Sir Jimmy Saville dead
Sir Jimmy Saville dead
External image

The legend of UK television, Sir Jimmy Saville has been found dead in his home in leads just two days away from his 85th birthday. Sir Jimmy was born on Halloween 1926 and has had a huge career and will be forever remembered for his famous show Jim’ll Fix It.

Sir Jimmy managed to raise a huge amount of money for charity in his life and his account has claimed that he raised over £40million for charity before losing track of the amount he raised in total. Most of the charity money went to people with spinal injuries.   Sir Jimmy Saville once claimed to be the first ever radio DJ and while this is not entirely true, he will always be remembered as one of the best. Sir Jimmy Saville was a true British legend and is a huge loss to the entertainment industry. Our thoughts are with his family. R.I.P. Sir Jimmy Saville.
Things Back to the Future 2 got Right about 2015
  • Back to the Future 2 does not mention disgraced DJ and TV presenter Jimmy Saville as a living human being. Jimmy Saville died in 2011.
  • The people of 2015 in the movie are shown to be using a synovial hinge joint between their forearm and upper arm. The real, non-movie people of 2015 do indeed have these joints - called elbows - which are as popular today as they were in the film.
  • There is no mention in Back to the Future 2 of my uncle Terry having gotten off his fat arse and landed a job. In fact, my uncle Terry still hasn’t gotten off his fat arse and landed a job, much to Aunt Carol’s despair.
  • The fictional world of 2015 is not one where the Brine People have emerged from the Salty Wastelands and enslaved humanity. The actual world of 2015 still awaits the Brine People’s wrath.
Germaine Greer - a better explanation.

What Germaine Greer said wasn’t hate speech, and it wasn’t illegal to say it.

That is not at issue (and those who are saying it is at issue are slightly wrong, although I can see why they are angry).


Imagine I wanted to come to your kids’ school, or to your church group, or to your next meeting of your local club, and give a presentation on why Sir Jimmy Savile is one of the greatest heroes of our time.

About his charity work, about all the good he did for society, and about - for that work - he should be lauded and canonised.

No doubt you would have some objections to me giving such a talk, and you would try to have me banned from coming to give that talk.

But why? Nothing of what I am saying is hate speech, and there are no laws that prevent me from saying it. 

However there are any number of people who would find someone publicly praising Sir Jimmy Savile to be utterly offensive and in very, very bad taste. And they would object to me doing such a thing in public - especially if they have to pay for me to do it.

Which is why any number of people are protesting that Cardiff University are paying someone who clearly has hateful, bigoted views to address a group of students.

And - just to be clear - they are not suggesting Greer should be locked up, not suggesting she should be put on trial. Not suggesting that she broke the law. 

No - they are simply saying that a PRIVATE institution should not pay for someone to come and speak. 

Freedom of speech can only truly be abridged by the government. If a private institution, private group of private organisation decides not to allow someone a platform to speak, they are not abridging that person’s freedom of speech They are simply not giving them a chance to speak *there*. That person can speak elsewhere - with the internet that person can pretty much speak anywhere. (Evidence - this post).

So for all the people bitching and whining about Gree’s freedom of speech being abridged or restricted because Cardiff Uni won’t let her talk, grow up. Her rights are not being restricted, this is not PC run-amok.

This is a group of students protesting the paid lecture of someone of whose views - views that are insulting, hateful, demeaning and offensive - at the place they are studying.
Should politicians have the right to delete their own tweets ... forever? - BBC News
One of the founders of a project to catalogue politicians' deleted tweets has hit back at Twitter for shutting down its accounts - even though he admits they were violating the network's rules.

I really have to side with Twitter on this, for two main reasons :-

First - complaining that you have been banned when you KNOWINGLY break the rules is the act of a small child. It would be like me saying “I don’t think I should go to jail just because I stole all that stuff - it was stuff I thought I deserved to have so why should I be punished for taking it?”

Second - the arguments being used to defend the practices are hypocritical in the extreme.

“When Twitter started, they strongly communicated their goals about freedom of information and expression,” he says. “Twitter has been under pressure from stock holders to start making profit, and I think there is change of mind Twitter is becoming more informed by this trend, rather than being a service to connect people and promote freedom of information.

So he wants freedom of information - the ability to control what other people see - but he doesn’t want anyone else to have that? He is arguing that he should have the right to control the dissemination of tweets from other people, but other people should not have rights to control their own tweets?

Twitter is not an instrument of the state. It is not a government tool for propaganda. It is a private social media service - one that people get to use for free, by the way.

If I post something (”Rumplestiltskin is an evil man who abuses his wife”) and then an hour later decide I want to remove it why shouldn’t that be my choice? Why shouldn’t I get to remove something I don’t want up there?

People do it on tumblr, on facebook, on myspace and on every other site. People even delete stories on AO3 and at will.

So why should twitter be any different?

To take it another direction - I have no statistics on this, but I am guessing when Sir Jimmy Saville died in October 2011, there would have been a FLOOD of tweets bemoaning his death and posting “RIP” tweets about him being a good man, a great charity worker and so forth. Not just from politicians, but from EVERYONE.

How many people went back and deleted those tweets in light of the last year or so? How many people realised that publicly mourning for this man was probably not something they wanted in their twitter feed?

Should all of those people be forbidden from removing their tweets? What would happen if I wrote an engine that - today - retweeted every “RIP SAVILLE” post with the original tweeter’s name attached to it? Would they be happy? Or would they say I was doing something wrong?

Everyone who uses twitter has the same rights and privileges as everyone else - MPs are just people, just like everyone else. And while it might be fun to abuse their accounts for our own pleasure and enjoyment, that doesn’t make it right. We don’t have a right to control what they say and to control their lives - we just don’t.

Watch on


By Anon Sir Terry Wogan (right) with Sir Jimmy Savile (left) The BBC’s Terry Wogan knew about Jimmy Savile’s child abuse activities but kept quiet until after the story had been revealed by the media.