That's about that then...

[Bored Of Education]

That's about that then...

I can understand the victims not coming out of the woodwork now but what I don't understand is the adult witnesses keeping quiet until now. If you walk into a dressing room to see an adult fondling a 14 year old, as is alleged, you would have reported it by now surely and not needed a media storm to bring you out into the open

[caja-dglh]

That's about that then...

Bored - if you look into the Penn State case (alluded to above wrt Reed), the reports give a very clear message on how these things can happen. Things may have been reported but 'lost', there may have been very active pressure to not report... it is really hard to say. It is unfair to prejudge anyone who was placed in such an awful position.

[Bored Of Education]

That's about that then...

I am not prejudicing them, I was just saying I couldn't understand it. I haven't read Reed's link but will do so.

[The Purple Cow]

That's about that then...

A bit more than fondling was going on if this is to be believed.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

That's about that then...

I can understand the victims not coming out of the woodwork now but what I don't understand is the adult witnesses keeping quiet until now. If you walk into a dressing room to see an adult fondling a 14 year old, as is alleged, you would have reported it by now surely and not needed a media storm to bring you out into the open

Hmm, it depends on your capacity for dealing with such things though. Both of my parents were secondary school teachers, and while never came across anything like this in the course of their work, if they had, My mother would have dragged the person down to the guards by herself. My father on the otherhand would have been entirely unable to deal with the situation at all. He has a huge fear of courts or of being called to give evidence even as a witness.

Remember that this is the sixties or the seventies, what did you actually see, what can you prove, what would the other person say? What would the child say, what would the child's parents say? What would the reception you got be?

Someone would have had to be incredibly brave to report something like that. This sort of topic has been huge in ireland over the last god knows how long, and people have been struggling to come to terms with the culture of secrecy. Lots of people knew, lots of people kind of knew, but they were very slow to report, and the authorities didn't always want to hear.

In one way, I can kind of understand why someone like Cardinal Brady was able to take the accounts of two victims of Father Brendan Smyth 40 years ago, yet leave it to his superiors to report to the gardaí. On the other hand I think it disqualifies him from the position of being a cardinal.

It took a major cultural and societal change to create a culture of reporting things like this. I think on the one hand it is only fair to recognize this, but it was still the wrong thing to do.

[The Fox in the Snow]

That's about that then...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/03/bbc-jimmy-savile-abuse-claims

If the chap in this article is to believed there was at least some knowledge of Savile's reputation among BBC higher ups. A Radio 1 controller and BBC Director-General are mentioned here. Interesting that Muggeridge's concern was with whether or not the press had hold of anything, rather than with the veracity of the rumours.

[Wyatt Earp]

That's about that then...

Not much doubt, I'd say. Jesus fucking Christ.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's about that then...

Me neither.

[Incandenza]

That's about that then...

I don't know who this guy is or his importance in British culture, but from reading this thread I can kind of piece it together. Very depressing that I went on Facebook and saw wingco post an article about him, and right above that was Reed linking to an article relating to Jerry Sandusky at Penn State.

[Nishlord]

That's about that then...

A more ossified Dick Clark, Inca.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's about that then...

Esther Rantzen (an irritating TV presenter, who nonetheless set up the very important Childline) put it very well. A man beyond criticism because of his work for children's charities was abusing children all along.

It's quite interesting trying to understand the appeal of purely domestic celebrities in other countries, isn't it?

Unusually with OJ we could understand his place in culture without most of us understanding the sport he played.

[Incandenza]

That's about that then...

Tubby Isaacs wrote: Esther Rantzen (an irritating TV presenter, who nonetheless set up the very important Childline) put it very well. A man beyond criticism because of his work for children's charities was abusing children all along.

That sounds disturbingly similar to Jerry Sandusky. Of course, the bigger part of the scandal of what he did was the inaction of those in power above him, the people who had been told of what he was accused of doing, and their inaction or lack of significant action to remove him from being around children. And it sounds like that's the same story as the BBC here.

[ian.64]

That's about that then...

On a slightly different tangent, it'll be irritating to anticipate the huge opportunity given to scum like the Mail who'll no doubt grasp the initiative and use the outrage to indulge the usual bit of political skirmishing with the BBC. It'll be Christmas come early for them. Then, a week or so later, we can read Private Eye, who'll compare and contrast the responsibility of a paper crusading against the corporation's lax stance on moral outlook with its online pages showing seedy pictures of skimpily-dressed girls, most of them nubile individuals barely over their teenage years. It doesn't excuse the corporation's alleged part in the acceptance or ignorance of a sleazy, anything-goes sexual culture within its own house, but should Dacre and his merry band of cunts get their rotten teeth into this, it promises to make an ugly state of affairs even uglier.

[Commodore]

That's about that then...

That Julie Burchill piece reveals one thing, namely that there are certain figures that are placed on a pedestal to the extent where they were beyond reproach. But Savile was not only beyond reproach, but beyond approach. Savile’s defensiveness, along with his unsettling eccentricity made him more of a target for these allegations, which was reinforced by the insertion of Louis Theroux and Colleen Nolan’s clips; Nolan’s brush with Savile was especially creepy-looking.

Last night’s documentary had some quite revealing and potentially verifiable testimonies and the choice of Mark Williams-Thomas was there to provide veracity to these claims given his field of expertise. That said, highlighting his work on the Jonathan King case was the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel given that King had never denied that his offences took place, even going so far as comparing himself to Oscar Wilde when he got sent down. Had King denied these accusations there was more than a 50/50 chance of his acquittal, not because of the time lapse but also due to the fact that any physical contact took place in the days before DNA technology, as it would be with Savile.

From a legal standpoint it seems that the only recourse that Savile’s alleged victims have would be to go for the lack of protection offered to minors by organisations that employed or hosted Savile. If this gained momentum, then chances are that Savile would not be the only prominent figure to have exploited such a lack of supervision.

[Bored Of Education]

That's about that then...

I am sorry, Commodore. That Julie Burchill piece reveals nothing of the sort.

King, Glitter and Saville's actions were all brought to light by legal or journalistic investigations or both. Burchill works in snide insinuations and innuendo. Interesting that she didn't bother to follow these up to expose Peel in any other way than that piece

[Commodore]

That's about that then...

Bored of Education wrote: I am sorry, Commodore. That Julie Burchill piece reveals nothing of the sort.

King, Glitter and Saville's actions were all brought to light by legal or journalistic investigations or both. Burchill works in snide insinuations and innuendo. Interesting that she didn't bother to follow these up to expose Peel in any other way than that piece

I only touched on the notion that certain individuals are deemed as national treasures, which Peel undoubtedly was at this time, which can help to repel any accusation of impropriety. Savile is a classic case of this. Whether there is any foundation to alleged under-age dalliances on Peel's part is debatable, some might say questionable.

In any case, I thought that the gist of Burchill's piece was to rubbish Peel's cultural standing. It's a spite-ridden article, but Burchill has the right to express herself in this way.

[Edie St Pierre]

That's about that then...

Is that it now? Can we officially forget about this vile bastard now? I never want to see a picture of this bloke in his underpants ever again.

I couldn't watch the actual docco. There's not much point. I saw a couple of clips of women given their testimonies and that's about all I wanted to see. Horrible stuff.

I'm a bit suspicious of the motives of the people making the docco though. My gut instinct tells me these women are being used. The rider that talking about this on national telly gives them a sense of closure (i've never bought that idea by the way, bad dreams, bad memories and bad experiences stay with you forever, same as good ones, maybe that's just me though, i'd be interested to know what other people think here) has always strick me as telly grossly overestimating it's own importance.

All this should have ended in court years ago, the fact it didn't and ended up as a telly programme on a commercial tv channel is kind of repulsive.

[MsD]

That's about that then...

Commodore wrote:
I only touched on the notion that certain individuals are deemed as national treasures, which Peel undoubtedly was at this time, which can help to repel any accusation of impropriety. Savile is a classic case of this. Whether there is any foundation to alleged under-age dalliances on Peel's part is debatable, some might say questionable.

In any case, I thought that the gist of Burchill's piece was to rubbish Peel's cultural standing. It's a spite-ridden article, but Burchill has the right to express herself in this way.

It's established AFAIK that he had sex with legally underage girls, he married one, the big difference is that there's never been any suggestion of coercion and it wasn't ongoing.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's about that then...

contrast the responsibility of a paper crusading against the corporation's lax stance on moral outlook with its online pages showing seedy pictures of skimpily-dressed girls, most of them nubile individuals barely over their teenage years.

Here's the latest- we on Mailwatch have a 23 page thread on this sort of thing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2197407/Alec-Baldwins-teenage-daughter-tweets-shots-getting-muddy-rides-board-bikini-top.html

She may only be 16, but it seems Ireland Baldwin already has quite a style of her own.

Despite the impossibly hot temperatures soaring to 32°C, the showbiz offspring worked herself up into a sweat doing stunts on her snowboard.

She sensibly opted for a bikini top to keep cool and wriggling into a pair of teeny weeny white shorts that were barely visible as she hopped around on her board.

[Wyatt Earp]

That's about that then...

Yeah, there's a defensible narrative that has Peel as a basically decentish man, who'd uncritically bought into "free love", and who was selfish and blinkered as young men often are, but who eventually came to his senses. And there's a defensible narrative that's much more damning than that. But that conversation can't even happen with Savile.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's about that then...

I promise I won't post any more of this, but to get an idea of what the Mail's like, the girl is 14 in this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2198081/Richie-Sambora-takes-teenage-daughter-Ava-spot-shopping-enjoys-time-ahead-Bon-Jovi-tour.html

[Wyatt Earp]

That's about that then...

Cunts.

[Edie St Pierre]

That's about that then...

Wyatt Earp wrote: Yeah, there's a defensible narrative that has Peel as a basically decentish man, who'd uncritically bought into "free love", and who was selfish and blinkered as young men often are, but who eventually came to his senses. And there's a defensible narrative that's much more damning than that. But that conversation can't even happen with Savile.

Yeah, the main thing that really does bother me about JP is what happened to his ex-wife. He doesn't seem to have supported her much, if at all. She never got the opportunity to tell her story though did she?

Have you ever read about the way TS Eliot treated his first wife, by the way? Fucking hell.

I suppose the defining difference between JP and JS is there were no allegations of assault or worse. That's kind of key isn't it.

[Bored Of Education]

That's about that then...

Indeed. There is little need to bring Peel into this in the same way as, say, King or Glitter, not least as Peel did not attempt to hide any details and they are out there for anyone to find out and judge - even lazy polemicists - whereas the germane discussion here is about a conspiracy of secrecy at the BBC.

I thought that the gist of Burchill's piece was to rubbish Peel's cultural standing. It's a spite-ridden article, but Burchill has the right to express herself in this way.

Of course and I woudn't disagree with either especially the intent behind it. I am saying this does not equate with any responsible investigations like the Saville ones (well before they were pulled)

[Lucia Lanigan]

That's about that then...

Mat wrote: I'm a bit suspicious of the motives of the people making the docco though. My gut instinct tells me these women are being used. The rider that talking about this on national telly gives them a sense of closure (i've never bought that idea by the way, bad dreams, bad memories and bad experiences stay with you forever, same as good ones, maybe that's just me though, i'd be interested to know what other people think here) has always strick me as telly grossly overestimating it's own importance.

All this should have ended in court years ago, the fact it didn't and ended up as a telly programme on a commercial tv channel is kind of repulsive.

My thoughts exactly. ITV's press lot have obviously been drip-feeding bits about the programme to the papers over the last few weeks to build it up into a story, social media frenzy etc. And now, as reward, they'll have impressive viewing figures and the story's become partly about the BBC. There's usually something foul afoot when the media – ultimately an amoral entity – makes itself the arena for judgement and justice. Even when it's just at the level of winding people up with opinion pieces to get them to add comments.

I remember Channel 4 did that lurid doc about Glitter, which I think Max Clifford was involved with. They went into ad breaks with a close-up graphic of Glitter's made-up eyes doing his panto villain expression, one implied message being: paedos totter around on platform boots dressed in bacofoil, like Dr Who villains - look out for them in your area.

It's not as if everyone was going on about how cool Jimmy Savile was before all this, everyone in our time thinks he was a freak. Even if he did invent hip hop (no shortage of wrong 'uns in that field either).