- 16,428
- United Kingdom
Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 12,479 comments
- 500,530 views
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It's where he's buried, reputedly overlooking the playing fields of two schools.
Yep. After the public outcry that the dead serial rapist and abuser couldn't be un-knighted the government announced that it would review the procedure. I don't know if they ever did but there was no need to change it, dead men automatically rescind their knighthoods so no further procedure is required. Nonetheless, the promise of immediate review satisfied tabloid readers across the country that Something Was Being Done About This Sort Of Thing.
Yes. No. There were quite widely circulated rumours, it seems, but seemingly nobody in power gave credit to any specific claims. In many cases the circumstances meant that many people didn't come forward with their stories until they realised they could be heard and believed. There are certainly many, many other victims who have never been identified or spoken to. Some will have taken it to their grave without ever knowing that people would have believed them, at least eventually.
That's not to blame any victims though - I'm sure there were people in power who knew something, who should have acted on it and who are responsible for Savile's ability to continue unchecked.
Last edited:
- 84,382
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I mean, to be entirely fair (and that's a pretty interesting way to start a sentence about Savile), it wasn't just girls or underage ones. He'd rape anything human, and by all accounts his proclivities were not only known (within certain circles*) but actually enabled. Even so, his knighthood was advised against in the strongest of terms but effectively pushed through by Thatcher - though back then in 1990/1 the allegations were more about him taking advantage of legal-age women than what later arose.
But yes, both his Crown and Papal knighthoods expired when he did.
At a 45 tilt, in order that the top faces the sea... ish. I thought he'd been exhumed, but it's only the headstone that's been destroyed.
*Though it did occasionally leak beyond that; I recall when I was at university there was a transcript of an out-take from a HIGNFY episode which Savile appeared on in 1999 that did the rounds. It was fake, in that it never happened, but elements of it were drawn from reality
- 28,523
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I think the issue with the outcry about rescinding knighthoods is that prior to Sir James Savile OBE, it wasn't particularly well known that technically all knighthood bachelors become defunct when the knight dies. However even as true as that is, many knights are still referred to as Sir Whatever even when they're dead.
I'll pick a few random dead people who had knighthoods and see what their Wiki page starts with:
James Graham (physician)
Edwin Lutyens
Stanley Matthews
Even Jimmy Savile's itself still does
It's a want for a tangible acknowledgement that this person's "honour" has been, for want of a better phrase, unpersoned. Even if it's already true that he isn't a knight, whether people know/knew that or not, he shouldn't remain a Sir... even in death.
I mean, as some people have already alluded to, the fact that he got these honours in the first place highlights the screening process for these sorts of things. And it'll only end up sliding into talking about the Westminster paedo rings we're not supposed to know about.
---
Sure. Good for Lewis Hamilton. If he cares. Monaco is trending on Twitter so no matter what he does, gammon froth will always be there. Whatever.
I'll pick a few random dead people who had knighthoods and see what their Wiki page starts with:
James Graham (physician)
Edwin Lutyens
Stanley Matthews
Even Jimmy Savile's itself still does
It's a want for a tangible acknowledgement that this person's "honour" has been, for want of a better phrase, unpersoned. Even if it's already true that he isn't a knight, whether people know/knew that or not, he shouldn't remain a Sir... even in death.
I mean, as some people have already alluded to, the fact that he got these honours in the first place highlights the screening process for these sorts of things. And it'll only end up sliding into talking about the Westminster paedo rings we're not supposed to know about.
---
Sure. Good for Lewis Hamilton. If he cares. Monaco is trending on Twitter so no matter what he does, gammon froth will always be there. Whatever.
Last edited:
- 16,472
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
There is one bloke who was posthumously knighted...
http://vconline.org.uk/john-e-gough-vc/4586803560
But I guess encyclopaedias prefixing dead people's names with "Sir" is simply a matter of courtesy.
http://vconline.org.uk/john-e-gough-vc/4586803560
But I guess encyclopaedias prefixing dead people's names with "Sir" is simply a matter of courtesy.
- 28,406
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Next week's weather forecast providing a scary visual metaphor for the coronavirus situation in the UK right now...*
*
*
...although in reality that weather front is actually moving away from the UK...
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 16,428
- United Kingdom
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 28,523
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
So what's the story with these free meals the Westminster plods have outsourced? It's really easy to be captivated by the emotionally negative reporting of it but is the nub of it really that this catering company is getting £30 a family and basically providing £5 worth of tripe? I've seen the supposed photos and it is pretty horrific if that's considered three days' food and cost £30.
Many others have also shared photos of what the catering company has provided in its private ventures which are obviously spectacularly better. Like I said, it's easy to be roped in by it and I'm trying hard not to be but is it really dish out £5 worth of pleb food and charge the taxpayer £30 for it?
Many others have also shared photos of what the catering company has provided in its private ventures which are obviously spectacularly better. Like I said, it's easy to be roped in by it and I'm trying hard not to be but is it really dish out £5 worth of pleb food and charge the taxpayer £30 for it?
- 9,262
- Corsham
- lipming
One MP has trying to clarify it by saying it's meant to last five days not ten, and costs £10.50 not £30, which is still double what that food can be bought for in a supermarket. Once again, the Tories seem to be incapable of enacting any kind of public welfare or relief that doesn't involve a private firm profiteering off of it in some way.
- 12,783
- Cambridge
- Moglet85
- Moglet
This appears to be the case, yes. Unless there are suddenly a lot of people on social media who are all faking roughly the same thing. Some anonymous Chartwells employees have been saying that they are forced to purchase from a particular supplier that charges extraordinary prices for basic items. How true that is I don't know. It's not just that one supplier though, Chartwells are the main offender but Harrison have also been providing some and they're not much better:
Last edited:
- 2,156
- United Kingdom
Seems they've quietly dropped the "try food parcels first" guidance so hopefully more families will get vouchers.
Last edited:
- 28,406
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Those pictures on Twitter are pathetic, disgraceful and sad... and it's such a pity that the efforts of so many people to make this happen are being made a fool of by such disgusting profiteering. Even a £20 shopping trip to an average supermarket will get you a heck of a lot more than what some of these companies are providing, but it is at least good to see that the reaction has been immediate and strong, and that these companies are being called out for their obvious failings.This appears to be the case, yes. Unless there are suddenly a lot of people on social media who are all faking roughly the same thing. Some anonymous Chartwells employees have been saying that they are forced to purchase from a particular supplier that charges extraordinary prices for basic items. How true that is I don't know. It's not just that one supplier though, Chartwells are the main offender but Harrison have also been providing some and they're not much better:
On a lighter note, kudos to whoever's job it is to count the number of flakes in each can of that tuna...
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
Beans or it didn't happen.This appears to be the case, yes. Unless there are suddenly a lot of people on social media who are all faking roughly the same thing. Some anonymous Chartwells employees have been saying that they are forced to purchase from a particular supplier that charges extraordinary prices for basic items. How true that is I don't know. It's not just that one supplier though, Chartwells are the main offender but Harrison have also been providing some and they're not much better:
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,259
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
I wonder how many of these "company's" donated to the conservative party election campaign.
They should have stayed with the voucher system. £30 for the examples I've seen? Where are they shopping? Monaco? Dubai?
They should have stayed with the voucher system. £30 for the examples I've seen? Where are they shopping? Monaco? Dubai?
- 12,783
- Cambridge
- Moglet85
- Moglet
