Apparently JS abused a 14 year old girl aboard the Canberra. The Captain made sure he was kept in his cabin abd then taken off the ship at Gibralter. So this sort of thing was getting attention but only as isolated incidents which were never followed up.
But they're still trying to cover it up today. They cancelled the newsnight exposure in 2011.
This is the thing. You get a crime. You maybe get a few people cover it up because they're involved. Then you get a few more above that who cover it up because they don't want the scandal. Then you get a few more later who cover up the cover up because they don't want the scandal. Then a few more later who cover up the cover up of the cover up etc.
It starts with one (or imo more often a small group) and then it spirals and spirals until you have hundreds of people - almost none of them connected to the original crime - who are involved in covering it up and making any successful investigation impossible through a collective wall of silence.
Just read Times in Costa. I can't put article up as it is behind paywall but basically said that BBC lied earlier in week. They said all the information that they had for Newsnight report was already known to police. It wasn't. Karin is reported as saying that she hadn't spoken to police & with hindsight she understands that BBC should have told her to do so.
This is the killer for BBC. This is not about a cover-up in 70's (which clearly happened) but about a cover-up in 20011/20012.
Heh, Carry on Camping. That takes me back. As if ANY of these girls would've gone for Sid James. Or Windsor Davies :eek:. But yeah, there was certainly that image of "dolly birds, up for it", wasn't there? Not that I'm saying that Carry On films an accurate representation of the era, mind...
True. Though Windsor Davies was in a subsequent film, it was Bernard Bresslaw with Sid James.
I agree it may not have been an accurate representation but it was a representation that we were invited to be indulgent about - which is why I can imagine some of the girls allegedly involved with JS could easily have been persuaded it was just what dolly birds did, stop complaining. :mad:
The received orthodoxy on the idea of a Dirty Old Man was that he was a lech, but harmless. In most films, including Carry On, the 'schoolgirl' character could easily evade or rebuff him. This is a nice illusion, sometimes true, often not.
The attractiveness of young pubertal girls to men is doubtless a normal biological fact. However, basic biology suggests that there is a period between developing adult genitalia and being genuinely ready to endure a pregnancy and raise a baby. Most societies recognise this by protecting girls from sexual interference by predatory males for a certain period, say up to age 16. The allure of a pretty and well-developed 14-year-old is protected by the knowledge of others that she must be resisted.
In other words, the whole comforting consensus behind the Dirty Old Man is that men are supposed to Look But Not Touch. It's possible to feel very safe behind this fiction.
The received orthodoxy on the idea of a Dirty Old Man was that he was a lech, but harmless. In most films, including Carry On, the 'schoolgirl' character could easily evade or rebuff him. This is a nice illusion, sometimes true, often not.
The attractiveness of young pubertal girls to men is doubtless a normal biological fact. However, basic biology suggests that there is a period between developing adult genitalia and being genuinely ready to endure a pregnancy and raise a baby. Most societies recognise this by protecting girls from sexual interference by predatory males for a certain period, say up to age 16. The allure of a pretty and well-developed 14-year-old is protected by the knowledge of others that she must be resisted.
In other words, the whole comforting consensus behind the Dirty Old Man is that men are supposed to Look But Not Touch. It's possible to feel very safe behind this fiction.
Tell that to Harriet Harman (of all people) who was campaigning for the removal of the age of consent.
It's under latest issue. I don't want to link it because I don't want to be responsible for putting the names on site again, but if you google popbitch and click on latest issue it's there. The names are listed near the end.
I must be looking at the wrong thing as I still cant find anything. Just see the name that we all already know of the well known comic.
I agree. I've been going on about this as I really do fear innocent folks are going to be implicated in all this. There is in certain quarters (not vast majority on here) almost seeing it as a 'fun' pastime trying to work out who these folks are. A whodunnit.
How is this not a huge outraged scandal now? Just... how?
That the BBC knew the reality of JS is dire enough. But to make a decision to broadcast celebratory accounts of JS's life - knowing they were a vile sham, and knowing the pain and rage they were likely to cause to the 100s of abuse victims we now know they knew existed - is just beyond comprehension.
I can't even find a word for this. All I know is that this takes the BBC to new unchartered and incomprehensible lows.
I'm not convinced. I'm not familiar with this site but this could be just someone throwing celeb names around that they may not like. We could all do that. We'd need good lawyers too.
How is this not a huge outraged scandal now? Just... how?
That the BBC knew the reality of JS is dire enough. But to make a decision to broadcast celebratory accounts of JS's life - knowing they were a vile sham, and knowing the pain and rage they were likely to cause to the 100s of abuse victims we now know they knew existed - is just beyond comprehension.
I can't even find a word for this. All I know is that this takes the BBC to new unchartered and incomprehensible lows.
I agree. Folks are being led off down a path of releasing ever more lurid details to detract them from a crucial issue here. Broadsheets are sticking with it.
I think there needs to be a judge led public enquiry into all this as it affects so many elements of the public services. All of them going off independently doing their own reviews is not going to suffice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosnikrapl
I agree. I've been going on about this as I really do fear innocent folks are going to be implicated in all this. There is in certain quarters (not vast majority on here) almost seeing it as a 'fun' pastime trying to work out who these folks are. A whodunnit.
Yes, I am very conscious that beyond giving a hint to the association with JS I know and have made reference to earlier. I don't want it just to become salacious gossip - especially given that several of the avenues we've gone down on this thread in the past week could easily be a case of mistaken identity. Once the waters are muddied it could lessen the truly horrific impact of Savile's crimes. On the other hand it's quite frustrating to be thinking that one could refute or support allegations .
Does anyone else feel that there will be furore in the press for the next couple of weeks over JS, then it will all be forgotten about leaving many hidden celeb paedos to breathe a sigh of relief?
Isn't this libel though? Just wondering how PB get away with it? Perhaps because they're not actually saying anything other than the names appear in its mail bag.
I've read it now and I don't believe any of those five would be guilty of doing a Saville.
Some weird stuff on Popbitch though,ha...
I was thinking that too!!
I know it sounds horrible, but everyone needs to really careful about all these events and names that are being throw about.
Not saying that these people are not guilty, but there are some people out there that would turn these situations to get their 15 mins of fame and once that starts to happen it will take effect on the real victims.
Comments
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349976/The-disgusted-captain-who-threw-Jimmy-Savile-off-a-cruise-ship
Just read Times in Costa. I can't put article up as it is behind paywall but basically said that BBC lied earlier in week. They said all the information that they had for Newsnight report was already known to police. It wasn't. Karin is reported as saying that she hadn't spoken to police & with hindsight she understands that BBC should have told her to do so.
This is the killer for BBC. This is not about a cover-up in 70's (which clearly happened) but about a cover-up in 20011/20012.
True. Though Windsor Davies was in a subsequent film, it was Bernard Bresslaw with Sid James.
I agree it may not have been an accurate representation but it was a representation that we were invited to be indulgent about - which is why I can imagine some of the girls allegedly involved with JS could easily have been persuaded it was just what dolly birds did, stop complaining. :mad:
Until the Sexual Offences Act 1967 they were both against the law and homosexuality would still have been illegal if you were under 21.
Therefore if anyone was up to naughtiness with boys (young men) under 21 they were just as guilty.
The attractiveness of young pubertal girls to men is doubtless a normal biological fact. However, basic biology suggests that there is a period between developing adult genitalia and being genuinely ready to endure a pregnancy and raise a baby. Most societies recognise this by protecting girls from sexual interference by predatory males for a certain period, say up to age 16. The allure of a pretty and well-developed 14-year-old is protected by the knowledge of others that she must be resisted.
In other words, the whole comforting consensus behind the Dirty Old Man is that men are supposed to Look But Not Touch. It's possible to feel very safe behind this fiction.
Tell that to Harriet Harman (of all people) who was campaigning for the removal of the age of consent.
but i don't know if they relate to the JS stoty
I must be looking at the wrong thing as I still cant find anything. Just see the name that we all already know of the well known comic.
I someone would PM that would be great.
Thanks
Please can you edit your post to take these initials down.
Scroll down to ''Greylord Gold''
http://www.popbitch.com/home/2012/10/11/trouser-droppin-madness/
I've worked out four of those names and think I know the 5th one. However, where has the evidence come from for popbitch to name these people?
Found it. Oh my goodness!!!!
Again, thanks for the confirmation.
How is this not a huge outraged scandal now? Just... how?
That the BBC knew the reality of JS is dire enough. But to make a decision to broadcast celebratory accounts of JS's life - knowing they were a vile sham, and knowing the pain and rage they were likely to cause to the 100s of abuse victims we now know they knew existed - is just beyond comprehension.
I can't even find a word for this. All I know is that this takes the BBC to new unchartered and incomprehensible lows.
Thankyou...
I'm not convinced. I'm not familiar with this site but this could be just someone throwing celeb names around that they may not like. We could all do that. We'd need good lawyers too.
I agree. Folks are being led off down a path of releasing ever more lurid details to detract them from a crucial issue here. Broadsheets are sticking with it.
I think there needs to be a judge led public enquiry into all this as it affects so many elements of the public services. All of them going off independently doing their own reviews is not going to suffice.
Originally Posted by Nosnikrapl
I agree. I've been going on about this as I really do fear innocent folks are going to be implicated in all this. There is in certain quarters (not vast majority on here) almost seeing it as a 'fun' pastime trying to work out who these folks are. A whodunnit.
Yes, I am very conscious that beyond giving a hint to the association with JS I know and have made reference to earlier. I don't want it just to become salacious gossip - especially given that several of the avenues we've gone down on this thread in the past week could easily be a case of mistaken identity. Once the waters are muddied it could lessen the truly horrific impact of Savile's crimes. On the other hand it's quite frustrating to be thinking that one could refute or support allegations .
Some weird stuff on Popbitch though,ha...
Isn't this libel though? Just wondering how PB get away with it? Perhaps because they're not actually saying anything other than the names appear in its mail bag.
Admittedly I am sceptical of Fellows account. He seems a bit of an attention seeker and this account http://www.luikkerland.com/luikkerlog/2012/07/02/a-reluctant-follow-up-fellows-is-even-less-convincing-than-hazledean/ reveals he is keen to show his face in many news stories of the day. I don't want to say he is lying on this occasion because maybe what happened to him made him lie in the past, just that he isn't the best source.
I was thinking that too!!
I know it sounds horrible, but everyone needs to really careful about all these events and names that are being throw about.
Not saying that these people are not guilty, but there are some people out there that would turn these situations to get their 15 mins of fame and once that starts to happen it will take effect on the real victims.