, what kind of man I was dealing with and now to suggest that the BBC deliberately covered up our Jim's pervy shenanigans is outrageous! Next they'll be suggesting Prince Phillip is a racist bigot!!

I can't believe it Jim, It's even worse than the Johnathan King, Garry Glitter Incidents if it's true. Are you honestly suggesting that JS gave some people more than medals?, I hope he didn't fix it for you, you would only have been a teenager then surely?

Bit late to get a conviction and appropriate sentencing then?

This has all the wnderful hallmarks of a tabloid smear story.

A colourful character, he never married and his private life has long been the subject of gossip and speculation"

Much of it in the tabloid press. "a colourful character" - ah that phrase, case proven then.

"A Surrey Police spokesman said that in 2007 the force ?received a historic allegation alleged to have occurred during the 1970s?. He said: ?The claims were investigated and no further action was taken.?"

So given the alleged offences were 40 years ago in the 1970's, not a snap decision then to make a complaint.

I suspect if the case had come to court it might have been a tad short lived.

"He took advantage of me when I was by myself in the back of his car, 40 years ago".

"Oh no, I didn't." "Case dismissed"

"
"However, executives dropped the investigation, which was apparently due to be screened shortly before a BBC Christmas tribute edition of Jim?ll Fix It."

Aha, naughty, naughty BBC!!! More like "For fuck's sake how are you going to fill haf an hour with this, ya ponces!!

Roll on Leveson implementation.


PS Next week, how I was sexually abused as a child by Diana Dors. SHe is dead isn't she? Thank Christ for that, I can go on about it then. Orrible it were.

The guy always had a black cloud hanging over him(wrongly) cause of smear stories. He was one of the most original and talented broadcasters ever to appear on tv or radio. If you ever saw the louis theroux doc with him you could tell he was painfully lonely underneath all the bravado.

It's just an illusory comfort that we should beware of people who appear 'weird', 'singular', 'eccentric', and that they're hiding something.

Isn't it the 'normal' people that you should watch for, after all what better subterfuge than normality ?

David Johnson wrote:


> This has all the wnderful hallmarks of a tabloid smear story.
>
How do you know? You are always taking people to task for not backing up their pinions/allegations with facts so how do you know it is a tabloid smear story?


> A colourful character, he never married and his private life
> has long been the subject of gossip and speculation"
>
> Much of it in the tabloid press. "a colourful character" - ah
> that phrase, case proven then.

And much of it provided by Sir Jimmy Savile (one L) himself to keep himself in the public eye.

>
> "A Surrey Police spokesman said that in 2007 the force
> ?received a historic allegation alleged to have occurred during
> the 1970s?. He said: ?The claims were investigated and no
> further action was taken.?"
>
> So given the alleged offences were 40 years ago in the 1970s,
> not a snap decision then to make a complaint.
>
> I suspect if the case had come to court it might have been a
> tad short lived.
>
> "He took advantage of me when I was by myself in the back of
> his car, 40 years ago".
>

The "victim" wouldn't have been by herself in the back of his car then if she was being taken advantage of, would she?

Remember the Jersey children's home... I'm not saying he was or wasn't a pervert but also remember we have the strictest libel laws in the world. Most of Robert Maxwell's crimes didn't come out until after he was dead.
>
> "
> "However, executives dropped the investigation, which was
> apparently due to be screened shortly before a BBC Christmas
> tribute edition of Jim?ll Fix It."
>
> Aha, naughty, naughty BBC!!! More like "For fuck's sake how
> are you going to fill haf an hour with this, ya ponces!!
>
> Roll on Leveson implementation.

So you want the press to become like the French, unable to report on misdemeanours?

Couldn`t stand the chap when he was alive, not surprised his image is
fading now he is dead ! Exhibitionist, with his awful accent, cigars,
stupid glasses and, as far as I could see, apart from a good P.R. tendency
to raise money for charity, a complete twat.

We're singing from the same songbook frankthring. I concur with you, but I would say complete twatt.

"How do you know? You are always taking people to task for not backing up their pinions/allegations with facts so how do you know it is a tabloid smear story?"

I did not say "I know". Got that? What I did say, to be precise, is

"This has all the wonderful hallmarks of a tabloid smear story"

This is obviously not the same as stating - I know that this is definitely a smear story.

Apparently, as a tabloid journalist in the past, you will know that to prove a negative is somewhat difficult.

David Johnson " Essex Lad you are a kiddie fiddler".

Essex Lad "Oh no, I am not".

DJ "Prove it"

Essex Lad "Err"

All you can do in the situation is disprove the evidence given and since the evidence given to the police was not sufficient to bring a case, there is nothing to disprove.

And the hallmarks of a smear story tend to include:

1. The victim has snuffed it so that libel laws do not apply.
2. An absence of any proof whatsoever. The fact that this was already investigated years ago and turned down because there was not sufficient evidence.
3. The level of innuendo e.g. "BBC insiders" complaining that it was pulled because of a BBC tribute programme being planned. "Colourful character" etc etc.

""The "victim" wouldn't have been by herself in the back of his car then if she was being taken advantage of, would she?"

Not a hugely, relevant point !wink!. Clearly I refer to the fact that there was no corroborating evidence to support her claim.

"Remember the Jersey children's home... "

WTF has that got to do with Jimmy Savile?

"but also remember we have the strictest libel laws in the world."

They don't apply to the dead. Hence the weird and wonderful rumours and stories about Princess Di after she died.

"So you want the press to become like the French, unable to report on misdemeanours?"

No. What I want is a press that doesn't fill its pages with smear stories and tittle tattle for the mentally challenged.

Have a nice day.

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they're fair game to be impugned. That's just malicious.