# the sir jimmy savile obe thread



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

A thread for discussion of sir jimmy savile obe and his vile activities. Please don't call other people nonces or say they look like nonces on the thread or it will go the way of all the others.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 10, 2012)

A good balanced opening.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2012)

yardbird said:


> A good balanced opening.


I doubt it's a sign of things to come though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2012)

the beeb need to do the inquiry sooner rather than later


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> the beeb need to do the inquiry sooner rather than later


They say they are waiting for the police to finish theirs first.


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

The Telegraph's run a catch up sort of article this morning.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-alleged-victims-approach-ITV-presenter.html



> So far eight criminal allegations have been formally recorded against him, two of rape and six of indecent assault, involving girls aged between 13 and 16.



And there's something called a Forfeiture Committee, which I hadn't heard of before (end of article where Cameron starts hinting).


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 10, 2012)

freddie starr's appearance on the news last night was a new high.. appearing alongside his 34 yo wife the 69 year old denied he was attracted to young girls and suggested that as his accuser went to an approved school she shouldn't be believed.


----------



## Glitter (Oct 10, 2012)

Is there a transcript of that? I can't watch youtubes or owt atm.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> A thread for discussion of sir jimmy savile obe and his vile activities. Please don't call other people nonces or say they look like nonces on the thread or it will go the way of all the others.


Well, it lasted 6 posts before moving on to claims about others. Another thread headed binward.  Quelle surprise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> Well, it lasted 6 posts before moving on to claims about others. Another thread headed binward.  Quelle surprise.


I meant other posters.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 10, 2012)

being reported without restriction on major news channels, injunction overturned by courts, seems odd that this cannot be discussed on here, especially when the constance briscoe case is being happily dissected.


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> being reported without restriction on major news channels, injunction overturned by courts, seems odd that this cannot be discussed on here, especially when the constance briscoe case is being happily dissected.



What's being reported can be discussed, surely? It's wild speculation that starts to get people uneasy.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 10, 2012)

I misread the title as "the sir jimmy savile oboe thread". I thought that was a bit too direct discussing his 'oboe'. I am glad it is only about his OBE. I can't see any point in posthumously taking away an honour. Once you are dead your honour is gone and dies with you. His honour certainly has gone. Also his oboe is no harm to anyone now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2012)

pink oboe


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 10, 2012)

Close down the BBC.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I meant other posters.


It said "A thread for discussion of sir jimmy savile obe and his vile activities". Not for discussing unsubstantiated claims against others. It's just as likely to get closed for claims against non-posters as posters, especially against persons living who have not been convicted of the offences being alluded to.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 10, 2012)

*Savile's headstone 'removed as landfill'*


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/10/jimmy-savile-headstone-removed

Apt, and removing his OBOE and knighthood won't affect him, no, but might help some of the other people involved to gain some closure.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2012)

If they've rolled away the stone, he might come back to life


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> being reported without restriction on major news channels, injunction overturned by courts, seems odd that this cannot be discussed on here, especially when the constance briscoe case is being happily dissected.


What you posted was fine and based on fact, although the fact that you mentioned his and his wife's ages gave a certain implication as did the first part of your post. It's just that once more people start discussing the matter, it's likely someone may post something that is not as fact based.


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> If they've rolled away the stone, he might come back to life


Encased in concrete. Although no stake (that's been reported).


----------



## articul8 (Oct 10, 2012)

Wasn't there resistance on some of the early threads when some posters were outing Saville as a nonce?  What's incredible - given the scale of his abuse of young girls over decades - is how intimdated officialdom was from saying anything.  Not BBC management, not the cops, not the press, not the Stoke Mandeville bosses, not the school/home authorities, no-one.  Makes you wonder what other things people in high places are hiding.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2012)

the halloween costume de rigeur this season is bound to be Zombie Savile


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> the halloween costume de rigeur this season is bound to be Zombie Savile


 
weren't ASDA doing Svile costumes before this all broke and then swiftly took them off sale?

collecters fucking items now I bet


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

I might try ebaying my autograph.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> the halloween costume de rigeur this season is bound to be Zombie Savile


 
i suggested my wife went to her primary schools halloween party dressed as jimmy saville.

went down as well as you might imagine.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 10, 2012)

BBC to do Panorama investigation on Savile, ITV to put out Exposure follow up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-bbc-sex-abuse-allegations


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 10, 2012)

C4 News' Paraic O' Brien (ex-BBC London):





> *Paraic O'Brien* ‏@*paraicobrien*
> Freddie Starr has employed a private investigator to investigate woman who alleges abuse.
> 
> 9:24 PM - 9 Oct 12 ·


 
https://twitter.com/paraicobrien/status/255765755054944256


----------



## albionism (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> A thread for discussion of sir jimmy savile obe and his vile activities. Please don't call other people nonces or say they look like nonces on the thread or it will go the way of all the others.


Should we not also do a John Peel OBE  thread/discussion ?  Folk are seemingly letting John Peel off the
hook because he was cooler than Savile and introduced us all to some fantastic music etc..There seems to
be a bit of a Roman Polanski ting going on with Peel, ie lots of folk defending him because of how "great" he was..
..He was a dodgy geezer by his own admission.


----------



## Schmetterling (Oct 10, 2012)

Maltin said:


> They say they are waiting for the police to finish theirs first.


 
They are waiting to see what they will not have to admit to, more like!



barney_pig said:


> freddie starr's appearance on the news last night was a new high.. appearing alongside his 34 yo wife the 69 year old denied he was attracted to young girls and suggested that as his accuser went to an approved school she shouldn't be believed.


 
Yep; saw/heard that. What was her wording again? I think it was: 'I mean, she went to a special [different word used here; was it approved?] school, didn't she?' Oh really? So she was damaged? She would have had to have made it up? All children in approved schools make things up?

I am surprised we have not heard anything from HIGNFY team.


----------



## Kippa (Oct 10, 2012)

Personally I prefer to think that someone is innocent until proven guilty.  I am not saying that Jimmy is innocent nor guilty, it just seems that in a very short space of time the media have decided that he is guilty without any propper due process.


----------



## albionism (Oct 10, 2012)

LOOK AT HIS EYES!


----------



## Kidda (Oct 10, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> freddie starr's appearance on the news last night was a new high.. appearing alongside his 34 yo wife the 69 year old denied he was attracted to young girls and suggested that as his accuser went to an approved school she shouldn't be believed.


 
Lets remember he hasn't been charged or found guilty of anything. 

All this trial by media is making me feel very very uncomfortable.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2012)

What the fuck has Freddie Starr got to do with this thread?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2012)

Kippa said:


> Personally I prefer to think that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I am not saying that Jimmy is innocent nor guilty, it just seems that in a very short space of time the media have decided that he is guilty without any propper due process.


 

almost like loads of people in the biz already knew and are reacting swiftly to make up for earlier complicity.

Jimmy can't be adjudged guilty or innocent by any mortal forces now btw.

wether those who knew and kept schtum might face charges remains to be seen


----------



## Yetman (Oct 10, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> BBC to do Panorama investigation on Savile, ITV to put out Exposure follow up:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-bbc-sex-abuse-allegations


 
Thought that said 'BBC to do Paranormal investigation on Savile' then. That would be interesting


----------



## articul8 (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> What the fuck has Freddie Starr got to do with this thread?


 
Wasn't he on Clunk Click with Saville?


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2012)

Oh well. I tried.


----------



## Kidda (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> What the fuck has Freddie Starr got to do with this thread?


 
He's now being accused of assaulted a young girl with Jimmy Saville, he was on the news last night looking broken and saying he hadn't done anything. 

They were trying to make him remember a school girl who sat behind him on a tv show 40+ years ago. 

It was all very strange


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 10, 2012)

*drags into thread*


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 10, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> I am surprised we have not heard anything from HIGNFY team.


 
Why would we? The infamous transcript had nothing to do with them.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 10, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> *drags into thread*


Snoopy's death mask?


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> I might try ebaying my autograph.


 
Your autograph is probably worth more than Jimmy's now.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 10, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Snoopy's death mask?


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 10, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Your autograph is probably worth more than Jimmy's now.


 
Not if it's on a confession.

(Savile's autograph, to be clear, before the thread takes a turn )


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 10, 2012)

Can I be the first to say that that lead balloon does look like a wrong'un


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Your autograph is probably worth more than Jimmy's now.


There might be someone with a macabre wont and deep pockets *lives in hope*


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2012)

a lot of his gear was auctioned off before the news broke. Someone paid thirty quid for saviles machete. Can't remember how much his starry strides fetched, or his voodoo stick.


----------



## Schmetterling (Oct 10, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> Why would we? The infamous transcript had nothing to do with them.


 
Really?  I thought it was from  HIGNFY.  I am sure JS appeared on it and there was a lot that was cut. 

So is the recording we have all listened to on the internets from a different show?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 10, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> Really? I thought it was from HIGNFY. I am sure JS appeared on it and there was a lot that was cut.
> 
> So is the recording we have all listened to on the internets from a different show?


There is NO RECORDING because the transcript was MADE UP.

http://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com...a-paedophile-hoax-on-have-i-got-news-for-you/


----------



## xenon (Oct 10, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> Really?  I thought it was from  HIGNFY.  I am sure JS appeared on it and there was a lot that was cut.
> 
> So is the recording we have all listened to on the internets from a different show?



I thought that transcript was known to be a fake. You're saying there's a recording of it? link?


----------



## xes (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> What the fuck has Freddie Starr got to do with this thread?


He was accused of groping a 14 yr old girl on one of Savilles shows, and "new" video footage has shown that the girl who has made the accusation was on the show when he was on it.


----------



## gaijingirl (Oct 10, 2012)

Freddie Starr has just been interviewed on This Morning along with his wife.  I wonder how many other stars from that time will be implicated in all this?


----------



## Favelado (Oct 10, 2012)

I just held a brief trial in my head for Freddie Starr and found him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2012)

albionism said:


> Should we not also do a John Peel OBE thread/discussion ? Folk are seemingly letting John Peel off the
> hook because he was cooler than Savile and introduced us all to some fantastic music etc..There seems to
> be a bit of a Roman Polanski ting going on with Peel, ie lots of folk defending him because of how "great" he was..
> ..He was a dodgy geezer by his own admission.


 
Letting Peel off the hook for...marrying a 15 year-old in a state where it was legal to do so? For claiming to have been given blow-jobs by teenage girls? For dressing up as a schoolgirl?

I mean come on, draw the equivalences between the two, if there are any, but otherwise, you're just insinuating that one DJ was as bad as the other.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 10, 2012)

xenon said:


> I thought that transcript was known to be a fake. You're saying there's a recording of it? link?


 
You mean you don't remember the bit where Savile stubbed out his cigar in Bugs Bunny's eye? Oh.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010612065657.htm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2012)

Kippa said:


> Personally I prefer to think that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I am not saying that Jimmy is innocent nor guilty, it just seems that in a very short space of time the media have decided that he is guilty without any propper due process.


 
You can't give the reputation of a dead man "due process". Once you've karked, you're fair game.
The weight of evidence against Savile, even from those who one would expect to be "on his side", does tend to weigh quite heavily in the public mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> What the fuck has Freddie Starr got to do with this thread?


 
He's said he's going to start eating squirrels instead of hamsters, and asked whether you'd like him to hang around on your balcony.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's said he's going to start eating squirrels instead of hamsters, and asked whether you'd like him to hang around on your balcony.


 
I heard he was into young beavers.


----------



## xenon (Oct 10, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> You mean you don't remember the bit where Savile stubbed out his cigar in Bugs Bunny's eye? Oh.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010612065657.htm



heh. Would have thought it a bit of a leap from reading something to imagining you'd seen it. Apparently not.

Cooked and Bombed, I'd forgotten about that site. One of the first I used to visit when I got online.


----------



## Schmetterling (Oct 10, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> There is NO RECORDING because the transcript was MADE UP.
> 
> http://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com...a-paedophile-hoax-on-have-i-got-news-for-you/


 


xenon said:


> I thought that transcript was known to be a fake. You're saying there's a recording of it? link?


 
In that case I am confused. I am sure there will now be some people who say: 'No, it is real!'  Hm.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 10, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> In that case I am confused. I am sure there will now be some people who say: 'No, it is real!' Hm.


 
HIGNFY themselves have tweeted the transcript is fake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

albionism said:


> Should we not also do a John Peel OBE thread/discussion ? Folk are seemingly letting John Peel off the
> hook because he was cooler than Savile and introduced us all to some fantastic music etc..There seems to
> be a bit of a Roman Polanski ting going on with Peel, ie lots of folk defending him because of how "great" he was..
> ..He was a dodgy geezer by his own admission.


do your own bloody thread then


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Wasn't he on Clunk Click with Saville?


in 1974


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I heard he was into young beavers.


 
True, but they're an endangered species nowadays, so...


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> What the fuck has Freddie Starr got to do with this thread?


 you're not really keeping abreast of things very well


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> you're not really keeping abreast of things very well


 
What are you trying to imply by mentioning breasts?


----------



## where to (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> What the fuck has Freddie Starr got to do with this thread?


 
Don't you actually read the threads before deleting them?


----------



## ChrisD (Oct 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> I might try ebaying my autograph.


 how old were you when he gave it you  (the autograph) ?


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

ChrisD said:


> how old were you when he gave it you  (the autograph) ?


My Dad got it for me. I was about 11 I think, maybe 12.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2012)

where to said:


> Don't you actually read the threads before deleting them?


Given how the other threads have gone, do you think it's a great idea to start talking about Freddie Starr in this thread?


----------



## where to (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> Given how the other threads have gone, do you think it's a great idea to start talking about Freddie Starr in this thread?


 
If you are scared of the consequences of people crossing a certain line that's up to you.  But your denial of facts which are now in the public domain is morally wrong.


----------



## where to (Oct 10, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> C4 News' Paraic O' Brien (ex-BBC London): Freddie Starr has employed a private investigator to investigate woman who alleges abuse.
> 
> https://twitter.com/paraicobrien/status/255765755054944256


 
What a total and utter cunt.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2012)

where to said:


> But your denial of facts which are now in the public domain is morally wrong.


In the "public domain" as in actual proven allegations or chitter chatter and rumours on the web?

What are the facts and proven allegations against Freddie Starr?

I'm actually doing my best to ensure that discussions _can_ take place here.


----------



## treelover (Oct 10, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> freddie starr's appearance on the news last night was a new high.. appearing alongside his 34 yo wife the 69 year old denied he was attracted to young girls *and suggested that as his accuser went to an approved school she shouldn't be believed.*


 

Oh, and F/S is from such an esteemed background, not...


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2012)

For the record, I fucking hate Freddie Starr. Dreadful, dreadful man. But I trust people will at least understand why I'm counselling caution here.


----------



## treelover (Oct 10, 2012)

albionism said:


> Should we not also do a John Peel OBE thread/discussion ? Folk are seemingly letting John Peel off the
> hook because he was cooler than Savile and introduced us all to some fantastic music etc..There seems to
> be a bit of a Roman Polanski ting going on with Peel, ie lots of folk defending him because of how "great" he was..
> ..He was a dodgy geezer by his own admission.


 
I vaguely remember the NME in the late seventies every week having a small picture insert of J/P with a naked woman, usually in the bath, not under age though, often baffled as to why it was there...


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 10, 2012)

Dan U said:


> i suggested my wife went to her primary schools halloween party dressed as jimmy saville.
> 
> went down as well as you might imagine.



Your wifes still in primary school? Even sir jim'll went for older girls than that...


----------



## seeformiles (Oct 10, 2012)

Someone sent me this (probably posted on an earlier thread - if so, apologies) - seems like Jerry Sadowitz was right on the money 25 years ago:

http://soundcloud.com/agnes-guano/the-case-for-the-prosecution


----------



## where to (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> In the "public domain" as in actual proven allegations or chitter chatter and rumours on the web?
> 
> What are the facts and proven allegations against Freddie Starr?


 
You questioned the relevance of Starr to this matter.  Starr has been unsuccessful in trying to silence the media on the allegations made against him that he was involved in incidents of abuse that also involved Savile.  That is factual, cannot be challenged and is highly relevant to any discussion on Savile. 



editor said:


> I'm actually doing my best to ensure that discussions _can_ take place here.


 
Okay, fair enough.


----------



## lizzieloo (Oct 10, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> If they've rolled away the stone, he might come back to life


 
I don't want that song in my head


----------



## Dan U (Oct 10, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Your wifes still in primary school? Even sir jim'll went for older girls than that...


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> In the "public domain" as in actual proven allegations or chitter chatter and rumours on the web?
> 
> What are the facts and proven allegations against Freddie Starr?
> 
> I'm actually doing my best to ensure that discussions _can_ take place here.


He denied he'd met Savile more than twice or appeared on a TV show with him - untrue (proven by footage)
He denied that he'd ever met the woman who is accusing him of assault - as above

Beyond that, no, of course, nothing has been proven - it hasn't gone to court yet.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> In the "public domain" as in actual proven allegations or chitter chatter and rumours on the web?
> 
> What are the facts and proven allegations against Freddie Starr?
> 
> I'm actually doing my best to ensure that discussions _can_ take place here.


I was so disappointed when I found out that Starr never really ate anyone's hamster. Perhaps the child abuse rumours are also a publicity story created by Max Clifford. If I read that the latter had eaten a hamster I would probably believe it.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 10, 2012)

lizzieloo said:


> I don't want that song in my head


great song that


----------



## Dandred (Oct 10, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> the beeb need to do the inquiry sooner rather than later


 
I don't trust them to be totally honest, independent inquiry is what is needed.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

Dandred said:


> I don't trust them to be totally honest, independent inquiry is what is needed.


I agree


----------



## albionism (Oct 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Letting Peel off the hook for...marrying a 15 year-old in a state where it was legal to do so? For claiming to have been given blow-jobs by teenage girls? For dressing up as a schoolgirl?
> 
> I mean come on, draw the equivalences between the two, if there are any, but otherwise, you're just insinuating that one DJ was as bad as the other.


by his own admission, he was happy to abuse under age girls. Why do people let him off so easily?


----------



## albionism (Oct 10, 2012)

because we do not want to believe he was noncy, because we loved him and his radio show.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 10, 2012)

If only they'd been something, an inkling even, that Jimmy Saville was a bit odd.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2012)

albionism said:


> by his own admission, he was happy to abuse under age girls. Why do people let him off so easily?


 
I'm not letting him off, I'm asking "where's any abused girl making a complaint, then or now?".  Considering that at the time Peel was speaking about, he was living and working in a state where sex with a minor was an automatic jail term if reported, surely if he'd forced his attentions on so many pubescent females there'd be some trace, especially in a litigious culture such as the US has?
I see the smoke, but I'd like to see evidence of the fire too, if that's okay with you. This isn't as cut and dried as Savile, with what currently appear to be several decades of ignored accusations of abuse against him, it's about a bloke who married (legally) a 15 year-old that he thought was older, getting head off of girls who he assumed to be under the age of consent.
That's why I'm not prepared to throw Peel on the same bonfire as Savile yet. If I see evidence that he actually was a predatory paedophile, I'll happily bung him on the bonfire too.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 10, 2012)

to be fair odd doesn't always equate to "nonce" and I wouldn't want to live in a world which made that equation


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2012)

Peel gets a pass for breaking Nirvana*



*not really


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 10, 2012)

albionism said:


> by his own admission, he was happy to abuse under age girls. Why do people let him off so easily?


 
I've always despised Peel for his false scouse accent if nothing else, but I don't think you can put him in the same bracket as Savile. Peel, by his own admission, had relations with teenage girls - See his comments about heavy petting and not checking ages at the door. In other words he took advantage, which I'm not defending, but unlike Savile he wasn't a bullying predator who got off on the damage he was causing. Still an arsehole though and it's always got on my nerves how venerated he was so it'll be nice if his reputation is now so tattered that even the most skillful seamstress couldn't hope to stitch back together


----------



## articul8 (Oct 10, 2012)

Is this thread the best place to divide all famous people into "nonce", "suspected nonce" and "potential nonce"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Is this thread the best place to divide all famous people into "nonce", "suspected nonce" and "potential nonce"?


they're all potential nonces.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> I've always despised Peel for his false scouse accent if nothing else, but I don't think you can put him in the same bracket as Savile. Peel, by his own admission, took advantage of teenage girls - See his comments about heavy petting and not checking ages at the door. In other words he took advantage, which I'm not defending, but unlike Savile he wasn't a bullying predator who got off on the damage he was causing. Still an arsehole though and it's always got on my nerves how venerated he was so it'll be nice if his reputation is now so tattered that even the most skillful seamstress couldn't hope to stitch back together


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/john-peel-dj-extraordinaire-has-died.22734/


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 10, 2012)

Shouldn't this thread title be "the sir jimmy savile odb thread"


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 10, 2012)

I'm sure there was a thread started on here discussing Jimmy Savile's vile activities about 5 seconds after this vile oxygen thief stopped stealing oxygen but I was obviously wrong. I'm guessing most well known people in the 70s who looked like paedos were paedos, what we need to know is who is dead & who isn't so we know who to accuse & who we cannot for legal reasons. We are not talking small numbers here, ridiculous looking long hair & sideburns teamed with tye/dye grandand vest, loon pants & stack heeled boots made the most mundane of men look like vile paedo scum. All of Sweet for example but of course they wern't except possibly the late Brian Connolly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 10, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I'm sure there was a thread started on here discussing Jimmy Savile's vile activities about 5 seconds after this vile oxygen thief stopped stealing oxygen but I was obviously wrong. I'm guessing most well known people in the 70s who looked like paedos were paedos, what we need to know is who is dead & who isn't so we know who to accuse & who we cannot for legal reasons. We are not talking small numbers here, ridiculous looking long hair & sideburns teamed with tye/dye grandand vest, loon pants & stack heeled boots made the most mundane of men look like vile paedo scum. All of Sweet for example but of course they wern't except perhaps the one that is dead.


Nah. You were wrong on that thread, and you're wrong on this one. It never was just about him looking wrong.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah. You were wrong on that thread, and you're wrong on this one. It never was just about him looking wrong.


No not wrong, what started out as an attack on Savile & his partners in crime appears to have turned into an attack on an entire decade.


----------



## extra dry (Oct 10, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> If they've rolled away the stone, he might come back to life


 

jim will fixit!


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> No not wrong, what started out as an attack on Savile & his partners in crime appears to have turned into an attack on an entire decade.


You don't think the cultural context is relevant? I think it's absolutely fundamental to why he was allowed to get away with it for as long as he did. Nothing happens in a vacuum


----------



## Wilf (Oct 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Is this thread the best place to divide all famous people into "nonce", "suspected nonce" and "potential nonce"?


We've had a series of sophisticated statistical models for sorting out rent sharing, surely Urban can rise to the challange. Right, 10 points for mad eyes, 5 for flyaway hair, 250 for being a DJ, 500 for singing at Wimbledon...


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 10, 2012)

trashpony said:


> You don't think the cultural context is relevant? I think it's absolutely fundamental to why he was allowed to get away with it for as long as he did. Nothing happens in a vacuum


I'm not disagreeing with you, Indeed as I pointed out, most men in the 70s looked like paedos & it appears that the 'just because he looks like a paedo dosen't mean he is a paedo' charade has now been discredited by Savile who did look like a paedo, actually being exposed as one.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2012)

Wilf said:


> We've had a series of sophisticated statistical models for sorting out rent sharing, surely Urban can rise to the challange. Right, 10 points for mad eyes, 5 for flyaway hair, 250 for being a DJ, 500 for singing at Wimbledon...


Steady on there...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> Steady on there...


 I'm shamed into behaving...


----------



## madamv (Oct 10, 2012)

I was re reading some of the stuff about Gary Glitters convictions...   



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> He was also charged with having sex with an underage girl, Alison Brown, around 20 years earlier, when she was 14 years old. She had had a relationship with Glitter for some years.[9] Glitter was acquitted of this charge. It was later revealed that Brown had sold her story to the _News of the World_ and stood to earn more money from the newspaper should Glitter be convicted


 
iirc she decided to press charges after finding the child pics on his computer.  I wonder if that was actually considered?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

Chris Patten (as chair of BBC) is being given a real grilling about this on the Media Show on R4 right now


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I'm shamed into behaving...


have some fucking backbone


----------



## Wilf (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> have some fucking backbone


 That sort of thing's more for the young ones.


----------



## elbows (Oct 10, 2012)

I still cant quite get my head around how he was allowed his own flat at the hospital. Well I can, money, but it still boggles my brain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-19900559



> A caller named Laura told *5 live*'s *Your Call* programme she had overhead nurses talking about Savile one day.
> *'Pretend to sleep'*
> "There was chatter and miserable faces about the fact that Jimmy Savile was due to do what they called his particular ward round that day, and they were talking to themselves about which one would be, as they put it, 'the chosen one' to go off with him to his little room," she said.
> "I just remember the nurse tucking me in and saying, 'The best thing you can do is stay in bed and don't ask to be put in a wheelchair today and pretend to be asleep'."


----------



## articul8 (Oct 10, 2012)




----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

Wilf said:


> That sort of thing's more for the young ones.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 10, 2012)

I'll set 'em up, you knock 'em over.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 10, 2012)

seeformiles said:


> Someone sent me this (probably posted on an earlier thread - if so, apologies) - seems like Jerry Sadowitz was right on the money 25 years ago:
> 
> http://soundcloud.com/agnes-guano/the-case-for-the-prosecution


 
I did my YTS at a photographic printing and repro company nearly 25 years ago that had a big contract with yorkshire television.  _everyone_ knew back then that saville was a nonce from the despatch riders to management.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 10, 2012)

elbows said:


> I still cant quite get my head around how he was allowed his own flat at the hospital. Well I can, money, but it still boggles my brain.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-19900559


 The logic behind the 'pretend to sleep' comment is beyond staggering.  In an NHS hospital, a nurse having to say that to a child so they can avoid being abused by a rich celeb.  Christ.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2012)




----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

smokedout said:


> I did my YTS at a photographic printing and repro company nearly 25 years ago that had a big contract with yorkshire television. _everyone_ knew back then that saville was a nonce from the despatch riders to management.


and you did nothing about it.

fucking blood on your hands. or semen.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


>


Are you really doing to do this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Are you really doing to do this?


it's what huns do


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 10, 2012)

Wilf said:


> The logic behind the 'pretend to sleep' comment is beyond staggering. In an NHS hospital, a nurse having to say that to a child so they can avoid being abused by a rich celeb. Christ.


 
The person who rang the show was 28 when this happened. She wasn't a child.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and you did nothing about it.
> 
> fucking blood on your hands. or semen.


 
too old for that, i was 16 by then and had missed my chance with jimmy


----------



## dylans (Oct 10, 2012)




----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

Ponyutd said:


> The person who rang the show was 28 when this happened. She wasn't a child.


And what do you think would have happened to her? She would have been thought to be hysterical and making hideous lurid allegations and probably lost her job.

Then again, you're the twat whose first comment on April Jones going missing was to wonder where her mother was so I shouldn't be surprised


----------



## co-op (Oct 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


>


 
Fuck off with this sectarian crap


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Is there a transcript of that? I can't watch youtubes or owt atm.


 
Glitter - surely to God you're not a tribute act...


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

Libcom have article (prompted by the Savile furore but in more general terms discussing rape, abuse and paedophilia) http://libcom.org/blog/paedophilia-rape-culture-10102012


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2012)

Blimey. I didn't know libcom was still going.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 10, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Close down the BBC.


 
Rupert Murdoch's intense desire to do just that (free marketeers hate competition after all) couldn't possibly have anything to do with framing this story as being about the beeb rather than say, pop industry nonces.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> Glitter - surely to God you're not a tribute act...







a disgraced rock star recently





glitter recently


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2012)

co-op said:


> Fuck off with this sectarian crap


Where are you getting sectarian from?   Certainly not me.


----------



## co-op (Oct 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Where are you getting sectarian from? Certainly not me.


 
Big Jock Knew and all that shit.

But if that was just a coincidence then I take it back.


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

editor said:


> Blimey. I didn't know libcom was still going.


It's a long time since "Libcom's down" threads, that's for sure. Still useful for their library although I tend not to go on the forums much.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Where are you getting sectarian from? Certainly not me.


so what's the point in the picture you posted?


----------



## co-op (Oct 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Are you really doing to do this?


 
I see butchers was there before me or at least that's what I assume he's talking about here.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 10, 2012)

elbows said:


> I still cant quite get my head around how he was allowed his own flat at the hospital. Well I can, money, but it still boggles my brain.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-19900559


Fuuuuuuucking hell.

Have to say I was a bit non-plussed about him having a room at two(?) hospitals. What on earth where his justifications for that? 

Also, where'd that quote come from? It's not in that link?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2012)

co-op said:


> Big Jock Knew and all that shit.
> 
> But if that was just a coincidence then I take it back.


I saw it on facebook, remembered the savile thread here and c&p'ed it.   And no, don't bother taking it back, I'll let it stand as saying more about you than me.  

I am not aware of savile's religion, if any.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

it's in this article http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-paedo-dj-jimmy-savile-of-sir-knighthood.html


----------



## co-op (Oct 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I saw it on facebook, remembered the savile thread here and c&p'ed it. And no, don't bother taking it back, I'll let it stand as saying more about you than me.
> 
> I am not aware of savile's religion, if any.


 
OK I won't take it back, I'll assume you got the connection and you enjoy running crap sectarian shit. So fuck off with that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I saw it on facebook, remembered the savile thread here and c&p'ed it. And no, don't bother taking it back, I'll let it stand as saying more about you than me.
> 
> I am not aware of savile's religion, if any.


in retrospect i'm sorry anchorage was banned, it should have been you.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

I just got the cover of the book that Savile did an intro to. It's been posted before and I think it's genuine. What's with the sectarian stuff?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> Libcom have article (prompted by the Savile furore but in more general terms discussing rape, abuse and paedophilia) http://libcom.org/blog/paedophilia-rape-culture-10102012


 
Is it really getting that bad in the anarchist scene?


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

I don't understand the sectarian reference either


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 10, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Rupert Murdoch's intense desire to do just that (free marketeers hate competition after all) couldn't possibly have anything to do with framing this story as being about the beeb rather than say, pop industry nonces.


 Manna from heaven for Uncle Rupe,obviously hoping for it to overshadow a certain phone hacking scandal


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Is it really getting that bad in the anarchist scene?


What do you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Is it really getting that bad in the anarchist scene?


no, that's libcom, it's different.


----------



## co-op (Oct 10, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't understand the sectarian reference either


 


trashpony said:


> I just got the cover of the book that Savile did an intro to. It's been posted before and I think it's genuine. What's with the sectarian stuff?


 
(From memory, details may be hazy) A Celtic football coach was found guilty of child abuse, his time at Celtic overlapped with Jock Stein's so a rather seedy little campaign under the heading "Big Jock Knew" (ie knew about the child abuse and hushed it up) was started pretty obviously as a part of a sectarian anti-celtic, anti-catholic thing.

It was a few years ago now, I use to run across it a bit on football boards


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2012)

co-op said:
			
		

> I see butchers was there before me or at least that's what I assume he's talking about here.



Maybe it was just pure coincidence a Scottish poster posted that with no comment. Maybe.


----------



## cesare (Oct 10, 2012)

Cheers co-op


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Letting Peel off the hook for...marrying a 15 year-old in a state where it was legal to do so? For claiming to have been given blow-jobs by teenage girls? For dressing up as a schoolgirl?
> 
> I mean come on, draw the equivalences between the two, if there are any, but otherwise, you're just insinuating that one DJ was as bad as the other.


AFAIK, the legal age for marriage in the state of Texas, and I'm going back to the 1960s, was pretty young - possibly as young as 12 or 13. It's changed now.

Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin ffs!


----------



## peterkro (Oct 10, 2012)

Like I assume a lot of other people I feel guilty about Savile (not that I knew anything other than gossip) at this stage can we totally ignore the gossip about gangland connections and necrophilia?


----------



## co-op (Oct 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe it was just pure coincidence a Scottish poster posted that with no comment. Maybe.


 
Him getting all defensive makes it look a bit less coincidental to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Like I assume a lot of other people I feel guilty about Savile (not that I knew anything other than gossip) at this stage can we totally ignore the gossip about gangland connections and necrophilia?


i hope we could explore those areas because they sound quite interesting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

jimmy savile getting a kicking



see round 1:50


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

co-op said:


> (From memory, details may be hazy) A Celtic football coach was found guilty of child abuse, his time at Celtic overlapped with Jock Stein's so a rather seedy little campaign under the heading "Big Jock Knew" (ie knew about the child abuse and hushed it up) was started pretty obviously as a part of a sectarian anti-celtic, anti-catholic thing.
> 
> It was a few years ago now, I use to run across it a bit on football boards


Ah right, cheers


----------



## co-op (Oct 10, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Ah right, cheers


 


cesare said:


> Cheers co-op


 

You're welcome.


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> A thread for discussion of sir jimmy savile obe and his vile activities. Please don't call other people nonces or say they look like nonces on the thread or it will go the way of all the others.


Only someone who looked like  a nonce would make this post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Only someone who looked like a nonce would make this post.


sadly i haven't had the flowing locks associated with paedophiles or with superannuated rock'n'roll virgins for many years


----------



## elbows (Oct 10, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Fuuuuuuucking hell.
> 
> Have to say I was a bit non-plussed about him having a room at two(?) hospitals. What on earth where his justifications for that?
> 
> Also, where'd that quote come from? It's not in that link?


 
They bloody well removed that entire part of the story after I read it, probably when they updated it shortly after 6pm!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

elbows said:


> They bloody well removed that entire part of the story after I posted it!


surgery  tch


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 10, 2012)

I had doubted the rumours when they first appeared back in the original thread, but not now and it's a shame Saville isn't around to face the music


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I had doubted the rumours when they first appeared back in the original thread, but not now and it's a shame Saville isn't around to face the music


what do you think would happen to a (living) 86 year old accused of all these vile crimes? fuck all, i wouldn't be surprised, particularly in savile's case where he was treated like he was some sort of national treasure.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

Am I the only cynic who think that the reason his family removed his headstone wasn't 'out of respect for the victims' as was alleged but because they didn't want it defaced?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Am I the only cynic who think that the reason his family removed his headstone wasn't 'out of respect for the victims' as was alleged but because they didn't want it defaced?


they've had it well and truly defaced now, smashed up and sent for landfill.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you think would happen to a (living) 86 year old accused of all these vile crimes? fuck all, i wouldn't be surprised, particularly in savile's case where he was treated like he was some sort of national treasure.


The victims would get to see him face up to it at least.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> they've had it well and truly defaced now, smashed up and sent for landfill.


Apparently.


----------



## elbows (Oct 10, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Am I the only cynic who think that the reason his family removed his headstone wasn't 'out of respect for the victims' as was alleged but because they didn't want it defaced?


 
And before this move they had mentioned increased security at the cemetery, which comes at a price that I doubt anyone wanted to pay for long.

I think they only got the headstones installed a matter of weeks ago, like the various plaques the timing turned out to be quite poor.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 10, 2012)

the renaming of the street


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 10, 2012)

trashpony said:


> And what do you think would have happened to her? She would have been thought to be hysterical and making hideous lurid allegations and probably lost her job.
> 
> Then again, you're the twat whose first comment on April Jones going missing was to wonder where her mother was so I shouldn't be surprised


 

Wilf said: 
The logic behind the 'pretend to sleep' comment is beyond staggering. In an NHS hospital, a nurse having to say that to a child so they can avoid being abused by a rich celeb. Christ. ​​​ 


Wilf thought the person was a child who was told to pretend to be asleep. She wasn't, she was 28 when she was in hospital as a patient and told to pretend to be asleep.
Nicky Campbell asked her "How old was you when this happened" The caller said I was 28. Is this clear?
I pointed out to Wilf she wasn't a child. Understand?
She wasn't a nurse as you seem to think.
Still surprised?


----------



## elbows (Oct 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> jimmy savile getting a kicking
> see round 1:50


 
I dont know what it was like in the UK but in the USA pro wrestling was quite similar to the music scene in a few key ways. Back in the day they had regional promotions with regular tour circuits, and there was a groupie thing. The wrestlers referred to these women or girls as 'ring rats'. Some of them were probably underage, and if I remember correctly one of the reasons Jake the snake Roberts has a rather dark take on life is that he is the product of his father, a wrestler called Grizzly Smith, getting a very underage girl pregnant in circumstances that sounded extra ugly.


----------



## Coffee (Oct 10, 2012)

Here's a article from the Scarborough local rags website, liked the third comment.. my old secondary school. 
http://m.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/local/savile-s-gravestone-taken-down-overnight-1-5008451

Dave.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 10, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> The victims would get to see him face up to it at least.


the truth was never going to be officially acknowledged whilst he was alive.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

Ponyutd said:


> Wilf said:
> The logic behind the 'pretend to sleep' comment is beyond staggering. In an NHS hospital, a nurse having to say that to a child so they can avoid being abused by a rich celeb. Christ. ​​​
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm still surprised that you think it's really worth making a big deal of. Maybe he got off on shagging women who were so incapacitated by their disability they couldn't fight back as well as children. What's your point? The *nurse* still told her to pretend to be asleep.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 10, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Am I the only cynic who think that the reason his family removed his headstone wasn't 'out of respect for the victims' as was alleged but because they didn't want it defaced?


 
I'm not sure. I'm inclined to think they would know better than anyone what he was really like.


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 10, 2012)

Two people on here thought the person was a child, I pointed out she wasn't, she was a grown up who overheard the conversation. You thought it was a nurse! How the fuck is that making a big deal of it?
Your making shit up(Maybe he got off on shagging women who were so incapacitated by their disability they couldn't fight back as well as children.) not me.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 10, 2012)

Chip Barm said:


> I'm not sure. I'm inclined to think they would know better than anyone what he was really like.


 
I don't expect that JS told his nephews and nieces the the true nature of his soul.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 10, 2012)

Is telling people what you're like the only way anyone knows anything about you?


----------



## where to (Oct 10, 2012)

discokermit said:
			
		

> the truth was never going to be officially acknowledged whilst he was alive.



This is key. He had to be dead for this to be discussed openly.  Why was that. What can stop those circumstances developing again.

also important to prevent this being seen through narrow lens of a 
' 70s problem'. The omerta only ended last week.

I found it interesting to hear a recording of an Irish journalist really push him on the issue in an old interview played on 5live earlier. Something no UK journalist ever seemed to have done.

[Edited to sound less swanky.]


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 10, 2012)

where to said:


> This is key. He had to be dead for this to be discussed openly. Why? What can stop those circumstances developing again.
> 
> It's also important to prevent this being considered simply as a 70s problem. The omerta only ended last week.
> 
> I found it interesting to hear a recording of an Irish journalist really push him on the issue in an old interview played on 5live earlier. Something no UK journalist ever seemed to have done.


Cos they'd get sued without a guilty verdict?


----------



## where to (Oct 10, 2012)

Not asking questions they wouldn't of.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2012)

where to said:


> This is key. He had to be dead for this to be discussed openly. Why?...


Without getting tinfoilhattery, one of the accounts regarding him taking a young girl back to his house with the permission of the police had him saying something along the lines of 'ha!  I'd take half the police around here down with me if that happened' in response to a female police officer questioning it.  Don't have the link, I read it on one of these threads.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 10, 2012)

Ponyutd said:


> Your making shit up(Maybe he got off on shagging women who were so incapacitated by their disability they couldn't fight back as well as children.) not me.


http://news.sky.com/story/995919/jimmy-savile-molested-brain-damaged-patient


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 10, 2012)

Chip Barm said:


> Is telling people what you're like the only way anyone knows anything about you?


 
No, but I see no reason to suppose that JS's family had any more insight into his true character than all the millions who were also misled.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 10, 2012)

Ponyutd said:


> Wilf thought the person was a child who was told to pretend to be asleep. She wasn't, she was 28 when she was in hospital as a patient and told to pretend to be asleep.
> Nicky Campbell asked her "How old was you when this happened" The caller said I was 28. Is this clear?





Ponyutd said:


> Two people on here thought the person was a child, I pointed out she wasn't, she was a grown up who overheard the conversation.


I don't listen to the Nicky Campbell show. Was she a patient who was told to be asleep (as your first post implied) or someone who overheard the conversation? And if she wasn't actually part of the conversation, what on earth is the relevance that she was 28 when she heard it?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> No, but I see no reason to suppose that JS's family had any more insight into his true character than all the millions who were also misled.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...his-name-and-give-money-to-abuse-victims.html

"This weekend his nephew Guy Marsden reportedly said that at the age of 13 he was taken to parties at which men abused children as young as 10."


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 10, 2012)

discokermit said:


> "This weekend his nephew Guy Marsden reportedly said that at the age of 13 he was taken to parties at which men abused children as young as 10."


 
Now I do have reason to suppose that one of JS's nephews did have more insight. "It is reported", however, is hardly the clincher you so clearly think it is.


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> "It is reported", however, is hardly the clincher you so clearly think it is.



would actual quotes be more helpful?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...parties-Nephew-tells-childhood-stolen-13.html


----------



## discokermit (Oct 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Now I do have reason to suppose that one of JS's nephews did have more insight. "It is reported", however, is hardly the clincher you so clearly think it is.


i didn't even pass comment, let alone think it was a "clincher".

however i did read an article where the nephew said he told his family and was shunned because of it.* also i think the way the family has stopped protesting his innocence and took the headstone down pretty sharpish could be quite telling.

*can't find article now though.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 10, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> would actual quotes be more helpful?
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...parties-Nephew-tells-childhood-stolen-13.html


 
I never believe anything published by the Daily Mail. (Doesn't mean it can't be true, however)


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 10, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Am I the only cynic who think that the reason his family removed his headstone wasn't 'out of respect for the victims' as was alleged but because they didn't want it defaced?


 Read earlier in the Evening Standard that according to his nephew, most of the family were against the headstone, thought it was a terrible idea and in bad taste, and only two of them were insistent about it. He also said  that he and a lot of the family went along with the big hooha over his funeral but knew it was only a matter of time before the shit hit the fan.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 10, 2012)

where to said:


> This is key. He had to be dead for this to be discussed openly.  Why was that. What can stop those circumstances developing again.
> 
> also important to prevent this being seen through narrow lens of a
> ' 70s problem'. The omerta only ended last week.
> ...


i'm not sure he really pushed him on it, but Louis Theroux did raise the subject with him. 

Quite interesting reading some of the quotes from the show

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304938/quotes


----------



## where to (Oct 10, 2012)

Interesting, it sounds from the quotes and with hindsight that he got Theroux's address, somehow, and left it lying for him to find. 

A threat, in other words.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 10, 2012)

> *Louis Theroux*: Now, why you written my name and address on this pad?
> *Jimmy Savile*: Because I never knew whether you existed or not, you see, and somebody gave me the address and I thought, well if he doesn't exist, shall I send round some of my lads with strong sicilian accents to speak with him?
> *Louis Theroux*: [_giggling_] To break my legs?
> *Jimmy Savile*: No, no, no, no, just to speak with you.
> ...


 
Very much a threat.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Very much a threat.


That absolutely reads as a threat. Nasty.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 11, 2012)

There's a distinct whiff of veiled menace and threats in a lot of the stories about JS. Nasty stuff.


----------



## juice_terry (Oct 11, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Like I assume a lot of other people I feel guilty about Savile (not that I knew anything other than gossip) at this stage can we totally ignore the gossip about gangland connections and necrophilia?


 
I forget what book it is in, but Irvine Welsh had a character who was a noted DJ from the 70's era who was a benefactor for the hospital in the story and in return for his generous donations a blind eye was turned to what he got up to in the mortuary with the recently deceased.. I remember my dad saying to me at the time that it was based on Savile.. will try and remember what story it was in, one of his short stories I think.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 11, 2012)

Maltin said:


> i'm not sure he really pushed him on it, but Louis Theroux did raise the subject with him.
> 
> Quite interesting reading some of the quotes from the show
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304938/quotes


 
When Louis Met Jimmy: 

worth watching, fucking creepy and one of the best things theroux's done by a mile


----------



## juice_terry (Oct 11, 2012)

juice_terry said:


> I forget what book it is in, but Irvine Welsh had a character who was a noted DJ from the 70's era who was a benefactor for the hospital in the story and in return for his generous donations a blind eye was turned to what he got up to in the mortuary with the recently deceased.. I remember my dad saying to me at the time that it was based on Savile.. will try and remember what story it was in, one of his short stories I think.


 

Jut remembered it was the character "Freddy Royle" in the story "Lorraine goes to Livingstone" In ecstasy ..


----------



## discokermit (Oct 11, 2012)

juice_terry said:


> I forget what book it is in, but Irvine Welsh had a character who was a noted DJ from the 70's era who was a benefactor for the hospital in the story and in return for his generous donations a blind eye was turned to what he got up to in the mortuary with the recently deceased.. I remember my dad saying to me at the time that it was based on Savile.. will try and remember what story it was in, one of his short stories I think.


ecstasy.


whoops. too slow.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 11, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Without getting tinfoilhattery, one of the accounts regarding him taking a young girl back to his house with the permission of the police had him saying something along the lines of 'ha! I'd take half the police around here down with me if that happened' in response to a female police officer questioning it. Don't have the link, I read it on one of these threads.


 
The amount of people who "knew all along" about behaviour in a certain milieu seems staggering. So why wasn't it looked into among police, politicians, the media and other areas of the establishment a great deal more and a great deal sooner?

The conspiratorial proposition might not be the only one, but it is plausible.

As is the purport that Saville was not just a lone abuser, but in a position to procure vulnerable young peopls for the "enjoyment" of others.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 11, 2012)

Maltin said:


> i'm not sure he really pushed him on it, but Louis Theroux did raise the subject with him.
> 
> Quite interesting reading some of the quotes from the show
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304938/quotes


Often wondered why he agreed to do that docu with Theroux? did'nt really do him any favours tbh,most people I know who watched it at the time thought he came across as an unlikable creepy cunt and certainly not the so-called 'lovable old eccentric' he liked to potray himself as.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> AFAIK, the legal age for marriage in the state of Texas, and I'm going back to the 1960s, was pretty young - possibly as young as 12 or 13. It's changed now.
> 
> Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin ffs!


15 in Texas at the time, and Jerry Lee got married in Kentucky, which was 13 (both states requiring parental consent at those ages).


----------



## clicker (Oct 11, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> Often wondered why he agreed to do that docu with Theroux? did'nt really do him any favours tbh,most people I know who watched it at the time thought he came across as an unlikable creepy cunt and certainly not the so-called 'lovable old eccentric' he liked to potray himself as.


 
That was an excellent interview....I don't think jimmy 'got' louis and honestly believed he could outwit him and come out looking cleverer than mr clever of cleverland, as opposed to unveiling himself to be exactly what he was....and as you so succintly describe.


----------



## editor (Oct 11, 2012)

Fucking hell. A new low has been reached. This actually makes me feel sick.



> Sir Jimmy Savile molested a brain-damaged hospital patient, according to fresh claims against the presenter.
> 
> Former nurse June Thornton was recovering from an operation at Leeds General Infirmary when she says she saw Savile abuse the young girl.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 11, 2012)

clicker said:


> That was an excellent interview....I don't think jimmy 'got' louis and honestly believed he could outwit him and come out looking cleverer than mr clever of cleverland, as opposed to unveiling himself to be exactly what he was....and as you so succintly describe.


Certainly changed a lot of people's perception of the guy and not for the better either.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 11, 2012)

Theres a whole World of WTF !!!! going on here,in what parallel universe was Jimmy Savile considered an expert in childminding ?


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 11, 2012)

discokermit said:


> i didn't even pass comment, let alone think it was a "clincher".
> 
> however i did read an article where the nephew said he told his family and was shunned because of it.* also i think the way the family has stopped protesting his innocence and took the headstone down pretty sharpish could be quite telling.
> 
> *can't find article now though.


 
Hospital patient from way back then being interviewed on Sky News this morning. Saying how she witnessed abuse in the next bed, but could do nothing as was immobile herself.

Anyway, there's no wonder people think this all is made up. I mean, how full-on is it?   WTF were we doing back then?  The books, the van with a bed in the back, the bedrooms in hopsitals.  It's almost like a bad taste cartoon.

I am just pleased that people (who were shouted down for years) now have a chance of being believed and getting some closure.  *And* the BBC is reviewing it's child protection policy.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 11, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The amount of people who "knew all along" about behaviour in a certain milieu seems staggering. So why wasn't it looked into among police, politicians, the media and other areas of the establishment a great deal more and a great deal sooner?


 
Well you could say the same about the teacher at my school in Yorkshire who abused every pupil in his care for several years before he was arrested, charged and sent down for drugging and raping his wife.

No one has ever said anything, or reported it (apart from a nudge and a snigger down the pub).


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 11, 2012)

Dick Francis wrote a thriller about a horsey celeb who mutilates horses for good telly, which is a gripping good read, but I occasionally thought far-fetched. Clearly not. And it's the power of TV that sustains the disbelief and ensures his accusers are vilified.

But that's DF for you, prescient. Zeitgeist surfing. Tour de force.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 11, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> Theres a whole World of WTF !!!! going on here,in what parallel universe was Jimmy Savile considered an expert in childminding ?


Savile was involved in many public safety initiatives. As well as the below, I think he was involved in one on helping people cross the road although I can't find it at the moment. The main ones I can find are the Green Cross Code man. If you didn't realise, these current claims and rumours weren't widespread at the time (especially not in the public domain).


----------



## paolo (Oct 11, 2012)

I think we all need to calm down and wait to see if there's any truth in these 120 independent allegations.


----------



## cesare (Oct 11, 2012)

paolo said:


> I think we all need to calm down and wait to see if there's any truth in these 120 independent allegations.


----------



## Maltin (Oct 11, 2012)

paolo said:


> I think we all need to calm down and wait to see if there's any truth in these 120 independent allegations.


Not that it makes it any better but according to the BBC report there are only 8 allegations so far and a claim of "up to 30 victims". Obviously this could be higher. The 120 you quote, is lines of enquiry, not necessarily people claiming abuse/assault on them. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887653


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 11, 2012)

'He really reached through the screen and grabbed you.'
Unfortunate turn of phrase there from Alistair McGowan.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

Compared to the rest of the allegations, a little thing, but very telling nonetheless




> A magazine journalist recalled an extraordinary occasion when the girl, aged about 14, who was bald after receiving treatment, lay ‘moaning’ on a mattress next to Savile as he gave an interview





> Savile ordered the journalist to ‘ignore’ the girl and concentrate on the interview.


 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215910/Jimmy-Savile-What-Stoke-Mandeville-nurses-told-patients-Jimll-Fix-It-star-came-calling.html


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Oct 11, 2012)

From reading the other thread from 2007 about the mugging and what was hinted at there and removed, and the Victor Lewis Smith hignfy script, I keep coming back to the parallels between the character of Saville and a character in the Irvine Welsh book Ecstasy.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 11, 2012)

I've not been following this in huge detail (because I find it too difficult).  But is there anything that explains how he went about getting a free flat at Stoke Mandeville Hospital?  How did that conversation go?  "If I raise money for the children's ward, can I have a bedroom there?"

I can't get my head around why that was given the OK, even in a different era.  Wouldn't the first question be "why?"?  And even if everyone's either stupid or part of a paedo ring,  what about costs?  How is it cost effective to use resources on permanent accommodation for a visiting celebrity?  What the fuck was going on?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 11, 2012)

Yeah, that's the bit that's really puzzling me too. And didn't he have a place at _two_ hospital/care facilities?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 11, 2012)

I guess it might have been part of his conditions of donating such massive amounts of cash? Maybe he paid for it? He probably argued that it was the only way he could do his hospital porter duties or something


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Yeah, that's the bit that's really puzzling me too. And didn't he have a place at _two_ hospital/care facilities?


Did he have one at Leeds, too?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 11, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I guess it might have been part of his conditions of donating such massive amounts of cash? Maybe he paid for it? He probably argued that it was the only way he could do his hospital porter duties or something


Did he donate the cash, or help raise it?  What I've read suggests the latter, but the details are hazy.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 11, 2012)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> Victor Lewis Smith hignfy script


 
It wasn't VLS, it was Joseph Champniss and Mike Scott from SOTCAA.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Did he donate the cash, or help raise it? What I've read suggests the latter, but the details are hazy.


I don't really know either.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 11, 2012)

trashpony said:


> I don't really know either.


OK, cheers.

Either way, though, surely someone queried the condition?  "What, you won't raise/donate the money if we don't provide a suite for you on site?"  Why was that not seen as strange and unusual?  Even for a regular "volunteer porter".  Even just on resource grounds, if nothing else.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I've not been following this in huge detail (because I find it too difficult). But is there anything that explains how he went about getting a free flat at Stoke Mandeville Hospital? How did that conversation go? "If I raise money for the children's ward, can I have a bedroom there?"
> 
> I can't get my head around why that was given the OK, even in a different era. Wouldn't the first question be "why?"? And even if everyone's either stupid or part of a paedo ring, what about costs? How is it cost effective to use resources on permanent accommodation for a visiting celebrity? What the fuck was going on?


 
Most of the hospital would have been wound down under the cuts of the 1970s. He managed to convince his friend Prince Charles to bring Diana at the height of world media attention to a fundraising events at the Hospital, ensuring it had a steady stream of royalist donators.
As I understood it he was a cash cow that had to be kept happy. Presumably the longer it went on, the worse it became, if we expose it now, questions will be asked etc.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 11, 2012)

Cheers, sihhi.

But, fucking hell.  Just...fucking hell.  Can't even begin to express how depressing that is.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 11, 2012)

Ah, he was a "volunteer porter"? Wasn't even aware of that. Well, I suppose that at least suggests how the conversation came about, and what his 'legitimate' angle might have been.


----------



## elbows (Oct 11, 2012)

In hindsight the necrophilia rumours & jokes rather distracted from his activities with the living.

Personally I'd not really heard them till recently, and at the time the Theroux documentary left me more focussed on his threatening, domineering personality and the hefty ego he brought with him to charity events, although his dodgy caravan was briefly on the radar too. It was only when he died and someone posted the Nolan sister clip that I started to assume some bad stuff would come out, and frankly it took longer than I thought it would.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2012)

elbows said:


> In hindsight the necrophilia rumours & jokes rather distracted from his activities with the living..


 
Yep. And assuming they weren't true, he was probably quite pleased by them.

Talk about hiding in plain view.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Oct 11, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> It wasn't VLS, it was Joseph Champniss and Mike Scott from SOTCAA.


I just read that. Interesting.

http://thejohnfleming.wordpress.com...a-paedophile-hoax-on-have-i-got-news-for-you/


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 11, 2012)

Not sure if this has been posted yet:


> Stoke Mandeville hospital is under pressure to set up an inquiry after it was claimed that nurses knew Sir Jimmy Savile went on “ward rounds” to find young patients to abuse. Staff at the Buckinghamshire hospital were said to have told girls on the children’s ward to “pretend to be asleep” during his visits.


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Mandeville-to-find-young-girls-to-abuse.html

There is a campaign on Twitter to dig up his grave - follow the hashtag #DigUpSavile !


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 11, 2012)

elbows said:


> It was only when he died and someone posted the Nolan sister clip that I started to assume some bad stuff would come out, and frankly it took longer than I thought it would.


It has been rather odd with this all coming out now. My flatmate asked the other day if I was surprised about the stories, and I replied "no, I read similar stuff on u75 as soon as he died". Sometimes forget that u75 has its own little bubble sometimes and the rest of the world doesn't read it quite as much as some of us


----------



## cesare (Oct 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> <snip>
> 
> There is a campaign on Twitter to dig up his grave - follow the hashtag #DigUpSavile !


 
I wonder what they want to do with him once they've hacked their way through all that concrete.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 11, 2012)

cesare said:


> I wonder what they want to do with him once they've hacked their way through all that concrete.


Someone has suggested sticking his body in a bin bag and charging kids £2 each to whack it repeatedly with a baseball bat!

Someone else has suggested reburying it in the Ecuadorian embassy.

https://twitter.com/search?q=#DigUpSavile&src=hash


----------



## cesare (Oct 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Someone has suggested sticking his body in a bin bag and charging kids £2 each to whack it repeatedly with a baseball bat!


Sounds like a Hallowe'en pursuit!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 11, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> There is a campaign on Twitter to dig up his grave - follow the hashtag #DigUpSavile !


 
It's what he would have wanted.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 11, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's what he would have wanted.


It's also what he expected, given the concrete that is apparently around his coffin


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 11, 2012)

cesare said:


> I wonder what they want to do with him once they've hacked their way through all that concrete.


 
I think they should give his corpse to Dennis Nilsen.


----------



## cesare (Oct 11, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I think they should give his corpse to Dennis Nilsen.


*shiver*


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 11, 2012)

Have they got a round the clock guard on the Scarborough cemetary then?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

Savile travelled about a lot and he was a familiar sight to a lot of people, whether in hospitals, at fun runs and marathons, or just running about the streets of Leeds and other places he visited. In fact, he was so ubiquitous that I have my suspicions that there was more than one Savile. In fact, I believe that Savile was merely an avatar of an evil alien intelligence sent here to wrack misery and dischord upon the world.


----------



## where to (Oct 11, 2012)

Stoke mand enquiry is the one they will be scared of.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> 15 in Texas at the time, and Jerry Lee got married in Kentucky, which was 13 (both states requiring parental consent at those ages).


It's still too young.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 11, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I think they should give his corpse to Dennis Nilsen.


 
Genuine LOL.


----------



## RaverDrew (Oct 11, 2012)

Jim’ll Mix It boss: ‘I’m keeping company name’



> *The managing director of concrete supplier Jim’ll Mix It has told CN that he won’t be changing the company’s name despite the allegations that have surfaced regarding TV star Jimmy Savile.*
> The firm’s name and logo echo that of Jimmy Savile’s TV show_Jim’ll Fix It,_ which aired from the 1970s to 1990s. Jim’ll Mix It was adopted as the brand name for the London-based Modern Mix soon after its founding in 1983.
> The Metropolitan police said yesterday that it was pursuing 120 lines of inquiry relating to alleged cases of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile.
> The headstone has been removed from Mr Savile’s grave in Scarborough cemetery at the request of his family out of respect for public opinion.
> ...


----------



## bignose1 (Oct 11, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Jim’ll Mix It boss: ‘I’m keeping company name’


 Theyr'e too set in their ways...


----------



## bignose1 (Oct 11, 2012)

Battered sausages are to be renamed following the recent allegations


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Battered sausages are to be renamed following the recent allegations


 that doesn't quite work as the sausages they batter aren't saveloys


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 11, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Theyr'e too set in their ways...


I'm mortarfied at his response.


----------



## bignose1 (Oct 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> that doesn't quite work as the sausages they batter aren't saveloys


 They are in our chippy


----------



## elbows (Oct 11, 2012)

where to said:


> Stoke mand enquiry is the one they will be scared of.


 
Its certainly the one that seemed to be going down the memory hole yesterday, with a BBC news story mentioning that angle and then editing it out later. But I see that the various hospital allegations are big news again today, albeit Stoke mand not getting top billing.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 11, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> Jim’ll Mix It boss: ‘I’m keeping company name’
> 
> 
> > The Metropolitan police said yesterday that it was pursuing 120 lines of inquiry relating to alleged cases of sexual abuse by Jimmy *Savile*.
> ...


Can we bloody well decide how many "l"s are in the man's name?! Or did Mr. Taylor misspell it when he spoke to the interviewer?


----------



## RaverDrew (Oct 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> that doesn't quite work as the sausages they batter aren't saveloys


 
They are in pretty much every chippy I've known


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> They are in pretty much every chippy I've known


 saveloys are those red ones with plasticcy skins aren't they? different sausage to the one they batter


----------



## RaverDrew (Oct 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Can we bloody well decide how many "l"s are in the man's name?! Or did Mr. Taylor misspell it when he spoke to the interviewer?


 
It's c+p from the article, take it up with the journo involved.


----------



## RaverDrew (Oct 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> saveloys are those red ones with plasticcy skins aren't they?


 yes 





> different sausage to the one they batter


 no


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 11, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> It's c+p from the article, take it up with the journo involved.


No, I got that, I was commenting on the original article. I suppose it may have been an email interview?


----------



## treelover (Oct 11, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Snoopy's death mask?


 

yes, what is that thing?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> saveloys are those red ones with plasticcy skins aren't they? different sausage to the one they batter


 
I'm with you on this one. Down on the south coast I've not seen a battered saveloy; jumbo sausage yes but still a proper sausage.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> no


 YES!
battered sausage don't have that horrible skin and are more peppery than saveloys, more like sausage roll meat


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> It's still too young.


 
I don't disagree, although contextually, the Kentucky limit was just acknowledging a sad fact, and the Texan limit was instituted to *prevent* such sad facts.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 11, 2012)

The Mirror are going for it

Jimmy Savile 'molested a brain-damaged patient in hospital'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-molested-a-brain-damaged-patient-1372603


> The claim has been made by a woman who says she saw the incident at Leeds General Hospital


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

weltweit said:


> The Mirror are going for it
> 
> Jimmy Savile 'molested a brain-damaged patient in hospital'
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-molested-a-brain-damaged-patient-1372603


 do keep up


----------



## weltweit (Oct 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> do keep up


oh. What, there are numerous threads, how am I supposed to keep up !!


----------



## weltweit (Oct 11, 2012)

Actually I am not sure I want to keep up now, I think I know the jist of the Savile story.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 11, 2012)

Twitter now saying he had some kind of keys to Broadmoor.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

weltweit said:


> oh. What, there are numerous threads, how am I supposed to keep up !!


 yours is the fourth mention on this very thread and it's only 9 pages long.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 11, 2012)

Today the first complaint from Scarborough - that was where his mum was?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Oct 11, 2012)

RaverDrew said:


> yes  no



I've never seen a battered saveloy.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2012)

The question of removing his knighthood was brought up and the answer was 'it dies when you do' basically...so why are they still calling him Sir JS on the news?


----------



## yardbird (Oct 11, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> The question of removing his knighthood was brought up and the answer was 'it dies when you do' basically...so why are they still calling him Sir JS on the news?


Yup. 
All that's required is that everyone just stops/refuses to use the Sir.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

weepiper said:


> Twitter now saying he had some kind of keys to Broadmoor.


 
own keys and a caravan inside the grounds, also molested at least one patient there according to the Sun
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4583344/Paedophile-Jimmy-Saviles-Broadmoor-sex-attack.html


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 11, 2012)

ChrisFilter said:


> I've never seen a battered saveloy.


You haven't lived.


----------



## bignose1 (Oct 11, 2012)

ChrisFilter said:


> I've never seen a battered saveloy.


 In my local chip shop they use the red skin spicey hot doggyish ( but wider) ones...in my books thats a saveloy.....


----------



## where to (Oct 11, 2012)

Has there been an accusation that has mentioned actual intercourse?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2012)

where to said:


> Has there been an accusation that has mentioned actual intercourse?


Yes. Several.


----------



## where to (Oct 11, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> Yes. Several.



Ok, just so many mention everything but I was starting to wonder.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. Several.


 
Although  most of the time he seems to have skipped idle chit-chat.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I can't get my head around why that was given the OK, even in a different era. Wouldn't the first question be "why?"? And even if everyone's either stupid or part of a paedo ring, what about costs? How is it cost effective to use resources on permanent accommodation for a visiting celebrity? What the fuck was going on?


 
It becomes slightly less bizarre when you remember that all large hospitals have quite a few rooms for on-call doctors to sleep in. At one of the hospitals I worked at these took the form of two or three bedrooms sharing a bathroom which could easily be made into a flat. Cue Savile asking for one set of rooms to be made permanently his so he can spend more time there and because he wants privacy. Celebrity + raising cash + different era = of course they'd give him a couple of rooms.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

He didn't have a room, he had a _lair_


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2012)

how long before someone digs him up to burn the corpse


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 11, 2012)

No wonder he asked to be encased in concrete.  Vigilante with a pneumatic drill?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 11, 2012)

I would expect a desecration of some sort, definitely.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 11, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> how long before someone digs him up to burn the corpse


 
Won't be easy, the coffin was concreted into the grave apparently. It caused speculation at the time as to what valuables were buried with him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Won't be easy, the coffin was concreted into the grave apparently. It caused speculation at the time as to what valuables were buried with him.


 

rented kangol jackhammer.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 11, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> rented kangol jackhammer.


 With paediatricians as labourers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 11, 2012)

No wonder he wanted the coffin to be encased in concrete, he probably knew something like this was going to happen! Are police etc guarding the cemetery?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 11, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> how long before someone digs him up to burn the corpse


 
Or rebury it at a crossroads, with a stake through its heart.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 11, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> rented kangol jackhammer.


 
Kango I think you meann.

Plus about 5 hours undisturbed hammer-drilling in a famous graveyard.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Plus about 5 hours undisturbed hammer-drilling in a famous graveyard.


 
How about some semtex, then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2012)

fork him onto a van, drive somewhere deserted and get going


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 11, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> How about some semtex, then?


 
Difficult to get hold of.

A JCB is the way forward. Scoop the cunt up in a 10 minute raid then chip him out elsewhere at your leisure.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2012)

it'll be good practise for robbing thatchers masoaleum


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 11, 2012)

Say what you will about the Taliban, but they certainly have the blue skies thinking and necessary skillsets for this type of job.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 11, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Say what you will about the Taliban


I wouldn't, if I were you. They've been known to hold a grudge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Difficult to get hold of.
> 
> A JCB is the way forward. Scoop the cunt up in a 10 minute raid then chip him out elsewhere at your leisure.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

Some very disturbing footage and allegations on this sky report including first person testimonies from victims and witnesses and Broadmoor confirming that he had his own keys and probably parked his caravan in the grounds 

http://news.sky.com/story/996356/abuse-claims-savile-had-keys-to-broadmoor


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

I've just heard that jimmy savile abused some children. it's gonna be a massive scandal.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

Just of tangential interest;

The Consultant Psychiatrist / Consultant Forensic Psychotherapist at Broadmoor Hospital, Dr Gwen Adshead, is one of the UK's most notorious promoters of the myth of widespread Satanist ritual abuse. She contributed a chapter to Valerie Sinason's deranged tome, Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, entitled  "Looking for clues - A review of the literature on false allegations of sexual abuse in childhood". 

edited
tmi


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2012)

Jimmy Savile had an office and living quarters at Broadmoor and was given a personal set of keys to the wards

You'd think there would be some sort of controls around that.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 11, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> You'd think there would be some sort of controls around that.


 
There are. Huge ones. This sounds like either bollocks or embellishment.

I've been through Broadmoor several times (used to play cricket against the inmates once a year in the 80s).

There's massive security all the way through, electronic gates in all the corridors where you get locked into holding areas and the front gates don't open until the back ones have locked, other internal gates that are manned etc, etc,.

Certainly not somewhere that a person could "have the keys to".

Broadmoor's always been very secure. The odd escapes that happened in the 70s and 80s were invariably someone doing a runner whilst on an outside visit of some sort.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

Allegations that JS repeatedly raped a Broadmoor patient
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/11/jimmy-savile-broadmoor-abuse-allegations

eta



> Stanley, who has more than 30 years experience in nursing, said the woman made the allegations in the early 1980s, shortly after she was transferred from Broadmoor to another psychiatric hospital in the south of England. *Stanley said she had been very distressed by the woman's account, which she found entirely credible, and had reported it at the time to her superiors and to police officers involved in the patient's supervision, but no further action had been taken.* The Guardian is not naming the hospital to protect the patient's identity.


 

not clear whether the hospital was Broadmoor or a different hospital, I think the report is saying that the rapes / sexual assaults occurred at Broadmoor but that the victim reported then to a nurse at another hospital


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> There are. Huge ones. This sounds like either bollocks or embellishment.
> 
> I've been through Broadmoor several times (used to play cricket against the inmates once a year in the 80s).
> 
> ...


It's in the Guardian



> Savile, who died in October last year, worked at Broadmoor as a volunteer for almost four decades, describing himself as the "honorary assistant entertainments officer". He had an office and living quarters at the hospital, and was given a personal set of keys to the wards, West London Mental Health Trust, which now runs the hospital, confirmed on Thursday.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/11/jimmy-savile-broadmoor-abuse-allegations?CMP=twt_fd


----------



## cesare (Oct 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> There are. Huge ones. This sounds like either bollocks or embellishment.
> 
> I've been through Broadmoor several times (used to play cricket against the inmates once a year in the 80s).
> 
> ...





> Scotland Yard is collating information from at least half a dozen police forces but said it had no official reports of abuses at Broadmoor. Last night the hospital admitted giving Savile a set of keys but insisted: “Broadmoor is a secure hospital and the idea of ‘free run’ does not apply.
> “Jimmy Savile had keys because of his role as a volunteer at Broadmoor. If we are contacted by the police we will of course co-operate with any investigation"


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4583344/Paedophile-Jimmy-Saviles-Broadmoor-sex-attack.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> There are. Huge ones. This sounds like either bollocks or embellishment.
> 
> I've been through Broadmoor several times (used to play cricket against the inmates once a year in the 80s).
> 
> ...


would you like some ketchup with your words?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 11, 2012)

cesare said:


> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4583344/Paedophile-Jimmy-Saviles-Broadmoor-sex-attack.html


 
I've seen that and the Guardian piece. 

My point is that it's being reported like he "had the keys" to the whole gaff i.e. some kind of security risk, that he could come and go as he pleased and the place just isn't like that. My guess is that any keys that he'd have had would just have been for access to areas that he worked in. He didn't "have the keys to Broadmoor"!


----------



## cesare (Oct 11, 2012)

Living quarters and the keys to the wards are certainly more than I'd expect from a high security mental hospital.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

> Separately another former Broadmoor patient, a young girl at the time but now living as a man following a sex-change operation, said that Savile had reached under his nightie and groped his breasts while he was watching TV with other young girls. Steven George, at the time a 17-year-old girl called Alison Pink, told the Sun: "I*t's staggering to think Savile was given the run of Broadmoor … He could access any of the girls' bedrooms."*


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/11/jimmy-savile-broadmoor-abuse-allegations


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

I was talking to 2 elderly ladies *in their 60s) today and they claimed that they had read about an expose of JS's abuses against children in a newspaper in the 1960s.  Something to do with him abusing a load of kids in a caravan.  

It would be interesting to know if their memories in this respect were true.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 11, 2012)

Staff at a secure hospital would be expected to sign their keys in and out and would not be allowed to take their set off the premises. They go into complete lock down if anyone ever forgets. I wouldn't be surprised by anything at this point, but it would be very irregular if he got to keep a set all the time.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 11, 2012)

cesare said:


> Living quarters and the keys to the wards are certainly more than I'd expect from a high security mental hospital.


 
Well with hindsight yes, but they didn't know about his noncery then did they? There'd probably be loads of people that had keys for areas they worked in when they were there.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

Retired detective alleges Thames Valley Police ignored complaints re Stoke Mandeville abuses in the 1980s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-19915955


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 11, 2012)

He's buried at 45deg so he can see the sea.... yeah right. There must be some other reason that's to do with him still noncing, just can't think of it atm.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 11, 2012)

When I read some of this stuff, it's like the whole of the UK was collectively hypnotised. Massive breaches of protocol and systems solely on the basis that he was Jimmy Savile.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Well with hindsight yes, but they didn't know about his noncery then did they? There'd probably be loads of people that had keys for areas they worked in when they were there.


 
One alleged victims stated that JS keys enabled him to access the girls' bedrooms.  

A nurse who dealt with an alleged Broadmoor victim stated that she told her that JS raped her repeatedly over an extended period and only  stopped when he found a new girl to abuse.  

If these claims are true then the staff had to know about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Well with hindsight yes, but they didn't know about his noncery then did they? There'd probably be loads of people that had keys for areas they worked in when they were there.


If sir jimmy savile obe kcsg had keys to his own living quarters and the wards he wouldn't need keys to the stationery cupboard or the staff bar, would he? If he had the keys for the areas that suited his purposes - and it seems he had - why would he need to gild the lily with keys to the coal bunker and a postern gate?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 11, 2012)

I think in regards to Broadmoor we can take it to be a turn of phrase rather than a literal truth. Irresponsible of the papers to give that impression, but that's... well, a longer battle that won't be won here, I suspect.


----------



## Espresso (Oct 11, 2012)

It's been widely reported that Jimmy Savile considered himself completely above the law and that he could do whatever he liked, to whomever he liked, whenever he liked as the whim took him. With no repercussions for him whatsoever. 

With every new disgusting and depraved story that comes out it's pretty obvious he wasn't remotely arrogant.  
He was simply stating an indisputable, stone cold fact.
That's what's so terrifying.

He was obviously an immensely intelligent man, to be able to control not only every single one of his numerous victims - that is probably the easier to explain - but also other people, ordinary people who were workers in the various places he preyed, bosses in those places, the police, the organised criminals who were supposed to be in charge of every bloody manor in London in those days, etc etc.
Whatever he knew about some very serious people high up in positions of power must have been pure fucking dynamite, for him never to have been charged with any bloody thing at all, ever. *Ever*.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 11, 2012)

Espresso said:


> Whatever he knew about some very serious people high up in positions of power must have been pure fucking dynamite, for him never to have been charged with any bloody thing at all, ever. *Ever*.


 
He may well have had the goods on various people in high places, but I suspect the more mundane explanation is that those people simply weren't bothered by the possibility or reality of what he was doing.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I think in regards to Broadmoor we can take it to be a turn of phrase rather than a literal truth. Irresponsible of the papers to give that impression, but that's... well, a longer battle that won't be won here, I suspect.


 
It's this "having the run of Broadmoor" business that's a lot of shit.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 11, 2012)

It's a widely accepted fact that the more people know about something, the less likely they are individually to act, as responsibility is shared.  It's in the book I'm reading at the moment, there have been examples of people being killed on a busy street and nobody stopped to help.  Everyone likes to think they would do something but maybe the fact that people did know, and knew each other knew, may have made it less likely that someone would do something.  Like I said, obviously everyone thinks they would do something but it's not always that easy.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 11, 2012)

Has there been any trouble at his grave? There's bound to be people doing some daft shit. Wouldn't be surprised if he got dug up and moved tbh.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 11, 2012)

8115 said:


> It's a widely accepted fact that the more people know about something, the less likely they are individually to act, as responsibility is shared. It's in the book I'm reading at the moment, there have been examples of people being killed on a busy street and nobody stopped to help. Everyone likes to think they would do something but maybe the fact that people did know, and knew each other knew, may have made it less likely that someone would do something. Like I said, obviously everyone thinks they would do something but it's not always that easy.


 
They call it the bystander effect, I think.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 11, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Has there been any trouble at his grave? There's bound to be people doing some daft shit. Wouldn't be surprised if he got dug up and moved tbh.


 
Being discussed on the other thread.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

8115 said:


> It's a widely accepted fact that the more people know about something, the less likely they are individually to act, as responsibility is shared. It's in the book I'm reading at the moment, there have been examples of people being killed on a busy street and nobody stopped to help. Everyone likes to think they would do something but maybe the fact that people did know, and knew each other knew, may have made it less likely that someone would do something. Like I said, obviously everyone thinks they would do something but it's not always that easy.


 
Yup

The bystander effect


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> He's buried at 45deg so he can see the sea.... yeah right. There must be some other reason that's to do with him still noncing, just can't think of it atm.


 

its so he can stilllook at the kids on the beach obvs


----------



## where to (Oct 11, 2012)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> I was talking to 2 elderly ladies *in their 60s) today and they claimed that they had read about an expose of JS's abuses against children in a newspaper in the 1960s.  Something to do with him abusing a load of kids in a caravan.
> 
> It would be interesting to know if their memories in this respect were true.



That would change the way this is being looked at completely, if correct.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 11, 2012)

where to said:


> That would change the way this is being looked at completely, if correct.


 
I asked them if they remembered the name of the newspaper but they said that they couldn't remember. 
Memory is a funny thing.  It is also possible that they might have imagined it in the light of the current news stories.

Someone posted this link on another thread but it's relevant here too I think 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010612065657.htm


----------



## trashpony (Oct 11, 2012)

Isn't there also some kind of psychological phenomenon where if people see something that is completely bizarre/shocking, they literally don't believe their eyes?

I think there was something like that going on too. It's the same reason that abuse happens so often in families - other family members aren't just turning a 'blind eye', it's too much for their conscious brain to deal with so they just switch off the knowledge


----------



## 8115 (Oct 11, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Isn't there also some kind of psychological phenomenon where if people see something that is completely bizarre/shocking, they literally don't believe their eyes?
> 
> I think there was something like that going on too. It's the same reason that abuse happens so often in families - other family members aren't just turning a 'blind eye', it's too much for their conscious brain to deal with so they just switch off the knowledge


 
Yeah. Cognitive dissonance? (Not sure it's exactly that).

I mean, this is all speculation, I wouldn't bet on it obviously.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 11, 2012)

I think it's more than cognitive dissonance - I always think that's more about accepting the status quo, even when it's doing you no favours.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 11, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> Well you could say the same about the teacher at my school in Yorkshire who abused every pupil in his care for several years before he was arrested, charged and sent down for drugging and raping his wife.
> 
> No one has ever said anything, or reported it (apart from a nudge and a snigger down the pub).


 
Sex crimes have rarely been taken seriously, and some people who reported them said they had as bad a time dealing with the police and courts as they did with the rapist / attacker.

Peter Sutcliffe's victims were described as "innocent victims" if they were young girls walking home after a disco; prostitutes that he murdered were never called "innocent". Sexual harassment was a national joke for years. Child sexual abuse was rarely mentioned until Childline was set up - although I remember News of the World doing a lot of stuff about PIE.

Bill Wyman got away with his relationship with a 13-year old girl for years; he has said he doesn't know why he was never arrested / charged. Thinking "Good luck to him" was as common as "How come this creep is getting away with it?"

There was such nudge-nudgery around sex; I am not surprised that he got away with it. Sexual exploitation goes with celebrity worship and 'glamour' jobs in film, TV, fashion, modelling and pop music. When Marilyn Monroe hit the big time she was reported to have said "That's the last cock I ever have to suck".

Edit
I'm guilty of it, too. I desperately didn't want to believe that Michael Jackson had been in bed with kids, or that Woody Allen had an affair with Mia's daughter, but the recent biofilm of WA made me think that he has had a soft spot for young girls for some time.

PS the drummer in the Bay City Rollers was up to it, too. Damn, girls loved the BCRs.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 11, 2012)

cognitive dissonance doesn't explain complaints being made and ignored. plenty of people new what savile was up to but were utterly powerless to do anything about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> No wonder he asked to be encased in concrete. Vigilante with a pneumatic drill?


 
Or a normal cordless drill, a half inch bit and some blasting powder. If they just poured concrete over the coffin there'd be sod all to stop it cracking from a small detonation or two. You wouldn't need more powder than you'd use for half a dozen shogun cartrifdges.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2012)

Cognitive dissonance is anything but that. Imagine it starts raining, indoors. You see a blue dog. A three handed man. Thats cognitive dissonance. Its wtf basically


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or a normal cordless drill, a half inch bit and some blasting powder. If they just poured concrete over the coffin there'd be sod all to stop it cracking from a small detonation or two. You wouldn't need more powder than you'd use for half a dozen shogun cartrifdges.


 

then pour hi octane fuele into the crack and immolate the beasts corpse within its protective concrete shell


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Won't be easy, the coffin was concreted into the grave apparently. It caused speculation at the time as to what valuables were buried with him.


 
Concrete is very friable unless it's reinforced.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> then pour hi octane fuele into the crack and immolate the beasts corpse within its protective concrete shell


 
You'd need to drill a draw-hole, or the fuel wouldn't have enough oxygen to burn, though.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 11, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> its so he can stilllook at the kids on the beach obvs


 
I hadn't thought of that, it's so obvious now you mention it


----------



## Favelado (Oct 11, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> Yup
> 
> The bystander effect




A factor in the James Bulger murder.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 11, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Cognitive dissonance is anything but that. Imagine it starts raining, indoors. You see a blue dog. A three handed man. Thats cognitive dissonance. Its wtf basically


But no one did go wtf did they? And that's my point (or were you answering 8115?)


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2012)

trashpony said:


> But no one did go wtf did they? And that's my point (or were you answering 8115?)


 

I was. Cognitive dissonance isn't 'write it off cos its outside normality parameters' its actual wtf on a proper gut feeling scale


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> He may well have had the goods on various people in high places, but I suspect the more mundane explanation is that those people simply weren't bothered by the possibility or reality of what he was doing.


 
The institutional dynamics, whether in prison or a special hospital, are such that inmate/patient allegations are immediately viewed as suspect, so not so much "weren't bothered" or "didn't care", more that their preconceptions would have made it extremely difficult to credit such allegations.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 11, 2012)

trashpony said:


> But no one did go wtf did they? And that's my point (or were you answering 8115?)


lots of people did. that's why on every rip jimmy thread on messageboards all over, the first page or thereabouts contained rumours and accusations of what he was like. people have been discussing this, and condemning him, for years. just no one in any position of authority.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 11, 2012)

Irvine Welsh is tweeting just now confirming the character in Ecstasy was based on Savile.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 11, 2012)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-3000-fans-at-Sir-Jimmy-Saviles-send-off.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...gravestone-is-smashed-and-dumped-in-skip.html
What a difference a year makes eh.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 11, 2012)

not many takers for these...







http://www.specialistauctions.com/auctiondetails.php?id=1553452


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

i predict a savile effigy at the lewes bonfire next month


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i predict a savile effigy at the lewes bonfire next month


 
The cunts wouldn't fucking dare.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2012)

what do you mean??


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 11, 2012)

Wrong Savile thread! 

Burn the people of Lewes?


----------



## punchdrunkme (Oct 11, 2012)

juice_terry said:


> I forget what book it is in, but Irvine Welsh had a character who was a noted DJ from the 70's era who was a benefactor for the hospital in the story and in return for his generous donations a blind eye was turned to what he got up to in the mortuary with the recently deceased.. I remember my dad saying to me at the time that it was based on Savile.. will try and remember what story it was in, one of his short stories I think.


 
Was in the novel Exstacy. Sorry about the spelling. Bit dyslexic.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 12, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> Well you could say the same about the teacher at my school in Yorkshire who abused every pupil in his care for several years before he was arrested, charged and sent down for drugging and raping his wife.
> 
> No one has ever said anything, or reported it (apart from a nudge and a snigger down the pub).


 
Not sure the comparison suffices, though I get the point. The Saville/King cases (quite possibly others) were known by more people and involved more people, quite possibly in some systemic fashion.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 12, 2012)

8115 said:


> Yeah. Cognitive dissonance? (Not sure it's exactly that).
> 
> I mean, this is all speculation, I wouldn't bet on it obviously.


 
That's exactly what cognitive dissonance is. Cognitive dissonance means that a person receives cognitions that are wildly at variance with the person's belief-set. Instead of altering the belief-set, they will diminish the importance of the offending cognition, or they'll add new cognitions to 'ease' the others into the belief set.

An example: you fall in love with someone who shows signs of being abusive. Rather than focusing on just what that really means, you tell yourself that you can change them; or that it's only when they're drunk, or that the victim [you] secretly deserved it etc etc etc. You do it because it creates dissonance to be in love with someone who is actually a sadistic brute.


----------



## albionism (Oct 12, 2012)

More stuff emerging every day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/11/jimmy-savile-broadmoor-abuse-allegations
Why on earth did no one, anyone
speak out at the time. I'm not necessarily
talking about those he abused, but those
who knew, those who had a bit of power
and did nothing. WTF

edited: Ah, it appears many did try to speak out at the time, but were threatened or had their evidence covered up. He certainly did have friends/fiends in high places.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 12, 2012)

Details emerge about Savile's "pervmobile" from his former driver. 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/jimmy-savile-used-a-pervmobile-to-abuse-1374092


----------



## Kanda (Oct 12, 2012)

Now John Peel got a 15 yr old pregnant... geezus...


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Now John Peel got a 15 yr old pregnant... geezus...


 


> 'Dear Jane, Well, you scared the daylights out of me. For years I’ve been expecting a letter starting "In the 70s we had a brief affair and your son/daughter, now 27, wants to meet you". What exactly do you want me to do. I live near Ipswich so Croydon is pretty inaccessible. I'll wait to hear from you again. John'


and his response to her letter is just awful, what a heartless bastard
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...claims-month-affair-DJ.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> Now John Peel got a 15 yr old pregnant... geezus...


This is the sir jimmy savile obe thread, not the st john peel thread. Start another thread if you want to discuss that.


----------



## Kanda (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> This is the sir jimmy savile obe thread, not the st john peel thread. Start another thread if you want to discuss that.


 
Your name ends with Model, not mod


----------



## albionism (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> This is the sir jimmy savile obe thread, not the st john peel thread. Start another thread if you want to discuss that.


We say what we want, where we want


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> This is the sir jimmy savile obe thread, not the st john peel thread. Start another thread if you want to discuss that.



Lol. Radical pedant orders no deviation.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 12, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> Details emerge about Savile's "pervmobile" from his former driver.
> 
> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/jimmy-savile-used-a-pervmobile-to-abuse-1374092


 
I'm getting really sick of comments like the one under that article. Some people have no idea do they?  

Ok I got shouted down for hearsay on the original thread and removed it, BUT this is relevant, a FOF knows of someone whose father did report their daughters abuse.  He ended up being threatened by Saviles lawyers, told to forget it, that Savile had friends in the police and they would get nowhere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

Mr Moose said:


> Lol. Radical pedant orders no deviation.


but there's a thread about st john peel in this very forum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> I'm getting really sick of comments like the one under that article. Some people have no idea do they?
> 
> Ok I got shouted down for hearsay on the original thread and removed it, BUT this is relevant, a FOF knows of someone whose father did report their daughters abuse.  He ended up being threatened by Saviles lawyers, told to forget it, that Savile had friends in the police and they would get nowhere.


that's not hearsay that's more tenuous than hearsay


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> but there's a thread about st john peel in this very forum.



Good point. I retract my barb. 

I just hope we don't end up with a forum entitled 'General Pervery'.


----------



## Kanda (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> but there's a thread about st john peel in this very forum.


 
That you created after he'd posted lol


----------



## cesare (Oct 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> That you created after he'd posted lol


Excellent work


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

Kanda said:


> That you created after he'd posted lol


Have you read the op in this thread? one of the reasons so many sir jimmy savile threads have been locked is people making claims about other celebs. Let's keep this thread about savile, to help it remain open.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2012)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Don't want to talk about Peel


You ignorant cunt. 

Of course, I want to talk about peel so little it's a wonder I started a thread on him.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2012)

I was tutting at my own post, which tried to say exactly that but failed.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 12, 2012)

http://www.jewishtelegraph.com/savile.html
See he wasn't all bad


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 12, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> I'm getting really sick of comments like the one under that article. Some people have no idea do they?
> 
> Ok I got shouted down for hearsay on the original thread and removed it, BUT this is relevant, a FOF knows of someone whose father did report their daughters abuse. He ended up being threatened by Saviles lawyers, told to forget it, that Savile had friends in the police and they would get nowhere.


 
This is one of the most shocking elements of the unfolding story.  It seems that plenty of people reported Savile to their managers at work and even to the police and that no action was taken against him except for one time (IMMIC in 2007) when he was arrested but the CPS claimed that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. 

We have an excerpt from Savile's own autobiography in which he claims that he would never be prosecuted because he would take half the police in the local station down with him.

I wonder if we will ever find out about exactly who covered up what and why?


----------



## bignose1 (Oct 12, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> He's buried at 45deg so he can see the sea.... yeah right. There must be some other reason that's to do with him still noncing, just can't think of it atm.


 Dont be so obtuse


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 12, 2012)

On BBC look north last night they were talking about digging the corpse of Saville up and burying in an unmarked grave, it's all going a bit brass eye up Leeds!


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 12, 2012)

I don't know if this has been linked to yet, I don't think so, saw it last night on Channel 4, early footage of teenagers asking Savile some of the difficult questions that the adults around him dared not ask

http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/jimmy-savile-cold-aggressive-menacing/2749


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 12, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> On BBC look north last night they were talking about digging the corpse of Saville up and burying in an unmarked grave, it's all going a bit brass eye up Leeds!


 
I have to confess that a part of me would quite like to join in with the whole "dig him up!" mob excitement.

I was thinking about this and I think that the symbolism of JS being buried and protected by concrete is so symbolic of the cover-ups surrounding him that there is a collective wish to expose his corpse to the fury of the mob as we need to feel some kind of punishment has been administered, even if post mortem. There is also such collective outrage about his abuses that there is a wish for him to no longer have places to hide, even in death.

Another, more rational, less emotional part of myself understands that Savile was just the puss filled head of a gigantic boil on the arse of the BBC and the various hospitals and children's' homes that Savile used as his happy hunting grounds.

So, er, yes the wish to dig him up is understandable and comes partly from a wish to expose and throw light on all the rotten things that have been hidden. The real work of what needs to be exposed is to dig up all the dirt on all of the senior police officers, hospital and children's homes managers, BBC employees and others who protected Savile and who are still alive and can be held accountable for their actions (or inactions).


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 12, 2012)

I wonder if the Savile situation has made any of those snooty authors who kicked off about being CRB checked before frequent school visits change their tune? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8153251.stm

Phillip Pullman, Anthony Horowitz, Anne Fine, Michael Morpurgo - I'm looking at you. No-one is above being CRB checked - doesn't matter if you think you're doing the kids a favour, or if you can't see how you might end up in a position where you've developed a position of trust with a child.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2012)

i know it's obvious to point out, but this things is so chris morris. him and iannucci in the thick of it have a habit of being ridiculously prescient.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 12, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> I don't know if this has been linked to yet, I don't think so, saw it last night on Channel 4, early footage of teenagers asking Savile some of the difficult questions that the adults around him dared not ask
> 
> http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/jimmy-savile-cold-aggressive-menacing/2749


I don't think I really want to watch that, though I might do at some point, but it's interesting to read his account and that the teens weren't in awe of Savile then.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2012)

it's weird how our perception of him is so different than it was in the seventies. we mistrusted and suspected him as adults, even before the revelations came out. the rumours were very pervasive, but they still took twenty odd years to filter through


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 12, 2012)

I can't really remember what I thought of him in the seventies, that he was a bit odd?  
I think I remember my grandfather worked with him 'down't pit'  but him and my gran are both dead now so I can't ask either of them.


----------



## ShortyKar (Oct 12, 2012)

Kippa said:


> Personally I prefer to think that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I am not saying that Jimmy is innocent nor guilty, it just seems that in a very short space of time the media have decided that he is guilty without any propper due process.





Kippa said:


> Personally I prefer to think that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I am not saying that Jimmy is innocent nor guilty, it just seems that in a very short space of time the media have decided that he is guilty without any propper due process.


 
I make you right to be fair...I'm not saying that he isn't a nonse. Maybe he is - who knows? Who is EVER going to know? He's dead now and so cannot contest the allegations anyway and I just find it rather bizarre that this has all come out AFTER he's kicked the bucket...if this was me, I'd want the fucker stripped of his knighthood and strung up in front of the public. Named, shamed and on the sex offenders register. I wouldn't let a nonse have any glory and if he really is (or was) guilty and really did assualt all those 120 girls then surely there would have been enough evidence amidst this to prosecute him?? And surely to god at least one of the 120 girls would have piped up whilst he was still alive? Oh, I don't know...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2012)

they did.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 12, 2012)

Buyers of Jimmy Savile tat are now complaining that their shit isn't worth anything any more - you couldn't make it up!



> A man who bought Jimmy Savile's Rolls-Royce says he now wants nothing to do with the car after allegations of abuse by the star.
> The scrap dealer, who asked not to be identified, *paid £160,000 for the 10-year-old Corniche Convertible with Savile's personalised number plate JS 247 at a charity auction.*
> Speaking exclusively to Sky News, he said he fears it is now worth less than half that - £70,000 - and he has consulted a barrister about *legal action to try and get his money back.*
> "I don't want to be associated with it," he said.
> "I'm just gutted because all of this should have come out before hand."


 

http://news.sky.com/story/996611/buyer-of-jimmy-saviles-rolls-royce-gutted


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Buyers of Jimmy Savile tat are now complaining that their shit isn't worth anything any more - you couldn't make it up!
> 
> http://news.sky.com/story/996611/buyer-of-jimmy-saviles-rolls-royce-gutted


 
I was thinking about the Museum of Racist memorabilia in the US, a fabulous exhibition that teaches people about the evils of racism via displaying horrific examples of racist signs and objects from history. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...0-exhibits-leave-visitors-angry-offended.html

Perhaps we should have a museum of child abuse collaborators, in which hateful objects belonging to JS would have pride of place, and where people could learn not so much about child abuse, as the conscious and unconscious systems that protect predators from justice and allow them to hurt children?


----------



## RaverDrew (Oct 12, 2012)

Fucking hell, have I woken up in a parallel universe ???  The Daily Mail citing Jerry Sadowitz as the voice of reason... I never thought I'd see the day  ​ 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2216358/Why-did-listen-Jerrys-howl-rage.html ​ 


> ‘There have been serious allegations of child abuse in Cleveland. To my mind there is only one way to find out whether this is true or not and that’s to . . . CALL IN JIMMY SAVILE! You can’t afford to f*** about! Bring in an expert! Am I right? A friend of mine reckons Jimmy Savile is a paedophile. Rubbish — he’s a child-bender! That’s why he does all the f****** charity work: it’s to gain public sympathy for when his f****** case comes up.’


​


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> I was thinking about the Museum of Racist memorabilia in the US, a fabulous exhibition that teaches people about the evils of racism via displaying horrific examples of racist signs and objects from history.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132032/Inside-new-1-3m-Museum-Racist-Memorabilia-9-000-exhibits-leave-visitors-angry-offended.html
> 
> Perhaps we should have a museum of child abuse collaborators, in which hateful objects belonging to JS would have pride of place, and where people could learn not so much about child abuse, as the conscious and unconscious systems that protect predators from justice and allow them to hurt children?


 
It would make a great ride in Blackpool


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 12, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Buyers of Jimmy Savile tat are now complaining that their shit isn't worth anything any more - you couldn't make it up!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


its typical of human nature theses day, it was like the bloke who immediately started about sueing the cinema, warner bros etc after the dark knight shootings, this bloke makes me feel a bit sick tbh, girls and women have alledgedly suffered from savilles behaviour and all he worrys about is the lost of value to his car, there really isnt much hope for this planet...


----------



## Maltin (Oct 12, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> It would make a great ride in Blackpool


Scarborough would be better.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 12, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


> I wonder if the Savile situation has made any of those snooty authors who kicked off about being CRB checked before frequent school visits change their tune? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8153251.stm
> 
> Phillip Pullman, Anthony Horowitz, Anne Fine, Michael Morpurgo - I'm looking at you. No-one is above being CRB checked - doesn't matter if you think you're doing the kids a favour, or if you can't see how you might end up in a position where you've developed a position of trust with a child.


 
Just to be clear on this, many people resent having to pay - now £70 - for a CRB. The writers and other visitors to schools, because they are not direct employees of anyone have to bear the costs of the CRB themselves and in some cases the CRB lasts for only a year. More generally 'enhanced disclosure' locks out of employment in schools, colleges etc those with convictions for anti-rich crimes, self-defence, drug crimes etc that have zero bearing on abuse to children. This doesn't mean they are in favour of unregulated, they believe the costs should be borne by the government. More generally, the criminal records bureau check is not the right instrument, a better suited more detailed sex offenders register match should replace it. Employers in local authorities use CRB checks - including some councils for park gardeners and beach cleaners - to screen out people with criminal convictions. Authorities, usually the local state, have usurped the idea for their own benefit and in some cases imposed the costs onto the population. In part they do this, so that if anything at all happens, they cannot be held legally responsible, a bureaucratic compliance is beginning to take the place of real vigilance for children. 

Councils that are cutting social worker jobs (in several London boroughs an average social worker dealing with at-risk children has a caseload of 20), in the name of 'child protection' are screening out those applying for posts in all sorts of fields.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 12, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i know it's obvious to point out, but this things is so chris morris. him and iannucci in the thick of it have a habit of being ridiculously prescient.


 Fully expect the Daily Mail to be offering a Brass Eye box set for Savile-nonce stories.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2012)

Yep, at the very least, the cost of a crb check should be borne by the state. They stop people from doing things.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 12, 2012)

*BBC ignored my Jimmy Savile complaint, claims former director*




> A former BBC TV director has claimed he blew the whistle about Jimmy Savile having sex with a young girl at the BBC but was ignored when he reported the incident to his bosses.
> 
> David Nicolson, now 67, worked with Savile on Jim'll Fix It and Top of the Pops over 10 years and said his bosses just shrugged it off when he told them what he had seen.
> 
> ...


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 12, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


> I wonder if the Savile situation has made any of those snooty authors who kicked off about being CRB checked before frequent school visits change their tune? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8153251.stm
> 
> Phillip Pullman, Anthony Horowitz, Anne Fine, Michael Morpurgo - I'm looking at you. No-one is above being CRB checked - doesn't matter if you think you're doing the kids a favour, or if you can't see how you might end up in a position where you've developed a position of trust with a child.


Yes but an abuser with no convictions still gets in.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 12, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> *BBC ignored my Jimmy Savile complaint, claims former director*


 Perhaps an obvious point, but it's no longer a 'nobody knew' story, but an 'everybody knew but did nothing' story.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Perhaps an obvious point, but it's no longer a 'nobody knew' story, but an 'everybody knew but did nothing' story.


first he abused the schoolgirls...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Yes but an abuser with no convictions still gets in.


Indeed. Someone like J Savile, for instance. I don't oppose crb checks completely, in limited circumstances, but they are not the cure-all some people seem to think they are, and there is the danger that they lead to a false sense of security. And people volunteering to do stuff for nothing are stopped by the need for a crb check.

There is a bit of a logic fail in cases like this, when people hold them up as an example of the need for crb checks. It's actually an example of the limited value of crb checks.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 12, 2012)

There's something very 'hidden in plain view' about it (for the majority of people who only knew him only from tv/public life). Even without the vague rumours that float around the ether, he was perceived as 'creepy’, ‘odd’ etc. He certainly came across as remarkably unpersonable for someone whose job in effect was to be personable. But then you tell yourself that it’s a wackiness, an oddness that was promoted, exaggerated, taken on; the weird yellow/white hair, the cigar, the gold chains, the tracksuits, the exaggerated mannerisms. That’s what it is. Even though every time you see him on telly and feel a bit repulsed by him during an interview about running a marathon charity of all things it’s just that you don’t like the persona. He’s just an odd bod. Doesn’t make him a bad person. And that the ‘oddness’, the feeling of unease about this weirdo is because he’s a weirdo for _those_ things. You don’t need to look further.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a bit of a logic fail in cases like this, when people hold them up as an example of the need for crb checks. It's actually an example of the limited value of crb checks.


 
Also the length of time it takes to get them. A friend couldn't take up a job because the crb check wasn't through - she's on the dole and is skint.

Is the process not automated? Surely it should just be a question of just entering the name into the system which would immediately give a result. Five seconds you'd think rather than six weeks.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep, at the very least, the cost of a crb check should be borne by the state. They stop people from doing things.


 
Isn't that what was going to happen for authors visiting schools? 



> Only authors who plan to go into schools regularly - once a month or more - will have to be registered. And the government has said the fees will be paid for authors, provided they are not being paid to visit schools.


 
What I'm getting at - is statements like these




			
				Antony Horowitz said:
			
		

> In essence, I'm being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile.
> "After 30 years writing books, visiting schools, hospitals, prisons, spreading an enthusiasm for culture and literacy, I find this incredibly insulting


 


> Anne Fine, author of more than 50 books including the Killer Cat series, told the Independent the rules would leave children "further impoverished" and that she would only visit foreign schools in future.
> "The whole idea of vetting any adult who visits many schools, but each only for a day, and then always in the presence of other adults, is deeply offensive," she added


 

Which struck me as out of order at the time, now seem even more so. These authors might not have been able to imagine a situation where someone ostensibly doing good work in schools acquired a position of trust and then abused it, but now they don't have to. Because it's happened in a rather spectacular way that's all over the newspapers.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2012)

some schools don't require CRB checks if you're not going to be left alone with kids, but some do and there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to it, it just depends on the individual school. so it must be frustrating if you're doing a tour of schools, esp considering how long CRBs take to come through.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 12, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> some schools don't require CRB checks if you're not going to be left alone with kids, but some do and there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to it, it just depends on the individual school. so it must be frustrating if you're doing a tour of schools, esp considering how long CRBs take to come through.


If you're planning a nationwide tour of schools, I figure you're probably spending enough time on it to add getting a CRB check without causing too many problems.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> If you're planning a nationwide tour of schools, I figure you're probably spending enough time on it to add getting a CRB check without causing too many problems.


fair point


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Isn't that what was going to happen for authors visiting schools?
> .


 
My martial arts dojo has stopped taking kids. It would cost us £140 to be covered by crb checks (two coaches minimum required for insurance). We don't get paid for teaching, and we've decided not to do it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 12, 2012)

Who wants to be the first to question the mental health of political correctness?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 12, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> There's something very 'hidden in plain view' about it (for the majority of people who only knew him only from tv/public life). Even without the vague rumours that float around the ether, he was perceived as 'creepy’, ‘odd’ etc. He certainly came across as remarkably unpersonable for someone whose job in effect was to be personable. But then you tell yourself that it’s a wackiness, an oddness that was promoted, exaggerated, taken on; the weird yellow/white hair, the cigar, the gold chains, the tracksuits, the exaggerated mannerisms. That’s what it is. Even though every time you see him on telly and feel a bit repulsed by him during an interview about running a marathon charity of all things it’s just that you don’t like the persona. He’s just an odd bod. Doesn’t make him a bad person. And that the ‘oddness’, the feeling of unease about this weirdo is because he’s a weirdo for _those_ things. You don’t need to look further.


 Must admit, till Louis Theroux asked him (2000?) I'd never even slightly thought he might have been an abuser, mainly I suppose because I had hardly thought about him at all for years.  I do remember his interview with Anthony Clare where he explained his caravan-lonerism-never been in love thing in terms of what you see is what you get with me.  That was a theme also in the Theroux film, though I also remember thinking how deeply unpleasant and aggressive he was also (though again without it ringing alarm bells).  Ultimately of course the 'I don't have a home, keep on the move' thing was 100% a deception, there was something else going on - a lifestyle built round oppportunites to abuse the vulnerable.  Really was hidden in plain site - with the paradox that his brazen self confidence did produce complaint after complaint.  Again, obvious point alert, but whilst Savile is the Monster here he's the bit of continuity.  The real issue is the disempowerment (even if I hate that word) of kids, particularly in institutions, laddish assumptions about older men and younger women/girls, poor police investigations and a complicit media, who would have heard just as many 'green room rumours' as the BBC.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Also the length of time it takes to get them. A friend couldn't take up a job because the crb check wasn't through - she's on the dole and is skint.
> 
> Is the process not automated? Surely it should just be a question of just entering the name into the system which would immediately give a result. Five seconds you'd think rather than six weeks.


 
Only semi-automated (to generate the files). The actual cross-checking has to be done manually.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 12, 2012)

I had a CRB check done recently (for t'Olympics) and when I eventually got it it had my correct details at the top but in the list of various categories it had a note about someone with the same surname as me, DOB couple of years before me, saying something along the lines of "this person is not allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults". Got another one in the post a few days later with an apologetic note, but was a bit weird.

For the record, I am _totally_ allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

i bet everyone who thought roger melly was a made up load of nonsense is rapidly revising their opinions.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My martial arts dojo has stopped taking kids. It would cost us £140 to be covered by crb checks (two coaches minimum required for insurance). We don't get paid for teaching, and we've decided not to do it.


 
My group doesn't train under 18s for exactly the same reason.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 12, 2012)

My first flat was in a quite posh riverside block in Peterborough (my then girlfriend managed to rent it dirt cheap off her boss, who had just got married and moved in with her husband). At the time Savile was spending a lot of time in Peterborough, he was raising money for a childrens' hospital that was going to be made to look like a castle and would carry his name. It never got built in the end, I'm not 100% sure why though. But when he was in Peterborough he stayed in a flat in the same block as me (there were much, much bigger flats upstairs and I believe his was one of those).

I never saw him there and I didn't hear any rumours about him at the time so this isn't as interesting as maybe it could be but it creeps the fuck out of me thinking about what he might have been doing in his flat while I was at home in my flat in the same block


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> My first flat was in a quite posh riverside block in Peterborough (my then girlfriend managed to rent it dirt cheap off her boss, who had just got married and moved in with her husband). At the time Savile was spending a lot of time in Peterborough, he was raising money for a childrens' hospital that was going to be made to look like a castle and would carry his name. It never got built in the end, I'm not 100% sure why though. But when he was in Peterborough he stayed in a flat in the same block as me (there were much, much bigger flats upstairs and I believe his was one of those).
> 
> I never saw him there and I didn't hear any rumours about him at the time so this isn't as interesting as maybe it could be but it creeps the fuck out of me thinking about what he might have been doing in his flat while I was at home in my flat in the same block


he might have been thinking about what you were thinking about in your flat.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> he might have been thinking about what you were thinking about in your flat.


I'm not sure the origin of bellybutton fluff and questions relating to whether our lass would kick me out if she caught me smoking a spliff in bed would have been of interest to Jim'll


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 12, 2012)

Are they perchance related?


----------



## dennisr (Oct 12, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> There's something very 'hidden in plain view' about it (for the majority of people who only knew him only from tv/public life). Even without the vague rumours that float around the ether, he was perceived as 'creepy’, ‘odd’ etc. He certainly came across as remarkably unpersonable for someone whose job in effect was to be personable. But then you tell yourself that it’s a wackiness, an oddness that was promoted, exaggerated, taken on; the weird yellow/white hair, the cigar, the gold chains, the tracksuits, the exaggerated mannerisms. That’s what it is. Even though every time you see him on telly and feel a bit repulsed by him during an interview about running a marathon charity of all things it’s just that you don’t like the persona. He’s just an odd bod. Doesn’t make him a bad person. And that the ‘oddness’, the feeling of unease about this weirdo is because he’s a weirdo for _those_ things. You don’t need to look further.


 

Wasn't he a leading member of the notorious Festival of Light - the 70's anti porn/anti gay movement led by Mary Whitehouse?  (sorry if this has been mentioned before - I haved ploughed my way through the thread as yet....)


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 12, 2012)

No idea.  My knowledge of Jimmy Savile prior to his death was Jim'll fix it, top of the pops, marathons for hospitals.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

dennisr said:


> Wasn't he a leading member of the notorious Festival of Light - the 70's anti porn/anti gay movement led by Mary Whitehouse? (sorry if this has been mentioned before - I haved ploughed my way through the thread as yet....)


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&q="jimmy savile" "festival of light"&f=false


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 12, 2012)

dennisr said:


> Wasn't he a leading member of the notorious Festival of Light - the 70's anti porn/anti gay movement led by Mary Whitehouse? (sorry if this has been mentioned before - I haved ploughed my way through the thread as yet....)


 
A supporter of Mary Whitehouse ceratinly according to Jenny Diski in her book The Sixties.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2012)

Ahh the Longford committee's (unofficial, private committee) 1972 porn report. I havent studied it in depth yet but when looking through Hansards I was vaguely amused by Lord Shackleton.



> I have read the Longford Report, which is more than most people, I think, in your Lordships' House have done. Some of my noble friends were put off by the cover; and the fact, it has been selling well in the Charing Cross Road I make only as a passing point and in no way as any reflection on Lord Longford.


 
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1972/nov/29/pornography-the-longford-report


----------



## kebabking (Oct 12, 2012)

dennisr said:


> Wasn't he a leading member of the notorious Festival of Light - the 70's anti porn/anti gay movement led by Mary Whitehouse?


 
not according to the wiki - its got the sainted Cliff and Malcolm Muggeridge as leading lights, along with the lovely Mrs Whitehouse...

can't imagine that Mary Whitehouse was keen on the displays of leering and noncery usually given by the 'DeeeJaays' on Top of the Pops.

Smashy and Nicey - actually, i think i recall a sketch they did which might be a bit close to Saviles bone...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 12, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


> I wonder if the Savile situation has made any of those snooty authors who kicked off about being CRB checked before frequent school visits change their tune? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8153251.stm
> 
> Phillip Pullman, Anthony Horowitz, Anne Fine, Michael Morpurgo - I'm looking at you. No-one is above being CRB checked - doesn't matter if you think you're doing the kids a favour, or if you can't see how you might end up in a position where you've developed a position of trust with a child.


 
Michael Morpurgo has large groups of children come to stay on his farm on a regular basis. Not to imply he's a nonce, he's a lovely bloke, but I would like to think he'd been background-checked already for his charity work rather than for visits to schools. 

And IIRC you're allowed to work with kids without a CRB check provided it's only a few times a month and someone else with a CRB check is there too.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 12, 2012)

kebabking said:


> not according to the wiki - its got the sainted Cliff and Malcolm Muggeridge as leading lights, along with the lovely Mrs Whitehouse...
> 
> can't imagine that Mary Whitehouse was keen on the displays of leering and noncery usually given by the 'DeeeJaays' on Top of the Pops.
> 
> Smashy and Nicey - actually, i think i recall a sketch they did which might be a bit close to Saviles bone...


 

Tessaaaaaaa! also 1.41.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 12, 2012)

Re the CRB checks at school thing - I could do reading with kids at my son's school but I don't because I don't want them to know I have a drugs conviction.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 12, 2012)

More allegations, this one is very interesting as it seems that social services were called , this time it is that he molested a 12 year old girl at a care home where the manager knew that he was dangerous to children 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19915975


----------



## where to (Oct 12, 2012)

5live are reporting that allegations from an apparent victim at haut de la garenne are to be investigated.

That could open a few interesting lines of enquiry, if rumours are true.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

kebabking said:


> not according to the wiki - its got the sainted Cliff and Malcolm Muggeridge as leading lights, along with the lovely Mrs Whitehouse...
> 
> can't imagine that Mary Whitehouse was keen on the displays of leering and noncery usually given by the 'DeeeJaays' on Top of the Pops.
> 
> Smashy and Nicey - actually, i think i recall a sketch they did which might be a bit close to Saviles bone...


Mary whitehouse's image doubtless attracted savile to her campaign because most paedononces would steer well clear.

it will be interesting to see what emerges when the sainted one is no longer in a position to sue.


----------



## where to (Oct 12, 2012)

where to said:
			
		

> 5live are reporting that allegations from an apparent victim at haut de la garenne are to be investigated.
> 
> That could open a few interesting lines of enquiry, if rumours are true.



The allegation relates to the abuse of a ten year old boy.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Mary whitehouse's image doubtless attracted savile to her campaign because most paedononces would steer well clear.
> 
> it will be interesting to see what emerges when _%"§%&&"!)(&&&_ is no longer in a position to sue.


 
Oh, Pickman's, no.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> ............it will be interesting to see what emerges when the sainted one is no longer in a position to sue.


 
Why are you ignoring the editor's request?

ETA. I see you have modified your post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Why are you ignoring the editor's request?
> 
> ETA. I see you have modified your post.


fuck off


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck off


 
That I won't do that is eating you, Picky, isn't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That I won't do that is eating you, Picky, isn't it?


Not really, no.

Now, can you say anything meaningful about savile - after all, this is a thread about him


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Not really, no.


 
Only a fool would believe you.


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2012)

> *A television actress has claimed Jimmy Savile groped her when she appeared on Jim'll Fix It at the age of 14.*
> Julie Fernandez, who starred in the BBC shows Eldorado and The Office, said Savile's hands "lingered in places they shouldn't" as she sat beside the presenter in her wheelchair.
> The 38-year-old and other children from her Hampshire school were on the show after Miss Fernandez wrote to Savile.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19925372

The pictures arent getting any better either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19930250









> The BBC is to launch two inquiries surrounding sex abuse claims made against Sir Jimmy Savile, director-general George Entwistle has announced.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2012)

any truth to the rumours that saville spent 11 christmases at thatcher's place?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 12, 2012)

Can we merge this thread and the other one? Carol Thatcher says that's not so (according to the other thread )


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2012)

Any possible truth is rather buried by his tendency towards egomaniacal name-dropping and grandiose descriptions of his power and influence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 12, 2012)

elbows said:


> Any possible truth is rather buried by his tendency towards egomaniacal name-dropping and grandiose descriptions of his power.


I think it might have been Last Word, of all things, the obituary show on Radio 4, that covered this. irrc it was ambivalent about him at best. Didn't mention any dodginess but did explore his legendary bullshitting abilities. He apparently did turn up at the Thatchers' one Christmas uninvited. He also thought of himself as a close friend of Princess Diana. Truth is that he had no friends at all.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2012)

he had no shortage of people willing to cover up and excuse his behaviour because he was famous and did lots of things for charity

did you see that louis theroux documentary where he hurt his leg and the first thing he did was ccall a photographer


----------



## Favelado (Oct 12, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> he had no shortage of people willing to cover up and excuse his behaviour because he was famous and did lots of things for charity
> 
> did you see that louis theroux documentary where he hurt his leg and the first thing he did was ccall a photographer


 
Then he phoned the hospital and said they'd better hurry up with his appointment because "I've given you quite a lot of machines".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 12, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Not really, no.
> 
> Now, can you say anything meaningful about savile - after all, this is a thread about him


 
To be fair it would be a first if he was to say anything meaningful about anything - I don't think I've ever seen him post about the topic being discussed on any thread - it's always pointless pedantic and more often than not personal swipes at other posters. I'm not sure there is any point to his continued existence to be honest.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2012)

Favelado said:


> Then he phoned the hospital and said they'd better hurry up with appointment because "I've given you quite a lot of machines".


 
What a cunt. I wonder when they're gonna dig his coffin up?


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 12, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be fair it would be a first if he was to say anything meaningful about anything - I don't think I've ever seen him post about the topic being discussed on any thread - it's always pointless pedantic and more often than not personal swipes at other posters. I'm not sure there is any point to his continued existence to be honest.


 
Your posts have much the same effect on me. That's because I don't read them.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 12, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> any truth to the rumours that saville spent 11 christmases at thatcher's place?


 
Wait. He didn't did he?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 12, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Your posts have much the same effect on me. That's because I don't read them.


 
And just to confirm the accuracy of my post...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2012)

Favelado said:


> Wait. He didn't did he?


 
She's been demented for the last few years, so he probably popped round to molest her while she was on the commode.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Your posts have much the same effect on me. That's because I don't read them.


 
Liar.

You'd have had to read spineynorman's post #443 in order to know how to respond to it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> And just to confirm the accuracy of my post...


 
Quite.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 12, 2012)

I recommend the Smashie and Nicey special that liberally references Saville's weirdness (mum fetish, using charity as a cover for being a twat) on Youtube. Some funny moments and the digs at Jimmy and DLT are quite cutting in places.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 12, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Liar.
> 
> You'd have had to read spineynorman's post #443 in order to know how to respond to it.


 
I know what Spiney will say before he's said it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2012)

What was the story with him and his mum then? That section in the Louis theroux doc was very creepy indeed. Was he shagging her?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2012)

he spent three days in bed with her corpse iirc.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2012)

how the FUCK did he get to be a children's presenter?


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2012)

He left it off his CV.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 12, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> how the FUCK did he get to be a children's presenter?


 
He was popular and respected from Top of the Pops and Radio 1.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> he spent three days in bed with her corpse iirc.


 
"In bed" being the polite euphemism for "spent three days filling every available orifice with man-juice".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 12, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I know what Spiney will say before he's said it.


 
And again.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 12, 2012)

I know that Spiney will say "and again" sometime soon.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 12, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I know that Spiney will say "and again" sometime soon.


 
Your mum.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 12, 2012)

And then he'll throw in some personal insults. He's remarkably consistant.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 12, 2012)

Sir Jimmy Saville has certainly raised the bar for paedos around the world. Not only did he nonce half of Britain, he also got his victims to wear a big badge for years after.


----------



## dylans (Oct 12, 2012)

They had a lot in common. She fucked miners and he fucked minors.


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Sir Jimmy Saville has certainly raised the bar for paedos around the world. Not only did he nonce half of Britain, he also got his victims to wear a big badge for years after.


 
It'l be like a new version of anything you can do, I can do better. USA vs UK nonce edition, Jackson vs Savile?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 12, 2012)

elbows said:


> Anything you can do, I can do better. USA vs UK nonce edition, Jackson vs Savile?


It's one of the areas of human endeavour where britain is still world class


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2012)

Ooh you caught me adjusting my phrases again. The scandal!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 12, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> And then he'll throw in some personal insults. He's remarkably consistant.


 
Predicting things after they happen - that's quite a skill. I predict that after Savile dies loads of stuff will come out about him being a nonce. 

Still nothing to say about the topic of the thread though I see.


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2012)

Is this now a rejected mutant version of last nights red dwarf? This conversation has been predicted so there is no need to have it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 12, 2012)

Yeah sorry I shouldn't bite. He's just such a tedious irritating bore that I can't always resist.


----------



## elbows (Oct 12, 2012)

I dont really care if you bite, I was simply struck by a silly parallel between last nights red dwarf computer prediction plot and a couple of posts.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 12, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Only a fool would believe you.


 
OK, L&L was not talking to me, but

I am sick of reporting L&L to the mods, and my complaints are always ignored. I feel exactly like Jimmy Savile's victims must have felt.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 12, 2012)

dylans said:


> They had a lot in common. She fucked miners and he fucked minors.


 

Dylans!


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 12, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> any truth to the rumours that saville spent 11 christmases at thatcher's place?


 
But which is worse? Christmas with the Thatchers or Christmas with Jimmy Savile?


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 13, 2012)




----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2012)

The Gang Of Four


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 13, 2012)

Just watched the Louis Theroux documentary on him. So many things in that program are dodgy as fuck. Calling his bed 'the alter', locking people up in the basement of his nightclub, driving around in his paedomobile caravan, the packet of condoms that Louis finds, the single chocolate biscuit in the fridge, the booze around the place even though he says he is tea-total, saying that he's 'feared in every girls school in the land', saying he hates children in order to throw the press 'off the hunt'. 

I've seen that doc before. How the fuck did I not cotton on last time I watched it? And to think I once dressed as Jimmy Savile for a Halloween party.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 13, 2012)

> In August 1988, shortly before the publication of a highly critical report into its operating procedures, the entire management board of Broadmoor secure psychiatric hospital was suspended by the Department of Health, which at the time had joint responsibility for its direct management.





> *The running of Broadmoor, the highest-profile facility of its kind in the country and the home to many of Britain's most notorious criminals, was placed in the temporary control of a "taskforce", according to reports at the time, to be headed up by a somewhat unexpected figure.*
> 
> *It was Jimmy Savile*, the then 61-year-old TV presenter, charity fundraiser and national eccentric. "There's nothing that can't be solved," he told an approving Sunday Times reporter at the time of his appointment, stabbing the air with his trademark cigar for emphasis.


 
<snip>



> Some, it seems, did take claims of abuse seriously. John Lindsay, a detective inspector at Thames Valley police during the late 1970s, told the BBC that he was told by a nurse at Stoke Mandeville that Savile was abusing patients, and reported it to his superiors more than once.
> "I was not believed, no, no. I think purely because at that stage and for many, many years Savile was an icon," he said.


 
more here 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-broadmoor-volunteer-role?newsfeed=true


----------



## Maltin (Oct 13, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> the single chocolate biscuit in the fridge


The horror


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> But which is worse? Christmas with the Thatchers or Christmas with Jimmy Savile?


Christmas with js & mt


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 13, 2012)

The monster movie no one wanted - _Paedozilla: Child-Catcher Meets Milk Snatcher_.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 13, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> he spent three days in bed with her corpse iirc.


That's what I heard too.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 13, 2012)

That he routinely transported corpses  voluntarily within the NHS is not a subject of speculation.

Without wanting to cast suspicion groundlessly, it is a curious thing to do in gratis capacity.


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

Given all the rumours which have now been confirmed, it would be foolish to ignore the others, which are not currently being discussed.

One if these relates to a former Prime Minister.  Only whacky conspiraloon websites have been discussing it so far. Up until recently though, these were pretty much the only places you could read about the rest of the allegations.  A stopped clock is right twice a day, etc.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2012)

Did she let him have a go on the red button or summat? Was it him who shot that Iranian passenger jet down in the 80s?


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> That's what I heard too.



"The most beautiful five days of my life" is a quote I read somewhere.

Given he liked hinting at what he was up to, this one no longer seems very unlikely.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 13, 2012)

Mother.Fucker.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 13, 2012)

where to said:


> "The most beautiful five days of my life" is a quote I read somewhere.
> 
> Given he liked hinting at what he was up to, this one no longer seems very unlikely.


 
Where did you read it?


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

Not certain, but possibly on here. Original savile thread last yr.

Just done a google and Theroux says he said something to the same effect in his autobiography (!). So that may be original source.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Where did you read it?


 
It's in the Telegraph obituary, quite well known.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html
Some necrophiles are also drawn to things associated with death, hence Broadmoor and some of its inmates also probably had some special resonance for Saville. Apparently even necrophiliac erotophonophiles, who murder their victims for the purposes, once they are caught are aroused by being able to return to show police officers the scene of their sex act upon the corpse, where the victim's body was left. It's possible that keeping the some of his mother's clothes in the spare room was a way to recreate the mental image of those five days of sexual conquest. I don't think it was a grief-despair-seeking the return of the dead thing - since there are hardly any photographs of her in the Theroux documentary.

This is conjecture.


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

where to said:
			
		

> "The most beautiful five days of my life" is a quote I read somewhere.
> 
> Given he liked hinting at what he was up to, this one no longer seems very unlikely.



For accuracy, quote seems to be " best days of my life.. its wonferful is death"


----------



## dylans (Oct 13, 2012)

If this was the plot of a novel, it would be rejected as absurd. Imagine taking this to a publisher.

Well the plot involves an evil child raping predator who hides in plain sight and is held up by the nations highest institutions as a saint. Given the keys and his own room in the nations hospitals while nurses whisper to the child patients to pretend to be asleep so he doesn't molest them. A guy, with no medical training whatsoever who is then not only allowed free access to one of the country's most secure mental hospitals but is allowed to run it. A guy who is given his own children's TV shows which he uses to find victims who he rapes in his dressing room and molests in the studio while people who know turn a blind eye. A guy who rapes and abuses some of the most vulnerable people in the country for going on half a century while the complaints of his victims are ignored and dismissed by people at the highest levels in a variety of institutions. People who know very well what he is doing but who actually enable it and only after his death does the story come out as thousands of people come forward with accusations of abuse.

The publisher would laugh it out of the room. Truth, as always, really is stranger than fiction


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2012)

There are load of books like that. What are you talking about?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 13, 2012)

I think as misery memoirs go its still a little far fetched


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 13, 2012)

dylans said:


> If this was the plot of a novel, it would be rejected as absurd. Imagine taking this to a publisher.
> 
> Well the plot involves an evil child raping predator who hides in plain sight and is held up by the nations highest institutions as a saint. Given the keys and his own room in the nations hospitals while nurses whisper to the child patients to pretend to be asleep so he doesn't molest them. A guy, with no medical training whatsoever who is then not only allowed free access to one of the country's most secure mental hospitals but is allowed to run it. A guy who is given his own children's TV shows which he uses to find victims who he rapes in his dressing room and molests in the studio while people who know turn a blind eye. A guy who rapes and abuses some of the most vulnerable people in the country for going on half a century while the complaints of his victims are ignored and dismissed by people at the highest levels in a variety of institutions. People who know very well what he is doing but who actually enable it and only after his death does the story come out as thousands of people come forward with accusations of abuse.
> 
> The publisher would laugh it out of the room. Truth, as always, really is stranger than fiction


https://twitter.com/WelshIrvine/status/256878911097565184
Tell that to Irvine Welsh.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

> The Department of Health (DoH) is to investigate the decision to appoint Sir Jimmy Savile as head of a taskforce overseeing Broadmoor hospital in 1988.


 


> The *Guardian reported that Savile's appointment* came after the hospital's management board was dismissed by then health secretary Ken Clarke.
> 
> However, Mr Clarke's special adviser said the Conservative MP, who was made health secretary in July 1988, had no recollection of this, and the appointment may not have been made when he was in his post.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19936195


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

Just on the broadmoor thing and the '88 stuff - this needs repeating:



> "It is the simple 'fix it' attitude he brings to all areas of his life," noted the interviewer, adding that six months later,* it would fall to Savile to appoint the first general manager to be responsible for the day-to-day running of the hospital.*


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

Can anyone with any access find this interview/article: Sunday Times, Jimmy Savile, Broadmoor 1988, 1989, 1990 ?




> The running of Broadmoor, the highest-profile facility of its kind in the country and the home to many of Britain's most notorious criminals, was placed in the temporary control of a "taskforce", according to reports at the time, to be headed up by a somewhat unexpected figure.
> 
> It was Jimmy Savile, the then 61-year-old TV presenter, charity fundraiser and national eccentric. "There's nothing that can't be solved," he told an approving Sunday Times reporter at the time of his appointment, stabbing the air with his trademark cigar for emphasis.
> 
> "It is the simple 'fix it' attitude he brings to all areas of his life," noted the interviewer, adding that six months later, it would fall to Savile to appoint the first general manager to be responsible for the day-to-day running of the hospital.


 
Also who was that general manager?


----------



## Favelado (Oct 13, 2012)

It's like the lunatics have taken over the asylum!


And then fucked all the patients.


SATIRE IS DEAD AFTER THIS.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 13, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Can anyone with any access find this interview/article: Sunday Times, Jimmy Savile, Broadmoor 1988, 1989, 1990 ?


 
there you go: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3DLdtjEG1FYbEhvM1RvWFVmNjQ


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

little_legs said:


> there you go: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3DLdtjEG1FYbEhvM1RvWFVmNjQ


 
Thank you so much. Spasibo bolshoe!




> 'I have the knack of getting things done, ' he says. 'Others have the knack of talking, or sitting on committees but I make things happen.' At Broadmoor he wants to *see smaller wards, more private rooms instead of dormitories, more individual therapy for patients, and a* *less regimented timetable*. 'But I'm not going to rush. Winston Churchill didn't open the second front before he was ready and I won't move until I'm ready. I will adopt the long, steady, undramatic role which avoids the whizz-kid approach.'


 
It puts the changes there in a new light.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2012)

I've got that "sexy kids, sexy kids, made Jimmy Saville do what he did" by Kunt and the gang stuck in my head and i almost started singing it going into a religious service


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

little_legs said:
			
		

> there you go: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3DLdtjEG1FYbEhvM1RvWFVmNjQ



A contemporary source for the visits to chequers...


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

sihhi said:
			
		

> Thank you so much. Spasibo bolshoe!
> 
> It puts the changes there in a new light.



"more private rooms"


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

This was September 1988
"Last week he was promoted to chairman of a new task force set up by the Department of Health to govern Broadmoor. Such a new organisation 'an advisory body with teeth', says Savile could not come at a more pressing time."

Ken Clarke is health Secretary in July 1988.

As ever with politicians:- unwarranted credit with anything good (displacing others' work+labour) ; it's not my fault when something goes wrong


----------



## Espresso (Oct 13, 2012)

This first manager dude, supposing he's still alive must have had in by the police for questioning by now. Surely? 

For Savile to give anyone a job, whoever it was must have been owed something by Savile. Wonder what sort of ghastly bastard you'd have to be to have done a big enough favour for Savile to mean he was in your debt to the tune of a big fat - presumably well paid - job like that. And once he took the job, he was in Savile's pocket, of course.
Mind you, I suppose if I was a ghastly bastard, I'm sure that'd suit me just fine; in his pocket and protected by Savile and his armour of untouchability.


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

The new manager seems to have been Charles Kaye , who wrote a book about his work. It only mentions savile three times, but js commented on drafts. If you do a google books search for jimmy savile broadmoor it is the first book to come up. Can't do link as on phone.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

where to said:


> The new manager seems to have been Charles Kaye , who wrote a book about his work. It only mentions savile three times, but js commented on drafts. If you do a google books search for jimmy savile broadmoor it is the first book to come up. Can't do link as on phone.


 
I'm not sure if he is the right man as it sounds like he was higher up, in charge of the thing that was setup to manage all the secure hospitals.

Lets try this article from 1994.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-anger-at-a-new-more-open-regime-1369160.html

​


> Alan Franey, Broadmoor's general manager, explained. In 1988 he arrived in Broadmoor - not simply to share a roof with the Yorkshire Ripper and Ronnie Kray - but to begin to put recommendations for reform into practice. An inquiry had found patients undressing in corridors in preparation for bed; a drug and alcohol ring; too much use of 'restraint garments' and excessive influence being wielded by the Prison Officers' Association, the union representing most nurses.​​'I remember the first day I arrived,' Mr Franey said. 'Two nurses were standing behind me and I heard one of them say, 'The SS are in'. Now the same things are being said again.'​​Since Broadmoor was built in 1863, occupying 55 acres of a 412-acre estate, it has generated dread. Harry Field said: 'As you can see, it's a very gothic place. Patients experience fear approaching it. They have all seen The Silence of the Lambs. But it's not like that: no chains hanging against the wall and no padded rooms.'​​On the other hand, it has proved harder to reform attitudes than to refurbish wards. In 1989 a patient died under sedation. In 1990 four nurses were arrested in connection with a police investigation into alleged bribery and corruption.​​In the following two years two nurses left a patient locked in his cell for six hours as part of a dispute by the Prison Officers' Association, and a psychiatrist took early retirement after giving patients electric shock treatment without anaesthetic. Last year an independent inquiry into the death of a black schizophrenic found racism, low nursing skills and staff concerned more with control than care. It demanded a review of the solitary confinement regulations and got this dispute.​


​


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

​


> The week before his death, she received a call from Alan Franey, the former chief executive of Broadmoor hospital, of which Jimmy was a patron.​​‘He told me Jimmy was breathless and that he’d gone home because he knew it was probably time,’ she says. ‘He never wanted to die in hospital because he had to hand over control to the doctors and nurses. At home, he would have felt he was still in control to the end.’​


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2058145/Jimmy-Savile-death-I-asked-Jimmy-away-wedding.html​​​​


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

> *"I spent a lot of time with him and would say I knew him probably as well as anybody else knew him," Mr Franey told BBC 5 live.*
> 
> "I spoke to him last Wednesday and asked him how he was, and he said he was feeling very tired and short of breath. Mentally, he was very alert. But he said to me: 'I'm coming to the end of the tunnel.'"
> Mr Franey ran marathons with Sir Jimmy to raise money for causes including Broadmoor, Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire and Leeds General Infirmary.
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15507826

Some other classics on that page.

David Hamilton:


> *"We were together at Radio 1 in the '70s and the station was full of eccentric personalities, but he was certainly the most flamboyant of all," Hamilton told BBC 5 live.*
> "One of the essential things about Jimmy was that he was a man of the people. He knew his audience, he was very much in touch with his audience. I think the public were his family.
> "Probably of all the DJs I worked with, I knew him less than any of the others. He kept himself very much to himself. He didn't drink so he wasn't the sort of man who would go down to the pub and have a bevvy with you."


Graham Smith:


> He added: "Margaret Thatcher asked him to look after the wives of the G7 leaders during a conference. He took them to Stoke Mandeville. They were confronted by a man in tracksuit and a jewellery but by the end of the day, they were eating out of his hand."


 
Jeremy Hunt 


> *"Sir Jimmy Savile was one of broadcasting's most unique and colourful characters," said Mr Hunt.*
> "From Top of the Pops to making children's dreams come true on Jim'll Fix It, a generation of people will remember his catchphrases and sense of fun.
> "But his lasting legacy will be the millions he raised for charity, tirelessly giving up his time and energy to help those causes he was passionate about."


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, Councillor Alan Franey:

http://www.welwynhatfield.info/index.aspx?articleid=2369



> I was delighted to have been selected to represent Sherrards Ward and will do my best to respond to concerns raised with me by residents.
> I am a keen supporter of improving Mental Health services. I worked for 9 years as Chief Executive at Broadmoor Hospital and I'm aware that Mental Health is underfunded. Many people suffer mild Mental Health problems during their lifetime and investment to improve services should be a higher priority than it is. It has always been the "cinderella" service. I will continue to press for improved local funding.
> I am  a  Member of the Board of Governors for Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Mental Health Trust which enables me to contribute  and influence decisions on the delivery of services in Herts.I am a panel member for the Mental Health Trust hearing appeals against detention under the Mental Health Act.
> I was elected to become Deputy Leader of the Council in May 2010 as well as my Cabinet responsibility for Resources.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2012)




----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2012)

fixed it for you
*



			"Sir Jimmy Savile was one of broadcasting's most unique and colourful characters," said Mr Hunt.
		
Click to expand...

*​


> "From Top of the Pops to making children's dreams come true on Jim'll Fix It, a generation of people will remember his catchphrases, paedophilia and sense of fun.​"But his lasting legacy will be the millions he raised for charity, tirelessly giving up his time and energy to fuck those corpses he was passionate about."​


​


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

elbows said:


> Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, Councillor Alan Franey:
> 
> http://www.welwynhatfield.info/index.aspx?articleid=2369


Grant Shapps a a fellow local party member.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

It sounds like Franey ultimately took early retirement after a staff dispute which certain tabloids were all over, Im guessing as part of a 'Broadmoor patients have it too easy/will have it too easy under these new plans' thing.

​


> The announcement today that Alan Franey, Chief Executive of Broadmoor Hospital, has taken early retirement will be a blow for all those concerned with the four Special Hospitals and those involved with the care and treatment of patients.​The Matthew Trust, a mental health and penal reform group, has worked closely with Mr Franey over the past nine years he has been at Broadmoor and the Trust has the highest regard for him and his professionalism.​Peter Thompson, Director of The Matthew Trust, said today: "There is no doubt in the Trust's mind that circumstances beyond the control of Broadmoor, linked with a small hard core of nursing staff, has played some part in Mr Franey's demise.​"The Trust is also of the opinion that a national Sunday tabloid newspaper has played a large part in contributing to the present position. Being Chief Executive of a Special Hospital such as Broadmoor requires unique qualities including the humanitarian aspects. Security is of prime importance running parallel with patient care and the well-being of society."​


​http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-re...ves-early-retirement-is-a-blow-156869405.html​


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

The local press are vaguely on the ball:

http://www.stalbansreview.co.uk/new..._Councillor_Friend_Was_Also_CEO_At_Broadmoor/


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

Some stuff on Icke's forum of all places claims that he (franey) was on saville's edition of _this is your life_ introduced as his business partner. I'm not offering this as fact, just something we could possibly follow up.


----------



## peterkro (Oct 13, 2012)

If anyone has followed Popbitch for a long time Rev Goatboy (RIP) has referred to all the stuff that has come out so far he was also adamant the Gang and Necrophilia stuff was true. I find it hard to believe this actually went on but he hasn't been wrong so far.From the mailout this week:

      Still waiting for the morgue story

    Rumours about Savile's groping and
   feeling-up hospital patients have 
   been confirmed. So just the gangland 
   connections and trips to the morgue
   to come out and our Rev Goatboy
   would have a full set!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

I also found an expat who claimed he had worked on a c4 doc in 1995 that uncovered a lot of this but was leant on form above. Anyone heard anything about this? I know we have a number of people with connections with C4 on here.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

An attack on Sutcliffe in 1996:

http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/attackps.htm



> In an apparent attempt at a news blackout of the event, it emerged that the staff had been told not to talk about the attack, and that Broadmoor had not called the police in to investigate. Refusing to discuss the attack, Broadmoor's general manager, Alan Franey, stated: ''You know I cannot and will not comment on any incident which involves one of my patients, especially one who is of such high profile. It is hospital policy not to refer to individual patients and I have to respect that confidentially.''
> 
> A Thames Valley Police spokesman at Bracknell said: "We are surprised we were not asked to investigate but Broadmoor appears to be a law unto itself." A hospital staff member said: "It is shocking that an attempted murder can happen in a hospital and the police are not called in to investigate."
> 
> Peter Sutcliffe threatened to take out a private prosecution if the police did not take any action. Although the police later investigated the attack, Sutcliffe did not press charges.


 
And again in 1997:



> The attack on Peter Sutcliffe came just a week after Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell had announced a wide-ranging review, concentrating on security and the quality of care, of the management of Broadmoor. The Prison Officers' Association had criticised security and staffing levels at Broadmoor, including a lack of experienced nurses and patients intimidating the staff. They had warned that the hospital was reaching a "breaking point".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

Franey gave princess di the same access as saville - click on previous. 

edit: also applied to run her trust fund (at 75 grand a year),


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Some stuff on Icke's forum of all places claims that he (franey) was on saville's edition of _this is your life_ introduced as his business partner. I'm not offering this as fact, just something we could possibly follow up.


 
I remember reading that Saville was one the very few people to be on This is Your Life twice.

First with Eamonn Andrews as a Radio 1 DJ and presenter, then years later again with Michael Aspel as a charity-hero saint look he gives away all his wealth (still has 8 houses though?).

Bizarrely Michael Aspel claimed not to ever have met him in an interview after his death. Saville was a fairly big deal when they met still doing Jim'll Fix It and well-publicised charity marathon events.


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

R4 piece on was on just now.

Edwina Currie more than Clarke by sounds of it.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

From the Charles Kaye & Alan Freney book:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=savile&f=false



> One of these contacts was Cliff Graham, the key civil servant at the Department of Health, whom I discovered was the architect of the creation of the SHSA.





> For the first time I heard about the role and power of the Prison Officers' Association (POA) and the curious and unexpected role played by Jimmy Savile at Broadmoor hospital.


 


> I heard nothing more until I was asked to a strange meeting at Stoke Mandeville hospital with Cliffe Graham, Jimmy Savile, the entertainer who at that time was deeply involved in helping to solve a building project problem at Broadmoor, James Collins, a retired Department of Health senior civil servant who subsequently served on the SHSA board, and other department officials. To this day I do not know why this strange meeting was held, though I suspect Cliff Graham was using it to check out relationships. Not long after that I was officially invited to become the non-executive chairman of this new body to be known as the Special Hospitals Service Authority.


 


> The task-force which included unusually Sir James Savile OBE, who had been associated with the hospital for many years, realised that in the months ahead we would face a turbulent period, and consideration was given to the possibility of asking Ministers' support to bring the army into the hospital.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

Here deputy leader of Welwyn Hatfield Council Franey is suggesting:



> _It was at Broadmoor that Cllr Franey first met Savile,_ and the pair became friends, even running marathons together to raise money for the Jim’ll Fix It star’s various charities.


 
And here, he outright lies:



> Cllr Franey said Savile’s visits to Broadmoor were rare during his time as chief executive.
> 
> “He didn’t come very often,” he said. “He had a title called honorary entertainment officer, which he’d been doing since the 60s. I’m not sure how it started.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

> Jimmy Savile, the entertainer who at that time was deeply involved in helping to solve a building project problem at Broadmoor


 
wtf?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

Graham was one of thatchers union busters in the NHS btw.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

I don't know how much there is the story but the Sun is reporting Esther Rantzen being specifically asked about Saville's behaviour, something which Rantzen denies. 

http://primetime.unrealitytv.co.uk/...old-esther-rantzen-of-her-abuse-18-years-ago/


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

I'm currently trawling Hansard. In the 1970's its all click-clunk seatbelt stuff, but by 1986 we have this:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...nitiative-uk-2000#S6CV0101P0_19860714_HOC_197



> *Mr. Allan Roberts* (Bootle)
> Is the Minister aware that his Government are turning tragedy into farce? They have handed over their responsibility for foreign aid to Bob Geldof and cut foreign aid dramatically. They have handed over part of their responsibility for the National Health Service to Jimmy Savile, and are handing local responsibility for collecting refuse to Mr. Branson to cut the money needed for street cleaning. May we have an assurance that the Government do not intend to hand over responsibility for law and order to Perry Mason, to Kojak or to Boy George? Does the Minister realise that these ridiculous palliatives will be recognised for what they are by the British people?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Graham was one of thatchers union busters in the NHS btw.


 
His name is familiar - I've never heard of Franey before. It must be the same civil servant who was part of the Griffiths changes in the early Thatcher years bringing in more managerial control of the NHS - another new lawyer of non-clinical managers:

"When it was published in October 1983, the Griffiths Report was much praised for its simplicity, conciseness (25 pages) and directness.24 It was also launched with a memorable phrase, attributed to Cliff Graham, which caught the headlines: 'In short, if Florence Nightingale were carrying her lamp through the corridors of the NHS today she would almost certainly be searching for the people in charge.' The report recommended the introduction of general management into the NHS. ...

Fowler considered the Griffiths Report to be excellent and accepted its main thrust and recommendations and sent it out for consultation. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet also liked the conclusions of the report.It had a mixed reception within the NHS, as Griffiths himself reflected nearly ten years later: The nurses saw it as a challenge to a carefully established professional career structure. The medical profession saw the report correctly as questioning whether their clinical autonomy extended to immunity from being questioned as to how resources were being used. All the professions saw the report as introducing economics into the care of patients, believing this was inimical to good care.41"


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

1980:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...al-health-service#S5CV0977P0_19800123_HOC_429



> *Dr. Vaughan*
> That is why I was so sad when I listened to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North about private practice. Labour Members are still obsessed by the private practice aspect of health, even though the Royal Commission said that it is an insignificant part of health care in this country.
> I make no apology for the fact that, although we see a need for a thriving and viable NHS which is available to everybody who needs it, we also feel that we must look at health care in this country generally. We see a need to bring extra resources into health from whatever source is willing to make them available. That is why we talk of developing the private sector in partnership, and not in conflict, with the NHS. That is why this morning at Stoke Mandeville I was with Jimmy Savile in his appeal for money to rebuilld that special centre for spinal injuries.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

1980 again:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...conomic-situation#S5CV0982P0_19800331_HOC_276




> *Mr. Orme* I turn to the National Health Service. We have dealt with prescription charges at some length. The right hon. Gentleman has said that by 1982 the charges which are now part of the funding of the NHS will increase from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. The present Government are hitting at the basis of the NHS. They are encouraging the private sector. They want to create a two-tier Health Service. They are turning to raffles and fundraising as a mean of financing it. That is completely unacceptable. The Sunday Mirror has made the point in regard to kidney machines. The Minister of State's letter was diabolical. It said, in effect, that the way to finance the Health Service was to match pound for pound. That is not the concept of a health service. One should not be able to buy health above 65​another person just because one has the money to do so.
> The principle of the NHS is that we are all entitled to use it and that it exists for all of us. The present Government are moving away from that principle. It is no good underwriting Mr. Jimmy Savile, OBE, in trying to raise £6 million for Stoke Mandeville hospital, which needs refurbishing. If that hospital needs refurbishing—as it probably does—that should be a charge upon the NHS and should not be thrown open to charity and to other people deciding priorities in the NHS.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

elbows said:


> 1980 again:
> http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...conomic-situation#S5CV0982P0_19800331_HOC_276


 
It looks like only the Labour Left in the form of Stan Orme, resisting the Savile bandwagon.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

1981, Big Society 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...nal-health-service#S6CV0012P0_19811106_HOC_22




> *Mr. Fowler*
> Secondly, we want to see partnership with the voluntary sector. That is crucial if we are to produce the level of services and caring that we need for such groups as the elderly, those suffering from mental handicap or disorder and the disabled, who need long-term support within the community. One outstanding example of what can be achieved when the National Health Service, the community and voluntary interests are working together towards a shared goal is the national appeal which Jimmy Savile is mounting for the rebuilding of the spinal injuries unit at Stoke Mandeville hospital. He is pledged to raise £10 million and has so far achieved more than half of that ambitious target. Work is already advanced on site and the unit is due to be completed in 1983. Of course, Jimmy Savile's is a national appeal, but it is an example of what is possible when the public's imagination is caught. There are very many smaller and more local efforts throughout the country which I believe deserve praise and which can again only be in the interests of the patient.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

elbows said:


> 1981, Big Society
> 
> http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...nal-health-service#S6CV0012P0_19811106_HOC_22


 

I think the message to take from all this is clear.
Resist all celebrity causes and appeals - tax rich people.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

1988:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...nders-treatment-1#S5LV0501P0_19881107_HOL_188



> *The Earl of Dundee*
> I should like briefly to refer again to Broadmoor, about which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has spoken. The activities of the Broadmoor Hospital Board were suspended during August and the operational management of the hospital is in the hands of a specially formulated task force whose best known member is Dr. Jimmy Savile. Dr. Savile has been involved with the work of Broadmoor Hospital for many years and is now devoting his considerable talents to ensuring that the hospital functions smoothly during this difficult interim period before the new special health authority comes into being.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 13, 2012)

The Conservative Party. Pimping the NHS to nonces at every opportunity.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

1987:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...-health-service-1#S5LV0486P0_19870401_HOL_188


> *Baroness Masham of Ilton* One of the frustrations for some staff working within the hospital service is outdated and inadequate equipment. I have had letters about a three-year-old child who is on a ventilator. The correct ventilator was not available. Her parents were devastated with worry. Voluntary contributions to hospitals are most important, but it seems that every health district needs a Jimmy Savile, who has a gift for fund raising.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

1990:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...ice-and-community#S6CV0169P0_19900315_HOC_408



> *Mr. Morris* It cannot be right that the House has to keep producing early-day motions to save the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital for women or the Mount Vernon skin graft hospital. It cannot be right to have Jimmy Savile charging round the country trying to save Stoke Mandeville hospital. Just down the road from here we have the world's leading hospital, the Maudsley, yet there too there are cuts. That is a crazy way to go on. I hope that all that will be considered in another place.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 13, 2012)

You know how when people die and and others say 'We shan't see his like again'


In Saviles case I really hope that is true.


----------



## cesare (Oct 13, 2012)

sihhi said:


> I think the message to take from all this is clear.
> Resist all celebrity causes and appeals - tax rich people.


The message is clearer: do not outsource NHS to the likes of Savile.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

Clip of him being interviewed about the Broadmoor role in 1988:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19938022


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

Google books is great for digging. On bus now but earlier from "jimmy savile Thatcher" got quote that around time of Falklands she was "only listening to jimmy savile" and some Tory advisor. Suggested he was councilling her but not sure if serious.


----------



## where to (Oct 13, 2012)

cesare said:
			
		

> The message is clearer: do not outsource NHS to the likes of Savile.



The big society is a paedophiles charter.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

where to said:


> Google books is great for digging. On bus now but earlier from "jimmy savile Thatcher" got quote that around time of Falklands she was "only listening to jimmy savile" and some Tory advisor. Suggested he was councilling her but not sure if serious.


All bollocks, the mail i think it was looked into all these claims and publicly called him a total liar - the 11 consecutive xmas at chequers etc. I'll find the link in a sec.

edit: found it.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

cesare said:


> The message is clearer: do not outsource NHS to the likes of Savile.


 

Yes that aswell, and he was wider than the NHS:- many primary schools, respite and social services for the disabled via the charity PHAB, social services for orphaned children at Haut de La Garenne, also did fundraising for the British Forces Foundation doing specials on the HMS Ark Royal of all places. It seems like he covered all bases. Institutional charity should be attacked as a whole.


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 13, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> It's one of the areas of human endeavour where britain is still world class


Britain and Ireland surely.


----------



## cesare (Oct 13, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Yes that aswell, and he was wider than the NHS:- many primary schools, respite and social services for the disabled via the charity PHAB, social services for orphaned children at Haut de La Garenne, also did fundraising for the British Forces Foundation doing specials on the HMS Ark Royal of all places. It seems like he covered all bases. Institutional charity should be attacked as a whole.


Yeah, not disagreeing  I've just made too many posts on lost threads to be contributing more than one-liners till this one gets trashed too


----------



## dylans (Oct 13, 2012)

elbows said:


> 1988:
> 
> http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...nders-treatment-1#S5LV0501P0_19881107_HOL_188


 
Excellent bit of investigation there elbows. I was thinking you should send that stuff to a journo


----------



## peterkro (Oct 13, 2012)

Yes thanks elbows,I'd probably lose the will to live before I started looking up Hansard.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

sihhi said:


> Yes that aswell, and he was wider than the NHS:- many primary schools, respite and social services for the disabled via the charity PHAB, social services for orphaned children at Haut de La Garenne, also did fundraising for the British Forces Foundation doing specials on the HMS Ark Royal of all places. It seems like he covered all bases. Institutional charity should be attacked as a whole.


Don't forget the cruise liner stuff  - QE2 had special rooms for him.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

I would hope that if any journalist is looking for that angle on the story they will find the stuff themselves, searching Hansard didnt take much imagination. 

As for the Broadmore & department of health stuff, its unhelpful that Clifford Graham looks to have died in 1994.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-clifford-graham-1384051.html


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Don't forget the cruise liner stuff - QE2 had special rooms for him.


 
Wonder why this captain who chucked him off the SS Canberra doesn't want to be named.  Surely it'd be easy to find out who he was 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-thrown-off-cruise-ship-1376532


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 13, 2012)

Earl of Dundee, _Hansard_, 1988:



> I should like briefly to refer again to Broadmoor, about which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has spoken. The activities of the Broadmoor Hospital Board were suspended during August and the operational management of the hospital is in the hands of a specially formulated task force whose best known member is *Dr. Jimmy Savile*. Dr. Savile has been involved with the work of Broadmoor Hospital for many years and is now devoting his considerable talents to ensuring that the hospital functions smoothly during this difficult interim period before the new special health authority comes into being.
> 
> On a more general point, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, mentioned the working party of *the Matthew Trust*. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Home and Health Departments will of course be happy to look at the Matthew Trust proposals if such proposals are sent to them.


 
Not sure where that doctorate's come from.

Curiously enough, Franey was a director of the Matthew Trust for just over a year, between 1999 and 2000.

Description on Companies House via Duedil:


> The promotion of the spiritual, mental, education and material well-being of persons who are needed by socially maladjusted or mentally distressed, in particular, but not exclusively, patients and discharege patients of special hospital or the victems of aggression. A registered charity, limited by guarantee. T/O = Total incoming resources.


 
From the sound of its website, it does very useful work in helping support people.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

Ah Im glad you mention the Matthew Trust, because I've been looking at another line of enquiry that leads back to that.

There was an up and coming potential Tory candidate who had a breakdown and attacked some hitchhiking girls with a knife, and ended up in Broadmoor for some years in the 1960s. I only found out about him because he wrote some books about his experiences, and mentions Savile in one of them. I can only see a snippet of it but it sounds like he was on the Speakeasy program with Savile hosting, and off-air Savile advised him to give up voluntary work.

Anyway he is the bloke who setup the Matthew Trust after he was released from Broadmoor.

His name is Peter Thompson. Here is the Savile snippet from his book:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cdRrAAAAMAAJ&q=back from broadmoor savile&dq=back from broadmoor savile&source=bl&ots=euXleU7m2t&sig=cPrSYyrCvck21Sd0gX4hkNMAhAM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t655ULG5Haii0QWn0ICQCQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

Here is a Catholic Herald review of his book:

http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/19th-may-1972/6/the-peter-thompson-case

Here is lengthy background on Thompson in a 1997 article. Oh look another link to a name that came up earlier in this thread:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/out-of-the-depths-of-despair-1243992.html



> After famously pleading in defence of a man who had stolen pounds 100 from him in 1958, he had led, with the help of Lord Longford, an influential public inquiry into the rehabilitation of offenders. The initiative led to major changes in the treatment of ex-offenders.


 
Here is an article from 2000 about Franey ending up on the board with Thompson:

http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/the-odd-c...going-to-get-rid-of-this-bugger/25880.article



> The pair met in 1989, shortly after Mr Franey joined the hospital as general manager and came across Mr Thompson, the founder of mental health charity the Matthew Trust.
> Mr Franey learned quickly. I realised we were not going to get rid of this bugger, so I thought we had better make friends with him.
> Now that friendship has come full circle - with the former chief executives appointment last year to the charity's board of trustees.


----------



## sihhi (Oct 13, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Earl of Dundee, _Hansard_, 1988:
> 
> Not sure where that doctorate's come from.


 
Honorary Doctorates. Jeremy Clarkson has one from Oxford Brookes University.

I think that's the one from Leeds University. He received another from Bedford University later.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 13, 2012)

I see that Savile was a director of Outward Bound Global between 1991-1995. A whole bunch of other directors from the same period seemed to drop out in 1995 as well, before being replaced with some token royals, explorers etc.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

I should note that I am not suggesting anything untoward about the people I have been researching. I am simply trying to build a picture of what sort of elite factions were taking an interest in mental health service reforms during periods that may relate to Broadmoor and Savile. There seems to be quite an overlap of recurring characters in places, but this in itself is not surprising or evidence of anything.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

Seeing as Longford came up again, lets revisit the report into porn he did in 1972 that had Savile on his committee.

http://www.alwynwturner.com/crisis/extracts08.html




> Amongst those who were included, and who stayed the course, were singer Cliff Richard and Radio One DJ Jimmy Savile, alongside more obvious suspects like Malcolm Muggeridge (he had spoken at VALA’s first convention, declaring that ‘if _Till Death Us Do Part_ is life, I cannot see that there would be anything to do but commit suicide’) and the Rt. Revd Ronald Ralph Williams, the Bishop of Leicester, whose response to a Ken Russell film was truly magnificent in its acceptance of the divine will: ‘I never thought that I should give thanks to God for being blind, but since my wife has told me what she has seen in the film,_The Devils_, I am genuinely grateful that I at least have been spared that.’
> 
> The high point of the exercise was undoubtedly a trip to Denmark to witness some of the famed live sex shows of that country, at one of which ‘a beautiful young woman pressed a whip into Lord Longford’s hand and invited him to beat her’. The _Guardian_ report of the incident added: ‘His Lordship declined.’ As he beat instead a hasty retreat, he told his colleague, the future Tory MP Gyles Brandreth, that he ‘had seen enough for science and more than enough for enjoyment’. In the circumstances, it was perhaps as well that he didn’t recognize that the ‘woman’ was in fact a transvestite.






> When the Longford report emerged in 1972, it was an immediate best-seller, largely because it was marketed as a fat paperback with the single word ‘Pornography’ in huge letters on the cover, and because it retailed at a very competitive 60p. Its contents, however, were disappointing in terms both of intellectual engagement with the subject (Bernard Levin dismissed it as ‘heated amateurism’) and of cheap thrills, though there were those who relished such passages as a lengthy account of sex and sadism in a boys’ boarding school: ‘Sometimes the prefects did a lot of the whipping; at other times they made the third-year boys do it as well, or the second-year boys whip the first years and the first years whip each other.’ The most succinct response to the entire enterprise came when the actor Robert Morley told Longford that ‘if somebody liked to dress up in chamois leather and be stung by wasps, I really couldn’t see why one should stop him’.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2012)

Fucking hell how did that nonce manage to worm his way into so many positions of power and authority? it beggars belief.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 13, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> You know how when people die and and others say 'We shan't see his like again'
> 
> 
> In Saviles case I really hope that is true.


 Or they broke the mould when they made Jimmy Saville,lets fucking hope so in this case.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

A look at all the inquiries there hae been into special hospitals, with quite a lot of detail about the SHSA 

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/mentalhealth/publications/discussion-papers/assets/mdp06.pdf



> Until 1989 all of the English special hospitals were run directly from Whitehall. This must have been comforting to ministers, but it meant that the hospitals did not have the advantages of professional management. Management styles lagged behind the rest of the NHS and were vulnerable to the more immediate political pressures of government.
> Even when the SHSA was created at arrns length from Whitehall, the new authority was still subject to civil service/ministerial whim.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

Back in the 90's it seems that Ashworth was the focus of several inquiries. Now that I've looked it up I vaguely remember some lively press reports at the time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fallon-inquiry-ashworth-run-by-inmates-not-staff-1046694.html



> A TELEPHONE call from Dirty Harry's bar in Amsterdam in September 1996 triggered the Ashworth inquiry that reported yesterday. On the line was Stephen Daggett, a convicted paedophile and Ashworth inmate who had absconded days earlier while on a shopping trip to Liverpool. What he had to say lifted the lid on one of the worst scandals to engulf the top- security mental hospital.​Daggett, 38, claimed the hospital was awash with pornographic literature and videos, that inmates had a ready supply of drugs and alcohol and, most damaging of all, that an eight-year-old girl had made regular visits and been allowed to play, in a garden next to a ward, with a patient convicted of sex offences against children.
> Daggett, who spent 12 years in Ashworth after being convicted of three indecent assaults against girls, promised to return to the hospital on one condition - that his claims would be investigated. He had absconded, he said, because it was the only way of drawing attention to a situation that had been ignored by the hospital authorities.​


 

​


> When Daggett, who had managed to withdraw pounds 1,500 from his building society account and then give his nurse the slip, was picked up in Canterbury and returned to Ashworth on 7 October, he set about producing an account of his claims entitled "My Concerns". The hospital authorities dismissed his version of events.​Only when Alice Mahon, the Labour MP whose constituents in Halifax include Daggett's parents, produced a 60-page dossier based on his account did ministers take notice.​


​​ 


> The history of the scandal-hit hospital had brought many to the view that it was beyond rescue, long before yesterday's recommendation by the Fallon inquiry that it should close. Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton, Britain's three top-security hospitals, have been criticised for more than a decade for being too big, too crowded and too isolated, professionally and geographically.
> Sir Louis Blom Cooper, the QC who chaired an inquiry into Ashworth in 1992 that uncovered evidence of a brutal, dehumanising regime, said yesterday the hospitals were "unmanageable" and the Government should have begun dismantling them years ago. He had found a penal, oppressive regime dominated by the Prison Officers' Association, to which most of the nurses belonged. Speaking on BBC radio, Sir Louis said: "They are much too big ... [and] they carry around the terrible legacy of the criminal lunatic asylum ... they never actually got rid of the idea that they were partly a prison."


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

More history lessons. 2003.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/mar/06/mentalhealth.uknews




> Union leaders today called for an independent inquiry into allegations of serious sexual abuse of female patients at one of the UK's high security psychiatric hospitals.
> Unison, Britain's largest health union, said that the director of women's services at Broadmoor hospital, Julia Wassell, was victimised after reporting serious allegations of rape, indecent assault and sexual harassment to senior managers.
> Ms Wassell later resigned from her job and has settled out of court for an undisclosed sum after making a constructive dismissal claim, said the union.
> The general secretary of Unison, Dave Prentis, said: "It is hard to listen to the details of this case and not be shocked.
> "Shocked by the attitude of managers to the women in their care and shocked at the treatment meted out to Julia for raising her concerns.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

Alan Franey is CEO of Barndoc, which gets mentioned in this Telegraph story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7101812/One-out-of-hours-GP-for-650000-people.html




> In the Telegraph investigation, BarnDoc Healthcare, a doctor’s co-operative covering the London boroughs of Barnet and Enfield, provided the most sparse out-of-hours cover with one GP available overnight for 650,000 people. A nurse and a call handler are also available.
> Alan Franey, chief executive of Barndoc, said he did not have any concerns.
> “We have nurses on duty overnight who deal with quite a number of the queries that come in. But the number of home visits range from about one to six, so it's not as if there's a huge number of visits overnight,” he said.
> A spokesman for NHS Enfield and NHS Barnet which pays BarnDoc said: “NHS Enfield and NHS Barnet recognise the importance of providing high quality out of hours primary care services to our patients.
> "BarnDoc had an 87 per cent satisfaction rating from a survey in 2008 and the service regularly has positive feedback from patients. The number of nurse practitioners and GPs on duty reflects the demand for the service. Robust plans are in place to ensure that if the demand increases, such as during the recent flu pandemic, BarnDoc can immediately increase the number of GPs on duty.”


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/spencer-rebuffed-in-euro-court-over-press-intrusion-457454.html



> Meanwhile, the former head of Britain's top security Broadmoor Hospital has applied to run the trust fund set up in memory of Diana.
> Alan Franey (50) believes he is the right man to head up the fund because of his expertise and his close links with Diana who was a frequent visitor to the special hospital which houses some of Britain's most dangerous criminals. His departure from the £60,000-a-year post followed the completion of the Donovan Report, which examined allegations that pornographic videos were being circulated in the hospital and that patients wielded too much power.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 13, 2012)

Bloody hell. Seems he was at it at Broadmoor, too. R4 just now.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2012)




----------



## weltweit (Oct 13, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> Bloody hell. Seems he was at it at Broadmoor, too. R4 just now.


Yep, and the police now have 300 lines of enquiry.. he was prolific that is for sure..


----------



## weltweit (Oct 13, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Yep, and the police now have 300 lines of enquiry.. he was prolific that is for sure..


No, I was wrong,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-officers-repeatedly-failed-sex-victims.html
the police now have 60 likely victims and 340 lines of enquiry.
While the NSPCC has received more than 100 complaints.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 13, 2012)

The above is an extremely weird film directed and presented by someone called Bill Maloney who bears an uncanny resemblance to Super Hans from Peep Show. 

The film is rambling,incoherent and often (IMO) irrational but includes interesting footage and clips, including footage of Lenny Harper making an official announcement that underground cellars, shackles, and human remains had been discovered at at Haut de la Garenne, giving credence to the allegations of alleged victims that children were tortured and murdered there. 

Maloney claims that children were sacrificed and buried at Haut de la Garenne, although no evidence was ever found to substantiate claims of ritual abuse and child sacrifice.     The footage of Harper is included to support Maloney's claims about child sacrifices even though Harper's claims about the "discoveries" were later completely discredited.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             A BBC November 2008 news report states that:



[QUOTE]Earlier on Wednesday, Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, had said there was no evidence that any children had been murdered or bodies destroyed at the former home.
He expressed "much regret" at "misleading" information released by his predecessor, Lenny Harper.
But Mr Harper later said Mr Warcup's statement was a "blatant misrepresentation" of his statements.
At a press conference, Detective Superintendent Michael Gradwell had discredited a number of Mr Harper's claims.
• After being examined by British Museum experts, a fragment thought to have been from a skull turned out to be a piece of Victorian coconut shell.
• "Shackles" found in rubble were simply "a rusty piece of metal", with no evidence to suggest it had been used for anything suspicious.
• There was no blood in the cellar, and a bath said to have had blood in had not been used since 1920.
• The "secret underground chambers" were just holes in the floor, "not dungeons or cellars".
• Most of the 170 pieces of bone found in the search came from animals. Three were human and two of these dated from between 1470-1670 and 1650-1950 respectively.
Mr Warcup added: "It's very unfortunate and I very much regret that information was put into the public domain by the States of Jersey police about certain finds at Haut de la Garenne, which was not strictly accurate."
[/QUOTE]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7724622.stm
There may be other interesting snippets in the video, watched half of it and needed a break but am including it here in case any one else wants to check it out. 
Incidentally there are plenty of claims on conspiraloon sites that Jimmy Savile was a Satanist and part of an elite Illuminati / Masonic paedophile ring.  
I mention this not because I believe that Savile really was a Satanist.  I am extremely sceptical about conspiracy theories relating to Satanic Ritual Abuse.  I mention it simply because I believe that the plethora of websites accusing Savile of being a Satanist / Freemason ritual abuser of children may have cast a smoke screen over his real perverted activities.  
​I can't seem to change the size of the fonts here, so apologies for the weird different sizes. ​


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

Seeing as the subject of conspiracy theorists making claims about elites and child sex rings comes up, a rather busy example for this century appears to be Hollie Greig. Search results are numerous, reliable sources few. Rather than make any attempt to describe the stories, I'll just jump to the current chapter and a report about it from a mainstream publication.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/dame-elish-in-court-bid-to-stop-web-harassment.17832326




> Dame Elish sought court protection against Robert Green, a self-styled "investigator" jailed earlier this year for naming prominent Scots as child rapists.
> She is using laws she championed for the victims of harassment and aims to bar Green from approaching or contacting her in any way.
> Her action is the latest result of a series of unsubstantiated child sex abuse allegations made by Hollie Greig, a young Aberdeen women with Down's Syndrome, more than a decade ago.
> Dame Elish is understood to hope a non-harassment order would prevent Green, who acts as Ms Greig's "lay legal adviser", using the internet to claim she covered up for a paedophile ring said to include a sheriff, a senior police officer and other prominent Aberdonians.


Im not going to post stuff from any of the 18 gazillion conspiracy theorist or campaign support sites, including David Icke, they arent hard to find. Plenty that smells in the usual manner from that side but I also found that some of the blogs attacking the campaign and Green are rather crude with their hatchet jobs, even if such jobs are well deserved. Its a right mess where any truth is hard to determine due to the circus that ensued once the goofballs got their hands on it. The mess is precisely why I brought it up now though, to provide examples of further pitfalls that happen when people try to talk about this stuff in the absence of prosecutions. Lack of corroboration in this case is probably what makes it hard to do anything useful with it on any level, not helped by the states standard inability to act in a manner that inspires total confidence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2012)

where to said:


> The big society is a paedophiles charter.


 
Private welfare, as in the Victorian era, was always a charter for one form of exploitation or another.


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

The Mail have managed to come up with more Broadmoor details

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oor-protected-patients.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

​


> Jimmy Savile chaired a ‘task force’ set up by the Department of Health in 1988 to investigate concerns over the way Broadmoor Hospital patients were treated by staff.​But staff claim that before his appointment Savile had taken teenage girls plucked from Top Of The Pops shows to the hospital, where he was a volunteer.​Savile’s official title was Broadmoor’s honorary entertainments manager but staff say he stalked the corridors of the high-security mental hospital in Berkshire with swaggering impunity.​In the early Seventies, he liked to frequent the staff social club, housed in a drab single-storey brick building.​Bizarrely, among his guests one night were two members of the dance troupe Pan’s People. ‘It can’t have been the most glamorous watering hole they’d visited,’ a former Broadmoor nurse said. ‘Jimmy had the run of the place, he did as he pleased.’​Against this background, rumours about the entertainer circulated among staff. One souce said he took ‘trusted’ patients out for day trips in his Rolls-Royce and spoke of his sexual fascination with dead bodies. The source, a daughter of a principal nursing officer, told The Mail on Sunday he ‘liked to have his way’ with young females visiting their relatives. Standing at the main gate ‘in his swimming trunks, gold chain and sunglasses’, he would entice the ‘poor dears’ with the promise of a cup of tea in his caravan.​





> A senior member of the Prison Officers Association said: ‘Savile had the run of the place. He would walk into the most secure areas containing the most dangerous patients in the UK. He was told these men and women were dangerous, but he just laughed it off and did his own thing.​‘He had friends in high places in Broadmoor and they swept concerns about him under the carpet.’​





> Alan Franey who was appointed chief executive of the high-security mental hospital in 1989, said the committee that Savile headed ‘was set up to review the way patients were being looked after’. He went on: ‘It was partly in response to a report advising that staff had been treating patients inappropriately, though not sexually.


​​


----------



## Geri (Oct 13, 2012)

Don't know if this has been posted already - Jerry Sadowitz in 1987


----------



## elbows (Oct 13, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Yep, and the police now have 300 lines of enquiry.. he was prolific that is for sure..


 
6 decades, 60 victims is the latest grim stat. 

http://news.sky.com/story/997385/jimmy-savile-abuse-spans-six-decades



> Commander Peter Spindler, who leads the MPS Specialist Crime Investigations branch, said: "We can now confirm that we have received information from the public that suggests allegations against Jimmy Savile span six decades with reports starting in 1959 up to and including 2006.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 13, 2012)

elbows said:


> Its a right mess where any truth is hard to determine due to the circus that ensued once the goofballs got their hands on it. The mess is precisely why I brought it up now though, to provide examples of further pitfalls that happen when people try to talk about this stuff in the absence of prosecutions. Lack of corroboration in this case is probably what makes it hard to do anything useful with it on any level, not helped by the states standard inability to act in a manner that inspires total confidence.


 
agree 100%

I think that my concerns re the conspiracy theory sites and the claims of satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) are as follows:

Firstly the only organisation recommended at the end of the ITV expose of Savile was the National Association of People Abused in Childhood (NACAP). Peter Saunders, the CEO and founder of the NAPAC possesses an apparently unshakable belief in the validity of recovered memories of ritual abuse, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

His reply to a rationalist Grauniad article exploring the perils of believing false memories is as follows 



> I cannot understand why so many column inches are given to people who choose to attack survivors of child abuse and deny their experiences of a traumatic childhood. This 'false memory' nonsense is such a nonsense and yet the so-called quality press insist on giving abusers, abuse deniers and their supporters so much space. Our charity hears from thousands of people who suffered childhood abuse and when they are subjected to this dangerous tripe written by Professor This or Doctor That it is no wonder they are driven to despair. But these so-called academics are indeed doing all abusers a huge favour. They are effectively silencing victims for fear of attracting ridicule.....but then I suppose that is what they have set out to do. And it's what abusers do. They silence their child victims with cunning, intimidation and threats (mostly a combination of all three) and now they can rely on certain dangerous elements within the abuse denying community to carry on the job.





> Child abuse is a crime against humanity. There is none worse. That we give this small community a very loud voice is depressing, not to mention thoroughly dangerous for current and future generations of children.
> Peter Saunders. Chief Executive. National Association for People Abused in Childhood. www.napac.org.uk. London.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/mar/10/women-victims-childhood-sexual-abuse

So basically it concerns me that distressed, vulnerable people who have been sexually abused by Savile or some other predator are being recommended to contact an organisation that, in its newletters and website ridicules the idea of false memory and promotes the myth of widespread Satanic ritual abuse.  

When I contacted NAPAC some time ago to request the information they claim to have re the existence of ritual abuse they were unable to provide anything and merely claimed that their therapists treat countless people who all have been abused by Satanists and that the only proof needed was the testimonies of the "victims".  When I asked why there was no corroborating evidence the woman I spoke to claimed that it was because corrupt police covered everything up and if ever a newspaper tries to cover the story they get a D notice and cannot publish.  She has an answer for everything and was angry with me for not accepting that victim "memories" gained in therapy were proof of Satanic atrocities.  

Given that the situation with Savile and his accomplices is extremely real and serious; given that there are zillions of bonkers conspiracy theories about Savile's alleged involvement with Satanists / Masons and clandestine, elite networks of child abusers; given that human memories are malleable and that people are highly vulnerable to suggestions from therapists, I am incredibly concerned about the implications of Savile's victims being referred to an organisation that may harm them rather than help them.  

The awful truth is that Savile may have very well been involved in all kinds of organised criminal activities. From what I have heard over the last week or so nothing would surprise me.  It is entirely possible that he was involved in some kind of elite ring of child abusers.  

These very important and highly complex and delicate issues need to be investigated by the police.  Savile's victims need to be supported by counsellors and therapists who will help them to start to recover from their ordeals.  To refer victims to an organisation where therapists recover memories of ritual abuse is an extremely bad idea IMO.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 14, 2012)

I wonder what Jimmy Savile's enhanced CRB check would have looked like?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2012)

It would have been fine


----------



## weltweit (Oct 14, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> It would have been fine


But he was investigated by police about 6 times, that is the sort of soft information that is supposed (at least that is what I was lead to believe) to be included in the enhanced CRB check.


----------



## miktheword (Oct 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> But he was investigated by police about 6 times, that is the sort of soft information that is supposed (at least that is what I was lead to believe) to be included in the enhanced CRB check.


 

enhanced CRB...for education sector anyway,not subject to rehab of offenders act '74,  with private agency, employee pays, gets a copy, but employer may also get what is known as 'brown envelope' in some circumstances, where police deem there is other information, i.e. not convictions, to cause concern. employe is not privy to this info.

obviously a license for OB to obstruct those they dislike or can't convict as well as highlighting legitimate concerns to potential employer. (and an excuse for the private agency to ask for employee to pay for their own crb, despite supposed portability).

bigger picture is of course, the willingness of the powers that be to deny access when person checked upon has stuff on the powers themselves.
 (memory hazy, but did some local  OB frequenting the Wests' house for brasses become a possible factor in this sense?)


----------



## where to (Oct 14, 2012)

elbows said:
			
		

> The Mail have managed to come up with more Broadmoor details
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oor-protected-patients.html?ito=feeds-newsxml



The Kaye book I mentioned earlier talks at length about difficulties between broadmore management andthe POA. Was this issue at the heart of that?  Kaye gives no indication to that effect, but then he wouldn't


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 14, 2012)

Check out stuff on eBay , stuff selling for decent money WTF


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 14, 2012)

This was posted in another thread today -- apologies if the link has already been posted on this one.

This Guardian interview with Savile, back in 2000 (by Simon Hattenstone) is pretty bloody revealing!  At least in retrospect ...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

Mice Smash had him figured out years ago.  0.36.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 14, 2012)

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/07/jimmy-savile’s-obituaries-mentioned-his-charity-work-but-why-the-conspiracy-of-silence-about-his-faith/
Bet he'd welcome a conspiracy of silence regarding Sir Noncealot's faith right now.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Check out stuff on eBay , stuff selling for decent money WTF


 
There always has been a significant market in criminal memorabilia. Some dealers specialise in serial killer memorabilia and artwork. Jimmy Savile was no ordinary criminal, he will go down in history as a notorious monster and any items associated with him may be of value.

I looked on ebay and it seems that scarce books, especially if signed by JS, are attracting interest and original Jim'll Fix It badges are selling for £100+. Anything written by Savile and scare will be of interest to criminologists and researchers.

Anything without provenance is unlikely to be of interest to buyers which is why lots of JS fancy dress costumes have been re-branded as "chav" costumes.

I imagine that this item 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/JIMMY-SAV...ollectables_Memorabila_RL&hash=item53ef3fa5be

will appeal to collectors for various reasons.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2012)

The Big Society: Dave'll fix it.


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/07/jimmy-savile’s-obituaries-mentioned-his-charity-work-but-why-the-conspiracy-of-silence-about-his-faith/
> Bet he'd welcome a conspiracy of silence regarding Sir Noncealot's faith right now.





> I love that remark to a Broadmoor patient: “what do you want to go round strangling crumpet for?”; there’s a touch of genius in that — *also a reflection of the invulnerability of the truly innocent man,* so much and so obviously on the side of everyone he talked to that he could only stay safe in any company.


 
Oh the irony


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 14, 2012)

Sure this has been mentioned before, but this is a company in need of a rebrand.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 14, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/07/jimmy-savile’s-obituaries-mentioned-his-charity-work-but-why-the-conspiracy-of-silence-about-his-faith/
> Bet he'd welcome a conspiracy of silence regarding Sir Noncealot's faith right now.





> As I say, the English quality papers say nothing about Jimmy Savile’s faith either. But they must have _known_ about it. Is it too much to call this a “conspiracy of silence”? It must, at the very least, be a sign of the underlying almost instinctive hostility in England to the notion that anything good could come from a life whose foundation is the Catholic religion. I fear we still have a long way to go. Ah well; A Luta Continua.


catholic comedy gold


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 14, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Sure this has been mentioned before, but this is a company in need of a rebrand.


 
Apparantly the boss of that company said in a recent interview in Construction News (or similar trade paper) that he wasn't going to rename. ("My name's Jim. I'm in concrete" ).

Not sure if that'll change though ...


----------



## Ranu (Oct 14, 2012)

He'll change it as soon as he notices his business start to slide.


----------



## albionism (Oct 14, 2012)

I don't think his business will slide at all..We Brits are a strange, morbid bunch of fuckers.
I bet business is booming for " Jim'll Mix It".


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2012)

did they mix the concrete for his coffins anti-desecration shield that the canny fiddler had installed?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 14, 2012)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> did they mix the concrete for his coffins anti-desecration shield that the canny fiddler had installed?



Jim'll Mixit. 

Securely burying paedophiles since <enter year>


----------



## treelover (Oct 14, 2012)

I wonder if one day after many more people have committed suicide after the brutal ATOS tests or after years of being harassed by private training companies, living without any money, will people say, ''we didn't know'' ''it was all rumour''


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

treelover said:


> I wonder if one day after many more people have committed suicide after the brutal ATOS tests or after years of being harassed by private training companies, living without any money, will people say, ''we didn't know'' ''it was all rumour''


 
They'll blame the newspapers for not publicising it and the Government for keeping schtum about it and they'll all say they didn't have enough evidence


----------



## treelover (Oct 14, 2012)

it will one day be a scandal, more than that, too late for many though...


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 14, 2012)

I was just thinking today about the issue of who knew and yet did not speak up. 

I'm thinking about this as someone who has tried to report dangerous predators to the police and / or the NSPCC at various times but who has sometimes received a response that there is nothing that can be done. 

In order to start an investigation the police need to have evidence, that is to say that you need to be able to tell them that I saw X person doing X inappropriate act with X child on such and such a date. 

You can tell them that X person has convictions for indecent assault and offenses relating to, say, pimping, you can show them a photo in a recent newspaper photo that shows X person working with under age teenage girls at such and such a place on such and such a date and the response will be something like "so you didn't actually see him doing anything to a child? If not sorry but there's nothing we can do".

Similarly you cannot go to the police and say "There are loads of rumours about Dr Sidney Bloggs and everyone says he's a paedophile, all the nurses try to hide the kids when he's on the wards and everyone is scared of him" and expect them to do anything.  

It seems very likely that in JS's case that there were some complicit / corrupt cops involved in cover-ups but I think it may also be possible that other cops had serious concerns about JS but were not able to take action as they had insufficient evidence at the time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 14, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Jim'll Mixit.
> 
> Securely burying paedophiles since <enter year>


 
Or, if this were a novel, securely disposing of the victims of paedophiles since <enter year>!!!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or, if this were a novel, securely disposing of the victims of paedophiles since <enter year>!!!


 
It depends if it was a Paul Auster novel he would have been ringing his hands about his inability to write about the victims while following an eccentric character with mad white hair and colourful tracksuit around his iconic hometown before eventually dicovering the white hair is a wig and it's actually himself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 14, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> I was just thinking today about the issue of who knew and yet did not speak up.
> 
> I'm thinking about this as someone who has tried to report dangerous predators to the police and / or the NSPCC at various times but who has sometimes received a response that there is nothing that can be done.
> 
> ...


 
Add to that, the unfortunate fact that for at least the last 30 years we've had a criminal justice culture that uses economic measures as part of how they gauge whether to prosecute a case ("what's the chance of conviction? How long will it go on/how much will it cost us if they plead 'not guilty' "), and (as always) the weakest are the unlikeliest to see justice, and the strong are less likely to be subjected to legal proceedings.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 14, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It depends if it was a Paul Auster novel he would have been ringing his hands about his inability to write about the victims while following an eccentric character with mad white hair and colourful tracksuit around his iconic hometown before eventually dicovering the white hair is a wig and it's actually himself.


 
I'm not a fan of Paul Auster. I tried reading the New York trilogy, but it was like wading through a swamp of self-indulgence and cod-metaphysical waffle.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not a fan of Paul Auster. I tried reading the New York trilogy, but it was like wading through a swamp of self-indulgence and cod-metaphysical waffle.


 
I agree but imagine if he wrote the Jimmy Saville trilogy


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 14, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I agree but imagine if he wrote the Jimmy Saville trilogy


 
It's be a literary masterpiece of the type that everyone owns, but nobody can read.
And that would be a *good* thing.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Oct 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not a fan of Paul Auster. I tried reading the New York trilogy, but it was like wading through a swamp of self-indulgence and cod-metaphysical waffle.


Was given that, it belongs to the very few books I never finished.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 14, 2012)

Maltin said:


> The horror


 
Yes, but it was individually wrapped in clingfilm.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 14, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I agree but imagine if he wrote the Jimmy Saville trilogy



It often feels like David Peace is writing this at the moment.


----------



## elbows (Oct 14, 2012)

lagtbd said:


> It often feels like David Peace is writing this at the moment.


 
Writing alone wouldnt do it justice, need visuals. Speaking of which the mirror are having a field day.






http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-molested-teen-moments-1378390


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 14, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> Was given that, it belongs to the very few books I never finished.


 
I've heard the same from many people!


----------



## articul8 (Oct 14, 2012)

passed a newsagents today - one paper (may have been Sunday Sport) had the headline "Saville had sex with dead bodies"??!!


----------



## paolo (Oct 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> passed a newsagents today - one paper (may have been Sunday Sport) had the headline "Saville had sex with dead bodies"??!!


 
That one was such common currency it was almost fact.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> passed a newsagents today - one paper (may have been Sunday Sport) had the headline "Saville had sex with dead bodies"??!!


 

the necro rumours are old


----------



## where to (Oct 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> All bollocks, the mail i think it was looked into all these claims and publicly called him a total liar - the 11 consecutive xmas at chequers etc. I'll find the link in a sec.
> 
> edit: found it.


 
he seems to have spent 1988 new year at Chequers, see first two results:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jimmy savile chequers&btnG=Search Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1

here's more on that Auberon Waugh diary i mentioned to before, which says that at the time of the Falklands War, Thatcher only listened to Jimmy Savile and Tory advisor Ferdinand Mount:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Vdui7_3_I84C&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=jimmy savile thatcher&source=bl&ots=bIrSXB2QwJ&sig=phBEJyCPgHZRhBVq0DtuAUV_tic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Yfd6UOdKopXRBf3igYAD&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=jimmy savile thatcher&f=false

then theres the last result at the following link, from the Private Eye:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jimmy savile chequers&btnG=Search Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=jimmy savile thatcher&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=1&tbm=bks&psj=1&ei=Yfd6UOdKopXRBf3igYAD&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7a824d630652c000&bpcl=35277026&biw=1440&bih=777

which says "THE latest brainwave to come from the _Thatcher_-Mount-_Jimmy Savile_ junta is for a wage of £15 a week to be paid to children in state schools so that they will stay there after the age of 16. An extra couple of years will qualify them better for a *..."*

its hard to know if the last two are humour or not though. Auberon Waugh wrote for Private Eye at this time so both may be from the same single source (Waugh).

Thatcher also appeared on Jim'll fix it at least twice, and Savile performed in a party political broadcast for the Tories in 1974, although obviously neither point in itself is especially significant.

edit for accuracy: Waugh wrote for Private Eye, wasn't editor.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 14, 2012)

The stuff about Thatch only listening to Saville sounds a bit like PR, to be honest. She was not that au fait with the popular media, IIRC. On being told that a joke in one of her speeches was taken from Monty Python (and she never understood any of the jokes her speechwriters gave her) she said "and this Monty Python, is he one of us".


----------



## elbows (Oct 14, 2012)

Just to make a few final points about that Charles Kaye book.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...7xIG4AQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kaye makes a point of saying he was on holiday when the interview panel for the Broadmoor job did their work:



> An interviewing panel was set up for Broadmoor Hospital where Alan Franey, the administrator with a task-force was appointed, at a time when I was away and couldn't attend.


 (end of page 32)

Franey himself appears to have been appointed twice - first as a six-week secondment as part of a task-force (which I assume lasted far more than 6 weeks), and then later as general manager once the SHSA was in place.



> Having spent my entire career in the NHS working at hspitals in Brighton, London and Leeds I found the thought of working within Broadmoor somewhat daunting, never having thought of it previously. I had an unusual meeting in the Athenaeum Club in London with some officials who shall remain nameless and I was persuaded that a move to Broadmoor Hospital would be a good career step.
> 
> In October 1988 I arrived on the back of a very highly critical Health Advisory Service report which described the hospital as 'an inward looking institution with some very doubtful methods of dealing with disturbed behaviour', and the message was clear: 'change it or close it'. There were over 200 recommendations; I had the daunting task of drawing up an action plan and the then Minister, Edwina Currie, thought this could be achieved in six weeks. It was some six months later that I discovered that the then government intended to set up the Special Hospitals Service Authority, and introduce into the three special hospitals general management which had been in place in the NHS since the early 1980s. I applied for the post, was successful and started my role a general manager at Broadmoor Hospital in the summer of 1989.


 (page 34 and 35)


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 14, 2012)

How long before Westminister council's forced to change the name


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 14, 2012)

whereto : just a minor point really, but Auberon Waugh was never the _editor_ of Private Eye, of that I'm almost sure.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 14, 2012)

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/more-...-why-did-bbc-fail-air-newsnight-investigation
According to this article   6 national newspapers were approached with allegations about Savile's  sex-abuse,all turned them down only for the Oldie to publish it back in March without raising much interest.


----------



## where to (Oct 14, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> whereto : just a minor point really, but Auberon Waugh was never the _editor_ of Private Eye, of that I'm almost sure.


 
quite correct - he left when Hislop took over editorship, but had not been editor, just Diary writer. hadn't heard of the guy until yesterday.  will edit post accordingly, cheers.


----------



## elbows (Oct 14, 2012)




----------



## laptop (Oct 14, 2012)

elbows said:


> I would hope that if any journalist is looking for that angle on the story they will find the stuff themselves, searching Hansard didn't take much imagination.


 
But:


do they have time? and
do they know how to do a decent search?
Find someone who's following closely and forward: let them know you want a "tip fee"


----------



## Dock (Oct 14, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> This was posted in another thread today -- apologies if the link has already been posted on this one.
> 
> This Guardian interview with Savile, back in 2000 (by Simon Hattenstone) is pretty bloody revealing!  At least in retrospect ...


 
I think that interview is regarding a Louis Theroux documentary on Savile that I was just watching on YouTube 

Seems the Guardian writer may have missed a point - the biscuit sat on the shelf in the fridge, wrapped in clingfilm, wasn't really evidence of Savile leading a spartan existance. From 2.44 Savile himself says it's "special" and is "for a party". So what's special about the biscuit, you have to wonder?

Later, from about 11.40, Savile's friend, who says he's invited wherever Savile is invited, turns up. He's apparently called Jim the Pill. Savile claims he used to be a chemist and that's the reason for the nickname.

I think Theroux might have thought they were homosexual partners - when they say they visit the captain's quarters on their cruise ship trips, he jokingly asks is it at night. But he may not have known that on a cruise years ago Savile was apparently confined to quarters and then ejected after the parents of a 14 year old girl complained to the captain that he had attacked her...


----------



## treelover (Oct 14, 2012)

> which says "THE latest brainwave to come from the _Thatcher_-Mount-_Jimmy Savile_ junta is for a wage of £15 a week to be paid to children in state schools so that they will stay there after the age of 16. An extra couple of years will qualify them better for a *..."*


 
and which came came to fruition with N/L's EMA, now sadly gone..


----------



## treelover (Oct 14, 2012)




----------



## Gingerman (Oct 15, 2012)

http://uk.autoblog.com/2012/01/16/j...over-caravan-for-sale/?a_dgi=aolshare_twitter
Wonder if anybody bought this piece of shit,bet if they did they'd be making a quiet trip down to the local car crusher.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 15, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://uk.autoblog.com/2012/01/16/j...over-caravan-for-sale/?a_dgi=aolshare_twitter
> Wonder if anybody bought this piece of shit,bet if they did,they'd be making a quiet trip down to the local car crusher.


http://uk.autoblog.com/2012/10/04/when-having-a-former-celebrity-isnt-good-news-when-selling-a-ca/
Ah right no-one bought it,back on sale again.....with no mention of the Savile connection .


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 15, 2012)

Who will play JS when the film  / TV series is made?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2012)

Grayson Perry


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 15, 2012)

Geoffrey from Rainbow.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2012)

I made the mistake of looking at a thread on David Icke's forum. Wow! There's some outrageous allegations and claims.
I'd normally repeat them here cos they are too ridiculous to take seriously, but better not at this sensitive time.


----------



## elbows (Oct 15, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> Who will play JS when the film / TV series is made?


----------



## chazegee (Oct 15, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I made the mistake of looking at a thread on David Icke's forum. Wow! There's some outrageous allegations and claims.
> I'd normally repeat them here cos they are too ridiculous to take seriously, but better not at this sensitive time.


 
How do DI's forumz post incredible, bonkers trash talk with impunity, while we've got to keep a lid on it.


----------



## laptop (Oct 15, 2012)

chazegee said:


> How do DI's forumz post incredible, bonkers trash talk with impunity, while we've got to keep a lid on it.


 
Because that lot would positively welcome "martyrdom" at the hands of the law.


And you *want* to post "incredible, bonkers trash talk", why?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 15, 2012)

I'd expect their lawyers could well argue that nobody in their right mind would give any credibility to posts on the DI forums, therefore it'd be hard for anyone to have their reputation damaged by something that got posted on there.

Also, I reckon David Icke probably has a bit more cash in the bank to defend the forum if necessary.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2012)

I have seen plenty of scurrilous and incredible rumours on here before without censure because they were so outrageous they had no credibility. The Icke forums are known for loonspuddery and can hardly be cited in court as a credible source. Perhaps lawyers regard this site as more credible (and searchable).


----------



## chazegee (Oct 15, 2012)

laptop said:


> And you *want* to post "incredible, bonkers trash talk", why?


 
Ya black meat Mama, that's why.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 15, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I have seen plenty of scurrilous and incredible rumours on here before without censure because they were so outrageous they had no credibility. The Icke forums are known for loonspuddery and can hardly be cited in court as a credible source. Perhaps lawyers regard this site as more credible (and searchable).


 
If you were able to find loonspuddery on the DI forums, lawyers probably can find it too.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 15, 2012)

Sneer all you like about David Icke, but he wrote this in 2011 shortly after Savile died:



> This is an excellent article and while I cannot verify every fact the theme is absolutely right. I know from my own unimpeachable sources that Saville was a sick abomination of a human being who not only abused children, but was a necrophiliac, which is defined as an 'obsessive fascination with death and corpse' and an 'attraction to or sexual contact with corpses' - hence his famous 'volunteering' to be a 'porter' at Leeds General Infirmary.
> 
> The despicable Savile was also a close friend of Price Philip until they fell out. Coincidence? No way.


 
Death of a Showman: Jimmy Saville [sic] 1926-2011 The Grotesque Paedophile and So Much Else - David Icke


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2012)

so what? I called necro and nonce just after he snuffed it, am I a prophet as well?

Icke had no special insight he just knew the rumours like everyone else


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

laptop said:


> And you *want* to post "incredible, bonkers trash talk", why?


This is *urban*, it's what we do


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Sneer all you like about David Icke, but he wrote this in 2011 shortly after Savile died:
> 
> 
> 
> Death of a Showman: Jimmy Saville [sic] 1926-2011 The Grotesque Paedophile and So Much Else - David Icke


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 15, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Sneer all you like about David Icke, but he wrote this in 2011 shortly after Savile died:
> 
> 
> 
> Death of a Showman: Jimmy Saville [sic] 1926-2011 The Grotesque Paedophile and So Much Else - David Icke


So this exonerates him from the charges of being a massive conspiranoid? Leave it out.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 15, 2012)

According to Icke nothing we believe in is real. Ergo, if we believe Savile to have been a paedophile it can't be true.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2012)

tbh it was onlty a matter of time before someone of the metal millnery fraternity tried to use savile as validation for their spud like thinking. Cheap, but not unexpected


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2012)

I thought Icke liked shell-suits?  Or was Saville part of some conspiracy to discredit the godhead's chosen fashion look?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Sneer all you like about David Icke, but he wrote this in 2011 shortly after Savile died:
> 
> 
> 
> Death of a Showman: Jimmy Saville [sic] 1926-2011 The Grotesque Paedophile and So Much Else - David Icke


 
This is the Icke that didn't write the article.


----------



## albionism (Oct 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I thought Icke liked shell-suits? Or was Saville part of some conspiracy to discredit the godhead's chosen fashion look?


Aye, Icke favoured turquoise shell suits too, did he not


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2012)

indeed - can we be sure Saville didn't have one too


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 15, 2012)

> *Just when you thought you couldn’t hear anything worse about disgraced TV presenter Jimmy Savile, it turns out he might also be a necrophiliac as well as a paedophile.*
> Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where Savile worked as a volunteer and is alleged to have sexually assaulted many sick and disabled children, has launched an investigation into his unaccompanied mortuary visits.
> In an interview in 1990 with Q magazine, the former BBC TV and radio host spoke of his interest in dead bodies, going on to deny he was a necrophiliac despite no accusation being made.
> “Some people get hold of the fact that Jim likes looking after cadavers and say, ‘Aha, Jim’s a necrophiliac!’ I’m not a necrophiliac.” he said.
> ...



Stoke Mandeville hospital to investigate Jimmy Savile's lone visits to morgue - TNT Magazine


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If you were able to find loonspuddery on the DI forums, lawyers probably can find it too.


That has nothing to do with it


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2012)

> In an interview in 1990 with Q magazine, the former BBC TV and radio host spoke of his interest in dead bodies, going on to deny he was a necrophiliac despite no accusation being made.


 
Icke 11 years at least behind the curve then - truly a prophet without honour.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2012)

An example of David Icke acolytes' loonspuddery, the hidden messages in Only Fools & Horses:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=166879


----------



## elbows (Oct 15, 2012)

The words that came out of Saviles own mouth over decades make him an unfit subject for prophecy.

And its hardly surprising that those with low evidence standards will sometimes stumble over something that happens to be true but is not verifiable to a decent standard at that time. What use is it though? The component we are missing is not people who will spread and hype stuff up and join dots in a haphazard way, its a decent filter that can eliminate all the shit that clouds the picture.


----------



## chazegee (Oct 15, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> An example of David Icke acolytes' loonspuddery, the hidden messages in Only Fools & Horses:
> http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=166879


 
I actually felt myself going a bit mad reading it for more than half an hour.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 15, 2012)

elbows said:


>




Coogan's voice there.


----------



## laptop (Oct 15, 2012)

albionism said:


> Aye, Icke favoured turquoise shell suits too, did he not


 
Have they ever been photographed in the same room together?





No. no, please, an authoritative citation will do if they have.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is the Icke that didn't write the article.



I'm not sure of anything significant that DI ever said that was his own original work as such. He repackages, thinks up catch phrases and presents.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 15, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> Who will play JS when the film / TV series is made?


 
Speaking of Coogan..........


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

articul8 said:


> indeed - can we be sure Saville didn't have one too








not a million  miles from turquoise


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

not a million miles from turquoise


----------



## Favelado (Oct 15, 2012)

Looking at those photos, it's amazing that he turned out to be a paedophile really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

Favelado said:


> Looking at those photos, it's amazing that he turned out to be a paedophile really.


looking at those photos it's amazing he wasn't sussed fucking fifty years ago.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

Self evident as it is that certain forums and groups are instinctive loons/fantasists etc.
it is also obvious that there has been an instinctive denialism in society about many things.

Consider the following notions:

- International banking practice is systemically criminal and fraudulent, the biggest threat to the global economy and routinely used for laundering the proceeds of massive crime with no care for it's source

- There are strong patterns of child abuse and cover-up in The Roman Catholic church 

- Ditto: The media.

- The police routinely lie to the press.

- The Bilderberg Group exists.

10 or so years ago, to advance any of these would have probably incurred a major degree of flaming and comparison to the likes of Icke.

Some people who really should know better have played the role of establishment dupes with the familiar air of the know-all/smartarse. They really ought to be putting a large portion of humble pie in the oven right now.

I didn't think JS was a paedo by the way, I am not one of the "I told you so" gang. It's probably not helpful to discuss individuals anyway.

And all this doesn't mean to say any, or even most of "conspiracist" purports are true.

It does mean people might be slower to resort to reactionary knee-jerk scoffing at the notion that <shudder> some bad and weird things are going on out there.

Instinctive anti-conspiracism is as bad and dangerous as instinctive conspiracism.

Judge each case by it's merits, not by lazy stereotypes and the assumption that one knows every thing going on among the 7,000,000,000 people on this ball of rock.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> looking at those photos it's amazing he wasn't sussed fucking fifty years ago.


 
Er yes, that's what I meant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

Favelado said:


> Er yes, that's what I meant.


could you say what you mean next time?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> not a million miles from turquoise


it looks like he's got some sort of yellow dildo in his hand, with the business end hidden


----------



## Favelado (Oct 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> could you say what you mean next time?


 
I reserve the right to be sarcastic without using emoticons for the hard-of-thinking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

Favelado said:


> I reserve the right to be sarcastic without using emoticons for the hard-of-thinking.


maybe so: but carry on posting the way you are and you won't look sarcastick. rather, the well-founded impression that you're rather daft will pervade the boards.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe so: but carry on posting the way you are and you won't look sarcastick. rather, the well-founded impression that you're rather daft will pervade the boards.


 
*GR8 POST M8  *


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

Favelado said:


> *GR8 POST M8  *


a simple 'like' will do in future


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Self evident as it is that certain forums and groups are instinctive loons/fantasists etc.
> it is also obvious that there has been an instinctive denialism in society about many things.
> 
> Consider the following notions:
> ...


 
it was the "international bankers'" fault again was it. jesus. just because those rumours appeared on icke's website it doesn't automatically validate everything else he says.

the fact that there was a coverup to protect a rich celebrity doesn't mean that there was a coverup of a banking conspiracy or that any of this shit is real.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Self evident as it is that certain forums and groups are instinctive loons/fantasists etc...


 
The people who were most right about Savile are those who actually complained about him and were ignored or worse. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go to them for the truth about 'international banking' or 'big pharma'; and the same goes for the self-seeking anti-semite Icke, times a million.

Your transparent attempt, along with Jazz, to gain credibility for such posionous conspiracy theory rubbish on the back Savile's abuses and rapes is pretty fucking low.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Self evident as it is that certain forums and groups are instinctive loons/fantasists etc.
> it is also obvious that there has been an instinctive denialism in society about many things.
> 
> Consider the following notions:
> ...


 
It's the Jooooozzzzz!!!!!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

saville's paedophilia was predicted in the Protocols. 

never mind that large closed institutions such as the bbc the police and the vatican where it's leading members are held in high regard tend to cover each others backs and find no shortage of people willing to cover for them because "they'd never do that sort of thing" and they do so much for charity/the nation/god etc

plenty of people disbelieved accusations of saville's abuse on these boards ffs. no conspiracy needed.


----------



## laptop (Oct 15, 2012)

None of this will get through.

A pretty good working definition of a conspiranoid is someone who cannot understand that things that are true _by accident_ don't count as knowledge.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's the Jooooozzzzz!!!!!



What an erudite response. Very well informed as well.

People who said child abuse was covered up in the RC church hate the jews. Everyone knows that.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What an erudite response. Very well informed as well.
> 
> People who said child abuse was covered up in the RC church hate the jews. Everyone knows that.


 
it's sick to use jimmy saville's crimes to promote your protocols esque idea of a "banking conspiracy". how utterly predictable that icke and his minions would use this coverup of a predatory paedophile to go "look, this proves what we were saying all along!"what kind of sick mind links jimmy saville to "international bankers" and the "bilderberg group"? really?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

laptop said:


> None of this will get through.
> 
> A pretty good working definition of a conspiranoid is someone who cannot understand that things that are true _by accident_ don't count as knowledge.


 
There's something in that, though a conspiranoid can be right, even if by accident.

Conspiranoids said we were lied to about the Iraq war. They were right, and it wasn't an accident.

Lots of non conspiranoids said the same thing and turned out to be right as well. 

Whether or not an individual instance is accident or in some form intentional is a very good question.

In many cases it can't be established at all. In such cases some have a prejudice for the former and some for the latter, the word "prejudice" might say enough. Others may look for a basis to put an "x" somewhere on the spectrum of possibilities, or keep an open mind.

Others seek to place labels on things, indulging in cod psychology and inferring that anyone who questions the establishment is anti semitic without basis, derailing discussion (possibly deliberately), insulting intelligence, hindering knowledge and puffing out their chest with fatuous ignorance about how funny and worldy wise they are with their out-dated obfuscationist cliches.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What an erudite response. Very well informed as well.
> 
> People who said child abuse was covered up in the RC church hate the jews. Everyone knows that.


 
there were people high up in the vatican who said that the fact that the coverup was _revealed_ was because of a conspiracy about the jews.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's something in that, though a conspiranoid can be right, even if by accident.
> 
> Conspiranoids said we were lied to about the Iraq war. They were right, and it wasn't an accident.
> 
> ...


 
Maybe it's because some people think it's downright disgusting to use saville's crime to promote your hero's anti-semitism. "Saville's paedophilia is being covered up - the banking conspiracy is also being covered up!"

The sad thing is that people like you jumping on the bandwagon of child abuse being covered up will make it less likely that scum like saville are brought to justice. as for questioning the establishment, i am sure that saville is just the tip of a very large iceberg and there are more revelations to come. that doesn't mean that it should be be used as propaganda by you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's something in that, though a conspiranoid can be right, even if by accident.


A stopped clock is right twice a day.

a conspiranoid is right - on your evidence - just once in ten years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2012)

he was just repeating the rumours as fact. The rumours anybody with a passing interest in the strange mr savile knew.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Maybe it's because some people think it's downright disgusting to use saville's crime to promote your hero's anti-semitism. "Saville's paedophilia is being covered up - the banking conspiracy is also being covered up!"
> 
> The sad thing is that people like you jumping on the bandwagon of child abuse being covered up will make it less likely that scum like saville are brought to justice. as for questioning the establishment, i am sure that saville is just the tip of a very large iceberg and there are more revelations to come. that doesn't mean that it should be be used as propaganda by you.



1) Icke is no hero of mine.  

2) If a group of people say "A, B and C" are true" and are derided for decades in saying so, then it turns out that A and B are true, it is not sick or disgusting to wonder if C is true as well.

It's fine to disagree, but the amount of sanctimony you are employing is absurd.

I am not using anything as propaganda, the charge that you are using this conversation as propaganda would probably stand up as well or badly, but I won't bother to make it.

I am just disturbed that so many things talked about for so long turned out to be true. I didn't generally believe them at the time, but neither did I tend to attribute cod psychology and "disgusting" motivations to the proponents.

Please do cite where I said Icke was a hero though, because I wouldn't want to get into my head that you were a constructor of strawmen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I didn't think JS was a paedo by the way, I am not one of the "I told you so" gang. It's probably not helpful to discuss individuals anyway.


In the light of this, what the bloody fuck are you doing on a thread discussing an individual?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> he was just repeating the rumours as fact. The rumours anybody with a passing interest in the strange mr savile knew.



So were quite a lot of people in different fashion it turns out. 

Were they all disgusting Jew haters with a nefarious propaganda agenda?

I think we should be told.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> So were quite a lot of people in different fashion it turns out.
> 
> Were they all disgusting Jew haters with a nefarious propaganda agenda?
> 
> I think we should be told.


You're taking the royal wee


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> In the light of this, what the bloody fuck are you doing on a thread discussing an individual?


 
Because the circs surrounding this individual echo patterns around other phenomena and perceptions, as I have said.

Hope this helps.

Sorry, to translate: I fucking hope this bloody helps.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> there were people high up in the vatican who said that the fact that the coverup was _revealed_ was because of a conspiracy about the jews.



Blimey. It's always a hall of mirrors this stuff.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You're taking the royal wee


 
No, I think everyone should know.

In the last couple of hours I've seen / read stuff by Sadowitz, Chris Morris and Colleen Nolan all discussing how vile Saville was.

We should know if they hate Jews. People who question the establishment are very often guilty of anti-semitism. OK, it might not be identifiable as such, in which case we refer to it as "structual anti-semitism". I learned all this stuff on U75.

ETA : the people cited were doing this many years ago, like many others including David Icke.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2012)

Thats the nolan he groped on top of the pops is it not


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

Indeed. She discussed it in a more general doc about the group, her and other sisters went pretty far in saying what they thought without saying what they felt they could not say.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 15, 2012)

http://soundcloud.com/ultraculture/chris-morris-on-jimmy-saviles


----------



## articul8 (Oct 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> not a million miles from turquoise


 
usurping the garb of the prophet - blasphemy


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 15, 2012)

"poor sexual etiquette"


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

Consider

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/252...work-is-obstructing-police-investigation.html

and

Interview from 12m 30s



Both relate to a fairly widely discussed possibility of child abuse and cover up which may or may not have substance to it, and could be worth re looking at in view of recent revalations *

* Caution: people involved in production of these items may

1) Be unable to accept that things happen by co-incidence

2) Hate Jews, overtly or in a more opaque "structural" sense

3) Have a disgusting propaganda agenda, including the plainly self-seeking agenda to treat some systematic child abuse allegations with a degree of appropriate seriousness instead of the moral response which is to say it's all tinfoil hat nonsense presumably made up or imagined by those who say they are victims. 

4) Deserve to be scorned, despised and groundlessly accused of treating Icke like a hero.

Any data pertaining to these possibilities is fully appreciated.


----------



## editor (Oct 15, 2012)

Did Saville keep owls?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No, I think everyone should know.
> 
> In the last couple of hours I've seen / read stuff by Sadowitz, Chris Morris and Colleen Nolan all discussing how vile Saville was.
> 
> ...


 
NO you idiot. did anyone say it was anti-semetic to say that saville was a paedo and how horrific it was that it was all covered up for decades? of course not every criticism of a coverup is an example of anti-semitism 

of course they didn't when he wasn't fucking jewish anyway!

the only anti-semitism is when people like icke go on about the banks and the bilderberg group, trying to link this coverup of saville's child abuse to a conspiracy about "international bankers" and the bilderberg group - saying that because this conspiracy occurred that the bigger conspiracy must be true.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Consider
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/252...work-is-obstructing-police-investigation.html
> 
> ...




you fuckin opportunist prick


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you fuckin opportunist prick



Broadening out a discussion based on events is synomymous with opportunist?

Is it Bollocks. 

I don't even know much about the above issue. I do think it is worth consideration and I don't think it is opportunist to say so. Exactly what do you suppose I gain by it?

Oh, did you find where I said Icke was my hero? 

You seemed so certain, it can't be that hard to dig up.

Or was it another pile of nonsense that you sanctimoniously act upon with fuck all to substantiate it?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

"broadening out a discussion based on events" did you fuck, you opportunistically started talking about your favourite theories about international bankers, the bilderberg group, and the like and implied that because of the jimmy saville revelations people will have to start examining these a bit more closely, or at least not dismiss them

you then started saying that people who dont subscribe to such bollocks must view any attempt to expose conspiracy's like saville's cover up as anti-semitism and implied - disgustingly - that we think that the victims are making it up

i think most people can work out who's talking a pile of nonsense here


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> NO you idiot. did anyone say it was anti-semetic to say that saville was a paedo and how horrific it was that it was all covered up for decades? of course not every criticism of a coverup is an example of anti-semitism
> 
> of course they didn't when he wasn't fucking jewish anyway!
> 
> the only anti-semitism is when people like icke go on about the banks and the bilderberg group, trying to link this coverup of saville's child abuse to a conspiracy about "international bankers" and the bilderberg group - saying that because this conspiracy occurred that the bigger conspiracy must be true.


 
I was only using the endemic crime of the banks as an example. There were other examples too.

Most bankers and banks are not Jewish. It's a systemic, political and economic issue and not one of ethnicity or faith (apart from the faith of the cult of capital perhaps)

I don't know the motives for Icke devotees going on about the banks as they did or do, but it's very possible in many instances that they were opposed to a corruption they rightly suspected,  and it has / had nothing to do with the Jews.

I put up a serious post raising some serious issues. The first response to that was "It's the jooooooooz" invoking that that post was anti-semitic, in "humour" or otherwise. I don't recall if you "liked" that post or not.

My purport remains, it remains serious and it remains, IIRC utterly unspoken to due to a desire to chase some very typical red herrings:

1) Patterns of awful behaviour and cover-up are alleged over decades and routinely scorned.

2) Some then turn out to be true, with a concurrent cognitive dissonance narrative of "knowledge and suspicion was widespread/how shocking - nobody could have known"

3) It is therefore reasonable to soberly re=examine some of the other patterns that were alleged.

Do you have anything to say about this, or are you going to continue at froth factor 11 and attribute motivations and thoughts to me and others with little or no reason?


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 15, 2012)

the atzmon supporters are salivating at Savile's claimed support for Israel to join the dots between child abuse and Jews.


> *Farah*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I was only using the endemic crime of the banks as an example. There were other examples too.
> 
> Most bankers and banks are not Jewish. It's a systemic, political and economic issue and not one of ethnicity or faith (apart from the faith of the cult of capital perhaps)
> 
> ...


perhaps taffboy think its time to "soberly re=examine" the case of William of Norwich


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> "broadening out a discussion based on events" did you fuck, you opportunistically started talking about your favourite theories about international bankers, the bilderberg group, and the like and implied that because of the jimmy saville revelations people will have to start examining these a bit more closely, or at least not dismiss them
> 
> you then started saying that people who dont subscribe to such bollocks must view any attempt to expose conspiracy's like saville's cover up as anti-semitism and implied - disgustingly - that we think that the victims are making it up
> 
> i think most people can work out who's talking a pile of nonsense here



I picked out a few examples from the top of my head, I could have picked others. 

The response was for others to indulge their favourite theories as well. 

Obviously, if routine child abuse is alleged and people scorn the possibility there is an inference that the victims are making something up. I haven't accused anyone here of that.

Did you find the bit where I said Icke was a hero? The teasing has gone on long enough now I think.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

and another thread about a serious government/establishment coverup gets derailed into anti-semitic conspiracy nonsense. you're not questioning the establishment, you're helping it


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I picked out a few examples from the top of my head, I could have picked others.
> 
> The response was for others to indulge their favourite theories as well.
> 
> ...


 
you didn't say he was a hero but it's obvious that you think it. interesting that you are - yet again - derailing a thread involving in an actual institutional conspiracy to derail discussion of that and onto the "international bankers", if i was as paranoid as you i would think it was part of some conspiracy myself


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

Frogwoman

The original post I put up behind this spat cited Police, Media and The Roman Catholic Church as well as The BB group and International finance.

ViolentPanda soon put up a post "it's the joooooooooz" which you liked?

Why did you suppose I made that post with an opportunist agenda alluding to anti-semitism?

Is it because you are the opportunist, indulging your favourite theories.

I do not consider international finance crime to be an arm of the jewish or any jewish agenda, because it isn't.

I do not consider the BB group to be an arm of the jewish people or any jewish agenda, because it isn't.

If you have evidence that I do, please post it along with my hero worship of Icke that you keep hiding from us.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> and another thread about a serious government/establishment coverup gets derailed into anti-semitic conspiracy nonsense. you're not questioning the establishment, you're helping it


 
Really? Who brought up anti semite conspiracy nonsense? Oh, it was you. And VP (whose comment you liked)


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Consider
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/252...work-is-obstructing-police-investigation.html


 
from your link


> *Jersey abuse case: 'Old boy network' is obstructing police investigation*
> 
> *An "old boy network" of officials is deliberately obstructing police investigating decades of alleged abuse at care homes in Jersey, according to the police officer who spearheaded the inquiry.*
> 
> ...


 
You do know, don't you, that Harper was made to look like a complete idiot when the "bone fragments" that he had declared were evidence of murder and child sacrifice turned out to be mostly animal bones? The only human bone fragments recovered were tiny and hundreds of years old. Part of a child's skull recovered from the site was eventually analysed and proven to be an ancient piece of coconut shell.

Of course this does not mean that there was not an old boys network in Jersey or that rumours of clandestine networks of child abusers that conspired to pervert the course of justice are baseless.

What it does mean is that, due to Harper's idiocy in confusing animal bones and coconut shell with human remains, he was ridiculed and make to look like a right tit, thus making his claims of conspiracies and secret societies also appear foolish and deluded.

If there really was / is a cabal of powerful people in Jersey who are conspiring to cover up child abuse on a massive scale (I cannot claim to know the truth but it would not surprise me if such a cabal exits / existed) the members would rejoice in the knowledge that Harper's evidence free claims and deluded ramblings served to detract from their activities.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you didn't say he was a hero but it's obvious that you think it.



No I didn't say it, that's related to the fact that I don't think it. But you say it's obvious I do think it, and if that is the case then you have no problem providing the evidence.

In being so inflamatory without basis, it again appears to be you who is derailing things a great deal more than I.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 15, 2012)

editor said:


> Did Saville keep owls?


Dunno but he always had a massive phallic cigar.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

the "basis" is your posts stretching back years which consistently defend the idea of these mad and poisonous theories.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No, I think everyone should know.
> 
> In the last couple of hours I've seen / read stuff by Sadowitz, Chris Morris and Colleen Nolan all discussing how vile Saville was.
> 
> ...


 
Yes. Because the only people who question the establishment are those who believe in mental banking conspiracies which were, whether you like it or not, first "theorised" by antisemites.

You accuse others of using strawmen then come out with this? You dishonest little shit. In pretty much every thread on here you will find people criticising the establishment yet utterly failing to be accused of antisemitism. How does that work?


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> .............i think most people can work out who's talking a pile of nonsense here


 
I have to say that I can't work out if it's frogwoman or her foul-mouthed boyfriend, to be honest.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I have to say that I can't work out if it's frogwoman or her foul-mouthed boyfriend, to be honest.


 
you think it's OK to use the abuse of hundreds of children to promote icke and his anti-semitic "banking conspiracy" filth? also you just replied to this thread to slag off dotty, who has nothing to do with the arguement and has not replied! yet another decent thread gets derailed AGAIN


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2012)

the shit-vulture has arrived


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 15, 2012)

Taffboy, you say that Icke being right about Savile (he accuses pretty much every public figure of paedophilia so he's bound to be right about one eventually) means that we should take the rest of his lunacy seriously.

So does that mean that if it turns out that your beloved banking conspiracy is correct we should also look into Hitler's theories around Jewish plots aimed at world domination since he was right about the international banking conspiracy?

Or is it just to your favoured loons that we should extend that honour?


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you think it's OK to use the abuse of hundreds of children to promote icke and his anti-semitic "banking conspiracy" filth? also you just replied to this thread to slag off dotty, who has nothing to do with the arguement and has not replied! yet another decent thread gets derailed AGAIN


 
I'm simply not used to you using such aggressive languge, frogwoman, so I wondered if it really was you posting.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I have to say that I can't work out if it's frogwoman or her foul-mouthed boyfriend, to be honest.


 
Yet again this tedious prick has nothing to say about the topic so instead resorts to personal attacks on other posters. You're a cancer on these boards crock of shite.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm simply not used to you using such aggressive languge, frogwoman, so I wondered if it really was you posting.


 
i'm usually polite but i've got a very, very low tolerance when it comes to people trying to promote anti-semitic shit. especially on the back of a scandal involving hundreds of kids being sexually abused and a coverup that's lasted decades. We've already seen how allegations of abuse against saville were disbelieved even on these boards, if the conspiracy loons use it promote their filthy ideas then this is likely to lead to more allegations of abuse by important figures being dismissed, as they were in saville's lifetime.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm simply not used to you using such aggressive languge, frogwoman, so I wondered if it really was you posting.


 
Sod off fuckhead.


----------



## co-op (Oct 15, 2012)

Version of the Blood Libel here?


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Oct 15, 2012)




----------



## DarthSydodyas (Oct 15, 2012)




----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I was only using the endemic crime of the banks as an example. There were other examples too.
> 
> Most bankers and banks are not Jewish. It's a systemic, political and economic issue and not one of ethnicity or faith (apart from the faith of the cult of capital perhaps)
> 
> ...


at this rate the last time you'll have called something correctly will remain 2002/03 for a long time to come


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What an erudite response. Very well informed as well.
> 
> People who said child abuse was covered up in the RC church hate the jews. Everyone knows that.


 
You mentioned all the usual tropes in your post that usually go toward blaming Jews for everything, so why are you surprised that I mock you by drawing attention to that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Broadening out a discussion based on events is synomymous with opportunist?


 
"Broadening out a discussion" usually implies a factual basis on which the broadening is constructed. Your "broadening out" is speculative - it's "wht if X and Y are connected?", not "X and Y are connected, therefore...".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Dunno but he always had a massive phallic cigar.


 
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Nino. Surely you know that!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> the shit-vulture has arrived


 
He's more of a thrush.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2012)

A stork


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 15, 2012)

Ickeforumlol : responding to "why do paedos do it?" 

If I could ask that the AGENDA behind all of this be exposed.
That the very essence of LIFE is involved, and that the young children have a huge amount of a duality of spin substance that enables life, and enables also the ability to trip about in dimensions and TIME.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Nino. Surely you know that!


 
[/Clinton]


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> looking at those photos it's amazing he wasn't sussed fucking fifty years ago.


 
Say what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Say what?


for the hard of thinking i said that 'looking at those photos it's amazing he wasn't sussed fifty years ago'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> for the hard of thinking i said that 'looking at those photos it's amazing he wasn't sussed fifty years ago'.


 
Funny: I said pretty much the same thing in a thread about a week ago, and maybe 25 people lined up to rip me a new asshole.

I can't remember if you were one of them or not.

You remember the thread: the one where people invited me to post up a picture of myself for judgement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Funny: I said pretty much the same thing in a thread about a week ago, and maybe 25 people lined up to rip me a new asshole.
> 
> I can't remember if you were one of them or not.
> 
> You remember the thread: the one where people invited me to post up a picture of myself for judgement.







i know


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Say what?


 

Since seeing the photo of the Nuero Linguistics dating bloke on another thread I have decided your theory is worthy of more study and would like to set a crack team of scientists on it.


I don't know any crack scientists though (well, you know)


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Since seeing the photo of the Nuero Linguistics dating bloke on another thread I have decided your theory is worthy of more study and would like to set a crack team of scientists on it.
> 
> 
> I don't know any crack scientists though (well, you know)


don't meth johnny about


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 15, 2012)




----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 15, 2012)

So have we established whether Sir Jim'll was working for the Jew World Order yet?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 15, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> from your link
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that Harper was made to look like a complete idiot when the "bone fragments" that he had declared were evidence of murder and child sacrifice turned out to be mostly animal bones? The only human bone fragments recovered were tiny and hundreds of years old. Part of a child's skull recovered from the site was eventually analysed and proven to be an ancient piece of coconut shell.


 
Maybe not....



> Forensic experts still disagree over whether suspicious material found during the excavation of the home was 20th century human bone or a piece of coconut shell, and no one has ever been able to explain the discovery of 65 milk teeth found in the building's cellar. But Jersey's authorities eventually accepted they had failed some children in their care "in a serious way", and earlier this year opened a compensation scheme promising to pay victims up to £60,000 each for their distress.


 
Leaving this aside, an interesting article on Jersey's child abuse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/28/jersey-secrecy-culture


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 15, 2012)

*'Human bone' at centre of Jersey children's home inquiry is actually a piece of wood or coconut shell*

By DAVID ROSE
Last updated at 23:26 18 May 2008

*Police chief was told about forensic lab finding six weeks ago but kept it quiet*

*He is being investigated for "abuse of authority" by detectives from outside his force*

*Firms of lawyers are planning to claim damages for 27 former residents*


The "remains of a child" discovered by police investigating allegations of abuse at a former children's home on Jersey is really a small piece of wood or broken coconut shell, The Mail on Sunday has learned.

The discovery of the fragment in February prompted police to open an inquiry into a possible murder at the Haut de la Garenne home; and this week detectives are set to announce further evidence which they believe shows that another two dead children were buried in the cellar.

But Jersey police were told almost six weeks ago that tests by Britain's top carbon-dating laboratory showed that the original evidence – supposedly a fragment of a child's skull – was not bone.

The island's controversial deputy police chief, Lenny Harper, who is heading the investigation, has consistently failed to mention the vital results in public statements since the tests were completed.

Interviewed in the home last Tuesday, he repeated: "It is a fragment of a human body...we don't know how, when or where that person died."
Last night Mr Harper admitted that his team had received emails reporting the test results on April 8, including a message that stated: "This one ain't bone."


But he insisted that had "never seen" a letter setting out the findings in more detail, which was addressed to him personally and dated May 1, until it was emailed to him yesterday.

Mr Harper also conceded that "clothing and other items" which he previously said had been found at the home – fuelling speculation that a child's grave had been unearthed – amounted to a piece of a button and a leather toggle.

However, he said he remained confident that the fragment was bone, based on the opinion of his forensic anthropologist, Julie Roberts, even though she had not been able to carry out detailed tests.

"As far as I am concerned, it was diagnosed as bone, and bone it remains," he said.

Scientists from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit spent weeks investigating the fragment with the world's most sophisticated equipment, whereas Ms Roberts had to reach her conclusion in a hurry – between the fragment's discovery at 9.30am on February 24 and Mr Harper's Press conference that afternoon.


<snip>


When he first revealed that his team had found part of a child's body, Mr Harper had already spent many months investigating allegations of physical and sexual abuse at Haut de la Garenne and elsewhere on the island.


But until this discovery, the case had attracted little interest.

When the Oxford scientists told Jersey's forensic services manager, Vicky Coupland, that the fragment was not bone, she urged them not to mention their conclusion in public, saying the police hoped to avoid a media row, which risked "detracting from the investigation as a whole".

The scientists, led by the lab's deputy director, Dr Tom Higham, were so concerned by Mr Harper's continued insistence that the fragment was human bone that they wrote to him formally on May 1.

They restated their findings and added that they had been endorsed by a second opinion from a leading bone expert, palaeontologist Dr Roger Jacobi.

"We concluded that the sample was not in fact bone but almost certainly a piece of wood," the letter said.

"Its curvature may have had something to do with it being misidentified. It appears to be more likely a seed casing or a small piece of coconut. Our conclusion is that this sample is a) not bone and b) not human."

Dr Jacobi said last night: "I share Tom's conclusions. I believe it is a piece of coconut shell, such as you might come across on a beach.


*Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-piece-wood-coconut-shell.html#ixzz29PI6ttqb*


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 15, 2012)

Just for clarification

I am NOT saying that abuses did not occur at Haut de la Garenne.

I am also not claiming that there is not a network of powerful predators and perverts covering up abuses of kids in Jersey. Their very well might be for all I know.

I simply find myself feeling disturbed and concerned when people make wildly unfounded announcements about child murders, especially when made in relation to a serious investigation regarding the sexual abuse of children.


9.30 in just listen to all the completely fantastical claims this guy is making
It's outrageous and I can understand why other cops were concerned that his fantastical proclamations were adversely affecting the investigation.


----------



## cesare (Oct 15, 2012)

That DM article was 2008, the Guardian one is an update. It'll be interesting to see what comes out now it's being looked at again.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 15, 2012)

cesare said:


> That DM article was 2008, the Guardian one is an update. It'll be interesting to see what comes out now it's being looked at again.


 
The Grauniad writer has simply taken the professional opinion of Ms Roberts more seriously than the professional opinions of the scientists from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who spent weeks testing the fragment, unlike Roberts who had to make an on the spot decision with no proper resources. 

Just because the Grauniad piece is later does not mean that it is an update, it appears to be simply badly researched.


----------



## cesare (Oct 15, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> The Grauniad writer has simply taken the professional opinion of Ms Roberts more seriously than the professional opinions of the scientists from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, who spent weeks testing the fragment, unlike Roberts who had to make an on the spot decision with no proper resources.
> 
> Just because the Grauniad piece is later does not mean that it is an update, it appears to be simply badly researched.



Perhaps. Certainly I'd be interested to see a source for this:



> Forensic experts still disagree over whether suspicious material found during the excavation of the home was 20th century human bone or a piece of coconut shell, and no one has ever been able to explain the discovery of 65 milk teeth found in the building's cellar.



I have a feeling we haven't heard the last of it.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 15, 2012)

I think that, once a team of serious scientists who are experts in their field have spent weeks investigating a tiny fragment of something or other and have confidently declared that it is a) not bone and b) not human then it is up to the journalist concerned to show a source, or at least name the name of the expert concerned should that journalist contest those findings.

Helen Pidd has not named any foresnsic experts in her piece and appears to have simply adopted Lenny Harper's stance of "la la la la I'm not listening" when she reports that "experts disagree" about the fragment.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Since seeing the photo of the Nuero Linguistics dating bloke on another thread I have decided your theory is worthy of more study and would like to set a crack team of scientists on it.
> 
> 
> I don't know any crack scientists though (well, you know)


 
Not my theory on this thread, though.

It's Pickmans'.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 16, 2012)

the latest revelations 

Savile organised all girl discos at which he was the DJ at Broadmoor hospital in the 1970s and presented these events as a form of "therapy".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ll-girl-therapeutic-parties-at-Broadmoor.html

Dave Lee Travis has denied claims that he "jiggled the breasts" of a female colleague and put his hand up the skirt of a a 17 year old girl at his then studio.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...laim-BBC-women-sex-abuse-scandal-deepens.html


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Nino. Surely you know that!


Depends on who's holding the cigar. No?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2012)

There's a _Sunday Times_ interview with DLT from June that's quite... odd. In case it wasn't clear, the interviewer is a woman (Camilla Long).



> I spent 90 minutes with the former Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis last Thursday and I don’t think there is a part of my body that he didn’t grope. He fondled my foot, inched his hands up my thighs, tried to make me sit on his lap and kissed me. He copped a feel of my hips when I foolishly asked for a tour of his studio, stroked my chin and my back and gave me a full body hug as I left.
> 
> ...I am distracted by the huge semi-nude portraits of women in his kitchen and sitting room. The place ripples with nipples, thighs, lips and hips. There’s a half-body sculpture of buttocks, thong and legs near the fridge, opposite a chalk board with “poo bags and Nurofen” written in capitals. Christ.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/newsreview/features/article1061997.ece (£)

"Hey guys! It was a different time!"


----------



## cesare (Oct 16, 2012)

Yuk


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

Assange next eh?

(That DLT interview does read like his letters to women that came to light recently)


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 16, 2012)

Hopefully, Mike Read (who got _Relax_ banned) will be next. I always hated that Tory twat.


----------



## philx (Oct 16, 2012)

These guys are all scumbags. But doesnt anyone think the real agenda is to attack the BBC ?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

philx said:


> These guys are all scumbags. But doesnt anyone think the real agenda is to attack the BBC ?


Whose real agenda? And why on earth shouldn't the BBC be attacked - over this and plenty of other things?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 16, 2012)

philx said:


> These guys are all scumbags. But doesnt anyone think the real agenda is to attack the BBC ?


 
And do you work for 1 or 2, philx? Or the world service?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2012)

philx said:


> These guys are all scumbags. But doesnt anyone think the real agenda is to attack the BBC ?


 Yes, yes, let's stand firm and defend the BBC!  Hey, it was a different era... good old Esther... nobody knew...


----------



## philx (Oct 16, 2012)

Not defending the BBC I just suggest that the the press are as keen on numbering the Beeb as condeming Saville and his associates. For example one of the worst paedos is a well known Tory Grandee I'll bet he doesnt get dragged into the scandal.


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2012)

There is no single 'real agenda'. Some are using this as an opportunity to attack the BBC because of motivations unrelated to child protection, but as the BBC deserve some flak its not that easy to scupper their agenda.

Sensible political fallout would involve this countries libel laws, but I somehow dont see that happening.


----------



## laptop (Oct 16, 2012)

elbows said:


> Sensible political fallout would involve this countries libel laws, but I somehow dont see that happening.


 
There is a libel reform bill (Defamation Bill) before Parliament. Last time I looked, I object to nothing in it. But it doesn't go nearly far enough, particularly on the costs of defending a case.

Lords Committee stage soon: get drafting your amendments!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2012)

How many lords do you know, laptop?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

http://franticplanet.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/jimmy-savile-and-david-icke-all-the-pieces-matter/ amusing dissection of loon theories about saville here


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

*Are you all certain he is dead? Let’s look at some facts:*
* He was physically fit – he did a marathon in 2005, aged 78.
** He had a very distinctive appearance – cigar, track suit and stupid hair. He had the same look for 40 or more years.*
** His coffin was open to public view, but it was closed.*
** His coffin is now buried in concrete*
** He knew a lot of influential people, including people in the police, mortuaries and so on *
*
Is it possible he has shaved his head or dyed his hair, smokes cigarettes and wears old man’s clothes and NHS glasses? Who would recognise an old man living in a semi-reclusive life that looked like that? I’m sure if he had the influence people here are suggesting, a fake death could have been arranged. *


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

The elaborate tombstone was removed at midnight on Tuesday after Savile’s family requested it be taken away out of ‘respect to public opinion.’
not 7.22pm 8.26pm..9.18pm.10.24pm..11.07pm..11.53pm but by pure fluke midnight dark night. i think we missed a masonic ritual in Scarborough in the middle of the news vortex. wow fucking energy vampires never stop.
fresh blood swabs should be taken of that grave crime scene.
the broken up headstone will not be landfilled.
 it will be broken up.
 the sacred stone will be sent to every lodge in jersey,england,scotland and wales.
 maybe even the bbc and israel.
 special pieces for ester ratface ransom,alan yentob,bbc entwistle,prince phillip.simon cowell and fuller
*EXPOSE THESE MASONIC BASTARDS.*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2012)

Now you're thinking...


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2012)

They must have missed his short-haired phase and his quadruple heart bypass operation.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

they actually argue that he's a knights templar because of his hair


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2012)

And his camper van was a portal to the black lodge Im sure.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> The elaborate tombstone was removed at midnight on Tuesday after Savile’s family requested it be taken away out of ‘respect to public opinion.’
> not 7.22pm 8.26pm..9.18pm.10.24pm..11.07pm..11.53pm but by pure fluke midnight dark night. i think we missed a masonic ritual in Scarborough in the middle of the news vortex. wow fucking energy vampires never stop.
> fresh blood swabs should be taken of that grave crime scene.
> the broken up headstone will not be landfilled.
> ...


 
I actually thought Frogwoman had written this herself, as a mad parody of loon "logic". Alas I was wrong.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

Read the whole thing, these twats actually think that saville was able to travel through time through his haircut and that there is a "hell mouth" in Leeds which is an occult centre and has been for centuries


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Read the whole thing, these twats actually think that saville was able to travel through time through his haircut and that there is a "hell mouth" in Leeds which is an occult centre and has been for centuries


 
Like the "hell mouth" from Buffy TVS? The lead role in which was played by a JOO - we're through the looking glass here, people.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Read the whole thing, these twats actually think that saville was able to travel through time through his haircut and that there is a "hell mouth" in Leeds which is an occult centre and has been for centuries


 
anti-leeds propoganda


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> anti-leeds propoganda


 
"No leads for the West Yorkshire Police"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> I actually thought Frogwoman had written this herself, as a mad parody of loon "logic". Alas I was wrong.


I thought she'd stumbled upon the truth. You can't say it doesn't all fit together...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

*I went to Leeds Uni myself for a spell, that’s how I know what books they have in the library. Kids are sold this idea of going to ‘Uni’ and being a ‘Student’ from an early age. It has nothing to do with education, it’s to get them away from their families and into drugs/drink/sex and debt so when they then get put into managerial roles they’re easier to control. Along the way their energy (both physical and monetary) is drained away from them.*
Every september they ship in a new batch and by december there are signs up for them going missing, hushed reports of murders and rapes and the bodies start getting pulled out of the river.
If anyone ever wants to see a real occult ritual city full of people walking around that aren’t really people, visit Leeds. Just don’t stay too long


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

*I’ve been thinking about this and kept seeing Jimmy’s weird old school haircut. Then all the bloodline and knight information from yesterday. The haircut seemed to match the era of the knights.*
*A while back I read a theory that all of the ‘famous’ types we see are actually the same spirits reincarnating throughout the centuries. A major part of their magic and obsession with recording bloodlines is so they can gain control of their reincarnations and overcome the ‘forgetting’ that happens when we incarnate here. That’s true immortality.*
*If ‘Jimmy’ was the same Savile that has been incarnating all these years as a ‘Knight’ then that would explain how some ‘random’ guy achieved all that political power and reach.*
*It would also explain the need to feed on energy from abuse. Destroying the personality of Jimmy Saville also wouldn’t matter as when he comes back next time he’ll have a fresh identity. *


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> *I went to Leeds Uni myself for a spell, that’s how I know what books they have in the library. Kids are sold this idea of going to ‘Uni’ and being a ‘Student’ from an early age. It has nothing to do with education, it’s to get them away from their families and into drugs/drink/sex and debt so when they then get put into managerial roles they’re easier to control. Along the way their energy (both physical and monetary) is drained away from them.*
> Every september they ship in a new batch and by december there are signs up for them going missing, hushed reports of murders and rapes and the bodies start getting pulled out of the river.
> If anyone ever wants to see a real occult ritual city full of people walking around that aren’t really people, visit Leeds. Just don’t stay too long


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

*OPERATION YEWTREE*
CHECK OUT THE OCCULT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE YEW
*The Yew is known as the death tree in all european countries. Sacred to Hecate in Greece and Italy. OCCULT ASPECTS: Destructive workings concerning death. Not recommended for magical tools*

* I think we could actually be witnessing a ritual here. The persona of ‘Jimmy Saville’ is being sacrificed. *


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2012)

Not so much joining the dots as joining the Microdots.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2012)

Some of this stuff is indicative of mental illness, tbh.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2012)

I drove through Leeds on Sunday. Somewhere on the M621 a _warning light_ lit up on the dashboard. I'm not saying it was Grail Shaped, but it was. 

I drove through Leeds on Sunday. Somewhere on the M621 a _warning light_ lit up on the dashboard. I'm not saying it was Grail Shaped, but it was.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 16, 2012)

Been waiting for DLT to come up. He was on the social services sus list here 25 years ago.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 16, 2012)

Just don't tell me Fluff was involved, allright?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2012)

The Hairy Nonceflake


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2012)

Cliff Richard was never on the Radio 1 Playlist. That give's him a clean bill of health in my book.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 16, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Cliff Richard was never on the Radio 1 Playlist. That give's him a clean bill of health in my book.


 
Nor Gary Numan neither.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Nor Gary Numan neither.


 [.... dashes over to Wikipedia to check]


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 16, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Nor Gary Numan neither.


 
The Gary Numan who was living in sleepy Uckfield, & who thought it safer for himself & his family to move to LA?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 16, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The Gary Numan who was living in sleepy Uckfield, & who thought it safer for himself & his family to move to LA?


 
I'm wondering now if he knew something that other residents of sleepy Uckfield didn't.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 16, 2012)




----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2012)

Wikipaedia check done, he's clean, urban CRB awarded.

Edit: actually that was more thorough than the BBC formal investigation into Savile:

- So, what's all these rumours I've heard about you Jim?
Dunno, I'm not a nonce.
- Fair enough.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 16, 2012)

Rolf Harris was never a Radio 1 DJ


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some of this stuff is indicative of mental illness, tbh.


 
Yes, although exotic beliefs and delusions are tolerated and not usually described as mental illness unless they have a certain level of negative impact on the persons life or that of those around them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> "No leads for the West Yorkshire Police"


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


>




Cool story bro.


----------



## laptop (Oct 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> How many lords do you know, laptop?


 
I take the protection of the 5th Amendment...


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 16, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> Just for clarification
> 
> I am NOT saying that abuses did not occur at Haut de la Garenne.
> 
> ...


Hang on - Harper clearly did a fantastic amount of very good work, battling against a system that wanted to cover the whole thing up:



> Among the thousands of statements that still line the shelves of Harper's old incident room, and in the testimony of former residents and workers at Haut de la Garenne and other institutions across Jersey, many of whom we tracked down and interviewed, harrowing stories are buried.
> Over a period of three decades, residents of the care homes made repeated complaints that they were being sexually and physically abused. A series of damning reports was produced, following confidential inquiries into these institutions, most of which went unheeded. Few prosecutions ensued.
> It is true to say there were no corpses. However, the testimony provides compelling evidence of a catastrophic failure within Jersey's children's services that ran a regime so punitive, they preferred to lock up problem children en masse than deal with them in their own homes: four times more children, proportionately, are imprisoned in Jersey than in its nearest neighbour, France. And what happened to them once in care was something that Harper's team, had they not been distracted by murder plots, came close to exposing.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/14/haut-de-la-garenne


----------



## RaverDrew (Oct 16, 2012)

He was right all along. Knowing Sadowitz, don't expect this to stay up for long


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2012)

Its stayed up long enough that it gets mentioned on these threads on a semi-regular basis.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2012)

elbows said:


> Its stayed up long enough that it gets mentioned on these threads on a semi-regular basis.


It's a longer one which also includes a bit from after Savile died, and was only posted up on YT yesterday.


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2012)

That will teach me to be todays repetition policeman. I'm firing myself, thats the last time I contribute to the big society!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2012)

elbows said:


> That will teach me to be todays repetition policeman. I'm firing myself, thats the last time I contribute to the big society!


your p45's in your inbox


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 16, 2012)

Apologies if already posted

http://news.sky.com/story/996611/buyer-of-jimmy-saviles-rolls-royce-gutted


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 16, 2012)

Chip Barm said:


> Apologies if already posted
> 
> http://news.sky.com/story/996611/buyer-of-jimmy-saviles-rolls-royce-gutted


 


> He claims he has spoken to other buyers of Savile's belongings, which ranged from cigars to a gold Rolex watch, who also stand to lose out.
> "A lot of people spent a lot of money on that stuff, tracksuits and that, and they've got to burn them now because they're worth nothing.


What a shame.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 16, 2012)

they're the real victims in all this


----------



## ska invita (Oct 16, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Cliff Richard was never on the Radio 1 Playlist. That give's him a clean bill of health in my book.


how do you mean he wasnt on the r1 playlist?


----------



## where to (Oct 16, 2012)

Chip Barm said:
			
		

> Apologies if already posted
> 
> http://news.sky.com/story/996611/buyer-of-jimmy-saviles-rolls-royce-gutted



Who says no justice will be served.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 16, 2012)

btw Jerry Sadowich sounds like Malcolm Tucker in that new clip by raver #801


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2012)

Roger Ordish overdid his defensiveness if you ask me. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...thing-says-jimmy-savile-producer-8212804.html


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 16, 2012)

Some fella paid £420 for this!


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 16, 2012)

People are even offloading their Jim'l Fix It Badges

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Jim-fixed...ctables_Badges_Patches_MJ&hash=item35c0b62bb4


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2012)

Whover got Sviles machete at thirty quid still at least has decent machete.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2012)

Chip Barm said:


> People are even offloading their Jim'l Fix It Badges
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Jim-fixed...ctables_Badges_Patches_MJ&hash=item35c0b62bb4


perhaps he might get a sale if he asked £10 for it


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps he might get a sale if he asked £10 for it


 
One in worse nick going for £127...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Original-...ctables_Badges_Patches_MJ&hash=item4d05b07ff7


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 16, 2012)

Some funny comments under the fail's post auction coverage.

'Someone's got a bargain with that Roller!'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-personal-treasures-fetch-small-fortune.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2012)

probably the only post-pubescent woman to sit in savile's bubble car


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2012)

this would make a good caption competition


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Read the whole thing, these twats actually think that saville was able to travel through time through his haircut and that there is a "hell mouth" in Leeds which is an occult centre and has been for centuries


 
In fact, Leeds is *so* occult that knobheads put the windows through at "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" (an occult bookshop) so often that the owner couldn't get his premises insured after the 6th or 7th time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Read the whole thing, these twats actually think that saville was able to travel through time through his haircut and that there is a "hell mouth" in Leeds which is an occult centre and has been for centuries


fortunately you can escape from the hell mouth that is leeds from either the coach or train stations.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

Obviously angels sent by God to punish him for his occult deeds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Cliff Richard was never on the Radio 1 Playlist. That give's him a clean bill of health in my book.


 
Not true. Cliff got uppity years ago after being taken *off* the Radio One playlist, even though he hadn't done anything remotely listenable since "Wired for Sound". To be fair, even Radio One DJs aren't big enough cunts to submit their listeners to "Saviour's Day" or "Mistletoe and Wine" (both of which are actually occult hymns, by the way, just like "Devil Woman" is a back-masked invocation of Satan's missus).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Nor Gary Numan neither.


 
How can we be sure that the line "here in my car, I feel safest of all" wasn't an allusion to Savile's caravan?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

Mistletoe and Wine is really annoying.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 16, 2012)




----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2012)

Chip Barm said:


> Some fella paid £420 for this!


 
From celebrity pedal bike to notorious paedo-bike in less than a year!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

speedos


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> this would make a good caption competition


 
"deleted for legal reasons"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


>




Now I want to stab someone in the face!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> this would make a good caption competition


Chas:
"I say, little post office peasant! Jim fixed it for me so that the Attorney General overturned a High Court decision to publish those letters I just sent!".

Jim:
"He laid down and played dead for me, as it 'appens, guys and gals!"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

Jim: "his old mum's looking a bit frail these days, isn't she? Won't be long now - I must not forget to ask charles for the keys to the mortuary"

Charles "I think that Chocolate Biscuit I had earlier disagreed with me a bit? Why am I so sleepy"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> this would make a good caption competition


 
They were collaborating on _The Dirty Old Man Of Lochnagar_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2012)

>


 
Chas:
"Everything's set, Jim".

Jim:
"Great stuff, lad. I did your wife's corpse up the Gary, I did your nan's corpse up the Gary, and now you've made the arrangements to do your mum's corpse up the Gary once she's dead, I'll have the full set".

Chas:
"She's kept me from my rightful position for so long, that her corpse *deserves* to be taken up the shitter by a noncing necrophiliac!".


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> this would make a good caption competition


 
So where's this Abba Lady you've brought me to see?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> this would make a good caption competition


I'll autograph your tits in my caravan... oh sorry, wrong door. Now then now then, oh no there's absolutely no truth in those rumours your nibs.

Glad we cleared that up Jimmy, just drop my name if you get any bother  and that'll see you right.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 16, 2012)

And the new york city choir were singing gallway bay
And the bells were ringing out, for noncery


----------



## Favelado (Oct 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> http://franticplanet.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/jimmy-savile-and-david-icke-all-the-pieces-matter/ amusing dissection of loon theories about saville here


 
It's so funny.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> They were collaborating on _The Dirty Old Man Of Lochnagar_.


 
i actually used to own that


----------



## discokermit (Oct 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> just like "Devil Woman" is a back-masked invocation of Satan's missus).


it's about strapons and bumsex. "she's gonna take you from behind".


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i actually used to own that


Oh dear fw oh dear


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2012)

my great uncle had it in his house


----------



## treelover (Oct 16, 2012)

Janet Cope, Saville's ex assistant for 32 years is attacking him in the press, Daily Mirror to be specific, yet a week ago she was interviewed on Radio Sheffield and robustly defended him


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not true. Cliff got uppity years ago after being taken *off* the Radio One playlist, even though he hadn't done anything remotely listenable since "Wired for Sound". To be fair, even Radio One DJs aren't big enough cunts to submit their listeners to "Saviour's Day" or "Mistletoe and Wine" (both of which are actually occult hymns, by the way, just like "Devil Woman" is a back-masked invocation of Satan's missus).


Actually, don't know why I said never on the list - I remember him kicking up a fuss when he got booted off it.  Also Status Quo.  Can't imagine many bands would nowadays want their 7 incher in the hands of DLT.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Oct 16, 2012)

Have we mentioned the Eric Gill statue on the front of BBC house?







Can the art of a paedophile be celebrated?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6979731.stm


----------



## Favelado (Oct 17, 2012)

What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2012)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2012)

DJ Squelch said:


> Have we mentioned the Eric Gill statue on the front of BBC house?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An incestuous paedophile who also engaged in bestiality, at that!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2012)

Me and dotty were talking yesterday about that interview he did where he described his volunteer work as a porter taking bodies to the hospital morgue (which there is nothing suspicious about in itself) and how he said "don't worry, i'm not a necrophiliac". WTF?? It would be like taking your cat to the vet and the vet saying "We're going to have to keep the cat overnight I'm afraid, but we're not into bestiality so it's OK" or a teacher at parents evening going "Hello Mr and Mrs Smith. I'm not a paedo"


----------



## HST (Oct 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Me and dotty were talking yesterday about that interview he did where he described his volunteer work as a porter taking bodies to the hospital morgue (which there is nothing suspicious about in itself) and how he said "don't worry, i'm not a necrophiliac". WTF?? It would be like taking your cat to the vet and the vet saying "We're going to have to keep the cat overnight I'm afraid, but we're not into bestiality so it's OK" or a teacher at parents evening going "Hello Mr and Mrs Smith. I'm not a paedo"


i worked as a hospital porter and it would never have occurred to me to say anything like that. Or to any of the other porters. We treated the dead with respect.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2012)

exactly, why would you even be thinking about necrophilia?


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2012)

You may want to check out his appearance on desert island discs where a song dedicated to the death of his mother and how he was feeling at the time she was lying dead at his sisters house, featured the opening lyrics 'cant stop loving you'.


----------



## HST (Oct 17, 2012)

elbows said:


> You may want to check out his appearance on desert island discs where a song dedicated to the death of his mother and how he was feeling at the time she was lying dead at his sisters house, featured the opening lyrics 'cant stop loving you'.


Well necrophilia was one of the rumours going around for years but I doubt we'll get any proof now. He was one sick bastard.


----------



## Apathy (Oct 17, 2012)

Where do the rumours about necrophilia come from and why? Anyone know? Was it just because he is odd and he was working in a morgue or was there real concerns at the time?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

elbows said:


> You may want to check out his appearance on desert island discs where a song dedicated to the death of his mother and how he was feeling at the time she was lying dead at his sisters house, featured the opening lyrics 'cant stop loving you'.


do you think you'll stop loving your mum the moment she steps off this mortal coil?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> exactly, why would you even be thinking about necrophilia?


It's dead good


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> It's dead good


 

one of these days some rotten cunt will split on you


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> one of these days some rotten cunt will split on you


She's a cold one and no mistake. But if you get her out of the box she's not frigid.


----------



## Espresso (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> this would make a good caption competition


 
Savile paying off the management in Stoke Mandeville while the establishment looks the other way.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 17, 2012)

treelover said:


> Janet Cope, Saville's ex assistant for 32 years is attacking him in the press, Daily Mirror to be specific, yet a week ago she was interviewed on Radio Sheffield and robustly defended him


Ay?

She was quoted robustly defending him in the Mail yesterday!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Ay?
> 
> She was quoted robustly defending him in the Mail yesterday!


she says what she's paid for


----------



## articul8 (Oct 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> An incestuous paedophile who also engaged in bestiality, at that!


what goes on tour stays on tour


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> An incestuous paedophile who also engaged in bestiality, at that!


 
We'll never see his like again. Two little boys, Tie me kangaroo down, sport...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

Shouldn't take much to work this one out:




> The row over Jimmy Savile's four-decade career at the BBC has intensified after it emerged that the veteran journalist John Simpson claimed that top executives knew of sexual abuse by another star presenter in the 1950s and 60s.
> 
> Simpson referred to the star in his 1999 autobiography as "Uncle Dick" and said he had been a household name from the 1920s until his death in 1967. He claimed that BBC bosses up to the level of director general were aware of the allegations.


 


> "Week after week, children from all over the country could win competitions to visit the BBC and meet Uncle Dick," Simpson wrote in Strange Places, Questionable People.
> 
> "He would welcome them, show them around, give them lunch, then take them to the gents and interfere with them. If parents complained, the director general's office would write saying the nation wouldn't understand such an accusation against a much-loved figure."


----------



## peterkro (Oct 17, 2012)

Derek McC*****h(uncle Mac)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

Yep.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> An incestuous paedophile who also engaged in bestiality, at that!


Who used to live in Hamilton Road in Brighton just down from my old house.
There is a plaque on the wall of the house!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Who used to live in Hamilton Road in Brighton just down from my old house.
> There is a plaque on the wall of the house!!


 
There's a church in Gorleston, in Norfolk that he built, that my nan liked, until I told her Eric Gill's social habits, at which time she decided it was a horrid church!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a church in Gorleston, in Norfolk that he built, that my nan liked, until I told her Eric Gill's social habits, at which time she decided it was a horrid church!


Raping dogs and kids.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Raping dogs and kids.


Norfolk, you say?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

Live from? No surely not?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2012)

So, is Savile worse than Gill, 'cos of the corpse-fucking, or is Gill worse than Savile, because of the daughter-fucking?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, is Savile worse than Gill, 'cos of the corpse-fucking, or is Gill worse than Savile, because of the daughter-fucking?


There's only one way to settle this - through the traditional tossing off a coypu.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> There's only one way to settle this - through the traditional tossing off a coypu.


 
Go ahead, be my guest!!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Go ahead, be my guest!!


No way, dude, it's otterly obscene


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, is Savile worse than Gill, 'cos of the corpse-fucking, or is Gill worse than Savile, because of the daughter-fucking?


It's the dog fucking that x factors it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's the dog fucking that x factors it.


 
Good point.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's the dog fucking that x factors it.


 
tis better to fuck a dog than a corpse


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> tis better to fuck a dog than a corpse


How do you feel about dead dogs?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2012)

sado-necro-zoophilia - flogging a dead horse


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> How do you feel about dead dogs?


 

belonging to ken dodds dad


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 17, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> How do you feel about dead dogs?


 
cloudedead


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 17, 2012)

I love Gill Sans and Perpetua. Am I a sister raping, dog fucking paedophile lover if I use them?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 17, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> I love Gill Sans and Perpetua. Am I a sister raping, dog fucking paedophile lover if I use them?


 
yep


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2012)

The most niche -philia surely must be cryptozoophilia


----------



## laptop (Oct 17, 2012)

Xenobiophilia, shurely?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> The most niche -philia surely must be cryptozoophilia


 
shagging a unicorn could be painful


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> shagging a unicorn could be painful


the horn would give you something to hold on to


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2012)

laptop said:


> Xenobiophilia, shurely?


Naw, that's alien shagging


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Naw, that's alien shagging


what about xenaphilia?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

I don't think this has been posted before but it is very powerful piece by Ben Fellows

_Editor: link removed. This link explains why:_
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/...s-naming-high-profile-tory-in-savile-scandal/


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 17, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> belonging to ken dodds dad


 
Ken Dodds' dad's dead dog's dead .....


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what about xenaphilia?


 
Entirey healthy interest that one!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 17, 2012)

Anyway, Uncle Mac wiki link 

For those who
a) : didn't know who the fuck he was

and

b). couldn't be arsed to spend 2 mins googlingit ...


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> I don't think this has been posted before but it is very powerful piece by Ben Fellows
> <editor: link removed for legal reasons.>


kin el.

Looks like there's something in the conspiracy / high powered peadophile ring theories then if those accusations are right. He seems to be naming 2 former home secretaries there.


----------



## peterkro (Oct 17, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Anyway, Uncle Mac wiki link
> 
> For those who
> a) : didn't know who the fuck he was
> ...


Ooh wikipedia have locked the article.Surely to god it's not possible to libel someone who's been dead for decades and who was outed by a well known journalist in a book ages ago.(that's happened this afternoon by the way)


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 17, 2012)

Didn't notice the locked in that wiki.

Was idly wondering about the severe lack of up to dateness!


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> kin el.
> 
> Looks like there's something in the conspiracy / high powered peadophile ring theories then if those accusations are right. He seems to be naming 2 former home secretaries there.


From the url it looks like it was published on the 11th Oct 2012, so I'm guessing from the lack of it being on here already, it hasn't been covered in the mainstream press in the UK

--- is a big name to drop


----------



## TopCat (Oct 17, 2012)

Fucking hell.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 17, 2012)

BBC R4 The Moral Maze was just on discussing:

"Has Jimmy Savile's charity work been morally contaminated by revelations of child abuse? "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> From the url it looks like it was published on the 11th Oct 2012, so I'm guessing from the lack of it being on here already, it hasn't been covered in the mainstream press in the UK
> 
> Ken Clarke is a big name to drop


Another man was 'acting over-familiar' with him in Clarke's presence. And they gave him some whiskey, which isn't illegal. The specifics involving named people don't amount to much really.

I'm not doubting him, just saying that there isn't much substance.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2012)

weltweit said:


> BBC R4 The Moral Maze was just on discussing:
> 
> "Has Jimmy Savile's charity work been morally contaminated by revelations of child abuse? "
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11


i listened to that. stupid fucking programme.
melanie philips is a complete hatstand


----------



## weltweit (Oct 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i listened to that. stupid fucking programme.
> melanie philips is a complete hatstand


I was cooking at the time but yes she is ...


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Another man was 'acting over-familiar' with him in Clarke's presence. And they gave him some whiskey, which isn't illegal. The specifics involving named people don't amount to much really.
> 
> I'm not doubting him, just saying that there isn't much substance.


That is why I used the phrase "big name to drop" as he has not made any allegations against him personally (at this time).


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 17, 2012)

Brieflly summarise the Mad Mel comments please?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> kin el.
> 
> Looks like there's something in the conspiracy / high powered peadophile ring theories then if those accusations are right. He seems to be naming 2 former home secretaries there.



Like the Jersey story and Edward Heath taking boys on sailing trips... No real evidence other than ubattributable quotes.

Edit: Jersey not Guernsey


----------



## TopCat (Oct 17, 2012)

No one link to David Ike please no...


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Ooh wikipedia have locked the article.Surely to god it's not possible to libel someone who's been dead for decades and who was outed by a well known journalist in a book ages ago.(that's happened this afternoon by the way)


 
Wikipedia arent just concerned with libel though, they can take being an encyclopaedia rather seriously and they sometimes pre-empt editing bunfights.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Like the Guernsey story and Edward Heath taking boys on sailing trips... No real evidence other than ubattributable quotes.


same's true of savile though really.

It could of course be that people are lying about this stuff for the lulz, but this guy has put his name to this, and runs a tv production company so presumably has a fair amount to lose by going public like this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

At least no one can accuse david icke of being that way inclined 

Can they?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> At least no one can accuse david icke of being that way inclined
> 
> Can they?


 
No.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 17, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Brieflly summarise the Mad Mel comments please?


You will have to hope that OU has a better memory of it than I because I was distracted. Sorry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> same's true of savile though really.
> 
> It could of course be that people are lying about this stuff for the lulz, but this guy has put his name to this, and runs a tv production company so presumably has a fair amount to lose by going public like this.


do you think that makes him more reasonable and less likely to do something stupid than other lesser mortals?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> same's true of savile though really.
> 
> It could of course be that people are lying about this stuff for the lulz, but this guy has put his name to this, and runs a tv production company so presumably has a fair amount to lose by going public like this.


Which guy, Ben Fellows? He's been careful not to name anybody except the politicians involved in the Cook Report work he did. Again, not doubting him, but assuming everything he's saying is true, what then? I didn't like the way he ended that piece with the rather ridiculous attack on Harriet Harman. Not helpful to brand anyone advocating changes in the law that you don't like a pedophile. He appears to be advocating a clampdown of the law as a reaction to this. Not sure what kind of a clampdown, but that smacks of the moral panic following the Soam murders, which resulted in very bad legislation about crb checks that have had the effect of centralising control over everyone's lives in a none-too-healthy way.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think that makes him more reasonable and less likely to do something stupid than other lesser mortals?


I think it makes him less likely to have completely made it up than someone posting completely anonymously.

Obviously there's still a chance he's doing it for publicity reasons, or as part of some sort of documentary investigating how gullible the internet is etc. but that'd seem like a pretty high risk strategy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Brieflly summarise the Mad Mel comments please?


nah not worth spreading - i've never heard her speak before. fucking hell.


----------



## Firky (Oct 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> I don't think this has been posted before but it is very powerful piece by Ben Fellows
> 
> _The following accounts are just some of my own personal experiences – and brushes with pedophilia out in the entertainment and big media spheres, as a child star who attended the Sylvia Young Theatre School in London…_


 



> YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PATTERN AND EXAMINE IT TOGETHER, HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE NO LONGER FROWNED ON, AND PEDOPHILE BEHAVIOR AS HARRIET HARMAN SAID NEED DECRIMINALISING, IN JEWISH LAW ITS NOT A CRIME TO HAVE SEX WITH NON JEW CHILDREN, AND WE ARE NOW RULED BY THE JEWISH LOBBY
> WITH A CIRCUMCISION, THE HEAD TO THE PENIS IS EXPOSED AND BECOMES ROUGH DRY AND HARD, SO ORDINARY INTERCORSE IS NOT THAT SATISFYING SO THEY GO FOR THE RECTUM WHICH IS TOIGHTER, AS WITH JIMMY SAVILE, BOY OR GIRL DOES NOT MATTER. THE JEWS HAVE TO BE CONFRONTED ON THIS TOPIC.
> OUR KIDS SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT


 
Uh huh...


----------



## peterkro (Oct 17, 2012)

elbows said:


> Wikipedia arent just concerned with libel though, they can take being an encyclopaedia rather seriously and they sometimes pre-empt editing bunfights.


Yeah I realise that, it's only those that aren't registered who can't change article.What did surprise me is it happened this afternoon (unless there are two pages and I was on the other one) and that's probably because the quotes from the book have been circulating and it didn't require more than a few minutes to suss who it was.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Uh huh...


Someone post a strange comment, does that have an effect on what Ben Fellows has said


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

One final push for 1000 replies


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Which guy, Ben Fellows? He's been careful not to name anybody except the politicians involved in the Cook Report work he did.


Reading between the lines though, why would the cook report feel the need to hire a 15 year old boy to carry out this under cover work with these politicians?

It does seem that he's got a bit of form though, as a whistleblower on the G4S cock up before the olympics, which through up this less than complementary comment on one blog.



> I know who ‘Lee Hazeldean’ is. His voice is instantly recognisable as one Ben Fellows, a below-average ‘filmmaker’ who has his own channel on Youtube (if you play the radio interview and then his documentary you’ll recognise his distinct voice and turn of phrase as they didn’t use a voice disguise on the radio interview). He’s completely delusional, a fantasist and attention-seeker. He was an actor at one time and has created a web of lies around his career as he’s very charming, charismatic and articulate. He told me he worked for the Cook Report and all that Northern Ireland bs too. But he’s the biggest fake I’ve ever met. And possibly mentally ill. I once knew him well and he displays nine of the eleven traits of someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He might be a security guard for G4s but don’t believe anything he says.


 
So erm I dunno.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I think it makes him less likely to have completely made it up than someone posting completely anonymously.
> 
> Obviously there's still a chance he's doing it for publicity reasons, or as part of some sort of documentary investigating how gullible the internet is etc. but that'd seem like a pretty high risk strategy.


Not so cocky now, eh? Eh?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Not so cocky now, eh? Eh?


not as you no.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> not as you no.


That's because I rarely get the rug pulled from 'neath my feet


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I think it makes him less likely to have completely made it up than someone posting completely anonymously.
> 
> Obviously there's still a chance he's doing it for publicity reasons, or as part of some sort of documentary investigating how gullible the internet is etc. but that'd seem like a pretty high risk strategy.


btw, I'd still stand by this statement.

someone putting their name to a statement like that is far less likely to be bullshitting than someone posting entirely anonymously IMO. 

You'll note that I didn't say that I instantly believed it must be true, just that it makes it less likely not to be.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> That's because I rarely get the rug pulled from 'neath my feet


I wake every morning and pray that one day I might be as constantly right as Pickman's model.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I wake every morning and pray that one day I might be as constantly right as Pickman's model.


And one day you might be. But I won't hold my breath waiting.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> btw, I'd still stand by this statement.
> 
> someone putting their name to a statement like that is far less likely to be bullshitting than someone posting entirely anonymously IMO.
> 
> You'll note that I didn't say that I instantly believed it must be true, just that it makes it less likely not to be.


It is in the public domain now so one would expect him to be interviewed by one of the inquires and it is for them and other to make a judgement on what he has said.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

@PM

thing is, if you weren't so busy being a twat you might have been able to have found that quote yourself, then you could really have laid it on thick, instead of which I had to do it for you.

Btw, I love the way that one blog comment is enough to convince you he's not to be trusted. double standards?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2012)

Is this him or someone else?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0271508/


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> @PM
> 
> thing is, if you weren't so busy being a twat you might have been able to have found that quote yourself, then you could really have laid it on thick, instead of which I had to do it for you.
> 
> Btw, I love the way that one blog comment is enough to convince you he's not to be trusted. double standards?


why should I spend my time looking for such things when there're useful idiots shuffling about the place bringing them to me?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Is this him or someone else?
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0271508/


That is him. I'm surprised his Eastenders work isn't listed there.

He says this in his article:



> At the BBC I did many series and episodes of television programmes.


 
Series _and_ episodes. Yet none is listed on imdb.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2012)

Blog post about fantasist may be right.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

In the article he says he was in eastenders but the guy in your link doesn't mention that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

In reply to 935, if that's right it's one of those oh dear oh dear moments


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> In the article he says he was in eastenders but the guy in your link doesn't mention that.


 
So where is the Ben Fellows who was in Eastenders and The Cook Report on IMDB then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> In the article he says he was in eastenders but the guy in your link doesn't mention that.


It's definitely him. Google his name and it comes up with his production company's (rather sparse) website. The stuff about being an assistant producer and earning ££££££s is rather optimistic, shall we say, given the low-budget nature of his oevre thus far in his career.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> So where is the Ben Fellows who was in Eastenders and The Cook Report on IMDB then?


I have no idea

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/352527/Sex-abuse-rife-at-BBC-says-Ben-Fellows


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2012)

Well either his dazzling career has been mistakenly omitted from IMDB, or the Express are fucking suckers.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Well either his dazzling career has been mistakenly omitted from IMDB, or the Express are fucking suckers.


At the moment they seem to be the only paper to have reproduced what is a week old story.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2012)

There is a Benjamin Fellows on imdb who was in the Bill a couple of times. No BBC stuff, though.

Reminds me perhaps of Nick Blinko, who published a novel called Primal Screamer, which was promptly used in publicity for the totally unrelated author Nicholas Blinkoe. Neither is particularly high on the fame stakes, but at the time, Nick was more well-known than Nicholas.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2012)

firky said:


> Uh huh...


and this one as well:

What do people expect when a society or industry is run by satanic JEWS? The Jew Mass Media, Jew Hollywood and Jew Federal Reserve are sicknesses of the satanic anti Christ Jew.
Remember the King David Hotel bombing
 Remember the Levon Affair
 Remember the USS Liberty attack
 Remember 9/11
All of these events were done by satanic Jews pretending to be Arabs.
No matter the time in history, location on Earth or people involved the Jew is a sickness to all Nations they infect.

Where's taffboy? What's this about conspiracy theories not being anti-semitic again?

it could well be unfair of me but i have my doubts about it if it's posted on this sort of place. If you look around the website it goes on about satanism and the like as well. That website isn't what I'd call a reliable source.

It could be of course, assuming everything the guy says is true, that he is using a false name or something and he might have changed some of the details? I don't want to say that it's not true because it's posted there.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2012)

I'm sorry to keep going on about this but is it not the case that if these conspiracy theorists keep on going on about Saville's crimes in this way, making up bullshit (or using genuine abuse to further their sick ideas) and linking it to naked anti-semitism that the police and the BBC etc could use the excuse of it all being rumours and exaggerations by conspiracy theorists as an excuse to not investigate it at all and end up with the paedos ending up getting away with it and the victims not getting closure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I'm sorry to keep going on about this but is it not the case that if these conspiracy theorists keep on going on about Saville's crimes in this way and linking it to naked anti-semitism that the police and the BBC etc could use the excuse of it all being rumours and exaggerations by conspiracy theorists as an excuse to not investigate it at all and end up with the paedos ending up getting away with it and the victims not getting closure.


tbh, most people simply ignore Icke-type lunacy. There are real accusations from real people to be investigated - lots of them. Nobody's going to be able to dismiss them.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Well either his dazzling career has been mistakenly omitted from IMDB, or the Express are fucking suckers.


If he's a fantasist he's been at it for a while.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh, most people simply ignore Icke-type lunacy. There are real accusations from real people to be investigated - lots of them. Nobody's going to be able to dismiss them.


 
Yeah I know, but let's say that there was an elite paedo ring involving members of the government, well-loved bbc presenters etc, and a handful of people were alleging this outside of Icke type websites. Because of the conspirascum they could simply turn around and say that it is not worth investigating, and the victims would be discredited and during the trial they could be tainted by association with the lunatics.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> If he's a fantasist he's been at it for a while.


Maybe he was an extra in EEs. They don't get credited. Hell, I've been an extra. It isn't a total lie for me to say that I've appeared on screen in a professional role. At the very least, there is a great deal of exaggeration going on in that article.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I'm sorry to keep going on about this but is it not the case that if these conspiracy theorists keep on going on about Saville's crimes in this way, making up bullshit (or using genuine abuse to further their sick ideas) and linking it to naked anti-semitism that the police and the BBC etc could use the excuse of it all being rumours and exaggerations by conspiracy theorists as an excuse to not investigate it at all and end up with the paedos ending up getting away with it and the victims not getting closure.


This is why so few children who are abused come forward, they think no-one will believe them.

I have no idea if this guy is telling the truth or not, I read his article and felt in the current climate it was very relevant. If it is true it is likely to be a tail that could be told by many more, lets hope they come forward.

Judging this guy is pointless, hopefully the truth will come out.

edit to add, I came across this article from the website order-order reading about the chief-whip, I'd have linked to the express if it had come up in my original search


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah I know, but let's say that there was an elite paedo ring involving members of the government, well-loved bbc presenters etc, and a handful of people were alleging this outside of Icke type websites. Because of the conspirascum they could simply turn around and say that it is not worth investigating, and the victims would be discredited and during the trial they could be tainted by association with the lunatics.


 
I'm not sure that would happen. It depends who the handful of people outside consipracircles were. If a story has already gone mainstream, if there is already pressure for an inquiry, then I dont think conspiracy theories can discredit the genie back into the bottle. Its at earlier stages of a submerged story trying to rise up that conspiraloonery could be used to keep it off the spectrum of 'respectable/credible' debate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2012)

1%er said:


> Judging this guy is pointless, hopefully the truth will come out.


It's not entirely pointless to make a judgement about his reliability, though. In that article, he was talking himself up, and almost certainly stretching the truth to breaking point in order to do so. If there is some truth in there, he doesn't help himself by surrounding it by half-truths to make himself sound more impressive.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe he was an extra in EEs. They don't get credited. Hell, I've been an extra. It isn't a total lie for me to say that I've appeared on screen in a professional role. At the very least, there is a great deal of exaggeration going on in that article.


ALternatively, maybe people on here are reading too much into his eastenders connection.



> At the BBC I did many series and episodes of television programmes. A a young actor on East Enders, I was propositioned by another adult actor


He doesn't actually say that he was a regular East Enders character, just that he was a young actor on East Enders when he was propositioned by another adult actor.

I doubt that the internet is particularly good at listing all the credits for child actors from 80s tv series who never made it to being particularly famous later on.

It's not like the guy has no acting credits to his name later on.

btw, I think this is an interesting exhibition of the reasons that people might not want to go public about any of this, as they fear having their lives picked apart and being labelled as a fraud just because their entire life history doesn't appear on the front page of google, despite the parts being investigated being from the pre-internet era.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> ALternatively, maybe people on here are reading too much into his eastenders connection.
> 
> 
> He doesn't actually say that he was a regular East Enders character, just that he was a young actor on East Enders when he was propositioned by another adult actor.
> ...


for some people it will appear on the front page of google.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not entirely pointless to make a judgement about his reliability, though. In that article, he was talking himself up, and almost certainly stretching the truth to breaking point in order to do so. If there is some truth in there, he doesn't help himself by surrounding it by half-truths to make himself sound more impressive.


 
It's not him making the anti-semitic comments etc to be fair. Perhaps he posted it up on there or was approached by them not knowing what kind of website it was?

How do we know that's his real name?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> ALternatively, maybe people on here are reading too much into his eastenders connection.
> 
> 
> He doesn't actually say that he was a regular East Enders character, just that he was a young actor on East Enders when he was propositioned by another adult actor.
> ...


If this story hadn't been linked from the site it was................................


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2012)

elbows said:


> I'm not sure that would happen. It depends who the handful of people outside consipracircles were. If a story has already gone mainstream, if there is already pressure for an inquiry, then I dont think conspiracy theories can discredit the genie back into the bottle. Its at earlier stages of a submerged story trying to rise up that conspiraloonery could be used to keep it off the spectrum of 'respectable/credible' debate.


 
But there's also the fact that credible allegations are being mixed with all sorts of other mental shit. And it's not like racism etc doesn't have an impact on whether something is investigated and looked into properly - look at the rochdale thing for example.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> for some people it will appear on the front page of google.


have you thought about a career change to being a fortune cookie cryptic message writer?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> It's not like the guy has no acting credits to his name later on.


 
He has three. Two of which are un-rated productions he directed himself. I know loads of people who have starred in their own films. They're known as students. The other is another barely-rated film, perhaps filmed by another student.

Surely the big sting he did for The Cook Report would get a mention? Zilch. Nothing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> have you thought about a career change to being a fortune cookie cryptic message writer?


it's not cryptick at all. it's widely known that google personalises the results it returns, so that what you see returned on the first page for a search for ben fellows won't be the same results i see.


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> btw, I think this is an interesting exhibition of the reasons that people might not want to go public about any of this, as they fear having their lives picked apart and being labelled as a fraud just because their entire life history doesn't appear on the front page of google, despite the parts being investigated being from the pre-internet era.


 
Because of this sort of thing the net can actually further obscure a particular phenomenon.

When trying to learn the truth from a distance one of the things we can look for is signs that people making allegations are having their characters assassinated in an especially precise, brutal or sustained manner. ie being discredited or pressured as part of a campaign to prevent truth emerging.

But now because of the net things like instant research, brutal character assassination and obsessive targeting of people is rather a widespread phenomenon that we are used to seeing all the time without any specially dodgy coverup motives powering the attacks.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's not cryptick at all. it's widely known that google personalises the results it returns, so that what you see returned on the first page for a search for ben fellows won't be the same results i see.


and what relevance does this point have to this thread?

does your google first page give you Ben Fellows late 80s child acting career history, or did you just find this out about google and thought you'd have to share it with the thread?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> and what relevance does this point have to this thread?
> 
> does your google first page give you Ben Fellows late 80s child acting career history, or did you just find this out about google and thought you'd have to share it with the thread?


 


free spirit said:


> btw, I think this is an interesting exhibition of the reasons that people might not want to go public about any of this, as they fear having their lives picked apart and being labelled as a fraud just because their entire life history doesn't appear on the front page of google, despite the parts being investigated being from the pre-internet era.


the underlined bit is COMPLETELY FUCKING MEANINGLESS because what the first page of results you receive from a certain google search WILL NOT BE in either the same order or the same results from the first page of results i see. it's been well documented, and although i can go into this in depth i'd really rather not. but if you want to post up meaningless and indeed misleading shit about things you clearly don't know about in future, don't be surprised if people pull you up on it.

do you want to continue digging or can we move on now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2012)

Well, no wish to rubbish Ben Fellows any more. I do think however, that the reason only the Express has picked up his story is because the Express has terrible standards and didn't check his story out at all. Even in that article, it says that he 'trained at the Royal Shakespeare Company'. Oh no he didn't.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> He has three. Two of which are un-rated productions he directed himself. I know loads of people who have starred in their own films. They're known as students. The other is another barely-rated film, perhaps filmed by another student.


yes, but he did it in reverse. He was an actor in the film that was first released in 1998, then he directed 2 films that he also starred in, which backs up his back story of being a child actor who moved from that into directing and producing etc.



Citizen66 said:


> Surely the big sting he did for The Cook Report would get a mention? Zilch. Nothing.





> *The one that got away*
> 
> In 1994, The _Cook Report_ worked in co-operation with _The Guardian_ newspaper on the infamous cash for questions story and had filmed a lobbyist claiming that he ‘used MPs like taxis’ and paid them to ask questions in parliament on behalf of clients. The programme arranged a sophisticated sting operation to see if this claim was justified, but by the end of the then current series filming was incomplete. _The Guardian_ subsequently decided to go it alone. Since the story would have been very tired by the time the programme was back on air nearly six months later, it was cancelled on a purely pragmatic basis. It was the only film out of the 130 produced which suffered this fate.


wiki


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> and what relevance does this point have to this thread?
> 
> does your google first page give you Ben Fellows late 80s child acting career history, or did you just find this out about google and thought you'd have to share it with the thread?


i don't know what fucking search terms you put in, if they're the same ones i used. BUT, one last time, EVEN IF i put in the same terms as you do, because of my search history, if i receive the same results they will be in a different order to the ones you get because of the (relatively) new algorithm google uses.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> the underlined bit is COMPLETELY FUCKING MEANINGLESS because what the first page of results you receive from a certain google search WILL NOT BE in either the same order or the same results from the first page of results i see. it's been well documented, and although i can go into this in depth i'd really rather not. but if you want to post up meaningless and indeed misleading shit about things you clearly don't know about in future, don't be surprised if people pull you up on it.
> 
> do you want to continue digging or can we move on now.


I'm in no way disputing that this is how google works, but this also in no way invalidates what I said.

it won't appear on the front page of google for anyone because it's not on the fucking internet because it was in the 80s, and nobodies been arsed to post up the acting biog of a bit part child actor from the 80s who never really made it to being famous.

I assume you understand that not everything that's ever happened has actually made it onto the internet in an easily verifiable format?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> yes, but he did it in reverse. He was an actor in the film that was first released in 1998, then he directed 2 films that he also starred in, which backs up his back story of being a child actor who moved from that into directing and producing etc.


 
About as much as it backs his story of being an astronaut too.



> > _*The one that got away*_
> >
> > _In 1994, The Cook Report worked in co-operation with The Guardian newspaper on the infamous cash for questions story and had filmed a lobbyist claiming that he ‘used MPs like taxis’ and paid them to ask questions in parliament on behalf of clients. The programme arranged a sophisticated sting operation to see if this claim was justified, but by the end of the then current series filming was incomplete. The Guardian subsequently decided to go it alone. Since the story would have been very tired by the time the programme was back on air nearly six months later, it was cancelled on a purely pragmatic basis. It was the only film out of the 130 produced which suffered this fate._
> 
> ...


 
Which must mean he was in that as well! 



If I describe what's in Hitchcock's _The Birds, _and then you discovered that what I said was true, that would then mean I actually was in that film?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know what fucking search terms you put in, if they're the same ones i used. BUT, one last time, EVEN IF i put in the same terms as you do, because of my search history, if i receive the same results they will be in a different order to the ones you get because of the (relatively) new algorithm google uses.


you actually do think this is some sort of a revelation don't you.

feel free to post up this guys entire 1980s child acting history if your google search history and geographic location data has somehow resulted in this being thrown up for you but not for me, otherwise you'd seem to be demonstrating my point.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2012)

may be he will tell us if he has a Google alert for his name


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> About as much as it backs his story of being an astronaut too.


he says he was an actor, his imdb.com profile shows him having acted in 3 films....




Citizen66 said:


> Which must mean he was in that as well!


no, but it would explain why you might not be able to find the programme he referred to.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 18, 2012)

I'm willing to accept that he had some non-part on those shows as extras aren't credited afaik. But he seems to have bigged himself up somewhat in that earlier article.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> he says he was an actor, his imdb.com profile shows him having acted in 3 films....


 
I'm a racing car driver. In that race organised by myself.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 18, 2012)

I suppose what got up my nose was people were talking about him (using his name) like it's someone I should have heard of. Having a poke around a bit reveals him to be a bit of a self publicist. Obviously that doesn't affect his claims of abuse. It just struck me as a bit odd how it was all framed.

It was _Ben Fellows says... _Not a bit part actor from the 90s says.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I'm in no way disputing that this is how google works, but this also in no way invalidates what I said.
> 
> it won't appear on the front page of google for anyone because it's not on the fucking internet because it was in the 80s, and nobodies been arsed to post up the acting biog of a bit part child actor from the 80s who never really made it to being famous.
> 
> I assume you understand that not everything that's ever happened has actually made it onto the internet in an easily verifiable format?


Ben, was born in 1974 at the White Chapel Maternity Hospital London and was adopted six months later and grew up in Birmingham. At the age of ten he became the youngest company member of the Royal Shakespeare Company under the direction of Adrian Noble.
He went on to have a successful child-acting career studying at the Sylvia Young Stage School and The London Studio Centre appearing in over twenty West End and touring stage productions and numerous television series and feature films over a twenty five year period.
Ben is an award winning photographer and cinematographer having produced commercials, documentaries, numerous short films and feature films over the past 15 years. He has won awards for his film making all over the world including a BAFTA Award for his work as an investigative journalist on Central Television’s “The Cook Report”.
In recent years Ben has won a Best Film Award at the Phoenix Film Festival, the Brighton International Film Festival and The New York Film Festival. Ben was considered for the Carl Foreman BAFTA Award for his feature length documentary film “I WAS JONATHAN PITT”, which received five stars in The New York Times. The film was about Ben's personal search for his birth mother after being adopted 35 years previously. The film was theatrically released worldwide in 2006. Ben received national and international press recognition and was featured on the Oprah Winfrey Show in America. Ben is a full member of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts.
Ben was the only filmmaker ever to be mentored by the late Stanley Kubrick. He was also the first Channel Four Scholar - a scholarship supported by British film maker Mike Leigh along with Channel Four Television to send Ben to the prestigious London Film school.

____________________________

Ben Fellows is an award winning film producer, director and investigative journalist. Ben was the only journalist to join G4S to report on the training and role out of the security personnel for the London 2012 Olympic Games. Ben has a fascinating story to tell and has appeared on many alternative media radio and television programmes as well as being quoted in the mainstream media - even though they would not acknowledge him. Ben was the first journalist to break the story of how appalling G4S was deliveri
ng the £284million security contract for the games.

Ben started in the entertainment industry at the age of ten, appearing at the Royal Shakespeare Company under the esteemed direction of Adrian Noble, and went on to have a successful child acting career. He then moved in to investigative journalism working for Central Television's "The Cook Report" where he became one of the youngest members of the team. Ben has worked on a diverse range of stories from gun running, illegal immigration, Polish Mafia, The Cash for Questions scandal, weapons of mass destruction, the I.R.A and now the 2012 London Olympics. Whatever story Ben has worked on seems somehow to hit the headlines and Ben has been responsible for many changes in the law albeit as an undercover reporter.

As a filmmaker, making commercials, documentaries and feature films Ben started his filmmaking career by attending the London Film School, where he was the first Channel 4 Scholar sponsored in part by film director Mike Leigh and Film Four. He was also the only filmmaker to be mentored by the late Stanley Kubrick and is a full voting member of the British Academy of Film & Television Arts (BAFTA).
two potted biographies which didn't take long to find on the internet. but google doesn't index the entire internet, i've no great faith that you've much in the way of internet searching ability, there are a number of sources which are available by subscription which might add more information - eg nexis, times digital archive. but yes, you're right, not everything is on the internet (lambeth electoral registers for example) and not everyone has a biography online. but there would be enough information on the internet that given a couple of hours i could give you a fairly decent biography of yer man. perhaps you might even do the work yourself.


----------



## elbows (Oct 18, 2012)

Is it this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/user/benfellows170?feature=watch

Alex Jones-tastic, even been interviewed by him apparently.

Check the comments below this video for examples. (broke link as I didnt want to embed the video)

http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=wmb444MTNl8&feature=relmfu


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> you actually do think this is some sort of a revelation don't you.
> 
> feel free to post up this guys entire 1980s child acting history if your google search history and geographic location data has somehow resulted in this being thrown up for you but not for me, otherwise you'd seem to be demonstrating my point.


i think it's some sort of revelation to you. but you seem to be falling into the whytya mindset, where everyone has a box in an archives detailing their entire family history. even the standard biographies in the dnb of eg henry irving won't go into detail on every part they played: and nor will the potted biographies on imdb. however, as i've said, given a couple of hours it's perfectly possible to put together a fairly decent acting biography of this man.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 18, 2012)

:yawning smiley:


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 18, 2012)

So, that Savile. Never did like the cut of his jib


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2012)

you've just quoted his biography from his own production company website.

I thought you were wanting evidence to substantiate his claim about his child acting career, from a source other than ben fellows.

If I'd realised you were happy with ben fellows corroborating his own back story I'd have posted that up a couple of pages ago.


eta - what the fuck is your actual point anyway pickmans? Given that you started this off by laughing at me because a single anonymous blogger had accused this guy of being a fantacist, and you're now posting up his biog as evidence to support his back story?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 18, 2012)

elbows said:


> Is it this guy?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/benfellows170?feature=watch
> 
> ...


 
lol


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2012)

however, i am beginning to doubt that ben fellows' past is quite as he makes it out because this list of people who've been in eastenders - which appears to be fairly complete - http://www.tvrage.com/EastEnders/cast?sort=name where there is neither a ben nor a benjamin fellows. tho he did appear in the bill in 1991 and 1993...


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2012)

elbows said:


> Is it this guy?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/benfellows170?feature=watch
> 
> ...


That's case closed then


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> you've just quoted his biography from his own production company website.
> 
> I thought you were wanting evidence to substantiate his claim about his child acting career, from a source other than ben fellows.
> 
> ...


what the fuck's your point? you started buggering about after i pointed out that the search results you see won't be the same as the ones i see.

you asked not for biographies in a verifiable form (by which i suppose you mean a durable url rather than a temporary url): and that's what i provided. however, as i have mentioned (post 982) i am uncertain that he's reliable in what he says as there is no obvious trace of his being in eastenders.

but you seemed very keen to pursue what is to me an obvious point about google for no very good reason bar your being fucked off that i had a small pop at you.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i am uncertain that he's reliable in what he says as there is no obvious trace of his being in eastenders.


which takes me back full circle to my original point about the problems google has in finding corroborative information about bit part child actors activities in the late 80s.



Pickman's model said:


> but you seemed very keen to pursue what is to me an obvious point about google for no very good reason bar your being fucked off that i had a small pop at you.


it was an irrelevant point that I had no desire to persue, hence my previous posts pointing this out. Google can't find information that has never been posted on to the internet, which applies to a hell of a lot of stuff from the 80s.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2012)

While not calling into question the guys claims directly about his experiences as a child actor, I think he probably does have some background that would possibly explain his willingness to name politicians at the end of the article, in that he runs his own internet radio show that seems pretty into anti NWO, freemen of the land type stuff.

http://www.thebenfellowsradioshow.com/#!archive/c9qb

This does give him some publicity stunt type justification for the article as well, and probably means he's not particularly worried about his reputation on the more mainstream side of things.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2012)

From what I've seen, if he's lying about his child acting career, or working with the cook report then he's gone to extraordinary lengths to keep up the exact same lie over a lot of years, and managed to con tens of thousands out of financiers to fund his films using this back story, and actually failed to mention in his piece the 2 Bill episodes he does seem to be listed for back in the early 90s at a time that ties up with the other timings he's mentioned.

I'm still inclined to think that he's generally telling the truth in his article, though possibly embellishing some aspects of it, and the stuff about the politicians should probably be treated with caution. Having said that, if what he's saying is true, then it's not particularly surprising that he might end up taking the sort of world view he now seems to be pushing via his radio show, so I'd not entirely discount what he's saying just because he's also now running that radio show.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> which takes me back full circle to my original point about the problems google has in finding corroborative information about bit part child actors activities in the late 80s.
> 
> it was an irrelevant point that I had no desire to persue, hence my previous posts pointing this out. Google can't find information that has never been posted on to the internet, which applies to a hell of a lot of stuff from the 80s.


Bollocks. Only a stupid cunt woulds rely solely on google to find information on the internet.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 18, 2012)

By the way, actors get credited. Extras don't, but they're actually more like props as it doesn't really involve acting.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> and this one as well:
> 
> What do people expect when a society or industry is run by satanic JEWS? The Jew Mass Media, Jew Hollywood and Jew Federal Reserve are sicknesses of the satanic anti Christ Jew.
> Remember the King David Hotel bombing
> ...


 
Missing links.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 18, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Missing links.


 
It's not anti-semitic because they only mean satanic anti Christ Jews, not other Jews.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It's not him making the anti-semitic comments etc to be fair. Perhaps he posted it up on there or was approached by them not knowing what kind of website it was?
> 
> How do we know that's his real name?


 
I suspect that a blog post like that would attract those kinds of comments no matter what kind of site it was on - we all know how conspiraloons operate - any story relating to this will be posted up on the Icke loonsite and they'll flock to it, posting comments telling people "the truth". I have no doubt that if it had been posted on the Guardian similar comments would have been made.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2012)

anyway, fellows claims to have received a bafta award. a search of the bafta award winners database at http://www.bafta.org/awards/ does not return any results for him. neither does fellows appear on the list of eastenders cast i've already referred to. as i intimated earlier in the thread, seems to me he's a fantasist and full of excrement. if someone's prepared to lie about their professional life to potential employers so brazenly, how can you trust any statements from them unsupported by other sources?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It's not anti-semitic because they only mean satanic anti Christ Jews, not other Jews.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
he must be talking about me then


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 18, 2012)

i was at my mate's baptism at a pentacostal church at the weekend and while i was happy to sing along to alot of the hymns, i didn't sing along to anything that referred to jesus, turning water into wine or dying for our sins on a cross any of that. i'm probably going to hell now,or wherever it is that satanic anti Christ Jews go 

Although I do wonder where all of my money is


----------



## laptop (Oct 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> While not calling into question the guys claims directly about his experiences as a child actor, I think he probably does have some background that would possibly explain his willingness to name politicians at the end of the article, in that he runs his own internet radio show that seems pretty into anti NWO, freemen of the land type stuff.
> 
> http://www.thebenfellowsradioshow.com/#!archive/c9qb
> 
> This does give him some publicity stunt type justification for the article as well, and probably means he's not particularly worried about his reputation on the more mainstream side of things.


 
So he's dedicated to providing a platform for frothing fruitloops?

So, if he announced "the sun rises in the East" I'd call some astronomers to check?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2012)

anyway

from the new private eye:





> 100 YEARS AGO
> 
> "Suddenly a figure looking very different began to move towards the satin dais... Jimmy Savile, a man who had devoted his life to the welfare others, especially the young... Charles was bewitched by the great man's informality, charm and infectious enthusiasm. He leaned forward and spoke earnestly to the newly en-knighted philanthropist.
> 'Fascinating. You really must meet Diana.'
> ...


extract from 'heir of sorrows' by sylvie krin, private eye #757, december 1990


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I think it makes him less likely to have completely made it up than someone posting completely anonymously.





free spirit said:


> I'm still inclined to think that he's generally telling the truth in his article,


and why do you think he's lying about his bafta and being in eastenders?


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 18, 2012)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SIR-JIMMY...Film_TV_TV_Memorabilia_LE&hash=item43b474ac71
Fucker even tried to touch up the Archbishop of Canterbury


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2012)

> Current bid:
> £3.19
> No questions or answers have been posted about this item.


You'd almost think there'd been some bad publicity of something.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 18, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SIR-JIMMY...Film_TV_TV_Memorabilia_LE&hash=item43b474ac71
> Fucker even tried to touch up the Archbishop of Canterbury


 
That's the final straw


----------



## two sheds (Oct 18, 2012)

Eww that photograph is marked as 'used'.


----------



## laptop (Oct 18, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Eww that photograph is marked as 'used'.


 
A very, very _specialist_ market?

Now £8.33.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2012)

laptop said:


> A very, very _specialist_ market?


 He was trying to out-nonce the church - but for Charideee.  Wonder if he ever did _Children in Need_?  Please God don't let it be so.   Suspect quite a few BBC programme makers will have been going through their files to make sure he never put in an appearance.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2012)

laptop said:


> Now £8.33.





> *SEE MY PAGE FOR MORE JS.................*


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2012)

Now £10.50 - with 4 days left. Any luck, should beat the previous 'Celeb Touches up Cleric' record - a preliminary Holbine sketch of Thomas More goosing Archbishop Cranmer.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 18, 2012)

Private Eye knew enough back in 1990, according to that quoted text from Pickman's (#998)....

Some, including me, who read pretty much all of every issue back in those days, can't remember noticing those hints though ... 

Didn't help that I tended to read it in the pub .....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

From telegrpah:

BREAKING: Jimmy Savile probe is now a formal criminal investigation involving other living people, Scotland Yard said today.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> From telegrpah:
> 
> BREAKING: Jimmy Savile probe is now a formal criminal investigation involving other living people, Scotland Yard said today.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

I assuming the _living_ refers to suspects not _victims_...


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I assuming the _living_ refers to suspects not _victims_...


 
If it's phrased as "other living people" I'd assume so.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Private Eye knew enough back in 1990, according to that quoted text from Pickman's (#998)....


i don't think it's a case of 'who knew' anymore, as it's clear everybody knew. more 'why wasn't something done about him'.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2012)

200 victims


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

What does the first part of this mean?



> The force said in a statement: "As we have said from the outset, our work was never going to take us into a police investigation into Jimmy Savile. What we have established in the last two weeks is that there are lines of inquiry involving living people that require formal investigation."


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

saville is dead so they can't investigate him?


----------



## laptop (Oct 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What does the first part of this mean?


 
It's almost as if they're responding to the comments here about the futility of investigating a dead man, the need to dig him up for the trial, and so on


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

"As we have said from the outset, our work was never going to take us into a police investigation into Jimmy Savile."

What work? Never?


----------



## laptop (Oct 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> "As we have said from the outset, our work was never going to take us into a police investigation into Jimmy Savile."
> 
> What work? Never?


 
What the ossifer wrote before a press officer got their hands on it:

"As we have said from the outset, our *investigation* was never going to take us into a police *investigation* into Jimmy Savile."

...I think.


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/lostinshowbiz/2012/oct/18/kerry-katona-savile-pervy-look


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

gosub said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/lostinshowbiz/2012/oct/18/kerry-katona-savile-pervy-look


 
Another one for why the guardian is going down the pan - did she actually say she was traumatised or is the writer just putting words in her mouth? Reads like sneering at the rest of the abuse accusations by extension to me.


----------



## gosub (Oct 19, 2012)

I'm not reading OK magazine to find out


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 19, 2012)

Pat Mills, creator of Judge Dredd, has a story on his blog about girls' horror comic _Misty, _with which he was involved. I used to sneak a read of my sister's _Misty _when she was done with it, and I'm sure many of the lads on this board did too.

Anyway at the end of the story he has this to say:



> I hope to come back to the subject of girls comics soon because that’s where the Comic Revolution actually began with Gerry Finley-Day, creator and first editor of _Tammy. Bunty_ was great, but_ Tammy _was_ revolutionary_! For example, these astonishing stories from the early 1970s, all created by Gerry:
> 
> _Slaves of War Orphan Farm_. The wartime evacuee farm is run by the cruel Ma Thatcher (based on Mrs T, then infamous as Thatcher the Milk Snatcher) and was truly terrifying with the evacuees having to fight, escape and defeat genuinely evil monsters.
> 
> ...


 
Early 1970s, you say?

https://patmills.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/misty-the-female-2000ad/


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/18/jimmy-savile-protected-media



> If anyone is in any doubt that paedophilia is still dismissed by influential groups, let me remind you that in certain liberal circles, there's a belief that paedophilia is "a moral panic". I meet it all the time in media studies. This goes far beyond the entirely reasonable view that campaigns like the News of the World's name and shame campaign are a dangerous and inflammatory way to approach a problem. Or that demonising paedophiles makes it more difficult to recognise the respectable ones in our own communities. The views I meet go much further than this critique; these views see sex abuse is an exaggerated problem. When I hear this, I always wonder why are people so keen to close down discussion of abuse. This, after all, is a subject that has taken centuries to dare to speak its name, which is not uncommon, and which has devastating consequences. Sex abuse only seems exaggerated until it affects you or people you know directly, until you see its devastating effect. Until you come close to someone whose behaviour distorts your ordinary perceptions so badly that it makes you doubt yourself and makes other people doubt you.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> He was trying to out-nonce the church - but for Charideee. Wonder if he ever did _Children in Need_? Please God don't let it be so.  Suspect quite a few BBC programme makers will have been going through their files to make sure he never put in an appearance.


 
He probably didn't, because 'some people' might have said he was taking part only to tamper with kiddies. The idea!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

Ok how does:



> demonising paedophiles makes it more difficult to recognise the respectable ones in our own communities.


 
Ros?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

Why does she not name the rock star who died in 2004?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 19, 2012)

Hmmm, could it be John Entwistle, I wonder? 

No, he died in 2002 after another coke/booze binge.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> He probably didn't, because 'some people' might have said he was taking part only to tamper with kiddies. The idea!


 That's the sad part. In the future whenever a 70 year old entertainer wants to take a 14 year old girl out of school and into his Rolls Royce/alchove/caravan, we'll end up thinking there's something amiss.  Funny old world.   Christ, the politically correct brigade will be clamping down on Jesus Juice and rohypnol next.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 19, 2012)

Guardian lawyers won't let her. I think it's left to the likes of you and me and this damned "internet".


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2012)

The _Guardian_'s obits for 2004 are currently on the pages between:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone/obituaries?page=799
&
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone/obituaries?page=729

if you fancy wading through them.


----------



## laptop (Oct 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ok how does:
> 
> .
> demonising paedophiles makes it more difficult to recognise the respectable ones in our own communities.​
> Ros?


 
Wonder whether the (sub)editors mangled it?

Clearly, attention to *stranger-danger* nonces distracts attention from the great majority of molesters, who are related to their victims.

The largest single group, in fact, may well be church-going _Daily Heil_ readers with stepchildren.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> The _Guardian_'s obits for 2004 are currently on the pages between:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tone/obituaries?page=799
> &
> ...


More concise, musical deaths in 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_in_music#January.E2.80.93February


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> More concise, musical deaths in 2004:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_in_music#January.E2.80.93February


Yes, but it would make sense to search on those musicians whose death in 2004 had obits in the _Guardian_ - and then cross-reference them with the _Indy_.



> In 2004 at the time when I was writing regularly for the paper, the Guardian obituaries carried a glowing obit for this very man....At the time, the Independent carried an obit for this musician but chose to mention the conviction.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Oct 19, 2012)

want a recap?


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 19, 2012)

One celebrity who might be feeling anxious at the moment 

0.45 - 2.45


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Yes, but it would make sense to search on those musicians whose death in 2004 had obits in the _Guardian_ - and then cross-reference them with the _Indy_.


 True, I was just being lazy.  On the wiki list you've got Rick James who had a truly gruesome conviction for abduction and torture, but not with a minor, so probably not our man.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Another one for why the guardian is going down the pan - did she actually say she was traumatised or is the writer just putting words in her mouth? Reads like sneering at the rest of the abuse accusations by extension to me.


 Good point. Kerry Katona also semms to have got to a point where her wannabee desparation has put her in a place where people feel they can say _anything_ about her (Frankie Boyle heading that list).


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> True, I was just being lazy.  On the wiki list you've got Rick James who had a truly gruesome conviction for abduction and torture, but not with a minor, so probably not our man.


Doubt he was a mate of Ros Coward's.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2012)

A list of _Guardian_ obits of musicians from 2004. Les Hall, Ray Charles and Rick James are crossed out because the Indy's obit don't mention arrests of a nature described by Ros Coward, or there doesn't seem to be an _Indy_ obit.

I trawled through and listed any obitee whose description had them as a musician, plus a few music-related ones I recognised. Anyone described as a 'singer' or 'composer' I left out unless musical instruments were also mentioned. No guarantee I didn't make a mistake and miss someone out by accident, either.

Feel free to cross-reference with the _Indy_ obits.

ETA: struck out Iona Brown and Janet Chisholm, because they are women.

Appreciation: Norman Platt | News | The Guardian
Obituary: Ron Aspery | The Guardian
Obituary: Don Lamond | World news | The Guardian
Obituary: Billy May | News | The Guardian
Obituary: James Lawrence | The Guardian
Obituary: Les Gray | The Guardian 
Les Gray - Obituaries, News - The Independent 
Obituary: Vilayat Khan | The Guardian
Obituary: AC Reed | World news | The Guardian
Obituary: Denis Stevens | The Guardian
Obituary: Claude Williams | The Guardian
Obituary: Alvino Rey | The Guardian
Obituary: Boris Pergamenschikow | World news | The Guardian
Obituary: Barney Kessel | Music | The Guardian
Obituary: Elvin Jones | The Guardian
Obituary: John RT Davies | The Guardian
Ray Charles, 1930-2004 | Culture | guardian.co.uk 
Ray Charles - Obituaries - News - The Independent 
Obituary: Iona Brown | The Guardian
Obituary: Steve Lacy | The Guardian
Obituary: Lennie Bush | The Guardian
Obituary: Ronald Smith | The Guardian
Obituary: Piero Piccioni | World news | The Guardian
Obituary: Rick James | World news | The Guardian 
Rick James - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Obituary: Janet Chisholm | World news | The Guardian
Obituary: Pete Strange | The Guardian
Obituary: Granville Edwards | The Guardian
Obituary: Danny Freeman | The Guardian
Obituary: Carl Wayne | Culture | The Guardian
Obituary: Ernie Ball | The Guardian
Obituary: Skeeter Davis | The Guardian
Obituary: Max Geldray | The Guardian
Obituary: Bruce Palmer | The Guardian
Obituary: Dave Godin | The Guardian
Obituary: John Peel | Music | The Guardian
Obituary: Vernon Alley | The Guardian
Obituary: Terry Knight | The Guardian
Obituary: Ol' Dirty Bastard | Music | The Guardian
Obituary: Kevin Coyne | The Guardian
Obituary: Dick Heckstall-Smith | Music | The Guardian
Obituary: 'Bishop' Joe Perry Tillis | World news | The Guardian


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Doubt he was a mate of Ros Coward's.


 No indeed, I ruled out Ol dirty bastard on similar grounds.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Doubt he was a mate of Ros Coward's.


Ditto ODB.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2012)

Heh.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Heh.


 I prefer to carry my flaming torch through the streets - you've now forced me to go on an electronic noncehunt, armed with cross-cultural rap-grauniad assumptions.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 19, 2012)

thomas corbally doesn't have an indy obit (or seems not to anyway)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> electronic noncehunt


 
I now want to write a gripping novel de nos jours, with this as its title.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I now want to write a gripping novel de nos jours, with this as its title.


Did not Chris Blackwood warn us that nonces send nonce fumes through computer keboards?  People laughed.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Did not Chris Blackwood warn us that nonces send nonce fumes through computer keboards? People laughed.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> thomas corbally doesn't have an indy obit (or seems not to anyway)


Sorry, Corbally was just an interesting one I saw along the way 

Not a musician or anything. I'll scratch him off.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2012)

Scanning through the comments I see this, so I dont think you should be using a current list of Guardian obits to figure it out:



> I wasn't Obits editor in 2004, but it looks as if once Ros Coward contacted the paper, the piece was taken down from the website. This would almost certainly have been done after a discussion involving the Readers' editor. Staff and procedures have changed since then, and naturally we'd always want to respond to legitimate concerns in difficult cases.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 19, 2012)

Well it had better not be Carl Wayne, because he was married to Miss Diane from Crossroads, and I don't want The Great Motel's name to be dragged into this.


----------



## laptop (Oct 19, 2012)




----------



## Libertad (Oct 19, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/ian-lake-6162260.html


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

Would fit apart from the rock star bit...


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2012)

Didnt she say musician rather than rock star?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> Didnt she say musician rather than rock star?


Yes it does. My mistake.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> Didnt she say musician rather than rock star?


 Yes, I was confused by that Butchers - saw it in your post, but it wasn't in the coward piece.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 19, 2012)

The Independent's search tools are bit shit. Brute force in the end.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2012)

Anyway to press on with the theme now that we have a name:



> Another pianist born in 1935 was Ian Lake whose story is tragic. He was born in Quorn in Leicestershire to working class parents. He was a precocious child and his mother worked as a chambermaid to finance his education. He won a scholarship to Trent College. While on national service he played the clarinet and viola in an Army band. He studied at RCM with the great Kendall Taylor and made his London debut at the Royal Festival Hall in 1961 playing Rachmaninov's Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini. He had a teaching post at RCM for about thirty years until 1995. He was a deeply sensitive man but, sadly, convicted of sexual offences in 1995 and was later smitten with cancer. He died on 12 August 2004, but will people remember his very fine playing, as I certainly do?


 http://www.classical-composers.org/page/lost_generation_pianists


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

I wonder also how the 'demonising' of paedos as she puts it relates to her actions? Is that just something that other people do? That _other people_ who point out convictions and the possible risks they represent are demonisers but pushing a paper to highlight it (on the basis of priviliged info) is something else altogether? People who might not be as good a speller as her for example?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2012)

I'm still a little disappointed that Ros Coward never shared a crack pipe with Ricky James.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 19, 2012)

As butch said earlier, why the reluctance to name the musician in the article.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2012)

She is not living up to her point by the way she avoided naming him, and its quite possible that the reasons she didnt are a variation of the very phenomenon she is complaining about.

As for her demonising point, I suppose she means that if tabloids make evil inhuman monsters out of people, then people have a harder time getting their heads round someone human they know turning out to be an abuser. I expect she is mentioning this stuff so that her audience cant hide behind this position when she tries to discuss the sex attack exaggeration stance. Yes there is intellectual snobbery involved when stuff is lazily dismissed as 'moral panic', but there is more to it than that since a less lazy approach also reveals plenty worth criticising with that sort of thing.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2012)

Another example of an obituary of a sex offender who was otherwise admired:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/o...r-whose-career-ended-in-disgrace-1977591.html


----------



## Wilf (Oct 20, 2012)

In a 'feisty' local derby, Leeds United fans (apparently) chant in favour of Sir Jimmy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/19/sheffield-wednesday-leeds-united-championship


----------



## ska invita (Oct 20, 2012)

supposedly chants were "one jimmy Saville", "Jimmy Savile, he'll shag who he wants".

+a few hundred ripped seats, advertising boards etc out.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 20, 2012)

ska invita said:


> supposedly chants were "one jimmy Saville", "Jimmy Savile, he'll shag who he wants".
> 
> +a few hundred ripped seats, advertising boards etc out.


 Ah right, saw that pre edit, see what you mean/who it was aimed at. Still, the Savile bit of the chant is


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2012)

The thing is about Dave Jones - don't support it, but let's get it right. Fucking disgrace for our lot.

edit: Not to mention their turkey chants.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 20, 2012)

ska invita said:


> supposedly chants were "one jimmy Saville", "Jimmy Savile, he'll shag who he wants".
> 
> +a few hundred ripped seats, advertising boards etc out.


I'm not sure on this, but I reckon those chants were targeted at the wednesday manager David Jones, or related to him and the child abuse allegations he'd faced.



> In June 1999 Jones was formally questioned by police over allegedsexual abuseat St George's School inFormby,Merseyside,[15]a home for children with educational and behavioural problems, where he had been employed as a care worker from 1986 to 1990.[16]After voluntarily attending the police station, he was arrested then questioned, before being released on bail without charge.[17]


He was found not guilty mind...


fucking stupid chant to be coming out with though, but Leeds fans collectively have never been the brightest when it comes to how our chants might come across in the press.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2012)

Wilf said:


> I'm still a little disappointed that Ros Coward never shared a crack pipe with Ricky James.



Rick certainly had a thing about sharing his pipe with the ladies.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2012)

<edited -- needs rethink>


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2012)

Yes it is. What else are you suggesting is _really_ going down the pan?


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2012)

ok magazine.it used to be packed full of marxist critiques of celebrity culture, but now look at it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2012)

And i have to LISTEN TO PEOPLE REGURGITATING IT AT WORK ALL DAY!!!! A little perspective needed here no?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2012)

I've edited. But come on, it was *OK magazine* for fucks sake. Sitting duck target.


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2012)

that lost in showbiz column in the graun is so much better than OK magazine, of course. it's ok to have an interest in celeb bullshit, as long as you're sneering.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And i have to LISTEN TO PEOPLE REGURGITATING IT AT WORK ALL DAY!!!! ?


 
As it happens I do a fair bit of the time (or stuff about celebs in general at least). Fun fun fun ....


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Sitting duck target.


quite.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2012)

killer b said:


> that lost in showbiz column in the graun is so much better than OK magazine, of course. it's ok to have an interest in celeb bullshit, as long as you're sneering.


 
I have zero real interest. Only read that one for the pisstaking, prefer the album and film reviews etc later in Friday's G2 (some of which are genuinely good).

OK pisstaking sounds a bit better than sneering  -- or at least I try and to pretend that to myself


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 20, 2012)

killer b said:


> quite.


 
No dispute then! Call me cheap for idly enjoying it at times though, but whatevs!


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2012)

you're worse than them william. maybe you should join in the celeb chit-chat, and everyone wouldn't think you were such a miserable sod.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 20, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> I have zero real interest. Only read that one for the pisstaking, prefer the album and film reviews etc later in Friday's G2 (some of which are genuinely good).


"I only buy it for the articles"


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 20, 2012)

Reported today that uncle jimmy even interfered with one of his (great?) neices and granny turned a blind eye because she didn't want to kill the cash cow. 

Police now following 400 different leads and NSPCC saying he's the most prolific offender they have ever come across.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 21, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Questions-for-Edwina-Currie-and-the-BBC.html
If its true it beggers belief on why a washed up exDJ would even be considered for such a post,I'm mean who else was in the running...Diddy Dave Hamilton,DLT...

​


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 21, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Questions-for-Edwina-Currie-and-the-BBC.html
> If its true it beggers belief on why a washed up exDJ would even be considered for such a post,I'm mean who else was in the running...Diddy Dave Hamilton,DLT...
> 
> ​


IMU, by that time he'd been volunteering in Broadmoor for some time, no? So it wasn't a completely arbitrary decision - it's a visible reflection of the extent to which he'd managed to embed himself & appear respectable within that particular institution and, more broadly, in bits of the Establishment.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 21, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> IMU, by that time he'd been volunteering in Broadmoor for some time, no? So it wasn't a completely arbitrary decision - it's a visible reflection of the extent to which he'd managed to embed himself & appear respectable within that particular institution and, more broadly, in bits of the Establishment.


I knew he had some sort of connection with Broadmoor, thought it was more like a lay visitor type of situation though.Still don't know what  qualified him for the role Edwina Curry wanted him for


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 21, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> I knew he had some sort of connection with Broadmoor, thought it was more like a lay visitor type of situation though.Still don't know what  qualified him for the role Edwina Curry wanted him for


Quick google identifies claims that he was assaulting people as a volunteer way back in the early 70s, and "volunteered" for over 40yrs. 

You're right re: qualifications. But tbh, the way a lot of institutions work / worked, being around for a very long time & being a dignitary of some kind would make someone a strong candidate for an honorary position, and I can kinda understand the dynamics that resulted in him being given even a formal / official post.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 21, 2012)

free spirit said:


> I'm not sure on this, but I reckon those chants were targeted at the wednesday manager David Jones, or related to him and the child abuse allegations he'd faced.
> 
> He was found not guilty mind...
> 
> ...


 
He wasnt found not guilty, as your quoted piece actually says, he was released without charge!


----------



## two sheds (Oct 21, 2012)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2012)

1927 said:


> He wasnt found not guilty, as your quoted piece actually says, he was released without charge!


No he he wasn't, he was charged and went to trial.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No he he wasn't, he was charged and went to trial.


 
Well the piece quoted didnt say that, My memory was hazey and I was sure it hadnt actually been tried. Just looked it upo and it appears that there wasnt a court hearing as such, the judge ordered the jury to find him not guilty as all the witnesses withdrew once the jury had been sworn in so no evidence was ever offered and charges in effect dropped.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2012)

He was charged and it went to court, during the trial witnesses dropped out/went flaky and as a result during after what a week or so the judge directed the jury to return not guilty verdicts. How do you think they had a jury and a judge if it didn't go to trial?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 21, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Questions-for-Edwina-Currie-and-the-BBC.html
> If its true it beggers belief on why a washed up exDJ would even be considered for such a post,I'm mean who else was in the running...Diddy Dave Hamilton,DLT...


explanation...


> EDWINA CURRIE appointed Jimmy Savile to run a task force to run Broadmoor in 1988 – after meeting with Savile several times in Leeds hotels. Currie was worried that nurses at Broadmoorhad been on strike twice and were threatening to again. Savile reported to Currie that through his voluntary work there he was aware that nurses were overclaiming on overtime and pay hours. Savile told Currie that if any of the staff proved troublesome to him he would expose their pay scams. ‘They won’t be able to be against me’ Savile told Currie. ‘ATTABOY’ wrote Currie in her diary in response.
> 
> *So Savile got away with it at Broadmoor because Currie saw him as an effective strikebreaker.*
> http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/1...-gave-savile-free-run-at-broadmoor-exclusive/


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2012)

Nice to see the Telegraph get into the Alan Franey stuff.

Sounds like Savile knew what to tell Tories to get them going.



> The former minister told _The Sunday Telegraph_ that having checked her personal diaries, she had found a note of a meeting with Savile in Leeds in September 1988 - the month the taskforce was appointed. In the entry she described his thoughts on Broadmoor as “intriguing”.
> Mrs Currie recorded that during the meeting Savile had told her that he suspected staff were inflating their salaries - and that he had threatened to pass the information to the tabloid papers if the staff caused him any trouble.
> Savile also told her he had uncovered millions of pounds missing from budgets and poor use of the hospital’s housing stock.
> “In my diary, I wrote 'Attaboy’, she said. “This was what he claimed to be doing; now it is hard to know whether any of it is true. And obviously when you look back, it does suggest he was prepared to use blackmail to ensure people did what he wanted.”


 
edit - oops I was a bit slow there.


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2012)

Some more of my random Franey research to add a little more meat to the bones. But to be honest this picture was already forming before the Telegraph threw together various pinches, so these arent exactly revelations to me.

http://www.pontefractus.co.uk/history/pontefract_hospice03.htm



> One of the most memorable moments in fundraising for the hospice took place on 15th May 1983 when a half marathon was organised in Pontefract Park.


 


> Saville ran in a team of five, which also included singer David Dalmour, teacher Tony Smith, sports centre official Neil Littlewood and Leeds Infirmary administrator Alan Franey.


 


> Jimmy Saville’s participation in the first half-marathon was a turning point for the hospice fund. His personal support for the hospice continued when he ran the half marathon again the following year, but more importantly it was Saville who contacted The Prince of Wales convincing him to lend his support to the hospice project too.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 21, 2012)

God yeah, I remember all of that, it was my local hospice, ('I'm from the next town). I was 13 when that happened and it was a big fucking deal locally.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He was charged and it went to court, during the trial witnesses dropped out/went flaky and as a result during after what a week or so the judge directed the jury to return not guilty verdicts. How do you think they had a jury and a judge if it didn't go to trial?


 
Like i said I couldnt remember the exact facts, I thought the charges had been dropped before it got to court, originally. then i checked it out.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 21, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/20/jimmy-savile-bbc-protecting-stars
Now Adam-Hart Davies (not Savile stuff, but accusations of 'touching').  Panorama will be interesting tomorrow, with the programme commenting on it's own bosses.  Good test of the editorial Chinese Walls.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 21, 2012)

1927 said:


> He wasnt found not guilty, as your quoted piece actually says, he was released without charge!


the quote then goes on to say



> The case reached Liverpool Crown Court in December 2000, by which time Jones had parted company with Southampton. He stood trial on an eventual 21 charges, which was swiftly reduced to 14 after two other alleged victims pulled out of proceedings on the eve of the trial.[16] After a further alleged victim declined to appear or refused to give evidence, the Judge directed the jury during the fourth day of proceedings to return a formal not guilty verdict on four charges relating to the absent party.[16] After decreeing a retrial would not be "just" on the remaining charges, the Judge recorded not guilty verdicts on the remaining 10 charges.[2] Jones left cleared of all allegations and was told by the Judge: "_No wrongdoing whatsoever on your part has been established_".[19]


 
so maybe you want to check your facts a little better in future.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 21, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps he might get a sale if he asked £10 for it


  Went for £127.02



Chip Barm said:


> One in worse nick going for £127...
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Original-...ctables_Badges_Patches_MJ&hash=item4d05b07ff7


 
Went for £169.

Some sick puppies out there!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 21, 2012)

killer b said:


> *you're worse than them* william. maybe you should join in the celeb chit-chat, and everyone wouldn't think you were such a miserable sod.


 
On reflection post : You're right really.

The* last* example I should have chosen to defend(ish!) the Guardian was that *particularly *badly written Lost in Showbiz piece (well none of them are exactly Nobel Prize candidates, to say the least, but that one was especially rubbishy).

Mainly because Alex Petridis was overegging the pudding in the worst kind of 'sarcasm -- lowest form of wit' fashion (Marina Hyde does similar, in the same column, but in a _slightly_ more subtle/intelligent way than him)

That said, OK is even worse by a million miles.




			
				Dave Cinzano said:
			
		

> "I only buy it for the articles"


 
True dat! Shite ones included


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 22, 2012)

What?


----------



## weepiper (Oct 22, 2012)

The BBC don't appear to have learnt very much. This is from a friend's facebook status although I have seen the programme in question and agree



> I think I must have entered an alternative universe! I really can't believe that the BBC haven't pulled the children's programme I just caught.
> 
> It's called Sam and Mark's Big Friday Wind-up (though it was on tonight 4.30 - 5pm) and involved a competition where scantily clad young lassies of @ 11 or 12 are stood in a corridor and have to answer questions about their favourite band to get the chance ... wait for it ... to nominate a dressing room number!?! They then go to that dressing room and get a kiss and hug from some pop personage (presumably a member of said favourite band - The Wanted in the case of the episode that's just finished)! I kid you not!
> 
> There's a booby prize in that in one of the dressing rooms is a guy in a gorilla suit called the Foaminator, who presumably squirts them with foam if they pick his dressing room. Why didn't they just go the whole hog and call the booby prize the Savilator?


----------



## gosub (Oct 22, 2012)

Sunday Times culture tipped tonight's New tricks about pimped out care home girls should be pulled as well


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 22, 2012)

ska invita said:


> supposedly chants were "one jimmy Saville", "Jimmy Savile, he'll shag who he wants".
> 
> +a few hundred ripped seats, advertising boards etc out.


 
My little brother was at the game and said he heard the chants, said there was also a about 3 or 4 people in the crowd wearing Saville Wigs and waving Cigars about.

Leeds are the Millwall of the north. Except worse.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 22, 2012)

a certain tabloid is 'reporting' (i hope not bullshitting) that from all the victim testimony thats poured forward there are over 100 names of other men implicated, no doubt some famous ones in there. Whether the police will act on this etc is another matter. not worth linking to it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 22, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> My little brother was at the game and said he heard the chants, said there was also a about 3 or 4 people in the crowd wearing Saville Wigs and waving Cigars about.
> 
> Leeds are the Millwall of the north. Except worse.


Another chant is reportedly 'Jimmy Savile, one of us, one of us'


----------



## punchdrunkme (Oct 22, 2012)

Chip Barm said:


> People are even offloading their Jim'l Fix It Badges
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Jim-fixed...ctables_Badges_Patches_MJ&hash=item35c0b62bb4


 
If you had one would you still want it now though? Tbf....


----------



## treelover (Oct 22, 2012)

John Simpson has just said on the Doc, that trust is central to the legitimacy of the BBC, well they lost the trust of most sick and disabled people years ago: I think I have mentioned before how the Today Programme pulled a package by the veteran Journalist Kim Catcheside on ''grass roots opposition to the welfare reforms'' when the then N/L DWP Secretary John Hutton refused to go on the programme if the package was broadcast.

BBC standing up to power, not...


----------



## weltweit (Oct 22, 2012)

Just watched the Panorama program, in the wake of the Expose program and after the dropping of the Newsnight program. It rather seemed to be a lot of BBC people passing the buck. Especially the Newsnight editor Peter Ripon for putting the investigation into Jimmy Savile onto the back burner.

So, BBC infighting. And interestingly the other celeb that was mentioned was Gary Glitter and there was a momentary appearance of a youthful looking Freddie Star. I hope that was included for a good reason.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 23, 2012)

They (the media) are making a big deal that the editor of Newsnight Peter Ripon has apparently "stepped aside".. but it is not clear to me what exactly that means.


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Just watched the Panorama program, in the wake of the Expose program and after the dropping of the Newsnight program. It rather seemed to be a lot of BBC people passing the buck. Especially the Newsnight editor Peter Ripon for putting the investigation into Jimmy Savile onto the back burner.
> 
> So, BBC infighting. And interestingly the other celeb that was mentioned was Gary Glitter and there was a momentary appearance of a youthful looking Freddie Star. I hope that was included for a good reason.


 
Did anyone ever tell you that you have an almost unique ability to present well developed and sometimes stale stories as if they are fresh out of the womb of revelation, basking in innocent naivety and staring at the unfamiliar surroundings?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> Did anyone ever tell you that you have an almost unique ability to present well developed and sometimes stale stories as if they are fresh out of the womb of revelation, basking in innocent naivety and staring at the unfamiliar surroundings?


Well you have just told me so that is great  but how could all this have been dealt with before, the program was only screened just now?


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Well you have just told me so that is great  but how could all this have been dealt with before, the program was only screened just now?


 
The vast bulk of it has been reported elsewhere before now, and discussed here, sometimes at length. We've already had the Gary Glitter and the Freddie Starr stuff for a start.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> The vast bulk of it has been reported elsewhere before now, and discussed here, sometimes at length. We've already had the Gary Glitter and the Freddie Starr stuff for a start.


Yes, it is true, and I have read and even contributed around it. But I found it odd there was not something after this evenings Panorama program. However perhaps as you say, there was not much new but for me Peter Ripon's treatment and position seemed something I had not heard about before.

Anyhow, yes I have been accused of being a johnny come lately before, sometimes it is hard to keep up


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> The vast bulk of it has been reported elsewhere before now, and discussed here, sometimes at length. We've already had the Gary Glitter and the Freddie Starr stuff for a start.


 
We don't need another pogofish, ta.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 23, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> We don't need another pogofish, ta.


To be fair to elbows he has done a really impressive job of collecting a lot of obscure data.
This is definitely a thread that I would recommend people reading in full if that have the time simply because there is so much important information here


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> To be fair to elbows he has doe a really impressive job of collecting a lot of obscure data.
> This is definitely a thread that I would recommend people reading in full if that have the time simply because there is so much important information here


 
Oh, I'm not knocking that. Just telling people what they can and can't discuss because they happen to have already discussed it themselves gets on my nerves a bit.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 23, 2012)

fairynuff


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

I wasnt telling anybody what they could or could not discuss. I thought I was teasing weltweit about his or her ability to cover ground I could of sworn I saw them covering themselves in the past, yet treating this as a mission into previously uncharted territory. I often notice it and very seldom say anything about it, but this time I could not resist!

Sorry if it came across as a complaint. For me this phenomenon makes a nice contrast, its not like we are lacking posters who have very well-cemented and confident opinions on all matters, including myself, and people occasionally sounding like they've been living under a rock can help the conversation to flow. How am I supposed to give silly answers if nobody is asking silly questions?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2012)

Ok, I apologise. Just finished a late shift!


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

Cheers, though I'm not sure you need to apologise. Its quite possible my posts did sound like a demand not to retread certain ground.

As for Savile and Panorama, I think I ran out of words for this stage of proceedings. There are all manner of areas worthy of further investigation, I cant do any of it since the internet lacks depth when it comes to pre-internet events. And they havent quite uncovered anything yet that would take any institutional conspiracy aspects to a level well beyond speculation. So I will resist. Actually Panorama was a bit of a tease in this respect because of a few things Merion Jones whose aunt worked at the top at Duncroft said.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> a few things Merion Jones whose aunt worked at the top at Duncroft said.


I noticed that as well.


----------



## framed (Oct 23, 2012)

The abuse of 'institutionalised children' by paedophiles like Saville via his access to institutions and care homes for troubled teenagers and young offenders recalled the investigation into the north Wales paedophile ring...
*POSSIBLE ELITE BRITISH PAEDOPHILE RING*​http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Blimey. Also, I see that some of that home page article is written by David Icke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> There are all manner of areas worthy of further investigation, I cant do any of it since the internet lacks depth when it comes to pre-internet events.


you're having a fucking laugh


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

No, I just worded it badly. I mean stuff such as few press articles being available online from the era before the net went commercial, which is why I ended up dredging Hansard and that book that someone else found. I cant think of anywhere else to look online.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 23, 2012)

The BBC is getting a right kicking over this - but the media seem to be leaving other people alone - afaik the evil Thatcher spent 11 New Year Eves with Savile - surely her security team checked him out before hand? If they didn't check him out - why not ? If they did, and didn't find anything, how would the BBC be expected to find out more?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 23, 2012)

marty21 said:


> how would the BBC be expected to find out more?


...supposedly everyone already knew about it at the bbc ... "open secret". not defending thatcher of course


----------



## weltweit (Oct 23, 2012)

Entwistle seems to be waffling a lot in front of the committee, does not seem to be "in charge" much.


----------



## laptop (Oct 23, 2012)

marty21 said:


> afaik the evil Thatcher spent 11 New Year Eves with Savile


 
Wasn't the "11" flagged as a lie by Savile?

Question still applies to the times she _was_ his host...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 23, 2012)

laptop said:


> Wasn't the "11" flagged as a lie by Savile?


 
Do you mean "by Carol Thatcher"?

CT has said:



> I don’t recall [Savile] coming [to Chequers] on Christmas Day.
> 
> I do recall him coming to a very informal party my mother used to host on Christmas Eve which a  lot of the locals came to, and that included a contingent from Stoke Mandeville hospital.
> 
> My mother’s been out of office 22 years and I don’t pretend to have a memory like a website but that is my memory of his visits to Chequers


 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ishers-Club-bans-women.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

I was sure I had read something by Bernard Ingham saying that he didn't think Savile (a near neighbour) could be said to have been invited to so many Chequers Christmas or New Year dinners, but that he had on a number of occasions 'dropped in' and ended up having drinks there during the festive period. However I cannot find that article or comment anywhere so perhaps I imagined it.

In other Savile-Chequers 'news'...



> I'd also like to pay my respects and say R.I.P. to Sir Jimmy Savile, who died on Saturday.
> 
> I met him only once - weirdly, it was at a dinner at Chequers in October 1999.
> 
> ...


 
Creation Records boss Alan McGee, October 2011 - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alan/jimmy-savile-alan-mcgee-creation-hay-on-wye_b_1066331.html


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I was sure I had read something by Bernard Ingham saying that he didn't think Savile (a near neighbour) could be said to have been invited to so many Chequers Christmas or New Year dinners, but that he had on a number of occasions 'dropped in' and ended up having drinks there during the festive period. However I cannot find that article or comment anywhere so perhaps I imagined it.


 
Here


----------



## laptop (Oct 23, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Do you mean "by Carol Thatcher"?


 

I meant (or meant to mean) that Savile did the lying, not the flagging!

Ta for links.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 23, 2012)

Ta


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

I like the way that whilst other people are suspended on full pay Rippon took it upon himself to 'stand aside' on full pay. That's the spirit!


----------



## marty21 (Oct 23, 2012)

laptop said:


> Wasn't the "11" flagged as a lie by Savile?
> 
> Question still applies to the times she _was_ his host...


 it's all a bit vague tbf - he says 11, they say not as many, thatchers says nothing - he met Blair  as well, and Prince Chuck


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I like the way that whilst other people are suspended on full pay Rippon took it upon himself to 'stand aside' on full pay. That's the spirit!


 'I won't be coming in for the next few weeks.  Just send the money round'.


----------



## AverageJoe (Oct 23, 2012)

marty21 said:


> The BBC is getting a right kicking over this - but the media seem to be leaving other people alone - afaik the evil Thatcher spent 11 New Year Eves with Savile - surely her security team checked him out before hand? If they didn't check him out - why not ? If they did, and didn't find anything, how would the BBC be expected to find out more?


 
I think (but I could be wrong) there's a little subplot evolving here from the Murdoch press. They are kicking up a stink about it to try and generate a crowdswell of support to strip the BBC of its licence fee. Meaning that it would become a commercial station. And he could buy it. Hence the front page of the Sun today. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4604080/Jimmy-Savile-BBCs-abuse-of-your-licence-fee.html


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/23/jimmy-savile-bbc-director-general-faces-mps-live
Guardian reporting that:


> *ch4 has seen an email fromLiz MacKean*, the Newsnight reporter who investigated the Savile abuse allegations, saying editor Peter Rippon shelved the story because he thought the "girls were teenagers, not too young" and they "weren't the worst kind of sexual offences".
> MacKean said Rippon's decision to ditch the investigation created "quite a perfect storm", according to Channel 4 News.
> It said McKean's email, sent in December last year, claims Rippon was trying to kill the story by "making impossible editorial demands ... When we rebut his points, he resorts to saying: well, it was 40 years ago... the girls were teenagers, not too young... they weren't the worst kind of sexual offences etc."


Wow.  If she can substantiate that, he's toast. Presumably these were the emails the Beeb's lawyers stopped getting into the Panorama programme?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

He's dead now. The C4 story here. Wonder why she didn't mention this when calling him a liar the other day?


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 23, 2012)

Wilf said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/23/jimmy-savile-bbc-director-general-faces-mps-live
> Guardian reporting that:
> 
> Wow. If she can substantiate that, he's toast. Presumably these were the emails the Beeb's lawyers stopped getting into the Panorama programme?


 
After today's evidence given by the Director-General, Rippon is toast anyway, whatever else come up.

The D-G might be as well.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> After today's evidence given by the Director-General, Rippon is toast anyway, whatever else come up.
> 
> The D-G might be as well.


 Not seen any footage yet, just a couple of his 'dunno' answers.  I'm guessing the word _hapless_ will be having a run out in tomorrow's papers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 23, 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/23/jimmy-savile-paul-gambaccini-sex_n_2004924.html?ncid=GEP


----------



## AverageJoe (Oct 23, 2012)

Not sure why Gambaccini is being quite so vocal about all this


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 23, 2012)

Wilf said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/23/jimmy-savile-bbc-director-general-faces-mps-live
> Guardian reporting that:
> 
> Wow. If she can substantiate that, he's toast. Presumably these were the emails the Beeb's lawyers stopped getting into the Panorama programme?


 
Direct link to that:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/201...faces-mps-live#block-5086a17958f96784ee2909e4

Full version from the C4 News site:

http://www.channel4.com/news/jimmy-savile-newsnight-peter-rippon-email-kill-story


----------



## youngian (Oct 23, 2012)

I've heard a new disturbing rumour that Savile never actually used to run any marathons. Just wave with his cigar in mouth and get picked up round the corner.


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 23, 2012)

youngian said:


> I've heard a new disturbing rumour that Savile never actually used to run any marathons. Just wave with his cigar in mouth and get picked up round the corner.


 
Yeah, and I've heard he never ever really fixed anything.


----------



## kavenism (Oct 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Yeah, and I've heard he never ever really fixed anything.


 

Have you heard the one about him procuring for the satanic lizard illuminati?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 23, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Yeah, and I've heard he never ever really fixed anything.


I recon he fixed plenty for Garry Glitter!!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2012)

youngian said:


> I've heard a new disturbing rumour that Savile never actually used to run any marathons. Just wave with his cigar in mouth and get picked up round the corner.



I'm fairly certain cameras would have picked that up at some point. Unless OMGz EVERYONE WAZ IN ON IT!!!1!!!


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 23, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I recon he fixed plenty for Garry Glitter!!


 Glitter shoulda got Jim to fix his laptop.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 23, 2012)

marty21 said:


> The BBC is getting a right kicking over this - but the media seem to be leaving other people alone - afaik the evil Thatcher spent 11 New Year Eves with Savile - surely her security team checked him out before hand? If they didn't check him out - why not ? If they did, and didn't find anything, how would the BBC be expected to find out more?


 


AverageJoe said:


> I think (but I could be wrong) there's a little subplot evolving here from the Murdoch press. They are kicking up a stink about it to try and generate a crowdswell of support to strip the BBC of its licence fee. Meaning that it would become a commercial station. And he could buy it. Hence the front page of the Sun today. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4604080/Jimmy-Savile-BBCs-abuse-of-your-licence-fee.html


 
I think it was FM who said on the other thread that the Murdoch press is doing what any business would be doing in this situation. Seeing that the BBC has plunged itself in a pile of poo, any media business would be wise to attack it and make deals with others to attack it. Especially the Murdoch press. Think about it, we are talking about a business owner who recently had to close a paper that supposedly carried the flag for all paedo victims. They are going after everyone they can, that's what any business would do. This past weekend, the Sunday Times's article (_Thatcher aide 'had sex with underage boys'_) stated that senior Tories covered up for 'a noted pederast' Sir Peter Morrison who was Thatcher's aide.


----------



## laptop (Oct 23, 2012)

little_legs said:


> This past weekend, the Sunday Times's article (_Thatcher aide 'had sex with underage boys'_) stated that senior Tories covered up for 'a noted pederast' Sir Peter Morrison who was Thatcher's aide.


 
Oooh, missed that.

First three paragraphs: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1153409.ece


----------



## little_legs (Oct 23, 2012)

I'll put it on Google docs. They spoke with Edwina Currie. Ok, she is a picece of shit herself. But it shows that even TST is doing its best to be seen as balanced atm.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

little_legs said:


> I'll put it on Google docs. They spoke with Edwina Currie. Ok, she is a picece of shit herself. But it shows that even TST is doing its best to be seen as balanced atm.


Currie who got Savile the formal keys to Broadmoor.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 23, 2012)

Yep, she did. I know.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 23, 2012)

TST article: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3DLdtjEG1FYeTQ3cXZnY3Y0SlU


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

little_legs said:


> TST article: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3DLdtjEG1FYeTQ3cXZnY3Y0SlU


Thanks for doing that. She even suggests the use of violence by Morrison.


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Thanks for doing that. She even suggests the use of violence by Morrison.


 
Does she? I thought she was making the point that the police wouldnt take it seriously unless there was violence involved. Or maybe you meant something else she said, the stuff about witnesses not being protected?


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

Did anyone else read the link in #1124?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> Does she? I thought she was making the point that the police wouldnt take it seriously unless there was violence involved. Or maybe you meant something else she said, the stuff about witnesses not being protected?


 
Yes, i was just pushing what she said too far - in the half-time gap.


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

Morrison shows up in a 1997 article about North Wales child abuse:

http://newsconfidential.com/FS/FS_Story.php?RequestID=32921


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> Did anyone else read the link in #1124?


I think you mentioning ICKE may have put people off.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> Morrison shows up in a 1997 article about North Wales child abuse:
> 
> http://newsconfidential.com/FS/FS_Story.php?RequestID=32921


That forms part of the link on #1124, I think.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think you mentioning ICKE may have put people off.


True  His was a contribution rather than the whole piece though, I think.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

Wilf said:


> 'I won't be coming in for the next few weeks. Just send the money round....


 
...to my Hampstead _pied a terre_'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2012)

AverageJoe said:


> Not sure why Gambaccini is being quite so vocal about all this


 
As I said a couple of weeks ago, probably guilt as much as anything. He was known to be gay by his contemporaries at a time when being gay was just being decriminalised, and may well have kept his mouth shut back then so that no-one outed him, which would have pissed all over his career.


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> That forms part of the link on #1124, I think.


 
Same sort of thing but no overlap of names between the two articles as far as I can tell.


----------



## cesare (Oct 23, 2012)

elbows said:


> Same sort of thing but no overlap of names between the two articles as far as I can tell.


It's the same case though? The North Wales one?


----------



## elbows (Oct 23, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's the same case though? The North Wales one?


 
Yeah Im not disputing that, I was just focussing on people that can actually be named without fear of libel because they kicked the bucket a long time ago.
Just reading more about the Jennings report from multiple sources now.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 23, 2012)

I take it we can assume the Shane Ritchie re-make of Jim'll Fix It is off then ?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 23, 2012)

I think I may have missed that if it was ever a plan!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 23, 2012)

Check out the comments on Duncroft Approved School's Friendsreunited page:

http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/Discussion/929925?take=10

Moderators there fighting a (losing?) war...


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2012)

Thought that site would have died due to facebook.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2012)

AverageJoe said:


> Not sure why Gambaccini is being quite so vocal about all this


Guilt.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Guilt.


 Yeah, I can maybe understand him feeling vulnerable when he first went to radio 1 and got to know about Savile, the big star and all that.  However as he got established himself and then went beyond having a significant career, he should have had the guts, along with plenty of others.  At the very least in 2000 when Louis Theroux asked him outright if was a paedophile, he and the rest of them should have taken that as their cue to pipe up.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2012)

People put their career before the needs of the weeping children. Hardly surprising.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2012)

TopCat said:


> People put their career before the needs of the weeping children. Hardly surprising.


more 'people put their career before the needs of buggered children' or 'people put their career before the needs of raped children'

so much for fucking pudsey

will they have the fucking gall to run 'children in need' with a straight face?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 23, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Check out the comments on Duncroft Approved School's Friendsreunited page:
> 
> http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/Discussion/929925?take=10
> 
> Moderators there fighting a (losing?) war...


 
They're deleting a huge amount of posts


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2012)

TopCat said:


> People put their career before the needs of the weeping children. Hardly surprising.


 In his case, even after he had a significant career.  You'd just think the worm of guilt might kick in at some point late in life when you've got less to lose (not just him of course).  Easy to be critical and you never know how you'd act.  However if you wanted to do something as a media figure, there are lots of investigative journalists you could speak to on the quiet, people you could suggest they interview etc.  All of this applies to Esther Rantzen most of all of course.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 24, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> They're deleting a huge amount of posts


Including some from more than a year ago. I wonder whether those deletions are new, or from when Savile was still alive?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Including some from more than a year ago. I wonder whether those deletions are new, or from when Savile was still alive?


 
Can't tell


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 24, 2012)

And now the Fail is running accusations that he was a necro as well...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-colleague-Paul-Gambaccini.html#ixzz2AAI39fvp


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> And now the Fail is running accusations that he was a necro as well...
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-colleague-Paul-Gambaccini.html#ixzz2AAI39fvp


 


> 'The expression I came to associate with Savile's sexual partners was* "under-age subnormals"*, says colleague of the Jim'll Fix It presenter


 
That isn't exactly putting himself in a good light.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

> His comments astounded presenter Nicky Campbell who tried to stop the conversation by warning the allegations were not in the public domain.
> Campbell said: 'That particularly lurid accusation that you have just brought to people's attention is one that has not been in the public domain.'


 
Try telling that to Pop Bitch.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> That isn't exactly putting himself in a good light.


 
Subnormals?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2012)

subnormals


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

> The hospital, where Savile worked as a volunteer and had his own room, said that it has never received claims that Savile 'inappropriately interacted' with corpses.
> A spokesman said: 'We are not launching an investigation into claims that Savile was a necrophiliac. *We have never received any complaints as to that nature.'*


 
Well the corpses are hardly likely to report it, are they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Well the corpses are hardly likely to report it, are they?


it's a grave matter


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)




----------



## where to (Oct 24, 2012)

Fairplay to gambacini. Worms to ignore necro angle at this stage.


----------



## ymu (Oct 24, 2012)

1%er said:


> I don't think this has been posted before but it is very powerful piece by Ben Fellows
> 
> _The following accounts are just some of my own personal experiences – and brushes with pedophilia out in the entertainment and big media spheres, as a child star who attended the Sylvia Young Theatre School in London…_


The Cabinet Office has just issued a defamation notice to the blog. See here: http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/...s-naming-high-profile-tory-in-savile-scandal/

Have alerted the mods, in case some later references to the cabinet minister concerned need to be removed.

The blog was still up last time I checked, so screengrab it while you can.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> As a few things Merion Jones whose aunt worked at the top at Duncroft said.


 

His exact words were: "it was a very strange place,full of celebrities and minor members of the Royal Family" If true why would these people be visiting an approved school for troubled girls 
​


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

I wonder who it is?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

ymu said:


> The Cabinet Office has just issued a defamation notice to the blog. See here: http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/...s-naming-high-profile-tory-in-savile-scandal/
> 
> Have alerted the mods, in case some later references to the cabinet minister concerned need to be removed.
> 
> The blog was still up last time I checked, so screengrab it while you can.


 
Names redacted, but found this

<removed: editor>


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

There aren't redactions there.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

do you reckon it's true?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> There aren't redactions there.


 
In post no 1193 that ymu quoted


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

I'm still trying to figure out who he was in Eastenders


----------



## elbows (Oct 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> do you reckon it's true?


 
I would take the same approach as journalists are supposed to - need more sources.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> In post no 1193 that ymu quoted


You haven't looked closely enough, Minnie.

But yours isn't redacted at all, and that could be a problem with all these injunctions flying about.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

Oh I realise it mentions a politician's name further on on that link, but I meant on the article itself, or is it another politician?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> You haven't looked closely enough, Minnie.
> 
> But yours isn't redacted at all, and that could be a problem with all these injunctions flying about.


 
oh, do you mean I should delete link?


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> oh, do you mean I should delete link?


Best ask a mod.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

I've had to remove some content relating to the claims by Ben Fellows.
This should hopefully explain why I was forced to take such a step.

If you have referred to any of this in your posts please edit them and remove any names (for now at least). [link removed]


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

Will folks PLEASE not post up the names of living people who have not actually been formally accused or charged with anything relating to this topic?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

cesare said:


> Best ask a mod.



No need. Got there before I did


----------



## Tankus (Oct 24, 2012)

thought he had dodged a bullet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/24/mark-thompson-jimmy-savile-new-york-times?


> An NYT newsroom source said people at the newspaper had been "completely blown away" by Sullivan's decision to query in public Thompson's suitability as incoming CEO.


bit of a frenzy going on


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 24, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> And now the Fail is running accusations that he was a necro as well...
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-colleague-Paul-Gambaccini.html#ixzz2AAI39fvp


 Final nail in the coffin?


----------



## dylans (Oct 24, 2012)

I am suspicious of the claims by Ben Fellows. He is not a reliable source. A quick google shows his name in connection to some pretty loony conspiracy sites including Alex Jones. We have to be careful here not to throw all rationality away in the rush to witchhunt. I remember the claims of satanic abuse in the 80s and the way that suspicions regarding their validity were dismissed in the hysteria surrounding them

I don't believe these allegations against institutions are indicative of conspiracy. I think they are really about organisations and the way that both authority is used and abused and how voices of the powerless are ignored and silenced in those contexts. It is no accident Saville targeted hospital patients and institutionalised kids. He knew that noone was going to believe a girl in a reform school over a "national treasure". No need for a conspiracy, just an understanding of the way authority and power works to the advantage of abusers in an institutional and organisational setting


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2012)

For once I agree with dylans, tempting tho it is to suggest that [xxxxx] is a paedo


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Did we not cover the fellows stuff a near week ago?


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Did we not cover the fellows stuff a near week ago?


Yeah. Looks like he's gone as far as naming names now, though.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Did we not cover the fellows stuff a near week ago?


 
I'm glad you said that as I thought I was having a senior moment. The naming names is different but his qualification to do so remains questionable.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Did we not cover the fellows stuff a near week ago?


As the bbc enters into the thread it should be no surprise there are repeats


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> As the bbc enters into the thread it should be no surprise there are repeats


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Did we not cover the fellows stuff a near week ago?


 
I didn't see it TBH. Although I have been trying to avoid engaging completely with this stuff so _reading with one eye_ so to speak. As Cesare says he has been 'naming names' this brings it on a step doesn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

I'm pretty sure he named then before - the url of the original link we discussed a week even has 'named' in it. Either way, it's now come to the attention of the tops.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> That isn't exactly putting himself in a good light.


Seem like he spent the 70s and 80s with stuff just passing him by or not doing anything when it didn't, or 'the industry' did - this is him talking about his friend Jonathon King in 2001 - you can change the names to Savile and BBC for the industry:



> Former Radio 1 DJ Paul Gambaccini, who was a friend at the time, said he never knew about King's activities.
> 
> But he believes the industry may have turned a blind eye to his behaviour while he was still "bankable".
> 
> ...


----------



## smokedout (Oct 24, 2012)

dylans said:


> I am suspicious of the claims by Ben Fellows. He is not a reliable source. A quick google shows


 
precisely, even if you havent come across fellows before (which i did when looking into whether g4s were plotting to use workfare at the olympics) it takes seconds to establish he is a far from credible source, yet he still seems to have sucked countless people in


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 24, 2012)

PA are now running this story:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tv-actor-charged-raping-boy-083302215.html


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

"The performer, who police have not publicly named because of his age"?


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> "The performer, who police have not publicly named because of his age"?


 
Because, I assume, he is too young rather than too old.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> Because, I assume, he is too young rather than too old.


Must be - going to be a whole new load of speculation centring on all young male actors now i reckon.


----------



## elbows (Oct 24, 2012)

Luckily I will get a break from this round of speculation, since I am so out of touch that I dont think I know the names of any actors that are young.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> Luckily I will get a break from this round of speculation, since I am so out of touch that I dont think I know the names of any actors that are young.


Don't worry, your ignorance will be ripped asunder


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 24, 2012)

He was named by the Daily Mail when first arrested, a quick google brings it up.

Not naming him here.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

**


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2012)

Thread shows admirable restraint. 

If the actor is still underage and the alleged offences were Summer 2010 , he would have been no older than 13 then?  Like Elbows, that stops me from speculating, but it's still very depressing.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> He was named by the Daily Mail when first arrested, a quick google brings it up.
> 
> Not naming him here.



But provide a link, no?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Thread shows admirable restraint.
> 
> If the actor is still underage and the alleged offences were Summer 2010 , he would have been no older than 13 then? Like Elbows, that stops me from speculating, but it's still very depressing.


 
He is reported as being 17 now, in the _Mail_ and _Sun_.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> He is reported as being 17 now, in the _Mail_ and _Sun_.


 Ah, cheers.  I'm getting paranoid about the number of Savilish links and searches I'm making at work, so didn't go to the reports.


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> But provide a link, no?


 
I just googled "teen actor arrested sex assault", several flashed up, didn't know if linking counted as naming tbh


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 24, 2012)

Somewhat disturbingly, that was the only person who came to mind when thinking of 'top stars' at that age.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 24, 2012)

I remember that allegation and arrest at the time.. Wondered when he'd be wheeched from our screens.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 24, 2012)

Apparently  in 1998 some police officers were aware of politicians engaging in sex with underage partners and Edwina Currie’s autobiography carried the same claims


----------



## laptop (Oct 24, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> I just googled "teen actor arrested sex assault", several flashed up, didn't know if linking counted as naming tbh


 
I just googled that (in quotes) and this thread was the only result!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 24, 2012)

laptop said:


> I just googled that (in quotes) and this thread was the only result!


Yup 

If you take it out of quotes it works.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 24, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> I just googled "teen actor arrested sex assault", several flashed up, didn't know if linking counted as naming tbh


 
life mirrors art


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 24, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> As the bbc enters into the thread it should be no surprise there are repeats



He named names in the article being discussed, at least I read same one as before and one more that hasn't been. Another Tory, not an MP though


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 24, 2012)

Here's Ben Fellows latest piece, very interesting 

http://beforeitsnews.com/media/2012...s-child-abusers-says-ben-fellows-2447320.html


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2012)

Yet more fluff. When he was 'about 16', he got drunk at a party and passed out, then went home. Wild.

There appears to be a bit of a common thread to his articles. They feature vague generalities interspersed with specific stories that don't amount to much.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 24, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Here's Ben Fellows latest piece, very interesting
> 
> http://beforeitsnews.com/media/2012...s-child-abusers-says-ben-fellows-2447320.html


 

he's very brave to be doing all this, especially after he claimed threats were made to his life following his uncovering of the false flag attack at the olympics


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 24, 2012)

smokedout said:


> he's very brave to be doing all this, especially after he claimed threats were made to his life following his uncovering of the false flag attack at the olympics


Are you being sardonic?


> Olympic dirty bomb false flag – Ben Fellows : The Olympic stadium is built on an old experimental nuclear reactor site and they are using nuclear energy to power the Olympic site, it is being supplied by a company called EDF Energy and their logo is a 5 pointed star symbolizing Lucifer. The streets at﻿ the Olympic site are all biblical street names…They're most likely going to blame it on Iran. Iran﻿ did publicly condemn the 2012 games for the hidden word Zion in the 2012 logo and will be boycotting the games this year. Remember those 500,000 FEMA coffins being stored in Georgia? They fit up to 4 bodies each so that would = 2 million in body capacity. There will probably be millions of deaths due to the radiation exposure on the surrounding area.



http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy...irty-bomb-false-flag-ben-fellows-2409118.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Are you being sardonic?
> 
> 
> http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy...irty-bomb-false-flag-ben-fellows-2409118.html


by sardonick i take it you in fact mean sarcastick


----------



## smokedout (Oct 24, 2012)

thats it, and here he is again, striking at the heart of the beast


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2012)

So quoting Fellows is about as useful as quoting Icke.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

As i believe pickman's model established a week ago.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 24, 2012)

yep, hasnt stopped the daily express and more than one blogger taking him seriously though


----------



## AverageJoe (Oct 24, 2012)

I've only just been introduced to Icke's site via Digital Spy (I *know*), but it led me to these posts from someone that used to work at Broadmoor. I found them interesting.




He talks at length about the keys: 
davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061082019&postcount=2481

He mentions Franey and his puzzling appearance on TIYL
davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061082296&postcount=2544

He describes the general security procedures at Broadmoor: 
davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061082455&postcount=2618

JS is challenged for not carrying his keys properly.
davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061082835&postcount=2730


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

smokedout said:


> yep, hasnt stopped the daily express and more than one blogger taking him seriously though


Yes, lot's of people just sitting there with _mugs/take me for a ride_ written on their foreheads right now.


----------



## elbows (Oct 24, 2012)

Random Thatcher anecdote from about a week ago that I had missed.

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/tuesday-diary-votes-at-16-jimmy-savile-thatcher-and-douglas-adams-ipad



> Apart from anything else I always found Jimmy Savile a strange and rather creepy person, and that was well before any of us knew what we know now. Of course, Fleet Street was well aware of the rumours which were mostly about a penchant for amputees and mortuaries. But nothing could be proved. The strangest experience I ever had with him when a few of us were having what we thought was a private dinner with Margaret Thatcher in a Blackpool Hotel. Somehow he had persuaded the management to plonk him on a table for one sitting directly opposite her. For the whole meal he just sat there and just stared at her. He never said a word to anyone and after finishing a large cigar crept out of the room. Odd.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Are you being sardonic?
> 
> 
> http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy...irty-bomb-false-flag-ben-fellows-2409118.html


What the fuck is all all that barking nonsense?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 24, 2012)

editor said:


> What the fuck is all all that barking nonsense?


 
Fuck knows, other than a huge lol


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2012)

editor said:


> What the fuck is all all that barking nonsense?


barking nonsense of course


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i'm usually polite but i've got a very, very low tolerance when it comes to people trying to promote anti-semitic shit. especially on the back of a scandal involving hundreds of kids being sexually abused and a coverup that's lasted decades. We've already seen how allegations of abuse against saville were disbelieved even on these boards, if the conspiracy loons use it promote their filthy ideas then this is likely to lead to more allegations of abuse by important figures being dismissed, as they were in saville's lifetime.


 
Please outline where I promoted anti-semitic shit. You can't, because I didn't and I don't. 

All I was doing, and it could be my fault at least as much as yours if I was misunderstood, was saying that a lot of stories had occurred lately with similar patterns of doublespeak and denial for various reasons. 

Stories surrounding the RC church, the police, the banks, the media and now quite possibly politicians. 
It's an interesting and relevant observation to make, it exploits no one. I find the exploitation of children's suffering for political ends (as seen in the press to demonise the BBC for example) repugnant in the extreme

What do you do? Pick one of 5 of those institutions and construe anti semitism from it. 

It's groundless and contorted. It's bollocks and it's offensive.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

> It's groundless and contorted.
> It's bollocks and offensive.
> It make you all defensive
> The loon-face family


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Please outline where I promoted anti-semitic shit. You can't, because I didn't and I don't.
> 
> All I was doing, and it could be my fault at least as much as yours if I was misunderstood, was saying that a lot of stories had occurred lately with similar patterns of doublespeak and denial for various reasons.
> 
> ...


 
you know what the bilderberg group is code for, you know what international financiers is code for, the discussion has been had numerous times. you might not be an anti-semite but the people who make up these theories definitely are. i'm not construeing anti-semitism from anything. it's been pointed to you numerous times the true nature of these conspiracy theories. you're doing the victims a discredit by associating what has happened with unproven lies from bigoted scum with agendas and secrets of their own. these people have a hard enough time being believed when trying to expose wrongdoing by those in positions of power without scum like icke jumping on it to further their nefarious agenda.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

if i had been abused the very last person i would want pretending to fight my corner would be david icke who is only after more followers so he can shift more of his shite protocols-based books.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

i hate cunts like icke. i proper hate them. this is why.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 24, 2012)

Interesting that Guido Fawkes was making noises about Savile and the BBC back in February

http://order-order.com/2012/02/08/bbc-jimmy-savile-cover-up-scandal-coming/


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Interesting that Guido Fawkes was making noises about Savile and the BBC back in February
> 
> http://order-order.com/2012/02/08/bbc-jimmy-savile-cover-up-scandal-coming/


That was 3 months after it all kicked off.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

I hope some reform of the libel laws comes out of this. It's ridiculous that you couldn't say all of this stuff until after he died.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you know what the bilderberg group is code for,


 
Not sure about that. It does actually exist. It's not a Jewish group though.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Not sure about that. It does actually exist. It's not a Jewish group though.


 
i know it exists. in the context of these theories tho? bilderberg is enough of a jewish sounding name


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i know it exists. in the context of these theories tho? bilderberg is enough of a jewish sounding name


 
Yeah I suppose. Interestingly enough, members of Bilderberg actually like the theories and the fact loons think they're the secret rulers of the world. Makes their boring seminars have a James Bond feel about them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah I suppose. Interestingly enough, members of Bilderberg actually like the theories and the fact loons think they're the secret rulers of the world. Makes their boring seminars have a James Bond feel about them.


Talked to them have you?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Talked to them have you?


 
Have you talked to the many people you discuss on here?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2012)

Bone says thatcher's pps was a ppperv,  morrison


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Have you talked to the many people you discuss on here?


I don't claim that i know what they think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Have you talked to the many people you discuss on here?


I was talking to sir jimmy savile obe kcsg just the other day through the medium of a ouija board.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I don't claim that i know what they think.


 
Maybe I'm a clairvoyant then? How else would I know that a Former UK MP and Bilderberg member said that?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Maybe I'm a clairvoyant then? How else would I know that a Former UK MP and Bilderberg member said that?


Maybe you read him or her saying that?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 24, 2012)

Did we miss this?




> Brambell, who played the “dirty old man” Albert Steptoe in the comedy Steptoe and Son, allegedly abused two boys in a theatre in Jersey at the height of his fame in the 1970s.
> One of the alleged victims was a resident at the notorious Haut de la Garenne children’s home which was at the centre of a high-profile police investigation into historical child abuse on the island in 2008.
> He claimed to have been taken to the island’s main theatre, the Opera House, as a “treat” before being taken backstage to meet Brambell, who he accuses of molesting him in a back room.
> The second victim, who had not been a Haut de la Garenne resident, also claimed to have been abused by Brambell at the theatre. The alleged victims were aged 12-13 at the time.
> Brambell, who died in 1985, was homosexual and had a criminal record for “persistently importuning for an immoral purpose” in a public lavatory dating from 1962.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe you read him or her saying that?


 
Bingo. Maybe you also read a lot of what you discuss on here also?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Bingo. Maybe you also read a lot of what you discuss on here also?


Yeah, then i say - and only then - that a single individuals view means that all participants think like this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 24, 2012)

> Brambell, who died in 1985, was homosexual and had a criminal record for “persistently importuning for an immoral purpose” in a public lavatory dating from 1962.


That's a horrible accusation, and horrible if true, but this bit is rather unfair. All homosexual activity was illegal at the time and cottaging was a means for homosexual men to meet each other.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, then i say - and only then - that a single individuals view means that all participants think like this.


 
What makes you think that it was me that had taken an individual view and applied it collectively?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> What makes you think that it was me that had taken an individuals view and applied it collectively?


This post from you



> Yeah I suppose. Interestingly enough, members of Bilderberg actually like the theories and the fact loons think they're the secret rulers of the world. Makes their boring seminars have a James Bond feel about them.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This post from you


 
That doesn't prove that I applied an individual's view collectively. Given that the individual can express that it is a collective view.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> That doesn't prove that I applied an individual's view collectively. Given that the individual can express that it is a collective view.


You what 

Leave it now, come on


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You what
> 
> Leave it now, come on


 
ok, there's your avenue out of here. Not really sure what the meaning of that little exchange was but there we are.


----------



## elbows (Oct 24, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i know it exists. in the context of these theories tho? bilderberg is enough of a jewish sounding name


 
From what I remember many conspiracy sites and people liked to keep the child abuse theories separate from other theories that involve codes for jews. It all gets woven back into their overall narrative at some point, but they can sometimes manage to tell a tale of coverup and conspiracy that doesnt involve jews at all.

Pointing out antisemitism wherever it is to be found is very important, and there are plenty who tirelessly do that on these forums. However I doubt I would have spent so much time in previous years ranting on various conspiracy threads if I thought that was the only angle, since others had that well covered already. I'm not quite sure yet if I'll find anything fresh to say about this on the back of this Savile-induced focus on child sex abuse, but knowing me I'll parp out some paragraphs about it in the not too distant future.

I'm not finding this a great starting point though. When I tried to determine the context that Bilderberg came up in this time, it was in a point that along the lines of 'mentioning the Bilderberg a decade ago would have been met with laughs, but that now its proven to exist people might take it seriously'. Well that was a silly point as far as I'm concerned, because the issue was never about whether Bilderberg existed, it was as usual about conspiracy theorists understanding of power & structures, agendas and standards of evidence.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

of course it's not the only angle, the other ones are just as bad, milking money from the vulnerable by selling shit books and shit "health" products like colloidal silver, discrediting child abuse victims by mixing legitimate info alongside lurid tales of satanists and rosicrucians and the like. Not to mention the fact that any idea of a coverup now gets tarred with the same brush and becomes easier to dismiss

i hate them.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 24, 2012)

No point in wasting energy in hating them hon, just point & laugh at them - & lob things


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2012)

aye i know mate. it just fucks me off , and it fucks me off that them zeitgeist cunts were on the october 20th demo. they should not have been allowed on it. these types are poison to any real attempt to expose any coverups or anything like that


----------



## elbows (Oct 24, 2012)

I think I've always been interested in stealing back the legitimate topics they've been able to use as ingredients in their foul brew. These ingredients were only available to them due to narrow mainstream focus and thats something which is coming undone this century, albeit to a limited extent so far.

Conspiracy theorists are mostly fooling themselves if they think that revelations that go mainstream are going to have people bowing down to Icke & Jones. When these issues are seized by the mainstream, the Ickes and Jones's become obsolete on that issue, not empowered. The faith of those who believe the conspiracies may well be renewed, their worldview further cemented, but that doesnt mean millions of newcomers will want to join the congregation. And thats because:

Lots of people will not change their standards of evidence, no matter how massive the revelation is. They can believe the story now because sufficient evidence is now there in the public domain, and before it was not.

Lots of people are already plenty cynical about institutions, power, agendas etc, but conspiracy theorists dont seem to notice this, thinking everyone else is asleep unless they have comic-book notions about power and institutions.

And yes a percentage of people will remain happy to mostly stick within the confines of whatever the mainstream is going on about, and no amount of horror will lead them to seek Icke & co as an alternative.


----------



## ibilly99 (Oct 24, 2012)




----------



## kenny g (Oct 24, 2012)

_*Shirley Crabtree aka Big Daddy was another one. Dead now but well known to be.*_


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

kenny g said:


> _*Shirley Crabtree aka Big Daddy was another one. Dead now but well known to be.*_


 
Shirley not?  Wonder if all his opponents knew that?


----------



## ibilly99 (Oct 24, 2012)

Maybe millions of paedophiles in the UK ....

http://www.nickdavies.net/1998/04/01...se-in-britain/

_The ease of the crime is reflected in its scale. No one knows the exact numbers, but to construct a picture is to watch an arithmetical explosion. Start with a hard fact. At the last count, there were 2,100 child sex abusers behind the bars of British jails. Now think of all those who have previously been convicted but who have been released back into the community. You have to multiply by 50: according to the Home Office Research Department, there are 108,000 convicted paedophiles in the community.

Now, think of all the child victims who are conned and confused and never report their abuse in the first place; and all those cases which are reported but which fall short of the demands of the courts; and all those cases of rape and indecent assault which are convicted but which are not statistically recorded as crimes against children. At the most conservative estimate, the NSPCC and specialist police agree with studies here and in the United States, that the official figures for convictions record no more than ten per cent of the paedophile population. Which means that today in Britain, there are probably 1.1 million paedophiles at large. Other studies suggest that the figure is very much higher_


----------



## kenny g (Oct 24, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Shirley not? Wonder if all his opponents knew that?


 
Know of one who definitely did - he told me.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 24, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Know of one who definitely did - he told me.


 
Haystacks? 

Nagasaki?


----------



## elbows (Oct 24, 2012)

I know nothing about the Big Daddy claim but its time for an unfortunate tribute from Savile:

​


> Sir Jimmy Savile, the DJ and television presenter who is himself a former wrestler, paid a fond tribute to Big Daddy. "He was a big, beautiful fellow, and though I never actually fought him - because he was super heavyweight and I was catchweight - in the Sixties, I was often on the same bill . . . it was always a joy because the crowd would be in super-good humour but more importantly the atmosphere in the dressing room was magic with him around.​"As two Yorkshire lads, we used to terrorise everyone. It was a laugh a minute. He had this great booming laugh and all the rest of us could do in the ring was hope and pray."​


​​http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-big-daddy-1286571.html​


----------



## ibilly99 (Oct 24, 2012)

Another big 'daddy' http://rochdaleraw.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/cyril-smith-to-be-hung-at-rochdale-town.html


----------



## ibilly99 (Oct 24, 2012)

Nightmare on Savile St ....


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2012)

elbows said:


> I know nothing about the Big Daddy claim but its time for an unfortunate tribute from Savile:
> 
> ​​​http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-big-daddy-1286571.html​


"As two Yorkshire lads, we used to terrorise everyone. It was a laugh a minute. He had this great booming laugh and all the rest of us could do in the *ring* was hope and pray."
What kind of ring, Jim?


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 25, 2012)

3 doctors who worked with Savile at various hospitals accused of molesting kids in their care
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nurse-Stoke-Mandeville.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

eta

they worked at the same hospitals as him and had Jim'll Fix It signs in their consulting rooms so may or may not have worked directly with Savile


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 25, 2012)

It just gets worse and worse


----------



## Favelado (Oct 25, 2012)

Luckily, we have leaders like Boris Johnson who have always had sensible opinions on such matters. A slight tangent, but indulge me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-folks-how-many-paedophiles-can-there-be.html

What a fucktard.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you know what the bilderberg group is code for, you know what international financiers is code for, the discussion has been had numerous times. you might not be an anti-semite but the people who make up these theories definitely are. i'm not construeing anti-semitism from anything. it's been pointed to you numerous times the true nature of these conspiracy theories. you're doing the victims a discredit by associating what has happened with unproven lies from bigoted scum with agendas and secrets of their own. these people have a hard enough time being believed when trying to expose wrongdoing by those in positions of power without scum like icke jumping on it to further their nefarious agenda.


 
No. I don't know that the Bilderberg Group is a code for what you say it is a code for. I know it is a group of mainly Anglo/Euro American politicians, media types, business leaders etc.

I do know a prime founder was a Dutch Royal who had been in the SS. That doesn't sit so well with your theory on the whole, because I dimly recall the SS had a reputation for anti-semitism that was beyond mild, need to check.

I know that international financeers are a group who have screwed over economies and the masses world wide. What defines them is the global level of their operations and the nature of those operations. The faith / ethnicity of individuals couldn't interest me less, apart from their faith in money of course.

If you are hoping to insinuate all who oppose the historic record levels of fraud and larceny as anti semite - or dupes for it, you are going to have a very uphill struggle. Because it's stupid.

Madrid, Athens, Lisbon - all scenes of massive demonstrations. Countries across the world all buckling under austerity. Is every person who complains about the system a Jew hater? The vast majority are not. As I've said before, Marx, Trotsky, Chomsky and countless others don't strike me as prime candidates for anti semitism.

I am forever telling people that the nation in certainly the region, if not the world, that had more per capita people involved in anti government protest in the year of the "Arab Spring" was Israel.

Do you have any actual evidence or does me citing groups that exist (with a vast amount of non semite members) suffice as far as you are concerned?

You have mis-read me FW. Plain and simple. I could well be partly responsible for that, but far from entirely.

Look around on all my posts over years (Butchers sometimes bothers to do this kind of thing) - find something, anything, that actually points to solid evidence of your accusation.

You won't.

Citing allusions to BBerg and the finance crime syndicate just wont do for the level of accusation you have thrown at me and the invective that has gone with it.

I will grant that, especially in the past, criticism and analysis of these groups has been heavily disproportionate in terms of right wing representation. 

I consider that speaks to a blind spot of the left, as I have said quite a few times.

It's like the silly claim you made that Icke was my "hero". When I asked you to substantiate that you just said it was "obvious". So "obvious" in fact that you didn't actually produce any evidence then either. I have very few heroes beyond perhaps the arts, and Icke is certainly not one of them. He exagerates, he is simplistic, he is rather  vain (not the worst). He is a magpie (getting towards the worst) and he has said no small number of stupid things.

As I said. You have misread me, and that is life. My views on all sorts of things are clearly more nuanced than you gave me credit for. I hope to never put words in your mouth at any rate.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

Touche Butchers, though I note no actual evidence coming from your direction either.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 25, 2012)

just turned on radio 5 george galloway being interviewed about jimmy savile, can't say anything more about it as digital radios cost money and so I turned it straight off rather than throw the set through the window.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 25, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> just turned on radio 5 george galloway being interviewed about jimmy savile, can't say anything more about it as digital radios cost money and so I turned it straight off rather than throw the set through the window.


I had no problem - I went upstairs for a fine shit!


----------



## yardbird (Oct 25, 2012)

Mark Williams-Thomas was also on R5 earlier.
Frightening.
He thinks Savile will have abused hundreds of girls starting before any tv or radio appearances and, oh yes, their are some terrified people yet to be named.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Plain and simple.


this should be your tagline


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

not interested. go play yourself some madrigals or something. you want to know why i give you a level of invective? because i do take personal offence to the shit these cunts say. i don't accuse people of anti-semitism because its fun you know.

you want to bring the 9/11 movement and others of its type closer to the left, to give them left/liberal cover. they are not left wing. they are the total opposite. now that these high level paedophile rings re being exposed people like them are going "aha! now we can show that if that's true all the other conspiracies might be true!" to use these peoples suffering in this way is absolutely revolting, without bringing the actual content of their messages into it.

eta: stop trying to say that people who don't want this bullshit being brought into it must spport jimmy saville/the establishment, when it's people like the 9/11 loons who are actually helping them.


----------



## laptop (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No. I don't know that the Bilderberg Group is a code for what you say it is a code for. I know it is a group of mainly Anglo/Euro American politicians, media types, business leaders etc.


 
From the _Manual of self-disproving statements_, p.666?


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

The conspiracy theorists use Occupy as cover too.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

Those zeitgeist cunts were on the October 20th demo.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Those zeitgeist cunts were on the October 20th demo.


They're conspiracy theorists aren't they? Same themes/language at any rate: http://grantjkidney.com/the-zeitgeist-movement-responce-to-occupy-wall-street-protests/


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> They're conspiracy theorists aren't they? Same themes/language at any rate: http://grantjkidney.com/the-zeitgeist-movement-responce-to-occupy-wall-street-protests/


 
yep.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Those zeitgeist cunts were on the October 20th demo.



I saw someone with a "support assange" sign. Clearly missing the point of an anti austerity protest by a few furlongs, and someone else trying to tack an unrelated cause to the left.

I could only have  harder if the sign had said "support saville".


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I saw someone with a "support assange" sign. Clearly missing the point of an anti austerity protest by a few furlongs, and someone else trying to tack an unrelated cause to the left.
> 
> I could only have  harder if the sign had said "support saville".


 

he's hiding in Satans embassy


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> not interested. go play yourself some madrigals or something. you want to know why i give you a level of invective? because i do take personal offence to the shit these cunts say. i don't accuse people of anti-semitism because its fun you know.
> 
> you want to bring the 9/11 movement and others of its type closer to the left, to give them left/liberal cover. they are not left wing. they are the total opposite. now that these high level paedophile rings re being exposed people like them are going "aha! now we can show that if that's true all the other conspiracies might be true!" to use these peoples suffering in this way is absolutely revolting, without bringing the actual content of their messages into it.
> 
> eta: stop trying to say that people who don't want this bullshit being brought into it must spport jimmy saville/the establishment, when it's people like the 9/11 loons who are actually helping them.


 
Oh look. You didn't find any evidence. And you deliberately misconstrue what I have been saying.

You may not accuse people of anti semitism as a hobby, so don't bother doing it without evidence.

When I have challenged you to produce evidence of things you have just 

- Said "It's obvious"

- used category evidence misjudgements on the lines of

1) Some people say "A" as Code for "B"
2) You say "A"
3) Therefore you are using it as code for "B"

Now we have another obfuscationist default:

- "not interested"


I have not mentioned 911 in the context of any of this. Why are you bringing it up? We both know what a can of worms and distraction it is. Oh, that's it - could be you're wanting to distract.

Distract from you lack of evidence that I am anti semitic.

Find the evidence and present it or STFU.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> The conspiracy theorists use Occupy as cover too.



It's hardly cover. It's pretty obvious who they are and they make no secret of it. The question is whether they contribute to Occupy in it's own terms or not. I have not enough direct experience to comment.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's hardly cover. It's pretty obvious who they are and they make no secret of it. The question is whether they contribute to Occupy in it's own terms or not. I have not enough direct experience to comment.


Hiding in plain sight.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

cesare said:


> Hiding in plain sight.



  Well the thing is, Occupy is by definition an open movement. If someone plainly hijacked it without genuine contribution that would be reason to denounce them. 

But all sorts of people have legitimately contributed while also furthering their own agenda.

I did visit some Occupies but my own local one I avoided for personal reasons i won't get into.
I did notice people pushing CT stuff that wasn't really Occupy appropriate (in that it did seem opportunist) and I said so. Healthy debate and all that.

But, as simplistic and patronising as I find many Zeitgeist types to be (and as problematic as aspects of the film and "movement" are IMO) They do essentially challenge the money system, which is entirely appropriate within the context of Occupy. 

Occupy was the first time that CTs had been thrown together with left/anarchists, environmentalists and others in such a way. It interested me for that though it was clearly not a roaring success in  that regard. At least it was an attempt though, and lessons will have been learned.

The establishment and current model of society is so very clearly a crock of shit to so many people it is plainly unrealistic to suppose that those who seek to build an alternative should or would all be of similar mindset and tradition. 

No one has a monopoly on this stuff, and from a blank sheet I don't see a Zeitgeist person as using Occupy as "cover" for an "agenda" any more or less than an anarchist, socialist or environmentalist might be doing so.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

FW

One more thing for now, I know you are busy sifting through my past posts looking for evidence of your ultimately hollow accusations.

A lot of the movements you describe (and more) do contain highly suss right wing people, some of whom are doubtless using them towards recruitment.

The Freeman Of The Land lot and similar groups - riddled with rightists. And anarchist inclined friends I have keep me in the loop on that. It astonishes me that such interesting theory and history is only ever really used to for such revolutionary effect as dodging parking tickets or council tax in a way that makes people no more socially responsible than Vodafone.

911 similarly is far from devoid of rightists in people questioning the events.

I do not need informing of any of that, or denouncing for it as if I was not aware. But to take an interest in something neither means going along with all conclusions or conforming to the average of broadly unconnected political opinions of others who take an interest.

That seems to be a prime confusion of yours in your clunky and patronising denouncements.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2012)

i look forward to the denoument


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> FW
> 
> One more thing for now, I know you are busy sifting through my past posts looking for evidence of your ultimately hollow accusations.
> 
> ...


come on, when are you going to change your tagline to the apt 'plain and simple'?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

it's not just the people.the actual theory itself is anything but left wing.

the assumptions these groups rely on - that there is a "good" (productive) capitalism and "bad" (finance) capitalism, and that the reason why there is all the shit in the world is because of the "bad" bankers and finance capitalists - never questioning the rest of the system, blaming it all on "the bankers" as opposed to the other types of capitalists, that is not a marxist stance. that is not even a moderately left wing stance. marxism and socialism aims to overthrow the capitalist system not a small part of it

it gets worse when you start linking in the other ideas these groups have about their effects on the political system. the idea that an elite group of "bankers" started or funded WWI and WWII, and contemporary accusations like that this group were responsible for 9/11 and the child abuse which is being exposed now.

they are not left wing. they have no more place in anti-cuts movements etc than do the edl.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 25, 2012)

Back on point - the wrestling angle is very interesting and may suggest that Savile had another ring of abuse. I heard the "Big Daddy" stories from a very reliable source - not any of the names mentioned BTW- so the information that Mr Crabtree and Savile were old buddies certainly dovetails with what I heard. Crabtree was a massive star in his time and travelled the country. Apparently his interest was boys.


----------



## framed (Oct 25, 2012)

Crabtree's brother was also an ex-wrestler who became the sport's top referee.

I believe that he was also a good friend of Savile, although the association does not necessarily make him a suspect.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it's not just the people.the actual theory itself is anything but left wing.
> 
> the assumptions these groups rely on - that there is a "good" (productive) capitalism and "bad" (finance) capitalism, and that the reason why there is all the shit in the world is because of the "bad" bankers and finance capitalists - never questioning the rest of the system, blaming it all on "the bankers" as opposed to the other types of capitalists, that is not a marxist stance. that is not even a moderately left wing stance. marxism and socialism aims to overthrow the capitalist system not a small part of it
> 
> ...


 
I didn't say they were left wing, they clearly tend not to be. Not that I am against freedom of thought mind, I'll have the debate out with anyone.

Many distinguish between merits of finance and industrial capitalism regardless of how much they do/don't support either. I consider the more faulty mechanisms leading to the current crisis to be more inherent in practice in the finance capital,while broadly the industrial model anyway (though I am perhaps more old style Social Democrat inclined than some here)

Finance capital is more inherently fraudulent, with no real use value commodity to even speak of.
Consumer brands themselves have little use value beyond "feel good" nonsense associated with essentially cult thinking in the mind of the consumer, but it still seems slightly more "real" than juggling around using "exotic instruments".

Without speaking for them, I imagine the Zeitgeist lot would challenge fiat currency, fractional reserve etc. regardless of the dominant mode of capitalism.

It's very obvious that wars suit capitalism no matter who starts them. Certainly capitalists have profited from both sides in war many times and will continue to. The arms trade is almost certainly the most repugnant and nefarious on earth.

I think you are right that it is wrong and dangerous to blame such a broad group for child abuse and false flag ops in such a simplistic manner. One simply doesn't know the full details so shouldn't act like one does.

Child abuse especially seems usually to carried out by individuals regardless of class, ethnicity, faith as far as I'm aware (Satanism being a possible exception in the latter case, but not even the more recognised groups, more underground and US specific)

False flags are probably as old as history, so again no need to think them linked to ethnicity or faith (class would obviously come into it)

If you have sifted through my past posts and not found any decent evidence, beyond the loosest of your logically ill founded conjectures, of me being anti semitic I will happily give you my FB and Twitter details by PM so you can start trawling them as well.

It's interesting you mentioned the EDL. They sometimes call their opponents anti-semitic via clunky logic error. I was called a Nazi by one the other day (that's more common - shorter word and in more common use)

When I challenged him for evidence he said his say so was enough. That's about 2 nothces below the level of evidence you have supplied.

According to you, because some people use certain words as code - and I use those words, I must be doing so with the same motivation (though perhaps in a subconscious "structual" sense I dare say).

It is in the same realm of logic that because EDLers falsely accuse people of being anti-semitic with no basis, and you have done the same - to conclude that you are thus a supporter of the EDL. Note that I have not actually made that allegation against you, because I do not indulge in such faulty logic and mis-assumptions.

You know nothing, or very little, of my theological and philosophical outlook, and little of my political or spiritual perspectives.

You have not substantiated your charge of anti-semitism against me despite many patient challenges to do so.

Do you want my social media details to continue your search, or are you going to withdraw the allegations at any point? I can take criticism hopefully as well as the next poster, but you have gone well over a line in terms of offense. If all you can say is that you don't care (because you can't substantiate yourself) then that says a lot more about you. I have no idea what you think is wrong with Madrigals per se FWIW either. Folk and art traditions of all peoples make up a great deal of what humanity is. Perhaps you are revolutionary in the "cultural" sense as well. 

Perhaps you should get busy with other stuff, like falsely accusing the countless more famous critics of international finance than I of being anti-semitic.

Stiglitz would be a good start, he's not even a leftie.

Naomi Klein - everyone knows she has always hated Jews.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

> It's interesting you mentioned the EDL. They sometimes call their opponents anti-semitic via clunky logic error. I was called a Nazi by one the other day (that's more common - shorter word and in more common use)
> 
> When I challenged him for evidence he said his say so was enough. That's about 2 nothces below the level of evidence you have supplied.
> 
> ...


 
pathetic.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 25, 2012)

Ignore him ffs.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

you're right, sorry.

According to reuters the police are "preparing an arrest strategy"


----------



## framed (Oct 25, 2012)

I was about to try to answer that long rambling post by *taffboy gwyrdd*, then I read it again and thought, "What a load of shite!"


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2012)

framed said:


> Crabtree's brother was also an ex-wrestler who became the sport's top referee.
> 
> I believe that he was also a good friend of Savile, although the association does not necessarily make him a suspect.


 
One brother was a ref, the other was booker for the promotion and ended up being the owner. And thats one reasons some didnt like Big Daddy, he got pushed to the top and others were jealous, especially as his work in the ring was quite awful. I could argue that he still deserved his push because he had a connection to fans, he could draw money, and thats what the business is about at the end of the day. I have no connections that would help me learn more bout the abuse allegations, when it comes to that sort of thing that are far more clues about the US pro wrestling scene back in the day, including groupie phenomenon where the women in question were referred to as ring rats. At least one WWF employee had legal trouble to do with abusing a youngster who was helping to setup the ring, and I already told a depressing story about the father of Jake the Snake Roberts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I didn't say they were left wing, they clearly tend not to be. Not that I am against freedom of thought mind, I'll have the debate out with anyone.
> 
> Many distinguish between merits of finance and industrial capitalism regardless of how much they do/don't support either. I consider the more faulty mechanisms leading to the current crisis to be more inherent in practice in the finance capital,while broadly the industrial model anyway (though I am perhaps more old style Social Democrat inclined than some here)
> 
> ...


Do you honestly think *anyone* reads posts that long?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> you're right, sorry.
> 
> According to reuters the police are "preparing an arrest strategy"


Shurely 'pre-preparing', like they 'pre-plan' everything


----------



## framed (Oct 25, 2012)

I read his feckin post TWICE before I realised I was losing the will to live...

Went back over the last few pages and saw that this is pretty average size post for the conspiracy man.

He also has the unenviable knack of completely fcuking up his own posts when he links the most serious issues together with the nuttiest theories of the conspiracy freaks that he appears to put so much faith in.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 25, 2012)

Some people won't be sleeping too well tonight.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Do you honestly think *anyone* reads posts that long?


 
Some choice lines in there  though-

"I will happily give you my FB and twitter details by PM so you can start trawling them as well" 

Yes please. I really think you have posted too little shit on urban so would like to trawl your twitter posts in the meantime.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I didn't say they were left wing, they clearly tend not to be. Not that I am against freedom of thought mind, I'll have the debate out with anyone.
> 
> Many distinguish between merits of finance and industrial capitalism regardless of how much they do/don't support either. I consider the more faulty mechanisms leading to the current crisis to be more inherent in practice in the finance capital,while broadly the industrial model anyway (though I am perhaps more old style Social Democrat inclined than some here)
> 
> ...


 
could of saved a lot of keystrokes but getting up and walking out side

and shaking your bloody fist at the sky

instead of typing that out


----------



## Wilf (Oct 25, 2012)

yardbird said:


> I had no problem - I went upstairs for a fine shit!


 Galloway has that effect on me too.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Well the thing is, Occupy is by definition an open movement. If someone plainly hijacked it without genuine contribution that would be reason to denounce them.
> 
> But all sorts of people have legitimately contributed while also furthering their own agenda.
> 
> ...


Fascists challenged the money system too. Using much the same propaganda. A focus on "international finance elites" while ignoring the capital/labour struggle.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Do you honestly think *anyone* reads posts that long?


 
Well, I skimmed it and I've not got much to say - I don't want taffboy to go away & I'm not going to accuse him of being a loon (conspira or otherwise), all that's a bit too deep for me, fuck- looks like Jim'll fix it was a nonce, that's as far as my understanding goes.

Can I ask though, why always end words with a k that should by rights only end with a c?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2012)

Because I like it


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 25, 2012)

Yeah it's something to do with magick wancking or something though isn't it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 25, 2012)

Because he'll have a prepared argument ready for anyone who it annoys and challenges it.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 25, 2012)

Bottom line, Taffy, if I wasn't antisemitic - and I'm not suggesting you personally are - I'd be keen to put as much fucking distance between myself and those who are as is humanly possible

I think this diversion into CTs is actually quite productive.  Seems to press all the right buttons - rings of abusers... hidden in plain sight.... links to the establishment...  BBC...  Savile and the royals.... Jimbo and Thatcher - it's the 9/11 of noncery.  However even the most basic analysis of the story shows that an application of ideas about class, gender, power, organisations and celebrity delivers the goods.  Conspiracy?  Quite possibly in the sense of a _criminal_ conspiracy, but nothing requiring a turn to batshit.  In a _mathematical_ sense it's amazing how he got away with it for so long.  In the circumstances of him raping each institutionalised kid in an era of limited procedure, the chanes of him being caught were limited (just as the chances of anything being done were even more remote).  However given that he seems to have been doing it for decades on an at least weekly basis, so the probablilities of capture should have gone up.  Maybe he was just 'lucky',   in a situation where the cards were anyway stacked in his favour.  However, when it comes to understanding that, no lizards required.


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Yeah it's something to do with magick wancking or something though isn't it?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 25, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Some people won't be sleeping too well tonight.


' Nonce Airways announce the departure of flight 666 to Vietnam.'


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

Kids who were from "rough" backgrounds and schools, or institutionalised in some way (doped up in hospital or in a mental hospital like broadmoor) vs somebody who done such good work for charity and is such an amazing guy. Of course it wasn't possible and even if it was look how much money he brings in!Besides they must have asked for it in some way mustn't they, dont make up such nonsense about the great jimmy savile.

i reckon that ^ type of attitude had a lot to do with it. that and other nonces in positions of power as well, although i dunno how much of it was an active conspiracy and how much of it was from those too cowardly etc to rock the boat

one thing's for sure tho, rantzen, gambaccini etc should be pulled in and grilled as to why they didn't do anything about it - rantzen is the founder of childline ffs


----------



## elbows (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> one thing's for sure tho, rantzen, gambaccini etc should be pulled in and grilled as to why they didn't do anything about it - rantzen is the founder of childline ffs


 
Meanwhile shall we all grill ourselves about whether early life lessons play a part. Dont tell tales! Dont be a grass, etc. Thats what they taught me when I was at school, an early playground lesson.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> one thing's for sure tho, rantzen, gambaccini etc should be pulled in and grilled as to why they didn't do anything about it - rantzen is the founder of childline ffs


 Even Chris Morris couldn't have dreamt that one up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Some people won't be sleeping too well tonight.


 
Some of the conscienceless cunts have had decades of good sleep, so a few nights of wondering when the knock on the door is going to come is small payback.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 25, 2012)

elbows said:


> Meanwhile shall we all grill ourselves about whether early life lessons play a part. Dont tell tales! Dont be a grass, etc. Thats what they taught me when I was at school, an early playground lesson.


 
Yeah but maybe no... I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but I'd maybe make a case for the idea that "don't grass" is a far less pernicious life lesson you could give to a kid than "do what you're told for no other reason than it's an adult who's telling you to". I've a feeling the point's moot anyway though - Savile (and possibly his ilk) knew what vulnerabilities to exploit and I doubt any playground wisdom would've made much difference - They knew what they were doing and they were always going to get what they wanted.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> one thing's for sure tho, rantzen, gambaccini etc should be pulled in and grilled as to why they didn't do anything about it - rantzen is the founder of childline ffs


 
Anyone who actually witnessed abuse should have reported it.  As for Esther Rantzen, if she only heard rumours she couldn't report it could she? 

As I've mentioned before I have tried to report all kinds of dodgy things to the police but when it comes to child abuse they will only act if you have witnessed a child being abused or can give them the name of a child who is at risk or has been abused and have evidence.  

Childline deals mostly with bullying and to act on rumours without any evidence is arguably to join in with bullying as rumours are often based on projections and gossip.  

I'm no great fan of Esther Rantzen as a TV presenter but I do think that she has done a lot of good work with Childline and I think that her mistake was to publicly admit culpability for something she was not culpable for, at least if what she has told us so far is true.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 25, 2012)

Rantzen is and always has been full of shit. She made a living from sexualising vegetables on family TV for fucks sake.

Savile probably did a lot of genuinely good work for charidee between noncing - rantzen chose to lecture the nation whilst turning a blind eye to the village  nonce working in the same building.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Rantzen is and always has been full of shit. She made a living from sexualising vegetables on family TV for fucks sake.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unusually_shaped_vegetable







The woman is on the Savile continuam.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 25, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Rantzen is and always has been full of shit. She made a living from sexualising vegetables on family TV for fucks sake.
> 
> Savile probably did a lot of genuinely good work for charidee between noncing - rantzen chose to lecture the nation whilst turning a blind eye to the village nonce working in the same building.


 
I get your point about the vegetables but are you sure that she was working in the same building even?   Even if it was the same building the BBC buildings are large, sprawling affairs (I know I used to work at one in the 80s - though never with Savile I hasten to add).  I think it#s a bit of a leap to conclude that ER must have known because she heard gossip and also worked for the BBC


----------



## Wilf (Oct 25, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> Anyone who actually witnessed abuse should have reported it. As for Esther Rantzen, if she only heard rumours she couldn't report it could she?


Suppose it depends on the word rumour. Rumour could mean going to a party, meeting someone you'd never met before and couldn't vouch for telling you something that a friend of theirs had heard. Agreed, not much you could do with that.

Taking it away from her personally, I assumed when there was talk of 'green room rumours' it was more direct and from someone who the parties knew. I've also assumed - quite possibly wrongly - that when these TV folks were talking about 'rumours' they were slightly downgrading things they had actually heard quite a lot about. In a sense the thing we all do when something we should have acted upon turns out to be very bad - it downplays personal responsibility to reduce it to just 'rumours'. I'm also assuming the entertainment industry with it's multiple channels of communication, gossip columnists and agents was the perfect environment for rumours to stack up and repeat. Lots of assumptions on my part, but plausible ones I think. And bringing her back in, it could be argued that armed with only rumours and gossip, she was uniquely well placed to get those listened to by the police or BBC management.

Finally, very early on in all this (actually, no more than 3 weeks ago!) Michael Grade was interviewed:


At the time he looked more than complacent - 'wasn't the fear of exposure in those days... managed to keep it quiet'. Not quite an admission of a cover up (over anything general or specific) but pretty astonishing words to use. He also, literally, shrugged his shoulders over Savile - there 'were question marks'. Looks even worse 3 weeks on.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Some choice lines in there though-
> 
> "I will happily give you my FB and twitter details by PM so you can start trawling them as well"
> 
> Yes please. I really think you have posted too little shit on urban so would like to trawl your twitter posts in the meantime.


 
You can think what you like though AFIAC. I can handle you thinking I talk shit. You haven't groundlessly accused me of anti-semitism and relied on flacid conjecture to do so.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Do you honestly think *anyone* reads posts that long?



People who groundlessly accuse others of anti-semitism ought to give come back a consideration. That doesn't include you IIRC.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You can think what you like though AFIAC. I can handle you thinking I talk shit. You haven't groundlessly accused me of anti-semitism and relied on flacid conjecture to do so.


 
Very true. For that I have not done and may I thank you for not having made that accusation towards me?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> People who groundlessly accuse others of anti-semitism ought to give come back a consideration. That doesn't include you IIRC.


I'm not sure if that's a 'yes' or if you mean I accuse people of anti-semitism with proof.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 25, 2012)

Interesting ...

google web cache of Sir George's website (now amended) 
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c....uk/pages/biog3.htm+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Bottom line, Taffy, if I wasn't antisemitic - and I'm not suggesting you personally are - I'd be keen to put as much fucking distance between myself and those who are as is humanly possible
> 
> I think this diversion into CTs is actually quite productive. Seems to press all the right buttons - rings of abusers... hidden in plain sight.... links to the establishment... BBC... Savile and the royals.... Jimbo and Thatcher - it's the 9/11 of noncery. However even the most basic analysis of the story shows that an application of ideas about class, gender, power, organisations and celebrity delivers the goods. Conspiracy? Quite possibly in the sense of a _criminal_ conspiracy, but nothing requiring a turn to batshit. In a _mathematical_ sense it's amazing how he got away with it for so long. In the circumstances of him raping each institutionalised kid in an era of limited procedure, the chanes of him being caught were limited (just as the chances of anything being done were even more remote). However given that he seems to have been doing it for decades on an at least weekly basis, so the probablilities of capture should have gone up. Maybe he was just 'lucky',  in a situation where the cards were anyway stacked in his favour. However, when it comes to understanding that, no lizards required.


 
My original point was less about CT and more about re-curring narratives, especially the "no one knew/everybody knew" one. I just find cognitive dissonance fascinating from a human POV. 

Yes I also talked about things derided just on the grounds of being CT that turned out to be true, that's interesting as well.

But in this case, and the RC abuse scandals - there doesn't appear to be a grand over-arching conspiracy as much as small conspiracies within an overall structure that perhaps creates a de facto conspiracy of silence, sometimes active under-the-carpet stuff as with Ratzinger, sometimes less so.

You are right that no lizards are required, which is one of the reasons I didn't mention lizards.

Good post btw. Ta.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not sure if that's a 'yes' or if you mean I accuse people of anti-semitism with proof.



Soz. I don't recall you accusing me of it at all. My post was aimed chiefly at FW. I am fully aware of my verbosity and some of the negative consequences.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Fascists challenged the money system too. Using much the same propaganda. A focus on "international finance elites" while ignoring the capital/labour struggle.


 
Very true, but they also were very keen to cut deals with the same elites, being a cruel hoax on the working class among many other things.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Very true, but they also were very keen to cut deals with the same elites, being a cruel hoax on the working class among many other things.


Yet you're promoting this shit.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> pathetic.


 
Found the evidence yet? Or is this what you are reduced to by way of shifting goalposts?

The logic of my case is pretty consistent in fact, certainly far less contorted than the logic of yours, and mine was only hypothetical. Which makes you considerably beneath "pathetic", which doesn't bother me. Offensive without qualification bothers me.

Evidence please. I must have asked at least 6 times now. You seemed so certain, I thought you'd have had it your fingertips.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Very true, but they also were very keen to cut deals with the same elites, being a cruel hoax on the working class among many other things.


It's also interesting that you don't question the existence of these "elites", you appear to accept these ideas of "international finance elites" as existing apart from productive capital.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Found the evidence yet? Or is this what you are reduced to by way of shifting goalposts?
> 
> The logic of my case is pretty consistent in fact, certainly far less contorted than the logic of yours, and mine was only hypothetical.
> 
> Evidence please. I must have asked at least 6 times now. You seemed so certain, I thought you'd have had it your fingertips.


 
your consistent defence of this shit, your characterisation of people who disagree with you as fash or as establishment stooges who would prefer not to have JS and co investigated, your attempt to link saville and paedophile conspiracies/coverups to "international finance". do you have the memory of a goldfish, it#s been pointed out to you countless times and whenever you've had this discussion with people on here, what this shit is, but you persist in trying to give it some kind of credibility, you persist in trying to present it as a legitimate part of anti capitalist struggles. at least jazzz is honest about what he believes, you're doing the hedging your bets keep an open mind type shit.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> It's also interesting that you don't question the existence of these "elites", you appear to accept these ideas of "international finance elites" as existing apart from productive capital.


 
THE ILLUMINATI BANKERS WORKED WITH HITLER TO START WWI AND WWII


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

im putting you on ignore as its quite clear that your loon theories are going to serve their purpose of helping to mask and close down discussion of actual conspiracies now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You can think what you like though AFIAC. I can handle you thinking I talk shit. You haven't groundlessly accused me of anti-semitism and relied on flacid conjecture to do so.


 
two c's in flaccid btw. Two c's in central committee also.

_Der Weisse engel!_

or something.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2012)

your shit is a bit dodge, joking aside


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Taking it away from her personally, I assumed when there was talk of 'green room rumours' it was more direct and from someone who the parties knew. I've also assumed - quite possibly wrongly - that when these TV folks were talking about 'rumours' they were slightly downgrading things they had actually heard quite a lot about. In a sense the thing we all do when something we should have acted upon turns out to be very bad - it downplays personal responsibility to reduce it to just 'rumours'. I'm also assuming the entertainment industry with it's multiple channels of communication, gossip columnists and agents was the perfect environment for rumours to stack up and repeat. Lots of assumptions on my part, but plausible ones I think. And bringing her back in, it could be argued that armed with only rumours and gossip, she was uniquely well placed to get those listened to by the police or BBC management.


 
Just in my experience, it goes like this:

You personally experience a sexual assault, you personally witness a sexual assault or you have a lot of hard evidence about something, you go to the police and they respond by investigating and, if appropriate arresting the perpetrator/s. 

Someone tells you that they were assaulted / raped and you go to the police and they say "we cannot do anything unless the victim comes forward to make a complaint".  You cannot force someone to go to the police if they do not want to go.  

Someone tells you that "everyone knows that xxxxx is a child abuser" and even if you have a ton of data indicating that they probably are (no proof though) and the police will say that they cannot do anything.  

My experience of reporting a sexual assault by a BBC kids TV presenter, even though I was the victim, was for their representative to tell me "You could be making it all up" "why should I believe you?" "you could just be someone with a grudge" 

Granted I do not have the influence that Rantzen has / had but I cannot see how she could report something that she had no proof or evidence for.  She could have said that xxxx make up artist told me that Savile was a child molester - probably that will result in xxx make up artist crying on the stairs and getting fired.  I think that it is very difficult if you do not have proof or cannot honestly say "this happened to me"


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

For me it's not so much the reaction she would have got (which given her positon would have been a serious hearing from the police), it's whether she should have _tried_. Without linking to the mail, which I've just been reading,   she admits to hearing the general rumours about Savile - then there was a disputed conversation with a campaigner in 1994, who reported more accusations and/or rumours.  If that conversation happened it's _possible_ that a report to the police _might_ have linked in to their presvious investigations.

Might be being hard on her, but when you set up childline, hear rumours and then - allegedly - get reports from a campaigner... well, it's just an example of one point amongst many where something could have been done.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 26, 2012)

I have a big slab of hindsight for you to chew over

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/493/sir_jimmy_savile_salutes_top_junior_doctors

look at what the scholarship was called

the CLUES WERE THERE all along. etc


----------



## laptop (Oct 26, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> I have a big slab of hindsight for you to chew over
> 
> http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/493/sir_jimmy_savile_salutes_top_junior_doctors


 


> ...a scholarship scheme he made possible to develop inspiring doctors of the
> 
> Trainee medics Lakshmanan Arunachalam, Junaid Azam, Peter Mackley ...


 
At this point the press officer was groped?


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> I have a big slab of hindsight for you to chew over
> 
> http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/493/sir_jimmy_savile_salutes_top_junior_doctors
> 
> ...


 
It was when he founded the New Enterprise Collaborative Research Organisation for Progressive Help in Institutes of Leeds Education that I really got suspicious.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> It's also interesting that you don't question the existence of these "elites", you appear to accept these ideas of "international finance elites" as existing apart from productive capital.



Elites exist. That's why I don't question the existence of them. I do not consider faith or ethnicity relevant unless they are perhaps elites within a given faith or ethnicity. That's because I'm not a bigot, which is why no one can quote me as saying anything anti-semitic.

I consider finance capital as  being separate in function from industrial capital, even more useless and more fraudulent. Ultimately the unaccountable owning entities are likely to be the same, so they are not at all separate in that way. There has been a transition in emphasis, from one to the other, especially since the big bang, and softening on fraud after the Blue Arrow scandal, relaxation of Glass Steagal type legislation, Labour's Prawn Cocktail Offensive and Light Touch Regulation.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2012)

Why do you hate Jews so much Taffboy?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 26, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Elites exist. That's why I don't question the existence of them. I do not consider faith or ethnicity relevant unless they are perhaps elites within a given faith or ethnicity. That's because I'm not a bigot, which is why no one can quote me as saying anything anti-semitic.
> 
> I consider finance capital as  being separate in function from industrial capital, even more useless and more fraudulent. Ultimately the unaccountable owning entities are likely to be the same, so they are not at all separate in that way. There has been a transition in emphasis, from one to the other, especially since the big bang, and softening on fraud after the Blue Arrow scandal, relaxation of Glass Steagal type legislation, Labour's Prawn Cocktail Offensive and Light Touch Regulation.


You think finance capital can exist without productive capital and vice versa? Really?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Yet you're promoting this shit.



Please provide a quote where I promoted fascism. I've had death threats from fascists along with daily insults, but I've not been accused of promoting it so I am concerned to see the evidence.

Not a quote of me saying something you say fascists say, and that I must be saying it for the same reason - that's flimsy conjecture and supposition.

A quote where I promote fascism. Thank You.

Separately, I will answer FWs erroneous patronising bilge to her in due course.
There are several repeated and wanton misunderstandings in her last post. 

I would like to start another thread on the issue of false accusations of anti-semitism so as not to continue having this one over polluted but aint sure of the right folder. Suggestions welcom. False allegations of bigotry should not go unchallenged. To hope that they might is classic bullying. 

I have never had such accusations made against me beyond U75, and only strongly by one person here. I do have one comrade in another organisation who has endured it from time to time, again groundlessly as far as I can tell. I have no idea of the psychology or political motives. 

A request remains open for anyone to provide a quote from me displaying prejudice or bigotry against the Jewish faith or Jewish people. 

For all the scoffing, joking, flaming and "likes" of such stuff, not one person has actually provided such a quote. 

"International finance capital" may be used by fascists as a code. It is also used by lots more non fascists to describe capital transactions predicated on certain financial "products" that are not physically tangible. These exist in a context not confined to nation states, small units or even continental blocs. Hence "international". This global tendency was correctly predicted nearly 200 years ago by a famous German/Jewish philosopher. The need for global revolution against it was cited about 100 years ago by a Russian/Jewish political leader and theorist. 

One could say "global money powers" or some other kind of synonym, one would be accused of the same thing for the same nonsense reasons.

"elite" is used to describe the people at the very top of a given structure - it is a terms used to refer to class, not ethnicity or faith.

The accusations against me remain ill-founded, unproven, false and offensive.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2012)

> Separately, I will answer FWs erroneous patronising bilge to her in due course.


 
Just what the thread needs.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2012)

Taffboy. You are obviously as kosher as Stamford Hill and you have been proved 100% right about everything. I imagine your house decorated in Stars of David and "I heart Mossad" posters. I apologise on behalf of everyone who has upset you and I think they are really stupid.

Will you fuck off now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

Favelado said:


> Why do you hate Jews so much Taffboy?


 
It's our big noses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You think finance capital can exist without productive capital and vice versa? Really?


 
I think he's making what's known as a "false dichotomy".
I can't imagine why he's doing so, though. No sirree bob!

Although to be fair "rapacious international manufacturing elites" doesn't have the same ring to it as "rapacious international financial elites", does it?


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Is taffboy a full on conspiracy theorist, then?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

Jim'll fix the international fractional reserve banking system so the rothschilds get all the money.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You think finance capital can exist without productive capital and vice versa? Really?


 
No I don't, and i don't think I indicated that I did. Not that this hasn't become a familiar place for putting words in people's mouths but it would be a trivial concoction compared to the one about me having a prejudice against Jews.

Clearly the realisation of paper profits will ultimately take place in the physical world.

I do think the emphasis has shifted. Finance capital seems to produce higher short term profit on paper without the tiresome need to employ people, make and sell stuff in the cumbersome 3D.

The fact that realised profits can only be predicated on future real labour, resources etc. (productive) is mere detail when short termism dominates strategy.

All capitalism is enormously problematic technically and amoral at best (giving rise to immorality as nature tends not to tolerate vacuums). There's a famous and inspiring Jewish bloke who specifically turfed capitalists out of a place of worship on the basis of such immorality.

But finance capital is more fraudulent and even more problematic in the long run.

The distinction is a useful one. I don't see it as a bourgeois distinction if one is skeptical about capitalism anyhow.

Over the past 30 years the UK especially has shifted away from production to finance capital (as well as service industries)

The City Of London has become the global centre for this fraud - seeing far less prosecutions than the US for example. Our role as the home of fraud was actively celebrated and encouraged throughout the Thatcher/Major and Blair/Brown tenures.

This is not an exageration. The FSA was specifically instructed to go easy (in practice do nothing) about such activities. That's why LIBOR fraud won't be prosecuted as criminal for example.

Not the FSA is being ditched altogher for something probably even more feeble. The language shifts all the time, ever downplaying record breaking theft while children will go hungry from benefits cuts in some attempt to give these people more money.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's our big noses.


Yes. The greater volume of cocaine jewish folk can inhale with one snort.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Is taffboy a full on conspiracy theorist, then?


 
He says not (he reckons he questions the issues, but almost always comes down on the CT side), the audience says "he's crazy like a bug!".


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No I don't, and i don't think I indicated that I did. Not that this hasn't become a familiar place for putting words in people's mouths but it would be a trivial concoction compared to the one about me having a prejudice against Jews.
> 
> Clearly the realisation of paper profits will ultimately take place in the physical world.
> 
> ...


Fyi: jesus did not chuck any capitalists out of the temple.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes. The greater volume of cocaine jewish folk can inhale with one snort.


 
Damn Sigmund for giving that one away, damn him!!!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Jim'll fix the international fractional reserve banking system so the rothschilds get all the money.



I thought there were plenty of families who gained from this type of thing. 

I don't see their faith or ethnicity as relevant. FW does, it backs up a false accusation.

I never once said that JS was linked to all this, I made the comparison between the "nobody knew/everybody knew" motif because I thought it was interesting and it is.

FW construed that I did, it backs up a false narrative.

I also talked of scandals in the Roman Catholic Church and Parliament with similar parallels.

FW didn't pick up on those, they didn't back up a false narrative.

FW is a conspiracy theorist, but her conspiracy (that I have a prejudice against Jews and hide behind it by criticising capitalism and discussing various scandals) doesn't stand up in the least.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He says not (he reckons he questions the issues, but almost always comes down on the CT side), the audience says "he's crazy like a bug!".


Apparently Icke is talking at Wembley for 9 hours soon. It seems a common trait, to hold forth at length.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Fyi: jesus did not chuck any capitalists out of the temple.



The temples only accepted temple currency for purchases for sacrifice, rather than regular money (I suppose Shekles were the unit?) 

This was done to enhance profits in a way not massively dis similar to the "truck shops" and "company stores" run by industrial capitalists in former centuries. 

This generated profit. 

fyi : It was thus an essentially capitalist enterprise.  

He described them as a "den of thieves" because he clearly considered such activity thievery. I happen to agree with him.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 26, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The temples only accepted temple currency for purchases for sacrifice, rather than regular money (I suppose Shekles were the unit?)
> 
> This was done to enhance profits in a way not massively dis similar to the "truck shops" and "company stores" run by industrial capitalists in former centuries.
> 
> ...


 
Please do this somewhere else...

...and get it right.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No I don't, and i don't think I indicated that I did. Not that this hasn't become a familiar place for putting words in people's mouths but it would be a trivial concoction compared to the one about me having a prejudice against Jews.
> 
> Clearly the realisation of paper profits will ultimately take place in the physical world.
> 
> I do think the emphasis has shifted. Finance capital seems to produce higher short term profit on paper without the tiresome need to employ people, make and sell stuff in the cumbersome 3D.


 
You're using the phrase "finance capital" to describe a small part of the ambit of finance capital. What you should be saying is that *some* speculative finance capital does the above.



> The fact that realised profits can only be predicated on future real labour, resources etc. (productive) is mere detail when short termism dominates strategy.
> 
> All capitalism is enormously problematic technically and amoral at best (giving rise to immorality as nature tends not to tolerate vacuums). There's a famous and inspiring Jewish bloke who specifically turfed capitalists out of a place of worship on the basis of such immorality.


 
Capitalism is problematic because the entire structure is predicated on the ability to continuously expand existing markets and establish new one, while operating within a closed system in terms of resources and customers. Besides that, questions of morality are irrelevant.



> But finance capital is more fraudulent and even more problematic in the long run.
> 
> The distinction is a useful one. I don't see it as a bourgeois distinction if one is skeptical about capitalism anyhow.


 
It's spectacularly non-useful. It's a distinction between parasites, and operates on the assumption that one parasite is inherently worse than another without addressing *why* that might be the case.



> Over the past 30 years the UK especially has shifted away from production to finance capital (as well as service industries)


 
Wrong. The UK didn't shift away of it's own accord, itwas *shifted* away. This wasn't "evolutionary", it was a deliberate ideologically-motivated manipulation of manufacturing capacity and investment in it.



> The City Of London has become the global centre for this fraud - seeing far less prosecutions than the US for example. Our role as the home of fraud was actively celebrated and encouraged throughout the Thatcher/Major and Blair/Brown tenures.
> 
> This is not an exageration. The FSA was specifically instructed to go easy (in practice do nothing) about such activities. That's why LIBOR fraud won't be prosecuted as criminal for example.
> 
> Not the FSA is being ditched altogher for something probably even more feeble. The language shifts all the time, ever downplaying record breaking theft while children will go hungry from benefits cuts in some attempt to give these people more money.


 
Welcome to how the world has turned for at least the last 250 years. You think Orwell was reading the tea-leaves when he wrote "1984"? He was using not only his own experience of the Soviets and home-grown leftists, but his experience of government and media propaganda and bureaucracy too.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Apparently Icke is talking at Wembley for 9 hours soon. It seems a common trait, to hold forth at length.


 
£15 on pay per view.

You are not being ripped off. 

You are infinite consciousness having the experience of being ripped off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Apparently Icke is talking at Wembley for 9 hours soon. It seems a common trait, to hold forth at length.


 
It's the "logical" thing to do (i.e. necessary  ) if your philosophy sees links between everything. You need plenty of time to explicate all those links.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Apparently Icke is talking at Wembley for 9 hours soon. It seems a common trait, to hold forth at length.


 
Arena or stadium?


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

I'm not watching it! 

Fav, dunno, I saw a tweet in passing.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> I'm not watching it!
> 
> Fav, dunno, I saw a tweet in passing.


 
I'm kidding. If it's the stadium there's no hope for Britain.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Favelado said:


> I'm kidding. If it's the stadium there's no hope for Britain.


If it was the stadium, I'd expect a huge spaceship to be hovering overhead and hopefully beam him up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The temples only accepted temple currency for purchases for sacrifice, rather than regular money (I suppose Shekles were the unit?)
> 
> This was done to enhance profits in a way not massively dis similar to the "truck shops" and "company stores" run by industrial capitalists in former centuries.
> 
> ...


No capitalism existed at that point, ergo no capitalists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> If it was the stadium, I'd expect a huge spaceship to be hovering overhead and hopefully beam him up.


Taffboy's getting beamed up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Anyway can we get back to sir jimmy savile obe kcsg and have less fucking christ nonsense here?


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 26, 2012)




----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2012)

That was genuinely done by a padeo, incester rapist dog fucker though. For real.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That was genuinely done by a padeo, incester rapist dog fucker though. For real.


 
Yeah i know, but it hardly means the BBC is the nonce center of the world.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

No, i've always heard it was more like buggeringham palace


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

i dont want to cause any trouble for the site but ive been reading things on the internet, the daily mail, etc, that a certain very high ranking member of the royal family was very close to jimmy saville and went to stay in his "lair". Could this person have been involved?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

Humpton Court.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

they should see the entrance way to the Slovenian Parliament it's like a nonce orgy in stone


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i dont want to cause any trouble for the site but ive been reading things on the internet, the daily mail, etc, that a certain very high ranking member of the royal family was very close to jimmy saville and went to stay in his "lair". Could this person have been involved?


 
[snip]


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> [snip]


 
yep.


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i dont want to cause any trouble for the site but ive been reading things on the internet, the daily mail, etc, that a certain very high ranking member of the royal family was very close to jimmy saville and went to stay in his "lair". Could this person have been involved?


 
A serving Tory cabinet minister has been alluded to as well in some blogs I've read... I think this will be 'capped' at some point.

Expect a 100 year gagging order on any reports that are commissioned _a la_ Dublane and North Wales.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

Awful as the whole thing is, there's something faintly amusing about the police now going into full 'arrest strategy' mode after decades of ignoring complaint after complaint (Daily Mail - my go to source - said there had been 7 previous complaints). Something like the arc of the phone hacking story. That many arrests they'll have to pull the Christmas panto season.  Next news there'll be a luvvies underground railway.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Awful as the whole thing is, there's something faintly amusing about the police now going into full 'arrest strategy' mode after decades of ignoring complaint after complaint (Daily Mail - my go to source - said there had been 7 previous complaints). Something like the arc of the phone hacking story. That many arrests they'll have to pull the Christmas panto season.  Next news there'll be a luvvies underground railway.


They go where they're told at the end of the day.


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2012)

The full spectrum of dot-joining on the net also includes the murder of Jill Dando.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yep.


 
There's pictures of him at his house in Glencoe


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 26, 2012)

elbows said:


> The full spectrum of dot-joining on the net also includes the murder of Jill Dando.


 
Please tell me more

eta

 OK I've found it


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 26, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Please provide a quote where I promoted fascism. I've had death threats from fascists along with daily insults, but I've not been accused of promoting it so I am concerned to see the evidence.
> 
> Not a quote of me saying something you say fascists say, and that I must be saying it for the same reason - that's flimsy conjecture and supposition.
> 
> ...


You've just demonstrated how your critique of capitalism is similar to fascist critiques with your comments on financial capital and "elites".


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Awful as the whole thing is, there's something faintly amusing about the police now going into full 'arrest strategy' mode after decades of ignoring complaint after complaint (Daily Mail - my go to source - said there had been 7 previous complaints). Something like the arc of the phone hacking story. That many arrests they'll have to pull the Christmas panto season. Next news there'll be a luvvies underground railway.


 
Have they got police posted at all the airports to stop the Great Escape?


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 26, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> You've just demonstrated how your critique of capitalism is similar to fascist critiques with your comments on financial  capital and "elites".


Note though that no one is calling you a fascist or anti-semite. Just the waters you're currently swimming in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Have they got police posted at all the airports to stop the Great Escape?


A surplus bundeswehr truck has been booked to collect the escapees and take them to a nice field for a stroll before taking them to prison


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Humpton Court.


They're making a musical about this sorry tale, kiddy fiddler on the roof


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> A surplus bundeswehr truck has been booked to collect the escapees and take them to a nice field for a stroll before taking them to prison


 
Some of these Tommies are damn clever though...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> A surplus bundeswehr truck has been booked to collect the escapees and take them to a nice field for a stroll before taking them to prison


 
Who will be in back of truck with the necessary equipment?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

framed said:


> Some of these Tommies are damn clever though...


 
Hang on, wasn't Danny supposed to be Polish?


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)

Hey, let's not quibble over the details. It was Brits in command, what, tally ho!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

framed said:


> Hey, let's not quibble over the details. It was Brits in command, what, tally ho!


 

Yeah, but Danny was *the *tunnel man what what


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> They're making a musical about this sorry tale, kiddy fiddler on the roof


Wrong in every respect. It was a _guitar_, it was _Buckingham Palace_ roof and no kids were involved. There was a poodle (perm) though.   God Save the Queen!


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)

But not a great one as illustrated by where Big X's head came out!


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

After 3 weeks hard posting on this I'm getting giddy and seeing the 'arrest strategy' as a Benny Hill chase.
((((( light entertainment)))))


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

The police waiting for the *household names* at airports across the land


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> The police waiting for the *household names* at airports across the land


 

One of the *household names* breaks under the pressure and makes a run for it...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

framed said:


> One of the *household names* breaks under the pressure and makes a run for it...


 
I reckon a few of them have already got over that fence and are now hiding out on some tropical island somewhere or in SE Asia


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)

That's known as _"Doing An Arthur"_

_...as in Arthur C. Clarke_


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Wrong in every respect. It was a _guitar_, it was _Buckingham Palace_ roof and no kids were involved. There was a poodle (perm) though.  God Save the Queen!


 
I've heard the Queen is a poodlephile


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've heard the Queen is a poodlephile


 
You're thinking of Brian May.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

Favelado said:


> You're thinking of Brian May.


 
don't blame the victim it was her who got him round for a "special performance".


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've heard the Queen is a poodlephile


 
Not corgi?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Not corgi?


 
I believe she is on the corgi register




sorry


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I believe she is on the corgi register
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There is now no Corgi register.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

Variety Club of Great Britain.... Minibus dash for freedom.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> There is now no Corgi register.


 
bastards so anyone could come round to check my leaky corgi and give them a quick tickle and there would be nothing I could do to find out...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> bastards so anyone could come round to check my leaky corgi and give them a quick tickle and there would be nothing I could do to find out...


 
Gas Safe 

That doesn't mean they can't be pervs though, just means they're qualified to deal with your gas


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yeah, but Danny was *the *tunnel man what what


_King_ - Danny was the Tunnel _King_.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> _King_ - Danny was the Tunnel _King_.


 
The *Tunnel King *who happened to be a man 

and Polish


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

for fuck's sake.

this is a thread about SIR JIMMY SAVILE OBE KCSG, nonce to the rich and famous.

not a thread for war film pedants.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> for fuck's sake.
> 
> this is a thread about SIR JIMMY SAVILE OBE KCSG, nonce to the rich and famous.
> 
> not a thread for war film pedants.


 
*YOU *started it


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2012)

Its not like he even enjoyed being in the tunnel very much.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> *YOU *started it


yes, i started the thread.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, i started the thread.


 
You started the war references


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You started the war references


doesn't mean you've all got to follow me. i suppose if i jumped off a bridge you'd all follow me into the water.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> doesn't mean you've all got to follow me. i suppose if i jumped off a bridge you'd all follow me into the water.


 
I'd follow you anywhere

Anyway, for posterity



> A surplus bundeswehr truck has been booked to collect the escapees and take them to a nice field for a stroll before taking them to prison​


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I'd follow you anywhere


you'll regret those words one day


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll regret those words one day


 
Already do


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Already do


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


>


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> for fuck's sake.
> 
> this is a thread about SIR JIMMY SAVILE OBE KCSG, nonce to the rich and famous.


 
Says he all innocent like, not having ever led a thread astray himself before Oh no not me Milud !!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Says he all innocent like, not having ever led a thread astray himself before Oh no not me Milud !!


it's go back to talking about sir jummy savile obe scsg, nonce to the rich and famous, or get bored to tears by taffboy.

your choice.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> doesn't mean you've all got to follow me. i suppose if i jumped off a bridge you'd all follow me into the water.


 
Not if it was a motorway bridge.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Soon there'll be other household names to talk about

Wonder how many threads each one will get?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Not if it was a motorway bridge.


haven't you been on a motorway as it goes over a river? didn't you notice the bridge?


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Gas Safe
> 
> That doesn't mean they can't be pervs though, just means they're qualified to deal with your gas


 
That's gotta be a euphemism... "Don't worry madam, I am qualified to deal with your gas.. arf arf!"


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> haven't you been on a motorway as it goes over a river? didn't you notice the bridge?


 
I meant a footbridge over a motorway. You twat


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

framed said:


> That's gotta be a euphemism... arf arf


 
Never liked him either


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> I meant a footbridge over a motorway. You twat


i wouldn't want to hold people up because of my leading a lemming team of urbanites so i wouldn't jump off one of those.


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Never liked him either


 
I have a list...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

framed said:


> I have a list...


 
of what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

framed said:


> I have a list...


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Soon there'll be other household names to talk about
> 
> Wonder how many threads each one will get?


 
Can't _wait_ to see who they turn out to be though. I know that's not very nice coz blameless kids were made into victims & I'm treating it like a soap.

I always wanted to write to Jim - To ask to go in a diving bell. My mam never let me. Coz of what she heard. And saw - Him driving down Hollinwood Avenue in some kind of open top effort with a teenage looking girl in the passenger seat.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2012)

framed said:


> I have a list...


 
It's not a list mate - It's a _phile._


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Can't _wait_ to see who they turn out to be though. I know that's not very nice coz blameless kids were made into victims & I'm treating it like a soap.
> 
> I always wanted to write to Jim - To ask to go in a diving bell. My mam never let me. Coz of what she heard. And saw - Him driving down Hollinwood Avenue in some kind of open top effort with a teenage looking girl in the passenger seat.


 
I'm not treating it like a soap.  I'm hoping whoever was involved in this goes down and that people finally believe all these abuse victims


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Can't _wait_ to see who they turn out to be though. I know that's not very nice coz blameless kids were made into victims & I'm treating it like a soap.
> 
> I always wanted to write to Jim - To ask to go in a diving bell. My mam never let me. Coz of what she heard. And saw - Him driving down Hollinwood Avenue in some kind of open top effort with a teenage looking girl in the passenger seat.


 
At least you din't end up diving on his bell.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Can't _wait_ to see who they turn out to be though. I know that's not very nice coz blameless kids were made into victims & I'm treating it like a soap.
> 
> I always wanted to write to Jim - To ask to go in a diving bell. My mam never let me. Coz of what she heard. And saw - Him driving down Hollinwood Avenue in some kind of open top effort with a teenage looking girl in the passenger seat.


 
Trapped 500 feet below sea-level in a pitch-black sound-proofed diving bell. Just you and Jimmy. No telly, no Scrabble, no entertainment at all.

What happens next?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I'm not treating it like a soap. I'm hoping whoever was involved in this goes down and that people finally believe all these abuse victims


 
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you were treating it like a soap, I apologise if I gave that impression. I meant I'm treating it like a soap. Which I am really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2012)

Favelado said:


> Trapped 500 feet below sea-level in a pitch-black sound-proofed diving bell. Just you and Jimmy. No telly, no Scrabble, no entertainment at all.
> 
> What happens next?


jimmy goes for a swim.

that would be quite entertaining.


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> It's not a list mate - It's a _phile._


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> jimmy goes for a swim.
> 
> that would be quite entertaining.


 

At that depth he would be crushed like an insect beneath the bootheel of God


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you were treating it like a soap, I apologise if I gave that impression. I meant I'm treating it like a soap. Which I am really.


 
This may open the floodgates for others that were abused (but by non-celebrities) and give them hope now that they'll be believed


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 26, 2012)

That's a great film, Frances. Just clocked your avatar.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2012)

Favelado said:


> Trapped 500 feet below sea-level in a pitch-black sound-proofed diving bell. Just you and Jimmy. No telly, no Scrabble, no entertainment at all.
> 
> What happens next?


 
Fuck knows - At those uncharted depths where even angler fish don't light the way all bets are off. I will venture this though - Those rending sounds eminating from that accursed vessel might not have been _solely_ due to pressure. And as to why it was rocking from side to side? And the windows? Steamed up? Let's not even speculate.


----------



## framed (Oct 26, 2012)




----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 26, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> That's a great film, Frances. Just clocked your avatar.


Is that the horrific mother from bad boy bubby?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> doesn't mean you've all got to follow me. i suppose if i jumped off a bridge you'd all follow me into the water.


 
That'd be a bridge too far


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> That'd be a bridge too far


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Is that the horrific mother from bad boy bubby?


 
Yeah.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's going to ask himself Kwai he ever started this


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2012)

framed said:


>


 
"We've all been on the end of Savile's beam."

Okay, so that's not a brilliant joke but it will play over and over in your head now. Fo' sho'.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

framed said:


> I have a list...


 Don't tell him Pike!


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

[/quote]Trapped 500 feet below sea-level in a pitch-black sound-proofed diving bell. Just you and Jimmy. No telly, no Scrabble, no entertainment at all.

What happens next?[/quote]


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2012)

Trapped 500 feet below sea-level in a pitch-black sound-proofed diving bell. Just you and Jimmy. No telly, no Scrabble, no entertainment at all.

What happens next?[/quote]



[/quote]

This is exactly what we _didn't_ want to happen


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

My good friends at the Mail tell me that its now 12 'Household Names' awating the 4 a.m. knock (decorum maintained, they didn't say 'Dirty Dozen').  Dahhhling, I'm available for Winter Cruises, _NOW!_

I also discovered Chantelle isn't very happy.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Variety Club of Great Britain.... Minibus dash for freedom.


There was always something a bit  about that ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Yeah i know, but it hardly means the BBC is the nonce center of the world.


 
Just means Eric Gill was available when Broadcasting House was being chucked up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Hang on, wasn't Danny supposed to be Polish?


 
Yep, Polish coal-miner.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> The police waiting for the *household names* at airports across the land


 
TBF, they look like fucking wrong'un nonces themselves, especially that one on the left, suggestively cupping the magazine catch of his MP5, the dirty pervert bastard!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, they look like fucking wrong'un nonces themselves, especially that one on the left, suggestively cupping the magazine catch of his MP5, the dirty pervert bastard!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> doesn't mean you've all got to follow me. i suppose if i jumped off a bridge you'd all follow me into the water.


 
Only to make sure you were dead.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 26, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only to make sure you were dead.


 
Best take a harpoon.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> That's a great film, Frances. Just clocked your avatar.


 
He's only had it for the last year.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 26, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> He's only had it for the last year.



But I only just clicked on it to see what it was today. Sorry if that isn't quick enough for you.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 26, 2012)

And Frances is a she iirc.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 26, 2012)

And has been that way longer than a year.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> And Frances is a she iirc.


 
I knew that


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> And Frances is a she iirc.


 


Citizen66 said:


> And has been that way longer than a year.


 
That would explain why he never washes his cock after he's had a piss.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ng-public-toilets.300672/page-2#post-11607384


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 26, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> And Frances is a she iirc.


wut? How you make that?


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> wut? How you make that?


Frances = female spelling. Francis = male spelling. Also, cesare is a male name.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

Here's something i just wrote on the saville case.I know it has a few typos but I just wrote it.


Like everyone in the country I am completely shocked and horrified by the extent of Savile's paedophilia which was covered up by the BBC and other institutions for so many years. The police investigated at least 7 complaints against Savile during his life which were dropped. It leaves you wondering how much worse there is to come, as well as feeling so awful for the poor children who were abused by him. It also makes you think that if the BBC lied about a paedophile who was working for them since the 60s and did nothing about how many other things did they do nothing about. They all knew that he was a paedophile, and yet they didn't do anything about it. One girl who complained of bein abused by Savile was placed in solitary confinement for a copuple of days. But for years this guy was untouchable because of his "charitable" activities which were actually simply a cover for sexual abuse.

Why did nobody do anything? i believe that in the words of savile himself, part of the reason he was untouchable for so long was that if anything was done about him was because he would take many other notable figures in public life with him including the police and other well loved British celebrities, or politicians. There are rumours that a current Tory minister may have been involved in paedophilic practices and this person was a friend of Savile. I am not going to say the person's name because of the possibility of being sued but if you look on the internet I am sure you will find it.

If one good thing comes from this case, I hope it is reform of the libel laws in England which are the toughest in the world and even allow for "libel tourism" which allow wealthy Americans among others to sue people from the UK, knowing that they have a better chance of winning. This is partly why the accusations against Savile never went, publically, beyond the level of "rumours", because everyone knew that Savile had a team of expensive lawyers and would use them. Of course the other reason is that many people either refused to believe that abuse was taking place, or found their own reasons to turn a blind eye. "Oh look how much money he brings in!" "Look at all the good he does!!" etc. Some of the people who tried to report abuse were threatened into silence. 

Of course everyone high up in the BBC is trying to claim that the either did not know any rumours about Savile or that they knew, and tried to do something about it. But if this was the case then why was nothing done about it?The phrase a "tsunami of filth" does seem accurate.

Some people in the media are now trying to say that we should not examine the role of the BBC or that it somehow does not matter and we should just focus on the victims and trying to rehabilitate them. But I think that if Savile cannot be brought to justice then it is important that people who helped to cover up for him are punished, even if they are rich and famous. I think that is the only way that justice can be done and such a thing can be prevented from happening again.
There is also a concern, that right wing opponents of the BBC could use this scandal as opportunity to attack it further, the arguement goes that the BBC is being attacked by the Murdoch press who are trying to rehabilitate themselves from their own damaging scandal. Although I have some sympathy with this view I don't agree that because of this we should just leave the BBC alone. The BBC has been a cheerleader for the cuts and the government agenda against benefit claimants and its news programmes are an absolute disgrace in the amount of bias they show towards government policies. A long time ago the BBC did show some independence but this has long gone and it is just another state broadcaster.
There is no reason why we should not have a state broadcaster and I would rather not have to watch adverts and so on but let's not kid ourselves that it is independent, that is what it is. And let's face it the Murdoch press and others wont go too far in attacking the BBC because they as we know, do have some skeletons in their closets as well. Since when should concern about right wingers using this for the wrong reasons stop people from trying to punish those responsible for covering up paedophilia?

There must be a few rich people worrying about that knock at the door at the moment. To which i say, good. The more of this corrupt and filthy crowd at the heart of the british establishment can be exposed , the better


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Frances = female spelling. Francis = male spelling. Also, cesare is a male name.



Tell that to Alexander Trocchi


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Frances = female spelling. Francis = male spelling. Also, cesare is a male name.


 

Bad bad cesare


----------



## kenny g (Oct 26, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Here's something i just wrote on the saville case.I know it has a few typos but I just wrote it.
> 
> 
> Like everyone in the country I am completely shocked and horrified by the extent of Savile's paedophilia which was covered up by the BBC and other institutions for so many years. The police investigated at least 7 complaints against Savile during his life which were dropped. It leaves you wondering how much worse there is to come, as well as feeling so awful for the poor children who were abused by him. It also makes you think that if the BBC lied about a paedophile who was working for them since the 60s and did nothing about how many other things did they do nothing about. They all knew that he was a paedophile, and yet they didn't do anything about it. One girl who complained of bein abused by Savile was placed in solitary confinement for a copuple of days. But for years this guy was untouchable because of his "charitable" activities which were actually simply a cover for sexual abuse.
> ...


 
sorry, too long for me.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 26, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> That would explain why he never washes his cock after he's had a piss.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ng-public-toilets.300672/page-2#post-11607384


 
No idea where I got that idea from then.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 26, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> No idea where I got that idea from then.


 
Maybe from Miss Jones.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2012)

kenny g said:


> sorry, too long for me.


 

So said many a savile victim


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 26, 2012)

[Variety Club of Great Britain]



twentythreedom said:


> There was always something a bit  about that ...


 
I think it was the Sunshine Holiday Bus that they used to take kids on holiday.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 27, 2012)

Max Clifford on sky news this morning - apparently a number of well known public figures have contacted him " 
Concerned that their actions may be misinterpreted" Clifford continues to say that they cannot be expected to remember what happened in a dressing room in the 60 s or 70s when they cannot remember what happened yesterday.
 A mass outbreak of the Saunders defence


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2012)

cesare said:


> Frances = female spelling. Francis = male spelling. Also, cesare is a male name.


What about anne de montmorency?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2012)

catholick church might strip savile of his knighhood

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-seeks-to-strip-star-of-Papal-knighthood.html


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> What about anne de montmorency?


Or Val Doonican.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2012)

Shirley Crabtree


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 27, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> catholick church might strip savile of his knighhood
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-seeks-to-strip-star-of-Papal-knighthood.html


Given catholic practice, they are just as likely to beatify him


----------



## cesare (Oct 27, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> Given catholic practice, they are just as likely to beatify him


The miracle of the BBC inquiry!


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 27, 2012)

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...w-did-jimmy-savile-fool-everyone-for-so-long/
No mention of the faith of savile.


----------



## where to (Oct 27, 2012)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> Max Clifford on sky news this morning - apparently a number of well known public figures have contacted him "
> Concerned that their actions may be misinterpreted" Clifford continues to say that they cannot be expected to remember what happened in a dressing room in the 60 s or 70s when they cannot remember what happened yesterday.
> A mass outbreak of the Saunders defence



This is why we only hear about these scum when they die. While they're living Max Clifford and his ilk get paid.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2012)

Meanwhile The Torygraph's "blood-crazed ferret", Damian Thompson writes this classic piece of deflection.



> My article last week about the radical Left’s defence of paedophilia in the 1970s provoked all manner of paroxysms from today’s Lefties. How dare I blacken the name of Hattie Harman by pointing out that she became legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) soon after it campaigned for a more relaxed approach to sex with children?
> But I had private communications, too, from people who encountered the “libertarian” Left during those years. “In the late Sixties and early Seventies, I worked at a school operated by the Inner London Education Authority,” wrote a retired schoolteacher.
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100186741/incest-a-favoured-cause-of-old-lefties/


 
The subtext of this is "They're worse than us". 

Savile spent 11 Xmases with Thatch at Chequers ffs. Then there's Peter Righton and all the others.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2012)

it was a logical conclusion of some of the more ridiculous end of the liberal identity politics bollocks in the 60s and 70s tho tbf.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it was a logical conclusion of some of the more ridiculous end of the liberal identity politics bollocks in the 60s and 70s tho tbf.


Aye and then there's the RCP/IoI/LM/Spiked lot who have some rather odd ideas about underage sex, all of them based on 'liberty'.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2012)

i suspect that a lot of the 60s and 70s support for paedophile "rights" among sections of the liberal left was due to a complete lack of understanding of what paedophilia actually was and a complete lack of accountability within the movement, self appointed leaders speaking for everyone, etc


----------



## laptop (Oct 27, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...w-did-jimmy-savile-fool-everyone-for-so-long/
> No mention of the faith of savile.


 
No, but:



> This inability to see what is obvious can be true of any institution – including the Church. I am not talking here about cover-ups in the case of child abuse (though that has parallels with the Savile case) but more generally: when the self-belief of an institution takes over and becomes an end in itself, so that no one says “Wait a minute. What’s going on here?” Self-preservation has become more important than truth.


 
Discreetly: "the Church is fucked and Papal authority is bullshit". Well, nearly.


----------



## where to (Oct 27, 2012)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Aye and then there's the RCP/IoI/LM/Spiked lot who have some rather odd ideas about underage sex, all of them based on 'liberty'.



I always just thought that was based in principle that if nobody else is taking such insane poaitions,  then a few radio/ tv slots should become available.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Oct 27, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> Max Clifford on sky news this morning - apparently a number of well known public figures have contacted him "
> Concerned that their actions may be misinterpreted" Clifford continues to say that they cannot be expected to remember what happened in a dressing room in the 60 s or 70s when they cannot remember what happened yesterday.
> A mass outbreak of the Saunders defence


 
Saunders Defence should be in the next edition of the OED.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 27, 2012)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4598128/Jimmy-Savile-lookalike-David-Chase-quits.html
Could always become a Grayson Perry lookalike I suppose


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 27, 2012)

The nephew, last seen calling for the itv documentary as a disgusting attack and it should not to be shown, has reappeared to tell of the family's pain at the revelations. Incredibly, he claimed that the family's pain, at the revelations he pressed so hard to rubbish and suppress was as great as that of Savile's victims!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 27, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> The nephew, last seen calling for the itv documentary as a disgusting attack and it should not to be shown, has reappeared to tell of the family's pain at the revelations. Incredibly, he claimed that the family's pain, at the revelations he pressed so hard to rubbish and suppress was as great as that of Savile's victims!


 
Well they must be feeling pretty embarrassed by it all (except his brother who also has a record).  Not quite sure what to think of the great niece and her family that were "bought off"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2012)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> The nephew, last seen calling for the itv documentary as a disgusting attack and it should not to be shown, has reappeared to tell of the family's pain at the revelations. Incredibly, he claimed that the family's pain, at the revelations he pressed so hard to rubbish and suppress was as great as that of Savile's victims!


 
He/they really didn't mate. They said that it wasn't in the slightest as great as the victims.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 27, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He, they really didn't mate. They said that it wasn't in the slightest as great as the victims.


 
Yes



> girls.
> 
> "How could the person we thought we knew and loved do such a thing?" said the statement. "We recognise that even our own despair and sadness does not compare to that felt by the victims."


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 27, 2012)

My apologies , I was writing what I remembered him saying on the Victoria Derbyshire show, where I thought he had said that. Rather than the statement which I hadn't seen.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 27, 2012)

Has this been posted?

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...hy-the-conspiracy-of-silence-about-his-faith/


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 27, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Has this been posted?
> 
> http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...hy-the-conspiracy-of-silence-about-his-faith/


I am not sure whether it was in this thread or one
 Of its predecessors but it was posted and was the inspiration for a quick skim of the catholic press to see whether his faith was still of great importance.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 27, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> I am not sure whether it was in this thread or one
> Of its predecessors but it was posted and was the inspiration for a quick skim of the catholic press to see whether his faith was still of great importance.


----------



## ska invita (Oct 28, 2012)

> barney_pig said: ↑
> Max Clifford on sky news this morning - apparently a number of well known public figures have contacted him "
> Concerned that their actions may be misinterpreted" Clifford continues to say that they cannot be expected to remember what happened in a dressing room in the 60 s or 70s when they cannot remember what happened yesterday.
> A mass outbreak of the Saunders defence


 
caught today that Freddy Star has made a statement that not only is he innocent, but that he was a victim of child abuse when he was 8, and to this day he cant handle being "cuddled". Its not unknown for victims of abuse to abuse themselves, but either way this has Max Clifford (or similar) written all over it.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 28, 2012)

ska invita said:


> caught today that Freddy Star has made a statement that not only is he innocent, but that he was a victim of child abuse when he was 8, and to this day he cant handle being "cuddled". Its not unknown for victims of abuse to abuse themselves, but either way this has Max Clifford (or similar) written all over it.


 
I agree. You've left a great little window open for a pedant to have some fun there in your post.


----------



## gawkrodger (Oct 28, 2012)

Worth a read

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Has this been posted?
> 
> http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/07/jimmy-savile’s-obituaries-mentioned-his-charity-work-but-why-the-conspiracy-of-silence-about-his-faith/


 
Anyone else notice the by-line?  Is it the same one?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 28, 2012)

gawkrodger said:


> Worth a read
> 
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment


 
A really good article. Makes the connection between the Savile case and the general culture of 'entertainment,' 'pop' music and so on in which he and others like him thrived. If any good comes out of this scandal, it will be an end to that sort of administered culture.

''One of the qualities that made the journey from radio to television was ‘personality’. Suddenly, you had these human beings who were ultra-everything: they were funnier and quicker and smarter than you – and, once on television, they were prettier, too. At the BBC these people became like gods. Even the weird ones. Even the ones who everybody could tell were deranged. They had personality and that was the gold standard.... And so you open Pandora’s box to find the seedy ingredients of British populism. It’s not just names, or performers and acts, it’s an ethos. Why is British light entertainment so often based on the sexualisation of people too young to cope? And why is it that we have a press so keen to feed off it? Is it to cover the fact, via some kind of willed outrage, that *the culture itself is largely paedophile in its commercial and entertainment excitem*ents? ''

Couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## albionism (Oct 28, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i suspect that a lot of the 60s and 70s support for paedophile "rights" among sections of the liberal left was due to a complete lack of understanding of what paedophilia actually was and a complete lack of accountability within the movement, self appointed leaders speaking for everyone, etc


I once attended a "libertarian left/anarchist" meeting at Conway Hall in the late 90s where there was a symposium on sex and sexuality and three or four of the
people present that evening spent the whole time praising P.I.E., saying how wonderful and important they were. I and the other 20 or so
people there were really quite sickened and angry. Seemed the "Symposium" was really a P.I.E PR drive or some such.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 28, 2012)

gawkrodger said:


> Worth a read
> 
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment


An interesting article, and worth reading, but something jars when reading it; o'hagan places responsibility for the success of the culture of paedophilia at the bbc upon "to reflect on us all". writing about the numerous young people and their families who at considerable personal cost attempted to inform the authorities of  the abuse they were suffering, and thus of the conspiracy of protection afforded to these predators by police and nhs managers and Bbc executives. O'hagan considers this to be the result of a national obession with celebrity which gave the paedophiles carte Blanche. Instead I would argue his own account shows how the class obsessed and privileged closed world of the establishment sought to defend its own against public exposure, welcoming in the new aristocracy of celebrity and according it with the same privileges which it had traditionally afforded the rest of the officer class. The outage of Savile, and the crisis this has caused in the BBC is a result of the fall in the dominance of the old media, and the rise of less controllable interwebs.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 28, 2012)

gawkrodger said:


> Worth a read
> 
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment


I have to mention my age again. 64.
So as a child I remember Uncle Mac, Gilbert Harding and other names having things said about them by grown ups that I didn't understand.
Later as a teenager I was aware or names that had an iffy reputation - this the early 60s and I was just a young member of the general public.
For goodness sake, if I knew!!!


----------



## yardbird (Oct 28, 2012)

BBC
Gary Glitter has been taken by police from his London home.
No surprise there.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 28, 2012)

yardbird said:


> BBC
> Gary Glitter has been taken by police from his London home.
> No surprise there.


They've got the leader of the gang then......gets coat


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 28, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i suspect that a lot of the 60s and 70s support for paedophile "rights" among sections of the liberal left was due to a complete lack of understanding of what paedophilia actually was and a complete lack of accountability within the movement, self appointed leaders speaking for everyone, etc


 
It was also due, to some extent, by the age of consent for male homosexual acts being 21.

I vaguely remember, sometime in the mid 1980s, friends telling me about a lesbian and gay rights event at which paedophiles were given a platform to speak.  Apparently one of the men who identified as a paedophile only did so to draw attention to the fact that his boyfriend at the time was 19 years old, thus making him legally a paedophile. 

I also recall hearing that a vigilante group called the "Deptford Dykes" had not only protested outside the event, furious at the inclusion of paedophiles, but had followed one of the "paedophiles" home (I am fairly sure that it was the paedophile who had a 19 year old boyfriend a- at least this was how the story was told to me by several people who attended the conference - broken into his home and beaten him up.  IMMIC one of the members of the Deptford Dykes was a very well known face on the lesbian political scene, a woman who had lots of PC "points" as she identified as a black, Jewish, single mother lesbian (possibly also with a disability?).  This woman built a career for herself in local politics and talked fairly freely and with great enthusiasm about her activism in this respect.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2012)

That doesn't work for liberty calling for incest to be made legal due to medical advancements and for the age of consent to be 14.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That doesn't work for liberty calling for incest to be made legal due to medial advancements and for the age of consent to be 14.


 
I am not making any excuses for Liberty.  Just stating that one of the causal factors behind odious groups like PIE gaining access to L&G events back in the day was issues re the age of consent for gay men


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 28, 2012)

yardbird said:


> BBC
> Gary Glitter has been taken by police from his London home.
> No surprise there.


 
Gotta feel sorry for The Glitter Band....they've only just started getting some gigs off the ground and recieving some positive attention. don't suppose this'll help them much.


----------



## killer b (Oct 28, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> An interesting article, and worth reading, but something jars when reading it; o'hagan places responsibility for the success of the culture of paedophilia at the bbc upon "to reflect on us all". writing about the numerous young people and their families who at considerable personal cost attempted to inform the authorities of  the abuse they were suffering, and thus of the conspiracy of protection afforded to these predators by police and nhs managers and Bbc executives. O'hagan considers this to be the result of a national obession with celebrity which gave the paedophiles carte Blanche. Instead I would argue his own account shows how the class obsessed and privileged closed world of the establishment sought to defend its own against public exposure, welcoming in the new aristocracy of celebrity and according it with the same privileges which it had traditionally afforded the rest of the officer class. The outage of Savile, and the crisis this has caused in the BBC is a result of the fall in the dominance of the old media, and the rise of less controllable interwebs.


Got to agree. Interesting article, but the 'isnt the monster all of us?' crap rather ruins it...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> They've got the leader of the gang then......gets coat


 Oh, come on, come on.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 28, 2012)

I wonder if Savile was abused as a child. I have read that often paedophiles have been molested by adults in their own childhood. With so many Catholic priests being found guilty of paedophilia in recent years it may be that one of Savile's own priests was guilty as well.

The other aspect of Savile's Catholic faith, and the fact as reported in that Telegraph article linked in an above post, that he attended Mass several times weekly, is the possibility that he mentioned his activities in Confession. Would a few Hail Marys help to alleviate his conscience? Also are there priests who knew about his offending but were prevented from speaking out by the church code relating to confessions?

It makes you feel dirty just writing about him.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 28, 2012)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Gotta feel sorry for The Glitter Band....they've only just started getting some gigs off the ground and receiving some positive attention. don't suppose this'll help them much.


I used to book them into Dingwalls, a good bunch of guys and good musicians.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 28, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Oh, come on, come on.


 
Does make you wonder how many he recruited when he asked "do you wanna be in my gang" 

Maybe gang is codeword for paedo?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> It was also due, to some extent, by the age of consent for male homosexual acts being 21.
> 
> I vaguely remember, sometime in the mid 1980s, friends telling me about a lesbian and gay rights event at which paedophiles were given a platform to speak. Apparently one of the men who identified as a paedophile only did so to draw attention to the fact that his boyfriend at the time was 19 years old, thus making him legally a paedophile.
> 
> I also recall hearing that a vigilante group called the "Deptford Dykes" had not only protested outside the event, furious at the inclusion of paedophiles, but had followed one of the "paedophiles" home (I am fairly sure that it was the paedophile who had a 19 year old boyfriend a- at least this was how the story was told to me by several people who attended the conference - broken into his home and beaten him up. IMMIC one of the members of the Deptford Dykes was a very well known face on the lesbian political scene, a woman who had lots of PC "points" as she identified as a black, Jewish, single mother lesbian (possibly also with a disability?). This woman built a career for herself in local politics and talked fairly freely and with great enthusiasm about her activism in this respect.


 
Pretty sure I know who you're talking about, and she wasn't even from Deptford, the naughty lass!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I wonder if Savile was abused as a child. I have read that often paedophiles have been molested by adults in their own childhood. With so many Catholic priests being found guilty of paedophilia in recent years it may be that one of Savile's own priests was guilty as well.


 
It's a bit pat though, a bit simplistic, even though it gets trotted out by every two-bit pundit.
There are certainly "contributory factors" to the development of a paedophile, and one of those factors is sexual abuse as a child, but others are, for example: childhood physical abuse; childhood emotional abuse; non-instilling of normative discipline/poor socialisation, and so on, and even then, this pertains to a majority of paedophiles rather than *all* of them, which is why I get annoyed at pundits who purvey it as holy writ.



> The other aspect of Savile's Catholic faith, and the fact as reported in that Telegraph article linked in an above post, that he attended Mass several times weekly, is the possibility that he mentioned his activities in Confession. Would a few Hail Marys help to alleviate his conscience? Also are there priests who knew about his offending but were prevented from speaking out by the church code relating to confessions?
> 
> It makes you feel dirty just writing about him.


 
Savile would have found a way to absolve himself of guilt one way or another. His Catholicism possibly just provided a convenient avenue to it, but paedophiles tend to find some way of staving off the guilt, whether that's convincing themselves _a la_ NAMBLA that adult-child sexual relations are not harmful, or telling themselves that the girl they raped was "asking for it" because she was dressed provocatively or was "giving off signals". Any excuse to avoid taking responsibility, basically.


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 28, 2012)

From Savile's interviews in which he describes himself as a "crooked punter" and makes thinly veiled references to his crimes against children and even the "it was good while it lasted" inscription on his gravestone it seems likely that he knew exactly what he was doing, knew that he was hurting children and ruining their lives and knew that he would be exposed post mortem but just didn't care providing he was never outed during his lifetime.  

I doubt that he ever believed in God.


----------



## framed (Oct 28, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I wonder if Savile was abused as a child. I have read that often paedophiles have been molested by adults in their own childhood. With so many Catholic priests being found guilty of paedophilia in recent years it may be that one of Savile's own priests was guilty as well.
> 
> The other aspect of Savile's Catholic faith, and the fact as reported in that Telegraph article linked in an above post, that he attended Mass several times weekly, is the possibility that he mentioned his activities in Confession. Would a few Hail Marys help to alleviate his conscience? Also are there priests who knew about his offending but were prevented from speaking out by the church code relating to confessions?
> 
> It makes you feel dirty just writing about him.


 

This might have some relevance had the Catholic Church been the main facilitator for Savile's sexual predelictions, but in this particular case it doesn't appear to be so.

The issue of confession is interesting from the point of view of whether or not he would have felt confident to confess his 'sins' to a priest and sought absolution, precisely in order to continue the abuse... A fresh start every week! However, given the secretive and calculated M.O. of such offenders, I would guess that Savile shared the actual details of his perversions with only a very few close collaborators and confidantes, despite apparently hiding in plain sight for all these years .

As for the simplistic extrapolation that all abusers must themselves have been abused and therefore go on to become abusers; it is a common theme in social work, but it is not a contention that has much evidence to support it. It's true that many abusers were themselves abused, but the truth is that the majority of people who suffer such trauma in childhood do not go on to become sex monsters as adults. Not all Catholic boys were shagged by their priests and not all Catholic priests were/are paedophiles.

I have no desire to defend the Catholic Church, I have absolutely no time for it based on bitter personal experience, but I find the extrapolation of _"Ah, he was a Catholic, stands to reason he'd be a paedophile too.."_ as indicative of other deeper rooted prejudices which afflict the British psyche.

The clue is not in the religious sect itself, but in all organisations which provide easy access to children for sexual predators. Those can include churches, youth clubs, children's care homes, children's hospitals, boy scouts, girl guides, etc, etc... and broadcasters like the BBC.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 28, 2012)

yardbird said:


> I used to book them into Dingwalls, a good bunch of guys and good musicians.


They have got the shit end of the stick i doubt they get many gigs now


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> They have got the shit end of the stick i doubt they get many gigs now


 Yeah, you were in a major band with a string of hits and TV appearances - and it's the last thing you want on your CV.  At the same time, you wonder what sort of things they observed as they toured with Gadd.  Maybe nothing but, well, you wonder.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 28, 2012)

The gadfly has flown


----------



## yardbird (Oct 28, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, you were in a major band with a string of hits and TV appearances - and it's the last thing you want on your CV. At the same time, you wonder what sort of things they observed as they toured with Gadd. Maybe nothing but, well, you wonder.


Glitter was/is a prick. 
I put Glitter on at Brighton Dome and he was completely separate from the band. Different room before and after.
This was the early eighties and he was columbia hoovering and there was no mixing with the band socially, but I think you are right, they must have known.
Known and put up with it


----------



## Libertad (Oct 28, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20116281



> Abusive slogans have been spray-painted on a house in the Scottish Highlands which belonged to disgraced TV presenter Jimmy Savile.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 28, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Glitter was/is a prick.
> I put Glitter on at Brighton Dome and he was completely separate from the band. Different room before and after.
> This was the early eighties and he was columbia hoovering and there was no mixing with the band socially, but I think you are right, they must have known.
> Known and put up with it


 
If I’m reading this correctly, it implies that the Glitter Band knew what Gary Glitter was up to (I’m sure they did) AND they “put up with it” when touring in the sense that they knew it was wrong but chose to ignore it - making them culpable in some way by not reporting it. 

IMHO, what Gary Glitter was up to on tour was probably viewed at that time as being “normal” for rock stars and so nothing out of the ordinary (assuming, of course, any alleged offences didn’t involve very young children and/or boys). 

As I have stated elsewhere what may, or may not, have gone in Gary Glitter’s dressing room was, sadly, seen as a “perk” rather than an abuse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> I doubt that he ever believed in God.


presumably the pope has some belief in god and he's had a hand in covering rather more abuse than savile could have dreamed of. so i don't see why savile can't have believed in god. it seems to me a mite daft to say or believe 'someone who is or has done evil can't have had any real belief in god'.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> presumably the pope has some belief in god and he's had a hand in covering rather more abuse than savile could have dreamed of. so i don't see why savile can't have believed in god. it seems to me a mite daft to say or believe 'someone who is or has done evil can't have had any real belief in god'.


though your right in what you say.I think the poster was more in line with paying for his sins in the afterlife.but to fuck up that arguement there is more joy in heaven when a sinner repents


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> though your right in what you say.I think the poster was more in line with paying for his sins in the afterlife.but to fuck up that arguement there is more joy in heaven when a sinner repents


if there is reincarnation then savile will return as a spurs manager.


----------



## Libertad (Oct 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if there is reincarnation then savile will return as a spurs manager.


 
Harsh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Harsh.


but fair.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 28, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I wonder if Savile was abused as a child.


I don't know but there were similar allegations about his brother.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pital-accused-raping-psychiatric-patient.html


----------



## albionism (Oct 29, 2012)

.


----------



## elbows (Oct 29, 2012)

Is the blindfolded cow milking joke any funnier when idiots on the radio read it out without having a clue?


----------



## ska invita (Oct 29, 2012)

framed said:


> The issue of confession is interesting from the point of view of whether or not he would have felt confident to confess his 'sins' to a priest and sought absolution, precisely in order to continue the abuse... A fresh start every week! However, given the secretive and calculated M.O. of such offenders, I would guess that Savile shared the actual details of his perversions with only a very few close collaborators and confidantes, despite apparently hiding in plain sight for all these years .


Since we're doing pure speculation I would say the JS MO was to get everyone who was a threat 'involved' or somehow onside, which (to speculate further) would extend to the local priest he confessed to (if he even had one).


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 29, 2012)

someone has just sent me a link to a wordpress sit that links the Krays/ Saville / tory grandees / someone selse who is still alive / sutcliffe - I skim read it - Its like this bloke wrote it


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> someone has just sent me a link to a wordpress sit that links the Krays/ Saville / tory grandees / someone selse who is still alive / sutcliffe - I skim read it - Its like [Grassy Knollington] wrote it.


 
*Stop press:* Marlilyn Monroe wasn't killed by the Mafia/CIA: she topped herself because of Jimmy S...


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 29, 2012)

laptop said:


> *Stop press:* Marlilyn Monroe wasn't killed by the Mafia/CIA: she topped herself because of Jimmy S...


 
Marilyn was killed by the Kennedys, if memory serves.


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Marilyn was killed by the Kennedys, if memory serves.


 
By the Mafia / CIA *on behalf of* the Kennedys, if the six-inch-thick-pile-of-photocopies "Nugget File", the original conspiranoid opus, were to be believed.


----------



## happie chappie (Oct 29, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The other aspect of Savile's Catholic faith, and the fact as reported in that Telegraph article linked in an above post, that he attended Mass several times weekly, is the possibility that he mentioned his activities in Confession. Would a few Hail Marys help to alleviate his conscience? Also are there priests who knew about his offending but were prevented from speaking out by the church code relating to confessions?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## xenon (Oct 29, 2012)

As his Psycological makeup was mentioned, - sorry this might have been posted - I remembered this. Jimmy Savile interviewed by Dr Anthony Clare for his In the Psychiatrists Chair, program, 1992. Only an extract. Can't find full audio. Obviously it's even creepier given hinesight.
https://audioboo.fm/boos/526151-jimmy-savile-dr-anthony-clare-radio-4


----------



## xenon (Oct 29, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> someone has just sent me a link to a wordpress sit that links the Krays/ Saville / tory grandees / someone selse who is still alive / sutcliffe - I skim read it - Its like this bloke wrote it



probably read it on Disclose TV. I just skimread a load of pish on there.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 29, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Does make you wonder how many he recruited when he asked "do you wanna be in my gang"
> 
> Maybe gang is codeword for paedo?



P2P bsh man


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 29, 2012)

A BBC governor banned him from Children in Need years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20120302

ETA they've removed the photo from the site but I screengrabbed it. (((Pudsey)))


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> A BBC governor banned him from Children in Need years ago http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20120302


 
Sounds like someone had their heads screwed on during this period. Well done that govenor.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 29, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> A BBC governor banned him from Children in Need years ago.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20120302
> 
> ETA they've removed the photo from the site but I screengrabbed it. (((Pudsey)))


 
Really do wish they'd stop plastering his face all over the papers.  It's not like the whole country doesn't know what he looks like.  I'm sure there's victims that would be avoiding buying the papers just because it's impossible to get away from his smug grin


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

laptop said:


> *Stop press:* Marlilyn Monroe wasn't killed by the Mafia/CIA: she topped herself because of Jimmy S...


...omerville singing to her?


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 29, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> A BBC governor banned him from Children in Need years ago.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20120302


 
Worth quoting from you link



> Sir Roger's comments come on the day the investigation into the BBC's child protection and whistle-blowing policies begins.
> 
> He was a member of the board of governors between 1997 and 2002, and said he would have stepped down from his Children in Need role if Savile had become involved with the charity.
> ​*"I think we all recognised he was a pretty creepy sort of character," he said.*
> ...


 
Sir Roger JonesFormer BBC governor and chair of Children in Need



Good for him.


----------



## albionism (Oct 29, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Really do wish they'd stop plastering his face all over the papers. It's not like the whole country doesn't know what he looks like. I'm sure there's victims that would be avoiding buying the papers just because it's impossible to get away from his smug grin


He has become a weapon of mass distraction.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 29, 2012)

albionism said:


> He has become a weapon of mass distraction.


 
As if he didn't have enough of a reputation


----------



## elbows (Oct 29, 2012)

Oh so those 'mobile biological weapons labs' that the USA claimed Saddam's Iraq had were actually Saviles campervan?


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 29, 2012)

Anyone know if there's been much coverage in foreign media?


----------



## elbows (Oct 29, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Anyone know if there's been much coverage in foreign media?


 
I've not really gone looking but I have seen some stories in other languages pop up when searching Savile news sometimes.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> Oh so those 'mobile biological weapons labs' that the USA claimed Saddam's Iraq had were actually Saviles campervan?


And the Scuds were just cigars... Jimmy s'Vile must have been out there doing some sexing up for MI6


----------



## Lock&Light (Oct 29, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Anyone know if there's been much coverage in foreign media?


 
The only coverage I've seen on Dutch TV has concentrated on the crisis at the BBC rather than JS himself.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

In the USA it's all been along the lines of "Crazy Brits Go Mad Again..."


----------



## albionism (Oct 29, 2012)

There's been a little bit of it down under.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 29, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Anyone know if there's been much coverage in foreign media?


 
Straits Times
http://www.straitstimes.com/searchpage/savile


Bangkok Post
http://www.bangkokpost.com/search/news-and-article/savile


The Star (Malaysia)
http://archives.thestar.com.my/search/?q=savile


Le Figaro
http://recherche.lefigaro.fr/recherche/recherche.php?ecrivez=savile&go=Rechercher&charset=iso


The Australian
http://search.news.com.au/search?us=ndmtheaustralian&as=TAUS&filter-site=TheAustralian&q=savile


etc. etc. etc.

Just a couple of papers I looked in


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> O'hagan considers this to be the result of a national obession with celebrity which gave the paedophiles carte Blanche. Instead I would argue his own account shows how the class obsessed and privileged closed world of the establishment sought to defend its own against public exposure, welcoming in the new aristocracy of celebrity and according it with the same privileges which it had traditionally afforded the rest of the officer class.


 
I don't see the distinction between these positions. In fact they seem entirely compatible, and entirely in accordance with O'Hagan's original article.

BTW, has anyone suggested digging Savile's body up and hanging it yet? I seriously wouldn't be surprised if that happens--the British public in a state of hysteria is truly a remarkable beast.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I don't see the distinction between these positions. In fact they seem entirely compatible, and entirely in accordance with O'Hagan's original article.
> 
> BTW, has anyone suggested digging Savile's body up and hanging it yet? I seriously wouldn't be surprised if that happens--the British public in a state of hysteria is truly a remarkable beast.


 
I'm sure I heard it was encased in concrete or was that just a rumour?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 29, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I'm sure I heard it was encased in concrete or was that just a rumour?


 
Smash the concrete! String up his bones in Parliament Square!

I mean, just imagine if a child was buried next to him.  Or God forbid ON TOP of him, which must be a very serious risk now that his headstone's been removed...


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 29, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Anyone know if there's been much coverage in foreign media?


I shall try abc australia

this from abc australia about glitter
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-28/pop-star-glitter-arrested-in-british-sex-abuse-probe/4338226


----------



## laptop (Oct 29, 2012)

It's real. It's all over _Le Monde_...



> *La BBC éclaboussée par un scandale de pédophilie*
> www.lemonde.fr/.../la-bbc-eclaboussee-par-un-sca... - Translate this page
> 15 oct. 2012 – Sir _Jimmy Savile_, un ex-animateur star de la chaîne de télévision britannique, mort en 2011, est accusé d'agressions sexuelles sur une *...*
> *La direction de la BBC fragilisée par le scandale Jimmy Savile*
> ...


----------



## shygirl (Oct 29, 2012)

Its brought up a lot of stuff for a heck of a lot of people, could they at least not show his face so much?  Its as if they're rubbing our noses in it...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 29, 2012)

but wait...JS was into cycling wasnt he ? This should be Lance Armstrongs defence - JS was the peedpophile mastermind behind the TdF doping scandal. What a rotter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Smash the concrete! String up his bones in Parliament Square!
> 
> I mean, just imagine if a child was buried next to him. Or God forbid ON TOP of him, which must be a very serious risk now that his headstone's been removed...


 
It would be if he hadn't been buried in a triple plot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I'm sure I heard it was encased in concrete or was that just a rumour?


 
Nope, they tipped readymix in on top of him, before the gravediggers topped off the grave. It was supposedly done to provide a stable foundation for the ton and a half of marble that got stuck over the grave.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, they tipped readymix in on top of him, before the gravediggers topped off the grave. It was supposedly done to provide a stable foundation for the ton and a half of marble that got stuck over the grave.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 30, 2012)

Despite the readymix, surely they can dig down below the concrete and get hold of his head. They can then do an Oliver Cromwell with it. That would please the Daily Mail and the Sun no end.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2012)

use thermite charges to burn away the concrete te white phosphorous on the coffin. Then drop the bomb


----------



## LiamO (Oct 30, 2012)

When asked about his views on the paedophile ring at the BBC, the Pope is reported to have said, "It is not the Vatican's policy to comment on the activities of a rival organisation."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> use thermite charges to burn away the concrete te white phosphorous on the coffin. Then drop the bomb


 
Nano-thermite?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 30, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Despite the readymix, surely they can dig down below the concrete and get hold of his head. They can then do an Oliver Cromwell with it. That would please the Daily Mail and the Sun no end.


It would please many including me.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 30, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Anyone know if there's been much coverage in foreign media?


Mentioned in Bild (Sun equivalent) and Spiegel (more of a serious news mag).


----------



## brummiegirl (Oct 30, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> someone has just sent me a link to a wordpress sit that links the Krays/ Saville / tory grandees / someone selse who is still alive / sutcliffe - I skim read it - Its like this bloke wrote it


   yeah i saw that too its a proper head f***  that's proberly what one of those DI forum members look like hehe lol.


----------



## brummiegirl (Oct 30, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Really do wish they'd stop plastering his face all over the papers.  It's not like the whole country doesn't know what he looks like.  I'm sure there's victims that would be avoiding buying the papers just because it's impossible to get away from his smug grin


Just what i keep thinking its creepy and he's giving me nightmares eek


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2012)

Gervais making Broadmoor jokes to Savile himself from about the 2 minute mark.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2012)

Honorary member of Nutters Incorporated


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 31, 2012)

In the Times today - cut out halloween Savile mask


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 31, 2012)

elbows said:


> Gervais making Broadmoor jokes to Savile himself from about the 2 minute mark.




Thanks for that. Lazy old Thora Hird.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 31, 2012)

One one of the local vintage shops is selling 80s shell suits as jimmy savillie costumes


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 31, 2012)

Louloubelle said:


> Good for him.


 
The BBC has just responded to a FoI request on the organisation's child protection protocols.

The request asked:



> (i) What child safety protocols or policies does the BBC currently
> have in place to ensure the safety of minors on BBC premises, in
> contact with BBC employees or contracted staff, or taking part in
> the making of programmes by the Corporation or those organisations
> ...


The response can be viewed here:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/131897/response/326989/attach/html/3/RFI20121033 response to requestor.pdf.html

In light of your own efforts to report a child protection issue, parts (ii) and (iii) may be of particular interest to you.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2012)

Channel 4 news had an interesting piece on Savile & Broadmoor, its worth a watch for a number of reasons but I'm too tired to detail it right now.

http://www.channel4.com/news/broadmoor-savile-was-a-lunatic-in-charge-of-the-asylum


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 31, 2012)

Fucking hell


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 1, 2012)

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...nders-treatment-1#S5LV0501P0_19881107_HOL_188
"The activities of the Broadmoor Hospital Board were suspended during August and the operational management of the hospital is in the hands of a specially formulated task force whose best known member is Dr. Jimmy Savile"........Dr.Savile????


----------



## FNG (Nov 1, 2012)

He had a couple of honorary degrees,probably for fundraising.That would allow him to legitimately use the prefix Dr.Quite depressing if it helped sway the selection committee


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 1, 2012)

FNG said:


> He had a couple of honorary degrees,probably for fundraising.That would allow him to legitimately use the prefix Dr.Quite depressing if it helped sway the selection committee


Fuck knows, surely the Earl of Dundee did'nt think Savile was a real doctor.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 1, 2012)

Freddy Starr has been arrested. Should we be surprised?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Freddy Starr has been arrested. Should we be surprised?


Arrested in what sense?


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 1, 2012)

re freddie starr: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-11-01/comedian-freddie-starr-held-by-police/

meanwhile, more savile stuff..






http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....s-over-savile-s-access-to-hospitals-1-5082416



> a photo uncovered by the _Yorkshire Evening Post _is likely to fuel suspicions that he could effectively come and go as he pleased at Buckinghamshire’s Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
> The picture was taken at the opening in 2005 of a cafe at Stoke Mandeville named after Savile in recognition of his fundraising work for the hospital.
> It shows him wearing two fake NHS identity badges, bizarrely bearing the name and photos of Hollywood legends Robert De Niro and Al Pacino.
> ‘Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust’ is printed on one of the badges while the other says ‘Buckinghamshire Hospitals’.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Arrested in what sense?


 



> It read: "Officers working on Operation Yewtree have this evening, 1 November, arrested a man in his 60s in connection with the investigation.
> "The man, from Warwickshire, was arrested at approximately 17.45 hrs on suspicion of sexual offences, and has been taken into police custody locally.
> "The individual falls under the strand of the investigation we have termed 'Savile and others'."



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/freddie-starr-arrested-by-jimmy-savile-1412021


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2012)

elbows said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/freddie-starr-arrested-by-jimmy-savile-1412021


Ta, "'Savile and others'."


----------



## kenny g (Nov 1, 2012)

elbows said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/freddie-starr-arrested-by-jimmy-savile-1412021


 
The collection of photo's under that article is remarkable for covering the full range of his life of noncery.

http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1354142.ece/ALTERNATES/s2197/Jimmy+Savile 

Knowing what is known now, how could they not have known?


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2012)

xenon said:


> As his Psycological makeup was mentioned, - sorry this might have been posted - I remembered this. Jimmy Savile interviewed by Dr Anthony Clare for his In the Psychiatrists Chair, program, 1992. Only an extract. Can't find full audio. Obviously it's even creepier given hinesight.
> https://audioboo.fm/boos/526151-jimmy-savile-dr-anthony-clare-radio-4


 
There is one other clip on that site.

http://audioboo.fm/boos/526163-jimmy-savile-dr-anthony-clare-extra


----------



## Favelado (Nov 1, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> re freddie starr: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-11-01/comedian-freddie-starr-held-by-police/
> 
> meanwhile, more savile stuff..
> 
> ...


Travis fucking Bickle maybe.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2012)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paul-ogrady-wants-david-camerons-1410772

Paul O'Grady provides further evidence, as if any were needed, that some were quite aware of the Savile risk.



> Paul says: “When I worked in a children’s home in West Kirby in the 1970s, Jimmy Savile came to visit.
> "One of the housemothers was told not to let him unsupervised on the girls’ unit. At the time we thought it was because he wanted a member of staff to talk to.
> “We were so naïve. I wouldn’t have even known what a paedophile was.”


----------



## mack (Nov 2, 2012)

Newsnight tonight to reveal a senior politician as a pedophile if they get the go ahead from lawyers? 

http://order-order.com/2012/11/02/explosive-newsnight-in-pipeline/


----------



## Badgers (Nov 2, 2012)

mack said:


> Newsnight tonight to reveal a senior politician as a pedophile if they get the go ahead from lawyers?
> 
> http://order-order.com/2012/11/02/explosive-newsnight-in-pipeline/


 

oooh, fuck!


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 2, 2012)

Get the feeling that it'll get spiked. Like Guido Fawkes suggests, the person's lawyers must be working overtime to stop it ...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

mack said:


> Newsnight tonight to reveal a senior politician as a pedophile if they get the go ahead from lawyers?
> 
> http://order-order.com/2012/11/02/explosive-newsnight-in-pipeline/


 
Live or dead politician?


----------



## cesare (Nov 2, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Live or dead politician?


Michael Crick has just told Guido and Overton that the subject has been talking to him, so I presume live.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 2, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Get the feeling that it'll get spiked. Like Guido Fawkes suggests, the person's lawyers must be working overtime to stop it ...


 
Michael Crick is saying on twitter they haven't put the story to the person yet, he asked him a while ago.

(yes i know he works at C4 now)

another one 'everyone' knows about?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 2, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Live or dead politician?


 
Alive


----------



## yardbird (Nov 2, 2012)

Wouldn't it be good if all the lawyers just threw all the paperwork into the air and said fuck it, he* can go to the wolves!

*Whoever


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

cesare said:


> Michael Crick has just told Guido and Overton that the subject has been talking to him, so I presume live.


 


Badgers said:


> Alive


 
Labour or Conservative? Thatcher years or no year mentioned?


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 2, 2012)

I liked somebody's guess on that site that Newsnight don't actually have a name, but are waiting to see which politician's lawyers contact them first with a threatening phone call


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Labour or Conservative? Thatcher years and no year mentioned?


Hush.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hush.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

I certainly hope they go ahead with the report because I'm sick of dredging through historical speculation with no real way to confirm any underage aspect of it. Quite apart from all the other dodgy agendas that drive some of the online speculation, its almost impossible to determine which of the rumours are more about homophobia than anything else.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 2, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Wouldn't it be good if all the lawyers just threw all the paperwork into the air and said fuck it, he* can go to the wolves!
> 
> *Whoever


 
Not if he is innocent no it wouldn't.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

Be nice to be proved wrong, but you just _know_ this won't run.  Lawyers will be obtaining a Giggsy as we speak.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 2, 2012)

I think it is the same person who was named a week or two ago, if it is, he is very much alive and still a high ranking politician.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

> *Michael Crick* ‏@*MichaelLCrick*
> "Senior political figure" due to be accused tonight by BBC of being paedophile denies allegations + tells me he'll issue libel writ agst BBC


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2012)

Are we allowed to cast aspersions on dead politicians on here? Cos Private Eye has published allegations about a recently dead politician.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2012)

> ​*Michael Crick* ‏@*MichaelLCrick*
> "Senior political figure" due to be accused tonight by BBC of being paedophile denies allegations + tells me he'll issue libel writ agst BBC​


​​Would this be a self outing? Can you issue a libel writ and still remain anonymous? Could you issue a writ whilst still hiding behind an injunction?  ​


----------



## Badgers (Nov 2, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Are we allowed to cast aspersions on dead politicians on here? Cos Private Eye has published allegations about a recently dead politician.


 
That is hardly a secret. I don't think that linking to an already published article in a news and current affairs magazine is an issue?


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Are we allowed to cast aspersions on dead politicians on here? Cos Private Eye has published allegations about a recently dead politician.


 
Well I've never noticed it cause a problem here in the past, so long as they are dead.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 2, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Are we allowed to cast aspersions on dead politicians on here? Cos Private Eye has published allegations about a recently dead politician.


They can't sue from the grave 

I got 2 names in my emails today, both very senior tories, one has had their name in public already [now redacted] but the other was news to me.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> Well I've never noticed it cause a problem here in the past, so long as they are dead.





1%er said:


> They can't sue from the grave


Family? I mean, I honestly don't know, just thought it could be a concern.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

1%er said:


> They can't sue from the grave
> 
> I got 2 names in my emails today, both very senior tories, one has had their name in public already [now redacted] but the other was news to me.


 
I can think of at least half a dozen names of living politicians who have been extensively speculated about online. I have no means to judge whether any of them are the subject of the potential newsnight piece, and certainly no reason to think that the more sensational ones are the most likely to emerge.


----------



## peterkro (Nov 2, 2012)

1%er said:


> They can't sue from the grave
> 
> I got 2 names in my emails today, both very senior tories, one has had their name in public already [now redacted] but the other was news to me.


By doing a little googling I came up with two names one an MP and one a ex-MP.I've got to say though it's hard to extract info from the huge amount of wingnuttery dross out there.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Are we allowed to cast aspersions on dead politicians on here? Cos Private Eye has published allegations about a recently dead politician.


 
It wasnt Cyril Smith again was it? We had no problem talking about that here before.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/cyril-smith-dies.258848/


----------



## 1%er (Nov 2, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Family? I mean, I honestly don't know, just thought it could be a concern.


I don't think you can bring a case of defamation on behalf of a dead person. If you are rich and powerful you may keep things out of the press for years while alive but once dead your fair game, I believe.

Maxwell is a good example, everyone knew he was at it, but no-one would stand up because of his money and power, they knew he would sue them and keep the cost going up.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2012)

Aye, him. But if Private Eye are getting flak from his family...


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Aye, him. But if Private Eye are getting flak from his family...


 
If all Private Eye can do these days is dig up old stories they covered before, rather than say anything new about the living that risks legal action, I doubt we have to worry too much about talking about stuff they've published.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 2, 2012)

peterkro said:


> By doing a little googling I came up with two names one an MP and one a ex-MP.I've got to say though it's hard to extract info from the huge amount of wingnuttery dross out there.


Of the two serving MPs I'm talking about, one came out last week and said "it wasn't me", the other is even more senior than him [nowadays], but the newsnight thing says "senior political figure" so it may not be an MP.

(I looked at my emails a long time before I came to read here today and heard about newsnight, they may not be linked at all)


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> ​​Would this be a self outing? Can you issue a libel writ and still remain anonymous? Could you issue a writ whilst still hiding behind an injunction?  ​


 
Privately threaten to go after them for libel before the story is published, but only go ahead and do it if the story is published. No self outing involved. Injunctions on the other hand are risky if they come unstuck, as happened just a few weeks back.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

How/why 7 national papers turned down the Savile story - it's down to Leveson reckons the journo.


----------



## the button (Nov 2, 2012)

It's a dark day for <editor: *NO* ffs> Britain.


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How/why 7 national papers turned down the Savile story - it's down to Leveson reckons the journo.


 
Although in a very limited context it may be true, it drives me crazy because for me the question isnt why didnt the press touch the Savile story after his death, its why they didnt touch it for decades when he was alive? And the reasons why completely undermine their prior defence against Leveson, that they provide a public service by getting the truth to the public.

Ideally I would like Leveson to reconvene and have a whole new module on why the press were not actually doing the one thing that could justify their invasive and nasty behaviour. But whats the point in me even calling for this, the whole thing is a joke really. As mentioned in a  quote I put on the coverup thread, much of the power of the press is about suppression of stories, not publication.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 2, 2012)

The Oldie story aspect about the BBC, mentioned towards the end of that Spectator link, was picked up by Guido Fawkes back in February it seems. Were people discussing that on here back then?

You have to subscribe to the Oldie to have access to the archive there I think


----------



## 1%er (Nov 2, 2012)

elbows said:


> As mentioned in a quote I put on the coverup thread, much of the power of the press is about suppression of stories, not publication.


You are right, there was talk many years ago about a politician who would visit south-east asia without his wife for holidays, I think it is the same person newsnight are being stop from talking about. This is almost a 30 year old story.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2012)

the button said:


> It's a dark day for <editor: *NO* ffs> Britain.


Don't do that again please because it's not clever and doesn't stop it being libellous either.


----------



## laptop (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How/why 7 national papers turned down the Savile story - it's down to Leveson reckons the journo.


 
In the _Spectator_, owned by the Barclay Brothers, who don't have an interest in knocking Leveson on any excuse, oh no.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

laptop said:


> In the _Spectator_, owned by the Barclay Brothers, who don't have an interest in knocking Leveson on any excuse, oh no.


Doesn't detract from the story/claim though does it? It might provide a pointer as to why they have ran it, but it doesn't effect the _content_ of the story (which has been around for a while now - long before the spectator printed this piece) - or do you think that it does? If so, how?


----------



## laptop (Nov 2, 2012)

Badgers said:


> That is hardly a secret. I don't think that linking to an already published article in a news and current affairs magazine is an issue?


 
Linking may be very much an issue - I just this morning pointed out to an editor-in-chief that though we don't know for sure that linking to a libel counts as repeating it, all that means is that finding out is four times as expensive as defending a straight repeat of it. I'm sure Mr Justice Eady has two draft judgements already.

It's the deadness that matters.

Just to be clear.


----------



## cesare (Nov 2, 2012)

laptop said:


> In the _Spectator_, owned by the Barclay Brothers, who don't have an interest in knocking Leveson on any excuse, oh no.


Things that the press would rather you didn't know ...

http://hackinginquiry.org/uncategorised/ten-things-the-press-would-rather-you-didnt-know/


----------



## laptop (Nov 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't detract from the story/claim though does it? It might provide a pointer as to why they have ran it, but it doesn't effect the _content_ of the story (which has been around for a while now - long before the spectator printed this piece) - or do you think that it does? If so, how?


 
If I have a spare moment I'm going to look around for hints of Savile himself getting injunctions against reports of his activity while he was alive.

Or of others getting injunctions against suggestions that they were accessories.

Such threats from those who can afford the services of Schillings or Carter-Fuck would be much more effective, had they been made. I vaguely remember mutterings about Savile having expensive taste in lawyers.

I didn't read the whole _Spectator_ piece - I'm currently skiving from a skive at work - but the first couple pars shrieked "anti-Leveson agenda" at me.

Feel free to beat me to it


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

I was sort of hoping that the libel laws of this country would have been broken by the internet by now. Instead we have a bizarre situation where in some sense the libel laws are actually making it more likely that some will be libelled online, the speculation on twitter being a prime example. People filling the void left by the timid press, the long-existing rumour mill sped up and turned into the written word, with no requirement that readers actually be a part of the social circle doing the gossiping.


----------



## biggus dickus (Nov 2, 2012)

They just had an hour long program about Jimmy Saville on the Chinese news!


----------



## ohmyliver (Nov 2, 2012)

We can only hope that Next Media _Animation_ covers it.


----------



## gosub (Nov 2, 2012)

ohmyliver said:


> We can only hope that Next Media _Animation_ covers it.


http://www.nma.tv/jimmy-savile-abuse-claims-bbc/


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

A little bit of gangster stuff in this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/02/bbc-jimmy-savile


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Someone finally got round to getting a copy of the first In The Psychiatrists Chair book, or obtained the transcript of the Savile episode elsewhere. A fair proportion of whats discussed is what was already linked to here very recently as audio clips, but there is a bit more as well.

http://www.channel4.com/news/how-jimmy-savile-revealed-all-in-the-psychiatrists-chair


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 2, 2012)




----------



## Belushi (Nov 2, 2012)

Not Rigsby!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 3, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Not ??????


 
You're not supposed to say their names, even if they are dead.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 3, 2012)

Have spent the evening with someone who has done a fair bit of sound work at the BBC. I was asking him about the culture there, re JS, and he said one thing about the BBC building is that its a massive warren and as such you cant just walk around in there...your every step is approved and monitored, otherwise people would get lost immediately. In terms of dressing rooms and access to them, this is also highly monitored, with cameras and also doormen and microphone permission.

He said there is no way that not everyone who could know knew what was going on inside that building and its dressing rooms...its a building of no secrets<<<was his opinion....





that said he said having worked in much of UK media at some point or other the BBC still is a treasure and needs protecting to the last...he made a good case tbf.


----------



## where to (Nov 3, 2012)

elbows said:
			
		

> Someone finally got round to getting a copy of the first In The Psychiatrists Chair book, or obtained the transcript of the Savile episode elsewhere. A fair proportion of whats discussed is what was already linked to here very recently as audio clips, but there is a bit more as well.
> 
> http://www.channel4.com/news/how-jimmy-savile-revealed-all-in-the-psychiatrists-chair



Interesting line about only going half way round the course if he could get away with it. Someone on another Savile thread mentioned that their gran I think had never seen him on marathon despite living on course and standing out watching every year.

One of his lesser crimes obviously but another insight, if true.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2012)

Former Headteacher of Duncroft pissing all over the claims of the pupils she was in loco parentis for:



> But Jones said no one ever reported any abuse to her. She told the Daily Mail: "They had an opportunity to tell anybody. But it suited them – some of them, not all of them – to wait 30 years. They're all looking for money … they come out of the woodwork for money. I do object to my school being targeted … wild allegations by well-known delinquents."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/03/jimmy-savile-accusers-money-headteacher


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)

Well at least she didnt hold back on what she thinks. Thats the only nice thing I can find to say about that interview, which has upset me. Its pretty revealing. Humans arent fit to manage institutions.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2012)

And that shows exactly how this sort off thing happens what's required to allow it to happen.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2012)

ska invita said:


> Have spent the evening with someone who has done a fair bit of sound work at the BBC. I was asking him about the culture there, re JS, and he said one thing about the BBC building is that its a massive warren and as such you cant just walk around in there...your every step is approved and monitored, otherwise people would get lost immediately. In terms of dressing rooms and access to them, this is also highly monitored, with cameras and also doormen and microphone permission.
> 
> He said there is no way that not everyone who could know knew what was going on inside that building and its dressing rooms...its a building of no secrets<<<was his opinion....
> 
> ...


 

looks a bit like the millenium falcon.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2012)




----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2012)

His whole life was one long public confession, with benefit of hindsight...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 3, 2012)

> wild allegations by well-known delinquents


 


> "If they didn't tell me about Jimmy Savile, they deserve all they get. They should've reported him. They knew if they reported him to me I'd report him to the police. And I have reported people to the police."


 
What a cunt


----------



## yardbird (Nov 4, 2012)

elbows said:


> Well at least she didnt hold back on what she thinks. Thats the only nice thing I can find to say about that interview, which has upset me. Its pretty revealing. Humans arent fit to manage institutions.


I've only just read the interview and feel that the lady (read bitch) ex headmistress missed the part of her job description that says "must be able to empathise with damaged and distressed delinquents"!
She seems to empathise with the dark side of people in power.


----------



## gosub (Nov 4, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> His whole life was one long public confession, with benefit of hindsight...


----------



## kenny g (Nov 4, 2012)

yardbird said:


> I've only just read the interview and feel that the lady (read bitch) ex headmistress missed the part of her job description that says "must be able to emphasise with damaged and distressed delinquents"!
> She seems to emphasise with the dark side of people in power.


 
Maybe empathise.


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 4, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> > "If they didn't tell me about Jimmy Savile, they deserve all they get. "
> 
> 
> What a cunt


sickening woman


----------



## yardbird (Nov 4, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Maybe empathise.


Ta.
It was for me an early hour for Sunday.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 4, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Former Headteacher of Duncroft pissing all over the claims of the pupils she was in loco parentis for:
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/03/jimmy-savile-accusers-money-headteacher


 
It's quite unbelieveable that someone like this should have been in _loco parentis_ to vulnerable children. What fucking chance did these girls have?

In retrospect, I feel damn lucky that I wasn't abused. I do wonder about some of my peers though. Heard plenty of stories in the intervening years about teachers being fired and going on the sex offenders register from my boarding school.

I'm feeling a lot of fury right now against this callous bitch. She never believed in the children entrusted to her care, and now years later she dismisses them as "well-known delinquents". Abuse includes emotional abuse and neglect, and she sounds like a perpetrator.

All child development approaches now acknowledge that the best place for a child is in the parental home, except in extreme circumstances. Institutions cannot hope to provide the level of warmth and security a life with parents and siblings does. Unfortunately for some children, they can end up in institutions.

However, we have a tradition of the elite actively sending their kids away to such places and creating generations of emotionally stunted, repressed and wounded people who generally gain more influential positions in society than those who lived at home and were educated in the state sector. This is more a psychological observation borne of findings of psychotherapists working with ex-care leavers and boarding school "survivors", but when you consider the proportion of cabinet ministers who were institutionalised at a young age it does give pause for thought.

Sorry for the rambling derail...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 4, 2012)

eatmorecheese said:


> It's quite unbelieveable that someone like this should have been in _loco parentis_ to vulnerable children. What fucking chance did these girls have?


 
Unbelieveable, but unfortunately it happened/happens. There were plenty of others like her, and for those that weren't physically/sexually abused, there were plenty that were abusive of their positions in other ways


----------



## Tankus (Nov 4, 2012)

A banker teller gets blinded to the value of money until some goes missing.......Same with those who run a boarding school ?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 4, 2012)

Tankus said:


> A banker teller gets blinded to the value of money until some goes missing.......Same with those who run a boarding school ?


 
Was Bryn Estyn a boarding school?    Or are you talking about somewhere else?


----------



## OnTheLevel (Nov 4, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> I liked somebody's guess on that site that Newsnight don't actually have a name, but are waiting to see which politician's lawyers contact them first with a threatening phone call


LOL, you're probably right, I wouldn't put it past them. But then again, they could well have several names that they could expose but can't because they know they'd face a libel suit. The mainstream media don't have the balls to name names, except for the ones we already know about, like Gary Glitter, or ones who are dead, like Savile. It seems that they are trying to muddy the waters by focusing only on the low level pedophiles instead of going after the wider network that includes major politicians. At least we can rely on the alternative media to expose some of the big names who are involved in the child trafficking industry. For example, check out these videos:

*Jimmy Savile's Real Life - Elite Paedophile Ring Exposed*


*Ben Fellows talks about child abuse in the media*


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 5, 2012)

Ah yes, the credible Ben Fellows.


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2012)

I'm having supreme trouble taking anything coming from an outfit called 'Truth Vibes' seriously.

Oh hang on, There's a David Icke connection too.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 5, 2012)

editor said:


> ...Oh hang on, There's a David Icke connection too.


Icke was right about savile, apparently.

I see one of those youtube videos is 2 hours long.....not happening.


----------



## tufty79 (Nov 5, 2012)

almost half of the first one was clips of chitty chitty bang bang, interspersed with clips/pics of JS, with a dancey soundtrack.
i'd count that as a credible news story


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2012)

As the UK Column keeps pedalling the Fellows stuff, I shall link to a thread from the past where Brian Gerrish was at least partially dissected.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-common-purpose.228282/#post-8263363

Background info:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Brian_Gerrish


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2012)

Another tv coverup, I missed this story when it was first published.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ntary-on-paedophile-john-owen-91466-32103168/

​


> One of Wales’ most prominent film directors has entered the Jimmy Savile controversy by accusing the BBC and ITV of refusing to commission a documentary he proposed about paedophile dramatist John Owen.​Karl Francis, a former head of drama at BBC Wales, alleges that neither broadcaster had been prepared to screen the proposed programme because it would have highlighted Owen’s abuse of teenagers while they worked with him on TV programmes, as well as embarrassing the Welsh language “establishment”.​John Owen committed suicide in 2001. He had been due to stand trial for offences allegedly committed against pupils of Rhydfelen Welsh medium comprehensive school in Pontypridd, where he had been a drama teacher.​His death provoked huge controversy, with suggestions from relatives of his alleged victims that Mr Owen had been protected because of his prominent position in Welsh language media circles. Many prominent people attended his funeral.​


​


> “The fascinating thing, of course, is the way in which someone like John Owen can completely dominate other people and live a very secret life. The fact that he was directing young actors, naked, for S4C and HTV, would have been known to these people, together with the fact that he had been the subject of a paedophile inquiry a few years earlier. We need to question the judgement of the people who employed him.”


----------



## little_legs (Nov 5, 2012)

_29 BBC staff face claims of sexual misconduct_


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2012)

This was probably posted before but for me it remains one of the most revealing articles so far about the BBC's past and wider cultural issues:

http://cdn.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/andrew...1&hq_e=el&hq_m=2081107&hq_l=5&hq_v=8853d77b01


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2012)

Are ben fellows vids the new HIGNFY transcript or what?


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2012)

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/newsuknewssavileinquiry/article1159135.ece

​


> JIMMY SAVILE was so close to Prince Charles that he advised him on the appointment of one of his most senior aides, The Sunday Times has learnt.​In an indication of the power and privilege extended to Savile by the royal family, Charles asked the DJ and television presenter for advice before selecting Sir Christopher Airy to be his private secretary in 1990.​Savile and Charles met Airy, a former major-general, before he was offered the post, according to an informed source.​


​


----------



## caoineadh7 (Nov 6, 2012)

xenon said:


> As his Psycological makeup was mentioned, - sorry this might have been posted - I remembered this. Jimmy Savile interviewed by Dr Anthony Clare for his In the Psychiatrists Chair, program, 1992. Only an extract. Can't find full audio. Obviously it's even creepier given hinesight.
> https://audioboo.fm/boos/526151-jimmy-savile-dr-anthony-clare-radio-4


 


I always found the Fonz suspect, I mean a 30 yr old bloke hanging around all those kids in a fast food diner.


----------



## framed (Nov 6, 2012)

tufty79 said:


> almost half of the first one was clips of chitty chitty bang bang, interspersed with clips/pics of JS, with a dancey soundtrack.
> i'd count that as a credible news story


 
That child catcher bastard from _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_ really freaked me out as a kid...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2012)

As john Robb reminds us:

_Down at Stoke Mandeville I bumped into Mr IQ_
_I said “Hey albino, this is not 1972_
_Stub out your King Edward and get that small boy off your knee_
_And melt down your rings and things and get yourself off my TV”_

_Jim could you fix it for me_
_To come down and suck out your kidneys?_
_I’ve got this young brother, you see_
_Who wants to stay alive to watch Bilko _


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> As john Robb reminds us:
> 
> _Down at Stoke Mandeville I bumped into Mr IQ_
> _I said “Hey albino, this is not 1972_
> ...


 
Well it's better than the one you usually quote... "the sparrow of Cardiff" and all that...


----------



## framed (Nov 6, 2012)

elbows said:


> This was probably posted before but for me it remains one of the most revealing articles so far about the BBC's past and wider cultural issues:
> 
> http://cdn.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/andrew...1&hq_e=el&hq_m=2081107&hq_l=5&hq_v=8853d77b01


 
Thanks for posting that. As you say it is a very revealing article about the internal culture of the BBC going back almost to its beginnings.

One thing that grates in it, and O'Hagan is by no means the only commentator to lean on this particular deceit, is that _'the public made Jimmy Savile'_. He repeats this a couple of times during the article as if we all voted for the old pervert to be given carte blanche for 50 years. The 'public' outside of Leeds would most likely never have heard of Jimmy Savile had it not been for the BBC's promotion of him.

I'd love 'the public' to be able to wield the sort of power that journalists bestow upon them. The truth however is that his relentless self-promotion was supported by the BBC and most of the popular newspapers. It is they who determine what 'the public' wants and what 'the public' gets.

As Mr Weller once said:

_"The public wants what the public gets,_
_But I don't get what this society wants..."_


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2012)

Indeed, the _this is what you wanted_ line mirrors the most grotesque excuses of abusers.


----------



## Prole (Nov 6, 2012)

> A seaside flat where Jimmy Savile entertained police cronies has not been searched by cops even though it is just about to be sold.
> 
> Fears are growing that vital clues to the pervert DJ's secret life could be lost if his flat on the fashionable Esplanade in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, is not examined soon.
> 
> ...


.. and where are all the arrests we were told to expect? Just the usual suspects, GG and Starr so far.


----------



## Prole (Nov 6, 2012)

> Former detective makes shock claims that Jimmy Savile was quizzed over Yorkshire Ripper murders
> 
> Member of the public named Savile as a 'potential Ripper suspect'
> Peter Sutcliffe today rubbished claims that Savile abused patient at Broadmoor mental hospital, where he is a patient
> ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 6, 2012)

There may have been two killers! 
Or maybe he's Wearside Jack!


----------



## Greebo (Nov 6, 2012)

Front page of the Sun today (among other things) the Yorkshire Ripper claiming he knows that Savile is innocent.  A new low, even for that rag.


----------



## starfish (Nov 6, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Front page of the Sun today (among other things) the Yorkshire Ripper claiming he knows that Savile is innocent. A new low, even for that rag.


 
I saw someone reading that on the train today. A real ringing endorsement.


----------



## Prole (Nov 6, 2012)

The Mail included the Roundhay Park murder but omitted this:


> Mr Sutcliffe also told police he left the murder scene after he heard voices, but couldn't tell where they came from. He also heard a car being driven away from the entrance to a house. Later he found out that the house was where disc jockey Jimmy Savile lived.


http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/trial03.htm


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 7, 2012)

> Prince Charles enlisted Jimmy Savile as a royal party organiser and asked him to invite guests to Kensington Palace on his behalf, it has emerged.
> Savile invited a group of television producers involved in an ITV telethon in 1988 to a cocktail party at the palace. He was not involved with the telethon, of which Prince Charles was patron, and did not attend the party.
> Paul Laing, a former director of programmes at Television South West, who took one of Savile's calls, said several of his colleagues were contacted and many thought it was "weird" that the star was involved in organising royal engagements.
> "He was phoning to invite the producers, one from each station, to go to a cocktail party in Kensington Palace," Laing said. "He said he was phoning from the prince's office on behalf of Prince Charles. He said he had been asked to organise a get-together as Prince Charles was so pleased with the telethon he wanted to say thank you."
> Savile's role, apparently at the heart of Charles's household, was confirmed by a spokesman for the prince. It will increase scrutiny of theheir's dealings with the now disgraced TV star. Savile heavily publicised his closeness to the royals, giving the impression, some observers believe, of approval from the highest stratum of British society that may have helped him to hide his criminal activity "in plain sight".




http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/07/jimmy-savile-party-prince-charles


----------



## Prole (Nov 8, 2012)

Jimmy Savile and Yorkshire Ripper: Cast of DJ's teeth was made to check against bites left on Peter Sutcliffe's victims | Mail Online


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2012)

How much attention has there been to the possibility that Savile was protected when he was alive because he had dirt on other people?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2012)

elbows said:


> How much attention has there been to the possibility that Savile was protected when he was alive because he had dirt on other people?


 
Not too much except multiple reiterations of his "I'd take half the coppers with me" boast.


----------



## yardbird (Nov 8, 2012)

Arrest
Jimmie's old flatmate.


----------



## Prole (Nov 8, 2012)

Jimmy Savile's chauffeur arrested
Breaking news

Jimmy Savile's former chauffeur and flatmate has been arrested by Greater Manchester police at an address in Altrincham, Cheshire.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 8, 2012)

> Greater Manchester Police say the 71-year-old's arrest is "not an investigation into the late Jimmy Savile, nor do any of the allegations relate to any involvement by Savile."


 
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-11-08/saviles-former-chauffeur-arrested-over-rape-claim/



> Detective Inspector Simon Davies said the arrest was nothing to do with the investigation into Jimmy Savile.
> 
> "The arrest follows an investigation by the Serious Sexual Offences Unit into three separate allegations of historic sexual abuse which have been reported to Greater Manchester Police.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...-chauffeur-ray-teret-_n_2093222.html?ncid=GEP


----------



## Deareg (Nov 9, 2012)

Thick bastard couldn't even spell it.


----------



## elbows (Nov 9, 2012)

Sadly he wasnt thick. At least not in some key ways that enabled him to play the system, other people, etc.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 9, 2012)

Deareg said:


> Thick bastard couldn't even spell it.


 
shopped

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/sep/28/jimmy-savile-abused-girls-alleged


----------



## elbows (Nov 9, 2012)




----------



## elbows (Nov 10, 2012)




----------



## Cornetto (Nov 10, 2012)

Mr Lustbather/Swarthy Thug

Posted this on my face book page


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 10, 2012)




----------



## Angelwings (Nov 11, 2012)

kenny g said:


> _*Shirley Crabtree aka Big Daddy was another one. Dead now but well known to be.*_


How do you know Big Daddy was a abuser too?? Not saying i think he is not just i also think the same!


----------



## shygirl (Nov 11, 2012)

They've arrested a man in his 70's in Cambridgeshire today - is it only the prols they're naming? Very naive question, but it confounds belief that we're not seeing the naming and/or arrests of all those other alleged perps, about whom the police have received direct allegations from victims.


----------



## Angelwings (Nov 11, 2012)

kenny g said:


> _*Shirley Crabtree aka Big Daddy was another one. Dead now but well known to be.*_




​I can still remember the extra excitement that a visit from 'Daddy' would bring to the live shows. Yet in reality, he was a distinctly unpleasant man. His carefully portrayed image as the 'friend of the children' was far from the truth, and he would always ignore and push past the adoring kids who gathered around him, as though they weren't there... until the occasional months when ITV were in attendance, recording for World of Sport, when of course he magically became their best pal... well until the cameras stopped rolling anyway. He was even worse after the shows... I was always hungry to obtain autographs at the end of the evening, but after several attempts, gave up on the ignorant Daddy as he ritually brushed past me month after month as though I didn't exist. ****  I didn't write this but somone did who loved wrestling and looked up to Big daddy as a child!


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 11, 2012)

Angelwings said:


> ​I can still remember the extra excitement that a visit from 'Daddy' would bring to the live shows. Yet in reality, he was a distinctly unpleasant man. His carefully portrayed image as the 'friend of the children' was far from the truth, and he would always ignore and push past the adoring kids who gathered around him, as though they weren't there... until the occasional months when ITV were in attendance, recording for World of Sport, when of course he magically became their best pal... well until the cameras stopped rolling anyway. He was even worse after the shows... I was always hungry to obtain autographs at the end of the evening, but after several attempts, gave up on the ignorant Daddy as he ritually brushed past me month after month as though I didn't exist. **** I didn't write this but somone did who loved wrestling and looked up to Big daddy as a child!


 
(((((((((((somone  who loved wrestling and looked up to Big daddy as a child))))))))))))))

The true victim in all of this.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 11, 2012)

shygirl said:


> They've arrested a man in his 70's in Cambridgeshire today - is it only the prols they're naming? Very naive question, but it confounds belief that we're not seeing the naming and/or arrests of all those other alleged perps, about whom the police have received direct allegations from victims.


wilfred de'ath. savile's former producer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 12, 2012)

they should have spotted that wrong un by his name. Like Cruella DeVille


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2012)

> *Mark Williams-Thomas* ‏@*mwilliamsthomas*
> Breaking: I can confirm that the man arrested as part of the wider#*Savile* investigation this morning is Dave Lee Travis


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 15, 2012)

Let's remind ourselves of that Camilla Long DLT interview way upthread:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-sir-jimmy-savile-obe-thread.300406/page-26#post-11608383


----------



## TopCat (Nov 15, 2012)

Ah I wondered when the bell would toll for Dave Lee Travis.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 15, 2012)

The "Hairy Cornflake" sounds even more disgusting after this.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 15, 2012)

Giant Haystacks was better after all 


Jon-of-arc said:


> (((((((((((somone  who loved wrestling and looked up to Big daddy as a child))))))))))))))
> 
> The true victim in all of this.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 15, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> The "Hairy Cornflake" sounds even more disgusting after this.


 
Snap, crackle and pop. Sex with DLT.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 15, 2012)

http://mostlyfilm.com/2012/05/22/this-was-one-of-my-records-of-the-week/
Disturbingly prescient about Sir Jammy Vile


----------



## elbows (Nov 17, 2012)

Someone stuck his This is your life on youtube. The start is missing and there is a technical problem part way through the second part, but all the same its quite something.

Numerous 'interesting moments'. Occasions where he is clearly pooping himself/making jokes about what people might say, several instances of intimidation especially towards women. A story about 'falling out of his cot' and being unconscious for months (brain injury would certainly fit some of his behavioural inclinations, especially a loss of inhibition). 

And yes Alan Franey is there, as one of his 4 jogging mates. Contrary to the rumour he was not introduced as Savile's business manager, but Franey did show some intimacy towards him.

Thatcher sends her regards, as do Bill Wyman and Frank Bruno.


----------



## Favelado (Nov 18, 2012)

I'm still trying to find this Freddie Starr documentary.

This review of it from 2001 is interesting though.

http://www.ciao.co.uk/Channel_4_Freddie_Starr_Ate_My_Hamster__Review_5145996

"Last Sunday I noticed they were showing a profile of the comedian Freddie Starr on Channel 4 television at 9.20. I was really pleased about this, as i have always found him really funny.
It started off by showing Freddie at home, in Spain, by his pool, looking pleasant, suntanned and his normal cheeky little self.
The first thing he did when one of the lady producers came along was push her straight into his swimming pool remark that her nipples had gone hard, put his thumb in his mouth and say mummy i want feeding, at that stage I must admit the grin was still on my face.
However, as the programme unfolded a really nasty, ugly story of his past was disclosed. I had various bits of press about him in the past and not really taken it on board.

Television producers and executives were testifying and saying that they would never ever work with him again due to his apalling treatment and behaviour. Family were saying that they were scared stiff of him, in fact he actually attacked his own son, then blamed him and said he wanted no more to do with any of them, even other entertainers did not want to know him any more.
A newspaper reporter had been attacked by him in quite a violent outburst by Freddie.
Quite honestly I was totally shocked. He always came over as a cheeky lovable talented loveable little fella, but having watched that programme and seen the other side of him I can understand why he is in the position he is in now, which is basically nobody wants to know him or work with him any more.
Russ Abbott the comedian said that Freddies trouble is, that he sticks with his old routines and will not learn anything new, and this is why he does not get offered any more TV work, but quite honestly I think it is his obnoxious behaviour and attitude towards everybody to do with television. I think that his material maybe a bit dated but I still think he is a very talented guy.
I know perhaps we shouldnt let peoples personal lives influence us over their performance and talent, but this behaviour was inflicted on pratically everyone he came accross.
I think it is very tragic, and at the end of the programme he made it look all the more tragic. He has ended up very bitter because his TV career is over, despite the fact that I think it was self inflicted, because he did a sort of speech where he said that all comedy on TV these days was crap and all the good comedians had died and comedy on British TV was now over, he mentioned Big Brother, which is obviously a scene stealer, but he did not mention good people that are still performing good comedy on our sets right now, like Jasper Carrott, Ben Elton, Jack Dee, Eddie Izzard, to name but a few. He even laid a wreath to mourn the death of British Comedy.
I saw a very sad, twisted, bitter man, an aggresive manic man who admitted that, even after delivering good comedy he could go off and cry, he was so miserable in reality.
I know I shall still laugh when I see some of his sketches and enjoy his impersinations from the TV archives, but believe me I was very shocked to see this man for what he really was, I could cry."


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2012)

Anyone else planning to watch the Exposure update on ITV later tonight?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2012)

Freddie Starr ate my naivity?


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2012)

If anyone is interested in the early club scene side of Savile, this blog post may be of interest:

http://thesumpplug.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/don-jimmy-gambino-obe.html

Its not afraid of hyperbole and may be sloppy with some other details but it's still kind of interesting.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2012)

First comment after that Sumpplug article :




			
				Anonymous said:
			
		

> This is one of the most interesting, informative articles about Jimmy Savile that I have seen.
> 19 November 2012


 
Hard to disagree, well worth a read.


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2012)

Are there any good books about organised crime that arent just egotistical posturing by dodgy geezers or designed for those who for some reason love gangsters?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2012)

Should be a healthy market for one about the Yorkshire/Northern scene at least, judging by that blog.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 21, 2012)

elbows said:


> If anyone is interested in the early club scene side of Savile, this blog post may be of interest:
> 
> http://thesumpplug.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/don-jimmy-gambino-obe.html
> 
> Its not afraid of hyperbole and may be sloppy with some other details but it's still kind of interesting.


Noticed a comment from well known music journalist Dave Hepworth underneath that article.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2012)

elbows said:


> Are there any good books about organised crime that arent just egotistical posturing by dodgy geezers or designed for those who for some reason love gangsters?


 
Hansard? Cast of thousands  .


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2012)

Edina Currie is on the ITV program talking about Broadmoor, and they have Savile's female assistant on too. Did you see they way he reacted to her on the This is your life I posted the other day?


----------



## elbows (Nov 21, 2012)

They spent a good while on his establishment connections, and plenty of time grilling Franey and detailing how Savile got Franey the job. Even showed the this is your life clip of their friendly greeting.


----------



## elbows (Nov 22, 2012)

In terms of new little details that I dont think got much of a mention here in the past, there wasnt much. 

Off the top of my head, when exploring his catholic links Basil Hume came up. In terms of Broadmoor it seems that Ray Rowden questioned Franey about Savile but was ignored. And when Savile was talking about what dirt he had on Broadmoor staff, a 'possible IRA cell' was mentioned.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 22, 2012)

elbows said:


> If anyone is interested in the early club scene side of Savile, this blog post may be of interest:
> 
> http://thesumpplug.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/don-jimmy-gambino-obe.html
> 
> Its not afraid of hyperbole and may be sloppy with some other details but it's still kind of interesting.


hmm. It's interesting, but it makes a lot of probably false assumptions.

For instance, why assume that he was skimming from the door as opposed to have a profit share arrangement on the tickets, or even taking all ticket money and the venue getting the bar take + hire fee type arrangement that's fairly standard. No reason at all that a DJ and promoter who's packing out venues 7 days a week couldn't have been earning easily enough money to buy himself a rolls royce legitimately, and I doubt he'd have ended up as a director of the firm if he'd been skimming that much cash from it for that long - Eric Morley doesn't sound like the sort who'd have stood for that.

As for wanting to be cut in on any deals... well yeah, I can see that being likely, as with a fair proportion of everyone who's worked in that field ever.

Taking money off record companies for promo... that's just capitalism.

Running his own bouncer team... well maybe, or maybe they were just employed by Mecca but worked his gigs because they were particularly busy, rowdy gigs. Though a club promoter and Dj managing venues across an entire region having a team of hard nut bouncers is hardly a surprise, you'd be pretty fucked without them really, and bouncers tend to know who's responsible for bringing the punters in and keeping them in work and act like they work directly for them to some extent regardless of who actually signs the wage cheques anyway.

TBH I can't help but be impressed by what he managed in that period, it certainly looks like he did it via hard graft and a lot of balls, plus probably at least the necessary amount of corruption and thuggery to keep that sort of thing going. The guy certainly had a lot more about him, and would have had a hell of a lot more backing and contacts than virtually any radio DJ, tv presenter or celebrity I can think of today. Puts a bit of a different spin on his background for me (although I knew some of it, I'd not really know the extent of it).

Maybe he did have a big enough network of contacts, and hard nut / criminal back up to keep his kiddie fiddling activities under wraps without necessarily needing security service assistance. He'd certainly have known who the bent coppers were across much of the country, which'd certainly help with that, along with the ability to get some hard nuts to threaten / hurt anyone if needed.

It does also put a bit of a different spin on the idea of him being some sort of fixer / procurer of kids for a paedophile network. He'd certainly have the necessary skillset and aptitude for that role, along with the sort of entrepreneurial initiative and criminal contacts someone would need to do it. I'd previously thought this was all a bit unlikely because I'd just been thinking of him as this tv personality, rather than someone with that background. Whether he did act in this way I've no idea, but that article certainly highlights the fact that he would have had the ability to do it if he chose to, and with that sort of personality, I can quite easily see him choosing to do it even if he didn't need to financially.


----------



## elbows (Nov 22, 2012)

Many good points there. I agree that the article may be going off down the wrong path when it comes to some of the specifics, but still interesting background anyway.

Nothing we've heard so far has given me much reason to go down the path of thinking he was a procurer of kids for others, at least not beyond generally attracting them due to his fame, but I'm still open to the possibility I suppose. If there is any truth to it then it will surely be a tough nut to crack.

A fixer, intimidator and collector of dirt on others seems quite plausible, and would be another reason why he was left alone when alive.

I remain rather interested in the this is your life tale from his eldest sister about him being unconscious for months as a baby/toddler. A traumatic brain injury is not necessary to explain his behaviour and personality, but it is a subject I am interested in, especially as we start to learn more about all sorts of head injuries and their long-term effects (eg work that is exposing just how serious concussions can be in later life).


----------



## exiledinwales (Nov 22, 2012)

Why's this Ben Fellows not credible? Middle-aged tv producers and directors shagging child actors on the promise of work sounds pretty dodgy to me.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 22, 2012)

exiledinwales said:


> Why's this Ben Fellows not credible? Middle-aged tv producers and directors shagging child actors on the promise of work sounds pretty dodgy to me.


it's not so much his article that's not credible, it's more the fact that he hosts a conspiracy theory type internet radio show, and has discussed some proper bollocks stories on it that raises some eyebrows, and make people wonder if all is really as he says it is - certainly with the thinly veiled allegations against certain named politicians.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 22, 2012)

elbows said:


> Many good points there. I agree that the article may be going off down the wrong path when it comes to some of the specifics, but still interesting background anyway.
> 
> Nothing we've heard so far has given me much reason to go down the path of thinking he was a procurer of kids for others, at least not beyond generally attracting them due to his fame, but I'm still open to the possibility I suppose. If there is any truth to it then it will surely be a tough nut to crack.


to be clear, I'm not saying I think he did or didn't act in this way. I'm just saying that I'd previously discounted it entirely as I didn't see that a radio DJ / tv personality would have the necessary aptitude to do it. Now I've had chance to really consider his actual background before he started on top of the pops etc I can see that he clearly actually would have the ability to pull such a role off, as well as the sort of ego driven promoter mindset that could provide the sort of motivation someone might need to do that sort of thing when they didn't actually need the money from it.

So essentially I'm just saying that I'd now view it as a realistic possibility, rather than something that he'd have been unlikely to have been capable of pulling off.



elbows said:


> A fixer, intimidator and collector of dirt on others seems quite plausible, and would be another reason why he was left alone when alive.


This article outlining his background, really does strengthen the support for this aspect of things, along with his probably access to bent coppers in police forces across the country from his time with mecca, where he'd also have learnt how to actually go about bribing coppers, magistrates etc to get things done, plus the art of successfully threatening (and probably hurting) people to build and protect a dodgy businesses empire.


----------



## elbows (Nov 22, 2012)

A brain damaged Machiavellian fit for the era of pop & fame.

Part of my interest in him is that I had the misfortune to know someone with similar personality traits in some key ways, only the bloke I knew was too stupid to do it properly at all and failed at almost every turn.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2012)

According to the sun, who have read sir cyril smith's memoirs, he and sir jimmy savile obe kcsg were good friends


----------



## Wilf (Nov 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> According to the sun, who have read sir cyril smith's memoirs, he and sir jimmy savile obe kcsg were good friends


Nah, entirely innocent - they were just fellow marathon runners.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Nah, entirely innocent - they were just fellow marathon runners.


 
Nah, Wilf, they both *did* marathons. Savile ran them, Smith ate them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 29, 2012)

You can see that beast at a KFC sponsored gig like a fly on shit.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 30, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> You can see that beast at a KFC sponsored gig like a fly on shit.


 We come full circle!


----------



## articul8 (Dec 5, 2012)

Stuart Hall (it's a knockout not the other one) arrested on charges of rape and sexual assault apparently


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 5, 2012)

Shit, some things you just don't want to hear, I always really liked Stuart Hall's match summaries on R5! 

Edit : Here's the link to this story  that happiechappie posted in the other thread.


----------



## gosub (Dec 5, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Stuart Hall (it's a knockout not the other one) arrested on charges of rape and sexual assault apparently


Lancashire Police, who haven't named him, have stated that the arrest they have made is not connected to Operation Yewtree


----------



## ymu (Dec 5, 2012)

The number of arrests being made as a result of people coming forward now that they're likely to be believed and treated with some sensitivity is a sorely needed indictment of attitudes to sexual harrassment and assault back then, and the attitude of the police to this day.

I was assaulted by a doctor in Australia when I was 18 (25 years ago). It's bothered me for years that I never reported it. I'm reporting it now because of Savile. No chance of a prosecution let alone a conviction, but if he has other complaints on his file that have not been dealt with, maybe it will help. Scum.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 5, 2012)

ymu said:


> The number of arrests being made as a result of people coming forward now that they're likely to be believed and treated with some sensitivity is a sorely needed indictment of attitudes to sexual harrassment and assault back then, and the attitude of the police to this day.
> .


 
Despite my being shocked by Stuart Hall's arrest, I do fully agree with this point too.


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 6, 2012)

ymu said:


> The number of arrests being made as a result of people coming forward now that they're likely to be believed and treated with some sensitivity is a sorely needed indictment of attitudes to sexual harrassment and assault back then, and the attitude of the police to this day.
> 
> I was assaulted by a doctor in Australia when I was 18 (25 years ago). It's bothered me for years that I never reported it. I'm reporting it now because of Savile. No chance of a prosecution let alone a conviction, but if he has other complaints on his file that have not been dealt with, maybe it will help. Scum.


 
Good for you ymu

You have done exactly the right thing.  It means a lot to other victims / survivors to know that they are not alone and that there is a statement from another victim supporting theirs. 

Many people never report sexual assaults by a doctor / dentist / therapist / some other person in a position of power and authority.  I know from experience how devastating it is to report it and to be told "nobody else has ever complained" as if it invalidates your complaint.   

By the time a victim feels able to report such a crime to the police or health authority the perpetrator is likely to have a long history of abusing patients and I very much doubt that the doctor who assaulted you picked on you alone. 

Thank you for reporting him.  You absolutely 100% did the right thing.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 6, 2012)

Yes, the response to "nobody else has ever complained" is "well you're never going to be able to say that again, are you? Because I'm complaining now. "


----------



## Louloubelle (Dec 6, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Yes, the response to "nobody else has ever complained" is "well you're never going to be able to say that again, are you? Because I'm complaining now. "


 
Exactly what happened to me. 

My statement on file at least meant that when another victim felt able to report the perpetrator she was taken a lot more seriously than I was. 

All we can ever do is to do our best to do the right thing by ourselves and others.  We cannot ensure that a perpetrator is charged or convicted, but we can at least make our voices heard.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 6, 2012)

Guido Fawkes claiming Max Clifford arrested by those investigationg the Saville allegations.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

ITV reporting it as fact.


----------



## yardbird (Dec 6, 2012)

Reported on bbc now.
Max Clifford arrested.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 6, 2012)

About fucking time!


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 6, 2012)

Excellent news. It couldn't happen to a more unpleasant cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 6, 2012)

brilliant news


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 6, 2012)

'Jimmy Savile Police' brings up images of a squad of police in shell suits and funny wigs


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 6, 2012)

Run for the hills, you sleazy bastards.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ITV reporting it as fact.


 


> We are not prepared to discuss further.


 
TRANSITIVE VERB


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 6, 2012)

The BBC ain't muttered a fucking word about it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 6, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> 'Jimmy Savile Police' brings up images of a squad of police in shell suits and funny wigs


Compare and contrast:



> 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello


 


> Now then, now then, now then


I think that says it all.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 6, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The BBC ain't muttered a fucking word about it.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20627765


----------



## happie chappie (Dec 6, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Reported on bbc now.
> Max Clifford arrested.


 
I wonder if his arrest relates to any role he may (or may not) not have allegedly played in the covering up and/or keeping out of the media any alleged activities of his clients.

Or something else.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> I wonder if his arrest relates to any role he may (or may) not have allegedly played in the covering up and/or keeping out of the media any alleged activities of his clients.
> 
> Or something else.


"suspicion of sexual offences"


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 6, 2012)

On BBC News 24 now


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 6, 2012)

On the news now


----------



## elbows (Dec 6, 2012)

I think I will pinch some of Blairs post 9/11 rhetoric.

"This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again.
"Before they do, let us reorder this world around us."


----------



## marty21 (Dec 6, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Reported on bbc now.
> Max Clifford arrested.


 he could take a few other people down - he must know a lot of secrets about stuff


----------



## happie chappie (Dec 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> "suspicion of sexual offences"


 
If true far more damaging. Not a great advert for his media skills. If the spin doctor starts becoming the story . . .


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 6, 2012)

marty21 said:


> he could take a few other people down - he must know a lot of secrets about stuff


 
Maybe they'll all bung him a bit of money to keep quiet.  He has enough rich clients


----------



## elbows (Dec 6, 2012)

The amount of people who must be shitting themselves probably just increased substantially.


----------



## killer b (Dec 6, 2012)

what a cheering development.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 6, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> I wonder if his arrest relates to any role he may (or may not) not have allegedly played in the covering up and/or keeping out of the media any alleged activities of his clients.
> 
> Or something else.


That's what I thought at first, but as butchers points out it's directly related to suspicion of sexual offences.


----------



## yardbird (Dec 6, 2012)

marty21 said:


> he could take a few other people down - he must know a lot of secrets about stuff


There's still a few more people on my little list.


----------



## craigxcraig (Dec 6, 2012)

First time posting here, but one of my colleagues sent this around the office...]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/27/jimmy-savile-scandal-max-clifford


----------



## happie chappie (Dec 6, 2012)

He was, at one time, vehemently anti-Tory and a very prominent Labour supporter. IIRC, he gave them a fair bit of money.


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2012)

marty21 said:


> he could take a few other people down - he must know a lot of secrets about stuff


 

or cover a lot of arses. Same as yesterday he hasn't been charged yet.

End of Mr Clifford either way, jai, though not guilty would still fuck him, if not charged sue the arse off the media, and retire collecting large bonus off unnamed clients for diminishing press cred on story.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2012)

elbows said:


> The amount of people who must be shitting themselves probably just increased substantially.


 
Sales of incontinence supplies for geriatrics have gone through the roof!


----------



## Giles (Dec 6, 2012)

elbows said:


> I think I will pinch some of Blairs post 9/11 rhetoric.
> 
> "This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again.
> "Before they do, let us reorder this world around us."


 
I don't think that the investigation, arrest or even conviction of a bunch of dead or nearly-dead old pervs for alleged long-ago perving is going to re-order the world that much.

Giles..


----------



## laptop (Dec 6, 2012)

marty21 said:


> he could take a few other people down - he must know a lot of secrets about stuff


 
Oh yes.

Oh to be working with the barrister prosecuting him... v entertaining questioning 

Were there, of course, to be a prosecution.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

Why would he bring in anything he knows? Why would he know anything?


----------



## ymu (Dec 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why would he bring in anything he knows? Why would he know anything?


I have a vague recollection of a secretly recorded Max Clifford talking about covering up a client's sexual pecadilloes doing the rounds recently.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

That's him then recording what someone wanting to cover something up has told him. You don't go, _hey maxy i'm a massive paedo i done this and i done that, can you help?_ You talk about minimising potential damage should certain situations arise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2012)

ymu said:


> I have a vague recollection of a secretly recorded Max Clifford talking about covering up a client's sexual pecadilloes doing the rounds recently.


i don't think being a paedophile's a peccadillo. a peccadillo's more something like cross-dressing or spanking or foot fetishing. not raping children, i don't think that counts as a little sin.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

MAX HAS ALL THE FILES!!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> MAX HAS ALL THE FILES!!!!


i think you mean 'the police have all the files'


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

In which his clients pour out their paedo antics to him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In which his clients pour out their paedo antics to him.


for mc's salacious interest?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

Bingo.


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you mean 'the police have all the files'


Coz he got to the top of his game by leaving stuff where people could find it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

gosub said:


> Coz he got to the top of his game by leaving stuff where people could find it.


What files does he have then?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 6, 2012)

In the unlikely event that he's sitting on information of criminality that he's conspired to cover up, how is that going to help him right now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2012)

gosub said:


> Coz he got to the top of his game by leaving stuff where people could find it.


like in his computers you mean.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> In the unlikely event that he's sitting on information of criminality that he's conspired to cover up, how is that going to help him right now?


it'll solve any housing worries he might have


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> In the unlikely event that he's sitting on information of criminality that he's conspired to cover up, how is that going to help him right now?


Haven't you seen the films - the ones where that happens?

_Cut a deal with the DA_


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

_Hello is that max clifford? Hello max, i'm a paedophile. Here is all the info on my paedo stuff._


Really? Right?


----------



## ymu (Dec 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's him then recording what someone wanting to cover something up has told him. You don't go, _hey maxy i'm a massive paedo i done this and i done that, can you help?_ You talk about minimising potential damage should certain situations arise.


Yeah, I can't remember the specifics. I think it was about keeping a story out of the press. I don't think it was Savile himself, but a Savile-esque move to stop something being printed.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _Cut a deal with the DA_


 


That's what professional crooks do. Not PR people who feel their career may be salvageable if they get off.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> That's what professional crooks do. Not PR people who feel their career may be salvageable if they get off.


Exactly.


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> like in his computers you mean.


He's a year younger than my dad who was building computers in his spare time in the 60s, still believes in paper, and his leverage cards  he keeps well offshore. Can't see Mr Clifford being much different


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2012)

gosub said:


> He's a year younger than my dad who was building computers in his spare time in the 60s, still believes in paper, and his leverage cards he keeps well offshore. Can't see Mr Clifford being much different


yes because all auld people are paperphiles.


----------



## elbows (Dec 6, 2012)

http://newsthump.com/2012/12/06/max...-to-represent-max-clifford-over-abuse-claims/

​


> Office worker Simon Williams told us, “I was prepared to give Max Clifford the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that he’s secured the services of Max Clifford looks very suspicious, don’t you think?”​​“Why would any innocent person get Max Clifford to represent them, unless they were only in it for the money?”​​“If I was Max Clifford I’d ditch Max Clifford and distance myself from him really quickly.”​​“No, the other way round.”​


​​ 


> PR executive Joseph Williamton-Smythe explained, “Celebrities involved in sex abuse scandals would normally be encouraged to seek Max Clifford’s services, but I’m not sure it’s the right move for Max Clifford in this case.”
> 
> “There’s the simple guilt by association element, but also why would Max Clifford want to be represented by an alleged sex offender?”


----------



## gosub (Dec 6, 2012)

Given his industry, probably a fair few c90s stashed in bank too,


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 7, 2012)

Giles said:


> I don't think that the investigation, arrest or even conviction of a bunch of dead or nearly-dead old pervs for alleged long-ago perving is going to re-order the world that much.
> 
> Giles..


What makes you think an investigation is "going to reorder the word"? Why say that?


----------



## elbows (Dec 7, 2012)

Possibly because I misused the Tony Blair 9/11 quote about such things yesterday.


----------



## ymu (Dec 7, 2012)

Giles said:


> I don't think that the investigation, arrest or even conviction of a bunch of dead or nearly-dead old pervs for alleged long-ago perving is going to re-order the world that much.
> 
> Giles..


That's because you don't get what it is that is in need of reordering because it does not affect you.

If the only outcome of this is "the investigation, arrest or even conviction of a bunch of dead or nearly-dead old pervs for alleged long-ago perving" then it will be a missed opportunity. If it alters attitudes amongst those who are still promoting disgusting attitudes towards women and towards sexual assault (of both men and women), especially amongst the police who are still shrugging and laughing at people who report sexual assaults whilst filing their reports away uninvestigated, and makes the expression of dodgy attitudes socially unacceptable, then it will have done something to 'reorder the world'.

This isn't just about Savile, it's about the power relations that allow him and his ilk to operate, and societal attitudes which actively encourage men to think of women as being there for their sexual satisfaction and nothing else. I believe elbows was expressing a desire for a broad, rather than narrow, outcome from these revelations and I agree with him.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2012)

Police have arrested a man in his 60's in London.


----------



## yardbird (Dec 10, 2012)

Arrested under the heading "Others".


----------



## 1927 (Dec 10, 2012)

Having just learnt the name of the latest arrest our childhood's really are being arrested in front of our eyes, there wont be anyone left soon!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2012)

1927 said:


> Having just learnt the name of the latest arrest our childhood's really are being arrested in front of our eyes, there wont be anyone left soon!


so who is it then?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 10, 2012)

Twitter's bloody useless for finding out! Well, or I'm bloody useless at using it...


----------



## yardbird (Dec 10, 2012)

Another man in his 60s arrested in London 
BBC breaking.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 10, 2012)

yardbird said:
			
		

> Another man in his 60s arrested in London
> BBC breaking.



As per a few posts up?


----------



## 1927 (Dec 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so who is it then?


 
Im sure Ed wouldnt be happy of I did that. Its Christmas!


----------



## 1927 (Dec 10, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Twitter's bloody useless for finding out! Well, or I'm bloody useless at using it...


 
Guess you have to know who it is first so you can confirm it on twitter.lol


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2012)

1927 said:


> Having just learnt the name of the latest arrest our childhood's really are being arrested in front of our eyes, there wont be anyone left soon!


Aye. Grace Dent nailed it with this article, right back at the start of all this:



> The Jimmy Savile abuse scandal means men across Britain will sleep uneasily, remembering past 'conquests'
> 
> _Instead of faux-outrage and arse-covering about history, I’d be happier to hear strident plans to protect and listen to young women in the future. More of that, please_
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 10, 2012)

1927 said:


> Im sure Ed wouldnt be happy of I did that. Its Christmas!


Nawty!

ETA

"if" not "of"


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Nawty!


Nawtier!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 10, 2012)

who is it who has been wrongfully arrested and is no doubt innocent?


----------



## 1927 (Dec 10, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> who is it who has been wrongfully arrested and is no doubt innocent?


 
like Savile you mean!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 10, 2012)

Oh dear...him as well..is there anyone left who isnt a nonce ?

might as well arrrest everyone who was around the '70s and get this over with


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 10, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> Oh dear...him as well..is there anyone left who isnt a nonce ?


 
These people hopefully.

e2a: apart from John Peel

And Patrick Moore was obviously a wrong un.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 10, 2012)

who is it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2012)

tanother allged beast? names people, names. pm if need be


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2012)

1927 said:


> Im sure Ed wouldnt be happy of I did that. Its Christmas!


So pm me


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 10, 2012)

the name is trending pretty heavily alongside 'Yewtree' on Twitter, assuming it's correct and not mischief.


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> the name is trending pretty heavily alongside 'Yewtree' on Twitter, assuming it's correct and not mischief.


 
It doesnt seem to take much at all to make things trend or show up as related search terms. And I havent seen any credible tweets that would give credence to that possibility, not yet anyway. Another name seems to have joined the search results recently though.

A lot of the actual tweets are along the lines of 'I hope its [insert name here]'


----------



## Yetman (Dec 10, 2012)

elbows said:


> It doesnt seem to take much at all to make things trend or show up as related search terms. And I havent seen any credible tweets that would give credence to that possibility, not yet anyway. Another name seems to have joined the search results recently though.
> 
> A lot of the actual tweets are along the lines of 'I hope its [insert name here]'


 
I'm pretty sure it's not him.
1927's post is more of a clue


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

Ah yes, that is the other name that I was referring to. How are people finding out about this in real life as opposed to on the net? Whispers in media circles? Or is it all still just net gossip and speculation really? I guess we will find out?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 10, 2012)

going to be the case soon where if someone _isn't_ a nonce at the bbc it'll make front page news and cause a media shit storm.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 10, 2012)

*raises eyebrow*


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2012)

Time for a festive reminder: 
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...threads-and-naming-living-individuals.300541/


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2012)

Someone on Twiter has described it as being like a 'celebrity nonce advent calendar'.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2012)

> BREAKING NEWS++: Operation Yewtree police arrest the entire 1970s


----------



## cesare (Dec 10, 2012)

editor said:


> Someone on Twiter has described it as being like a 'celebrity nonce advent calendar'.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2012)

One person mentioned was seen shopping at the same time he was being arrested, the other doesn't live anywhere near London.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

Nonce Bingo is a good one as well

Most DJs from the 70s were listed the other day


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2012)

editor said:


> Someone on Twiter has described it as being like a 'celebrity nonce advent calendar'.


 

presumably that means on the 25th they'll be nicking 3 elderly persian magicians


----------



## two sheds (Dec 10, 2012)

2 french hens


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> presumably that means on the 25th they'll be nicking 3 elderly persian magicians


 
They'll be nicking Santa then


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 10, 2012)

*borrowed*

The police current strategy is arresting every presenter featured  in the christmas edition of the radio times in 1984


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> bad Ax


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 10, 2012)




----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> naughty Ax


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

> *Fiona Hamilton* ‏@*Fhamiltontimes*
> Yewtree arrest has been bailed: Scotland Yard


----------



## Firky (Dec 10, 2012)

[  snip  ]


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

Did you expect anything other than bail?


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Did you expect anything other than bail?


 
No, but I was sort of expecting a name by now.


----------



## Firky (Dec 10, 2012)

Never have to hear "<ed: no.>


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

How come you still dont get the rules firky?


----------



## Firky (Dec 10, 2012)

I bet autograph collectors hate Operation Yewtree.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2012)

[snip]


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

elbows said:


> No, but I was sort of expecting a name by now.


 
Well that person who draws was never mentioned by name either


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> [snip]


 
*shakes fist at sky*


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well that person who draws was never mentioned by name either


rofl


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 10, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well that person who draws was never mentioned by name either



.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> Tony Hart


Rofl


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 10, 2012)

_post deleted by FridgeMagnet_


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> deleted


 

You really should take that name down

and I really should stop quoting names


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well that person....was never mentioned by name either


 
I thought that had already been explained here, or at least potentially explained, as being due to them not being arrested but rather questioned under caution.

Anyway now I think about it some of the other names did take a little while to come out compared to others.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

elbows said:


> I thought that had already been explained here, or at least potentially explained, as being due to them not being arrested but rather questioned under caution.
> 
> Anyway now I think about it some of the other names did take a little while to come out compared to others.


 
oh right, I dunno, haven't really kept up with the ins and outs


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> oh right, I dunno, haven't really kept up with the ins and outs


 
I'm not sure it matters, the public discourse (as opposed to legal proceedings) jumped the shark ages ago anyway. I'm still amazed nobody really had more to say about the Jimmy Savile this is your life episode that eventually got posted to youtube.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 10, 2012)

firky said:


> .


doesn't live in london.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2012)

Just in case some people are having trouble understanding the law here, you don't have to actually _name_ the person for your post to be potentially libellous. If people can work out who it is, then that's enough.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 10, 2012)

editor said:


> Just in case some people are having trouble understanding the law here, you don't have to actually _name_ the person for your post to be potentially libellous. If people can work out who it is, then that's enough.


if someone hints at a name, which isn't the person involved, are you allowed to refute it?

serious question.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2012)

discokermit said:


> if someone hints at a name, which isn't the person involved, are you allowed to refute it?
> 
> serious question.


Best bet is to just report it because we'll be along soon to delete the post.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2012)

I heard a long time ago that **** ****** from someone who worked for the Daily Mirror. If that's who it is.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2012)

Report in the mirror said 25 well known celebs have been named by people to police, with some being named several times. However many people reporting them have declined to press charges leaving cops with few options outside questioning people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I heard a long time ago that **** ****** from someone who worked for the Daily Mirror. If that's who it is.


if we're playing hangman, i'll try my luck with an e.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2012)

If you went for mdma instead you'd have been in luck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> If you went for mdma instead you'd have been in luck.


very droll


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> very droll



Three of them letters are right!!!


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Report in the mirror said 25 well known celebs have been named by people to police, with some being named several times.


 
That makes the advent calendar jokes an even better fit.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

Oh, a new name is appearing now


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 10, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Oh, a new name is appearing now


where? twitter?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 10, 2012)

is there a hashtag?


----------



## laptop (Dec 10, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Report in the mirror said 25 well known celebs have been named by people to police, with some being named several times. However many people reporting them have declined to press charges leaving cops with few options outside questioning people.


 
From that story:



> Another TV star — in his 80s — has also been questioned but cannot be named.


 
There's an injunction.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> where? twitter?


 
Yes, but not sure how the source of the story knows so could be nonsense


----------



## laptop (Dec 10, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yes, but not sure how the source of the story knows so could be nonsense


 
_Could_ be very expensive nonsense since it leads to a website which, though anonymously registered, is easily traceable to a host in San Francisco...


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 10, 2012)

Some dirt being dished up now.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 10, 2012)

what's the twitter search words? tried bbc arrest and got nowt


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 10, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> Some dirt being dished up now.


 
Can't see anything except the name


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

I expect thats supposed to be a dodgy clue.


----------



## framed (Dec 10, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I heard a long time ago that **** ****** from someone who worked for the Daily Mirror. If that's who it is.


 
That's him! I'd recognise that starry named bastard anywhere!

Er, who is it?


----------



## elbows (Dec 10, 2012)

The twitter rumour:fact ratio is increasingly absurd. If I were a famous person these days I'd be begging the press to swiftly name every arrested star to avoid having a bunch of false names speculated over for hours on end.


----------



## Yetman (Dec 10, 2012)

There's elsewhere naming the dirty bastard now. Even if he's innocent of this he's still a dirty bastard - his reputation's already been dented


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 11, 2012)

Yetman said:


> There's elsewhere naming the dirty bastard now. Even if he's innocent of this he's still a dirty bastard - his reputation's already been dented


 
Where elsewhere?


----------



## Yetman (Dec 11, 2012)

Don't think I'm allowed to tell you Spanks :/


----------



## 1927 (Dec 11, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Where elsewhere?


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2012)

Ah c'mon. Cryptic clues are already in breach of libel law - pointing out that it is a clue is definitely not on. If you want to face a libel case, go for it - just don't get urban involved on the way.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2012)

ymu said:


> Ah c'mon. Cryptic clues are already in breach of libel law - pointing out that it is a clue is definitely not on. If you want to face a libel case, go for it - just don't get urban involved on the way.


Indeed. If folks want to play '_accuse the celebrity of being a nonce based on something your read online'_ please do so on your own site/Twitter feed/Facebook account.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 11, 2012)

fair enough sorry


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 12, 2012)

FFS  




> Cyril Smith may have been a monster. But until we have reliable evidence we must not rush to judgment Can I ask you a question? How do you know, really know, that Jimmy Savile is guilty of child abuse? The truth, let’s face it, is that you don’t. You are like me. You’ve perhaps heard one or two TV interviews with victims. You’ve read the odd article including some fairly damning quotes. You’ve gathered that there is a police investigation and that, as a result, a number of famous people have been arrested, although oddly always in connection with allegations that have nothing to do with Savile.
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/danielfinkelstein/article3628206.ece


----------



## gosub (Dec 12, 2012)

Not giving Murdoch his £ so can't comment fully. There is definitly a case for that type of article since the McAlpine fuckuphas been followed by reporting arrests before charged which is a recipe for further disaster, and trial by twitter seems a 21century hell, but not sure I'd have written it quite like that.

He is right don't rely on the media, its down to the courts. But he's an associate Editor at the Times ffs rather than epistomological musings try calling for media responsibility


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> FFS


 
Does make one wonder why Danny Finkelstein, the piss-scented little Tory wanker, would take that tack.  Couldn't be because he's worried about the whole issue of presumption of guilt, because Tories are so often guilty of something shitty, could it?


----------



## yardbird (Dec 12, 2012)

Glitter has been bailed again until February


----------



## elbows (Dec 17, 2012)

Oh great now we've moved to a 'drop hints about people before they are questioned' phase. I havent checked other media to see if these details are repeated elsewhere.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-sex-abuse-scandal-1491904




> A world-famous pop star is being investigated over alleged sex offences after his name was passed to police working on the Jimmy Savile case.
> The platinum-selling artist, a household name, is one of 25 figures facing probes under Operation Yewtree, which began after the Savile scandal broke earlier this year.
> Police are also expected to arrest a film director in the next few weeks.
> The name of the pop star was first handed to police in 2008 when a convicted sex offender claimed he was part of a paedophile ring with Savile.
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 17, 2012)

elbows said:


> Oh great now we've moved to a 'drop hints about people before they are questioned' phase. I havent checked other media to see if these details are repeated elsewhere.
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-sex-abuse-scandal-1491904


It's Internet Hangman - fun for all the family.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 19, 2012)

@*SkyNewsBreak*
Met Police says a man in his 70s has been arrested on suspicion of sexual offences as part of inquiry into abuse by Jimmy Savile and others


----------



## Ranbay (Dec 19, 2012)

In the early eighties Jimmy Savile and his Radio 1 show producer Ted Beston would regularly share a room.


http://www.hidden-shallows.co.uk/2012/10/23/legends-of-childrens-broadcasting/


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 19, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> In the early eighties Jimmy Savile and his Radio 1 show producer Ted Beston would regularly share a room.
> 
> 
> http://www.hidden-shallows.co.uk/2012/10/23/legends-of-childrens-broadcasting/


 
Well Ted Beston's been arrested now

When are they going to bring in some politicians eh?


----------



## Ranbay (Dec 19, 2012)

yeah i know, i was doing it on the sly... for some reason.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 19, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> yeah i know, i was doing it on the sly... for some reason.


 
oh


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> Oh great now we've moved to a 'drop hints about people before they are questioned' phase. I havent checked other media to see if these details are repeated elsewhere.
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-sex-abuse-scandal-1491904


If this is who I've just been told it is ("on the radio news", apparently) this is pretty big


----------



## elbows (Dec 19, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> If this is who I've just been told it is ("on the radio news", apparently) this is pretty big


 
Do you think its at all likely a name would be mentioned on the radio unless they had been nicked?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> Do you think its at all likely a name would be mentioned on the radio unless they had been nicked?


Well I thought it was odd, aye, and haven't been able to find anything online (  !!!), but "on the radio" is what they said, thought the station was Gold.


----------



## laptop (Dec 19, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> If this is who I've just been told it is ("on the radio news", apparently)...


 
Radio Moscow, just after the daily UFO report?


----------



## elbows (Dec 19, 2012)

Andrew Neil got his lengthy 1995 interview with Savile onto youtube. I havent watched more than half of it yet but it looks like Neil does quickly get into areas that were 'difficult' for Jimmy and as usual many of the answers were bad enough at the time, let alone with what we know now. Some of his 'old friends' appear on the screen and say things about Savile that were rather personal to say the least.

"Women know too much. I'm all for girls that dont know too much. Different class, see."

Then compares himself to Jesus, then says he's never been a grass, wont grass on the ladies. Then eats a banana, gets all defensive, talks a load of shit about sex and falling in love multiple times a day. Really uncomfortable viewing.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 19, 2012)

so this Ted fella has been arrested.  who's the platinum selling popstar?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 19, 2012)

el-ahrairah said:


> so this Ted fella has been arrested. who's the platinum selling popstar?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2012)

laptop said:


> Radio Moscow, just after the daily UFO report?


 
But before the numbers broadcast. Yep, that's the one.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 19, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> If this is who I've just been told it is ("on the radio news", apparently) this is pretty big


 
Are you talking about the Lost Prophets one or Jimmy Savile producer or someone else?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 19, 2012)

Someone else.

Though I'm _very _suspicious of my source now


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 19, 2012)

two sheds said:


>


 
you could have just pmed me


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 19, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Someone else.
> 
> Though I'm _very _suspicious of my source now


 
You're not believing everything you read on Twatter are you?


----------



## youngian (Dec 19, 2012)

elbows said:


> Andrew Neil got his lengthy 1995 interview with Savile onto youtube. I havent watched more than half of it yet but it looks like Neil does quickly get into areas that were 'difficult' for Jimmy and as usual many of the answers were bad enough at the time, let alone with what we know now. Some of his 'old friends' appear on the screen and say things about Savile that were rather personal to say the least.
> 
> "Women know too much. I'm all for girls that dont know too much. Different class, see."
> 
> Then compares himself to Jesus, then says he's never been a grass, wont grass on the ladies. Then eats a banana, gets all defensive, talks a load of shit about sex and falling in love multiple times a day. Really uncomfortable viewing.


 
Slippery customer, but Neil looks like he's got the size of him.

Andrew Neil's history as a Murdoch hatchett man clouded my opinion of him but he's a canny interviewer even back then.


----------



## mrs quoad (Dec 19, 2012)

elbows said:


>



At 34:30 his priest says he believes in a real, physical afterlife where he will be genuinely, physically reincorporated. As will everyone else.

Good luck with that!


----------



## elbows (Dec 24, 2012)

Sounds like Paul Daniels found several ways to put his foot in it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...elittling-Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-victims.html


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 25, 2012)

Here is a picture of Paul Daniels.   Seems fine to me.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...f-scare-after-kissing-schoolgirl-8430922.html


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 25, 2012)

Paul Daniels had groupies ????


----------



## laptop (Dec 25, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> Paul Daniels had groupies ????


 
Nothing was illegal because they were imaginary?


----------



## elbows (Dec 27, 2012)

I can only read the start of this but anyways...



> The beginning of a friendship between Margaret Thatcher and Jimmy Savile is recorded in a florid letter written by the disc jockey and signed with three kisses.
> The entertainer, who since his death last year has been accused of being a serial child abuser, wrote to the Prime Minister after they met at Downing Street in February 1980.


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3641889.ece

Great photo too.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 28, 2012)

elbows said:


> I can only read the start of this but anyways...
> 
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3641889.ece
> ...


Covered by the torygraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Margaret-Thatcher-in-handwritten-letter.html


----------



## elbows (Dec 28, 2012)

Ta. I've just been reading the documents from the national archive site.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/prem-19-878-1.pdf

Some redactions here and there. 

Details not covered by that article include:

"Success in this appeal will contribute to an understanding of our policy of involving the public in supporting the health care system."

Dr Vaughan favoured a symbolic gesture rather than NHS money, such as donating the first brick!


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> Ta. I've just been reading the documents from the national archive site.
> 
> http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/prem-19-878-1.pdf


 
Extremely hard to read the documents in that link ...


----------



## elbows (Dec 29, 2012)

In what way? I had trouble with the handwriting in the first few but the rest are very readable, though not all that interesting.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 29, 2012)

Maybe it's just my eyesight 
I'm not the best at reading really tinily formatted documents online. Will try again though.

ETA : Nah, simply too small, most of it


----------



## ymu (Dec 29, 2012)

It's a .pdf. Zoom in.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 29, 2012)

Has Jimmy Savile been convicted of anything yet?


----------



## ymu (Dec 29, 2012)

Since when did dead people get put on trial?


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 29, 2012)

ymu said:


> It's a .pdf. Zoom in.


 
  Not used to pdfs (generally I don't like them). Ta


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Has Jimmy Savile been convicted of anything yet?


 
What's your point, caller?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Has Jimmy Savile been convicted of anything yet?


Bet you're one of them


----------



## existentialist (Dec 30, 2012)

gunneradt said:
			
		

> Has Jimmy Savile been convicted of anything yet?



Stop being an idiot, eh?


----------



## Corax (Dec 30, 2012)

Ian Bone's post been reported on here yet?

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/1...hone-calls-hurriedly-deleted-on-october-11th/



> I can reveal that phone call transcripts and letters between Thatcher and Saville were hastily deleted on October 11h this year – eight days after the abuse allegatons became public.They were due to be made public this week under the 30 year rule. So who took the decisin to do this and why?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 30, 2012)

Corax said:


> Ian Bone's post been reported on here yet?
> 
> http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/1...hone-calls-hurriedly-deleted-on-october-11th/


A shame that Bone offered no link. I couldn't find anything else out there regarding this story...wonder where he got it from?


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 30, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> Has Jimmy Savile been convicted of anything yet?


Neither Hitler nor Fred West were ever convicted of anything,going by your logic that mean they're innocent then


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2012)

brogdale said:


> A shame that Bone offered no link. I couldn't find anything else out there regarding this story...wonder where he got it from?


 
Here i expect. And as noted in that article, explanatory notes in the released files openly say it.


----------



## Wookey (Dec 30, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> Neither Hitler nor Fred West were ever convicted of anything,going by your logic that mean they're innocent then



Technically speaking, they were both convicted of crimes, Hitler of being a dutty peedo, and Fred West for organising the failed Beer Hall Putsch in Bavaria, which lead to his imprisonment and the writing of Mein Kampf, his famous outdoor pursuits guide.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Here i expect. And as noted in that article, explanatory notes in the released files openly say it.


 
Oh yes, thanks for the link. I suppose that's where Ian got it from.
So they've redacted on the basis of "_..an obligation to withhold personal information and information given in confidence_."

How convenient.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 2, 2013)

so anyone know who got nicked today in scotland then?


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 2, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> so anyone know who got nicked today in scotland then?


----------



## elbows (Jan 2, 2013)

Scotland Yard investigation, not arrested in Scotland. Unless there is another arrest story that I've missed.

Aged in their 50's that rules out quite a lot of people, though that hasnt stopped twitter speculation including names that dont match the ages.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 2, 2013)

where did i get scotland from?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 2, 2013)

wait, scotland yard.  damn skim reading.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 2, 2013)

elbows said:


> Scotland Yard investigation, not arrested in Scotland. Unless there is another arrest story that I've missed.
> 
> Aged in their 50's that rules out quite a lot of people, though that hasnt stopped twitter speculation including names that dont match the ages.


 
Not related to the Jimmy Savile line of enquiry. The name i have read seems fairly well nailed on and will send the board into meltdown  lol

go see order-order for the name if you like.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 2, 2013)

Nick Nick!


----------



## peterkro (Jan 2, 2013)

Popbitch.


----------



## Firky (Jan 2, 2013)

According to this website a TV presenter and stand up comic has been arrested in connection with Operation Yewtree but I can't find anything to confirm this. Google tells me two men were arrested today as part of OY but no details are given.



> UPDATE: Confirmed: XXXX XXXX was arrested this afternoon at a West London police station.


 
Anyone heard anything?

(Apologises if this has already been posted - wasn't sure where to put it)


----------



## peterkro (Jan 2, 2013)

Popbitch picked it up from the horrible Fawkes blog.No doubt about who it is.
(actual after clicking your link I see you know who it is)


----------



## Firky (Jan 2, 2013)

Aye, not about to post their name.

I got sent that blog via Kik a few minutes ago, I haven't seen it before or heard of it. Maybe it's bullshit to promote their site?

Looking at their twitter feed it looks like hte kind of thing Jazzz would bookmark :s


----------



## ymu (Jan 2, 2013)

It's not on any mainstream sites yet, and the TV news did not name him 5 minutes ago. Dunno where that leaves the legals.

Having said that, it is so obvious my partner just said "thought he already had been arrested "


----------



## Firky (Jan 2, 2013)

I don't think I could handle more puns and shit jokes.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 2, 2013)

up the elephant without a paddle


----------



## laptop (Jan 2, 2013)

Well, www.thesun.co.uk has gone with that name.

Not repeating it _yet_: by the pricking in my thumbs there are writs flying


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 2, 2013)

laptop said:


> Well, www.thesun.co.uk has gone with that name.
> 
> Not repeating it _yet_: by the pricking in my thumbs there are writs flying


 
So has the Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/comedian-jim-davidson-arrested-by-police-1515145


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 2, 2013)

fuck me!


----------



## Firky (Jan 2, 2013)

Even if he's innocent that's his career fucked.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 2, 2013)

sorry to be partisan about this but the haul does seem to be mainly right wing twat of a certain age

/dot


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 2, 2013)

> Jim Davidson is trending. Can I remind you all that libel laws apply to twitter accounts...be careful when accusing him of being a comedian


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

Well Mark Williams Thomas has confirmed

So any idea who the other one is?    PM obviously


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 2, 2013)

entertaining the troupes


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> entertaining the troupes


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 2, 2013)

Soldiers


----------



## Firky (Jan 2, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> entertaining the troupes


From one gobshite to another... Shaddap


----------



## ymu (Jan 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Even if he's innocent that's his career fucked.


 
About bloody time.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 2, 2013)

so the other person is a tv presenter born 1959 and lives in Surrey Hampshire.


----------



## clicker (Jan 2, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


>


 chalky


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 2, 2013)

firky said:


> Even if he's innocent that's his career fucked.


Such a shame


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

clicker said:


> chalky


----------



## peterkro (Jan 2, 2013)

It ain't half hot mum.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 2, 2013)

Couldn't happen to a nicer racist....


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 2, 2013)

I can't stop laughing. 2013 will have to have some truly spectacular news to top this


----------



## Gingerman (Jan 2, 2013)

Is he being interviewed in the Nick-Nick ?


----------



## fogbat (Jan 2, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well Mark Williams Thomas has confirmed
> 
> So any idea who the other one is?  PM obviously


It's remarkable the way this shameless self-promoting ex-copper media prick has become the official Paedofinder General 

(Mark Williams-Thomas, I mean. Not Minnie)


----------



## madamv (Jan 2, 2013)

Bleurgh   Never liked him either...  

Now, who else have I never liked


----------



## clicker (Jan 2, 2013)

I'd imagine brian Dowlings wine will taste extra smooth tonight....this will only make sense to fellow saddo celebrity BB watchers


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

fogbat said:


> It's remarkable the way this shameless self-promoting ex-copper media prick has become the official Paedofinder General
> 
> (Mark Williams-Thomas, I mean. Not Minnie)


 
Yeah, he seems to be everywhere, but as an ex-copper, he's obviously to be believed and if he says the name, then everyone can say it 

Glad you meant him and not me


----------



## savoloysam (Jan 2, 2013)

More than just a racist cunt.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 2, 2013)

I can proudly say my current squeeze turned that nasty cunt down when she was 18. #so proud#


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

Ponyutd said:


> I can proudly say my current squeeze turned that nasty cunt down when she was 18. #so proud#


 
How old was he at the time?


----------



## peterkro (Jan 2, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> How old was he at the time?


To be brutally honest you'd need to be in a coma not to turn down "nick nick".


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 2, 2013)

Or at least how old did he think she was at the time ?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> Or at least how old did he think she was at the time ?


 
Well I was playing it safe and decided to avoid that question


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 2, 2013)

She was 18. In a club in Hertfordshire.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

Ponyutd said:


> She was 18. In a club in Hertfordshire.


 
We already know she was 18 

Oh, and I assume if she was in a club, she MUST have been 18 so was therefore legal to Jim Davidson


----------



## ymu (Jan 2, 2013)

Yeah but was _he_ 19 or 49 at the time?

ie how long ago, please?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yeah but was _he_ 19 or 49 at the time?
> 
> ie how long ago, please?


 

Well considering how old PonyUtd is (have you seen how old his coins are?  ), I reckon it was ages ago


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 2, 2013)

I don't doubt she was 18 , but I reckon he thought she didn't look her age....


I'd better stop now


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:


> I don't doubt she was 18 , but I reckon he thought she didn't look her age....
> 
> 
> I'd better stop now


 
Yep, he's not been charged yet, but we can still accuse him of being a shit comedian


----------



## clicker (Jan 2, 2013)

Was it a 'School Disco' night?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 2, 2013)

Guilty as charged


----------



## Mungy (Jan 2, 2013)

alleged comedian


----------



## 1927 (Jan 2, 2013)

clicker said:


> I'd imagine brian Dowlings wine will taste extra smooth tonight....this will only make sense to fellow saddo celebrity BB watchers


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 2, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well Mark Williams Thomas has confirmed
> 
> So any idea who the other one is?  PM obviously


Only info is that it is a 53 year old ,but i am sure we will find out soon


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> Only info is that it is a 53 year old ,but i am sure we will find out soon


 
There's rumours going about on Twitter, but I've not heard of the guy


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 2, 2013)

Nicked nicked. It's in the past tense, just like his career.


----------



## clicker (Jan 2, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> There's rumours going about on Twitter, but I've not heard of the guy


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

clicker said:


>


 
They're hours old and just speculation, and there's not many of them.  I think someone on the Guido Fawkes website just guessed and someone's tweeted it.  No confirmation yet, so best ignored for now


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> sorry to be partisan about this but the haul does seem to be mainly right wing twat of a certain age
> 
> /dot


 
I was going to suggest Bernard Manning might be arrested next, but then I found out he's dead, which is cool because I can mention his name


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 2, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yeah but was _he_ 19 or 49 at the time?
> 
> ie how long ago, please?


She was a few years younger than him. Not a lot in it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> I was going to suggest Bernard Manning might be arrested next, but then I found out he's dead, which is cool because I can mention his name


 


Never liked him

I'm sure he was lovely in real life though


----------



## clicker (Jan 2, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> They're hours old and just speculation, and there's not many of them. I think someone on the Guido Fawkes website just guessed and someone's tweeted it. No confirmation yet, so best ignored for now


I tried searching on twitter but dont really understand it  and have probably linked myself to every iffy paedo group going


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

clicker said:


> I tried searching on twitter but dont really understand it and have probably linked myself to every iffy paedo group going


 
*poster clicker from U75 Website arrested as part of Operation Yewtree*


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 2, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> I was going to suggest Bernard Manning might be arrested next, but then I found out he's dead, which is cool because I can mention his name


 
Bernard Manning was a good guy, no way was he a paedo. In fact, I think it's time that, in a similar manner to Benny Hill, Bernard Manning's career underwent a critical re-appraisal and he be allowed to take up his rightful place alongside the comedy greats of yesteryear.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Bernard Manning was a good guy, no way was he a paedo. In fact, I think it's time that, in a similar manner to Benny Hill, Bernard Manning's career underwent a critical re-appraisal and he be allowed to take up his rightful place alongside the comedy greats of yesteryear.


 
Benny Hill was absolutely crap.  Couldn't stand watching him, and can't believe his show is stilll being shown abroad to people that still think he's funny


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 2, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Benny Hill was absolutely crap. Couldn't stand watching him, and can't believe his show is stilll being shown abroad to people that still think he's funny


 
He was, but after his death he was kinda rehabilitated - I reckon Manning is far more deserving of a similar rehabilitation.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> He was, but after his death he was kinda rehabilitated - I reckon Manning is far more deserving of a similar rehabilitation.


 
He should stay where he is


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 2, 2013)

Jim Davidson.

I am Jack's lack of surprise.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Jim Davidson.
> 
> I am Jack's lack of surprise.


 
huh?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 2, 2013)

This will not help.


----------



## madamv (Jan 2, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Bernard Manning was a good guy, no way was he a paedo. In fact, I think it's time that, in a similar manner to Benny Hill, Bernard Manning's career underwent a critical re-appraisal and he be allowed to take up his rightful place alongside the comedy greats of yesteryear.


I read that a few times thinking 'wtf'   then realised I was thinking Bernard Matthews     hahahahahhaahah bootiful


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

madamv said:


> I read that a few times thinking 'wtf' then realised I was thinking Bernard Matthews hahahahahhaahah bootiful


I read a it a few times. Then realised he was serious. What pathetic levels have we sunk to if someone has an accent that it makes them on our side?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

madamv said:


> I read that a few times thinking 'wtf' then realised I was thinking Bernard Matthews hahahahahhaahah bootiful


 
Didn't like him either


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 2, 2013)

The name on Twitter certainly fits with the DOB given by the police.

edit: and he used to work with Jim Davidson according to his wiki.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> The name on Twitter certainly fits with the DOB given by the police.


 
I've not even heard of him and googled his image and don't recognise him either.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 2, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've not even heard of him and googled his image and don't recognise him either.


 
Yeah, lot's of things you'd know from him being involved with but not widely known i would guess.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 2, 2013)

for those curious george's wanting to know, type Jim Davidson into twitter search and this guy's name appears in the related searches list at the top of the page.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 2, 2013)

After following your advice I could only assume that a US basketball team called Duke were all paedos. However a refresh lead me to the suspect,not unknown by any means.
And another fucking Tory to boot.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

peterkro said:


> After following your advice I could only assume that a US basketball team called Duke were all paedos.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 2, 2013)

peterkro said:


> After following your advice I could only assume that a US basketball team called Duke were all paedos. However a refresh lead me to the suspect,not unknown by any means.


 
One name is certainly well known, but from the report in the Telegraph i think you can rule the ex DJ/TV presenter out as as far as im aware he's not worked with Jim Davidson as per the guy's wiki page says he has.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 2, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> One name is certainly well known, but from the report in the Telegraph i think you can rule the ex DJ/T presenter out.


 
Not sure what The Telegraph says but I'm sure I saw mention of Hampshire and that's where he's from/lives apparently


----------



## madamv (Jan 3, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> for those curious george's wanting to know, type Jim Davidson into twitter search and this guy's name appears in the related searches list at the top of the page.


I need a different hint as it doesn't on my phone...


----------



## laptop (Jan 3, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> for those curious george's wanting to know, type Jim Davidson into twitter search and this guy's name appears in the related searches list at the top of the page.


 
Who the fuck that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

firky said:


> Even if he's innocent that's his career fucked.



Being a serial wifebeater and adulterer didn't fuck his career.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

madamv said:


> I read that a few times thinking 'wtf'   then realised I was thinking Bernard Matthews     hahahahahhaahah bootiful


"Bootiful" wasn't the first word a lot of people in east Anglia thought of when the old cunt was mentioned. "Miserly" or "union-hating would be more apposite.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Bootiful" wasn't the first word a lot of people in east Anglia thought of when the old cunt was mentioned. "Miserly" or "union-hating would be more apposite.


 
My first thought on seeing his food was "looks disgusting".  This was confirmed many years later when I actually tried it


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Being a serial wifebeater and adulterer didn't fuck his career.


 
and he's not homophobic so he shouldn't be judged on those rumours either


----------



## clicker (Jan 3, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> for those curious george's wanting to know, type Jim Davidson into twitter search and this guy's name appears in the related searches list at the top of the page.


I'n doing something wrong....cos I got Voldemort????????????


----------



## Favelado (Jan 3, 2013)

These Yewtree police are nicking exactly who I'd go for if I was a copper and just decided to arrest everyone I hated. It's wonderful.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

Favelado said:


> These Yewtree police are nicking exactly who I'd go for if I was a copper and just decided to arrest everyone I hated. It's wonderful.


 

You can't go arresting someone just because you hate them


----------



## Favelado (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You can't go arresting someone just because you hate them


 
Have you ever met a copper?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Have you ever met a copper?


 
A copper bashed my head on a tube train once


----------



## Favelado (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> A copper bashed my head on a tube train once


 
Well now I look stupid. Worse than that, a copper bashed your head on a tube train once. I'm sorry.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Well now I look stupid. Worse than that, a copper bashed your head on a tube train once. I'm sorry.


 
It's alright, it was over 30 years ago.  The bruise on my head's gone now


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I read a it a few times. Then realised he was serious. What pathetic levels have we sunk to if someone has an accent that it makes them on our side?


 
Nobody's on anyone's side. And I don't give a fuck about Bernard Manning's accent. I still think he was an ok guy though.


----------



## savoloysam (Jan 3, 2013)

Isn't great how all these old school, grey, bland and by today's standards almost laughable celebrities keep getting arrested. Is that really as far as it all goes? Talk about smoke and mirrors.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 3, 2013)

Favelado said:


> These Yewtree police are nicking exactly who I'd go for if I was a copper and just decided to arrest everyone I hated. It's wonderful.


 
The entıre 70s nudge-nudge wınk-wınk sexual ınneundo culture ıs beıng exposed for the perverted weırdness ıt always secretly was. Or not so secretly, really, ıf you look at how people lıke Savıle, Starr, Davıdson et al were actıng quıte openly ın publıc--even _on TV--_at the tıme...


----------



## elbows (Jan 3, 2013)

savoloysam said:


> Isn't great how all these old school, grey, bland and by today's standards almost laughable celebrities keep getting arrested. Is that really as far as it all goes? Talk about smoke and mirrors.


 
There are three separate police investigations, Savile & others (Yewtree), North Wales care home (Pallial) and the political stuff that Tom Watson mentioned (Fairbank). All of them are complicated by the amount of time that has passed and the failures of previous investigations. In several ways the one looking at celebrities may be the easiest to proceed quickly with, in part because the abusers were indiscreet or because of the number of victims, the feeling that the shield is really down for these characters, the attention its got in the press encouraging others to come forwards, etc.

There are other investigations too, eg Cyril Smith and probably some other care homes, boarding schools, etc.

There have been complications, such as the McAlpine fiasco, and some degree of skepticism as to whether all cases are being pursued with equal vigour and disregard for political fallout are understandable, but it is also easy for people to get carried away with this. I will try to reserve judgement until we see whether any of these other investigations get any results, Suspicions and the desire for high-profile political scalps, combined with the very real potential for abuse that concentrated power offers, along with the fact that some of the characters are dead and some evidence will be a real problem, will make it hard for even an effective and thorough prosecution of the abuses to satisfy some appetites.

So too the 'cultural' complications make the picture murkier. If the celebrity side of the picture is complicated by dodgy social attitudes of the time towards women and girls of a certain age, as well as groupie phenomenon, the care home & political aspects are sometimes complicated by the age of homosexual consent back in the day, rent boy phenomenon, and the Tory party of the 1980's having 'one of the largest closets in Europe'.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Bootiful" wasn't the first word a lot of people in east Anglia thought of when the old cunt was mentioned. "Miserly" or "union-hating would be more apposite.


 
One of the most bizarre "offered" items in my local freecycle group was a lifesize portrait in oils of Bernard Matthews.  Apparently it went very quickly but I was hoping that it was, er, put to good use


----------



## Giles (Jan 3, 2013)

I will be surprised if many actual charges are brought, let alone proved, over most of these allegations from 20 - 30 years back.

It's surely going to come down to one person's word against another's, over events that allegedly took place half a lifetime ago.

I also wonder what the point is of the police spending time and money investigating allegations against Jimmy Savile and anyone else who, by being dead, would be very difficult to prosecute.

Giles..


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 3, 2013)

elbows said:


> There are three separate police investigations, Savile & others (Yewtree), North Wales care home (Pallial) and the political stuff that Tom Watson mentioned (Fairbank). All of them are complicated by the amount of time that has passed and the failures of previous investigations. In several ways the one looking at celebrities may be the easiest to proceed quickly with, in part because the abusers were indiscreet or because of the number of victims, the feeling that the shield is really down for these characters, the attention its got in the press encouraging others to come forwards, etc.
> 
> There are other investigations too, eg Cyril Smith and probably some other care homes, boarding schools, etc.
> 
> ...


 
IMO another complicating and relevant factor are the endemic historical abuses (sexual and otherwise) in the British public school system.   The psychoanalyst Winnicott claimed that the rich find special ways to torture their children (not his exact words - I'll post a link later when I have more time) and IME of listening to boarding school survivors (especially those who were schooled before the 80s) child abuse was endemic between older and younger boys - sometimes as part of the "fagging" system (although apparently this was not always abusive) and also the violent and sexual abuse of boys by some teachers.  

The appalling abuses at these establishments need to be exposed but this probably will not happen for a number of reasons, not least of all because of shame and embarrassment but also because of the old boys' network and the conspiracy of silence with regard to such things.  

Given what actually happened at these places, and that some (not all) survivors go on to abuse children it would be surprising if there was no elite network of child abusers.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> I also wonder what the point is of the police spending time and money investigating allegations against Jimmy Savile and anyone else who, by being dead, would be very difficult to prosecute.
> 
> Giles..


 
If it helps their victims to recover - as opposed to being ignored as they have been so far - then I'm all for it.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 3, 2013)

two sheds said:


> If it helps their victims to recover - as opposed to being ignored as they have been so far - then I'm all for it.


 
Also the police are duty bound to investigate every allegation they recieve.  They really have no choice in the matter, I'll be surprised if there are many / any convictions mind.


----------



## laptop (Jan 3, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Also the police are duty bound to investigate every allegation they recieve. They really have no choice in the matter, I'll be surprised if there are many / any convictions mind.


 
Bear in mind that, as I recall it, in the case of sexual offences Crown Prosecution Service practice is to consider bringing charges without strictly meeting the "more likely than not to convict" test.


----------



## Firky (Jan 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Being a serial wifebeater and adulterer didn't fuck his career.


 
All that tells you is how that (adultery and domestic abuse) is deemed somewhat acceptable or understandable by many people. Which is depressing.


----------



## Firky (Jan 3, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Also the police are duty bound to investigate every allegation they recieve. They really have no choice in the matter, I'll be surprised if there are many / any convictions mind.


 
And we have every faith that the police will follow up intelligence diligently without bias.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

Sky have said 53-year-old has a radio programme, so name being put about yesterday *may* be correct


----------



## Giles (Jan 3, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Also the police are duty bound to investigate every allegation they recieve. They really have no choice in the matter, I'll be surprised if there are many / any convictions mind.


 
But what is the point of "investigating" claims that Jimmy raped and otherwise assaulted people? Given that he is dead?

Do the police REALLY have "no choice" but to investigate crimes committed by dead people? If someone called the police and said "my grandad abused me, however he is now dead" would the police go off and launch an investigation? Or just tell them "well, he's dead, so there isn't much we can do now"?

Giles..


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> But what is the point of "investigating" claims that Jimmy raped and otherwise assaulted people? Given that he is dead?
> 
> Do the police REALLY have "no choice" but to investigate crimes committed by dead people? If someone called the police and said "my grandad abused me, however he is now dead" would the police go off and launch an investigation? Or just tell them "well, he's dead, so there isn't much we can do now"?
> 
> Giles..


 
By acknowledging it, maybe the victims won't be called liars and have to live with the bollocks belief that Jimmy Savile was a hero and raised millions of pounds for charity and therefore could not possibly have been a perv


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2013)

...and the fact that other people who appear to have been up to similar stuff may well be connected with him, or still up to stuff today. Depressingly short-sighted and narrow view Giles.


----------



## Giles (Jan 3, 2013)

Given that there are only so many police man-hours available, is investigating old, dead people for stuff that almost certainly won't even get to court the best use of resources?

Is it a better use of resources because the old dead (or nearly dead) people are or were famous?

Giles..


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> Given that there are only so many police man-hours available, is investigating old, dead people for stuff that almost certainly won't even get to court the best use of resources?
> 
> Is it a better use of resources because the old dead (or nearly dead) people are or were famous?
> 
> Giles..


 
Well I'm sure we'd all be happy for them to go after live politicians but can't see that happening


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> Given that there are only so many police man-hours available, is investigating old, dead people for stuff that almost certainly won't even get to court the best use of resources?
> 
> Is it a better use of resources because the old dead (or nearly dead) people are or were famous?
> 
> Giles..


Have you really not noticed actual live people being arrested or charged as a result of all this? Or the public discussion/awareness as a result?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> Given that there are only so many police man-hours available, is investigating old, dead people for stuff that almost certainly won't even get to court the best use of resources?
> 
> Is it a better use of resources because the old dead (or nearly dead) people are or were famous?
> 
> Giles..


So it's all about resources?

Ever thought how many "resources" are used up as a result of the harms done to people who have been abused as children? It can have quite profound effects on people's well-being, and that translates into their ability to be effective economic units able to contribute to the economy (to put it in words that might have more meaning to you).

Not only that, but I think there needs to be a deterrent effect - a huge number of those abused do not disclose their abuse until many, many years later. To some extent, abusers have traded on that, and the fact that they think people won't be believed when they disclose historical abuse many years later. So it is important that the police can be seen to be taking this seriously, even many years later, because it might make abusers realise that, even decades afterwards, that knock on the door can still come.

Here's an example:

http://www.kingstonguardian.co.uk/news/8427753.Paedophile_s_victims_urged_to_speak_out/

Roger Lunn was convicted in 2010 of abusing children between 1969 and 1989. It is quite likely (actually, since I know some of his victims, it's more than likely - it's for sure) that nobody disclosed the abuse back then because they thought they wouldn't be believed, or that no action would be taken - and if you read the article, I think it mentions that he was accused of abuse, and admitted it, earlier and no action was taken, so they had every reason to have those doubts.

One of the offences he was convicted for in 2010 was carried out in 1999, 30 years after his first offences (if only some of those had felt able to disclose!). 40 years after he started offending, someone had the courage to go to the police, and he got a conviction as a result. We can only hope that, if he were still abusing children in 2010, that conviction might go some way to protecting more people from him.

And THAT is why it is important that the police are prepared to devote precious "resources" to historical abuse cases - time must not be allowed to be something these people can hide behind.

ETA:

And another important point. People who have been abused often feel a sense of guilt or complicity in what has happened. It is really important, as part of the process of recovering from that kind of abuse, to be able to see that you weren't the only one, and certainly weren't guilty in any way of what went on. One good way of ensuring that can happen is for the abuse (or at least the abuser) to be made publicly known, so that even those who did not disclose can see that something that happened to them, and which has perhaps been a shameful secret to them for much of their lives, also happened to other people, and is thus perhaps a little less shameful.

It makes me very angry to see people insisting that pursuing these cases is a waste of resources, or that the only reason people might be disclosing abuse after so long is for purely mercenary reasons. If nothing else, it minimises and trivialises the experiences of the people these abusers preyed upon, and I find it rather hard to see that as acceptable in any form.


----------



## elbows (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> Given that there are only so many police man-hours available, is investigating old, dead people for stuff that almost certainly won't even get to court the best use of resources?
> 
> Is it a better use of resources because the old dead (or nearly dead) people are or were famous?
> 
> Giles..


 
Your sense of priorities is dead, and not before its time.

Even those who think its an overreaction should consider that sometimes you have to overcompensate in order to make up for erring in the opposite direction in the past.

A message has been sent, a long overdue one, and those who would seek to dismiss victims as a historical irrelevance are now firmly in the danger zone, established as having been part of the problem, no longer fit to be taken seriously.


----------



## elbows (Jan 3, 2013)

Think of it as a sort of charity drive, a marathon in aid of the spineless moral injuries unit at stoke hate twitterville hospital for the damned. I'll donate the a nail for the coffin of repugnant ideals and priorities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> My first thought on seeing his food was "looks disgusting". This was confirmed many years later when I actually tried it


 
Used to avoid eating it at all, given that I had a couple of cousins who did summer work in one of the processing plants.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Used to avoid eating it at all, given that I had a couple of cousins who did summer work in one of the processing plants.


 
*Used* to?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

Louloubelle said:


> One of the most bizarre "offered" items in my local freecycle group was a lifesize portrait in oils of Bernard Matthews. Apparently it went very quickly but I was hoping that it was, er, put to good use


 


But you're right about "bizarre"!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> *Used* to?


 
I'll eat the turkey joints because they're just boned and rolled nowadays, whereas they used to be "shaped and formed" from mechanically-recovered meat and fat.
Won't eat anything else, though.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll eat the turkey joints because they're just boned and rolled nowadays, whereas they used to be "shaped and formed" from mechanically-recovered meat and fat.
> Won't eat anything else, though.


 
Not being a turkey lover, I've never had one of those, but I remember picking something up a few months ago (but can't remember what), eating it, thinking it was a load of shite, then looking at the packaging and realising I'd bought Bernard Matthews


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> I will be surprised if many actual charges are brought, let alone proved, over most of these allegations from 20 - 30 years back.
> 
> It's surely going to come down to one person's word against another's, over events that allegedly took place half a lifetime ago.


 
It depends on the weight of evidence. The more offences alleged to have been committed by each offender, the greater likelihood of similar character traits revealed by the offender having been revealed, and so the better offences corroborate one another.



> I also wonder what the point is of the police spending time and money investigating allegations against Jimmy Savile and anyone else who, by being dead, would be very difficult to prosecute.
> 
> Giles..


 
That's because you're an idiot. By investigating the actions of those dead persons, they can also get a handle on other offenders who may have associated with those dead persons. By doing so, not only may they be able to prosecute some live offenders, but they also (hopefully) don't leave crimes uninvestigated and criminal acts unpunished for even more decades.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 3, 2013)

Don't think I could slate Bernard Matthews' mechanically formed stuff given I eat hotdogs without really thinking about it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> But what is the point of "investigating" claims that Jimmy raped and otherwise assaulted people? Given that he is dead?
> 
> Do the police REALLY have "no choice" but to investigate crimes committed by dead people? If someone called the police and said "my grandad abused me, however he is now dead" would the police go off and launch an investigation? Or just tell them "well, he's dead, so there isn't much we can do now"?
> 
> Giles..


 
We're not talking about your grandad bumming you, we're discussing someone who was reported many times while alive for sexual assault, but due to the vulnerable nature of his victims, was able to use the element of doubt (in the minds of the prosecutorial authorities, not the victims) to his advantage. It's not a case of prosecution, it's about making a belated attempt to give closure to his victims.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Don't think I could slate Bernard Matthews' mechanically formed stuff given I eat hotdogs without really thinking about it.


 
This is why the only "hotdogs" I eat are bockwurst made in Germany. The Germans have rules about meat content and what actually constitutes "meat". 
Tried those Smedleys tinned hotdogs once when I lived in bedsitland. Full of gristle and bone splinters!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...and the fact that other people who appear to have been up to similar stuff may well be connected with him, or still up to stuff today. Depressingly short-sighted and narrow view Giles.


 
Giles hates the thought of what little tax he doesn't avoid paying, going to investigate the crimes of someone who can't be strung up or sterilised.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Giles hates the thought of what little tax he doesn't avoid paying, going to investigate the crimes of someone who can't be strung up or sterilised.


Or the idea that some kind of reductionist commodity-oriented society can be allowed to trouble itself by intangibles such as what one commodity might do to another commodity and get away with (unless, of course, it is in the pursuit of economic gain, in which case it is presumably just peachy).


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 3, 2013)

Surely some of life's most valuable lessons are learned from mistakes.  

I think that there are many complex reasons why people didn't report Savile and his ilk and also why others didn't listen or felt powerless to act when people did report him. 

So basically we are now in a position to learn a great deal from past mistakes that harmed countless children and ruined many lives if (and this is important) we can actually scrutinise, think about and investigate what happened with discernment and sensitivity we can reduce the likelihood of such events occurring in the future.  

We owe it to Savile's victims to do this.  if we do not do this other children will suffer as the same mistakes are made and patterns of abuse are repeated.  

Policies need to be examined and possibly overhauled and the whole can of worms has to be opened and examined and subjected to rigorous analytic consideration. 

IMO sometimes, in fact probably all of the time, when investigating clandestine networks of predators you have to cherish the mental state of "not knowing" as to do so means that your mind is open to possibilities that you might otherwise overlook.  

To suggest that these crimes are not investigated is to suggest that it is wrong to even start to think about these important issues. 

To start an investigation like this is to start a process that, if you are doing it properly, you have no idea where it will end.  

A commitment to creative thinking, without prejudice or desire, an attitude of genuine curiosity and concern, is essential and the victims deserve nothing less.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Or the idea that some kind of reductionist commodity-oriented society can be allowed to trouble itself by intangibles such as what one commodity might do to another commodity and get away with (unless, of course, it is in the pursuit of economic gain, in which case it is presumably just peachy).


 
Or unless it's a commodity that belongs to Giles.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> This is why the only "hotdogs" I eat are bockwurst made in Germany. The Germans have rules about meat content and what actually constitutes "meat".
> Tried those Smedleys tinned hotdogs once when I lived in bedsitland. Full of gristle and bone splinters!



I bought a bockwurst last week from a street vendor in Leeds of all places. Or at least that's what it claimed to be.  

Anyway, was a bad move. I always forget how messy trying to eat a hotdog with onions ketchup and mustard is whilst on the move.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 3, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I bought a bockwurst last week from a street vendor in Leeds of all places. Or at least that's what it claimed to be.
> 
> Anyway, was a bad move. I always forget how messy trying to eat a hotdog with onions ketchup and mustard is whilst on the move.


could we keep this thread on topick lest editor relegate it to the bin?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 3, 2013)

I've said this before now, but I am not sure if I've said it here...

In my experience, most people who have been sexually abused and who disclose it are harmed far more by being disbelieved, or their disclosure not being taken seriously, than by the abuse itself - it's the disbelief and/or lack of action that is carried forward over the decades. That's not to say that the abuse does not also do harm, but for a lot of survivors the mere fact of their being able to tell someone what happened and not get a sceptical or denying response is the first step towards a recovery that might have taken half a century to begin.

Even if the Savile-related enquiries don't result in any convictions, what they have done is to send a very clear message to abuse survivors that, no matter how long ago their abuse happened, it *is* worth reporting it to a notionally neutral body (the police), because something might just get done about it...and at the very least, someone is likely to sit down and take down their report of what happened.

The fact that there are people like Giles around suggesting we should not take allegations of historical abuse seriously - and make no mistake, he's not a lone voice in the wilderness - is a slap in the face to anyone who has been sexually abused, but they must not be allowed to collude in a conspiracy of silence that can only aid the abusers. If people like Giles want to be a part - actively or otherwise - of a smokescreen that protects those who have violated the trust and innocence of young children, then that is their choice, but we don't have to be complicit in their actions.

I hope that some convictions do arise out of these cases, and the Roger Lunn case I mentioned above demonstrates that it can happen, even if all he ended up with was a supervision order and a treatment order. I imagine that it will be of some small comfort to the children he abused to know that he has been called to account for his offences.


----------



## Corax (Jan 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> people who have been sexually abused and who disclose it are harmed far more by being disbelieved, or it not being taken seriously than by the abuse itself - it's the disbelief and/or lack of action that is carried forward over the decades.


Yep.


----------



## savoloysam (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> I will be surprised if many actual charges are brought, let alone proved, over most of these allegations from 20 - 30 years back.
> 
> I also wonder what the point is of the police spending time and money investigating allegations against Jimmy Savile and anyone else who, by being dead, would be very difficult to prosecute.
> 
> Giles..


 
Is what Jim Davidson was saying a few months ago.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

savoloysam said:


> Is what Jim Davidson was saying a few months ago.


 
Despite all these charges, who is actually going to be found guilty?  Probably not a single one, due to lack of evidence


----------



## Corax (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> I also wonder what the point is of the police spending time and money investigating allegations against Jimmy Savile and anyone else who, by being dead, would be very difficult to prosecute.


It's not just about the abusers, it's about the abused as well.


----------



## Corax (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Despite all these charges, who is actually going to be found guilty? Probably not a single one, due to lack of evidence


I wish the Scottish verdict of "not proven" was available in English/Welsh law.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Despite all these charges, who is actually going to be found guilty? Probably not a single one, due to lack of evidence


Don't be quite so pessimistic. I can't remember the name for it, but the police are often careful not to disclose significant details of the way particular offences are committed, so that, when several allegations are made and the same details are disclosed in each case, the allegations corroborate each other. This, apparently, can be enough to secure guilty pleas, if not convictions.

And the nature of sexual offences is that they're generally not just committed once, so that corroboration is far more likely to occur.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 3, 2013)

savoloysam said:


> Is what Jim Davidson was saying a few months ago.


 
does this mean that Giles should be fearing a knock at his door?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Don't be quite so pessimistic. I can't remember the name for it, but the police are often careful not to disclose significant details of the way particular offences are committed, so that, when several allegations are made and the same details are disclosed in each case, the allegations corroborate each other. This, apparently, can be enough to secure guilty pleas, if not convictions.
> 
> And the nature of sexual offences is that they're generally not just committed once, so that corroboration is far more likely to occur.


 
I realise that, but in some cases, it's been decades, so how will the police prove that victims haven't been talking to on another and not accuse them "getting their stories straight".


----------



## existentialist (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I realise that, but in some cases, it's been decades, so how will the police prove that victims haven't been talking to on another and not accuse them "getting their stories straight".


I don't know, but in the case that I posted, the allegations related to abuse that had been perpetrated 40 years ago, and in that case it was likely that victims already knew each other, yet they still secured a conviction, albeit via a "guilty" plea.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 3, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> does this mean that Giles should be fearing a knock at his door?


Only from the Cunt Police. I don't think we should take his apparent defence of abusers as some kind of indication that he's one himself.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I don't know, but in the case that I posted, the allegations related to abuse that had been perpetrated 40 years ago, and in that case it was likely that victims already knew each other, yet they still secured a conviction, albeit via a "guilty" plea.


 
Good.  Wonder what happens if perpetrator is declaring themselves "not guilty" though


----------



## existentialist (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Good. Wonder what happens if perpetrator is declaring themselves "not guilty" though


I guess that's where a lot of prosecutions fail. And, as someone else pointed out, that'd be where it'd be good to have the "Not Proven" option, rather than declaring someone innocent simply for want of a guilty plea and evidence sufficient to convict.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I guess that's where a lot of prosecutions fail. And, as someone else pointed out, that'd be where it'd be good to have the "Not Proven" option, rather than declaring someone innocent simply for want of a guilty plea and evidence sufficient to convict.


 
I wonder how a "not proven" verdict affects someone in day-to-day life. They haven't exactly got a criminal record, but there's doubt there, although I'm assuming if it's not proven, then they don't have to declare it, but then if it's known about by the public anyway....

And how does it work if someone who has been accused of sexual offences/paedophilia applies for a job working with children for example, but have a "not proven" verdict?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 3, 2013)

Corax said:


> I wish the Scottish verdict of "not proven" was available in English/Welsh law.


 

no, its a bastards verdict. I know what the spirit of it is but in practical terms it means 'weknow you did it we just can't prove it'

its the judicial equivalent of spraypainting 'BEAST' on someones door in the middles of the night


----------



## Corax (Jan 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> no, its a bastards verdict. I know what the spirit of it is but in practical terms it means 'weknow you did it we just can't prove it'
> 
> its the judicial equivalent of spraypainting 'BEAST' on someones door in the middles of the night


I know, I know. The reasonable bit of my brain agrees with you.

But the emotive bit goes "yeah, but..."

So yeah, I agree. I just don't want to.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> And how does it work if someone who has been accused of sexual offences/paedophilia applies for a job working with children for example, but have a "not proven" verdict?


An accusation of child sexual abuse is likely to show up on an enhanced CRB check regardless of whether or not a conviction was obtained, even now. It'd be up to the potential employer to decide whether that warranted refusal to employ. I guess an obvious malicious accusation might not be an issue, but a more equivocal one - or a series of accusations - might.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 3, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I realise that, but in some cases, it's been decades, so how will the police prove that victims haven't been talking to on another and not accuse them "getting their stories straight".


 
That is exactly what the defence will try to imply.  

It is one reason why getting together with other victims for mutual support might feel like a good idea but is actually a terrible idea re securing convictions.


----------



## ymu (Jan 3, 2013)

Giles said:


> I will be surprised if many actual charges are brought, let alone proved, over most of these allegations from 20 - 30 years back.
> 
> It's surely going to come down to one person's word against another's, over events that allegedly took place half a lifetime ago.
> 
> ...


Just to add to what others have said, this also has an important affect on current and future attitudes to sexual abuse. Much has been made of the wink wink, nudge nudge culture of the 1970s and 80s - "hiding in plain sight" - but not much has been said about attitudes today.

The culture within the police of disbelieving victims and not bothering to investigate has not only damaged those who reported crimes and were disbelieved, it allowed several serial rapists that we know about (and fuck knows how many we do not) to continue raping. In the Rochdale case, it was not just the police but social workers who allowed the abuse to continue by concluding that young girls were willing prostitutes. They need a fucking great kick up the arse so that no professional in future will feel safe brushing these sorts of complaints to one side.

Amongst young men, particularly, the light sexual innuendo of the last century has been replaced with 'jokes' about rape, about bundling women into car boots, strangling them, slapping them about. Young people have posted pictures of rapes occurring on social media, as if it is simply a funny thing that happened to a drunk girl at a party, not a serious crime. And many young women internalise those messages, that it is their function on this planet to allow men to use them sexually and that someone who claims to have been raped by a celebrity or a good-looking bloke must be lying because consent should be automatic in those circumstances.

Will those who genuinely mean no harm with their 'jokes' make the connection with the culture they help to create and ongoing sexual violence? I fucking hope so.


----------



## elbows (Jan 3, 2013)

ymu said:


> Amongst young men, particularly, the light sexual innuendo of the last century has been replaced with 'jokes' about rape, about bundling women into car boots, strangling them, slapping them about.


 
I would think and hope that may be overdoing the contrast just a tad. Not all of the innuendo some decades ago was light, and the groping culture in certain workplaces etc wont be missed and was no less sinister and damaging by being presented as lighthearted fun. I would hope that the undisguised brutal jokes of the modern era are less likely to translate into actual behaviour than the bum-pinching 'laughs' of yesteryear.

I'm getting a bit long in the tooth and out of touch to comment properly on the facebook drunk rape stuff, I've not seen it myself, but that wont stop me trying and I'd certainly not be surprised to hear that attitudes towards sex with very drunk girls are dodgy and are more likely to have gotten worse than better in more recent times. We've got some problems with coming of age/being rushed to adulthood, iffy media messages, booze, sex, self-esteem, peer pressure, inhibition, bullying, taking advantage etc in this country, with some of the classic cliches about uptight brits not exactly having gone away, but having mutated into an even more intense set of inappropriate and damaging coping mechanisms. Having said that I wouldnt want to overstate this either, there are plenty of people, both potential victims and potential perpetrators who are actually no such thing, because they manage not to end up in those situations, whether by luck, judgement or circumstances/chances in life, being able to filter out dodgy messages, expectations, pressures, or whatever.


----------



## gosub (Jan 5, 2013)

So Paul Staines has decided to publish the name of the bloke interviewed and not charged. In his view coz the rest of the media hasn't done because they are cowed by Leveson. In my view its coz he's an irresponsible cunt who will profit from the adverts on his website that I won't link to. The police and PPS haven't felt there is enough to charge him then where is the public interest defence for blackening the blokes name.  When this is all over I do hope any those people he has taken pride in naming ahead of the rest of the media,that are not found guilty test his offshore server defence to the limit.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 5, 2013)

gosub said:


> So Paul Staines has decided to publish the name of the bloke interviewed and not charged. In his view coz the rest of the media hasn't done because they are cowed by Leveson. In my view its coz he's an irresponsible cunt who will profit from the adverts on his website that I won't link to. The police and PPS haven't felt there is enough to charge him then where is the public interest defence for blackening the blokes name. When this is all over I do hope any those people he has taken pride in naming ahead of the rest of the media,that are not found guilty test his offshore server defence to the limit.


 
holymoly already did it the other day in an article about why Davidson was a cunt and they did a postcript that everyone was 'he is a cunt' but it was OMG INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY re: the other one.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 5, 2013)

Well, thanks to this thread...

I just got back from the police station having spent two hours giving a statement about a disclosure that I really should have made 35 years ago. It wasn't easy, and it was a pretty unpleasant experience having to dig up a load of stuff from that far back, but I have nothing but praise for the way it was done, and how it was handled.

When I was asked "Why now?", I cited this thread and the discussion regarding the "waste of resources" of police investigating historical abuse cases: the sergeant asked me if I would write it into the statement, which I did.

So kudos to @Giles (and the rest of this thread!) for getting me to do something I have havered over doing for definitely the last 20 years of my life. It is likely that the people I have made allegations against will be arrested and interviewed under caution; whether or not it gets to court is something it is far too soon to tell just yet.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 5, 2013)

well done , must have been very hard for you!!


----------



## existentialist (Jan 6, 2013)

ruffneck23 said:
			
		

> well done , must have been very hard for you!!



It wasn't pleasant, though I have at least perhaps used some of the intervening decades wisely, so as to make what had to be done a good deal less traumatic


----------



## free spirit (Jan 6, 2013)

would you mind posting up something about what the process was that you went through to report it? ie did you just walk in, or ring the local police first, or ring a national number first etc

might help someone else to follow suit if the process was clear to them.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 6, 2013)

free spirit said:
			
		

> would you mind posting up something about what the process was that you went through to report it? ie did you just walk in, or ring the local police first, or ring a national number first etc
> 
> might help someone else to follow suit if the process was clear to them.



Fair point.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 6, 2013)

My disclosure was initially made to the local police force in the area the offences had taken place. I didn't particularly want to speak to anyone, so I found a Web form to fill in (by googling the area plus "police email"), and very briefly summarised the nature of my allegation. There were various options for contact details - email, address, phone numbers, etc, which I also filled in.

The form had said it was not to be used for reporting a crime, but I chose to ignore that, as I didn't feel like discussing it over the phone with a possibly sceptical and unsympathetic police officer.

The next weekday, I got a call from my local police, with a message from a sergeant asking me to get in touch to arrange to go to the local station to make a statement.

I was particularly struck by several things. Firstly, he was consistently going out of his way to be reassuring: given my general view of, and experience with, the police, this was surprising to me. Secondly, it was clearly a priority to get this done ASAP: he changed his shift in order to get it done as fast as possible.

(continued...)

When I got down to the police station (which, being a satellite station in a rural area, was closed), I was met by the sergeant, who continued to be very - verging on the painfully - supportive, offered a cup of tea, etc. Then we sat down and he, quite painstakingly, explained the procedure. I think I made his job a little easier when I explained that, as part of my professional role, child protection was something I was familiar with - and I think that background and knowledge probably helped me, too.

I then spent two hours giving my statement. To some extent, he directed the process by asking questions which I answered: it was clear that he wasn't much of a typist, so he took very brief notes while I spoke, then went back to the computer and typed them in to the statement, offering me the option to correct or amend what he was writing as the process went along.

I was asked for details of what had occurred, the timeframe (ie ages between), and an indication of the number of incidents, etc. Obviously, given the amount of time that has passed, there were many things I could not be completely specific about, but that seemed perfectly acceptable, and the statement contained quite a few "I think that I recall..." entries. I was also asked for as detailed a description of the circumstances, layout of house, description of room, that I could give, as he told me that in the absence of corroboration (this being a historical case), the local police would probably visit the premises and attempt to corroborate my description with the reality. Fortunately, I was able to remember addresses and give detailed descriptions of the rooms. He also wanted physical descriptions of the people I was making allegations against, which I was a little less clear on, strangely.

One thing that I was surprised by was the way in which he frequently returned to my perceptions of the effect that the offences I was alleging to have taken place had had on me, both at the time, and subsequently - I think I was expecting the process to be far more fact-based and clunkily procedural than that. We went into some detail as to what those effects had been, and a significant part of the statement covered them. He told me at the end that it was usual to complete a "Victim Impact Statement" as well as a statement of allegations, but that in this case we had covered both at the same time, hence his interest in the effects - the impact statement is read out in court (assuming it gets that far) following conviction and is considered during the sentencing process.

The final two questions he asked me were "Why did you wait so long to report it?", and "Why now?". He seemed quite satisfied that my reason for not making disclosure earlier was a feeling that it would not be taken seriously, and a desire not to rake it all up again, and as my reason for making the statement now I mentioned the Savile case, the discussions on this thread (he was quite exercised about the idea that investigating historical abuse cases was a "waste of resources", hem hem hem), and that those had prompted me to Google the perpetrator and discover that he was a) still alive, and b) had already been convicted of some offences.

One slightly amusing bit was that when he had asked me these questions, and got very comprehensive answers from me, he pushed the keyboard over to me and said "You'd better type that in - I think you can do a much better job of putting it into words than me". I ended up not only doing that, but spell-checking and tweaking the rest of the statement.

I was then given a couple of leaflets (which I haven't read yet) about the process. He informed me that the next step was for the statement to go back to the investigating force, who would almost certainly arrest the parties against whom I had made allegations, and interview them under caution. He was careful to point out that it may not go any further, and that I should not anticipate that it would go to court or result in conviction - although he seemed quite keen on the idea that I might want to face my abuser(s) in court! - but that at the very least they would be aware that an allegation had been made and was being treated seriously.

And that was it: I came out of the police station, 2½ hours and two cups of tea later, picked up a takeaway curry, and came home. Drained 


I do hope that if there is anyone out there who is in the situation I was in, of having been on the receiving end of offences perpetrated so long ago (in my case, we're talking about offences that started 40 years ago, in the early 1970s), they will feel encouraged to report them. I do wish I had made allegations at the time (although both the police officer and I agreed that it was likely they would not have been taken as seriously then as they would be now), and I certainly wish that I had gone to the police 20 years ago when the repressed memories of what had happened began to return. Some of the offences for which one of the perpetrators was convicted took place after that point, and I am somewhat troubled by the idea that, had I reported them sooner, some children might have been spared my experiences.

I may have been lucky in getting a particularly helpful police officer, but I did get the impression that, organisationally, the police are a LOT more willing to take allegations of abuse - even historical ones - seriously, now, and I would urge anyone who is not sure to consider making a disclosure.

I have deliberately gone very light on details here, for all kinds of reasons, but if anyone wants a bit more encouragement or information, feel free to PM me and I'll do what I can.


----------



## elbows (Jan 6, 2013)

Thanks for taking the time to describe the police experience in detail.


----------



## cesare (Jan 6, 2013)

Thanks existentialist.


----------



## juice_terry (Jan 7, 2013)




----------



## yardbird (Jan 7, 2013)

This morning Stuart Hall has been charged with 3 counts of indecent assault with girls from nine to eighteen.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 7, 2013)

yardbird said:


> This morning Stuart Hall has been charged with 3 counts of indecent assault with girls from nine to eighteen.


BBC says 9-16.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 7, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> BBC says 9-16.


Post-hearing update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20930030


----------



## laptop (Jan 7, 2013)

yardbird said:


> This morning Stuart Hall has been charged with 3 counts of indecent assault with girls from nine to eighteen.


 
I've lost track. Would Hall be the one who was arrested but not named?


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 7, 2013)

Nope that would be someone else..


*starts playing a digerido*


----------



## ymu (Jan 7, 2013)

He was named a while ago. One of the first non-dead 'other' names to come out after Glitter and Starr, IIRC.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> They need a fucking great kick up the arse *sacking* so that no professional in future will feel safe brushing these sorts of complaints to one side.


To my mind, anyone who thinks being employed to be legally responsible for the welfare of under 16s is in any way compatible with thinking they should be able to voluntarily or involuntarily 'work' as child prostitutes is in the wrong job.


----------



## ymu (Jan 7, 2013)

I was referring more to the professions (police and social work) than the individuals concerned. I agree, the individuals are not fit to do the job. Although sacking all of them might not be the most immediately helpful thing for the services concerned, given that we can't just magic up dozens of experienced social workers to replace them.

Management has to go for sure.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 7, 2013)

free spirit said:


> To my mind, anyone who thinks being employed to be legally responsible for the welfare of under 16s is in any way compatible with thinking they should be able to voluntarily or involuntarily 'work' as child prostitutes is in the wrong job.


 
absolutely.

This has got me thinking about a situation that I encountered in the 1980s that I found extremely disturbing.

Basically I was working in the NHS at the time and as part of my work I visited a project called Streetwise, it was an early project working with young lads who were selling sex. The project was founded by a then middle aged man called Richie McMullen, a gay man who had himself survived by selling sex when he was a lad. He has written a book about it and was highly regarded by people in the sexual health scene for his pioneering work with vulnerable young male sex workers.

I eventually gained the trust of one of his colleagues, a priest, who told me (in front of a room full of people) that some of the lads (IMMIC they were 14 years upwards) slept at Richie's house overnight. It was explained to me that lots of them were homeless and often traded sex with older men for a roof over their heads but that "they preferred sleeping at Richie's because they trusted him as he's been through it himself and they all love him to bits".

I found this information to be extremely disturbing. I discussed it with various people and it became apparent that social workers, police officers and all kinds of people knew what was going on and did nothing about it. Most of the "professionals" associated with the project were out gay men who seemed to think that 14 was a reasonable age to have sex and that the laws relating to the age of consent were homophobic and unjust.

To me then and now I think it was a gross abuse of trust for a middle aged man who was supposed to be in charge of a project that aimed to protect sex workers to be sexually involved with sex workers of any age, let alone lads as young as 14 years old. Some of them might even have been younger, but I know that some were as young as 14.

At the time I was working with female sex workers and I think that there were 2 issues relevant to both male and female sex workers that affected this situation.

One important issue was that, at the time, teenage sex workers (I worked with one extremely vulnerable 13 year old girl who had AIDS) were treated not as children who were victims of crime but as criminals. No child who was exploited in the sex industry would trust the police to treat them with kindness and respect.

The other issue was that there was funding available to projects like Streetwise for HIV prevention and the harm reduction approach, and fears that sex workers could spread HIV to non sex worker populations were significant and were prioritised over the care and protection of vulnerable children.

Just thinking about this and remembering it makes me very angry.

I am feeling unsure about whether to contact the police about this as Richie McMullen died some time ago and I cannot provide the names of the other people involved as I don't remember them, although the priest's name I do remember and have found via google, although I have no idea if he is still alive as he was middle aged then.

I was thinking about this in relation to recent events in Rochdale, and thinking that this has been going on for a long time in different forms and it has to stop.

I am relieved that these kinds of things are being discussed openly now and things have changed and that prostituted children are at east now treated as victims of crime and not criminals themselves.

Like existentialist my recent experience of reporting historical crime to the police was a good one inasmuch as the police officers I spoke to were extremely kind and supportive. I would strongly recommend that anyone wondering whether to report any historical abuses should feel confident that they will be treated with respect and understanding by the police.

eta

Just found a link to an online copy of Richie's book. It was published after I knew him and was highly acclaimed as a sensitive account of child prostitution. I think that was the other thing that made people hesitant to think ill of Richie, he was very charismatic and very open about his experiences of being abused as a child. I think that people have problems at a fundamental level getting their heads around the fact that some people are charming, courageous, witty and have survived appalling abuse and yet can go on to abuse themselves. People like their worlds neatly compartmentalised into heroes and villains and Richie was bit of both.

link to memoir (arghh! sorry the chapter links are dead)

http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/...5T21:43:33&firstName=Richie&lastName=McMullen


----------



## elbows (Jan 8, 2013)

I know this is going to sound stupid and naive but was it explained to you that they were sleeping with him rather than just sleeping round his house?


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 8, 2013)

No it doesn't sound stupid.  I think that my post reflected the confusion and disbelief that I felt about the issue. 

I wasn't sure at first but it became clear to me over time Richie was involved sexually with the boys.  

It was disturbing because it was explained in terms of affection and "Richie has a special relationship with the boys" and stuff like that. 

I visited the project a few times and never got close enough to most of the lads to talk to them, however one lad who appeared very camp and I would have thought he was gay, told me that he was heterosexual and that sleeping with Richie was the lesser of a number of evils.  He seemed very angry and bitter about the set up.  Understandably. I don't know how old he was, he looked quite young but he was surprisingly eloquent for a young lad involved in sex work.  

Richie had AIDS and was very open about that.  He was not very demanding sexually according to the lad I spoke to.

Basically the project was just originally a formalisation of an informal set up where the lads had been staying at Richie's home for some years as "special friends".    

To be fair, back then in the 80 there were all kinds of horrific boundary transgressions occurring in children's homes (including one in Islington where pimps had recruited most of the female children into sex work) and in state funded projects dealing with HIV prevention and / or sex work. 

Just off the top of my head I remember one AIDS charity paid an out sex worker (Australian woman) to work for them and provided her with a home on site (the project included residential housing).  This woman (who frankly was very disturbed to the point of being psychopathic - at least IME) soon made alliances with drug addicted clients of the service.  She allowed them to use heroin in her home and when one of them ODd was too scared to call an ambulance and the client died in her living room.  That one was covered up as the scandal could have closed the project down.

Back then the authorities were very scared of the spread of HIV / AIDS and threw money at all kinds of initiatives that they thought might help.  In an attempt to think outside the box money got thrown at people like Richie who were viewed as "cutting edge" and in touch with da kidz.

Also, as I have explained elsewhere, the 80s was a time of much controversy and debate re the gay age of consent and it was not uncommon to hear gay men openly claiming that the age of consent should be 14 years.  

Also it was a time when the sex workers rights movement was emerging and making alliances with various gay and lesbian groups and groups campaigning for sexual freedoms.  

Nowadays a 14 year old prostituted homeless lad would quite rightly be considered an abused child.  Back then at least according to Richie and his friends he would be considered a young gay activist whose human rights would be infringed if you tried to support him in leaving a life of prostitution.


----------



## gosub (Jan 11, 2013)

According to ITV 

Here is a list of the medical sites where Jimmy Savile offended, including the number of offences he committed and what date they occurred.

Leeds General Infirmary (LGI) - 16 offences between 1965 and 1995.
Stoke Mandeville Hospital - 22 offences between 1965 and 1988.
Broadmoor Hospital - one offence in 1991.
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust: St James University Hospital - one offence in 1962.

High Royds Hospital - one offence in 1989.
Dewsbury and District Hospital - one offence in 1969.
Wycombe General Hospital - one offence.
Great Ormond Street Hospital - one offence in 1971.
Ashworth Hospital- one offence in 1971.
Exeter Hospital - one offence in 1970.

Portsmouth Royal Hospital - one offence in 1964.
St. Catherine's Hospital - one offence in 1964.
Saxondale Hospital - one offence in 1971.
Wheatfields Hospice - one offence in 1971.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 11, 2013)

I am the last person to defend paedo's paid for by the state but I can see some kind of logic when faced with an apparent potential AIDS epidemic in supporting any kind of harm (i.e AIDS ) prevention activities. People really did think back in the 80's that there may be hundred's of thousand of AIDS patients within a few years.

The work the UK did in terms of needle and outreach work was remarkably effective.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

gosub said:


> According to ITV
> 
> Here is a list of the medical sites where Jimmy Savile offended, including the number of offences he committed and what date they occurred.
> 
> ...


fuck knows how he found the time for a prolifick radio and television career.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 11, 2013)

The porter business. I wonder if the attention to detail he paid to that line of his voluntary work is verifiable or if it will stay as rumour forever.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 11, 2013)

Favelado said:


> The porter business. I wonder if the attention to detail he paid to that line of his voluntary work is verifiable or if it will stay as rumour forever.


 
The only way would be to dis-inter potential victims and do DNA tests on the corpse's orifices. Hardly likely to happen.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 11, 2013)

kenny g said:


> The only way would be to dis-inter potential victims and do DNA tests on the corpse's orifices. Hardly likely to happen.


 
You make it sound such a chore!


----------



## Espresso (Jan 11, 2013)

Favelado said:


> You make it sound such a chore!


 
I suppose it's partly that and partly that coffins are not designed to maintain the integrity of what's in them; either the rightful, documented whole inhabitants who are supposed to be in there, or any remnants of anything biological as deposited by opportunistic bastard necrophiliacs.
And who knows, if you were a porter of dead people you might very well be privy to paperwork concerning whether the recently departed was destined to be buried or cremated and so if you were a sad deviant corpse raping bastard who had a smidgin of wariness about the possibility of future discovery, no doubt you could manage to limit your rapery to those whose remains were destined for the crematorium.

Fuck me. I feel sick even thinking that.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 11, 2013)

I imagine Saville would have preferred the knowledge that his seed had been left to fester in the corpses he had abused rather than been cremated. I may have misjudged him though.


----------



## Serotonin (Jan 12, 2013)

EDIT- nevermind didnt read some posts above.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm not quite sure if this is exactly the right place to put updates on my recent interactions with the police...

Today I got a phone message from a detective constable who works in a specialised team that deals only with abuse cases. Again, all terribly reassuring - these people really, really do want to put you at your ease - and advising me on progress, which is that arrests will take place, and they may want to come down here to take a further statement. Ulp.


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 18, 2013)

hope you're ok, existentialist.  glad to hear that it's going ok, - good on you for going forward.
i went through a fair bit of the same process as you a few years ago, and the team i made statements with/kept in contact with until the whole thing 'finished' were brilliant. i couldn't have asked for them to handle it better.
be nice to yourself tonight, and love and strength to ya x


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2013)

Yeah, I'm fine. It all kind of crashes in and disappears just as quickly - but then that's 40-odd years of some quite creative repressing being unravelled, so it's not a complete surprise. And I guess having spent the last 9 years learning how heads work has been useful...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> hope you're ok, existentialist.  glad to hear that it's going ok, - good on you for going forward.
> i went through a fair bit of the same process as you a few years ago, and the team i made statements with/kept in contact with until the whole thing 'finished' were brilliant. i couldn't have asked for them to handle it better.
> be nice to yourself tonight, and love and strength to ya x


I remember you talking about this and thinking how you seemed to be dealing with it in an admirable manner. Was the case resolved in a satisfactory way? (If you don't mind me asking)


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 18, 2013)

um.. thank you for the 'admirable manner' bit, imo i managed to get through it but i was a carcrash pretty much the whole time   i *think* i'm a fair bit more sorted these days 
the cps said there wasn't enough evidence to take it to court, so that was it, afaik. the whole thing took about (and my dates are a little fuzzy) about eight? months from the date i first contacted the police, through to getting the cps decision.


----------



## ymu (Jan 18, 2013)

Did it give you any closure, despite the lack of prosecution? If you don't mind me asking.


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 18, 2013)

yep. definitely. and it's something i firmly don't regret having done.
e2a: distance (in terms of time) has helped, as well. and therapy  - think existentialists got a head start there though (sorry. i'll get me coat).
/threadjack.


----------



## ymu (Jan 18, 2013)

Fantastic. And well done you.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 23, 2013)

I drawn this to attention and make no comment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21154999


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2013)

yardbird said:


> I drawn this to attention and make no comment.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21154999


 
1 rape and 14 indecent assault charges. The OB and CPS must be pretty sure they're going to make it stick to lay on a whole slate of charges rather than just using a couple.
What's the odds Hall plays the old "I don't remember, it was so long ago" card and/or the "I've got Saunders-type Alzheimers, you know?" card?


----------



## the button (Jan 23, 2013)

It's a cock out, etc.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 23, 2013)

Some silly tv games offered many opportunities to "get up close and personal.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 24, 2013)

Anyone seen this? 

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/an-act-of-sheer-desperation.html


----------



## ymu (Jan 24, 2013)

No, thanks for that Minnie.


> Besides calling the author of the graffiti "A vandal" (BBC) what will ANY of the island's State Media, or authorities, be doing to encourage, and assure, the victim to come forward (possibly again)?


Indeed.


----------



## elbows (Feb 20, 2013)

The police mates angle lives:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21520060




> *An ex-policeman is being investigated over claims he "acted on behalf" of Jimmy Savile before he was interviewed about sexual assault allegations.*
> The former police inspector has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by West Yorkshire Police.
> The officer allegedly contacted Surrey Police ahead of the late TV presenter being interviewed in 2009.





> The referral from West Yorkshire Police follows a direction from the IPCC regarding the former inspector, identified in a Surrey Police report as "Inspector 5".


----------



## little_legs (Feb 20, 2013)

Must be one of the members of the _Friday Morning Club, _I'll upload the article on Google drive later on today.


----------



## Chook (Feb 20, 2013)

"Would you like something for the weekend, Sir?"


----------



## little_legs (Feb 20, 2013)

little_legs said:


> Must be one of the members of the _Friday Morning Club, _I'll upload the article on Google drive later on today.


 
article 1: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3DLdtjEG1FYNlZQUnpOU3R1MFE/edit?usp=sharing

article 2: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3DLdtjEG1FYd0JtLXRQbmZIWDA/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## gosub (Feb 22, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/in...d_report_appendices_and_transcripts_2013.html


----------



## existentialist (Feb 22, 2013)

To continue with my occasional derail of this thread...

I've now had a couple of phone calls from a detective constable in the Met - it seems that they are taking my statement very seriously. The trend towards encouragement and reassurance continues, too, with this particular officer being at pains at every turn of the way to assure me that I am at no risk from the parties I've made allegations against, etc. That matters perhaps less to me than it might to others, but I do appreciate it - it's very different from my past encounters with Her Majesty's Finest Constabulary.

Today, I had a call to say that they interviewed one of the parties under caution earlier this week. He apparently replied "No comment" to every question that was put to him. Which means, it seems, that it is almost inevitable that it's going to go to a court case, assuming the CPS decide there's enough evidence to charge.

I did wonder about farming this off to a separate thread, but it seems to me that, as a first-hand narrative of what happens when someone does make a historical allegation of sexual abuse, maybe it fits quite nicely here as a kind of counterpoint to the "big picture" stuff. Which also offers me the advantage that it's a bit more lost in the noise, and rather less blatantly visible than if it had a thread all to itself.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 22, 2013)

Good luck, man.


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 24, 2013)

i don't want to resurrect my original thread, but.. i'm going back to derailing this one and then deleting instead 

/derail


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2013)

Tufty, I am responsible for doing risk assessments in relation to criminal records checks for some people who work in schools, but not directly with kids. Even in that case as a school is a protected site we have to get enhanced CRB's. These should in theory be checked by a police officer and allegations of concern should be flagged up even if they didn't result in a prosecution. These may or may not be passed on to the organisation at the discretion of that police officer.

So the chances are that it will have been flagged up somewhere that this person has some history and hopefully they will be monitored as a result.

As I'm sure you can understand it's an extremely difficult tightrope to walk as there is scope for innocent peoples lives being ruined too.


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 24, 2013)

cheers for the reply, salem.


----------



## salem (Feb 24, 2013)

Ah, sorry I only just dipped into the last thread and don't know any of the background. Certainly, it's best to err on the safe side and dial 101. Was just adding a little background in case you weren't aware.


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 24, 2013)

no worries - i didn't give you any context! and thank you, your input was food for thought (as all the recent stuff has been - lots of chewing over in my brane).


----------



## elbows (Feb 25, 2013)

Good blog piece by Jon Snow:

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/sexual-watershed/19876



> Music schools, parliament, the church, the media, allegations are flying around the corridors of virtually every institution in Britain. The Savile aftermath is having a vast effect on many who as children and adults were abused by others.





> What we now know too is Savile did not just blow the lid off management structures at the BBC, but more importantly, his vile exploits also exposed the institutional tolerance of the established media to gross misbehaviour, so long as the celebrity was big enough.
> 
> One small comfort we can take is that many of us have truly been through a genuine sexual revolution – both in attitudes and behaviorally. Some have not. Some tabloids still have a long way to go, some of their websites still further. Indeed, the demand indicates many consumers may have a ways to travel too.





> This is a dramatic moment in the affairs of men and women; we shall all be tested. But don’t underestimate what this time means to the abused. I know, I was six years old when a member of the domestic staff at the school, where my father taught, abducted me.
> 
> He took me to his room and undressed me, and then himself. Thank heavens someone saw the abduction and eventually a member of staff intervened and rescued me. I remember to this day fretting over not being able to do my braces up. And I admit that I have found Savile regurgitating the guilt and confusion that I felt.
> 
> No amount of effort in responding to complainants must be spared, but neither must it be allowed to become a witch-hunt. We face some delicate balances in which the welfare of many is at stake. But I suspect the journey has only just begun.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 25, 2013)

Interesting, although I'd take issue with the "although the celebrity was big enough" statement - I think that institutions were (and maybe still are) tolerant of gross misbehaviour regardless of the celebrity of the offender. If they feel that they have anything to lose by being intolerant of such misbehaviour they will avoid tackling the problem.


----------



## elbows (Feb 26, 2013)

The Scarborough ice cream magnate turned mayor story that got some local press attention due to a Savile link has progressed somewhat:

http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/local/ex-mayor-was-a-sex-pest-says-councillor-1-5432916



> A Scarborough councillor has spoken out about how he was “propositioned” at the age of 14 by former mayor and ice cream king Peter Jaconelli.
> 
> Cllr Geoff Evans, now 64, claims the late 21-stone politician inappropriately embraced him when he visited his ice cream parlour in the early 1960s.
> He said: “It was quite obvious what he was doing.
> ...





> He claims authorities, including the police and council, were aware of the issue but did not take any action.
> Now, he is calling for other victims to come forward in an attempt to strip Jaconelli of his honorary alderman title in line with a similar move to remove Savile’s freeman of the borough status.





> Cllr Evans, who represents the Eastfield ward on Scarborough Council, decided to come forward after being party to an email which alleged Jaconelli was a “predatory paedophile”.
> The sensational claims were made by former resident Trevor Harrington in a letter to the authority’s chief executive Jim Dillon, which has been obtained by The Scarborough News.
> “Proud Scarborian” Mr Harrington, who now lives in Australia, wrote that he was a member of Jaconelli’s Ippon Judo Club and also worked in his ice cream parlours.
> Also calling for his alderman status to be revoked, he said: “I can confirm from personal experience that he was a predatory paedophile who preyed on local children.”
> Jaconelli ran a hugely successful ice cream business with several restaurants. Known as the town’s Ice Cream King, he died in 1999, aged 73.


----------



## cloudfall (Mar 5, 2013)

Angelwings said:


> How do you know Big Daddy was a abuser too?? Not saying i think he is not just i also think the same!


Any update on this, which wrestler has been spilling the beans


----------



## Greebo (Mar 5, 2013)

elbows said:


> The Scarborough ice cream magnate turned mayor story that got some local press attention due to a Savile link has progressed somewhat<snip>


Thanks for the update.


----------



## elbows (Mar 6, 2013)

And so the director of public prosecutions has spoken of how things got imbalanced towards paying too much attention to the credibility of victims and not enough on the credibility of suspects:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21673703


> In a speech later, Mr Starmer is expected to say "we cannot afford another Savile moment".
> Hundreds of cases where there was no prosecution could be re-examined.





> Mr Starmer said many victims did not have the confidence to come forward and the standards used for establishing the credibility of someone making an allegation can mean vulnerable victims are not believed.
> This is because complainants often have characteristics - such as a distrust of authority and alcohol issues - which both make them vulnerable and put their credibility in doubt.
> In future, investigators will be expected to test the credibility of an allegation by focusing on the suspect as well as the alleged victim.
> "At the moment there is a great deal of focus on whether the victim is telling the truth. We need to look equally carefully at the account the suspect has given - look at the context, the pattern of behaviour and make the necessary links," Mr Starmer said.





> The review panel will look at cases where people have come forward but the case has not proceeded. The panel will then advise chief constables on whether the case should be reopened. Mr Starmer says he expects the number of cases to be in the "hundreds not thousands".


 
The article also mentions some miscarriages of justice a decade ago that contributed to the inadequate stance:



> BBC Home Affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said some wrongful convictions over historic child abuse a decade ago saw the justice pendulum swing toward a more sceptical approach.
> 
> But he said after the Jimmy Savile affair there was a sense "the pendulum needs re-positioning again".





> Mark Newby, a solicitor who formed a panel to look at historic child abuse allegations, said he was "gravely concerned" the balance might be shifted too far in favour of the victim.
> "We have to be really careful not to create a whole new genre of miscarriage because of the current atmosphere and pandemonium over these cases," he told BBC Radio 4 Today's programme.





> "A new genre of miscarriages of justice has arisen from the over-enthusiastic pursuit of these allegations". Those were the words of the Home Affairs Committee in 2002 after hundreds of people had been investigated about historical child abuse in children's homes and other institutions.
> 
> Many were wrongfully convicted and as a result the justice pendulum swung the other way: police adopted a more sceptical approach and prosecutors were more picky about the cases they took to trial.





> The difficulty, as Keir Starmer acknowledges, is to set the right balance - so that investigators adopt a less cautious approach to what victims say while testing and questioning their accounts.
> Experience suggests it won't be easy: expect a few cases to go wrong before things settle down.


I suppose when I find some time I'll have to see what the panel were looking at in 2002, anybody know examples of the miscarriages of justice? As best I remember the only related concepts we've mentioned here have been the words of the dead bloke whose name escapes me that wrote books & articles about how the care home stuff was totally overblown. A man who on initial inspection did not appear to have 'his pendulum positioned in the right spot' as he went way off in the other direction to the extent that did not seem to me to be helpful to victims.


----------



## elbows (Mar 12, 2013)

I see the latest report looking at police handling of Savile is out. 



> The earliest known missed opportunity to investigate Savile was in 1963 when a male victim reported to Cheshire police that he had been raped by Savile, according to the report. An officer told the victim to “forget about it”.


 


> In 1964 intelligence about Savile was entered into a ledger used by the Met’s paedophile unit. It said the DJ had visited an address used by girls who had absconded from Duncroft Approved School in Surrey. There is no record of any investigation.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750548

There are later instances too but I found those first few the most interesting.


----------



## Firky (Mar 12, 2013)

This does wonders for thing post Jimmy Saville and Reddard... I haven't quoted the whole thing but it is one of the most rank pieces I have ever read in the DM.

The outrageous confessions of an upper-class Lolita



> The legendary actor Laurence Olivier was an acquaintance of my father’s, who had rented a holiday house not far from where Olivier was staying.
> 
> My father and I had been invited to lunch that day. The others had gone swimming, leaving Olivier and I alone. He asked me how old I was, and I told him I was 15.
> 
> ...


 


> So you cannot blame me for thinking that it is often precocious and predatory girls who should be arrested, and not the men who show an opportunistic interest in them.
> 
> After all, it was Eve who tempted Adam.


 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...essions-upper-class-Lolita.html#ixzz2NJcoDGcg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Meltingpot (Mar 12, 2013)

Firky said:


> This does wonders for thing post Jimmy Saville and Reddard... I haven't quoted the whole thing but it is one of the most rank pieces I have ever read in the DM.
> 
> The outrageous confessions of an upper-class Lolita
> 
> ...


 
Petronella Wyatt .... oh no....


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2013)

it's a massive troll firky. it even says 'this is a massive troll' at the top of the article ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

elbows said:


> I see the latest report looking at police handling of Savile is out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would like to say that i'm shocked or surprised - but that wouldn't be true. That the worst of his behaviour (as far as we know at this point anyway) was present when he was in his mid 30s suggests whole decades of activity prior to this first reported (male) rape.


----------



## Firky (Mar 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> it's a massive troll firky. it even says 'this is a massive troll' at the top of the article ffs.


 
It's f'ing rank.


----------



## elbows (Mar 19, 2013)

Stupid beliefs alert:


> During the interview, in which Roache discussed recent sex abuse scandals, Roache said: "If you accept that you are pure love, and if you know that you are pure love and therefore live that pure love, these things won't happen to you."
> Interviewer Garth Bray replied: "To some people that sounds perhaps like you're saying victims bring things on themselves - is that what you're saying?"
> Roache replied: "No, not quite.. and yet I am, because everything that happens to us has been a result of what we have been in previous lives or whatever."





> In the interview, Roache also talked about people who are accused of abuse, saying: "If someone has done something wrong, the law should take its course... whether they're proven guilty or not, we should not be judgmental about anybody, ever.
> "We should all be totally forgiving about everything."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21843139

 or whatever.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 19, 2013)

I never thought Hoddle could be out-Hoddled. 

What an offensive, stupid, fuckwitted clown.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 19, 2013)

elbows said:


> Stupid beliefs alert:
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21843139
> ...


He is an actor content to play the same role for his whole life. May I suggest this means he is not the brightest light bulb in the box?


----------



## elbows (Mar 20, 2013)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dden-investigating-officers-brass-police.html

​


> Hundreds of files on celebrities, politicians and other VIPs accused of sex attacks and abuse were so heavily protected by senior police that investigating officers could not access them, it emerged today.​​Information on high profile suspects was marked as 'secret' or 'restricted' and only available to a small number of officers - a system which may have helped prolific offenders like Jimmy Savile and MP Cyril Smith escape prosecution.​​The approach to sensitive files was designed to stop officers from leaking information to the media, experts say.​​The issue of detectives being unable to access relevant intelligence was highlighted in a report on the effectiveness of the Police National Database (PND) in the wake of the Savile scandal.​


​​​​


----------



## laptop (Mar 20, 2013)

elbows said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dden-investigating-officers-brass-police.html
> 
> ​
> ​​


 
Aye, the Times led on something similar.

The punchline there was also that the secrecy was: "to stop officers from leaking information to the media".

So it's a cynical intervention in the argument over press regulation, at least POV timing of the story...


----------



## Espresso (Mar 20, 2013)

William Roache says we should all be totally forgiving about everything and not judgemental? Blimey, he wasn't so forgiving when he sued The Sun for libel when they said he was boring.
Daft bastard.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Mar 20, 2013)

elbows said:


> The Scarborough ice cream magnate turned mayor story that got some local press attention due to a Savile link has progressed somewhat:
> 
> http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/local/ex-mayor-was-a-sex-pest-says-councillor-1-5432916


This is chilling me and my parents to the bone, as kids (between the ages of 8 and 15) we spent hours down the seafront unaccompanied as did plenty of other kids.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Mar 20, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Interesting, although I'd take issue with the "although the celebrity was big enough" statement - I think that institutions were (and maybe still are) tolerant of gross misbehaviour regardless of the celebrity of the offender. If they feel that they have anything to lose by being intolerant of such misbehaviour they will avoid tackling the problem.


It still goes on, there's a well known fashion photographer in the states who strips naked and encourages young models to masturbate him, egged on by his assistants. 
Will he ever be prosecuted? I don't think so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2013)

pinkmonkey said:


> It still goes on, there's a well known fashion photographer in the states who strips naked and encourages young models to masturbate him, egged on by his assistants.
> Will he ever be prosecuted? I don't think so.


please could we keep discussion on this thread to sir jimmy savile obe kcsg?


----------



## elbows (Mar 24, 2013)

Andy Kershaw has had a long and long overdue rant about Savile and the BBC, the wider media, and Esther Rantzen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...y-Savile-scandal-will-not-be-snuffed-out.html

The whole thing is worth a read but here are a couple of highlights.



> Every one of these mourners knew better than to pay tribute. For every one of them, as creatures of the media or the entertainment industries, had, for years, heard the persistent rumours about the real Jimmy Savile. Even in death – and for another 12 months – Savile would continue to pull off a public relations swindle of spectacular audacity.
> 
> Stories of Savile’s sordid activities were not restricted to those of us within the BBC, although the sanctimonious response of many in the media, once his paedophilia was exposed, was to vilify only employees of the corporation for doing nothing at the time. In fact, on more than one occasion over the years, one tabloid newspaper came very close to outing Savile for his child sex enthusiasms.


 



> Meanwhile, too many of his colleagues in showbiz and the media disregarded a reservoir of appalling rumour, perhaps hoping the gold dust of Savile’s ridiculous celebrity would rub off on them.
> 
> Typical of those with 20/20 hindsight was Esther Rantzen. Within a couple of days of the Savile scandal breaking, Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline, and someone not previously shy of hobnobbing with Savile, was asking us to believe she had heard the rumours but had dismissed them as “green room gossip”. Later, and presuming to speak on behalf of the nation, Rantzen popped up on BBC News to wring her hands and claim: “We are all guilty now.”


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Not true:



> Since the scandal blew wide open it has been asked endlessly why those of us who had heard of the Savile reality failed to do anything about it. Certainly for those of us on the shop floor at the BBC, not responsible for continuing to hire Savile while these rumours persisted, there was nothing we could do unless, or until, one of three things happened: that one of his poor victims made a successful complaint to the police or to the BBC – and for decades either they didn’t, or were ridiculed when they did; that one of the producers or BBC bosses who had worked closely with Savile on these shows, reported him, instead of sniggering about it in social situations; or – and the idea conjures up a vision too nightmarish to contemplate – one of us caught him in the act. That didn’t happen, either.


----------



## elbows (Mar 24, 2013)

I certainly think his stance is flawed but since there has been a distinct lack of honesty and exploration of the entire media classes awareness of Savile I considered it a start.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

> Not me, Esther, old thing. At Radio 1, as soon as I heard the Savile rumours, I gave the guy a very wide berth. And in my autobiography, No Off Switch, written and first published while Savile was still alive, I hinted as strongly as I could that there may be a darker side, describing him as a “veteran Radio 1 DJ, tireless charity worker, another national institution, widely recognised for his interest in young people”.


 
This is the same AK who supported TH once  it became clear he had been done for paedo stuff in the US and after he brought him, had sponsered over here. No, not enough.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is the same AK who supported TH once it became clear he had been done for paedo stuff in the US and after he brought him, had sponsered over here. No, not enough.


 
Who was TH?

I suspect the reality of what his sister had to face might be important here. Liz Kershaw: "I couldn't say anything, I couldn't even explain because I was broadcasting to the nation. When I complained to somebody they were incredulous and said: 'Don't you like it, are you a lesbian?'"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Ted Hawkins


----------



## elbows (Mar 26, 2013)

So then, no charges for De'Ath. Which enables him to take a reasonable point, stretch it too far and make all the usual noises about how different the culture was back then and do all that fake guilt over Savile stuff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21936350


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

pinkmonkey said:


> there's a well known fashion photographer in the states who strips naked and encourages young models to masturbate him


 
Is there one who doesn't?


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 29, 2013)

*can you tell who it is yet*


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2013)

ROFL


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 29, 2013)

Terry Richardson


----------



## tombowler (Mar 29, 2013)

Ax^ said:


> *can you tell who it is yet*


I hope it isn't though, is there any kids tv presenter from the 70's who is not implicated in this?


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> ROFL


 
This is not the crossword thread


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2013)

I know. It's the anagram one.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 29, 2013)

Stairlift to Heaven.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 29, 2013)

guido says it is indeed that particular 82 year old from Berkshire.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 29, 2013)

A journo told my mate years ago that he was a nonce. Now looking like it might be true. 

Which means the other things the journo told my mate might be true.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

Re: the '82 yr old' sad really, why can't these people control their urges?, but the full force of the law must now be used...


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Stairlift to Heaven.


 
I think they will soon come a-knocking for the old rockers..


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

no way??


----------



## Wilf (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> I think they will soon come a-knocking for the old rockers..


The Ecuadorian Embassy only needed a new fridge when Assange came to stay.  If that lot take up residence they'll have to get estimates for a swimming pool.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Mar 29, 2013)

Never seen a "celebrities you've met" thread that didn't prominently feature this particular octogenarian...


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 29, 2013)

Its odd that if you search this latest arrest on Google there are several results even naming names but search the BBC website & there is nothing I can find.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

I can't see his name.

I can only think of one entertainer with that nationality. It's not him is it? I've met him!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

oh fuck according to somebody on twitter it could be! fuck!!!!


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Mar 29, 2013)

Some editor from the Daily Star (so it must be true) has named him on Twitter.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 29, 2013)

> Although the arrest of a famous celebrity is bound to get people’s attention, it is nothing in comparison to the big scandal which will break in the UK soon. In my view the biggest political scandal ever, bigger even than Watergate. More on that soon enough but you will be horrified to find out what has been going on. So ‘enjoy’ your celebrity sacrifice for today but prepare yourself for the awful truth.


 
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/


Things that make you go "hmmmm". . .


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 29, 2013)

I don't understand why people are still so disbelieving of this


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

I believe it, but I'm just shocked!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I believe it, but I'm just shocked!


 
I still don't understand why people are so shocked


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I still don't understand why people are so shocked


 
People are less likely to want to believe something if they actually had a positive impression of the person beforehand.

And in this particular case there is also the fact that some of us heard about this before when he was apparently questioned (but not arrested) months ago, but obviously not everyone heard that talk on twitter etc at the time.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

I didn't know anything about it. And when I met him as a child I remember liking him!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 29, 2013)

elbows said:


> People are less likely to want to believe something if they actually had a positive impression of the person beforehand.
> 
> And in this particular case there is also the fact that some of us heard about this before when he was apparently questioned (but not arrested) months ago, but obviously not everyone heard that talk on twitter etc at the time.


 
I'm surrprised they didn't hear.  All the same old jokes about 2 Little Boys are being repeated as if nobody's heard them before


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

No fucking way. Don't get me wrong it's probably true, but I am quite shocked about it. Is nothing sacred? The presenters from Playdays and Matthew Corbett will be next!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I didn't know anything about it. And when I met him as a child I remember liking him!


 
But plenty of paedophiles are likeable. How do you think they gain the child's trust in the first place 

Not to mention people in a position of trust


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> No fucking way. Don't get me wrong it's probably true, but I am quite shocked about it. Is nothing sacred? The presenters from Playdays and Matthew Corbett will be next!


 
Will have to google them


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

No dont get me wrong, I'm not saying he's innocent or anything but fucking hell. I didn't expect him to be on the List!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 29, 2013)

No doubt there'll be more that nobody suspected


----------



## Dandred (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> No fucking way. Don't get me wrong it's probably true, but I am quite shocked about it. Is nothing sacred? The presenters from Playdays and Matthew Corbett will be next!


 
Blue Peter is next


----------



## Dandred (Mar 29, 2013)

Brings a whole new meaning to the song "two little boys"


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Things that make you go "hmmmm". . .


 
Although blogs like that one can be rather useful due to the details they are able to pick up on as a result of their prolonged focus on the issue of child sex abuse by the powerful, it is hard to read too much into those sorts of comments. They can, to say the least, be fond of hyperbole and of repeatedly suggesting that something earth-shattering is about to emerge. Sometimes they might be on the money, sometimes they are joining dots spuriously or have other agendas. There are also occasional tendencies towards making out that they have access to special information that the rest of us are not privy too yet, even if they are actually just referring to the same information or rumours that are to be found elsewhere on the net. This is not helped by something of a roller coaster ride in terms of their expectations of what will come out as opposed to what will be covered up, and sometimes they want to have their cake and eat it on this front.

It is not easy to talk about all of this properly on u75 due to the delicate legal situation that prevails until stuff actually comes out in the mainstream. A large gap remains between what certain blogs and people on twitter have been saying for months, and what we can discuss. Much is presented as certainty which should not be. 

All of this leaves me with a very broad spectrum of expectations as to what will happen in the months ahead. There may be a huge political scandal, only moderated by the length of time that has passed, or we may just get one or two people exposes and brought to justice, or even none at all. Even if there is no coverup whatsoever this time, the coverups from the past have at the very least diminished the quality of evidence.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 29, 2013)

Roger that elbows . Anyway, I suspect that a "bigger than Watergate" scandal would trigger the Lord Tom Denning reaction, and would be quietly swept under the carpet marked "appalling vista". . .


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I'm surrprised they didn't hear. All the same old jokes about 2 Little Boys are being repeated as if nobody's heard them before


 
Those prior hints were at least subtle enough that they avoided moderation here last time this story 'nearly broke', even if they stood out a mile in some ways.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2013)

fuck me it'll be tony hart and niel buchannan next. Art attack


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Its odd that if you search this latest arrest on Google there are several results even naming names but search the BBC website & there is nothing I can find.


 
Last time I checked they had reported the arrest but not who it was.

It is not entirely clear why some names come straight out and others dont get mentioned. Last time we thought it was because he had been questioned but not arrested, this time I dont yet have an explanation. Since these scandals began some people have favoured jumping straight to 'oh its super-injunctions or d-notes' censorship stuff but in most cases this has not been the reason at all. There are all manner of sensible reasons why names dont come out when there hasnt been an arrest, and there is just something that might be evidence thats come out on the internet, that people have assumed to be solid proof despite the reality being a good deal more complex, especially legally. 

I doubt the mainstream press avoiding mentioning this name is sustainable this time around, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Geri (Mar 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> Re: the '82 yr old' sad really, why can't these people control their urges?, but the full force of the law must now be used...


 
What urges? Do you know what he is accused of and when? The full force of the law should be indeed be used, _if_ the person is guilty.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

For those that didnt pick up on the story last year...

If its the same person this time as was questioned last year, they were subsequently reported to have been suicidal as a result of the accusations, with some tabloids reporting they had a stay at the priory to help with their depression.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

Given that I waffled on about the issue of why he has not been named, I should say that this telegraph article says he cannot be named 'for legal reasons'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ted-in-Savile-sex-abuse-police-operation.html


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Mar 29, 2013)

*Rolf Harris Arrested By Operation Yewtree Police*

says guido fawkes blog.....
c*nt...


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

Guido tends to assume that he is immune from certain UK laws. 

But if he is right and there is no legal reason not to report it, then it certainly provides an opportunity to look at the issue of why the press sometimes hold back on stuff.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 29, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> But plenty of paedophiles are likeable. How do you think they gain the child's trust in the first place
> 
> Not to mention people in a position of trust


Its odd how many cannot come to terms with this rather obvious fact. People want to think that all paedos are horrible, fat, smelly & terminally creepy. To succeed & get away with his crimes a paedo has to be anything but this.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

I really hope it's not true, I like rolf. Is there more than one person alleging this stuff?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

*I just found this btw. I haven't read all of the posts (this is a thread from 2006) but apparently there were rumours about him! *
Although most of the posts seem to be piss taking, so who knows 
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-112225.html


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I really hope it's not true, I like rolf. Is there more than one person alleging this stuff?


 
Two little boys.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I really hope it's not true, I like rolf. Is there more than one person alleging this stuff?


from Guido's blog in January.....


> We scooped the press on the arrests of Max Clifford and Jim Davidson. Today we can report that Rolf Harris has also been questioned under caution by police from Operation Yewtree. This has been an open secret in media circles for weeks, journalists and newspaper editors alike have known about the story – yet none has published the news. _Why?_


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I really hope it's not true, I like rolf. Is there more than one person alleging this stuff?


 
Well I'm sure you know the sensible score: presumed innocent unless found guilty. But dont insinuate victims are liars or not credible either.

Meanwhile in the real, messy world its a case of no smoke without fire, and the more smoke the easier people will jump to conclusions. Especially if the person is hated and someone we 'want to be guilty'. The court of public opinion may sometimes do a better job than the real courts but is also a sloppy beast.

There are some tentative signs that some of the people arrested post-Savile are not going to end up in court. De'Ath has already been told he wont be charged, and there are rumours that the same will happen with Freddie Starr. Some are already polishing their narratives about how the police have gone on a witch-hunt, overcompensating for their deep inadequacies regarding investigations into Savile. Even if there is some truth to this I dont like it because its unfair to victims and can be used to attempt to preserve the old pre-Savile state of affairs.


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2013)

elbows said:


> it certainly provides an opportunity to look at the issue of why the press sometimes hold back on stuff.


 
Are they going to claim that it's Evil Leveson making them hold back?

I think they are. Unless, of course, "legal reasons" after all has its usual meaning, that there's some kind of court order.


----------



## bignose1 (Mar 29, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> fuck me it'll be tony hart and niel buchannan next. Art attack


 
Id be morphified


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

Potential reasons why the press might not name him:

They like him.
They arent 100% sure its him who was arrested, 'its just rumours'.
They are afraid he might kill himself and they will be blamed (doesnt often stop them when it comes to 'normal' people!)
They know some other details that we dont that makes them hold back.
They are cowards waiting for someone else to make the first move and then they will all join in.
Existing legal reasons why they cant.
Fear of potential legal action later.
They dont think their readers want to hear it.
He has friends who have influence over them.

Any others?


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2013)

laptop said:


> Are they going to claim that it's Evil Leveson making them hold back?


 
I doubt it since they named so many others, and the Leveson issues arent a great fit for the reporting of people who have been arrested.

And its not like the police named everyone else they arrested, the press added that detail on top of the rather dry official police statements.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Mar 29, 2013)

kinda weird we have been trying to expose celeb, royalty, politician involvement for too long now...
feck Rolf and all who defended him....
During this time, it is alleged by satirical magazine _Private Eye_, high-ranking members of the Whitehall Civil Service and senior officers of the UK military were involved in the sexual abuse of boys in Kincora


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 29, 2013)

laptop said:


> Are they going to claim that it's Evil Leveson making them hold back?
> 
> I think they are. Unless, of course, "legal reasons" after all has its usual meaning, that there's some kind of court order.


 
That's the impression I'm getting, because apparently there's no super-injunction


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 29, 2013)

elbows said:


> Potential reasons why the press might not name him:
> 
> They like him.
> They arent 100% sure its him who was arrested, 'its just rumours'.
> ...


 
Or maybe he's in ill health?


----------



## clicker (Mar 29, 2013)

Aw no he signed my sponsored swim certificate when I was a kid - he was so patient with hordes of kids that day.


----------



## xes (Mar 29, 2013)

clicker said:


> Aw no he signed my sponsored swim certificate when I was a kid - he was so patient with hordes of kids that day.


and now you know why ....


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 29, 2013)

clicker said:


> Aw no he signed my sponsored swim certificate when I was a kid - he was so patient with hordes of kids that day.


 
I've only heard of his rumours being related to adults and the inappropriate placement of hands, nothing to do with kids.


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> That's the impression I'm getting, because apparently there's no super-injunction


 
If there were an injunction and it were _really_ super, we couldn't be told there was one. That's what the "super" bit means.

But I had the impression that even Mr Justice Eady had stopped issuing these. Though... how could we tell?


----------



## Wilf (Mar 29, 2013)

We shouldn't assume this is _necessarily_ about kids. The Savile related inquiries will have picked up on all sorts of potential offences. Needless to say, not an attempt to defend him, or say any offence is 'worse' than any other. If he's done something, I hope he rots.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 29, 2013)

laptop said:


> If there were an injunction and it were _really_ super, we couldn't be told there was one. That's what the "super" bit means.
> 
> But I had the impression that even Mr Justice Eady had stopped issuing these. Though... how could we tell?


 
No idea


----------



## Barking_Mad (Mar 29, 2013)

Just for the record Rolf Harris has suffered clinical depression before in his life. 

Here.

Also, reading the lyrics to Two Little Boys (which he didnt write) im not sure what people are trying to say, apart from making a lame joke for effect.


----------



## later (Mar 29, 2013)

He's a CBE, CBEs aren't guilty.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 29, 2013)

later said:


> He's a CBE, CBEs aren't guilty.


What does the queen do with all those Sirs and CBEs she has to grab back? She'll probably send Edward out at 2 a.m. to hang then round Michael Jackson's neck outside Craven Cottage. His biggest job since It's a Knockout (which was originally hosted by Stuart...)


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 30, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> No dont get me wrong, I'm not saying he's innocent or anything but fucking hell. I didn't expect him to be on the List!


 
The Paedofinder General stalks the land.....


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 30, 2013)

Any idea how big a crowd 'latest name' had on the Pyramid Stage at Glasto last time he was there?

The previous time, two years before on the JazzWorld Stage (renamed West Holts now) the field was so packed it was considered dangerous.

We were there for those gigs on both occasions


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 31, 2013)

Ha! It is obvious who it is from that WoW! 
He was on the main stage btw


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 31, 2013)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/operation-yewtree-wife-celebrity-83-1794742

Age has changed to reflect recent birthday


----------



## elbows (Mar 31, 2013)

Whoever that is being interviewed in the Mirror can fuck right off. 



> “Is everyone in their 50s and 60s, or older, often in the twilight of their careers, even genuine national treasures, going to be hounded for what may or may not have happened in the past – while the police go off with smiles on their faces?


 
Smiles on their faces? And yeah, duh, people will be questioned for things that may have happened in the past. National treasures, oh great, way to miss the entire point of Saviles shield against justice


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 31, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> Ha! It is obvious who it is from that WoW!
> He was on the main stage btw


That's right, main stage most recently, West Holts the time previous ... as I think I remember.

Not giving anything away as he's been named already in this thread.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 31, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> I've only heard of his rumours being related to adults and the inappropriate placement of hands, nothing to do with kids.



Same, from a mate with first hand (pardon the pun) experience. Interesting to see what he's charged with, if he is charged.


----------



## laptop (Mar 31, 2013)

elbows said:


> Whoever that is being interviewed in the Mirror can fuck right off
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Translation of sleb: "Oh fuck."


----------



## ymu (Mar 31, 2013)

Grace Dent nailed it months ago:

The Jimmy Savile abuse scandal means men across Britain will sleep uneasily, remembering past 'conquests'


----------



## existentialist (Mar 31, 2013)

ymu said:


> Grace Dent nailed it months ago:
> 
> The Jimmy Savile abuse scandal means men across Britain will sleep uneasily, remembering past 'conquests'


Not all men. But yes, I think that for men of a certain age, the rather free-and-easy attitudes of the 1960s and 70s towards "jailbait" may be coming back to haunt some of them. I was born a little too late to be part of that generation, but I do recall, even well into the 1980s, how suspicious many men were of anyone who didn't subscribe to the whole objectification/"pwhoar" mentality: unless you were a very strong character, there was immense pressure to go along with it, if not actually participate.

So I imagine there may well be quite a few who were reluctant participants whose consciences are now giving them serious gyp, not to mention the prospect of an early morning knock on the door. Let alone the ones who knew exactly what they were doing.


----------



## ymu (Mar 31, 2013)

She in no way implies that it was all men. If there's an issue it is with the sub-editor, but it's a perfectly normal turn of phrase which is generally understood to imply 'some members of this group'.

I have a small amount of sympathy on the basis that no one was saying it was wrong back then, even though plenty mysteriously knew anyway. But I'm not convinced the actuality has got as much better as is implicitly assumed. It's not as overt, but that's not the same thing at all.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 31, 2013)

ymu said:


> She in no way implies that it was all men. If there's an issue it is with the sub-editor, but it's a perfectly normal turn of phrase which is generally understood to imply 'some members of this group'.


Sure. I just get a little edgy around that kind of generalisation - you can be sure that if a similar one was applied to "women", it'd be leaped upon from a great height!



ymu said:


> I have a small amount of sympathy on the basis that no one was saying it was wrong back then, even though plenty mysteriously knew anyway. But I'm not convinced the actuality has got as much better as is implicitly assumed. It's not as overt, but that's not the same thing at all.


Well, I have _some_ sympathy, but not that much. I think that, while the kind of sexual harassment most of us would consider beyond the pale was somewhat normalised, anyone who sat back and thought a bit for themselves would have realised - as I think (hope!) I did - that it wasn't any way to behave around another human being you had any respect for.

And I agree about how much change has taken place - I think there is more awareness, but there is still a group of people (OK, men) for whom the treatment of women as no more than sex objects is acceptable and maybe even normal. We're making some progress, but it's the kind of progress that would be very quickly lost the minute the efforts to push back that kind of behaviour stopped.


----------



## ymu (Mar 31, 2013)

I'm not convinced that swapping wink-wink nudge-nudge for overt jokes about sexual violence is an improvement.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 2, 2013)

This is sheer genius...


----------



## laptop (Apr 3, 2013)

Who the hell David Smith?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2013)

A BBC driver (some say Savile's driver) - some of the charges relate to a boy under 14 years old when the offences were alleged to have been committed.



> David Smith, who drove for BBC personalities in the 1980s, is accused of committing buggery with a boy under 16 years old in July 1984.
> 
> Smith has also been charged with two counts of indecent assault and two offences of gross indecency on a boy under the age of 14, the Crown Prosecution Service announced on Wednesday.


----------



## laptop (Apr 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A BBC driver (some say Savile's driver) - some of the charges relate to a boy under 14 years old when the offences were alleged to have been committed.


 
Ta. Was thinking "Formula N involved in this now?"


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

"Committing buggery"? How in fuck is it OK to use arcane homophobic terminology when the crime is known as "rape".


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2013)

I imagine it's probably because male rape was only criminalised at the same time as marital rape in 1994. They might be using the language to refer to the alleged crime at the time.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Fair point. I will consider letting it go.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Fair point. I will consider letting it go.



It occurred to me because I just happened to have clocked it when checking the legislation timeline for marital rape yesterday. This evening I had a quick look at when "committing buggery" exited from the statute books forever. Only *10* years ago when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 repealed s143 of the Crim Just and Pub Order Act 94.


----------



## Maltin (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> "Committing buggery"? How in fuck is it OK to use arcane homophobic terminology when the crime is known as "rape".


Why do you think buggery is homophobic?


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

Maltin said:


> Why do you think buggery is homophobic?


I don't. I think the archaic term "committing buggery" is homophobic. Because it is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> "Committing buggery"? How in fuck is it OK to use arcane homophobic terminology when the crime is known as "rape".


 
Because (and IANAL, so I'm sure one will be along to correct me if I'm wrong) he has to be charged under the the charge extant at the time the offence was committed.


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2013)

<waits for VP to catch up ...>

Canucker.


----------



## laptop (Apr 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because (and IANAL, so I'm sure one will be along to correct me if I'm wrong) he has to be charged under the the charge extant at the time the offence was committed.


 
IANALeither, but, yes.

And I suppose that in much the same way it was homophobic at the time because it was presumed that no decent British girl or boy could consent to _that_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> Grace Dent nailed it months ago:
> 
> The Jimmy Savile abuse scandal means men across Britain will sleep uneasily, remembering past 'conquests'


grand choice of picture to illustrate the article


----------



## elbows (Apr 4, 2013)

They've arrested another person, not seen a name yet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 4, 2013)

ymu said:


> <waits for VP to catch up ...>
> 
> Canucker.


 
Tend to dip in and out of Urban during daylight hours nowadays, so sometimes there's a lot of catching up to do. 
The difference between me and Canuck is that I don't jump in halfway through a thread without reading the preceding pages first. Canuck sometimes (I'm being generous there!) does.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 4, 2013)




----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 4, 2013)




----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2013)

Interesting piece that clumps a lot of the Savile reports together and draws the obvious conclusion

http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/madlands-savile-article/?source=mm802


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2013)

edit.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 14, 2013)

Meltingpot said:


> Petronella Wyatt .... oh no....


 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2308344/Petronella-Wyatt-Its-hell-posh-poor.html


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 16, 2013)




----------



## yardbird (Apr 19, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22212131

Been waiting for this.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2013)

Rolf named: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22212131


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2013)

yardbird said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22212131
> 
> Been waiting for this.


You beat me.


----------



## Reno (Apr 19, 2013)

yardbird said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22212131
> 
> Been waiting for this.


Same here. My only question is, what took them so long ?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 19, 2013)

Reno said:


> Same here. My only question is, what took them so long ?


 
I think he was in a clinic.  Maybe they wanted him to be in good health before nicking him


----------



## 19sixtysix (Apr 19, 2013)

He's not been charged nor named by the police who are usually very keen to do so.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2013)

Reno said:


> Same here. My only question is, what took them so long ?


they say for legal reasons. i guess those legal reasons may be mr harris' keen legal team?


----------



## Reno (Apr 19, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I think he was in a clinic. Maybe they wanted him to be in good health before nicking him


 
I mean "what took them several decades ?" Not saying he's a nonce or a rapist, but I've worked with him for one day in the 90s and was aware that he was sexually harassing female staff members. He was the opposite from his public persona, a really unpleasant man to be around.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2013)

same as with jimmy. national treasure, disbelieving coppers, hardcore lawyers.

(probably)


----------



## Mr Moose (Apr 19, 2013)

killer b said:


> same as with jimmy. national treasure, disbelieving coppers, hardcore lawyers.
> 
> (probably)



You can add 'eccentric' to national treasure. Seems a reoccurring theme.


----------



## elbows (Apr 19, 2013)

19sixtysix said:


> He's not been charged nor named by the police who are usually very keen to do so.


 
I dont remember the police rushing to name the others either, they usually say 'a xx year old man from the xxxx area', give them a Yewtree number and the media do the rest.


----------



## The Octagon (Apr 19, 2013)

I liked Reno's post but now it looks a little odd, obviously meant in agreement, I've been hearing first hand accounts of his behaviour for years (although I should stress I've never heard anything Savile-esque on the age front).


----------



## Geri (Apr 19, 2013)

Reno said:


> I mean "what took them several decades ?" Not saying he's a nonce or a rapist, but I've worked with him for one day in the 90s and was aware that he was sexually harassing female staff members. He was the opposite from his public persona, a really unpleasant man to be around.


 
Did you report him?


----------



## Reno (Apr 19, 2013)

Geri said:


> Did you report him?


 
It would have been up to the women to report him, who were in higher positions than I was at the time. I didn't witness the harassment myself, but several of the women at the studio he was making a programme about, were complaining about how he would touch them inappropriately and without warning. Nobody did report him, because he was gone again after a day and he provided a lot of publicity to the company he was visiting. Nobody wanted to fuck that up.


----------



## Geri (Apr 19, 2013)

I see.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 19, 2013)

Reno said:


> It would have been up to the women to report him, who were in higher positions than I was at the time. I didn't witness the harassment myself, but several of the women at the studio he was making a programme about, were complaining about how he would touch them inappropriately and without warning. Nobody did report him, because he was gone again after a day and he provided a lot of publicity to the company he was visiting. Nobody wanted to fuck that up.


 

More likely they didn't want to risk their jobs by complaining or be disbelieved


----------



## Dr Nookie (Apr 19, 2013)

Whatever a person's reason for not reporting a sexual attacker/harrasser, I don't think they should ever, ever be blamed for that decision. The blame lies squarely with the perpetrator.


----------



## Reno (Apr 19, 2013)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> More likely they didn't want to risk their jobs by complaining or be disbelieved


 
At least one of the women was in a senior position and there was no way her company would have fired her. It was talked about, but there was a general agreement not to rock the boat.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 19, 2013)

I see


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Apr 19, 2013)

Oh, I see.


----------



## Reno (Apr 19, 2013)

What is everybody "seeing" ?


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2013)

dead people?


----------



## Favelado (Apr 19, 2013)

I was waiting for Rolf to be announced. If anyone knows of any others that are coming I wouldn't object to a PM.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2013)

i just came across this blog post - oddly enough, the exact same anecdote was relayed to me by an ex girlfriend about 10 years ago (in her tale the burglar attempted to blackmail rolf, but had some heavies call round and threaten to kill him). the same ex was also approached by savile when she was a kid in cleethorpes - i'd kind of assumed both tales were flights of fancy (she was given to outlandish tales, not all of which were true), but i guess maybe i should give her a shout and see if she has any other tips...


----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2013)

Reno said:


> At least one of the women was in a senior position and there was no way her company would have fired her. It was talked about, but there was a general agreement not to rock the boat.


That's how we get to senior positions. By not making a fuss. Second nature. Why do you think so few assaults are reported? Because they all happen to little girls who don't know what to do?


----------



## Reno (Apr 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> That's how we get to senior positions. By not making a fuss. Second nature. Why do you think so few assaults are reported? Because they all happen to little girls who don't know what to do?


 
Sure, no great surprise. However the female staff there weren't people who usually deal with Harris, who was only there for one day.


----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2013)

Oh, that's OK then. Because we only ever get it once in a lifetime. First gropey hands and we go "thank fuck, that's my sexual harrassment incident over with, and it wasn't rape! Yay!"


----------



## Reno (Apr 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Oh, that's OK then. Because we only ever get it once in a lifetime. First gropey hands and we go "thank fuck, that's my sexual harrassment incident over with, and it wasn't rape! Yay!"


Where did I say that it's OK. Surely I can't be held responsible for their decisions ?

I was just stating that you are not telling me anything that's any great surprise to me. I've put up with a lot of homophobia to not loose jobs and to get on in my career, which wasn't that much fun either.


----------



## ibilly99 (Apr 19, 2013)




----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2013)

Reno said:


> Where did I say that it's OK. Surely I can't be held responsible for their decisions ?
> 
> I was just stating that you are not telling me anything that's any great surprise to me. I've put up with a lot of homophobia to not loose jobs and to get on in my career, which wasn't that much fun either.


I'm not holding you responsible for their decisions. I'm pointing out that your response to mine was a complete non-sequitur.

Harris only being there for one day does not make an ounce of difference to the compromises she is likely to have made to get to a senior position.

Thankfully, I am not management material. 

I was harrassed by a co-worker in a very seedy way. IT worked out who it was at the same time I did, by different methods. The two most senior male bosses were brilliant and said they would do exactly what I wanted them to do about it. And I said put it on file so the next person has back-up.

I think I was wrong. I don't know if it would have made a difference if it had been two female bosses, but it wasn't exactly a comfortable conversation to have with two older men, however sympathetic and lovely. One of them was my human shield in external meetings when some '70s throwback would suggest I pour the coffee. He'd look at me in genuine pain, roll his eyes at them and jump up to pour it himself. And then pretend not to know the answers to questions so they had to ask me.

He was a proper feminist. But should he have called a woman in to deal with it? Maybe. I dunno. It didn't occur to me until years later that maybe they should have.


----------



## Reno (Apr 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm not holding you responsible for their decisions. I'm pointing out that your response to mine was a complete non-sequitur.
> 
> Harris only being there for one day does not make an ounce of difference to the compromises she is likely to have made to get to a senior position.


 
What was a non-sequitur to you, was me pointing out that this was not a day to day story of office sexual harassment. At that company this was a rather unusual situation for everybody involved apart from Rolf Harris. And it is not likely that she had to make "compromises" to get were she was, the company was not your usual corporate environment.


----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2013)

You cannot know what women experience Reno. If you could, you could not have written that.

80,000 rapes a year in the UK. 400,000 sexual assaults in total. Every year. But it can't be anyone you know?

I am not going to risk trashing the one thread that _should_ make it easier to understand this, so I will leave it now.


----------



## Reno (Apr 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> You cannot know what women experience Reno. If you could, you could not have written that.
> 
> And I am not going to risk trashing the one thread that _should_ make it easier to understand this, so I will leave it now.


 
I'm not talking about "women", I was talking about a particular woman in a particular situation. And I knew enough about her, her career and the company to know that it is very unlikely for her to have experienced sexual harassment at that company where she worked her way up from runner to producer.

This is not a thread about sexual harassment at the working place, but one about about an ongoing case of celebrity sex offenders. Offences were committed by the visiting celebrity, but there wasn't an ongoing problem with sexual harassment at the company. And that I do know, because unlike you, I was there and I knew these people.


----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2013)

Jebus. Multiply those numbers by 70 years at risk, compare those numbers to the number of adult women in the country, and then work out our average lifetime risk of rape and sexual assault respectively.

And then wonder why you are offending me by focusing on one woman in her workplace and what you assume she experienced in life (in and out of work).

i don't know why i was still subscribed. It won;t happen again.


----------



## Favelado (Apr 19, 2013)

Thatcher picked "Two Little Boys" as one of her favourite songs. She couldn't half pick 'em.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7725624.stm


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2013)

The Tweenies knew. 

Anyone familiar with the Tweenies? Max impersonated Savile in one episode. And... here's the thing... in another he impersonated Rolf! 

I think they were trying to tell us. All we need to do is check all the episodes for who Max impersonated.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 19, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I was waiting for Rolf to be announced. If anyone knows of any others that are coming I wouldn't object to a PM.


Anagrams are the way forward.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 19, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> The Tweenies knew.
> 
> Anyone familiar with the Tweenies? Max impersonated Savile in one episode. And... here's the thing... in another he impersonated Rolf!
> 
> I think they were trying to tell us. All we need to do is check all the episodes for who Max impersonated.


How do _you_ know this?!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:
			
		

> How do you know this?!



By watching the Tweenies.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 19, 2013)

Aye, but why are you watching The Tweenies?!  Didn't think your kids were that young, are they?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:
			
		

> Aye, but why are you watching The Tweenies?!  Didn't think your kids were that young, are they?



I have a good memory.


----------



## Reno (Apr 20, 2013)

ymu said:


> Jebus. Multiply those numbers by 70 years at risk, compare those numbers to the number of adult women in the country, and then work out our average lifetime risk of rape and sexual assault respectively.
> 
> And then wonder why you are offending me by focusing on one woman in her workplace and what you assume she experienced in life (in and out of work).
> 
> i don't know why i was still subscribed. It won;t happen again.


 
I used to like your posts, but lately they've been bordering on the delusional and paranoid to be honest. You are the one who is "assuming", I knew her quite well.


----------



## elbows (May 1, 2013)

Espresso said:


> William Roache says we should all be totally forgiving about everything and not judgemental? Blimey, he wasn't so forgiving when he sued The Sun for libel when they said he was boring.
> Daft bastard.


 
Well since he has now been nicked over allegations of historic sex crime(s), his comments about pure love and not being judgemental now gain an extra layer of horror.

I'll wait till the media have a little more time to grasp the details of this story before posting a link, especially as I dont want to link to the Daily Mail again.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2013)

elbows said:


> Well since he has now been nicked over allegations of historic sex crime(s), his comments about pure love and not being judgemental now gain an extra layer of horror.
> 
> I'll wait till the media have a little more time to grasp the details of this story before posting a link, especially as I dont want to link to the Daily Mail again.


They went a bit further than that, he explicitly said victims bring things on themselves.


----------



## happie chappie (May 1, 2013)

ETA - now being reported as arrested on suspicion of rape:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981


----------



## Wilf (May 1, 2013)

'Much loved actor' - not a phrase I imagine we'll see attached to this story. Never trust a Tory Druid.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2013)

west yorks police have cleared themselves of shielding savile from prosecution. although at a glance, their terms of reference seem very narrow. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/10/jimmy-savile-police-west-yorkshire?CMP=twt_fd


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2013)

Whitewash from WYP...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/10/jimmy-savile-police-report



> In a 59-page report published on Friday, the force revealed that eight of its officers attended Savile's notorious "Friday Morning Club" to socialise with the former DJ at his home in Leeds, including four who attended regularly over a number of years.
> The inquiry, dubbed Operation Newgreen, found no evidence he was shielded from arrest...


 
Hmmm... _"found no evidence_", eh? Wonder where it all went?


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2013)

brogdale said:


> ...Hmmm... _"found no evidence_", eh? Wonder where it all went?


 
while i wouldn't rule it out - and accept entirely that WYP in the 60's/70's/80's/90's weren't exactly paragons of virtue - isn't it just as likely that the lack of direct evidence is caused by the same things that cause the 'lack of evidence' in every other organistion this has happened to: that in the 60's/70's/80's society was not, by and large, bothered by older men having sex with older children and tended to dismiss complaints without even looking at them long enough to invoke the 'old boys network', and that the relationship between the alleged abuser and the organisation you'd complain to seemed sufficiently close to make it not worth the effort to make a complaint?

if you were 13 yo girl in Leeds who Saville had 'touched up' or worse, and you saw him on the local news playing golf with the CC and doing a crime awareness campaign with most of Roundhay Police Station, and he'd told you (as some have reported him doing) that he was best mates with the police, and you'd be arrested for making it up, would you bother making a complaint in the first place?

Saville was not a celebrity who raped children on the side, he was a rapist who became a celebrity _precisely_ to cultivate the kind of relationships with the media, police, civic society and politicians that would give him the cover and access that he needed to carry on being a rapist. he groomed the police because he needed a public persona that said he was a 'good bloke' who was 'in' with the Police, in the same way he groomed the NHS to get access to children, and the same way he groomed the media to spike anything that suggested he was a wrong 'un.

all of those bodies have questions to answer, but Saville deliberately set out to penetrate and use those organisations for his own ends and against themselves - he would have been a fucking excellent spy.


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2013)

kebabking said:


> while i wouldn't rule it out - and accept entirely that WYP in the 60's/70's/80's/90's weren't exactly paragons of virtue - isn't it just as likely that the lack of direct evidence is caused by the same things that cause the 'lack of evidence' in every other organistion this has happened to: that in the 60's/70's/80's society was not, by and large, bothered by older men having sex with older children and tended to dismiss complaints without even looking at them long enough to invoke the 'old boys network', and that the relationship between the alleged abuser and the organisation you'd complain to seemed sufficiently close to make it not worth the effort to make a complaint?
> 
> if you were 13 yo girl in Leeds who Saville had 'touched up' or worse, and you saw him on the local news playing golf with the CC and doing a crime awareness campaign with most of Roundhay Police Station, and he'd told you (as some have reported him doing) that he was best mates with the police, and you'd be arrested for making it up, would you bother making a complaint in the first place?
> 
> ...


 
 Maybe, but the report stinks, like most other stuff connected with this case. There are clearly some avenues of inquiry that are yet to be revealed, and the discrepancy between the recollections of individual detectives and the organisation hardly inspires confidence in the integrity of the investigation.



> Intelligence about Savile's offending was mishandled a number of times, the report found, including in 1998 when West Yorkshire police failed to properly record an anonymous letter that made sexual abuse allegations about the late Top of the Pops host.
> The letter was forwarded by a Metropolitan police officer from its clubs and vice unit, who told Operation Newgreen that it was "common knowledge within the team in the late 1980s and early 1990s that Savile was a paedophile". The letter is being separately investigated by the police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
> Assistant Chief Constable Ingrid Lee, the author of the report, told the Today programme: "That information [the 1998 anonymous letter] is the subject of an IPCC referral so it would be wrong of me to discuss that in further detail to allow them to conduct their inquiries."


 


> A former detective from the Leeds vice squad said he believed there had been an investigation into allegations of indecent assault by Savile on two girls in the early 1980s, but this was uncorroborated by other retired officers.
> In its report, West Yorkshire police said: "Despite numerous interviews, system searches and inquiries with other agencies, the review team found no evidence of any previous allegations being made to WYP against Savile, or of any investigations being conducted."


 
Hmmm...


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2013)

brogdale said:


> ...Hmmm...


 
people covering their backs? if, as seems the case, WYP 'knew' he was noncing on their patch, but like other police forces in the same position couldn't get a case anywhere near to prosecution standards, they have made an attempt to ditch any evidence on the basis that its going to be easier to claim ignorance of the whole thing than explain why they had all this information and never even got to charging him?

i do not doubt that there has been some 'cover' going on - that investigations got canned on the basis that 'its Jimmy Savile - he's best mates with the Chief Super - don't bother mate', and that some organisations tacitly accepted his noncing as the price to pay for a bit of celebrity (and that these people and organisations are guilty of very serious crimes, for which they should pay) but i think there is a very real danger that we are glossing over Savilles success in infiltrating these organisations. there is a veiw that if we make our procedures strong enough another Saville can't happen - which ignore completely the way that Saville used his celebrity to get those organisations to put aside the rules (however meagre they may have been) that they had at the time.

all of the organisations that Saville used had rules about old men having sex with children - and about setting those rules aside - the problem was never really the rules and procedure (woefull as they may have been) it was Savilles ability to get people to ignore them.


----------



## existentialist (May 10, 2013)

kebabking said:


> people covering their backs? if, as seems the case, WYP 'knew' he was noncing on their patch, but like other police forces in the same position couldn't get a case anywhere near to prosecution standards, they have made an attempt to ditch any evidence on the basis that its going to be easier to claim ignorance of the whole thing than explain why they had all this information and never even got to charging him?
> 
> i do not doubt that there has been some 'cover' going on - that investigations got canned on the basis that 'its Jimmy Savile - he's best mates with the Chief Super - don't bother mate', and that some organisations tacitly accepted his noncing as the price to pay for a bit of celebrity (and that these people and organisations are guilty of very serious crimes, for which they should pay) but i think there is a very real danger that we are glossing over Savilles success in infiltrating these organisations. there is a veiw that if we make our procedures strong enough another Saville can't happen - which ignore completely the way that Saville used his celebrity to get those organisations to put aside the rules (however meagre they may have been) that they had at the time.
> 
> all of the organisations that Saville used had rules about old men having sex with children - and about setting those rules aside - the problem was never really the rules and procedure (woefull as they may have been) it was Savilles ability to get people to ignore them.


Someone mentioned earlier about Savile "grooming the NHS", and I think that's spot-on: what Savile did was a lot of very effective grooming of a lot of organisations. And he did it in a way that played neatly into these organisations' vulnerabilities, just the way that sex abusers take advantage of their victims' vulnerabilities to take advantage of *them*.

So, in amongst the recriminations, perhaps we need to see these organisations as victims in order to look at how we might help them - the way we try to help children be less vulnerable to predators - to be less vulnerable to this kind of organisational grooming?


----------



## elbows (May 10, 2013)

I'm not sure if I would apply the word grooming to these institutional failures. One reason why is that the nature of the power bargain between the abuser and the institution may not leave the institution as a victim as that word is commonly understood. Because in many instances it is not the institution that is harmed, rather it gains (eg via charity revenue), and its the people its supposed to serve that end up victims. Any reputation damage it may suffer years later when the truth comes out is hard to see as being damage of the sort the real victims suffer.


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2013)

elbows said:


> I'm not sure if I would apply the word grooming to these institutional failures. One reason why is that the nature of the power bargain between the abuser and the institution may not leave the institution as a victim as that word is commonly understood. Because in many instances it is not the institution that is harmed, rather it gains (eg via charity revenue), and its the people its supposed to serve that end up victims. Any reputation damage it may suffer years later when the truth comes out is hard to see as being damage of the sort the real victims suffer.


 
while i see your point about the gain that the organisations got at the time, it still doesn't detract from the fact that they were being deliberately 'played' from the outset by someone who was seeking to nullify the organisations purpose for their own, hidden, gain.

if i give you a chololate bar laced with rat poison you might well eat the chocolate, enjoy it, chomp on it and feel nice and full (and so have gained by eating it) - but its still poison, you'll still be incredibly ill, and you'll still be a victim of poisoning and i'll still be able to do what i like to you while you slump into unconciousness and foam gently at the mouth.

what Savile did to these organistions was, in effect, the same thing: he presented a front, infiltrated them, poisoned them and his poison destroyed their ability to a) see that they had been incapacitated, and b) stop him from using their incapacitation for his own ends.

i think the spying analogy is a good one - Kim Philby 'groomed' SIS by being, on the face of it, a bloody effective officer with friends and admirers in most parts of the service - he was so good at hiding his treachery because he deliberately joined the section of SIS that dealt with threats to SIS's security, so he was able to use his position to negate anyone who came to SIS/CIA and said 'you've got a leak'. yes SIS was wilfully blind about Philby, yes it missed massive red flags (aha!), and yes it was utterly crap in keeping hold of him when they started to twig - but Philby was playing them against themselves, he joined them specifically to determine and exploit their weaknesses, and he did so. Savile is not much different, and he was dealing with coppers, producers, hospital administrators and hacks, not intelligence officers.


----------



## elbows (May 10, 2013)

Double-agent spies undermine the central purpose of the spy agencies. Saviles relationship with many institutions was quite different. The tories got their fundraiser which played nicely into to their public funding cuts agenda. Stoke Mandeville got their new building. The BBC got their ratings. Yes Savile abused their trust, making them at least partially complicit in his crimes. But when we rely too strongly on a narrative of them being victims, I'm not sure as that helps to reform their weaknesses. It provides cover for individuals and structures to shirk responsibility. They had a duty of care towards the ultimate victims of Saviles crimes, and even decades later they are keen to paper over the cracks that caused these failings. Although perhaps by describing themselves as poor victims they are more able to admit their failings, in which case I can appreciate your point, but it still doesnt leave the right taste in my mouth.


----------



## ymu (May 10, 2013)

Reno said:


> I used to like your posts, but lately they've been bordering on the delusional and paranoid to be honest. You are the one who is "assuming", I knew her quite well.


Here ya go, Reno. I finally found the words.


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2013)

elbows said:


> ...Saviles relationship with many institutions was quite different....


 
i hold the opposite view - the Polices role was to uphold the law regarding old men touching and raping yonug girls, Saviles infiltration/ingratiation got them to stop doing that - the NHS's role was to protect children, Savile's infiltration/ingratiation got them to provide him with a 'free fire zone' - the media's role was the exposure of wrong-doing (you, at the back - stop laughing), Saviles infiltration/ingratiation got them to ignore/spike allegations about him.

his ability to influence - or make it look like he influenced - organisations got those organisations to do the exact opposite of what they were supposed to be doing.

i am not, to be clear, saying 'poor Police/NHS/BBC/etc...', i am saying that while CP rules and procedures are important, as important is a culture that trains people in organisations and as individuals to recognise when they are being played and groomed by someone who wishes to use them. very few of these organisations did not have rules about CP and access to children, and infact few of these organisations did not have people in them who though he was bad news - the problem was that these organisations and the decision makers at all levels within them were so compromised by the 'Jimmy is a good bloke who'se in with everybody' act that they didn't apply the rules.


----------



## Reno (May 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Here ya go, Reno. I finally found the words.


 
Sorry, but I still don't think that gives you anymore information about someone I personally knew and you have only read a couple of sentences about on this forum through me. Basically you are claiming that our bosses, who you don't know anything about, must have sexually harassed her.

I have enough women in my life to know that their life experience isn't identical to each other and also that they don't process experience in an identical way.


----------



## elbows (May 10, 2013)

kebabking said:


> his ability to influence - or make it look like he influenced - organisations got those organisations to do the exact opposite of what they were supposed to be doing.


 
Apart from the police I dont think 'exact opposite' is accurate. 



> i am not, to be clear, saying 'poor Police/NHS/BBC/etc...', i am saying that while CP rules and procedures are important, as important is a culture that trains people in organisations and as individuals to recognise when they are being played and groomed by someone who wishes to use them. very few of these organisations did not have rules about CP and access to children, and infact few of these organisations did not have people in them who though he was bad news - the problem was that these organisations and the decision makers at all levels within them were so compromised by the 'Jimmy is a good bloke who'se in with everybody' act that they didn't apply the rules.


 
Well this is a key point which is often glossed over by reassurances that 'things are different now'. To an extent they are, I'm not sure that the child protection rules were codified and given prominence during a large part of Saviles offending years. I dont doubt that it would be harder for an individual to operate as Savile did now, although I'm sure there are still weaknesses and I'm not complacent. Some of the words that poured out of Esther Rantzen are probably worthy of further exploration when looking at stuff such as turning a blind eye or certain interests trumping others. 

And no, I dont think you are saying poor police etc, but my comments have been at least partially sponsored by the fact that when these themes have come up in the mainstream post-Savile, that aspect has very much been present.


----------



## brogdale (May 11, 2013)

Good stuff from the torygraph; exposing WYP report as factually incorrect...



> The force only admitted Savile had four five-year-old victims on Saturday after repeated questions from this newspaper.
> In a 59-page report on its dealings with the serial paedophile published last week it suggested there was one victim of that age.
> A spokesman for the force said the report might have been “slightly misleading”, while one MP said it appeared the force’s account of events was “unravelling”.


----------



## elbows (May 11, 2013)

THe police certainly don't seem to have got the knack for making reports that seem at least vaguely credible yet.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Good stuff from the torygraph; exposing WYP report as factually incorrect...


And their pressure now results in an external inquiry into: 



> Assistant Chief Constable Ingrid Lee’s business relationship with serving and retired officers of West Yorkshire Police.
> Mrs Lee commissioned and oversaw the force’s internal inquiry into its dealings with Savile, whose main home was in Leeds and who had a close association with the local police.
> 
> He hosted eight officers for regular “Friday Morning Club” meetings in his flat and fronted crime prevention campaigns.
> She was placed under investigation yesterday after The Sunday Telegraph found she was a director of a property firm alongside four current or former officers from the force.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 4, 2013)

Another arrest today.
Not named - police bail.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 4, 2013)

looks like wimbledon won't be as musical this year.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 4, 2013)

Oh for Christian's sake


----------



## brogdale (Jun 4, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> looks like wimbledon won't be as musical this year.


 
Oh right, is he 72, then?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 4, 2013)

It could be Chris Denning. Someone on Twitter saying he was released from prison recently.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 4, 2013)

Chris Denning was a one of the Johnathan  King crew wasn't he?


----------



## Firky (Jun 4, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> looks like wimbledon won't be as musical this year.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 4, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Chris Denning was a one of the Johnathan King crew wasn't he?


 
Yes. Served time in prison here and abroad for child sex offences. According to Twitter he's just been released from a Slovakian prison where he's been since 2010 after being done for 'producing child pornography'.

It's possible the police nabbed him as soon as he came back?

He's apparently been arrested under the "others" category. Does "others" mean not celeb/Saville, or not child offences...or something else?

I'm not sure where the other name, being not so subtley hinted at in this thread, has come from but it would be huge if so.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 4, 2013)

Others means not Saville related.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 4, 2013)

Right. I'd have thought most of the arrests would be in "others" then. Twitter is implying that others means not famous. I didn't think that was correct.


----------



## elbows (Jun 4, 2013)

I wouldnt put too much faith in the most high-profile twitter rumour on this one since plenty of people on there have been waiting for that name with much anticipation. To the extent they will jump at that possibility even more readily than usual, and with even less evidence.


----------



## elbows (Jun 4, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Right. I'd have thought most of the arrests would be in "others" then. Twitter is implying that others means not famous. I didn't think that was correct.


 
Indeed thats not correct. Apart from Freddie Starr, Gary Glitter and a non-celebrity who was associated with Savile, all the others have been under the category of others.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 4, 2013)

guido fawkes

"


*Guido Fawkes* ‏@*GuidoFawkes*  5h
Met Police guiding that 72 year-old man is not a spectacular arrest - so be very careful - yes am looking at you."

fuck knows what that means, but guess someones Summer Holiday isnt going to be interupted


----------



## 1%er (Jun 4, 2013)

Graham Ovenden convicted for sex offenses involving children just got a suspended 12-month jail term 
(He's an artist of some note for those who never heard of him).


----------



## yardbird (Jun 4, 2013)

1%er said:


> Graham Ovenden convicted for sex offenses involving children just got a suspended 12-month jail term
> (He's an artist of some note for those who never heard of him).


 
He used to paint little girls


----------



## Geri (Jun 4, 2013)

Found this whilst browsing on Amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jimll-Fix-m...0?ie=UTF8&qid=1370379888&sr=8-10&keywords=mug

I wonder if it's selling well?


----------



## yardbird (Jun 6, 2013)

Okay then, it was Chris Denning.
Arrested. Yewtree.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 6, 2013)

Bill Roache charged.
Yewtree


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 6, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Bill Roache charged.
> Yewtree


 
Yes, and a bit more serious than first thought:



> Actor Bill Roache has been charged with five indecent assaults against four girls aged between 11 or 12 and 16. Three of the offences allegedly took place in 1965 and two in 1968. He has been bailed to appear before Preston Magistrates Court on 7 June.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 6, 2013)

Re Bill Roache - The CPS must be sure of their ground.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, and a bit more serious than first thought:


 and with the usual aside of 'if guilty', each one of these subsequent cases is a reply to those who were giving it the 'why bother, what can it achieve' when the original Savile inquiry was announced after his death.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, and a bit more serious than first thought:


 
That would explain this ...

<ed: not before the case is over, thanks>


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Re Bill Roache - The CPS must be sure of there ground.


Yes, particularly 40 odd years on. They've either got something very specific or they are willing to 'lose a few' in these circumstances. Needless to say, I've no idea about his guilt or otherwise, but it is reasonable to assume these cases may well not have gone to trial if the CPS weren't in the spotlight post Savile.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 6, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> That would explain this ...
> 
> <ed: not before the case is over, thanks>


----------



## yardbird (Jun 6, 2013)

Wilf said:


>


 
Ammo for the defense?


----------



## elbows (Jun 6, 2013)

As per the other thread, this isnt the first stuff Roache has been charged with, there were rape charges at the start of May which seem to have lead to more people coming forwards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22806885


----------



## Lorca (Jun 6, 2013)

blimey. latest name allegedly linked to yewtree is a high status, well loved british actor.


----------



## Espresso (Jun 6, 2013)

Have any non-famous people been arrested as part of Yew Tree?


----------



## elbows (Jun 7, 2013)

Espresso said:


> Have any non-famous people been arrested as part of Yew Tree?


 
Yes, two BBC producers who they have since decided not to charge. And Saviles driver who has been charged.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2013)

Espresso said:


> Have any non-famous people been arrested as part of Yew Tree?


 
Does that matter? But, given that it's an investigation that largely focuses on - start point - famous people then what do you expect?


----------



## elbows (Jun 7, 2013)

Lorca said:


> blimey. latest name allegedly linked to yewtree is a high status, well loved british actor.


 
Thats not a new rumour either. Its just part of a long-standing twitter guessing game that is usually based on fairly feeble 'evidence' and flares up from time to time, often not related to any actual legal events that are occurring at that moment. I forget the exact details of why his name floats around on twitter sometimes but I believe its due to someone he associated with being in trouble for offences in the past. I wouldnt give it the slightest credence unless something else actually happens, it is understandable that people gossip but there are some absolute scumbags on twitter who have no concept of what counts as proper evidence at all and think its fine to smear people left, right and centre.


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2013)

slightly uncomfortable about that song, but it's very well done. 



> Bet poured a pint
> she poured it for you
> Now we know why Baldwin kicked the shit out of you
> You say you're full of sorrow
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jun 7, 2013)

i guess it's also blatantly sub-judice. grr.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 7, 2013)

killer b said:


> slightly uncomfortable about that song, but it's very well done.


 
Yup - how does he do it as he's lifted the the backing music from Ian Brown's Stellify and added his own vocals which are pretty brilliant IMHO. It won't be up long before YT pulls it.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 7, 2013)

I had a dream last night that I was fighting in a battle against an army led by Kevin Webster.


----------



## Espresso (Jun 7, 2013)

elbows said:


> Yes, two BBC producers who they have since decided not to charge. And Saviles driver who has been charged.


 

Thank you. I hadn't heard about those.


----------



## Lorca (Jun 7, 2013)

fair comment about unsubstantiated rumours.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 7, 2013)

Lorca said:


> fair comment about unsubstantiated rumours.


 


*Socrates on Gossip*

In ancient Greece (469 - 399 BC) Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran up to him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students?"
"Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before you tell me I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test."
"Triple filter?"
"That's right," Socrates continued. "Before you talk to me about my student let's take a moment to filter what you're going to say. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"
"No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it and..."
"All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?"
"No, on the contrary..."
"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him, even though you're not certain it's true?" The man shrugged, a little embarrassed. Socrates continued. "You may still pass the test though, because there is a third filter - the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?"
"No, not really"
"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?"
The man was defeated and ashamed. This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 7, 2013)

People should be following mark Williams - Thomas today as he reveals 40 year cover up of BBC top of the Pops investigation.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> People should be following mark Williams - Thomas today as he reveals 40 year cover up of BBC top of the Pops investigation.


 

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas

Sounds like some big names will be coming up.

*Mark Williams-Thomas* ‏@*mwilliamsthomas*  27m
I can tell you that where evidence exists Op.Yewtree & Op.Fairbamk will pursue anyone - no matter who they are & this is being done


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 7, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> That would explain this ...
> 
> <ed: not before the case is over, thanks>
> 
> well, thats caused my mother to choke on her kronenburg


----------



## story (Jun 11, 2013)

Some may recall that I was molested by Jimmy Savile when I was a child. I said so on the Savile RIP thread and was accused of bullshit by one poster, and doubted and mocked by others, including mods. While not wanting to drag up old Urban beef, I do want to state that that was a difficult and detrimental thread for me, and I still feel aggrieved by some of the stuff that was said at the time. I also feel continuing gratitude towards those who stood up for me at the time.

I spent yesterday with the NSPCC, who are conducting a review of the police on behalf of HMIC, looking at police knowledge and response to the Savile scandal. They have already run several groups with people who were assaulted by Savile, with several more to go. This part of the process will be completed in September.

There were six of us present (10 were invited but 4 failed to attend) and two lovely facilitators. There were men and women present, of different ethnic groups. While being careful to respect confidentiality, I do feel able to say that I was astonished at the indiscriminate range of people affected by Savile. One woman had been assaulted at four years old. She was delivered to JS's dressing room by a minder, who then stood guard outside the door while JS assaulted her orally, and demanded she do the same to him. When he was finished he knocked on the door from inside and the minder came in to fetch the child and took her back to her seat in the auditorium. A man in the group had been assaulted at 18 years old whilst in Dartmoor, in the days when homosexuality was still illegal. He said he'd not reported it for fear that strings would be pulled to keep him in Dartmoor forever. A woman - assaulted at 14 years old while at Stoke Mandeville - told how she had reported it and been told to pipe down. She also reported that she was told that he was known for this kind of thing, and the girls must be careful around him. Another woman had been assaulted at 11 years old whilst on a cruise ship. She reported it to her parents, who told the crew, who said that the child must have imagined it. Nothing more was done.

Whether or not Savile's enablers will be sought for prosecution was not discussed in yesterday's group. Dartmoor is intending to run an internal review of their own. They have invited the man to come to Dartmoor to talk about his experience. He has refused, saying that he will never set foot there again. The fact that Dartmoor expects him to come to them was considered to be absurd, and the NSPCC said they'd be willing to try to get Dartmoor to conduct any review in a manner that is appropriate and respectful.

I am staggered at the scale of this.

Lots of details have come back to me about what happened, and I'm starting to see that I have been hiding from some of the reality of what he did to me. Having details corroborated by others has highlighted some of my own memories. We all remembered the smell of him. I can clearly recall the feel of his hands now, which I didn't before, and allowing that to come through has made it apparent to me that it was worse that I had previously remembered.

While my assault was very minor in the scheme of things, hearing the stories of others' has made me feel more horrified by it all. It feels as if the bullet grazed me on the way to hitting others. The older people in the group reported feelings of great guilt that they didn't make a better job of reporting their own assault, so that he was stopped. One woman said she had attended the group in an effort to redress that. At the end she turned to each of us and apologised. And who should apologise to her? She was reminded that, like others in the room, she HAD reported it, but nothing was done. Our general feeling at the end of the day was that the whole review process, and our contribution to it, might serve to shift general attitudes about how we receive reports of abuse by children and the vulnerable. 

Those who accused me of making it up, or inventing, or misinterpreting what happened to me: I urge you to take a look at your attitudes. It is now obvious that the default response of "He/she's making it up, lying, imagining it, exaggerating, misinterpreting... it can't be true..." is an issue: it enables the abuser, and it disempowers the victim. This was what happened when I came out on the RIP thread, and that is what happened to other children who told on him. Hopefully this case (and others like it, such as the Cambridge case) will mark a sea change in the ways we listen to children who make accusations of sexual assault and abuse.

Oh, and by the way, apparently he was also raping adults, and he was still predatory and abusive right up til the end of his life. Opportunities were fewer, but his proclivities did not dim.


----------



## story (Jun 11, 2013)

My post was too long for one entry, so here is part two

Some of the questions that were put to us:

_-Do you trust the police?_ This was answered with a unanimous No.

_-Do you feel that the police are there to advise the public, or are they only available for emergencies?_ Nobody said they'd go to the police for advice about anything.

_-Did you report your assault to the police at the time?_ Again, a unanimous No.

_-When you did decide to make a report, did you call the police in the first instance?_ Nobody did. Everyone was encouraged to go to the police by the person to whom they made their first disclosure... apart from me. The thing that prompted me to call the police was the RIP thread. I was so incensed by the response I got on that thread, and I felt so disempowered by it that I decided _must_ stand up and say something. As it happened, my call to Scotland Yard was the first they received; they had not yet set up an incident room and didn't know how to deal with my call.

_-For those who were in institutions at the time of the assault, did you feel that there was anyone to whom you could report what happened?_ In both cases the answer was No.

The facilitators told us that the police were taking their own failure very seriously indeed, and this review process is an attempt to look at that. I suggest that each of us should also look at ways in which we may also be contributing to such failures.

We were asked to discuss ideas about how to make it more possible for children and others at risk to report their experiences, and the dangers inherent in setting up such a system (e.g. malicious reports). We kept coming back to the question of who a child could tell, and to whom _that_ person could then report it. The necessity for a strong supple responsive line of communication was identified, but how to implement such a thing, and what form it might take seemed problematic.

We were also asked if we thought it should be mandatory to report concerns about abuse to the authorities. Somebody said that it ought to be an ethical or moral obligation to do so, and it is a sorry state of affairs to find that we are collectively so muddied about this. Our apparent current default of doubting the child was deemed to be a central fault here. However, swinging too far the other way was also a concern, with the attendant risk of witch-hunts. Concerns about malicious reports came up, and the worry that introducing such a system could erode the tenet of innocence until proven guilty where abuse is concerned. We also discussed the problems and conflicts that might arise when the suspected abuser is a member of the family or a loved one. And of course there was plenty of talk about how Savile used his fame and reputation to enable his activities, the implications of that, and the current round of accusations and arrests of people in the public arena.

Given what happened on the RIP thread, I am very chary of making this post. I no longer feel that Urban is a safe place to share personal stuff, and I have not done so since that time. I doubt that I will again. Saying "It's only the internet" is a nonsense, especially when organisations like Childline and the Samaritans are using any and all internet facilities available to reach out to people and make it possible for us all to get help when we need it. If some of us choose to do that on communities like this one, that should come as no surprise. Indeed, Urban has often proved that it can be a safe place (for instance that thread in the Benefits forum), but in this instance, for me, it was not. Is that a fault of mine, or of this community? I felt at the time, and still feel, that I made a terrible mistake by coming out here: I was stupid and foolish, and I still regret it. I may yet regret this post and remove or edit it.

I have received some kind supportive PMs, for which I am grateful, and which have been really helpful to me. I admit to wanting a direct apology for the accusation of bullshit etc. But even if that's not forthcoming, I hope the people concerned will give it some proper thought and try to understand the effects of such an attitude on the individual, and on the larger picture.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 11, 2013)

I'm sorry that you don't feel urban is safe place to share anymore, but I certainly am appreciative you did this time, and I think it's very brave.

What you said makes for very hard reading, but it's important that it can be read (and written, obviously). On a personal level, I have been very, very fortunate in that I've never really come into contact with this kind of thing, even indirectly (although the latter of course I may unknowingly have), so to gain any kind of insight is important to me.

Good luck to you


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 11, 2013)

Please don't edit or remove it.


----------



## little_legs (Jun 11, 2013)

You are very brave person story

I've been meaning to say the same thing to existentialist

I take my hat off to both of you.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 11, 2013)

Fair play to you story for putting your story out there, and sorry to hear about what happened on the other thread

Agree with Dillinger.  Leave it there.  You deserve to be heard


----------



## Wilf (Jun 11, 2013)

I don't personally want to start demanding apologies, I wasn't a victim, I haven't got the right. However we should all take this on board:


> Those who accused me of making it up, or inventing, or misinterpreting what happened to me: I urge you to take a look at your attitudes. It is now obvious that the default response of "He/she's making it up, lying, imagining it, exaggerating, misinterpreting... it can't be true..." is an issue: it enables the abuser, and it disempowers the victim.


... and if it leads to a couple making an unforced personal apology to you story, all the better. That really isn't an indirect attempt to kick it all off again, it's what it is, just an idea that a couple of people might want to think about it.

Edit: and I'm aware a couple of people _did_ apologise earlier on and so, whilst it's not for me to accept their apologies or not, fair play to them.


----------



## shygirl (Jun 11, 2013)

I am so sorry you had that experience on here, its dreadful.  I find it hard to believe that posters here could have been so cruelly dismissive to your disclosure, shame on them.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jun 11, 2013)

Indeed.


----------



## story (Jun 11, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I don't personally want to start demanding apologies, I wasn't a victim, I haven't got the right. However we should all take this on board:
> 
> ... and if it leads to a couple making an unforced personal apology to you story, all the better. That really isn't an indirect attempt to kick it all off again, it's what it is, just an idea that a couple of people might want to think about it.
> 
> Edit: and I'm aware a couple of people _did_ apologise earlier on and so, whilst it's not for me to accept their apologies or not, fair play to them.


 

Yes indeed, some people did apologise at the time, and I was grateful to them; but they were not the doubters and mockers: they apologised if they'd contributed in any way, and they apologised for such a thing happening at all, and for the general shabbiness of the thread.

(ETA and the same is happening on this thread: thank you)

And someone at the time said they were sorry if I felt bad. That one felt pretty derisory and grudging, tbh.

Notwithstanding the way I am reacting to yesterday's meeting (which is proving to be more troubling than I had anticipated) I am processing it and dealing with it, and I'll be fine (thanks to those who have supported and encouraged this). I am more concerned with the problem of how we as a community, and a society, contribute to and support a situation where those on the receiving end of heinous activities are not heard, not listened to, not protected.

I think I'm keen for a proper apology from those who directly doubted me because it would indicate a change of attitudes, not because it would make any material difference to the way I was made to feel at the time.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 11, 2013)

Thank you for having the courage to tell your, er, story, story.

I know what you mean about this not feeling like a safe place, but I think we have to remember that there are many more reading for each one who comments, and only a minority of the commenters are abusive or unreasonable, and it is inevitable that their behaviour will tend to stick out more than the silence of the lurkers and likers, and the kind words of those who do respond on-thread.

I think that it is only by people who have been abused who have the courage to stand up and be counted that we can shine a light into the shadows that abusers like Jimmy Savile, and all the others, famous and not-so-famous, take advantage of to indulge their perversions. Not many people who have been abused find the courage or the strength to do so, which means that those of us who are fortunate enough to have that strength or courage are blazing a trail for many, many other people who have also been where we have been. That's a privilege, not an obligation, and it is one I urge anyone who feels able to take up.

I was struck by your comments about the group's feeling of guilt at not having tried harder to disclose, and thereby prevent further harm being done to others. Logically, we all know that we did all that we could at the time, and if we didn't disclose, it was for reasons which we felt - or had been led to feel by our abusers - were valid at the time. We cannot feel guilty for those decisions, but speaking completely for myself, I can say that both disclosing my experiences, and being prepared to stand up and speak about that process, has been of great benefit to me in chasing away some of those demons and being able to make choices I didn't feel I had then. If, through being prepared to do that, I have also achieved some tiny step forward in encouraging others who have been abused to come forward, or to cause current or potential abusers to feel that they may not find it so easy to browbeat their victims into silence, then I shall be delighted.

I hope that the same might apply to you, and to all of the others out there who may have shared similar experiences.


----------



## story (Jun 11, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Thank you for having the courage to tell your, er, story, story.
> 
> I know what you mean about this not feeling like a safe place, but I think we have to remember that there are many more reading for each one who comments, and only a minority of the commenters are abusive or unreasonable, and it is inevitable that their behaviour will tend to stick out more than the silence of the lurkers and likers, and the kind words of those who do respond on-thread.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, I understand what you say, and it echoes what I think myself.

You use the term trailblazers: yesterday we were saying that perhaps we were pioneers, and that this self-selected group who felt able to attend were speaking on behalf of countless others who may not feel able to speak up.

We also spoke of how important it was to break the taboo, to make it "normal" (we couldn't find a more appropriate word) to tell, to report, to speak up about abuse when it happens. It was felt that the more normal it is to tell about what happened, the more likely it is that people _will_ tell, and _insist_ on being heard and believed, and then perhaps it will become less likely to happen. Sexual assault of all kinds, not just child abuse, was included in this part of the discussion.

This is what I mean when I say that we are _all_ of us responsible for creating this change: the abused must find a way to speak up if at all possible. But that can only happen if we are willing to listen when they do speak up.

What is then done with the disclosure, to whom it is reported, and how the report is dealt with... that's another thing.


----------



## story (Jun 11, 2013)

existentialist, one of the reasons I decided to make these posts was exactly because remaining silent is no longer a viable option, because it supports the culture of allowance that surrounds this disgusting shit.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 11, 2013)

story said:


> existentialist, one of the reasons I decided to make these posts was exactly because remaining silent is no longer a viable option, because it supports the culture of allowance that surrounds this disgusting shit.


Well, it's documented (on this thread, I think), that my decision to go to the police after 40 years was finally prompted by a poster (who shall remain nameless - it's easy enough to see) asking why it was necessary for them to be wasting money investigating such old cases. Strangely, that poster disappeared from the thread afterwards - I can only hope that they had a fit of shame.

But yes, for those of us who _can_ speak, there is a moral imperative to do so. Too many people - including those who question the idea that people can or should report abuse decades afterwards, or who insist it's all about compensation - have remained silent, colluded in silence, or actively discouraged survivors and victims from coming forward, and it is *wrong* that survivors and victims effectively have to compensate for that complicity.

There will always be abusers of children, and there will always be children who will be unable to disclose what is happening to them. But if we can smash down the barriers to disclosure, including those who knowingly or otherwise conspire in maintaining the silence or undermine the idea that abuse - any abuse - should and must be investigated, then we may one day reach a point where shame, fear, and silence are no longer the default option, and it is no longer just the brave and lucky ones who come out from the shadows. If that even begins to happen in my lifetime, I'll be delighted.


----------



## story (Jun 11, 2013)

One of the women at the discussion group yesterday was terribly scared to be there, but she came anyway. She still has not told anyone she knows: she told her pastor, who urged her to go to the police, and she has told the police, and us in the group yesterday. That's it, no-one else knows. She said that over the past year, when reports about Savile were on the television and the family were saying "look at the bad man" she would retreat to her bedroom and cry. At the end of the day she said that she was surprised to find that she was able to talk, that she felt much better for it, and that she may consider talking to her family about it.

When asked why she had come yesterday, she said that she felt compelled to be a part of a process that identifies the specific failures of the police, because she felt that the police had failed her at the time of the assault. She didn't want to feel responsible for allowing that to happen to others.


----------



## Ceej (Jun 11, 2013)

All I can say, Story, is bloody well done you (and Existentialist, obv) - you've done the right thing and the brave thing. Regardless of the outcome or the comments made, there's a grace and pride in speaking out and being heard. I hope you feel better for having done this, and proud of your part in changing the future, because you should.
Take care of you too x


----------



## yardbird (Jun 17, 2013)

Stewart Hall would like some mercy from the court please.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222


----------



## elbows (Jun 17, 2013)

The Guardian article on this has a range of details about the disgusting crimes of Hall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/17/stuart-hall-trial-indecent-assault-girls


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 17, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Stewart Hall would like some mercy from the court please.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222


 
christ what a scumbag


----------



## Ponyutd (Jun 17, 2013)

edit


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 17, 2013)

What does they mean by, "one count of rape will lie on the court file"?


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> What does they mean by, "one count of rape will lie on the court file"?


 
I _presume_ it means he didn't plead guilty to that, and they decided he had pleaded guilty to enough charges it wasn't worth putting the witness through the grief, and the taxpayer through the expense, of a trial.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 17, 2013)

Sentenced to 15 months, apparently.

Yup, BBC has it


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 17, 2013)

laptop said:


> I _presume_ it means he didn't plead guilty to that, and they decided he had pleaded guilty to enough charges it wasn't worth putting the witness through the grief, and the taxpayer through the expense, of a trial.


 
Thanks.

I see the logic, but isn't rape the most serious of those charges? I don't want to get into a discussion over who suffers the most, etc, but in terms of severity of sentence, I think rape is higher than indecent assault of a child?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 17, 2013)

The complainant didn't want to pursue it after he pleaded guilty to the 13 or 14 charges in the other trial. And he was denying it so the victim appearing in court would have been on the cards - something she did not want to do.The charges can be re-instated.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 17, 2013)

Fair dos. Thanks for the explanations.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> Sentenced to 15 months, apparently.
> 
> Yup, BBC has it


Considering that Hall had more than one victim, IMHO that's a ridiculously short sentence.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 17, 2013)

I've never really set a personal crime:time benchmark and I'm not familiar with standard sentences, but it did seem rather short to me too.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 17, 2013)

I suppose his age was a factor.


----------



## little_legs (Jun 17, 2013)

Or the reference from NSPCC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Considering that Hall had more than one victim, IMHO that's a ridiculously short sentence.


 


Lord Camomile said:


> I've never really set a personal crime:time benchmark and I'm not familiar with standard sentences, but it did seem rather short to me too.


 it's got to be quite a high proportion of the remainder of his life


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I see the logic, but isn't rape the most serious of those charges? I don't want to get into a discussion over who suffers the most, etc, but in terms of severity of sentence, I think rape is higher than indecent assault of a child?


let's leave this post 'on the file' so to speak rather than proceeding with it


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's got to be quite a high proportion of the remainder of his life


 
We can live in hope.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> let's leave this post 'on the file' so to speak rather than proceeding with it


 
I wasn't making a judgement on the severity of the harm; I simply meant how serious they are treated by our justice system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I wasn't making a judgement on the severity of the harm; I simply meant how serious they are treated by our justice system.


it depends on the incident and on how much port the judge has consumed before passing sentence


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

full ruling here explains the sentencing decision http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/?news_id=33371



> There are no Guidelines specifically applicable to these particular offences. The Sexual Offences Guidelines only apply to offences charged under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but there is assistance to be derived from the principles set out in those Guidelines. Further it is important to note the maximum sentence available when these offences were committed by you. I have considered with care the judgment of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on the correct approach to sentencing for historic cases in the case of R v H and others [2011] EWCA Crim 2753.
> 
> For most of these offences the maximum sentence at the time and which the court must have regard to was 2 years imprisonment, and for the remainder it was 5 years. The maximum sentence for this type of offence has been significantly increased, since these offences were committed, to 10 years.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 17, 2013)

I thought I was going mad reading that.


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I thought I was going mad reading that.


I kept thinking, I'm sure I just read that, over and over.


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2013)

sorry.  there was some weird code from the website that fucked things up when c&ping.

also, there's a lot of mitigation he mentions (not that i necessarily agree with it).


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> there's a lot of mitigation he mentions (not that i necessarily agree with it).


 
Dismisses some of it:



> Character references, some from people well-known to the court, have been submitted, referring to the positively good aspects of your character. I have read all those references with care and it is very sad to see someone who is so well-regarded in the dock of this courtroom.


 
Translation: "you have famous friends and you're still going down."


----------



## yardbird (Jun 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I see the logic, but isn't rape the most serious of those charges? I don't want to get into a discussion over who suffers the most, etc, but in terms of severity of sentence, I think rape is higher than indecent assault of a child?


 

I'm trying to work out exactly why but I'm a trifle uneasy about this post 
#Not a point of/for discussion.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 17, 2013)

"His barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300."

Well thats all right then.Compared to saVILE, hes a saint


----------



## yardbird (Jun 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> What does they mean by, "one count of rape will lie on the court file"?


 
It is possible that lady who was allegedly raped has been talking to the Crown throughout and didn't really want to go ahead unless necessary.
So maybe if prison doesn't kill him she'll go for it.


----------



## yardbird (Jun 17, 2013)

15 months 
How long is that before you're out?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 17, 2013)

assuming he doesnt go around shanking other inmates - he'll do half- might be out to see in the New year or thereabouts


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2013)

To story and existentisalist; I am actually honoured to post on the same board as you. You have shown a huge amount of guts and grace, in dealing with this


----------



## Yetman (Jun 17, 2013)

not-bono-ever said:


> assuming he doesnt go around shanking other inmates - he'll do half- might be out to see in the New year or thereabouts


 

Less than that on tag probably


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 17, 2013)

yardbird said:


> I'm trying to work out exactly why but I'm a trifle uneasy about this post
> #Not a point of/for discussion.


 
I know you said you don't want to discus it, but I just want to reiterate I was not making a personal judgement on the amount of harm or seriousness in an emotional/physical/abuse sense regarding the various crimes. I simply meant how the justice department view them as measured by the length of sentence.


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2013)

The attorney general is to examine the 15-month prison term given to the veteran broadcaster to see if it was 'unduly lenient'


----------



## existentialist (Jun 17, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Considering that Hall had more than one victim, IMHO that's a ridiculously short sentence.


He is 83, and has a heart problem. In terms of "the rest of his life", 15 month sentenced is probablyt the equivalent of giving a 40 year old 15 years.

I, too, was somewhat appalled at the lightness of the sentence, but I think we have to (even reluctantly) remember that this is a man who had a reputation that has been utterly destroyed, who is in poor health, and is about to embark on 8 months of an experience that will be extremely frightening and alien to an old man.

Don't get me wrong - I have my reasons for wishing that this vile old cunt, who only seems to have grudgingly acknowledged his guilt in any case, the nastiest and most miserable of final days. But I recognise that he has already granted some pretty miserable years, not just days, to those he abused for his own gratification, and I really, really don't want to stoop to anywhere _near_ his level...


----------



## existentialist (Jun 17, 2013)

not-bono-ever said:


> "His barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300."
> 
> Well thats all right then.Compared to saVILE, hes a saint


Another example of the terrible harms that Savile has done. I'd like to think that the judge *increased* his sentence purely on the basis that his barrister had the temerity to mention him in the same sentence as Savile.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 17, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> To story and existentisalist; I am actually honoured to post on the same board as you. You have shown a huge amount of guts and gace, in dealing with this


There are many people on this board whom I am honoured to share a board with. The support - in terms of likes, PMs, and supportive public posts - has been a significant part of moving me forward in a healing process that has taken 40 years to really begin. You can all be proud of yourselves: you know who you are.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 17, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Another example of the terrible harms that Savile has done. I'd like to think that the judge *increased* his sentence purely on the basis that his barrister had the temerity to mention him in the same sentence as Savile.


Given the leniency of the sentence, if that was the case, would the judge have otherwise given two points on his licence and a hard stare?


----------



## existentialist (Jun 17, 2013)

Yetman said:


> Less than that on tag probably


Given his celebrity, the comparative lightness of the sentence, and the nature of his offences, I suspect they're going to be bending over backwards *not* to make it look like he's getting the light touch treatment. I certainly hope so.

OTOH, here is a man who used to be admired by many, and who has now been (reluctantly - he didn't even had the good grace to 'fess up when the first allegations came in) shown to be the nastiest, grubbiest and most opportunistic of abusers, trading his public persona and reputation for the opportunities to grope and assault little girls. The idea that he might, as a tagged criminal, have to endure the disgust of others during trips to the post office, etc., is almost enough to have me wishing that on him, rather than the misery and horrors of incarceration.

Whatever, I imagine that his final years are going to be very, very different from what he had imagined and hoped for.

Good. *grumpycatsmiley* That's poetic justice.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Given the leniency of the sentence, if that was the case, would the judge have otherwise given two points on his licence and a hard stare?


I'd like to have thought that the fucker was going to get the full black cap treatment, but that wasn't ever going to happen. And - despite my own private feelings - we serve no purpose by getting into a kind of sentencing auction. In reality, Stuart Hall has already paid the bulk of the price he is going to pay for his crimes: his disgrace is complete. Incarceration of such an elderly, frail man really needs only to be a token gesture.

I imagine that, for those whom he abused, the biggest vindication will be the fact that he was forced - yes, forced by the weight of supportive allegations that came after he was charged - to retreat from his position of posturing outraged innocence, and plead guilty to a catalogue of vileness spanning both a wide range of ages - from 9 to 16 - and a wide timescale, starting in 1966. There can be no doubt that what he admitted to was an indiscrimate, consistent, and unrepentant course of conduct over many years, and their experiences are now acknowledged, and his offences public knowledge. I suspect that if you asked most of them, they would say that, while nothing could be too harsh a punishment for what he has visited upon them, their greatest satisfaction would have been his acknowledgement of the truth of what they have said occurred.

To bring it back to me a little, my abuser gave a "no comment" interview when questioned by the police. He is in his 70s, and likewise in poor health: it is unlikely that he'd survive more than the shortest prison sentence. For my part, I don't want his life shortened - quite the contrary. I would like him to spend as much time, in the autumn of his years, thinking about the harms he did, and (hopefully) experiencing some measure of guilt over that. I don't know yet whether I will get to see that happen, but I am delighted to know that Stuart Hall's victims *will* have had that satisfaction.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 17, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I'd like to have thought that the fucker was going to get the full black cap treatment, but that wasn't ever going to happen. And - despite my own private feelings - we serve no purpose by getting into a kind of sentencing auction. In reality, Stuart Hall has already paid the bulk of the price he is going to pay for his crimes: his disgrace is complete. Incarceration of such an elderly, frail man really needs only to be a token gesture.
> 
> I imagine that, for those whom he abused, the biggest vindication will be the fact that he was forced - yes, forced by the weight of supportive allegations that came after he was charged - to retreat from his position of posturing outraged innocence, and plead guilty to a catalogue of vileness spanning both a wide range of ages - from 9 to 16 - and a wide timescale, starting in 1966. There can be no doubt that what he admitted to was an indiscrimate, consistent, and unrepentant course of conduct over many years, and their experiences are now acknowledged, and his offences public knowledge. I suspect that if you asked most of them, they would say that, while nothing could be too harsh a punishment for what he has visited upon them, their greatest satisfaction would have been his acknowledgement of the truth of what they have said occurred.
> 
> To bring it back to me a little, my abuser gave a "no comment" interview when questioned by the police. He is in his 70s, and likewise in poor health: it is unlikely that he'd survive more than the shortest prison sentence. For my part, I don't want his life shortened - quite the contrary. I would like him to spend as much time, in the autumn of his years, thinking about the harms he did, and (hopefully) experiencing some measure of guilt over that. I don't know yet whether I will get to see that happen, but I am delighted to know that Stuart Hall's victims *will* have had that satisfaction.


It is a privilege to be on the same boards as you


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2013)

not-bono-ever said:


> "His barrister Crispin Aylett, in mitigation, told the court the former broadcaster had "all of 13" victims compared to Jimmy Savile's 1,300."
> 
> Well thats all right then.Compared to saVILE, hes a saint


 
Crispin Aylett needs to look through his first year legal texts and remind himself what "mitigation" actually means. "All of 13 victims" is 13 victims too many.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 17, 2013)

I think mr Aylett was scraping the barrel for his odious client - he was effectively saying that Stu should be congratulated for only noncing 13 kids, when he could easily have really abused his positon and nonced hundreds like saVILE - he should be rewarded for his control, not punshed for his errors of judgement

the fucking cunt.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 18, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> To story and existentisalist; I am actually honoured to post on the same board as you. You have shown a huge amount of guts and gace, in dealing with this


 


barney_pig said:


> It is a privilege to be on the same boards as you


 
Just wanted to say that I totally agree.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 18, 2013)

laptop said:


> The attorney general is to examine the 15-month prison term given to the veteran broadcaster to see if it was 'unduly lenient'


I should damn well hope so. 15 months is a final insult to his victims


----------



## story (Jun 18, 2013)

This is the bit that bewilders me somewhat:



> _The maximum sentence for this type of offence has been significantly increased, since these offences were committed, to 10 years._


 
Now I know that the law has to be adhered to scrupulously and all that. But it makes no sense to me that he (anyone) should be sentenced according to the tariff available at the time of the offence. If we've decided that it's worse than we previously agreed, and it merits a longer sentence, then why sentence at the earlier - less enlightened - tariff? Either we've moved on or we haven't. Either the crime is worse than we collectively agreed at the time, or it isn't. So if he was caught and convicted then, he'd have got a shorter sentence... and so he only gets the short sentence now, even though he's hidden it and lied and deceived for all these years...? I don't get that. Perhaps I'm being dim.

If a man beats and rapes his wife, and she finally finds the courage to come forward to report it, is he only to expect a sentence that may have been handed down had she reported him in youth?

Fifteen months does seem very short, given the numbers of his victims (that mitigation argument was insulting), their age, and the length of time he was active. And his lies, his awful denial. I can only assume he is either mad (unable to discern the truth) or maliciously deceitful.

Listening to the 6 o'clock news last night (please don't ask me to recall who was speaking), I was struck by the truth of what was being said: that many of his victims don't much care about the length of the sentence so much as they do about the fact that justice has been seen to be done: that there is now public acceptance of what happened to them: they are believed, they have been heard, they are no longer doubted or disbelieved.

And the other thing is this: that his denial and the subsequent need for his victims to prove their statements, to go through it all over again: that amounts to a second assault. Every time someone has to disclose, especially if that disclosure is doubted, all the emotions and thoughts and reactions that accompany the initial assault are repeated. This is well documented and recognised, and I'm sure that anyone who has been through something similar will recognise this.

All the people involved with the Hall case will now be struggling to process the fall out of the initial abuse, the denials and lies, and now the short sentence.

Fifteen months, out in eight: acceptable because of his frailty and the shortness of his life... really? The children he abused: their life was short when he assaulted them, and they've now had a lifetime of living with what he did to them. And what about their fragility, as children, and as a result of the damage he did to them.

existentialist has expressed my own thoughts about how I hope things play out for him: self-knowledge and the knowledge that he is despised by all: that is fit punishment.

Makes me wonder what sentence Savile would have been given had he lived and been caught. Would his work for charity be held up as mitigation?


----------



## laptop (Jun 18, 2013)

story said:


> Now I know that the law has to be adhered to scrupulously and all that. But it makes no sense to me that he (anyone) should be sentenced according to the tariff available at the time of the offence. If we've decided that it's worse than we previously agreed, and it merits a longer sentence, then why sentence at the earlier - less enlightened - tariff? Either we've moved on or we haven't. Either the crime is worse than we collectively agreed at the time, or it isn't.


 
It's a side-effect of applying principles.

If possession of a Swiss Army Knife were made illegal, effective December 2013, it would be unjust to prosecute you for having one now. And - here's the principles bit - so on.

The judge did, however, have discretion *up to* the maximum allowed sentence at the time; which would not have been applied at the time. The judge did say that current practice informed his decision. The review will have to decide whether it informed it enough.

Of course, the review will show that Something Is Being Done while everyone's on the case, and will report when everyone's forgotten it. Which is not the whole point. Oh, no!


----------



## story (Jun 18, 2013)

Thanks laptop. I assumed it was something of the sort but couldn't muster the brain power (or something.. energy, intention, desire to get more involved... whatever) to think it through or to look it up.

Well. He's convicted now at least.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 18, 2013)

story said:


> Fifteen months, out in eight: acceptable because of his frailty and the shortness of his life... really? The children he abused: their life was short when he assaulted them, and they've now had a lifetime of living with what he did to them. And what about their fragility, as children, and as a result of the damage he did to them.


 
Personally, I don't like the fact that I live in a society that sends 83-year-olds to jail in anything other than very exceptional circumstances. This isn't one of those, imo.

This is not to underplay the damage he has done. He certainly deserves to go to prison. But that doesn't mean it's right to send him to prison.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Personally, I don't like the fact that I live in a society that sends 83-year-olds to jail in anything other than very exceptional circumstances. This isn't one of those, imo.
> 
> This is not to underplay the damage he has done. He certainly deserves to go to prison. But that doesn't mean it's right to send him to prison.


"There's nothing exceptional in sexually abusing 13 young people"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> "There's nothing exceptional in sexually abusing 13 young people"


wtf is that supposed to mean?

If you want clarification about what I meant by that, just ask, ffs.


----------



## elbows (Jun 18, 2013)

I don't believe in giving people special treatment just because they managed to evade justice until they were really old.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wtf is that supposed to mean?
> 
> If you want clarification about what I meant by that, just ask, ffs.



I said that because that's exactly how your post read, to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I said that because that's exactly how your post read, to me.


Fuck you, in that case. I explicitly said that I did not say that to underplay the damage he did.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 18, 2013)

elbows said:


> I don't believe in giving people special treatment just because they managed to evade justice until they were really old.


It's not a question of special treatment. It's a question of extending a quality of mercy towards them that they themselves were incapable of showing.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck you, in that case. I explicitly said that I did not say that to underplay the damage he did.


Fuck you too. If you wanted to emphasise that aspect, you wouldn't have tagged it along as an afterthought.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck you, in that case. I explicitly said that I did not say that to underplay the damage he did.


 To be honest, I can't see any other reading of your post. You said:



> Personally, I don't like the fact that I live in a society that sends 83-year-olds to jail in anything other than very exceptional circumstances. This isn't one of those, imo.
> 
> This is not to underplay the damage he has done. He certainly deserves to go to prison. But that doesn't mean it's right to send him to prison


 You seem to be saying 2 things at once in the 2nd paragraph, but the 1st clearly says you think he shouldn't have gone to prison.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus - just for clarification, I think society _should_ have a default position of not imprisoning the elderly except in, as you put it, exceptional circumstances. However the definition of exceptional circumstances is drawn up though, multiple child abuse should fall within it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

story said:


> This is the bit that bewilders me somewhat:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No, because he used the charities he worked for as access-providers to victims.

I agree that sentencing at the tariff in use at the time the crimes were committed seems wrong-headed, but there's no legal precedent for doing differently (in a legal system that relies on precedent), and if the judge had sentenced under extant tariffs, Hall's shill could well have had grounds to appeal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Personally, I don't like the fact that I live in a society that sends 83-year-olds to jail in anything other than very exceptional circumstances. This isn't one of those, imo.
> 
> This is not to underplay the damage he has done. He certainly deserves to go to prison. But that doesn't mean it's right to send him to prison.


 
It's an old saw, but: "Justice needs to be done, and be seen to be done". A non-custodial sentence, besides anything else, would also have set a legal precedent for the disposal of such cases which could well lead to other such offenders also getting non-custodial sentences.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wtf is that supposed to mean?
> 
> If you want clarification about what I meant by that, just ask, ffs.


 
What do you think it means? It means that your posts can very easily be read as saying "these aren't exceptional enough circumstances. The rape of 13 females isn't exceptional".
Don't have a go at cesare for the fact that your post is so poorly thought-out that it reads like an apologia for rape.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck you, in that case. I explicitly said that I did not say that to underplay the damage he did.


 
And yet you still didn't have enough foresight to see how your post would read.

Moron.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a question of special treatment. It's a question of extending a quality of mercy towards them that they themselves were incapable of showing.


 
Mercy is already being extended to Hall, and has already been. His pre-trial handling and the sentencing have been more than adequately merciful, even considering his age. He raped a minimum of 13 young women. He will actually *serve* a total of around 3 weeks per rape. The quality of mercy extended toward him has been, in my opinion, exemplary, and I say that as someone with a reasonable degree of experience of the sort of sentences usually handed down for crimes of violence, and as someone who isn't at all at ease with the UK's criminal justice system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, I can't see any other reading of your post. You said:
> 
> You seem to be saying 2 things at once in the 2nd paragraph, but the 1st clearly says you think he shouldn't have gone to prison.


 
It's not massively inconsistent to not wish people to be imprisoned for anything but the most serious crimes, but to then state that you don't believe it will serve a purpose with regard to a particular offender.
My rebuttal to such a view would be that, in *some* cases, it's necessary to make recourse to particular methods of punishment to send a clear message and set a clear precedent for subsequent sentencing for similar offences. I hope that Hall's sentence will set such a precedent for custodial sentences in cases of "historical rape".


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus I daresay you are angry with me again now, because this is the second time that I have challenged you on this thinking - the first being your putting of some nebulous, unquantifiable concept of Assange's greater good for society in priority to the justice for his assault victims. Your liberal ideas of what society should/shouldn't be like should be driven by immediate justice rather than overlooking/sacrificing the needs of victims in pursuit of this ill-defined societal goal, which also immediately (if you had your way) would benefit the perpetrators of these sexual assaults.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Wilf said:


> littlebabyjesus - just for clarification, I think society _should_ have a default position of not imprisoning the elderly except in, as you put it, exceptional circumstances. However the definition of exceptional circumstances is drawn up though, multiple child abuse should fall within it.


 
The criminal justice system already has a default position of only giving custodial sentences to the elderly in exceptional circumstances. There are many sound reasons for doing so, not least the pragmatism involved in not incarcerating people whose inevitable health issues will significantly affect the amount of care available to other inmates of an institution, and the fact that we've *still* only (to my knowledge) got 3 prisons with proper geriatric care facilities in the whole of England and Wales, with a few others having _ad hoc_ provision.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> littlebabyjesus I daresay you are angry with me again now, because this is the second time that I have challenged you on this thinking - the first being your putting of some nebulous, unquantifiable concept of Assange's greater good for society in priority to the justice of his assault victims. Your liberal ideas of what society should/shouldn't be like should be driven by immediate justice rather than overlooking/sacrificing the needs of victims in pursuit of this ill-defined societal goal, which also immediately (if you had your way) would benefit the perpetrators of these sexual assaults.


 
Justice, in the concrete sense of the term, needs to address the crime(s) against an individual through a prism of neutrality, and any idea of weighing the social costs and benefits of sentencing an individual criminal *beyond* the immediate ones of whether the victim (and other *potential* victims) benefit from the sentencing is redundant. In fact it wouldn't be "justice", it'd be expediency of the foulest kind, and an expediency that would be massively-liable to abuse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> littlebabyjesus I daresay you are angry with me again now, because this is the second time that I have challenged you on this thinking - the first being your putting of some nebulous, unquantifiable concept of Assange's greater good for society in priority to the justice for his assault victims. Your liberal ideas of what society should/shouldn't be like should be driven by immediate justice rather than overlooking/sacrificing the needs of victims in pursuit of this ill-defined societal goal, which also immediately (if you had your way) would benefit the perpetrators of these sexual assaults.


You never did get what I was saying about Assange, did you? And  you don't get what I'm saying here either. Fuck off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You never did get what I was saying about Assange, did you? And you don't get what I'm saying here either. Fuck off.


 
Stop acting like a petulant child, and start acting like an adult, eh?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 18, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Considering that Hall had more than one victim, IMHO that's a ridiculously short sentence.


yep. I'm seething at how short a sentence that is


----------



## little_legs (Jun 18, 2013)

I am a bit confused with age related leniency here. Is there a difference between sentencing guidelines in England and Scotland? William Watson, older than Hall albeit not as famous, got a longer sentence. Is this because of the difference in law in England and Scotland then?


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You never did get what I was saying about Assange, did you? And  you don't get what I'm saying here either. Fuck off.


I did understand what you were saying about Assange - you just don't like my reaction to it. I understand what you're saying here too - you just don't like my reaction to it. You keep telling me to fuck off, I refuse. Surely your liberal handwringing wooly-headed notion of "society" at some level incorporates the concept of challenges to it without resorting to petulant demands that the people that don't agree "fuck off"?


----------



## Maltin (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What do you think it means? It means that your posts can very easily be read as saying "these aren't exceptional enough circumstances. The rape of 13 females isn't exceptional".


Not to defend his crimes but, to be clear, Hall wasn't accused or convicted of raping 13 people. I believe that There was one accusation of rape but he wasn't prosecuted for this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Maltin said:


> Not to defend his crimes but, to be clear, Hall wasn't accused or convicted of raping 13 people. I believe that There was one accusation of rape but he wasn't prosecuted for this.


 
You're absolutely right. Some of the incidents weren't classified as rape for reasons of legislation (i.e. the crimes, committed with people under a certain age, weren't categorised as "rape" at the time they occurred, but as "indecent assault"), which is the main reason he wasn't charged with more counts of rape. That's a quirk of our legal system, though, not an exoneration of his acts, and should not be seen as a diminution of the severity of his offences, as some people might take it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

little_legs said:


> I am a bit confused with age related leniency here. Is there a difference between sentencing guidelines in England and Scotland? William Watson, older than Hall albeit not as famous, got a longer sentence. Is this because of the difference in law in England and Scotland then?


 
Differences in sentencing law and in the prison-side provision of facilities for older inmates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I did understand what you were saying about Assange - you just don't like my reaction to it. I understand what you're saying here too - you just don't like my reaction to it. You keep telling me to fuck off, I refuse. Surely your liberal handwringing wooly-headed notion of "society" at some level incorporates the concept of challenges to it without resorting to petulant demands that the people that don't agree "fuck off"?


 
I think you're asking a bit much. Balanced argument isn't going to sway lbj.  It was ever thus with liberals.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 18, 2013)

There was a good opinion piece in the Guardian today about this. Can't remember who it was, but the jist was: even showing leniency for his age and whatever else, and the restrictions on the length of sentence available due to the different laws, he could still have served his sentences consecutively which would have worked out about 10 years. Half that for good behaviour and he'd have done a minimum of 5. I don't think many people would have been too disappointed with that.


----------



## cesare (Jun 18, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> There was a good opinion piece in the Guardian today about this. Can't remember who it was, but the jist was: even showing leniency for his age and whatever else, and the restrictions on the length of sentence available due to the different laws, he could still have served his sentenced consecutively which would have worked out about 10 years. Half that for good behaviour and he'd have done a minimum of 5. I don't think many people would have been too disappointed with that.


That has a "feels fair" about it, without delving too deeply into the legal niceties.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> That has a "feels fair" about it, without delving too deeply into the legal niceties.


 
Yep, that's how I felt about it.

I don't know how this investigation into the sentencing works, but hopefully the home secretary or whoever does it can just switch that concurrently into a consecutively and that's the last we need to hear of him.

Of course things are never simple and rarely have the right outcomes in cases like this


----------



## little_legs (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Differences in sentencing law and in the prison-side provision of facilities for older inmates.


 
Right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

little_legs said:


> Right.


 
Basically Scots law is somewhat more forward-looking in terms of penal provision.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> There was a good opinion piece in the Guardian today about this. Can't remember who it was, but the jist was: even showing leniency for his age and whatever else, and the restrictions on the length of sentence available due to the different laws, he could still have served his sentences consecutively which would have worked out about 10 years. Half that for good behaviour and he'd have done a minimum of 5. I don't think many people would have been too disappointed with that.


 
Again, though, his barrister would have had grounds for appeal based on precedent - i.e. there's little precedent in cases of multiple sexual offences, for consecutive sentences, they're almost always served concurrently unless there are only two or three offences.  It's a shitter, but it's constitutionally correct.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Yep, that's how I felt about it.
> 
> I don't know how this investigation into the sentencing works, but hopefully the home secretary or whoever does it can just switch that concurrently into a consecutively and that's the last we need to hear of him.
> 
> Of course things are never simple and rarely have the right outcomes in cases like this


 
They probably won't be able to switch it, but they may up the sentence to the full sentence (15 months), or to the maximum sentence allowed by the tariff (2 years, I think).


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 18, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> yep. I'm seething at hoiw short a sentence that is


 
Now there`s an unpleasant image.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 18, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Now there`s an unpleasant image.


Any chance you could avoid using a thread that has covered - and will cover, undoubtedly - some pretty sensitive and serious areas as a venue for another one of your relentless campaigns?


----------



## existentialist (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Again, though, his barrister would have had grounds for appeal based on precedent - i.e. there's little precedent in cases of multiple sexual offences, for consecutive sentences, they're almost always served concurrently unless there are only two or three offences. It's a shitter, but it's constitutionally correct.


I've never quite understood how the distinction between awarding sentences consecutively vs concurrently is made in UK law. I'm aware that in the US, it is much more common to have sentences run consecutively, with the result that people end up with 250 year sentences (which always seems faintly ludicrous to me), but it seems that it is only rarely that such sentencing is done here.

I know that with concurrent sentences, things like parole decisions are made taking each parallel sentence into consideration, so someone serving n concurrent sentences is somewhat less likely to get parole or early release that someone serving n/2...have I got that right?

Might be useful to know, given that it looks like we're going to see quite a few cases like Hall's coming up in future, with several similar offences being sentenced at once...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I've never quite understood how the distinction between awarding sentences consecutively vs concurrently is made in UK law. I'm aware that in the US, it is much more common to have sentences run consecutively, with the result that people end up with 250 year sentences (which always seems faintly ludicrous to me), but it seems that it is only rarely that such sentencing is done her.
> 
> I know that with concurrent sentences, things like parole decisions are made taking each parallel sentence into consideration, so someone serving n concurrent sentences is somewhat less likely to get parole or early release that someone serving n/2...have I got that right?
> 
> Might be useful to know, given that it looks like we're going to see quite a few cases like Hall's coming up in future, with several similar offences being sentenced at once...


 
The approach here is more a quirk of history based on pragmatism, given our former habit of exiling prisoners to the colonies. Why have someone serve their multiple life sentences consecutively when it *looked* more merciful to allow them to serve them concurrently, and you didn't need to worry about them popping up again? No skin off of milady Justice's nose!
As for parole, yes, they have to take the fact that more than one sentence is being served into consideration for parole, but it isn't factored into "standard"" sentence-remission calculations. That's calculated purely on the longest sentence, and remitted accordingly, unfortunately. No reduction of "time off for good behaviour" because you're serving concurrent sentences.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The approach here is more a quirk of history based on pragmatism, given our former habit of exiling prisoners to the colonies. Why have someone serve their multiple life sentences consecutively when it *looked* more merciful to allow them to serve them concurrently, and you didn't need to worry about them popping up again? No skin off of milady Justice's nose!
> As for parole, yes, they have to take the fact that more than one sentence is being served into consideration for parole, but it isn't factored into "standard"" sentence-remission calculations. That's calculated purely on the longest sentence, and remitted accordingly, unfortunately. No reduction of "time off for good behaviour" because you're serving concurrent sentences.


 
This might be outside the scope of this thread, but vaguely relevant, and you seems very clued up on our justice system so I'm taking the opportunity: with the system of precedence, what does it take to overrule the precedent and set a new one? Just one instance? A high court ruling after multiple appeals?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> This might be outside the scope of this thread, but vaguely relevant, and you seems very clued up on our justice system so I'm taking the opportunity: with the system of precedence, what does it take to overrule the precedent and set a new one? Just one instance? A high court ruling after multiple appeals?


 
Precedent doesn't get over-ruled, it gets varied, usually through a single instance, and then reinforced through use of that instance as a precedent in its own right, if you see what I mean.  Even high court rulings tend to rely on varying or amending precedent rather than completely superceding it.
Not *that* clued up, btw, but worked for Prisons Dept of the Home Office, and studied criminology at postgrad level, so have a head filled with lots of mostly-useless info.


----------



## laptop (Jun 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even high court rulings tend to rely on varying or amending precedent rather than completely superceding it.


 
And the alternative is when the High Court says "sorry, but we have to do stupid thing *X*: Parliament, sort it aht!"

'Course there's a constant tension over where the line between the courts' interpretation and Parliament's legislation lies. See the courts effectively creating a law of privacy, based on European Convention rights, because Parliament wouldn't...


----------



## yardbird (Jul 12, 2013)

Yesterday's news but is pertinent:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23267104
Let's see. I think that concurrent/consecutive could be where the arguments arise.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2013)

yardbird said:


> I think that concurrent/consecutive could be where the arguments arise.


 
I'm not a qualified lawyer, still less a judge: but I very much doubt that.

I expect they'll put a bit on the longest sentence.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 12, 2013)




----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2013)

Apols if previously posted:

Sex Pistols star Johnny Rotten warning about Jimmy Savile was cut by BBC



> According to a rare audio clip just released (see video below), John Lydon, aka Johnny Rotten, then of Sex Pistols and PIL fame, conducted an interview circa late 1978, where he joked about people he’d like to kill’ and interestingly he quipped, “I’d like to kill Jimmy Savile”. ...


 


hahaha just beaten to it...


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 15, 2013)

just beaten by 3 days lol


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2013)

I searched for 'Jonny rotten' or variations thereof. Shoulda just looked at the end of the thread.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 15, 2013)

There should have been a lot more fuss made about that. Here's someone who *wasn't* afraid to say out loud not just that he had suspicions about what Savile was up to, but that it was, essentially, common knowledge within the BBC...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 15, 2013)

I dunno, how much more did he say? "I bet he's into things we all know about but aren't allowed to say... I've heard the rumours". It's better than nothing, but it's still not very direct.


----------



## framed (Jul 15, 2013)

It also came in the middle of Rotten's fantasy about killing 200 celebs... It's hardly surprising that his murder fantasies were binned at the time, it's not evidence, just confirmation that Lydon had heard all the rumours about Savile.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2013)

The thought of Mr Rotten sitting down with a libel lawyer to rewrite the lyrics produces a number of conflicting images...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 15, 2013)

laptop said:


> The thought of Mr Rotten sitting down with a libel lawyer to rewrite the lyrics produces a number of conflicting images...


 God Save the Queen and her significantly right wing, but ultimately constitutional Regime.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

Interesting for a number of reasons:

Savile story dropped by Sunday Mirror [in 1994] because paper could not afford to lose libel battle




> Former Sunday Mirror editor Paul Connew has revealed that the paper did not expose Jimmy Savile as a serial child sex offender in 1994 because it could not afford to lose a libel trial.
> 
> Connew said the paper would have lost a defamation trial with Savile partly because the two victims who came to him, from Duncroft school, did not want to be named.
> 
> The editor, who believed their stories, also said the paper would have lost because, at the time, libel trials were overseen by juries who were likely to have been “starstruck” by Savile.


 
This is the Reynolds defence


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is the Reynolds defence


 
For clarity: not available until 1999.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2013)

2000 but the argument on which the case was won was available before that.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 18, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23355531


----------



## laptop (Aug 12, 2013)

'Nother one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23667996



> An 80-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of sexual offences as part of the Operation Yewtree investigation into alleged historical abuse.
> 
> He was arrested at an address in south London and was later released on bail until October, the Met Police said.
> 
> ...The latest arrest falls under the strand of the investigation termed "Savile and others".


 
Who dat, then?


----------



## Badgers (Aug 12, 2013)

laptop said:
			
		

> 'Nother one:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23667996
> 
> Who dat, then?



Lot of 'rumour' outing him


----------



## Wilf (Aug 13, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Lot of 'rumour' outing him


 The Variety Club should provide a list of their members sorted by age.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 15, 2013)

Another former celeb DJ has been charged:

http://news.sky.com/story/1129093/dave-lee-travis-faces-12-sex-assault-charges


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2013)

21 minutes. getting rusty.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 15, 2013)

Whack, whack, oops!


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2013)

> Veteran DJ Dave Lee Travis was charged with 12 sexual offences spanning a period of 30 years today.
> The 68-year-old, also known as David Patrick Griffin, is accused of 11 counts of indecent assault and one count of sexual assault.
> The offences are alleged to have taken place between 1977 and 2007 and relate to nine victims aged between 15 and 29.
> The former BBC Radio 1 DJ was ordered to appear before a district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court next Friday, August 23.




Good for those making the allegations.

Repellent man. In the early 1970's I once had the misfortune of witnessing one of his 'celebrity' personal appearances. During his schtick he managed to crack a racist 'joke' about the _Paki infested area_ he'd had to travel through to reach the event.


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2013)

Even when I was a young kid, Dave Lee Travis struck me as an unpleasant, bullying sort of bloke.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 15, 2013)

editor said:


> Even when I was a young kid, Dave Lee Travis struck me as an unpleasant, bullying sort of bloke.


 
Agreed. I also have clear recollections of his interminable, on-air drivel about the difficulties he encountered as the owner of a farm....twat.


----------



## elbows (Aug 29, 2013)

Rolf has been charged:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23880768




> *TV presenter Rolf Harris charged in UK with nine counts of indecent assault and four of making indecent images*
> More to follow.


----------



## captain acab (Aug 29, 2013)




----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 29, 2013)

Can you see what it is yet?


----------



## yardbird (Aug 29, 2013)

The 4 counts of making indecent images of children last year are a defense nightmare.
Evidence.


----------



## elbows (Aug 29, 2013)

Also not sure if it got a mention on u75 or not but the other day it was revealed that Jim Davidson will not be facing charges.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 29, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Can you see what it is yet?


Is it a knob, Rolf?


----------



## yardbird (Aug 29, 2013)

elbows said:


> Also not sure if it got a mention on u75 or not but the other day it was revealed that Jim Davidson will not be facing charges.


 
Not facing charges, but a man who will tread lightly from now on and never feel safe in a dark street.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 29, 2013)

This bit from the Mirror raised Savile parallels in terms of royal links and gongs (he also painted the queen):


> Harris, who has lived in Bray, Berkshire, for more than 50 years, was awarded an MBE in 1968, an OBE in 1977 and a CBE in 2006, and was made Officer of the Order of Australia in the Queen's Birthday Honours list last year​


Afaik, rumours that Harris was at the very least 'dodgy' have been around for a good while - certainly last year.  They really don't seem to do much checking when it comes to dishing out the royal seal of approval.


----------



## friedaweed (Aug 29, 2013)

Any news on the flan flinger yet?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 29, 2013)

This is not the Rolf thread, it is the Savile thread 

_This_ is the Rolf thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2013)

Lord Camomile said:


> This is not the Rolf thread, it is the Savile thread
> 
> _This_ is the Rolf thread


quite. i come here to read about _one british paedo_ not some aussie interloper.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> quite. i come here to read about _one british paedo_ not some aussie interloper.


 
'tis true, though I think the JS thread has become a rather handy general celeb paedo nonce perv thread, perhaps not entirely for the best.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> A thread for discussion of sir jimmy savile obe and his vile activities. Please don't call other people nonces or say they look like nonces on the thread or it will go the way of all the others.


----------



## elbows (Aug 29, 2013)

Rolf has been mentioned on several occasions before on this thread, and that other thread isn't even in the right forum (the only excuse for it being in the world forum is that some Australian etc press reported his original questioning before the UK media would touch it).


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 29, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Not facing charges, but a man who will tread lightly from now on and never feel safe in a dark street.


 
Well, I don't agree with that at all. If he's not been charged, then why should he have to look over his shoulder? As far as I was aware, there were never any rumours about him being a nonce or rapist or whatever, before this all came up. His comedy is shit and you could probably deduce he's a cunt from that, but he doesn't deserve a kicking - or worse - for being a cunt.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 29, 2013)

Oh I dunno


----------



## yardbird (Aug 29, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Well, I don't agree with that at all. If he's not been charged, then why should he have to look over his shoulder? As far as I was aware, there were never any rumours about him being a nonce or rapist or whatever, before this all came up. His comedy is shit and you could probably deduce he's a cunt from that, but he doesn't deserve a kicking - or worse - for being a cunt.


 
I didn't say he deserved a kicking or that he should have to look over his shoulder.
A large number of folk will not agree.
It's those who used to be his audience and 'enjoy' his jokes that will not believe him innocent and like to do him physical damage.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 29, 2013)

yardbird said:


> I didn't say he deserved a kicking or that he should have to look over his shoulder.
> A large number of folk will not agree.
> It's those who used to be his audience and 'enjoy' his jokes that will not believe him innocent and like to do him physical damage.


 
Fair enough, sorry for implying you did say it.

And of course, just because he didn't get charged, it doesn't mean he didn't do it. So I hope if he _did_ do it then he does get a kicking.


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 29, 2013)

When my school were on the Rolf Harris show we were told not to ask him for his autograph. Only the kids chosen to be on the show got real ones, the rest of us had to make do with photocopies (or photostats as they were known in those days).


----------



## yardbird (Aug 29, 2013)

A good mate of mine was in the Young Generation - I could tell you some stuff..


----------



## treelover (Aug 29, 2013)

But you won't


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 1, 2013)

If ANY effort has been made in recent years to cover this up then the corrupt degenerate filth masquerading as government should be driven from office long before any general election.

Scottish crime writer Val McDermid: Leading Tory will be named as a paedophile alongside Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/val-mcdermid-says-leading-tory-2237284


----------



## yardbird (Oct 1, 2013)

The Hairy fucking Cornplaster
Two new charges - a different lady.
Indecent assault.


----------



## elbows (Oct 9, 2013)

1%er said:


> Graham Ovenden convicted for sex offenses involving children just got a suspended 12-month jail term
> (He's an artist of some note for those who never heard of him).



His sentence has been increased and he has gone to prison:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24464975


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 9, 2013)

1%er said:


> Graham Ovenden (He's an artist of some note for those who never heard of him).



an artist of some note who art tend to feature naked prepubescent girls and is a avid fan of Victorian art which quite a bit of involved young naked children..

odd he faced charges..

who'd of thunk it


----------



## elbows (Oct 15, 2013)

Transcript of Savile interview with Surrey police is out via a FOI request:

http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals...le cases/165-13-198Savile Interview Part1.pdf
http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals...le cases/165-13-198Savile Interview Part2.pdf


----------



## exiledinwales (Oct 15, 2013)

Wilf said:


> This bit from the Mirror raised Savile parallels in terms of royal links and gongs (he also painted the queen):
> 
> Afaik, rumours that Harris was at the very least 'dodgy' have been around for a good while - certainly last year.  They really don't seem to do much checking when it comes to dishing out the royal seal of approval.




It's the kind of thing the ruling class are into, why would they care. It's the kind of behaviour they approve of.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 15, 2013)

exiledinwales said:


> It's the kind of thing the ruling class are into, why would they care. It's the kind of behaviour they approve of.


I think this is a bit of an unhelpful bit of axe grinding on a serious and important thread, TBH.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> Transcript of Savile interview with Surrey police is out via a FOI request:
> 
> http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/FOI/High profile cases/165-13-198Savile Interview Part1.pdf
> http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/FOI/High profile cases/165-13-198Savile Interview Part2.pdf


Reading those - just fucking awful. Hideous. Just.... horrible


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> Transcript of Savile interview with Surrey police is out via a FOI request:
> 
> http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/FOI/High profile cases/165-13-198Savile Interview Part1.pdf
> http://www.surrey.police.uk/Portals/0/pdf/FOI/High profile cases/165-13-198Savile Interview Part2.pdf



"This interview is being conducted in your office at The National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. So you've kindly let us use this room here."


----------



## bendeus (Oct 15, 2013)

"Lovely"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2013)

This is... i don't know how to characterise this.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2013)

The full thing is here btw


----------



## elbows (Oct 16, 2013)

Yeah I posted the transcript links the other day. Apart from the stuff these news articles have focussed on, he was also very keen to keep going on about how Duncroft was really a borstal. He also made a big deal about his police mates and suggested he could get favours from a forensics lab.

Nothing in the transcript was very surprising, at least probably not for anyone thats read other interviews with the egotistical power-mad shit whose brand of denials, lies and attempts at intimidation were not exactly subtle.

Meanwhile a former West Yorkshire police inspector is being investigated by the IPCC to see whether he inappropriately contacted Surrey police ahead of the interview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24557322


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2013)

elbows said:


> Yeah I posted the transcript links the other day. Apart from the stuff these news articles have focussed on, he was also very keen to keep going on about how Duncroft was really a borstal.



Hey, a _posh_ borstal, for _posh_ girls.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2013)

elbows said:


> Yeah I posted the transcript links the other day. Apart from the stuff these news articles have focussed on, he was also very keen to keep going on about how Duncroft was really a borstal. He also made a big deal about his police mates and suggested he could get favours from a forensics lab.
> 
> Nothing in the transcript was very surprising, at least probably not for anyone thats read other interviews with the egotistical power-mad shit whose brand of denials, lies and attempts at intimidation were not exactly subtle.
> 
> ...



IPCC? Surely his fellow masons at WYP should be able to investigate? After all, there are no claims that anyone as important as a tory MP have suffered any harm.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Hey, a _posh_ borstal, for _posh_ girls.


 who's the mammy?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 16, 2013)

elbows said:


> Meanwhile a former West Yorkshire police inspector is being investigated by the IPCC to see whether he inappropriately contacted Surrey police ahead of the interview:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24557322



Good old West Yorkshire police. Looking after their local child abusers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Good old West Yorkshire police. Looking after their local child abusers.


but not looking for them


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 16, 2013)

I've just read the transcript and feel a bit sick. Oh my ...... he does go on a bit _too much_ at the end of that interview.


----------



## Favelado (Oct 16, 2013)

I thought I was quite a cynical and hardened person until a couple of years ago. Since the Hillsborough and Savile stories broke in their entirety, I feel that I was quite a naive little bunny. Every new revelation brings another shock.


----------



## clicker (Oct 16, 2013)

Reading those transcripts , I can clearly _hear_ him and _see_ him saying those things, he so was the face of seventies TV and the face of charity and the face of giving presents out in hospitals . really sickening to read his denials. He thought he was untouchable and in his eyes he probably won.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 16, 2013)

clicker said:
			
		

> Reading those transcripts , I can clearly hear him and see him saying those things, he so was the face of seventies TV and the face of charity and the face of giving presents out in hospitals . really sickening to read his denials. He thought he was untouchable and in his eyes he probably won.



Look up This is your Life on youtube. He walks on with his charity t-shirt: his shield against accusations. At one point a sister of his comes on and he 'jokingly' forms a pose as if he'll punch her. Jimmy the eccentric. Keep your mouth shut.


----------



## clicker (Oct 16, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Look up This is your Life on youtube. He walks on with his charity t-shirt: his shield against accusations. At one point a sister of his comes on and he 'jokingly' forms a pose as if he'll punch her. Jimmy the eccentric. Keep your mouth shut.


I think i remember his episode - every time I saw him on TV as a kid i thought he was rude and scary and aggressive, could never understand his appeal.I tried to open the link above on my phone yesterday, and somehow managed to download it, but couldn't open it and now I can't  find it in the phone...it's in there somewhere putrefying.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> IPCC? Surely his fellow masons at WYP should be able to investigate? After all, there are no claims that anyone as important as a tory MP have suffered any harm.


Is there a Masonic connection, then? I mean, as part of this business, rather than circumstantially/wild speculation-wise?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 16, 2013)

clicker said:


> I think i remember his episode - every time I saw him on TV as a kid i thought he was rude and scary and aggressive, could never understand his appeal.I tried to open the link above on my phone yesterday, and somehow managed to download it, but couldn't open it and now I can't  find it in the phone...*it's in there somewhere putrefying*.


 
Like him, but far, far worse


----------



## existentialist (Oct 16, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I thought I was quite a cynical and hardened person until a couple of years ago. Since the Hillsborough and Savile stories broke in their entirety, I feel that I was quite a naive little bunny. Every new revelation brings another shock.


I wasn't _that_ shocked, though I was still appalled at the blatantness of the coverups and collusion that has emerged. Anyone who has ever even considered having to report an incident of child sexual abuse and/or got a hint of the prevailing attitudes of 10, 20, 30 years ago isn't going to be that surprised at how much of an uphill struggle it was likely to be.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Is there a Masonic connection, then? I mean, as part of this business, rather than circumstantially/wild speculation-wise?



Well, he used to have members of the WYP around his gaff every friday; I'd say that's almost certainly evidence of being on the square with the fuckers.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2013)

clicker said:


> I think i remember his episode - every time I saw him on TV as a kid i thought he was rude and scary and aggressive, could never understand his appeal.I tried to open the link above on my phone yesterday, and somehow managed to download it, but couldn't open it and now I can't  find it in the phone...it's in there somewhere putrefying.



How did you react to the Louis Theroux doc. from 2000?


----------



## existentialist (Oct 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Well, he used to have members of the WYP around his gaff every friday; I'd say that's almost certainly evidence of being on the square with the fuckers.


Ah. Wild speculation, then. OK, no probs.

As you were


----------



## clicker (Oct 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> How did you react to the Louis Theroux doc. from 2000?


Must admit glued to the telly , I think louis did it perfectly really, gave him just enough rope to completely hang himself , if there were any people out there under the impression jimmy was a 'nice guy'....I remember he had a friend in that doc - wonder who the person was he took into the first taped police interview, it wasn't a solicitor and think his name may be blacked out in the transcript.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2013)

clicker said:


> Must admit glued to the telly , I think louis did it perfectly really, gave him just enough rope to completely hang himself , if there were any people out there under the impression jimmy was a 'nice guy'....I remember he had a friend in that doc - wonder who the person was he took into the first taped police interview, it wasn't a solicitor and think his name may be blacked out in the transcript.



Likewise, I remember being fascinated by that episode. Mind you, Louis' description of the process of producing the programme, and his views about Savile, makes difficult reading now:-
http://louistheroux.com/jimmy-savile/


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Likewise, I remember being fascinated by that episode. Mind you, Louis' description of the process of producing the programme, and his views about Savile, makes difficult reading now:-
> http://louistheroux.com/jimmy-savile/


It was fascinating. Remember seeing it was going to be on TV and thinking why the fuck is he interviewing him? To me Savile was just an irritating prat who had disappeared from the public view years ago, but still found it riveting. The thing I got from it was how deeply unpleasant and manipulative Savile was, but was utterly nonplussed when theroux asked him outright about the rumours of him abusing children.  Suppose I was equally nonplussed that, at least on camera, Savile just swatted it off and didn't do an 'astonished' reaction (of course he wasn't astonished by the accusation as he'd been interviewed by employers and police by then).

At one level Theroux was quite brave to come straight out with it.  I do have a slight niggle though.  If he knew enough to ask him outright (and had obviously done a lot of research for the programme), was he knowingly making a problem about a child abuser?  If that was the case, should the programme have been different and had more of a focus on the 'rumours'.  All a bit speculative and he clearly can't have known the extent of Savile's crimes, but he must have known a fair bit to broach the subject.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2013)

the bit where savile casually showed theroux his own home adress written down and mentioned that he knew people was dark as fuck. The paedo rumours were around for ages but it was that docu that made me start believing them


----------



## treelover (Oct 17, 2013)

> Seeing Jimmy on the road moving between his various residences – penthouse in Leeds, seafront flat in Scarborough, picturesque cottage in Glencoe – I was struck by his network of friends and helpers he had in each place and their loyalty to him.


 
Mmm...

btw, has that article by Theroux been updated? it is pre being exposed and reads as a sort of grudging tribute to him.

at the comments

weird to then see the comments change 190%  over night


----------



## treelover (Oct 17, 2013)

Oh, and hard to accept Theroux went on to have 'overnight stays' at Savilles gaffes after the doc was completed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> At one level Theroux was quite brave to come straight out with it.  I do have a slight niggle though.  If he knew enough to ask him outright (and had obviously done a lot of research for the programme), was he knowingly making a problem about a child abuser?  If that was the case, should the programme have been different and had more of a focus on the 'rumours'.  All a bit speculative and he clearly can't have known the extent of Savile's crimes, but he must have known a fair bit to broach the subject.


With the benefit of hindsight, Theroux is another person in a very long list who turned a blind eye. And like many of those turning their blind eyes, he may not have been totally aware that this was what he was doing.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> With the benefit of hindsight, Theroux is another person in a very long list who turned a blind eye. And like many of those turning their blind eyes, he may not have been totally aware that this was what he was doing.


 Yeah, it's certainly hindsight from me and there's no way Therox could have known anything about the extent of it.  But for him to broach it all, you do wonder if he knew about the various BBC 'investigations' and maybe even the police interview(s).  So, at one level he's actually the person who brought it into the public eye, but he also seems to have primarily used that information as part of a documentary rather than a true expose.  Like I say, only a minor niggle for me, many more who should have done more about Savile.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2013)

all this 'should have done' is well and good in hindsight but Saville had bought people, cowed people and been mutual associates with all kinds of dodgy sorts both from the bent coppers angle to the criminal/heavies one. By his own admission. He'd managed to keep everyone silenced through litigious threats (and one imagines back channel threats of another kind) right up till the moment he died. So what could one person or half a dozen persons have done? Theres people breathing big sighs of relief at what secrets jimmy took to his grave, we can be sure of that.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, it's certainly hindsight from me and there's no way Therox could have known anything about the extent of it.  But for him to broach it all, you do wonder if he knew about the various BBC 'investigations' and maybe even the police interview(s).  So, at one level he's actually the person who brought it into the public eye, but he also seems to have primarily used that information as part of a documentary rather than a true expose.  Like I say, only a minor niggle for me, many more who should have done more about Savile.



I know someone who worked on fashion mags (i.e. in the media world, but not in the BBC) in London in the early 80s, and she told me the rumours were flying about even then. So I don't know if for Theroux to have broached the question, he would have to have known about the "investigations" the Beeb might have done, or the police interviews.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> all this 'should have done' is well and good in hindsight but Saville had bought people, cowed people and been mutual associates with all kinds of dodgy sorts both from the bent coppers angle to the criminal/heavies one. By his own admission. He'd managed to keep everyone silenced through litigious threats (and one imagines back channel threats of another kind) right up till the moment he died. So what could one person or half a dozen persons have done? Theres people breathing big sighs of relief at what secrets jimmy took to his grave, we can be sure of that.



I think I can answer that. In Theroux's case, he could have pulled the plug on the programme. Saville wasn't allowed anywhere near Children in Need on the BBC. Someone took a similar decision there - and if each individual had frozen him out from their particular sphere of influence, he might have been taken down one piece at a time.

You can't change the world on your own. But you can alter it a bit.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> With the benefit of hindsight, Theroux is another person in a very long list who turned a blind eye. And like many of those turning their blind eyes, he may not have been totally aware that this was what he was doing.


 
Did he turn a blind eye or was he, like thousands if not millions of others, completely won over by Savile's strange charm.



> He was a complete one-off. Wrestler, charity fundraiser, deejay, fixer, prankster, and professional enigma.
> He was also a plainspoken Yorkshire philosopher and psychologist.
> There won’t be another one like him


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2013)

> There won’t be another one like him



we hope not eh


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Did he turn a blind eye or was he, like thousands if not millions of others, completely won over by Savile's strange charm.


I would guess a bit of both - turned a blind eye because of the strange charm - couldn't quite bring himself to believe that his suspicions could be true. I've been in the same situation with someone I know. It can be very hard to believe that the person in front of you is capable of such callous evilry.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 17, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would guess a bit of both - turned a blind eye because of the strange charm - couldn't quite bring himself to believe that his suspicions could be true. I've been in the same situation with someone I know. It can be very hard to believe that the person in front of you is capable of such callous evilry.


 
And magnified by the fact that, like lots of us of a certain age, we grew up with this predatory scumbag being beamed into our homes every Saturday evening. I always found him a bizarre character, but I never would have guessed what a fucked-up monster he really was.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> all this 'should have done' is well and good in hindsight but Saville had bought people, cowed people and been mutual associates with all kinds of dodgy sorts both from the bent coppers angle to the criminal/heavies one. By his own admission. He'd managed to keep everyone silenced through litigious threats (and one imagines back channel threats of another kind) right up till the moment he died. So what could one person or half a dozen persons have done? Theres people breathing big sighs of relief at what secrets jimmy took to his grave, we can be sure of that.


I agree with all that. The job he did in terms of keeping it under wraps, threatening people and the like was extraordinary, given that he seemed to have been abusing on at least weekly basis.  Must have run the risk of exposure equally regularly.  Brazen, powerful, connected (sort of), but by the law of averges it should have all come crashing down at some point. 

On Theroux, maybe I'm overdoing it.  Suppose I'm just interested what the state of his knowledge was at the time. It was an astonishing thing to introduce into the interview if he didn't have anothing other than vague rumours.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2013)

the beeb knew didn't they? Theroux's beeb through and throux. He'd have heard more than the vague rumours floating about amongst the rest of us, possibly.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2013)

by which I mean the rumours he knew would have been more specific. All I had were rumours along the lines of him diddling corpses and being into kids. Not the specifics.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 17, 2013)

Even if Louis Theroux had asked more probing questions, or been more aggressive, would that even been left in the program in the edit? It's one thing to say Louis must've known Savile's reputation, he clearly heard the rumours, but he also must've known anything that anything that aggressively challenged him on it would never be broadcast. He's just about the first person to say to Savile's face on camera are you a peadophile, in that exchange in the van at the end where Savile ends up saying "No worries, take a few quid off you too, take a few quid off anyone" and I reckon Theroux knew that wasn't an idle threat. Likewise that bit with the address lying around, then all the talk of secrets and omerta afterwards, that's proper intimidation. Theroux was a young guy and that was his first show, it was marketed as a bit of a knockabout thing that "weird weekend" series, with all the quirky music. They must've thought Savile would've been fine for this format, being an eccentric and whatever, but that show was really dark and in hindsight you can hardly watch it.

I remember watching it as a kid too with my parents and thinking he was a freak, I don't remember him from the 70's it was before my time. Jimmy Savile really just seemed to hate having theroux around him, trying his hardest not to be out of character.  He had the all the superficial charisma of any functioning sociopath, but you can see in bits of that documentary how he couldn't deal with the format of having someone following him about. Wasn't there a bit where Savile was whinging that Theroux wasn't asking him inane questions, stuff he was used to getting?

whenever I watch him now I just look at him as an absolutely perfect case study in being a proper evil sociopath.

EDIT: also, I remember in that episode there was the bit where they left the camera running, and showed just how much of a wanker he was when he thought he was off camera. I think that's interesting, my pet theory is that he was coming out with that kind of shit all the time off camera and they wanted to get a bit of it once they started to realise what type of guy he was. I'd love to see all the unedited raw footage they got from that Theroux doc I bet there's loads of incriminating stuff, I wonder if it still exists?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2013)

Again, can't disagree with that.  Just have a lingering doubt on how the programme itself fits into the bigger picture of what the BBC knew and when.  It was shown on BBC2, but I'm not sure whether it was produced in house or made by an external company.  If the former it's areasonable guess that those deciding it should go ahead would have had a fair degree of knowledge.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Again, can't disagree with that.  Just have a lingering doubt on how the programme itself fits into the bigger picture of what the BBC knew and when.  It was shown on BBC2, but I'm not sure whether it was produced in house or made by an external company.  If the former it's areasonable guess that those deciding it should go ahead would have had a fair degree of knowledge.



I remember he was allowed to present the last ever episode of Top of the Pops . . . in 2005. Indeed, it's a question of what did they know, and when?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 17, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> I remember he was allowed to present the last ever episode of Top of the Pops . . . in 2005. Indeed, it's a question of what did they know, and when?


At which point he was already being kept away from Children in Need.


----------



## exiledinwales (Oct 17, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I think this is a bit of an unhelpful bit of axe grinding on a serious and important thread, TBH.



Workers tend to have an axe to grind with their class enemy. I don't see how I'm taking anything away from this thread so get the fuck of your moral high ground. If this was a serious and important thread it would lead to real world action of some kind but it's probable it will not.


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 17, 2013)

exiledinwales said:


> If this was a serious and important thread it would lead to real world action of some kind but it's probable it will not.


you whatnow?


----------



## existentialist (Oct 17, 2013)

exiledinwales said:


> Workers tend to have an axe to grind with their class enemy. I don't see how I'm taking anything away from this thread so get the fuck of your moral high ground. If this was a serious and important thread it would lead to real world action of some kind but it's probable it will not.


You're a charmer, aren't you? *pinches exiledinwales's chubby little cheek*


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 17, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Even if Louis Theroux had asked more probing questions, or been more aggressive, would that even been left in the program in the edit? It's one thing to say Louis must've known Savile's reputation, he clearly heard the rumours, but he also must've known anything that anything that aggressively challenged him on it would never be broadcast. He's just about the first person to say to Savile's face on camera are you a peadophile, in that exchange in the van at the end where Savile ends up saying "No worries, take a few quid off you too, take a few quid off anyone" and I reckon Theroux knew that wasn't an idle threat. Likewise that bit with the address lying around, then all the talk of secrets and omerta afterwards, that's proper intimidation. Theroux was a young guy and that was his first show, it was marketed as a bit of a knockabout thing that "weird weekend" series, with all the quirky music. They must've thought Savile would've been fine for this format, being an eccentric and whatever, but that show was really dark and in hindsight you can hardly watch it.
> 
> I remember watching it as a kid too with my parents and thinking he was a freak, I don't remember him from the 70's it was before my time. Jimmy Savile really just seemed to hate having theroux around him, trying his hardest not to be out of character.  He had the all the superficial charisma of any functioning sociopath, but you can see in bits of that documentary how he couldn't deal with the format of having someone following him about. Wasn't there a bit where Savile was whinging that Theroux wasn't asking him inane questions, stuff he was used to getting?
> 
> ...



It's not hugely important, but this wasn't Theroux's first show. It was the first in the series of _When Louis Met..._ which means he'd done about 20 shows before this in the _Weird Weekends_ series. He knew exactly what he was doing by this point.

I'm a bit sad to read that afterword on his website. Why did he continue to visit him and have overnight stays in Leeds with him? That's all very odd given the way Theroux implied he was disgusted with Savile, and a bit afraid of him.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> It's not hugely important, but this wasn't Theroux's first show. It was the first in the series of _When Louis Met..._ which means he'd done about 20 shows before this in the _Weird Weekends_ series. He knew exactly what he was doing by this point.
> 
> I'm a bit sad to read that afterword on his website. Why did he continue to visit him and have overnight stays in Leeds with him? That's all very odd given the way Theroux implied he was disgusted with Savile, and a bit afraid of him.



Yeah, agreed....but to Theroux's credit he doesn't seem to have made any attempt to go back and delete/edit any those cringy (with hindsight) comments on the show's webpage.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 17, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> It's not hugely important, but this wasn't Theroux's first show. It was the first in the series of _When Louis Met..._ which means he'd done about 20 shows before this in the _Weird Weekends_ series. He knew exactly what he was doing by this point.
> 
> I'm a bit sad to read that afterword on his website. Why did he continue to visit him and have overnight stays in Leeds with him? That's all very odd given the way Theroux implied he was disgusted with Savile, and a bit afraid of him.



You're right I mistook it for that Weird Weekend series. And yes staying with afterward is also a bit weird when you think of it. Is there any interviews Theroux's done where he goes into any more detail about his opinions on savile? (apologies in advance if there's already links on the thread)


----------



## ibilly99 (Oct 17, 2013)

With hindsight the orginal JS is dead thread makes for interesting reading - I vividly remember regurgitating lurid internet rumour to my brother the night after the death to be met with a curled lip of disdain - he wasn't the only one who was to eat his words. 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/jimmy-savile-dead.283362/


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> With hindsight the orginal JS is dead thread makes for interesting reading - I vividly remember regurgitating lurid internet rumour to my brother the night after the death to be met with a curled lip of disdain - he wasn't the only one who was to eat his words.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/jimmy-savile-dead.283362/



Looks to me like many called it right from the outset tbf.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 17, 2013)

i think in the 'the BBC knew...' thing we ought to differentiate between what particular individuals in the BBC knew or suspected because they had been exposed to Saville within particular programmes, and what anyone else in the BBC would have known. if you werent in Radio 1 or TOTP etc.. around the times he was there, you'd probably know/think no more than Mr Averge sat at home watching 'Jim'll fix it' and thinking 'that blokes got to be a nonce..'.

in view of Savilles well documented litigous and intimidatory behaviour, its pretty unlikely the BBC managers who were a bit suspicious of him would put a post-it-note on his file saying 'watch him around kids, he's a wrong'un..'


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2013)

Theroux stuff is what it is, nobody should look to him for serious and detailed exposes. His Savile program was enough to confirm some of the ways that Savile was deeply unpleasant, but was not enough to get to the bottom of any of the really bad shit that was rumoured and subsequently turned out to be true. And the most serious failings occurred for decades before the documentary.

Theroux was quoted saying the following in the press once the truth about Saviles crimes started to emerge:



> "So the rumours seem to have been in some degree validated.
> 
> "I haven't seen ITV's expose on Jimmy Savile yet, but from what I understand there are a number of credible accounts from underaged teenage girls of Jimmy abusing his position of trust and celebrity to procure sexual favours.
> 
> ...



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/louis-theroux-on-sir-jimmy-savile-1354468#ixzz2i03ykg7B 

Certainly when I originally saw the Theroux program it left me disturbed and wondering, and quite capable of believing the worst. But since like many others the real bad stuff was just rumours, I didn't form any strong conclusions. When he died I expected stuff to come out, but I wasn't 100% confident of it, and I probably didnt say anything like that on this forum until other stuff such as that Nolan video were posted, and then victims started to come forwards.

I did not agree with simplified soundbites that came out such as official statements about him 'grooming the entire nation'. But the nature of long-standing rumours, 'everyone knowing', institutional failings and people getting away with it do fascinate me, but in the case of Savile I don't think I've seen a single report that really does the whole thing justice yet.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 17, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> With hindsight the orginal JS is dead thread makes for interesting reading - I vividly remember regurgitating lurid internet rumour to my brother the night after the death to be met with a curled lip of disdain - he wasn't the only one who was to eat his words.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/jimmy-savile-dead.283362/



Wow that's an eye-opening thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is... i don't know how to characterise this.



"Oh! Out of the question," replied Savile, who claimed the allegations had only surfaced because his accusers were after money, adding: "There's women looking for a few quid, we always get something like this coming up for Christmas."


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 17, 2013)

I'm not sure that exhuming the corpse of the JS is dead thread is any better an idea than re-animating the corpse of Jimmy himself TBH.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2013)

why did he have to "let" them use the room? they're the police, they can do what they want, so shouldn't they have ordered him to give them the room or asked him to go to the station?


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 17, 2013)

common courtesy, innit? i'm assuming that they'd need a warrant or something to 'order' him to use the room/_make_ him attend a police station? i know that voluntary interviews/arrests happen - maybe this was the only way they could get him to speak to them (on his turf) without having to go as far as summoning him in.. pure speculation though, and a heavily edited post


----------



## clicker (Oct 17, 2013)

They probably knew they were dealing with someone flattered by 'power', so indulged him to get a dialogue going. In much the same way as Louis did. Can't fathom why he'd want to spend nights staying with him after the interview - it could have been he was intrigued by the grotesque character in a journalistic way.


----------



## The Pale King (Oct 17, 2013)

I think they had no legal power to compel him to answer questions - he wasn't under arrest. Some of that obsequiousness _might _be justifiable in an exploratory interview - get him talking, start building a profile, see if he fills the silence and gives something away (which he did, pretty much). Maybe come back a few days later to 'clarify a few things' and then start up with the Sweeney stuff. But that would have to be a strategy that was part of a serious, planned investigation, which it dosen't seem like they were doing. We know that Savile's friend in the police had tried to lean on them not to investigate at all, and in that light it doesn't read well at all.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Is there a Masonic connection, then? I mean, as part of this business, rather than circumstantially/wild speculation-wise?


There is no masonic connection with the united grand lodge of England (UGLE). Chelsea Lodge is the entertainers lodge and he was never a member or visitor to that lodge.

I think the confusion comes from some award he was given by the pope, it has a similar sounding name to one of the side degrees or chapters in freemasonry, iirc he was given the order of Malta by the pope and there are the knights of Malta in freemasonry.

It doesn't take much of a jump for people to make a link that isn't there, just look at the McCann thread


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2013)

1%er said:


> There is no masonic connection with the united grand lodge of England (UGLE). Chelsea Lodge is the entertainers lodge and he was never a member or visitor to that lodge.
> 
> I think the confusion comes from some award he was given by the pope, it has a similar sounding name to one of the side degrees or chapters in freemasonry, iirc he was given the order of Malta by the pope and there are the knights of Malta in freemasonry.
> 
> It doesn't take much of a jump for people to make a link that isn't there, just look at the McCann thread



I think the confusion (if it is that) might also arise from the apparent protection he was afforded by the lodge known as WYP, and the fact that he evaded justice for so long. All sounds mightly Masonic, even if he weren't a formal member. 

Incidentaly, how can you be so sure that he wasn't?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I think the confusion (if it is that) might also arise from the apparent protection he was afforded by the lodge known as WYP, and the fact that he evaded justice for so long. All sounds mightly Masonic, even if he weren't a formal member.
> 
> Incidentaly, how can you be so sure that he wasn't?


I personally am assured by a friend in Chelsea Lodge who I have known for years, but in his reply he also mentioned that Great Queens street had also issued a statement confirming that he was never a mason in UGLE.

Can you tell me more about the lodge named WYP, a quick look at the usually places doesn't show any such lodge under the United grand lodge. There are other forms of masonry, may be he was a member of one of them, but I am sure if it were so; we would have heard by now.

I'm not sure what relevance to the amount of time a person "evades justice" has to them being a Freemason


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 17, 2013)

WYP=West Yorkshire Police


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Looks to me like many called it right from the outset tbf.



I'd forgotten about the racist, nonce-enabling London_calling. Glad that cunt has gone.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> WYP=West Yorkshire Police


The only reference I can find is this _"West Yorkshire Police_ Federation Sine Favore _Lodge_, No.9856" and they are strange sites (The ones I looked at). I can find no credible source that there was or is a west Yorkshire police lodge 

I am sure that a number of WYP were masons but maybe the lodge has a different name, probably members of a number of lodges, that's the usual form with old bill in my experience .


----------



## existentialist (Oct 17, 2013)

1%er said:


> The only reference I can find is this _"West Yorkshire Police_ Federation Sine Favore _Lodge_, No.9856" and they are strange sites (The ones I looked at). I can find no credible source that there was or is a west Yorkshire police lodge
> 
> I am sure that a number of WYP were masons but maybe the lodge has a different name, probably members of a number of lodges, that's the usual form with old bill in my experience .


I did a little research, and could not find a lodge with such a name, either. Which doesn't entirely surprise me, because, while Lodges are often formed by people who work for a particular organisation or in a particular profession, it is not usual for them to lift in its entirety the name of the organisation and use it as the Lodge name. It does happen (particularly where Lodges might meet on the premises of the organisation - eg there are school and college Lodges), but I'd be rather surprised to see it happening like that with the police.

Great Queen Street is not much given to confirming or denying rumours about members (motto - "never complain, never explain"), so the fact that they have specifically stated that Savile was not a Freemason is significant. In any case, it seems to me that Savile was very much someone out for his own individual interests, and not remotely given to the kind of fraternal fellowship he'd have found in Freemasonry - they would probably have pissed him off more even than he would have pissed them off with his grandstanding and egotistical posturing, and - unlike the police, as we realise with hindsight - Freemasonry would have nothing to offer him that could obviously and immediately benefit him in his child abusing career.


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I think the confusion (if it is that) might also arise from the apparent protection he was afforded by the lodge known as WYP, and the fact that he evaded justice for so long. All sounds mightly Masonic, even if he weren't a formal member.
> 
> Incidentaly, how can you be so sure that he wasn't?
> 
> ...


i read brogdale's post as just referring to WYP having a large freemason membership? not that they had a specific lodge..


----------



## existentialist (Oct 17, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> i read brogdale's post as just referring to WYP having a large freemason membership? not that they had a specific lodge..


Ah, he could be. I interpreted the phrase "afforded by the lodge known as WYP" as meaning that he was saying that a lodge called "WYP" existed. But it may well be that he's using slightly incorrect terminology, masonically speaking, and confusing yours truly in doing so 

Most police forces do (or at least did) tend to be very well represented in Freemasonry, for all kinds of benign and logical reasons. I'm sure West Yorkshire Police are no exceptions. I'm still not sure that Savile would have fitted in at all well to Masonry, though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2013)

brogdale said:
			
		

> Looks to me like many called it right from the outset tbf.



Always good to form an opinion of a thread by reading the first couple of pages.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2013)

Actually, some did. Some relayed personal experiences. And some gladly dismissed it all as fancyful; just as countless others must have done throughout his years of getting away with it. Jimmy fooled everyone.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 17, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Some relayed personal experiences. And some gladly dismissed it all as fancyful


gladly dismissed as fanciful is putting it nicely, to say the least.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2013)

exiledinwales said:
			
		

> Workers tend to have an axe to grind with their class enemy.



But Jimmy was working class. He naturally rose to the highest stratum in his career path and rubbed shoulders with the other fuckers there as is expected of a psychopath.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2013)

discokermit said:
			
		

> gladly dismissed as fanciful is putting it nicely, to say the least.



Well yeah, but this thread has managed not to get closed yet and I didn't want to be the one to hasten its demise.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I did a little research, and could not find a lodge with such a name, either. Which doesn't entirely surprise me, because, while Lodges are often formed by people who work for a particular organisation or in a particular profession, it is not usual for them to lift in its entirety the name of the organisation and use it as the Lodge name. It does happen (particularly where Lodges might meet on the premises of the organisation - eg there are school and college Lodges), but I'd be rather surprised to see it happening like that with the police.
> 
> Great Queen Street is not much given to confirming or denying rumours about members (motto - "never complain, never explain"), so the fact that they have specifically stated that Savile was not a Freemason is significant. In any case, it seems to me that Savile was very much someone out for his own individual interests, and not remotely given to the kind of fraternal fellowship he'd have found in Freemasonry - they would probably have pissed him off more even than he would have pissed them off with his grandstanding and egotistical posturing, and - unlike the police, as we realise with hindsight - Freemasonry would have nothing to offer him that could obviously and immediately benefit him in his child abusing career.


There are many work orientated lodges, Train drivers, tube drivers, bus drivers, miners, local authority, police, fireman, lawyers, bankers, uncle tom cobbley and all. Most trades and professions have lodges as do most hobbies.

I've never really understood why people who want to keep thing to themselves would open a lodge, why not just meet without the need for keeping a record of the meeting


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Most police forces do (or at least did) tend to be very well represented in Freemasonry, _*for all kinds of benign and logical reasons*_.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2013)

1%er said:
			
		

> There are many work orientated lodges, Train drivers, tube drivers, bus drivers, miners, local authority, police, fireman, lawyers, bankers, uncle tom cobbley and all. Most trades and professions have lodges as do most hobbies.
> 
> I've never really understood why people who want to keep thing to themselves would open a lodge, why not just meet without the need for keeping a record of the meeting



Because you get to find out the handshake.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


>


Oh. Have I just accidentally flushed an...AGENDA from cover?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Because you get to find out the handshake.


There are a number of pass-grips and passwords, also a number of phrases. The most common mistake is people using the wrong pass-grip or handshake, they are all freely available on the interweb. Just make sure you remember the "right" grip.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Oh. Have I just accidentally flushed an...AGENDA from cover?



Maybe you have, if thinking that the OB might be masons _*for all kinds of (non)benign and (il)logical reasons *_constitutes an AGENDA.


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2013)

> It was one incident in 1965 the former policeman remembers well.
> 
> Late one night, just before midnight, he noticed Jimmy Savile's Rolls Royce parked in a secluded spot on the edge of Roundhay Park.
> 
> ...





> A recent West Yorkshire Police inquiry concluded that friendships Savile had with officers had not protected him from arrest or prosecution. But a recent review of that inquiry found it did not have the look or feel of an independent report.
> 
> Today West Yorkshire Police appealed for the police officer we spoke to today to contact them. The force released a statement that said: "West Yorkshire Police are appealing for a man who spoke to the media yesterday in relation to the Jimmy Savile case to get in touch."
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24564933


----------



## 1%er (Oct 17, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Maybe you have, if thinking that the OB might be masons _*for all kinds of (non)benign and (il)logical reasons.*_


They join in many cases for personal advancement and the chance to rub shoulders with the bosses. I'm sure many join other organizations and groupings for the same reason.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> They join in many cases for personal advancement and the chance to rub shoulders with the bosses. I'm sure many join other organizations and groupings for the same reason.



You appear very confident that the OB join lodges for (relatively) benign, if essentially corrupt, reasons of self-advancement. How do you know this with such certainty?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> You appear very confident that the OB join lodges for (relatively) benign, if essentially corrupt, reasons of self-advancement. How do you know this with such certainty?


They also join golf clubs and other things, I know this because I have met these people in a previous life.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> They also join golf clubs and other things, I know this because _*I have met these people in a previous life*_.



Holy fuck!  Robert Peel?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Holy fuck!  Robert Peel?


almost that era


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Maybe you have, if thinking that the OB might be masons _*for all kinds of (non)benign and (il)logical reasons *_constitutes an AGENDA.


I rather assumed that you'd covered the "nefarious reasons" angle quite adequately yourself, and felt a little balance was called for. There are people in Freemasonry (and not just OB) ) who use it for nefarious reasons, but neither the organisation nor the people in it would tolerate either blatant or significant nefariousness for very long - this idea that Freemasonry is some kind of automatic "get out of jail free" card is a complete myth.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I rather assumed that you'd covered the "nefarious reasons" angle quite adequately yourself, and felt a little balance was called for. There are people in Freemasonry (and not just OB) ) who use it for nefarious reasons, but neither the organisation nor the people in it would tolerate either blatant or significant nefariousness for very long - this idea that Freemasonry is some kind of automatic "get out of jail free" card is a complete myth.



Setting 'agendas' aside, then.... you sound like you have some personal experience of the lodge?


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Setting 'agendas' aside, then.... you sound like you have some personal experience of the lodge?


Yes. It's not any secret on here - I'm a Freemason of nearly 25 years' standing 

ETA: and on one occasion, was on a committee that excluded a member for committing a criminal offence.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Yes. It's not any secret on here - I'm a Freemason of nearly 25 years' standing



Oh right; sorry I didn't know...but I'm relatively new.

So what level is your lodge?


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh right; sorry I didn't know...but I'm relatively new.
> 
> So what level is your lodge?


The facetious answer is "about 10m above sea level"  . For a sensible answer, I'd recommend heading over to the UGLE website and doing a bit of background reading, or digging up one of the threads on here about Freemasonry - it's probably going a bit off topic for this one. Or feel free to PM me...

ETA: threads that might be useful are:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/freemasons-in-the-uk-a-general-discussion.301895/
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/what-do-you-make-of-freemasonry.189604/

There's quite a bit of uninformed speculation on those, but it shouldn't be too hard to filter out the sensible ones, and you'll probably spot which Urbanites are on the square in the process


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> The facetious answer is "about 10m above sea level"  . I'd recommend heading over to the UGLE website and doing a bit of background reading, or digging up one of the threads on here about Freemasonry - it's probably going a bit off topic for this one. Or feel free to PM me...



OK, I understand...you don't want to talk about it publicly.

I asked because it was my understanding that individual members were very much placed at certain levels in the fraternity and often knew little or nothing about other layers in the hierarchy of the organisation. Hence, I'm always suspicious when I hear masons speaking for the whole edifice and it's membership.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> OK, I understand...you don't want to talk about it publicly.


No, not at all, just that the topic has been covered fairly extensively already on here, and if you have specific questions it might be easier to ask them directly. I have no problem with discussing Freemasonry openly (there are some things we give our word not to disclose, though, and I have no intention of breaking that promise).



brogdale said:


> I asked because it was my understanding that individual members were very much placed at certain levels in the fraternity and often knew little or nothing about other layers in the hierarchy of the organisation. Hence, I'm always suspicious when I hear masons speaking for the whole edifice and it's membership.


That is a common misapprehension, and not strictly true - but you will find all that out from a little reading.

Here's a useful link from the UGLE site which might answer a few of your questions: http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-freemasonry/frequently-asked-questions

(and I've edited some links into my previous post, too)


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

OK, jolly good.

"...not strictly true.." leads me to think that I'm not entirely wrong, so you'll understand when I express scepticism that any one member of the secret fraternity can speak about the motives of the broader membership or institution. 

I very much doubt that you have any more knowledge than me about Savile's links with masons within WYP.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> OK, jolly good.
> 
> "...not strictly true.." leads me to think that I'm not entirely wrong, so you'll understand when I express scepticism that any one member of the secret fraternity can speak about the motives of the broader membership or institution.
> 
> I very much doubt that you have any more knowledge than me about Savile's links with masons within WYP.


For all I know, you do have more information on that subject. But I am sure you will forgive me for suggesting that, from what you are saying about Masonry in general, that you don't know much about the organisation itself or how it operates.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> For all I know, you do have more information on that subject. But I am sure you will forgive me for suggesting that, from what you are saying about Masonry in general, that you don't know much about the organisation itself or how it operates.



I thought that was the point?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> you'll probably spot which Urbanites are on the square in the process



'on the square'? Strange euphemism. 'I'm on the square tonight, dear.' *pulls on sash*


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I thought that was the point?


What was the point? Of what?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> What was the point? Of what?


 Of a society with secrets.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

What is the "point of a society with secrets"?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> What is the "point of a society with secrets"?



Do tell; you're a member.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Do tell; you're a member.


I meant "what is the point you are trying to make"? 

I'm playing this with a completely straight bat, but I can't help feeling that you are trying to make some point about the significance of Freemasonry in all this without laying your cards on the table and saying specifically what it is that you are trying to infer.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

That the reasons for police masons to be excluded from taking part in the hillsborough criminal investigation also lead to questions being raised about other investigations in that same area - that sort of thing is what it looks like to me. Sounds reasonable enough.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

As well as concuring with Butcher's observation, the point I was making is that you appaered to be claiming that my ''ignorance'' of a secret society in some way invalidated my concerns about Savile's links with masonic coppers.


----------



## cesare (Oct 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That the reasons for police masons to be excluded from taking part in the hillsborough criminal investigation also lead to questions being raised about other investigations in that same area - that sort of thing is what it looks like to me. Sounds reasonable enough.


Absolutely. Whatever anyone's private view of freemasonry together with a bit more transparency in recent years, it's still a secret society and there are corrupt individuals that will utilise that secrecy. It's hardly a stretch of possibilities - it's a known and accepted aspect of secret societies/networking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I meant "what is the point you are trying to make"?
> 
> I'm playing this with a completely straight bat, but I can't help feeling that you are trying to make some point about the significance of Freemasonry in all this without laying your cards on the table and saying specifically what it is that you are trying to infer.


are you saying you're on the square?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 18, 2013)

Actually, wouldn't Savile's putative Catholicism have prevented him from being a Freemason? (I know the church was just another bit of cover for him, mind.)


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That the reasons for police masons to be excluded from taking part in the hillsborough criminal investigation also lead to questions being raised about other investigations in that same area - that sort of thing is what it looks like to me. Sounds reasonable enough.


Okay. I didn't know that police masons were excluded from taking part in the Hillsborough investigation, and I don't know why that is. As far as I know, it's the first time Hillsborough has cropped up in this thread.

As a Freemason who's been one for getting on for 25 years, I'd claim a reasonable amount of first-hand knowledge about the organisation and how it works from an insider's perspective, but that doesn't mean I am necessarily clued up about the activities of every member of the organisation or what they have got up to.



brogdale said:


> As well as concuring with Butcher's observation, the point I was making is that you appaered to be claiming that my ''ignorance'' of a secret society in some way invalidated my concerns about Savile's links with masonic coppers.


The point I am making about your ignorance of the organisation is that, given that ignorance, you appear (only appear, I'll admit) to be making assumptions about its aims, motives, ways of operating, etc. that seem to me to be rather at odds with what I know about how it functions.

I don't know whether you are stating, with anything to support the statement, that Freemasonry is somehow implicated in the Savile coverup as far as West Yorkshire Police are concerned, or whether it's just an inference you're drawing circumstantially.

I am not here to defend Freemasonry, or individual masons who may have been involved in something they shouldn't have - I don't have the specific knowledge of what has gone on to do that. What I can say, with some measure of authority, is that any idea that Freemasonry, as an organisation, would be complicit or involved in coverups of police malpractice, whether in connection with Hillsborough or Jimmy Savile, is, to my mind, far-fetched.

I would be very interested to learn otherwise, but nothing I've seen from anyone here has done more than imply that this could be the case.

We have wrong 'uns in Freemasonry. I can say that with some authority, because Freemasonry isn't MI6 - we don't do a deep vetting on people who join - and there are wrong 'uns to be found everywhere in society. But the idea that those wrong 'uns are in any position to be able to openly practice their nefariousness within the organisation and be allowed to get away with it is fanciful.

Unless you know different?


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> are you saying you're on the square?


Only for about the hundredth time here, yes


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Actually, wouldn't Savile's putative Catholicism have prevented him from being a Freemason? (I know the church was just another bit of cover for him, mind.)


From a Masonic perspective, it wouldn't have made any difference. From a Catholic perspective, membership of Freemasonry is an excommunicable offence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 18, 2013)

So how does the fact that many of their male colleagues are masons affect the careers of female police people? Or lawyers? Or, well, masons?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> The only reference I can find is this _"West Yorkshire Police_ Federation Sine Favore _Lodge_, No.9856" and they are strange sites (The ones I looked at). I can find no credible source that there was or is a west Yorkshire police lodge
> 
> I am sure that a number of WYP were masons but maybe the lodge has a different name, probably members of a number of lodges, that's the usual form with old bill in my experience .



A lot of (non-OB) Masons have dual or multiple memberships, and frankly a lot of lodges aren't particularly clearly-named!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> i read brogdale's post as just referring to WYP having a large freemason membership? not that they had a specific lodge..



If WYP are anything like other police forces, there will be dozens (at least) of police lodges - most with a relative handful of members, a few with fuck-tons.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


>



To be fair, benign reasons *do* exist alongside the self-serving reasons, just as logical reasons exist alongside the batshit ones for membership.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, benign reasons *do* exist alongside the self-serving reasons, just as logical reasons exist alongside the batshit ones for membership.


IME, most of those who join for self-serving reasons (they clearly don't believe the stuff we tell them at interview about "joining for personal advantage") get fed up and drift off fairly quickly...I imagine that, if Jimmy Savile had joined, assuming he hadn't flounced off in disgust at not being afforded suitable levels of respect from Day One, he'd have quickly gone the same way when he realised he'd joined an organisation where he was part of a hierarchy you don't just ascend because you've decided you're entitled to.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> As well as concuring with Butcher's observation, the point I was making is that you appaered to be claiming that my ''ignorance'' of a secret society in some way invalidated my concerns about Savile's links with masonic coppers.



Hold on. If Saville wasn't a Mason (and GQS have confirmed that) why would Masonic coppers help him out?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Actually, wouldn't Savile's putative Catholicism have prevented him from being a Freemason?



No.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> No.


In fact, the UGLE website mentions that 3 (or 4?) Grand Masters were Catholics.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Hold on. If Saville wasn't a Mason (and GQS have confirmed that) why would Masonic coppers help him out?


Because as existentialist pointed out, the mass membership masons has many wrong 'uns. And wrong 'uns who are paedos or able to bought off are unlikley to refuse to help a fellow paedo or source of funding becasue they pretend to be a catholic. In fact, in the way that some paedos use the church to carry out their activities some paedos might use the masons similarly - so there's three potential common interests/activities for starters.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Hold on. If Saville wasn't a Mason (and GQS have confirmed that) why would Masonic coppers help him out?



I can think of plenty of reasons how a relationship between members of a lodge and a powerful profane individual could evolve, mostly related to perceived prestige/"networking".
That, and some people are natural star-fuckers.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 18, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Actually, wouldn't Savile's putative Catholicism have prevented him from being a Freemason? (I know the church was just another bit of cover for him, mind.)


It never prevented devout Catholic, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, from joining the freemasons. But what's strange about the Pinochet example is that he openly professed admiration for Franco, who was known to be anti-Masonic.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because as existentialist pointed out, the mass membership masons has many wrong 'uns. And wrong 'uns who are paedos or able to bought off are unlikley to refuse to help a fellow paedo or source of funding becasue they pretend to be a catholic. In fact, in the way that some paedos use the church to carry out their activities some paedos might use the masons similarly - so there's three potential common interests/activities for starters.


That's a pretty long reach from my acknowledgement that Freemasonry isn't automatically a wrong 'un-free zone, TBF.

And there's a big difference between someone who happens to be a wrong 'un being in Freemasonry, and the organisation itself closing ranks to protect them.

As in society at large, most Freemasons have families - families which may well contain the kind of children who would have been vulnerable to predators like Savile. Do you really think that most (it'd only take one whistleblower) Masons are going to be happy to be active in covering up the activities of someone like that if it were known to them, in the knowledge that it could well be - indeed, if he were a member, more likely than otherwise to be - one of their own who could be at risk?

The Church is, I think, a little bit of a special case: the people who have been found out to be abusers within the Church were, first of all, often there in the first place because the Church gave them access to potential victims - something that would not really be the case to anything like the same extent in Freemasonry - and also because the organisation had the ability and a vested interest in covering up the actions of their priests in a way that Freemasonry really doesn't, mainly because Freemasonry isn't professionally responsible or liable for the actions of its members. Freemasonry isn't the Church - it is a collection of private individuals who happen to have their Freemasonry in common.

I would say that Freemasons are no more likely, as a group, to be complicit in abuse as, say, teachers would be - sure, at an individual level, it may be that teachers have sometimes been slow to disclose suspicions of abuse, but not because, as a profession, they deliberately closed ranks and set out to cover up the actions of members of that profession.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because as existentialist pointed out, the mass membership masons has many wrong 'uns. And wrong 'uns who are paedos or able to bought off are unlikley to refuse to help a fellow paedo or source of funding becasue they pretend to be a catholic. In fact, in the way that some paedos use the church to carry out their activities some paedos might use the masons similarly - so there's three potential common interests/activities for starters.



But where's the specific Masonic link? Every large body of individuals will contain some wrong'uns. Freemasonry isn't OVERrepresented in that. If anything there _should_ be fewer wrong'uns in the craft than in other groups. A lot of coppers are Rotarians, or Leeds supporters, or scout leaders, some of those may be paedo's too.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> But where's the specific Masonic link? Every large body of individuals will contain some wrong'uns. Freemasonry isn't OVERrepresented in that. If anything there _should_ be fewer wrong'uns in the craft than in other groups. A lot of coppers are Rotarians, or Leeds supporters, or scout leaders, some of those may be paedo's too.


Where's the specfic masonic link in masons doing that (if they are/were doing that)? In them doing that. Otherwise, the masons cannot be guilty of anything ever unless every single member was informed of agreed with and participated in the wrong doing. That's a get out of jail free card isn't it?_ It's impossible for the masons to be guilty of anything ever_ under this rubric. The police also. And every other membership group with more than a handful of members.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> But where's the specific Masonic link? Every large body of individuals will contain some wrong'uns. Freemasonry isn't OVERrepresented in that. If anything there _should_ be fewer wrong'uns in the craft than in other groups. A lot of coppers are Rotarians, or Leeds supporters, or scout leaders, some of those may be paedo's too.


And we're talking about the intersection of three groups here - coppers, those sympathetic to child abusers, and Freemasons (or Rotarians, Leeds supporters, scout leaders...). Which makes the odds on someone being a member of all three that much smaller again.

Anyway, I am really not quite sure why Freemasonry has suddenly found itself in the dock, here. The fact is that, for all kinds of reasons quite irrespective of Freemasonry, the system failed to act upon a fairly widely-known fact - that Savile had a predilection for younger victims, and acted on that predilection. There are enough questions to answer on that alone without necessarily having to go searching for reasons why red herrings such as Freemasonry need to be brought into it_, _in the absence of anything resembling the slightest evidence that it was.

Most of what happened can be accounted for via far more prosaic explanations, not least of which was Savile's fairly relentless grooming of anyone he came into contact with, via either sheer force of personality (which he undoubtedly didn't lack), or threats (which seemed with hindsight to be scarily effective). If we resolve those issues in such a way as to minimise someone like him getting away with abuse on an industrial scale, it is almost certain that we'll be resolving all of the questions of the mechanisms or associations by which they may have been able to happen in the process.

Perhaps the question of police involvement is the exception to that - we, naturally, expect (or should expect) the police to be held to a higher standard of behaviour than the general populace: they are given powers which are expected to be used to prevent crime and further the enforcement of law and order. If those powers are abused, as it appears they were in Savile's case, that raises serious questions which need to be answered.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Perhaps the question of police involvement is the exception to that - *we, naturally, expect (or should expect) the police to be held to a higher standard of behaviour than the general populace*: they are given powers which are expected to be used to prevent crime and further the enforcement of law and order. If those powers are abused, as it appears they were in Savile's case, that raises serious questions which need to be answered.



I expect, and see, the exact opposite: they are held to a lower standard of behaviour than the general populace. After all, they've got those powers you speak of and their mates to rally round.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I expect, and see, the exact opposite: they are held to a lower standard of behaviour than the general populace. After all, they've got those powers you speak of and their mates to rally round.


Yes - that's the problem with handing significant powers to a group of people and not being careful to make sure they're being held to account. It shouldn't *be* like that, because otherwise situations like the Savile business arise.

And I think we'd be better served by concentrating on the abuses we know are happening than lots of vague handwaving around the possibility that, for some reason nobody's actually been able to explain yet, there's an issue with some or other third party organisation. That's not to say that any third party organisation - such as Freemasonry - should be beyond reproach, but it seems to me that quite a lot of effort is being expended on this thread to somehow conjure up a scenario in which Freemasonry is somehow complicit in this when the elephant in the room is - as you point out - the police's abuse of their powers and their tendency to close ranks, Freemasonry or not, when anyone questions their motives or actions.


----------



## laptop (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I am really not quite sure why Freemasonry has suddenly found itself in the dock, here.



It led me to wonder whether Savile hadn't some handshake experience himself... or there was something else not yet widely reported about his connections or patronage.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

laptop said:


> It led me to wonder whether Savile hadn't some handshake experience himself... or there was something else not yet widely reported about his connections or patronage.


Well, it'd be very interesting to find out that he had! All the evidence does seem to suggest otherwise, and I suspect that he saw himself as a kind of one-man secret society, and not likely to be all that big on mutuality


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A lot of (non-OB) Masons have dual or multiple memberships, and frankly a lot of lodges aren't particularly clearly-named!


Yes this is correct, in fact I don't know any practicing masons that only belong to one lodge. The naming of lodges is done at the time the lodge is started and I believe the founding members chose the name.

I think if people spent any time looking at freemasonry and freemasons they would be surprised at how open they are. What are the secrets of freemasonry? As far as I know they are solely the "modes of recognition" (and they are hardly secret nowadays).

With regard to religion (from others posts), I have personally met masons from many religions. To become a mason you do not have to believe in "God", you will be asked if you believe in a "superior being" and that could be budda, Darth Vader or one of the hundreds of 'gods" that are out there.

Freemasonry is full of hypocrisy and double standards, but in the end it is no different to any other social group where people mix.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> Freemasonry is full of hypocrisy and double standards, but in the end it is no different to any other social group where people mix.


It is different. It has hierarchy, rules, stuff you have to swear to, excludes half the population, funny walks...


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is different. It has hierarchy, rules, stuff you have to swear to, excludes half the population, funny walks...


That isn't exclusive to masonry, what hierarchy are you referring to? 

There is a symbolic hierarchy with-in the lodge because of the way the ritual is practiced, but that is it.

A master mason is a master mason that's it. I've joined other clubs where you have to obey the rules of that club and hierarchy is based on seniority.

The big problem with discussing masonry on here is that most people just don't understand the basics of freemasonry and how a lodge works, that isn't a criticism, it is like talking to someone who has never been in a car and explaining how you drive.

I have no problem telling people (what I know from the inside) about Freemasons warts and all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 18, 2013)

Do you appreciate what it looks like from the outside, though? A men-only club with silly handshakes, mystical quasi-religious rituals, occupation-specific branches (yet excluding female members of those occupations). 

If some men want a men-only club, that's kind of ok. But not a men-only xxx-profession club. That's discriminatory, plain and simple.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is different. It has hierarchy, rules, stuff you have to swear to, excludes half the population, funny walks...


None of which has anything to do with either child sexual abuse, or Jimmy Savile. Perhaps it might be better discussed on a more appropriate thread?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> None of which has anything to do with either child sexual abuse, or Jimmy Savile. Perhaps it might be better discussed on a more appropriate thread?



Yay, we haven't had a Freemason thread for ages!


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you appreciate what it looks like from the outside, though? A men-only club with silly handshakes, mystical quasi-religious rituals, occupation-specific branches (yet excluding female members of those occupations).
> 
> If some men want a men-only club, that's kind of ok. But not a men-only xxx-profession club. That's discriminatory, plain and simple.


OK, Freemasonry is discriminatory. True. It doesn't let women in. I'll put my hands up to that, and admit that I have no defence or justification for it. I could talk about that quite happily, but I think it belongs elsewhere.

None of your ridiculing of the organisation - and I'm repeating myself now - has anything to do with what this thread is about.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> OK, Freemasonry is discriminatory. True. It doesn't let women in. I'll put my hands up to that, and admit that I have no defence or justification for it. I could talk about that quite happily, but I think it belongs elsewhere.



It'd be sexual assault if we did to women what we do to each other.

Especially the goat and donkey stuff.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you appreciate what it looks like from the outside, though? A men-only club with silly handshakes, mystical quasi-religious rituals, occupation-specific branches (yet excluding female members of those occupations).
> 
> If some men want a men-only club, that's kind of ok. But not a men-only xxx-profession club. That's discriminatory, plain and simple.


Yes I do understand what it looks like from the outside and I think much of it is looked at from a position of ignorance. It really isn't hard to find-out about the craft, it is much ado about nothing really. Pop along to your local lodge and take a look for yourself.

There are lots of men only clubs, the silly handshakes are based on the modes of recognition from the old crafts as are the rituals. with regard to "occupation-specific", people with a similar job, skill-set, hobby or other interest often set up groups.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> OK, Freemasonry is discriminatory. True. It doesn't let women in. I'll put my hands up to that, and admit that I have no defence or justification for it. I could talk about that quite happily, but I think it belongs elsewhere.
> 
> None of your ridiculing of the organisation - and I'm repeating myself now - has anything to do with what this thread is about.



The discussion has veered onto freemasons. I'd have thought that pinning down exactly what kind of club it is, what kind of men join it, for what reasons they join, and what they are expected to do as members was relevant. 

It is right that non-masons only have a sketchy idea of what it is like to belong to such a preposterous club, but the preposterous nature of the club is part of what causes the suspicion. If it didn't confer certain advantages, why would anyone bother with it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> There are lots of men only clubs, the silly handshakes are based on the modes of recognition from the old crafts as are the rituals. with regard to "occupation-specific", people with a similar job, skill-set, hobby or other interest often set up groups.



There aren't really 'lots' of men only clubs. I can't think of any except the masons off the top of my head. And the point here is that it is both men-only and occupation-specific.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> It'd be sexual assault if we did to women what we do to each other.
> 
> Especially the goat and donkey stuff.


Indeed. And that's before we even mention the wellingtons and hazelnut yogurt.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Well, it'd be very interesting to find out that he had! All the evidence does seem to suggest otherwise, and I suspect that he saw himself as a kind of one-man secret society, and not likely to be all that big on mutuality



I just find accusations that he might be a freemason, very odd as he was so 'weirdo loner' and operated alone. He didn't seem to have any proper friends either.  Probably because he was despised in every community he visited - go look at some of the comments on the Scarborough News website to see what I mean. He really didn't strike me at all as the club joining type, anyway. Surely it's possible to corrupt the police force without being a freemason, I think to accuse anyone who does this as 'being in the masons' is just lazy conspiraloonery.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 18, 2013)

pinkmonkey said:


> I just find accusations that he might be a freemason, very odd as he was so 'weirdo loner' and operated alone. He didn't seem to have any proper friends either.  Probably because he was despised in every community he visited - go look at some of the comments on the Scarborough News website to see what I mean. He really didn't strike me at all as the club joining type, anyway. Surely it's possible to corrupt the police force without being a freemason, I think to accuse anyone who does this as 'being in the masons' is just lazy conspiraloonery.


I agree. I've not seen any evidence that he was any kind of mason.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The discussion has veered onto freemasons.


And I am trying - probably futilely - to veer that discussion onto a thread that isn't called "The Sir Jimmy Savile OBE Thread", given that it seems reasonably beyond doubt - absent some evidence to the contrary - that he wasn't one, nor was there any evident Masonic involvement in his activities.




littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd have thought that pinning down exactly what kind of club it is, what kind of men join it, for what reasons they join, and what they are expected to do as members was relevant.


Well, pin away. So far, all you have really made me aware of is the derision in which you hold Freemasonry.



littlebabyjesus said:


> It is right that non-masons only have a sketchy idea of what it is like to belong to such a preposterous club, but the preposterous nature of the club is part of what causes the suspicion. If it didn't confer certain advantages, why would anyone bother with it?


Well, I have been pretty clear about the fact that I am happy to provide more information about this "preposterous club", but I haven't had any takers yet - the main interest seems to be in speculation about how Freemasonry might have been putatively involved in this or that scandal.

And I do think that the subject of Jimmy Savile's depredations is important enough that the main thread on it isn't sidetracked with such speculation. But I'm clearly fighting a losing battle there.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There aren't really 'lots' of men only clubs. I can't think of any except the masons off the top of my head. And the point here is that it is both men-only and occupation-specific.


It's not occupation-specific. Not by a long chalk. Yes, Lodges have traditionally been formed amongst groups of men in specific areas - there are Lodges that were formed by policemen (but which are rarely, if ever, exclusive to policemen); my own mother Lodge was formed in 1949 from members of the local Home Guard; there are Lodges that were formed by members of the acting profession, musicians, the military, even chartered accountants (an excellent dinner, some very amusing after-dinner speeches, and hardly a mention of depreciation or leveraged asset transfers). Lots of Lodges that start out as a group of fellow professionals change over time, and end up with all kinds of people in them who are nothing to do with the original membership.

You see, there is all kinds of speculation going on here, and most of it is based on exactly the same kind of complete misapprehension that you've displayed here. That's fine - there's no reason why you should know these things, but it's a bit rich to see this criticism coming from people who sometimes seem almost proud of their ignorance.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There aren't really 'lots' of men only clubs. I can't think of any except the masons off the top of my head. And the point here is that it is both men-only and occupation-specific.


They are for sure man only and I'm not justifying that, it is historic afaik that is the reason, as for being occupation specific, I'm not sure how common that is nowadays but as it grew out of the craft guilds it is hardly surprising really. While many masons will join occupation/craft specific lodges I would suspect that is because the person who introduced them to the lodge originally was a work college or a friend with a similar interest.

Masons are not recruited, almost all the ones I know just went to a lodge and asked or were curious to a masonic friend who introduced them. As I'm sure it has been said many times here, the masons are a society with secrets and not a secret society (the signs and tokens of recognition are the only "secrets" and they are not secret anymore  ) 

Again I would ask why would people meting for nefarious purposes not just meet up, why hold a lodge meeting with the all paper trail that leaves behind 


existentialist said:


> Well, I have been pretty clear about the fact that I am happy to provide more information about this "preposterous club", but I haven't had any takers yet - the main interest seems to be in speculation about how Freemasonry might have been putatively involved in this or that scandal.


I have done the same on other threads and also had no takers, its as if people don't want to know as their world could come crashing down if they found out it was just a bunch of oldish blokes going through some boring ritual and then going for a meal and not talking about religion or politics 

I am happy to admit that I can remember two occasions where I was asked to assist in breaking the law, I declined on both occasions as I only break the law with someone I have seen break the law in the past. I was also asked if I wanted to join a "ghost lodge" the only reason for this lodge seemed to be so some masons could carry on affairs, their absence explained by the summons they received.

So plenty of hypocrisy with-in freemasonry.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> I am happy to admit that I can remember two occasions where I was asked to assist in breaking the law, I declined on both occasions as I only break the law with someone I have seen break the law in the past. I was also asked if I wanted to join a "ghost lodge" the only reason for this lodge seemed to be so some masons could carry on affairs, their absence explained by the summons they received.






butchersapron said:


> That the reasons for police masons to be excluded from taking part in the hillsborough criminal investigation also lead to questions being raised about other investigations in that same area - that sort of thing is what it looks like to me. Sounds reasonable enough.



I'm sure that masonic urbanites will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it's my understanding that since the intervention of Jack Straw in 2009, the OB are no longer required to reveal if they are masons. Hence, I'm wondering quite how the IPCC propose to exclude masonic OB from the investigation process?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> A thread for discussion of sir jimmy savile obe and his vile activities. Please don't call other people nonces or say they look like nonces on the thread or it will go the way of all the others.


if i'd known the way this thread would have turned out i'd have included masons in my op.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm sure that masonic urbanites will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it's my understanding that since the intervention of Jack Straw in 2009, the OB are no longer required to reveal if they are masons. Hence, I'm wondering quite how the IPCC propose to exclude masonic OB from the investigation process?


Think coppers have to but judges no longer do.

edit: no they don't. Coppers that is. I expect new hire investigators will have to sign a declaration.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Think coppers have to but judges no longer do.
> 
> edit: no they don't.



Best I can find;



> Police officers have a voluntary requirement to disclose - but only to their superiors. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17272611





So all the IPCC need do is ask Norm Bettison if any of his guys were masons....


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm sure that masonic urbanites will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it's my understanding that since the intervention of Jack Straw in 2009, the OB are no longer required to reveal if they are masons. Hence, I'm wondering quite how the IPCC propose to exclude masonic OB from the investigation process?


as far as I know police and judges do not have to declare membership of the craft, I believe that some local authorities have a disclosure policy.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

Spymaster existentialist
Don't most lodges have open evenings? I haven't been near a lodge for more years than I care to remember. I know I attended a few lodges as a visitor and my own lodge held event where non-masons _and even women_ were shown around the lodge and the layout of the lodge was explained.

over 30 years ago there was talk of opening up the craft and demystifying it to the public at large, I assume this hasn't happened


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> They are for sure man only and I'm not justifying that, it is historic afaik that is the reason, as for being occupation specific, I'm not sure how common that is nowadays but as it grew out of the craft guilds it is hardly surprising really. While many masons will join occupation/craft specific lodges I would suspect that is because the person who introduced them to the lodge originally was a work college or a friend with a similar interest.
> 
> Masons are not recruited, almost all the ones I know just went to a lodge and asked or were curious to a masonic friend who introduced them. As I'm sure it has been said many times here, the masons are a society with secrets and not a secret society (the signs and tokens of recognition are the only "secrets" and they are not secret anymore  )



My experience (as a non-Mason who knows a fair number of red *and* blue lodge masons) is that lodges *do* recruit, just "under the rose" rather than publicly.  I've been approached several times by Masons who've suggested (very much to my amused incredulity!  ) that I'd be an adornment to their lodge, and get nodded through if I sought membership.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er,

We have White Table evenings where wives and girlfriends, and guests come to a dinner which takes a similar format to a standard festive board. Most of them sit around with a WTF look; or openly taking the piss in my wife's case!


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm sure that masonic urbanites will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it's my understanding that since the intervention of Jack Straw in 2009, the OB are no longer required to reveal if they are masons. Hence, I'm wondering quite how the IPCC propose to exclude masonic OB from the investigation process?


That was reversing a policy that was instituted many years ago (IIRC, championed by Chris Mullins?


1%er said:


> Spymaster existentialist
> Don't most lodges have open evenings? I haven't been near a lodge for more years than I care to remember. I know I attended a few lodges as a visitor and my own lodge held event where non-masons _and even women_ were shown around the lodge and the layout of the lodge was explained.
> 
> over 30 years ago there was talk of opening up the craft and demystifying it to the public at large, I assume this hasn't happened


Check out the UGLE website - I think they've done a lot to demystify.

Of course, it'll never be enough for some people.

And yes, many Lodges do hold "white table" evenings and open evenings. And it's not at all unusual, for example at functions that are held on Masonic premises, for informal tours of the lodge room to take place.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> My experience (as a non-Mason who knows a fair number of red *and* blue lodge masons) is that lodges *do* recruit, just "under the rose" rather than publicly.  I've been approached several times by Masons who've suggested (very much to my amused incredulity!  ) that I'd be an adornment to their lodge, and get nodded through if I sought membership.


It's a bit of a dance. We are not supposed to actively recruit, but OTOH it's not exactly the most obvious setup, and we could be waiting a long time if we passively waited for people to say "So, this masons thing, what about it, then?", especially as the popular perception is that you have to be invited to join.

So you fudge around it a bit, as your friends clearly did with you


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

existentialist said:


> It's a bit of a dance. We are not supposed to actively recruit, but OTOH it's not exactly the most obvious setup, and we could be waiting a long time if we passively waited for people to say "So, this masons thing, what about it, then?", especially as the popular perception is that you have to be invited to join.
> 
> So you fudge around it a bit, as your friends clearly did with you



Yes, we don't actively recruit officially, but everyone's made aware that new members would be very welcome, and we're encouraged to introduce people that show an interest.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> My experience (as a non-Mason who knows a fair number of red *and* blue lodge masons) is that lodges *do* recruit, just "under the rose" rather than publicly.  I've been approached several times by Masons who've suggested (very much to my amused incredulity!  ) that I'd be an adornment to their lodge, and get nodded through if I sought membership.


I guess it comes down to your definition of recruit, I'd be more inclined to use the terms invite or suggest membership, but I think and I'm sure other can correct me on this, most new masons nowadays are people who walk into a lodge and ask about joining. I thought membership had been falling for years, although I think I read recently, it is falling in London but growing in the provinces.

In my mother lodge there were only two people under 60 and they were the only two that hadn't been through the chair, I think I am the only person still alive from that lodge


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

So, is it just the three of you, or are there other Urban masons?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> So, is it just the three of you, or are there other Urban masons?


yes

next


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes
> 
> next



you as well?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> you as well?


i'm simply saying there are other masons here. make of that what you will.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> So, is it just the three of you, or are there other Urban masons?



I think there were 8 or 9 at last count. Maybe a couple less,


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I think there were 8 or 9 at_* last count.*_



Oh, OK. If that was in a previous thread I'd probably not have read it as I've only been here a year.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2013)

enough for an Urban lodge


----------



## laptop (Oct 18, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> enough for an Urban lodge



What's Mason for _minyan_?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> enough for an Urban lodge



If Existentialist proposes you, I'll second, and we'll have you bumming goats by xmas, Dotski.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> enough for an Urban lodge





Seems odd to mix radical politics with an exclusive, all male, secretive society in which members pledge to "..._*be quiet and peaceable citizens, true to the lawful government of the country in which they live, and not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion."*_

Would urbanites with explicitly revolutionary views be welcome into such a society?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> So, is it just the three of you, or are there other Urban masons?


Well I am not a member of any lodge and haven't attended a lodge for many years. My only interest was the ritual and I wasn't in the UK very long.

My membership was more situation, rather than design.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Seems odd to mix radical politics with an exclusive, all male, secretive society in which members pledge to "..._*be quiet and peaceable citizens, true to the lawful government of the country in which they live, and not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion."*_
> 
> Would urbanites with explicitly revolutionary views be welcome into such a society?


I didn't know the political views of any members of my lodge, I could guess but that is rarely a good indicator, I didn't know what religion they were.

Freemasons are not meant to discuss politics or religion in the lodge and in experience they don't.

Freemasonry is based on myth, rituals and symbolism, most people don't take oaths that seriously


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2013)

You might be casually aware of others political views but it's not something that's generally discussed because politics divides people. The idea is that it's a fraternity without political or social barriers. The reality is probably a bit different but it works to some degree. 

Happy to discuss it on another thread. Or PM me.

Let this thread go back to paedo coppers.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> I didn't know the political views of any members of my lodge, I could guess but that is rarely a good indicator, I didn't know what religion they were.
> 
> Freemasons are not meant to discuss politics or religion in the lodge and in experience they don't.



I thought that was, partly the point of the whole exercise; members don't need to know each other's 'politics' as the self-selection process produces a fairly homogenous reactionary cohort?

Presumably anyone prepared to join such an organisation must be very comfortable with concepts including exclusivity, elitism, hierarchy, secrecy, anachronistic ritual, and misogyny producing a like-minded membership. No wonder bent coppers seem so drawn.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I thought that was, partly the point of the whole exercise; members don't need to know each other's 'politics' as the self-selection process produces a fairly homogenous reactionary cohort?
> 
> Presumably anyone prepared to join such an organisation must be very comfortable with concepts including exclusivity, elitism, hierarchy, secrecy, anachronistic ritual, and misogyny producing a like-minded membership. No wonder bent coppers seem so drawn.


There are now 2 threads where you can ask a mason, you should ask a few miners, train drivers and the like why they became masons, as I have said I joined because I had and still to this day have an interest in ritual.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> you should ask a few miners, train drivers and the like why they became masons, as I have said I joined because I had and still to this day have an interest in ritual.



I suppose I could, if I knew any masonic miners or train drivers, but are you suggesting I do so because their occupations mean that they couldn't possibly be comfotable with exclusivity, elitism, hierarchy, secrecy, anachronistic ritual, and misogyny?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 18, 2013)

1%er said:


> There are now 2 threads where you can ask a mason, you should ask a few miners, train drivers and the like why they became masons, as I have said I joined because I had and still to this day have an interest in ritual.



Why the Masons and not the Satanists?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why the Masons and not the Satanists?


there will of course be a number of satanist masons


----------



## 1%er (Oct 18, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why the Masons and not the Satanists?


supply and demand, it was the market that done it


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> If Existentialist proposes you, I'll second, and we'll have you bumming goats by xmas, Dotski.


I'm in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why the Masons and not the Satanists?



The usual problem is that you join the Satanists, and then you find out that instead of virgin-sacrificing, goat-rimming ne'er-do-wells, you've joined LaVey's Church of Satan, which is pretty much Wicca with wife-swapping, plus some Demonic imagery.
After such a disappointment, *of course* you'd go for the established option, and swear vociferously that you'd never been a Satanist!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> there will of course be a number of satanist masons



The Initiates of Thanateros used to be (and possibly still is) riddled with Freemasons.  The buggers are everywhere!


----------



## exiledinwales (Oct 19, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> But Jimmy was working class. He naturally rose to the highest stratum in his career path and rubbed shoulders with the other fuckers there as is expected of a psychopath.



lol. No, he wasn't "working class". He may have been a worker at some early stage but he soon became something else. Self employed, small capitalist, property and land owner etc Workers are people who only have the ability to sell their labour power which is why millionaire footballers are equally not "working class". Of course, there is such a thing as the working class but it is international not a bunch of individuals who have certain accents or mannerisms.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 19, 2013)

exiledinwales said:


> lol. No, he wasn't "working class". He may have been a worker at some early stage but he soon became something else. Self employed, small capitalist, property and land owner etc Workers are people who only have the ability to sell their labour power which is why millionaire footballers are equally not "working class". Of course, there is such a thing as the working class but it is international not a bunch of individuals who have certain accents or mannerisms.


I always think it's amusing, when we get these classist tubthumpers on here, how very, very good they are at determining what class someone is. It's clearly a complex and nuanced business which, nonetheless, seems to end up creating class stratifications that perfectly suit whatever agenda and prejudices they're trying to peddle.

TBH, if a "class system" were really as variable and complex as they try to paint it, it'd collapse under its own weight.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I always think it's amusing, when we get these classist tubthumpers on here, how very, very good they are at determining what class someone is. It's clearly a complex and nuanced business which, nonetheless, seems to end up creating class stratifications that perfectly suit whatever agenda and prejudices they're trying to peddle.
> 
> TBH, if a "class system" were really as variable and complex as they try to paint it, it'd collapse under its own weight.



There's a reason why there's confusion about class.
It's because people tend to conflate employment type and remuneration, social position, "heritage" and lifestyle as all somehow being/meaning the same thing.  They don't.  So, your jobbing builder, who sells his artisanal labour and makes a decent whack from doing so, may class himself as "middle class" because of his income, but is working class in that he has only his labour power to sell, though according to some, he's _bourgeois_ on the basis of being "self-employed".
In other words, it *is* variable, and it *is* complex, not least because people are often at cross purposes when they discourse on the subject! 

Savile was born into a working class family, and engaged in a traditional working class trade, but he was also an "entrepreneur" in the entertainment industry at a time when the industry was rather staid and formulaic, which allowed him to exercise the sort of control over his destiny that most workers never achieve.  He's a good example of how one can transit from one class to another in the course of a life.

As for the volume of class stratifications, Max Weber codified ideas about stratification almost a hundred years ago, at which (much simpler) time, he concluded that stratification was theoretically infinite, but practically could be viewed as divergences or sub-layers of a handful of main strata that corresponded to Marx's three main layers - the proletariat, the _bourgeoisie_ and the owners of the means of production/capitalists - plus a couple of others above and below.
So you don't need to create strata to suit your argument, they already exist if you know what to look for.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

Talking of OB, Savile and cover-ups:



> But what is only starting to emerge from this horror story is the extent to which the police appeared to have enabled Savile to claim he was untouchable. This week, a retired Leeds policeman has claimed that “there wasn’t a copper in the city who didn’t know Savile was a pervert”.
> The ex-Leeds City Police officer, speaking under the alias Paul Leonard, said that in 1965 he had come across Savile’s Rolls-Royce parked in a secluded lay-by near Roundhay Golf Club. The then DJ and fledgling television presenter reportedly warned: “I’m waiting for midnight when she turns 16… so p--s off if you want to keep your job.” After reporting the incident to a sergeant, Leonard says he was told: “Shut up, son. He’s got friends in high places.”
> 
> ...
> ...



and



> The incident is mentioned in an internal report compiled by West Yorkshire Police into Savile’s relationship with the force, which is currently being assessed by the IPCC. The findings of the watchdog, which is also investigating police conduct in matters relating to Savile in nine other forces, are expected to be published within weeks.
> 
> The West Yorkshire report – dubbed Operation Newgreen – reveals that complaints about Savile’s behaviour were mishandled a number of times, including in 1998, when its officers failed to properly record an anonymous letter forwarded by a Metropolitan Police officer from its clubs and vice unit. The letter stated that it was “common knowledge within the team in the late Eighties and early Nineties that Savile was a paedophile”.
> 
> Following the report’s publication in May, Jon Christopher, who last week stepped down as chairman of the West Yorkshire Police Federation due to ill-health, said he feared it could be seen by the public as a whitewash because of poor police records kept regarding the entertainer. “At the time Jimmy Savile was a very large character in Leeds and certainly some officers may well have been duped.”



This is all generally stuff already out there, but nice to have it all in one place


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 19, 2013)

exiledinwales said:


> lol. No, he wasn't "working class". He may have been a worker at some early stage but he soon became something else. Self employed, small capitalist, property and land owner etc Workers are people who only have the ability to sell their labour power which is why millionaire footballers are equally not "working class". Of course, there is such a thing as the working class but it is international not a bunch of individuals who have certain accents or mannerisms.



What were his business interests that he extracted profit from?

Afaik his wealth was accrued through selling his labour which amounted to more than most due to what 'the markets' deemed his skills were worth.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Talking of OB, Savile and cover-ups:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Likewise :-

http://www.upsd.co.uk/operation-newgreen-savile-report/

Can't personally vouch for uPSD, but it appears solid.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

uPSD are fantastic.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> uPSD are fantastic.


 Good to hear.

I was particularly drawn to this section, following the discussion in this thread yesterday:-



> 12. Another glaring omission from Operation Newgreen is the word _*Freemason*_. Savile was allegedly a Freemason. According to a BBC photograph which we have seen, a significant number who attended his funeral did so in what appears to be full Lodge regalia (it has also been suggested that this may be Catholic Church regalia) and had prominent roles in the proceedings. We also have viewed photographs of Savile delivering the famous Masonic ”funny handshake” to both *Frank Bruno* and *HRH Prince Charles*. _*How many of the Newgreen investigating officers are Freemasons and how many of the officers attending the Friday Morning Club are/were Freemasons. Simple enough stuff and it is what the victims and the wider public really need to understand about the police protection Savile received in his lifetime – and is that now still in operation after his death?*_


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 29, 2013)

Has this been shown on here before? Absolutely amazing this, the final letter.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 29, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Good to hear.
> 
> I was particularly drawn to this section, following the discussion in this thread yesterday:-


Why would he have given a masonic handshake to Frank Bruno or Prince Charles?

They are not masons and he wasn't


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Has this been shown on here before? Absolutely amazing this, the final letter.



That letter sounds like a veiled accusation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The usual problem is that you join the Satanists, and then you find out that instead of virgin-sacrificing, goat-rimming ne'er-do-wells, you've joined LaVey's Church of Satan, which is pretty much Wicca with wife-swapping, plus some Demonic imagery.
> After such a disappointment, *of course* you'd go for the established option, and swear vociferously that you'd never been a Satanist!


i was always more interested in the process than in the church of satan


----------



## D'wards (Oct 29, 2013)

Two more arrested under Yewtree today - lots of Twitter speculation you won't hear me repeat here - take note Davies and Bercow


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2013)

1%er said:


> Why would he have given a masonic handshake to Frank Bruno or Prince Charles?
> 
> They are not masons and he wasn't



One minute it's said that it's not possible to know who is a member, and the next you offer definitive statement about who isn't/wasn't. Confusing, but probs best left to the Masonic thread(s).


----------



## 1%er (Oct 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> One minute it's said that it's not possible to know who is a member, and the next you offer definitive statement about who isn't/wasn't. Confusing, but probs best left to the Masonic thread(s).


They are not "the man in the street", Bruno and Saville would have been members of Chelsea lodge or know to members and it isn't hard to find out which of the royals are members, they don't and couldn't keep it secret in this day and age.

I don't know who told you "it's not possible to know who is a member", there are a numbers of ways of finding that out.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 30, 2013)

Broadmoor Lodge lol.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The usual problem is that you join the Satanists, and then you find out that instead of virgin-sacrificing, goat-rimming ne'er-do-wells, you've joined LaVey's Church of Satan, which is pretty much Wicca with wife-swapping, plus some Demonic imagery.
> After such a disappointment, *of course* you'd go for the established option, and swear vociferously that you'd never been a Satanist!



I remember seeing a US documentary that explained very well a confusion in the US around satanism and paganism. 

Basically, it's the Christian fundies to blame, back in the day they wanted to discredit paganism so kept on laying on that it's rituals, belief etc were "satanist" with a trowel.

Now kids get into paganism, possibly not even that - just some basically hippie interests,  and assume too easily that it's satanism so get into that too. The fundies backfired. Surprise.


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 1, 2013)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480838/BBC-star-arrested-Savile-sex-abuse-probe.html

(ed: stop this)


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2013)

There are some very strong clues in this article, if it is accurate:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...robe-into-Jimmy-Savile-arrested-for-sex-crime



> The suspect has enjoyed a stellar broadcasting career and is famed for his encyclopaedic knowledge of showbiz.
> 
> He was one of the most prominent personalities to criticise missed chances to expose Savile’s antics prior to his death two years ago at the age of 84.


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 1, 2013)

I heard it was sex abuse on pensioners, he always did like a (ed: no)

IGMC


----------



## Smyz (Nov 1, 2013)

Edmonds does not have a current radio show.

Encyclopaedic knowledge of showbiz narrows it down a lot.

If it is who I think it is I am shocked and very sad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Edmonds does not have a current radio show.
> 
> Encyclopaedic knowledge of showbiz narrows it down a lot.
> 
> If it is who I think it is I am shocked and very sad.


more than when rolf harris's name was thrown in the ring?


----------



## Smyz (Nov 1, 2013)

Yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Yes.


oh that is bad


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Edmonds does not have a current radio show.
> 
> Encyclopaedic knowledge of showbiz narrows it down a lot.
> 
> If it is who I think it is I am shocked and very sad.


the stella reference gives it away imo. as cthulhu said, the stars are right for disgrace.


----------



## clicker (Nov 1, 2013)

I've never guessed one of these right so far - shite at cryptic crosswords too


----------



## Smyz (Nov 1, 2013)

Twitter has it.

The anti libel warnings are saying to remember that Jim Davidson had no case to answer. Lot different from the warnings when Noel Edmonds was being named.

There isn't anyone else who fits every clue.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 1, 2013)

This is _the police_ who are doing this, too. Moronic fuck-ups ahoy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is _the police_ who are doing this, too. Moronic fuck-ups ahoy.


they are the go-to people for moronick fuck-ups.


----------



## yardbird (Nov 1, 2013)

Paul Gambaccini


----------



## yardbird (Nov 1, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24779908

A statement is expected soon.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 1, 2013)

I'll reserve judgement until I hear what Paul Gambaccini thinks about it, he's usually good for a talking-head opinion on stuff.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2013)

Meanwhile this week Michael Souter got 22 years, no messing around with that sentence.


----------



## yardbird (Nov 1, 2013)

I had a nodding acquaintanceship with Gambaccini, Peel introduced us.
I thought that he was okay


----------



## coley (Nov 1, 2013)

Won't be surprised by wogan at this rate!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 1, 2013)

Guglielmo Marconi will probably be the last man standing at this rate.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 1, 2013)

PG being in the frame reminds me that we have been here before, when Jonathan King got done. PG had plenty to say about it then, on the lines of how commonplace dubious behaviour was. Then it was all forgotten again till the JS stuff came out. That alone seems a bit weird now looking back. No reflection on PG mind, I have no idea and will reserve judgement on that.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 1, 2013)

How did people work out it was PG from "stellar career" and "encyclopedic knowledge"?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> How did people work out it was PG from "stellar career" and "encyclopedic knowledge"?


I think most people twigged when the BBC confirmed that their (64 year old) presenter would continue to broadcast this weekend. A quick look at the schedules (R2 obvs cos 64 year old) and a DoB check on Wiki and 'bob's yer uncle'.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 1, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I think most people twigged when the BBC confirmed that their (64 year old) presenter would continue to broadcast this weekend. A quick look at the schedules (R2 obvs cos 64 year old) and a DoB check on Wiki and 'bob's yer uncle'.



Ah right - I thought there might've been some kind of cryptic type clue in that bit quoted from the  daily star.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Ah right - I thought there might've been some kind of cryptic type clue in that bit quoted from the  daily star.


Well there was really, cos he is noted for an encyplopedic knowledge of music..."Professor of Pop" and all that... you wouldn't really say that of a twat like Edmonds.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2013)

The stuff about him being a critic of Savile handling was also quite a clue, at least for me it provided much increased confidence in my own guesswork at the time.

At least the bizarre gap between internet and mainstream media in terms of speculation and naming didn't last very long this time. I've said before that I'd be going mad if these sloppy rules about whether people are named or not caused me to be speculated about (theoretical, I aint famous). The names that twitter people always guess wrongly are often the same ones time and time again, with a little variation here and there. Even if some of them are unlikeable shits for other reasons, its not a nice phenomenon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Paul Gambaccini


not a name i am familiar with


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2013)

Can't say I am impressed by his statement.



> BBC broadcaster Gambaccini denied the claims, saying in a statement: "On Monday night, 28 October, I attended an excellent production of the Kander and Ebb musical, the Scottsboro Boys, at the Young Vic theatre.
> 
> "It concerned a group of black men in Alabama in the 1930s who were falsely accused of sexual offences. Within hours, I was arrested by Operation Yewtree. Nothing had changed, except this time there was no music."





http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...-probe-police-but-deny-allegations.1383334146


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2013)

On further reflection....

Mmmmmmwwwahhhhrglllleeee ggggrrrrr grrrrrr grrrrrrr.

Yeah yeah, nothing has changed. This could be just the case to cause an outrage and lead to the end of the racist 'all non-oxbridge non-dj juries'. How dare he make a comparison to the Scottsboro Boys case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2013)

elbows said:


> Can't say I am impressed by his statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


shurely 'this time it's me [pg] facing the musick'?


----------



## coley (Nov 1, 2013)

Surprised some enterprising urbanite hasn't started a sweepstake on who's next!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 1, 2013)

coley said:


> Surprised some enterprising urbanite hasn't started a sweepstake on who's next!


Clearly you've not seen the numerous such threads in The Casino forum.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2013)

elbows said:


> On further reflection....
> 
> Mmmmmmwwwahhhhrglllleeee ggggrrrrr grrrrrr grrrrrrr.
> 
> Yeah yeah, nothing has changed. This could be just the case to cause an outrage and lead to the end of the racist 'all non-oxbridge non-dj juries'. How dare he make a comparison to the Scottsboro Boys case.


 
Yep.


----------



## ibilly99 (Nov 15, 2013)

Now Roy Harper

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-24955436


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Now Roy Harper
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-24955436





> Baby won't you play with me games that no-one else can see.
> Leaning over at my window, flashing me your mini-flower show;
> Steal away from mummy, oh, there's my little girl;
> On the pillow of my tummy, give my hair a curl;
> ...


----------



## ibilly99 (Nov 15, 2013)

Strangely enough quite a few versions have been deleted from You Tube maybe due to copyright strike claims whereas loads of other Roy Harper unofficial stuff is still out there. Not helpful for his defence.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 15, 2013)

Roy Harper. I've really rated lots of his music for years. Fucks sake 

Wasn't aware of 'Forbidden Fruit'. Actually though, I could well have heard it a few years back without thinking much about it


----------



## TopCat (Nov 15, 2013)

elbows said:


> Meanwhile this week Michael Souter got 22 years, no messing around with that sentence.


The evidence against this bloke was overwhelming. Every word he said in the dock was another nail in his "defence".


----------



## TopCat (Nov 15, 2013)

coley said:


> Won't be surprised by wogan at this rate!


Wogan would never be a nonce.


----------



## ibilly99 (Nov 15, 2013)

Well guess who wrote this .. 

Hey baby you're a sweet young thing,
Still tied to Mommy's apron strings,
I don't even dare to ask your age,
It's enough to know you're here backstage,
You're Jailbait, and I just can't wait,
Jailbait baby come on

One look baby, all I need,
One decision made at lightning speed,
I don't even want to know your name,
It's enough to know you feel the same,
You're Jailbait, and I just can't wait,
Jailbait baby come on

Hey babe you know you look so fine,
Send shivers up and down my spine,
I don't care about our different ages,
I'm an open book with well thumbed pages,
You're Jailbait, and I just can't wait,
Jailbait baby come on


----------



## TopCat (Nov 15, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Well guess who wrote this ..
> 
> Hey baby you're a sweet young thing,
> Still tied to Mommy's apron strings,
> ...




Motorhead no? I always thought that song was about the music business's inherent problems of young girls flocking around pop starts and seedy rock starts wanting to fuck them. I never saw it a Lemmy being a nonce.


----------



## ibilly99 (Nov 15, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Motorhead no? I always thought that song was about the music business's inherent problems of young girls flocking around pop starts and seedy rock starts wanting to fuck them. I never saw it a Lemmy being a nonce.



Yeah Lemmy  - you may well be right - he admitted in his biography apparently as having a 16 year old groupie which is perfectly legal.


----------



## laptop (Nov 15, 2013)

coley said:


> Surprised some enterprising urbanite hasn't started a sweepstake on who's next!



I would, but the libel insurance company is wanting £1,100,000 premium for the first £1,000,000 of coverage, and suggests I get more.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 15, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Now Roy Harper
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-24955436


Hats back on then lads.
Not so fast, Jimmy...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> peed lyrics




that is rank


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 15, 2013)

And there's this classic which always sounded wrong.


Hey little girl is your daddy home
Did he go away and leave you all alone
I got a bad desire
Im on fire
Tell me now baby is he good to you
Can he do to you the things that I do
I can take you higher
Im on fire


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Nov 15, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> And there's this classic which always sounded wrong.
> 
> 
> Hey little girl is your daddy home
> ...



Except it's pretty clear there the 'Daddy' isn't the girls daddy, and she probably isn't a little girl. Dodgy metaphor but not up there with Roy Harper's 'You're 13 and lets fuck after school'.


----------



## jakethesnake (Nov 15, 2013)

Re: the Springsteen lyric - most of his songs are him being a character (bank robber, Vietnam vet etc).. singing a song from the point of view of a pedo is just part of his depiction of good ol' american blue collar life, doesn't mean he is a pedo himself (although nothing would surprise me).


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 15, 2013)

Harper should have been nicked for that one ages ago


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2013)

And surely daddy in the above just means your bloke, not your father?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2013)

Harper put out a very long detailed explanation of why he wrote that song a few years back, and he did sort of hold his hands up and say, _yes, i thinking/doing dodgy things at that time._ I'll try and find it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 15, 2013)

Oh no and I like Roy Harper too.


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And surely daddy in the above just means your bloke, not your father?


 
Yeah it's not literal but colloquial so 'daddy' is partner or husband or whatever and 'momma' is the female equivalent. So in the Bob Dylan song 'Tell me Momma' he is asking a woman what is wrong with her not asking for a bedtime story from his maw.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 15, 2013)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Except it's pretty clear there the 'Daddy' isn't the girls daddy, and she probably isn't a little girl. Dodgy metaphor but not up there with Roy Harper's 'You're 13 and lets fuck after school'.


 
Right fair enough, I'll provisionally take him off the suspect nonce lyric witch hunt list for now but any more songs about shagging little girls while their dads are out and he's straight back on. My sister in law is convinced though.


----------



## haushoch (Nov 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Harper put out a very long detailed explanation of why he wrote that song a few years back, and he did sort of hold his hands up and say, _yes, i thinking/doing dodgy things at that time._ I'll try and find it.



I must admit that I always saw that song in the context of the album it appeared on, Valentine, which as far as I understood was all about different aspects of "love".  I never actually thought it was for real, I took this to be Roy Harper's take on Lolita.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Well guess who wrote this ..
> 
> Hey baby you're a sweet young thing,
> Still tied to Mommy's apron strings,
> ...



That was written by His Holiness Pope Ian of Kilminster.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That was written by His Holiness Pope Ian of Kilminster.


 
Who that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Who that?



Lemmy.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lemmy.


 
Crikey, new noncylyric thread beckons.


----------



## ibilly99 (Nov 15, 2013)

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/l...ld-girl-while-he-was-in-led-zeppelin-19691231

I guess if nobody complains then  there is no case to answer - some raw stuff here ..

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...re-was-a-whole-lotta-love-on-tour-763446.html


----------



## ChrisD (Nov 15, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh no and I like Roy Harper too.



When an old cricketer did WHAT  ?


----------



## ibilly99 (Nov 15, 2013)

Roy vigorously denies the allegations that have been made against him and looks forward to clearing his name.
https://www.facebook.com/harperroy


----------



## yardbird (Nov 16, 2013)

Oh dear, Roy 
Early 70s a young friend lost her virginity to him,  she was just 16.
She was happy with it, but none the less.....


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 16, 2013)

ChrisD said:


> When an old cricketer did WHAT  ?


Is this finish the sentence time?

...leaves the crease.

Do I get my prize now?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Crikey, new noncylyric thread beckons.


----------



## yardbird (Nov 19, 2013)

A naughty reference to Rolf in 2006.
I've just watched a Silent Witness episode first broadcast in July 2006.
A hidden camera has been recording some meetings.
The tapes are found in stationary locker.

Police lady:
"What a palaver. Do you think Rolf Harris makes life this difficult for himself?"
Witness:
"Who knows what Rolf's got in his locker?"

No farther comment except
Unfortunately author unknown


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2013)

nino_savatte said:


> Oh no and I like Roy Harper too.


all the celebs you like are going to be investigated and may turn out to be kiddy-fiddlers.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 19, 2013)

yardbird said:


> A naughty reference to Rolf in 2006.
> I've just watched a Silent Witness episode first broadcast in July 2006.
> A hidden camera has been recording some meetings.
> The tapes are found in stationary locker.
> ...


Interesting, written by Nigel McCrery - an ex-copper.


----------



## yardbird (Nov 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> all the celebs you like are going to be investigated and may turn out to be kiddy-fiddlers.


In many cases not kiddy-fiddlers, but sex with willing underage girls .  Taking advantage of their fame. I'm thinking rock musicians here.
Just as bad.


----------



## elbows (Dec 23, 2013)

More charges for Rolf:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25489501



> The three counts are in addition to 13 alleged sexual offences which the entertainer was charged with in August.
> 
> The new counts are against females aged 19 in 1984, aged seven or eight in 1968 or 1969, and aged 14 in 1975.
> 
> ...


----------



## free spirit (Dec 23, 2013)

I remember watching the queens jubilee concert thing, when the mike was handed to Rolf and he was asked to do an impromptu performance of 2 little boys... I don't know quite what it was about his reaction, but he suddenly looked guilty as fuck to me, like he was expecting to be found out at any minute.

I was aware of rumors about him at the time though, so maybe it was just my imagination, but he that was definitely the impression I got.

6 counts against the same girl over a long period as well, and charges relating to a 7 or 8 year old. That's not someone who just accidentally ended up in bed with a 15 year old who'd lied about her age.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 23, 2013)

Jake the peg lyrics ....heh.....its never going to be the same little innocent ditty


----------



## ibilly99 (Dec 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I remember watching the queens jubilee concert thing, when the mike was handed to Rolf and he was asked to do an impromptu performance of 2 little boys... I don't know quite what it was about his reaction, but he suddenly looked guilty as fuck to me, like he was expecting to be found out at any minute.
> 
> I was aware of rumors about him at the time though, so maybe it was just my imagination, but he that was definitely the impression I got.
> 
> 6 counts against the same girl over a long period as well, and charges relating to a 7 or 8 year old. That's not someone who just accidentally ended up in bed with a 15 year old who'd lied about her age.



Here it is ...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I remember watching the queens jubilee concert thing, when the mike was handed to Rolf and he was asked to do an impromptu performance of 2 little boys... I don't know quite what it was about his reaction, but he suddenly looked guilty as fuck to me, like he was expecting to be found out at any minute.
> 
> I was aware of rumors about him at the time though, so maybe it was just my imagination, but he that was definitely the impression I got.
> 
> 6 counts against the same girl over a long period as well, and charges relating to a 7 or 8 year old. That's not someone who just accidentally ended up in bed with a 15 year old who'd lied about her age.


None of the charges are to do with boys.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I remember watching the queens jubilee concert thing, when the mike was handed to Rolf and he was asked to do an impromptu performance of 2 little boys... I don't know quite what it was about his reaction, but he suddenly looked guilty as fuck to me, like he was expecting to be found out at any minute.
> 
> I was aware of rumors about him at the time though, so maybe it was just my imagination, but he that was definitely the impression I got.
> 
> 6 counts against the same girl over a long period as well, and charges relating to a 7 or 8 year old. That's not someone who just accidentally ended up in bed with a 15 year old who'd lied about her age.



It does rather give "go on, Rolf, do 'Two Little Boys' " a new meaning!


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 23, 2013)

It really wasn't necessary to point that out VP and as butchers has pointed out, he's not been after the boys...
If you are going to make an obvious joke, make sure it has some basis on fact!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2013)

Orang Utan said:


> It really wasn't necessary to point that out VP and as butchers has pointed out, he's not been after the boys...
> If you are going to make an obvious joke, make sure it has some basis on fact!



And a merry christmas to you, too.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> None of the charges are to do with boys.


That wasn't the point I was making, that was just the song he was asked to sing.

It was just something about his demeanor, body language or whatever you want to call it that struck me as odd at the time, and made me mentally tick him off as being one of those with rumors about them that I'd expect to end up being nicked shortly.


----------



## ibilly99 (Dec 24, 2013)

The new sentencing guidelines of using their celebrity reputation for grooming come in on April 1st before Mr Harris's trial. So if convicted he will be looking at a longer sentence than before.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/12/celebrities-fame-sex-offences-sentences-guidelines


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

Sleb hat-trick today...

Left peg.....







then the right....






and, lastly, the header....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2014)

I like how the judge opens up basically calling the jury fucking idiots by emphasising that this is BILL ROACH an ACTOR, rather than good old KEN BARLOW a CHARACTER


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I like how the judge opens up basically calling the jury fucking idiots by emphasising that this is BILL ROACH an ACTOR, rather than good old KEN BARLOW a CHARACTER


 
...but maybe they'd signed that petition to free his ex?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2014)

that was mental. Even Tony Blair chirped up on behalf of Diedre. The fictional character Diedre.

There was T shirts


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> that was mental. Even Tony Blair chirped up on behalf of Diedre. The fictional character Diedre.
> 
> There was T shirts


deirdre.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I like how the judge opens up basically calling the jury fucking idiots by emphasising that this is BILL ROACH an ACTOR, rather than good old KEN BARLOW a CHARACTER


after a recent jury decision he may have felt it worthwhile emphasising the obvious from the off.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

Married to  - not at the time of course, that's why she was in court - but at one time and then again - the Barlow.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> deirdre.




so it was. Deirdre Rachid at  the time, this was before she re-married Ken


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> and, lastly, the header....



Why is Luke Perry photobombing a British soap star perpwalking into his nonce trial?


----------



## RedDragon (Jan 14, 2014)

What's today Nonce Tuesday?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> What's today Nonce Tuesday?


supernonce tuesday


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 14, 2014)

Hat trick nonce Tuesday!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Hat trick nonce Tuesday!


i think supernonce tuesday's better


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think supernonce tuesday's better



you would.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 14, 2014)

Bring forth the Druid!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

B0B2oo9 said:


> you would.


and rightly so


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Bring forth the Druid!


you think a former archbishop of canterbury will be next in the yew wood?


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and rightly so



Poll?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Poll?


no need. everyone agrees with me.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 14, 2014)

They all seem to be accompanied by friends and family - a _nonceterage_?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

Wilf said:


> They all seem to be accompanied by friends and family - a _nonceterage_?


perv forth and multiply


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no need. everyone agrees with me.



Seems like effort etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Seems like effort etc.


it is never any effort to agree with me.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you think a former archbishop of canterbury will be next in the yew wood?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

Wilf said:


>



not brian blessed


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

Make that 4.

Starr re-arrested today. 

Yewtree Tuesday.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

If I was being conspiraloony I'd say that all this sleb "smoke" has been thrown up today to cover some 'bad news' about a politco coming out soon?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

The trials did start today though. That's how the court calendars were set up yonks ago.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The trials did start today though. That's how the court calendars were set up yonks ago.


 That was for Elbows, really


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

> Coronation Street star William Roache indecently assaulted a 14-year-old girl in the men's toilet at the Granada TV studios in Manchester and then sent her a signed photo, a court has heard.



So not all bad, then?


----------



## elbows (Jan 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> That was for Elbows, really



Dont bloody start. I get so pissed of on twitter when people start going on about how all the celebrity arrests are just a smokescreen to shield politicians, as if the pain caused to victims is somehow of a different magnitude.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

elbows said:


> Dont bloody start. I get so pissed of on twitter when people start going on about how all the celebrity arrests are just a smokescreen to shield politicians, as if the pain caused to victims is somehow of a different magnitude.



Was meant to be a gentle gibe, but apologies if any offence taken; none intended.


----------



## elbows (Jan 14, 2014)

No offence taken, just tired of that stuff but you weren't to know that.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> What's today Nonce Tuesday?


I'm going to be boring here and point out that not all of the accused (accuseds?) are up before the beak on noncery charges - Travis's youngest alleged victim, for one, was 14. Which, while it is still a nasty and serious allegation, doesn't really count as noncery. The allegations against Roach regard offences against females as young as 11, which is definitely edging into noncery, true, while some of those against Harris relate to a seven year old, which is back-of-the-net noncery.

Just so we've got our facts straight.

Can I suggest "Perv Tuesday", instead? 

ETA: although, actually, I like Yewtree Tuesday better - more assonance, and echoes of that popular beat combo The Rolling Stones' "Ruby Tuesday". Yer honour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Was meant to be a gentle gibe, but apologies if any offence taken; none intended.


just for once i'd like to see someone have the courage of their convictions and for them to say 'apologies if no offence was taken; it was intended'.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> just for once i'd like to see someone have the courage of their convictions and for them to say 'apologies if no offence was taken; it was intended'.



You really are a good for fuck all smart arse wank stain on the blanket of life aint you?
What the fuck is wrong with you ?
Why the fuck are you so fucking bitter you sad prick?














Apologies if no offence was taken ...it was intended


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> just for once i'd like to see someone have the courage of their convictions and for them to say 'apologies if no offence was taken; it was intended'.



The last two words of my post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Apologies if no offence was taken ...it was intended


it might have been intended but throwing afew fucks and a wank into a post is more disappointing than offensive. i thought you had a more extensive vocabulary than that.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jan 14, 2014)

Here we go....

Anyway I'm far more bitter than pickmans, don't use that as a reason for conversation you find difficult on your palate  ( btw I'm not actually sticking up for you pickmans  it's a Tuesday and I'm bored and don't actually have an opinion )


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I'm going to be boring here and point out that not all of the accused (accuseds?) are up before the beak on noncery charges - Travis's youngest alleged victim, for one, was 14. Which, while it is still a nasty and serious allegation, doesn't really count as noncery. The allegations against Roach regard offences against females as young as 11, which is definitely edging into noncery, true, while some of those against Harris relate to a seven year old, which is back-of-the-net noncery.
> 
> Just so we've got our facts straight.
> 
> ...



Isn't nonce, (noncery), originally a prison slang term? Surely there's no rigidly defined use for the term is there? I was under the impression that all sorts of sex offenders could be called a nonce inside. Surely under-age, (therefore non-consesual), sex would come under that blanket term for wrong-uns?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it might have been intended but throwing afew fucks and a wank into a post is more disappointing than offensive. i thought you had a more extensive vocabulary than that.



After a day in school with stroppy cold angry bored kids and an evening with my teen and preteen daughters ignoring me while I did the dinner, washing up and hoovering it was all I could manage!
By the way I was only joking...no offence was intended


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Isn't nonce, (noncery), originally a prison slang term? Surely there's no rigidly defined use for the term is there? I was under the impression that all sorts of sex offenders could be called a nonce inside. Surely under-age, (therefore non-consesual), sex would come under that blanket term for wrong-uns?



nonce is old cockney slangto cover all sex criminals but in recent years has been used soley for kiddy diddlers


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Isn't nonce, (noncery), originally a prison slang term? Surely there's no rigidly defined use for the term is there? I was under the impression that all sorts of sex offenders could be called a nonce inside. Surely under-age, (therefore non-consesual), sex would come under that blanket term for wrong-uns?


Ah, possibly you're right. I'd always just assumed it was a term that was used to describe paedophiles - ie., sexual abusers of pre-pubescent children.

You live and learn 

Oh, and underage doesn't mean non-consensual. Sex with a 13 year old or under was always "statutory rape" on the basis that nobody of that age could be regarded as capable of giving consent to sex. 14 and 15 year olds _can_ consent, but having sex with them is still a criminal offence, just not rape - unless, of course, they didn't consent.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 14, 2014)

yeah doesn't it stand for not of normal criminal ethics, or maybe that's something thrown onto it in hindsight.

Pretty grim though if normal criminal ethics are now giving the green light for general sex offences, sign of the times.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> nonce is old cockney slangto cover all sex criminals but in recent years has been used soley for kiddy diddlers



Yeah, but I'm thinking that, _*if convicted of the alleged assualt(s), *_and the "hairy cornflake"  found himself picking up the soap in the showers to claim that 'it was alright, she had pubes' might not be the best defence?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2014)

revol68 said:


> yeah doesn't it stand for not of normal criminal ethics, or maybe that's something thrown onto it in hindsight.
> 
> Pretty grim though if normal criminal ethics are now giving the green light for general sex offences, sign of the times.




thats a blatant back formation like 'council housed and violent'


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jan 14, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I'm going to be boring here and point out that not all of the accused (accuseds?) are up before the beak on noncery charges - Travis's youngest alleged victim, for one, was 14. Which, while it is still a nasty and serious allegation, doesn't really count as noncery. The allegations against Roach regard offences against females as young as 11, which is definitely edging into noncery, true, while some of those against Harris relate to a seven year old, which is back-of-the-net noncery.
> 
> Just so we've got our facts straight.
> 
> ...


A grown man having sex with a 14 year old is a nonce.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> A grown man having sex with a 14 year old is a nonce.



Technically, sexually assaulting them....but I agree.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> A grown man having sex with a 14 year old is a nonce.


I think we've established that, now, thanks.

Of course, there is still a vicious argument to be had as to what constitutes a "paedophile", but I think I'll leave that one for someone else: I'm tired and have too much marking to do


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Technically, sexually assaulting them....but I agree.


"Sexual activity with a child", I believe. Sexual Offences Act (2003), s. 9(2)


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

existentialist said:


> "Sexual activity with a child", I believe. Sexual Offences Act (2003), s. 9(2)



...or...noncery.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...or...noncery.


Aaaaargh!


----------



## Wilf (Jan 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it might have been intended but throwing afew fucks and a wank into a post is more disappointing than offensive. i thought you had a more extensive vocabulary than that.


I've always found you to be a thoroughly jolly chap, always willing to see the best in everyone and happy to give out splendid advice on the small details of life. 

Better?


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> just for once i'd like to see someone have the courage of their convictions and for them to say 'apologies if no offence was taken; it was intended'.


isn't that what that Welsh singer did?



existentialist said:


> paedophiles - ie., sexual abusers of pre-pubescent children.


In medical discourse a paedophile is someone older than 16 sexually attracted to those who have yet to enter puberty. So it's in the head (& perhaps elsewhere), it's not touching someone - that's the everyday meaning of the word.



existentialist said:


> Sex with a 13 year old or under was always "statutory rape" on the basis that nobody of that age could be regarded as capable of giving consent to sex. 14 and 15 year olds _can_ consent, but having sex with them is still a criminal offence, just not rape - unless, of course, they didn't consent.


1) I guess you are talking about Ireland &/or UK, but age of consent varies between countries, & in Spain is currently 13. Perhaps some countries still have no law of consent.

2) Just to be clear: in the UK for anyone 18 or over, *any* sexual activity (bar the 'reasonable belief' exception - (c)(i) below) *is* illegal with anyone under 16 - whatever the U-16 wants (Sexual Offences Act 2003):
"9 Sexual activity with a child
(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if —
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual, and
(c) either —
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9

3) You say "14 and 15 year olds _can_ consent" but the Act says no such thing, although a lay opinion often does say such people can 'consent'; the Act mentions no age when someone has capacity to consent (sec. 74):
" 74 'Consent'
For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

4) In UK law the term 'statutory rape' does not appear.

5) In virtue of sec. 72 of the 2003 Act, "Offences Outside the UK", e.g. complying with Spanish law with someone 13, 14, or 15 would still be an offence for a UK citizen, i.e. they are liable to be put on trial in the UK.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2014)

Yes, my comment about 14 and 15 year olds was an inference based on the fact that 13 year olds and under can't give consent. I hadn't intended to give the impression that formed part of the statute.

But lots of helpful clarifications there, thanks.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 15, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Yes, my comment about 14 and 15 year olds was an inference based on the fact that 13 year olds and under can't give consent. I hadn't intended to give the impression that formed part of the statute.
> 
> *But lots of helpful clarifications there, thanks.*



Well that's you on the list!


----------



## existentialist (Jan 15, 2014)

revol68 said:


> Well that's you on the list!


I'm probably on lots of lists!


----------



## existentialist (Jan 18, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/18/jimmy-savile-abused-1000-victims-bbc



> The BBC will be plunged into a major crisis with the publication of a damning review, expected next month, that will reveal its staff turned a blind eye to the rape and sexual assault of up to 1,000 girls and boys byJimmy Savile in the corporation's changing rooms and studios.


Cunts. Bad enough that Savile was doing it, but to think that so many other people were complicit in what he was doing, and NOT ONE of them was able to act or get action taken is a damning indictment of the organisation that allowed that to happen.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2014)

BBC



> A 73-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of sexual offences as part of a police operation prompted by the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal.
> 
> Scotland Yard said the man was arrested in north London earlier.
> 
> Operation Yewtree is the investigation into abuse by Savile and others, and police said allegations against the man held were not linked to the late DJ.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2014)

..


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 8, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> ..


...


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 8, 2014)

I can think of somebody who is 73. Fuck, if it is him it will kick all the other news stories into touch. I don't think he lives in nth London though.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2014)

There must be quite a lot of 73 yr olds around?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2014)

Here for example is a prominent 73 year old:
[edited - perhaps not - I bet wealthy 73 year olds are litigious]


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 8, 2014)

Is it Geri Halliwell?


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 8, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Fuck, if it is him it will kick all the other news stories into touch.



Maria Miller and David Cameron *really* hope you're right.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 8, 2014)

So many amusing 'clues' could be posted, but we daren't.


----------



## tombowler (Apr 8, 2014)

not who I thought it was he is one year too old according to google.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2014)

Its not July yet


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I can think of somebody who is 73. Fuck, if it is him it will kick all the other news stories into touch. I don't think he lives in nth London though.


what, sounds like


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 8, 2014)

No it dosen't, Mad Murdoch is 66.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> No it dosen't,  Mad Murdoch is 66.


read the post  does it SOUND LIKE MURDOCK?  not IT IS MURDOCK


----------



## tim (Apr 8, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> So many amusing 'clues' could be posted, but we daren't.


Go on U75 needs its own new Sally Bercow!


----------



## ohmyliver (Apr 8, 2014)

Is it Dave Burdoch from the infamous '70s Finchley Glam Rock duo Dandelion & Burdoch


----------



## yardbird (Apr 8, 2014)

Anyone going away this year?


----------



## clicker (Apr 8, 2014)

Anyone celebrating anything?


----------



## Tankus (Apr 8, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> No it dosen't, Mad Murdoch is 66.


ah ...ok ...so he is !

edit

Holyshit


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2014)

Sorry for my thickness, but why don't the papers name the arrestees?  Realise there's a risk for websites or just twitter users, in that they might get the _wrong_ name, opening them up to legal action for connecting that person to noncery. However, in cases where the official media genuinely know who has been pulled in and there's no injunction in place, what stops them? They would anyway be using phrases like 'alleged' and 'accused of'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 9, 2014)

Presumably they haven't been charged yet


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Sorry for my thickness, but why don't the papers name the arrestees?  Realise there's a risk for websites or just twitter users, in that they might get the _wrong_ name, opening them up to legal action for connecting that person to noncery.



It's not _just _the threat of libel suits from those who can afford to mount them.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 says details that risk prejudicing an (eventual) court case shall not be published while "proceedings are active". 

Newspapers tended to interpret this as meaning "after the suspect is _charged_" when faced with suspects with little influence - but came unstuck with reporting the _arrest_ of Christopher Jeffries. Which is correct - wide presumption of guilt in the reporting could well have influenced a jury, had he been prosecuted.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2014)

laptop said:


> It's not _just _the threat of libel suits from those who can afford to mount them.
> 
> The Contempt of Court Act 1981 says details that risk prejudicing an (eventual) court case shall not be published while "proceedings are active".
> 
> Newspapers tended to interpret this as meaning "after the suspect is _charged_" when faced with suspects with little influence - but came unstuck with reporting the _arrest_ of Christopher Jeffries. Which is correct - wide presumption of guilt in the reporting could well have influenced a jury, had he been prosecuted.


 Thanks Laptop.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2014)

BBC Panorama on now, new revelations about the monster and insights into how it was allowed to happen at the BBC, hospitals and other institutions and touches on the role of the establishment.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 2, 2014)

treelover said:


> BBC Panorama on now, new revelations about the monster and insights into how it was allowed to happen at the BBC, hospitals and other institutions and touches on the role of the establishment.



Those two psychopaths, Thatcher and Saville, were made for each other. One fucked the nation's kids while the other fucked the adults. At least Diane had the good sense to stay away from him, not like Prince Nonce mates.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 2, 2014)

wasn't she working her way through the horse guards ?  .............................................. allegedly ?


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2014)

So, Saville was used as a strike breaker at Broadmoor, wonder what more revelations are to come


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 2, 2014)

treelover said:


> So, Saville was used as a strike breaker at Broadmoor, wonder what more revelations are to come



Tory policy past and present. Who needs qualified, experienced professionals when you can get enthusiatic nonces like Saville to run psychiatric hospitals and children's services.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 2, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> I can think of somebody who is 73. Fuck, if it is him it will kick all the other news stories into touch. I don't think he lives in nth London though.



I actually googled the person who I'm reliably informed has quite a few reports against them where no further action was taken. As soon as this Saville stuff broke I immediately thought whether this person will come in to the spot light.  It turns out this person is indeed 73. If it ever comes to light it'll be bigger than anything else that's come to light so far in this regard.


----------



## treelover (Jun 3, 2014)

just realised who you mean..


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

The thing that continues to shock me, as more and more evidence of just how prolific an abuser Savile was emerges, and how so many people had their suspicions, but were prevented from saying anything while he was alive is...what's so special about Savile? If he could abuse people with impunity, and use his celebrity and threats of legal action to silence people, then others could, too. And if this 73 year old is the same one I have heard other dark mutterings about, then my recollection is that there are hints that some fairly heavy duty legal stuff is what's keeping a lid on it. 

Which, if he turns out, post mortem, to have been another Savile, is disastrous.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 3, 2014)

Tick tock.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Tick tock.



For the benefit of those of us whose mobiles won't play that, any chance of a synopsis?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> For the benefit of those of us whose mobiles won't play that, any chance of a synopsis?



Those with computers can't play it either.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 3, 2014)

From 10th April. My bold and underline.



> A 73-year-old man was arrested yesterday on suspicion of sexual offences as part of the investigation sparked by the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal.
> 
> The suspect, the 17th person to be arrested as part of the Met Police’s Operation Yewtree, was held in north London.
> 
> ...



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/operation-yewtree-arrest-73-year-old-former-3390874


----------



## Shirl (Jun 3, 2014)

treelover said:


> just realised who you mean..


I haven't. Can someone pm me please


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 3, 2014)

There's plenty of 73 year olds in the world of course so not all that surprising if this arrest isn't him.  There's all the time in the world though for it to come out before or after he dies.

Did anyone else watch panorama last night and just thought 'eww' or something along those lines whenever an image of savile was shown? I don't know if it's because he's always been a weirdo but I never saw it before because he was part of my childhood or if it's because I know what he's done and now think he's vile?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 3, 2014)

Shirl said:


> I haven't. Can someone pm me please



See my post directly above yours - it _might not be_ who people think it is...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 3, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> There's plenty of 73 year olds in the world of course so not all that surprising if this arrest isn't him.  There's all the time in the world though for it to come out before or after he dies.
> 
> Did anyone else watch panorama last night and just thought 'eww' or something along those lines whenever an image of savile was shown? I don't know if it's because he's always been a weirdo but I never saw it before because he was part of my childhood or if it's because I know what he's done and now think he's vile?



To me (I was 11 years old in 1985) he was just a slightly eccentric oldish bloke who presented tv programmes. It wasn't until i heard the stories of his relationship with his mother that I viewed him slightly differently - in that he became a bit more "weird" rather than "eccentric". When the abuse revelations came out about him, it didn't _really _surprise me (in as much as if someone could look like a paedo it would be him!), but to be honest id not really entertained the thought before then.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

My dad always reckoned he was a wrong un due to him being a bachelor who was always around kids.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 3, 2014)

Just chatted to someone at work who stayed in the 'Sir Jimmy Savile Suite' at the Ben Nevis Hotel & Leisure Club  
She does not mention it often apparently.


----------



## Favelado (Jun 3, 2014)

Shirl said:


> I haven't. Can someone pm me please



Then can you PM me? xxx


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> There's plenty of 73 year olds in the world of course so not all that surprising if this arrest isn't him.  There's all the time in the world though for it to come out before or after he dies.
> 
> Did anyone else watch panorama last night and just thought 'eww' or something along those lines whenever an image of savile was shown? I don't know if it's because he's always been a weirdo but I never saw it before because he was part of my childhood or if it's because I know what he's done and now think he's vile?


I have encountered quite a few people who have engendered that "ew" response in me, and Savile was definitely one of them. It may be that my own experiences made me a bit more sensitive to iffy people (and it's not just blokes), but it has been interesting to see that quite a few of those I can recall having a slightly flesh-crawling response to are now up before the beak. Of course, it wasn't just famous people, and I am sure that they're not all pervs anyway...

The sad thing is that I think we generally discourage kids from trusting their own instincts on this kind of thing, and I certainly realise that I was pushing a lot of reactions away and dismissing them: I am sure I was not untypical, and I do wonder whether we actually go to excessive lengths to do "child protection" when, actually, the best child protection we could be doing would be to encourage kids to recognise and understand a) their feelings about people, and b) what's OK and what isn't (which I know has improved a lot since I was a kid).

And *listening* to them. Properly. If even a fraction of the children Savile abused had felt able to say something, and if most of those had been listened to and a conduit for passing on concerns available, then perhaps we wouldn't have had to wait until he died to find out the full extent of his activities.

And I wonder...how many other people are out there with secret histories that they are defending through threats of legal action or whatever, which could be revealed, albeit retrospectively, by the people they abused coming forward and making themselves known? We know that people *are* coming forward, not least as a result of the Savile revelations, and of course we won't know who the people who are being accused of committing abuse are until the police/CPS decide to bring cases to trial. Which leaves us needing to be able to trust that the police or CPS will do that where the evidence is sufficient, and that the situation where abused people are encouraged to feel that there's no point disclosing because nobody would believe them is not still prevailing.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> My dad always reckoned he was a wrong un due to him being a bachelor who was always around kids.



Yeah it's that sort of attitude I'm talking about. I wasn't even in double figures age wise when jim'll fix it came to an end so obviously I didn't know any better but it just seems anyone who's a bit eccentric and likes children is going to be unfairly characterised a wrongun, even more so now after this.  The amount of people around my age or slightly older who said 'see I knew it!' was quite high. How did they know it? What was it based on? Other than the fact he looked and acted a bit strange, which he did of course and we now know he was hiding in plain sight. 

Meh, don't really know what I'm trying to say. I guess it's just still disappointing that jim'll fix it was part of my childhood and that I, and so many others I guess, loved it when growing up only to find out that it was all a cover to abuse the children he was doing really nice things for. Which is text book grooming isn't it? Only on a really huge scale. What a cunt


----------



## elbows (Jun 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> We know that people *are* coming forward, not least as a result of the Savile revelations, and of course we won't know who the people who are being accused of committing abuse are until the police/CPS decide to bring cases to trial. Which leaves us needing to be able to trust that the police or CPS will do that where the evidence is sufficient, and that the situation where abused people are encouraged to feel that there's no point disclosing because nobody would believe them is not still prevailing.



I'd say that the last 12 months or so has been a very mixed bag. Right now I'm sure more people think the police/CPS are going to take stuff a lot more seriously than they would in the past, but I bet some are depressed as the 'will I be believed?' question hasn't been utterly destroyed but simply moves on to the jury front. And I don't know what could be done to improve things there. Certainly defence techniques haven't become more considerate to victims since the Savile revelations changed the broader mood. We still see various bits of fame used in court: Celebrity persona used to bolster the impression of the character of the real person. Celebrity character witnesses, charity work, 'good standing in the community', namedropping. And always numerous attempts to undermine the reliability of victim testimony. Unfortunately rather hard to imagine the perfect solution to this, since people are entitled to defend themselves and who is going to stick to the highest moral ground when the stakes are so high?

For those victims who do want to face the past and seek justice, I'm not sure how much a cold, calculated guesstimate of the chances of successful prosecution can or does factor into the equation. If I were to attempt such a calculation as of this point in 2014, the following leap out as especially relevant to chances of successfully convincing a jury:

Lots of victims giving evidence. (probably a prime factor in many CPS decisions for and against bringing various people to trial so far)
A particular modus-operandi of the accused when offending, which has quirks and is corroborated by numerous victims.
A general long-standing seedy reputation within the fame industry the alleged perpetrator worked in.
How the accused behaves in and around court.
Sadly, and to a varying extents and even the reverse, how 'beloved' the famous alleged perpetrator was, and how wide the gulf between their image and the real them may be.

Anyway I am waffling and there are more cases which could yet alter the impression of how things are going. And I shouldn't push the boat out searching for too a high degree of consistency between juries.


----------



## clicker (Jun 3, 2014)

existentialist i think you're spot on with the children sometimes having an inbuilt radar, that certainly makes them feel creeped out by certain individuals. Even if they can't articulate why.
Being a kid in the seventies I clearly remember getting that feeling with savile and jonathan king and even stuart hall. They all demonstrated that same falseness to me...the forced jollity and the hollow laugh.They didn't ring true. In saviles case i thought he was always angry and badly masking it.

It wasn't a foolproof sense though. I thought Ken Dodd fell into the same camp, but had gary glitter posters on the wall and queued up for Rolf's autograph .


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

elbows said:


> For those victims who do want to face the past and seek justice, I'm not sure how much a cold, calculated guesstimate of the chances of successful prosecution can or does factor into the equation. If I were to attempt such a calculation as of this point in 2014, the following leap out as especially relevant to chances of successfully convincing a jury:
> 
> Lots of victims giving evidence. (probably a prime factor in many CPS decisions for and against bringing various people to trial so far)
> A particular modus-operandi of the accused when offending, which has quirks and is corroborated by numerous victims.
> ...


I have given some thought to this question, since I have had to make such a cold, calculated guesstimate 

When I decided to make disclosure, I had to be realistic about the possibility that a) the police wouldn't take me seriously, b) even if they did, it'd be a courteous response and No Further Action, c) that I might not be able to go through with the disclosure process, d) I might do so and it went nowhere, e) the CPS would consider it not worth pursuing, or f) it'd go to court but result in an acquittal.

I cannot - obviously - speak for everyone in the position I was in, but as things stand, a, b, c and d have turned out to have been unfounded fears. We are now awaiting e) the decision of the CPS, and, assuming it goes to court, f) the trial itself.

My cold, calculated guesstimate was based on the fact that, for some reason, I felt I had to make some kind of disclosure, regardless of where it led. The fact that it has gone as far as it has is, in my view, a bonus: I have shared my experiences, and not only do I feel I have been listened to, but the people whom I alleged to be responsible have been interviewed under caution and have therefore been made aware of the allegations I have made. If nothing else happens, then I know that the past has reached out and tapped them on the shoulder, and I imagine that would have been a chilling and unpleasant experience for them.

If the case goes ahead, I have one last major challenge - that of giving evidence and subjecting myself to, potentially, the same kind of assault that witnesses in these celebrity cases have been subject to. I have paid a lot of attention to what has gone on in court, so as to prepare myself for the possibility that the same will happen to me. I have not come this far to fall at the last hurdle, and I think I am fortunate in that I have the kind of character that will be able to withstand the kind of questioning I fully expect to experience. I am also - perhaps unwisely, I don't know - prepared to confront my abusers in court, something which I am aware is often a huge challenge for victims. Both of those things, I feel, impose a kind of duty on me to do what I can, since I can, to see this through. It may even be that my willingness to stand up in court will encourage others who have been victimised by the same perpetrators, or others, to have the courage to report their experiences, too.

And I guess that's why I have an interest in how those these people have abused are treated in court: because I want it to be possible, within the bounds of justice, for anyone to be able to stand up and say "this person did this to me, and I don't think they should be able to get away with it". It has to be "within the bounds of justice", because every person that gets wrongly convicted is a nail in the coffin of this new openness that is beginning, and ammunition for those who - and I still hear it from people I talk to - are convinced that every complainant is merely a gold-digger after some compensation from an innocent person whose only crime has been celebrity and/or a tendency to be a bit "hands-on".


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

clicker said:


> existentialist i think you're spot on with the children sometimes having an inbuilt radar, that certainly makes them feel creeped out by certain individuals. Even if they can't articulate why.
> Being a kid in the seventies I clearly remember getting that feeling with savile and jonathan king and even stuart hall. They all demonstrated that same falseness to me...the forced jollity and the hollow laugh.They didn't ring true. In saviles case i thought he was always angry and badly masking it.
> 
> It wasn't a foolproof sense though. I thought Ken Dodd fell into the same camp, but had gary glitter posters on the wall and queued up for Rolf's autograph .


That's a good point about Savile being "always angry". Now I think about it, at least part of my "ew" reflex was just that: I was probably picking up on that repressed anger, though he always seemed to me (given that I was hyper-aware of that kind of thing) to be excessively tactile/close with the kids on his show(s) as well.


----------



## elbows (Jun 3, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah it's that sort of attitude I'm talking about. I wasn't even in double figures age wise when jim'll fix it came to an end so obviously I didn't know any better but it just seems anyone who's a bit eccentric and likes children is going to be unfairly characterised a wrongun, even more so now after this.  The amount of people around my age or slightly older who said 'see I knew it!' was quite high. How did they know it? What was it based on? Other than the fact he looked and acted a bit strange, which he did of course and we now know he was hiding in plain sight.



Some of the 'see I knew it' will come from the 'looks' stuff but in the case of Savile there are numerous other reasons why a relatively high percentage of people reckon they knew it in advance:

The high number of victims over a long period of time, some of whom would at some point have confided in others about Savile.
The reputation he built for himself at various stages of his career - from the local reputation where he 'ran' dancehall disco stuff, to his autobiographies, interviews and biographies of other DJs etc.
The Louis Theroux program, which invited a lot of people to imagine some of the ways Savile might be deeply wrong of personality.
The seemingly blatant way he did some bad groping stuff even with the cameras or microphones on, coupled with just how much issues of power, intimidation, control and distance ran through pretty much all his interactions with other humans.
The resulting very high level of gossip and rumour about him that would have run through quite a lot of different segments of society, at different times over the decades.



> Meh, don't really know what I'm trying to say. I guess it's just still disappointing that jim'll fix it was part of my childhood and that I, and so many others I guess, loved it when growing up only to find out that it was all a cover to abuse the children he was doing really nice things for. Which is text book grooming isn't it? Only on a really huge scale. What a cunt



It was part of my childhood, it was known and familiar, and for many years a constant of stability and routine because it was on at the right time and an era when other options were far fewer. But I don't think thats the same as me loving it, especially as I remember it was usually really boring, and was best when used simply to ignite our own imagination as to what we would wish for ourselves. From what I remember Savile was ok at reading out the letters, but showed a complete lack of connection with the kids in studio, to the point that it was somewhat awkward. That said, for those who don't want that memory utterly spoiled in every way, I suppose it might be possible. Even if the program was a vehicle for Savile to continue his TV career, it was much else besides him. I don't think we've yet learnt what percentage of his offending may have occurred when working on that program, but its certainly not been central to the main revelations so far. I guess as various enquiries eventually get more info to the public, we may discover more.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> My dad always reckoned he was a wrong un due to him being a bachelor who was always around kids.


Rather a dubious suspicion though


----------



## discokermit (Jun 3, 2014)

jim'll fix it was always shit. losing it's a knockout has been a far bigger blow.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 3, 2014)

never again will we see Big Break.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

For a lot of my life, I've had a variously negative or ambivalent view about the fact that I grew up in a house without TV.

I watched very little, although it's probably fair to say that this probably meant that the TV I _did_ see was quite influential, by virtue of its novelty 

But I have never been so glad not to have been watched from the corner of the living room by the haunted lantern as I have been in the last few years as its role as conduit for a seemingly endless selection of perverts, pederasts, and otherwise unpleasant characters has become more and more evident...


----------



## elbows (Jun 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I have given some thought to this question, since I have had to make such a cold, calculated guesstimate



Thanks, as always, for sharing your experiences, thoughts etc on all that stuff. So long as it is not a burden to you, please keep us updated as to how it all goes.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

elbows said:


> Thanks, as always, for sharing your experiences, thoughts etc on all that stuff. So long as it is not a burden to you, please keep us updated as to how it all goes.


It would be unspeakably poncy to call it anything like a "sacred trust", so I won't. More of a sequinned truss, perhaps. But, seriously, I really do hope that, in being able to articulate my experiences, I will be able to make some kind of a difference. To others here or elsewhere who might be thinking about it, or even in some bigger way. It'll have been worth it all if that is the case.

So yeah, I shall be parading my sequinned truss appropriately grandiosely at suitable opportunities.


----------



## Gingerman (Jun 3, 2014)

treelover said:


> So, Saville was used as a strike breaker at Broadmoor, wonder what more revelations are to come


Man of many 'talents' was Sir  Jimmy Vile, DJ,TV presenter,doctor,expert in prison  psychiatry and industrial relations and nonce


----------



## elbows (Jun 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> But I have never been so glad not to have been watched from the corner of the living room by the haunted lantern as I have been in the last few years as its role as conduit for a seemingly endless selection of perverts, pederasts, and otherwise unpleasant characters has become more and more evident...



It's thoroughly unsurprising in some ways though. The ridiculous magnification that mass-media fame entails is going to occasionally bring into view areas of society that always had at least their fair share of dubious and abusive characters. Like so much else in society, what has changed is the scale, in terms of attention, opportunity to abuse, institutions that the abuser works within, opportunity for society to belatedly explore the revelations and make some attempt at reform.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I actually googled the person who I'm reliably informed has quite a few reports against them where no further action was taken. As soon as this Saville stuff broke I immediately thought whether this person will come in to the spot light.  It turns out this person is indeed 73. If it ever comes to light it'll be bigger than anything else that's come to light so far in this regard.


pm pls


----------



## Wilf (Jun 3, 2014)

Pickman's model reaches a 100 pager. I believe that means he buys us all a drink?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 3, 2014)

edtit -actually, scrub that. its dodgy ground to even discuss


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 3, 2014)

Completely unsurprised by that if the 73 year old is who I think it is.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Rather a dubious suspicion though



Yet he was vindicated. He didn't survive to see it though. My mam told me when it all came out.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Yet he was vindicated.


His prejudice/assumption wasn't.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> His prejudice/assumption wasn't.



He was right. I would have taken your line too. He died literally just before it all came out. I would have said 'you're airing your prejudices'. And he was. But he was right.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He was right. I would have taken your line too. He died literally just before it all came out. I would have said 'you're airing your prejudices'. And he was. But he was right.


He was right that he was a paedophile bit his reasoning was wrong and prejudiced


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> He was right that he was a paedophile bit his reasoning was wrong and prejudiced



I suspect there was more to it than just 'bachelor who hangs around kids', I found out about his view posthumously from my mother. He's dead, he was right. Is there any use in attacking his own character at this juncture? I certainly can't pass your criticisms on.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He was right. I would have taken your line too. He died literally just before it all came out. I would have said 'you're airing your prejudices'. And he was. But he was right.


Well, let's face it...if you're in the pederasty game, wives (or any close domestic partner) are inconvenient, and it goes without saying that hanging around kids is going to be a useful skill.

But that doesn't mean that every confirmed bachelor who gets on with kids is a perv...and it doesn't mean that every happily married man with kids of his own is "safe". I have heard of a prolific abuser who was, to all intents and purposes, a happily married man with a lovely wife and a young kid, and another who was single and lived with his elderly mum and dad.

Prejudices and stereotypes are those things for a very good reason - they're the "voice of experience". But judging by those alone is a great way of coming up with both false positives and negatives, so it pays to be a bit cautious. Both ways.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I suspect there was more to it than just 'bachelor who hangs around kids', I found out about his view posthumously from my mother. He's dead, he was right. Is there any use in attacking his own character at this juncture? I certainly can't pass your criticisms on.


Not attacking anyone's character, just objecting to a myth being perpetuated that anyone childless who works with kids has questionable motives


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Not attacking anyone's character, just objecting to a myth being perpetuated that anyone childless who works with kids has questionable motives



He said it specifically about Jimmy Savile. And he was right. It never struck me that he held that view about everyone else who was a bachelor who worked with kids, nor did I suggest that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> But that doesn't mean that every confirmed bachelor who gets on with kids is a perv...



And nor have I said that. I've expressed a view he held about Jimmy Savile.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> My dad always reckoned he was a wrong un* due to him being a bachelor who was always around kids.*


no, he was a wrong one due to him being Jimmy Savile


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

There was probably more to it. There's plenty of evidence on youtube of his touchy feely ways live on broadcast TV. His need to put his arm around 'young ladies' he spoke to or jiggling a Nolan sister's tit. If it's now my dad in the spotlight and his supposed prejudices you're a fucking arsehole.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> And nor have I said that. I've expressed a view he held about Jimmy Savile.


Nono, I wasn't ever intending to imply that anyone had said anything  Just that there is both an advantage and a risk to prejudice and stereotyping. Apologies if I implied otherwise.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Not attacking anyone's character, just objecting to a myth being perpetuated that anyone childless who works with kids has questionable motives


To be fair, I think the prejudicial stereotype was rather more narrowly drawn than that.

It better fucking had be - I'm a childless man who works with kids, albeit married, respectable, DBS checks up to my eyeballs, etc...for what that's worth


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There was probably more to it. There's plenty of evidence on youtube of his touchy feely ways live on broadcast TV. His need to put his arm around 'young ladies' he spoke to or jiggling a Nolan sister's tit. If it's now my dad in the spotlight you're a fucking arsehole.


No one's putting your dad in the spotlight. You're the one who mentioned him. I'm just questioning a crap attitude that you seemed happy to perpetuate with the post I just quoted again


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> To be fair, I think the prejudicial stereotype was rather more narrowly drawn than that.
> 
> It better fucking had be - I'm a childless man who works with kids, albeit married, respectable, DBS checks up to my eyeballs, etc...



There's a massive depth to it which I guess formed my dad's opinion. He was a good judge of character, I'll give him that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There's a massive depth to it which I guess formed my dad's opinion. He was a good judge of character, I'll give him that.


Then you do him a disservice by misrepresenting him


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> No one's putting your dad in the spotlight. You're the one who mentioned him. I'm just questioning a crap attitude that you seemed happy to perpetuate with the post I just quoted again



I gave a brief synopsis of his view about Jimmy Savile. You've now turned it around to mean that he thought that about ALL bachelors working with kids. Do you want to meet up and discuss this further you middle class twat?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Then you do him a disservice by misrepresenting him



Fuck right off.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I gave a brief synopsis of his view about Jimmy Savile. You've now turned it around to mean that he thought that about ALL bachelors working with kids. Do you want to meet up and discuss this further you middle class twat?


Steady on.
I was just reacting to the words you posted and you said your dad knew he was a wrong un due to him being a bachelor who hangs around kids. I took exception to such an assumption being trumpeted on a thread like this and now you're throwing out insults. And bringing class into it? Wtf?


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you want to meet up and discuss this further you middle class twat?


really?


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I gave a brief synopsis of his view about Jimmy Savile. You've now turned it around to mean that he thought that about ALL bachelors working with kids. Do you want to meet up and discuss this further you middle class twat?


Easy, tiger


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

I had a good thirty-eight years of my dad before he died. I expressed a view he made to me via my mum after he died. She obviously said it in brief and he wasn't around for me to probe further but he hadn't expressed that view in a generalised way in any time in his life - hence it was specific. I wish I'd never posted it because I should have fucking known it was him who'd now be on trial. This place is fucking disgusting sometimes. Learn about nuances for fuck's sake.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Steady on.
> I was just reacting to the words you posted and you said your dad knew he was a wrong un due to him being a bachelor who hangs around kids. I took exception to such an assumption being trumpeted on a thread like this and now you're throwing out insults. And bringing class into it? Wtf?


TBF, it was only C66 repeating his dad's (correct, as it happens, in this case) opinion. I wonder if you're reading more into it than is entirely necessary?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

killer b said:


> really?



My deceased father? Keep winding. It's a good look.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He was right. I would have taken your line too. He died literally just before it all came out. I would have said 'you're airing your prejudices'. And he was. But he was right.


Nowt to do with me really, OU, but I do think this makes it clear what c66 meant.  The 'but he was right', bit is obviously about Savile being a nonce, not that he was right about there being a bachelor/nonce connection.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 3, 2014)

clicker said:


> existentialist i think you're spot on with the children sometimes having an inbuilt radar, that certainly makes them feel creeped out by certain individuals. Even if they can't articulate why.
> Being a kid in the seventies I clearly remember getting that feeling with savile and jonathan king and even stuart hall. They all demonstrated that same falseness to me...the forced jollity and the hollow laugh.They didn't ring true. In saviles case i thought he was always angry and badly masking it.
> 
> It wasn't a foolproof sense though. I thought Ken Dodd fell into the same camp, but had gary glitter posters on the wall and queued up for Rolf's autograph .



i had the same feeling about Seville when I was young.  Also about Michael Barrymore (not a nonce, very likely dodgy as fuck). I have had cause to wonder whether it was prescience.   Thing is, I also had that feeling about Christopher Biggins, who afaik is a really nice bloke...  I think what they actually had in common was that way of joking with the kid but in a way that left the child to embarrassed to know what to say.   A bit banter-y (flirty?), but because they're talking to a kid, there's a power imbalance to do with confidence and wit etc.   

Anyway, yeah.  I think that was the common factor, rather than nascent "nonce-dar", in my case.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

You can see it Wilf  but then again you're not a nobhead.


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> My deceased father? Keep winding. It's a good look.


who's winding? you just typed something utterly ridiculous. If orang misunderstood you I'm sure you can explain things without being a macho penis.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 3, 2014)

killer b said:


> who's winding? you just typed something utterly ridiculous. If orang misunderstood you I'm sure you can explain things without being a macho penis.



Strong emotions regarding a recently dead close relative? How macho am I?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Nowt to do with me really, OU, but I do think this makes it clear what c66 meant.  The 'but he was right, bit is obviously about Savile being a nonce, not that he was right about there being a bachelor/nonce connection.


Indeed. So his initial assertion was incorrect and a misrepresentation of what his dad said.


----------



## killer b (Jun 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Strong emotions regarding a recently dead close relative? How macho am I?


macho enough to offer someone off the internet out?


----------



## existentialist (Jun 3, 2014)

I think it's pretty obvious that C66 is just a bit sensitive about people putting the boot in on his late dad. Don't people think a bit of sensitivity on their part might be called for, too?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> TBF, it was only C66 repeating his dad's (correct, as it happens, in this case) opinion. I wonder if you're reading more into it than is entirely necessary?


I'm not reading anything into it. I just don't like lazy assumptions being paraded about without much thought.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Indeed. So his initial assertion was incorrect and a misrepresentation of what his dad said.



How is it a misrepresentation of what my dad said when my dad didn't fucking say it? Are you actually reading what I'm typing in your pursuit of your politically correct arm stripes?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 4, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I think it's pretty obvious that C66 is just a bit sensitive about people putting the boot in on his late dad. Don't people think a bit of sensitivity on their part might be called for, too?


But it wasn't about his dad at all! It was about what c66 said about him


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> How is it a misrepresentation of what my dad said when my dad didn't fucking say it? Are you actually reading what I'm typing in your pursuit of your politically correct arm stripes?


Do I have to quote what you said a third time?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 4, 2014)

killer b said:


> macho enough to offer someone off the internet out?



He's not 'off the internet'. He exists in meatspace. I asked if he wanted to discuss it in person.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Do I have to quote what you said a third time?



To what ends though? To prove my dead dad was a cunt? Or that I'm a cunt about my dead dad? On a thread about a serious issue too. You're a disgrace.


----------



## killer b (Jun 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He's not 'off the internet'. He exists in meatspace. I asked if he wanted to discuss it in person.


Ok, you offered someone 'in meatspace' out then. Either way, you were asking orang for a fight.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Do I have to quote what you said a third time?


FFS, you now know what c66 meant, what are you after?  I really hope you are not playing some game of wanting him to castigate his dad's opinions so something lines up on the internet.  He might have been a bit naughty with the meet up stuff, but why are you pushing this?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> To what ends though? To prove my dead dad was a cunt? Or that I'm a cunt about my dead dad? On a thread about a serious issue too. You're a disgrace.


Neither. I was annoyed that someone had posted something that made out that Jimmy Savile was a wrong un cos he hung out with kids and was unmarried. As someone who is unmarried and works with kids, I sought to challenge this notion. Then you took it as an insult to your dad and you escalated it unreasonably.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 4, 2014)

killer b said:


> Ok, you offered someone 'in meatspace' out then. Either way, you were asking orang for a fight.



Can you quote the post where I mentioned a fight?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 4, 2014)

Wilf said:


> FFS, you now know what c66 meant, what are you after?  I really hope you are not playing some game of wanting him to castigate his dad's opinions so something lines up on the internet.  He might have been a bit naughty with the meet up stuff, but why are you pushing this?


I'm not pushing it! I'm the one who's getting someone in his face for questioning a daft comment.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not pushing it! I'm the one who's getting someone in his face for questioning a daft comment.


Do you think c66 thinks there's a link between bachelordom and noncery?  I'll assume the answer is no.  Any more to be said?  Yeah, okay, something was said a couple of pages ago - you and others objected - he clarified.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Neither. I was annoyed that someone had posted something that made out that Jimmy Savile was a wrong un cos he hung out with kids and was unmarried. As someone who is unmarried and works with kids, I sought to challenge this notion. Then you took it as an insult to your dad and you escalated it unreasonably.



No. I said my dad thought Jimmy was a wrong un and gave a brief synopsis as to why. My dad can't have anything against bachelors as he was one once too. I couldn't give more depth because I was told this after he had died. Do you want me to try the ouija board for further info or what?


----------



## killer b (Jun 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Can you quote the post where I mentioned a fight?


you didn't mention a fight. you mentioned 'discussing it in person', which is a mildly veiled way of offering someone a fight. as you know.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 4, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Do you think c66 thinks there's a link between bachelordom and noncery?  I'll assume the answer is no.  Any more to be said?  Yeah, okay, something was said a couple of pages ago - you and others objected - he clarified.


NO I DONT! I just think he unthinkingly posted something which perpetuated a myth about people who work with kids. It's one of those dreadful gossipy comments that need challenging.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> NO I DONT! I just think he unthinkingly posted something which perpetuated a myth about people who work with kids. It's one of those dreadful gossipy comments that need challenging.


If he was doing that he'd deserve to be challenged.  Apart from the fact he was only quoting his Dad's opinion, second hand, he's clarified what he meant - he's clarified on exactly that point.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> NO I DONT! I just think he unthinkingly posted something which perpetuated a myth about people who work with kids. It's one of those dreadful gossipy comments that need challenging.


time and place though OU, when you're laying into someone's dead dad to make a point in the internet it's time to have a word with yourself IMO, especially when you carry it on after it's fucking obvious that it's a sensitive subject.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 4, 2014)

Tbf saying 'he was a wrongun as he was a bachelor who was always around kids' was a pretty shitty comment to make.  I can see why this would get someone's back up, particularly someone who is male, bachelor or not, and who works with kids because it is a prejudice that exists and it needs challenging, Saville has made this prejudice worse and that was what I was trying to get at earlier.  OU was right to challenge it, C66 has clarified so let's all move along eh?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 4, 2014)

Wilf said:


> If he was doing that he'd deserve to be challenged.  Apart from the fact he was only quoting his Dad's opinion, second hand, he's clarified what he meant - he's clarified on exactly that point.


Sure, but it was unfortunate that it was said in the first place.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 4, 2014)

free spirit said:


> time and place though OU, when you're laying into someone's dead dad to make a point in the internet it's time to have a word with yourself IMO, especially when you carry it on after it's fucking obvious that it's a sensitive subject.


No one's laying into anyone's dad. I was objecting to a post not a person.


----------



## treelover (Jun 4, 2014)

killer b said:


> really?




did the dwyer and another urban protagonist ever have the duel they were planning


----------



## free spirit (Jun 4, 2014)

As I'd have thought you'd have known being from the Leeds area, Saville's kiddie fiddler status was open knowledge (ok strong rumour) when I was a kid. C66's dad probably had a lot more to go on than just him being a batchelor.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 4, 2014)

That's not the issue. <bangs head on wall>


----------



## free spirit (Jun 4, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> No one's laying into anyone's dad. I was objecting to a post not a person.


it' how it read to me, and presumably it's how it read to C66.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 4, 2014)

If we are opening a book I'll give 2:1 odds on citizen to win. OU has the weight advantage, and the ginger special powers but I recon c66 has the cobbles experience. Place bets at the usual address


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 4, 2014)

treelover said:


> did the dwyer and another urban protagonist ever have the duel they were planning



that was garf vs dwyer, the nuttaz in callcuttaz

it never happened


----------



## clicker (Jun 4, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> i had the same feeling about Seville when I was young.  Also about Michael Barrymore (not a nonce, very likely dodgy as fuck). I have had cause to wonder whether it was prescience.   Thing is, I also had that feeling about Christopher Biggins, who afaik is a really nice bloke...  I think what they actually had in common was that way of joking with the kid but in a way that left the child to embarrassed to know what to say.   A bit banter-y (flirty?), but because they're talking to a kid, there's a power imbalance to do with confidence and wit etc.
> 
> Anyway, yeah.  I think that was the common factor, rather than nascent "nonce-dar", in my case.


yes can see what you mean about the way they interacted with kids - slightly above them and yes, a definite power imbalance.

I hated clowns as a kid, still not over keen. I think the common factor in mine was the grinning face and empty laugh, like grotesque fairground figures - Savile, King and Hall all did the fake 'isn't life wonderful' routine. I must have assumed they weren't to be trusted. not in a possible child abuser way, but in a 'what are they hiding ' way. Too clown like . In the same way i never took to Norman Wisdom ,  a national hero to some, just left me cold.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 4, 2014)

clown fear comes from the inability to distinguish between hilaity and hysteria in the pre verbal child who takes clues from the visual- a painted face disguises that causing distress

imo


----------



## Favelado (Jun 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> that was garf vs dwyer, the nuttaz in callcuttaz
> 
> it never happened



Garf offered me out for a fight within my first ten posts.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 4, 2014)

Can't link from this device but exaro has an recent article citing calls from 7 MPs across parties calling on Theresa May to set up a national enquiry in to repeated failures of police in child sex abuse cases.


----------



## Edward Kelly (Jun 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> that was garf vs dwyer, the nuttaz in callcuttaz
> 
> it never happened


Shame.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 4, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Pickman's model reaches a 100 pager. I believe that means he buys us all a drink?


there's a single whisky for you all to share


----------



## existentialist (Jun 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> there's a single whisky for you all to share


You are too kind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 4, 2014)

existentialist said:


> You are too kind.


i don't want to encourage excessive drinking


----------



## elbows (Jun 27, 2014)

I'm going to have to try to wade through the hospital reports myself when I get time as Alan Franey has been mentioned in the press in several different contexts, but without enough detail to satisfy me. I'm sure anyone who followed the details in this and other threads was expecting Franey to pop up in these reports.

Some press examples:



> Savile’s pal Alan Franey, who became Broadmoor boss, was allegedly told about three sex assaults there in the 1990s.
> 
> Mr Franey said he does not remember this.
> 
> But the Broadmoor report says: “In our view, it is impossible to examine Savile’s position in the hospital and his ability to exploit it without understanding Franey’s role in the management of the hospital.”



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nine-jimmy-savile-victims-abuse-3772873#ixzz35pv0Vif3



> The report also said that an ex-patient had reported passing on complaints about Savile’s behaviour to Alan Franey, then the general manager of Broadmoor and a friend of Savile’s, in the 1990s, from three female patients - although there was no record of the complaint and Franey said he could not recall handling it.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...mmy-Saviles-sickening-abuse-in-hospitals.html



> The report, published today, stated: “The former chief executive of the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board, Ray Rowden, reported to us that he had been told by the chief executive of the hospital, Alan Franey, that Savile had a ‘little secret’, a ‘liking for young girls, the younger the better’.
> 
> “This is strenuously denied by Franey, and it is not clear whether ‘the younger the better’ was understood in any way to encompass those below the age of consent.”



http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/jimmy...ex_offender_had_little_secret_claim_1_3657817


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Jun 27, 2014)

If there is a Hell.... I'd like to think they'd be room mates.


----------



## Chilli.s (Jun 27, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> If there is a Hell.... I'd like to think they'd be room mates.


 Nightmare pic.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 27, 2014)

Birds of a feather.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 27, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> If there is a Hell.... I'd like to think they'd be room mates.



Teabreak's over, back on your heads.


----------



## gabi (Jun 30, 2014)

So why hasn't the name of the 73yo come out yet? I think we all know who it is.

Anyway. This is an interesting read. An interview with Jim after he got his knighthood.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11284449


----------



## yardbird (Jun 30, 2014)

At last. Rolf Harris.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

yardbird said:


> At last. Rolf Harris.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561


What's left in the pipeline now? Do we have any more "significant" cases pending?

ETA: Oh. Loads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree#Arrests


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2014)

yardbird said:


> At last. Rolf Harris.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561


idols with feet of clay


----------



## Dan U (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> idols with feet of clay




You leave morph out of it. 

At present he is in the clear.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> idols with feet of clay


Never have I been so glad not to have had a TV when I was young. I can say with all sincerity that these people never even had the opportunity to become my idols...


----------



## clicker (Jun 30, 2014)

He didgeri-did


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Never have I been so glad not to have had a TV when I was young. I can say with all sincerity that these people never even had the opportunity to become my idols...


you might have expected it of the likes of savile, but not auld rolf  at least no one's fingered johnny morris off animal magick as a paedo


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> idols with feet of clay




How long do you think they'll send the kangaroo down for sport?


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you might have expected it of the likes of savile, but not auld rolf  at least no one's fingered johnny morris off animal magick *as a paedo*


Bestiality there mate


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> How long do you think they'll send the kangaroo down for sport?


4 years


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> 4 years


Whatever he gets, it won't seem like long enough, but I think that for anyone whose life has been predicated on public approval and has spent so long nursing their secrets, the worst has already happened.


----------



## Ungrateful (Jun 30, 2014)

yardbird said:


> At last. Rolf Harris.


 Shouldn't that be Rolf Harris CBE? I hope we're not forgetting all his service to the Crown, just because of one or two or twelve sordid, life-distorting, little indiscretions.


----------



## chandlerp (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you might have expected it of the likes of savile, but not auld rolf  at least no one's fingered johnny morris off animal magick as a paedo



The problem is, since he died, none of the animals can talk.


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2014)

I think he'll top himself


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> I think he'll top himself


oh well


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> oh well


Do you think it would be against the FAQ if we opened a book? Best put him in my celebrity death pool just to have it covered. It's who to take out though......hmmmmmm.....hmmmmm.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2014)

Is any of these yew tree arrests and trials in the news abroad? I'm sure Harris is as he's Australian but is the whole Savile scandal etc in the news too? Has anything like this happened elsewhere? We can't be the only country with a load of famous paedos from the past can we?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> Do you think it would be against the FAQ if we opened a book? Best put him in my celebrity death pool just to have it covered. It's who to take out though......hmmmmmm.....hmmmmm.


aren't you mates with auld grouty?


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> aren't you mates with auld grouty?


I lost all my friends here when I started talking to you. Only Frances Lengel sends me PM's now and they're usually obscene midnight attacks about cats and drugs.

I'll give him a week and then I think he'll go chokey in the garage with a hoover flex over one of the joists. Then in a last ditch attempt to show above all that he was an artist he'll paint a canvas with his dying shaky hand whilst the noose tightens and takes away his evil breath

Something like this...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> I lost all my friends here when I started talking to you. Only Frances Lengel sends me PM's now and they're usually obscene midnight attacks about cats and drugs.
> 
> I'll give him a week and then I think he'll go chokey in the garage with a hoover flex over one of the joists and in a last ditch attempt to show above all that he was and artist he'll paint a canvas with his dying shaky hand whilst the noose tightens and takes away his evil breath
> 
> Something like this...


no  aul' GROUTY


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no  aul' GROUTY


 Ahh of course. I don't think Rolf will be around long enough to make new friends inside


----------



## yardbird (Jun 30, 2014)

This brands daughter Bindi as a liar.
Big time.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jun 30, 2014)

.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 30, 2014)

As the press inevitably goes to town on the Rolf Harris verdict, remember that in over 18 months since Tom Watson made his allegations of a paedophile ring linked to Parliament, not a single arrest is known to have been made in relation to it.

Celebrity paedo? Scream it from the rooftops.

Political paedo? Shhhh....

Harris was at a disadvantage without Cyril Smiths help from MI5 or Saviles cosy relations with police.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> As the press inevitably goes to town on the Rolf Harris verdict, remember that in over 18 months since Tom Watson made his allegations of a paedophile ring linked to Parliament, not a single arrest is known to have been made in relation to it.
> 
> Celebrity paedo? Scream it from the rooftops.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's *quite* that polarised, but yeah, it does rather seem to progress by degrees. The sense I have about the political stuff is that the cat is easing, slowly, out of the bag, and will eventually escape completely. Of course, "they" may be stalling for time, but I think this has momentum now, and there won't be an appetite in society for more abuse coverups.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 30, 2014)

.
[QUOTE="existentialist, post: 13239925, member: 46721" there won't be an appetite in society for more abuse coverups.[/QUOTE]

But will that amount to more than ultimately fruitless angry muttering?

I suppose we can expect more politicised attacks on the BBC from the criminal murdoch organisation, possibly aggrieved that the offences took place before they had as much tech to spy on victims.


----------



## elbows (Jun 30, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> I'll give him a week and then I think he'll go chokey in the garage with a hoover flex over one of the joists.



He hasn't got a week to do it, sentencing is on Friday.

That we raise the possibility of suicide might be in part because of press reports after his arrest, about the priory and being on a suicide watch, if I remember correctly this was before his identity was actually revealed in the UK press.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jun 30, 2014)

I'm shocked, was convinced he was an untouchable as in Savile and the recent NI trial.

However whether they jail him is yet to be seen.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> I'm shocked, was convinced he was an untouchable as in Savile and the recent NI trial.
> 
> However whether they jail him is yet to be seen.


I can't see how they couldn't. Unless he suddenly discloses he's got terminal cancer and 6 months to live, or similar...


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jun 30, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> However whether they jail him is yet to be seen.



Q: Is he a Freemason?

No: Probably 3 - 5 years.
Yes: A slap on the wrist... maybe 12 - 18 months (serve 6) in an open nick.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Q: Is he a Freemason?
> 
> No: Probably 3 - 5 years.
> Yes: A slap on the wrist... maybe 12 - 18 months (serve 6) in an open nick.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jun 30, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Q: Is he a Freemason?
> 
> No: Probably 3 - 5 years.
> Yes: A slap on the wrist... maybe 12 - 18 months (serve 6) in an open nick.



You need to ask?


----------



## 1%er (Jun 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


>


I wonder what Lord Millett would give him


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

1%er said:


> I wonder what Lord Millett would give him


I think his comment that "If I were trying somebody and they tried to signal to me or whatever, I would have to restrain myself from increasing the sentence." also demonstrates how circumscribed judges are in sentencing - unlike contributors to Internet discussion boards, they have to apply very specific criteria to arrive at the sentence...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 30, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> I'm shocked, was convinced he was an untouchable as in Savile and the recent NI trial.
> 
> However whether they jail him is yet to be seen.




Judge has told him to expect custodial I think. He'll be fast-tracked to a Cat D very quickly of course, like Max Clifford.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> they have to apply very specific criteria to arrive at the sentence...



I genuinelly dont know the answer to this : Are the criterea for allowing a suspended just as specific?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

I don't think being a freemason earns you a slap on the wrist. That totally ignores class in favour of tin foil hat shite. Doubtlessly there's freemasons who do get away with shit but there has to be other factors at work other than (but may include) their freemason membership. Is Rebekah Brookes a freemason? Wrong gender for starters. But right social contacts that a working class freemason would never be able to pull favours from.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I genuinelly dont know the answer to this : Are the criterea for allowing a suspended just as specific?


I'd have thought so. Given the general level of outcry at sentencing in pretty much any sensational case, it'd be a brave judge who went for some massive outlier in sentencing.


----------



## chandlerp (Jun 30, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Is any of these yew tree arrests and trials in the news abroad? I'm sure Harris is as he's Australian but is the whole Savile scandal etc in the news too? Has anything like this happened elsewhere? We can't be the only country with a load of famous paedos from the past can we?



Just had relatives over from Australia and they knew all about Savile


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 30, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Judge has told him to expect custodial I think. He'll be fast-tracked to a Cat D very quickly of course, like Max Clifford.


That
Be nice they can write a book together.

Also fuck you Rolf, I loved you growing up as you we'rent as weird as jimmy 

You've let us all down , especially the poor girls


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> He hasn't got a week to do it, sentencing is on Friday.
> 
> That we raise the possibility of suicide might be in part because of press reports after his arrest, about the priory and being on a suicide watch, if I remember correctly this was before his identity was actually revealed in the UK press.


I meant like a working week like us plebs have to do   I think if he gets a lengthy sentence there's always the possibility of him trying it inside but yeah I would imagine he'd be on the special wing with round the clock chokey watch.

I don't spose there'll be a lot of cons of the future talking about how Rolph did Folsom Prison Blues on his wobble board for them in the Christmas panto. I've never been one for wishing ill on people but when you think about his victims and what those women must have been through every time they saw the cunt on TV or thought about what he did.....ah well. Prison wont be pretty for him I'm sure.


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't think being a freemason earns you a slap on the wrist. That totally ignores class in favour of tin foil hat shite. Doubtlessly there's freemasons who do get away with shit but there has to be other factors at work other than (but may include) their freemason membership.* Is Rebekah Brookes a freemason?* Wrong gender for starters. But right social contacts that a working class freemason would never be able to pull favours from.


I personally think she's a high priestess at the top degree freemason's club. Like some sort of Boadicea She probably rides a horse (Like that 70's porno) whilst they all watch and whack off with live chickens (Same movie) Then after a 15 course meal of swans and lizard tails they all shag a big turkey like this one


----------



## 1%er (Jun 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't think being a freemason earns you a slap on the wrist. That totally ignores class in favour of tin foil hat shite. Doubtlessly there's freemasons who do get away with shit but there has to be other factors at work other than (but may include) their freemason membership. Is Rebekah Brookes a freemason? Wrong gender for starters. But right social contacts that a working class freemason would never be able to pull favours from.


 
Do you think lodges a class based?

Many lodges were started between people with similar jobs or interests, but very soon open up to all masons as most would die if they didn't


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

1%er said:


> Do you think lodges a class based?
> 
> Many lodges were started between people with similar jobs or interests, but very soon open up to all masons as most would die if they didn't



Of course I don't think lodges are class based. I think getting away with shit is. Didn't my post make that clear?

Do I think being a working class freemason immediately opens up avenues in other social classes? Err, join the freemasons and you're now in the club? But by day you're a plumber. Fix a judges taps for him and you can get away with rape lol.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Of course I don't think lodges are class based. I think getting away with shit is. Didn't my post make that clear?


Then I really can not under the part of your post that I underlined, maybe you could explain it for me


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

friedaweed said:


> I personally think she's a high priestess at the top degree freemason's club. Like some sort of Boadicea She probably rides a horse (Like that 70's porno) whilst they all watch and whack off with live chickens (Same movie) Then after a 15 course meal of swans and lizard tails they all shag a big turkey like this one


Don't EVER join Freemasonry.

The disappointment would kill you, for sure


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

1%er said:


> Then I really can not under the part of your post that I underlined, maybe you could explain it for me



I edited my post. I reply too hastily sometimes.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

I don't think freemasonry differs that much from a church or a karate club.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't think freemasonry differs that much from a church or a karate club.


Certainly that's true when it comes to high priestesses on horses, and lizard-shagging.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't think freemasonry differs that much from a church or a karate club.


They are all in fancy dress


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 30, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> you might have expected it of the likes of savile, but not auld rolf



Yes. I'll never be able to enjoy 'Tie me kangaroo down, sport, again.'  Or watch public information films when slightly pissed.

Danny Baker was fooled, and did a great TV Heroes about Rolf. 

 and  all round.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 30, 2014)

i'm reminded, reading that letter to the girl's father - of 'Lolita'...  because on the surface it's so convincing, his remorse, his description of what he thought was going on...  

But then, she was thirteen, she was terrified - that must have been obvious - just like with all the other girls he groped.  Maybe there was a level at which he didn't see that.  But he must've known - seen it, felt it.  And just pretended it was something else.  What a nasty, nasty man.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jun 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Certainly that's true when it comes to high priestesses on horses, and lizard-shagging.



You haven't been to the right karate clubs.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

Plumdaff said:


> You haven't been to the right karate clubs.


I await your recommendations


----------



## 1%er (Jun 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I await your recommendations


Always willing to help out a brother


----------



## existentialist (Jun 30, 2014)

1%er said:


> Always willing to help out a brother


Priestesses? Goats? Lime jelly?

I Think Not.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Priestesses? Goats? Lime jelly?


You are getting your Macumba and Masonry mixed up


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Don't EVER join Freemasonry.
> 
> The disappointment would kill you, for sure


Ahem!!

You seem to think I don't already have a higher experience than yours old grand master flasher 

One day you will kneel at my feet and suck my lime jelly soaked cock whilst Becker big balls strap ons me from behind 

That's what I hate about the lower degrees. A little bit of power and they miss all opportunity to join the real party by behaving like little know-it-alls

You'll never get to the top of the golden shower triangle exie until you open your third eye for me and Pickmans


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> i'm reminded, reading that letter to the girl's father - of 'Lolita'...  because on the surface it's so convincing, his remorse, his description of what he thought was going on...
> 
> But then, she was thirteen, she was terrified - that must have been obvious - just like with all the other girls he groped.  Maybe there was a level at which he didn't see that.  But he must've known - seen it, felt it.  And just pretended it was something else.  What a nasty, nasty man.



It's inescapably an abuse of power. There's nothing acceptable about forming relationships with people that young even if they come across as interested or giving out confused sexual signals. They aren't developed enough to know the implications; he was but opted to pursue it regardless.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 1, 2014)

Previously the human detritus known as Richard Littlecunt has said this about Harris

_...Not to mention all those feeling the collars of ageing celebrities accused of ‘historic’ sex crimes. I wonder if those Met officers swanning round Australia interviewing women who claim to have been touched up by Rolf Harris four decades ago could have been better deployed on anti-terrorist surveillance duties in South London._

Perhaps The cunt can now do a column about how going after paedophiles and molesters is political correctness gone mad. You can't even have sex with a 13 year old these days without some fucking social worker jumping out at you, banging on about so-called "rights".


----------



## Edward Kelly (Jul 1, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Is any of these yew tree arrests and trials in the news abroad? I'm sure Harris is as he's Australian but is the whole Savile scandal etc in the news too? Has anything like this happened elsewhere? We can't be the only country with a load of famous paedos from the past can we?


yep, all over the news.


Edit; took out the Wiki link referencing the RCC


----------



## gabi (Jul 1, 2014)

Prolly already been posted. 

Anyway, when's the 73yo old gonna be unveiled? It's all over twitter, the law really needs to catch up on times.

Fucking hell the extent of this shit is nuts.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 1, 2014)

gabi said:


> Prolly already been posted.
> 
> Anyway, when's the 73yo old gonna be unveiled? It's all over twitter, the law really needs to catch up on times.
> 
> Fucking hell the extent of this shit is nuts.



The extent of this shit is what a lot of people have been saying it is for years - we've just, finally, got around to taking it seriously.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 1, 2014)

AFAIK the 73 year old is a former BBC employee, but not a household name.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jul 1, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Previously the human detritus known as Richard Littlecunt has said tothinghis about Harris
> 
> _...Not to mention all those feeling the collars of ageing celebrities accused of ‘historic’ sex crimes. I wonder if those Met officers swanning round Australia interviewing women who claim to have been touched up by Rolf Harris four decades ago could have been better deployed on anti-terrorist surveillance duties in South London._



Nothing's more important than sending the message that rich white men can get away with anything, eh Richard?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 1, 2014)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Nothing's more important than sending the message that rich white men can get away with anything, eh Richard?


I wonder if he's even painting on that big a canvas. Sometimes it seems to me that his only criterion for offering an opinion is its potential offensiveness (or "controversiality").


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 1, 2014)

Edward Kelly said:


> yep, all over the news.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Australia



That's catholic church sexual abuse.  I mean celebrities. Does Australia have any former celebrities who are recently uncovered as paedos? What about France? USA? Portugal? and so on. Are they on the same scale as here? If not why not? I'm trying to determine what it is about the culture of Britain at the time that allowed this? There's been talk of it being 'a different time' back then but I'm not sure it was that different with regards to kiddie fiddling? Or maybe it was? I'm trying to determine whether the cover up of it, the missed opportunities to expose it and to bring these people to justice then etc was/is an English disease so to speak or was it something wider in western culture? Because I wonder how far all this is gonna go.  Big rock bands around that time weren't exactly saints and they had a lot of underage groupies, will they be classed as being sexually abused? Will any of them come forward now? I guess not but it's not beyond the realms.  It's not as if any of them were as bad as Ian Watkins lately but part of the revulsion of the Watkins case included his sexual contact with 16 year old school girls whereas this was just the norm for bands back in the 60s and 70s.

I'm not directing these questions at you specifically, Edward I'm just thinking aloud as it were!


----------



## existentialist (Jul 1, 2014)

There's two factors here, though. One is the question of whether the culture of the time allowed it - and I suspect that it probably did fairly universally - and the other is whether they have had their "Savile moment" yet.

Maybe in some countries it didn't become quite so culturally enshrined, with "national treasures" securing themselves against full discovery of their offences as here, so the problem was less great and less likely to be uncovered.

It might even be that the only reason we're here where we are in the UK is because Savile was such an egregious case - someone who was almost open about his abuse, but so successful at preventing people from doing anything about it that, when he died, there was a kind of pent-up tidal wave of disclosure that just HAD to emerge. If we hadn't had a Savile, then maybe - chilling as the thought is - the Eric Halls and Rolf Harrises of this world would have eventually died, perhaps with a few post-mortem mutterings about some dubious behaviour, but little more than that.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 1, 2014)

existentialist said:


> There's two factors here, though. One is the question of whether the culture of the time allowed it - and I suspect that it probably did fairly universally - and the other is whether they have had their "Savile moment" yet.
> 
> Maybe in some countries it didn't become quite so culturally enshrined, with "national treasures" securing themselves against full discovery of their offences as here, so the problem was less great and less likely to be uncovered.
> 
> It might even be that the only reason we're here where we are in the UK is because Savile was such an egregious case - someone who was almost open about his abuse, but so successful at preventing people from doing anything about it that, when he died, there was a kind of pent-up tidal wave of disclosure that just HAD to emerge. If we hadn't had a Savile, then maybe - chilling as the thought is - the Eric Halls and Rolf Harrises of this world would have eventually died, perhaps with a few post-mortem mutterings about some dubious behaviour, but little more than that.



Another thing is that UK libel laws make it a lot harder to expose people who are up to no good.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 1, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Another thing is that UK libel laws make it a lot harder to expose people who are up to no good.


That's true. Although I wonder if there there is any evidence, eg in places like Australia, of situations where abusers were exposed who would not have been able to be in the UK?

And it's another argument for reviewing our libel laws - I don't suppose too many people would disagree with the idea that the threat of a libel suit should not be an effective coverup for serious and ongoing crimes.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 1, 2014)

existentialist said:


> There's two factors here, though. One is the question of whether the culture of the time allowed it - and I suspect that it probably did fairly universally - and the other is whether they have had their "Savile moment" yet.
> 
> Maybe in some countries it didn't become quite so culturally enshrined, with "national treasures" securing themselves against full discovery of their offences as here, so the problem was less great and less likely to be uncovered.
> 
> It might even be that the only reason we're here where we are in the UK is because Savile was such an egregious case - someone who was almost open about his abuse, but so successful at preventing people from doing anything about it that, when he died, there was a kind of pent-up tidal wave of disclosure that just HAD to emerge. If we hadn't had a Savile, then maybe - chilling as the thought is - the Eric Halls and Rolf Harrises of this world would have eventually died, perhaps with a few post-mortem mutterings about some dubious behaviour, but little more than that.



I think your last paragraph holds a lot of weight.  Savile was effectively a paedophile cunningly disguised as a paedophile really and he essentially groomed an entire nation.  

I'm still left wondering about whether the culture allowed it or not? I mean was it still viewed as wrong but just kind of shrugged off as something to be expected or did the fact it was wrong never really come into the equation? I'm not just talking noncery either I mean surely that's always been viewed as wrong but then again has it? The BBC played the joke Harris done back then in a live show where he says 'take them off' then does a girl's voice saying 'no, I'm only 13' and the whole audience laughed whereas now you might get a laugh but it would be mixed with disapproval.  I'm also talking about sexual assault in general.  Harris got nicknamed the octopus which is a kinda light hearted attitude to take to it from women themselves as if to say 'oh don't worry about him he's always like that, that's why we call him the octopus - ha ha ha.'   I'm sure women assaulted like this back then did feel disgusted but probably felt unable to do something about it or were just told to kind of suck it up as it's to be expected? Eurgh.

I think the only good that come out of all of this is evidence that society has moved in a better direction since then as it is most definitely now completely unacceptable to behave in that manner, not just towards children but to adults too, and that something is more likely to be done about it.  Always comes as a result of constant fight from below though eh? It's exhausting!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 1, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Judge has told him to expect custodial I think. He'll be fast-tracked to a Cat D very quickly of course, like Max Clifford.




The judge will have to consider so-called "mitigation" presented by his lawyers - facts such as his age, the fact that his crimes are historic rather than recent, and were "non-violent" insofar as they're toward the "unlawful sexual intercourse"/grooming offending rather than violent rape, then yes, he's likely to spend most of his sentence in a Cat C (and probably the last 3rd of his sentence in an open).
BTW, when I mention his age, that's with regard to prisons having facilities to "manage" the incarceration of elderly prisoners, not because oldies should be let off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 1, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Previously the human detritus known as Richard Littlecunt has said this about Harris
> 
> _...Not to mention all those feeling the collars of ageing celebrities accused of ‘historic’ sex crimes. I wonder if those Met officers swanning round Australia interviewing women who claim to have been touched up by Rolf Harris four decades ago could have been better deployed on anti-terrorist surveillance duties in South London._
> 
> Perhaps The cunt can now do a column about how going after paedophiles and molesters is political correctness gone mad. You can't even have sex with a 13 year old these days without some fucking social worker jumping out at you, banging on about so-called "rights".



Liitlejohn lives in Florida.
Florida is one of the main "trans-shipping" points for children trafficked from central and south America into the USA.
Coincidence?  I think not...


----------



## 1%er (Jul 1, 2014)

The Home Affairs Committee is meant to be looking into "Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming", the witness is Simon Danczuk MP (he co-wrote the book "smile for the camera" about Cyril Smith).

I don't seem to be able to watch it,I though these committee meeting were streamed live, it says the meeting started at 2:47 UK time (his evidence should start at 4:15)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 1, 2014)

http://bilgewatch.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/richard-littlejohn-on-rolf-harris/


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 1, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Does Australia have any former celebrities who are recently uncovered as paedos? What about France? USA? Portugal? and so on. Are they on the same scale as here? If not why not?



According to the GF there was a case in Portugal with a famous TV person but they got off. Their driver, prosecuted for similar crimes, was convicted. There was some grumbling about the rich/famous getting away with stuff apparently, though their career was destroyed.  Don't know the name or nature of the abuse but can ask!


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 1, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> AFAIK the 73 year old is a former BBC employee, but not a household name.



Yep, nobody's ever heard of Harry W....


----------



## elbows (Jul 1, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Are they on the same scale as here? If not why not?



The scale of stuff thats been exposed in the UK post-Savile seems to be exaggerated in some peoples minds. In terms of the ratio of famous people questioned by yewtree etc to the total number of celebrities from those eras, we aren't actually dealing with a very high ratio at this point. The most staggering thing in terms of scale has been the number of Saviles victims.



> I'm trying to determine what it is about the culture of Britain at the time that allowed this? There's been talk of it being 'a different time' back then but I'm not sure it was that different with regards to kiddie fiddling? Or maybe it was? I'm trying to determine whether the cover up of it, the missed opportunities to expose it and to bring these people to justice then etc was/is an English disease so to speak or was it something wider in western culture?



To look at it properly from certain angles, we probably need to make a distinction between 'kiddie fiddling' and sexual activity with people who are under the age of consent, but not pre-pubescent.

Full on 'kiddie fiddling' would always have been met with revulsion, but in the past this would have been masked by a failure to talk about the issues in any detail or depth, and a strong emphasis on 'stranger danger' rather than attacks by people the victim knew, abuse of power, celebrity etc. And tabloids would have been far more fixated on attacks where the victims were murdered.

But the idea of sex with school girls who had gone past the point of growing breasts etc was certainly treated very differently in popular culture at the time. There is no shortage of examples, will post again if more detail required, but much of it played perfectly into the smutty titillation of the Carry On variety. Some may argue that this played into some stereotypes about 'repressed englishmen who had innuendo in place of actual nudity etc', but that isn't sufficient for me to make proper comparisons with other developed nations, I can't do that topic justice right now. We've come a long way but this isn't fixed yet either, e.g. that Britney Spears video and some other stuff tends to demonstrate societies that have not fully dealt with some massive contradictions on this front.

Certainly at some points some of the bullshit that came with 'free love', widespread availability of the pill, etc, would have played into things, in the UK and elsewhere, especially before the balance of power was somewhat rebalanced by concepts of equal rights, and what a womans place in society is, should or could be.



> Because I wonder how far all this is gonna go.  Big rock bands around that time weren't exactly saints and they had a lot of underage groupies, will they be classed as being sexually abused? Will any of them come forward now? I guess not but it's not beyond the realms.  It's not as if any of them were as bad as Ian Watkins lately but part of the revulsion of the Watkins case included his sexual contact with 16 year old school girls whereas this was just the norm for bands back in the 60s and 70s.



It's much less likely that groupie-related phenomenon will end up properly under the spotlight. In great part because victims coming forwards now involves factors such as whether victims of unequal power relationships  actually see themselves as victims.

I'd also wonder about the exact extent that such phenomenon have disappeared as attitudes have changed. Stricter corporate and image management, fear of press exposure, backlash due to evolved social attitudes and other factors such as scarier sexually transmitted diseases have probably played a part in making this stuff less rampant. And it's certainly going to be done less blatantly now, not going to get so many people bragging about it in autobiographies for example. But it probably still occurs a fair bit, and I really question whether Ian Watkins would have been brought to justice if he hadn't targeted the babies and young children of fans - he may well have continued to get away with engaging in sexual activity with the young fans themselves.


----------



## Edward Kelly (Jul 1, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> That's catholic church sexual abuse.  I mean celebrities. Does Australia have any former celebrities who are recently uncovered as paedos? What about France? USA? Portugal? and so on. Are they on the same scale as here? If not why not? I'm trying to determine what it is about the culture of Britain at the time that allowed this? There's been talk of it being 'a different time' back then but I'm not sure it was that different with regards to kiddie fiddling? Or maybe it was? I'm trying to determine whether the cover up of it, the missed opportunities to expose it and to bring these people to justice then etc was/is an English disease so to speak or was it something wider in western culture? Because I wonder how far all this is gonna go.  Big rock bands around that time weren't exactly saints and they had a lot of underage groupies, will they be classed as being sexually abused? Will any of them come forward now? I guess not but it's not beyond the realms.  It's not as if any of them were as bad as Ian Watkins lately but part of the revulsion of the Watkins case included his sexual contact with 16 year old school girls whereas this was just the norm for bands back in the 60s and 70s.
> 
> I'm not directing these questions at you specifically, Edward I'm just thinking aloud as it were!


"_Is any of these yew tree arrests and trials in the news abroad?"_
Fair enuff...but this is what I was replying too ...dunno why I put in the wiki link.

As far as celebs. there's not been any in the news  except Rolf H. on the front pages (much the same as the sun and mail over there, same photo too )
No celebs have been pinched at all ...not yet anyway.

_Dr. Carrot_ ... I took out the Wiki link to the RCC, nothing to do with celebs.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 1, 2014)

elbows said:


> The scale of stuff thats been exposed in the UK post-Savile seems to be exaggerated in some peoples minds. In terms of the ratio of famous people questioned by yewtree etc to the total number of celebrities from those eras, we aren't actually dealing with a very high ratio at this point. The most staggering thing in terms of scale has been the number of Saviles victims.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not sure I am very happy with a distinction between "proper kiddie fiddling" and sex with teenagers. There are probably lots of different shades of paedophilia but they are all paediliopha. Cultural mores as to what constitutes paedophilia may have changed, although I'm not sure the opinion of the man and woman in the street will necessarily have changed too much over the last 50 years. I think you'd need a time nachine to check. But yeah I think it's a bit of a dangerous distinction to start making. Seems from Savilke and Harris that opportunity more than preference dictates action in the main. Although not followed the details too closely.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 1, 2014)

8115 said:


> Not sure I am very happy with a distinction between "proper kiddie fiddling" and sex with teenagers. There are probably lots of different shades of paedophilia but they are all paediliopha. Cultural mores as to what constitutes paedophilia may have changed, although I'm not sure the opinion of the man and woman in the street will necessarily have changed too much over the last 50 years. I think you'd need a time nachine to check. But yeah I think it's a bit of a dangerous distinction to start making. Seems from Savilke and Harris that opportunity more than preference dictates action in the main. Although not followed the details too closely.


This is always a dangerous area of discussion, but hey ho.

It is socially unacceptable for people to engage in sexual behaviour with post-pubescent individuals, but - from a biological/physiological point of view - not actually aberrant.

It IS aberrant to find a pre-pubescent individual sexually attractive (which is precisely what paedophilia is, forget your red-top redefinitions), and clearly from there also aberrant AND socially unacceptable to act on that attraction.

There is a distinction. Many might not like the distinction, and it's certainly true that plenty of society is more than happy to elide it, but it exists.

I am not saying that "socially unacceptable" is somehow acceptable, though - there are many reasons, social, psychological and medical, why it shouldn't be open season on any post-pubescent individual, but if we somehow try to shoehorn the idea of someone finding such an individual sexually attractive into the same category as someone finding (say) a five year old attractive, we are creating some very unhealthy parallels. Not least of which is that it would be quite normal to see a post-pubescent person and experience that flicker of attraction, without doing anything about it: if we then try and tell people that such a flicker is, essentially, paedophilia and no less abhorrent than wanting to have sex with a five-year-old, we are creating all kinds of potential for guilt, misunderstanding, confusion, and so on.

In the case of both Savile and Harris, given the ages of some of their victims, there is a clear element of paedophilia operating, though neither seems to have been particularly bothered either way about the ages of their victims. It might even be (perhaps more so in Harris' case) that it wasn't so much paedophile attraction as a shattering lack of selectivity - he saw a body, he grabbed at it.

I know these distinctions seem artificial, especially in the full flood of our social outrage at how someone like this could do what they did, but I think it is important to maintain some kind of perspective, and not fall into the fetid tabloid trap of somehow painting everything in black and white absolutism.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 1, 2014)

8115 said:


> Not sure I am very happy with a distinction between "proper kiddie fiddling" and sex with teenagers. There are probably lots of different shades of paedophilia but they are all paediliopha. Cultural mores as to what constitutes paedophilia may have changed, although I'm not sure the opinion of the man and woman in the street will necessarily have changed too much over the last 50 years. I think you'd need a time nachine to check. But yeah I think it's a bit of a dangerous distinction to start making. Seems from Savilke and Harris that opportunity more than preference dictates action in the main. Although not followed the details too closely.


The age of consent in the UK isn't the age of consent across the world. In many cultures people are married much younger than the UK's age of consent.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 1, 2014)

There's some kind of natural age of ok-ness? Which harks back to when we were hunter gatherers or something? Not sure. My gut instinct is that the overwhelming imperative are the cultural standards of the society and time, if that makes sense.


----------



## elbows (Jul 1, 2014)

8115 said:


> Not sure I am very happy with a distinction between "proper kiddie fiddling" and sex with teenagers. There are probably lots of different shades of paedophilia but they are all paediliopha. Cultural mores as to what constitutes paedophilia may have changed, although I'm not sure the opinion of the man and woman in the street will necessarily have changed too much over the last 50 years. I think you'd need a time nachine to check. But yeah I think it's a bit of a dangerous distinction to start making. Seems from Savilke and Harris that opportunity more than preference dictates action in the main. Although not followed the details too closely.



In what way is it actually dangerous to discuss this distinction? And I can certainly inspect the recorded cultural artefacts in order to establish some stuff, I don't need a time machine for that. And what do I find when I look? Plenty of smutty innuendo that involved school-girls who had gone through puberty, displayed physical signs of this, and were often portrayed as being sexually aware to one extent or another. I find no such smutty innuendo when it comes to pre-pubescent kids. Hence my entire reason for needing to make the distinction when answering questions related to cultural shit of that era.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 1, 2014)

8115 said:


> There's some kind of natural age of ok-ness? Which harks back to when we were hunter gatherers or something? Not sure. My gut instinct is that the overwhelming imperative are the cultural standards of the society and time, if that makes sense.


Yes. Underneath all the social conditioning is the natural development of sexual characteristics - those being the attributes that the majority - the "normal" - part of the species respond to as sexual signs, signals, cues, etc.

Responding - albeit not necessarily acting on - such signs, signals and cues - is not abnormal. Responding - and certainly acting on - the behaviours of a pre-pubescent child most certainly is abnormal.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 2, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Yes. Underneath all the social conditioning is the natural development of sexual characteristics - those being the attributes that the majority - the "normal" - part of the species respond to as sexual signs, signals, cues, etc.
> 
> Responding - albeit not necessarily acting on - such signs, signals and cues - is not abnormal. Responding - and certainly acting on - the behaviours of a pre-pubescent child most certainly is abnormal.


Not a hundred per cent sure that I'd agree with that, apart from obviously yes to the last sentence.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 2, 2014)

Wonder if they compared notes.....


----------



## gabi (Jul 2, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> AFAIK the 73 year old is a former BBC employee, but not a household name.



He's certainly appeared on the beeb thousands of times, and is very definitely a household name. If the twitter rumours are true anyway.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 2, 2014)

gabi said:


> He's certainly appeared on the beeb thousands of times, and is very definitely a household name. If the twitter rumours are true anyway.



Dunno, im only going by a Mirror article that said he wasn't.


----------



## juice_terry (Jul 2, 2014)

gabi said:


> He's certainly appeared on the beeb thousands of times, and is very definitely a household name. If the twitter rumours are true anyway.


Keep trying to guess and haven't got a clue  maybe I'm not following the correct people on twitter


----------



## existentialist (Jul 2, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> -


Careful, now.


----------



## elbows (Jul 2, 2014)

An Australian piece about 'the octopus' which on the face of it seems far more blunt and open about this sort of thing being commonplace in the industry than the UK press tend to be.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/com...-octopus-in-entertainment-20140702-zssnl.html


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 2, 2014)

Interesting reprint of an article with Jimmy Saville from 2010.



> So being awarded a knighthood was a joy and an honour. More interestingly, he says it was also a relief. For the past several years, tabloid journalists have been saying that he must have a serious skeleton in his cupboard, otherwise he would have got a knighthood by now. “Ooh ay, I had a lively couple of years, with the tabloids sniffing about, asking round the corner shops – everything – thinking there must be something the authorities knew that they didn’t. Whereas in actual fact I’ve got to be the most boring geezer in the world because I ain’t got no past. And so, if nothing else, it was a gi-normous relief when I got the knighthood, because it got me off the hook.”
> 
> What he says about tabloid journalists is true. There has been a persistent rumour about him for years, and journalists have often told me as a fact: “Jimmy Savile? Of course, you know he’s into little girls.” But if they know it, why haven’t they published it? The Sun or the News of the World would hardly refuse the chance of featuring a Jimmy Savile sex scandal. It is very, very hard to prove a negative, but the fact that the tabloids have never come up with a scintilla of evidence against Jimmy Savile is as near proof as you can ever get.
> 
> ...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...vile-from-1990-has-a-new-meaning-9571057.html


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 2, 2014)

A lot changes in two years, doesn't it?  He was treated like a hero on death in Leeds, lying in state.

Wonder how the people who won stuff in the auction of his possessions now feel?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19043994


----------



## scalyboy (Jul 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Liitlejohn lives in Florida.


I thought he lived in Cockfosters?  His North London holiday home?


----------



## elbows (Jul 3, 2014)

The Broadmoor shit needs its own investigation beyond Savile.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...hospital-visit-with-jimmy-savile-9576747.html



> Rolf Harris visited Broadmoor Hospital and may have been able to watch female patients undress, an independent investigator who compiled the report into Jimmy Savile’s activities has conceded.
> 
> The West London Mental Health NHS Trust confirmed to _The Independent _that Harris is understood to have visited the hospital in 1973 accompanied by Savile. A spokesperson for the Trust said the disgraced entertainer was escorted by staff at all times and there was no suggestion of inappropriate behaviour or incident during the visit.





> It states: “Until at least the late 1980s, female patients were obliged to strip completely to change into nightwear and to take baths, watched by staff. We conclude that Savile would sometimes attend wards at these times and watch.”





> One ex-patient, Steven George, who attended Broadmoor before undergoing a sex change, claimed Harris turned up one evening “out of the blue” as patients were getting ready for bed – outside of the 10am to 4pm visiting hours.
> 
> George, born Alison Pink, said of the visit: “He was being shown around by Savile in an understated way. Normally stars only came if they were there for an official performance but Harris didn’t do one.
> 
> “It was also unusual because visitors would come at visiting hours, between 10am and 4pm, but they came in as we were getting ready for bed.”


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 3, 2014)

existentialist said:


> <snip>
> It might even be that the only reason we're here where we are in the UK is because Savile was such an egregious case - someone who was almost open about his abuse, but so successful at preventing people from doing anything about it that, when he died, there was a kind of pent-up tidal wave of disclosure that just HAD to emerge. If we hadn't had a Savile, then maybe - chilling as the thought is - the *Eric Halls* and Rolf Harrises of this world would have eventually died, perhaps with a few post-mortem mutterings about some dubious behaviour, but little more than that.



 Monster. But not _that_ kind of monster.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> A lot changes in two years, doesn't it?  He was treated like a hero on death in Leeds, lying in state.
> 
> Wonder how the people who won stuff in the auction of his possessions now feel?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19043994


I think the lying in state was a bit of a last gasp - as I remember, even before that, the ugly stories were beginning to surface. By the time he was there, the beginnings of a societal "Ew" seemed to me to be starting.

There was a bit of a sense that, amongst a small and diminishing group of people, they were going to carry on at least with the process of burying him, as if nothing was wrong. Probably quite understandable - they probably just need to get through that bit. And I don't see any signs of those people saying, now, "Hang on a minute, you've got it all wrong". I expect that even they have recognised in the face of all the evidence (and what they may have suspected, anyway, and perhaps denied to themselves) that this isn't just a bit of a post mortem smear campaign.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 3, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> View attachment 56921 Monster. But not _that_ kind of monster.


Duh. Stuart Hall. No idea what I was thinking, there. I wonder where "Eric" came from.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> I thought he lived in Cockfosters?  His North London holiday home?



Nah, he's lived in Florida for at least the last 10 years.  He spends very little time in the country he professes to love.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2014)

gabi said:


> He's certainly appeared on the beeb thousands of times, and is very definitely a household name. If the twitter rumours are true anyway.


This is the 73yr old who the police say itsn't a household name? Was this the same bloke who whispered in your ear that bowden is bent?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is the 73yr old who the police say itsn't a household name?


i wonder if he'll sing like a canary


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> A lot changes in two years, doesn't it?  He was treated like a hero on death in Leeds, lying in state.
> 
> Wonder how the people who won stuff in the auction of his possessions now feel?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19043994


gutted, or pleased to have a souvenir of a valued friend i suppose.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 3, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> That's catholic church sexual abuse.  I mean celebrities. Does Australia have any former celebrities who are recently uncovered as paedos? What about France? USA? Portugal? and so on. Are they on the same scale as here? If not why not? I'm trying to determine what it is about the culture of Britain at the time that allowed this? There's been talk of it being 'a different time' back then but I'm not sure it was that different with regards to kiddie fiddling? Or maybe it was? I'm trying to determine whether the cover up of it, the missed opportunities to expose it and to bring these people to justice then etc was/is an English disease so to speak or was it something wider in western culture? Because I wonder how far all this is gonna go.  Big rock bands around that time weren't exactly saints and they had a lot of underage groupies, will they be classed as being sexually abused? Will any of them come forward now? I guess not but it's not beyond the realms.  It's not as if any of them were as bad as Ian Watkins lately but part of the revulsion of the Watkins case included his sexual contact with 16 year old school girls whereas this was just the norm for bands back in the 60s and 70s.
> 
> I'm not directing these questions at you specifically, Edward I'm just thinking aloud as it were!


There was a bloke from some 80s TV show (can't remember the name, it wasn't something that I think people outside Oz would know)* convicted earlier this year. I'd say there are probably fewer celebrity cases in the spotlight than there has been in Britain but I don't think that's due to a different culture. More likely because (1) lots of Oz celebrities that made it big in the 60s/70s probably moved to either the UK or the US anyway and (2) while the Saville case got lots of press it didn't really start anything like Yewtree, I can easily believe that there's plenty of abuse yet to be uncovered here.

*EDIT: Robert Hughes, from _Hey Dad...!_


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 4, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> A lot changes in two years, doesn't it?  He was treated like a hero on death in Leeds, lying in state.
> 
> Wonder how the people who won stuff in the auction of his possessions now feel?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19043994



Black comedy eh?



> Nick Beckwith said he was determined to get one of Sir Jimmy's bikes and managed to secure lot 27 - a Falcon 21-gear mountain bike.
> 
> "I just wanted to buy it so one of the bikes would stay in Leeds," said Mr Beckwith, who is from Garforth, in the east of the city.
> 
> "You don't know, with everybody on the internet and on the phone, where they're going to go. _*I will ride it round Roundhay Park, which is where Jimmy rode it and had many hours of fun.*_"


----------



## yardbird (Jul 4, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28163593


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 4, 2014)

yardbird said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28163593


That's quite a lot.  I mean not that he didn't deserve it, but...   Even if he only does half, (and doesn't top himself) there's a very good chance he'll die in prison.  

I do feel for his family. Not as much as those he assaulted, clearly, but... I know his daughter lied, but how could you accept that truth about your own dad? Assuming she'd had a normally happy relationship with him.  Projecting here, but if my dad had been accused of similar by a childhood friend, I'm absolutely certain I'd believe she was lying.  And yeah, I'd lie for him if I thought he was wrongly accused, cos he's my *dad*, ffs.  

And now she has to come to terms with what her dad really is and was.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 4, 2014)

His estate is worth over £10 million, could explain certain behaviour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 4, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> His estate is worth over £10 million, could explain certain behaviour.


That's a very shitty thing to say. Very shitty.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 4, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a very shitty thing to say. Very shitty.


NB It's the lying Bindi who get's an "allowance" from the £10 mil, so if others can sue to receive money from the pot then so be it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 4, 2014)

Fuck me this is a judgemental place sometimes. She's his daughter. Fuck knows what has been going through her head over this. I certainly don't know and neither do you. 

Fuck's sake.


----------



## gabi (Jul 4, 2014)

Well she was in the room while her dad was messing about with her friend. On various occasions. No respect for her.


----------



## elbows (Jul 4, 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...loaded-sexual-images-of-children-9583952.html



> Claims that Rolf Harris browsed websites featuring girls as young as 13 and took notes on how to delete his internet history were never heard by the jury who this week convicted him of 12 counts of indecent assault against children, it can now be reported.
> 
> Prosecutors were due to claim that the 84-year-old entertainer, who will be sentenced later this afternoon, accessed websites with names such as "My little nieces", "Tiny teen girlfriends" and "Russian girlfriends".
> 
> ...


----------



## elbows (Jul 4, 2014)

gabi said:


> Well she was in the room while her dad was messing about with her friend. On various occasions. No respect for her.



I believe its been said she was asleep at the time, so that part can't be held against her. And she did go nuts when she discovered many years later that he'd 'had an affair' with her best friend.


----------



## elbows (Jul 4, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Assuming she'd had a normally happy relationship with him.



By all accounts family life was far more complex than that in the Harris household. But since I am reliant on tabloid shit for info on this, aside from the couple of relevant details that came out in court, I won't be rushing to judge her.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 4, 2014)

The judge told Harris that he only had himself to blame for what has befallen him.

Quite right. if he wanted to get away with paedophile crimes it was his responsibility to get a seat in parliament.


----------



## elbows (Jul 4, 2014)

Regarding Bindi, most of the relevant details are contained in articles like this one:

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...al-laid-bare/story-21309495-detail/story.html


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 4, 2014)

As a side note, Harris hired scumbags Bell Pottinger as PR. The family court walk-in may have been their idea. Thank fuck it didn't work, although Karimovs victims received less justice than those of Harris.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 4, 2014)

There's nuances to stuff like this. Bindi may harbour a massive grudge against her father for shagging her mate but still love him and not want him to go to prison at 83. She's probably got massive cognitive dissonance over it. Saying she's driven solely by financial factors is a tad harsh.

My speculation, for what it's worth.


----------



## Yossarian (Jul 4, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck me this is a judgemental place sometimes. She's his daughter. Fuck knows what has been going through her head over this. I certainly don't know and neither do you.
> 
> Fuck's sake.



None of us know what's in her head, but if anyone had £11 million at stake that they could lose by telling the truth, I'd find it hard to take anything they said at face value.


----------



## elbows (Jul 4, 2014)

Well whether or not she is guilty of such an attitude, the possibility of such already lead to the prosecution having extra ammo with which to ridicule her evidence in court. Her evidence didn't help him, and if as seems likely her head was fucked up in several other ways to do with her relationship with her father throughout her life, this latest turn of events is the rancid icing on a very ugly cake. She is a kind of victim too, even if her interests, words and deeds have sometimes been well out of alignment with, or in opposition to, the rights and hopes of other kinds of victims of Rolf Harris.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 5, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck me this is a judgemental place sometimes. She's his daughter. Fuck knows what has been going through her head over this. I certainly don't know and neither do you.
> 
> Fuck's sake.





Yossarian said:


> None of us know what's in her head, but if anyone had £11 million at stake that they could lose by telling the truth, I'd find it hard to take anything they said at face value.



Having read her email to her dad asking him if she was his sole heir and if he could see to it to sort out his affairs (write a will with her as sole or majority beneficiary) so that there would be no trouble with other relatives after he died...It does look like she was more interested in the £11million than the man himself.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 5, 2014)




----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2014)

oh fuck off


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


>



And you were forwarded this private email why?

Or did you find it on the internet lol?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 5, 2014)

Rolf received a weird email from his daughter attempting to tie up monetary matters and leaked it to the Internet lol.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Having read her email to her dad asking him if she was his sole heir and if he could see to it to sort out his affairs (write a will with her as sole or majority beneficiary) so that there would be no trouble with other relatives after he died...It does look like she was more interested in the £11million than the man himself.


I don't think we can make that judgement.


----------



## maomao (Jul 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Rolf received a weird email from his daughter attempting to tie up monetary matters and leaked it to the Internet lol.


That's an email that was presented as evidence in court.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a very shitty thing to say. Very shitty.



As we saw from the Hall case, it's sometimes a consideration that needs to be made.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 5, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There's nuances to stuff like this. Bindi may harbour a massive grudge against her father for shagging her mate but still love him and not want him to go to prison at 83. She's probably got massive cognitive dissonance over it. Saying she's driven solely by financial factors is a tad harsh.
> 
> My speculation, for what it's worth.


I think that puts it well, but amid the conflicting emotions/stories in her head there must have been a voice getting louder and louder that he really was an abuser.  Don't know when that dawned on her or whether it truly has even now. However whilst I'm sure you are right to point out it's complicated and there are honourable reasons why she didn't abandon him, I'd respect her a lot more if she had.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As we saw from the Hall case, it's sometimes a consideration that needs to be made.


Why do we, here on this bulletin board, need to make that consideration, though? Why are people on here, on this bulletin board, feeling compelled to judge her? She's being put on trial here, but I'm really not sure what the charge is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do we, here on this bulletin board, need to make that consideration, though? Why are people on here, on this bulletin board, feeling compelled to judge her? She's being put on trial here, but I'm really not sure what the charge is.



Don't be so melodramatic.  Few people are accusing her.  Most are attempting to understand the dynamics of the situation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 5, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't be so melodramatic.  Few people are accusing her.  Most are attempting to understand the dynamics of the situation.


There has been a long stream of posts judging her.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 5, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I don't think we can make that judgement.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 5, 2014)

This is the last bit of her email


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 5, 2014)

This is the lock ness monster.






http://


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 5, 2014)

Ps.
I'm not judging her as a person. I'm judging her email....which does seem a bit weird.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm not sure how that email damns Harris' daughter. Just sounds like she is being organised.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 5, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure how that email damns Harris' daughter. Just sounds like she is being organised.


Yep. And if this was presented in court, I'm not really sure why.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Ps.
> I'm not judging her as a person. I'm judging her email....which does seem a bit weird.


"I'm not judging you, just the words you came out with."


----------



## discokermit (Jul 5, 2014)

she's a grasping cunt who's never done a days work in her life and knew that if she did the right thing she would end up having to get a job. so she thought fuck the victims, i'm in it for me.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 5, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure how that email damns Harris' daughter. Just sounds like she is being organised.



She's asking him about her inheritance and to sort his affairs in an email ... she mentions putting his wealth in a trust fund....basically she's trying to make sure the money is untouchable.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2014)

Isn't that just sensible?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Ps.
> I'm not judging her as a person. I'm judging her email....which does seem a bit weird.


And if that's not judging her, what is it?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 5, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Isn't that just sensible?



Why wait til he was being questioned about allegations of sexual abuse?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Why wait til he was being questioned about allegations of sexual abuse?


I would have thought that was obvious.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 5, 2014)

my money! not the victims, mine!


----------



## 1%er (Jul 5, 2014)

I find it interesting that she felt the need to put that in writing to her father, why didn't she just talk to him about her concerns. I have very little knowledge of this case, but as a parent I would wonder why, if my kids felt they needed to write to me about a problem rather than speak to me directly 

Is it a British thing, like talking about money and legacy's is "bad form"


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 5, 2014)

If the child abusing fucker had been prosecuted back in the 1970's then his daughter would not have a huge fortune to worry about. She'd have to have mad her own money by working (or selling her story to the tabloids).

It says a lot that the relatives of the rich are desperate to keep hold of the money accrued by these child abusing fucks ... and none of it is good.
They can sell their stories to the pres s, write books etc. and will make money so I have no time for their money grabbing me me me attitude


on a separate note I find the hypocrisy of the media sickening in regard of these cases compared to others...

a) a group of asian men abusing children is greeted with howls of anger about how the "asian community" needs to sort itself out yet a larger group of all white rich men abusing children brings forth no demands for the rich white folk to sort themselves  out... the white rich men are treated as indivuals rather than a part of a community...but hey, maybe I just have a chip on my shoulder

and 

b) why is marxine carr witch hunted and treated as though she was a child abuser cos she was stupid enough to believe her partner was innocent yet the partners and children of celebrity abusers who support them are treated as victims of his manipulation and lies?


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 5, 2014)

Yardbird, how did Bindi lie? I did not follow the trial in much detail.

Bindi's email contained the line "with my therapist I've been trying to work out why I always feel so confused by all the stuff around money".

and from that I deduce that she had, or was, in the process of talking to her psychotherapist about her complicated family life, childhood and the long-term effects they had on her.

It could be that in the Harris household money was always used as a bribe / silencer.


Who knows what did or would have happened? Her dad's family and home life was a sham, he had little time for Bindi and yet lots of people thought that he was wonderful and how great it must to be to have him as a Dad. One thing we do know is that she put up barriers between herself and her Dad, yet at the same time felt torn and wanted to support him.

She has a very complicated story. As for Alwen...


----------



## Looby (Jul 5, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure how that email damns Harris' daughter. Just sounds like she is being organised.



Yep, looks to me like she feels very insecure about her future.

Is it possible that money has caused problems in the family before, maybe the will has been changed before. 

If Rolf was a bit of a shit to his family as well as being a predatory cunt, I can see why she'd want some clarity. He might be planning to leave it all to the RSPCA. 

There's a situation in my partner's family that could get difficult in the future. It's not about the money but the potential fallout and I wish they would have a bloody conversation about it.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 5, 2014)

1%er said:


> I find it interesting that she felt the need to put that in writing to her father, why didn't she just talk to him about her concerns. I have very little knowledge of this case, but as a parent I would wonder why, if my kids felt they needed to write to me about a problem rather than speak to me directly
> Is it a British thing, like talking about money and legacy's is "bad form"




I'm not sure about "_she felt the need to put that in writing to her father_".

It sounds as though her father was so concerned with himself that he had little time to talk with Bindi. Perhaps years of avoidance and rejection taught her that emails were the only / best way of getting his attention.

_
"as a parent" _Flashing lights go off when I see that. Non-parents can be thoughtful and nurturing, too.

_
Is it a British thing, like talking about money and legacy's is "bad form"._

British cliches: stiff upper lip, flogging at boarding schools, being raped in the showers by Mr Big, all men are closet homos, etc etc

Apart from racial stereotyping, where does Rolf's Australian, artistic past, fit in? ***


** *No need to explain


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 5, 2014)

One minute you're treading the boards of fame and adulation .....

http://www.fakefaces.co.uk/lookalikes.html?lookalike_id=672


----------



## tim (Jul 5, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> b) why is marxine carr witch hunted and treated as though she was a child abuser cos she was stupid enough to believe her partner was innocent yet the partners and children of celebrity abusers who support them are treated as victims of his manipulation and lies?



Well, Carr didn't just  "believe her partner" she lied to give Huntley an alibi for crimes rather worse than the bearded perv's. 'm not convinced ether  deserves that much sympathy. But, perhaps we should ask for nessa239 to comment


----------



## Rural (Jul 5, 2014)

"I wouldn't change the past...it's all been perfect"

What


----------



## tim (Jul 6, 2014)

Rural said:


> "I wouldn't change the past...it's all been perfect"
> 
> What




That's the sort of thing you say when writing a letter about money to a highly-strung parent whose millions you covet.


----------



## Rural (Jul 6, 2014)

tim said:


> That's the sort of thing you say when writing a letter about money to a highly-strung parent whose millions you covet.



Seems a bizarre thing to write after she knew about the acusations of him abusing her BEST FRIEND. Which she seemed to believe b4 the court case.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 6, 2014)

I've had enough of this idle speculation. I'm going to watch the Zapruder film on youtube, in very slo mo, until 2am.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2014)

I think is says alot that Bindi had to email Rolf to bring up these issues in the first place as opposed to talking about it F2F


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2014)

you lot just want someone to blame and hate. isn't the perpetrator of the crimes enough for you?


----------



## yardbird (Jul 6, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> you lot just want someone to blame and hate. isn't the perpetrator of the crimes enough for you?


There are inevitably some peripheral areas to speculate about.
UrbanFox - "Bindi's email contained the line "with my therapist I've been trying to work out why I always feel so confused by all the stuff around money"."
Outside influence?
This sounds like/could be a sentence carefully worded with he aid of another.

I'm not after someone to blame and hate but the dynamics of Rolf's family and his molesting are interesting.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 6, 2014)

I think we are on a hiding to worse than nothing if we start trying to deconstruct Bindi Harris' personality and motives on the strength of a single email. 

TBH, this second-guessing of her motives makes me feel quite uneasy, not least because some of what is being bandied about seems to say more about the person doing the bandying than about Bindi Harris.


----------



## Rural (Jul 6, 2014)

Abuse doesn't occur in a vacuum. Looking at the ppl closest to the abuser is not blaming them. I thought it was quite clear in RH's case that he was abusing on his own, ie not in a group, not with another. This is not attributing guilt to family members, more trying to see the climate around him during & after all this. We can always refuse to look at anything upsetting, but discussion is not a bad thing. Personally I don't believe abusers r monsters & Ihave no wish to "monster" their ffamilies.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 6, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> I'm not sure about .............................


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Were you pissed when you wrote that post


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2014)

yardbird said:


> I'm not after someone to blame and hate but the dynamics of Rolf's family and his molesting are interesting.


You may not be after someone to blame and hate, but you're very clearly after someone (in addition to Harris) to _judge_.

ETA: And the truth is that you know _fuck all_ about the dynamics of Harris's family. But that lack of knowledge isn't preventing you judging them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> "I'm not judging you, just the words you came out with."



To present a narrative - in this case "look at my grasping daughter oppressing a poor innocent old man because of an honest mistake decades ago", possibly.
Remember, courtrooms aren't about what happened, they're about which side tells the best story.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Isn't that just sensible?



In light (as I mentioned earlier) of what Stuart Hall and his family got up to when it became obvious he was going to do time, and be the recipient of a lot of writs for damages, then it might not *appear* to be just sensible, it might appear to be "grasping", or an attempt to secure Harris's money from damages claims.
Obviously, anyone with an ounce of sense realises (as Stuart Hall did not) that "sorting out your financial affairs" in the light of imminent court cases against you, invalidates any arrangements you make, but some people don't realise that.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 6, 2014)

Rolf's website's finally gone...  http://www.rolfharris.com/

On another point of compensation UK law would require a) proof that the claimant was physically in the presence of the defendant at time(s) when the abuse took place and b) that actual provable lasting damage had been incurred in the time from when the abuse occurred to date and compensation would relate to the degree of damage that had taken place. So that for instance Vanessa Feltz has said that he groped her on the TV programme but it would be difficult to argue that any lasting damage had taken place so that cases such as hers would be likely to fail whereas Bindi's friend's case would easily prove long term psychological damage which had profoundly affected her life and a judge would award compensation proportionate to the effect on her life as if she had never been abused and had been deemed to have lived a normal life. There is no element of punitive damages. So those that say there will be plenty of compo chasers coming out of the woodwork are likely misinformed as there will be a high level of proof required before any payment would be made and I would have thought that most of Rolf's supposed £12 million pound wealth will remain intact (assuming it is in investments other than Rolf related material whose value will surely be close to zero!?).

Creepy video


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Rolf's website's finally gone...  http://www.rolfharris.com/
> 
> On another point of compensation UK law would require a) proof that the claimant was physically in the presence of the defendant at time(s) when the abuse took place and b) that actual provable lasting damage had been incurred in the time from when the abuse occurred to date and compensation would relate to the degree of damage that had taken place. So that for instance Vanessa Feltz has said that he groped her on the TV programme but it would be difficult to argue that any lasting damage had taken place so that cases such as hers would be likely to fail whereas Bindi's friend's case would easily prove long term psychological damage which had profoundly affected her life and a judge would award compensation proportionate to the effect on her life as if she had never been abused and had been deemed to have lived a normal life. There is no element of punitive damages. So those that say there will be plenty of compo chasers coming out of the woodwork are likely misinformed as there will be a high level of proof required before any payment would be made and I would have thought that most of Rolf's supposed £12 million pound wealth will remain intact (assuming it is in investments other than Rolf related material whose value will surely be close to zero!?).


from the cache of rolfharrisentertainer.com:





> "You know, when I surf through all the different sections of this site, I can't help thinking just how lucky I've been over the years, and what an amazingly varied career I've been able to enjoy.
> 
> I'm thrilled at continually having been able to find new things to do and new career paths to enjoy, and I'm constantly reminded of my Mum and Dad, who instilled into my brother and me the fact that we could do ANY thing we wanted to do in this life. I'm still constantly looking for new creative things to try. Long may that continue" ...
> 
> Rolf Harris


can't see it now mind except the cached version


----------



## albionism (Jul 7, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Rolf's website's finally gone...  http://www.rolfharris.com/
> 
> On another point of compensation UK law would require a) proof that the claimant was physically in the presence of the defendant at time(s) when the abuse took place and b) that actual provable lasting damage had been incurred in the time from when the abuse occurred to date and compensation would relate to the degree of damage that had taken place. So that for instance Vanessa Feltz has said that he groped her on the TV programme but it would be difficult to argue that any lasting damage had taken place so that cases such as hers would be likely to fail whereas Bindi's friend's case would easily prove long term psychological damage which had profoundly affected her life and a judge would award compensation proportionate to the effect on her life as if she had never been abused and had been deemed to have lived a normal life. There is no element of punitive damages. So those that say there will be plenty of compo chasers coming out of the woodwork are likely misinformed as there will be a high level of proof required before any payment would be made and I would have thought that most of Rolf's supposed £12 million pound wealth will remain intact (assuming it is in investments other than Rolf related material whose value will surely be close to zero!?).
> 
> Creepy video



One is not enjoying One'self @1:11


----------



## albionism (Jul 7, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Rolf's website's finally gone...  http://www.rolfharris.com/
> 
> On another point of compensation UK law would require a) proof that the claimant was physically in the presence of the defendant at time(s) when the abuse took place and b) that actual provable lasting damage had been incurred in the time from when the abuse occurred to date and compensation would relate to the degree of damage that had taken place. So that for instance Vanessa Feltz has said that he groped her on the TV programme but it would be difficult to argue that any lasting damage had taken place so that cases such as hers would be likely to fail whereas Bindi's friend's case would easily prove long term psychological damage which had profoundly affected her life and a judge would award compensation proportionate to the effect on her life as if she had never been abused and had been deemed to have lived a normal life. There is no element of punitive damages. So those that say there will be plenty of compo chasers coming out of the woodwork are likely misinformed as there will be a high level of proof required before any payment would be made and I would have thought that most of Rolf's supposed £12 million pound wealth will remain intact (assuming it is in investments other than Rolf related material whose value will surely be close to zero!?).
> 
> Creepy video



Think that's disturbing? Check this show out. How the very fuck was a show 
like this ever allowed to go on?


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 7, 2014)

albionism said:


> Think that's disturbing? Check this show out. How the very fuck was a show
> like this ever allowed to go on?




Crikey - on national TV as well - unbelievable.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 7, 2014)

This did the rounds on the internet before Harris was outed as arrested - now confirmed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...orboards-by-plumber-40-years-ago-9589111.html


----------



## kenny g (Jul 7, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Crikey - on national TV as well - unbelievable.



What was the show and who was the presenter? I couldn't watch it all the way through.


----------



## elbows (Jul 7, 2014)

kenny g said:


> What was the show and who was the presenter? I couldn't watch it all the way through.



Canadian. Fergie Olver. And would you believe the show was called 'Just Like Mom'.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 7, 2014)

kenny g said:


> What was the show and who was the presenter? I couldn't watch it all the way through.


Me neither. If my toes had curled any more, they'd have been plaiting themselves. Brrrrrr....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 7, 2014)

Read an article about Jimmy Saviles brother Johnny who was also an abuser and rapist....

Investigations are  ongoing..

http://www.swlstg-tr.nhs.uk/news-and-media/news/department-of-health-announcement/


----------



## existentialist (Jul 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Read an article about Jimmy Saviles brother Johnny who was also an abuser and rapist....
> 
> Investigations are  ongoing..
> 
> http://www.swlstg-tr.nhs.uk/news-and-media/news/department-of-health-announcement/


Got to wonder about the family environment that pair grew up in...


----------



## Celyn (Jul 8, 2014)

albionism said:


> Think that's disturbing? Check this show out. How the very fuck was a show
> like this ever allowed to go on?



Wow, that's pretty nasty.   Really surprised that was allowed on air.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

Celyn said:


> Wow, that's pretty nasty.   Really surprised that was allowed on air.


It was a different time. 

In many ways, that's the horror of it - even back then, what Harris was doing was known to be unacceptable. But this kind of thing was mainstream TV and presumably considered quite all right.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> It was a different time.
> 
> In many ways, that's the horror of it - even back then, what Harris was doing was known to be unacceptable. But this kind of thing was mainstream TV and presumably considered quite all right.




My point exactly in the thread on rolf harris..Tellyland back then seems to have been quite a place for anything from groping to rape and everyone was afraid to say or do anything.
I think or I hope that nowadays that things are very different. And I'd like to think that people are less intimidated.....hopefully the culture of silence has been burned to a crisp.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> My point exactly in the thread on rolf harris..Tellyland back then seems to have been quite a place for anything from groping to rape and everyone was afraid to say or do anything.
> I think or I hope that nowadays that things are very different. And I'd like to think that people are less intimidated.....hopefully the culture of silence has been burned to a crisp.


yeh cos whistle blowers are always respected and treated well


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> My point exactly in the thread on rolf harris..Tellyland back then seems to have been quite a place for anything from groping to rape and everyone was afraid to say or do anything.
> I think or I hope that nowadays that things are very different. And I'd like to think that people are less intimidated.....hopefully the culture of silence has been burned to a crisp.


Not by a long chalk, sadly. Nor will it easily happen.

This is going to be a long battle, and one that will never be won: the day before Savile died, there will have been just as many people abusing others as there were back in the 1970s, etc. And the day the revelations about Savile came out, there will *still* have been just as many people abusing others. Perhaps these revelations may have stopped a few, as the realisation dawns that there is a way in which they can be caught (I bet most abusers never seriously thought that, simply by different unconnected victims testifying against them to corroborate their patterns of abuse, a conviction could result), but most will, I suspect, carry on.

The only way that abuse is going to be prevented is by continually sending the message to everyone that it's OK to disclose abuse, and people will listen, and that when someone tells us they're being abused, we *have* to take it seriously. We are still a long way from that - that culture of silence will always be waiting in the wings to rush back in and convince us that ignoring the problem and hoping it'll go away will be a good strategy.

Sexual abuse/assault says something about us that is deeply uncomfortable, and that is the primary reason for the "culture of silence" - everything else stems from there, in my view: we don't like to admit that someone whom we perhaps respect has some very nasty ways, so we are uncomfortable about telling others; they, in their turn, don't like to admit such things either, so they are reluctant to hear. Society, as a whole, doesn't like it either - look how easily we characterise and dehumanise these abusers as "monsters" - so it tends to shy away from confronting an uncomfortable truth.

And if that process is allowed to operate - or if we are not constantly vigilant to ensure that it doesn't - that culture of silence will be, silently, there again before we know it.

The first step is what we're already telling kids (and should be telling adults): "if someone touches you or does something to you that you don't like, TELL SOMEONE".

The next step, which I think we are still struggling with, is to LISTEN when people do tell us stuff. We still have a long way to go, there - let's not start patting ourselves on the back prematurely.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

The message given over here presently to young kids is:

1. Shout NO and draw attention
2. Get away/ run if you can
3. Tell someone you trust

That is in my opinion the best advice any child can be given


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos whistle blowers are always respected and treated well



I believe there are laws in place now to protect whistle blowers.
Hopefully they will do as intended


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I believe there are laws in place now to protect whistle blowers.
> Hopefully they will do as intended


 
ah - bless


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I believe there are laws in place now to protect whistle blowers.
> Hopefully they will do as intended


Your faith in such things is touching.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The message given over here presently to young kids is:
> 
> 1. Shout NO and draw attention
> 2. Get away/ run if you can
> ...


It is very good advice, for a particular set of circumstances, but it looks like advice that is given on the basis of the abuse being the stereotypical "stranger danger" grab'n'grope type of abuse.

That kind of abuse represents only a small minority of the overall problem of sexual abuse against children, most of which is perpetrated in private, by someone known to and/or trusted by the child, and usually after a considerable period of grooming and preparation.


----------



## Rural (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The message given over here presently to young kids is:
> 
> 1. Shout NO and draw attention
> 2. Get away/ run if you can
> ...


This is great if the child is able-bodied, in good health, etc. If they are sick, disabled, in hospital, as many js abused were, this is not always possible. Also if they r in care, or the sort of child who has been labelled troublesome, etc they r less likely to find anyone to believe them. Most abuse is done by family members/friends of family. This advice is helpful in cases of stranger abuse, but a child is often manipulated/groomed long before any physical abuse starts. helping children learn to recognise when someone is manipulating them is harder to do, but I think more helpful.


----------



## Rural (Jul 8, 2014)

[QUOTE"existentialist, post: 13256040, member: 46721"]It is very good advice, for a particular set of circumstances, but it looks like advice that is given on the basis of the abuse being the stereotypical "stranger danger" grab'n'grope type of abuse.

That kind of abuse represents only a small minority of the overall problem of sexual abuse against children, most of which is perpetrated in private, by someone known to and/or trusted by the child, and usually after a considerable period of grooming and preparation.[/QUOTE]
Sorry i said basically what u posted but a few mins later!


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

Rural said:


> Sorry i said basically what u posted but a few mins later!


No, actually, I think you've made a good additional point. Anyone who does any child protection training will know that disabled children are automatically regarded as "children in need" and recognised as being significantly more vulnerable to abuse. So a group of children who are MORE at risk of being abused are being given advice which is LESS applicable to their specific needs.

And I suspect whoever cooks up this self-evident garbage by way of "advice" toddles off on their way, happy that the job is done and that nobody needs to worry any more. Certainly, I would never have believed how much arrant nonsense is out there and presented as TrueFact™ as I do now, having done a fair bit of child protection training - it'd be quite shocking, if it wasn't so boringly commonplace.


----------



## Rural (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> No, actually, I think you've made a good additional point. Anyone who does any child protection training will know that disabled children are automatically regarded as "children in need" and recognised as being significantly more vulnerable to abuse. So a group of children who are MORE at risk of being abused are being given advice which is LESS applicable to their specific needs.
> 
> And I suspect whoever cooks up this self-evident garbage by way of "advice" toddles off on their way, happy that the job is done and that nobody needs to worry any more. Certainly, I would never have believed how much arrant nonsense is out there and presented as TrueFact™ as I do now, having done a fair bit of child protection training - it'd be quite shocking, if it wasn't so boringly commonplace.


Many children just would not have the confidence to start yelling for help. How often r they told to stop making a fuss/exaggerating?  This is the msg chn r given far more than 'make a big fuss if someone does something u don't like'.


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Not by a long chalk, sadly. Nor will it easily happen.
> 
> This is going to be a long battle, and one that will never be won: the day before Savile died, there will have been just as many people abusing others as there were back in the 1970s, etc. And the day the revelations about Savile came out, there will *still* have been just as many people abusing others. Perhaps these revelations may have stopped a few, as the realisation dawns that there is a way in which they can be caught (I bet most abusers never seriously thought that, simply by different unconnected victims testifying against them to corroborate their patterns of abuse, a conviction could result), but most will, I suspect, carry on.
> 
> ...




The grooming scandals come to mind, for many reasons, some unpalatable to the liberal left, these young women were disbelieved, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> The grooming scandals come to mind, for many reasons, some unpalatable to the liberal left, these young women were disbelieved, etc.


and we've seen how sections of the trot left behave


----------



## Favelado (Jul 8, 2014)

albionism said:


> Think that's disturbing? Check this show out. How the very fuck was a show
> like this ever allowed to go on?




Sat here with my mouth wide open at that. What was that show called?

e2a - "Just like Mom".

Horrid.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> The grooming scandals come to mind, for many reasons, some unpalatable to the liberal left, these young women were disbelieved, etc.


I think the debate is cheapened when it is used to make points about political ideology. The truth is that no one political grouping has a monopoly on either sexual abuse, or the moral high ground in relation to it.

But yes - for all that people are talking about some kind of sea change in attitudes, there are plenty of recent examples where th signs were there yet nobody chose to act on them.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> No, actually, I think you've made a good additional point. Anyone who does any child protection training will know that disabled children are automatically regarded as "children in need" and recognised as being significantly more vulnerable to abuse. So a group of children who are MORE at risk of being abused are being given advice which is LESS applicable to their specific needs.
> 
> And I suspect whoever cooks up this self-evident garbage by way of "advice" toddles off on their way, happy that the job is done and that nobody needs to worry any more. Certainly, I would never have believed how much arrant nonsense is out there and presented as TrueFact™ as I do now, having done a fair bit of child protection training - it'd be quite shocking, if it wasn't so boringly commonplace.



Well...I realise you are an expert by your own admission so I will give you that. I actually work very closely with teenagers with disabilities and the training they get is very intensive and covers all asoects of abuse....from familial to stranger. They are brought through a programme provided by educational psychologists that gives them the skills to use the three steps. It makes it very accessible to them. 

But then again I'm in Ireland and there's been a massive input into this training for teachers, care personnel, and young childten and teenagers...particularly those with special needs.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well...I realise you are an expert by your own admission so I will give you that.


There's no need to take that line. What I have been responding to your posts with has been less about expertise and more about generally available information that runs very much counter to your rather broad-brush generalities.


bubblesmcgrath said:


> I actually work very closely with teenagers with disabilities and the training they get is very intensive and covers all asoects of abuse....from familial to stranger. They are brought through a programme provided by educational psychologists that gives them the skills to use the three steps. It makes it very accessible to them.


Well, with all respect due, I hope that the training they are getting is a considerable step up from the stuff you're peddling here, I really do.


bubblesmcgrath said:


> But then again I'm in Ireland and there's been a massive input into this training for teachers, care personnel, and young childten and teenagers...particularly those with special needs.


Sure. I have seen a similarly massive input into training on child protection here in Wales. Quite a lot of it has been total and utter guff - "massive input" is, sadly, not an indicator of quality, only quantity.


----------



## Rural (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well...I realise you are an expert by your owndisabilitiet. I actually work very closely with teenagers with disabilities and the training they get is very intensive and covers all asoects of abuse....from familial to stranger. They are brought through a programme provided by educational psychologists that gives them the skills to use the three steps. It makes it very accessible to them.
> 
> But then again I'm in Ireland and there's been a massive input into this training for teachers, care personnel, and young childten and teenagers...particularly those with special needs.


Scandals like Winterbourne View show the awful state of residential care for young ppl with learning disabilities & physical disabilities in england. If the model adopted in ireland is working id hope they would adopt a similar thing in eng. The length of time the abuse continued, the amount of ppl who knew & did nothing, the way the survivors were either not believed or were unable to tell anyone what was happening...not much has changed in the last 50+ years by the look of it.


----------



## Rural (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> There's no need to take that line. What I have been responding to your posts with has been less about expertise and more about generally available information that runs very much counter to your rather broad-brush generalities.
> 
> Well, with all respect due, I hope that the training they are getting is a considerable step up from the stuff you're peddling here, I really do.
> 
> Sure. I have seen a similarly massive input into training on child protection here in Wales. Quite a lot of it has been total and utter guff - "massive input" is, sadly, not an indicator of quality, only quantity.


Like all pub sector services, it's all about cost. With the cuts, schemes such as improving care for chn in res care will always fall short. All councillors seem eager to let u know is that they're keeping ur council tax down, so obv they think most voters r more enthusiastic about that rather than keeping vulnerable chn safe in their local area.
me


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Sat here with my mouth wide open at that. What was that show called?
> 
> e2a - "Just like Mom".
> 
> Horrid.




its come up long time ago on here and around the net, before savillrey and paedogeddon in general.

at the time there was some context pointed out, but its hard to see what context it might have been. Possibly snopes might know.


----------



## Rural (Jul 8, 2014)

I read that the show was fronted by a husband & wife team :/

But this is common irl. How many kids r forced to kiss relatives when they obv dont want to. Parents/everyone else stands around laughing at what is perceived to be the child's "coyness". The child is then embarrassed/shamed into kissing.  No weight is given to the child's feelings/instinct.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

Rural said:


> I read that the show was fronted by a husband & wife team :/
> 
> But this is common irl. How many kids r forced to kiss relatives when they obv dont want to. Parents/everyone else stands around laughing at what is perceived to be the child's "coyness". The child is then embarrassed/shamed into kissing.  No weight is given to the child's feelings/instinct.


And then we wonder why they don't thump someone trying to abuse them, or "loudly say 'NO'"...


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well...I realise you are an expert by your own admission so I will give you that. I actually work very closely with teenagers with disabilities and the training they get is very intensive and covers all asoects of abuse....from familial to stranger. They are brought through a programme provided by educational psychologists that gives them the skills to use the three steps. It makes it very accessible to them.
> 
> But then again I'm in Ireland and there's been a massive input into this training for teachers, care personnel, and young childten and teenagers...particularly those with special needs.



I think it's a grave mistake to view a child's capacity to say no to an abusing adult as a _skill. _


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> The grooming scandals come to mind, for many reasons, some unpalatable to the liberal left, these young women were disbelieved, etc.




Its not that nobody believed them, its that Savile knew serious people, whom he could have brought into it, if ever brought to justice. When interviewed he just kept taking about the Royal family apparently. This is the guy who was given the keys to Broadmoor, the run of dozens of children's homes etc, for 40 years a pimp of children, his connections went from the Royal paedophile Lord Mountbatten to dozens of establishment figures.

Savile was a very clever man, the file was sent to the DPP who refused to take it further. Savile protected himself by having powerful allies.

Whos idea was it to give him the keys of Broadmoor, ffs ?


----------



## elbows (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I think the debate is cheapened when it is used to make points about political ideology. The truth is that no one political grouping has a monopoly on either sexual abuse, or the moral high ground in relation to it.
> 
> But yes - for all that people are talking about some kind of sea change in attitudes, there are plenty of recent examples where th signs were there yet nobody chose to act on them.



I'll have a quick stab at which attitudes have changed and which haven't.

Towards touching people at work etc has certainly changed.
Towards women have changed, as have the things that women have been forced to take on the chin.
Towards large institutions have changed, with some types of institution pretty much eradicated or at least massively downsized.
Towards airing suspicions about prominent members of society have changed, though the law is no better in many ways (e.g. libel) and in some ways worse.
Towards publicly lusting over older schoolgirls, making jokes about it in cheap comedies etc have shifted, but not been entirely eliminated.
Towards sex crimes in general, there is more outrage expressed these days, and the stereotypical classic idea of uptight brits being unable to talk about sex is increasingly obsolete.

Towards giving those we actually know the benefit of the doubt have probably not changed much.
Towards risking your own career, finances, health, etc in order to blow the whistle or stand up against wrongdoing in the workplace and elsewhere, as a matter of course, has not changed anywhere near enough.
Other power shit has not changed that much, and in some ways is going backwards in recent decades.

Towards the youth in society, how much respect, space and power we give them, how much they are demonised and marginalised, and the detail of the phases they go through with their peers a they reach various milestones in life is a mixed bag. The internet makes a bloody big difference in numerous different ways, both good and bad.

How much help, respect and belief we give to victims who come forward has certainly evolved. At a minimum there is at least the need to pay a lot of lip service to these concepts now, and sometimes the actual reality will live up to the stated aims, but its clear it still falls down all over the place for numerous reasons.

There are others but that will do for now.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 8, 2014)

Prophetic Not the Nine O'Clock sketch on Harris.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I think it's a grave mistake to view a child's capacity to say no to an abusing adult as a _skill. _



I didn't say that saying no was a skill. I said the programme implemented over here gave
the teenagers I was speaking of skills to USE the steps...(as in personal, social and communication skills)

The programme run by psychologists, teachers and carers is aimed at prevention but also at disclosure and counselling. It coordinates with health service, child care and social workers. There are direct referrals to child care personnel and the gardai.

It's a huge step in the right direction in actively trying to prevent and or interrupt/stop abuse ... it covers sexual, emotional, physical abuse and neglect.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I didn't say that saying no was a skill. I said the programme implemented over here gave
> the teenagers I was speaking of skills to USE the steps...(as in personal, social and communication skills)
> 
> The programme run by psychologists, teachers and carers is aimed at prevention but also at disclosure and counselling. It coordinates with health service, child care and social workers. There are direct referrals to child care personnel and the gardai.
> ...



You have a way of writing that reads like you've taken your information from the back of a cereal packet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You have a way of writing that reads like you've taken your information from the back of a cereal packet.


or the back of the sun


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You have a way of writing that reads like you've taken your information from the back of a cereal packet.




Wow....
Considering you misquoted and misunderstood my post....I think you're none to dole out criticism of writing style.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> or the back of the sun



Dont read it..... do you?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 8, 2014)

No, the actual sun


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Wow....
> Considering you misquoted and misunderstood my post....I think you're none to dole out criticism of writing style.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Wow....
> Considering you misquoted and misunderstood my post....I think you're none to dole out criticism of writing style.


You're having a lot of trouble with being misunderstood.

If it is that you *are* being misunderstood - by me, and, it seems, by others - then perhaps it's not the fault of those apparently misunderstanding you...?

This is a subtle and nuanced subject area. You're making some bold and categorical pronouncements, which seem to be being challenged by quite a few people. Perhaps you might think why that might be.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> You're having a lot of trouble with being misunderstood.
> 
> If it is that you *are* being misunderstood - by me, and, it seems, by others - then perhaps it's not the fault of those apparently misunderstanding you...?
> 
> This is a subtle and nuanced subject area. You're making some bold and categorical pronouncements, which seem to be being challenged by quite a few people. Perhaps you might think why that might be.


_trans_: you're talking shit


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Wow....
> Considering you misquoted and misunderstood my post....I think you're none to dole out criticism of writing style.



I did no such thing. And I don't think it's just you, I think there's a whole industry of skills selling that needs debunking, it's exploitative and reduces the complexities of human relationships to a learned behaviour or some other sellable unit. 

However, that's not to say that I think the programme you speak of has no value.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> _trans_: you're talking shit


I was *much* more polite than that!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> You're having a lot of trouble with being misunderstood.
> 
> If it is that you *are* being misunderstood - by me, and, it seems, by others - then perhaps it's not the fault of those apparently misunderstanding you...?
> 
> This is a subtle and nuanced subject area. You're making some bold and categorical pronouncements, which seem to be being challenged by quite a few people. Perhaps you might think why that might be.



I described a programme for teenagers with learning difficulties that has been designed and implemented by psychologists.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I did no such thing. And I don't think it's just you, I think there's a whole industry of skills selling that needs debunking, it's exploitative and reduces the complexities of human relationships to a learned behaviour or some other sellable unit.
> 
> However, that's not to say that I think the programme you speak of has no value.


The problem with a lot of these programmes is that they're basically someone selling an agenda to a frequently uncritical and rather desperate marketplace. All too often, the primary criterion is price (well, actually, it's "is it free?") and quality or coherence come a long way down the list. I know, because I've been asked to deliver similar kinds of programme, and nobody's interested whether what you're touting is validated or in any way backed up by research or theory. And I have sat in on some truly appalling presentations, usually delivered by someone whose job isn't to deliver training (and boy, does it show), passing on some half-understood guff they picked up, Chinese whispers-style, presumably from some equally incompetent type who also read it off a 9 point Powerpoint slide.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I described a programme for teenagers with learning difficulties that has been designed and implemented by psychologists.


The point isn't what you described - it's the fact that you seem to be having trouble with people misunderstanding you. I am inviting you to consider what it might be about the way you're putting things across that is making that so easy to do...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

It's a programme that is very much based around relationship, sexuality, respect, legal advice, counselling....it's not a one size fits all at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> The point isn't what you described - it's the fact that you seem to be having trouble with people misunderstanding you. I am inviting you to consider what it might be about the way you're putting things across that is making that so easy to do...


_trans:_ engage brain before posting


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's a programme that is very much based around relationship, sexuality, respect, legal advice, counselling....it's not a one size fits all at all.


It sounds very impressive - have you got a pointer to it somewhere on the Web?

As a counsellor, I am always interested to see areas in which counselling is being integrated into a multi-disciplinary approach. It doesn't happen often enough, in my experience, so any good examples of best practice are great to see.

I'm also slightly at a loss as to where this "one size fits all" thing comes from - has anyone suggested this programme *is* a "one size fits all" one?

Can you see how the confusion might be arising?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> The problem with a lot of these programmes is that they're basically someone selling an agenda to a frequently uncritical and rather desperate marketplace. All too often, the primary criterion is price (well, actually, it's "is it free?") and quality or coherence come a long way down the list. I know, because I've been asked to deliver similar kinds of programme, and nobody's interested whether what you're touting is validated or in any way backed up by research or theory. And I have sat in on some truly appalling presentations, usually delivered by someone whose job isn't to deliver training (and boy, does it show), passing on some half-understood guff they picked up, Chinese whispers-style, presumably from some equally incompetent type who also read it off a 9 point Powerpoint slide.




It's not a power point presentation. 
Why are you so adamant that you think you know what's being implemented?  It's a free programme that helps individuals ans groups. Coordinates all agencies involved and allows for very prompt action if required.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's not a power point presentation.
> Why are you so adamant that you think you know what's being implemented?  It's a free programme that helps individuals ans groups. Coordinates all agencies involved and allows for very prompt action if required.


pls link to this wondrous thing.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 8, 2014)

I'm assuming it's this: 

http://www.staysafe.ie/index.htm


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's not a power point presentation.
> Why are you so adamant that you think you know what's being implemented?  It's a free programme that helps individuals ans groups. Coordinates all agencies involved and allows for very prompt action if required.


Well, I am not "adamant" that I think I know what's being implemented.

I am drawing conclusions about it on the basis of a) my own experience of the implementation of such programmes, b) the apparent cluelessness you - someone presumably familiar with this programme - displays regarding the most fundamental aspects of child protection, and c) the complete absence of any reference to what this programme actually is.

I am happy to be disproved.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I'm assuming it's this:
> 
> http://www.staysafe.ie/index.htm


...and d) the fact that the fucking website is in COMIC FUCKING SANS


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I'm assuming it's this:
> 
> http://www.staysafe.ie/index.htm


If it is that, it's basically Child Protection 101. It's the stuff I'd teach in the first morning of a 2-day CP training. Nothing wrong with it, but not particularly groundbreaking, though TBF we don't know if this is what bubblesmcgrath is talking about...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

No it's not the stay safe programme although it does use some of it. It is a programme on relationships and sexuality which has been implemented by psychologists in a special educational setting. Because it deals with helping individuals it has a very personal slant. Group sessions are given by psychologists. I'm not a psychologist. But existentialist if you are one you'll have access to similar programmes over there.


----------



## Rural (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> The problem with a lot of these programmes is that they're basically someone selling an agenda to a frequently uncritical and rather desperate marketplace. All too often, the primary criterion is price (well, actually, it's "is it free?") and quality or coherence come a long way down the list. I know, because I've been asked to deliver similar kinds of programme, and nobody's interested whether what you're touting is validated or in any way backed up by research or theory. And I have sat in on some truly appalling presentations, usually delivered by someone whose job isn't to deliver training (and boy, does it show), passing on some half-understood guff they picked up, Chinese whispers-style, presumably from some equally incompetent type who also read it off a 9 point Powerpoint slide.


Imo a lot of the problem with training,  including child protection training, is that it doesn't attract funding.  It's not "sexy", private sector businesses do not want to associate with it. So it's often low quality.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> ...and d) the fact that the fucking website is in COMIC FUCKING SANS




Is that important to you?
As a counsellor do you feel that the message is in some way inferior because it's not written the way you like?
Or do you think it should be a Flash website?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Is that important to you?
> As a counsellor do you feel that the message is in some way inferior because it's not written the way you like?
> Or do you think it should be a Flash website?


no one who wants to be taken seriously uses comic sans


----------



## Rural (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Is that important to you?
> As a counsellor do you feel that the message is in some way inferior because it's not written the way you like?
> Or do you think it should be a Flash website?


 I remember when conic sans was my absolute favourite font.  I would have used it for everything given the chance.  Suppose that shows my age :/


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No it's not the stay safe programme although it does use some of it. It is a programme on relationships and sexuality which has been implemented by psychologists in a special educational setting. Because it deals with helping individuals it has a very personal slant. Group sessions are given by psychologists. I'm not a psychologist. But existentialist if you are one you'll have access to similar programmes over there.


I am not a psychologist; I am a counsellor. We are very different beasts. But I am interested in what this programme is - you are talking it up very nicely, but it seems to me that you're being quite coy about its name, who developed it, etc.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Is that important to you?
> As a counsellor do you feel that the message is in some way inferior because it's not written the way you like?
> Or do you think it should be a Flash website?


Don't be a tit. For a start, my comment was lighthearted (you can probably tell by the  at the end of it). Secondly - as someone else has pointed out - serious stuff doesn't tend to end up being printed in Comic Sans over primary colour backgrounds. Given the bigging up you were giving this programme, it would have been a bit incongruous if that website had been it.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I am not a psychologist; I am a counsellor. We are very different beasts. But I am interested in what this programme is - you are talking it up very nicely, but it seems to me that you're being quite coy about its name, who developed it, etc.



I'll pm you the name of a contact in the HSE


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Don't be a tit. For a start, my comment was lighthearted (you can probably tell by the  at the end of it). Secondly - as someone else has pointed out - serious stuff doesn't tend to end up being printed in Comic Sans over primary colour backgrounds. Given the bigging up you were giving this programme, it would have been a bit incongruous if that website had been it.



Ah..I'm a tit now.
Forget it.
Go ask one of the psychologists you work with to source it.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Ah..I'm a tit now.
> Forget it.
> Go ask one of the psychologists you work with to source it.


I'll tell you how you come across to me.

You are someone who is happy to blunder around the place making sweeping - and inaccurate - statements. When you're challenged, you resort instantly to outraged huffing and puffing, and insisting that you're being "misunderstood". When someone tries to get to the bottom of your misunderstanding, for example by inviting you to provide a little backup to your increasingly insistent vague claims, you find something else to get "offended" by, all the time chucking out a few jibes here and there.

This is not the behaviour of someone who is interested in debating a serious topic in a sensible and mature way. It is the behaviour of someone who expects to pull stuff out of their arse and post it without anyone daring to suggest that it isn't true, accurate, or valid. You are posting on a very serious thread about a very serious subject, and it isn't acceptable that you should be able to post the kind of nonsense you have done without someone challenging it.

I think that it is, er, interesting that you have responded to my perfectly reasonable request to give a few more facts about this programme which supposedly validates your idiotic views on this thread by being rude and choosing to be outraged because I called you "a tit". Personally, my suspicion is that either this programme doesn't actually exist, or that it is as bollocks as the garbage you've been posting here, and you know it. So you blow smoke by getting all huffy about it rather than actually admit it.

And now I am going to stop wasting my time and derailing this thread by responding to you on it. With any luck, this derail will wither and die and we can get back to what the thread's done so well up until now.


----------



## Rural (Jul 8, 2014)

I can't imagine the sort of programme that would've got thru to me as a child/teenager.  I was so convinced I knew more than any adult. The kids I know now r just the same. The politer ones treat u with a sort of amused tolerance if u show any signs of being concerned for their safety.  I think an individually tailored programme is a very useful idea but the amount of work put in to such an undertaking would b massive.  Inter-agency cooperation is better in some areas than others too.  And of course if the head of child protection/social services is a paedophile (as has been the case in areas of the Yew Tree enquiry) well it would b doomed from the start.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I'll tell you how you come across to me.
> W
> You are someone who is happy to blunder around the place making sweeping - and inaccurate - statements. When you're challenged, you resort instantly to outraged huffing and puffing, and insisting that you're being "misunderstood". When someone tries to get to the bottom of your misunderstanding, for example by inviting you to provide a little backup to your increasingly insistent vague claims, you find something else to get "offended" by, all the time chucking out a few jibes here and there.
> 
> ...




And you come across as someone who is a foremost authority on psychology. What exactly are your qualifications?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> And you come across as someone who is a foremost authority on psychology. What exactly are your qualifications?


I have a bachelor's degree in integrative counselling, a post-qualification diploma in counselling children and young people, and seven years' experience as a counsellor in mainstream school and PRU. I'm also an NSPCC-qualified trainer in child protection, and the course director on the counselling Certificate course for a local training establishment, where I also serve as their Designated Child Protection Officer. 

Apart from that, I am completely unqualified.


----------



## laptop (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What exactly are your qualifications?



This is in response to the request that you mention a little bit about *your* experience?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

[QUOTE="existentialist, post: 13257925, member: 46721"

Apart from that, I am completely unqualified.[/QUOTE]

Just as  I thought ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Just as  I thought ...


Don't.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> existentialist said:
> 
> 
> > Apart from that, I am completely unqualified.
> ...



Oh come on, existentialist made it quite clear he isn't a psychologist. Very clear in fact. He is however an extremely experienced counsellor. You're quoting him out of context deliberately.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 8, 2014)

laptop said:


> This is in response to the request that you mention a little bit about *your* experience?



Existentialist did not ask about my experience. Indeed he wasn't interested in my experiences. He was extremely critical of them....even my personal experience of abuse.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Existentialist did not ask about my experience. Indeed he wasn't interested in my experiences. He was extremely critical of them....even my personal experience of abuse.


That is not true, for example in the last page you have been repeatedly invited to talk more and link to this programme you keep talking about.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Oh come on, existentialist made it quite clear he isn't a psychologist. Very clear in fact. He is however an extremely experienced counsellor. You're quoting him out of context deliberately.



An experienced counsellor telling me my response to personal abuse was wrong ....is not the response of a counsellor. 
I spoke about how I reacted and how I would react. I was told that I was wrong.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> An experienced counsellor telling me my response to personal abuse was wrong ....is not the response of a counsellor.
> I spoke about how I reacted and how I would react. I was told that I was wrong.


No, you spoke in generalities about how EVERYONE would react. You were politely reminded that not everyone reacts in the same way.


----------



## laptop (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> An experienced counsellor telling me my response to personal abuse was wrong ....is not the response of a counsellor.
> I spoke about how I reacted and how I would react. I was told that I was wrong.



{_Psst!_ This, here, is not counselling.}


----------



## existentialist (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> An experienced counsellor telling me my response to personal abuse was wrong ....is not the response of a counsellor.
> I spoke about how I reacted and how I would react. I was told that I was wrong.


That is rubbish. 

Also, unless you are paying me to counsel you, I am not your counsellor, and I can behave exactly as I wish - I am under no obligation to you.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> That is not true, for example in the last page you have been repeatedly invited to talk more and link to this programme you keep talking about.



I gave as much as I could. It's run by educational psychologists working in special ed . I offered to pm him a contact psychologist in the HSE here.. but he decided to analyse my personality and that's really pissed me off so fuck him and his shite


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I gave as much as I could. It's run by educational psychologists working in special ed . I offered to pm him a contact psychologist in the HSE here.. but he decided to analyse my personality and that's really pissed me off so fuck him and his shite


Oh grow up. You behave exactly the same way in every serious discussion you get involved in. You don't like it when we don't hang on your every word. His comments on you have been pretty accurate from what I have seen of your 'debating' style.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 9, 2014)

To move this discussion back on track, one thing that concerns me is the disclosure system (CRB or whatever it's called these days) - so many people are abusing but haven't been prosecuted, so their disclosure check/review comes back clean. Now I know no system will be perfect and catch everybody but can this system be improved? What else can be put in place?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 9, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> To move this discussion back on track, one thing that concerns me is the disclosure system (CRB or whatever it's called these days) - so many people are abusing but haven't been prosecuted, so their disclosure check/review comes back clean. Now I know no system will be perfect and catch everybody but can this system be improved? What else can be put in place?



DBS nowadays, and the Police can disclose information if they believe its relevant even if someone hasn't been convicted - for example if a number of allegations which haven't gone further have been made against an individual.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 9, 2014)

Belushi said:


> DBS nowadays, and the Police can disclose information if they believe its relevant even if someone hasn't been convicted - for example if a number of allegations which haven't gone further have been made against an individual.


Do you think that's enough though?

Look at all the allegations that were made about Savile that the police sat on or ignored - or were told to ignore. How do we know the same won't happen again?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 9, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Do you think that's enough though?
> 
> Look at all the allegations that were made about Savile that the police sat on or ignored - or were told to ignore. How do we know the same won't happen again?



Not at all. There's all kinds of problems with dbs checks - too many people who don't need them are asked for them, they take too long, there are no centralised records and therefore no consistency in what's disclosed, and the Saville case and others show that predators with influence have just been protected anyway.  And of course most offences aren't reported in the first place.


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Do you think that's enough though?
> 
> Look at all the allegations that were made about Savile that the police sat on or ignored - or were told to ignore. How do we know the same won't happen again?


I don't think we can ever know this won't happen again.  Ok maybe djs won't b given the keys to Broadmoor any more but abusers r adaptable & find ways of gaining access to what they want.  The law is always a few steps behind.  When it's bothering to tackle the issue. I think abuse is just so massively widespread,  even the huge scale of Saville, Yew Tree etc is just the tip of the iceberg.  I believe abuse is the norm, in this society,  maybe in all of them,  Idk.  That's a sweeping statement I know but I'm simply basing it on the fact that many more of my friends,  now & throughout my life, have been abused than haven't. I struggle to think of many who haven't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2014)

Belushi said:


> DBS nowadays, and the Police can disclose information if they believe its relevant even if someone hasn't been convicted - for example if a number of allegations which haven't gone further have been made against an individual.


That's a fucking disgrace. If you'd told me 20 years ago that this was going to happen, I would have found it hard to believe.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Not at all. There's all kinds of problems with dbs checks - too many people who don't need them are asked for them, they take too long, there are no centralised records and therefore no consistency in what's disclosed, and the Saville case and others show that predators with influence have just been protected anyway.  And of course most offences aren't reported in the first place.


A lot of good people are prevented from doing good things by these checks.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A lot of good people are prevented from doing good things by these checks.



The guidance isn't very clear and organisations often think 'better safe than sorry' and ask for checks for roles which really don't need them ime.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

existentialist said:


> The only way that abuse is going to be prevented is by continually sending the message to everyone that it's OK to disclose abuse, and people will listen, and that when someone tells us they're being abused, we *have* to take it seriously. We are still a long way from that -
> 
> The first step is what we're already telling kids (and should be telling adults): "if someone touches you or does something to you that you don't like, TELL SOMEONE".
> 
> The next step, which I think we are still struggling with, is to LISTEN when people do tell us stuff. We still have a long way to go, there - let's not start patting ourselves on the back prematurely.



You speak as a counsellor who deals with the aftermath of abuse...that is your training ... 
I operate as an educationalist working from both a position of  prevention and child protection..... prevention in the form of education using a method that attempts to prevent a potentially abusive situation from progressing to actualisation.

You state above that the only way to prevent abuse is to get the message across that it's ok to tell about abuse.  I am operating from a position of discussing a method that attempts to prevent it from happening in the first place.
I'm not saying this is a perfect system....and I'm sure you'll acknowledge that counselling is not always successful either. .. but both are big step forward from a time when kids were told to be quiet and had no clue about abuse or how to deal with the possibility of abuse. 

The past few years have brought huge changes.  It is important for children to know what they can do if they feel they are about to be abused. It is important that they have an awareness of situations that could  become abusive . It is important that they understand that the majority of abusers are known to the victim. It is impirtant that they think about the various people in their lives whom they can trust.  
From a position of prevention the three step method is good....and that's not me talking. That's the view of experts in the area....including psychologists.


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

Bubblesmcgrath, post: 13258027
"From a position of prevention the three step method is good...."

I know its probably too complex to summarise the whole programme here but could u pls give an idea what the 3 steps are? Id b really interested to know.

Edited 2 remove the huge quote i somehow managed to add in error!


----------



## existentialist (Jul 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a fucking disgrace. If you'd told me 20 years ago that this was going to happen, I would have found it hard to believe.


I think that's only the case for enhanced disclosures, which form the minority of DBS disclosures.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You speak as a counsellor who deals with the aftermath of abuse...that is your training ...
> I operate as an educationalist working from both a position of  prevention and child protection..... prevention in the form of education using a method that attempts to prevent a potentially abusive situation from progressing to actualisation.
> 
> You state above that the only way to prevent abuse is to get the message across that it's ok to tell about abuse.  I am operating from a position of discussing a method that attempts to prevent it from happening in the first place.
> ...


I said earlier on that I was not going to derail the thread any more. Having seen the way you were posting last night, I have no desire to see that performance repeated, so you are going to have to find the answers to your questions elsewhere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I said earlier on that I was not going to derail the thread any more. Having seen the way you were posting last night, I have no desire to see that performance repeated, so you are going to have to find the answers to your questions elsewhere.


there are no questions in the post you quote


----------



## existentialist (Jul 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> thete are no wuestions in the post you quote


There were rather a lot of questions in the run up to it, though - I just happened to pick up that post to reply to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2014)

existentialist said:


> There were rather a lot of questions in the run up to it, though - I just happened to pick up that post to reply to.


the biggest q is, of course, why does bubbles bother.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the biggest q is, of course, why does bubbles bother.


Lots of us want to be seen as clever and knowledgeable. The trick, I find, is to be clever enough to stick to pontificating on topics on which we ARE knowledgeable.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You speak as a counsellor who deals with the aftermath of abuse...that is your training ...
> I operate as an educationalist working from both a position of  prevention and child protection..... prevention in the form of education using a method that attempts to prevent a potentially abusive situation from progressing to actualisation.
> 
> You state above that the only way to prevent abuse is to get the message across that it's ok to tell about abuse.  I am operating from a position of discussing a method that attempts to prevent it from happening in the first place.
> ...



You have an extraordinary reverence for psychologists!

There is the programme I linked to (I've no idea how many there are) that includes the 3 steps you talked about. If you're saying that it, or something similar, is used as a basis for a bespoke training for your school, then why not just say it? People don't believe you know what you're talking about because you can't or don't say that.

It may well be that a programme like this is a step forward. I don't have a problem with comic sans used as a font for a website aimed at schools or thoughtful programmes that raise awareness. But I do think the limits of such a programme need to be acknowledged, the limits of _any_ educational programme. The head fuck that it is when the person you trust and love is the same person who is doing the abusing is not something that can be solved by _learning._


----------



## existentialist (Jul 9, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You have an extraordinary reverence for psychologists!


This is not uncommon amongst educationalists. One of the things that I found most surprising when I started doing this work was the almost religious belief in behaviouralism that exists in the education establishment - pretty much everything is predicated on reward/punishment, for example.

And it's not that the people working in this field are narrow-minded: many (probably most) of them, when introduced to, for example, some of the Adlerian ideas about child development and core developmental needs are quite astonished by the "fit" between the theory and their own experiences of life, let alone that of the children they work with.

It's the same with child protection - the whole thing is reductively condensed down to soundbite instructions to kids on what to *do*, regardless of their practicality. Very little is talked about *feelings*, which is usually the first clue for most of us that something is wrong: instead, these prescriptive approaches tend to say "if this happens, then do that". Which actually makes them more at risk of abuse, because all any abuser has to do to foil the system is make sure that "this" doesn't happen, or at least not in the same way the child has been told to recognise it.



Red Cat said:


> There is the programme I linked to (I've no idea how many there are) that includes the 3 steps you talked about. If you're saying that it, or something similar, is used as a basis for a bespoke training for your school, then why not just say it? People don't believe you know what you're talking about because you can't or don't say that.


One of the comments bubblesetc. made that stuck out for me was something about "using some of" that programme you linked to. That programme, as I said, is so much of a basic, core part of child protection that it would be impossible for any child protection strategy NOT to be based on it. All of it - there's simply nothing you could really leave out. The problem with that strategy, apart from its reductiveness, is simply that it is far too basic and simplistic, and doesn't go nearly far enough.



Red Cat said:


> It may well be that a programme like this is a step forward. I don't have a problem with comic sans used as a font for a website aimed at schools or thoughtful programmes that raise awareness.


Well, yes, I was taking the piss a bit with the Comic Sans thing, though it has become something of a cliche in educational materials!



Red Cat said:


> But I do think the limits of such a programme need to be acknowledged, the limits of _any_ educational programme. The head fuck that it is when the person you trust and love is the same person who is doing the abusing is not something that can be solved by _learning._


I couldn't agree more. We have to come at it from a different direction: you only have to see how so many people - and not just children - were tricked and conned by the likes of Savile and Harris to see that a prescriptive model simply isn't going to work.

I think, though, that bubbles' coyness on the nature of the approach she's claiming in support of her views is telling. If it is an approach with any validity whatsoever, it will be likely to be based on referenced sources and have some kind of academic credibility. When I'm told that such-and-such psychologist will tell me all about it (information which, conveniently, was then suddenly withheld), I suspect we're looking at exactly one of these schemes that someone's cooked up by themselves, not really bothered to validate, and shoved out to schools or wherever. And because, as another poster pointed out, this kind of training isn't "sexy" or remunerative, it often ends up being the case that shoddy, amateurish - and, quite frankly, dangerous - nonsense like that ends up being the only game in town.

We talk a lot of talk - especially at the moment - about protecting children from abuse. We express outrage at what has happened, and how it could happen. But, when we're asked to put our hands in our pockets and pay for the kind of stuff that would help prevent it, there's suddenly a lot of shuffling of feet and close inspection of fingernails: we want a Rolls-Royce child protection system for our children, but we only want to pay Skoda prices for it.

Until that changes, children will continue to be at more risk than necessary from predators and abusers.


----------



## elbows (Jul 9, 2014)

Do kids still learn, at home but mostly at school, that our society has a massive contradiction or three when it comes to 'grassing'? Because for me thats a big factor that undermines some aspects of protection against child abuse and justice for victims.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 9, 2014)

elbows said:


> Do kids still learn, at home but mostly at school, that our society has a massive contradiction or three when it comes to 'grassing'? Because for me thats a big factor that undermines some aspects of protection against child abuse and justice for victims.


I think attempts *are* made to explain to kids that telling someone that you've been abused is different from telling tales. But it is asking a lot of most kids to make that kind of distinction, especially when part of the grooming process is usually about redefining those boundaries, anyway.

Most people who have been abused and haven't disclosed will talk about "not wanting to get into trouble" (or "not wanting <someone else> to get into trouble"). And we don't help that with our publicly aggressive societal views on the subject of abuse - I've seen teachers explaining to young children in quite angry terms that "bad touching" is WRONG and that it MUST NOT HAPPEN - all the same kind of language that they're used to hearing about their own behaviours. So is it any wonder, then, that they frame abuse towards them, and their responses to it, in exactly the same way?

It's the sort of concept that gets right up the noses of the "Just say no" (or "just twat 'em") crowd, but actually the conversations we should be having with children about abuse cannot be the ranty RIGHT/WRONG/GOOD/BAD kind. I believe that what we should be doing is *lowering* the ante, and making this into a matter-of-fact discussion, no matter how strongly we might feel about it. I think it is really important that we decrease the emotional charge, not increase it, while at the same time quietly insisting to children that they have the right to decide who does what to their bodies, and that it is OK for them to talk to someone else about it if someone does something that makes them feel uncomfortable. It has to feel like part of a dialogue, not some big "sound the trumpet and the cavalry will come" deal.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You have an extraordinary reverence for psychologists!
> 
> There is the programme I linked to (I've no idea how many there are) that includes the 3 steps you talked about. If you're saying that it, or something similar, is used as a basis for a bespoke training for your school, then why not just say it? People don't believe you know what you're talking about because you can't or don't say that.
> 
> It may well be that a programme like this is a step forward. I don't have a problem with comic sans used as a font for a website aimed at schools or thoughtful programmes that raise awareness. But I do think the limits of such a programme need to be acknowledged, the limits of _any_ educational programme. The head fuck that it is when the person you trust and love is the same person who is doing the abusing is not something that can be solved by _learning._



Why don't you read my last post again ? And reinterpret it again. 
I was very clear what was being offered over here in a special ed setting. 

I was also very clear about the distinction between preventative work and post abuse work. 

I think we would all like to see a day where counselling for victims is not the answer to abuse.  Think about it. Existentialist states that getting victims to talk is the way forward in the fight against abuse. This is a typical counsellors view because they work at listening to victims....There is another approach you know that involves prevention. And educating young people about abuse is very important in the fight against abuse.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I think attempts *are* made to explain to kids that telling someone that you've been abused is different from telling tales. But it is asking a lot of most kids to make that kind of distinction, especially when part of the grooming process is usually about redefining those boundaries, anyway.
> 
> Most people who have been abused and haven't disclosed will talk about "not wanting to get into trouble" (or "not wanting <someone else> to get into trouble"). And we don't help that with our publicly aggressive societal views on the subject of abuse - I've seen teachers explaining to young children in quite angry terms that "bad touching" is WRONG and that it MUST NOT HAPPEN - all the same kind of language that they're used to hearing about their own behaviours. So is it any wonder, then, that they frame abuse towards them, and their responses to it, in exactly the same way?
> 
> It's the sort of concept that gets right up the noses of the "Just say no" (or "just twat 'em") crowd, but actually the conversations we should be having with children about abuse cannot be the ranty RIGHT/WRONG/GOOD/BAD kind. I believe that what we should be doing is *lowering* the ante, and making this into a matter-of-fact discussion, no matter how strongly we might feel about it. I think it is really important that we decrease the emotional charge, not increase it, while at the same time quietly insisting to children that they have the right to decide who does what to their bodies, and that it is OK for them to talk to someone else about it if someone does something that makes them feel uncomfortable. It has to feel like part of a dialogue, not some big "sound the trumpet and the cavalry will come" deal.





existentialist said:


> I think attempts *are* made to explain to kids that telling someone that you've been abused is different from telling tales. But it is asking a lot of most kids to make that kind of distinction, especially when part of the grooming process is usually about redefining those boundaries, anyway.
> 
> Most people who have been abused and haven't disclosed will talk about "not wanting to get into trouble" (or "not wanting <someone else> to get into trouble"). And we don't help that with our publicly aggressive societal views on the subject of abuse - I've seen teachers explaining to young children in quite angry terms that "bad touching" is WRONG and that it MUST NOT HAPPEN - all the same kind of language that they're used to hearing about their own behaviours. So is it any wonder, then, that they frame abuse towards them, and their responses to it, in exactly the same way?
> 
> It's the sort of concept that gets right up the noses of the "Just say no" (or "just twat 'em") crowd, but actually the conversations we should be having with children about abuse cannot be the ranty RIGHT/WRONG/GOOD/BAD kind. I believe that what we should be doing is *lowering* the ante, and making this into a matter-of-fact discussion, no matter how strongly we might feel about it. I think it is really important that we decrease the emotional charge, not increase it, while at the same time quietly insisting to children that they have the right to decide who does what to their bodies, and that it is OK for them to talk to someone else about it if someone does something that makes them feel uncomfortable. It has to feel like part of a dialogue, not some big "sound the trumpet and the cavalry will come" deal.





existentialist said:


> This is not uncommon amongst educationalists. One of the things that I found most surprising when I started doing this work was the almost religious belief in behaviouralism that exists in the education establishment - pretty much everything is predicated on reward/punishment, for example.
> 
> And it's not that the people working in this field are narrow-minded: many (probably most) of them, when introduced to, for example, some of the Adlerian ideas about child development and core developmental needs are quite astonished by the "fit" between the theory and their own experiences of life, let alone that of the children they work with.
> 
> ...




Sorry but I'll leave you to your world where you believe counselling is the prerogative of counsellors and that educational psychologists are In some way lacking because you think they aren't capable of counselling and your view is based on your personal observation of a couple of teachers......

I've 16 years in working with teens with special needs. The work being done with them in the area of relationship and sexuality is groud breaking. I will send you the name of someone you can contact. But quite honestly I really think that you are more interested in counselling.......after the event. It's a pity you can't see that education has a place in all of this. It's also a pity that you view your opinions as expert and the work of educational psychologists as inferior to yours. Your views are by your own admission based on your work experience. So are mine....

You have a very weird habit of "suspecting" things. I find it really odd....
In this thread every post you have written in answer to mine has pulled the "I'm superior and I suspect bubbles is not true"....
You have suspected all sorts of shit about me...I'm coy...I'm not telling the truth....I wasn't abused...... 

You say you  are a counsellor...I suspect you are not so good and my opinion of you is based on the fact that you personalise discussions by trying to put down or call out a poster. 
You say you're an experienced counsellor of seven years but you have a very antiquated view of educational psychology. 
You say the only way to deal with abuse is to make sure abused feel they can tell someone about it. But you refuse to respect the work thst is being done to try to prevent it. You also cannot see that they are both equally  important and both equallyvnecessary. 
Counselling is about listening without judgement.  Counselling is about believing what is told to you in confidence. I told you something in confidence by pm at the very beginning of this thread.  You proceeded to write shite afterwards that you suspected that if you called me out on a post that I'd probably come up with a personal history of abuse.  Wow... that was pretty shit thing to do in my opinion. And for someone who is using their counsellors hat to comment on abuse it was veru telling.

I'll pm you again ..... 
And you can make contact with the HSE over here.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Why don't you read my last post again ? And reinterpret it again.
> I was very clear what was being offered over here in a special ed setting.
> 
> I was also very clear about the distinction between preventative work and post abuse work.
> ...



I think the point being made here is that no amount of education will deal with the head fuck and emotional conflict of being abused by people you love and depend on


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> I think the point being made here is that no amount of education will deal with the head fuck and emotional conflict of being abused by people you love and depend on






Blagsta said:


> I think the point being made here is that no amount of education will deal with the head fuck and emotional conflict of being abused by people you love and depend on



Of course not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Existentialist did not ask about my experience. Indeed he wasn't interested in my experiences. He was extremely critical of them....even my personal experience of abuse.



Wrong.
He was critical of your attempts to claim that your own reaction (a "fight" reaction) was the usual reaction of a child being abused.  As he (and I) made clear, the more usual reactions are either dissociation or "flight".


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

existentialist said:


> IMynk attempts *are* made to explain to kids that telling someone that you've been abused is different from telling tales. But it is asking a lot of most kids to make that kind of distinction, especially when part of the grooming process is usually about redefining those boundaries, anyway.
> 
> Most people who have been abused and haven't disclosed will talk about "not wanting to get into trouble" (or "not wanting <someone else> to get into trouble"). And we don't help that with our publicly aggressive societal views on the subject of abuse - I've seen teachers explaining to young children in quite angry terms that "bad touching" is WRONG and that it MUST NOT HAPPEN - all the same kind of language that they're used to hearing about their own behaviours. So is it any wonder, then, that they frame abuse towards them, and their responses to it, in exactly the same way?
> 
> It's the sort of concept that gets right up the noses of the "Just say no" (or "just twat 'em") crowd, but actually the conversations we should be having with children about abuse cannot be the ranty RIGHT/WRONG/GOOD/BAD kind. I believe that what we should be doing is *lowering* the ante, and making this into a matter-of-fact discussion, no matter how strongly we might feel about it. I think it is really important that we decrease the emotional charge, not increase it, while at the same time quietly insisting to children that they have the right to decide who does what to their bodies, and that it is OK for them to talk to someone else about it if someone does something that makes them feel uncomfortable. It has to feel like part of a dialogue, not some big "sound the trumpet and the cavalry will come" deal.



Kids get such mixed messages from well-meaning adults. A 6 year old I know came home from school saying she knew what a paedophile was. When her mum asked her what she thought it was she said "someone who likes children" :


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> An experienced counsellor telling me my response to personal abuse was wrong ....is not the response of a counsellor.
> I spoke about how I reacted and how I would react. I was told that I was wrong.



How about a psychologist (one of the hats I wear) telling you that 
a) You're misrepresenting what the counsellor said to you, and
b) You weren't told your reaction was wrong, you were told that your claim that your personal reaction was the "right" or "natural" reaction, was wrong.

And frankly, your claim that a "fight" reaction was or is right or natural, shits all over the experience of the majority of abusees, where a fight reaction wasn't available to them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2014)

laptop said:


> {_Psst!_ This, here, is not counselling.}



Although it *can be* therapeutic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2014)

This is one of the weirdest trolls I've seen on here. Odd.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> To move this discussion back on track, one thing that concerns me is the disclosure system (CRB or whatever it's called these days) - so many people are abusing but haven't been prosecuted, so their disclosure check/review comes back clean. Now I know no system will be perfect and catch everybody but can this system be improved? What else can be put in place?



CRB/DBS is window-dressing.  It shows the govt and the employers are "doing something about the problem", but as you imply, doesn't actually deal with any offender who happens to be sly enough or lucky enough to have never been charged.
Frankly, there's nothing much that can be done to improve the system, or to institute a different, more effective system, without trampling several of those civil liberties we're all so fond of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Lots of us want to be seen as clever and knowledgeable. The trick, I find, is to be clever enough to stick to pontificating on topics on which we ARE knowledgeable.



Pfft.  Where's the fun in that!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You have an extraordinary reverence for psychologists!



Idols with feet of clay.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Why don't you read my last post again ? And reinterpret it again.
> I was very clear what was being offered over here in a special ed setting.
> 
> I was also very clear about the distinction between preventative work and post abuse work.
> ...



Nobody is clear what you're saying because you're not clear about what you're saying. I'm not sure why the application of a programme in a special needs setting means that it doesn't have a name.

And I'm not talking about preventative vs therapeutic work, I'm saying that education as prevention has its limits.


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

othersat said:


> Nobody is clear what you're saying because you're not clear about what you're saying. I'm not sure why the application of a programme in a special needs setting means that it doesn't have a name.
> 
> And I'm not talking about preventative vs therapeutic work, I'm saying that education as prevention has its limits.


I doubt theres anyone who'd argue prevention isn't preferable to cure. Except those making money from the cure.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 9, 2014)

Rural said:


> I doubt theres anyone who'd argue prevention isn't preferable to cure. Except those making money from the cure.



And who are they?


----------



## cesare (Jul 9, 2014)

Why has Red Cat's username come up as othersat in the quote in #3337?


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

QUOTE="cesare, post: 13259012, member: 30389"]Why has Red Cat's username come up as othersat in the quote in #3337?[/QUOTE]
Thats my post & I have no idea! Whenever I try to reply or quote on here strange things happen. But I'm quite new so maybe I'm doing something wrong! Sorry bout that


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

cesare said:


> Why has Red Cat's username come up as othersat in the quote in #3337?


U see? I click reply & it comes out in a weird quote & sometimes changes words


----------



## cesare (Jul 9, 2014)

Rural said:


> QUOTE="cesare, post: 13259012, member: 30389"]Why has Red Cat's username come up as othersat in the quote in #3337?






			
				Rural said:
			
		

> Thats my post & I have no idea! Whenever I try to reply or quote on here strange things happen. But I'm quite new so maybe I'm doing something wrong! Sorry bout that


No need to apologise! I was just curious. Cheers for replying.


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

[QUOTE="cesare, post: 13259060, member: 30No need to apologise! I was just curious. Cheers for replying.[/QUOTE]
I hit reply & its come up as quote again. Anyway I don't want to bore everyone with this but pls excuse if my posts dontblook quite *right*


----------



## two sheds (Jul 9, 2014)

Your last post missed an end square bracket after the initial Quote - are you unintentionally deleting them? I regularly do. 

Pressing More Options and Preview should show what the post will really look like.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jul 9, 2014)

existentialist said:


> This is not uncommon amongst educationalists. One of the things that I found most surprising when I started doing this work was the almost religious belief in behaviouralism that exists in the education establishment - pretty much everything is predicated on reward/punishment, for example.
> 
> And it's not that the people working in this field are narrow-minded: many (probably most) of them, when introduced to, for example, some of the Adlerian ideas about child development and core developmental needs are quite astonished by the "fit" between the theory and their own experiences of life, let alone that of the children they work with.
> 
> It's the same with child protection - the whole thing is reductively condensed down to soundbite instructions to kids on what to *do*, regardless of their practicality. Very little is talked about *feelings*, which is usually the first clue for most of us that something is wrong: instead, these prescriptive approaches tend to say "if this happens, then do that". Which actually makes them more at risk of abuse, because all any abuser has to do to foil the system is make sure that "this" doesn't happen, or at least not in the same way the child has been told to recognise it.



Spot on, I'm finding this is a significant barrier to embedding any form of family-based systemic support practice in some schools, even from EWO's and SENCo's.

I advise and support education practitioners around early intervention work with families to prevent eventual escalation to statutory social care. There is a strong behaviouralist strain that believes prescriptive (and often coercive) approaches that pit professionals against parents are the way to progress things. It rarely works. My biggest headache is to challenge assumptions without burning my bridges.

Anyway, apols for derail...


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

UOTE="two sheds, post: 13259085, member: 430"]Your last post missed an end square bracket after the initial Quote - are you unintentionally deleting them? I regularly do.

Pressing More Options and Preview should show what the post will really look like.[/QUOTE]
Im not intentionally quoting anything, they just coming up  now the first Q has gone from QUOTE. I don't think its me doing it but I will b extra careful, thank u


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> And I'm not talking about preventative vs therapeutic work, I'm saying that education as prevention has its limits.



Very true.....but education has been assigned a role in educating children and teenagers regarding prevention ......and counselling in the form that existentialist describes has limits in the prevention of abuse because it takes place after the abused person has been abused.

They are two sides to a coin. Both  unfortunately are necessary.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2014)

Well learn how to correct it manually. Rural


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

Citizen6659161 said:
			
		

> Well learn how to correct it manually. Rural


Is this to me? I really dont want to bore anyone any more with my tech probs, I can't correct it if I don't know what its meant to look like, also when I have corrected, b4 I click post it just puts it back to what it was anyway. But I'm interrupting the discussion, sorry, I will try to sort this out


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2014)

Rural said:


> Is this to me? I really dont want to bore anyone any more with my tech probs, I can't correct it if I don't know what its meant to look like, also when I have corrected, b4 I click post it just puts it back to what it was anyway. But I'm interrupting the discussion, sorry, I will try to sort this out


What browser are you using? I really can't think of any reason why this is happening other than software at your end. I remember at one point Safari on my tablet used to mischievously swap people's avatars about which could get well confusing as the brain follows quick visual cues.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> And who are they?



Who do you think they might be?
Teachers get paid their salary no matter what extra initiatives and programmes are implemented so they're not making any money ... department of education programmes over here are free...and all materials are free so they're not making any money. Staff training for teachers, child care personnel and health personnel is free over here....and trainers are usually employed in  the health boards or departments of education and the training of personnel is only one aspect of their job.....
Educational psychologists assigned to schools over here do various work apart from child protection and are paid a standarf salary by the HSE
.. so they're not making extra money.
Private psychs and private counsellors may make money from those who can afford to pay for their services. I have no idea how many people can afford an hour of private counselling by either a psych or counsellor but I hear the going rate for private services is around €100 an hour. That's not to say that their services are not optional and there are cases of abuse where the state pays for a victim's counselling.

But who do you think is making money ? Is it very different over there? Are you involved in child protection?


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> What browser are you using? I really can't think of any reason why this is happening other than software at your end. I remember at one point Safari on my tablet used to mischievously swap people's avatars about which could get well confusing as the brain follows quick visual cues.


It prob is my end, im on android, someone has just msgd me bout this  hopefully I sort it out soon! Thank you


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2014)

No worries.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> How about a psychologist (one of the hats I wear) telling you that
> a) You're misrepresenting what the counsellor said to you, and
> b) You weren't told your reaction was wrong, you were told that your claim that your personal reaction was the "right" or "natural" reaction, was wrong.
> 
> And frankly, your claim that a "fight" reaction was or is right or natural, shits all over the experience of the majority of abusees, where a fight reaction wasn't available to them.



You're referring to the rolf harris thread where I said how I reacted to abuse as a kid. ... and where
I said how I would react as an adult.
My reactions were natural to me....where does that shit on anyone else's reactions?

The questions I asked were about the culture of abuse in the world of television at the time when vanessa feltz described rolf Harris abusing her on live telly ... I was asking how people would react if it were them. I outlined three possible reactions which wasn't an exclusive list by any means. There could be many more potential reactions ......
Existentialist decided I was commenting on every victim of abuse and he generalised from there. I realise people have read more than i intended into that post.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Who do you think they might be?
> Teachers get paid their salary no matter what extra initiatives and programmes are implemented so they're not making any money ... department of education programmes over here are free...and all materials are free so they're not making any money. Staff training for teachers, child care personnel and health personnel is free over here....and trainers are usually employed in  the health boards or departments of education and the training of personnel is only one aspect of their job.....
> Educational psychologists assigned to schools over here do various work apart from child protection and are paid a standarf salary by the HSE
> .. so they're not making extra money.
> ...



I'm not sure it's for me to answer the first question given that it wasn't me that stated that there may be some financial interest at stake such that it could lead to a preference for cure over prevention.

I work with children, so, yes, I'm involved in child protection.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 9, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I'm not sure it's for me to answer the first question given that it wasn't me that stated that there may be some financial interest at stake such that it could lead to a preference for cure over prevention.
> 
> I work with children, so, yes, I'm involved in child protection.



.....I should have quoted the poster who made the post... I think it's a fair question to ask.


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> .....I should have quoted the poster who made the post... I think it's a fair question to ask.


I think it was me. I was thinking in terms of companies set up for the purposes of offering cheap,  speedy solutions,  who the authorities would prefer,  despite their dubious credentials. I'm thinking of similar things to what has happened in the area of for eg, drug treatment where companies like CRI have taken over from actual professionals & also in the area of employment/job training, where many small companies r "advising" the unemployed. I guess it seems that areas once reserved for ppl who knew what they were doing r being farmed out to the lowest bidder & many ppl r getting rich off the back of this.  I'm also thinking of all the *talking heads* eg Esther rantzen,  who the media employs to talk rubbish every time abuse hits the news.  They also profit from the subject more than if they were interested in prevention.


----------



## Rural (Jul 9, 2014)

Rural said:


> I think it was me. I was thinking in terms of companies set up for the purposes of offering cheap,  speedy solutions,  who the authorities would prefer,  despite their dubious credentials. I'm thinking of similar things to what has happened in the area of for eg, drug treatment where companies like CRI have taken over from actual professionals & also in the area of employment/job training, where many small companies r "advising" the unemployed. I guess it seems that areas once reserved for ppl who knew what they were doing r being farmed out to the lowest bidder & many ppl r getting rich off the back of this.  I'm also thinking of all the *talking heads* eg Esther rantzen,  who the media employs to talk rubbish every time abuse hits the news.  They also profit from the subject more than if they were interested in prevention.


I apologise for rambling nature of last post,  it's taken me ages to keep re - typing as still trying to sort out my tech probs.  Thanks to those who've made helpful suggestions


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 10, 2014)

@ existentialist 

Glad you got my pm and the info I sent you on the  "Freedom" programme plus contact names and addresses. 

...you're welcome to contact my place of work, and the other centres mentioned in the pm, for further info.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 10, 2014)

Harris was a shit painter too it turns out...

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nigel...-complicated/story-21444252-detail/story.html


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2014)

Rural said:


> I think it was me. I was thinking in terms of companies set up for the purposes of offering cheap,  speedy solutions,  who the authorities would prefer,  despite their dubious credentials. I'm thinking of similar things to what has happened in the area of for eg, drug treatment where companies like CRI have taken over from actual professionals & also in the area of employment/job training, where many small companies r "advising" the unemployed. I guess it seems that areas once reserved for ppl who knew what they were doing r being farmed out to the lowest bidder & many ppl r getting rich off the back of this.  I'm also thinking of all the *talking heads* eg Esther rantzen,  who the media employs to talk rubbish every time abuse hits the news.  They also profit from the subject more than if they were interested in prevention.



So in effect, the worry doesn't just lie with these companies (and personally I find the fact that these small companies are all too often devoured by the big service corps such as Crapita once they've won a contract *highly* disturbing), but also with a system that commodifies, commercialises and reduces-to-essentials what should be broad-ranging investigative practices.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> @ existentialist
> 
> Glad you got my pm and the info I sent you on the  "Freedom" programme plus contact names and addresses.
> 
> ...you're welcome to contact my place of work, and the other centres mentioned in the pm, for further info.


Just post it up here. Despite your determined attempts to personalise this discussion, I was not the only one inviting you to provide a little more information about this project you constantly refer to in support of your views, which have been challenged by quite a few people other than me.

The information is relevant, if you have it, and I'm not interested in PM conversations about it if you're not willing to support your claims with it here on the thread. I am *certainly* not interested in engaging in private conversations with someone who claims I am "bullying" them.


----------



## Rural (Jul 10, 2014)

[QUOT ViolentPanda, post: 13260623, member: 2660"]So in effect, the worry doesn't just lie with these companies (and personally I find the fact that these small companies are all too often devoured by the big service corps such as Crapita once they've won a contract *highly* disturbing), but also with a system that commodifies, commercialises and reduces-to-essentials what should be broad-ranging investigative practices.[/QUOTE]
Yes crapita,serco,g4, etc, r the sort of big companies who, like the drug companies, make much more money from providing "solutions" & "cures" to problems rather than addressing causes of problems. I don't even know if they "reduce-to-essentials", they reduce to what maximises their profits as far as I can see


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 10, 2014)

Just watching was Jimmy Savile a wizard ? The first few minutes make it clear to me it's a resounding no - but he was born on Halloween 1926 and the 7th son of a 7th son.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 10, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Just post it up here. Despite your determined attempts to personalise this discussion, I was not the only one inviting you to provide a little more information about this project you constantly refer to in support of your views, which have been challenged by quite a few people other than me.
> 
> The information is relevant, if you have it, and I'm not interested in PM conversations about it if you're not willing to support your claims with it here on the thread. I am *certainly* not interested in engaging in private conversations with someone who claims I am "bullying" them.



Yup...you really are a nasty bit of goods arent you.
You got all the info you asked for.
And still you're petsonalising this and being a shit.
I posted my last post here because you basically told me not to pm you after I sent you the name if the author of the program and the contact I work with in the HSE and at my place of work. 


Anyone who wants the info can pm me....and I'll send them on the contact name.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> petsonalising


oh no 

existentialist, tell me you're not petsonalising this


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yup...you really are a nasty bit of goods arent you.
> You got all the info you asked for.
> And still you're petsonalising this and being a shit.
> I posted my last post here because you basically told me not to pm you after I sent you the name if the author of the program and the contact I work with in the HSE and at my place of work.
> ...


Cut it out. Existentialist has made it clear why he doesn't want to enter into a PM conversation with you. That doesn't make him 'a nasty bit of goods' or 'a shit'.

You can't claim someone is bullying you and then have a go at them when they no longer wish to engage with you.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 10, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Cut it out. Existentialist has made it clear why he doesn't want to enter into a PM conversation with you. That doesn't make him 'a nasty bit of goods' or 'a shit'.
> 
> You can't claim someone is bullying you and then have a go at them when they no longer wish to engage with you.



Fuck off.
He got what he asked for by pm. 
He got the author of the programme, the names of other groups involved and I told him he can contact my place of work for more info.  He didn't acknowledge that he'd received all of that. Didn't say thanks...nothing.  he just replied with a load of shite about me.
All through this thread he has called me "coy" and "suspected" that the programme didnt exist. He has "suspected" lots of crap.
He's a bit of a windbag full of his own self importance who likes to dissect people online....I am not happy with his shitty insinuations throughout this thread. I am really not happy with the way he has decided it was ok to make personal comments about me either. 

That's really all I want to say on this thread. 

Ps. Seven years counselling is not as you seem to think "extremely experienced".


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Ps. Seven years counselling is not as you seem to think "extremely experienced".


in most jobs seven years is a decent amount of experience to have. 

e2a: do you mean being seven years of a counsellor or seven years of being counselled?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> oh no
> 
> existentialist, tell me you're not petsonalising this


I am sorry, but I cannot tell a lie.

Urban, hard as this is for me to admit, I do have this confession to make. Not only have I, wilfully and with malice aforethought, gone around these boards capitalising, theorising, proselytising and - yes - personalising with gay abandon, but I have, it must be said, been guilty of repeat and flagrant petsonalising. I have tried to stop: for years, I refused to admit that I had a problem, then, having realised that this wasn't just the occasional bit of casual petsonalising from time to time, but a pattern of repeated and unashamed petsonalising, I though I could control it and stop it any time I wanted.

Now I know different. Now my secret is out.

Urban, my name is existentialist and I am a...petsonaliser. There. I've said it. They say the first step is realising you have a problem.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 10, 2014)

is this now another 'all about bubbles' thread, then?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2014)

Rural said:


> I apologise for rambling nature of last post,  it's taken me ages to keep re - typing as still trying to sort out my tech probs.  Thanks to those who've made helpful suggestions


Download tapatalk?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Fuck off.
> He got what he asked for by pm.
> He got the author of the programme, the names of other groups involved and I told him he can contact my place of work for more info.  He didn't acknowledge that he'd received all of that. Didn't say thanks...nothing.  he just replied with a load of shite about me.
> All through this thread he has called me "coy" and "suspected" that the programme didnt exist. He has "suspected" lots of crap.
> ...


I asked you ON THE THREAD to cite your sources. You haven't actually refused, but have made two contacts with my by PM, both of which I have replied to to say "don't contact me by PM", and you certainly haven't backed up your insistence that your loony ideas about abuse are backed up by anything serious.

The word "coy" I used to refer to the way in which you seemed strangely reluctant to cite your sources. I don't quite know why you've got such a hair up your arse about it - unless it's just another example of you finding something to be OUTRAGED about so as to divert attention from the great plank in your own eye.

"I suspect" is a moderately polite way - as I think Pickman's model has observed - of saying "you're talking rubbish". I find it amusing (there's another one for you - you can accuse me of "laughing at you", or something) that such innocuous terms seem to arouse such huge anger in you, considering the alternative.

I suspect the "windbag full of his own self-importance" is a reference to me providing the professional credentials you demanded I produce (rather less politely than my demand that you back up your claims, and with considerably more success, you will note). You can't have it both ways: if I had refused to provide those, you would have insisted I had something to hide; the fact that I have done apparently damns me because I'm trying to big myself up.

Finally, if you have a problem with the way I have behaved towards you on this thread, then I positively INSIST that you report the posts in question to the mods. Put up or shut up: I don't believe I have been unreasonable in how I have dealt with you, but I am not sitting here bleating about how howwible you are being to me either. Personally, I think you need to get over yourself, take your lumps, and stop derailing this thread with your personal tantrums. I'll be quite glad when that happens, as I imagine will quite a few others.

ETA: oh, and how long have YOU been a qualified professional in the child protection field, since we seem to be trading qualifications, now? Again, this coyness about your credentials at the same time as being only too willing to rudely demand others' is...interesting.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> is this now another 'all about bubbles' thread, then?


"another"? She's got form for this - or is that those other IDs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> is this now another 'all about bubbles' thread, then?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 10, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I am sorry, but I cannot tell a lie.
> 
> Urban, hard as this is for me to admit, I do have this confession to make. Not only have I, wilfully and with malice aforethought, gone around these boards capitalising, theorising, proselytising and - yes - personalising with gay abandon, but I have, it must be said, been guilty of repeat and flagrant petsonalising. I have tried to stop: for years, I refused to admit that I had a problem, then, having realised that this wasn't just the occasional bit of casual petsonalising from time to time, but a pattern of repeated and unashamed petsonalising, I though I could control it and stop it any time I wanted.
> 
> ...





existentialist said:


> I asked you ON THE THREAD to cite your sources. You haven't actually refused, but have made two contacts with my by PM, both of which I have replied to to say "don't contact me by PM", and you certainly haven't backed up your insistence that your loony ideas about abuse are backed up by anything serious.
> 
> The word "coy" I used to refer to the way in which you seemed strangely reluctant to cite your sources. I don't quite know why you've got such a hair up your arse about it - unless it's just another example of you finding something to be OUTRAGED about so as to divert attention from the great plank in your own eye.
> 
> ...



Again with the smoke and mirrors.
Would you like to post the pms? Go on. Seeing as you are now inferring that they were a problem for you. ...

Or shall I?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Again with the smoke and mirrors.
> Would you like to post the pms? Go on. Seeing as you are now inferring that they were a problem for you. ...
> 
> Or shall I?


you do it, you're all fired up. don't let the faq get in the way.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Again with the smoke and mirrors.
> Would you like to post the pms? Go on. Seeing as you are now inferring that they were a problem for you. ...
> 
> Or shall I?


Well whoever does will get a ban as it's against the rules to post up pm content.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2014)

hence the longstanding urb tradition of claiming illusory hordes of PM support when in the middle of an argument.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 10, 2014)

Existentialist
What game are you playing? 
You got a list of my credentials along with the programme ...

You cant tell a lie?
Yeah.
Right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Well whoever does will get a ban as it's against the rules to post up pm content.


shh


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> hence the longstanding urb tradition of claiming illusory hordes of PM support when in the middle of an argument.


Nah, I bet there's loads of behind the scenes shit stirring during a bun fight.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> shh


I know.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 10, 2014)

Anyone interested in the programme can contact me.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Again with the smoke and mirrors.
> Would you like to post the pms? Go on. Seeing as you are now inferring that they were a problem for you. ...
> 
> Or shall I?


Don't post PMs. That's against site rules.

Have you reported the posts of mine you find so offensive yet? Why not?


----------



## cesare (Jul 10, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> is this now another 'all about bubbles' thread, then?


Innit.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

I shall be glad (in a not entirely over-the-moon kind of way) when this thread gets back to talking about the antics of said Mister Savile again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I shall be glad (in a not entirely over-the-moon kind of way) when this thread gets back to talking about the antics of said Mister Savile again.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>



We need an "Urrgh" button


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 10, 2014)

Russel Brand speaks out about 'arris ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>



what's with the gropey hand ornaments?


----------



## Rural (Jul 10, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Download tapatalk?


I did that weeks ago, it keeps saying urban is not found on it! I'm not having much luck. Appreciate all the advice tho, thanks xx


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> what's with the gropey hand ornaments?


i was hoping you could enlighten me


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 10, 2014)

Happier times. Run for your Wife ! Barry Cryer's arm seems to be making the lady interviewer a little uncomfortable. Rolf's kiss at the end ....


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 10, 2014)

existentialist said:


> "another"? She's got form for this - or is that those other IDs?


They've behaved in exactly the same way on other threads. Their behaviour was tiresome the first time, now it's just tedious and pathetic.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> They've behaved in exactly the same way on other threads. Their behaviour was tiresome the first time, now it's just tedious and pathetic.


So it's a fairly definite link, then? Are we talking sock puppets, returners, or some kind of alternative weirdness? Reading that other thread, I have to agree with you that the M.O. seems remarkably similar, particularly the slow build to the huffy offence-taking that we've seen done so well on here.

Very strange.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2014)

Rural said:


> I did that weeks ago, it keeps saying urban is not found on it! I'm not having much luck. Appreciate all the advice tho, thanks xx


You need to search for urban75 with no space. That should do it.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

Tapatalk search is a bit of a culture shock after we've all got so used to Google...


----------



## Rural (Jul 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You need to search for urban75 with no space. That should do it.


Thank u I will try that


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Who do you think they might be?
> Teachers get paid their salary no matter what extra initiatives and programmes are implemented so they're not making any money ... department of education programmes over here are free...and all materials are free so they're not making any money. Staff training for teachers, child care personnel and health personnel is free over here....and trainers are usually employed in  the health boards or departments of education and the training of personnel is only one aspect of their job.....
> Educational psychologists assigned to schools over here do various work apart from child protection and are paid a standarf salary by the HSE
> .. so they're not making extra money.
> ...


I've just read back to this post, and, frankly, I cannot believe what I am seeing.

It appears that our friend bubbles is - suddenly, only since my intervention in relation to her comments - trying to suggest that the world of child protection and abuse prevention is a benign one, populated only by well-meaning salaried teachers, ed psychs, and, presumably unpaid fairies and happy little elves, sullied only by...DA DA DAAAA, the Dark And Evil Psychs And Counsellors, creaming off €100/hour to fill our little ones' minds with Bad Thoughts And Unconventional Notions.

There is an agenda operating here. TBF, I think it's just friend wibbles trying to debate via the medium of character assassination, but an honest and fair discussion this is not, nor, from the look of it, was she ever intending it to be.

I'd grumble, except that it is all such patently arrant nonsense there'd be no point. But I thought it was worth flagging up this particularly egregious example of her intellectual dishonesty.

And, FWIW, you can take her grumbles about the nature of our PM interactions with a bushel or so of salt, too: her characterisation of them is nothing I recognise.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 10, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I've just read back to this post, and, frankly, I cannot believe what I am seeing.
> 
> It appears that our friend bubbles is - suddenly, only since my intervention in relation to her comments - trying to suggest that the world of child protection and abuse prevention is a benign one, populated only by well-meaning salaried teachers, ed psychs, and, presumably unpaid fairies and happy little elves, sullied only by...DA DA DAAAA, the Dark And Evil Psychs And Counsellors, creaming off €100/hour to fill our little ones' minds with Bad Thoughts And Unconventional Notions.
> 
> ...



Staggering. ..
What a completely twisted interpretation of that post. 
Good luck to you existentialist.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 10, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Staggering. ..
> What a completely twisted interpretation of that post.
> Good luck to you existentialist.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 10, 2014)

Ooh them eyes burn right through you don't they?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2014)

Only if you angle your monitor a bit.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2014)

Actually his right eye does but I was initially looking at his left one which doesn't. His eyebrow is more weird though.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> is this now another 'all about bubbles' thread, then?



Way I see it, it wouldn't be a thread all about bubbles if trumpets wouldn't persist in accusing bubbs of being a troll without proffering any evidence to support their claims.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Russel Brand speaks out about 'arris ...





couple of good lines but wat? stoner narrative theory. I like brand but he's four spliffs down


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I've just read back to this post, and, frankly, I cannot believe what I am seeing.
> 
> It appears that our friend bubbles is - suddenly, only since my intervention in relation to her comments - trying to suggest that the world of child protection and abuse prevention is a benign one, populated only by well-meaning salaried teachers, ed psychs, and, presumably unpaid fairies and happy little elves, sullied only by...DA DA DAAAA, the Dark And Evil Psychs And Counsellors, creaming off €100/hour to fill our little ones' minds with Bad Thoughts And Unconventional Notions.



I think this is a bit paranoid.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I think this is a bit paranoid.


Then I haven't done a very good job of expressing my point. It doesn't really matter.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Then I haven't done a very good job of expressing my point. It doesn't really matter.



I think I understood your point, it's just a bit dramatic, which I know is sometimes your style, and you know, we all have a style.

As you say, it doesn't really matter. I can't really get a handle on the point of the discussion, it keeps shifting.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I am sorry, but I cannot tell a lie.
> 
> Urban, hard as this is for me to admit, I do have this confession to make. Not only have I, wilfully and with malice aforethought, gone around these boards capitalising, theorising, proselytising and - yes - personalising with gay abandon, but I have, it must be said, been guilty of repeat and flagrant petsonalising. I have tried to stop: for years, I refused to admit that I had a problem, then, having realised that this wasn't just the occasional bit of casual petsonalising from time to time, but a pattern of repeated and unashamed petsonalising, I though I could control it and stop it any time I wanted.
> 
> ...



Making a cunt jokey post about a typo and making a feck of counselling and people who get it....your own job.... in one....nice one.

But if you do have problems you should get counselling for them...although be careful... as there are some counsellors who are not so nice...so choose carefully. 
Here's a short list of some of the damaging things they can do.......


Basing assessments on the therapists's conjecture rather than actual evidence, and then making further assumptions about the client based on those assessments

Not listening properly to clients - and only "hearing" what fits in with the therapist's own preconceived ideas
Rubbishing the client's own insight, understanding, ideals, goals etc. and making them doubt their own reality (gaslighting)
Treating the client as though he/she is malingering/feigning symptoms so as to gain sympathy.
If you replace the word "client" with "poster"....you pretty much fit the bill in this thread....and in your pms.

I hope there are auditors for counselling services in the UK. In my opinion you need to meet one...if this thread is indicative of your behaviour and general attitude...( let's do a bit of your style now.) "I suspect you operate this way as it is very much your MO"...

And seeing as you've "liked" my last two posts..although I "suspect" (to use your language) that you probably didnt....let's see another bully boy "like" eh?

Fact is you and I know damn well you're a manipulative lying cunt.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Making a cunt jokey post about a typo and making a feck of counselling and people who get it....your own job.... in one....nice one.
> 
> But if you do have problems you should get counselling for them...although be careful... as there are some counsellors who are not so nice...so choose carefully.
> Here's a short list of some of the damaging things they can do.......
> ...


I think you badly need to grow a sense of perspective.

And start going a bit easier on the abuse.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 11, 2014)

Maybe not so paranoid after all!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2014)

jimmy still divides from beyond the grave


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> jimmy still divides from beyond the grave


I am really not sure we can credit Jimmy with any of this. TBH, if I had been a bit more clued up, I'd have realised that this poster was working herself up into a frenzy of righteous indignation pretty much from the off, and the smart thing to have done would have been to wind my neck in and ignore her. That felt a little - yes - paranoid at that early point, but hindsight suggests that'd have been the right course of action.

Ah well, better late than never


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Making a cunt jokey post about a typo and making a feck of counselling and people who get it....your own job.... in one....nice one.
> 
> But if you do have problems you should get counselling for them...although be careful... as there are some counsellors who are not so nice...so choose carefully.
> Here's a short list of some of the damaging things they can do.......
> ...



Why do you always act the same way when people don't agree with your point of view?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> wind my neck in
> 
> Ah well, better late than never



At least we agree on something


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Why do you always act the same way when people don't agree with your point of view?



Didn't realise I was back at school...and had to abide by your rules   ... 

......sorry miss prefect....


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

> wind my neck in
> 
> Ah well, better late than never





bubblesmcgrath said:


> At least we agree on something


I think you'll find that kind of deliberate misquoting is also considered unacceptable here.


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Didn't realise I was back at school...and had to abide by your rules   ...
> 
> ......sorry miss prefect....



She isn't treating you like you're still at school, although your childish behavior certainly warrants such a response.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Didn't realise I was back at school...and had to abide by your rules   ...
> 
> ......sorry miss prefect....


I'm no prefect.

Would it really take much effort to behave like an adult?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Didn't realise I was back at school...and had to abide by your rules   ...
> 
> ......sorry miss prefect....



You attended a school?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> ......sorry miss prefect....



Gerroff my line. Get your own patter.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 11, 2014)

Don't know if this has been shown before but a WTF sort of reaction to a Taiwanese take on Stuart Hall.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Gerroff my line. Get your own patter.


Wasn't it LiamO that came up with it first? Oh wait, his was pencil monitor


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I think you'll find that kind of deliberate misquoting is also considered unacceptable here.



Ah well ... who knew?
Did you make contact with anyone yet? Regarding the programme etc? You know. .the info you pushed  for and insinuated that I was a liar?
I'd consider that to be worse .





existentialist said:


> I am sorry, but I cannot tell a lie.
> 
> Urban, hard as this is for me to admit, I do have this confession to make. Not only have I, wilfully and with malice aforethought, gone around these boards capitalising, theorising, proselytising and - yes - personalising with gay abandon, but I have, it must be said, been guilty of repeat and flagrant petsonalising. I have tried to stop: for years, I refused to admit that I had a problem, then, having realised that this wasn't just the occasional bit of casual petsonalising from time to time, but a pattern of repeated and unashamed petsonalising, I though I could control it and stop it any time I wanted.
> 
> ...



.. and do you think it's acceptable to make a whole jokey but not funny post up on the basis of a typo and turning it into a piss take  of an addiction  problem?


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 11, 2014)

and Savile gets the Taiwanese treatment..


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I'm no prefect.
> 
> Would it really take much effort to behave like an adult?



Like everyone else? Or just you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Like everyone else? Or just you?


i'd rather be a child and keep my self-respect if being an adult means being like you


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> .. and do you think it's acceptable to make a whole jokey but not funny post up on the basis of a typo and turning it into a piss take  of an addiction  problem?


we've done more than that in the past, we've set up a whole forum based on a typo - the alas dead tolling gang. and i thought it was funny.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd rather be a child and keep my self-respect if being an adult means being like you



You really just cant help yourself.......can you?
Jumping in with the bullies...


----------



## Favelado (Jul 11, 2014)

This doesn't forward the debate but is a fascinating watch. It's the only example I've seen  of him facing a hostile public pre-Theroux. The section on Broadmoor is a masterclass in brass-neck and lying.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

Favelado said:


> This doesn't forward the debate but is a fascinating watch. It's the only example I've seen  of him facing a hostile public pre-Theroux. The section on Broadmoor is a masterclass in brass-neck and lying.




Plausible fucker wasn't he?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath stop digging


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath are we all bullies now, because we don't agree with your viewpoints or your childish behaviour? You _haven't_ been bullied. You weren't bullied the first time you made that accusation and you haven't been bullied now.

People disagreeing with you aren't bullying you.


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath there is a wonderful opportunity here to gain some insight and self-awareness that could be useful for the rest of your life and lead to all sorts of quality stuff.

And you don't even have to concede every point that everyone has made in response to your posts to do so.

Just pick one point/something someone said that you can concede you were wrong about, or misunderstood, dwell on it a bit, then happily admit the fact. 

You are allowed to take things the wrong way, or express some kind of emotion about something in a way that seem over the top or wrong to others at the time. But to recognise it later, look at it from a different angle and then attempt to change the mood and the way the discussion continues, that sort of shit makes the original thing worth it in the end. Otherwise its just another seed for bunfights here and I'm not sure what any of us get out of them, other than something to occupy ourselves with until it either peters out or turns into a grudge to carry onto other threads.

Sorry if any of this seems patronising, I'm just bored of the patterns we usually see during internet arguments and fancied spending a few minutes gibbering in a different direction.


----------



## terryterry (Jul 11, 2014)

Forget the internet arguments, have you seen this? More questions than answers - what else was 'doing the rounds'??!? http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...video-between-underage-boy-well-known-grandee


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2014)

You should probably stick that in the 'high level paedophile' thread.


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2014)

terryterry said:


> Forget the internet arguments, have you seen this? More questions than answers - what else was 'doing the rounds'??!? http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...video-between-underage-boy-well-known-grandee



Yabbut, what's the story? Jerry Hayes saw a video alleged to show "a Tory grandee" with an underaged boy and concluded ""I knew [the alleged politician] and it looked nothing like him."

Bad, bad _Express_. 

Hayes also observed:

"You saw a lot of grunting but it was all bollocks."


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 11, 2014)

What a shit article - it has the title "Ex-Tory MP shown gay sex video between 'underage boy' & 'well-known grandee'" and goes on to quote him saying


> But chillingly, he admits: "Many of us watched, as was our duty, grainy footage of some unidentifiable old boy, grunting over what was said to be an underage boy.
> 
> "We were told it was a well known grandee. It could have been anyone."
> 
> Speaking to Express.co.uk, Mr Hayes said while it was difficult to identify the man in the video, he was sure it was not the senior politician it had been claimed to be.


So, ex-Tory MP shown video of old man and a possibly underage boy, which definitely wasn't the person he was told it was


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 11, 2014)

terryterry said:


> Forget the internet arguments, have you seen this? More questions than answers - what else was 'doing the rounds'??!? http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/488241/Ex-Tory-MP-gay-sex-video-between-underage-boy-well-known-grandee




"Writing on his website, Mr Hayes debunks a number of myths around the sexual activities of MPs, saying the majority of the rumours swirling around Westminster bars were "fairly flaky" and "nonsense".
"We were told it was a well known grandee. It could have been anyone."


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> What a shit article - it has the title "Ex-Tory MP shown gay sex video between 'underage boy' & 'well-known grandee'" and goes on to quote him saying
> 
> So, ex-Tory MP shown video of old man and a possibly underage boy, which definitely wasn't the person he was told it was



chillingly

who actually still uses that ffs


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> chillingly
> 
> who actually still uses that ffs


"Tory grandee not seen in child abuse video" might be surprising, but I wouldn't call it chilling.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> bubblesmcgrath are we all bullies now, because we don't agree with your viewpoints or your childish behaviour? You _haven't_ been bullied. You weren't bullied the first time you made that accusation and you haven't been bullied now.
> 
> People disagreeing with you aren't bullying you.





elbows said:


> bubblesmcgrath there is a wonderful opportunity here to gain some insight and self-awareness that could be useful for the rest of your life and lead to all sorts of quality stuff.
> 
> And you don't even have to concede every point that everyone has made in response to your posts to do so.
> 
> ...




Yes I have tried...but I found the ganging up a bit much considering I had sent existentialist names and contact addresses and he responded by basically shitting on my pm and giving out to me for mentioning my own abuse.... It is getting very annoying being told being told by a group of people how to answer someone's post directed at me. 

I expressed an opinion which was just an opinion based on my personal feelings about abuse and was castigated for it.even though it was my abuse. .my feelings. .
..
Your advice on my life or how i should improve it is actually very patronising ... I don't need advice on how to live my life .. it's going very well thank you.

As for conceding that I posted something I should admit was misunderstood. Well I think my post about vanessa feltz was musunderstood. And I think I didn't give enough information about the relationship and sexuality peogramme I mentioned. I only mentioned the three steps prevention  and did not elaborate but as it is something given by ed psychs I felt it was not right to name the psych I work with here. It's not freely available material yet but may well be in the future.  Although it can be requested by psychs and counsellors..Numbers of posters started implying i was being coy for not giving enough detail. But in fairness I couldn't.  I offered to give details and contact names and addresses to anyone who asked me by pm. Nobody asked yet. 

As for bullying ... the response by existentialist to  my pm in which I gave him all the info he needed to access the "Freedom" programme, was nasty and he subsequently posted here, even after receiving the info, in a way that implied he'd not received what he had asked for...and that he wanted it ON THE THREAD. Excuse the bold type but that's how he wrote his post.

To be frank....you are not privy to the pms. And I feel that if you read all the posts you might see that I was castigated for one post and even though I offered the material requested to people by pm, I was still being called on it after the event. 

Regarding bullying. There is a fair bit of ganging up here on people who write posts that in some way don't fit some other posters ideas of a correct post. There's a lot of "calling out" done.  In my case I was called out because I asked how people would have reacted if they'd been in Vanessa Feltz shoes. I gave my opinion as to what I would do and existentialist decided I was speaking for the entire population of abused persons. 

The only post that I admit was too general was when I said the immediate reaction an abused person feels when abuse starts is that they want it to stop and that they have a fight flight response. In my case a fight response.That was probably from my personal perspective and maybe should not have been written aa a generalisation. However I dont think that my subsequent responses were respected and I honestly feel that existentialist was disrespectful in what he wrote about me personally throughout this thread and in pms. I wish to make it very clear that existentialists pms to me were not of the same mould as presented here. I want you and others reading this to know that. I have reported my own pms and his to the mods. I found his pms extraordinary considering his role and work. To give out to someone for mentioning their own abuse and to tell me I had 
chosen to play the abuse card - and to tell me that this was cheap, and predictable,  and then to go on to wonder how I avoid my "stuff" getting in the way of my work?
This is not a respectful response to anyone talking about their abuse.  

One can only take so much and yes my last three posts have been reactionary to what I perceive as ignorance and lack of respect. 

For some reason 've been hassled by equationgirl from day one and told I was another poster since I joined here
This is old now...and yes it is boring.

But I thank you for your post. It was thought provoking.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 11, 2014)

fucksake


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2014)

Well for what its worth I'm sorry that I couldn't think of another way to make my point without being patronising.

One of the problems with respect is that areas and points where respect may be bloody well deserved are easily over shadowed by other things that we say, and so the respect is not forthcoming. It is also easy for us to confuse being disrespected, with someone treading on one of our raw nerves. Ultimately we are responsible for coping with our own raw nerves, and devising strategies for shielding them or warning others not to go there in a manner that does not escalate hostilities.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

elbows said:


> Well for what its worth I'm sorry that I couldn't think of another way to make my point without being patronising.
> 
> One of the problems with respect is that areas and points where respect may be bloody well deserved are easily over shadowed by other things that we say, and so the respect is not forthcoming. It is also easy for us to confuse being disrespected, with someone treading on one of our raw nerves. Ultimately we are responsible for coping with our own raw nerves, and devising strategies for shielding them or warning others not to go there in a manner that does not escalate hostilities.



There's no confusion I'm afraid. 
Telling me I'm someone else and a sock puppet is not "hitting a raw nerve"...it's just false shit that three posters here persist in trawling out to toss at me. 
You tend to know when someone is deliberately twisting the truth. Especially when you've sent them everything they ask for and they then think they have the right to dissectcyour personality in a subsequent post. 

The world is made of as many viewpoints as there are persons.
Everyone's experiences are different. What I find disrespectful may be personal to me. Someone calling me a liar is in my mind disrespectful.  You may feel differently if someone calls you a liar ... I guess what I'm saying is that by telling someone that they are wrong to react to being called a liar and telling someone they should react in a different way you and some others are setting yourselves up as dictators in a way....dictating what is the best way to respond...or the best way to deal with what you call a raw nerve.  

People are different. ..and thank goodness they are. What a shit place this would be if we all decided to only post someone else's opinions, reactions and feelings.


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

1. existentialist is far from the only person who felt you were extrapolating from your own feelings, a view of how abuse victims react - by fighting back - a view that just happens to be one of those myths that surround public opinion of the 'proper victim' that often presents as a barrier to victims seeking proper support, understanding and justice. it is hardly surprising that people reading this found it distasteful. it is surprising that anyone who states they have worked in abuse prevention/damage control/recovery not to be aware of how common this myth is and how damaging and upsetting it can be to those that didn't react by fighting. 

2. As much as one person disagreeing with you is not bullying, several people disagreeing with you is not ganging up or bullying or disrespectful. 

3. responding to disagreement by making threads all about how you feel about disagreement is tiresome. 

4. and if you can't stand having your shit thrown back at you, then don't chuck it at other people in the first place. 

5. and stop trying to single out one of the people who disagrees with you for personal condemnation. I don't know why you have chosen to do that, whether it is about deflecting or negating criticism, or just trying to silence her. this is not a new or effective trick. as such, it is also tiresome.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes I have tried...but I found the ganging up a bit much considering I had sent existentialist names and contact addresses and he responded by basically shitting on my pm and giving out to me for mentioning my own abuse.... It is getting very annoying being told being told by a group of people how to answer someone's post directed at me.
> 
> I expressed an opinion which was just an opinion based on my personal feelings about abuse and was castigated for it.even though it was my abuse. .my feelings. .
> ..
> ...


You need to report this outrageous behaviour to the mods, so that it can be properly investigated and dealt with.

Given how appalling the behaviour you relate has been, I am at a loss as to how this has not resulted in serious hardcore mod action, assuming it has any basis in fact. And assuming you've actually reported it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 11, 2014)

Is bubbles a rather _flimsy_ sockpuppet?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> 1. existentialist is far from the only person who felt you were extrapolating from your own feelings, a view of how abuse victims react - by fighting back - a view that just happens to be one of those myths that surround public opinion of the 'proper victim' that often presents as a barrier to victims seeking proper support, understanding and justice. it is hardly surprising that people reading this found it distasteful. it is surprising that anyone who states they have worked in abuse prevention/damage control/recovery not to be aware of how common this myth is and how damaging and upsetting it can be to those that didn't react by fighting.
> 
> 2. As much as one person disagreeing with you is not bullying, several people disagreeing with you is not ganging up or bullying or disrespectful.
> 
> ...




It's not about disagreement . 
Disagreement is not bullying. 
Maybe if you read existentialists posts without prejudice you'd see.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 11, 2014)

elbows said:


> Well for what its worth I'm sorry that I couldn't think of another way to make my point without being patronising.
> 
> One of the problems with respect is that areas and points where respect may be bloody well deserved are easily over shadowed by other things that we say, and so the respect is not forthcoming. It is also easy for us to confuse being disrespected, with someone treading on one of our raw nerves. Ultimately we are responsible for coping with our own raw nerves, and devising strategies for shielding them or warning others not to go there in a manner that does not escalate hostilities.



Your commas are all over the place, but you're bang on, no one makes you feel anything, your feelings are your responsibility.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Is bubbles a rather _flimsy_ sockpuppet?


Just flimsy, or more flimsy than something else?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Your commas are all over the place, but you're bang on, no one makes you feel anything, your feelings are your responsibility.


 
Good point...
Next time existentialist lies about me on a thread I will just say "liar" in an emotionless tone and let it be.


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Especially when you've sent them everything they ask for and they then think they have the right to dissectcyour personality in a subsequent post.



When any of us post in a way that lingers on the 'its all about me' side of things, we can expect to have our personas probed in response.



> I guess what I'm saying is that by telling someone that they are wrong to react to being called a liar and telling someone they should react in a different way you and some others are setting yourselves up as dictators in a way....dictating what is the best way to respond...or the best way to deal with what you call a raw nerve.



A dictator may demand that someone does something, or face the consequences of the dictator using their power.

Someone pointing out patterns that may lead to someone making an arse of themselves, and strategies for escaping the cycle of arse, is not akin to a dictator. They aren't throwing their great power around, their demands are not magnified by the terror of the dictators disappeared enemies corpse pit. Their existence in a discussion is far more likely to be an outcome itself, rather than resembling a dictator threatening to generate a certain outcome if their advice is not obeyed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Just flimsy, or more flimsy than something else?




an ex poster flimsier who has a habit of trolling in the guise of a woman

fwiw I don't think it is the case here


----------



## yardbird (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Just flimsy, or more flimsy than something else?


Flimsy enough for several people to think bubblesmcgrath was a returning poster.
So flimsy then.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> an ex poster flimsier who has a habit of trolling in the guise of a woman
> 
> fwiw I don't think it is the case here


That didn't need explaining


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> That didn't need explaining



maybe not- delete? I don't want to cause a fuss.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 11, 2014)

Naw, existentialist is clearly too subtle for you


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Good point...
> Next time existentialist lies about me on a thread I will just say "liar" in an emotionless tone and let it be.



yeah  do that


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

elbows said:


> When any of us post in a way that lingers on the 'its all about me' side of things, we can expect to have our personas probed in response.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'd like to believe that is true here....but you see things would not have escalated if existentialist had acknowledged receipt of the material I'd sent him. If he'd replied and acknowledged that I'd sent him a contact name along with the address of my place of work and the psychologists using the programme. But instead he just proceeded to pretend he'd not received much and demanded that I post them ON THE THREAD.

That was just a cuntish thing to do.

But ..I will not react to it as you say I shouldnt let my feelings about a cunt be known


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Naw, existentialist is clearly too subtle for you


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Just flimsy, or more flimsy than something else?


are you suggesting bubbles is flimsier?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> are you suggesting bubbles is flimsier?


I wouldn't have a clue


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> an ex poster flimsier who has a habit of trolling in the guise of a woman
> 
> fwiw I don't think it is the case here


I've heard the name mentioned quite a bit before, but knew nothing of the history or M.O....


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'd like to believe that is true here....but you see things would not have escalated if existentialist had acknowledged receipt of the material I'd sent him. If he'd replied and acknowledged that I'd sent him a contact name along with the address of my place of work and the psychologists using the programme. But instead he just proceeded to pretend he'd not received much and demanded that I post them ON THE THREAD.
> 
> That was just a cuntish thing to do.
> 
> But ..I will not react to it as you say I shouldnt let my feelings about a cunt be known



I'm not going to wade back through the thread to check, but I'll tell you my recollection of how I perceived that stuff.

You had reasons why you couldn't post that info publicly. The people who wanted to know the info had reasons why it was only considered really useful to the discussion, and requested, if it could be said on the thread itself. Thats a stalemate which can lead to understandable frustration on both sides, but the stuff growing out of it now that you are discussing seems to be an escalation beyond a level that a casual observer might think appropriate. And the longer it goes on, the phenomenon is pretty much doomed to get worse.

Of course whatever I say I'll probably just be pouring fuel on the fire because it doesn't sound like you are ready to stop going on about it yet.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

elbows said:


> I'm not going to wade back through the thread to check, but I'll tell you my recollection of how I perceived that stuff.
> 
> You had reasons why you couldn't post that info publicly. The people who wanted to know the info had reasons why it was only considered really useful to the discussion, and requested, if it could be said on the thread itself. Thats a stalemate which can lead to understandable frustration on both sides, but the stuff growing out of it now that you are discussing seems to be an escalation beyond a level that a casual observer might think appropriate. And the longer it goes on, the phenomenon is pretty much doomed to get worse.
> 
> Of course whatever I say I'll probably just be pouring fuel on the fire because it doesn't sound like you are ready to stop going on about it yet.



No. There was no stalemate....
I was pretty clear that anyone who wanted the material could pm me. I've mentioned that five times now.
They'd have received the same info I sent existentialist.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'd like to believe that is true here....but you see things would not have escalated if existentialist had acknowledged receipt of the material I'd sent him. If he'd replied and acknowledged that I'd sent him a contact name along with the address of my place of work and the psychologists using the programme. But instead he just proceeded to pretend he'd not received much and demanded that I post them ON THE THREAD.
> 
> That was just a cuntish thing to do.
> 
> But ..I will not react to it as you say I shouldnt let my feelings about a cunt be known


What I am seeing here, more than anything else, is someone saying "None of this is anything to do with me. I absolve myself of all responsibility, and blame everyone...anyone but me, anyway."

And I am somewhat sick of it, if I'm honest about it. I don't like being called a liar, and I don't like being called a cunt. Especially when I know I have been neither of those things.

So, bubbles, I am going to ask you, once and for all: have you reported my behaviour to the mods, or do you intend to?

Because I, for one, would be extremely glad not to see this important and interesting thread continue to be taken over by your endless moaning and whining about what a bastard I am.

Put up or shut up. You clearly feel I have behaved appallingly, and I presume that, if you do genuinely believe that, you would expect a disinterested third party to see it too. So do yourself a favour, even if you're not doing me one, and present the mods with a catalogue of my misdeeds, and allow them to take matters in hand. Perhaps you might even consider that, should they decide your complaints are unfounded, you could let the matter rest, put me on ignore, and get on with your life.

Whatever, it's way past time you stopped maundering endlessly on about how harsh your suffering at my hands has been, get over yourself, pull your finger out, and give it a bloody rest.


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No. There was no stalemate....
> I was pretty clear that anyone who wanted the material could pm me. I've mentioned that five times now.
> They'd have received the same info I sent existentialist.



At best that makes it a stalemate that you went out of your way to break, but by its very nature could not be completely broken to the satisfaction of absolutely everybody.

And in any case my somewhat hazy memory tells me that the gripe started well before the attempts to unjam that stalemate, and that casual observers who might wish to judge the situation might want to take a look at the foundations rather than pay that much attention to what has been constructed on top later to argue about.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

elbows said:


> At best that makes it a stalemate that you went out of your way to break, but by its very nature could not be completely broken to the satisfaction of absolutely everybody.
> 
> And in any case my somewhat hazy memory tells me that the gripe started well before the attempts to unjam that stalemate, and that casual observers who might wish to judge the situation might want to take a look at the foundations rather than pay that much attention to what has been constructed on top later to argue about.




I'd suggest that my post about abuse and prevention training for kids was rounded on. I posted a very short post with no detail. It was ripped apart by existentialist and no amount of me explaining that the prevention programme was actually a much more detailed piece of work, could stop the escalation.  
I take the blame for not giving enough info in that post.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'd suggest that my post about abuse and prevention training for kids was rounded on. I posted a very short post with no detail. It was ripped apart by existentialist and no amount of me explaining that the prevention programme was actually a much more detailed piece of work, could stop the escalation.
> I take the blame for not giving enough info in that post.


Have you reported my disgraceful behaviour to the mods?

Justice and fair play demands that this egregious and outrageous behaviour be stamped out forthwith. Fifthwith, even.


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I take the blame for not giving enough info in that post.



Well that means something to me.

Doesn't look right now like what has followed from that original event is going to reach a happy conclusion anytime soon so I am done with my waffling for now, good luck.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 11, 2014)

elbows said:


> Well that means something to me.
> 
> Doesn't look right now like what has followed from that original event is going to reach a happy conclusion anytime soon so I am done with my waffling for now, good luck.



Thanks... you're sound


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 11, 2014)

Double-plus nice.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes I have tried...but I found the ganging up a bit much considering I had sent existentialist names and contact addresses and he responded by basically shitting on my pm and giving out to me for mentioning my own abuse.... It is getting very annoying being told being told by a group of people how to answer someone's post directed at me.
> 
> I expressed an opinion which was just an opinion based on my personal feelings about abuse and was castigated for it.even though it was my abuse. .my feelings. .
> ..
> ...


I would like to point to others that that I have disagreed with you from some of your earliest postings. This is because you largely talked in generalisations about women and feminism, and I disagreed with your views. That isn't hassling you, that's disagreeing with you. 

However, this is the first time you've accused me of hassling you. Which posts did I do that in, please? And have you reported these posts to the mods for my behaviour?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

can we get back to the nonces pls?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> can we get back to the nonces pls?



Can we not combine all the nonce threads into one easy to manage nonce thread?


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> can we get back to the nonces pls?


We did get back to the nonces a few pages ago but then the thread took a predictable direction again...


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 11, 2014)

he was was a right dirty bastard.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 11, 2014)

Dirty bastard


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

Bullshit speculation about a poster being a sockpuppet without proffering any supporting evidence is proper dickhead behaviour. And any poster subject to such bullshit is perfectly entitled to defend themselves without nobheads crying about the thread going off topic.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 11, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Dirty bastard



You're a dirty bastard for doing that.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Bullshit speculation about a poster being a sockpuppet without proffering any supporting evidence is proper dickhead behaviour. And any poster subject to such bullshit is perfectly entitled to defend themselves without nobheads crying about the thread going off topic.


So's flinging accusations around about being bullied without supporting evidence.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> So's flinging accusations around about being bullied without supporting evidence.



AFAIC unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry are tantamount to bullying in themselves.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> AFAIC unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry are tantamount to bullying in themselves.



Not really the point here though is it? Or is it? I don't know shit.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Not really the point here though is it? Or is it? I don't know shit.



Probably not, I'm just saying my thing though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Probably not, I'm just saying my thing though.


you do that


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

I will.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jul 11, 2014)

Yeah


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> It's not about disagreement .
> Disagreement is not bullying.
> Maybe if you read existentialists posts without prejudice you'd see.



and now you are trying to deflect the complaints i have made about your posts and behavior onto existentialist, without addressing any of the comments I've made.

I think  the first point is the most valid, with experience in the arena of supporting abuse victims, how can you be so unaware of the damaging effect of the myth that all 'proper victims' fight back?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> That didn't need explaining


It did!


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


>


Don't listen to him: it's not true, dotty!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Can we not combine all the nonce threads into one easy to manage nonce thread?


you don't want to put all your nonces in one basket

or something


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Bullshit speculation about a poster being a sockpuppet without proffering any supporting evidence is proper dickhead behaviour. And any poster subject to such bullshit is perfectly entitled to defend themselves without nobheads crying about the thread going off topic.


TBF, the speculation is hardly surprising, if a poster is demonstrating a similarly controversial posting style to someone else. It's hardly as if she was being accused and hounded about it, however she might choose to characterise it.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, most of her banging on has been nothing to do with being accused of being a sockpuppet.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Yeah



an wot?



existentialist said:


> TBF, the speculation is hardly surprising, *if a poster is demonstrating a similarly controversial posting style to someone else.* It's hardly as if she was being accused and hounded about it, however she might choose to characterise it.



A similar posting style to who though? Never been made clear that. And that's what I'm on about WRT lack of evidence.



existentialist said:


> <snip>
> And, in case you hadn't noticed, most of her banging on has been nothing to do with being accused of being a sockpuppet.




A fair bit of it has been  & I'm not keen on seeing it. Urban at it's worst IMO.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> A fair bit of it has been  & I'm not keen on seeing it. Urban at it's worst IMO.


if you that's urban at its worst you've barely scratched the surface of the boards


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> A similar posting style to who though? Never been made clear that. And that's what I'm on about WRT lack of evidence.


It has been. A particular poster was identified on a particular thread. I don't recall the name, but it's ^^^ up there somewhere, AFAICR.

And another poster has pointed out that this very poster has previous form for this kind of thing. I haven't checked that out, so I am not going to vouch for its accuracy, but I'm inclined to believe the poster.



Frances Lengel said:


> A fair bit of it has been  & I'm not keen on seeing it. Urban at it's worst IMO.


Very little has been about the sockpuppet thing. Most of what she has gone on about has been me, and the way in which I refused to engage with her strategy of PMing me, and responses I have made to her on this thread. I have yet to see anything beyond some very slanted recollections of what I wrote, and some outrageously selective extracts from it in support of her claims, so I am quite happy to take what she is saying with a great pinch of salt, confident in the knowledge that anyone with any critical faculties whatsoever will be doing the same thing.

The sock puppet thing was, from the perspective of this thread, nothing more than a brisk aside, and not the big deal you're making of it.


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

tbh, most of her banging on has been about the fact that some posters dare to disagree with her. they challenge her statements, they ask her to justify her assertions and when she accuses them of bullying as a result of their temerity, they don't promptly roll over and play dead.


----------



## Rural (Jul 11, 2014)

I'm not understanding this sock puppet. Do u mean that ppl have been banned from here in the past but they come back with new usernames/emails pretending to b a new person? Or that someone who is still a member and not banned, has created several accounts, maybe to back up their point of view on threads?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if you that's urban at its worst you've barely scratched the surface of the boards



Stop acting.



existentialist said:


> It has been. A particular poster was identified on a particular thread. I don't recall the name, but it's ^^^ up there somewhere, AFAICR.
> 
> And another poster has pointed out that this very poster has previous form for this kind of thing. I haven't checked that out, so I am not going to vouch for its accuracy, but I'm inclined to believe the poster.



I'm inclined to think it's bullshit given the complete absence of any supporting evidence.







existentialist said:


> <snip>The sock puppet thing was, from the perspective of this thread, nothing more than a brisk aside, and not the big deal you're making of it.



I'm making a big deal of fuck all - Unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry  _are_ a wankers trick. That's _all  _I'm saying. End of.


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> And another poster has pointed out that this very poster has previous form for this kind of thing. I haven't checked that out, so I am not going to vouch for its accuracy, but I'm inclined to believe the poster.



certainly has form for leaping into accusation of bullying when people dare to disagree with her. 

and some very interesting notions of what feminism is. 

alongside claims of expert knowledge.

sort of fits with the claims of expert knowledge and interesting notions of how victims respond to abuse.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

Rural said:


> I'm not understanding this sock puppet. Do u mean that ppl have been banned from here in the past but they come back with new usernames/emails pretending to b a new person? Or that someone who is still a member and not banned, has created several accounts, maybe to back up their point of view on threads?


"Sock puppet" usually refers to a second (or third, etc) identity that a user on a board has set up: the name comes from the idea of someone having a sock puppet on their hand and having a conversation with it.

Quite often, people who create sock puppet accounts use them to create the impression that their particular viewpoint has other people agreeing with it.


----------



## Rural (Jul 11, 2014)

QUOTE="existentialist, post: 13264615, member: 46721"]"Sock puppet" usually refers to a second (or third, etc) identity that a user on a board has set up: the name comes from the idea of someone having a sock puppet on their hand and having a conversation with it.

Quite often, people who create sock puppet accounts use them to create the impression that their particular viewpoint has other people agreeing with it.[/QUOTE]
Thats what I understood it to mean but I've seen talked of banned ppl coming back so wondered if this was what was meant. Tbh I haven't looked at rules for getting banned so I better do that!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> I'm making a big deal of fuck all


_true_


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> _true_



ok, i was wrong, i like you somtimes. 

just don't tell anyone


----------



## existentialist (Jul 11, 2014)

Rural said:


> Thats what I understood it to mean but I've seen talked of banned ppl coming back so wondered if this was what was meant. Tbh I haven't looked at rules for getting banned so I better do that!


Yeah, these terms get their definitions stretched, and banned returners generally don't come back with their original IDs (for obvious reasons!). But they're not really sock puppets in that case.

You will want to check out the forum rules and FAQ, which you will find here: http://www.urban75.net/forums/help

(our mutual friend bubbles might also want to do a little reading up, to ensure she doesn't do anything silly like post a PM or something else)


----------



## Rural (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Yeah, these terms get their definitions stretched, and banned returners generally don't come back with their original IDs (for obvious reasons!). But they're not really sock puppets in that case.
> 
> You will want to check out the forum rules and FAQ, which you will find here: http://www.urban75.net/forums/help
> 
> (our mutual friend bubbles might also want to do a little reading up, to ensure she doesn't do anything silly like post a PM or something else)



Thank u i will go check


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2014)

All urban threads over 5 pages have a mezzanine floor.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> _true_



Wounded.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

Wilf said:


> All urban threads over 5 pages have a mezzanine floor.



Still at least you can see up skirts so a purpose is served.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Wounded.


knee


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> knee


Say what you like about Jimmy, at least he's bequeathed us a Word Association pt. 6.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

existentialist  - A counsellor who's _fat 

_http://www.prospects.ac.uk/counsellor_job_description.htm

_



			Counsellors work in a confidential setting and listen attentively to their clients. They offer them the time, empathy and respect they need to express their feelings and perhaps understand themselves from a different perspective. *The aim is reduce their confusion *and enable them to cope with challenges or to make positive changes in their life where necessary.
		
Click to expand...

_
How can you be in a position to do that when you yourself are confused about when to stop shovelling scran into your gob? Hypocritical fucking parasite.


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

definitely a dickhead.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel when bubbles first started posting her posting style and familiarity with urban was what led to accusations of sockpuppetry - I forget who exactly it was claimed she was but probably firky/foxyred. Which was the same evidence that you yourself used to claim that melancholia (banned) was a sockpuppet of Ronnie Rubasov (also banned).

So I don't see how you can claim anyone is out of line when you did the exact same thing less than a year ago.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Frances Lengel when bubbles first started posting her posting style and familiarity with urban was what led to accusations of sockpuppetry - I forget who exactly it was claimed she was but probably firky/foxyred. *Which was the same evidence that you yourself used to claim that melancholia (banned) was a sockpuppet of Ronnie Rubasov (also banned).*
> 
> So I don't see how you can claim anyone is out of line when you did the exact same thing less than a year ago.



I didn't though, did I?


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> existentialist  - A counsellor who's _fat
> _
> http://www.prospects.ac.uk/counsellor_job_description.htm
> 
> ...


You're out of order here.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> existentialist  - A counsellor who's _fat
> 
> _http://www.prospects.ac.uk/counsellor_job_description.htm
> 
> ...


stop being a twat, frances


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> I didn't though, did I?


Yes you did:


Frances Lengel said:


> Don't be fucking stupid - Ronnie did, I reckon, have a sockpuppet account in the name of Melancholia while he was on his flounce. He posted on that thread about that dicky anarchist bookshop that got burnt down. And got banned. Which was fair enough. No way is he _Dwyer_ though. Do try to keep up. Honest to god, some of youse, your eyes must be boggled.
> 
> E2a this thread http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...bombed-donations-being-accepted.305769/page-3 from post 82. I thought he was pretty funny.





Frances Lengel said:


> soz - I did think melancholia was you. He was funny as fuck on that anarchist bookshop thread anyway.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> You're out of order here.



Nah apologise.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Yes you did:



Alright - But in that case I was sticking up for the guy. Still, fair cop though.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nah apologise.


For what?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Mi nah apologise.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 11, 2014)

I can feel an outbreak of 

 

coming on


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

every time there's some kind of row, this twat stomps in and starts flinging random shit. nothing constructive to add, just a load of shitchucking


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> For what?



Exactly.Apologise fuh wha'?



That'll probably get me in trouble though.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 11, 2014)

I think that BubblesMcGrath was Nessa3numbers, on the Maxine Carr Gets Married thread. 

In that thread, fairly on, (I think) Nessa mentioned (having?) Aspergers, and I read the Maxine Carr thread more as a study of Nessa's experience of Aspergers, than about Maxine Carr's wedding.

I recognised Bubbles' posting style when the same thing started happening in this thread, and throughout I have thought that Nessa/ Bubbles is living with a mental health problem. 

I know little about Aspergers. My experience is mainly that of working with an ex-patient who was diagnosed as having Aspergers when I referred him to a psychiatrist, after being baffled by his approach to life / everything about him. 

I feared that Bubbles /Nessa had disclosed too much about herself. As interest in her project grew, that next step could have been saying that she worked at e.g. Seashell Project, at the Clay Centre in Dublin SW2, which would have revealed too much.

We all have to be careful about revealing too much personal info about ourselves. For some time I posed as some stupid character on Urban75 - a bad move. Self-preservation gone very wrong and complicated. 

Although Bubbles /Nessa has been trying, rude, disruptive and childlike, I bear in mind that she may have some MH difficulties.

Apart from this, I very much liked the posts about cheap solutions to difficult problems. Quick fixes, training in record time, very cheap, cure yourself on the internet. My big piss off is CBT. 

However, I am no longer practising, so I am out of date.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Still at least you can see up skirts so a purpose is served.


Want to explain this creepy sexist comment Frances?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Want to explain this creepy sexist comment Frances?



Throwaway joke - Like the speculations about other posters being sockpuppets were naught more than throwaway remarks. Essentially harmless apparently.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> every time there's some kind of row, this twat stomps in and starts flinging random shit. nothing constructive to add, just a load of shitchucking


To be fair, frances' post defending bubbles a page or so was okay.  Haven't followed the bubbles v existentialist thing - a while back it seemed to be about professional practice, but now it seems to be about something else - I really haven't read the intervening stuff.  Maybe just evening things up a bit?  The fatty dig was out of order though.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Throwaway joke - Like the speculations about other posters being sockpuppets were naught more than throwaway remarks. Essentially harmless apparently.


Ah, the 'it's just a joke' excuse for sexism.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath still waiting for you to show me the posts where I've been hassling you.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Ah, the 'it's just a joke' excuse for sexism.



Nah, it _was_ just a joke & fuck all to do with sexism.


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Ah, the 'it's just a joke' excuse for sexism.



judging from the rest of his performance, you didn't actually expect anything more original did you?


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nah, it _was_ just a joke & fuck all to do with sexism.


 
it's nothing to do with sexism, apart from being a shit sexist 'joke' about wanting to gawp at women's underwear.

1/10. please try harder.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nah, it _was_ just a joke & fuck all to do with sexism.


Apart from it being a sexist joke....

Which you posted deliberately to wind people up.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

Wilf said:


> To be fair, frances' post defending bubbles a page or so was okay.  Haven't followed the bubbles v existentialist thing - a while back it seemed to be about professional practice, but now it seems to be about something else - I really haven't read the intervening stuff.  Maybe just evening things up a bit?  The fatty dig was out of order though.



TBH I genuinely do despise counsellors and social workers and all those parasitical wankers. I honest to god _hate_ them. If their budgets were spent directly on the people who needed a bit of help, we wouldn't need this self appointed parasite class. And if one of them has the lack of self awareness to let themself get _fat_ then really. Fuck them. Crossways. Til it hurts.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Apart from it being a sexist joke....
> 
> Which you posted deliberately to wind people up.



Explain why it was sexist then.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> TBH I genuinely do despise counsellors and social workers and all those parasitical wankers. I honest to god _hate_ them. If their budgets were spent directly on the people who needed a bit of help, we wouldn't need this self appointed parasite class. And if one of them has the lack of self awareness to let themself get _fat_ then really. Fuck them. Crossways. Til it hurts.


Fat people let themselves get fat do they?

You are a nasty nasty piece of work Frances.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Explain why it was sexist then.


Because it's about looking up women's skirts. Men don't wear skirts, it's another way to objectify and belittle women.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> *Fat people let themselves get fat do they?*
> 
> You are a nasty nasty piece of work Frances.



Ultimately yeah. But that's not my main bugbear - No fucker should set themself up as a _counsellor_ or some shit. fat or not. But if they _are_ fat then fuck em double.


----------



## Rural (Jul 11, 2014)

[QUOTE="equationgirl, post: 13264777, member: 178Fat people let themselves get fat do they?

You are a nasty nasty piece of work Frances.[/QUOTE]
How does anyone know what any of us look like? U cant tell from an avi.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Because it's about looking up women's skirts.* Men don't wear skirts*, it's another way to objectify and belittle women.



Some men do. But nah, I apologise for that joke - It probably was ill advised.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 11, 2014)

oh fuck off frances. this thread has turned shit enough without you doing this.

i've had to scroll through five or six pages of the same shit off the same people.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> TBH I genuinely do despise counsellors and social workers and all those parasitical wankers. I honest to god _hate_ them. If their budgets were spent directly on the people who needed a bit of help, we wouldn't need this self appointed parasite class.


really? you genuinely believe that?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> There's no confusion I'm afraid.
> Telling me I'm someone else and a sock puppet is not "hitting a raw nerve"...it's just false shit that three posters here persist in trawling out to toss at me.



Unfortunately we do get sock puppets and returners - as does most forums - so if someone new arrives who makes a bit of a splash or constructs contentious posts then they'll be open to that accusation.

Personally I don't think you are, because sock puppets and returners generally don't become incredulous over the accusation. But also note: I'm often wrong.


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> TBH I genuinely do despise counsellors and social workers and all those parasitical wankers. I honest to god _hate_ them. If their budgets were spent directly on the people who needed a bit of help, we wouldn't need this self appointed parasite class. And if one of them has the lack of self awareness to let themself get _fat_ then really. Fuck them. Crossways. Til it hurts.



i've got to laugh, cause otherwise I'll end up facepalming myself into next week


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> really? you genuinely believe that?



Yeah. I hate them with all my heart. No joke.



toggle said:


> i've got to laugh, cause otherwise I'll end up facepalming myself into next week



Laugh then.


discokermit said:


> oh fuck off frances. this thread has turned shit enough without you doing this.
> 
> i've had to scroll through five or six pages of the same shit off the same people.



Alright.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> TBH I genuinely do despise counsellors and social workers and all those parasitical wankers. I honest to god _hate_ them. If their budgets were spent directly on the people who needed a bit of help, we wouldn't need this self appointed parasite class. And if one of them has the lack of self awareness to let themself get _fat_ then really. Fuck them. Crossways. Til it hurts.


 Are lecturers included?  I've got some chips under the grill and need an answer pretty sharpish.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> judging from the rest of his performance, you didn't actually expect anything more original did you?


I'm still wondering why calling EG a prefect equates to 'be silent woman, know your place'. For starters a prefect isn't gender specific and I'd say exactly the same to a bloke policing threads - and indeed used to a lot with Loki (RIP). 

So either you want me to go softer on women - which is apparently sexist - or you want us all in the same ball park. But apparently that's sexist too.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 11, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Are lecturers included?  I've got some chips under the grill and need an answer pretty sharpish.



You're let off coz lecturers don't tell people how to live or even fucking 





> offer time, empathy and respect  for their clients to express their feelings


  - Wankers.


----------



## toggle (Jul 11, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm still wondering why calling EG a prefect equates to 'be silent woman, know your place'. For starters a prefect isn't gender specific and I'd say exactly the same to a bloke policing threads - and indeed used to a lot with Loki (RIP).
> 
> So either you want me to go softer on women - which is apparently sexist - or you want us all in the same ball park. But apparently that's sexist too.


actually, I spelt it properly.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> You're let off coz lecturers don't tell people how to live or even fucking   - Wankers.


You were too late anyway [nom] - lack of deferred gratification [m'kay].


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2014)

toggle said:


> actually, I spelt it properly.


Well that's wonderful. Maybe I didn't because I'm a thick state educated Northerner?  

Or maybe your opinion has got nothing to do with my social class or education?


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2014)

For the last time I don't police threads ffs


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 12, 2014)

a diversion

its sorta spooky reading the DM article on the auction of saviles stuff from 2012

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-personal-treasures-fetch-small-fortune.html

"
Two original signed sketches of Sir Jimmy, one smoking a cigar, by Rolf Harris are included in the auction with both estimated at £400 to £600. Rolf captured Sir Jimmy’s likeness in minutes when the pair met over a cup of tea in a Bristol TV studio’s canteen"


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Well that's wonderful. Maybe I didn't because I'm a thick state educated Northerner?
> 
> Or maybe your opinion has got nothing to do with my social class or education?



oh ffs. 

more to do with the fact i actually spelt it properly and noticed you didn't. without a spellchecker. this amuses me.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

or, rather than adressing his (perfectly reasonable ) point, you chose to focus on a typo.Nice one.



more to do with the fact i actually spelt it properly and noticed you didn't. without a spellchecker. this amuses me.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

oh ffs.

more to do with the fact i actually spelt it properly and noticed you didn't. without a spellchecker. this amuses me.[/QUOTE]


Frances Lengel said:


> or, rather than adressing his (perfectly reasonable ) point, you chose to focus on a typo.Nice one.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle and frances are morphing into one.  This is messing with my world view!


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

not-bono-ever said:


> a diversion
> 
> its sorta spooky reading the DM article on the auction of saviles stuff from 2012
> 
> ...


That whole article is now really creepy. Made me shudder.

I'm not surprised they met though, they must have known what the other was up to.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

Wilf said:


> *toggle and frances are morphing into one*.  This is messing with my world view!



Now there's an image that's raw fucking sex.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 12, 2014)

fuck it. if this thread can get back on topic and stick to it for at least two pages, i'll go over roundhay and piss on savile's garden again.
deal?
edit for Spymaster - yeah, it's been at least a year - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/mundane-pictures-of-the-north.311170/page-87#post-12409928


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> fuck it. if this thread can get back on topic and stick to it for at least two pages, i'll go over roundhay and piss on savile's garden again.
> deal?



Again?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> I think that BubblesMcGrath was Nessa3numbers, on the Maxine Carr Gets Married thread.
> 
> In that thread, fairly on, (I think) Nessa mentioned (having?) Aspergers, and I read the Maxine Carr thread more as a study of Nessa's experience of Aspergers, than about Maxine Carr's wedding.
> 
> ...



Staggeringly ridiculous post......telling me I have mh problems....and trying yet again to say I'm someone else. 
Getting sick of this dissection.


----------



## Celyn (Jul 12, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Don't know if this has been shown before but a WTF sort of reaction to a Taiwanese take on Stuart Hall.





Very much WTF!   (Mentally filing Taiwan as another place with really weird telly)


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> For the last time I don't police threads ffs


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> and now you are trying to deflect the complaints i have made about your posts and behavior onto existentialist, without addressing any of the comments I've made.
> 
> I think  the first point is the most valid, with experience in the arena of supporting abuse victims, how can you be so unaware of the damaging effect of the myth that all 'proper victims' fight back?



  " 'Proper victims' fight back"
Where did I write this quote?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> "proper victims fight back"
> Where did I write this quote?


You should probably just accept that your posts will be misrepresented, twisted and turned against you by the clique squad... Resistance is futile.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> You should probably just accept that your posts will be misrepresented, twisted and turned against you by the clique squad... Resistance is futile.




Thanks.... I'm giving it the bullet.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Thanks.... I'm giving it the bullet.


So I'm guessing you're not going to quote the posts where you claim existentialist and I were bullying/hassling you?


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> You should probably just accept that your posts will be misrepresented, twisted and turned against you by the clique squad... Resistance is futile.



then perhaps you could show me where I have directly attributed this phrase to her. 

she is again, avoiding discussing why someone who claims to have a background in DV support seemingly has so little awareness of that particular myth that she is claiming fighting back is normal behavior for a victim. 




bubblesmcgrath said:


> "proper victims fight back"
> Where did I write this quote?



maybe you could show me where i have attributed this as a quote from you.

little hint - you won't. you haven't even got the quote marks in the right place. and I haven't attributed it to anyone. 

but now i'm thinking about how common that phrase is in discussion of DV that I'm wondering how someone with your long expereince could have missed noticing it, or some variation on it. 

but i'm sure you will find some bullshit way to not answer that. that's today's tactic, right?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> maybe you could show me where i have attributed this as a quote from you.
> 
> little hint - you won't. you haven't even got the quote marks in the right place. and I haven't attributed it to anyone.
> 
> ...







You imply that I in some way was party to this view that 'proper victims' fight back. As I recall existentialist posted about this in response to my original post and insisted that his interpretation of my original post was this very thing. You are now using the same language and by implication assuming yet again that my original post reflected this view. 
I've already said I'm done on this thread.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> existentialist  - A counsellor who's _fat
> 
> _http://www.prospects.ac.uk/counsellor_job_description.htm
> 
> ...


What the actual fuck?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> [QUOTE="equationgirl, post: 13264777, member: 178Fat people let themselves get fat do they?
> 
> You are a nasty nasty piece of work Frances.


How does anyone know what any of us look like? U cant tell from an avi.[/QUOTE]
I have probably let on that I'm carrying a bit of extra. 

It demonstrates, more than anything, how wide of the mark Frances is about what counsellors are and do, though. So he's either clueless, or feeling particularly vicious.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> "proper victims fight back"
> Where did I write this quote?


Nobody has said you did - she's referring to the myth. It's not ALL about you.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You imply that I in some way was party to this view that 'proper victims' fight back. As I recall existentialist posted about this in response to my original post and insisted that his interpretation of my original post was this very thing. You are now using the same language and by implication assuming yet again that my original post reflected this view.
> I've already said I'm done on this thread.


Rubbish. My original post contested that your claim that SHOUTING VERY LOUDLY or running away were valid strategies for abuse prevention. I'm pretty sure I remember you saying something about hitting people, too. 

If you need post numbers and links, I'll find them when I'm not on my phone.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

QUOTE="existentialist, post: 13264955, member: 46721"]How does anyone know what any of us look like? U cant tell from an avi.[/QUOTE]
I have probably let on that I'm carrying a bit of extra.

It demonstrates, more than anything, how wide of the mark Frances is about what counsellors are and do, though. So he's either clueless, or feeling particularly vicious.[/QUOTE]
Doesnt matter at all what anyone looks like, just seemed a strange thing to say as I thought we were anon on here. One thing I've liked here is how we're mostly accepted/challenged for arguments/debate style. I've not seen anyone referring to appearance b4


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> Doesnt matter at all what anyone looks like, just seemed a strange thing to say as I thought we were anon on here. One thing I've liked here is how we're mostly accepted/challenged for arguments/debate style. I've not seen anyone referring to appearance b4


It does happen. And it's nasty when it does. For all that I've defended Frances after his bans before, I find myself thinking right now that Urban would be improved for the lack of his kind of loose cannon viciousness.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances can be vicious, but what you see is what you get. There's plenty of viciousness that goes on here, including attacks on people's professional integrity, from people who take the moral high ground, that is arguably more harmful.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Frances can be vicious, but what you see is what you get. There's plenty of viciousness that goes on here, including attacks on people's professional integrity, from people who take the moral high ground, that is arguably more harmful.


True. Perhaps it's only that I haven't been on the receiving end of Frances' wysiwyg approach before, but right now it doesn't feel preferable to anything.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> True. Perhaps it's only that I haven't been on the receiving end of Frances' wysiwyg approach before, but right now it doesn't feel preferable to anything.



No, I'm sure it doesn't. I think it goes beyond what should be accepted here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> "proper victims fight back"
> Where did I write this quote?


the post you quote has "proper victims" as the quote, not "proper victims fight back". have you considered remedial reading classes?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the post you quote has "proper victims" as the quote, not "proper victims fight back". have you considered remedial reading classes?


I think it's more likely to be wishful misinterpretation, TBH. Going by her form on this thread, she tends to be very selective in her recollection/reposting of what she and other people write. 

Or am I being too charitable?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> oh ffs.
> 
> more to do with the fact i actually spelt it properly and noticed you didn't. without a spellchecker. this amuses me.



Spelt what correctly?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2014)

....


----------



## chandlerp (Jul 12, 2014)

Well this has been many many pages of interesting stuff about Savile


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jul 12, 2014)

Thread is dead, move along now.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

chandlerp said:


> Well this has been many many pages of interesting stuff about Savile


One of the things we are going to have to do if people like Savile are to be prevented from harming children is to make sure that we - and children - are aware of the risks *before* they arise.

In too many of the stories, one of the narratives was firstly disbelief by those being abused at what was being done, and secondly complete ignorance as to what to do about it.

But the other narrative, which seems to me equally as important, is that of the individuals who knew something was wrong, and who either did not say something, or tried to say something, and were silenced or ignored, because it didn't fit with the facts as perceived by the person hearing the reports.

And make no mistake that this is unusual. If you look through the history of inquiries into pretty much every serial sex abuser, there are stories - usually many stories - of people who had their suspicions. Sometimes they did report them, sometimes they didn't. And when they reported them, all too often the reports were ignored. Here's just one example, of a teacher who abused children at a school for twenty years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3853953.stm

This is the timeline of the abuses perpetrated by John Owen, the disclosures, and his eventual suicide that resulted in the Clwych Inquiry into how he was able to abuse children in a school and elsewhere for all that time. The inquiry finished in 2003, and it is clear that, in regard to the difficulty people had in getting the disclosures taken seriously, the problem was very similar to the Savile one.

Yet, over a decade later, we were still facing the same problems. And I am not at all convinced that, if another cunning, charismatic and prolific abuser is operating today (and, trust me, they are), it will really be that much easier for those around them who suspect all is not well to blow the whistle and be heard. Or at least easier enough to enable disclosures to be made and acted upon.

Eventually, after 20 years, the police, having previously investigated and decided there was nothing to worry about, finally reinvestigated. Owen killed himself the day before he was due in court to face charges relating to those years of abuse. Can we be sure someone isn't out there, hidden in plain view, building another 20 year career of abuse reasonably secure in the knowledge that nobody will dare risk blowing the whistle on them?

Sure, there is a case for last-ditch protection, and it makes sense for children to at least know what is OK and what isn't, but the child protection focus should really be on ensuring that the situation never gets to that point in the first place.

And the best defence for children against everything from bullying to abuse is actually self-esteem and the knowledge that they are listened to. Abusers are good at picking out likely victims. They generally aren't going to pick on forthright, well-connected and resourced kids when they can abuse isolated, insecure children who are far more likely to respond to the abuser's overtures and far less likely to be able to tell anyone else what is happening.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> So I'm guessing you're not going to quote the posts where you claim existentialist and I were bullying/hassling you?



Give it a rest, ffs. You're hassling her now.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> she is again, avoiding discussing why someone who claims to have a background in DV support seemingly has so little awareness of that particular myth that she is claiming fighting back is normal behavior for a victim.



She's avoiding getting ripped to pieces by you lot.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> TBH I genuinely do despise counsellors and social workers and all those parasitical wankers. I honest to god _hate_ them. If their budgets were spent directly on the people who needed a bit of help, we wouldn't need this self appointed parasite class. And if one of them has the lack of self awareness to let themself get _fat_ then really. Fuck them. Crossways. Til it hurts.


In your shoes, I'd be wondering why I felt so strongly about a group of people whose only significant factor, to you, is what they do for a living.

It's worth remembering that - unlike a lot of the mental health profession - counsellors are one of the few whom you only go to because *you* want to. A counsellor won't see someone who doesn't want to be there. So they present no threat to you. Counsellors don't diagnose or section, either.

When you get right down to it, the core of what counsellors do is listening. Just that.

So your _hatred_ of a profession whose primary task is to listen to people who want to be there seems a little extravagant.

And it is interesting to note, to drag this back on-topic, that one of the recommendations of the Clwych Report I mentioned earlier was that schools should have counsellors present. Why? To _listen_. Because the inquiry came to the conclusion that there was nobody independent enough of the system who was _listening_ to the kids who were saying what was going on.

I imagine that your feelings about the counselling profession come from some kind of negative encounter you've had with them in the past (although I am appalled at how often people are told they're receiving "counselling" and it turns out that whoever they're getting it from, it's not a counsellor, so don't be too sure you're hating the right profession), but if you stop and think slightly rationally for a moment, you may well come to the realisation that abusing a person you've never met on an internet forum because of the way you feel about his chosen profession, on the basis of some experience you've had with (quite possibly not even) another member of the same profession isn't really on.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> It does happen. And it's nasty when it does. For all that I've defended Frances after his bans before, I find myself thinking right now that Urban would be improved for the lack of his kind of loose cannon viciousness.



Come off it, fella. Suggesting a poster be banned????

Frances was out of order there but he's still one of the best and most honest posters here.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Come off it, fella. Suggesting a poster be banned????


I'm not going that far. I am just describing how I feel after waking up to his, frankly deeply unpleasant, verbal assault.



Spymaster said:


> Frances was out of order there but he's still one of the best and most honest posters here.


He can be. And I've held that line for a long time. Perhaps it's just because it's me the loose cannon is pointing at, but right now if the bastard disappeared in a puff of smoke, never to return, I wouldn't be breaking my heart over it. Maybe that'll change in a bit.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I'm not going that far. I am just describing how I feel after waking up to his, frankly deeply unpleasant, verbal assault.



I reckon it was out of character and that Frances Lengel was pissed or otherwise enhanced. Wouldn't surprise me if you got an apology today.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon it was out of character and that Frances Lengel was pissed or otherwise enhanced. Wouldn't surprise me if you got an apology today.


I will look forward to, and appreciate, that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 12, 2014)

The problem with aggressive pissed posting is that when you wake up with a hangover and it dawns on you that perhaps you put too much top spin on some of your posts the previous evening, you can't face logging on again until you've had a hair of the dog. By the time you've got the confidence to face the reaction, there's a fair old chance you'll end up in aggressive pissed mode again. Or that's how the pattern works with me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 12, 2014)

One could always not post horrible things when you're drunk. You still have some control over what you say!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> One could always not post horrible things when you're drunk. You still have some control over what you say!


Urban has 13,244,717 posts. How many do you think would be left if this monstrous principle were adopted?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 12, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> One could always not post horrible things when you're drunk. You still have some control over what you say!


Well booze changes people and makes them see things in a different way. I'm sure that woman from NI wouldn't have given 24 strangers blow jobs had she not been intoxicated. The answer is to control the drinking.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> One of the things we are going to have to do if people like Savile are to be prevented from harming children is to make sure that we - and children - are aware of the risks *before* they arise.
> 
> In too many of the stories, one of the narratives was firstly disbelief by those being abused at what was being done, and secondly complete ignorance as to what to do about it.
> 
> ...



I think ppl have to realise how very common abuse is & rather than think it is perpetuated by monsters  (tho I totally understand that feeling of hated, disgust & wanting to other abusers) accept that ppl who abuse can b kind,  loving,  popular,  have kids & families who love them & yet still commit horrendous crimes. We prob all know abusers,  some of them r good at hiding in plain view. It's just recognising that*average,  normal,  friendly,  likable* ppl do abuse & not to feel disbelief if someone discloses that this has happened to them because the perpetrator seems unlikely.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> One of the things we are going to have to do if people like Savile are to be prevented from harming children is to make sure that we - and children - are aware of the risks *before* they arise.
> 
> In too many of the stories, one of the narratives was firstly disbelief by those being abused at what was being done, and secondly complete ignorance as to what to do about it.
> 
> ...



I think ppl have to realise how very common abuse is & rather than think it is perpetuated by monsters  (tho I totally understand that feeling of hated, disgust & wanting to other abusers) accept that ppl who abuse can b kind,  loving,  popular,  have kids & families who love them & yet still commit horrendous crimes. We prob all know abusers,  some of them r good at hiding in plain view. It's just recognising that*average,  normal,  friendly,  likable* ppl do abuse & not to feel disbelief if someone discloses that this has happened to them because the perpetrator seems unlikely.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

OMG I don't know why my post is repeated so many times,  I promise I only posted it once. And I was so pleased I hadn't mucked the*reply* bit up this time :/


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> OMG I don't know why my post is repeated so many times,  I promise I only posted it once. And I was so pleased I hadn't mucked the*reply* bit up this time :/


You nearly got it!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2014)

Anyway, at least we've made tentative progress in establishing appropriate BMI ranges for the different professions.

> scarpers.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> In your shoes, I'd be wondering why I felt so strongly about a group of people whose only significant factor, to you, is what they do for a living.
> 
> It's worth remembering that - unlike a lot of the mental health profession - counsellors are one of the few whom you only go to because *you* want to. A counsellor won't see someone who doesn't want to be there. So they present no threat to you. Counsellors don't diagnose or section, either.
> 
> ...



You've got a point there - I was out of order with the fat stuff & I've never had any experience of counsellors/counselling - I put you in the same bracket as social workers just as a way of getting on your case. Which was out of line. The way it happened was, I felt like I was making a reasonable point about accusations of sockpuppettry and such & a few posters got on my case about it. So I reacted. In a completely unreasonable way. And it wasn't even you who I was mainly pissed off with. So sorry about that, I was out of line & I shouldn't have done it.

And soz for dragging the thread off topic as well.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

Fair play.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 12, 2014)




----------



## yardbird (Jul 12, 2014)

Have I been reading this thread for a year?


----------



## maomao (Jul 12, 2014)

yardbird said:


> Have I been reading this thread for a year?


Nearly two.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 12, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Well booze changes people and makes them see things in a different way. I'm sure that woman from NI wouldn't have given 24 strangers blow jobs had she not been intoxicated. The answer is to control the drinking.


Yup!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> One of the things we are going to have to do if people like Savile are to be prevented from harming children is to make sure that we - and children - are aware of the risks *before* they arise.
> 
> In too many of the stories, one of the narratives was firstly disbelief by those being abused at what was being done, and secondly complete ignorance as to what to do about it.
> 
> But the other narrative, which seems to me equally as important, *is that of the individuals who knew something was wrong, and who either did not say something*, or tried to say something, and were silenced or ignored, because it didn't fit with the facts as perceived by the person hearing the reports.<snip>



That bolded bit is definitely true. Puts me in mind of this fucker
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pervert-priest-jailed-968872

who was  a teacher at this grammar school I went to for a couple of years before I got kicked out. He never did owt to me but everyone knew there was something up with him - His nickname was Pere Vert, which is french for father Green, but also Pervert - If the kids were onto it, the staff _must've_ been.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> You've got a point there - I was out of order with the fat stuff & I've never had any experience of counsellors/counselling - I put you in the same bracket as social workers just as a way of getting on your case. Which was out of line. The way it happened was, I felt like I was making a reasonable point about accusations of sockpuppettry and such & a few posters got on my case about it. So I reacted. In a completely unreasonable way. And it wasn't even you who I was mainly pissed off with. So sorry about that, I was out of line & I shouldn't have done it.
> 
> And soz for dragging the thread off topic as well.


I hate you when you are being reasonable.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> That bolded bit is definitely true. Puts me in mind of this fucker
> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pervert-priest-jailed-968872
> 
> who was  a teacher at this grammar school I went to for a couple of years before I got kicked out. He never did owt to me but everyone knew there was something up with him - His nickname was Pere Vert, which is french for father Green, but also Pervert - If the kids were onto it, the staff _must've_ been.




27 assaults on 6 boys....apparently he was given responsibility for the boarders. He had an open door policy and liked the pupils to see him as a "father figure" whom they could talk to........
... abuser in plain sight....

He gets 30 years but will serve only 6?
Wtf?

We have spoken a lot about prevention and counselling here.
It might be worthwhile having a look at the length of sentences served by convicted paedophiles.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 12, 2014)

That won't stop it though


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> That won't stop it though



It won't but still - I don't see anything wrong with punitively long sentences in the case of paedos. Fuck them, lock them away for a long time however old they are when they're brought to justice.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

It'll stop them if you never let them out.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

Court procedures need looking at too...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/09/frances-andrade-courts-son

Remember this case?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It'll stop them if you never let them out.


Remember who this thread is about


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Court procedures need looking at too...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/09/frances-andrade-courts-son
> 
> Remember this case?



I'm not sure about that though. A defence lawyer needs to be robust in their treatment of witnesses. In the end, she chose to top herself and that was down to her and no one else. Changing court procedures on the basis of something like that isn't really the way to go IMO. By all means protect witnesses by means of screens or video links and such, but everyone deserves a fair trial and to be defended properly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> 1. existentialist is far from the only person who felt you were extrapolating from your own feelings, a view of how abuse victims react - by fighting back - a view that just happens to be one of those myths that surround public opinion of the 'proper victim' that often presents as a barrier to victims seeking proper support, understanding and justice. it is hardly surprising that people reading this found it distasteful. it is surprising that anyone who states they have worked in abuse prevention/damage control/recovery not to be aware of how common this myth is and how damaging and upsetting it can be to those that didn't react by fighting.



Frankly, propagation of the myths around what constitutes a "proper" or "real" victim of sexual assault continues to feed negative attitudes in the criminal justice system.  We still have police officers and prosecutors, allegedly "experts" in sexual offences, making assumptions that, for example, the way an assault is reported/the way the victim relates the assault signifies whether the claim is true or not - a crying victim, riven with shame, is more plausible than someone who coldly relates the facts, even though dissociation is common enough to be the *majority* reaction both to the actual assault as it happens, and in the aftermath.
There's also the fact that even young children, with regard to response to sexual assault, can be extremely pragmatic, and work out that attempting to resist violently will not pay a premium, just as some adults being sexually-assaulted will do.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> . I'm pretty sure I remember you saying something about hitting people, too.
> 
> If you need post numbers and links, I'll find them when I'm not on my phone.



You're incorrectly referencing a different thread, mate..........
Where I was talking about my own personal experience of abuse...as you know.... and I really am sick of you making it into a generalisation.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> I'm not sure about that though. A defence lawyer needs to be robust in their treatment of witnesses. In the end, she chose to top herself and that was down to her and no one else. Changing court procedures on the basis of something like that isn't really the way to go IMO. By all means protect witnesses by means of screens or video links and such, but everyone deserves a fair trial and to be defended properly.




Think in her case she was poorly advised by the police to avoid therapy so that her trauma would remain fresh... like an open wound.


Vera Baird QC
"The theory used to be unless literally the pain of being sexually abused comes out, because she hasn't had help to come back to normal, the jury will be unimpressed.

"If that is the way they thought then it is firstly … abysmal psychiatry and secondly it is an appalling misjudgment. The wellbeing of the victim must be far, far higher than this ludicrous tactical consideration."

Jurors in the case against Brewer, who was found guilty of five counts of indecent assault on Friday, were not told of Andrade's death until after they had reached a verdict.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Bullshit speculation about a poster being a sockpuppet without proffering any supporting evidence is proper dickhead behaviour. And any poster subject to such bullshit is perfectly entitled to defend themselves without nobheads crying about the thread going off topic.



Playing the threadcop really doesn't suit you.  It makes you seem hypocritical.


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You imply that I in some way was party to this view that 'proper victims' fight back. As I recall existentialist posted about this in response to my original post and insisted that his interpretation of my original post was this very thing. You are now using the same language and by implication assuming yet again that my original post reflected this view.
> I've already said I'm done on this thread.



1. you're attempting to distract rather than answer again. really, if you are incapable of remembering what you wrote a few days ago there's always the search function. 


2. You've already been told that existentialist is far from the only person who interpreted your posts as extrapolating that most victims fight from your response to one event. your attempt to isolate him as the cause of your problem behavior won't work any more than a similar trick worked in your attempts to accuse EG of harassing you.

3. someone who actually had experience working around DV would not have promoted this myth, would have recognized that 'proper victim' is a common generic term used in discussion. to the point I can find it in the titles of academic papers, on blogs, on advice sites for dv support groups. 

4. someone who worked with proper abuse support orgs would recognise that extrapolating a generic victim response is a fundamentally flawed approach, one only taken by people who have occasional contact with victims who usually do a lot of damage through being judgemental.

and you're done? because you're now backed into a hole that you've created through your own bullshit and claims of a background that your behavior, language and knowledge show that you either haven't expereinced, or haven't learnt a fucking thing from.




Spymaster said:


> She's avoiding getting ripped to pieces by you lot.



if she can't handle having what she says torn apart then she could always try posting up less clueless crap 

she could then try not lying to cover for the fact that she understands far less than she claims.

then she could stop throwing about accusations of bullying and trying to turn discussion into one that is all about her as 'victim'


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Playing the threadcop really doesn't suit you.  It makes you seem hypocritical.



Don't milk it you tit, that was last night FFS. _Do_ try to keep up, there's a good fellow.

Yeah though, I am a hypocrite - Same as every fucker else.


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I think it's more likely to be wishful misinterpretation, TBH. Going by her form on this thread, she tends to be very selective in her recollection/reposting of what she and other people write.
> 
> Or am I being too charitable?



yes.

once or twic might be accidental. 

this is every post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> existentialist  - A counsellor who's _fat
> _
> http://www.prospects.ac.uk/counsellor_job_description.htm
> 
> ...



Most people are the sum of complex and contradictory drives, even a muppet like you, Frances.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most people are the sum of complex and contradictory drives, even a muppet like you, Frances.



You're quoting stuff he's withdrawn and apologised for.


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> One of the things we are going to have to do if people like Savile are to be prevented from harming children is to make sure that we - and children - are aware of the risks *before* they arise.
> 
> In too many of the stories, one of the narratives was firstly disbelief by those being abused at what was being done, and secondly complete ignorance as to what to do about it.


I have read the rest of your post, but i wanted to add that attacking myths about who 'prpoer perpetrators' and 'proper victims' are. how victims dress, act, feel, behave, how they respond to trauma, this is all a huge part of creating a culture where someone dosen't have to fit a sterotype of middle class respectable white female to have a chance of being believed.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most people are the sum of complex and contradictory drives, even a muppet like you, Frances.



Like I said, that was last night - It's been dealt with now - Why rake over the coals?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> TBH I genuinely do despise counsellors and social workers and all those parasitical wankers. I honest to god _hate_ them. If their budgets were spent directly on the people who needed a bit of help, we wouldn't need this self appointed parasite class. And if one of them has the lack of self awareness to let themself get _fat_ then really. Fuck them. Crossways. Til it hurts.



Yes, because obesity is all a matter of choice, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Like I said, that was last night - It's been dealt with now - Why rake over the coals?



Because when you're being a cunt, you need reminding not to be a cunt.

You cunt.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, because obesity is all a matter of choice, isn't it?



Jesus H Christ - For the last fuckin time, what the fuck are you milking this bullshit for? The thread's moved on & you're dragging it back. I was a prick and I apologised for being a prick. Can you not just leave it alone now or what?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Because it's about looking up women's skirts. Men don't wear skirts, it's another way to objectify and belittle women.



Some men wear skirts, tbf ( Shirl 's other half, for example).


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because when you're being a cunt, you need reminding not to be a cunt.
> 
> You cunt.



Suck ya mam fatboy.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> then perhaps you could show me where I have directly attributed this phrase to her.



Perhaps you could show me where I said you had?



existentialist said:


> Rubbish. My original post contested that your claim that SHOUTING VERY LOUDLY or running away were valid strategies for abuse prevention. I'm pretty sure I remember you saying something about hitting people, too.



You seem to be suggesting they're not valid strategies for abuse prevention, that doing nothing is the best approach... so long as you pay a counsellor to fix you after the event.   

You also said...



> The only way that abuse is going to be prevented is by continually sending the message to everyone that it's OK to disclose abuse



Really? The only way to prevent abuse is to tell someone after you've been abused? That might prevent you from being abused by the same person a second time but but it's not going to prevent the initial abuse, is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Jesus H Christ - For the last fuckin time, what the fuck are you milking this bullshit for? The thread's moved on & you're dragging it back. I was a prick and I apologised for being a prick. Can you not just leave it alone now or what?



You weren't a prick, you were a thoroughgoing cunt, and as for your apology, well, we know from experience that you'll repeat the same "mistakes" some time in the near future, and then apologise again, don't we?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Suck ya mam fatboy.



Oh Frances, you're such a card, projecting your own actions onto others in an attempt to not feel Oedipal guilt!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You weren't a prick, you were a thoroughgoing cunt, and as for your apology, well, we know from experience that you'll repeat the same "mistakes" some time in the near future, and then apologise again, don't we?



And poking a fucker with sticks and resurrecting yesterday's bullshit isn't being a thoroughgoing cunt? You could've said your bit last night, just leave it now honestly let the thread move on. I've said I was out of line and yeah, I'll probably be out of line again - What's it to you though, piotious wankstain?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh Frances, you're such a card, projecting your own actions onto others in an attempt to not feel Oedipal guilt!



No shame in my game. Mind you my mam was fit in her day.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

not-bono-ever said:


> a diversion
> 
> its sorta spooky reading the DM article on the auction of saviles stuff from 2012
> 
> ...



Reading that, the first thing that came to mind was "is 'captured Sir Jimmy's likeness' a euphemism?"  The second was "is 'met over a cup of tea' a euphemism?".


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 12, 2014)

Anyway, Jimmy Savile. ..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> You should probably just accept that your posts will be misrepresented, twisted and turned against you by the clique squad... Resistance is futile.



Yeah, 'cos it's only this imaginary "clique squad" that twists posts etc, isn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyway, Jimmy Savile. ..



Apparently he was some sort of sexual degenerate.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> 1. you're attempting to distract rather than answer again. really, if you are incapable of remembering what you wrote a few days ago there's always the search function.
> 
> 
> 2. You've already been told that existentialist is far from the only person who interpreted your posts as extrapolating that most victims fight from your response to one event. your attempt to isolate him as the cause of your problem behavior won't work any more than a similar trick worked in your attempts to accuse EG of harassing you.
> ...



I understand enough to know that my personal reaction to abuse was mine and there was nothing wrong with what I did. 

If I generalised then I apologise.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyway, Jimmy Savile. ..



 Beat the system.

I'm not that into punk music but whenever Savile's name gets mentioned, I always start singing this song in my head. But with Jimmy Savile instead of Jimmy Boyle. And let's have it right, if it was a tale of two Jimmy's, Savo beat the system comprehensively. Far moreso than Boylo - Sav never did bird for one thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

existentialist said:


> One of the things we are going to have to do if people like Savile are to be prevented from harming children is to make sure that we - and children - are aware of the risks *before* they arise.
> 
> In too many of the stories, one of the narratives was firstly disbelief by those being abused at what was being done, and secondly complete ignorance as to what to do about it.



And both the disbelief and the ignorance fed into making the victims feel unsupported, disbelieved and "dirty".
Of course, it's not even like child abuse doesn't have history in the UK. W.T. Stead made his reputation (some would say badly) on exposing how easy it was in Victorian Britain to buy a young girl into slavery.
It's always seemed to me that apart from anything else, it's historically been *cconvenient* to view sexual abuse of children through the lens of "it can't be happening here".  It allows the authorities and the establishment to treat it (however pernicious it *actually* is) as an isolated perversion of a tiny minority.



> But the other narrative, which seems to me equally as important, is that of the individuals who knew something was wrong, and who either did not say something, or tried to say something, and were silenced or ignored, because it didn't fit with the facts as perceived by the person hearing the reports.



Not merely the facts.
One issue that we need to take a bit more seriously, IMO, is the cultural _milieu_ in which the judge (i.e. the person reading the reports, not a member of the judiciary!) was raised in.  This can have a noticable effect on how they judge the whole idea of child sex abuse.  I think that Dawkins' "mild paedophilia" comment illustrates such an effect well.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> yes.
> 
> once or twic might be accidental.
> 
> this is every post.


Is it?
Can you post all those quotes please.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Reading that, the first thing that came to mind was "is 'captured Sir Jimmy's likeness' a euphemism?"  The second was "is 'met over a cup of tea' a euphemism?".



The Rolf Harris sketch of Savile will have dropped in value on two counts ....

Surprised Jake and Dinos Chapman haven't hoovered up some Harris drawings to make some appropriate cutting edge artistic amendments and then re-show them as contemporary re-imaginings acutely capturing the zeitgeist. 

Working title the *Defacement of Childhood*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> I think ppl have to realise how very common abuse is & rather than think it is perpetuated by monsters  (tho I totally understand that feeling of hated, disgust & wanting to other abusers) accept that ppl who abuse can b kind,  loving,  popular,  have kids & families who love them & yet still commit horrendous crimes. We prob all know abusers,  some of them r good at hiding in plain view. It's just recognising that*average,  normal,  friendly,  likable* ppl do abuse & not to feel disbelief if someone discloses that this has happened to them because the perpetrator seems unlikely.



To some extent, we also need to accept that (contrary to the way child sexual abuse is often presented in the media) there is a gradient to the severity of abuse (although not such a gradient to the scale of *effect* of abuse on the victim), just as there is a gradient to offending behaviour _per se_ with regard to abuse, and that a minority of child sexual abuse offences are quantifiable as "one-off" events, indicating that some abuse offences may be the result (grotesque as the idea is) of "sexual experimentation" rather than paedophilia-proper.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> 27 assaults on 6 boys....apparently he was given responsibility for the boarders. He had an open door policy and liked the pupils to see him as a "father figure" whom they could talk to........
> ... abuser in plain sight....
> 
> He gets 30 years but will serve only 6?
> ...



Unfortunately, longer sentences for child sex abusers don't tend to translate into fewer cases of abuse, as convictionfor it s only skim about 40% of *reported* crimes, and extimates of the volume of *unreported* child sex abuse crimes ranges from a conservative 50% (i.e. twice as many crimes occurring as are currently reported), to 90%.  In other words, when you're unlikely to get caught anyway, longer sentences don't have a deterrent effect.
We also have the workaday issue of having effective sex-offender treatment programmes within the Prison Service, but neither the staff nor the funds to roll out the "best practice" programmes across the prison network, so some offenders are released having completed only the most basic treatment programme.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Give it a rest, ffs. You're hassling her now.


Get over yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> I'm not sure about that though. A defence lawyer needs to be robust in their treatment of witnesses. In the end, she chose to top herself and that was down to her and no one else. Changing court procedures on the basis of something like that isn't really the way to go IMO. By all means protect witnesses by means of screens or video links and such, but everyone deserves a fair trial and to be defended properly.



There's specific legislation covering the treatment of vulnerable and under-age witnesses, but unfortunately in specific cases the implementation is pretty much in the gift of the judge, so some judges let defence lawyers go in much harder than others, and prosecutors don't like to make waves by mentioning to the judge that they're not doing their job properly, for obvious reasons.
What we really need is a system whereby a neutral court official (the Clerk of the Court, perhaps) can rule specific questions and tactics out of order as they occur, but that'll never happen, because of the criminal justice system being such a network of interests.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The problem with aggressive pissed posting is that when you wake up with a hangover and it dawns on you that perhaps you put too much top spin on some of your posts the previous evening, you can't face logging on again until you've had a hair of the dog. By the time you've got the confidence to face the reaction, there's a fair old chance you'll end up in aggressive pissed mode again. Or that's how the pattern works with me.




this is the truest post ever


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It'll stop them if you never let them out.



No it won't, because for all the "hardcore paedos" that get caught and incarcerated, there'll still be the opportunists out there, as well as the groomers and the "kindly uncle" types who've never been reported, so don't turn up on anyone's radar as an offender.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some men wear skirts, tbf ( Shirl 's other half, for example).


This is true and I apologise for generalising.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Is it?
> Can you post all those quotes please.


You've got a nerve, asking people to posts up things when you repeatedly avoid doing so when asked.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> this is the truest post ever


take out the hangover & it also applies to booze-free posting while in a state of constant fury. sort of. 

/queen of shrieking anger 2013


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Get over yourself.



That's something else coming from you, little Miss Prefect!


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No it won't, because for all the "hardcore paedos" that get caught and incarcerated, there'll still be the opportunists out there, as well as the groomers and the "kindly uncle" types who've never been reported, so don't turn up on anyone's radar as an offender.


I remember there was a teacher at my school who was caught after two female pupils complained he was abusing them- he was in his late 50s/early 60s by this point so I doubt these girls were his first victims. There was also a youngish art teacher who disappeared suddenly after another female pupil said he sent her into the art supply cupboard to get something and went in after her.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No it won't, because for all the "hardcore paedos" that get caught and incarcerated, there'll still be the opportunists out there, as well as the groomers and the "kindly uncle" types who've never been reported, so don't turn up on anyone's radar as an offender.



True. But still though, if they do get caught lock them up and throw it away. I'm not saying fed them bread and water or subject them to abuse while in prison. No way, the punitive bit of prison should about loss of liberty and nothing else. But if there's ever a case to be made for prison being solely about retribution and taking the offender out of mainstream society then I reckon paedos are that case - AFAIC there's nothing worse you can do to someone than nonce them up. Fuck them, once you've done something like that you've crossed a line - I was going to say all bets are off but they're not - Even a nonce is still a person and deserves to be treated as such, but they need to know a line has been crossed. And the best way to do that AFAIC is making them do a long bit of time.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> To some extent, we also need to accept that (contrary to the way child sexual abuse is often presented in the media) there is a gradient to the severity of abuse (although not such a gradient to the scale of *effect* of abuse on the victim), just as there is a gradient to offending behaviour _per se_ with regard to abuse, and that a minority of child sexual abuse offences are quantifiable as "one-off" events, indicating that some abuse offences may be the result (grotesque as the idea is) of "sexual experimentation" rather than paedophilia-proper.



I think children r naturally curious & chn experimenting with other chn is usually OK, I mean I experimented in the sense of playing doctors & nurses with other same-age chn. But then u get 10 year olds raping 6 year olds, so its important to realise that children "experimenting" can b just as abusive as an adult molesting a child. I don't really know where I'm going with this but I guess its all just such a grey area to me anyway & just as I think I've come to a conclusion, I realise that its all a lot more complicated than that.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

In light of recent revelations and an opening up of historical abuse cases, do you think more victims will be able to feel empowered to speak out, seek help, and feel that the justice system will be fair to them?



ViolentPanda said:


> No it won't, because for all the "hardcore paedos" that get caught and incarcerated, there'll still be the opportunists out there, as well as the groomers and the "kindly uncle" types who've never been reported, so don't turn up on anyone's radar as an offender.



I'd like to see longer sentences....much longer .




equationgirl said:


> You've got a nerve, asking people to posts up things when you repeatedly avoid doing so when asked.



What post am I avoiding putting up?


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> its all a lot more complicated than that.


innit?




Rural said:


> so its important to realise that children "experimenting" can b just as  as an adult molesting a child.


ime it's easy for some people to brush abuse by minors off as 'experimentation' - i'd guess that might be because it's fairly grim to acknowlege that it actually happens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> That's something else coming from you, little miss Prefect!



You used to get picked on by prefects at your school, didn't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> I think children r naturally curious & chn experimenting with other chn is usually OK, I mean I experimented in the sense of playing doctors & nurses with other same-age chn. But then u get 10 year olds raping 6 year olds, so its important to realise that children "experimenting" can b just as abusive as an adult molesting a child. I don't really know where I'm going with this but I guess its all just such a grey area to me anyway & just as I think I've come to a conclusion, I realise that its all a lot more complicated than that.



When I'm talking about sexual experimentation, I don't mean the sort of "learning curve" children-to-children activities between kids, I mean adults who feel jaded by normal sexual experience, and decide to "experiment".  usually this involves stuff like swinging, or light BDSM, but sometimes takes a less legal turn, and yes, we're talking couples as well as singles indulging in child sex abuse here.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> *What post am I avoiding putting up?*



*sigh* the post(s) where you say that existentialist and me have been bullying/hassling you.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You used to get picked on by prefects at your school, didn't you?



We didn't have them. If we did, accepting the job would have put you on the endangered species list at my school!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I remember there was a teacher at my school who was caught after two female pupils complained he was abusing them- he was in his late 50s/early 60s by this point so I doubt these girls were his first victims. There was also a youngish art teacher who disappeared suddenly after another female pupil said he sent her into the art supply cupboard to get something and went in after her.



We had a teacher at my secondary school who had an (earned) reputation as being "all hands" with good-looking male pupils, and who ran a "boys' club" out of his large Victorian house, where he was said to get up to no good.  Several pupils reported him for groping while I was there, but nothing was ever done, as these reports were seen as malicious.  Revenge of a sort was had, though, when every pupil (give or take a handful) took a vow to give the teacher's car a single kick in passing.  That poor old Morris Minor got pretty much smashed to fuck!
The teacher in question (who was still working as a teacher in an all-boys school) was eventually arrested for serial sexual assault on underage boys in the late '90s, and is still doing time.  He'd been in teaching since 1970.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No it won't, because for all the "hardcore paedos" that get caught and incarcerated, there'll still be the opportunists out there, as well as the groomers and the "kindly uncle" types who've never been reported, so don't turn up on anyone's radar as an offender.



Well of course it'll have no affect on those who don't go through the system but it'll have an affect on the recidivism of those that do. 

1st offence - 10 years; 2nd offence - life.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You used to get picked on by prefects at your school, didn't you?


It's quite easy to point out the people who were most likely picked on at school. They go on to be bullies themselves and continue the cycle of abuse.
The protection and anonymity of online forums can be a breeding ground for them... it seems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> When I'm talking about sexual experimentation, I don't mean the sort of "learning curve" children-to-children activities between kids, I mean adults who feel jaded by normal sexual experience, and decide to "experiment".  usually this involves stuff like swinging, or light BDSM, but sometimes takes a less legal turn, and yes, we're talking couples as well as singles indulging in child sex abuse here.



E2A: As for child-to-child sexual abuse, it's a very shady area at the moment, criminal justice-wise.  There's little precedent to inform decision-making re: sentencing, and little legislation because it's seen as a vanishingly-tiny issue by the legislators (and also not voteworthy).


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> I think children r naturally curious & chn experimenting with other chn is usually OK, I mean I experimented in the sense of playing doctors & nurses with other same-age chn. But then u get 10 year olds raping 6 year olds, so its important to realise that children "experimenting" can b just as abusive as an adult molesting a child. I don't really know where I'm going with this but I guess its all just such a grey area to me anyway & just as I think I've come to a conclusion, I realise that its all a lot more complicated than that.



I've been reading a fair bit about abuse in foster homes and it is something that needs mentioning. We had a case of this a few years ago... .where a young teenager was abusing a foster child in his family. It was a dreadful situation as the child had been "rescued" from familial abuse only to be brought into another abusive situation. The child was completely let down by the system ... what upset a lot of us who worked on this was that the teenager was afforded more counselling from child services than the child. I can readily understand the need for him to be counselled as it was viewed as  "high priority" in order to try to prevent him from abusing again...yet the child was left with a six month wait for counselling and had to deal with the trauma of being abused in what was meant to be a safe place.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> innit?
> 
> 
> 
> ime it's easy for some people to brush abuse by minors off as 'experimentation' - i'd guess that might be because it's fairly grim to acknowlege that it actually happens.


I guess children can appear to other children as life-sized threatening creatures, whereas adults find it harder to see the threat in chn.but some of the worst abuse I've heard of has been done child - child. Don't think they always grew up in adult abusers but how do u treat/punish small (to adults) chn who abuse others? I know this is unpleasant to think of but I really think this is very common too these days (maybe always was)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Well of course it'll have no affect on those who don't go through the system but it'll have an affect on the recidivism of those that do.
> 
> 1st offence - 10 years; 2nd offence - life.



Recidivism is lower than for most other serious offences, partly due to extensive treatment programmes for the worst offenders, and bearing in mind that released sex offenders are more closely monitored than any other type of released offender, including murderers freed on licence.
Your proposals are good for media headlines, and MPs would mostly love them, but are they a good use of legislative time, just to allow MPs to make a gesture that will benefit hardly anyone except the MPs and the "prison industrial complex"?  They certainly don't serve the actual victims of those abusers, only purported future victims.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> E2A: As for child-to-child sexual abuse, it's a very shady area at the moment, criminal justice-wise.  There's little precedent to inform decision-making re: sentencing, and little legislation because it's seen as a vanishingly-tiny issue by the legislators (and also not voteworthy).


Exactly and its not a small issue just cos some would rather not deal with it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It's quite easy to point out the people who were most likely picked on at school. They go on to be bullies themselves and continue the cycle of abuse.
> The protection and anonymity of online forums can be a breeding ground for them... it seems.



Thanks for that cod-psychology!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks for that cod-psychology!



Any time


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> Exactly and its not a small issue just cos some would rather not deal with it



Well quite, but unfortunately stuff has to be noteworthy and headlineworthy in order to garner support from the Westminster Clown School, and child-to-child abuse isn't.
It's also, from an academic perspective, almost impossible to research meaningfully, because ethical considerations mean that direct investigation of victims is a no-no (for perfectly good reasons).  This means that academic research is limited to anonymised case files of working child psychologists and psychiatrists that deal with abuse, and the conclusions that can be drawn from these individual cases.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've been reading a fair bit about abuse in foster homes and it is something that needs mentioning. We had a case of this a few years ago... .where a young teenager was abusing a foster child in his family. It was a dreadful situation as the child had been "rescued" from familial abuse only to be brought into another abusive situation. The child was completely let down by the system ... what upset a lot of us who worked on this was that the teenager was afforded more counselling from child services than the child. I can readily understand the need for him to be counselled as it was viewed as  "high priority" in order to try to prevent him from abusing again...yet the child was left with a six month wait for counselling and had to deal with the trauma of being abused in what was meant to be a safe place.



There was a prominent case in Essex back in the noughties that went similarly, except it wasn't one child abused by the foster-child, it was 3.  Fortunately, the local authority did its' duty by the abused children, but were still castigated for not informing the foster-parents that their ward was in care because he was both a victim and perpetrator of familial abuse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> I guess children can appear to other children as life-sized threatening creatures, whereas adults find it harder to see the threat in chn.but some of the worst abuse I've heard of has been done child - child. Don't think they always grew up in adult abusers but how do u treat/punish small (to adults) chn who abuse others? I know this is unpleasant to think of but I really think this is very common too these days (maybe always was)



This kind of gets us into a whole new field, i.e. at what age is a child criminally-responsible for their actions?
As for how common abuse (physical or sexual) between children is, IMO it's always been common enough that a majority of people know/knew a kid at school who did nasty shit, but not common enough to be "very common" or ubiquitous.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> *sigh* the post(s) where you say that existentialist and me have been bullying/hassling you.[
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Well you have...and I'm not the only one who sees it...as is obvious from the posts of at least four others here.
> ...


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> This kind of gets us into a whole new field, i.e. at what age is a child criminally-responsible for their actions?
> As for how common abuse (physical or sexual) between children is, IMO it's always been common enough that a majority of people know/knew a kid at school who did nasty shit, but not common enough to be "very common" or ubiquitous.


U know u get the Bulger case & like the Saville case, the media jumps on these to turn the abusers into monsters while ignoring how very widespread abuse is. It annoys & upsets me that the narrative never changes & no1 seems to address the underlying issues. I think many ppl have prob done things they r ashamed of & tackling abuse of power in urself/ourselves has to be done to move forward. Tho obv this is uncomfortable & if ppl don't want to do it, nothing changes


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've been reading a fair bit about abuse in foster homes and it is something that needs mentioning. We had a case of this a few years ago... .where a young teenager was abusing a foster child in his family. It was a dreadful situation as the child had been "rescued" from familial abuse only to be brought into another abusive situation. The child was completely let down by the system ... what upset a lot of us who worked on this was that the teenager was afforded more counselling from child services than the child. I can readily understand the need for him to be counselled as it was viewed as  "high priority" in order to try to prevent him from abusing again...yet the child was left with a six month wait for counselling and had to deal with the trauma of being abused in what was meant to be a safe place.



that's what happened at this school in rochdale
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...cial-school-were-at-risk-of-aids-1600318.html

The boys got abused by staff, then went on to abuse each other. And then went on to rent-boy it in the town bogs. Vulnerable kids turned into perverts - It hardly bears thinking about.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> U know u get the Bulger case & like the Saville case, the media jumps on these to turn the abusers into monsters while ignoring how very widespread abuse is. It annoys & upsets me that the narrative never changes & no1 seems to address the underlying issues. I think many ppl have prob done things they r ashamed of & tackling abuse of power in urself/ourselves has to be done to move forward. Tho obv this is uncomfortable & if ppl don't want to do it, nothing changes



The bulger case was just kids who went too far though. Not really comparable with Savile IMO. You have got a point about everyone having done things they're ashamed of though - I remember trying to derail a train when I was little. And beating up a kid and pissing on him - If my mate had've said  "Shall we set him on fire?" Instead of "Shall we piss on him?" I'd have probably gone along with it. To me that's what sums up the Bulger case - Two essentially normal lads taking a road that most of us have done but for them it ending up with them doing a deeply fucked up thing. Which to me is a million miles from Savile.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> The bulger case was just kids who went too far though. Not really comparable with Savile IMO. You have got a point about everyone having done things they're ashamed of though - I remember trying to derail a train when I was little. And beating up a kid and pissing on him - If my mate had've said  "Shall we set him on fire?" Instead of "Shall we piss on him?" I'd have probably gone along with it. To me that's what sums up the Bulger case - Two essentially normal lads taking a road that most of us have done but for them it ending up with them doing a deeply fucked up thing. Which to me is a million miles from Savile.


I'd agree with that. The Bulger case was a one-off, Savile was a systematic predator who committed crimes over decades and who only stopped because he died.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> The bulger case was just kids who went too far though. Not really comparable with Savile IMO. You have got a point about everyone having done things they're ashamed of though - I remember trying to derail a train when I was little. And beating up a kid and pissing on him - If my mate had've said  "Shall we set him on fire?" Instead of "Shall we piss on him?" I'd have probably gone along with it. To me that's what sums up the Bulger case - Two essentially normal lads taking a road that most of us have done but for them it ending up with them doing a deeply fucked up thing. Which to me is a million miles from Savile.



Venables and Thompson weren't normal kids. They had family lives where they'd witnessed and been subjected to violence over a long period of time, some of it extreme. Not violence in terms of the smackings that most kids in the 80s were subjected to. Their homelives were chaotic and were a fundamental reason for their offending. The case of the two brothers in Doncaster which was a hair's breadth from becoming a similar murder bore the same hallmarks. They were from extreme environments. This is not a guarantee of extreme behaviour but makes it much more likely. Take 100 kids and put them in Thompson and Venable's situations and let's say 20 of them go onto do something very violent. Take the same hundred kids and put them in a loving home and you change that number to ,say, 2.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

You're quoting has got a bit mangled so I'm not entirely sure what your post was, although it seemed to be you claiming I am bullying you because other people says so. Have you reported my bullying posts to the mods?

Don't you think it's odd to claim that I'm bullying you and then say 'oh but you didn't PM me about the Freedom programme'?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Venables and Thompson weren't normal kids. They had family lives where they'd witnessed and been subjected to violence over a long period of time, some of it extreme. Not violence in terms of the smackings that most kids in the 80s were subjected to. Their homelives were chaotic and were a fundamental reason for their offending. The case of the two brothers in Doncaster which has a hair's breadth from becoming a similar murder bore the same hallmarks. They were from extreme environments. This is not a guarantee of extreme behaviour but makes it much more likely. Take 100 kids and put them in Thompson and Venable's situations and let's say 20 of them go onto do something very violent. Take the same hundred kids and put them in a loving home and you change that number to ,say, 2.



I'd say they were normal kids - When the papers went round Liverpool interviewing anyone who'd give them the time of day, didn't some local scal make the point that "There's nothing special about them, they're just your average scruff like us"? I'm sure they did. They were normal kids for that place and that time.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> I'd say they were normal kids - When the papers went round Liverpool interviewing anyone who'd give them the time of day, didn't some local scal make the point that "There's nothing special about them, they're just your average scruff like us"? I'm sure they did. They were normal kids for that place and that time.



Read their backgrounds. They were not average scruffs. I'll concede that int his article it does make a significant distinction betweent the two families.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships



> Thompson was a member of what can only be described as a terribly dysfunctional family. The fifth of seven children, he proved as difficult to his mother as the rest of her progeny. Ann Thompson had been deserted by her husband five years before the killing of Jamie Bulger, and in the week after he left the family home burned down in an accidental fire. Left on her own, Thompson sought consolation in drink and was often to be found in the bar in Higson's Top House rather than looking after the children in her chaotic home.
> There it was bedlam. The author Blake Morrison obtained notes from an NSPCC case conference on the Thompson family. "The Thompson report is a series of violent incidents," he reported, "none of them in itself enough to justify the kids being taken into care but the sum of them appalling. The boys, it's said, grew up 'afraid of each other'. They bit, hammered, battered, tortured each other."
> 
> The report is full of violent instances, with details of such incidents as Ann taking her third son Philip to the police station after he had threatened his older brother Ian with a knife. Ian, aged 15, subsequently asked to be taken into care and when he was returned home he tried to kill himself by overdosing on painkillers. The notes record that Ann and Philip had also previously taken overdoses.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Read their backgrounds. They were not average scruffs. I'll concede that int his article it does make a significant distinction betweent the two families.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships



Par for the course. No, you're right backgrounds like that don't help anyone but a lot of us come from backgrounds like that - That's what I meant when I said they were essentially normal kids - There were and still are families like that on any and every estate - It was a one in a million fucked up combination of circumstances that led to them doing the murder, it was nothing special about them though.

E2a - And didn't some copper who interviewed them say in the course of the investigation, he'd interviewed kids from far more damaged backgrounds?  He did. And that's what I meant by normal, that sort of background is far more commonplace than most people would like to think. And that's what makes it normal coz it just is. For a hell of a lot of people.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Read their backgrounds. They were not average scruffs. I'll concede that int his article it does make a significant distinction betweent the two families.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships


Interesting how there's little mention of either of the fathers though.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Interesting how there's little mention of either of the fathers though.



I'm looking for a more comprehensive article I once read, where it gave full attention to all the parents. It was a while back though. The article does criticise the press's lack of  focus on the dads.

e2a found this http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/bulger/7.html

Frances Lengel I accept what you say to a large extent, but even if we put Thompson  on the scale of the type of families you're talking about, I think he's at the extreme end. Look at the link there.

e2a again  re venables on next page.



> Teachers started noticing Jon's attention-seeking behavior when it began in 1991. He would do strange things, like rock back and forth in his chair, holding onto his desk, moaning and making odd noises. His teacher moved him to the front of the class where she could keep an eye on him, but then he took to knocking things over on her desk. At first, Jon's violence was self-inflicted. He banged his head on the furniture, against the wall, and would throw himself on the floor. Jon cut himself with scissors and tore at his own clothing. But sometimes his self-destruction pivoted outward. He roamed around the classroom, tearing down the displays and artwork of other students. Jon stood on his desk and threw things at other children. Teachers documented his disruptive antics — *they had never seen anything like it before.*


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Interesting how there's little mention of either of the fathers though.



Nowhere near as interesting as this bit


> but by the environment in which these boys lived, a world of social and economic deprivation, of trashy television and cultural poverty, *inadequate social services*, failed schooling and general confusion.



My bold coz I hate them. Give people directly the means and the money and you'll see far less of this stuff. It's not hard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nowhere near as interesting as this bit
> 
> 
> My bold coz I hate them. Give people directly the means and the money and you'll see far less of this stuff. It's not hard.


what do you mean by 'the means'? and do you think that handing out a load of money to people will prevent anti-social behaviour?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you mean by 'the means'? *and do you think that handing out a load of money to people will prevent anti-social behaviour?*



Not by itself no, but, giving people the means to live and not be infantilised (and that includes giving them enough money to live on) will cut down on the bulger sort of crime. ASB, probably not coz that 's a different gig.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Not by itself no, but, giving people the means to live and not be infantilised (and that includes giving them enough money to live on) will cut down on the bulger sort of crime. ASB, probably not coz that 's a different gig.


so by 'the means' do you mean 'a decent job'?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Not by itself no, but, giving people the means to live and not be infantilised (and that includes giving them enough money to live on) will cut down on the bulger sort of crime. ASB, probably not coz that 's a different gig.


Wealthy people abuse their kids too.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> The bulger case was just kids who went too far though. Not really comparable with Savile IMO. You have got a point about everyone having done things they're ashamed of though - I remember trying to derail a train when I was little. And beating up a kid and pissing on him - If my mate had've said  "Shall we set him on fire?" Instead of "Shall we piss on him?" I'd have probably gone along with it. To me that's what sums up the Bulger case - Two essentially normal lads taking a road that most of us have done but for them it ending up with them doing a deeply fucked up thing. Which to me is a million miles from Savile.


Sorry I don't mean the Bulger killers r like J'S at all, I meant the way media portrayed both stories.  Cos I see a pattern here which is not helpful in actually tackling abuse


----------



## Shirl (Jul 12, 2014)

edited because I should have read on before posting


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've been reading a fair bit about abuse in foster homes and it is something that needs mentioning. We had a case of this a few years ago... .where a young teenager was abusing a foster child in his family. It was a dreadful situation as the child had been "rescued" from familial abuse only to be brought into another abusive situation. The child was completely let down by the system ... what upset a lot of us who worked on this was that the teenager was afforded more counselling from child services than the child. I can readily understand the need for him to be counselled as it was viewed as  "high priority" in order to try to prevent him from abusing again...yet the child was left with a six month wait for counselling and had to deal with the trauma of being abused in what was meant to be a safe place.



I don't know about counselling (as opposed to child psychotherapy) or the Irish system but I can't imagine it's that different and it takes a while to set up child psychotherapy for children. It's not as simple as this child needs it therefore they get it, the child would be expected to be in a safe family who can support the therapy for a start.


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> That's something else coming from you, little Miss Prefect!



was the promice to walk away from threads where you have nothing to add other than personal attack a limited time offer?


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Venables and Thompson weren't normal kids. They had family lives where they'd witnessed and been subjected to violence over a long period of time, some of it extreme. Not violence in terms of the smackings that most kids in the 80s were subjected to. Their homelives were chaotic and were a fundamental reason for their offending. The case of the two brothers in Doncaster which was a hair's breadth from becoming a similar murder bore the same hallmarks. They were from extreme environments. This is not a guarantee of extreme behaviour but makes it much more likely. Take 100 kids and put them in Thompson and Venable's situations and let's say 20 of them go onto do something very violent. Take the same hundred kids and put them in a loving home and you change that number to ,say, 2.


I agree,  I don't think the killers were just normal kids who went too far.  Neither do I think they were Devils.  Background had a lot to do with it, I don't mean poverty at all,  tho I know the stresses poverty puts on families can   a reason for outbursts of violence,  misery,  depression etc.  But then as I seem to  be arguing abuse is the norm, maybe they were just an extreme end of a normal scale, horrible tho this is to think. What has made me think this is the huge no of ppl I know who have been abused.  It seems like almost everyone has had abuse of some sort in their lives & i know as many males as females about whom this is true.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 12, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Wealthy people abuse their kids too.



I hope no-one thinks I'm suggesting that's not the case. I just think that there similarities between the Bulger, Bell, and Edlington brothers cases in terms of their backgrounds and the crimes they commited.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> I agree,  I don't think the killers were just normal kids who went too far.  Neither do I think they were Devils.  Background had a lot to do with it, I don't mean poverty at all,  tho I know the stresses poverty puts on families can   a reason for outbursts of violence,  misery,  depression etc.  But then as I seem to  be arguing abuse is the norm, maybe they were just an extreme end of a normal scale, horrible tho this is to think. What has made me think this is the huge no of ppl I know who have been abused.  It seems like almost everyone has had abuse of some sort in their lives & i know as many males as females about whom this is true.



Poverty may have been an indirect factor in the 3 cases I've mentioned in various posts. In fact, it's very likely it was. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that. There's a massive problem with saying that state benefits cause these kind of problems of course, and it's that cruel narrative that we shouldn't buy into.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Poverty may have been an indirect factor in the 3 cases I've mentioned in various posts. In fact, it's very likely it was. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that. There's a massive problem with saying that state benefits cause these kind of problems of course, and it's that cruel narrative that we shouldn't buy into.


Yep I agree. I think most ppl would recognise that ppl are not to blame for their own poverty but it is an integral part of capitalism etc etc. Don't want to derail by going on about the 1% removing money from the 99% & transferring wealth to themselves,  but I guess u all know what I mean


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> You're quoting has got a
> 
> Don't you think it's odd to claim that I'm bullying you and then say 'oh but you didn't PM me about the Freedom programme'?



No. I don't think it's odd. You made numbers of posts telling me how and what to post about the programme I mentioned even after I'd offered to send it to anyone interested, via pm. You then continued to quiz me on it and validated your questions by saying that  you and others were very interested in it and that I wasn't posting it in the thread because a) it didnt exist b) I was lying c) I didn't have it.... both you and existentialist kept that up for a few pages. 

You may differ in your views on your own behaviour.....but from my perspective at the receiving end it of it, it felt very much like being hassled repeatedly and needlessly to post information on a thread. This persistence and haranguing was in my view a form of bullying.


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And both the disbelief and the ignorance fed into making the victims feel unsupported, disbelieved and "dirty".
> Of course, it's not even like child abuse doesn't have history in the UK. W.T. Stead made his reputation (some would say badly) on exposing how easy it was in Victorian Britain to buy a young girl into slavery.
> It's always seemed to me that apart from anything else, it's historically been *cconvenient* to view sexual abuse of children through the lens of "it can't be happening here".  It allows the authorities and the establishment to treat it (however pernicious it *actually* is) as an isolated perversion of a tiny minority.
> Not merely the facts.
> One issue that we need to take a bit more seriously, IMO, is the cultural _milieu_ in which the judge (i.e. the person reading the reports, not a member of the judiciary!) was raised in.  This can have a noticable effect on how they judge the whole idea of child sex abuse.  I think that Dawkins' "mild paedophilia" comment illustrates such an effect well.



A maiden tribute to modern babylon - the five pound virgin bought in london and sold overseas. because presumably there were no virgin teenage girls anywhere outside of England. 

Stead's behavior through the whole 'investigation' was questionable. Far from making His career, he had done that with the reports of the military atrocity some years earlier. he was on the way down and seeking to try and regain his glory and sales figures. his actions on the night he supposedly purchased the girl do show quite how much he was pushing beyond his normal behavior. the result was a public reaction that I'm not sure wasn't out of proportion to the problem and more about the continuation of the moralising agenda of those who had campaigned against the contagious diseases acts, than it was about actually protecting anyone.


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No. I don't think it's odd. You made numbers of posts telling me how and what to post about the programme I mentioned even after I'd offered to send it to anyone interested, via pm. You then continued to quiz me on it and validated your questions by saying that  you and others were very interested in it and that I wasn't posting it in the thread because a) it didnt exist b) I was lying c) I didn't have it.... both you and existentialist kept that up for a few pages.
> 
> You may differ in your views on your own behaviour.....but from my perspective at the receiving end it of it, it felt very much like being hassled repeatedly and needlessly to post information on a thread. This persistence and haranguing was in my view a form of bullying.



because it doesn't matter what you send, your claims of working for a project aren't proof. 


and they clearly didn't manage to teach you very much.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> A maiden tribute to modern babylon - the five pound virgin bought in london and sold overseas. because presumably there were no virgin teenage girls anywhere outside of England.
> 
> Stead's behavior through the whole 'investigation' was questionable. Far from making His career, he had done that with the reports of the military atrocity some years earlier. he was on the way down and seeking to try and regain his glory and sales figures. his actions on the night he supposedly purchased the girl do show quite how much he was pushing beyond his normal behavior. the result was a public reaction that I'm not sure wasn't out of proportion to the problem and more about the continuation of the moralising agenda of those who had campaigned against the contagious diseases acts, than it was about actually protecting anyone.


the maiden tribute of modern babylon


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the maiden tribute of modern babylon


Stead combines the most irritating aspects of tabloid journalism (of which he is considered the founding father) with fire and brimstone evangelism. 

I'd rather not remember it in too much detail.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> Stead combines the most irritating aspects of tabloid journalism (of which he is considered the founding father) with fire and brimstone evangelism.
> 
> I'd rather not remember it in too much detail.


it's ok, he's dead now


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> Stead combines the most irritating aspects of tabloid journalism (of which he is considered the founding father) with fire and brimstone evangelism.
> 
> I'd rather not remember it in too much detail.



Idk this case but it strikes me as similar to the sun who had a big story about a girl being sold on Oxford St by,  think it was by Romanian man,  while at the same time having a policy of directing pure hated towards any immigrants including children


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> Idk this case but it strikes me as similar to the sun who had a big story about a girl being sold on Oxford St by,  think it was by Romanian man,  while at the same time having a policy of directing pure hated towards any immigrants including children



not sure how much he did in promoting jingoism beyond tapping into it when it suited him. 



Pickman's model said:


> it's ok, he's dead now




which at the very least means that the quantity of hsi drivel is now limited.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I don't know about counselling (as opposed to child psychotherapy) or the Irish system but I can't imagine it's that different and it takes a while to set up child psychotherapy for children. It's not as simple as this child needs it therefore they get it, the child would be expected to be in a safe family who can support the therapy for a start.



Yes...but a child who was removed from their own family because of abuse is already "in the care system" and when that child is then abused again by someone in their new foster family and is left to wait 6months for counselling that is inexcusable.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Yes...but a child who was removed from their own family because of abuse is already "in the care system" and when that child is then abused again by someone in their new foster family and is left to wait 6months for counselling that is inexcusable.



Were you in communication with your equivalent of CAMHS about this? Did they explain to you why there was a wait of six months?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> because it doesn't matter what you send, your claims of working for a project aren't proof.
> 
> 
> and they clearly didn't manage to teach you very much.



Umm...where did I say that? I said I worked with the psychologists who implemented the "Freedom"  relationship and sexuality programme where I work....as part of a multidisciplinary team...but I don't work for any particular project.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Were you in communication with your equivalent of CAMHS about this? Did they explain to you why there was a wait of six months?



Social workers were on that and the explanation was unsatisfactory to them too. Basically there were too many cases and not enough personnel.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No. I don't think it's odd. You made numbers of posts telling me how and what to post about the programme I mentioned even after I'd offered to send it to anyone interested, via pm. You then continued to quiz me on it and validated your questions by saying that  you and others were very interested in it and that I wasn't posting it in the thread because a) it didnt exist b) I was lying c) I didn't have it.... both you and existentialist kept that up for a few pages.
> 
> You may differ in your views on your own behaviour.....but from my perspective at the receiving end it of it, it felt very much like being hassled repeatedly and needlessly to post information on a thread. This persistence and haranguing was in my view a form of bullying.


I have made one post on this thread about the programme you work with, on p110:


equationgirl said:


> That is not true, for example in the last page you have been repeatedly invited to talk more and link to this programme you keep talking about.



I have not continued to quiz you on it and I certainly haven't accused of you of lying.

I think you have me confused with someone else.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> not sure how much he did in promoting jingoism beyond tapping into it when it suited him.
> 
> Sounds like most tabloids.  The similarities I saw was faux outrage at child exploitation combined with a bigoted bias against all immigrants including immigrant children
> 
> ...


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Social workers were on that and the explanation was unsatisfactory to them too. Basically there were too many cases and not enough personnel.



There is that. But there is also the situation I have described to you, which isn't incidental, although you're treating it as such. And social workers may well not understand the assessment process or the setting up of counselling or therapy, it always takes time, even in the best of circumstances.


----------



## Rural (Jul 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> not sure how much he did in promoting jingoism beyond tapping into it when it suited him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry my last reply to you has turned up in the middle of ur quote!  Really not sure how I managed that :/


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

Rural said:


> Sorry my last reply to you has turned up in the middle of ur quote!  Really not sure how I managed that :/




i got you.

and you hit the quot button, then typed your reply in the middle of the quoted text.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I have made one post on this thread about the programme you work with, on p110:
> 
> I have not continued to quiz you on it and I certainly haven't accused of you of lying.
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.



When I said "you", I was of course also including your sock puppet, toggle


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> When I said "you", I was of course also including your sock puppet, toggle


Toggle is a completely separate person to me.

I guess this is you admitting you got everything wrong.


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> When I said "you", I was of course also including your sock puppet, toggle




oh gawds, you don't actually think that one is going to work do you? scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit now.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 12, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> There is that. But there is also the situation I have described to you, which isn't incidental, although you're treating it as such. And social workers may well not understand the assessment process or the setting up of counselling or therapy, it always takes time, even in the best of circumstances.



Not at all.  I'm very aware of time scales in setting up psychotherapy ... but in the particular case I referenced here the delays were problematic and caused more trauma for the child in question.


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> When I said "you", I was of course also including your sock puppet, toggle




oh gawds, you don't actually think that one is going to work do you? scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit now.


----------



## toggle (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> When I said "you", I was of course also including your sock puppet, toggle




oh gawds, you don't actually think that one is going to work do you? scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit now.


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Jul 12, 2014)

Is there an echo in here?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You're incorrectly referencing a different thread, mate..........
> Where I was talking about my own personal experience of abuse...as you know.... and I really am sick of you making it into a generalisation.


Nope. I am absolutely certain it is this thread. You have also - AGAIN - selectively quoted my post. What I said was this:



> Rubbish. My original post contested that your claim that SHOUTING VERY LOUDLY or running away were valid strategies for abuse prevention. I'm pretty sure I remember you saying something about hitting people, too.



You made the comments about shouting and running here: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-sir-jimmy-savile-obe-thread.300406/page-108#post-13255924

I have deliberately not made *any* reference to your comments about your own experience of abuse, for one main reason: going by the way in which you have fairly comprehensively twisted any response to what you post to cast you in the role of victim, and given that you seem quite determined to use your status as an abuse survivor as some kind of badge of legitimacy for your views, I don't intend touching it with a bargepole.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Perhaps you could show me where I said you had?
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be suggesting they're not valid strategies for abuse prevention, that doing nothing is the best approach... so long as you pay a counsellor to fix you after the event.


I look forward to your cites of the posts where that view has been expressed by me.

But I won't be holding my breath.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> *sigh* the post(s) where you say that existentialist and me have been bullying/hassling you.


I don't want her to put them up: I want her to report them to the mods. The kind of egregious and unconscionable behaviour she is alleging goes on here MUST BE STAMPED OUT.

I am, frankly, astonished not to have heard from the mod team yet to discuss my - inevitable - ban.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

mystic pyjamas said:


> Is there an echo in here?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> You're quoting has got a bit mangled so I'm not entirely sure what your post was, although it seemed to be you claiming I am bullying you because other people says so. Have you reported my bullying posts to the mods?
> 
> Don't you think it's odd to claim that I'm bullying you and then say 'oh but you didn't PM me about the Freedom programme'?


Maybe that's what constitutes bullying in World Of Bubbles. It may as well do, because the definition seems to cover a pretty diverse range of behaviours.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2014)

toggle said:


> was the promice to walk away from threads where you have nothing to add other than personal attack a limited time offer?



Not really, but I'll read and post on threads that I choose to depending on who's posting what at the time.I may change opinions and remarks at will. You lot are here for my amusement, not me for yours. If equationgirl keeps being a fuckwit I'll keep pulling her tail.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I don't want her to put them up: I want her to report them to the mods. The kind of egregious and unconscionable behaviour she is alleging goes on here MUST BE STAMPED OUT.
> 
> I am, frankly, astonished not to have heard from the mod team yet to discuss my - inevitable - ban.


I'm amazed too - I thought I would have heard from the mods by now about my behaviour. Never mind, I know they're superbusy.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Not really, but I'll read and post on threads that I choose to depending on who's posting what at the time.I may change opinions and remarks at will. You lot are here for my amusement, not me for yours. If equationgirl keeps being a fuckwit I'll keep pulling her tail.


You are an utter wanker.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> You are an utter wanker.



And you're a shit-digging little tosspot.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I look forward to your cites of the posts where that view has been expressed by me.
> 
> But I won't be holding my breath.



Short term memory loss to the extreme?



existentialist said:


> *My original post contested that your claim that SHOUTING VERY LOUDLY or running away were valid strategies for abuse prevention.*


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> And you're a shit-digging little tosspot.


Why, because I won't put with being a toy for your amusement?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2014)

Yeah.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 13, 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iband-rebukes-TV-star-attacks-former-DPP.html


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Short term memory loss to the extreme?


And where's the bit about paying counsellors?


----------



## Rural (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The message given over here presently to young kids is:
> 
> 1. Shout NO and draw attention
> 2. Get away/ run if you can
> ...


This seems to b the post that has caused much consternation.  I think there is some confusion over whether this is general advice in Bubbles area which is being criticised (altho some ppl said it was a good idea,  & i only mentioned a few cases where it may not help,  did not mean it was not a good thing if a child felt able to do it) & what Bubbles feels is an attack on how she reacted to personal abuse,  which imo is not for anyone to criticise.  I hope what u did worked for u. I keep seeing these arguments & I'm not sure that anyone was criticising Bubbles for how she responded to abuse (I hope not) or rather saying that that reaction is not possible in every situation.  If u manage to scream, hit ur abuser,  get away, good for u. But not everyone can do this. However this in no way invalidates ur reaction.  I haven't been awake long, hope this isn't too muddled. Apologise if I have wrong end of stick but it seems like things r being taken personally which were meant generally.  And notice I have not mucked up my reply/quote thing this time  *proud*


----------



## Rural (Jul 13, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iband-rebukes-TV-star-attacks-former-DPP.html


I didn't even know Paul gambaccini had been arrested. Stephen Fry has not exactly helped his mate by bringing it to everyone's attention.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Not at all.  I'm very aware of time scales in setting up psychotherapy ... but in the particular case I referenced here the delays were problematic and caused more trauma for the child in question.



I'm curious about how you knew about the counselling situation of both the young child and the teenager. I thought you worked with teenagers and had done for years? Why do you have access to confidential information about both?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I don't know about counselling (as opposed to child psychotherapy) or the Irish system but I can't imagine it's that different and it takes a while to set up child psychotherapy for children. It's not as simple as this child needs it therefore they get it, the child would be expected to be in a safe family who can support the therapy for a start.


In theory, getting counselling started should be rather less of an issue - counselling is rather less in-depth and challenging than psychotherapy, and it would be less important to ensure that the child was operating from a stable base before starting. Indeed, as I think about it, counselling would probably be an excellent preparatory process to psychotherapy - my experience, though, is that psychotherapy for children is rarer even than the more behaviourally-oriented CAMHS interventions, and they are like hen's teeth: most of the CAMHS responses to referrals I've been involved with could be summed up as "not accepted, as patient not suicidal *enough*"  Psychotherapy, I would confidently expect to be even harder to come by.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No. I don't think it's odd. You made numbers of posts telling me how and what to post about the programme I mentioned even after I'd offered to send it to anyone interested, via pm. You then continued to quiz me on it and validated your questions by saying that  you and others were very interested in it and that I wasn't posting it in the thread because a) it didnt exist b) I was lying c) I didn't have it.... both you and existentialist kept that up for a few pages.
> 
> You may differ in your views on your own behaviour.....but from my perspective at the receiving end it of it, it felt very much like being hassled repeatedly and needlessly to post information on a thread. This persistence and haranguing was in my view a form of bullying.


Yes, you were being "hassled" repeatedly. Exactly as repeatedly as the number of occasions that you continued to insist that the statements we were asking for foundation for were true.

You were outraged when I suggested you were "coy" about the sources. 15 pages on, and you are still complaining about being hassled and bullied, and 15 pages on you have still provided nothing to support the initial claims you were making, and which all but a tiny handful of people on the thread challenged as wrong.

And I bet you still haven't reported that 15 pages of "bullying" and "harassment" to the mods, have you?


----------



## Looby (Jul 13, 2014)

Jesus fucking Christ, I have just wasted so much time reading this drivel. I have no idea why I persevered tbh!

Can't you lot just have a group conversation to carry on the bitching and sniping? Every time someone tries to get the thread back on track, one of you drags it all up again! 

None of you are looking particularly good at the moment tbh.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> There is that. But there is also the situation I have described to you, which isn't incidental, although you're treating it as such. And social workers may well not understand the assessment process or the setting up of counselling or therapy, it always takes time, even in the best of circumstances.


It is my repeated experience that this is the case. My local social services firmly seems to believe that a social worker talking to a client is "counselling", for example.

And the resourcing problem is universal - I think it's fairly safe to say that the primary criterion in referral, particularly of children, is not level of need or risk of harm but availability of resources. As a counsellor, I am supposed to refer on clients who appear to be beyond my professional range to CAMHS. In practice, even assuming CAMHS take them (which is rare), I end up continuing to see them because the CAMHS intervention is a once-a-month thing.

And within my service they've just cut the number of hours we work by 50%, while insisting to anyone who asks that the service level is being maintained. In practice, what that means is that we can _pretend_ to maintain the service level, while in practice eating deep into it for the inevitable meetings and consultations with managers, while being expected to manage the rising tide of paperwork in our breaks and own time (because there will be no other time in which to do it), and before we even begin to look at when, for example, the first client of the day makes a serious child protection disclosure, and we're left with no slack time in which to be able to deal with that without bumping the rest of the day's clients.

What's more, I have no reason to think that the experience in my service is typical - talking to other professionals, the same is true for them: anything seen as "fat" is cut back viciously, leaving a service that's running at 101% capacity when things are going nicely. Chuck a suicide or major abuse issue into the mix, and the whole thing basically (quietly) implodes.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> Jesus fucking Christ, I have just wasted so much time reading this drivel. I have no idea why I persevered tbh!
> 
> Can't you lot just have a group conversation to carry on the bitching and sniping? Every time someone tries to get the thread back on track, one of you drags it all up again!
> 
> None of you are looking particularly good at the moment tbh.


You do, at least, have the luxury of not being on the receiving end of some of the crap.

ETA: not to mention that, having been away from the thread for a day, I probably have carpetbombed it a bit as I caught up. My bad.


----------



## Looby (Jul 13, 2014)

I've had my dealings with bubbles and I think she's a tit but there has been shit behaviour all round actually. 

This thread is wrecked.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> I've had my dealings with bubbles and I think she's a tit but there has been shit behaviour all round actually.
> 
> This thread is wrecked.


Not quite. Yeah, there's a lot of shit flying around, but there is still some interesting stuff, and I suspect that any significant revelations around the Savile aspect of things would have it snapping back into line very fast: the stupid stuff would just get lost in the volume of legitimate postings.

And yes, when one person is being a tit, it rarely brings out the best in others. I've been quite rattled to find myself being accused of lying, bullying and harassment, not to mention having some pretty nasty insinuations made about my professional integrity (not even counting Frances' comments, for which he has apologised, graciously). Perhaps, in some higher plane, we could just ignore that stuff, or move on: I am afraid my feet are made of clay, though, and I am not yet at a state of trancendence where I can simply rise above that unpleasantness and ignore it. Nor am I the only person who's catching that kind of shit, so it's probably pretty inevitable that a fair chunk of the thread's activity is going to go in that direction.

The answer, IMO, isn't to blame everyone for being as bad as each other or not coming out of it particularly well: the answer is to address the behaviours that are destabilising the thread in the first place. Since the party in question seems perfectly determined to be a tit, and since I don't think it reasonable to expect people to simply endure that abuse without feeling the need to stand up for themselves, I guess we're pretty screwed. Because I don't think most people are simply going to stand by and allow someone to abuse them in the way that bubbles, in particular, has abused people on here, nor should they have to. "Just ignore it" is crap advice for playground bullying, and it's crap advice online, too.


----------



## Looby (Jul 13, 2014)

Look, I didn't want to stir it up even more so apologies if that's what I've done it's just so frustrating to read. 

I didn't say ignore it but this has been going on page after page and nothing has or will be resolved. 

I also didn't say that everyone was as bad as each other but bubbles isn't the only one that's been out of order IMO.

No-one is going to get what they want out of this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> In light of recent revelations and an opening up of historical abuse cases, do you think more victims will be able to feel empowered to speak out, seek help, and feel that the justice system will be fair to them?



The criminal justice system and the ancillary services involved can't cope with the current levels of sex offending.  What the historical cases are showing, at least to the victims, is that although they may feel empowered to speak out once they see another case being taken seriously, that "justice" long denied will be drawn out even longer.




> I'd like to see longer sentences....much longer .



Fine.  Why?  Do you have particularly low sentences for nonces across the Irish Sea?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Nope. I am absolutely certain it is this thread. You have also - AGAIN - selectively quoted my post. What I said was this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As your link above shows...
I referenced a small part of the DES school programmes for kids. The 3 steps...ssy no...get away. ..tell someone steps.....You felt this was flawed because it was too general and you persisted in assigning this to my perspective as my only perspective despite my numerous posts afterwards which expanded the theory and practice.
I've already apologised for quoting that 3 step advice in isolation and the fact that it was a generalisation to expect anyone who is abused to all react in the same way...... .....see page 122. 
I guess you missed that 




existentialist said:


> I don't think most people are simply going to stand by and allow someone to abuse them ......... "Just ignore it" is crap advice for playground bullying, and it's crap advice online, too.




........


Let's just leave it now eh?
I didn't abuse you.
But if you feel I did then I spologise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Let's just leave it now eh?


yeh existentialist, let's just leave it, it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 13, 2014)

can we get back on track please, all this is far more important than your bunfight


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> innit?
> 
> 
> 
> ime it's easy for some people to brush abuse by minors off as 'experimentation' - i'd guess that might be because it's fairly grim to acknowlege that it actually happens.



It's not just the grimness, as to why the authorities tend to be hands-off at best, ignore it at worst, it's because there are few resources (by which I mean practices as well as money) to deal with it in the depth that is both necessary and deserved.  That's not to say that individual local authorities don't do excellent work, though.  I'm saying that central government doesn't aim enough funding (for treatment or for research) at the issue.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> can we get back on track please, all this is far more important than your bunfight


all to ready to disregard that when i tried to get the thread back on track a few pages back


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

Rural said:


> U know u get the Bulger case & like the Saville case, the media jumps on these to turn the abusers into monsters while ignoring how very widespread abuse is. It annoys & upsets me that the narrative never changes & no1 seems to address the underlying issues. I think many ppl have prob done things they r ashamed of & tackling abuse of power in urself/ourselves has to be done to move forward. Tho obv this is uncomfortable & if ppl don't want to do it, nothing changes



My big issue with the Bulger case was and is that _Doli Incapax_ (the principle by which a child under a certain age is not held criminally-responsible for their actions) was abrogated, and a new, younger age of criminal responsibility set, in order to prosecute Venables and Thompson as young adults, allowing the media to do exactly the same as they did with Mary Bell.  
As to narratives, no, it never changes, because the most prurient and sensational narrative is the narrative that sells the most papers.  A narrative of self-analysis has absolutely no appeal to our media.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you have particularly low sentences for nonces across the Irish Sea?




Nowadays they're about the same as over there.
Back in the 90's a number of serious cases involving priests led to much longer sentences. ..up to 25 years.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> ...I've been quite rattled to find myself being accused of lying, bullying and harassment, not to mention having some pretty nasty insinuations made about my professional integrity (not even counting Frances' comments, for which he has apologised, graciously). Perhaps, in some higher plane, we could just ignore that stuff, or move on: I am afraid my feet are made of clay, though, and I am not yet at a state of trancendence where I can simply rise above that unpleasantness and ignore it.



Have you reported those posts to the mods?

Justice and fair play demands that this egregious and outrageous behaviour be stamped out forthwith. Fifthwith, even.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> that's what happened at this school in rochdale
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...cial-school-were-at-risk-of-aids-1600318.html
> 
> The boys got abused by staff, then went on to abuse each other. And then went on to rent-boy it in the town bogs. Vulnerable kids turned into perverts - It hardly bears thinking about.



"Turned into perverts".  I'd disagree with that.  The original abusers were the perverts.  Their victims were merely displaying some of the more obvious and expected reactions to being nonced.  Turned into something they loathed, yes - they were turned into offenders themselves - but they weren't abusing power in the same structural way as their own abusers in order to do so.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh existentialist, let's just leave it, it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 13, 2014)

and why don't you leave it too bubbles?  do you think  posts like that are helping what this thread is about ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

Rural said:


> I agree,  I don't think the killers were just normal kids who went too far.  Neither do I think they were Devils.  Background had a lot to do with it, I don't mean poverty at all,  tho I know the stresses poverty puts on families can   a reason for outbursts of violence,  misery,  depression etc.  But then as I seem to  be arguing abuse is the norm, maybe they were just an extreme end of a normal scale, horrible tho this is to think. What has made me think this is the huge no of ppl I know who have been abused.  It seems like almost everyone has had abuse of some sort in their lives & i know as many males as females about whom this is true.



There are many militating factors that may predispose people to commit abuse - being abused and/or neglected as a child themselves being the most obvious and well-understood factor, but it's what *activates* those predispositions in individuals that are the puzzle, because while we have a handle on how people become predisposed, we have much less of a grasp on why some people act on their predispositions, and others don't, even given the same environmental factors.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The criminal justice system and the ancillary services involved can't cope with the current levels of sex offending.  What the historical cases are showing, at least to the victims, is that although they may feel empowered to speak out once they see another case being taken seriously, that "justice" long denied will be drawn out even longer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's the endless - and understandable - cry: we want to show our outrage by making the sentences as draconian as possible.

But there's a drawback. Several, in fact.

First, as is probably becoming fairly obvious by now, most abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the victim - quite possibly someone the victim cares about, or part of the victim's (extended) family. Really draconian sentences increase the pressure on the victim - or those around the victim - not to disclose, as the perceived punishment may *seem* to them to be out of all proportion to the crime: there is a real risk that, as the severity of punishment goes up, so the likelihood of disclosure goes down.

Secondly, as the severity of the sentence goes up, so the differential between the sentence for child sexual offences and, say, murder narrows. There is a real risk that very heavy sentences actually create the potential for far more harm to be done to victims than otherwise.

Thirdly, as will be evident from the statements of so many victims in recent court cases, most people who have been sexually abused are not looking for revenge, or the harshest punishments to be inflicted on their abusers. What they tend to focus on is, firstly, being believed and taken seriously, and secondly, making sure that the abuser is not able to abuse others. 

Taken together, those reasons - and I am sure there are others - seem to me to present a good argument for not just going for the tough knee-jerk response, but taking a little more care about things. I would far rather, for example, see sex offenders serve sentences that involved some assertive work on getting them to see the consequences of what they have done, and on helping them to find ways of controlling and managing their behaviours than simply warehousing them indefinitely.

There will be those whom you cannot release - the Sidney Cookes of this world, for example. It may be that Savile would have been a similarly incorrigible offender whose behaviour would not have been changed by any amount of rehabilitation work, and I am not suggesting that NOBODY convicted of sex offences against children should serve a long sentence.

It just seems to me a bit sad that the response, so often, to these things is simply to go for the gut desire to avenge ourselves on these people - it might feel good, but it doesn't do much good.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Have you reported those posts to the mods?
> 
> Justice and fair play demands that this egregious and outrageous behaviour be stamped out forthwith. Fifthwith, even.


Yes.

Next question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


>



i think it's a bit unfair you've done one for me and one for equationgirl but you've not bothered to do one for existentialist

perhaps you could run off and do that, and let everyone else get back to jimmy savile.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think it's a bit unfair you've done one for me and one for equationgirl but you've not bothered to do one for existentialist


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Poverty may have been an indirect factor in the 3 cases I've mentioned in various posts. In fact, it's very likely it was. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that. There's a massive problem with saying that state benefits cause these kind of problems of course, and it's that cruel narrative that we shouldn't buy into.



Almost 40% of the population experience poverty (officially described at the time of the Bulger murder as existing on less than 60% of the average household income).  Roughly half of those people (or 20% of the population) at that time would have been classed as being in severe poverty, and yet only a vanishingly small number of children in those circumstances turn to violent crime, let alone murder.  We can't pick out any single factor and say "it was that, *that* is what made them do it", because the reality is that Bulger was a victim of two boys who were themselves victims of a combination of circumstances, environmental factors and developmental issues that went far beyond poverty and its effects.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

Rural said:


> This seems to b the post that has caused much consternation.  I think there is some confusion over whether this is general advice in Bubbles area which is being criticised (altho some ppl said it was a good idea,  & i only mentioned a few cases where it may not help,  did not mean it was not a good thing if a child felt able to do it) & what Bubbles feels is an attack on how she reacted to personal abuse,  which imo is not for anyone to criticise.  I hope what u did worked for u. I keep seeing these arguments & I'm not sure that anyone was criticising Bubbles for how she responded to abuse (I hope not) or rather saying that that reaction is not possible in every situation.  If u manage to scream, hit ur abuser,  get away, good for u. But not everyone can do this. However this in no way invalidates ur reaction.  I haven't been awake long, hope this isn't too muddled. Apologise if I have wrong end of stick but it seems like things r being taken personally which were meant generally.  And notice I have not mucked up my reply/quote thing this time  *proud*



Spot on..
I was quoting department of education guidelines but a few here decided to rip me a new one on the strength that they felt I was advising that everyone who was abused should react the same way....despite my subsequent posts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

toggle said:


> A maiden tribute to modern babylon - the five pound virgin bought in london and sold overseas. because presumably there were no virgin teenage girls anywhere outside of England.



Or the prurient "white slave" myth was already so embedded that forming the story around that trope was easy to sell.



> Stead's behavior through the whole 'investigation' was questionable.



Absolutely. He used his subject abominably, manipulated the discourse and arguably created blocks of his narrative from no data whatsoever.



> Far from making His career, he had done that with the reports of the military atrocity some years earlier. he was on the way down and seeking to try and regain his glory and sales figures. his actions on the night he supposedly purchased the girl do show quite how much he was pushing beyond his normal behavior. the result was a public reaction that I'm not sure wasn't out of proportion to the problem and more about the continuation of the moralising agenda of those who had campaigned against the contagious diseases acts, than it was about actually protecting anyone.



I'm only 50 pages into a biography of him, so I bow to your knowledge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'd like to see longer sentences....much longer .


i'm sure you would. and hanging and flogging no doubt. but wouldn't it be preferable to treat paedophiles so they didn't reoffend instead of filling cells with them for many years to come? is your understanding of justice retribution or rehabilitation?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> It's the endless - and understandable - cry: we want to show our outrage by making the sentences as draconian as possible.
> 
> But there's a drawback. Several, in fact.
> 
> ...




I'm glad the priests who abused hundreds of kids over 30 years are going to be in jail and away from kids for the rest of their lives. 
Nothing to do with draconian outrage though. ....just very glad they'll never touch another kid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm glad the priests who abused hundreds of kids over 30 years are going to be in jail and away from kids for the rest of their lives.
> Nothing to do with draconian outrage though. ....just very glad they'll never touch another kid.


i'm sure you are glad. but i bet you'd be happier if even more draconian sentences had been passed, breaking on the wheel or similar.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Almost 40% of the population experience poverty (officially described at the time of the Bulger murder as existing on less than 60% of the average household income).  Roughly half of those people (or 20% of the population) at that time would have been classed as being in severe poverty, and yet only a vanishingly small number of children in those circumstances turn to violent crime, let alone murder.  We can't pick out any single factor and say "it was that, *that* is what made them do it", because the reality is that Bulger was a victim of two boys who were themselves victims of a combination of circumstances, environmental factors and developmental issues that went far beyond poverty and its effects.


Not specifically in regard to sexual abuse, but one point I remember being made quite forcibly in my NSPCC training is that, while poverty is probably a factor in abuse, "middle class" abuse is a lot more prevalent that popular perception would have it.

As you move up the wealth spectrum, so the social capital and resources to be able to fend off suspicions of abusing increase, the logical conclusion being someone like Savile who was able to bring his celebrity, wealth (through threats of legal action - not something available to the typical family in poverty), and "connections" to bear to such an extent that his abusing could remain an open secret until his death.

I recall a case study from that training of a child who was taken to hospital from school with severe bruising to his lower back, buttocks, and legs. On examination, he was found to have been beaten to the point of causing quite serious injury. A child protection issue was raised, and it emerged that his father *(ETA: who, it emerged, had dished out the beating)* was a surgeon at the very same hospital, and enormous pressure was put on the hospital staff to drop the matter. Given that the NSPCC present it as a case study, he clearly wasn't successful, but there will be a lot of cases where, when a suspicion is raised, the reaction will be "What, Councillor Jones? Abusing his kids? Not him, he does so much wonderful work for charity!". And it does happen. It's one of the reasons John Owen (Clwych Inquiry) was able to abuse for so long - people could not face the idea that this charismatic, successful drama teacher would be abusing his pupils.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Almost 40% of the population experience poverty (officially described at the time of the Bulger murder as existing on less than 60% of the average household income).  Roughly half of those people (or 20% of the population) at that time would have been classed as being in severe poverty, and yet only a vanishingly small number of children in those circumstances turn to violent crime, let alone murder.  We can't pick out any single factor and say "it was that, *that* is what made them do it", because the reality is that Bulger was a victim of two boys who were themselves victims of a combination of circumstances, environmental factors and developmental issues that went far beyond poverty and its effects.



I largely agree. However, as I said before take 100 families and stick them in extreme poverty and you increase the chances of the environments occuring where this type of crime might happen. We can't say it wa this or that, but we can look at the family backgrounds and economic circumstances of Bell, Thompson/Venables/ and the Edlington case brothers and say "there's a lot of common ground there". Walton and the West End of Newcastle are two of the most deprived places in two deprived cities. It's very likely that poverty was a factor in all three cases in my opinion. The stress it puts on people alone is enough to contribute to alcoholism, violent behaviour, mental health problems and so on. I'm not saying poor people are bad, I'm not saying rich people don't do naughty things. I'm saying make enough people poor and watch their problems stack up to a point where it is sometimes manifested in the ways we have seen there. It's not just poverty, it's not always poverty, it's never poverty alone, but it's a factor.

I don't think Mary Bell or Thompson and Venables are evil. I think they were normal kids who never stood much of a chance of having an ordinary life.


----------



## toggle (Jul 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or the prurient "white slave" myth was already so embedded that forming the story around that trope was easy to sell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I haven't had the time to do so, but I've picked up a fair bit about him due to his involvement in stuff like the pro boer campaign. by that time, his reputation as well as his style was a reason for the inability of his organisation to achieve significant support.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm glad the priests who abused hundreds of kids over 30 years are going to be in jail and away from kids for the rest of their lives.
> Nothing to do with draconian outrage though. ....just very glad they'll never touch another kid.


At a price. A price which, as we discover just how prevalent child sexual abuse is, we may well find ourselves unwilling to pay, and be forced to look for more intelligent alternatives.

The logical conclusion of the argument you're deploying is what ended up with people being transported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 13, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I don't think Mary Bell or Thompson and Venables are evil. I think they were normal kids who never stood much of a chance of having an ordinary life.



I don't think it's solely a working class problem..

it happens at all levels


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure you would. and hanging and flogging no doubt. but wouldn't it be preferable to treat paedophiles so they didn't reoffend instead of filling cells with them for many years to come? is your understanding of justice retribution or rehabilitation?



My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.
How do you switch that off?
Maybe rehab can do that but the priests who were jailed were sent to rehab and received counseling and were then moved to another parish where they started abusing again. This was repeated over and over...until eventually someone went down the legal route and other victims started to follow suit.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I largely agree. However, as I said before take 100 families and stick them in extreme poverty and you increase the chances of the environments occuring where this type of crime might happen. We can't say it wa this or that, but we can look at the family backgrounds and economic circumstances of Bell, Thompson/Venables/ and the Edlington case brothers and say "there's a lot of common ground there". Walton and the West End of Newcastle are two of the most deprived places in two deprived cities. It's very likely that poverty was a factor in all three cases in my opinion. The stress it puts on people alone is enough to contribute to alcoholism, violent behaviour, mental health problems and so on. I'm not saying poor people are bad, I'm not saying rich people don't do naughty things. I'm saying make enough people poor and watch their problems stack up to a point where it is sometimes manifested in the ways we have seen there. It's not just poverty, it's not always poverty, it's never poverty alone, but it's a factor.
> 
> I don't think Mary Bell or Thompson and Venables are evil. I think they were normal kids who never stood much of a chance of having an ordinary life.


And of course, if you stick those 100 families in poverty and come back 3 generations later, you will probably see some evidence of the problem being amplified as the intergenerational poverty kicks in.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 13, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> i don't think it's solely a working class problem..



Again, I'm worried about being misrepresented here. No-one's saying that. The Bell murders, Thompson/Venables and Edlington case were very similar and were directly influenced by a particular type of environment I believe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.
> How do you switch that off?
> Maybe rehab can do that but the priests who were jailed were sent to rehan and teceived vounsrlling and were then moved to another parish where they started abusing again. This was repeated over and over...until eventually someone went down the legal route and other victims started to follow suit.


it seems to me you're saying they're ill and therefore not necessarily criminally responsible - so a lengthy prison sentence would be cruel rather than curative. tell me, would you advocate the locking up of people with aids and hiv because some of them have infected other people?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.
> How do you switch that off?
> Maybe rehab can do that but the priests who were jailed were sent to rehan and teceived vounsrlling and were then moved to another parish where they started abusing again. This was repeated over and over...until eventually someone went down the legal route and other victims started to follow suit.


The reoffending of the priests in the cases you describe was as much to do with the willingness of an organisation to cover up and, effectively, collude with the abusing priests to keep their activities secret and put more people at risk.

While I don't think that absolves the priests of any responsibility, a more constructive approach might be to go after an organisation which conspires in this way, rather than solely targeting the priests.

And I see precious little evidence of the RC church being held to account, particularly in Ireland, for their role in that conspiracy.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 13, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Again, I'm worried about being misrepresented here. No-one's saying that. The Bell murders, Thompson/Venables and Edlington case were very similar and were directly influenced by a particular type of environment I believe.



victims becoming the abusers

occurs broadly across the social spectrum


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.


Also, beware. A lot of child sexual abuse is not necessarily about paedophilia. Many of those who abuse children are apparently-normal adults with apparently-normal sexual drives in other aspects of their sex life.

It is very likely that, as is the case with rape (or male rape in prisons), it's less about the sexuality of the offender than their desire to exercise some kind of power, sexual behaviour being a particularly potent pathway for that to happen.

To assume that paedophilia == child sexual abuse is to oversimplify the problem to an extent where, again, we end up tackling the problem from the wrong end, and looking in completely the wrong direction a lot of the time.

It's also worth pointing out that the opposite is also true, and that "paedophilia" is no more than the sexual attraction towards children. For obvious reasons, we are not ever going to know about those who find themselves afflicted with that particular paraphilia, and who have found ways to avoid acting on it, but we do know that such people exist.

There are even people who have recognised this tendency in themselves, and have sought help for it to avoid the risk of them offending; such help is, at least last time I checked, unavailable to anyone who has not been convicted of a serious sexual offence.

This is not nearly as clear-cut as we would like to think it is.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> The logical conclusion of the argument you're deploying is what ended up with people being transported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread.



Why inflict them on the Aussies? 



Pickman's model said:


> it seems to me you're saying they're ill and therefore not necessarily criminally responsible -



I said they were sexually attracted to children. Sexual attraction is not an illness.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> victims becoming the abusers
> 
> occurs broadly across the social spectrum


The "cycle of abuse":  most abusers were abused in their earlier lives.

Of course, not all those abused go on to abuse: it's a tiny proportion.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 13, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> victims becoming the abusers
> 
> occurs broadly across the social spectrum



Yes I know.

I'm talking about children murdering other children, or attempting to. I'm only making reference to those three cases and the specifics involved in them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I said they were sexually attracted to children. Sexual attraction is not an illness.


so are you jailing them for their unfortunate sexual attraction or for their inability to withstand that sexual attraction?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> It's the endless - and understandable - cry: we want to show our outrage by making the sentences as draconian as possible.
> 
> But there's a drawback. Several, in fact.
> 
> First, as is probably becoming fairly obvious by now, most abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the victim - quite possibly someone the victim cares about, or part of the victim's (extended) family. Really draconian sentences increase the pressure on the victim - or those around the victim - not to disclose, as the perceived punishment may *seem* to them to be out of all proportion to the crime: there is a real risk that, as the severity of punishment goes up, so the likelihood of disclosure goes down.



Not merely a "real risk", but a quantified phenomena, at least in Australia, that has broadly-similar laws and sentencing.



> Secondly, as the severity of the sentence goes up, so the differential between the sentence for child sexual offences and, say, murder narrows. There is a real risk that very heavy sentences actually create the potential for far more harm to be done to victims than otherwise.



Something that has been illustrated over about 40 years in the US, where some sex offenders killed their victims as a matter of course, because the differential between a sentence for, for example, forcible rape and sodomy of a female child was on a par with a sentence for murder.  When legislation makes it advantageous for a criminal to murder their victim(s), then we know that "the system" isn't working properly, just as when we have politicians obsessing about looking "tough on crime", we know that all that will happen will be window-dressing.



> Thirdly, as will be evident from the statements of so many victims in recent court cases, most people who have been sexually abused are not looking for revenge, or the harshest punishments to be inflicted on their abusers. What they tend to focus on is, firstly, being believed and taken seriously, and secondly, making sure that the abuser is not able to abuse others.
> 
> Taken together, those reasons - and I am sure there are others - seem to me to present a good argument for not just going for the tough knee-jerk response, but taking a little more care about things. I would far rather, for example, see sex offenders serve sentences that involved some assertive work on getting them to see the consequences of what they have done, and on helping them to find ways of controlling and managing their behaviours than simply warehousing them indefinitely.



And this is what I'd prefer too, which is why I get so fucked off that despite the great work establishments like Grendon do with our worst sex offenders (general recidivism runs at 70-75%, sex offender recidivism at 40-45%, recidivism for Grendon "graduates" at less than 25%), our posturing politicians won't fund a roll-out of Grendon's methods across the prisons estate, because a) it makes them look "soft on perverts", and b) the estimated cost per abuse incident prevented would be too high. 
Welcome to neoliberal economics!



> There will be those whom you cannot release - the Sidney Cookes of this world, for example. It may be that Savile would have been a similarly incorrigible offender whose behaviour would not have been changed by any amount of rehabilitation work, and I am not suggesting that NOBODY convicted of sex offences against children should serve a long sentence.
> 
> It just seems to me a bit sad that the response, so often, to these things is simply to go for the gut desire to avenge ourselves on these people - it might feel good, but it doesn't do much good.



Sentences should be indeterminate, with duration decided on response to treatment, and release predicated on the fact that, as a (former) sex offender, the person will be subject to surveillance.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Also, beware. A lot of child sexual abuse is not necessarily about paedophilia. Many of those who abuse children are apparently-normal adults with apparently-normal sexual drives in other aspects of their sex life.
> 
> It is very likely that, as is the case with rape (or male rape in prisons), it's less about the sexuality of the offender than their desire to exercise some kind of power, sexual behaviour being a particularly potent pathway for that to happen.
> 
> ...




In the case of a repeat offender what do you suggest is the best practical way to protect children from the offender?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Why inflict them on the Aussies?


You've completely missed my point. Quel surprise. 



bubblesmcgrath said:


> I said they were sexually attracted to children. Sexual attraction is not an illness.


Getting into dangerous philosophical/moral waters here, but there is an argument that sexual attraction to children *is* an illness. Or, to be more precise, a paraphilia. 

Mind you, I think you've also missed Pickman's model's metaphorical point, too.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> In the case of a repeat offender what do you suggest is the best practical way to protect children from the offender?


Work as hard as possible to make them not become a repeat offender.

ETA: per ViolentPanda's post at http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-sir-jimmy-savile-obe-thread.300406/page-127#post-13267846


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not merely a "real risk", but a quantified phenomena, at least in Australia, that has broadly-similar laws and sentencing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*many likes*


----------



## Rural (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Spot on..
> I was quoting department of education guidelines but a few here decided to rip me a new one on the strength that they felt I was advising that everyone who was abused should react the same way....despite my subsequent posts.


I'm sure misunderstandings/miscommunication happen all the time.  Then ppl take up positions,  pals back them up,  ppl who may have not liked them much in the past then join the opposite side etc etc.  Hopefully this is not upsetting anyone now that everyone has had their say. I had a horrible row on Twitter once,  feel gutted when I think of how silly I must've looked. But i still i was right mind


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so are you jailing them for their unfortunate sexual attraction or for their inability to withstand that sexual attraction?



The court system decides who goes to jail. 
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The court system decides who goes to jail.
> If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .


Do be serious. I don't think anyone on this thread is in the remotest danger of "forgetting" that it's illegal to abuse a child.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Work as hard as possible to make them not become a repeat offender.



What if they continue noncing? At what point do the victims and potential victims become more important?


----------



## Rural (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Not specifically in regard to sexual abuse, but one point I remember being made quite forcibly in my NSPCC training is that, while poverty is probably a factor in abuse, "middle class" abuse is a lot more prevalent that popular perception would have it.
> 
> As you move up the wealth spectrum, so the social capital and resources to be able to fend off suspicions of abusing increase, the logical conclusion being someone like Savile who was able to bring his celebrity, wealth (through threats of legal action - not something available to the typical family in poverty), and "connections" to bear to such an extent that his abusing could remain an open secret until his death.
> 
> I recall a case study from that training of a child who was taken to hospital from school with severe bruising to his lower back, buttocks, and legs. On examination, he was found to have been beaten to the point of causing quite serious injury. A child protection issue was raised, and it emerged that his father was a surgeon at the very same hospital, and enormous pressure was put on the hospital staff to drop the matter. Given that the NSPCC present it as a case study, he clearly wasn't successful, but there will be a lot of cases where, when a suspicion is raised, the reaction will be "What, Councillor Jones? Abusing his kids? Not him, he does so much wonderful work for charity!". And it does happen. It's one of the reasons John Owen (Clwych Inquiry) was able to abuse for so long - people could not face the idea that this charismatic, successful drama teacher would be abusing his pupils.


I know a woman who was beaten by her husband for years.  He was a councillor & told her if she dropped charges against him he'd make sure the hostel for abused women & chn got its funding.  She dropped the charges & yes the hostel was funded.  She still left him & Idk whether he had that much power to veto funding but I guess he had influence.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> You've completely missed my point. Quel surprise.
> 
> Getting into dangerous philosophical/moral waters here, but there is an argument that sexual attraction to children *is* an illness. Or, to be more precise, a paraphilia.
> 
> Mind you, I think you've also missed Pickman's model's metaphorical point, too.



No..I got your point. I just was being sarcastic. 

Can you point me in the direction of the research on paedophilia that states it's a curable illness? I'd be interested in reading that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The court system decides who goes to jail.
> If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .


t seems to me you're very ready to say you'd like to see the key thrown away but not so keen to acknowledge the obviousconclusion to your analysis that they"re suffering  from an affliction


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> At a price. A price which, as we discover just how prevalent child sexual abuse is, we may well find ourselves unwilling to pay, and be forced to look for more intelligent alternatives.



We also have a concomitant issue, in that acknowledging prevalence means (for our politicians and media, anyway, not particularly for health and welfare professionals or academe) acknowledging decades of - at the very least - wilful ignorance, and at worst the deliberate blind eye that has (eminently-arguably) been turned to matters of child abuse (whether sexual, physical or psychological).



> The logical conclusion of the argument you're deploying is what ended up with people being transported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread.



Or thoughtcrime.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> What if they continue noncing? At what point do the victims and potential victims become more important?


The victims are always the most important aspect. I am not suggesting some kind of "soft on pervs" policy here - quite the contrary, what I would like to see is a system that (like Grendon, which VP referred to) puts offenders in the position of having to directly confront the consequences of their crimes, with (again, as VP points out, the consequent reductions in recidivism).

I cannot see how an intelligent approach to rehabilitation and sentencing puts potential victims at any greater risk, unless the suggestion is seriously being made that the only protection available is to indefinitely incarcerate anyone remotely at risk of abusing someone.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No..I got your point. I just was being sarcastic.
> 
> Can you point me in the direction of the research on paedophilia that states it's a curable illness? I'd be interested in reading that.


I haven't said anywhere that it was a curable illness.


----------



## toggle (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the opposite is also true, and that "paedophilia" is no more than the sexual attraction towards children. For obvious reasons, we are not ever going to know about those who find themselves afflicted with that particular paraphilia, and who have found ways to avoid acting on it, but we do know that such people exist.



I do recall reading that some mandatory reporting laws prevented this group from seeking support in controlling their behavior.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.
> How do you switch that off?
> Maybe rehab can do that but the priests who were jailed were sent to rehab and received counseling and were then moved to another parish where they started abusing again. This was repeated over and over...until eventually someone went down the legal route and other victims started to follow suit.



They received "counselling" from the Church, from other priests, not from professionals, or from anyone who wasn't part of the same organisation.
How do you switch off the attraction?  You don't (you can't), you educate the offender in how *they* can exercise self-control.  Amazingly, it works the majority of the time, once you remove all of the offenders' methods of validating their aberrant behaviour, and make them properly face the consequences of their actions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I haven't said anywhere that it was a curable illness.


and if it's an ailment which can't be cured it strikes me as perverse and cruel to keep them in prison


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Getting into dangerous philosophical/moral waters here, but there is an argument that sexual attraction to children *is* an illness. Or, to be more precise, a paraphilia.




Do you think sexual attraction to children is an illness?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Do you think sexual attraction to children is an illness?


It is much more complex than that.

I think that paraphilias have some of the features of illnesses, as does depression, OCD, anxiety, and so on. However, I also think that there are aspects to all of these problems which are (or can be), to a greater or lesser extent, under the control of the person experiencing them.

So there are (at least) two factors at play: the severity of the psychological state, and the ability of the person experiencing it to manage it.

The problem with labelling things - especially psychological things - as "illnesses" is that the label connotes the idea that they are in some way beyond the control of the sufferer to manage. On the other hand, I think it is unreasonable to characterise them as lifestyle choices or elective behaviours, because frequently the people exhibiting them, even if they might potentially be able to manage them, lack the skills to do so, and need to acquire those before they can be said to have any degree of control over them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The court system decides who goes to jail.



Nope, the jury decides on guilt, the judge decides on sentence.  The rest of the CJ system has no involvement.



> If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .



If they are *found to be* criminally responsible.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, the jury decides on guilt, the judge decides on sentence.  The rest of the CJ system has no involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> If they are *found to be* criminally responsible.



You're not usually criminally responsible unless you've been found so...
And the court "system" is generally accepted as a term that includes judges and juries.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> ...unless the suggestion is seriously being made that the only protection available is to indefinitely incarcerate anyone remotely at risk of abusing someone.


Such an approach would, of course, logically require the incarceration of all *victims* of child abuse, as previous victimhood has such a strong correlation with offending.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You're not usually criminally responsible unless you've been found so...
> And the court "system" is generally accepted as a term that includes judges and juries.


If you had followed ViolentPanda's posts carefully, you would have learned two things.

He is extremely precise about his wording on certain subject areas
(this is because) he is extremely knowledgeable about certain subject areas.
If he has phrased his statements the way he has, it is for a reason. There are many differences between being something and being found to be something: it's an important distinction.

Similarly, he has offered an important clarification regarding the decision making process in the courts, which makes it rather silly just to blur it again in the interests of being right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You're not usually criminally responsible unless you've been found so...
> And the court "system" is generally accepted as a term that includes judges and juries.


you have it arse over tit - you are criminally responsible unless you're found not to be. but your naive faith in bourgeois 'justice' is touching.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Such an approach would, of course, logically require the incarceration of all *victims* of child abuse, as previous victimhood has such a strong correlation with offending.


And, interestingly, that fits quite nicely with a lot of the narratives (particularly historically) around child sex abuse. I think we had, only recently, a judge trying to suggest that a man who had abused a 13 year old girl had found himself her victim, on the basis that she was exhibiting sexualised behaviours which (if I recall correctly) were probably due to her earlier abuse.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> It is much more complex than that.
> 
> I think that paraphilias have some of the features of illnesses, as does depression, OCD, anxiety, and so on. However, I also think that there are aspects to all of these problems which are (or can be), to a greater or lesser extent, under the control of the person experiencing them.
> 
> ...




Is there a stage in working with repeat child sex abusers where you know they are not at risk of abusing another child?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Is there a stage in working with repeat child sex abusers where you know they are not at risk of abusing another child?


your loaded language suggests not.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Is there a stage in working with repeat child sex abusers where you know they are not at risk of abusing another child?


You claim to be a practitioner in the field. Is there any aspect of human behaviour where you can give a categorical assurance that something will or will not happen at any given point along a process?

No, of course not.

Nothing can be known for certain, and that is most certainly true in regard to behaviour. It doesn't mean that we simply tear up all our research and knowledge and proceed on a most-risk-averse basis at every turn.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> If you had followed ViolentPanda's posts carefully, you would have learned two things.
> 
> He is extremely precise about his wording on certain subject areas
> (this is because) he is extremely knowledgeable about certain subject areas.
> If he has phrased his statements the way he has, it is for a reason. There are many differences between being something .




Go back and read the posts you missed ...

Mine was this ...
"The court system decides who goes to jail.
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. "

VP corrected it but in essence it meant the same.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Go back and read the posts you missed ...
> 
> Mine was this ...
> "The court system decides who goes to jail.
> ...


"In essence" - In the way that a LEGO model of the Eiffel Tower is the real thing.

I am sure that ViolentPanda won't need me to explain the difference.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Go back and read the posts you missed ...
> 
> Mine was this ...
> "The court system decides who goes to jail.
> ...



Not really. The decision-makers (the judge and jury) are *part* of the system, not the entirety. Other arms (police, penal, prosecutorial) have little or no input to the decisionmaking process, therefore  saying "the court system decides" is inaccurate and misleading.
Your point about criminal responsibility also missed the point that to be "criminally-responsible", one has to be judged to be criminally-responsible, otherwise although you may have committed a child sex crime, you have no criminal responsibility in the eyes of the law - innocent until *proven* guilty, you see.


----------



## Rural (Jul 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> your loaded language suggests not.


U can't predict the future.  Ppl r released every day cos professionals no longer think they r a risk.  Not just abusers obv,  murderers, ppl who have harmed Themselves etc.  Sometimes they r right,  not always.  But locking someone up & throwing away the key is surely it's better to try to get ppl better & able to cope & back into society


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The *court system* decides who goes to jail.
> If they are* criminally responsible* for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail..





ViolentPanda said:


> The decision-makers (the judge and jury) are *part* of the system,
> 
> .......to be "criminally-responsible", one has to be judged to be criminally-responsible,



Apart from the pedantic shit and an effort to reinterpret the meaning of my post...your point was?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Apart from the pedantic shit and an effort to reinterpret the meaning of my post...your point was?


The point is that is is NOT "pedantic shit". Why does everything that doesn't agree 100% with your ultra-reductive viewpoint have to be wrong?

You are wrecking this thread, which has gone on for a long time and been a welcome place for intelligent, thoughtful discussion about some really contentious and important issues.

Pretty much anyone who hasn't simply tugged the forelock in respect of your opinions has come in for a slagging off from you, while the thread continues to be treated to your mouthbreathing nonsense. Several good efforts have been made just today to try and get the discussion going in a reasonably intelligent direction, but you can't even have the courtesy to leave them be without blundering in with more self-justification and stands-to-reason arsewipe.

_Please_, if only out of common courtesy, back off and stop inflicting your ignorance on a thread which doesn't need it. You might even find you stop getting quite such an ear bending from quite such a long list of people you feel are oppressing you...


----------



## chandlerp (Jul 13, 2014)




----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> The point is that is is NOT "pedantic shit". Why does everything that doesn't agree 100% with your ultra-reductive viewpoint have to be wrong?
> 
> You are wrecking this thread, which has gone on for a long time and been a welcome place for intelligent, thoughtful discussion about some really contentious and important issues.
> 
> ...




My post is not in conflict with VP's unnecessary "explanation" of the court system or the meaning of the term "criminal responsibility "... 

But why don't you go ahead and explain VPs post again 
......


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> My post is not in conflict with VP's unnecessary "explanation" of the court system or the meaning of the term "criminal conviction "...
> 
> But why don't you go ahead and explain VPs post again
> ......


I don't need to. I understand it. It is you who needs to put a bit more effort into understanding stuff, not we who have to fall over ourselves making it understandable to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Apart from the pedantic shit and an effort to reinterpret the meaning of my post...your point was?



My point is that concision matters, and that sloppy thinking is usually the product of an equally-sloppy mind.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2014)

Are we finished with this bullshit yet or do we need another twenty pages of it?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

Using the term "criminally responsible" does mean that the person you are speaking about has been found criminally responsible in court. Which was why i used the term. 
And as VP explains (unnecessarily in my view) the court system includes judge and jury. 
My post was clear and concise. .. No sloppy thinking. 
But carry on....explain where my post was sloppy? Or did I just not use enough words. ..


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Are we finished with this bullshit yet or do we need another twenty pages of it?


Fuck knows


----------



## Favelado (Jul 13, 2014)

You can stick this thread up your arse.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The court system decides who goes to jail.
> If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .



"





ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, the jury decides on guilt, the judge decides on sentence.  The rest of the CJ system has no involvement.
> If they are *found to be* criminally responsible.





bubblesmcgrath said:


> You're not usually criminally responsible unless you've been found so...
> And the court "system" is generally accepted as a term that includes judges and juries.





ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. The decision-makers (the judge and jury) are *part* of the system, not the entirety. Other arms (police, penal, prosecutorial) have little or no input to the decisionmaking process, therefore  saying "the court system decides" is inaccurate and misleading.
> Your point about criminal responsibility also missed the point that to be "criminally-responsible", one has to be judged to be criminally-responsible, otherwise although you may have committed a child sex crime, you have no criminal responsibility in the eyes of the law - innocent until *proven* guilty, you see.





bubblesmcgrath said:


> My post is not in conflict with VP's unnecessary "explanation" of the court system or the meaning of the term "criminal responsibility "...
> But why don't you go ahead and explain VPs post again
> ......





ViolentPanda said:


> My point is that concision matters, and that sloppy thinking is usually the product of an equally-sloppy mind.



???


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

I'm leaving this shit thread. 
Too much pomposity ...and people who just want to pick ...


----------



## toggle (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> My post is not in conflict with VP's unnecessary "explanation" of the court system or the meaning of the term "criminal conviction "...
> 
> But why don't you go ahead and explain VPs post again
> ......




You originally used the phrase criminally responsible and VP has responded to your use of that phrase. this has a  specific meaning and is not synonymous with 'criminal conviction'.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 13, 2014)

toggle said:


> You originally used the phrase criminally responsible and VP has responded to your use of that phrase. this has a  specific meaning and is not synonymous with 'criminal conviction'.



VP didnt mention "criminal conviction". I did.
The term "criminal responsibility" was used by both of us in the same way.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

Bubbles, I wonder if you have such intense discussions with your colleagues? Perhaps they could answer some of your questions, and suggest reading matter.

You said that you had been working there * for some years, so they must trust you, and would be happy to educate not just you, but all members of staff on these points.

You must have staff training days. Why not suggest some of the questions you have asked here be the topics for future training days? The group could publish its own papers if the subjects are not covered in 'the literature'.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

*



bubblesmcgrath said:


> I actually work very closely with teenagers with disabilities and the training they get is very intensive and covers all asoects of abuse....from familial to stranger. They are brought through a programme provided by educational psychologists that gives them the skills to use the three steps. It makes it very accessible to them.
> 
> But then again I'm in Ireland and there's been a massive input into this training for teachers, care personnel, and young childten and teenagers...particularly those with special needs.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

*


bubblesmcgrath said:


> I said the programme implemented over here gave
> the teenagers I was speaking of skills to USE the steps...(as in personal, social and communication skills)
> 
> The programme run by psychologists, teachers and carers is aimed at prevention but also at disclosure and counselling. It coordinates with health service, child care and social workers. There are direct referrals to child care personnel and the gardai.
> ...


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

*


bubblesmcgrath said:


> No it's not the stay safe programme although it does use some of it. It is a programme on relationships and sexuality which has been implemented by psychologists in a special educational setting. Because it deals with helping individuals it has a very personal slant. Group sessions are given by psychologists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Using the term "criminally responsible" does mean that the person you are speaking about has been found criminally responsible in court. Which was why i used the term.
> And as VP explains (unnecessarily in my view) the court system includes judge and jury.
> My post was clear and concise. .. No sloppy thinking.
> But carry on....explain where my post was sloppy? Or did I just not use enough words. ..


you used enough words, just not the right words or in the right order.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

..


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

* 



bubblesmcgrath said:


> I operate as an educationalist working from both a position of  prevention and child protection.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

*



bubblesmcgrath said:


> I've 16 years in working with teens with special needs. The work being done with them in the area of relationship and sexuality is groud breaking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> *





UrbaneFox said:


> *


bubblesmcgrath is it #3850 or #3851?


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> @ existentialist
> 
> Glad you got my pm and the info I sent you on the  "Freedom" programme plus contact names and addresses.
> 
> ...you're welcome to contact my place of work, and the other centres mentioned in the pm, for further info.




Bubbles, I wonder if you might PM the same information to me?

Thank you


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Anyone who wants the info can pm me....and I'll send them on the contact name.



You said it was OK.

Do I have to PM you, or will this public request suffice?


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 13, 2014)

Back on topic briefly....

How are Jimmy Savile , Westminster paedophiles and mobile phone batteries alike?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Back on topic briefly....
> 
> How are Jimmy Savile , Westminster paedophiles and mobile phone batteries alike?


don't give up the day job


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> don't give up the day job



couldn't figure how to do the spoiler thing ....

A. We only charge them after they're dead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> couldn't figure how to do the spoiler thing ....
> 
> A. We only charge them after they're dead.


yeh i saw that


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 13, 2014)

Alan Bennett waded into dangerous territory back in 2009.
_
The taboos protecting young people from sexual abuse took a long time to build up. They have to be protected from erosion, because Alan Bennett is terribly wrong – the "real children" are never old men who want to cop a feel of adolescents._

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...tt-and-the-question-of-innocence-1828408.html


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I'm leaving this shit thread.
> Too much pomposity ...and people who just want to pick ...


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so by 'the means' do you mean 'a decent job'?



No, not necessarily.



Blagsta said:


> Wealthy people abuse their kids too.



Undoubtedly. but what i'm trying to say & I'm probably not going to be able to articulate it properly  is that when you've got fuck all _every_ setback's a major disaster - Your kid spills the milk, clumsy fucker but no harm done, your kid spills the milk & that milk was bought with your last fifty pence, oh that kid's getting twatted - And that's poverty & circumscribed circumstances that's in a way making people into abusers due to frustrations beyond their control. IYSWIM.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> No, not necessarily.
> 
> 
> 
> Undoubtedly. but what i'm trying to say & I'm probably not going to be able to articulate it properly  is that when you've got fuck all _every_ setback's a major disaster - Your kid spills the milk, clumsy fucker but no harm done, your kid spills the milk & that milk was bought with your last fifty pence, oh that kid's getting twatted - And that's poverty & circumscribed circumstances that's in a way making people into abusers due to frustrations beyond their control. IYSWIM.


I think this is a good point, though I am not sure that diverting money from support services directly to people in poverty is necessarily the answer: I don't think you lift people out of poverty purely by throwing money at them.

But the support services need to be good, joined up, and managed for the benefit of the people they're there to serve, not the people who run the show.

I wouldn't agree entirely with your characterisation of social services, but I do think there is some validity in your criticism of them: there's a lot of clunky, clodhopping interventions done by people who think they know best for other people, and that's just bollocks, not to mention even more disabling of the people they're purporting to help.

TBF, part of the problem is that Social Services is the agency nobody wants to appreciate, which means that it tends to end up being a job that few aspire to do, with the obvious effect on recruitment and quality of staff, and of course - like any other public service - they're under-resourced, which means that even good staff are pushed to do a decent job, even where they want to.

My work as a counsellor with deprived kids (mainly) is hard enough that I am, after six years, looking for a way out. I know for a fact that it is infinitely more gritty, depressing, and demanding for social work staff, even competent ones, and the burnout rate is horrible.

What we need is (small s) social services that are joined up, client-led, and not just about last-minute interventions when it's all gone tits up. They need a supportive and preventative role, and they need to be integrated into all of the statutory and voluntary support services so that it doesn't end up being a situation where they're effectively the parent police, parachuting in when it's all gone wrong to interfere and judge. Which, all too often, is how it ends up at the moment.


----------



## Rural (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I think this is a good point, though I am not sure that diverting money from support services directly to people in poverty is necessarily the answer: I don't think you lift people out of poverty purely by throwing money at them.
> 
> But the support services need to be good, joined up, and managed for the benefit of the people they're there to serve, not the people who run the show.
> 
> ...



U dont have to throw money at them but ensuring a decent standard of living is possible with social security would goa long way to alleviating misery


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> <snip.: I don't think you lift people out of poverty purely by throwing money at them.


 - I'd say you do - give people a bit more money, they aren't going to be poor anymore. And there's an end to poverty. it _is _that simple.




existentialist said:


> I wouldn't agree entirely with your characterisation of social services, but I do think there is some validity in your criticism of them: there's a lot of clunky, clodhopping interventions done by people who think they know best for other people, and that's just bollocks, not to mention even more disabling of the people they're purporting to help.<snip>.



Thanks for that reasonable reply - You're probably right not to agree entirely coz I do just _hate_ them & i've got my own reasons for that, but nice one - Your point about clodhopping interventions & disabling the people they're supposed to be helping is pretty much what i was trying to say - You managed to say it in a more reasonable way than i could hope to manage though - I do respond emotionally to this kind of thing and I know that's not the best way to state your case.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 13, 2014)

Believe me, Frances, *nobody* could be more pissed off than me (  )by the way in which Social Services have landed on clients of mine and thoroughly wrecked months of careful trust-building and confidence improvement with one clueless, ill-advised, insensitive lumpen intervention in the middle of a delicate piece of work. Without, naturally, so much as a by-your-leave or acknowledgement of what they were about to do, nor apology for the wreckage they left behind.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> TBF, part of the problem is that Social Services is the agency nobody wants to appreciate, which means that it tends to end up being a job that few aspire to do, with the obvious effect on recruitment and quality of staff, and of course - like any other public service - they're under-resourced, which means that even good staff are pushed to do a decent job, even where they want to.
> 
> My work as a counsellor with deprived kids (mainly) is hard enough that I am, after six years, looking for a way out. I know for a fact that it is infinitely more gritty, depressing, and demanding for social work staff, even competent ones, and the burnout rate is horrible.



 I'll say.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Turned into perverts".  I'd disagree with that.  The original abusers were the perverts.  Their victims were merely displaying some of the more obvious and expected reactions to being nonced.  Turned into something they loathed, yes - they were turned into offenders themselves - but they weren't abusing power in the same structural way as their own abusers in order to do so.



I'm not even trying to pick an argument but yeah, I'd say those kids were turned into perverts in that their sexuality was knocked off the rails and perverted (in the dictionary sense of the word) as a direct result of the abuse they suffered. In the end it's semantics though - They got damaged. By abusers. That's all I was really trying to say.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 13, 2014)

Favelado said:


> You can stick this thread up your arse.



only if you're over sixteen though.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jul 13, 2014)

UrbaneFox said:


> I'll say.



In fact, and this was a few years ago, I hardly got involved with it. I thought that so much of that world was a well-meaning but cheap shambles, with things rushed through, all expenses spared, minimal training for some, a lot of trainees wanting client work, blame passed on all the time, and behind it all some quite damaged kids from fairly crap families. I didn't stick around.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Are we finished with this bullshit yet or do we need another twenty pages of it?



There's life in the old dog yet 


Pickman's model said:


> and if it's an ailment which can't be cured it strikes me as perverse and cruel to keep them in prison



No it fucking isn't cruel at all. Lock them up for everyone's good. Is that honest to god the position you're taking? Sticking up for nonces? Mind you, should we be surprised? Fuck knows what went on in the dorm, eh? It wasn't all midnight feasts and Jennings goes To school, eh? Really, what positive contribution to this thread have you made? I know I was a wanker but really, you've done fuck all but make sly (and not even funny) digs & you're a _genuine nonce apologist_. And a pisshead who no longer drinks - Is that what you have to do to put some interest in your life now the ale won't do it? Stick up for nonces yeah? Fuckin prick - he wanks over Crowley and all that bullshit (and it is bullshit) - "Magick"? -My sweaty ringpiece - Oh yeah, despite my private school eduction, I'm that much of an inadequate that i was lucky even to get this  boring job in a library and get treated like shit by fucking _students_, so I'll buy into this absolutely fucking nonsensical magick wancking bullshit just to give my life some illusion of meaning. Jesus H - I was raised a catholic & that was bullshit, but whatevs - What i didn't feel the need to do was adopt a whole other lot of equally wanky bullshit in a futile attempt to imbue my life with meaning. Still though, whatever gets you through I suppose. I recommend this though

 

Piss weak no mates twat.

And you haven't got any mates so don't even try to lie - If you did have, you wouldn't feel the need to affiliate yourself with all that creepy-crawly-crowley bullshit. A man forced by his own loneliness to take up perversion. And a _public school_ wanker as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> There's life in the old dog yet
> 
> 
> No it fucking isn't cruel at all. Lock them up for everyone's good. Is that honest to god the position you're taking? Sticking up for nonces? Mind you, should we be surprised? Fuck knows what went on in the dorm, eh? It wasn't all midnight feasts and Jennings goes To school, eh? Really, what positive contribution to this thread have you made? I know I was a wanker but really, you've done fuck all but make sly (and not even funny) digs & you're a _genuine nonce apologist_. And a pisshead who no longer drinks - Is that what you have to do to put some interest in your life now the ale won't do it? Stick up for nonces yeah? Fuckin prick - he wanks over Crowley and all that bullshit (and it is bullshit) - "Magick"? -My sweaty ringpiece - Oh yeah, despite my private school eduction, I'm that much of an inadequate that i was lucky even to get this  boring job in a library and get treated like shit by fucking _students_, so I'll buy into this absolutely fucking nonsensical magick wancking bullshit just to give my life some illusion of meaning. Jesus H - I was raised a catholic & that was bullshit, but whatevs - What i didn't feel the need to do was adopt a whole other lot of equally wanky bullshit in a futile attempt to imbue my life with meaning. Still though, whatever gets you through I suppose. I recommend this though
> ...


fuck me you're stupid.

where am i sticking up for paedophiles? saying they shouldn't be in prison?

how's that sticking up for paedophiles? fucking engage brain before posting. it's not like i said anywhere 'let the paedos walk free' 

the yorkshire ripper, peter sutcliffe, isn't in prison. he's in a secure mental hospital. which is where paedophiles should be if what they have is a disease which is incurable.

the other things you say, which are just as accurate, seem to spring from your belief that somewhere i have said something in favour of paedophilia or of them getting an easy ride. i haven't said that.

don't post after you've been on the sauce, you do yourself no favours,


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck me you're stupid.
> 
> where am i sticking up for paedophiles? saying they shouldn't be in prison?
> 
> ...



Crying yeah?

I've not had a drink since tuesday, what of it?

You _are_ a pisshead who was too weak to control his drinking - Am I wrong?

You _did_ say locking paedos in prison is cruel - To which I say so what?

And all that Crowley bullshit _is_ bullshit. And you did go to private school, so which bit is inaccurate our kid?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Crying yeah?
> 
> I've not had a drink since tuesday, what of it?


so why do you think i was defending nonces?





> You _are_ a pisshead who was too weak to control his drinking - Am I wrong?


yes.



> You _did_ say locking paedos in prison is cruel - To which I say so what?


no, what i said was IF paedophilia is an incurable disease, THEN it is cruel. i didn't say that locking paedophiles in prison was cruel, i said it was if it was a disease.



> And all that Crowley bullshit _is_ bullshit. And you did go to private school, so which bit is inaccurate our kid?


you say i went to a boarding school etc. all a product of your imagination.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2014)

Can we not get so personal with the abuse please? Not cool frances.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so why do you think i was defending nonces?yes.
> 
> would you look a cancer suffer away from adequate treatment? if paedophilia is a disease, which is the obvious conclusion from bubblesmcgrath's posts (and, incidentally, not a position i have taken), then they should be getting treatment. not being locked away and then released back into society without having been assessed and adequately treated. what do you want, paedos released who _will_ re-offend? or for them to be receiving their treatment behind closed doors and with no access to the public?
> 
> you say i went to a boarding school etc. all a product of your imagination.





Pickman's model said:


> bubblesmcgrath is it #3850 or #3851?



Fuck off you tit wank stain. You lying cunt.
Dont mix my name with the shit trawled out about paedophilia being an illness ...you fucking arsehole.
Go shove your pathetic shite back up your little arse ... and fuck off back to the hole you came from. 
You're a shit of the lowest order


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Fuck off you tit wank stain. You lying cunt.
> Dont mix my name with the shit trawled out about paedophilia being an illness ...you fucking arsehole.
> Go shove your pathetic shite back up your little arse ... and fuck off back to the hole you came from.
> You're a shit of the lowest order




till tomorrow, sweetling.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 14, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Can we not get so personal with the abuse please? Not cool frances.



45 posts on this thread and only 7 of them about the topic. 
38 posts telling everyone outside your little collective how to post....

Non stop policing ..
Pathetic.


----------



## Rural (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm confused cos what Bubbles just replied to & quoted is not the post from Pickman that I can see.  In the one on my screen he doesn't mention any names


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Rural said:


> I'm confused cos what Bubbles just replied to & quoted is not the post from Pickman that I can see.  In the one on my screen he doesn't mention any names


what happened was i reread frances' post and saw the bit about my saying it was cruel to lock paedophiles away. so i changed it to reflect the fact that i said it was cruel to lock them in prison if it's a disease - if it's a disease better for them to be getting treatment at eg broadmoor (tho without the attentions of one j.s.)

i edited before bubblesmcgrath posted.


----------



## toggle (Jul 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You're a shit of the lowest order



only when he's really trying.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 14, 2014)

sneaky


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2014)

Can people cut out the personal abuse *now* please?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so why do you think i was defending nonces?yes.
> 
> would you look a cancer suffer away from adequare treatment? if paedophilia is a disease, which is the obvious conclusion from bubblesmcgrath'*s posts, then they should be getting treatment.*


  - Cancer sufferers have done no crime - Paedos on the other hand should  be getting treatment _in prison_ whilst doing bird for the crimes against decency their very existance amounts to . So a flawed comparison.





Pickman's model said:


> not being locked away and then released back into society without having been assessed and adequately treated. what do you want, paedos released who _will_ re-offend? *or for them to be receiving their treatment behind closed doors and with no access to the public?*


* - *yeah that - Lock them away and keep the dirty fucking filthdogs right out of sight.


Pickman's model said:


> you say i went to a boarding school etc. all a product of your imagination.


 i think you did, tell us what school you went to then poshboy - Every single post you make when you mention nonsense like "masking up" on demos and such, they just reek of acting - Maybe you didn't go to boarding school but you went to private school for sure. I can smell an actor. TBH, I always thought you were alright despite the above, but your conduct on this thread's convinced me otherwise. 

And _anyone _who is a Crowley acolyte is, by definition, a no-mates trumpet. You wank over crowley, you've got no mates. The logic's inescapable.

When you say your going to boarding school is a product of my imagination though - You still got your blazer and shorts?  The wank-bank vaults are always open for new material.

And I was right that you were/are too piss weak too handle your ale. Swearing off it for life does _not_ equate to handling it. Being brought to your knees by the ale? Is that what your background prepared you for?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> till tomorrow, sweetling.





Pickman's model said:


>


----------



## cesare (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel You should do one, frankly.


----------



## juice_terry (Jul 14, 2014)

Is it about time this thread was locked? It's been massively derailed.. the is there evidence .. thread is a lot better and a lot more informative and is the logical progression of where this thread left off before the last few pages of shite


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Can we not get so personal with the abuse please? Not cool frances.



Nah it is cool, Pickers has contributed naught but snideyness to this thread so let Just William have a bit back.



toggle said:


> only when he's really trying.



how hard were you trying when _you didn't even have the bottle to properly lie_, but instead insinuated posts had been changed by mods in that blagsta debacle? Your credibility hangs in tatters.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> Frances Lengel You should do one, frankly.



frankly why though - I'm just telling it like it is. We've got a useless alky crowley boy devil worshipper or whatever he's supposed to be trying to act all clever and tell people how it is - Why should he not be told?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 14, 2014)

Rural said:


> I'm confused cos what Bubbles just replied to & quoted is not the post from Pickman that I can see.  In the one on my screen he doesn't



He likes to do that. 
It's designed to antagonise and then hide.


----------



## cesare (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> frankly why though - I'm just telling it like it is. We've got a useless alky crowley boy devil worshipper or whatever he's supposed to be trying to act all clever and tell people how it is - Why should he not be told?


You're not telling it like it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> He likes to do that.
> It's designed to antagonise and then hide.


no, it was designed to better respond to frances' post.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> You're not telling it like it is.



Please feel free to point out any inaccuracies then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> frankly why though - I'm just telling it like it is. We've got a useless alky crowley boy devil worshipper or whatever he's supposed to be trying to act all clever and tell people how it is - Why should he not be told?


i'd rather than a useless alkie crowley boy devil worshipper than someone who can't understand a simple sentence


----------



## Rural (Jul 14, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> Is it about time this thread was locked? It's been massively derailed.. the is there evidence .. thread is a lot better and a lot more informative and is the logical progression of where this thread left off before the last few pages of shite


Can u pls point me to that other thread? Thanks


----------



## Humberto (Jul 14, 2014)

Satan is a badboy like Pickmans and Jimmy?


----------



## toggle (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nah it is cool, Pickers has contributed naught but snideyness to this thread so let Just William have a bit back.
> 
> 
> 
> how hard were you trying when _you didn't even have the bottle to properly lie_, but instead insinuated posts had been changed by mods in that blagsta debacle? Your credibility hangs in tatters.




again, i don't take advice on my character from cat stranglers


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd *rather than a useless *alkie crowley boy devil worshipper than someone who can't understand a simple sentence



Wait a minute - Surely you mean "I'd rather _be_ a useless alkie crowley boy devil worshipper" or maybe "I'd rather _have_ a useless alkie crowley boy devil worshipper"? Coz as a simple sentence "I'd rather _than_ a useless alkie crowley boy devil worshipper" makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## juice_terry (Jul 14, 2014)

Rural said:


> Can u pls point me to that other thread? Thanks



http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ng-term-high-level-uk-paedophile-ring.301059/


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 14, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> Is it about time this thread was locked? It's been massively derailed.. the is there evidence .. thread is a lot better and a lot more informative and is the logical progression of where this thread left off before the last few pages of shite



Pity it wasn't locked about ten pages ago...but meh....now that picky gets a taste of what's been dished out to others by him.. the cavalry come charging in. He's now doing the little offended boy act.
Pathetic shite.


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Pity it wasn't locked about ten pages ago...but meh....now that picky gets a taste of what's been dished out to others by him.. the cavalry come charging in. He's now doing the little offended boy act.
> Pathetic shite.


I've asked people to stop posting up abusive messages. That includes you.


----------



## toggle (Jul 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Pity it wasn't locked about ten pages ago...but meh....now that picky gets a taste of what's been dished out to others by him.. the cavalry come charging in. He's now doing the little offended boy act.
> Pathetic shite.



oh gawds, frances is your cavalry?

now that is scraping the barrel


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Wait a minute - Surely you mean "I'd rather _be_ a useless alkie crowley boy devil worshipper" or maybe "I'd rather _have_ a useless alkie crowley boy devil worshipper"? Coz as a simple sentence "I'd rather _than_ a useless alkie crowley boy devil worshipper" makes no sense whatsoever.


yes the first than should be be


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Pity it wasn't locked about ten pages ago...but meh....now that picky gets a taste of what's been dished out to others by him.. the cavalry come charging in. He's now doing the little offended boy act.
> Pathetic shite.



That _is _it. Offended little _public school_boy though
 

Oh, I _say._


----------



## cesare (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> That _is _it. Offended little _public school_boy though
> View attachment 57526
> 
> Oh, I _say._


Death wish. You not taking any notice of the boss?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 14, 2014)

editor said:


> I've asked people to stop posting up abusive messages. That includes you.



No prob...
 ..


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Pity it wasn't locked about ten pages ago...but meh....now that picky gets a taste of what's been dished out to others by him.. the cavalry come charging in. He's now doing the little offended boy act.
> Pathetic shite.


i haven't called anyone an apologist for nonces. so i'm not getting what you say i've dished out.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 14, 2014)

toggle said:


> oh gawds, frances is your cavalry?
> 
> now that is scraping the barrel


Nah.....editor


----------



## Humberto (Jul 14, 2014)

Is Satan safe around children?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> Death wish. You not taking any notice of the boss?



What?



Pickman's model said:


> yes the first than should be be



Should be what?


toggle said:


> oh gawds, frances is your cavalry?
> 
> now that is scraping the barrel




Your credibilty's still hanging in tatters though.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i haven't called anyone an apologist for nonces. so i'm not getting what you say i've dished out.



Memory loss too?
That can be an incurable illness


----------



## Rural (Jul 14, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ng-term-high-level-uk-paedophile-ring.301059/


Thank u, I've become a bit lost on this one.


----------



## cesare (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> What?



Posting abuse. You've been told to stop.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> 45 posts on this thread and only 7 of them about the topic.
> 38 posts telling everyone outside your little collective how to post....
> 
> Non stop policing ..
> Pathetic.



Personal abuse, especially spme of the really below the belt stuff, has never been tolerated on urban.

And editor does the policing not me. You seem to have a real problem telling the difference between a mod and a. Non-mod poster. 

And you're the one who keeps deraiiling the thread and making it all about them, not me.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 14, 2014)

satan is a massive... what?


----------



## toggle (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> What?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

is it?

speaketh the man who has none


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Memory loss too?
> That can be an incurable illness


i'm sure you'll remind me of the post i've forgotten


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Humberto said:


> satan is a massive... what?


friend of humberto's?


----------



## Humberto (Jul 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> friend of humberto's



Nope. Not at the minute. Thought he was on your side?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> Posting abuse. You've been told to stop.



Ah right, i get you. I better had leave it now. I'm not apologising for a single thing though. I was out of line with existentialist the other day, but pickers had that coming. And i would be happy to carry on all day long. But I won't though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Nope. Not at the minute. Thought he was on your side?


not being a satanist it's unlikely


----------



## Humberto (Jul 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> not being a satanist it's unlikely



Theres only two sides isn't there?


----------



## cesare (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Ah right, i get you. I better had leave it now. I'm not apologising for a single thing though. I was out of line with existentialist the other day, but pickers had that coming. And i would be happy to carry on all day long. But I won't though.


I don't care whether you apologise or not.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

toggle said:


> is it?
> 
> speaketh the man who has none



Yeah but _why_ did you feel the need to insinuate that whole blagsta debacle was down to a mod altering posts? When it patently wasn't. All that crap about "oh, I'll take screenshots next time" - What _was_ that? Honestly, what was it? And you had the massively discredited squealer firky as your main cheerleader.   Why did you not just admit you were wrong? It's not hard to do. Don't you have the decency to feel even just a _bit_ embarrassed?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Theres only two sides isn't there?


no


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> I don't care whether you apologise or not.



Nor do I TBH so I'm not altogether sure why you felt the need to say that.


----------



## toggle (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Yeah but _why_ did you feel the need to insinuate that whole blagsta debacle was down to a mod altering posts? When it patently wasn't. All that crap about "oh, I'll take screenshots next time" - What _was_ that? Honestly, what was it? And you had the massively discredited squealer firky as your main cheerleader.   Why did you not just admit you were wrong? It's not hard to do. Don't you have the decency to feel even just a _bit_ embarrassed?


 
i'd certainly be embarrassed if i posted the shite that you spout.


----------



## Humberto (Jul 14, 2014)

What 


Pickman's model said:


> no



'Your own' counts as one of them.


----------



## cesare (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nor do I TBH so I'm not altogether sure why you felt the need to say that.


I didn't ask you for, or expect an apology - so you telling me why you weren't going to give one was  and my reply was that I didn't care if you do or not. Because I don't.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

toggle said:


> i'd certainly be embarrassed if i posted the shite that you spout.



Yeah but you're singularly avoiding the question - Why _did_ you feel the need to try to hound  a long standing and respected (though not by me) poster from the boards. And why did you lie about it/insinuate there was some kind of behind the scenes chicanery when there patently wasn't? Why _did_ you do that? What possessed you?


----------



## toggle (Jul 14, 2014)

because i've already given all the answers that i intend to.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

cesare said:


> I didn't ask you for, or expect an apology - so you telling me why you weren't going to give one was  and my reply was that I didn't care if you do or not. Because I don't.



Sweet as, we're all talking though aren't we. We're probably all talking shit though. Well, except me.


No Saviles here anyway. Just Mannings.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 14, 2014)

toggle said:


> because i've already given all the answers that i intend to.



Link to where you've given any answers about it then.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 14, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> No it fucking isn't cruel at all. Lock them up for everyone's good. Is that honest to god the position you're taking? Sticking up for nonces? Mind you, should we be surprised? Fuck knows what went on in the dorm, eh? It wasn't all midnight feasts and Jennings goes To school, eh? Really, what positive contribution to this thread have you made? I know I was a wanker but really, you've done fuck all but make sly (and not even funny) digs & you're a _genuine nonce apologist_.


TBF, I think you may have missed something, here.

My eyes widened when I saw what Pickman's had originally posted, then I had another look at who he was responding to, and a penny dropped. In fact, I PM'd him to check out whether my guess was correct.

Our friend bubbles was doing her usual no-shades-of-grey thing and banging on about paedophilia being/not being an illness and how she thought people should get very long sentences for child sexual abuse. Pickman's asked a very careful question which seemed me to be designed to tease out the inconsistency in bubbles' comments: bubbles, either through extreme cunning, or for some less laudable reason (I'll leave you to guess) managed to completely miss the point, perhaps because she thought she was very cleverly pulling the same trick on me, with some Perry Maisonettesque questioning on whether I thought paedophilia was an "illness".

I don't for a moment think that Pickman's was being a "nonce apologist". On the contrary, I think he was trying to get this thread out of the pitchfork-waving tabloid frenzy it's started to become, and back to the thoughtful and more nuanced way it's been for most of its existence.


----------



## Rural (Jul 14, 2014)

existentialist said:


> TBF, I think you may have missed something, here.
> 
> My eyes widened when I saw what Pickman's had originally posted, then I had another look at who he was responding to, and a penny dropped. In fact, I PM'd him to check out whether my guess was correct.
> 
> ...


I am completely lost.  How did this ever get so complicated?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 14, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> Is it about time this thread was locked? It's been massively derailed.. the is there evidence .. thread is a lot better and a lot more informative and is the logical progression of where this thread left off before the last few pages of shite


I had hoped that things were settling down last night, and I have to say that bubbles' announcement of her departure was a promising sign.

But I think that the thread probably is doomed, now, more's the pity. I'll admit that for my part I am not prepared to stand silently by as all kinds of accusations are made against me by her, and I can fully understand why others might feel the same. So, for as long as it is not possible for a sensible grown-up discussion to take place on a topic like this without someone or other chucking their toys out of the pram because everyone hasn't instantly stopped their debating to coo over the prima donna in the corner's finger paintings, the thread's fucked.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 14, 2014)

Rural said:


> I am completely lost.  How did this ever get so complicated?


Urban bunfight, innit?

Well, TBF, it's a bunfight anywhere on the Internet - shifting allegiances, old beefs resurfacing, delicate sensibilities, and sometimes a bit of good old-fashioned honest-to-goodness windup merchant activity.

Urban's come a long way, though. 5 years ago you couldn't have mentioned a paedophile without the thread turning into a bloodstained wankfest with people going on at length about what they wanted to do to the perpetrators. We got over a hundred pages of some really, really useful, interesting, and thoughtful debate. It's just a pity it takes so few (as few as one, sometimes) to completely fuck it up.


----------



## Rural (Jul 14, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Urban bunfight, innit?
> 
> Well, TBF, it's a bunfight anywhere on the Internet - shifting allegiances, old beefs resurfacing, delicate sensibilities, and sometimes a bit of good old-fashioned honest-to-goodness windup merchant activity.
> 
> Urban's come a long way, though. 5 years ago you couldn't have mentioned a paedophile without the thread turning into a bloodstained wankfest with people going on at length about what they wanted to do to the perpetrators. We got over a hundred pages of some really, really useful, interesting, and thoughtful debate. It's just a pity it takes so few (as few as one, sometimes) to completely fuck it up.


I get that many ppl want to be top nonce-hater & not really surprising considering the amount of ppl hurt by abuse. It's all the other stuff, motives etc I find hard to follow.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2014)

Rural not just you, my head has been a bit wtf at a lot of the past few pages.


----------



## mango5 (Jul 14, 2014)

Looks like this thread is done. Please don't carry any of the shit over to the evidence thread.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 14, 2014)

Rural said:


> I get that many ppl want to be top nonce-hater & not really surprising considering the amount of ppl hurt by abuse. It's all the other stuff, motives etc I find hard to follow.


I think it's all mixed up together. It's a natural human reaction to kind of want to pile on on the Obvious Evil, and "evil" doesn't come much more obvious than child sexual abuse.

So you get a lot of more simplistic thinkers (and that's not a veiled dig at bubbles - there's a LOT of simplistic thinkers about, especially on this topic) who will come onto a thread like this, give it the old "I hates, peados. Hang all peedoes up by the balls" treatment, and then be theatrically appalled when everyone doesn't respond with "yer, and stick barbed wire up their bums and also poke them in the eye, also we hate p33d0ez".

Once that game's underway, all the underlying stuff just comes out in a rush


----------

