Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: TOP of the pops

  1. #21
    Senior Member Country: Spain Rowdon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,131
    Liked
    143 times
    Back in the 90s (I know - it's not far back) someone said - defending TOTP against a huge amount of criticism - "It simple - if the charts are good, TOTP is good.". More or less true.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Country: England darrenburnfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,020
    Liked
    98 times
    It really annoys me when I hear BBC News presenters say ‘We know Savile did this’ and ‘We know Savile did that’. How do they know? None of the allegations have been tested in a court of law and he can never be charged and put on trial because he’s dead. When the police are publicly urging ‘victims’ to come forward and telling them ‘You will be believed’ and that compensation will be paid, it’s obvious that some will come forward with made up allegations in order to get the compensation. That’s the way some people are. Like the guy who said he was a 13 years old paperboy at Christmas, 1975, when Savile invited him into his flat for his Christmas bonus and molested him. Later, it was discovered that this could not have happened, because Savile wasn’t living there at the time and that he didn’t live there until 1987, twelve years later! None of the allegations against Savile can be proven, as there is no evidence, only hearsay. I'm not making excuses for him, not in the least. But in the world I was brought up in, a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But it seems it's the other way round these days. It's so easy to make things up about someone, especially if they're not here to defend themselves. As for editing him out of Top of the Pops because of what he's alleged to have done, well, why is it that Adolf Hitler, who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, is on the television all the time in these war documentaries and no one edits him out. What Savile is supposed to have done pales into insignificance set against the crimes of the leader of the Third Reich.
    Last edited by darrenburnfan; 16-12-14 at 06:01 PM.

  3. #23
    Administrator Country: Wales Steve Crook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    29,732
    Liked
    418 times
    Quote Originally Posted by darrenburnfan View Post
    ... But in the world I was brought up in, a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt...
    Did you see The Lost honour of Christopher Jefferies on TV recently? The media (not just the BBC) now acts as judge, jury and executioner and they don't need any proof.

    The BBC is particularly sensitive about Savile because of the documentary that was made for Newsnight about him and his misdemeanours which they then decided to not broadcast. There was then a Panorama broadcast about the Newsnight documentary and the decision not to broadcast it. Red faces all round

    Steve

  4. #24
    Senior Member Country: England darrenburnfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,020
    Liked
    98 times
    No, I didn't see the the programme about Christopher Jeffries, Steve, but it seems the police have always been more concerned with finding evidence to support their view that an accused is guilty than finding out the truth. Even forty years ago, according to one of the Birmingham Six whose name escapes me for the moment, when he protested his innocence in the police station and told the police that he didn't do it, the policeman told him: "We know you didn't do it, but we've got to have someone for it and we've got you!" I wonder how such policemen can live with themselves stitching up an innocent man like that. It took decades, but the Birmingham Six finally had their appeals granted and were set free.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    375
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by darrenburnfan View Post
    It really annoys me when I hear BBC News presenters say ‘We know Savile did this’ and ‘We know Savile did that’. How do they know? None of the allegations have been tested in a court of law and he can never be charged and put on trial because he’s dead. When the police are publicly urging ‘victims’ to come forward and telling them ‘You will be believed’ and that compensation will be paid, it’s obvious that some will come forward with made up allegations in order to get the compensation. That’s the way some people are.I'm not making excuses for him, not in the least. But in the world I was brought up in, a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But it seems it's the other way round these days. It's so easy to make things up about someone, especially if they're not here to defend themselves. As for editing him out of Top of the Pops because of what he's alleged to have done, well, why is it that Adolf Hitler, who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, is on the television all the time in these war documentaries and no one edits him out. What Savile is supposed to have done pales into insignificance set against the crimes of the leader of the Third Reich.
    It is strange that all of the DJs that have been accused and found guilty (so far ) have worked for the BBC in one form or another,which tells me that the BBC have been tarnished and they feel the need to censor anything relating to those DJs,I did hear that because DLT was found guilty on Friday 26 September 2014, he was sentenced to three months in prison, suspended for two years and because of this the BBC have wiped any appearences he has made for them which includes his appearences as host and co host on Top of the Pops in the 1970s and 1980s which will mess up next years BBC4 1980s screenings of Top of the Pops.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Country: England darrenburnfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,020
    Liked
    98 times
    It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic, but these days, you can be convicted of touching somebody up fifty years ago without any evidence. Merely a case of accusations without any proof. In other words, a case of "Oh, yes you did!", versus "Oh, no I didn't!" After so many decades, the accuser can't prove the accused did it and the accused can't prove they didn't do it. Years ago, such cases would never have got to court. But these days, it's up to the jury, without listening to any evidence, only accusations; denials and heresay, to decide if the accused is lying or the accuser is lying and if they decide against the accused, that's another life ruined if in fact, he was innocent all along.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Country: Spain Rowdon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,131
    Liked
    143 times
    I know very little about how court cases are run these days and have no first hand experience of trials, so I bow to your more extensive knowledge on the subject. For example:

    Quote Originally Posted by darrenburnfan View Post
    these days, you can be convicted of touching somebody up fifty years ago without any evidence. Merely a case of accusations without any proof.
    I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by darrenburnfan View Post
    Years ago, such cases would never have got to court.
    Is that necessarily a good thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by darrenburnfan View Post
    these days, it's up to the jury, without listening to any evidence, only accusations;
    Again, I have to say I didn't know that.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Country: England darrenburnfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,020
    Liked
    98 times
    Nothing to do with my having superior knowledge, Rowdon, and there's no need to be so patronising. What I wrote is common knowledge and if you don't know what's going in our court system these days, you must be very out of touch.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Country: Spain Rowdon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,131
    Liked
    143 times

    WARNING: this turned out to be much longer than intended. Why can't I dedicate this energy to my work?



    Quote Originally Posted by darrenburnfan View Post
    Nothing to do with my having superior knowledge, Rowdon, and there's no need to be so patronising. What I wrote is common knowledge and if you don't know what's going in our court system these days, you must be very out of touch.
    OK. Maybe I was being sarcastic, but it seemed nicer than just writing "you're wrong". There is no system functioning in the UK wherein the jury doesn't listen to any evidence. In cases of rape and other abuse the evidence is never going to be as obvious as a note written by the perpetrator or a gun with fingerprints on the handle - it's always more complex than that and I think our criminal justice system is capable of finding damning evidence even when the crimes left no visible sign, based perhaps on testimony. If you believe that no oral testimony counts at all, then you'll find that a lot of cases - not just accusations of this sort - collapse.

    And I disagree with your statement that "if you don't know what's going in our court system these days, you must be very out of touch". I don't consider myself out of touch, but I freely admit I don't know what's going on in our court system. I wonder about it a lot, I'm amazed at some of the things that happen but I don't know what's going on. That's the problem.

    Having said all that (and of you've read this far, darrenburnfan, thanks) I agree with the general thrust of what you say. There is no doubt in my mind that Savile was an abuser - but obviously I can never 'know' (equally I can never really absolutely 'know' about any case through history - unless I'm the accused) - but what worries me is the way Dave Lee Travis was dealt with so toughly considering the gravity of his crimes. I suspect that there was an aspect of "We missed Savile, so we're getting you". That doesn't mean I think he was innocent or that his actions should have remained unpunished, but the accusations against Savile and those against Travis are worlds apart.

    Similarly, Jim Davidson - a man I'm not a particular fan of - was accused of harassment of a very different sort but was tarred with the same Yewtree brush in the public's mind. Paul Gambaccini is another who was accused and found innocent (October this year), but the Yewtree accusation is still the first thing that crops up now when people talk about him. There are many other similar cases.

    But what I take from that is that Gambaccini faced no charges in the end. The accusations were investigated and the accusers were told to get lost. That was done by our justice system. In August this year, Davidson's charges were dropped as the evidence was insufficient. So again the British justice system found a man innocent after being charged.

    The problem (in my opinion) is not that people who committed crimes against vulnerable people are being punished on oral testimony, the problem is both that all the perpetrators across the whole range of sex crimes are being lumped in together and that at the moment the 'lesser' crimes (if I may use the term) are being punished very harshly because of the shadow of Jimmy Savile - and also that we just don't get to hear enough about those who are found innocent.

    But that's not because of the courts - it's because neither the papers nor the public wants to hear about them. We want blood. That's the real pity here.

    I didn't mean to be rude darrenburnfan. Merry Christmas. Here's my card: it was the first time I heard the 60s bubble gum classic "Quick Joey Small" which Darren Burn covered as the b-side of Summertime Blues.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkfXGLqIB0M

    Even with the silly 70s punk 'snarl' the Dogs still respect the poppiness of the song, and the guitar (apparently Mick Ronson of David Bowie fame) keeps the same glam feeling of the Darren Burn version - although it doesn't have his desperate innocence.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Country: England Tonch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,605
    Liked
    98 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Crook View Post
    The BBC is particularly sensitive about Savile because of the documentary that was made for Newsnight about him and his misdemeanours which they then decided to not broadcast. There was then a Panorama broadcast about the Newsnight documentary and the decision not to broadcast it. Red faces all round

    Steve
    If I remember correctly, Panorama's broadcast of Newsnight's decision not to screen its own documentary was deemed sufficiently newsworthy to feature as a lead story not only on The News, but also on...Newsnight!

    Perhaps the closest the BBC have ever come to vanishing up their own arse?

    An unfortunate turn of phrase given the context. Sorry.

  11. #31
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    336
    Liked
    0 times
    Sorry, but could we possibly get this back onto the original topic 1st posted ?

    As yet again, (inevitably, I have to admit, it's strayed from the point, somewhat :{)

    Though thumbs-up to Tonch for an avatar of my HERO & Namesake !

  12. #32
    Senior Member Country: UK
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    375
    Liked
    0 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin C View Post
    Sorry, but could we possibly get this back onto the original topic 1st posted ?

    As yet again, (inevitably, I have to admit, it's strayed from the point, somewhat :{)
    The OP was over 2 years ago!!

    It was nice to see Christmas TotP2 the other day with some extra stuff that you do not normally see,although it did list that Katie Melua was on there with something exclusive but sadly it wasn't on there anyone know why?


    TOTP2 - Christmas 2014

    Mark Radcliffe introduces a feast of festive performances from the likes of Blur, The Pretenders, The Bluebells, Katie Melua, and Cerys Matthews and Tom Jones.
    Last edited by Electric Warrior; 23-12-14 at 02:39 PM.

  13. #33
    Senior Member Country: Spain Rowdon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,131
    Liked
    143 times
    Sorry - I'm guilty of ranting off with the topic when it wasn't my place to do so. Apologies.

    I remember Richey of the Manic Street Preachers supporting Joe Strummer's stance that meant that the Clash never appeared on TOTP. He siad - more or less - what was the point of the energy of someone like the Clash sandwiched between Boney M and Dollar? A reply to this (probably 1995-ish in the NME) said that was the whole point! Seeing the Jam or the Ruts back to back against Liquid Gold was BRILLIANT for a teenage kid at the time - and surely a Clash performance would have been better than the embarrassment of Legs and Co dancing to Bankrobber? ... So here's the big TOTP question

    Was Joe Strummer right or wrong never to let the Clash go on Top of the Pops?

    Answers please.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Top of the Pops
    By bigbreadeaterellis in forum Looking for a Video/DVD (TV)
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 20-04-15, 08:06 PM
  2. Top Of The Pops
    By David Brent in forum British Television
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 25-11-13, 10:57 AM
  3. BBC Top of the pops archive
    By tvinsider in forum British Television
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 26-04-13, 09:43 PM
  4. Top of the Pops 2 1994
    By Critto7 in forum Film Music
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-05-12, 09:06 AM
  5. Pick of the Pops
    By Marky B in forum Radio Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23-11-11, 08:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts