Where the fuck are you all?
Jimmy Savile
Big Rolf
Waff
Turtle
Giggles
Where the fuck are you all?
Present.
Could have at least made it public so I could share my collection with my voters.
Yikes!
Difficult to deny Saville the title. If it were the type of thing that's celebrated, he'd definitely have a statue.
Ian Watkins should be on the poll purely because, in a thread this tasteless, I bottled including him.
I dunno, man. As that sort of group went Steps weren't that bad.
How has he not been victim to a stairwell nonce bashing yet?
It's hard to see how anyone other than Sir Jimmy Savile is the 'best' nonce seeing as he not only got away with it for decades, and lived to die as a National Treasure, but he also ruined it for everybody else when he died and it all came out. He's like the Alex Ferguson of noncing, except if like Alex Ferguson was has also been secretly bankrolling the Glazer family all along.
How does Savile get this as a description on Google:
Yet, Watkins gets:Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG was an English DJ, television and radio personality who hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It. He raised an estimated £40 million for charities and, during his lifetime, was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser
Ian David Karslake Watkins is a Welsh former singer, songwriter, musician, and convicted sex offender.
Because he was never officially charged and convicted I guess.
Yeah, course, but it should say something in reference to the allegations.
This would do:
It was reported that Savile had boasted to nurses and other staff that he performed sex acts on the bodies of recently deceased persons in the mortuary of Leeds General Hospital and claimed to have removed glass eyes from corpses and made them into rings. The report says "We have no way of proving Savile's claims that he interfered with the bodies of the deceased patients in the mortuary in this way" but that Savile did have unsupervised access to the mortuary.
You are wild for this thread.
The IT guy at work was trying to convince me that Michael Jackson was innocent. I get that there are people who like his music, but is Billie Jean that good a song that legions of people devote their life to slavishly denying the truth?
Should have been an option for Mo.
Wait ya'll really think MJ did that shit? Sighhhhh.
Fuck's sake Bruh.
He had children staying at his house and in his bed. What in the fuck else do you think he was doing?
So there's not.
There isn't much proof, no.
But would you let your kids/nephews/nieces have a sleepover at Neverland were he still alive?
How much smoke do you need to see before assuming there's a fire.
There's enough 'reasonable doubt' to not be convinced he was definitely noncing, but there's also more than enough reason to be convinced that he was. The only unreasonable position you could hold on the subject is the one Bruh is attempting to hold.
The entire investigation involved two grand juries and more than 400 people interviewed over a period of 13 months... the evidence presented by the Santa Barbara police and the LAPD was not convincing enough to indict Jackson or subpoena him, even though grand juries can indict the accused purely on hearsay evidence.
.According to a 1994 report by Variety, a source in contact with the grand juries said that none of the witnesses had produced anything to directly implicate Jackson. According to a 1994 report by Showbiz Today, one of the grand jurors claimed they "did not hear any damaging testimony" during the hearings. FBI files released after Jackson's death also noted that the prosecution had no outstanding leads.
By 1994 prosecution departments in California had spent $2 million and convened two grand juries, but Jordan Chandler's allegations could not be corroborated.
That's not an answer to my question Bruh.
Elvis is still alive too.
Oh I'm sorry I thought the facts of the actual case were more important than some hypothetical scenario that couldn't possibly happen or exist.
Let's play that one out real quick so we can get back on track.
"Yes, I wouldn't have any problem with it."
"Wow, you're an awful terrible person! Can you believe this guy?!"
"Well, given what I've read about the evidence against him it seems more plausibly a money grab by folks who saw a $24mil settlement made to a family whose patriarch 'cared so much about his son' that he was barely in his life, attempted to extort Mike for a movie deal BEFORE going to the police, and when asked how the trial would effect his son stated
"That's irrelevant to me ... It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."
A patriarch who then decided to not cooperate with police to put away such a monster once he got his check for $1.5 million.
So no, I wouldn't have a problem with it, personally, but sure I could understand how others would have pause given all of the allegations.
But, I will say, if we followed the court of public opinion instead of the findings of a multi-million dollar criminal investigation we'd probably have a lot (more) guilty yet innocent people in our prison system."
Now that your red herring is well fed....
Michael Jackson gave that family something like a quarter of his then worth because he didn't molest their son.
I like that one of the quotes if from a Grand Juror. Someone who legally can't discuss the case having enough legal cover to avoid punishment and enough journalistic nous to contact the press and stay anonymous happening to agree with the incredibly well funded side of the case.
Bruh, have you ever noticed that situations where one side has lots of money and the other side doesn't; often ends before they get court and there's no admission of guilt?
It's not just a hypothetical scenario Bruh, one of the juror's said similar when he got off the criminal case. "Was there enough evidence to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt? No. Would I have let him anywhere near my kids? Not for shit."
So you're saying a guy with $100mil+ would potentially rather pay $25m to not have to sit through months/years of embarrassing testimony, including but not limited to, a child (very wrongly, as per court documents) labeling the specific scars of his penis and naked body due to his skin condition.
With other such details like him being circumcised despite, after a thorough 30 minute medical examination, been found to both having never been circumcised or having his penis surgically altered otherwise to show the appearance of foreskin.
I can't imagine paying to not have to deal with that type of embarrassment at all.
Some things are worth fighting against if you're innocent. Being accused of being a paedo when you're not is one such thing.
Just say you'd rather believe Michael Jackson fucked kids, it's okay, I'm fine with you having your own opinion about it.
But this weird "oh so you don't believe hearsay lmfao what a fucking idiot" slant is bullshit when you're disregarding all of the other shit, like spending more than $2m in tax payer dollars to catch this guy doing all of this shit and being unable to even INDICT the muhfucka.
1) Have everyone find out what my cock looks like
2) Pay twenty million dollars to forever be known as a paedophile
It's a tough one I'll admit.
You don't have $100m, aren't the biggest pop star on Earth, and have no idea exactly what is or isn't worth fighting, especially when, as you all have shown greatly despite plenty other of the anecdotal evidence we magically cherish now, the court of public opinion will seal your fate regardless.
There are people who fight sexual offence investigations/charges and they clear their reputation. Craig Charles and Cliff Richard spring to mind. So no, I don't care that I'm not the biggest star on earth or worth $100m, there are some things you just fight.
It would have taken up so little of his actual time to fight anyway. More of his money, but he was happy to give that away anyway.
Bruh, I worked for a company that spent 65 million dollars fighting a suit asking for 20 million dollars because their product gave people cancer (it more than likely did, they won anyway and settled for 5 and no admission of guilt). I'm working on the basis of Occams Razor where there's a smaller than average probability he didn't ever touch anyone despite the weirdo behavior and multiple allegations over decades, more than likely explained by the child abuse he received from his nutter father. You're going balls to the wall based on him not being convicted. That's the difference.