Potus ???

[daveatdave]

8 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Do you rally think that those security types in charge of The Royal Family weren't aware of Saville's activities?

They mustn't have dug very deep. Which makes you wander what they are paid for. 

 

8 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Do you rally think that those security types in charge of The Royal Family weren't aware of Saville's activities?

They mustn't have dug very deep. Which makes you wander what they are paid for. 

his family new what he was up to, they sold off all his belongings straight after his death before the story broke   

[Steven P]

1 hour ago, sime42 said:

The "me too" effect. 

 

That's the one, though I don't know if it has penetrated as far as the racists on Linked in and the senior ladies are probably too old to care.

 

 

-Edit-

I assume it is senior ladies. I shouldn't make assumptions

Edited June 4 by Steven P

[Steven P]

To bring the current discussion into some relevance of the thread, those close to the notorious paedophile - Saville - must have known, fair point, "know someone for 20 years2, but that might also draw parallels with Trump and his best friend, the notorous paedophile Epstein, who he knew for 20 years.

[Steven P]

19 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Do you rally think that those security types in charge of The Royal Family weren't aware of Saville's activities?

They mustn't have dug very deep. Which makes you wander what they are paid for. 

 

Depends on the level of checking they did. Basic would be "have you been convicted of anything", go up a level would be any financial problems, nationality and so on. Have to go up a few levels before you start ticking boxes "any rumours about sleeping with children" (note any convictions would have shown up at level 1)... So if Saville was never alone with Charles or Thatcher, then from a security point of view the checks needed wouldn't need to that deep... wouldn't need to be.... That is on a pure security thing.

 

However both had advisors - not necessarily security - who should be keeping an ear to the world - and I reckon it is these that weren't doing their jobs right.

[Oldfeller]

22 minutes ago, Mark J said:

You'd think you'd know someone after 20 years.

Even if you were thick as mince, you'd think that your best of the regiment security detail would have a clue: 
 

Prince Charles repeatedly sought Jimmy Savile’s advice, documentary claims | Jimmy Savile | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Programme reveals Savile produced PR handbook for royals, some of which was passed on to the Queen

 

seems a good enough reason to brush it under the rug eh!

imagine the feckin' embarrassment for security services, hospital staff,higher echelons at the bbc, and all those that saville had either conned, or threatened to expose or drag down with him. if that was the case, once he was dead they would have breathed a sigh of relief.

 

as for the people who didn't come forward till after his death, having seen the inaction and failure of any further action by the authorities, I guess they figured it was largely a waste of time, and nobody would believe them just like the others.

how ironic savilles behavior never brought the royal family into public scrutiny,,, a family member did that for them. 

Edited June 4 by Oldfeller

[Mark J]

11 minutes ago, daveatdave said:

 

his family new what he was up to, they sold off all his belongings straight after his death before the story broke   

There is no smoke without fire. 

I genuinely disbelieve that the royal cops didn't know what he was up to. Saying that, they said nothing about Mountbatten, the king's guardian while growing up, and his penchant for teenage boys, until he go blown up by the IRA while he was in the company of one. 

You go to the courts and it's "Rex" vs "us". That's not very sporting, is it? 

[Oldfeller]

3 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Who is the statue of?

BBC unveils restored controversial Eric Gill statue

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

The statue has been restored after a member of the public attacked it with a...

 

[Mark J]

30 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

Depends on the level of checking they did. Basic would be "have you been convicted of anything", go up a level would be any financial problems, nationality and so on. Have to go up a few levels before you start ticking boxes "any rumours about sleeping with children" (note any convictions would have shown up at level 1)... So if Saville was never alone with Charles or Thatcher, then from a security point of view the checks needed wouldn't need to that deep... wouldn't need to be.... That is on a pure security thing.

 

However both had advisors - not necessarily security - who should be keeping an ear to the world - and I reckon it is these that weren't doing their jobs right.

Bollocks.

Those in charge of the protection of the royals have access to everything they choose to access.

Edited June 4 by Mark J

[Mesterh]

I think it was Monsieur Dempsey that said the breakup between Trump and Musk would be epic. It looks like it's about to start. 

 

[Steven P]

24 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Bollocks.

Those in charge of the protection of the royals have access to everything they choose to access.

 

Generally agreeing with you Mark, but I reckon those that would be passing on the advice are the advisors rather than the security services.

 

Security services is "is this person going to kill / attack", and are not there to make a moral judgement on who they should associate with.

 

The advisors are the ones who should be saying "look, no convictions but... massive rumours and perhaps you shouldn't associate with them"

Edited June 4 by Steven P