Jimmy Savile: Listening to the voices of women and children


2:02 pm - October 10th 2012

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Cllr Leonie Cooper

We’ve heard a lot of comments this week about Jimmy Savile, and why no-one blew the whistle on a situation many must have known about. Janet Street-Porter’s attempt to explain why no-one spoke out has been ridiculed by some.

My own experience as a child completely backs up what Janet said – speak out and you might get thumped, and no-one listened anyway.

At my comprehensive school in the 1970s, we had a Deputy Head who had special responsibility for the children aged 11-14. He took a particularly active role in discipline.

Boys sent to his office could expect to be put across his knee and smacked – first having taken their trousers and pants down. Various boys tried to report it, rumours circulated amongst all the young children, but nothing happened. So we thought “grown-ups are weird” and got on with being at school.

The Deputy Head got a promotion to Head – yes, to a local boys’ school. It must have been a further 20 years before finally some other brave 11-year olds were finally listened to.

The day before the Court case was due to start, he hanged himself. All very difficult for his wife and 4 daughters – but how many small boys had he interfered with? Countless numbers.

Nowadays, we all know about child abuse, but then? Grown-ups could get away with anything, and did what they wanted to, and no-one listened to girls, boys, or indeed women who were “killjoys” if they didn’t do whatever was expected in sexual terms .

It’s not news that vulnerable young girls or boys have been abused by people with power who get away with it over many years. Jimmy Savile, priests, our Deputy Head, the list is endless – but it can be stopped if we really listen to children and women.

There are those who are now saying what’s the point of speaking out now after Savile has died? It might be making those that listen uncomfortable, but we all need to listen and learn, and they need to get help, and get closure.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Crime

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Generally agree, though of course these are only allegations right now. Let’s wait until the case is made and heard before making conclusions about Savile.

These days its also very fashionable to be a victim. I look back at my school and reflect that a number of staff would probably be doing time if they were behaving the same way today. I have some resentment though on the whole my education was pretty good. My only lasting problem is a dislike of Yorkshiremen, which I don’t believe is unusual. So really, how much damage was done?

It’s important to send out a message that the alleged behaviour is unacceptable, but how far should we go in judging the 70s by modern standards? After all, Love Thy Neighbour was criminal shite but not unusual. We’ve just moved on.

As Deborah Orr points out Jimmy Savile and the silence that surrounded him is exactly why those ‘frumpy feminists’ mean by rape culture.
http://www.newstatesman.com/media/broadcast/2012/10/culture-permitted-saviles-abuses-goes-far-beyond-bbc

Can you imagine how the Left would react if there was evidence of a child sex ring at Sky?

@ 1

Generally agree, though of course these are only allegations right now.

Really?

I seem to have seen a senior policeman pronounce verdict yesterday. Of course this matter will only ever be tried in the court of public opinion but he has undoubtedly been found guilty.

His family has even removed his gravestone!!!

I suppose another point of note about Savile is how we all knew he was weird in some way. As far as the BBC were concerned he was gold dust. He had a great back-story of being a coal miner and suffering a spinal injury (it can’t be long until someone like Owen Jones comes along and decries this hue and cry as an attack on the working class). In fact, like many others such as Justin Lee Collins, Savile was simply a narcissist.

It’s an interesting pastime watching popular tv and playing spot-the-narcissist and trying to guess what the scandal will be when they’re finally caught out.

6. Moan on Clapham Omnibus

@3

No. How would they?

“The evil that men do lives after them. The good is often interred with their bones.” Shakespeare.

In these times of austerity, can we afford a major criminal investigation of someone who is dead? What will be gained from it?

I’ve lived through the pop music scene from the early 1960s through to the present as an occasional distant observer. In earlier decades, Top of the Charts renditions were impossible to avoid on going round any shopping centre. One’s children listened to the chart topper. Without knowing any of the detail, Jimmy Savile always struck me as an eccentric and unpleasant manifestion of the pop scene. What I was and am dimly aware is the continuing circulation of umpteen and often outrageous urban myths reported about the social phenomenon of innumerable “Groupies”, who were dedicated to following and servicing pop groups. Try this Wikipedia entry to get a flavour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupie

If only a fraction of the urban myths were true, there was nothing especially unusual about what Savile got up to to.

@Cherub – Owen Jones defend the man who spent 11 successive New Years Eve’s at Chequers with Thatcher?

9. Moan on Clapham Omnibus

@5

I thought you had to be a narcissist to get on TV.

Jimmy Savile raised millions for charities and good causes. He also had sex with some young women. (Thirteen isn’t really all that young now is it?) So what? He was Jimmy Savile for goodnes sake!

@8

I’d have thought she was a bit old for him.

This is quite sensible.

http://timworstall.com/2012/10/07/can-we-try-and-be-accurate-about-the-late-mr-saviles-sexual-preferences/

Spain’s age of consent is 13.
Germany’s 14.

Which is not to say that Savile is not guilty of abusing his position.
But he was not a “paedophile”.

@12

What was the age of consent in the UK during the 70’s?

You can claim that Savile wasn’t a paedophile but if he had sex with girls under the age of 16 in the UK then he is guilty of statutory rape at the least. The AoC in Spain and Germany is irrelevant unless he was in those countries.

“As Deborah Orr points out Jimmy Savile and the silence that surrounded him is exactly why those ‘frumpy feminists’ mean by rape culture.”

They’re not wrong about everything but they normally express themselves in such an arrogant and cantankerous manner that it’s unsurprising people often don’t listen.

Some of these comments are really winding me up. The man raped, abused, molested, groomed, shared, manipulated and took advantage of young women and men for decades. It was common knowledge with the powers that be – they did nothing but give him accolades. Forcing yourself on ANYONE is not only illegal but morally repugnant. Yes we should investigate and make those who let this happen explain themselves. We are looking at 100s of potential victims. The man was,what the tabloids would describe a ‘lesser’ man as, a monster

Heather: “Some of these comments are really winding me up. The man raped, abused, molested, groomed, shared, manipulated and took advantage of young women and men for decades.”

By many accounts in the regular and not so regular press, the ‘groupie’ culture was widespread across the the pop music scene during the 1960s through to the 1980s. Savile probably just exploited the opportunities around – as did many others on the scene.

I’m not saying anything that isn’t fairly well known to observers of the scene and to those who reported about it and I’m beginning to suspect this is just another piece of intended spin to divert attention from current public policy issues and to blame the BBC in the middle of the Leveson inquiry into regulation of the press.

17. Richard Carey

As I’ve written elsewhere, I think the libel laws protect people like Jimmy Savile from exposure. Maybe it would have come out a long time ago if newspapers weren’t at risk of massive libel damages for printing such allegations.

“was widespread across the the pop music scene during the 1960s through to the 1980s”

Never mind the 70s, in the early 90s one of my classmates in school – 14/15 – used to regularly travel to Manchester to meet ‘socially’ with a member of take that.

And I fear shcillings are about to close this thread before others come on with rumour and unverifyable tales.

The impression I have as a distant observer of the pop scene is that many teens hung around pop music groups for the excitement, to be near celebrities and because some made it onto the pop scene as performers on their own talent, which seems to have been the start of the road to fame for Marianne Faithfull: As tears go by (1965)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhPPJ5dolxU

As well as for Jane Birkin and her song with Serge Gainsbourg: Je t’aime . . moi non plus, which the BBC duly banned. Jane Birkin was aged 23 then and Gainsbourg was 41.

I strongly recommend the Wikipedia entry for: ‘Groupie’ to get a better informed insight into the pop music scene.

Anyone recall the film: Darling (1965), with Julie Christie?

LP Hartley: “The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.”

20. Raymond Terrific

Street-porter was an adult in a responsible job and chose to do nothing in order to protect her position and wages. Plenty of people like that around. Presumably it was worth it. For her anyway.

Yes, we shagged kids, but the past is another country. How could we be expected to know it was wrong? Yes, we shagged kids, but some of them were gagging for it. Yes, we shagged kids, but we are men of position and esteem, how could you possibly hold us accountable? Some expressions of regret and then it’s time to move on.

Where have I heard this before?

By accounts in the news, Janet Street-Porter was aware of rumours. The natural assumption was that others would also be aware of those rumours. In the absence of hard evidence, what were any placed to do in the context of the permissive culture of the 1960s into the 1970s? IMO groupies, many under-age, were often pleased to service celebrities on the pop scene, some for the thrill, some because they believed or hoped that could lead to fame or to fortune or to both. I suspect that there were many willing victims. Compare the scandals of under-age sex that, say, Errol Flynn, the film star, was implicated in. What perhaps sticks in this case is that Savile wasn’t as personable as Errol Flynn.

Bob – I understand the groupie culture and it still exists and yes Salvile did ‘just’ take advantage if that. However, he was allowed access to young people in a variety of ways in his professional life by people who knew what he was doing. He was given a knighthood by people who knew what he was doing. His visits to special schools were nothing to do with groupie culture though and everything to do with being a sexual predator. He abused his power to satisfy his own needs and felt untouchable because his superiors did not do anything to stop him.

24. Richard Carey

I’d like to see his MI5 file disclosed. I think it will show that they knew all about him and the skeletons in his closet.

Heather: “However, he was allowed access to young people in a variety of ways in his professional life by people who knew what he was doing.”

I don’t believe that they did know for sure what he was up to – they just heard rumours but then all sorts of wild urban myths were circulating about the pop scene. No one seriously supposed the pop scene could be controlled without destroying its (profitable) vitality and creativity. The knighthood was for Savile’s charity work which proved an effective camouflage for his abuse of under-age girls.

As best I can tell, casual sex was and is pervasive on the pop scene. We are engaging in much hypocritical moralising. In the news:

The teen pregnancy rate in England and Wales has reached its lowest since 1969, new data shows.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show conceptions in under-18s fell to 34,633 in 2010 compared with 38,259 in 2009, a drop of 9.5%.
Pregnancies in under-16s also went down – by 6.8% to 6,674 in total from 7,158 the previous year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17190185

But almost half of all babies are born to unmarried parents.

My bullying teacher made a small part of my schooling a misery. The one who “inspected” our sports kit while we were wearing it to ensure we weren’t wearing pants seemed just odd. We had friends and got through it as kids do. As I said before, where was the harm?

The OP describes a teacher with a similar peccadillo who found himself accused of crimes far more serious than he understood them to be when he carried them out. Enough to have hanged himself rather than stand up in court. The OP rather glosses over the tragedy while mentioning some sympathy for his family.

I have no truck for Savile, nor Barrymore with his secrets, nor Freddy Starr, nor Gary Glitter, or who knows, the Bay City Rollers? David Bowie? Where should this stop? What good is coming from this? I can’t help but feel that the main driver is selling more nasty newspapers. No doubt the same papers will feature the same vile innuendos Charlotte Church endured as a young girl, and much more.

Cui bono?

I was amazed to read in a recent issue of The Economist that the Catholic Church in America had paid out $3 billion to compensate victims of abuse by Catholic priests:
http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

How does Jimmy Savile rate in comparison with that?

I have no truck for Savile, nor Barrymore with his secrets, nor Freddy Starr, nor Gary Glitter, or who knows, the Bay City Rollers? David Bowie? Where should this stop? What good is coming from this? I can’t help but feel that the main driver is selling more nasty newspapers. No doubt the same papers will feature the same vile innuendos Charlotte Church endured as a young girl, and much more.

Cui bono?

I suppose we could brush it all under the carpet and pretend it doesn’t go on, for the singular purpose of divesting tabloids of income, course then we’d be proper fucked when another Rochdale style case comes to light and it turns out we’re supposed to pretend it doesn’t happen and not get excited and angry about it.
I mean how the hell we supposed to have a go at the Pakistani community for uniquely having a culture that breeds and excuses paedos then eh?

Indeed looking at the excuses given above among the many comments, apparently the Rochdale nine shouldn’t have been prosecuted because obviously – groupie culture, they were gagging for it, age of consent lower in other countries, 13 not being that young, etc etc.

@29 Cylux

I wasnt clear, apologies. It’s obviously far more important to deal with current abuses and prevent further tragedies than to go over the past as the press are in the Savile case. In fact the one possible benefit of this kind of furore is to raise awareness. Is it being done?

The whole story about Savile has done a 180 degree turn in a matter of days. He was supposed to be a hero going to hospitals but now it is said that the staff dreaded his visits and told the children to pretend to be asleep.

There are a lot of questions there for the institutions who are supposed to sniff these things out, especially those newspapers who claim to be ever-vigilant about “Paedos”.

32. So Much For Subtlety

2. Cylux

As Deborah Orr points out Jimmy Savile and the silence that surrounded him is exactly why those ‘frumpy feminists’ mean by rape culture.

I can’t be arsed looking it up, but she must argue up a storm to be able to explain why, at worst, one lone sex offender indicts an entire culture.

5. Cherub

I suppose another point of note about Savile is how we all knew he was weird in some way.

Ahh yes, the Barry George phenomenon. He is weird, therefore he must have killed her. Good one.

Saville was never once found guilty of a single crime against a single child. At least as far as I know. I would be happy to be corrected.

10. Jim

Jimmy Savile raised millions for charities and good causes. He also had sex with some young women. (Thirteen isn’t really all that young now is it?)

There is no evidence at all that he had sex with 13 year old girls. Although Jimmy Page and David Bowie did. Time to charge them too? There are allegations. Some credible, some less so, some deranged.

Let’s keep that in mind.

The past is a foreign country. It is not only amazing how naive they were, it is amazing how seriously they took things like the presumption of innocence.

33. So Much For Subtlety

15. Heather

The man raped, abused, molested, groomed, shared, manipulated and took advantage of young women and men for decades.

Sorry but no. He may have done so but there is no proof that he did.

It was common knowledge with the powers that be – they did nothing but give him accolades.

In what sense was it common knowledge? At most people had heard gossip. That is like saying it is unbelievable anyone would let Richard Gere alone with a gerbil.

17. Richard Carey

As I’ve written elsewhere, I think the libel laws protect people like Jimmy Savile from exposure. Maybe it would have come out a long time ago if newspapers weren’t at risk of massive libel damages for printing such allegations.

Yes, God forbid that the newspapers might have to prove something before they print it. The shamelessness of the hypocrisy around here is unbelievable. A few weeks ago people were saying the newspapers should be put out of business and their editors jailed if they reported anything that was not factually true. Now apparently it is fine for them to smear some guy on the basis of pub gossip.

20. Raymond Terrific

Street-porter was an adult in a responsible job and chose to do nothing in order to protect her position and wages. Plenty of people like that around. Presumably it was worth it. For her anyway.

Indeed. If she knew anything, she had an obligation.

23. Heather

I understand the groupie culture and it still exists and yes Salvile did ‘just’ take advantage if that. However, he was allowed access to young people in a variety of ways in his professional life by people who knew what he was doing.

Sorry but name a single person who knew what he was doing in the sense you mean. You have no proof of what he was doing. There is no proof of what he was doing. So it sort of follows no one knew what he was doing.

Any other day of the week Bea Campbell would be a warning on LC. Suddenly she is a role model.

He was given a knighthood by people who knew what he was doing.

Proof.

24. Richard Carey

I’d like to see his MI5 file disclosed. I think it will show that they knew all about him and the skeletons in his closet.

Sure, because, of course, it has to be a Dan Brown style conspiracy.

34. So Much For Subtlety

The day before the Court case was due to start, he hanged himself. All very difficult for his wife and 4 daughters – but how many small boys had he interfered with? Countless numbers.

A pity there is no evidence whatsoever that he interfered with even one boy. He had slightly old fashioned notions of discipline. Some accusation was made. The shame drove him to kill himself. Doesn’t mean anything except people should think before making accusations.

It is not as if we have not been here before. People have been thrown into jail because of the insane child abuse witch hunt. Saville might have been an offender. A pity there is nothing we can do about it now. The last thing we need is a lynch mob. It is to Britain’s shame that his tombstone had to be removed. It shows what a vile little place Britain has become.

My own experience as a child completely backs up what Janet said – speak out and you might get thumped, and no-one listened anyway.

I missed this part of the story – Janet Street Porter declined to make an issue of the allegations because she was afraid she’d get thumped?

36. So Much For Subtlety

2. Cylux

As Deborah Orr points out Jimmy Savile and the silence that surrounded him is exactly why those ‘frumpy feminists’ mean by rape culture.

I am not sure Ms Orr is your best witness. She says:

“One evening a cameraman offered to “get me on TV” as one of Benny Hill’s “Hill’s Angels”. I told him it wasn’t my kind of thing. During the course of the evening, half a dozen of his middle-aged friends asked one by one if they could “see me home safely”. At the end of the evening, they came to the bar and asked me who the hell I thought I was, to turn all of them down. In Edinburgh, in the 1980s, a former Mirror journalist who was my first boss turned up at my home insisting on giving my driving lessons, then booked a holiday to Spain – I’d never been abroad – and demanded that I accompany him. When I worked at the Guardian in the early 1990s, a colleague in his sixties put a hand on each of my breasts in the pub after work, and asked if I fancied coming back to his place. When I declined, he offered that it was “only round the corner”. I laughed at him. But complaining to anyone in authority about him didn’t occur to me. You just had to learn to deal with it.”

So let’s recap – a man offers her a favour. She declines. Some of his friends ask if they can walk her home. She declines. She had a weird boss who seems to have made her several offers. She declined. As far as I can see, there is no harm, no foul in any one of these incidents.

The only one that matters is the Guardian journalist who actually touched her breasts. But then all he did was ask for a shag and was a bit pathetic when she said no. No doubt the Guardian’s culture encourages that sort of sexual assault.

Far from a culture of rape, I can’t see any objection whatsoever to any of these incidents except the breast touching. Can anyone explain the problem here?

What it looks like is a problem with Ms Orr herself. Perhaps she really does think these admittedly lame but rather gentlemanly attempts to ask her out were, like, one step from gang rape, but I don’t see it myself.

“ut there is a respect in which liberal cultures were most susceptible to such sexual incontinence. They were most keen to shrug off the repressive orthodoxies which decreed that nice girls didn’t have sex before marriage, and embrace the win-win bargain of free love, and in this liberal men saw themselves as kindly assisting females in their much-needed sexual liberation. When feminism started telling them that this could not be on their terms alone, they were indignant and contemptuous. Thus was created a nasty set of attitudes, in which it was reckoned that it was the women who were not leaping at the liberating chance to be constantly sexually available who were the problem. BOOM. If you didn’t want to have sex with a man, then there was something wrong with you.”

I agree that this is what happened to a reasonable number of men but so what? Saying “if she won’t sleep with me she must be a lesbian” is crass but it is not a crime and it is not remotely like rape. It is true that sex cannot and should not be on male terms alone, but at the same time, it cannot be solely on female terms either. There has to be a negotiation and a compromise. So she did not get the offers she wanted? So what?

“Sexual harassment in the City of London is reportedly rife, along with visits to lap-dancing clubs for “business”. The sexual revolution provided a shot in the arm to many long-standing expressions of sexual contempt for women.”

Notice the leaps of logic here. Sexual harassment may be rife, but then saying this is just sexist nonsense. She does not know. It is no different to saying women who wear miniskirts really want men to make crass comments. So what if business people go to lap dancing clubs? Vile ungentlemanly behaviour but legal and not even sexist. Again she just has a problem with male sexuality.

There is only one remotely serious allegation in this nonsense and it is this one:

“former BBC producer, Wilfred De’Ath, spoke of meeting Savile at a restaurant as he “entertained” a 12-year-old, who he’d “picked up” at Top of the Tops. Savile had made it obvious, when De’Ath called him the next morning, that he was in bed with the child.”

De’Ath did not see Saville in bed with anyone. He did not speak to the child. Saville was probably pulling his leg. Yet he did not report. Shame on him.

I am impressed the way that Orr manages to make this story about her and her pet peeves, but it does not say anything much about Saville.

What have we here – a compilation of the stupidest comments from the BBC’s Have Your Say column?

Oh no, it’s just “So much for Subtlety” giving everyone on the thread the benefit of his wisdom.

The shamelessness of the hypocrisy around here is unbelievable. A few weeks ago people were saying the newspapers should be put out of business and their editors jailed if they reported anything that was not factually true. Now apparently it is fine for them to smear some guy on the basis of pub gossip.

See to establish “hypocrisy”, it’s not enough to show that someone said one thing, and then someone said something incompatible with it, but rather that it was the same person who said the two things. And I rather suspect you’ll find it wasn’t.

Sorry but no. He may have done so but there is no proof that he did.

On the presumption of innocence, Savile cannot be put on trial, for obvious reasons. All that can happen is that people can look through all the evidence and reach conclusions. Professional detectives are now doing that, and this is what they say:

“It is quite clear… that Savile was a predatory sex offender. He has perpetrated four decades of abuse.

But no doubt So Much For Subtlety has excellent reasons to think he knows better than the detective heading the investigation.

Not quite sure that removing Savile’s headstone is enough. Could we not have a mob dig up his corpse with their bare hands and hang his skeleton from a nearby tree?

So testimony seems to indicate that JS may have been a flawed human being. So what?

Apart from Janet Street Porter and Esther Rantzen, which of us isn’t?

@ Larry

It is quite clear… that Savile was a predatory sex offender. He has perpetrated four decades of abuse.

That statement from a police officer was disgraceful.

If we allow the police to become accuser, judge and jury rather than have them carry out an investigatory role into potential criminal offences and preventing their occurrence, we will have overturned hundreds of years of the operation of the rule of law. Indeed, if it were not for the celebrity element of this case there would not even be an investigation.

However, given that the celebrity precedent has been created, maybe the Met could also have a look into the death of Mary Queen of Scots?

@38 For some reason I’m under the impression you wouldn’t find that a very compelling argument should it be applied to Fidel Castro or Lenin.

41. Baying Lynch Mob

“So let’s recap – a man offers her a favour. She declines. Some of his friends ask if they can walk her home. She declines.”

You skipped this bit:
“At the end of the evening, they came to the bar and asked me who the hell I thought I was, to turn all of them down.”

It’s not the repeated requesting that’s the main problem here (though that can also get wearing), it’s the assumption that they had made offers she couldn’t refuse. They were angry that she’d dared to say “no”.

“She had a weird boss who seems to have made her several offers. She declined.”

There’s a lot of scope for interpretation of what the “insisting” and “demanding” might have involved in this anecdote, but “turned up at my home” is more than just “weird boss”. Again, the requests were inappropriate, but it’s the expectation behind them that indicates the pervading attitudes.

“[breast-groping coworker] asked if I fancied coming back to his place. When I declined, he offered that it was “only round the corner”. I laughed at him.”

And there, he requested and she said no, but that wasn’t the end of the matter. Again, he couldn’t conceive that she’d not want to go home with him, and assumed that her objection must have been the distance involved. Under those circumstances, her options are either to continue to say “no” (which would get her called a frumpy feminist, ignored for promotion, etc.), or to laugh it off, which diffuses the situation but doesn’t stop it from happening again.

Jimmy Savile was from Yorkshire. Is there something about Yorkshire?

– King Richard III, who had the Princes in the Tower murdered, came from Yorkshire
– Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, came from Yorkshire
– Donald Neilson, the Black Panther, came from Yorkshire
– John Haigh, the acid bath murderer, came from Wakefield, also in West Yorkshire
– Harold Shipman was a graduate of the Leeds Medical School
– Stephen Griffiths, the ‘crossbow cannibal’, came from Yorkshire
– Three teenagers were jailed for life for hacking a friend to death with two scythes in a field near Sheffield

This cannot be a coincidence.

“Is there something about Yorkshire?”

Reminds me of the joke about the 3 most famous austrians in history being Hitler, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Joseph Fritzl.

I forgot to mention other illustrious folk from Yorkshire, like Arthur Scargill and Sir Roy Meadow, who discovered Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy.

Any news yet on whether the name of Savile Row in London is to be changed to avert any association?

I’m starting to lose track of how many are claiming to have been abused by Jimmy Savile. Perhaps they will open a book so victims can sign up.

@ Bob

I’m starting to lose track of how many are claiming to have been abused by Jimmy Savile.

Why do you suppose that is?

“The awards offered by the CICA for injuries of this nature are significant and range from £1,000 for very minor injury / harm to £27,000 at the more severe end for those with permanent problems arising from abuse.”

http://www.criminal-injuries.co.uk/compensation-for-sexual-abuse.html

What did Frankie Boyle tweet?
Something like: if only Jimmy Savile was alive so we could hang him!

Sums up the hysteria perfectly really.

You’ve also neglected that three of the four 7/7 bombers were from Yorkshire, Bob.

But seriously there’s a lot of seemingly wilful muddying of the waters by some commenters with woffle about groupies and the supposed high fashion of being a victim. These females with their evil wiles eh. Oh, and btw the term “willing victim” is an oxymoron. If you know what you’re doing and you’re willing then you are not a victim, by definition surely?

This case demonstrates, once again, that when people get into positions of power and wealth, as the saying goes, it often corrupts their minds. They increasingly see other people as mere objects to be manipulated to satisfy their petty wants and demands.

The more of the Jimmy Savile pus we can get out in the open air the better. There’s hundreds – maybe thousands – of these criminals in high places, and the more their behaviour is exposed to public view the better.

Pagar: “Why do you suppose that is?”

The incentive of compensation is an illuminating insight. The puzzle is why so many victims kept quiet about the abuse for so long. As best I can tell as a distant observer, casual and under-age sex was widespread on the pop music scene. The existence of the Groupie culture was widely known. Savile exploited what he considered as opportunities and he wasn’t being especially unusual about that.

I bet, truth be told, the girls liked being porked by Jimmy Savile. Jim got something out of it and the girls got something out of it. It’s nature, is all, and no pregnancy resulted. As my dear old Dad used to say whenever he saw young women walking home from their studies in school uniforms or gym strip: “It they’re old enough to bleed, they’re old enough to feed.”

50. Chaise Guevara

@ 49 Jim

Are you in some kind of competition to see who can say the most complacent thing possible on a thread about child abuse?

I am the author of Confessions of an Old Labour High Tory, Chapter Ten of which includes the most comprehensive study ever published of the indulgence of the sexual abuse of adolescents by the liberal wing of the British Establishment in the 1970s and 1980s.

I therefore volunteer to be the Independent Chairman of the BBC’s inquiry into its handling of Jimmy Savile.

Chaise

The essential point is that some of us think the hiatus about Savile has gone way over the top.

Personally, I always regarded Savile as odious and certainly don’t approve of harassment of girls and under-age sex but casual and under-age sex has long been rife on the pop music scene, by many accounts in the media. It’s not credible to claim surprise at what Savile got up: he was just exploiting a prevailing situation.

Teenage pregnancy factsheet (August 2010): The UK has the highest teenage birth and abortion rates in Western Europe. Rates of teenage births are five times those in the Netherlands, double those in France and more than twice those in Germany.
http://www.fpa.org.uk/professionals/factsheets/teenagepregnancy

According to a report in The Economist for 18 August, the Catholic Church in America has paid out USD 3 billions in compensation to victims of abuse there by Catholic priests. I can’t see any convincing reason for not applying the same strictures to the Catholic Church as are being applied to Savile.

Jesus Christ. Some of you are missing the point here. The allegations aren’t that he just shagged a couple of willing groupies after Top of the Pops. He’s alleged to have molested and raped young girls in hospitals. A girl in hospital isn’t a pop music groupie.

Yes there are some under age girls who have sex but that doesn’t mean that they all do. Even if they do want to have sex it is still a criminal offence to do so. What is so hard to understand about this?

These attitudes are the reason why the Rochdale case went ignored.

David Liddington, MP, whose constituency covers Stoke Mandeville, has used Savile as an opportunity for a bit of bashing. He’s demanded an immediate inquiry at the hospital and had a go at the BBC and the public sector just for the heck of it.

Allegations that Savile was pretty well protected are being made, but those Tories like Lidington should take care. Savile spent 11 Christmases at Checkers with the Thatchers. Allegations of protection from high places could seriously backfire on them.

@53 Chris

This thread started before many of the allegations you refer to had been made public.

51: “Chapter Ten of which includes the most comprehensive study ever published of the indulgence of the sexual abuse of adolescents by the liberal wing of the British Establishment in the 1970s and 1980s.”

Those dates conveniently exclude the long affair between Lady Dorothy Macmillan, wife of Harold Macmillan, and Bob Boothby from the mid 1930s reportedly through to the 1960s. This was widely known about in the political establishment and in the media but covered up.

Claims about the sex escapades of “liberals” in the British Establishment would be a tad more credible if we looked into the history of divorces and scandals involving prominent Conservative politicians.

Try this: ‘Headless men’ in sex scandal finally named
Unidentified lover in Duchess of Argyll divorce case exposed as not one but two men – a cabinet minister and a swashbuckling movie star [August 2000]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/10/sarahhall

The name of the ‘headless’ man was widely circulated at the time of the divorce case in 1963 and afterwards but not published in the media. Try also the Profumo affair, also in 1963. What about Lord Lambton, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer etc etc? Try googling.

I think Chris has already made the point.

Bob B seems to want to explain things away by talking about ‘groupie culture’.

(That is itself problematic – just because young girls may have pursued rock stars doesn’t make using/abusing them acceptable.)

Savile is not accused of abusing naive, but ‘forward’ young girls, he is accused of abusing vulnerable young girls who did nothing to attract his attention, other than by being vulnerable.

56: No one involved in any of those cases was underage for anything apart from the Old Age Pension, if that.

Jimmy Savile stayed at Chequers for all eleven New Year’s Eves when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. They were as close as that. What with that and Hillsborough, she must curse every morning that she wakes up. The net is tightening around her. A state funeral? She’ll be lucky to get an unmarked ditch.

Thatcher enthusiastically supported the regime in Chile, even holding it up as a model for Britain. The rape of children in front of their parents as a form of torture was standard practice there. Sexual abuse also was and is routine in controlling the child labourers from whose employers, if they can be so described, she and her successors have preferred to import coal rather than exercise and defend national sovereignty by tapping into this Island’s own vast reserves of that fuel.

I completed my book, which also has an extensive section on Thatcher, earlier this year. But I might do another edition next year, once the next book is out of the way. A new edition including this, among other things.

They were as close as that. What with that and Hillsborough, she must curse every morning that she wakes up.

Apparently she wakes up every morning and asks where Dennis is.

“just because young girls may have pursued rock stars doesn’t make using/abusing them acceptable”

No, but what went on in the pop music scene wasn’t secret and I agree that molesting unsuspecting girls in hospitals is another matter. I’m not attempting to excuse Savile – whom I regarded as odious – but to remark that he was just one player in the often bizarre pop music scene. We conveniently overlook the evidence @52 that Britain had the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe for years – the latest news is that Britain’s teen pregnancy rate is now back to where it was in 1969.

The hiatus that has developed over Savile seems to me to be grossly disproportionate as compared with the comparatively subdued reaction to the abuse of the young on an industrial scale by Catholic clergy in many countries. That leads me to wonder how much of the hiatus is being spun to divert attention from elsewhere.

“Jimmy Savile, priests…”…getting second billing after uber pervert SJS sort of sums up the writer’s horizon…sounds like a horizon that’s limited somewhat to viewing the Catholic Church as being sort of unique in all this….with NSPCC reporting a quarter of kids experiencing child sex abuse…maybe we should look beyond Jim’ll Fix It or religious institutions as being the main exponents….it permiates our society….media perpetrate the benefit of the 60s sexual obsessed revolution and surpress child abuse apart from when convenient to out some…our society is obsessed by sexual indulgance…and the power to inflict it on the vunrable when the Western Dream of having it all with everyone in a Playboy life style are dashed on the rocks of rejection, sexually transmitted diseases , abortion and predators like Savile….who else in the media has been up to it or covered it up?

“with NSPCC reporting a quarter of kids experiencing child sex abuse…maybe we should look beyond Jim’ll Fix It or religious institutions as being the main exponents….it permiates our society”

Absolutely. The regular reactions to the rumours about abuse by either Savile or Catholic priests was to ignor the rumours with the comforting delusion that the rumours couldn’t be true. And so the abuse continued.

The official stats about Britain having the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe by a margin, year after year, couldn’t be denied but the rates – and what those implied – were also ignored because the documented facts were inconvenient.

The fact is that these inconvenient facts continued unchecked through governments of both the main parties shows that it is foolhardy to attempt to make political capital out of what is a monumentally sad and deplorable national affliction.

63. So Much For Subtlety

41. Baying Lynch Mob

You skipped this bit:
“At the end of the evening, they came to the bar and asked me who the hell I thought I was, to turn all of them down.”

It’s not the repeated requesting that’s the main problem here (though that can also get wearing), it’s the assumption that they had made offers she couldn’t refuse. They were angry that she’d dared to say “no”.

Because it is irrelevant. It is not a crime to be a bit annoyed if someone turns you down. Nor do we have any evidence that they were angry. We have a little bit of banter in the pub afterwards that was probably good natured. Notice the tenor of her comments though – she was so sexy that she drove men so wild they could not control herself.

There’s a lot of scope for interpretation of what the “insisting” and “demanding” might have involved in this anecdote, but “turned up at my home” is more than just “weird boss”. Again, the requests were inappropriate, but it’s the expectation behind them that indicates the pervading attitudes.

Was she fired? Turning up at someone’s home is seriously weird, but again none of this seems all that unusual to me. People do weirder things. Rape it is not. The requests are inappropriate *now*. Then? The feminists freed many people from the old codes of behaviour. Since then they have decided they need to bring new ones back. This time backed with legal power, not social disapproval. It won’t make men gentlemen, but it does show the idiocies of their policies.

And there, he requested and she said no, but that wasn’t the end of the matter. Again, he couldn’t conceive that she’d not want to go home with him, and assumed that her objection must have been the distance involved. Under those circumstances, her options are either to continue to say “no” (which would get her called a frumpy feminist, ignored for promotion, etc.), or to laugh it off, which diffuses the situation but doesn’t stop it from happening again.

You have no idea what saying no would consist of. Nor do you know what he could conceive. It looks a lot like a joke to me and if it isn’t, it looks sad and pathetic. Not an objection based on the fact no one could really not want him.

Again, there is no harm, no foul in any of this except the breast touching. All Ms Orr is doing is using this incident to remind people what a hot thing she used to be. And make an irrelevant comment about rape.

64. So Much For Subtlety

37. Larry

See to establish “hypocrisy”, it’s not enough to show that someone said one thing, and then someone said something incompatible with it, but rather that it was the same person who said the two things. And I rather suspect you’ll find it wasn’t.

I might well be inclined to think it was.

On the presumption of innocence, Savile cannot be put on trial, for obvious reasons. All that can happen is that people can look through all the evidence and reach conclusions. Professional detectives are now doing that, and this is what they say:

Except they can’t. They can’t see all the evidence because the weird little freak is dead. They can only hear views from people some of whom are clearly more than a little weird themselves. That testimony cannot be tested in a court of law.

I hardly need to point out the stupidity of police commenting on this case much less pronouncing verdicts. They went down that route once before, remember, when the IRA blew up some pubs in Birmingham. It is not for the police to declare anyone guilty.

But no doubt So Much For Subtlety has excellent reasons to think he knows better than the detective heading the investigation.

I understand the presumption of innocence. That is enough.

By the way, Chaise gets all upset when I point out that liberal Britain and liberalism generally is dead. This is a perfect illustration. No one in Britain seems to understand the concept of the rule of law as it applies to this case, much less the presumption of innocence. That world is dead. What we have is both sides of politics forming a Daily Mirror style media lynch mob.

40. Cylux

@38 For some reason I’m under the impression you wouldn’t find that a very compelling argument should it be applied to Fidel Castro or Lenin.

No sh!t. Just when you thought LC couldn’t get any dumber.

43. Planeshift

Reminds me of the joke about the 3 most famous austrians in history being Hitler, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Joseph Fritzl.

Mozart, of course, being born in Bavaria.

47. Esta

Oh, and btw the term “willing victim” is an oxymoron. If you know what you’re doing and you’re willing then you are not a victim, by definition surely?

Some German advertised on the internet for someone to eat. He found someone. Not a victim? We have just arrested a teacher for going to France with a 15-year old girl – thank God he was not a priest or Bob would be giving us spittle-flecked rants still. She seemed pretty willing to me. Not a victim? That is the point about statutory rape innit?

The more of the Jimmy Savile pus we can get out in the open air the better. There’s hundreds – maybe thousands – of these criminals in high places, and the more their behaviour is exposed to public view the better.

So you have no regrets about the people wrongly sent to jail over the last peadophile hysteria? This is how witch hunts spread. Actually we have no idea if there are even two criminals in high places and it does actually matter if this sort of hysteria takes over the public domain.

SMFS: “We have just arrested a teacher for going to France with a 15-year old girl – thank God he was not a priest or Bob would be giving us spittle-flecked rants still.”

Spittle-flecked rants? My comments on the industrial scale of abuse of the young by Catholic clergy have been relatively mild compared with, for example, this Wikipedia entry on: Roman Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal in Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland

The continuing attempts to whitewash the Catholic Church yield illuminating insights into how abuse can persist over long periods when anyone who publicises the issues is trashed. I’ve already remarked on the $3 billions paid out by the Catholic church in America to victims of abuse by Catholic priests. For comparison, try this report about Belgium on the BBC website:

“Harrowing details of some 300 cases of alleged sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy in Belgium have been released by a Church investigator.

“Peter Adriaenssens said cases of abuse, mostly involving minors, had been found in nearly every diocese, and 13 alleged victims had committed suicide. ” [BBC website 10 September 2010]

Try this report from the Telegraph in May this year:

Dutch Roman Catholic Church ‘castrated at least 10 boys’- At least 10 teenage boys or young men under the age of 21 were surgically castrated “to get rid of homosexuality” while in the care of the Dutch Roman Catholic Church in the 1950s.

@ SMFS

No one in Britain seems to understand the concept of the rule of law as it applies to this case, much less the presumption of innocence. That world is dead. What we have is both sides of politics forming a Daily Mirror style media lynch mob.

Agreed.

It is extraordinary that a police officer can pronounce Savile guilty of the alleged offences without the slightest apparent understanding that he is not able to do so.

It is also extraordinary that almost nobody seems to have noticed this obvious subversion of, and affront to, the rule of law.

Get Jimmy Savile, especially since he is dead, is an immensely convenient imperative to divert public attention away from other topical issues, including the issues before the Leveson inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandals.

68. Chaise Guevara

Mods, don’t know if this is deliberate, but the comments on the IDS thread are closed. Thought I’d mention it in case it’s an error. Also, you have breached my HUMAN RIGHTS to tell people they’re wrong on the internet!

69. Chaise Guevara

@ 66 pagar

“It is also extraordinary that almost nobody seems to have noticed this obvious subversion of, and affront to, the rule of law.”

As far as I’m aware, presumed innocence is for the living, and you can’t commit libel against the dead. Otherwise we’d have to have some sort of trial before calling Attila the Hun a murderer. If so, the law isn’t being subverted.

@69 We do have an adversarial justice system yes.

71. Child in the 70's

The piece is entitled “Jimmy Savile: Listening to the voices of women and children”

When I was a kid I thought that Saville was really creepy – as did all my friends. He just seemed so slimey to us. We were enamoured with Noddy Holder, Rick Parfitt etc. Our parent didn’t approve of our likes as they were all “yobboes”. They all thought Jimmy was wonderfull however. He did charity work. He worked at Stoke Mandeville. He dressed a bit weird, but that just showed how special he was.

Jimmy Saville wrote in his autobiography that “you can’t kid a kid. They can always smell the truth”. He knew it. His whole image was based on deceiving parents – and it worked.

Chaise @69

If the police were investigating the alleged crimes of Attila the Hun, it would be inappropriate to comment on his guilt or innocence.

Incidentally, I think he got a bad press…..

You know, I’d find our resident troll’s concern for extending the presumption of innocence to dead people a lot more convincing if he hadn’t categorically declared Salvador Allende an embryonic mass murderer on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

74. Chaise Guevara

@ 72 pagar

“If the police were investigating the alleged crimes of Attila the Hun, it would be inappropriate to comment on his guilt or innocence.”

Fair enough. There’s a debate to be had about whether we should be able to declare the dead guilty of crimes. My point is that the police are not, to the best of my knowledge, breaching presumed innocence as used in this country. Ditto newspapers and libel law.

“Incidentally, I think he got a bad press…..”

Weirdly, I meant Genghis Khan, for whom no press could possibly be bad enough.

75. Baying Lynch Mob

@SMFS 63

“It is not a crime to be a bit annoyed if someone turns you down.”

No, it’s not a crime. But when lots of people do it routinely, it’s no longer a one-off occurrence, but an indicator of a systematic problem. Why aren’t they as used to women turning them down as women are used to their inappropriate advances?

“Nor do we have any evidence that they were angry. We have a little bit of banter in the pub
afterwards that was probably good natured”

Asking someone “who the hell do you think you are?” sounds more than just good natured banter to me – it contains both surprise and aggression.

“Notice the tenor of her comments though – she was so sexy that she drove men so wild they could not control herself.”

Blimey, where to start? Why should they be controlling her?

If you meant “they could not control themselves”, that would be rape-apologist bullshit. That’s not a vibe I got from the article.

And what “tenor”? Do you think she’s boasting “I was so hot I could make men lose control, so they would treat me in ways I didn’t want to be treated”? At no point does she mention how attractive/hot/sexy she is or was. She’s saying that it *wasn’t* specifically her – that this kind of behaviour was rife, and women working in these industries had no choice but to put up with it.

“Since then they have decided they need to bring new ones back. This time backed with legal power, not social disapproval. It won’t make men gentlemen, but it does show the idiocies of their policies.”

Would you like to defend that vague insult with something more specific? Which of our codes or policies do you think idiotic? (Remember that there isn’t one central feminist hive-mind dictating it all – a policy suggested by one feminist isn’t necessarily backed by all others.)

“You have no idea what saying no would consist of. Nor do you know what he could conceive. It looks a lot like a joke to me and if it isn’t, it looks sad and pathetic.”

The article says “I declined”. You’re right that this may not have been a direct refusal, and coule have been an implicit refusal of the form “sorry, I have to X instead”. That would make the “only round the corner” response less of a non-sequitur. See eg.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer for why people don’t always give direct refusals – and then for how the asker can twist any kind of response that *isn’t* a direct refusal.

So, yes, out of context it’s phrased vaguely enough that it can be interpreted as a joke (and Ms Orr appears to have gone with that meaning too, as the safest way of ending the conversation). But you do remember that it’s coming from the man who’s just openly and deliberately groped her without permission?

“All Ms Orr is doing is using this incident to remind people what a hot thing she used to be.”

[^citation needed]

“And make an irrelevant comment about rape.”

In that article, the word “rape” appears twice, each time in the phrase “rape culture”. Look again at all those assumptions that those men were making: That people in their position were entitled to people in hers; that asking was a mere formality, when they meant it more like an instruction; that when she politely declined, she hadn’t given a definite “no” and they could keep pestering; when it was established that she really meant “no”, they felt they had something to complain about; and conversely (and this is one you appear to still be asserting right now) the woman *doesn’t* have any reason to complain about the unwanted attention in the first place. That’s exactly what rape culture is.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that SMFS has decided that the best way to attack Deborah Orr’s article is to try and pretend that some very creepy behaviour is just misinterpreted good natured banter.

On the compounding evidence from many countries, if the public authorities really are intent upon preventing the insidious sexual abuse of the young and sexual harassment, legislation should be passed to irrevocably proscribe the Catholic Church in all its many manifestations.

“The Devil resides in the Vatican and you can see the consequences,” said Father Amorth, 85, who has been the Holy See’s chief exorcist for 25 years.

“He can remain hidden, or speak in different languages, or even appear to be sympathetic. At times he makes fun of me. But I’m a man who is happy in his work.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7416458/Chief-exorcist-says-Devil-is-in-Vatican.html

What more need be said about why legislators should act soon to universally proscribe the Catholic Church?

Let’s not get all holier than thou about Jimmy Savile. Who amongst us hasn’t had some kind of sexual contact with a girl or two under the (legal) age of consent?

Fair dos.

79. Chaise Guevara

@ 77 Bob B

Christ, what is it with you and hating the Catholics?

“What more need be said about why legislators should act soon to universally proscribe the Catholic Church?”

You could start by explaining why we should all concur with your penchant for fascism.

So our local legal experts Pagar and SMFS believe that law should work as follows:

If someone dead is accused of a crime, the police cannot pass judgement, because that is not their place, but a matter for the courts. But of course, though the courts cannot pass judgement either, because a corpse cannot stand trial. Ergo judgement can never be passed, ever, by anyone. Meanwhile the deceased party is entitled to presumption of innocence for the rest of eternity. The upshot of which is that no-one may ever refer to the deceased party as a criminal, even in the face of overwhelming public evidence that they were one.

Brilliant.

The big irony of Bob B’s line with catholicism is that there was a fuss kicked up over it, which was met with pretty much the same sort of hand waving, equivocating and whataboutery that can be viewed in the comments above.
Such arguments advanced included:
-Why all the fuss about Priests when theres teachers that are guilty of it.
-The victims were willing and put the moves on innocent priests.
-They weren’t that young.
Etc

Although they also got the bonus arguments of claiming the criticism was religious persecution and trying to blame it all on the Gay, given that the female victims were practically ignored completely.

82. Chaise Guevara

@ 81 Cylux

In related news, or at least piss-takes of related news, you might enjoy this: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/holocaust-survivors-rally-round-church-of-england-2012101044438

Chaise: “Christ, what is it with you and hating the Catholics?”

Look at the mounting evidence of abuse of the young by Catholic priests in many countries – a small sample of which from reputable sources is posted @65.

Why do you suppose the Catholic church in America paid out USD 3 billions in compensation to victims of abuse by Catholic piests – as reported in The Economist in August?

You have the problem in explaining away all those reports in the media of the findings of commissions of inquiry. I didn’t invent those findings and those reports. What I’m saying is that on the evidence, the Catholic Church needs to face the same expressions of revulsion that are being directed at Savile. As best I can tell, at least Savile didn’t claim any pretensions about being Holy while he went about his business.

Try this relating to the liability of the Catholic church in Britain:

A ruling that the Catholic Church can be held liable for the wrongdoings of its priests has been upheld.

Last year Mr Justice MacDuff decided in favour of a woman, now 47, who claimed she was raped and assaulted as a child by a priest of the Portsmouth Diocese.

The Court of Appeal has upheld this decision, which raises “an issue of wide general importance in respect of claims against the Catholic Church”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-18278529

84. Chaise Guevara

@ 83 Bob B

“You have the problem in explaining away all those reports in the media of the findings of commissions of inquiry.”

No, see, you assume that I suffer the same brush-tarring instincts as you. I can, and will, admit that child abuse among Catholic priests has been shockingly high. What I’m missing is the second part of your process:

1) Statistically high level of child abuse among Catholic priests.
2) ????
3) Yay, fascism!

“What I’m saying is that on the evidence, the Catholic Church needs to face the same expressions of revulsion that are being directed at Savile.”

Can you seriously not distinguish between an individual and a demographic? Savile was responsible for his own actions. Fred the Catholic, on the other hand, is not answerable for the crimes of Bill the Catholic.

Your problem is that you want to punish all Catholics for the crimes of some Catholics. By that logic, most British serial killers are male, so you should be demanding that all British males be jailed.

Now then, now then, now then!

@79. Chaise Guevara: “@ 77 Bob B

Christ, what is it with you and hating the Catholics?”

As I said in another thread recently, non-faith or atheist is a typical self description of contributors on LC. Bob B is an extreme example and he has shown intolerance to other religions in the past. LC is not a friendly place for faith believers.

I’m a happy atheist and I enjoy discussing the real world with friends who have religious belief. Those discussions educate me and we share dismay about evil committed in the name of religion. OK, my religious friends have liberal social values and people who befriend me are unlikely to be right wing extremists.

Years ago, I was astounded when one of my many atheist sisters struck up a friendship with the neighbouring vicar and wife. I understood it when I did a similar thing. I don’t always agree with friends who attend local churches but I respect them.

@ Larry

So our local legal experts Pagar and SMFS believe that law should work as follows:

If someone dead is accused of a crime, the police cannot pass judgement

It’s been a long haul but, yes, you are correct.

That’s how it should work.

I thought that much of the historical stuff had been refreshed in TV drama recently. _Ashes to Ashes_ described behavioural differences in the police between ~1972 and ~2005, and it was a metaphor for wider social change. David Peace’s _Red Riding_ trilogy was broadcast on Channel 4. There must be others.

Society in 1975 (Jim’ll Fix It) would be unrecognisable to a teenager in 2012. Perhaps not totally unrecognisable, but some bits would appear bizarre. In 1975, society turned a blind eye when a star fucked an unwilling teen.

In 1975, observers of the celebs knew that it was wrong. It was what happened in 1975 and they did not feel able to take control or report abuse. Everyone knows that power abuse was commonplace in the 1970s and 1980s. It is commonplace today.

Observers of that period who are still alive have had 30 or 40 years to talk about it. That’s 30 or 40 years without saying a word. Some may have felt powerless, but it is implied that powerful people stayed silent.

Some things have changed in the last 30 or 40 years; the police are slightly better under control. But young people who are abused still cannot find somebody to talk about things or to change things. The young girls who were groomed by predatory groups in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Manchester could not find anyone.

Childline and others offer help to vulnerable young people. It didn’t work for some in the north west of England.

@88 Charlieman

A lot more information has come to light since this thread was started. The main point of the OP remains, though: we should be taking complaints seriously. To me the biggest question is why any complaints were ignored.

Here’s an hypothetical situation: the cops get a complaint from a teenage girl who has a troubled past and comes from a family with known problems. The alleged perpetrator is a celebrity who has spent 11 Christmases with the Thatchers at Checkers. What copper is happy to take the complaint forward?

I really want those Tory twunt Beeb haters to run with this and find their heroine implicated.

90. Chaise Guevara

@ 86 Charlieman

I admit that I can be fractious with believers myself. It seems very illogical to me [passing comment: I don’t want to derail this into a god debate] and that can be frustrating, especially if it’s being used to justify things I find immoral, or condemn things I find fine.

However, I do try to take a “hate the sin, love the sinner” style of line on it. Demonisation is one of mankind’s worst instincts, hence my annoyance at Bob’s comments.

And yeah, I’ve noticed Bob’s antipathy to some religions. In my experience it’s limited to Catholics and Muslims. Plus a couple of national groups, if I remember right.

@87. pagar quotes @ Larry:

“So our local legal experts Pagar and SMFS believe that law should work as follows: If someone dead is accused of a crime, the police cannot pass judgement”

Pagar responds: “It’s been a long haul but, yes, you are correct.”

This is a bit daft, innit? The term “judgement” implies that a decision was made by a Judge or Magistrate (I cannot politely talk about the in-betweenies).

Police officers are not judges which incapacitates their ability to determine judgement. Non-professional magistrates and their professional equivalents can only look at evidence presented in their courts.

Prosecutors do not prosecute dead people; it is inefficient. Magistrates do not analyse dead people.

When the accused is dead, the primary direction of investigation is to determine what happened. If the circumstances suggest that further crimes may have been committed, investigation is necessary.

Obviously if Jimmy Savile did that stuff he was a bad guy, but apparently the BBC are now planning to scrap a tribute to John Peel because he had sex with a 15 year old.

It’s ludicrous and frankly offensive to compare this to what Savile’s alleged to have done.

Defend John Peel.

@89. Cherub: “Here’s an hypothetical situation: the cops get a complaint from a teenage girl who has a troubled past and comes from a family with known problems.”

Treat the child and prosecute others later. Treat the child even if it means losing evidence. Look after the victim and turn him/her into a survivor.

When the accused is dead, the primary direction of investigation is to determine what happened.

And then not tell anyone. “That’s how it should work”, apparently.

84

“Can you seriously not distinguish between an individual and a demographic? Savile was responsible for his own actions. Fred the Catholic, on the other hand, is not answerable for the crimes of Bill the Catholic.”

As reported by the BBC in the link @83, the Court of Appeal found that the Catholic church was responsible for the wrongdoing of its priests. Do try to keep up.

In September 2010, Channel 4 broadcast the results of its own inquiry into the numbers and distribution of Catholic priests convicted of sexual offences against children. It found 37 cases:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/catholic%2babuse%2bin%2bengland%2band%2bwales%2brevealed/3767082.html#link1

The Channel 4 programme also reported that more than half of the Catholic priests convicted for child abuse and sentenced to more than a year in prison, in England and Wales since 2001, were then still in the priesthood – with some still receiving financial support from the Church and living in church houses.

Apparently, business as usual for most of those convicted. I’m suggesting that on the basic principles of justice for all, the Catholic church is suject to the same treatment as Savile. At least the Church will be placed to answer the charges, whereas Savile is dead.

96. Chaise Guevara

@ 92 Chris

What are the details surrounding that? If he was near that age it’s harmless enough; if he was way older and she was blown over by his celebrity status it’s a lot darker.

92: “the BBC are now planning to scrap a tribute to John Peel because he had sex with a 15 year old.”

But will the BBC now be banning Catholic priests from promoting the message of their church on the BBC after at 37 Catholic priests have been convicted of sexual offences against children?

Not a chance. Lord Patten, chairman of the BBC trust is a Catholic. I think we can confidently predict that the BBC will not be delivering equal treatment between Savile or John Peel and the Catholic church. In the present context, Lord Patten should step down.

@94. Larry: “When the accused is dead, the primary direction of investigation is to determine what happened.”

That is my opinion.

“And then not tell anyone. “That’s how it should work”, apparently.”

I think that is pagar’s opinion. Maybe.

Pagar is a complete pain in the bum. But comments are tolerated because, sometimes, they are pertinent.

99. Chaise Guevara

@ 97 Bob

“But will the BBC now be banning Catholic priests from promoting the message of their church on the BBC after at 37 Catholic priests have been convicted of sexual offences against children?

Not a chance. Lord Patten, chairman of the BBC trust is a Catholic.”

Yeah, Catholics are still allowed on the BBC because it’s a big fucking conspiracy and definitely not because we have freedom of speech or anything like that.

“I think we can confidently predict that the BBC will not be delivering equal treatment between Savile or John Peel and the Catholic church. ”

I already asked you whether you can differentiate between an individual and a demographic. I’d appreciate an answer, unless your tinfoil hat is telling you that I’m a member of the Illuminati and not to be trusted.

Chaise: “I already asked you whether you can differentiate between an individual and a demographic.”

As always, we should follow the rule of law. As already pointed out @95, I’m following the ruling of the Court of Appeal – as reported in that BBC report linked @83 – that the Catholic church is responsible for the wrongdoing of its priests, who are employees of the Catholic church.

I’m no lawyer but I take it that the Court of Appeal was applying the principle that an employer is liable for the actions of employees when those employees are engaged on the employer’s business. I take it that a similar principle of law was applied in America where the Catholic church has paid out USD 3 billions to the victims of abuse by Catholic priests there.

Charlieman @98

When the accused is dead, the primary direction of investigation is to determine what happened.

“It took two strikes to behead Mary: the first blow missed her neck and struck the back of her head. The second blow severed the neck, except for a small bit of sinew that the executioner cut through by using the axe as a saw. Afterward, the executioner held her head aloft and declared, “God save the Queen.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots

A Met police spokesman commented

Queen Elizabeth was implicated in a vile murder. We will not rest until we have established the full scope of her appalling crimes.

The Blessed Alexander Briant was hanged drawn and quartered on a treason indictment during the reign of Elizabeth but then at least 287 Protestant heretics were burned at the stake, including the Oxford martyrs, during the previous reign of Mary Tudor.

We could have lots and lots of inquiries. What about the trials of the eleven Pendle witches in 1612, of whom ten were hanged? Were they really guilty as charged?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendle_witches

87. pagar

” If someone dead is accused of a crime, the police cannot pass judgement

It’s been a long haul but, yes, you are correct.

That’s how it should work. ”

That is simply an absurd position to take, Pagar. Stalin and Hitler are both dead and neither were tried in a court of law for any crimes while alive. It would be absurd to say we can accuse neither of being guilty of crimes because they are not here to defend themselves. The presumption of innocence before trial is a legal protection for the accused. However, the presumption of innocence does not apply to the dead. There can be no trial of the dead so no need for a presumption of innocence principle. The police do not need to use the usual ‘ alleged ‘ caveats about dead people because they are not bound by the presumption of innocence principle.

Common law does not recognise that the dead can be defamed therefore there is no defamation liability for defaming a dead person. Arguing that the same legal protections should apply to the dead as the living is a profound misunderstanding of the law. History books would be pretty thin tomes if we could not pass any judgement on the dead.

@ Bob

What about the trials of the eleven Pendle witches in 1612, of whom ten were hanged?

Are you saying that the pursuit of Savile could be …like…a witch hunt?

Hmm….

Pagar: “Are you saying that the pursuit of Savile could be …like…a witch hunt?”

Could be – or all this is being hyped up to divert public attention from other topical issues, including sexual offences inflicted on children by Catholic priests on an industrial scale.

Orwell had a keen eye for this sort of diversionary propaganda – try two minutes of hate for Emmanuel Goldstein in this movie of his dystopian novel 1984:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk

As for Hitler, no historian has ever turned up in the archives of the unlamented Third Reich an order with the Fuhrer’s signature authorising the Holocaust – which is most likely because the Fuhrer nodded through all sorts of innovative proposals put to him by Nazi ministers and bureaucrats who wanted to gain his favour in the continuing power struggle between them for supremacy. Is another inquiry necessary to establish whether Hitler was really guilty of the Holocaust?

106. So Much For Subtlety

75. Baying Lynch Mob

No, it’s not a crime. But when lots of people do it routinely, it’s no longer a one-off occurrence, but an indicator of a systematic problem. Why aren’t they as used to women turning them down as women are used to their inappropriate advances?

Except how does any of that apply here? In Ms Orr’s long career, she mentions, what?, four instances where she turned down people? That doesn’t seem a lot. And every single one was a one-off. No one stalked her for weeks begging her to change her mind. We have no idea what they thought but none of them seemed to have taken it all that badly.

Asking someone “who the hell do you think you are?” sounds more than just good natured banter to me – it contains both surprise and aggression.

Except we only have her interpretation of what they said. Not their exact words. Nothing close to their thoughts at the time.

And what “tenor”? Do you think she’s boasting “I was so hot I could make men lose control, so they would treat me in ways I didn’t want to be treated”? At no point does she mention how attractive/hot/sexy she is or was. She’s saying that it *wasn’t* specifically her – that this kind of behaviour was rife, and women working in these industries had no choice but to put up with it.

No but she implies it. That is the point of her comments. All these men wanted her. Badly. She does not give any examples of other women who suffered this. It is all me me me. So she may say it but it does not mean she means it. As for the behaviour, what was rife? Men asking women out and the women declining? The horror. I am sure a bit of that goes on at the Beeb.

Would you like to defend that vague insult with something more specific?

Not really. I think the idiocy stands for itself.

But you do remember that it’s coming from the man who’s just openly and deliberately groped her without permission?

Indeed. And there’s the only offense in this whole story.

In that article, the word “rape” appears twice, each time in the phrase “rape culture”. Look again at all those assumptions that those men were making: That people in their position were entitled to people in hers;

Not one of them showed the slightest belief that they were entitled to anything. They asked, they were refused and then they went their separate ways. You are relying on what Ms Orr is claiming they thought.

that asking was a mere formality, when they meant it more like an instruction; that when she politely declined, she hadn’t given a definite “no” and they could keep pestering;

None of them kept pestering. They all took the refusal and accepted it. Asking clearly was not a formality as they seem to have put some effort into it. You are making as much stuff up as Ms Orr.

when it was established that she really meant “no”, they felt they had something to complain about;

Her interpretation of what some workmen said. Why shouldn’t they? They are perfectly entitled to take it any way they like.

and conversely (and this is one you appear to still be asserting right now) the woman *doesn’t* have any reason to complain about the unwanted attention in the first place. That’s exactly what rape culture is.

Well then it is an unbelievably stupid comment. No woman has a right, or much of a right, to complain about a one off instance of sexual attention. Wanted or not. It is only when people do not listen to the woman’s refusal, once she has made it clear that it is unwanted, that it is a problem. None of which happened here.

@Richard

Stalin and Hitler are both dead and neither were tried in a court of law for any crimes while alive. It would be absurd to say we can accuse neither of being guilty of crimes because they are not here to defend themselves.

There is already sufficient evidence to indicate that Savile was clearly guilty of horrific offences and I have no problem with him being judged by posterity, as with all others. It certainly seems, given what has been unearthed, that he was a despicable individual.

However, I do have a problem with him being found guilty and condemned by an element of our criminal justice system that does not have the legitimacy to do so.

This may seem like an arcane objection given the current furore but I do think an important principle is being lost if we allow it to go unchallenged.

108. So Much For Subtlety

76. Cylux

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that SMFS has decided that the best way to attack Deborah Orr’s article is to try and pretend that some very creepy behaviour is just misinterpreted good natured banter.

Well let me know what you decide. It is weirder, in my opinion, that some other people have decided what is fairly creepy behaviour is evidence that all men want to rape.

77. Bob B

On the compounding evidence from many countries, if the public authorities really are intent upon preventing the insidious sexual abuse of the young and sexual harassment, legislation should be passed to irrevocably proscribe the Catholic Church in all its many manifestations.

And yet, Bob, as has been pointed out to you any number of times, children are safer with the Catholic Church than they are with secular institutions. If you really wanted to reduce sexual abuse of the young, you could call for the Christian Brothers to be put in charge of all schools and youth institutions.

But you don’t because you’re a bigot.

78. Nigel

Let’s not get all holier than thou about Jimmy Savile. Who amongst us hasn’t had some kind of sexual contact with a girl or two under the (legal) age of consent?

Define sexual contact. Did anyone here kiss a girl when you were both under the age of consent as it then stood?

80. Larry

If someone dead is accused of a crime, the police cannot pass judgement, because that is not their place, but a matter for the courts. But of course, though the courts cannot pass judgement either, because a corpse cannot stand trial. Ergo judgement can never be passed, ever, by anyone.

Indeed. It is not an issue for the Courts. Courts do not try dead people and either way the police do not proclaim guilt.

Meanwhile the deceased party is entitled to presumption of innocence for the rest of eternity. The upshot of which is that no-one may ever refer to the deceased party as a criminal, even in the face of overwhelming public evidence that they were one.

Well no. The rest of us are not the Courts and we are not policemen. We can use “guilt” in a more general and less specific way. But that is not the case here as there is no evidence to even suggest Savile was guilty of anything. Unlike in the cases of, say, Lenin or Attila the Hun.

83. Bob B

Why do you suppose the Catholic church in America paid out USD 3 billions in compensation to victims of abuse by Catholic piests – as reported in The Economist in August?

Because the Church cannot defend itself in a court of law given the publicity problems this would cause. So they are forced to pay out instead. But no one denies some priests offended. No one would even think otherwise. The real issue here is that the children that are raped every day in the care of the US government are not able to sue and get that sort of money. Not that they are not abused, but there is nothing much they can do about it. The Hare Krishnas, I believe, dissolved themselves and then reconstituted their organisation specifically to escape legal judgement. But that is not a problem for Bob, because they have not had to pay out, right?

84. Chaise Guevara

I can, and will, admit that child abuse among Catholic priests has been shockingly high.

On what basis are you making that claim? There are studies on this – and most of them have found no higher rate among Catholic priests than anyone else.

89. Cherub

Here’s an hypothetical situation: the cops get a complaint from a teenage girl who has a troubled past and comes from a family with known problems. The alleged perpetrator is a celebrity who has spent 11 Christmases with the Thatchers at Checkers. What copper is happy to take the complaint forward?

What copper should take the complaint forward? The police should not investigate every nutter’s complaint, nor should they waste time investigating complaints that cannot win at trial.

How is Thatcher implicated precisely?

92. Chris

Obviously if Jimmy Savile did that stuff he was a bad guy, but apparently the BBC are now planning to scrap a tribute to John Peel because he had sex with a 15 year old. It’s ludicrous and frankly offensive to compare this to what Savile’s alleged to have done.

Peel had a lot of sex with underage girls. How is that any different?

It is hysterical and nasty, but it is not that different.

97. Bob B

But will the BBC now be banning Catholic priests from promoting the message of their church on the BBC after at 37 Catholic priests have been convicted of sexual offences against children?

So you seriously think that because 37 DJs have been busted on drug offenses, the BBC should ban all other DJs from working there? How about Black people? More than 37 Black people sit in jail convicted of murder. Should the BBC display its righteous indignation at this by banning all other Black people from the airwaves?

You’re a bigot Bob. Case book. As Chaise says, why should other Catholics suffer for what a small number have done?

I think we can confidently predict that the BBC will not be delivering equal treatment between Savile or John Peel and the Catholic church.

Sure. The BBC loves Peel and always has. It hates the Catholic Church. And always has. There will not be any equal treatment.

In the present context, Lord Patten should step down.

Because he is a left footer, right?

109. So Much For Subtlety

103. Richard W

Stalin and Hitler are both dead and neither were tried in a court of law for any crimes while alive. It would be absurd to say we can accuse neither of being guilty of crimes because they are not here to defend themselves.

I tell you what Richard, I will be happy if LC as a whole treats Stalin and Hitler the same way it treats Savile. Well, to be honest, if it treats Stalin with the same degree of condemnation that it treats Savile.

It won’t of course but I can dream.

The police do not need to use the usual ‘ alleged ‘ caveats about dead people because they are not bound by the presumption of innocence principle.

Then a policeman can speak in an individual capacity about what he thinks. He cannot pronounce as a policeman.

110. Chaise Guevara

@ SMFS

“On what basis are you making that claim? There are studies on this – and most of them have found no higher rate among Catholic priests than anyone else.”

Fair question. To be honest, I was mainly accepting the claim for sake of argument so I could shout at Bob B for being an anti-Catholic bigot. Which he is, as I hope this thread has conclusively shown. My main motivation here has been demonstrating that, if you want Catholicism outlawed, you are in fact a fascist.

On the other hand, I’m under the impression that there has been a disproportionate amount of child abuse by Catholic priests. But I’m fully aware that I might have been misled on this point. Do you have a link to the studies you were talking about?

What about John Peel? He’s fucked dozens of underage girls, many little more than children; he’s boasted about his conquests and he’s alive! Shouldn’t he be brought to book?

@111 Louise

John Peel is dead. I’d like to see Mike Read looked into though.

113. So Much For Subtlety

110. Chaise Guevara

On the other hand, I’m under the impression that there has been a disproportionate amount of child abuse by Catholic priests. But I’m fully aware that I might have been misled on this point. Do you have a link to the studies you were talking about?

The Catholic Church has been resistant to modern liberalism. All liberalism in fact. So since the French Revolution, the Left has been using the small number of victims of sexual abuse as a way to attack the Church. So naturally you hear a lot about Catholic priests. But in reality they remain some of the safest people to leave children with in Western society.

Most of the studies are not particularly impressive, but they all tend to point the same way:

http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

First, the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). There are approximately 60,000 active and inactive priests and brothers in the United States and thus we estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 priests have sexually engaged with minors. That’s a lot. In fact, that is 3,000 people too many. Any sexual abuse of minors whether perpetrated by priests, other clergy, parents, school teachers, boy-scout leaders or anyone else in whom we entrust our children is horrific. However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers. Therefore, the odds that any random Catholic priest would sexually abuse a minor are not likely to be significantly higher than other males in or out of the clergy. Of course we expect better behavior from priests than from the average man on the street. While even one priest who abuses children is a major problem, we need to keep this issue in perspective and remember that the vast majority of priests do not abuse children.

Second, 80% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young alter boy or girls of any age. Technically, the vast majority of priest sex offenders are not pedophiles at all but are ephebophiles. This may seem like an irrelevant semantic difference but the implications for prevention and treatment are enormous. Furthermore, this suggests that parents of teenage boys should be more concerned about sexual abuse by priests than parents of girls or prepubescent children of either gender.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

This one is interesting because of the data they have although they do not draw any conclusion of note:

Priests may also appear more likely to molest children because cases of abuse come to light in huge waves. One reason is delayed reporting: less than 13 percent of victims abused between 1960 and 1980, for example, lodged a complaint in the same year as the assault. Two thirds filed their complaints after 1992, and half of those were made between 2002 and 2003 alone.

One way to look at that is a problem with the abusers. The other way to look at it is as a witch hunt with cash and prizes for anyone who can come up with a convincing story. After all the Church cannot – and does not – defend itself. The PR would be too horrendous. So any pathological liar with a grudge, any disturbed attention seeker, as well as any genuine victim, can make a few allegations and walk away with large amounts of cash.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8654789.stm

Christian Pfeiffer, the director of the independent Criminality Research Institute of Lower Saxony and a former regional justice minister, says about 150 priests in Germany have been accused of abuse alleged to have taken place since 1990.

That is about 0.1% of the 138,000 active priests in the country, he says – though he estimates that the rate of abuse was higher in earlier decades.

And while we are on the subject of absurd allegations, we have this gem from the Daily Mail – usually the bete noir of people around here, but suddenly everyone seems to be on the same page:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217074/His-hands-lingered-long-Actress-targetted-Savile-Jimll-Fix-14.html

She added: ‘I was in my wheelchair, but I just remember his hands being everywhere and just lingering those two, three, four seconds slightly too long in places they shouldn’t. But it wasn’t particularly obvious either.’

And that is it. A twenty five year old memory of a man whose hand lingered on her knee for two seconds too long. These are the victims we should be listening to are they?

114. So Much For Subtlety

111. Louise

What about John Peel? He’s fucked dozens of underage girls, many little more than children; he’s boasted about his conquests and he’s alive! Shouldn’t he be brought to book?

Peel is dead. But Jimmy Page and David Bowie both went out with the same 12-13 year old girl. She is still alive. So are they. Time to prosecute?

115. the a&e charge nurse

[110] ‘I’m under the impression that there has been a disproportionate amount of child abuse by Catholic priests’ – the numbers are bad enough but the cover up by the high ups in the church hierarchy made a bad situation 100 times worse.

It looks like the accusations made against saville and others also reflect badly on the organisation they worked for.

114: “It looks like the accusations made against saville and others also reflect badly on the organisation they worked for.”

On the BBC radio news this morning, employing organisations may be liable for compensation to victims of abuse – see the link @83 to the Court of Appeal decision relating to liability of the Catholic church for abuse by Catholic clergy.

With cuts in the legal aid budget, this is bonanza time for lawyers filing for compensation on a no-win-no-fee basis and serving the inquiries into Savile and Hillsborough. Any time now, I’m expecting txt messages to pop up on my mobile along the lines of: Our records show you are entitled to thousands in compensation for being molested by Jimmy Savile – phone xxxxxx now. If the BBC can afford to sign a contract worth £18m for the comedy of Jonathan Ross, it can surely afford to pay compensation to the Savile victims.

I must remember to register a new charity – before someone else gets there – to campaign for posthumous pardons for the ten who were hanged for witchcraft at Kendle in 1612.

It’s surely beyond conincidence that while the Hillsborough inquiry is focused on events in Sheffield in South Yorkshire, the Savile inquiries will focus on a resident of Leeds in West Yorkshire.

117. The XYZ Line

Bob @ 97:

“But will the BBC now be banning Catholic priests from promoting the message of their church on the BBC after at 37 Catholic priests have been convicted of sexual offences against children?”

I suppose according to your logic, since BBC staff have been covering up Saville’s offences against children, the BBC ought to ban all its staff from appearing on BBC programmes. Hmm, might prove a little tricky, that…

On the other hand, I’m under the impression that there has been a disproportionate amount of child abuse by Catholic priests. But I’m fully aware that I might have been misled on this point. Do you have a link to the studies you were talking about?

It’s well known that 1 rapist will have committed considerably more than 1 rape before being brought to task. As such, the trick is to count up the number of confirmed rapists caught within an organisation while ignoring the number of allegations made against those from an org. Also if you ignore forms of abuse that aren’t sexual you massage the figures even further, some Christian Brothers liked beating children near to death rather than sexually interfering with them.

114

I think the reason why there is child abuse by Catholic priests, is they are not allowed to marry and have children. That is not to say that many of them willingly accept cellibacy, and are totally devoted to their calling and their flock.

Jimmy Savile wasn’t a priest so there is no reason he could not marry. He obviously preffered young teenagers to women of his own age.

The fact that Jimmy Savile was a Catholic is immaterial as paedophillia crosses class, creed and nationality.

Unintended consequences – try this on our flourishing Compensation Culture:

Growing numbers of schools are banning playground games and class trips as “ambulance chasing” solicitors swamp head teachers with compensation claims, according to research.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9531519/Compensation-culture-putting-curbs-on-school-trips.html

As Martin Luther almost said, the confession ritual of the Catholic church encourages a belief among Catholics that almost any sin is permissible providing the sinner confesses it afterwards or pays for an indulgence. Btw I wasn’t aware that Savile was a Catholic but that fits.

119

I’m sure i read that Savile was a Catholic but i could be wrong. As i said child abuse goes across all religions.

I was brought a Catholic, and confessing your sins, which are mostly trivial, does not let you off the hook especially if you commit a crime.

You’ve been watching too many old movies.

122. Chaise Guevara

“I was brought a Catholic, and confessing your sins, which are mostly trivial, does not let you off the hook especially if you commit a crime.

You’ve been watching too many old movies.”

I hear that a blessing from a priest not only removes all sins, but makes you no longer legally culpable for your crimes, drives out any demons that may be possessing you, and allows renegade angels to re-enter heaven…

123. Charlieman

@110. Chaise Guevara: “My main motivation here has been demonstrating that, if you want Catholicism outlawed, you are in fact a fascist.”

Go back to the history books, Chaise. Fascism used Catholicism as part of its message. Catholicism is one of the differences between Nazism and Fascism and other isms.

124. Chaise Guevara

@ 122

“Go back to the history books, Chaise. Fascism used Catholicism as part of its message. Catholicism is one of the differences between Nazism and Fascism and other isms.”

That’s some first-class pedantry, but I meant fascism in the broad sense. Authoritarianism, suppression of “undesirable” views, all that jazz. For clarity, I would use the word to refer to Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, among many others.

The fact that some perpetrators of fascism have been Catholic does not mean that Catholics cannot be the victims of fascism.

125. Charlieman

@123. Chaise Guevara: “That’s some first-class pedantry…”

I am printing a merit badge for which you would die. I deserve a merit badge.

“The fact that some perpetrators of fascism have been Catholic does not mean that Catholics cannot be the victims of fascism.”

Almost all of the victims of Fascism (it deserves a capital letter) were Italian, Spanish, Portuguese or Argentinian. Most of them were Catholic.

Some observations on this heated thread:

1. Savile’s apparently appalling behaviour does reflect very badly on the BBC, the NHS and Broadmoor. Yes, bad things happen everywhere; and standards might have been somewhat different at the time, but…. So let’s not hear any more claims on LC that the public sector is inherently morally superior, because it is not. As in the the private sector, many bad things happen there – such as the death by starvation/dehydration of 43 elderly people last year in NHS hospitals (and, No, it’s not a matter of funds, but of human decency, professionalism and adequate systems).

2. It is absolutely extraordinary that the police should announce Savile guilty in the early stages of their investigation. All they had to say was that already they had strong grounds for believing…. When their enquiries are complete, they can summarise the evidence; and the courts can then pass judgement on the various civil claims arising.

3. Nigel @ 78: Errr…certainly not me!

4. BobB @ 42: You’ve insulted Scots and Catholics, which is fine. But tha’s gun too farr wi’ Yorkshirem’n, tha’ knows. Sennee watch tha arse!

127. Chaise Guevara

@ 124

“I am printing a merit badge for which you would die. I deserve a merit badge.”

I have to admit to having some pedantry medals myself.

“Almost all of the victims of Fascism (it deserves a capital letter) were Italian, Spanish, Portuguese or Argentinian. Most of them were Catholic.”

Well, yeah.

128. Chaise Guevara

@ 125 TONE

“So let’s not hear any more claims on LC that the public sector is inherently morally superior, because it is not.”

Um, I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a claim on LC that the public sector is “inherently morally superior” in the sense you seem to mean, which appears to be along the lines of “public sector workers never commit crime, rescue injured animals and nurse them back to health on a daily basis, and piss sunshine”.

129. The XYZ Line

Chaise @ 127:

“Um, I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a claim on LC that the public sector is “inherently morally superior” in the sense you seem to mean, which appears to be along the lines of “public sector workers never commit crime, rescue injured animals and nurse them back to health on a daily basis, and piss sunshine”.”

I don’t think TONE meant that. But I have noticed that failings in public sector organisations are generally judged more leniently than failings elsewhere. So, e.g., when patients die thro’ neglect in NHS hospitals, then that’s a tragedy, but the NHS as a whole is still a good idea and staffed by fundamentally decent people, it just needs a few more resources to make sure things like this don’t happen again; when patients die from neglect in a private hospital, that’s a sign that the private sector cares about nothing except profit margins, that patients aren’t safe in private hospitals, etc., etc. Or again, child abuse by Catholic priests gets crowbarred into pretty much every discussion about religion on this site (and now, it seems, into pretty much every discussion on child safety as well), but similar scandals involving state school teachers molesting pupils don’t keep popping up in education-related threads. Note that I’m not saying everybody here thinks that public sector workers can do no wrong, just that public sector organisations tend to get the benefit of the doubt where other organisations don’t.

128

Is this a passing observation or have you got any material evidence?

Sir Jimmy Savile is stripped of his honorary doctorate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9605293/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-is-stripped-of-his-honorary-doctorate.html

Kudos for awarding the doctorate and now more kudos for taking it away. It’s a win-win.

All rise for two minutes of concentrated hate.

This is getting more Orwellian by the day.

With all this, who will think of austerity and the double-dip recession?

@128

Or again, child abuse by Catholic priests gets crowbarred into pretty much every discussion about religion on this site (and now, it seems, into pretty much every discussion on child safety as well), but similar scandals involving state school teachers molesting pupils don’t keep popping up in education-related threads.

I see you’ve noticed Bob B comments in the libcon threads. Well done.

The Channel 4 inquiry into the scale of abuse by Catholic priests goes back to Septmber 2010 – try the link @95. If anything, LC has been late in picking this up. The Economist in August this year reported that USD 3 billions has been paid out by the Catholic church in America to victims of abuse by Catholic clergy there, which is where I first learned of the massive scale. Online searches turn up reports of the findings of inquiry commissions in Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Frankly, the scale is staggering and the abuse by Savile was relatively small beer by comparison so I’m beginning to wonder whether there are ulterior motives driving the hype about Savile but perhaps it’s just a predictable reaction to learning just how many of the great and the good signed those employment contracts with Savile. How did he earn the money to pay for his Rolls?

News update:

“Savile was first investigated by police ‘for interfering with young girls’ when a nightclub manager in Leeds as long ago as 1958. His former bodyguard has told The Sunday Telegraph that Savile claimed to have paid officers to drop the case. . . ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9606494/Jimmy-Savile-was-investigated-by-police-at-least-six-times.html

If so, the issues go wider than just whether Savile molested young girls.

This post was about listening to voices. There have been many voices heard in the comments here. Not many have been about the victims of JS. Now the latest revelations in The Telegraph say that he was investigated many times over many decades but nothing came of any of these. There are allegations of abuse in hospitals and prisons too – the debate should be about those victims. JS is not the Catholic Church, he does not just fit into the ‘groupie’ culture and he had many friends in high places. As always the victims are relegated to the sidelines with all the other debates – the Catholic Church, the others who were into young girls etc etc – those are related but other debates.

Older men have always gone after the young – Jane Austin novels are full of characters who prey on young girls – and some young girls/guys are happy to oblige – that is not the issue here. The issue is that someone who affected to be a good guy and a ‘national hero’ systematically, over decades, abused young people with complete disregard to anything. That he got away with it for so long has to be of interest because the establishment – meaning politicians, media and police – did nothing.

I am in no way moralising about casual sex and there is most defininetly a debate to have about the age of consent but that has nothing to do with what THIS debate is about and that is the fact that this high profile man got away with what he did for so long (and I do not believe for one minute that he stopped in the 80s)

The victims of systematic and humiliating abuse are routinely ignored and dismissed, then and now, and yes it is about time that everyone listens to those who are subjected to abuse in whatever form.

136. Chaise Guevara

@ 134 Heather

” the debate should be about those victims”

What debate do you want to have about the victims, exactly?

137. Chaise Guevara

@ 128 The XYZ Line

“when patients die thro’ neglect in NHS hospitals, then that’s a tragedy, but the NHS as a whole is still a good idea and staffed by fundamentally decent people, it just needs a few more resources to make sure things like this don’t happen again; when patients die from neglect in a private hospital, that’s a sign that the private sector cares about nothing except profit margins, that patients aren’t safe in private hospitals, etc., etc.”

Well, as the NHS is publically owned, neglect is hopefully something we can do something about. We can increase tax subsidies, or re-evalutate the hiring process. Whereas private firms are incentivised to put money first. So it’s an inherent problem of privates vs a fixable problem of the NHS.

“except profit margins, that patients aren’t safe in private hospitals, etc., etc. Or again, child abuse by Catholic priests gets crowbarred into pretty much every discussion about religion on this site (and now, it seems, into pretty much every discussion on child safety as well)”

Haters gonna hate.

138. Chaise Guevara

@ Bob B

“This is getting more Orwellian by the day.”

You really need to read Orwell before you reference him. He didn’t write novels warning that one day we would take honours away from child abusers.

Chaise: “You really need to read Orwell before you reference him. He didn’t write novels warning that one day we would take honours away from child abusers.”

I’ve read much Orwell and you characterically miss the point.

The posthumous abuse now being heaped on JS is so grossly disproportionate compared with the muted response to the disclosures of industrial scale abuse of the young by Catholic clergy – as uncovered by investigations in many countries, including the Channel 4 investigation linked @95 – that it’s appropriate and opportune to question why this is so.

I suspect intentional Orwellian hyping to divert public attention from other topical issues. The abuse currently directed at JS has much the same flavour as the hate directed at Emmanuel Goldstein in Ingsoc.

In answer to Heather, JS was an integral part of the pop music scene for decades and the pop music scene was infused with that groupie culture where casual and under-age sex was rife by many accounts. In another thread, I referred to the rebuttal of a widely circulated urban myth starring Marianne Faithful, Mick Jagger and a Mars Bar, which was, I know, widely believed – link available but try googling.

The social mores prevailing in the pop music scene were not a closely held secret. For all I know, some participants were attracted by the prospect of what was widely known to go on. Bruce Springsteen’s hit: Dancing In The Dark (1984) is probably an apt characterisation of many denizens of the scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=129kuDCQtHs

Btw some of us later learned that the young woman he pulled up onto the stage to dance in that video clip was Courteney Cox, who later went on to fame and fortune as a star in her own right in the long-running NBC sit-com: Friends.

Jimmy Savile abused teenage girls because he could, and get away with it. He was rich and powerful and the girls he abused were vulnerable. He was a predator, pure and simple. He exclusively targeted young teenagers. Had he been a noboby he would have been found out years ago.

Yes, there was child abuse by the Catholic clergy. My own mother who went to a convent school told me she was beaten by the nuns. That is because the Catholic clergy like Jimmy Savile had so much power.

Child abuse is not just about sex. It is also about control and power.

The posthumous abuse now being heaped on JS is so grossly disproportionate compared with the muted response to the disclosures of industrial scale abuse of the young by Catholic clergy – as uncovered by investigations in many countries, including the Channel 4 investigation linked @95 – that it’s appropriate and opportune to question why this is so.

This is what’s known as complete unmitigated bollocks, when the revelations of the Church first became public there was a massive proportionate outcry, course since then we’ve had years where the abuses have been common knowledge, with various conciliatory (and unfortunately arse-covering and buck-passing) efforts by the church – trying to compare current levels of outrage toward the Church with outrage generated by newly discovered revelations against a once beloved TV star is obviously going to produce a disproportionate comparison. In callow newspaper terms ‘Priest sexually abuses child’ is dog bites man, while say ‘Blue Peter presenter abuses child’ is man bites dog.

Plus as I noted above @81, the arguments as to why we shouldn’t get too upset about the church are oddly similar to the one’s you and others have presented above about Savile in this thread. (Indeed someone even brought up the ‘what about school teachers?’ argument)

I think the age for both heterosexual and homosexual consent should be lowered to 13.

143. Baying Lynch Mob

@106 So Much For Subtlety

“No, it’s not a crime. But when lots of people do it routinely, it’s no longer a one-off occurrence, but an indicator of a systematic problem. Why aren’t they as used to women turning them down as women are used to their inappropriate advances?”

Except how does any of that apply here? In Ms Orr’s long career, she mentions, what?, four instances where she turned down people? That doesn’t seem a lot. And every single one was a one-off.

For “career”, substitute “200-word paragraph”.

The time with the cameraman and friends, it was “half a dozen” (which has an in-built error margin, admittedly, but I read that as at least five) in one evening. How often does it have to happen for you to no longer consider it a one-off?

No one stalked her

Does turning up at her home unannounced and uninvited, and insisting on her company, not count as “stalking” in your book?

for weeks

Don’t know about “weeks”, but the demand to go on holiday with her happened long enough after the turning-up-at-her-home incident that he’d had time to book said holiday.

begging her to change her mind.

You’re right, she doesn’t mention him begging. That’s because he behaved as if telling her would be enough.

We have no idea what they thought but none of them seemed to have taken it all that badly.

Except the ones who asked her who the hell she thought she was to turn them all down.

“Asking someone “who the hell do you think you are?” sounds more than just good natured banter to me – it contains both surprise and aggression.”

Except we only have her interpretation of what they said. Not their exact words. Nothing close to their thoughts at the time.

It’s indirect speech, but the inclusion of the phrase “the hell” makes the meaning pretty clear.

“And what “tenor”? Do you think she’s boasting “I was so hot I could make men lose control, so they would treat me in ways I didn’t want to be treated”? At no point does she mention how attractive/hot/sexy she is or was. She’s saying that it *wasn’t* specifically her – that this kind of behaviour was rife, and women working in these industries had no choice but to put up with it.”

No but she implies it.

Where? If the aim of that paragraph had been to demonstrate the unwanted attention that she has had to put up with over the years, how should she have worded it differently to make it clearer for you?

That is the point of her comments. All these men wanted her. Badly.

Yes, they wanted her, or they wouldn’t have behaved as they did. But more relevantly, they *expected* her.

She does not give any examples of other women who suffered this.

She mentioned Sandi Toksvig, only two paragraphs earlier.

It is all me me me.

She’s writing about her own direct experiences. If you want to know about other womens’ experiences of the same problem, go and see what eg. Sandi Toksvig or Liz Kershaw have to say.

As for the behaviour, what was rife? Men asking women out and the women declining?

As explained several times: men asking a woman out, the woman declining and the men behaving like she didn’t, or shouldn’t have.

“Would you like to defend that vague insult with something more specific?”

Not really. I think the idiocy stands for itself.

What idiocy?


But you do remember that it’s coming from the man who’s just openly and deliberately groped her without permission?

Indeed. And there’s the only offense in this whole story.

My point is that it sheds some light on the same man’s other actions.


“In that article, the word “rape” appears twice, each time in the phrase “rape culture”. Look again at all those assumptions that those men were making: That people in their position were entitled to people in hers;”

Not one of them showed the slightest belief that they were entitled to anything.

Except the ones who had thought that she wouldn’t dare turn them down. And the one who didn’t ask, but merely insisted and demanded. And the one that groped her before even asking.

You are relying on what Ms Orr is claiming they thought.

I’m relying on what she said they did. What are *you* relying on? The presupposition that there’s not actually a problem?


“that asking was a mere formality, when they meant it more like an instruction; that when she politely declined, she hadn’t given a definite “no” and they could keep pestering;”

None of them kept pestering. They all took the refusal and accepted it.

Except for her boss, who insisted and demanded. And the guy who objected that it was only round the corner.

Asking clearly was not a formality as they seem to have put some effort into it.

I possibly didn’t make “just a formality” clear – I meant that they were using the “question” as a polite notification of what was inevitably going to happen, rather than a genuine opportunity for her to decline.

You are making as much stuff up as Ms Orr.

What makes you think she’s making stuff up? You’re the one who has decided, without providing a shred of evidence, that the purpose of the paragraph (or indeed the whole article) is to boast about her former attractiveness rather than what’s actually in it: complaints about things that happened to her.

“when it was established that she really meant “no”, they felt they had something to complain about;”

Her interpretation of what some workmen said. Why shouldn’t they? They are perfectly entitled to take it any way they like.

[…]

No woman has a right, or much of a right, to complain about a one off instance of sexual attention. Wanted or not.

You ignored this part before, so I’ll rephrase it: Why is their right to complain, to her face, en masse, that she had said “no” to all of them, more important to you than her right to complain afterwards, without naming any of them, about all the unwanted and persistent attention?

It is only when people do not listen to the woman’s refusal, once she has made it clear that it is unwanted, that it is a problem. None of which happened here.

That’s exactly what happened here, on multiple occasions. The fact that you are still dismissing all but one particular act of one of those events as “probably good natured banter” or “not that unusual” is the final point of the article: “Wake up and see that these attitudes are by no means entirely of the past, not yet.”

So she may say it but it does not mean she means it.

Says it all, really.

The posthumous abuse now being heaped on JS is so grossly disproportionate compared with the muted response to the disclosures of industrial scale abuse of the young by Catholic clergy – as uncovered by investigations in many countries, including the Channel 4 investigation linked @95 – that it’s appropriate and opportune to question why this is so.

No attention has been diverted from Catholic abuse. It has been absolutely huge news and remains big news on the odd occasion something new comes out about it these days.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=catholic%20abuse

140: “This is what’s known as complete unmitigated bollocks, when the revelations of the Church first became public there was a massive proportionate outcry”

There was no outcry following the Channel 4 investigation in September 2010 – see link @95 – which showed how widely distributed were the convictions for 37 Catholic priests in Britain who had engaged in sexual abuse of the young.

One important insight was that there was no central record accessible to Channel 4 so they had to go painstaking through the records. Very likely there have been more convictionas since the Channel 4 investigation. Reports of investigations by inquiry commissions in Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands were quite recent and the media reaction was very muted. It was only in August that I read the report in The Economist that the Catholic church in America had paid out USD 9 billions to compensate victims of abuse by Catholic clergy there. At least JS made no pretensions about being on Holy business.

By numerous reports in the media, the pop music scene was and is awash with sex and drugs so this deluge of Shock-Horror now about JS is just ludicrous. How can anyone be surprised? Some silly woman is quoted in the media saying that if only JS had been properly investigated, dozens could have been saved from abuse by him. But by the news report @133 JS was investigated by the Police – and several times over. That silly woman would have made far more sense if she had said if only the Catholic church had been universally proscribed, hundreds of children across many countries would have been saved from abuse by paedophile Catholic priests.

If any by now are still doubting whether the pop music scene was awash with sex, try this Guardian review of: 9 Songs:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/fridayreview/story/0,,1434415,00.html

There is a trailer for the film on YouTube.

146. Chaise Guevara

@ 138 Bob B

“The posthumous abuse now being heaped on JS is so grossly disproportionate compared with the muted response to the disclosures of industrial scale abuse of the young by Catholic clergy – as uncovered by investigations in many countries, including the Channel 4 investigation linked @95 – that it’s appropriate and opportune to question why this is so.”

Muted response? The Catholic thing was huge. Do you have any actual basis for these claims, or are you just declaring that the world is as you’d like it to be?

One would expect the Savile thing to get more short-term attention (cos it involves a famous person who I suppose could be called a national institution), but to die out quicker unless it turns out that there was a similar blind-eye culture in the Beeb/NHS as there was in the Catholic Church. We haven’t actually had time to see if that happens yet.

“I suspect intentional Orwellian hyping to divert public attention from other topical issues.”

Calling that sort of thing “Orwellian” is precisely the kind of hyperbole that Orwell used to complain about. If you haven’t already, read his Politics and the English Language (think that’s the relevant one). It’s available online.

“The abuse currently directed at JS has much the same flavour as the hate directed at Emmanuel Goldstein in Ingsoc.”

Yes, poor persecuted JS. Clearly we as a nation have forgotten that it’s wrong to speak ill of dead child molesters.

147. Chaise Guevara

@ SMFS

In passing…

“That is the point of her comments. All these men wanted her. Badly.”

She felt that the men’s attitude was worth discussing. How could she have discussed the topic without mentioning that they asked her out? Should she have pretended it happened to “a friend” – giving people like you another excuse to rationalise the incident away – just to avoid being accused of arrogance? Should she have wasted time saying that it’s rare for her to be asked out, or that she’s been turned down plenty of times herself?

There are loads of things that are worth discussing that unavoidably require someone to mention a positive quality of themselves. For example, you could accuse every single person who reports that they have been unfairly dismissed of “arrogance” – they just want to soapbox about how good they are at their job! Or you could, y’know, deal with the issue itself instead of hiding behind ad homs.

This thread appears to have shattered SMFS’ already flakey personality. I can’t imagine many others having the inclination to write such lengthy screeds of bollocks for others to ignore.

Chaise: “The Catholic thing was huge. Do you have any actual basis for these claims, or are you just declaring that the world is as you’d like it to be?”

Try the scale of media reports. How many new posthumous investigations of JS have been promised and how many commissions of inquiry when the man is dead and the pop music scene has long been awash with sex and doing drugs? OTOH who expects Catholic priests to be sexully abusing the young while engaged on Holy business?

JS seems to have done his own highly effective cover-up operation but by reports large parts of the hierarchy of the Catholic church were engaged in an institutional cover-up of the evil doings of paedophile Catholic priests. The Catholic church is still with us while JS is already dead and buried. The Catholic church should unleash Father Amorth, the Vatican’s chief exorcist, so he can do the necessary rituals to rid the church of the Satanic influence he says pervades it.

I’m surprised we’ve not heard more calls for exorcisms in schools and training in exorcism rites so headteachers know what to do. Surely this is something the Department of Education should be looking into.

150. Chaise Guevara

@ 148 Bob B

“Try the scale of media reports. How many new posthumous investigations of JS have been promised and how many commissions of inquiry when the man is dead and the pop music scene has long been awash with sex and doing drugs?”

Do you have any evidence, or are you just going to ask me rhetorical questions? My memory of the coverage of the Catholic thing is that it was pretty damn major.

“OTOH who expects Catholic priests to be sexully abusing the young while engaged on Holy business?”

Everyone, to the point where the expectation goes far above the reality. That’s part of why the JS thing may seem like a bigger deal in the short term: as someone pointed out above, in popular culture “Catholic priest abuses boys” is pretty much dog bites man.

“JS seems to have done his own highly effective cover-up operation but by reports large parts of the hierarchy of the Catholic church were engaged in an institutional cover-up of the evil doings of paedophile Catholic priests.”

Yep. What’s your point here?

“The Catholic church is still with us while JS is already dead and buried. ”

Well, the media unfortunately defines newsworthiness as “interesting stuff” rather than “important stuff”. Although if, as suggested, JS operated within a larger culture of acceptability, then it is still pretty damn important.

Apparently medical staff told kids to fake being asleep when JS visited. Shouldn’t these people now be answering for their actions?

I like ’em young.

Chaise: “My memory of the coverage of the Catholic thing is that it was pretty damn major.”

Really? Channel 4 reported: “that more than half of the Catholic priests convicted for child abuse and sentenced to more than a year in prison, in England and Wales since 2001, remain in the priesthood – with some still receiving financial support from the Church and living in church houses.”

Whatever else, evidently the Catholic church in Britain didn’t take the convictions and sentences for abuse seriously for more than half the priests if the guilty priests were allowed to stay in the priesthood.

“Apparently medical staff told kids to fake being asleep when JS visited. Shouldn’t these people now be answering for their actions?”

The ward staff were taking sensible protective measures and should be commended. It’s the administrative hierachy who decided to allow JS access to wards that should be blamed, not ward staff.

For obvious reasons, hospitals have strict hierarchies of authority so ward staff allowed JS around wards because management had decided. But consider the situation. Ward staff had insights into what JS was like because they talked with their patients. Hospital management didn’t have that experience and took JS on his public merit – BBC DJ, charity worker etc. Should ward staff have warned hospital management? If challenged, what would they say? That a 13 year-old girl (say) had told a nurse that JS had touched her inappropriately? The next question would be: And you believed her, why?

I can well understand why ward staff envisaged that kind of conversation with hospital management and backed off. Think of what happened when the controller of BBC 1 had put the rumours of under-age sex to JS. He simply said that the rumours were nonsense. And that was accepted. Would hospital management have accepted a very serious allegation made by ward staff based on the reported complaint of 13 year-old patient whom the hospital management had very likely never met?

Compare all that with the abuse by paedophile priests in the Catholic which often went on for years before it was uncovered.

153. Chaise Guevara

@ Bob B

“Whatever else, evidently the Catholic church in Britain didn’t take the convictions and sentences for abuse seriously for more than half the priests if the guilty priests were allowed to stay in the priesthood.”

You’ve moved the goalposts, although I think it was unintentional – we’re discussing multiple related subjects simultaneously. I was talking about the media reaction, not the church reaction.

“The ward staff were taking sensible protective measures and should be commended. It’s the administrative hierachy who decided to allow JS access to wards that should be blamed, not ward staff.”

Yes and no. Anyone is entitled to call the police. I suppose it’s possible that the staff thought that the claims might well be false, and therefore didn’t want to ruin the man’s life over it, but didn’t want to put the kids in their care at risk. If that’s the case, he should have been prevented from visiting without a chaperone. Yes, that should have been the management’s job, but only if they were informed of it – if not, the guilt is with whoever kept quiet.

If the people in question felt that way and thought reporting to the management might be enough to wreck an innocent man’s life, surely it wouldn’t be that hard to ensure that he was never left alone with the children?

“Compare all that with the abuse by paedophile priests in the Catholic which often went on for years before it was uncovered.”

Sounds extremely similar. Don’t get me wrong; I really doubt that the NHS is seriously culpable like the Catholic Church is. But in both cases it seems like people covering up out of convenience. Bad priorities.

Chaise: “If the people in question felt that way and thought reporting to the management might be enough to wreck an innocent man’s life, surely it wouldn’t be that hard to ensure that he was never left alone with the children?”

Ward staff in hospitals have lots to do and would likely be very pressed to spare someone to go around a ward with JS while he made his leisurely way talking with patients. I can well understand why ward staff would feel inhibited about going to hospital management to complain about JS on the strength of what a sick young teen had told them. Remember that JS had passed through police investigations and what we are told in the news was a formal interview by the controller of BBC Radio 1 about the rumours of under-age sex.

The whole pop music scene was and is widely recognised as being freaky and awash with sex and drugs. There is a more serious debate to be had about whether the BBC should have been running anything like Radio 1 when umpteen commercial ventures focus on the same listening slot. JS got his kudos from his role as a BBC DJ on Radio 1 and BBCTV Top of the Pops. What commercial ventures don’t do and won’t is make up for Radio 4 talk radio.

@ Cherub

This thread appears to have shattered SMFS’ already flakey personality. I can’t imagine many others having the inclination to write such lengthy screeds of bollocks for others to ignore.

Yeah. Why bother with detailed debate when you can just write ad hominem one liners.

Right?

156. Chaise Guevara

@ 154 Bob B

“Ward staff in hospitals have lots to do and would likely be very pressed to spare someone to go around a ward with JS while he made his leisurely way talking with patients…”

Yeah, ok. Fair enough.

“There is a more serious debate to be had about whether the BBC should have been running anything like Radio 1 when umpteen commercial ventures focus on the same listening slot.”

Personally I think it’s a waste of the BBC for it to provide services you can get commercially. Which is why it annoys me that BBC1 seems to be mainly competing against ITV.

“JS got his kudos from his role as a BBC DJ on Radio 1 and BBCTV Top of the Pops.”

Hardly relevant.

“What commercial ventures don’t do and won’t is make up for Radio 4 talk radio.”

Agreed.

CG @ 128:

“Um, I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a claim on LC that the public sector is “inherently morally superior” in the sense you seem to mean, which appears to be along the lines of “public sector workers never commit crime, rescue injured animals and nurse them back to health on a daily basis, and piss sunshine”.”

Caricature. Classic straw-manning, as I never made such a claim. – One dominant assumption on LC is that the public sector is, despite its failings, “good”. So said failings, as TXYZL argues, are treated leniently…

And then, @ 137, I’m afraid you prove my point:

“Well, as the NHS is publically [sic] owned, neglect is hopefully something we can do something about. We can increase tax subsidies, or re-evalutate the hiring process. Whereas private firms are incentivised to put money first. So it’s an inherent problem of privates vs a fixable problem of the NHS.”

In response to that:

1. “neglect” is something that CAN be dealt with equally well in both public and private concerns. “We” can, through government, enforce standards by regulation and inspection. The ownership of the service-delivery is simply irrelevant if the regulation and inspection/contract-monitoring is high-quality.

2. Why would we reward poor performance in the treatment of patients by more tax subsidy? Productivity in the NHS and public sector slipped year-on-year under Labour. More subsidy is not the answer. To prevent old people starving to death in NHS wards – and, for that matter, NHS receptionists not looking you in the eye, but treating you as a thing – we need an improvement in management and in ethos!

3. Precisely because private firms are incentivised to achieve a profit, they will, from self-interest – generally – treat their customers well. Yes, there are some notable exceptions; but that is why we regulate the market. Public sector organisations tend to be producer-led and more concerned with the rights of the employees than with customers, ..errr, “clients”. In my experience, private sector organisations generally treat me better than public ones.

ANECDOTE ALERT: In matters of health…my NHS consultant advised me to take a test not available on the NHS. The experience was very revealing. Staff at the private hospital were more polite, had more eye-contact and were more attentive. The hospital was cleaner and tidier. The cost to me was £500; and it told me I did not need an expensive operation that I would have had on the NHS. My consultant said that a poorer person would have undergone a £5000 operation – at public expense.

CG @ 156:

“Personally I think it’s a waste of the BBC for it to provide services you can get commercially. Which is why it annoys me that BBC1 seems to be mainly competing against ITV.”

I agree.

The counter-argument is that the licence fee is a poll tax levied on all TV viewers; and so the BBC should provide something for everyone.

However, I simply don’t get that: I don’t have school-age children but I’m happy paying for state education, and I don’t use the local swimming pool but I’m happy to pay for it (because swimming pools cannot be self-financing)…

From pragmatic right to pragmatic left, we accept we all have to fund some services that we do not use (much) for the greater good.

Unfortunately, the following principle tends to be ignored: the public sector should not compete with what the private sector adequately supplies, and should provide what the private sector does not.

Which could mean the selling-off of Radios 1 and 2. And anything else the private sector does better than the public…

[cue: rant from SNP-leftist Jim…]

159. Chaise Guevara

@ 157 TONE

“Caricature. Classic straw-manning, as I never made such a claim.”

I don’t think obvious caricature is straw manning, but whatevs. The point is that you’re conflating two different ideas. The first is “Public ownership of certain organisations is a good idea”. The second is “Publicly owned organisations will be better across the board that privates, even when this makes no logical sense.”

“And then, @ 137, I’m afraid you prove my point”

Hardly, because my statement there is reasoned out. You might think my reasoning is flawed, but it’s not a knee-jerk statement.

“1. “neglect” is something that CAN be dealt with equally well in both public and private concerns. “We” can, through government, enforce standards by regulation and inspection. The ownership of the service-delivery is simply irrelevant if the regulation and inspection/contract-monitoring is high-quality.”

Regulation can be used, but has at least two downsides over direct ownership. There may also be upsides. Downsides are:

1) Getting regulation into law takes time. If we discover that both public and private hospitals are legally doing something that allows patients to die unnecessarily because it saves a little money, the private firms can keep doing it until we change the law. The public outfits can just be ordered to change the practice starting now (although they might have to make changes like ordering new machines etc.).

2) Regulation tends to get people to play to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. I know you’re talking about “high-quality” regulation, but it’s actually very hard to avoid loopholes and we have to provide solutions for the world as it is.

“Why would we reward poor performance in the treatment of patients by more tax subsidy?”

Reward? We’re not talking about using tax money to pay bonuses to incompetent staff. We’re talking about using it to improve the system: to FIX poor performance.

“Productivity in the NHS and public sector slipped year-on-year under Labour.”

Did it? How are you measuring that? Waiting lists fell, I know that.

“More subsidy is not the answer. To prevent old people starving to death in NHS wards – and, for that matter, NHS receptionists not looking you in the eye, but treating you as a thing – we need an improvement in management and in ethos!”

False dichotomy.

“Precisely because private firms are incentivised to achieve a profit, they will, from self-interest – generally – treat their customers well. Yes, there are some notable exceptions; but that is why we regulate the market.”

They will treat their customers well as long as there is a financial motivation to do so. That motivation may be indirect – be generous to low-paying customers because it gives you a good word-of-mouth reputation, for example. But your “exceptions” are in fact the rule. American health insurers find excuses to deny people treatment all the time, because each denied request for treatment saves the company a lot of money. Post-code lotteries aside, the NHS uses a formula that places a maximum value on quality-of-life-adjusted years: triage, in other words.

The near-perfect system is to have the NHS providing triage-assessed services, and private insurers for anything the NHS won’t cover.

If you want a none-medical example of the incentivisation I’m talking about, there was that credit card company a few years back that closed loads of people’s accounts because they always paid up on time. That makes financial sense, but it’s not the sort of attitude you want in the provision of a basic need like healthcare.

“Public sector organisations tend to be producer-led and more concerned with the rights of the employees than with customers, ..errr, “clients”.”

I’m not sure that one cancels out the other. In fact, they can go hand-in-hand: I don’t want the nurse administering my medicine to be exhausted from being forced to work overtime.

“In my experience, private sector organisations generally treat me better than public ones.”

In my experience, they just put a better face on it. In fairness, I’ve been shafted by both in the past (phone company, local council).

“In matters of health…my NHS consultant advised me to take a test not available on the NHS. The experience was very revealing. Staff at the private hospital were more polite, had more eye-contact and were more attentive.”

Courtesy and eye-contact are not top of my list of priorities when I need medical care, although they might be top of the list for me whinging afterwards.

“The hospital was cleaner and tidier.”

Hygiene is a hygiene factor, funnily enough. Lack of cleanliness is only an issue if it puts people at risk.

“The cost to me was £500; and it told me I did not need an expensive operation that I would have had on the NHS. My consultant said that a poorer person would have undergone a £5000 operation – at public expense.”

But that only works out if more than one in ten people who have this test and are considering the operation get the same result as you. If you’re a one-in-100 anomaly, getting people to take the test would be a waste of time financially (although it might be worth it in terms of your wellbeing). Like you said, this is anecdotal.

160. Chaise Guevara

@ 158 TONE

“The counter-argument is that the licence fee is a poll tax levied on all TV viewers; and so the BBC should provide something for everyone.”

Aside from your entirely good point about taxation below, there’s also the fact that some of those somethings don’t NEED to be provided because they already are. Want to watch a fascinating show about z-list celebrities learning to dance? Press 3 on your remote.

In fact, shows like that are probably more expensive all round because of BBC vs ITV bidding.

Oh, and I’m making an exception for the news, even though you can get news all over the place, because I think there’s a genuine public-interest case for having both state and private news media.

“From pragmatic right to pragmatic left, we accept we all have to fund some services that we do not use (much) for the greater good.”

Yeah. I hate it when people get outraged that their tax money goes towards things they don’t personally use. It’s like they don’t understand what tax is. I live in Manchester and have very little need for Cornish hospitals: close them down!

“Unfortunately, the following principle tends to be ignored: the public sector should not compete with what the private sector adequately supplies, and should provide what the private sector does not.

Which could mean the selling-off of Radios 1 and 2. And anything else the private sector does better than the public…”

If there’s a private radio station that does Radio 2 stuff better than Radio 2, I haven’t found it. But that’s an aesthetic opinion on my part. I’d miss Radio 2, but I’ll accept it being thrown on the bonfire of pointless public services.

Radio 4 stays, though, at least until someone comes up with an alternative.

Chaise

The BBC’s culpability in this is that JS got his nationwide kudos from his position as the regular DJ/presenter on the BBCTV Top Of The Pops. I suspect that is also where he got most of his earnings from for his Rolls.

The BBC is not placed to step out from under this dung heap.

Miliband is now calling for yet another commission of inquiry, which will likely gladden even more the hearts of lawyers, but I can’t see that achieving more in addition to the other inquiries to which the BBC is already committed except to further boost the incomes of lawyers. JS is dead. If there are lessons to be learned those are more likely to be about the use of BBC licence fee money in paying such huge sums to those whom the BBC turns into national celebrities. I gave up watching live TV early in 2009 and no longer pay the licence fee.

Quote: “Cleese said he was paid £6,000 for an entire series work on Fawlty Towers, including writing, performing and filming. He added that he was only able to spend so much time on the show because he was able to make money doing adverts as well. ‘If it hadn’t been for the commercials, I wouldn’t have been able to afford to spend so much time on the script,’ he said.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/06/television-john-cleese

162. So Much for Subtlety

143. Baying Lynch Mob

The time with the cameraman and friends, it was “half a dozen” (which has an in-built error margin, admittedly, but I read that as at least five) in one evening. How often does it have to happen for you to no longer consider it a one-off?

One unusual evening and four other incidents in a 40 year life time. Not much more than a one-off.

Does turning up at her home unannounced and uninvited, and insisting on her company, not count as “stalking” in your book?

No. Not when Romeo does it anyway. Well within the norm of human behaviour if a little down the teenage end.

Except the ones who asked her who the hell she thought she was to turn them all down.

No, the ones who were friendly enough to go down the pub with her but whom she thought thought who the hell she was etc etc. A different kettle of fish.

Nor is it a crime to think you are so hot that a woman would have to be stupid to turn you down. The crime is not accepting her decision. They all did.

Yes, they wanted her, or they wouldn’t have behaved as they did. But more relevantly, they *expected* her.

No they did not. She claims they did. But they clearly knew they had to ask, and when she refused they all, without a single exception, took her word for it and left it at that. Except that sad little prat from the Guardian who took a whole extra minute to get the message.

As explained several times: men asking a woman out, the woman declining and the men behaving like she didn’t, or shouldn’t have.

You cannot conflate those two. Not one of them behaved like she didn’t decline them. Not one. They all took her at her word and accepted her verdict. They may have thought she was nuts to turn them down but there is little evidence of it except her account of what some workmen said down the pub. There is simply no harm, no foul here.

My point is that it sheds some light on the same man’s other actions.

Which are sad and pathetic but not stalking, not rape.

Except the ones who had thought that she wouldn’t dare turn them down. And the one who didn’t ask, but merely insisted and demanded. And the one that groped her before even asking.

Again we have her interpretation, not their thoughts. Perhaps some of them thought they were so sexy she wouldn’t turn them down. Dare is an odd word and you should be careful using it. However arrogance is not a crime. Demanded? Her interpretation once more. Not one of them persisted past the first refusal (with a little leeway for the said git from the Guardian). Nothing wrong here at all.

Except for her boss, who insisted and demanded. And the guy who objected that it was only round the corner.

He does seem to have come on a little strong, but he did not persist. She said no, he stopped. On other sad little request right after the first one is turned down is not persisting. It is sad and pathetic.

I possibly didn’t make “just a formality” clear – I meant that they were using the “question” as a polite notification of what was inevitably going to happen, rather than a genuine opportunity for her to decline.

And yet she did decline and what was inevitably going to happen did not actually happen. Which proves this line of claims is utter rubbish.

You ignored this part before, so I’ll rephrase it: Why is their right to complain, to her face, en masse, that she had said “no” to all of them, more important to you than her right to complain afterwards, without naming any of them, about all the unwanted and persistent attention?

I am happy to grant her the right to complain. But not to the police. I don’t think the workmen should have complained either, but it was not a crime to do so. If it happened. The problem is what she is doing – she is exploiting this alleged incident to make a claim about all men and that is wrong.

That’s exactly what happened here, on multiple occasions.

You keep saying it and yet it is not true. It did not happen here. Not even once (given the sad Guardian guy was continuing a previous request half heartedly). Why do you make this stuff up?

163. So Much for Subtlety

135. Heather

This post was about listening to voices. There have been many voices heard in the comments here. Not many have been about the victims of JS.

Why should they be? Listening to the voice is either a meaningless sound bite or it is something far more sinister. Either way why should we listen? The problem being that if some of the people making these allegations are delusional or looking for a pay out, we need to look at what they have to say and discourage them. Listening to them in your sense will only make them worse.

Now the latest revelations in The Telegraph say that he was investigated many times over many decades but nothing came of any of these.

Perhaps he was, you know, innocent?

As always the victims are relegated to the sidelines with all the other debates – the Catholic Church, the others who were into young girls etc etc – those are related but other debates.

It is a mistake to assume victims without proof. And since when have victims been relegated to the side lines? They are getting wall-to-wall national coverage.

Older men have always gone after the young – Jane Austin novels are full of characters who prey on young girls – and some young girls/guys are happy to oblige – that is not the issue here.

Actually to some extent it is. Especially if some young women are happy to oblige. Because it goes to the heart of consent.

The issue is that someone who affected to be a good guy and a ‘national hero’ systematically, over decades, abused young people with complete disregard to anything.

There being no evidence he did any such thing.

138. Chaise Guevara

You really need to read Orwell before you reference him. He didn’t write novels warning that one day we would take honours away from child abusers.

No but it is a little like disappearing someone like Smith’s chess playing friend.

140. Lynne

Jimmy Savile abused teenage girls because he could, and get away with it.

There is still no evidence that he either abused girls or that he got away with it.

Yes, there was child abuse by the Catholic clergy. My own mother who went to a convent school told me she was beaten by the nuns. That is because the Catholic clergy like Jimmy Savile had so much power.

And because a lot of nuns are deeply weird.

145. Bob B

That silly woman would have made far more sense if she had said if only the Catholic church had been universally proscribed, hundreds of children across many countries would have been saved from abuse by paedophile Catholic priests.

Except it is not true. Someone else would have had to look after those children and their risk of abuse would have, at worst, stayed the same, but in fact was more likely to have gone up. The Catholic Church remains the safest place for children in the West.

#163 So much for subtlety – nice try at a wind up or are you so blinkered that you don’t actually live in the real world?

@164 He doesn’t think men should ever be prosecuted for rape, essentially. He might claim otherwise and pretend to be outraged at the suggestion, but in all his posts on the subject it becomes quite clear that even if there was video footage of a violent rape with the victim crying ‘no’ repeatedly, he’d still be finding reasons as to why the victim was putting it on.

There is still no evidence that he either abused girls or that he got away with it.

Yes there is – heaps. Every time someone says that they saw him do it, or that he did it to them, that’s evidence of JS abusing girls. It might not be conclusive proof, but it’s certainly evidence.

Smfs

The evidence against Jimmy Savile is overwhelming. There are also witnesses. He can’t be tried but that doesn’t mean that his victims should keep quiet.

Bob B

Everyone is now aware of abuse within the Catholic church. I doubt that it could happen today, at least on such a large scale.

It’s Time to face up to the fact that abuse also happens within our own institutions.

Smfs

My mother was taught by the nuns in the thirties. When i was at junior school in the fifties. I recall the same boy being caned by a teacher, at least once a week every week.

169. Chaise Guevara

@ 163 SMFS

“No but it is a little like disappearing someone like Smith’s chess playing friend.”

In that me going for a stroll is a little like the Marathon.

Let’s all step away from the hysterics, shall we?

Lynne: “It’s Time to face up to the fact that abuse also happens within our own institutions.”

Absolutely. The abuse of young teens in care homes, especially girls, is now the subject of government measures:

The government has published plans to combat the sexual exploitation of children in care homes in England by gangs.

The move acts on recommendations made by the deputy children’s commissioner in a report on sexual exploitation.

The conviction this year of nine men in a child sex ring sparked concerns about the safety of children’s homes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18675986

JS is dead but this threat of abuse by gangs is ongoing. It seems more important to me to focus on now than on the past which we can’t do anything constructive about except to direct blame. As someone, an economist, said: Bygones are forever bygones.

171. So Much for Subtlety

164. Heather

So much for subtlety – nice try at a wind up or are you so blinkered that you don’t actually live in the real world?

Where’s the wind up?

165. Cylux

He doesn’t think men should ever be prosecuted for rape, essentially. He might claim otherwise and pretend to be outraged at the suggestion, but in all his posts on the subject it becomes quite clear that even if there was video footage of a violent rape with the victim crying ‘no’ repeatedly, he’d still be finding reasons as to why the victim was putting it on.

And Cylux jumps the shark in his pathetic effort to lie about what I think. As he has no actual real argument.

166. Tim J

Yes there is – heaps. Every time someone says that they saw him do it, or that he did it to them, that’s evidence of JS abusing girls. It might not be conclusive proof, but it’s certainly evidence.

How many people have said they saw him do it? One senile driver whose wife is doing the talking for him? Anyone else?

167. Lynne

The evidence against Jimmy Savile is overwhelming. There are also witnesses. He can’t be tried but that doesn’t mean that his victims should keep quiet.

Point out to me any evidence that is even close to over whelming and I will happily apologise.

It’s Time to face up to the fact that abuse also happens within our own institutions.

Indeed. Abuse predominately happens within secular State institutions. Always has.

169. Chaise Guevara

Let’s all step away from the hysterics, shall we?

Funny, that is what I have been saying all week. It is not the full Marathon, but it is not a stroll either. His gravestone has been removed. His name removed from rooms named after him. His honorary degrees stripped. It is all a little bit too much like Orwell. We need to back away and avoid the hysteria.

The hysteria about JS is very likely an understandable popular response to his undeniable popularity on the pop music scene over decades.

It’s convenient to overlook the fact that the pop music scene was and is awash with drugs and sex – hence the circumstances of Michael Jackson’s untimely and sad death in America. But we need to move on and focus on issues we can influence, like paedophile priests and tackling the systematic abuse of young girls living in care homes by gangs.

The instructive insight is that in all cases abuse could and did continue for years before it was uncovered. Why was that? Often the police or others inauthority were told or heard rumours and they opted to do nothing. That is what needs inquiring into.

173. Chaise Guevara

@ 171 SMFS

“It is all a little bit too much like Orwell. We need to back away and avoid the hysteria.”

Shame you can’t lead by example…

171 Smfs

The numbers of victims coming forward is evidence that Jimmy Savile abused young teenage girls. They can’t all be wrong. The people who witnessed JS abusing young teenagers are very credible. Whilst i don’t like the media hysteria, after all JS does have a family. I do believe the people that have come forward and spoken out.

If, as we now keep being told, “everyone” knew about Jimmy Savile, then it is utterly inconceivable that Margaret Thatcher was unaware of his activities when she entertained him at Chequers for all 11 of the New Year’s Eves when she was Prime Minister.

She probably just didn’t care. We are talking about Margaret Thatcher here, the woman whose legend was burnished when she “miraculously escaped” from a bomb which killed five of her colleagues and crippled the wife of one of her closest allies, but which had been planted by an organisation with which she pretended not to be having what was in fact her continuous contact.

If anyone ever did write Eminent Thatcherians, following the pattern of Lytton Strachey’s Eminent Victorians and of Piers Brendon’s Eminent Edwardians and Eminent Elizabethans (Andrew Roberts did not stick to it in Eminent Churchillians), then one of the four subjects would just have to be Savile. How could it not be? Who, we now see, more perfectly embodied the seamlessness between the 1960s and the 1980s, via the complete free-for-all and the hopeless institutional response to it in the 1970s?

The New Right that became Thatcherism was calling for drug legalisation and for the abolition of the age of consent, and was putting those principles into practice, as surely as was the sociologically indistinguishable New Left that eventually became New Labour. The Sixties Swingers hated the Wilson Government, and a decade later punk branded the Callaghan Government a “fascist regime”.

For all its alleged left-wingery, and its ability to annoy no end the forces of conservatism that in many cases really were and are left-wing, British rock’n’roll was made up of common or garden proto-Thatcherites, often tax exiles. The only exceptions were David Bowie and Eric Clapton, way out on the Far Right. The view of it as an expression of working-class culture is also rubbish: to cite only the two most stellar examples, neither John Lennon nor Mick Jagger came from anything remotely resembling a working-class background, with Jagger’s father a second-generation teacher even then, the son of a headmaster.

But who might be the other three subjects? Lady Diana Spencer, the sometime Princess Charles of Wales, obviously. Sir Richard Branson, the bridge between the Thatcher and the Blair Eras. And Dr Robert Runcie? No, Dr David Jenkins. Like Thatcher, he is now 87. His funeral, certainly if it is held in Durham Cathedral, will utterly baffle London reporters, the youngest of whom might never have heard of him, with its outpouring of popular grief for our champion against That Woman and all her evil works.

But the sting in the tail, and in the tale, would be as it has always been: that his liberal theology was ultimately unable to provide a sufficiently radical critique, and in that way opened up the space for things like the Radical Orthodoxy that, with its broader sensibility in which many of us find ourselves, is such a significant factor in the re-emergence of what is now at least broadly known as Blue Labour; the emergence of the postliberal politics of which Radical Orthodoxy’s founder credits me with having been the harbinger.

Yes, I do know who that means should write it. But if, and it is a big if, I ever did so, then I could only do so after David Jenkins, a friend of my late father’s, had had his send-off.

And Cylux jumps the shark in his pathetic effort to lie about what I think. As he has no actual real argument.

Is it really a lie? I mean people need only read each of your comments on the subject of rape in this thread and others and take note of:
Whom you grant the benefit of the doubt to.
Whom you don’t grant the benefit of the doubt to.
Whom you ascribe ulterior motives too.
How you interpret some peoples actions versus others.
What you are willing to accept as evidence.
What you’re not willing to accept as evidence.
The often deliberate muddying of the waters.

Your views become clear. You should be brave enough to stand by them openly.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. MarinKay

    Jimmy Savile: Listening to the voices of women and children | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/LJ6a57Ge via @libcon

  2. Jason Brickley

    Jimmy Savile: Listening to the voices of women and children http://t.co/BqqiX6Tt

  3. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – Jimmy Savile: Listening to the voices of women and children http://t.co/YBPe7SEu

  4. Karen

    Jimmy #Savile – Listening to the voices of women & children http://t.co/UsBLkwsa < Pains me to agree with JSP, but she & this lady are right

  5. LiberalsUK

    Jimmy Savile: Listening to the voices of women … – Liberal Conspiracy: You can claim that Savile wasn't a paed… http://t.co/rwZH76w7





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.