The question clearly implies that someone at the BBC covered it up. Who was that?
You must be really desperate. He says in the interview that he would like to make a film of him killing 200 people. The first person he mentions is Mick Jagger. He then says he would like to kill Jimmy Saville. He claims he knows that he is guilty of some seediness. What conclusion should we draw from this seediness. I have got it, the BBC should have mounted a full scale investigation. They clearly should have forced the police to investigate this seediness. Was he banned for saying he wanted to kill 200 people, or that Jimmy Saville was seedy. You are clutching at straws. He cant actually get the hang of whether what he was saying was liable, or libellous. You would have to be a fool to take the interview seriously.
The question clearly implies that someone at the BBC covered it up. Who was that?
You must be really desperate. He says in the interview that he would like to make a film of him killing 200 people. The first person he mentions is Mick Jagger. He then says he would like to kill Jimmy Saville. He claims he knows that he is guilty of some seediness. What conclusion should we draw from this seediness. I have got it, the BBC should have mounted a full scale investigation. They clearly should have forced the police to investigate this seediness. Was he banned for saying he wanted to kill 200 people, or that Jimmy Saville was seedy. You are clutching at straws. He cant actually get the hang of whether what he was saying was liable, or libellous. You would have to be a fool to take the interview seriously.
The more I think about this, the more pathetic I think it is. You are assuming that even though he expressed a wish to kill 200 people and film these actions, the BBC banned him for saying he had heard rumours that Jimmy Saville was seedy. Pathetic. Dont you think that if he had rumours that Jimmy Saville was a paedophile, that he was obligated to inform the police. How can you put him up as a hero, when he did nothing, other than refer to Savilles seediness in an interview which he intended to be humorous. Having a laugh at the expense of abused children is despicable. What did you think he meant when referring to Savilles seediness?
Heard an interesting link a couple of years back between Saville and one of the Yorkshire Ripper murders. In fact one of the murders took place about 300m from his flat from memory. Would not be at all surprised given what we have learned about this deviant that he had something to do with a Ripper murder.
The famous pic with Peter Sutcliffe and Frank Bruno was perhaps his way of laughing at the world and being so bold about getting away with it.
Even as a kid he looked a creep and unlikeable on tv. On the tv show itself, I have no desire to watch it. Only due to knowing the story and hearing interviews over the years of his and others affected by his ways.
Is it controversial? I don't believe so as a whole, he died over 10 years ago and we watch dark tv. Look at some of the stuff that's been popular lately. Crime/murders and deviants will always peak our interest and this case is no different.
I just find it strange that the BBC are running the show although I suspect that it will get more people talking which is the point.
Comments
The question clearly implies that someone at the BBC covered it up.
Who was that?
You must be really desperate.
He says in the interview that he would like to make a film of him killing 200 people.
The first person he mentions is Mick Jagger.
He then says he would like to kill Jimmy Saville.
He claims he knows that he is guilty of some seediness.
What conclusion should we draw from this seediness.
I have got it, the BBC should have mounted a full scale investigation.
They clearly should have forced the police to investigate this seediness.
Was he banned for saying he wanted to kill 200 people, or that Jimmy Saville was seedy.
You are clutching at straws.
He cant actually get the hang of whether what he was saying was liable, or libellous.
You would have to be a fool to take the interview seriously.
?
The question clearly implies that someone at the BBC covered it up.
Who was that?
You must be really desperate.
He says in the interview that he would like to make a film of him killing 200 people.
The first person he mentions is Mick Jagger.
He then says he would like to kill Jimmy Saville.
He claims he knows that he is guilty of some seediness.
What conclusion should we draw from this seediness.
I have got it, the BBC should have mounted a full scale investigation.
They clearly should have forced the police to investigate this seediness.
Was he banned for saying he wanted to kill 200 people, or that Jimmy Saville was seedy.
You are clutching at straws.
He cant actually get the hang of whether what he was saying was liable, or libellous.
You would have to be a fool to take the interview seriously.
The more I think about this, the more pathetic I think it is.
You are assuming that even though he expressed a wish to kill 200 people and film these actions, the BBC banned him for saying he had heard rumours that Jimmy Saville was seedy.
Pathetic.
Dont you think that if he had rumours that Jimmy Saville was a paedophile, that he was obligated to inform the police.
How can you put him up as a hero, when he did nothing, other than refer to Savilles seediness in an interview which he intended to be humorous.
Having a laugh at the expense of abused children is despicable.
What did you think he meant when referring to Savilles seediness?
The famous pic with Peter Sutcliffe and Frank Bruno was perhaps his way of laughing at the world and being so bold about getting away with it.
Even as a kid he looked a creep and unlikeable on tv. On the tv show itself, I have no desire to watch it. Only due to knowing the story and hearing interviews over the years of his and others affected by his ways.
Is it controversial? I don't believe so as a whole, he died over 10 years ago and we watch dark tv. Look at some of the stuff that's been popular lately. Crime/murders and deviants will always peak our interest and this case is no different.
I just find it strange that the BBC are running the show although I suspect that it will get more people talking which is the point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reckoning_(2022_TV_series)