Esther Rantzen is the Biggest disgrace in showbiz.

124»

Comments

  • jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    EvieJ wrote: »
    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

    The rumours about Saville in the industry (and beyond) were far too well known by too many for anyone to genuinely be able to claim they were certain there was no truth to them. Had people not chosen to ignore them things could of been very different.

    Legally not guilty. Morally, not so clear cut IMO.

    And why do you think that in spite of so many people knowing, few did anything to get it brought to attention. Well, you tell me. These are people supposedly trying to control your life. A bit worrying I would say.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,802
    Forum Member
    EvieJ wrote: »
    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

    The rumours about Saville in the industry (and beyond) were far too well known by too many for anyone to genuinely be able to claim they were certain there was no truth to them. Had people not chosen to ignore them things could of been very different.

    Legally not guilty. Morally, not so clear cut IMO.

    Have you read the latest report on Savile's association with the NHS, where members of staff claim they didn't hear rumours they witnessed inappropriate behaviour, that ALL the nurses knew what he was like, that nurses warned each other about him and a memo was circulated among nurses.

    I'd say you should be more concerned about the actions of possibly 100's of NHS staff who collectively were fully aware of what he was doing and took it no further...and those same people seem to want to claim they were saints for knowing and informing the authorities after Savile had died....read the NHS report.
  • EvieJEvieJ Posts: 5,958
    Forum Member
    i4u wrote: »
    Have you read the latest report on Savile's association with the NHS, where members of staff claim they didn't hear rumours they witnessed inappropriate behaviour, that ALL the nurses knew what he was like, that nurses warned each other about him and a memo was circulated among nurses.

    I'd say you should be more concerned about the actions of possibly 100's of NHS staff who collectively were fully aware of what he was doing and took it no further...and those same people seem to want to claim they were saints for knowing and informing the authorities after Savile had died....read the NHS report.

    What does that have to do with it? Diffusion of responsibility is no excuse.


    Esther may not of been ultimately responsible for a cover up but her (and others in her position) silence on the matter allowed him to continue.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    jra wrote: »
    The Perfumo affair. LMAO. You mean the Profumo affair.

    Now THAT is a classic !
  • milliejomilliejo Posts: 2,230
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Funky Phil wrote: »
    Now THAT is a classic !

    That is what happens when you post at 1 am...
  • zsazsazsazsazsazsazsazsa Posts: 667
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Personally I think she is a ruthless woman in her ambitions. A relative told me that the young Esther R. had a spot as a reporter on the BBC's Braden's Beat. Bernard Braden was a Canadian and married to a fellow Canadian, Barbara Kelly. By all counts they were a very popular, genuinely nice couple. Bernard Braden got the boot from the BBC and surprise, surprise Esther R then had a show which was very much based on Bernard Braden's Braden Beat. Then another surprise she was getting married to Desmond.
    .


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Kelly
  • 777Eilidh777Eilidh Posts: 603
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I do remember being rather disgusted with her in an interview when asked about splitting her husband up from his wife and her answer was "I don't do guilt" Thought it was very callous and selfish. Hope his first wife found someone better
  • EvieJEvieJ Posts: 5,958
    Forum Member
    777Eilidh wrote: »
    I do remember being rather disgusted with her in an interview when asked about splitting her husband up from his wife and her answer was "I don't do guilt" Thought it was very callous and selfish. Hope his first wife found someone better

    Didn't know this, she does sound as ruthless as Zsazsa says
  • boksboxboksbox Posts: 4,572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    777Eilidh wrote: »
    I do remember being rather disgusted with her in an interview when asked about splitting her husband up from his wife and her answer was "I don't do guilt" Thought it was very callous and selfish. Hope his first wife found someone better

    You can't make someone leave their partner, it is a voluntary exercise.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    EvieJ wrote: »
    Didn't know this, she does sound as ruthless as Zsazsa says

    She doesn't sound so ruthless in this interview

    http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/562098/Dame-Esther-Rantzen-Desmond-Wilcox-interview

    To be honest, nothing happened for quite a while, but then it all got rather serious. It was difficult because Desi had a family and I was friends with his wife Patsy. For about 10 years, it was… well, it was awful.

    A lot of heartache. But after those 10 years, we decided to get married and the rest is history

    With hindsight, could we have done things differently? No one can answer that. From where I stand, I can see three fantastic children, one grandchild with more on the way and the many years of happiness we shared together. We were soul mates in every sense of the phrase


    In one way if you said yes I feel guilty for taking her husband you would be saying you shouldn't have done it and as we know these things happen and to say they were wrong would be to say the relationship was wrong and from the sounds of it it wasn't.
  • EvieJEvieJ Posts: 5,958
    Forum Member
    skp20040 wrote: »
    She doesn't sound so ruthless in this interview

    http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/562098/Dame-Esther-Rantzen-Desmond-Wilcox-interview

    To be honest, nothing happened for quite a while, but then it all got rather serious. It was difficult because Desi had a family and I was friends with his wife Patsy. For about 10 years, it was… well, it was awful.

    A lot of heartache. But after those 10 years, we decided to get married and the rest is history

    With hindsight, could we have done things differently? No one can answer that. From where I stand, I can see three fantastic children, one grandchild with more on the way and the many years of happiness we shared together. We were soul mates in every sense of the phrase


    In one way if you said yes I feel guilty for taking her husband you would be saying you shouldn't have done it and as we know these things happen and to say they were wrong would be to say the relationship was wrong and from the sounds of it it wasn't.

    Her career flourished as well as Desi's wife. She was a well established broadcaster within the BBC, and they were quite an influential couple.
  • milliejomilliejo Posts: 2,230
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Her relationships and who she married, do not mean she has any responsibility for Savile.
  • Binger53Binger53 Posts: 62
    Forum Member
    milliejo wrote: »
    Maybe that was part of her reason for Childline, because she knew that children were not easily believed. When often they were telling the truth. She gave them a place where they could be listened too and not judged, not disbelieved and where someone maybe able to help them.... Plenty of people actually did say something about Savile but were ignored.

    What ever you think of Esther, Childline has been invaluable in helping children who are being bullied, abused, whose parents are splitting up, children that feel suicidal.

    I wonder how much she gets paid for being involved in Childline. Or perhaps I should say the NSPCC because Childline seems to have reversed itself into that larger organisation. I notice that the total salaries & wages bill for 2014 is approx. £60million so perhaps her income is bundled in there. Somehow, I doubt that she set up Childline for purely charitable reasons. I suspect it's something akin to Terry Wogan trousering £10,000 for appearing on Children In Need. I apologise in advance if I'm wrong about this.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Binger53 wrote: »
    I wonder how much she gets paid for being involved in Childline. Or perhaps I should say the NSPCC because Childline seems to have reversed itself into that larger organisation. I notice that the total salaries & wages bill for 2014 is approx. £60million so perhaps her income is bundled in there. Somehow, I doubt that she set up Childline for purely charitable reasons. I suspect it's something akin to Terry Wogan trousering £10,000 for appearing on Children In Need. I apologise in advance if I'm wrong about this.

    Terry Wogan did not trouser anything that was due to go to charity , his fee paid by the BBC not Children in Need was for all his work on BBC TV and Radio which happened to include CIN.

    When Terry realised he waived the fee, but the only people better off are the BBC not Children in Need as CIN never paid him in the first place the BBC did just as they pay the canteen staff and camera crews and all other technical staff who work that night. The "talent" that appears does so free of charge .

    Esther Rantzen certainly did not set up Child Line to make a few quid though it seems some feel the need to vilify her . Childline England and Wales merged with the NSPCC in 2006 Childline Scotland did so in 2012. It was the NSPCC who suggested the merger as they promised to put more money into it, though they have since closed down 2 Childline call centres and moved another two into NSPCC offices.

    The £60 million you speak of is the salary and wage for the entire NSPCC not just Childline , the NSPCC over that accounting period employed 2006 people, if you split it equally it would be £29k per person but as we know some will get more some will get less.

    I think you will find she does not receive a salary from the NSPCC.
  • 777Eilidh777Eilidh Posts: 603
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    boksbox wrote: »
    You can't make someone leave their partner, it is a voluntary exercise.

    Totally agree, it was little to do with Esther and all to do with him but there's not many women (I don't believe anyway) that wouldn't feel guilty that another woman life was reduced to tatters. The bigger picture for me that I took out of the statement was that she doesn't do guilt in any situation. I'm terribly glad that I feel guilt.
  • zsazsazsazsazsazsazsazsa Posts: 667
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    To me she comes across as being a very false, insincere and manipulative woman.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,802
    Forum Member
    I believe she appeared in court yesterday.
  • Phoenix LazarusPhoenix Lazarus Posts: 17,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    To me she comes across as being a very false, insincere and manipulative woman.

    Just watched the Exposure documentary on Savile, again. Esther's ostentatious display of grief for the victims is hammier than a bacon sandwich and so overdone.
  • EvieJEvieJ Posts: 5,958
    Forum Member
    milliejo wrote: »
    Her relationships and who she married, do not mean she has any responsibility for Savile.

    She's not responsible for his actions, but she is responsible for her own.

    She wasn't a lowly runner at the BBC, she was successful and influential. She founded childline and campaigned for children's safety whilst turning a blind eye to other young victims because the perpetrator was well known.

    She could have taken a lead in uncovering the truth about him and used her influence to encourage others to join her.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    EvieJ wrote: »
    She's not responsible for his actions, but she is responsible for her own.

    She wasn't a lowly runner at the BBC, she was successful and influential. She founded childline and campaigned for children's safety whilst turning a blind eye to other young victims because the perpetrator was well known.
    She could have taken a lead in uncovering the truth about him and used her influence to encourage others to join her.

    As far as we are aware she did not turn a blind eye , she like others heard rumours , that is very different to knowing and turning a blind eye.
  • EvieJEvieJ Posts: 5,958
    Forum Member
    skp20040 wrote: »
    As far as we are aware she did not turn a blind eye , she like others heard rumours , that is very different to knowing and turning a blind eye.

    The rumours were rife, at what point do we say someone should have done something about them?

    ER, campaigned for children's safety, but ignored others. Many people should have taken action, IMO her silence in particular smacks of incredible hypocrisy.
Sign In or Register to comment.