My apologies, I should check my sources more carefully - whilst quoted as a director on a number of websites, the only 'official' mention of his role at the NSPCC is as a patron.
Yet Endemol and Channel 4 book him to appear on CBB as late as 2006.
If YOU KNEW so much as you've indicated then some may say shame on you for not going to the authorities with the facts you had, or were they rumour?
Were you in production meetings, attended meetings with the DG, seen emails, memos or heard phone calls were a strategy was drawn up or implemented?
How are you confident 'everyone knew' have you surveyed every person in television production?
As I pointed out millions of viewers tuned into Jimmy Savile programmes, despite according to you 'everyone knowing' his dark secret....I suggest that is nonsense.
Here's your chance on a public forum to deliver your evidence, not speculation, nor hear say, not gossip or rumour, but hard facts.
Go for it....
I dont have evidence, i can only tell you my personal experiences or take on it. This is a forum, thats what its for.
The way TV production works is they dont worry about peoples personal lives. Most celebs are completely screwed up and you know stories about most of them. Yes most that i came across knew the rumours - you get to know lots of things - which celebs are shaggng who, who's gay, who came onto the hot looking receptionist blah blah blah. At the end of the day, you just get on with your job. So doesn't surprise me at all that Endemol booked him, especially as BB is one that is staffed by mainly young people. If you look at things, he was actually beginning to be booked less and less on mainstream TV shows across the board. The only major thing i could think of is UK Gold did the thing where they did a new version of "Jim'll Fix It" with him even, and that doesnt surprise me as they have a low budget and would have just seen it as unproven rumours (since it suited them) - a lot of people in the industry have no morals when it comes to getting a commission that will draw attention to your channel - its business. You think American Broadcasters would have turned down a TV series with Michael Jackson after his various trials? Course not!
Not a lot I could have done going to authorities, as it was just rumours - but then if the rumours were being told to you by people very high up the chain you assumed they had something more factual to back this up - as i say newspaper editors and heads of department then it was kind of a question of why didn't they do anything about it? They controlled what was happening day to day, not us. They were hardly going to come and bring out their file of "do not ever print" stories and hand them around offices so people had the evidence.
I would assume by knowing how the industry works that if the people in the know knew the story and knew it would eventually break and affect them then they would have had a plan for it - damage limitation and all that. That's why it seems strange the BBC had both a Newsnight and a tribute in production at the same time - yes different departments but the heads meet. There has to be some degree of general planning there and certainly something like Saville dying would have been discussed and IMO, it would have been acknowledged it was a hot potato type thing.
When i say everyone knew, i mean people working in media (at certain levels, genres) .. not the viewers obviously.
I don't quite know what people expect - if it was being talked about to such a significant level for years (and i'd guess the reason Theroux was so interested) then obviously there were people who had seen and heard stuff while making shows with him, but you didnt have the witness account of
childrens home victims on your iphone no, of course not.
So...er...Frankie Boyle is the same as a child abuser performing physical sexual acts against a person............when he jokes about a swimmer looks?
I don't know who Frankie Boyle is or who the swimmer is. I think joking about someone's appearance is pretty naff anyway.
In case your question wasn't rhetorical - no, not the same but in the context within which I was speaking, objectifying people because of how they look ~ look girlie and groupie, and some old goat will goose you: look less pretty and they'll call you an ex-man ~ is on the same spectrum.
Yet Endemol and Channel 4 booked him to appear on CBB as late as 2006.
If YOU KNEW so much as you've indicated then some may say shame on you for not going to the authorities with the facts you had, or were they rumour?
Were you in production meetings, attended meetings with the DG, seen emails, memos or heard phone calls were a strategy was drawn up or implemented?
How are you confident 'everyone knew' have you surveyed every person in television production?
As I pointed out millions of viewers tuned into Jimmy Savile programmes, despite according to you 'everyone knowing' his dark secret....I suggest that is nonsense.
Here's your chance on a public forum to deliver your evidence, not speculation, nor hear say, not gossip or rumour, but hard facts.
Go for it....
I think you'll be in for a long wait mate. This thread is beginning to spiral in to the absurd. Yachting, Lord Mandelson, The Kray Twins, give me strength:rolleyes:
See, I can't find this especially funny, although I know others do. It's rubbishing a woman because she's not pretty, which seems to me to be on the same line of objectification as groping girls because they Are pretty.
Nothing to do with whether she is ugly or good looking. There is something odd about her appearance and the whole JS scandal is centered around sexuality. Even the Daily Mail allowed someone to comment that she looks like Tootsie.
I think you'll be in for a long wait mate. This thread is beginning to spiral in to the absurd. Yachting, Lord Mandelson, The Kray Twins, give me strength:rolleyes:
I think you'll be in for a long wait mate. This thread is beginning to spiral in to the absurd. Yachting, Lord Mandelson, The Kray Twins, give me strength:rolleyes:
Yachting, Mandelson aside - a lot of these things people find "absurd" WERE happening. Lets be honest, people were finding the Saville thing "absurd" and look whats happened now.
Back in those times there were a lot of celebrities and politicians mixing with shady people. As has been seen, Krays were running the security firms. Babs windsor, Diana Dors were around them - infact Peggy Mitchell was based on Violet Kray. Look at Phil and Grant Mitchell - its based on the Kray Twins. One of the Krays was sleeping with at least a couple of MP's.
A lot of people can't understand as its a different time now - but yes people were abusing their positions all over the place - doesnt make it right (especially not the kid stuff) but it was happening and widespread.
I think with Saville - Diana admitted on tape that he was Charles mentor. If its seen as absurd he was mixing with the underworld you'd think its even more absurd the royals had him tutoring the heir to the throne.
If you know the names of these newspaper editors and heads of department at the BBC maybe you should give them to the police and the BBC. I imagine the names might help their investigations no end.
I believe that a lot of these people, and others have come forward.
It's more the people actually working with him i'd think are more the people who need talking to though.
Thats kind of part of my point, that you could pretty much throw GG into any part of a child abuse mix and most of us including me would believe it, but I would have thought there would have been a lot more allegations against him and from what I can see there aren't. I just find it odd.
As I stated, there is no real impetus anymore for other victims of Glitter to come forward as he has already been proved beyond doubt to be an abusive paedophile, his reputation is destroyed, whereas until recently many still thought Savile was a genial children's TV presenter who made millions for charity who had been unfairly the subject of rumours.
'Fiona' claimed to have a letter from Surrey police setting out how they’d decided not to pursue her allegations against Savile because of his age and frailty. It would have been crucial corroboration but, in spite of several requests, she failed ever to produce it to the Newsnight team. The Mail on Sunday has now reported evidence that the letter is a "fake".
There were other question marks, too, over the 'corroborating' testimony. How it had been gathered and whether the women's connections via a social networking site had had any influence on their testimony, serious and credible though it seemed to be.[/I][/B]
I believe the victims may have been the same ones who went to the Mirror in 1994, how can they have corroborated over social media back then? Why would they bother to have corroborated over something seemingly rather mild as the touching of a breast by Starr, and then an insult? If the Mail has managed to confirm this letter is a fake, surely they must have an image of it to have determined that- why haven't they published it? If Fiona knew it was a fake why would she have given it to the Mail if she had supposedly avoided giving it to the BBC? The story does not make sense.
I have a feeling what really happened is that the BBC knew this would all come out, kept this "newsnight" project on the boil to keep all the victims firmly away from anyone else while they arranged and broadcast their own "tribute" show, then quietly dropped the newsnight one in the hope it'd be too long gone since his death, and victims then too peed off to trust anyone else that they could maybe keep it out of papers. I cant see them as ever having any intention to broadcast that newsnight unless it was damge control.
Don't think they bargained on ITV wanting to do an expose, or there being quite so much out there that went younger than groupies.
Interesting theory, especially as the lead journalist at Newsnight Meirion Jones is the nephew of the headmistress of Duncroft.
bib : yes i do realise that, but we are looking with 20/20 hindsight, my point was: surely there is a paper trail for what was a nonsensical appointment....the carefully constructed image of "mr jingle jangle now then now then" everyone's favourite uncle who never says anything that makes any sense, was surely at odds with what was required for heading a task force for the institution which held the yorkshire ripper and mr r kray among its inmates; even at the time didn't anyone within the DoH, Broadmoor itself, the press (who are so enraptured with every detail NOW) question it then?
you mention the then Health Minister, but surely he didn't walk into work one day and suggest it? there had to have been discussions etc
imagine the situation if it were transposed to today, a government institution, a secure mental facility housing dangerous criminals, is in severe deficit and needs sorting out....it is announced bruce forsyth (for example of entertainer) is to head a task force and he takes the inmates out for the day, whilst securing early releases for some announcing them in the press "cured", wouldn't everyone go "what the ****???" ?
ETA: that's without him having keys to wander at will the wards of several hospitals.....hospitals where if you are severely ill and even near death your nearest and dearest have to abide by the visiting hours.....yet an "entertainer and philanthropist" has no restrictions except nurses advising you to pretend to be asleep....jesus christ have you ever been in hospital and tried to get an extra pillow or some pain relief never mind the keys to the wards and your own private flat in the hospital.....it's mind numbingly ridiculous.
It is, and makes no sense, unless he had people at the top of the hospital management who were protecting him (or told to do so by others).
So apparently his named 'Came up' in the Jersey investigations...in that case how the hell did this not come out sooner? Surely the police wouldn't choose to keep a name covered up, regardless of who it was.
If you know the names of these newspaper editors and heads of department at the BBC maybe you should give them to the police and the BBC. I imagine the names might help their investigations no end.
I would'nt waste your time giving them to the BBC.
They are part of the problem, not the sollution. Just look at how the BBC acted in Jersey over the chil abuse scandal there.
Many accuse the BBC of being actively invovled in the coverup itself. Now, today...not 4 decades ago.
"All of those very obvious, and fundamental questions concerning the very safety and independence from political interference of policing in Jersey – questions concerning the protection of the public by the police, from the corrupt and illegal actions of government departments? It was as though none of those questions existed as far as the BBC was concerned.
And thanks to the internet and blogging, we needn’t entertain the customary lame excuses of the traditional media for not asking the obvious damn questions – like “well, we can’t possible ask such questions, because we have no evidence”; for as real journalists like David Walsh show, you don’t need evidence to at least ask the questions. But, as it happens, the BBC do have evidence. Dramatic and sensational evidence. They have that 94 page interim statement by the unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power.
I know the BBC has that statement. I know – because it was me who supplied it to them. I am their source.
I e-mailed it to current BBC Jersey boss (though hopefully for not much longer) Jon Gripton, on the 22nd September 2011. After some prompting, I eventual received a brief e-mailed acknowledgment from him. Then nothing."
======================================
So, on the topic of obvious questions.
Does the BBC have something dark and sinister to hide?
I think you'll be in for a long wait mate. This thread is beginning to spiral in to the absurd. Yachting, Lord Mandelson, The Kray Twins, give me strength:rolleyes:
It is because people don't want to believe that evil is around them that it continues.
There are already suggestions today in one of the papers that there was a network of abuse.
Abuse goes on. Not just in the council estates. Maybe we all need to open our minds to the fact that if you are rich or influential you have power - and power can, and is, abused, to the detriment of children.
This does not just go on in our country ie Kincora boys home, North Wales homes, the Jersey Home, look at the Dutroux case in Belgium, the Casa pia orphanage in Portugal.
So apparently his named 'Came up' in the Jersey investigations...in that case how the hell did this not come out sooner? Surely the police wouldn't choose to keep a name covered up, regardless of who it was.
Read my post above, and take 20 quiet minutes out to read the link. It is by the former Secretary of Health in Jersey, and refers to the Ex Police Chief who was investgaing the case.
It will tell you exactly how the coverup occured. From the poeple that were there.
I know the BBC has that statement. I know – because it was me who supplied it to them. I am their source.
I e-mailed it to current BBC Jersey boss (though hopefully for not much longer) Jon Gripton, on the 22nd September 2011. After some prompting, I eventual received a brief e-mailed acknowledgment from him. Then nothing."
======================================
So, on the topic of obvious questions.
Does the BBC have something dark and sinister to hide?
Bravo to Stuart Syvre. His 'currency of collusion' piece alone should have appeared on the front page of every newspaper. That latest piece (your above link) should in an ideal world shame and then spur every so-called serious journalist around into action:
“Everybody would say, ‘what evidence have you got?’ I would say, ‘well I don’t have enough evidence to ever prove to anyone that he’s guilty…I just feel that I have huge responsibility, a huge need, to go and ask a lot of questions’.”
My apologies, I should check my sources more carefully - whilst quoted as a director on a number of websites, the only 'official' mention of his role at the NSPCC is as a patron.
Yes you should...your "mistake" and the consequent innuendo has already spread to other threads on DS...and it took me all of ten seconds to find the initial source of this idiotic and potentially libelous implication.
I think you'll be in for a long wait mate. This thread is beginning to spiral in to the absurd. Yachting, Lord Mandelson, The Kray Twins, give me strength:rolleyes:
I have seen it alleged that the security services used children from homes to 'honey-trap' foreign diplomats and politicians, filming them and using the evidence to control them. If anything, it is possible they are at the centre of this, protecting the very high profile abusers, and in some cases facilitating. Sounds crazy doesn't it? I would have thought so two weeks ago.
Childline is now part of the NSPCC. Lord Mandelson is a director of the NSPCC. He does not strike me as a natural appointee?
Why would he not be a natural appointee as a Vice Chair ? do you have to have a certain look, ok he may be a pillock but that does not mean he does not care , cannot assist or wouldn't be useful.
It is because people don't want to believe that evil is around them that it continues.
There are already suggestions today in one of the papers that there was a network of abuse.
Abuse goes on. Not just in the council estates. Maybe we all need to open our minds to the fact that if you are rich or influential you have power - and power can, and is, abused, to the detriment of children.
This does not just go on in our country ie Kincora boys home, North Wales homes, the Jersey Home, look at the Dutroux case in Belgium, the Casa pia orphanage in Portugal.
We need to keep our minds open.
These quotes from the article below are good examples of how abuse was seen as normal or not serious in some circles in the past.
James Foucar, secretary of an interest group called the Association of Boarding School Survivors, said that when he told his own father, back in the 1970s, that a teacher was making sexual advances to him, the response was, "So what?"
"My dad's view is why should you make a fuss -- it's commonplace and nobody spoke about it," Foucar said. "He said that one of his teachers had his hands permanently down my father's shorts so what was I complaining about?"
In a remarkably similar case, a 58-year-old former teacher at the Cothill School in Oxfordshire was charged recently with abusing a number of boys in the 1970s. But the judge, Julian Hall, declared earlier this year that "this is the stalest case I have been asked to try" and threw it out.
"I think the best thing that should happen to people who behave in this way," Hall told Oxford Crown Court, speaking of the former teacher, Jeremy Malim, "is that they should get a very brisk elbow in the ribs at the time or be rejected."
Not much has changed then, yes? Because it is obvious that "the establishment" is still covering up abuse.
Why is the BBC so quiet over the Jersey abuse scandal? Why did the BBC seemingly attack the investigation and help hound investigators out of thier jobs? Why did the Civil Service hound the investigators?
This happend recently, not 4 decades ago.
Why is the coverup still going on TODAY, in these so called "enlightened times".
Yachting, Mandelson aside - a lot of these things people find "absurd" WERE happening. Lets be honest, people were finding the Saville thing "absurd" and look whats happened now.
Back in those times there were a lot of celebrities and politicians mixing with shady people. As has been seen, Krays were running the security firms. Babs windsor, Diana Dors were around them - infact Peggy Mitchell was based on Violet Kray. Look at Phil and Grant Mitchell - its based on the Kray Twins. One of the Krays was sleeping with at least a couple of MP's.
A lot of people can't understand as its a different time now - but yes people were abusing their positions all over the place - doesnt make it right (especially not the kid stuff) but it was happening and widespread.
I think with Saville - Diana admitted on tape that he was Charles mentor. If its seen as absurd he was mixing with the underworld you'd think its even more absurd the royals had him tutoring the heir to the throne.
Savile was only mentioned once in reference to the Duchess of York
"All of those very obvious, and fundamental questions concerning the very safety and independence from political interference of policing in Jersey – questions concerning the protection of the public by the police, from the corrupt and illegal actions of government departments? It was as though none of those questions existed as far as the BBC was concerned.
And thanks to the internet and blogging, we needn’t entertain the customary lame excuses of the traditional media for not asking the obvious damn questions – like “well, we can’t possible ask such questions, because we have no evidence”; for as real journalists like David Walsh show, you don’t need evidence to at least ask the questions. But, as it happens, the BBC do have evidence. Dramatic and sensational evidence. They have that 94 page interim statement by the unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power.
I know the BBC has that statement. I know – because it was me who supplied it to them. I am their source.
I e-mailed it to current BBC Jersey boss (though hopefully for not much longer) Jon Gripton, on the 22nd September 2011. After some prompting, I eventual received a brief e-mailed acknowledgment from him. Then nothing."
======================================
So, on the topic of obvious questions.
Does the BBC have something dark and sinister to hide?
Thanks for the link, Superior. A VERY interesting, well-written article from someone who believes passionately in what he is doing. So many, many questions to answer. This appears to justify Labour's call for an independent enquiry. Only, how 'independent' would they be? That would all depend on who chooses the people to carry it out. Looking at the Hillsborough situation, it took 23 years before the truth was fully exposed. This only occurred because the people involved in the recent investigation were truly 'independent.' Journalists should get up off their backsides and start to ask the right questions.
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7941088.stm
Has anyone got anything more than this?
I dont have evidence, i can only tell you my personal experiences or take on it. This is a forum, thats what its for.
The way TV production works is they dont worry about peoples personal lives. Most celebs are completely screwed up and you know stories about most of them. Yes most that i came across knew the rumours - you get to know lots of things - which celebs are shaggng who, who's gay, who came onto the hot looking receptionist blah blah blah. At the end of the day, you just get on with your job. So doesn't surprise me at all that Endemol booked him, especially as BB is one that is staffed by mainly young people. If you look at things, he was actually beginning to be booked less and less on mainstream TV shows across the board. The only major thing i could think of is UK Gold did the thing where they did a new version of "Jim'll Fix It" with him even, and that doesnt surprise me as they have a low budget and would have just seen it as unproven rumours (since it suited them) - a lot of people in the industry have no morals when it comes to getting a commission that will draw attention to your channel - its business. You think American Broadcasters would have turned down a TV series with Michael Jackson after his various trials? Course not!
Not a lot I could have done going to authorities, as it was just rumours - but then if the rumours were being told to you by people very high up the chain you assumed they had something more factual to back this up - as i say newspaper editors and heads of department then it was kind of a question of why didn't they do anything about it? They controlled what was happening day to day, not us. They were hardly going to come and bring out their file of "do not ever print" stories and hand them around offices so people had the evidence.
I would assume by knowing how the industry works that if the people in the know knew the story and knew it would eventually break and affect them then they would have had a plan for it - damage limitation and all that. That's why it seems strange the BBC had both a Newsnight and a tribute in production at the same time - yes different departments but the heads meet. There has to be some degree of general planning there and certainly something like Saville dying would have been discussed and IMO, it would have been acknowledged it was a hot potato type thing.
When i say everyone knew, i mean people working in media (at certain levels, genres) .. not the viewers obviously.
I don't quite know what people expect - if it was being talked about to such a significant level for years (and i'd guess the reason Theroux was so interested) then obviously there were people who had seen and heard stuff while making shows with him, but you didnt have the witness account of
childrens home victims on your iphone no, of course not.
I don't know who Frankie Boyle is or who the swimmer is. I think joking about someone's appearance is pretty naff anyway.
In case your question wasn't rhetorical - no, not the same but in the context within which I was speaking, objectifying people because of how they look ~ look girlie and groupie, and some old goat will goose you: look less pretty and they'll call you an ex-man ~ is on the same spectrum.
I think you'll be in for a long wait mate. This thread is beginning to spiral in to the absurd. Yachting, Lord Mandelson, The Kray Twins, give me strength:rolleyes:
Nothing to do with whether she is ugly or good looking. There is something odd about her appearance and the whole JS scandal is centered around sexuality. Even the Daily Mail allowed someone to comment that she looks like Tootsie.
Why use words when images say far more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAD4tr5odqs&feature=related
Yachting, Mandelson aside - a lot of these things people find "absurd" WERE happening. Lets be honest, people were finding the Saville thing "absurd" and look whats happened now.
Back in those times there were a lot of celebrities and politicians mixing with shady people. As has been seen, Krays were running the security firms. Babs windsor, Diana Dors were around them - infact Peggy Mitchell was based on Violet Kray. Look at Phil and Grant Mitchell - its based on the Kray Twins. One of the Krays was sleeping with at least a couple of MP's.
A lot of people can't understand as its a different time now - but yes people were abusing their positions all over the place - doesnt make it right (especially not the kid stuff) but it was happening and widespread.
I think with Saville - Diana admitted on tape that he was Charles mentor. If its seen as absurd he was mixing with the underworld you'd think its even more absurd the royals had him tutoring the heir to the throne.
I believe that a lot of these people, and others have come forward.
It's more the people actually working with him i'd think are more the people who need talking to though.
Mmmmm. It will be interesting to see what comes out of these investigations. I just pray that the information isn't whitewashed.
Very Savile-ish.
Sadly, I don't think we're ever going to get the real story here unless there's a whistle-blowing posse in the wings waiting for their moment.
I believe the victims may have been the same ones who went to the Mirror in 1994, how can they have corroborated over social media back then? Why would they bother to have corroborated over something seemingly rather mild as the touching of a breast by Starr, and then an insult? If the Mail has managed to confirm this letter is a fake, surely they must have an image of it to have determined that- why haven't they published it? If Fiona knew it was a fake why would she have given it to the Mail if she had supposedly avoided giving it to the BBC? The story does not make sense.
What is the sign in the background?
And they also booked plenty of other people who might have been involved in criminality (naming no names obviously;)).
Interesting theory, especially as the lead journalist at Newsnight Meirion Jones is the nephew of the headmistress of Duncroft.
It is, and makes no sense, unless he had people at the top of the hospital management who were protecting him (or told to do so by others).
I would'nt waste your time giving them to the BBC.
They are part of the problem, not the sollution. Just look at how the BBC acted in Jersey over the chil abuse scandal there.
Many accuse the BBC of being actively invovled in the coverup itself. Now, today...not 4 decades ago.
http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/just-ask-damn-question.html
"All of those very obvious, and fundamental questions concerning the very safety and independence from political interference of policing in Jersey – questions concerning the protection of the public by the police, from the corrupt and illegal actions of government departments? It was as though none of those questions existed as far as the BBC was concerned.
And thanks to the internet and blogging, we needn’t entertain the customary lame excuses of the traditional media for not asking the obvious damn questions – like “well, we can’t possible ask such questions, because we have no evidence”; for as real journalists like David Walsh show, you don’t need evidence to at least ask the questions. But, as it happens, the BBC do have evidence. Dramatic and sensational evidence. They have that 94 page interim statement by the unlawfully suspended Police Chief Graham Power.
I know the BBC has that statement. I know – because it was me who supplied it to them. I am their source.
I e-mailed it to current BBC Jersey boss (though hopefully for not much longer) Jon Gripton, on the 22nd September 2011. After some prompting, I eventual received a brief e-mailed acknowledgment from him. Then nothing."
======================================
So, on the topic of obvious questions.
Does the BBC have something dark and sinister to hide?
It is because people don't want to believe that evil is around them that it continues.
There are already suggestions today in one of the papers that there was a network of abuse.
Abuse goes on. Not just in the council estates. Maybe we all need to open our minds to the fact that if you are rich or influential you have power - and power can, and is, abused, to the detriment of children.
This does not just go on in our country ie Kincora boys home, North Wales homes, the Jersey Home, look at the Dutroux case in Belgium, the Casa pia orphanage in Portugal.
We need to keep our minds open.
Read my post above, and take 20 quiet minutes out to read the link. It is by the former Secretary of Health in Jersey, and refers to the Ex Police Chief who was investgaing the case.
It will tell you exactly how the coverup occured. From the poeple that were there.
Bravo to Stuart Syvre. His 'currency of collusion' piece alone should have appeared on the front page of every newspaper. That latest piece (your above link) should in an ideal world shame and then spur every so-called serious journalist around into action:
“Everybody would say, ‘what evidence have you got?’ I would say, ‘well I don’t have enough evidence to ever prove to anyone that he’s guilty…I just feel that I have huge responsibility, a huge need, to go and ask a lot of questions’.”
I kicked my tv in yesterday as a result and I'm sending the bill to the BBC.
Yes you should...your "mistake" and the consequent innuendo has already spread to other threads on DS...and it took me all of ten seconds to find the initial source of this idiotic and potentially libelous implication.
Why would he not be a natural appointee as a Vice Chair ? do you have to have a certain look, ok he may be a pillock but that does not mean he does not care , cannot assist or wouldn't be useful.
Thare are many supporters etc
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/about-the-nspcc/annual-report/annual-report-archive/financesection07_wdf51654.pdf
The gossip being flung around due to the Saville case is getting out of hand to my minbd.
These quotes from the article below are good examples of how abuse was seen as normal or not serious in some circles in the past.
http://www.whale.to/a/some_say.html
Not much has changed then, yes? Because it is obvious that "the establishment" is still covering up abuse.
Why is the BBC so quiet over the Jersey abuse scandal? Why did the BBC seemingly attack the investigation and help hound investigators out of thier jobs? Why did the Civil Service hound the investigators?
This happend recently, not 4 decades ago.
Why is the coverup still going on TODAY, in these so called "enlightened times".
Savile was only mentioned once in reference to the Duchess of York
http://www.geocities.ws/rickanddarvagossip/diana_gilbey.html
Thanks for the link, Superior. A VERY interesting, well-written article from someone who believes passionately in what he is doing. So many, many questions to answer. This appears to justify Labour's call for an independent enquiry. Only, how 'independent' would they be? That would all depend on who chooses the people to carry it out. Looking at the Hillsborough situation, it took 23 years before the truth was fully exposed. This only occurred because the people involved in the recent investigation were truly 'independent.' Journalists should get up off their backsides and start to ask the right questions.