On 12 Jul 2023 at 7:01pm Nevillman wrote:
I'm not proud to say I looked on the internet to see who they were saying was the BBC presenter behind the recent scandal. Read the name given and thought it made sense. I now find out that the rumours all over the internet were wrong. I am now even more seriously going to doubt anything I read on this thing apart from what Tom and xalipav say.
On 13 Jul 2023 at 2:14pm Tom Pain wrote:
It's the BBC you should ignore, then you wouldn't have had to enter the murky waters where lie monsters.
On 13 Jul 2023 at 5:57pm Nevillman wrote:
My life would be considerably poorer without the BBC. What concerns me is that behind all of this nonsense is an attempt to undermine the BBC to further Murdoch's empire.
On 13 Jul 2023 at 7:11pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Yeah the BBC are saints compared to the Murdoch trash print media empire. Just The Sun trying to stay relevant by outing another famous person. Its all much of a nothing-burger....no crimes appear to have been committed and its just trashy gossip with a dose of homophobia thrown in for good measure.
On 13 Jul 2023 at 8:24pm Tom Pain wrote:
Saint Jimmy Savile's life would have been a lot poorer without the BBC too. Perhaps sleevie is phobiaphobic but he's right- it's a non- story, no juicy necrophilia at all.
On 13 Jul 2023 at 8:37pm Nevillman wrote:
Murdoch in 2016 on why he wanted Brexit said "when I go to downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice"
What else do you need to know about Murdoch and Brexit?
On 14 Jul 2023 at 9:36am Tom Pain wrote:
And you believed him! !! !!! ? Oh well Jim'll Fix It for you. Public Information Bulletin - I'm using the notorious "false equivalence/binary" tactic, so popular with a certain "gentleman of colour" on this very forum. Example- I'm fed up with cats pooing on my garden..... I suppose you'd rather have a pride of lions rampaging over your strawberry patch then, etc, etc.
On 14 Jul 2023 at 10:00am Nevillman wrote:
I certainly believe that Murdoch said it and it was another good reason not to fall for Brexit. He used his media outlets to sell Brexit as this would strengthen and enrich him. He didn't give a damn about what was best for the majority of people in this country.
I can't believe that you are again bringing up Jimmy savile as your argument against the BBC. Is that really your best argument?
Why don't you just say what you think rather than bring up tactics you clearly don't understand, can't explain and don't recognise?
On 14 Jul 2023 at 11:30am Green Sleeves wrote:
I associate Saville with being a tory thatcherite and highly connected to the royal family more than the BBC. He would have probably been a brexiter as well. 
On 14 Jul 2023 at 7:12pm Earl of de Montfort wrote:
Saville = Tory and friend of Prince Andrew probably
On 14 Jul 2023 at 7:27pm Tom Pain wrote:
They seem to be the least of his proclivities.
On 14 Jul 2023 at 7:41pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Saville once said man made climate change was not possible. Notice its always the fruitloops who hold nutty ideas.
On 14 Jul 2023 at 10:07pm Tom Pain wrote:
Oh no, the false binary strikes again. With the added bonus of the fruit loops; what are they?
On 15 Jul 2023 at 8:30am Nevillman wrote:
It is amazing how savile got away with being employed at the BBC for so long. Noone I know thought he was a good DJ or presenter. He had no charm of warmth with people. Rolf on the other hand may have been equally despicable but at least he was a genuine entertainer with real talent and warmth and in retrospect you can still understand why he was employed by the BBC. But not savile.
On 15 Jul 2023 at 9:18am Green Sleeves wrote:
Yeah i could never see the appeal. He was a talentless creep from the first moment, and got more creepy and talentless as he got older. I assumed he was just kept on to appeal to the gammons and tories, who would have had a meltdown if the BBC "cancelled" another of their heroes.
On 15 Jul 2023 at 10:00am Nevillman wrote:
I've just googled "why did the BBC employ Jimmy savile" without really discovering why. Interesting quote from journalist Mark Lawson. The institutions that really shielded Jimmy savile were 'the BBC, department of health, conservative party, Catholic church, police forces, local councils and libel laws'. The point is then made that it is a bit unfair to single out the BBC. He also seems to have been close to Prince Charles although I would very much doubt that he knew anything about any accusations.
On 15 Jul 2023 at 11:05am Green Sleeves wrote:
Even if one weren't to know he was an actual paedophile, I would have found it hard to be "friends" with anyone that made that many creepy remarks about young girls. I'm sure we have all met types like that, but I doubt many would call them "friends" and be more wary of them.
On 15 Jul 2023 at 8:31pm Tom Pain wrote:
Nobody liked him, they had to put up with him. He must have been a pimp of industrial proportions and had the dirt on all his clients. Imagine spending Christmas with him sleevie and having to chortle to his lewd remarks. He frequently visited Israel and boasted about his high political connections. He was untouchable, so he must have had military intelligence support, how else? What about those photos of him in Broadmoor with Frank Bruno and the Yorkshire Ripper? Scary. And the ones with young Tony/ Miranda. He was probably another Geoffrey Epstein type blackmail agent for the Establishment.
On 15 Jul 2023 at 10:36pm Nevillman wrote:
So he was a pimp who was blackmailing his clients, he was an agent for the Israelis and supported by MI5. Good to know you're not reading this conspiracy theory websites any more Tom.
On 15 Jul 2023 at 11:22pm Tom Pain wrote:
What's your theory, Sherlock; how do you explain his influence? And don't deliberately misquote me, it's not polite and extremely dishonest- "agent of israel"- your twisted imagination, not mine, let's be quite clear about that.
On 16 Jul 2023 at 9:05am Nevillman wrote:
He was obviously one of the lizard overlords in human form. Actually, believe it or not jim'll fix it was a very popular programme. He had friends in very high places including the BBC, police forces and Tory party. He really did raise an awful lot of money for charity and so appeared to be a good guy. People were frightened to speak out against him for the above 2 reasons. He was lucky.
By saying that he frequently visited Israel and boasted about his high political connections you simply seemed to me to by implying he was an agent for the Israelis. What were you trying to say or imply?
On 16 Jul 2023 at 10:24am Tom Pain wrote:
I was saying exactly what I was saying, no more no less. If you want to spout about lizards and make crass implications that's your scene and I wish you'd not indulge your habits on my posts...some hope.
On 16 Jul 2023 at 2:25pm Nevillman wrote:
Have you ever said something that means something Tom? I have tried to interpret what you are saying for years and it clearly is all meaningless. Sadly for you I intend carrying on trying to interpret what you are saying. My hope has been that the forum will return to its old state of intelligent people giving considered views. You clearly think it should just be for you to say whatever meaningless nonsense enters your head without being questioned on it. Too bad Tom.
You asked me for my theory on your post and I responded. It was after all, my post and not yours. Why you chose to pick up on what is clearly intended as a joke rather than the serious points I made is up to you.
On 16 Jul 2023 at 4:06pm Green Sleeves wrote:
The term "Gibberish" describes Tom Pains posts perfectly. He's never saying anything deep, complex or meaningful. Its just wild, goofy fantasies that have been spoon fed to him by red-pillers. Now he'll call me Sleevie Wonder again, because he's so witty.
On 16 Jul 2023 at 8:38pm Tom Pain wrote:
If gibberish is not continually making insulting personal remarks about others, then it'll stick to it.
On 16 Jul 2023 at 10:33pm Nevillman wrote:
No that is not what gibberish is Tom and you make more insulting personal remarks on here than anyone.
On 17 Jul 2023 at 11:21pm Tom Pain wrote:
We all face the difficulty of understanding what other people write, to wit- your sunday 16 Post- what was the joke, and what were the serious points? Also, Thursday 16- Is that an Icke conspiracy theory or your own, re Murdoch's fiendish plot to own the BBC? Do you think he's a lizard too?
On 18 Jul 2023 at 10:53am Nevillman wrote:
Obviously the point about savile being a lizard was serious. All the rest of the reasons I gave in answer to your question about his influence in the bbc were a joke.
I never said that Murdoch was trying to own the BBC and that is clear from my post. Please try to read and understand a post before responding to it.
On 20 Jul 2023 at 8:22pm Tom Pain wrote:
Is he conspiring to undermine the BBC for a lark?
On 20 Jul 2023 at 9:02pm Green Sleeves wrote:
You make Icke seem rational and grounded.
On 21 Jul 2023 at 9:34pm Nevillman wrote:
Quite probably Tom