Jump to content

Jimmy Savile And Other Paedophiles


GarethRDR

Recommended Posts

If questions can be raised about whether Rupert Murdoch and his minions are fit to hold broadcast licences because they hacked into a dead girl's voicemail and gave some false hope to her parents and violated the privacy of numerous (rich and powerful, I might add) public figures, then they certainly can be raised about whether an institution which aided and abetted a serial paedophile (many if not most of whose victims were decidedly not rich and powerful...) is fit to hold broadcast licences (and further force people who don't necessarily want to pay them to pay them).

Unless you're either prepared to argue:

* phone hacking is worse than raping kids. Fair enough, but I'd question the moral/ethical compass you're steering by.

* the quality of BBC4 or Radio 3 or 6music or Top Gear or whatever BBC output you like outweighs kids being raped. See previous.

I'm disappointed Tonyh didn't get in the Murdoch comparison in first :P

Sorry Levi, but you're logic doesn't hold true in this case. To suggest that those two statements are the only viable arguments is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If questions can be raised about whether Rupert Murdoch and his minions are fit to hold broadcast licences because they hacked into a dead girl's voicemail and gave some false hope to her parents and violated the privacy of numerous (rich and powerful, I might add) public figures, then they certainly can be raised about whether an institution which aided and abetted a serial paedophile (many if not most of whose victims were decidedly not rich and powerful...) is fit to hold broadcast licences (and further force people who don't necessarily want to pay them to pay them).

Unless you're either prepared to argue:

* phone hacking is worse than raping kids. Fair enough, but I'd question the moral/ethical compass you're steering by.

* the quality of BBC4 or Radio 3 or 6music or Top Gear or whatever BBC output you like outweighs kids being raped. See previous.

On the Millie Dowler thing, as far as I know it's not certain that NI staff were responsible for the messages being deleted, and this is not the reason for questioning whether NI is fit to hold a licence. It was however the cause of a wave of popular revulsion against News of the World, and the damage limitation action of closing it down.

The issue is more one of the prevailing corporate culture and ethos of the organisation, how that manifested itself in management direction and control of staff, and whether we want our media to be run by organisations like that. The celebrity hacking is a manifestation of the sickness, not the larger problem. Bigger issues are the sense of being able to act with impunity, bribe public officials, harass, threaten and intimidate people who get in the way, ignore laws and regulation alike; and the sense that this was not a couple of isolated acts unknown to management (one rogue reporter), but a real and significant part of who and what NI is.

The issues for the beeb seem to be rather different. From what has come out so far (and this could change), it seems to be more about several people looking the other way, some having suspicions but not following them through actively enough, some thinking that someone must be checking this out but it wasn't their personal responsibility to do so, and perhaps the managers who did ask for the rumours to be checked being too readily satisfied on hearing that the newspapers who were supposed to know about it weren't proposing to run a story. No doubt the 70s and 80s culture played a part, with its perhaps readier acceptance of relationships with underage kids. Several of the things which now seem unbelievably creepy were done on camera, like groping an obviously embarrassed Nolan sister, because it didn't look the same to that culture as it now does. And of course the children were probably seen as eager participants, groupies rather than rape victims.

Did middle and senior managers in the beeb fulfill their public duty, and their duty of care to the children involved? It looks like they didn't. Should they be investigated and held to account? Yes. Should their failure, if it was, in a management role be punished by bringing down the beeb? Er, no. That would be punishing the wrong people (ie us) for the past failings of some past and present employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A.J. a lot of the people on the programme (did I mention you should watch it? :)) remained anonymous. Their families still don't know what happened so I imagine any court case would have removed that barrier. I imagine they feel tremendous shame in all of it - not that they should, but they do. Again, if you come at it from the perspective of the victim then it's them and not him that need defending/protecting. As Rantzen said in the summing up, it's never the child's fault, always the adult's.

Which links to the point above that on the programme half the men who saw him with an underage girl did nothing and half the girls who he abused knew it was expected of them and continually went back for more because of the benefits (access, tv etc) that being abused gave them.

The mistake you are making there is you are expecting the victims at the time of the abuse to be well adjusted, rational people.

(a) They were children, so there is a limit to their level of maturity straight off

(B) Some of them were in care at the time, so they were even more vulnerable.

For some of those children, it's quite possible this is the first time someone had ever shown them 'affection,'or taken an interest in them. Maybe they had mixed feelings, uncomfortable with some aspects of Savile's attention -perhaps instinctively feeling it was wasn't right, but happy to be in his company at other times. That might have been because of his generosity, the fame aspect (as you point out) or simply because he had chosen to spend time with them.

They might have been so unhinged that they didn't even know right from wrong

Or they might -as seems far more likely- been fearful of speaking out against him.

Whether they knew right from wrong, had an inkling or the penny only dropped years afterwards is immaterial however.

Savile WOULD have known, that's the key point.

No mistake, I was linking to the point that they are probably very ashamed of the fact that they allowed it to happen, regardless of why. They have moved on with their lives and covered it up and do not want their families to be aware of what they went through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freddie Starr too? He's failed to get an injunction on something. The hamster munching we know about, is it bald beaver he is shitting it about?
The reports on the injunction so far are unhelpful, saying he tried to get an injunction stopping papers printing something but no indication what.

The hamster thing was false, I believe (though Max Clifford, his publicist, reportedly allowed the story to run anyway, presumably on the principle of "the only thing worse than being talked about...").

Neville Thurlbeck (he of "For Neville" fame) is asking this evening whether the press will have the balls to print the story they all know about but haven't run so far.

And everyone is discussing a paedophile ring of famous names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If questions can be raised about whether Rupert Murdoch and his minions are fit to hold broadcast licences because they hacked into a dead girl's voicemail and gave some false hope to her parents and violated the privacy of numerous (rich and powerful, I might add) public figures, then they certainly can be raised about whether an institution which aided and abetted a serial paedophile (many if not most of whose victims were decidedly not rich and powerful...) is fit to hold broadcast licences (and further force people who don't necessarily want to pay them to pay them).

Unless you're either prepared to argue:

* phone hacking is worse than raping kids. Fair enough, but I'd question the moral/ethical compass you're steering by.

* the quality of BBC4 or Radio 3 or 6music or Top Gear or whatever BBC output you like outweighs kids being raped. See previous.

I'm disappointed Tonyh didn't get in the Murdoch comparison in first :P

Sorry Levi, but you're logic doesn't hold true in this case. To suggest that those two statements are the only viable arguments is absurd.

.

Did someone call ? :-)

Tbh I've not watched the program so haven't really been able to comment on this story

To a degree Its worrying that Savile appears to have been tried and judged on the bases of one tv programme , A part of me also wonders why all these witnesses took so long to come forwards, maybe that is explained in the show ? and I'm also finding it hard to come to terms that adults appear to have caught Savile molesting young children and done nothing about it ... A part of me doesn't want to accept that as true as its so shocking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Janet Street Porter was on BBC Question Time just now saying she knew about Savile's ways but was powerless to do anything about it as she claims she would not have been believed.

This despite the fact she was a national newspaper editor and also an exec producer on a show with Savile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a degree Its worrying that Savile appears to have been tried and judged on the bases of one tv programme , A part of me also wonders why all these witnesses took so long to come forwards, maybe that is explained in the show ? and I'm also finding it hard to come to terms that adults appear to have caught Savile molesting young children and done nothing about it ... A part of me doesn't want to accept that as true as its so shocking

The tv programme simply brings together what was around over a long period, decades. The consensus which now seems to exist wasn't created by this programme, though it does seem to have been significant in bringing home to people that what was being said (and suppressed) was right all along.

It was being stated for quite a time in some places that Savile was a paedophile and necrophiliac (check out his interest in volunteering as a hospital porter in several hospitals). This was not publicised more widely. How embarrassing would that have been, with his charity work, his hobnobbing with the royal family, his frequent christmases at Chequers with the Thatchers?

The press clearly knew a lot of things which they chose not to print. Presumably it wasn't in "the public interest", while Kate Middleton's tits are. How lucky we are to have a brave, free, unrestrained press, who safeguard our liberty at every step against the dark forces of state repression.

Why didn't the witnesses come forward earlier? Some of the victims did, but were disbelieved. Others didn't, because they knew the rules. One of the saddest parts of the programme was a woman explaining that she knew, as a girl taken out on a fun day trip away from her "care home", there would be a price to pay, and it turned out that rape was that price. Complaining would be out of place. Other people elsewhere on the net explain why rape victims are more likely to come forward one the rapist has lost his power, either through death or some other reason. The power of fear to compel silence should not be underestimated.

On which point, look at the example of Janet Street-Porter this evening. One of the most powerful women in the media, probably on a list of the thousand most powerful women in the UK if such a thing exists, she claims that she knew what Savile was doing with young girls but colluded with the cover-up because "no-one would have believed me". Sounds like a self-serving refusal to accept personal responsibility.

And yet she has a point about the culture of the time. There was an onus on the woman to take defensive action against the (natural, expected) predatory behaviour of men. Those who failed to do so were seen as fair game. That has changed, to some extent.

But the conclusion seems to be that he did abuse children, over decades; that many adults knew about this, including press and police; that nothing was done about this, because of his connections; and that people are only now speaking about what they know, because it seems safe and they lacked the courage to do so earlier, when he was powerful and they would have been alone in their accusations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issues for the beeb seem to be rather different. From what has come out so far (and this could change), it seems to be more about several people looking the other way, some having suspicions but not following them through actively enough, some thinking that someone must be checking this out but it wasn't their personal responsibility to do so, and perhaps the managers who did ask for the rumours to be checked being too readily satisfied on hearing that the newspapers who were supposed to know about it weren't proposing to run a story.

And that is the key part.

Why would those managers who asked for the rumors to be checked be so readily satisfied?

It seems reasonable to suspect that it was because if the newspapers weren't running a story, it wasn't going to embarrass the BBC. In short, the reputation of the BBC (and perhaps its survival) was judged to be more important than the welfare of some of the most vulnerable.

If that is in fact the case, then how can one not conclude that it arises from a rottenness in the institution? Perhaps the BBC was (is?) in the habit of promoting sociopaths into management*. Perhaps it may simply be that because the BBC views itself as fulfilling a mission of such great (yet perhaps unappreciated) importance that embarrassments are to be avoided at any cost**, even if that cost is allowing a rapist to walk free to rape again.

It is worth wondering whether a corporation which, if it doesn't institutionally encourage that value judgment (that its reputation is worth letting kids get raped), is not interested in discouraging that value judgment, should be the holder of a substantial privilege.

*: though to be fair, sociopathy is in general an asset if one seeks to manage...

**: and this is a common thread in nearly every cover-up

Did middle and senior managers in the beeb fulfill their public duty, and their duty of care to the children involved? It looks like they didn't. Should they be investigated and held to account? Yes. Should their failure, if it was, in a management role be punished by bringing down the beeb? Er, no. That would be punishing the wrong people (ie us) for the past failings of some past and present employees.

That, strangely enough, is nearly word-for-word the argument that Penn State apologists deploy to argue that the university (or even more specifically its athletic department or still more specifically the football program) should not be punished because the people who were specifically involved in the malfeasance are no longer there and that the students, current players, fans, and businesses that depend on those are being unfairly punished.

It's also the argument that Goldman Sachs apologists deploy to argue that GS shouldn't be punished, but only those employees who committed various frauds. At least some current shareholders and employees had no role in the illegalities, so why should they suffer?

If corporate entities are to be viewed as people, then they should stand punishable.

Returning to Goldman, it is the case that taxes on banker bonuses have enabled New York State's welfare state for some years up to 2008; with the loss of those taxes NYS has had to cut certain elements of that state. It can quite fairly be said that the poor of the State of New York have been victimized not by Goldman but by the investigations etc. which have resulted in reduced bonuses. Is that a reason not to proceed with those investigations?

If any part of your argument against looking into the extent to which institutional issues at the BBC contributed to the cover-up is a potential loss of the fine programming from the BBC, then you are, I would suggest, saying that if children have to be raped to keep the BBC broadcasting, that's a price well worth paying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the programme last night. I was quite disappointed in how it was put together, as it seemed to be a completely one-sided character assassination by a ‘former detective’ who is probably missing his old job and wants his five minutes of fame. The first half of the programme especially was very weak, and seemed to be damning him based on the account of a woman claiming she saw him with a girl who looked 14. In fairness, she could have been 18, and well into it, for all we know. Someone saying that someone looks 14 is not the way to open a programme basically damning a dead man unable to defend himself as a paedophile. The statements from the abused girls did have inconsistencies (a couple claiming he never kissed, wasn’t interested, while a couple claimed tongues down their throats), and while if these statements are true I have every sympathy for the abused girls, we all know that a story like this can get chancers and fantasists out of the woodwork making stuff up, especially if they are entitled to keep their anonymity.

The end part with the QC saying that he would be arrested on the basis of this evidence – well yep, I dare say he would be, but an arrest is not a conviction – if that was all the evidence they have, I’m convinced it wouldn’t results in a conviction.

Some of the things shown (like the Glitter statement) don’t show Saville in a great light, and on the balance of probabilities, he was probably up to no good and a very dodgy character – but I do think it’s unfair that a lot of the general population are now convinced of his guilt on the basis of a sensationalist ITV documentary (that had more than a whiff of Brass Eye about some of the scenes in it – why are we watching an actress in a park looking at a squirrel during one witness testimony?!). In court, this would not stand up as beyond reasonable doubt, and since the man hasn’t a chance to answer to these charges, I’m not going to convict him in my head just yet.

Oh, I do feel sorry for the people involved in his charitable foundation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did middle and senior managers in the beeb fulfill their public duty, and their duty of care to the children involved? It looks like they didn't. Should they be investigated and held to account? Yes. Should their failure, if it was, in a management role be punished by bringing down the beeb? Er, no. That would be punishing the wrong people (ie us) for the past failings of some past and present employees.

That, strangely enough, is nearly word-for-word the argument that Penn State apologists deploy to argue that the university (or even more specifically its athletic department or still more specifically the football program) should not be punished because the people who were specifically involved in the malfeasance are no longer there and that the students, current players, fans, and businesses that depend on those are being unfairly punished.

It's also the argument that Goldman Sachs apologists deploy to argue that GS shouldn't be punished, but only those employees who committed various frauds. At least some current shareholders and employees had no role in the illegalities, so why should they suffer?

Yes it's quite funny how quickly peoples views change when it is something they are personally fond of that is being questioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the things shown (like the Glitter statement) don’t show Saville in a great light, and on the balance of probabilities, he was probably up to no good and a very dodgy character
Retirement from international football it is, then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We daily spend millions of pounds on things that I have no interest in.

Still no excuse.

excuse? WTF are you talking about?

The Savile thing is about the victims, about covers ups and corruption. It's about serial law breaking, and abetting.

It's about justice.

Just because you don't care for that, as the Moon Man points out, doesn't mean the rest of us don't, or that this shouldn't be pursued, and/or have taxpayer money spent on it.

"Justice".... What Justice? The guy's dead... and we've already got Scotland Yard working on the case. Next it will be Jack the Ripper.

I'd rather they spent their time, and my money, helping old people across the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must admit that I am somewhat blinded by the fact that I always detested the bloke, compounded by the fact that he was treated like a saint by the media (especially here in Yorkshire). Made my blood boil for years.

I'm angry that he didn't get nailed for this while he was alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What (if anything) is the technical term for someone like him, because as was said about the maths teacher in France recently, none of the victims were pre-pubescent and therefore he is (or was) not technically a paedophile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â