What a sanctimonious ass. Is he actually suggesting that no one should write an objective article on an issue that's crying out for one in case it causes pain to some people?? That Guardian article was excellent and while I do of course feel sorry for anyone for whom it may have stirred up bad memories or current issues, it's hardly reason to gag sensible intelligent grown-up discussion.
In what sense did he paint himself as an asexual (or bisexual, do you mean)?. I can only think of the Andrew Neil interview when he brought up the subject of being gay indirectly and he pretended to be really offended, in an over the top way. I think one potential reason for staying a bit quieter in later years possibly might be to do with age, as he was getting older and it seems he always wanted to stay young, he feared getting old from what I've read. He probably realised it would look worse to other people, if he talked about still sleeping with underage girls in his 60s or older, although thats not to say that its fine when your in your 30s but all the same, that could be a factor. There was probably more talk about child abuse as a subject in general in the 90s I suppose, I remember hearing about Childline being set up and kids TV might sometimes talk about it if but briefly, so I think there was an added awareness of it then. He helped with a publication for Childline, didn't he? he probably thought if he had some perceived input into a child abuse charity, that might help prove his innocence in some way, if people saw he helped a childrens charity then he must care for children or some such?.
I also wondered how it worked with those older women such as Sue Hymns I think her name was? and a few others that he seemed to have on/off relationships with - if he literally had no capacity to feel emotion, why bother with those, there must have been something in it for him?.
Asexual is a person with no sexual desires. He seemed to have painted himself as one later in life. Savile may have had homosexual experiences in his life, but I think this may have been due more to his promiscuity than a sexual attraction. I think JS knew people regarded adult men having sex with girls in 90's very differently from the 70's, that's why he didn't talk as much about it as did before.
I don't know what he got from relationships with Sue Hymns and Avril Harri. He met them all when these girls were in their teens and if he had a relationship with them at an adult age, they must have had some sort impact on him when they were young.
What a sanctimonious ass. Is he actually suggesting that no one should write an objective article on an issue that's crying out for one in case it causes pain to some people?? That Guardian article was excellent and while I do of course feel sorry for anyone for whom it may have stirred up bad memories or current issues, it's hardly reason to gag sensible intelligent grown-up discussion.
I do think its good to be able to have a proper discussion about such serious subjects but I wonder if it wasn't perhaps a bit one sided? if the supposed research was supplied by a known paedophile then thats certainly of concern, that it would be published in a national newspaper like that, without being checked for validity (or perhaps they had? I suppose I wouldn't really know).
Asexual is a person with no sexual desires. He seemed to have painted himself as one later in life. Savile may have had homosexual experiences in his life, but I think this may have been due more to his promiscuity than a sexual attraction. I think JS knew people regarded adult men having sex with girls in 90's very differently from the 70's, that's why he didn't talk as much about it as did before.
I don't know what he got from relationships with Sue Hymns and Avril Harri. He met them all when these girls were in their teens and if he had a relationship with them at an adult age, they must have had some sort impact on him when they were young.
Ahh ok, I see what you mean - yes, he seemed to have an attitude of not being bothered about settling down or being with anyone specific. Given how intelligent and clever he was in some respects, it seems almost laughable that when asked why he'd never married or been in a noteable committed relationship, he shrugged it off and said he had absolutely no idea, yet everything else he did he seemed to have done specifically, with some reasoning behind it.
I wonder what the difference was with those people, there must have been something about them personally that differed from alot of other people as I've read with numerous girls that he would date and sleep with them until almost exactly the day of their 18th or 20th birthday (one or the other?) and then he'd have no interest in them whatsoever, as if it was only their age that interested him at all.
I do think its good to be able to have a proper discussion about such serious subjects but I wonder if it wasn't perhaps a bit one sided? if the supposed research was supplied by a known paedophile then thats certainly of concern, that it would be published in a national newspaper like that, without being checked for validity (or perhaps they had? I suppose I wouldn't really know).
How was it one-sided? It was called 'Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light' and that's what it did. That some of the research came from a paedophile is surely a logical and practical step when that's the topic under discussion? If it was an article about the mindset of serial killers, surely serial killers are the very people who can supply insights that non-serial killers can't?
The article lays out some of the different prevailing perspectives on paedophilia from a variety of different sources, in a bid to generate discussion and look for ways forward, and the reaction is what's important, and what may well help move this taboo subject forward and stop the now-exhausting hysteria. Anything that contributes to that is a good thing.
We have yet to hear from those those climbers and mountaineers he could watch from his retreat in Glencoe, he probably ran up and abused them when they got tired or stuck?
How was it one-sided? It was called 'Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light' and that's what it did. That some of the research came from a paedophile is surely a logical and practical step when that's the topic under discussion? If it was an article about the mindset of serial killers, surely serial killers are the very people who can supply insights that non-serial killers can't?
The article lays out some of the different prevailing perspectives on paedophilia from a variety of different sources, in a bid to generate discussion and look for ways forward, and the reaction is what's important, and what may well help move this taboo subject forward.
I know what you mean, I wasn't sure about my wording either - im just thinking that obviously victims are quite vulnerable and I think its fair to understand where their coming from - perhaps such debates or discussions should provide statistics etc. to back up both standpoints, quote victims testimonies about how its affected their lives as well as allowing the criminals to state their viewpoint.
If your going to try and make a case thats partly pro-paedophilia, highlight issues from across the board, rather than seemingly point in just the one direction. I think what would be really interesting would be to have a public debate with experts such as doctors and psychologists in attendance, where the public could attend and ask questions, discuss the psychology behind it, debate about the subject fully - that way people could challenge such things and have their say, although I imagine it would get very heated.
I do think it would be a good thing for people to be able to discuss the subject more but I do feel sorry for people like the person in that blog, its a very sensitive subject, so some thought should perhaps somehow go into publishing such articles. I know I wouldn't feel good if I read that someone seriously injured themselves or worse after feeling extremely upset through reading such an article...the topic should be tackled but as sensitively as possible, as far as is feasible. I hope that makes sense(?).
What a sanctimonious ass. Is he actually suggesting that no one should write an objective article on an issue that's crying out for one in case it causes pain to some people?? That Guardian article was excellent and while I do of course feel sorry for anyone for whom it may have stirred up bad memories or current issues, it's hardly reason to gag sensible intelligent grown-up discussion.
Absolutely. Why stifle debate. At worst, know your enemy. Trying to paint this into a corner is disingenuous and will have the opposite effect on people reporting this sort of crime than the one MWT professes, MWT why try to stifle debate? Scared the spotlight isn't on you?
I know what you mean, I wasn't sure about my wording either - im just thinking that obviously victims are quite vulnerable and I think its fair to understand where their coming from - perhaps such debates or discussions should provide statistics etc. to back up both standpoints, quote victims testimonies about how its affected their lives as well as allowing the criminals to state their viewpoint.
If your going to try and make a case thats partly pro-paedophilia, highlight issues from across the board, rather than seemingly point in just the one direction. I think what would be really interesting would be to have a public debate with experts such as doctors and psychologists in attendance, where the public could attend and ask questions, discuss the psychology behind it, debate about the subject fully - that way people could challenge such things and have their say, although I imagine it would get very heated.
I do think it would be a good thing for people to be able to discuss the subject more but I do feel sorry for people like the person in that blog, its a very sensitive subject, so some thought should perhaps somehow go into publishing such articles. I know I wouldn't feel good if I read that someone seriously injured themselves or worse after feeling extremely upset through reading such an article...the topic should be tackled but as sensitively as possible, as far as is feasible. I hope that makes sense(?).
You may as well say don't discuss it at all as discuss it with all your T&Cs above. What you are in effect doing is suggesting that anything that may have the potential to cause upset to a % of people should only be discussed in a way that takes them into account! It's a ridiculous not to mention impractical idea and one I would hate to see imposed.
You're determined to keep that bogeyman alive, it seems to me.
And also, from what you've said above, I'm doubting you actually read the article because it most certainly is not pro-paedophilia - it is pro-discussion of paedophilia.
Absolutely. Why stifle debate. At worst, know your enemy. Trying to paint this into a corner is disingenuous and will have the opposite effect on people reporting this sort of crime than the one MWT professes, MWT why try to stifle debate? Scared the spotlight isn't on you?
Right. The bogeyman aspect of it is the unknown quantity and the thing that keeps 'the monster' alive. The more MWT says, the more I see a not very intelligent man with an out of proportion ego.
You may as well say don't discuss it at all as discuss it with all your T&Cs above. What you are in effect doing is suggesting that anything that may have the potential to cause upset to a % of people should only be discussed in a way that takes them into account! It's a ridiculous not to mention impractical idea and one I would hate to see imposed.
You're determined to keep that bogeyman alive, it seems to me.
And also, from what you've said above, I'm doubting you actually read the article because it most certainly is not pro-paedophilia - it is pro-discussion of paedophilia.
I did read the Guardian article, when it was originally posted a few days ago. I think it did say it made for uncomfortable reading but I'm just thinking how to come to a bit of a compromise, suggesting perhaps if their going to bring up research that may be in the criminals favour, perhaps they should also make a point of giving victims a voice at that point somehow to even it out? allow both sides of the argument a chance to have their say in some way.
You made the comparison to a serial killer discussing why they do what they do - I can't imagine any paper running an article from a killer trying to defend murder for one thing but that could be seen as a different type of crime to paedophilia since at least the victim tends to survive, if they don't go on to commit suicide afterwards. If its providing an insight into what urges them to commit the crime then yes, thats different but I just feel in principle that to give the criminal a voice in a piece and in a way to be seen as at all leniant towards them and offer them some sort of validity while perhaps not backing up or representing the victims, isn't entirely right. Whats so ridiculous in trying to discuss a subject with a balanced view on all fronts?.
I agree that specific article didn't seem to be saying this is great news, people can commit these crimes and blame it on the research, its not so bad after all - have a free card to do as you like, who cares what people think? it wasn't like that at all but I can equally imagine how people seriously affected by that issue may feel having read it. That and the Billy Connelly quote about abuse sometimes maybe doesn't seem entirely unpleasant, its certainly a controversial view - its worth debating, opinions like that may be truthful and apply to some people but not everyone. I think its all well and good for these things to be properly discussed in public, if its possible for people to see or read the research and challenge/discuss it accordingly.
1) Some rape victims, will scrub themselves in a shower so hard, repeatedly that they take skin off. It's a sensitive subject, with deep psychological impacts
2) If a person knows reading an article is likely to upset them, i wonder why they read it
3) I don't think any subject is taboo. Education is always key to understanding why people behave the way they do
What a sanctimonious ass. Is he actually suggesting that no one should write an objective article on an issue that's crying out for one in case it causes pain to some people?? That Guardian article was excellent and while I do of course feel sorry for anyone for whom it may have stirred up bad memories or current issues, it's hardly reason to gag sensible intelligent grown-up discussion.
I have a feeling he wants to be the only one to televise , discuss or print anything on the matter , being the "expert" . No disrespect to him for helping bring the Savile scandal into the open, but he is getting on my nerves.
Paedophilia exists and always has done, its been brushed under the carpet for too many years mainly as the kids being abused were being abused by family members or friends , it needs to be discussed and kept in the open, some opinions we may find unpalatable , others we may agree with, but it needs to be discussed in the open and the more it is the better chance we have of trying to prevent things happening or at least noticing the signs.
I have a feeling he wants to be the only one to televise , discuss or print anything on the matter , being the "expert" . No disrespect to him for helping bring the Savile scandal into the open, but he is getting on my nerves.
Paedophilia exists and always has done, its been brushed under the carpet for too many years mainly as the kids being abused were being abused by family members of friends , it needs to be discussed and kept in the open, some opinions we may find unplatable , others we may agree with, but it needs to be discussed in the open and the more it is the better chance we have of trying to prevent things hapenning or at least noticing the signs.
I totally agree with this, I just think perhaps we ought to be a bit careful not to unnecessarily upset the victims, if or when at all possible. I hate to think of people hurting themselves, thats all I do think its good to bring the topic out into the open and discuss it properly so myths can be dispelled and if such discussions or education about it might lead to a better awareness and ability to spot and help prevent abuse from happening, then thats great.
I have a feeling he wants to be the only one to televise , discuss or print anything on the matter , being the "expert" . No disrespect to him for helping bring the Savile scandal into the open, but he is getting on my nerves.
Agree. It's almost as if he's not consulted, being the big self-appointed expert that he seems to see himself as, then he takes umbrage and adopts a dismissive and/or sanctimonious tone.
I did read the Guardian article, when it was originally posted a few days ago. I think it did say it made for uncomfortable reading but I'm just thinking how to come to a bit of a compromise, suggesting perhaps if their going to bring up research that may be in the criminals favour, perhaps they should also make a point of giving victims a voice at that point somehow to even it out? allow both sides of the argument a chance to have their say in some way.
You made the comparison to a serial killer discussing why they do what they do - I can't imagine any paper running an article from a killer trying to defend murder for one thing but that could be seen as a different type of crime to paedophilia since at least the victim tends to survive, if they don't go on to commit suicide afterwards. If its providing an insight into what urges them to commit the crime then yes, thats different but I just feel in principle that to give the criminal a voice in a piece and in a way to be seen as at all leniant towards them and offer them some sort of validity while perhaps not backing up or representing the victims, isn't entirely right. Whats so ridiculous in trying to discuss a subject with a balanced view on all fronts?.
I agree that specific article didn't seem to be saying this is great news, people can commit these crimes and blame it on the research, its not so bad after all - have a free card to do as you like, who cares what people think? it wasn't like that at all but I can equally imagine how people seriously affected by that issue may feel having read it. That and the Billy Connelly quote about abuse sometimes maybe doesn't seem entirely unpleasant, its certainly a controversial view - its worth debating, opinions like that may be truthful and apply to some people but not everyone. I think its all well and good for these things to be properly discussed in public, if its possible for people to see or read the research and challenge/discuss it accordingly.
The Guardian article did make the very good point that there is way too much hysteria and paranoia surrounding the subject of paedophilia and no rational attempt to discuss it or understand it.
It seems much of society is quite content to rant about "beasts" and "monsters" and strangers in dirty raincoats lurking near the playground, as if this is a somehow a mature and adult response to the problem.
This type of hysterical response means there is no logical and sensible discussion of the issue of sexual abuse within families for example. How can anyone ever come to terms with the subject when society has made it such a taboo topic?
The funny thing is that I suspect it's not abuse victims who are engaging in such over the top hysterics but those who have no knowledge or experience of the subject.
The Guardian article did make the very good point that there is way too much hysteria and paranoia surrounding the subject of paedophilia and no rational attempt to discuss it or understand it.
It seems much of society is quite content to rant about "beasts" and "monsters" and strangers in dirty raincoats lurking near the playground, as if this is a somehow a mature and adult response to the problem.
This type of hysterical response means there is no logical and sensible discussion of the issue of sexual abuse within families for example. How can anyone ever come to terms with the subject when society has made it such a taboo topic?
The funny thing is that I suspect it's not abuse victims who are engaging in such over the top hysterics but those who have no knowledge or experience of the subject.
Thats true - its the fear of the unknown. Its the press that have been pushing those fears, putting child murder and child abuse stories on the front page often - some people may worry that it might feel like there are alot of people with bad intentions around, what with all the stories that the press have covered over the last few years at the least but then again, to put it into perspective you could say that the reason these stories make it onto the front page is because their shocking and fairly rare to an extent - like with people who are scared of planes, I'd say crashes really aren't *that* common or when they happen, they wouldn't make front page news, surely? thats one way of looking at it anyway. God knows I hope such things aren't too common(!).
The Guardian article did make the very good point that there is way too much hysteria and paranoia surrounding the subject of paedophilia and no rational attempt to discuss it or understand it.
It seems much of society is quite content to rant about "beasts" and "monsters" and strangers in dirty raincoats lurking near the playground, as if this is a somehow a mature and adult response to the problem.
This type of hysterical response means there is no logical and sensible discussion of the issue of sexual abuse within families for example. How can anyone ever come to terms with the subject when society has made it such a taboo topic?
The funny thing is that I suspect it's not abuse victims who are engaging in such over the top hysterics but those who have no knowledge or experience of the subject.
Yes! Exactly. Seems to me there's a lot of borderline hysterical projecting and assuming going on here. Either there's a frank, open and adult discussion about paedophilia, warts and all, or things stay as they are. Making assumptions about the possible reaction of victims is typical of the handwringing of those who want something done but then get all hysterical and hand-wringy about something as basic as an objective and informed article about the complex nature of paedophilia! It doesn't bode well for those wanting to shine a sensible and informed light on the subject.
I just don't like the thought of people harming and/or attempting suicide, thats all(!). Not if some sort of compromise could be made that wouldn't make them feel that perhaps their being overlooked or questioned (but I may be totally wrong about that being the case, ok I accept that) but perhaps thats not really realistic. I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion. Maybe im wrong.
Actually Wilfred Bramble was revealed as being part of this abuse in the seventies. Somehow I could imagine him being involved as he came across as a horrible individual and Harry H Corbett hated working with him.
Are you telling me at that much of this isn't about money in many cases?
Savile is dead.
He hasn't been convicted of anything. That is fact.
Even if he was alive, could they really PROVE anything?
Most of it is based on incidents that allegedly happened in the 60's and 70's.
In the case of Savile and others, how the hell do you prove anything if it happened so long ago?
I'm sorry, but as soon as you start talking about money and compensation I get very cynical about motives.
Comments
What a sanctimonious ass. Is he actually suggesting that no one should write an objective article on an issue that's crying out for one in case it causes pain to some people?? That Guardian article was excellent and while I do of course feel sorry for anyone for whom it may have stirred up bad memories or current issues, it's hardly reason to gag sensible intelligent grown-up discussion.
Asexual is a person with no sexual desires. He seemed to have painted himself as one later in life. Savile may have had homosexual experiences in his life, but I think this may have been due more to his promiscuity than a sexual attraction. I think JS knew people regarded adult men having sex with girls in 90's very differently from the 70's, that's why he didn't talk as much about it as did before.
I don't know what he got from relationships with Sue Hymns and Avril Harri. He met them all when these girls were in their teens and if he had a relationship with them at an adult age, they must have had some sort impact on him when they were young.
I do think its good to be able to have a proper discussion about such serious subjects but I wonder if it wasn't perhaps a bit one sided? if the supposed research was supplied by a known paedophile then thats certainly of concern, that it would be published in a national newspaper like that, without being checked for validity (or perhaps they had? I suppose I wouldn't really know).
Ahh ok, I see what you mean - yes, he seemed to have an attitude of not being bothered about settling down or being with anyone specific. Given how intelligent and clever he was in some respects, it seems almost laughable that when asked why he'd never married or been in a noteable committed relationship, he shrugged it off and said he had absolutely no idea, yet everything else he did he seemed to have done specifically, with some reasoning behind it.
I wonder what the difference was with those people, there must have been something about them personally that differed from alot of other people as I've read with numerous girls that he would date and sleep with them until almost exactly the day of their 18th or 20th birthday (one or the other?) and then he'd have no interest in them whatsoever, as if it was only their age that interested him at all.
The article lays out some of the different prevailing perspectives on paedophilia from a variety of different sources, in a bid to generate discussion and look for ways forward, and the reaction is what's important, and what may well help move this taboo subject forward and stop the now-exhausting hysteria. Anything that contributes to that is a good thing.
We have yet to hear from those those climbers and mountaineers he could watch from his retreat in Glencoe, he probably ran up and abused them when they got tired or stuck?
I know what you mean, I wasn't sure about my wording either - im just thinking that obviously victims are quite vulnerable and I think its fair to understand where their coming from - perhaps such debates or discussions should provide statistics etc. to back up both standpoints, quote victims testimonies about how its affected their lives as well as allowing the criminals to state their viewpoint.
If your going to try and make a case thats partly pro-paedophilia, highlight issues from across the board, rather than seemingly point in just the one direction. I think what would be really interesting would be to have a public debate with experts such as doctors and psychologists in attendance, where the public could attend and ask questions, discuss the psychology behind it, debate about the subject fully - that way people could challenge such things and have their say, although I imagine it would get very heated.
I do think it would be a good thing for people to be able to discuss the subject more but I do feel sorry for people like the person in that blog, its a very sensitive subject, so some thought should perhaps somehow go into publishing such articles. I know I wouldn't feel good if I read that someone seriously injured themselves or worse after feeling extremely upset through reading such an article...the topic should be tackled but as sensitively as possible, as far as is feasible. I hope that makes sense(?).
Absolutely. Why stifle debate. At worst, know your enemy. Trying to paint this into a corner is disingenuous and will have the opposite effect on people reporting this sort of crime than the one MWT professes, MWT why try to stifle debate? Scared the spotlight isn't on you?
You may as well say don't discuss it at all as discuss it with all your T&Cs above. What you are in effect doing is suggesting that anything that may have the potential to cause upset to a % of people should only be discussed in a way that takes them into account! It's a ridiculous not to mention impractical idea and one I would hate to see imposed.
You're determined to keep that bogeyman alive, it seems to me.
And also, from what you've said above, I'm doubting you actually read the article because it most certainly is not pro-paedophilia - it is pro-discussion of paedophilia.
Right. The bogeyman aspect of it is the unknown quantity and the thing that keeps 'the monster' alive. The more MWT says, the more I see a not very intelligent man with an out of proportion ego.
I did read the Guardian article, when it was originally posted a few days ago. I think it did say it made for uncomfortable reading but I'm just thinking how to come to a bit of a compromise, suggesting perhaps if their going to bring up research that may be in the criminals favour, perhaps they should also make a point of giving victims a voice at that point somehow to even it out? allow both sides of the argument a chance to have their say in some way.
You made the comparison to a serial killer discussing why they do what they do - I can't imagine any paper running an article from a killer trying to defend murder for one thing but that could be seen as a different type of crime to paedophilia since at least the victim tends to survive, if they don't go on to commit suicide afterwards. If its providing an insight into what urges them to commit the crime then yes, thats different but I just feel in principle that to give the criminal a voice in a piece and in a way to be seen as at all leniant towards them and offer them some sort of validity while perhaps not backing up or representing the victims, isn't entirely right. Whats so ridiculous in trying to discuss a subject with a balanced view on all fronts?.
I agree that specific article didn't seem to be saying this is great news, people can commit these crimes and blame it on the research, its not so bad after all - have a free card to do as you like, who cares what people think? it wasn't like that at all but I can equally imagine how people seriously affected by that issue may feel having read it. That and the Billy Connelly quote about abuse sometimes maybe doesn't seem entirely unpleasant, its certainly a controversial view - its worth debating, opinions like that may be truthful and apply to some people but not everyone. I think its all well and good for these things to be properly discussed in public, if its possible for people to see or read the research and challenge/discuss it accordingly.
2) If a person knows reading an article is likely to upset them, i wonder why they read it
3) I don't think any subject is taboo. Education is always key to understanding why people behave the way they do
Please sign and share this petition so the truth of Jersey's #ChildAbuse can come out to a wider audience? http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-restore-the-visa-of-banned-journalist-leah-mcgrath-goodman-freejersey … #FreeJersey
Done.
Have followed the abuse in Jersey, alongside those in UK.
I'm afraid there are those in powerful positions who are intent on closing down any thorough investigations.
I hope they do not get their way.
I have a feeling he wants to be the only one to televise , discuss or print anything on the matter , being the "expert" . No disrespect to him for helping bring the Savile scandal into the open, but he is getting on my nerves.
Paedophilia exists and always has done, its been brushed under the carpet for too many years mainly as the kids being abused were being abused by family members or friends , it needs to be discussed and kept in the open, some opinions we may find unpalatable , others we may agree with, but it needs to be discussed in the open and the more it is the better chance we have of trying to prevent things happening or at least noticing the signs.
I totally agree with this, I just think perhaps we ought to be a bit careful not to unnecessarily upset the victims, if or when at all possible. I hate to think of people hurting themselves, thats all
Agree. It's almost as if he's not consulted, being the big self-appointed expert that he seems to see himself as, then he takes umbrage and adopts a dismissive and/or sanctimonious tone.
The Guardian article did make the very good point that there is way too much hysteria and paranoia surrounding the subject of paedophilia and no rational attempt to discuss it or understand it.
It seems much of society is quite content to rant about "beasts" and "monsters" and strangers in dirty raincoats lurking near the playground, as if this is a somehow a mature and adult response to the problem.
This type of hysterical response means there is no logical and sensible discussion of the issue of sexual abuse within families for example. How can anyone ever come to terms with the subject when society has made it such a taboo topic?
The funny thing is that I suspect it's not abuse victims who are engaging in such over the top hysterics but those who have no knowledge or experience of the subject.
Thats true - its the fear of the unknown. Its the press that have been pushing those fears, putting child murder and child abuse stories on the front page often - some people may worry that it might feel like there are alot of people with bad intentions around, what with all the stories that the press have covered over the last few years at the least but then again, to put it into perspective you could say that the reason these stories make it onto the front page is because their shocking and fairly rare to an extent - like with people who are scared of planes, I'd say crashes really aren't *that* common or when they happen, they wouldn't make front page news, surely? thats one way of looking at it anyway. God knows I hope such things aren't too common(!).
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/421086/20130106/stuart-hall-jimmy-savile-operation-yewtree-bbc.htm
Yes! Exactly. Seems to me there's a lot of borderline hysterical projecting and assuming going on here. Either there's a frank, open and adult discussion about paedophilia, warts and all, or things stay as they are. Making assumptions about the possible reaction of victims is typical of the handwringing of those who want something done but then get all hysterical and hand-wringy about something as basic as an objective and informed article about the complex nature of paedophilia! It doesn't bode well for those wanting to shine a sensible and informed light on the subject.
Actually Wilfred Bramble was revealed as being part of this abuse in the seventies. Somehow I could imagine him being involved as he came across as a horrible individual and Harry H Corbett hated working with him.
http://ozzysplace.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/2012-part-one.html
Are you telling me at that much of this isn't about money in many cases?
Savile is dead.
He hasn't been convicted of anything. That is fact.
Even if he was alive, could they really PROVE anything?
Most of it is based on incidents that allegedly happened in the 60's and 70's.
In the case of Savile and others, how the hell do you prove anything if it happened so long ago?
I'm sorry, but as soon as you start talking about money and compensation I get very cynical about motives.