perhaps because some of the parents did not believe their children? Or because they spoke to Mr Hall and felt that that was sufficient. Or they felt it was a 'one-off incident, not realising that it had happened to other children, and that they had dealt with it sufficiently. Or they thought it was not serious enough to take to the police? Or they felt that the trauma of their child having to make a police statement woulld have made things worse? or they did report it, and no action was taken as it was not, at the time, considered serious enough to warrant further action?
Maybe the parents listened to the pleas of their children as they begged them not to tell anyone. Doing something (even the wrong thing) in the name of loving your child...is that such a bad thing?
These people got away with their crimes for so long because many people including parents and assorted acquaintances failed to take the appropriate action. In some cases, it was the police who failed to take action. Think about the victims who reported the abuses at the time who were dismissed and now only getting justice several decades later.
These people got away with their crimes for so long because many people including parents and assorted acquaintances failed to take the appropriate action. In some cases, it was the police who failed to take action. Think about the victims who reported the abuses at the time who were dismissed and now only getting justice several decades later.
In their defence though, there was less understanding about child abuse and how to deal with it. People certainly knew it was very wrong, but when confronted it with, they were perplexed and unsure what to do next, as there was no culture of ringing the police first and reporting it.
Maybe the parents listened to the pleas of their children as they begged them not to tell anyone. Doing something (even the wrong thing) in the name of loving your child...is that such a bad thing?
Indeed.
Even if he had been found guilty at the time, I'm sure the words "she led me on" would have been used.
I can see why parents might want to spare their children from that slur.
In their defence though, there was less understanding about child abuse and how to deal with it. People certainly knew it was very wrong, but when confronted it with, they were perplexed and unsure what to do next, as there was no culture of ringing the police first and reporting it.
I don't agree as the same thing still happens to this day!
These people got away with their crimes for so long because many people including parents and assorted acquaintances failed to take the appropriate action. In some cases, it was the police who failed to take action. Think about the victims who reported the abuses at the time who were dismissed and now only getting justice several decades later.
And many people may have felt that they did take appropriate action AT THE TIME. What may be considered to be appropriate action today may have been viewed very differently 50 years ago.Almost everything was viewed differently......if you misbehaved as a child and were given a clip round the ear by the local bobby, you'd get another one from your dad. Try that today, and both the officer and the parent would end up in court!
Indeed.
Even if he had been found guilty at the time, I'm sure the words "she led me on" would have been used.
I can see why parents might want to spare their children from that slur.
What about the kids who wanted the crime investigated? Janet Street-Porter recently revealed she reported abuse to her mother who just dismissed her. She looked visibly upset as she retold the story. It would appear some parents are more concerned about the effect on themselves of telling than on their abused kids.
Maybe the parents listened to the pleas of their children as they begged them not to tell anyone. Doing something (even the wrong thing) in the name of loving your child...is that such a bad thing?
and maybe some of the parents said 'don't be daft, you must have imagined it'
And many people may have felt that they did take appropriate action AT THE TIME. What may be considered to be appropriate action today may have been viewed very differently 50 years ago.Almost everything was viewed differently......if you misbehaved as a child and were given a clip round the ear by the local bobby, you'd get another one from your dad. Try that today, and both the officer and the parent would end up in court!
Honestly. I only went on the site to see if there was any update on the Bill Roache case...only to be confronted with this "breaking news".
What is this world really coming to??
Sadly there have always been sexual predators - nothing has really changed, the 1960's were a terrible time, children were not (and still are not always) believed - many people got away with heinous crimes, it is not a modern phenomenon. Often the parents are culpable also - lack of parental care or understanding and believe of their children.
That being said Stuart Hall was always a bit 'out there' - he was our local BBC NW newsreader for years.
and maybe some of the parents said 'don't be daft, you must have imagined it'
Even worse, the children were sometimes accused of lying. In the Irish Catholic abuse cases, it was so unthinkable to the parents that a priest could be capable of such things that the only conclusion they come come to was that the child was lying and on occasion they were even beaten as a result.
Clearly those parents were profoundly ignorant people but that's the way much of society was back then.
I am NOT making excuses in any way and quite resent that allegation. I grew up in the sixties and the cultural outlook was very, very different then. There are many reasons why people did not report and still do not report what is considered to be a reportable crime nowadays. There is a huge difference between making excuses and offering a range of valid reasons. It is simply impossible to transpose the way people thought in the past and the way things are viewed today...as others have also pointed out.
I am NOT making excuses in any way and quite resent that allegation. I grew up in the sixties and the cultural outlook was very, very different then. There are many reasons why people did not report and still do not report what is considered to be a reportable crime nowadays. There is a huge difference between making excuses and offering a range of valid reasons. It is simply impossible to transpose the way people thought in the past and the way things are viewed today...as others have also pointed out.
The problem with your argument is that the SAME thing happens to this very day.
Even worse, the children were sometimes accused of lying. In the Irish Catholic abuse cases, it was so unthinkable to the parents that a priest could be capable of such things that the only conclusion they come come to was that the child was lying and on occasion they were even beaten as a result.
Clearly those parents were profoundly ignorant people but that's the way much of society was back then.
and that is the salient point 'it was unthinkable'.
and, and before I get accused of making excuses again, children do lie...they always have done, and they always will do...it is part of growing up. I am not suggesting that any of these children did lie, but, coupled with other factors, many were not believed.
if the offences were treated as single offences there would be no prison, I am still not convinced he will get custody, otherwise I would have expected that today
Comments
Of couse not! But.. many people dealt with things then considered to be more 'minor' things themselves directly and did not go to the police.
Maybe the parents listened to the pleas of their children as they begged them not to tell anyone. Doing something (even the wrong thing) in the name of loving your child...is that such a bad thing?
so i would say the rozzers found stuff on his computer?
unlike DLT Max Jim davison etc who've been bailed for months on end
Of course and we have no idea at the moment which celebs may or may not be guilty of anything.
But any of them who were up to no good have every reason to be fearful.
Don't think so as they would surely charge have charged him with pornography offences.
That spells bad news for old Bill Roache then...
And still do to this day!
Of course.
Fair enough, and agreed.
Being charged as quickly as that suggests that evidence in this case may be readily available, so you may not be far off the mark.
In their defence though, there was less understanding about child abuse and how to deal with it. People certainly knew it was very wrong, but when confronted it with, they were perplexed and unsure what to do next, as there was no culture of ringing the police first and reporting it.
Indeed.
Even if he had been found guilty at the time, I'm sure the words "she led me on" would have been used.
I can see why parents might want to spare their children from that slur.
I don't agree as the same thing still happens to this day!
And many people may have felt that they did take appropriate action AT THE TIME. What may be considered to be appropriate action today may have been viewed very differently 50 years ago.Almost everything was viewed differently......if you misbehaved as a child and were given a clip round the ear by the local bobby, you'd get another one from your dad. Try that today, and both the officer and the parent would end up in court!
What about the kids who wanted the crime investigated? Janet Street-Porter recently revealed she reported abuse to her mother who just dismissed her. She looked visibly upset as she retold the story. It would appear some parents are more concerned about the effect on themselves of telling than on their abused kids.
and maybe some of the parents said 'don't be daft, you must have imagined it'
Many, perhaps, but not all! Stop making excuses.
Sadly there have always been sexual predators - nothing has really changed, the 1960's were a terrible time, children were not (and still are not always) believed - many people got away with heinous crimes, it is not a modern phenomenon. Often the parents are culpable also - lack of parental care or understanding and believe of their children.
That being said Stuart Hall was always a bit 'out there' - he was our local BBC NW newsreader for years.
Even worse, the children were sometimes accused of lying. In the Irish Catholic abuse cases, it was so unthinkable to the parents that a priest could be capable of such things that the only conclusion they come come to was that the child was lying and on occasion they were even beaten as a result.
Clearly those parents were profoundly ignorant people but that's the way much of society was back then.
I am NOT making excuses in any way and quite resent that allegation. I grew up in the sixties and the cultural outlook was very, very different then. There are many reasons why people did not report and still do not report what is considered to be a reportable crime nowadays. There is a huge difference between making excuses and offering a range of valid reasons. It is simply impossible to transpose the way people thought in the past and the way things are viewed today...as others have also pointed out.
The problem with your argument is that the SAME thing happens to this very day.
and that is the salient point 'it was unthinkable'.
and, and before I get accused of making excuses again, children do lie...they always have done, and they always will do...it is part of growing up. I am not suggesting that any of these children did lie, but, coupled with other factors, many were not believed.
if the offences were treated as single offences there would be no prison, I am still not convinced he will get custody, otherwise I would have expected that today