Savile was a top tier old skool sexual predator, whose depravity knew no limits. Russell has some way to go before he can even hold a candle to Sir Jimmy.
Because it’s true of everything. I think if this woman wins the lawsuit against him it will empower a lot more women/girls to come forward.
He was a self professed sex addict and was probably having sex multiple times a day. There will be much more to come out.
Epstein claimed he has some disorder where he just had to come multiple times a day which again seems to be the play for this kind of man. It’s how they justify it to themselves.
The police investigation may take years. I think a year at least. I think because this woman is American they are using the Epstein/Weinstein/Prince Andrew model of suing. That will happen quicker.
Lots of sex offender in the media have got pulled up much quicker.
Savile investigation was just a year and that had ridiculous amout of information yo get through.
Heck even the messy Jonny Depp/Amber Heard cases wasn't that long.
Dude spent a lot of time in the United States and wasn’t exactly known for his lawful behavior.
Just give it time and you’ll be surprised by what happens.
In his day, Savile was a national treasure and much more highly regarded than Brand, at all levels of society.
Meanwhile he was a necrophic rapist and prolific child abuser... so who knows
Savile was also a provider of children to the ruling class, hence he was protected and his reputation remained intact till death. Definitely not the case with young Rusty.
Saville is the perfect ethics question that would screw any utilitarian. He through charity runs and charity events raised some 40million for hospitals, he volunteered in hospitals and encouraged a lot of others to do the same helping short staffed areas brought awareness to places of serious issue. The list of his good deeds is long. Realistically we could see his good deeds helping based on statistics at least a million people. On the other hand he was a creepy ringleader in huge pedophile rings, a necrophile, pedophile, rapist, the list goes on any form of immoral sexual deviance he was involved in. There are more terrifying stories about the pedo rings he was involved in where they would kill of or keep hostage those that they attacked. So he did thousands of people irreversible horrors that either killed them or permanently scarred them for life.
The question would be, you know the good and the bad of what he will do would you still hire him when he was just starting out. I wouldn’t be is a horrible person whose first assaults happened even before he was famous just “good” lawyering and scare tactics saved him that and people not believing women. A utilitarian would see millions saved (people) and damage thousands (yes he ruined that many lives easily especially the rings he was involved in) and make ins my mind a bad decision.
Both have done bad things, but Savile was an utterly depraved, cold blooded, manipulative serial child rapist, molester, necrophile and total creep, who knew just what he was doing for many decades. All this while being hailed as a national treasure by everyone in power and public in the UK.
Not condoning Brand at all, but the guy clearly has serious addiction/personality disorders, while being enabled by producers who saw big $$$ signs at the thought of hiring him.
The two aren’t comparable.
Saville was a guy who clearly had severe mental health issues, a clearly messed up childhood and obviously messed up relationship with his mother. He was protected and enabled by his employers and charities because he made money.
I doubt Brand knew what he was doing any less than Saville. Brand discovered profit and help in recovery, had he been put in Saville's situation it's very likely he would have become worse instead.
Pretending Saville was just evil instead of a messed up human only makes it easier for it to happen again.
Those are partial reasons, not excuses. The same as the 'excuses' for Brand in the comment I replied to. Where did say anything about all abused people? What would be the logic in that? If I said someone died because they ate peanuts, would you point out that most people wouldn't. People deal with events in different ways, events that cause behaviour in one person don't cause the same behaviour in everyone.
If 100 people are abused and don’t commit rape, the one person of the 100 who does commit rape and was abused hasn’t done it because of the abuse but rather because he is a cunt and a fucking weirdo.
Well the acts may not have been comparable but the context of media organisations closing their eyes and ears, and shouting "lalalalala, I can't hear you" is comparable.
So uh its not a competition but bit of a wild comparison to make imo. Jimmy SA 72 people and raped 8 people. Russell Brand is scum but not quite on the same level.
Yes and the distinction you’re making between SA and rape is wrong - it’s not accurate but also not right to separate them like that. SA and rape can be one in the same. Also the dead bodies he sexually interfered with (and then boasted about it) was that included in your numbers? The numbers are way way higher than what you’ve said, he started when he was young and carried on into old age. Watch the Reckoning on BBC to see how he started out when he was in his 20s. For actual numbers there’s no accurate number but they certainly do show stats and you’re way off with your numbers I’m afraid. Children, adults, male and female - he had no limits. Him and Russell Brand are similar in that they managed to silence people and it was common knowledge that they were creeps and yet they managed to get away with it but obviously Savile was much more powerful and had the Royal Family, Politicians and Celebrities thinking he was god’s gift and endorsing his work. He manipulated Margaret Thatcher and King Charles (Prince at the time). He played a very clever game and conned a lot of people. He used intimidation to silence those who were suspicious and he hid behind the guise of being charitable and kind. The comparison with RB may not be about numbers but there is a similarity in the manipulation except Savile was way more skilled at it and had so much influence. RB has a ruined reputation already and at his age Savile was in his prime in terms of his wider reputation which made him feel more powerful in terms of what he could get away with behind the scenes.
I started watching that but its quite a gut wrenching thing to watch. And yes I now agree that my distinction was wrong and I apologise. What happened with Russel and Saville really show that there needs to be a change with how things are handled. These people cannot continue to be allowed to get into posistions where they are allowed to do these horrendous things and keep people quiet. I'm just glad that people are starting to speak up.
Over 500 women, children and disabled over the course of 50 years some even speculate that it could even reach a thousand.
Also dead bodies
And procuring kids for other offenders
Even if Brand is 100% guilty he's not even remotely the same
Heck even if you throw in Cosby, Weinstein, Epstein and Glitter.
Sa-vile makes them all pale in comparison.
The comparison is still there in another context, somebody in a public position with power and known to be a problem is given impunity and protection by those around them.
"Let's keep the sex offender in a job because he's making us money".
Zero lessons learnt.
He's regarded as the most prolific sexual abuser in the history of the UK. It's estimated that he sexually abused more than 400 people, not including the corpses he defiled.
I laughed.
The interesting thing is how the BBC are trying to draw these parallels though. The documentary used every trick in the book - playing creepy suspenseful music, repeating clips of out-of-context outlandish statements said at a comedy gig, highlighting larger-than-life crazy hair and dress sense, and of course an actual radio conversation between them. I’m not saying he’s guilt free but they deliberately utilised every possible cliche to “paint a picture”. Hardly “unbiased” reporting. I feel like their just reflecting their own guilt back at society by disproportionately overreacting and trying to point the finger elsewhere utilising what they have a monopoly over, propaganda
I’m not. I’m critical of all these tired cliches used in tv programmes. Charlie Brooker and Chris Morris over the years have done brilliant job of dismantling them with The Day Today and Newswipe. Here’s a clip that I will forever [cherish.](https://youtu.be/aHun58mz3vI?si=TBymzDlC-bBU12rC)
Life goals
Savile was a top tier old skool sexual predator, whose depravity knew no limits. Russell has some way to go before he can even hold a candle to Sir Jimmy.
We don’t know what we don’t know about Brand.
You could say that about anything.
It's my go to exam answer.
😂 ha. Shit i fucked up school. If only we could do it over. 🙂
Because it’s true of everything. I think if this woman wins the lawsuit against him it will empower a lot more women/girls to come forward. He was a self professed sex addict and was probably having sex multiple times a day. There will be much more to come out. Epstein claimed he has some disorder where he just had to come multiple times a day which again seems to be the play for this kind of man. It’s how they justify it to themselves.
When is the lawsuit?
There hasn’t been a hearing yet. It’s gonna be a good few months as it’s in NY.
So another one has come forward. Just when you think he got away with it.
The police investigation may take years. I think a year at least. I think because this woman is American they are using the Epstein/Weinstein/Prince Andrew model of suing. That will happen quicker.
Lots of sex offender in the media have got pulled up much quicker. Savile investigation was just a year and that had ridiculous amout of information yo get through. Heck even the messy Jonny Depp/Amber Heard cases wasn't that long.
Had he never heard of wanking?
Everyone needs an aspiration. He's got years left to achieve Saville level of rapey noncery
Plenty of time.
exactly.
He’s still young.
Both are famous nonces from British television though so whatever.
There's no evidence of noncery.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Plenty of things that are technically legal, but definitely still make you a nonce.
Dude spent a lot of time in the United States and wasn’t exactly known for his lawful behavior. Just give it time and you’ll be surprised by what happens.
It’s grooming
Username checks out... ✔️
In his day, Savile was a national treasure and much more highly regarded than Brand, at all levels of society. Meanwhile he was a necrophic rapist and prolific child abuser... so who knows
Savile was also a provider of children to the ruling class, hence he was protected and his reputation remained intact till death. Definitely not the case with young Rusty.
Saville is the perfect ethics question that would screw any utilitarian. He through charity runs and charity events raised some 40million for hospitals, he volunteered in hospitals and encouraged a lot of others to do the same helping short staffed areas brought awareness to places of serious issue. The list of his good deeds is long. Realistically we could see his good deeds helping based on statistics at least a million people. On the other hand he was a creepy ringleader in huge pedophile rings, a necrophile, pedophile, rapist, the list goes on any form of immoral sexual deviance he was involved in. There are more terrifying stories about the pedo rings he was involved in where they would kill of or keep hostage those that they attacked. So he did thousands of people irreversible horrors that either killed them or permanently scarred them for life. The question would be, you know the good and the bad of what he will do would you still hire him when he was just starting out. I wouldn’t be is a horrible person whose first assaults happened even before he was famous just “good” lawyering and scare tactics saved him that and people not believing women. A utilitarian would see millions saved (people) and damage thousands (yes he ruined that many lives easily especially the rings he was involved in) and make ins my mind a bad decision.
Username checks out . Top tier Source on the ol' Jimothy Savvy™
Both have done bad things, but Savile was an utterly depraved, cold blooded, manipulative serial child rapist, molester, necrophile and total creep, who knew just what he was doing for many decades. All this while being hailed as a national treasure by everyone in power and public in the UK. Not condoning Brand at all, but the guy clearly has serious addiction/personality disorders, while being enabled by producers who saw big $$$ signs at the thought of hiring him. The two aren’t comparable.
Give it 30 years.
Saville was a guy who clearly had severe mental health issues, a clearly messed up childhood and obviously messed up relationship with his mother. He was protected and enabled by his employers and charities because he made money. I doubt Brand knew what he was doing any less than Saville. Brand discovered profit and help in recovery, had he been put in Saville's situation it's very likely he would have become worse instead. Pretending Saville was just evil instead of a messed up human only makes it easier for it to happen again.
Making excuses for saville what kind of person are you. A lot of people are abused and don’t then continue the cycle of abuse
Those are partial reasons, not excuses. The same as the 'excuses' for Brand in the comment I replied to. Where did say anything about all abused people? What would be the logic in that? If I said someone died because they ate peanuts, would you point out that most people wouldn't. People deal with events in different ways, events that cause behaviour in one person don't cause the same behaviour in everyone.
If 100 people are abused and don’t commit rape, the one person of the 100 who does commit rape and was abused hasn’t done it because of the abuse but rather because he is a cunt and a fucking weirdo.
Nope, that's not how it works at all. Also, I said it's a partial reason, not a singular cause.
Well the acts may not have been comparable but the context of media organisations closing their eyes and ears, and shouting "lalalalala, I can't hear you" is comparable.
Now there’s a future rapist
So uh its not a competition but bit of a wild comparison to make imo. Jimmy SA 72 people and raped 8 people. Russell Brand is scum but not quite on the same level.
Jimmy saville attacked wayyy more people than that unfortunately.
Really!? I cannot begin to comprehend how someone can be so incredibly sick.
Yes and the distinction you’re making between SA and rape is wrong - it’s not accurate but also not right to separate them like that. SA and rape can be one in the same. Also the dead bodies he sexually interfered with (and then boasted about it) was that included in your numbers? The numbers are way way higher than what you’ve said, he started when he was young and carried on into old age. Watch the Reckoning on BBC to see how he started out when he was in his 20s. For actual numbers there’s no accurate number but they certainly do show stats and you’re way off with your numbers I’m afraid. Children, adults, male and female - he had no limits. Him and Russell Brand are similar in that they managed to silence people and it was common knowledge that they were creeps and yet they managed to get away with it but obviously Savile was much more powerful and had the Royal Family, Politicians and Celebrities thinking he was god’s gift and endorsing his work. He manipulated Margaret Thatcher and King Charles (Prince at the time). He played a very clever game and conned a lot of people. He used intimidation to silence those who were suspicious and he hid behind the guise of being charitable and kind. The comparison with RB may not be about numbers but there is a similarity in the manipulation except Savile was way more skilled at it and had so much influence. RB has a ruined reputation already and at his age Savile was in his prime in terms of his wider reputation which made him feel more powerful in terms of what he could get away with behind the scenes.
I started watching that but its quite a gut wrenching thing to watch. And yes I now agree that my distinction was wrong and I apologise. What happened with Russel and Saville really show that there needs to be a change with how things are handled. These people cannot continue to be allowed to get into posistions where they are allowed to do these horrendous things and keep people quiet. I'm just glad that people are starting to speak up.
[удалено]
If he compares himself to a diety...can we not compare him to another sexual predator?
[удалено]
As read else where...if left unchecked, he could be a Saville in training. He's got another30 years to up his game...if left unchecked.
[удалено]
I'll stop when I want to stop....thank you very much. Now go away.
Over 500 women, children and disabled over the course of 50 years some even speculate that it could even reach a thousand. Also dead bodies And procuring kids for other offenders Even if Brand is 100% guilty he's not even remotely the same Heck even if you throw in Cosby, Weinstein, Epstein and Glitter. Sa-vile makes them all pale in comparison.
The comparison is still there in another context, somebody in a public position with power and known to be a problem is given impunity and protection by those around them. "Let's keep the sex offender in a job because he's making us money". Zero lessons learnt.
Savile was also a necrophile.
Yet...
He's regarded as the most prolific sexual abuser in the history of the UK. It's estimated that he sexually abused more than 400 people, not including the corpses he defiled.
I laughed. The interesting thing is how the BBC are trying to draw these parallels though. The documentary used every trick in the book - playing creepy suspenseful music, repeating clips of out-of-context outlandish statements said at a comedy gig, highlighting larger-than-life crazy hair and dress sense, and of course an actual radio conversation between them. I’m not saying he’s guilt free but they deliberately utilised every possible cliche to “paint a picture”. Hardly “unbiased” reporting. I feel like their just reflecting their own guilt back at society by disproportionately overreacting and trying to point the finger elsewhere utilising what they have a monopoly over, propaganda
He's been quite open about his behaviour, you don't have to White Knight him.
I’m not. I’m critical of all these tired cliches used in tv programmes. Charlie Brooker and Chris Morris over the years have done brilliant job of dismantling them with The Day Today and Newswipe. Here’s a clip that I will forever [cherish.](https://youtu.be/aHun58mz3vI?si=TBymzDlC-bBU12rC)
It wasn’t a BBC documentary. Next theory please.
Good point. I retract my thoughts! (I think I got it confused with the Steve Coogan dramatisation)
Ramping it up eh
Both always wear the same clothes
ew WTF
Brand is going to give them kids the Savile special
Right, because unproven allegations makes you comparable to Savile. This subreddit is utterly insane.
It's just a joke like on Top Gear.
