*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[Poopadoop]

That John Lydon interview is from 1978.

So if one weirdo celebrity who claims to want to kill nearly everyone in the business calls another weirdo celebrity a sleazeball and makes a vague reference to "rumours," the police should investigate them for pedophilia? Jesus Christ, get Columbo on the case.

How many actual people came forward and accused him is the question. There has to be a record of it somewhere.

[OngBonga]

So if one weirdo celebrity who claims to want to kill nearly everyone in the business calls another weirdo celebrity a sleazeball and makes a vague reference to "rumours," the police should investigate them for pedophilia? Jesus Christ, get Columbo on the case.

How many actual people came forward and accused him is the question. There has to be a record of it somewhere.

I'm sure there is a record of it somewhere. I very much doubt Johnny is the only one who spoke out, but we're talking here about a time where it was very easy to make evidence disappear, so who knows?

Victims came forward, and the CPS didn't bring charges. This isn't about Johnny at all, I only showed you that to demonstrate that as far back as 1978 people were talking about it, and that's the evidence that has survived and is publicly available.

And if you're a broadcaster there's no reason to risk a libel suit. Granted, I think what Mr. Rotten said was sufficiently vague not to be considered libelous, but the BBC probably asked their lawyer and he told them not to risk it.

The BBC were Savile's employer. They have a conflict of interest. As a responsible employer, Johnny's comments should at least cause the BBC to informally look into these allegations by speaking to those who work close to Savile. But they didn't, they instead sought to censor the allegations. Is that to protect their reputation, or to protect him? This went on for two decades, and he was getting the "benefit of the doubt" from the CPS, too. I think he was being protected.

[Poopadoop]

I'm sure there is a record of it somewhere.

You're sure there's evidence based on there being no evidence you can point to. Think about that for a minute.

I very much doubt Johnny is the only one who spoke out, but we're talking here about a time where it was very easy to make evidence disappear, so who knows?

There COULD have been evidence that was buried, indeed.

Victims came forward, and the CPS didn't bring charges.

Now who's Captain Hindsight?

How were the police at the time to know the allegations were true? If someone is famous, there's a lot of whackos out there who want a piece of them.

This isn't about Johnny at all, I only showed you that to demonstrate that as far back as 1978 people were talking about it, and that's the evidence that has survived and is publicly available.

"Sleazeball" and "rumours" are pretty chickenshit ways of making a rape allegation. Even Mr. Rotten knew they were just rumours, and he could have been sued for it if they turned out to be untrue. So obviously he wasn't as sure then as you are now that its' all come out.

The BBC were Savile's employer. They have a conflict of interest.

I agree.

As a responsible employer, Johnny's comments should at least cause the BBC to informally look into these allegations

They weren't actually allegations, they were very vague hints of allegations. You can't expect people to hear the words "sleazeball" and "rumours" and jump to "pedo." Unless they already knew something, in which case yeah they were at fault.

But they didn't, they instead sought to censor the allegations. Is that to protect their reputation, or to protect him?

Already gave you a perfectly valid legal explanation for it.

But if you don't buy the legal explanation (and I'm not entirely convinced myself, but it's an angle), then consider the fact that all interviews get edited. That's not necessarily censorship in the sense of covering up evidence. For all you know the person in charge just though "that seems kinda fucked he wants to kill nearly everyone starting with Jim will fix it, let's leave that bit out."

This went on for two decades, and he was getting the "benefit of the doubt" from the CPS, too. I think he was being protected.

The first recorded allegations came just before he died afaik. So "two decades" seems speculative.