Operation Yewtree

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

I do think that the people who suspected this might be going on, and by that I mean the people who had a position of responsibility - for example the nurses at Stoke Mandeville, should also be investigated. I find it disturbing that there are people coming out now saying that they encouraged kids to pretend they were asleep when Saville came to visit, yet did not hilight this when it happened. If it was as common knowledge as it is supposed to be, then they should be punished appropriately.

O So true. Time to stop focusing on Saville & look at the cover up merchants.

Originally Posted by Itshim

O So true. Time to stop focusing on Saville & look at the cover up merchants.

Starting with Esther Rantzen

[danielf]

I think the pattern that is emerging is that, at the time, people just didn't want to know.

Even in cases where it was reported, little if anything was done with it. And this doesn't seem restricted to the BBC or Stoke Mandeville or Jimmy Savile. Just look at the scale of the abuse in the Catholic Church. How could that go on for so long without people speaking out.

Originally Posted by danielf

I think the pattern that is emerging is that, at the time, people just didn't want to know.

Even in cases where it was reported, little if anything was done with it. And this doesn't seem restricted to the BBC or Stoke Mandeville or Jimmy Savile. Just look at the scale of the abuse in the Catholic Church. How could that go on for so long without people speaking out.

I think that is true ,but isn't that what charities like Childline and the NSPCC are for ,more specifically childline where children where encouraged to phone anonymously

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

I think that is true ,but isn't that what charities like Childline and the NSPCC are for ,more specifically childline where children where encouraged to phone anonymously

True, but you still have to see it in the context of the time. Browsing some forums when reading up on this, there was someone saying that she used to work in a shop on Saturdays in the 70s. The shop owner decided to grope her one day, and she told him not to touch her. She was fired the next week, and didn't dare tell her parents the reason, because she felt they wouldn't believe her. Now, obviously, this is purely anecdotal, but it does indicate that the mood over sexual abuse at the time simply wasn't comparable to what it is these days.

Originally Posted by danielf

True, but you still have to see it in the context of the time. Browsing some forums when reading up on this, there was someone saying that she used to work in a shop on Saturdays in the 70s. The shop owner decided to grope her one day, and she told him not to touch her. She was fired the next week, and didn't dare tell her parents the reason, because she felt they wouldn't believe her. Now, obviously, this is purely anecdotal, but it does indicate that the mood over sexual abuse at the time simply wasn't comparable to what it is these days.

I daresay that there 1,000's of claims like that and most true but attitudes changed in the 80's 90's and 00's progressively getting more favourable towards the complainant so no body can tell me that none of these allegations would not have been investigated or believed ,this has been evidenced by the number of people that have come foward about catholic priest abuses in recent years

Originally Posted by martyh

Starting with Esther Rantzen

She didn't have any evidence for it, and apparently was aware of vague rumours. Given she does a lot of work for children's charities I think we can give her a pass on this. I may not like a lot of what she does (trying to control the internet) but I don't think we can question her dedication.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

I daresay that there 1,000's of claims like that and most true but attitudes changed in the 80's 90's and 00's progressively getting more favourable towards the complainant so no body can tell me that none of these allegations would not have been investigated or believed ,this has been evidenced by the number of people that have come foward about catholic priest abuses in recent years

Yes, they came forward in recent years. This too took decades before people started to realise what was going on. It's likely to be similar in Savile's case.

---------- Post added at 12:45 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

She didn't have any evidence for it, and apparently was aware of vague rumours. Given she does a lot of work for children's charities I think we can give her a pass on this. I may not like a lot of what she does (trying to control the internet) but I don't think we can question her dedication.

I don't remember who it was, but I saw some woman interviewed saying that within the Beeb, there were vile rumours about everyone who was someone. At first she paid attention, but when she became better known and became aware of unsubstantiated rumours about herself, she realised that that simply was the environment she was in, and stopped paying attention to the rumours about others.

Originally Posted by Damien

She didn't have any evidence for it, and apparently was aware of vague rumours. Given she does a lot of work for children's charities I think we can give her a pass on this. I may not like a lot of what she does (trying to control the internet) but I don't think we can question her dedication.

but that is what this whole thing is about ,loads of claims and rumors with little evidence and all of a sudden we believe it without question .The whole point of, for example , childline was to provide a medium where children would be believed where parents and other influential people have turned their backs and have denied the abuse because they assume they will be believed over a child .
Don't you think that if Rantzen knew of these rumors(as she admits) then didn't she have a duty to force an investigation or at least ask questions openly ,maybe not about one particular person but the culture as a whole which would ultimately have exposed people like Saville a lot sooner

---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, they came forward in recent years. This too took decades before people started to realise what was going on. It's likely to be similar in Savile's case.
.

Yes ,in recent years ,so why did these allegations not come to light i recent years ,the opportunity was there while he was still alive

Originally Posted by martyh

but that is what this whole thing is about ,loads of claims and rumors with little evidence and all of a sudden we believe it without question .

Here the effect is accumulative. These rumours surfaced publicly almost instantly after his death, it was sort of ignored by everyone because low-level murmurings are nothing. It's only now after we've heard victim after victim after victim come out that we're lending any weight to those rumours. The celebrities coming out confirming they have heard rumours are just providing some background and circumstantial evidence, not proof. They could not have have forced an investigation or publicly labelled him a paedophile based on a unsubstantiated rumour.

Originally Posted by Damien

Here the effect is accumulative. These rumours surfaced publicly almost instantly after his death, it was sort of ignored by everyone because low-level murmurings are nothing. It's only now after we've heard victim after victim after victim come out that we're lending any weight to those rumours. The celebrities coming out confirming they have heard rumours are just providing some background and circumstantial evidence, not proof. They could not have have forced an investigation or publicly labelled him a paedophile based on a unsubstantiated rumour.

No one has provided any proof at all ,my argument is that if these rumors where investigated to just to prove his innocence and put the "unfounded rumors"to bed even 5 years ago then it would have possibly come out that he wasn't innocent

Originally Posted by martyh

No one has provided any proof at all ,my argument is that if these rumors where investigated to just to prove his innocence and put the "unfounded rumors"to bed even 5 years ago then it would have possibly come out that he wasn't innocent

Victims' accounts are much more substantial than hearing a rumour.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes ,in recent years ,so why did these allegations not come to light i recent years ,the opportunity was there while he was still alive

One would imagine that the number of victims of abuse in the Catholic Church is considerably larger than the number of victims of Savile, thus making it more likely that some will come forward.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

One has to remember that where the Church is concerned many people will put the reverence for their religeon way above the importance of child abuse by priests even if they were the subject of it.

In Savile's case now that he's no longer able to weild any restrictive power such as super injunctions etc, victims feel free to recount the abuse.

Oh yes, there's clear differences between the cases. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't similar mechanisms at work that hold victims back from speaking up for decades.

All I'm saying is that the fact that people didn't speak out at the time is not necessarily evidence for a deliberate cover up. Times and attitudes were different 40 years ago.

Originally Posted by Damien

Victims' accounts are much more substantial than hearing a rumour.

So why didn't she get some of those ,she knew they where out there ,why didn't she chase them up and investigate them.There where some cases that even got as far as a police investigation but were stopped because the complainant withdrew because she felt that she would get no support