Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
Here's Johnny Rotten in a 1978 radio interview...



The BBC edited out these comments when broadcasting this interview.

This isn't a "benefit of the doubt" situation. This is an example of a highly influential person who is close friends with powerful people being allowed to continue his horrific crimes for decades. This isn't even a controversial opinion, it's widely accepted that Savile was protected. His 1974 autobiography contained admissions, there were plenty of accusations, when you have people making accusations and self-written evidence to support those accusations, you've at the very least got an investigation. That didn't happen, and it's not because someone was on a cigarette break or was too busy chasing robbers.
What you've shown isn't evidence for what you're claiming it is.

Broadcasters have to follow libel laws. You can't allow your guests to say libellous things, because you (the broadcaster) will get in trouble for it. Listen to any radio programme with live callers - the presenter will always shit their pants anytime a caller gets even close to saying something libelous. That's one of the main reasons why they have live callers on a 7 second delay (the other is swearing).

So this interview doesn't prove anything even close to a cover up. It proves the BBC were following libel laws, which any broadcaster is supposed to do.

You may be right about his auto-biography, (I'm not about to read it). But does he actually say in it "I raped kids"? Or is it more subtle than that? I think you may be confusing hints with confessions here.

As for there being plenty of accusations, I only heard of the three that were investigated by Surrey police in 2009. Are these other ones documented, or just a bunch that came out later? It's important to keep the timeline of these things straight, because you can't investigate accusations that haven't been made yet. If someone came out after he died and said "yeah, he diddled me too," that's not evidence of a cover up. It's evidence of an accusation being made well after the event took place.