Post: #26

(04-29-2015 04:42 AM)Echoes Wrote:  You're a moron. I can't be bothered.

I don't know how many allegations are in all those reports, they list all known accusations, many of which may be not be corroborated, at the same time there's plenty that are.

If you'd bothered to read through all of them you could find plenty of incidences in which there were witnesses and the accusations were classed as credible. But instead you cherry pick, to support you're flimsy arguments. I can't be bothered to do your reading for you, frankly you seem like a cretin.

I'm giving you multiple chances to show some evidence and change my mind here.

Cherry picking? I chose a random report from the list you suggested, and every allegation in it had zero evidence.

How many reports do you suggest I have to go through in order to find a single one of your "plenty" of "credible" allegations?

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #27

Concerning the liberals linked to covering up child abuse, just look up Marion Zimmer Bradley.

Excerpt from wikipedia which spares us some of the harsher facts:

Quote:Child sex abuse allegations

In 2014, Bradley was accused of sexual abuse by her daughter, Moira Greyland, who stated that she was molested from the age of 3 to 12. Greyland, in an email to the Guardian said that she had not spoken out before "because I thought that my mother's fans would be angry with me for saying anything against someone who had championed women's rights and made so many of them feel differently about themselves and their lives. I didn't want to hurt anyone she had helped, so I just kept my mouth shut". Greyland also claimed that she was not the only victim and that she was one of the people who reported her father, Walter H. Breen, for child molestation for which he received multiple convictions.[15][16][17] By her own admission Bradley was aware of her husband's behaviour although she chose not to report him.[18]

Post: #28

(04-29-2015 04:52 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Not a christian and not a troll.

I agree with your point that gays should be given the right to the same legal contract a woman and a man can enter into.

You can go to a courthouse to get that done.

Why should a Pastor be made to do the ceremony? Even if he runs it as a business?

What do you care? Why do gays have to be able to force people who don't want to do their ceremony when there are plenty of other Christians and other pastors who will? It's only some pastors who don't want to do it.

I like your solution by the way. Let's call a spade a spade. Marriage already is a legal contract in the US. In my opinion, the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but your solution would be fine.

Family courts need to be reformed though.

Also, along your line of reasoning, a Jewish rabbi should be forced to perform the marriage of neo-nazi's whose vows include that all Jews should die.

I don't think Neo-Nazism qualifies as a protected class (race, sex, religion, sexual orientation). Yes, they have 1st amendment rights, but they don't, as a group, qualify for consideration under equal protection. Also, fuck Illinois Nazis.

I think the issue here is that I see a marriage business as the same as the town bakery that sells bread, and so does the law.

The town bakery can't put up a sign that says "no Muslims, gays, or women allowed."

Now, if the town bakery was a private association or religious organization not engaged in commerce, they could restrict membership and admission as they see fit.

Post: #29

I'm not talking about the legality of it. The pastor is suing. That will be decided by the courts.

I'm asking if YOU think it should be the law.

Should a Pastor who doesn't want to do marriage for gays be forced to do it even when there are plenty of other options.

Also, baking a cake is different. That falls under a creative action. The bakeries refusing gays have had gay customers for years. They're just refusing to DESIGN a cake for a gay wedding in the same way a web designer might decline some clients and agree to work for others.

Post: #30

(04-29-2015 04:58 AM)Benoit Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 04:42 AM)Echoes Wrote:  You're a moron. I can't be bothered.

I don't know how many allegations are in all those reports, they list all known accusations, many of which may be not be corroborated, at the same time there's plenty that are.

If you'd bothered to read through all of them you could find plenty of incidences in which there were witnesses and the accusations were classed as credible. But instead you cherry pick, to support you're flimsy arguments. I can't be bothered to do your reading for you, frankly you seem like a cretin.

I'm giving you multiple chances to show some evidence and change my mind here.

Cherry picking? I chose a random report from the list you suggested, and every allegation in it had zero evidence.

How many reports do you suggest I have to go through in order to find a single one of your "plenty" of "credible" allegations?

http://www.speakingoutinvestigation.com/...spital.pdf

There's 60 victim accounts in this one alone, and a section explaining the evidence base and how decisions were made as to whether or not these accounts were to be considered credible.

EDIT: having looked through your posts it's obvious you're just a cunt with an axe to grind over this. Anna Raccoon? lol.

Post: #31

(04-29-2015 06:06 AM)Echoes Wrote:  http://www.speakingoutinvestigation.com/...spital.pdf

There's 60 victim accounts in this one alone, and a section explaining the evidence base and how decisions were made as to whether or not these accounts were to be considered credible.

EDIT: having looked through your posts it's obvious you're just a cunt with an axe to grind over this. Anna Raccoon? lol.

So far you've called me "cretin", "moron", and "cunt". I think it's safe to assume you're no longer arguing in good faith.

The methodology of the report...

Quote:The task... is not to determine an allegation or a charge, and its findings are not determinative of civil or criminal liability... it may as a matter of judgement identify criticisms it considers can be made of individuals or organisations arising from those events, but such findings are not binding on those criticised

Here's a note from the start of the victim accounts section that should strike a chord with the forum:

Quote:Some of the victims were confused about dates and on occasions a few provided inconsistent accounts. However it should be understood that
this is entirely normal and recognised as such by both sexual abuse
experts and the Crown Prosecution Service. ... Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, wrote a report in March 2013 which said “... damaging myths and stereotypes which are associated with these cases. One such misplaced belief is that false allegations of rape... are rife”

Even so, here are the first 15 claims from that report (chronological order).

Quote:1. 11 year old girl. "the group had lunch in a big hall". "He sat her down but had his hand in the way so that she sat on it. He put his hand in her knickers and digitally penetrated her vagina" "Victim 1 did not report the incident to anyone at the time."

2. 13 year old girl. Savile "touched her bra". "Victim 2 did tell her father who did not believe her"

3. Girl aged "between 8 and 15" (!) "He would pick her up, hug her, kiss her and sit her on his lap" "she denied that Savile had touched her in a sexual way “down below”" "Victim 3 did not report the incidents to anyone at the time."

4. 16 year old girl. "he “grabbed” her breast" " The victim told her parents who did not believe her" "Victim 4 did not report the incident to anyone else at the Hospital at the time."

5. 13 year old girl. "Savile approached her and began to kiss her placing his tongue down her throat as he did so" "Victim 5 told both her family and the ward staff (not named by victim) who “ignored” her."

6. 15-16 year old girl. "Savile digitally penetrated Victim’s 6’s vagina ... by putting his hands under Victim’s 6’s blankets whilst she was being nursed in bed" "Victim 6 did not tell anyone"

7. 18 year old woman. "Savile climbed in through the open window; lunging forward he kissed Victim 7 pushing his tongue down her throat" "Victim 7 mentioned the incident “informally” in conversation to staff and her parents and (later) to patients"

8. Woman in her 20s. "He also said that she had “a couple of good milk tanks” and grabbed her breasts one in each hand." "Victim 8 did not report the incident at the time"

9. 19 year old girl. "Savile took Victim 9 out for dinner" "Whilst at the restaurant he suddenly stuck his hand up Victim 9’s skirt between her legs and tried to grope her." "Once in the car he tried to kiss her and stuck his tongue down her throat." "she told the nursing staff (not named by Victim 9) what had happened"

10. 9 year old boy. "Savile reached down and put his hands down the front of Victim 10’s tracksuit bottoms and fondled him" "Victim 10 did not report the incident at the time."

11. 13-14 year old girl. "Savile touched her breasts over clothing on one occasion." "Victim 11 did not report the incident at the time"

12. 12-14 year old girl. "She has memories of Savile cuddling and touching her from an age as young as six years (circa 1967)" "there is no evidence to suggest Savile came to Stoke Mandeville prior to 1969 save on one occasion in late 1968" "kissed her on the mouth putting his tongue down her throat and his hands up her skirt" "Savile sat her on his knee and kissed her on the mouth once again putting his tongue down her throat" "Victim 12 told a nurse on the ward (she cannot remember her name)"

13. 9-11 year old boy. "He would put Victim 13 across his knee, pull down his trousers and underpants, “grope his backside” and spank him. This happened on about 10 occasions" "Victim 13 told his Headmaster who “laughed it off”"

14. 18 year old girl. "Savile came over and “leered” down her nightdress in a “smarmy” way" " He said “what a nice pair”" "“groped” her breasts through her nightgown." "Victim 14 told no one about the incident at the time "

15. 15 year old girl. "He put his arm around her and held her very closely against his body." "Victim 15 did not report the incident at the time"

So the allegations so far involve:
-him fingering a child in front of a roomful of people
-touching a girl's bra
-hugging and kissing a girl who may have been in her late teens
-grabbed a 16 year old's breast
-kissed another girl
-fingered another girl in front of the whole ward
-climbed through a window like a victorian villain to kiss a girl
-grabbed a 20 year old's breast through her clothes
-took a 19 year old out to dinner and tried to cop a feel
-spirited away a 9 year old boy at a public event and felt him up
-touched a 13-15 year old's breast through her clothes
-kissed a girl in the hospital before he had even been to the hospital
-spanked a 10 year old boy multiple times
-looked down the top of an 18 year old girl
-put his arm around a 15 year old girl

And of these people who were so clearly victimised by his horrific actions, almost none of them bothered to report it, and for those who did, the people who they told (who would generally have known them well) thought they were full of shit.


This is not evidence of Savile being a baby-raping maniac.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #32

(04-29-2015 05:56 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  I'm not talking about the legality of it. The pastor is suing. That will be decided by the courts.

I'm asking if YOU think it should be the law.

Should a Pastor who doesn't want to do marriage for gays be forced to do it even when there are plenty of other options.

Also, baking a cake is different. That falls under a creative action. The bakeries refusing gays have had gay customers for years. They're just refusing to DESIGN a cake for a gay wedding in the same way a web designer might decline some clients and agree to work for others.

Yes, I believe in the constitution and the separation of church and state.

There is no objective or rational standard for religion.

If people want to believe in a sky wizard fine. Have at it. Enjoy!

If people want to ignore civil law and the constitution because they feel that it is the will of the Sky Wizard's mythical 2000 year old Zombie son, then no, you don't get to do that.

It's even worse when people base their personal prejudices on a total failure to understand their own bible, and instead cherry pick and "interpret" particular passages as they see fit.

Post: #33

(04-29-2015 07:52 AM)Benoit Wrote:  *snip*

We're not ever going to agree, and I'm not ever going to respect your opinion on this, so it's entirely pointless. Life is too short. I'm sure you'll take it as a sign that you've somehow won this argument, but really, I just cannot be bothered to confront such staggering stupidity and such inability to read between the lines. The reason I called you a moron, cretin and cunt is because I can't find it within me to even be civil and respect your opinion, because you are just parroting opinions you're read on AR and other ludicrous denialist websites, something which fitted in with your already previously held opinions and world-view.

Everyone who ever made these claims had nothing better to do with their lives than make-up spurious allegations against Jimmy Savile on the off-chance they might get a 'pay-out'?

We won't ever agree on this. If you think it's fine for celebs to touch up ill kids who are recovering in hospital, then fine.

Post: #34

(04-29-2015 08:46 AM)Echoes Wrote:  We're not ever going to agree, and I'm not ever going to respect your opinion on this, so it's entirely pointless. Life is too short. I'm sure you'll take it as a sign that you've somehow won this argument, but really, I just cannot be bothered to confront such staggering stupidity and such inability to read between the lines. The reason I called you a moron, cretin and cunt is because I can't find it within me to even be civil and respect your opinion, because you are just parroting opinions you're read on AR and other ludicrous denialist websites, something which fitted in with your already previously held opinions and world-view.

Everyone who ever made these claims had nothing better to do with their lives than make-up spurious allegations against Jimmy Savile on the off-chance they might get a 'pay-out'?

We won't ever agree on this. If you think it's fine for celebs to touch up ill kids who are recovering in hospital, then fine.

Thanks for that enlightening insight into my own mind.

There's only one slight issue with your claims that it fit with my "already previously held opinions and world-view". I originally held the opinion that Savile was a horrific paedophile who'd abused people's trust. But when I actually looked for the evidence to back up the news reports, it wasn't there.

Millions of pounds have been spent on "listening and believing" self-proclaimed victims, and what do we have to show for it?

- Hundreds of people who willingly kept sickening crimes secret because not going to court was better than preventing abuse?
- Or a bunch of people out for attention who were unable to take their real abusers on directly?

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #35

(04-29-2015 08:02 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 05:56 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  I'm not talking about the legality of it. The pastor is suing. That will be decided by the courts.

I'm asking if YOU think it should be the law.

Should a Pastor who doesn't want to do marriage for gays be forced to do it even when there are plenty of other options.

Also, baking a cake is different. That falls under a creative action. The bakeries refusing gays have had gay customers for years. They're just refusing to DESIGN a cake for a gay wedding in the same way a web designer might decline some clients and agree to work for others.

Yes, I believe in the constitution and the separation of church and state.

There is no objective or rational standard for religion.

If people want to believe in a sky wizard fine. Have at it. Enjoy!

If people want to ignore civil law and the constitution because they feel that it is the will of the Sky Wizard's mythical 2000 year old Zombie son, then no, you don't get to do that.

It's even worse when people base their personal prejudices on a total failure to understand their own bible, and instead cherry pick and "interpret" particular passages as they see fit.

I don't see what the constitution has to do with a marriage business being forced to perform a gay marriage, because it's a state matter in Idaho thanks to them adding homosexuals as a protected class under their state (or possibly local, I forget) anti-discrimination law.

This same issue with the same people in Idaho has come up before on this forum.

I will say that I believe government intrusion into marriage is a violation of separation of church and state, however.

This paper better explains my thoughts on the matter than I can:

http://www.law.msu.edu/king/2007/Hobson.pdf

Post: #36

(04-29-2015 08:46 AM)Echoes Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 07:52 AM)Benoit Wrote:  *snip*

We're not ever going to agree, and I'm not ever going to respect your opinion on this, so it's entirely pointless. Life is too short. I'm sure you'll take it as a sign that you've somehow won this argument, but really, I just cannot be bothered to confront such staggering stupidity and such inability to read between the lines. The reason I called you a moron, cretin and cunt is because I can't find it within me to even be civil and respect your opinion, because you are just parroting opinions you're read on AR and other ludicrous denialist websites, something which fitted in with your already previously held opinions and world-view.

Everyone who ever made these claims had nothing better to do with their lives than make-up spurious allegations against Jimmy Savile on the off-chance they might get a 'pay-out'?

We won't ever agree on this. If you think it's fine for celebs to touch up ill kids who are recovering in hospital, then fine.

Back off mate. You made interesting points in your first post about how the Beeb aren't really left wing, but it's gone downhill since there. Insults get you nowhere round here.

For what it's worth, my gut instinct is that Saville was a sleazy fucker. I'm equally convinced that no way are all the claims after his death genuine.

Post: #37

(04-29-2015 04:40 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  Keep church and state separate and you won't have this problem.
The couple in question run a private business that makes money from performing weddings.
They are thus subject to anti discrimination laws.
If they were just performing weddings/religious ceremonies inside their church, in their sole capacity as pastor or high priest or Dahli Poomba or Operating Thetan VIII or whatever they want to call themselves, they are free to serve only people who believe in their preferred fairy tale.

You seem to like "tradition." Well, in the Middle Ages, where everyone in Western Europe was essentially forced to be Christian and heresy was punishable by burning at the stake (wouldn't you like that), marriage was fundamentally a legal contract between two parties concerning the disposition of property. It was usually the subject of extensive negotiations. Only after the marriage contract was legally concluded, did a separate religious ceremony take place in which the church blessed the marriage.

So, let's be traditional. Marriage = legal contract. You can celebrate afterwards with whatever religious ceremony you choose that caters to your chosen self delusion and invokes the power of imaginary Gods, or a God, river spirits, Allah, etc etc.

Legal contracts can't be restricted on the basis of sex, religion, orientation, etc. Doesn't square with the equal protection clause.

I am a christian and I'm also a big supporter of church and state separation. If these two were running a for profit, las vegas style operation vs. a church...then I think they are shit out of luck.

I would love to see a separation of religious and legal/property contracts...as in having one proceed the other. If you enter a religious marriage ceremony, its also likely that you'll head down to the courthouse to sign a domestic property contract for example...but it doesn't have to be the other way...ie you need to have a religious ceremony to get a domestic property contract from city hall. If you break any of the contracts, you suffer the wrath of the authority you signed it under...ie, divorce courts if its civil, or church doctrine if its religious.

I do also thing anti-discrimination laws are pretty bogus, especially when it comes to business. If I walked into a bakery and said "I want you to bake me a cake that looks like a giant hairy pussy" I would like the owners to be able to refuse because "thats not their line of business" etc, without being thrown in jail. If It was a 'family' bakery lets say and they "HAD" to make me my pussy cake...what would then stop me from photographing it, and then publishing it all over that the 'family bakery' make this vulgar cake and its no place to have your child's birthday party at?

Post: #38

7 day ban for Echoes

Post: #39

Benoit's posts in this thread about the Savile allegations are absolutely exemplary. They show an impartiality, rationality, and willingness to take a close look at actual evidence that are rarely seen.

Very, very few people are able to keep their wits about them when they hear accusations of child abuse, especially when they hear hair-raising numbers like "hundreds" of kids "molested". They assume that the sheer number of accusations must mean they are true, and their immediate instinct is to see the accused drawn and quartered with no further discussion.

These crimes are bad enough at all times, but they have also acquired a special sacred status in our time (something in which the left and right are equally complicit, for different but ultimately related reasons). To question the validity of the accusations even for a moment is held to be tantamount to defending the ultimate monsters. The only thing that everyone knows is that the stories of the "victims" must be believed unconditionally -- even as reported second or third hand in some "report", or in any other context involving hearsay many times removed.

Very few have the presence of mind to inquire exactly where these accusations and improbable numbers come from, what evidence they rest on (if any) and what, if anything, do we know with any degree of certainty or even plausibility.

A (long overdue) +1 rep point from me for Benoit for his posts in this thread. It is a true pleasure to see such excellence and rationality in action.

Post: #40

(04-29-2015 07:30 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Very few have the presence of mind to inquire exactly where these accusations and improbable numbers come from, what evidence they rest on (if any) and what, if anything, do we know with any degree of certainty or even plausibility.

Thanks a lot for the support.

My personal view is that, like roberto said, Savile was a sleazy fucker.

I find it entirely believable that as a mid-list celebrity in the 60s and 70s he would have taken full advantage of it to cop a feel of any hot young thing who came into his orbit. What I do not believe is that he was a necrophiliac paedophile who kept his mother's corpse in the spare bedroom, or whatever the latest theory is. Some of the stories are so far beyond believable they are almost parody.


Look at all the other celebrities of the same period who have been prosecuted for "historic sex offences" since his death - with the odd outlier, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything more horrific than a squeeze of tit and a slap on the arse of a 16-year-old girl.

They were all 'at it' because 'it' was totally normal back then. Applying the warped puritan morality of the current day to the past is futile. Don't forget that the 'swinging sixties' free love ethos didn't really reach the UK until the 70s, so society was a lot more permissive.


Every Savile report refers individually to allegations and victims, but never alleged victims, they're already classed as survivors. These prosecutions are politically motivated by police forces that need to be seen to do something about 'sex crimes', and Savile presented a convenient way to boost their stats - "everyone's a victim if they feel like they are" lets them solve lots of sex crimes without actually having to do much pesky investigation or provide proof.

Can't find evidence that the crime didn't happen? Add it to the list. That's not how the justice system is supposed to work.

I'm not claiming there's a conspiracy, I'm claiming that the incentives are structured in such a way that people would be stupid to pass up the opportunity to benefit hugely at the expense of the reputation of a dead man.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...odbye.html

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #41

VolandoVengoVolandoVoy ,

I understand you now. In your opinion, its okay for a pastor not perform a wedding if he doesn't like someones politics, but just not as long as someone is gay. So as long as Christian pastors refuse to do gay peoples weddings because of a certain political belief they have, or ideology, that's constitutional according to your reasoning, just not if they refuse because they're gay.

Post: #42

(05-01-2015 04:44 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  VolandoVengoVolandoVoy ,

I understand you now. In your opinion, its okay for a pastor not perform a wedding if he doesn't like someones politics, but just not as long as someone is gay. So as long as Christian pastors refuse to do gay peoples weddings because of a certain political belief they have, or ideology, that's constitutional according to your reasoning, just not if they refuse because they're gay.

An argument from property rights in our current climate will ensue that the pastor or people who sell products are on a more solid legal footing. Consider that property rights ensue that you reserve the right refuse to service to anyone for any reason because of property rights.

Refusing to serve someone on the basis of religious belief will not quite fly in today's climate.