And at what point will he present his evidence for us all to consider? Shouldn't he have had that ready to go?
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
If you are genuine (which I have my doubts) you're better off looking at his timeline and following sources. Just as I did when David Icke called Savile a 'grotesque pedophile' without the eVidEncE that I imagine would satisfy you.
Le Tissier would really fit in with some of the posters on here tbh.
What is so difficult about providing evidence? It shouldn't be a treasure hunt of clues. When researchers and scientists put forward their theories they provide a conclusion backed by evidence. If he doubts facts about a massacre or other issues then he should clearly and consciously put forward his case.
By the way, is there any evidence that Icke exposed Savile before his death? (genuinely interested)
We all should hope he never rides on Ahab's bus.
I'm sure when he writes a book you'll be the first to buy it.
Icke mentioned it often on his old website in the 90s which is how I found out, and came out with this 2 days after he died while everyone was mourning Death of a Showman: Jimmy Saville 1926-2011 – the Grotesque Paedophile and So Much Else | David Icke
So the answer to my question is no. Icke has claimed to have spoken about it before his death but is there any evidence that he did so? Is it mentioned in his books for example? Did he go to the police or did he keep quiet like all the others? Remember Icke was a BBC employee for a decade when Savile was committing his crimes.
When Savile died there are numerous webpages and forums saying 'Icke was right' and linking to a now defunct links. Unless you thank he's concocted those?
I had a look round this morning and couldn't find anything he said before Savile's death. So like others he heard rumours but he didn't have evidence, otherwise he should have gone to the police.
All of this (Le Tissier included) is a matter of evidence vs failing to provide evidence. You are comfortable with the latter.
Not sure you understand how the law works. In cases of sexual abuse evidence from a legal perspective requires the victims themselves going to the police (not David Icke etc). It was People like him, Louise Theroux etc that gave permission for first hand witnesses to come forward.
Anybody can report any crime at any time. It doesn't require the victims to report it. That's how the law works.
No, I've never heard of police acting without a victim statement. I work with abuse victims for a living.
If the person coming forward has evidence then they will act. There are other forms of evidence besides statements. Surely someone in your position knows that? There have been plenty of police investigations where the victims have passed away for example.
Happy to be corrected - show me a recent high profile case where police pressed charges without a statement from the victim. Obviously not a murder trial.
How do you think the police gain convictions in cases of abuse of babies or toddlers? Do you think they give statements?
Thats social services investigating, and then police. And not really applicable to Icke/Savile
Last edited:
Yes. They act on evidence without victims statements. If anyone approaches the police with evidence they will assess it and act on it. It doesn't need to be the victim or social services. It can be anyone.
I suspect (rather too late) that you may be trolling here.
Savile was historical cases, you are playing with words.
I'll leave you to it.
As you were