Operation Yewtree

Originally Posted by martyh

presumably that would be a conservative government ?

Apparently he might be referring to this:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1153409.ece

EDWINA CURRIE, the former Conservative minister, has claimed that a leading Tory MP during Margaret Thatcher’s era had sex with underage boys — and senior party members had covered up for him.

Currie, 66, said this weekend she had heard that Sir Peter Morrison, Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary and deputy chairman of the party, had sex with 16-year-old boys when the age of consent was 21.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Tom Watson has just alleged suggestions of a paedophile ring connected to a Number 10 during a former Prime Minsters term.... Has he gone mad?

He clearly feels he's on a roll. How long before he metamorphoses into Alan Fry I wonder?...

As for Edwina, did she report any of this abuse? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Osem

He clearly feels he's on a roll. How long before he metamorphoses into Alan Fry I wonder?...

As for Edwina, did she report any of this abuse? If not, why not?

she probably just realised he's dead and can't be sued

[Derek]

Ken Clarke has threatened legal action over this.

http://www.maxfarquar.com/2012/10/be...enneth-clarke/

For the record – my allegation is that Ken Clarke touched my penis over my trousers when he had been told I was fifteen years old. I was actually nearer eighteen but was playing the part of a fifteen year old for The Cook Report. Incidentally Kathryn on Ken’s behalf states that Kenneth wasn’t involved in “Cash for Questions”. Well I never said he was or that he had ‘dealings’ with Ian Greer.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

I am aware that you have a reputation for making controversial statements but the above is just plain daft and insulting

explain:

a) why it's daft.

b) why it's insulting.

It now seems to be the concensus that Saville was a sex offender.

OK case proven.

Now what?

As far as I'm aware the Director General of the BBC didn't abuse anybody, Or is it now that saville is dead and can't be lynched by a baying mob, we are going to exact out our frustration at not being able to hang saville by lynching the BBC DG, no doubt the baying mob will ask for his head, or at the very least his resignation and his career.

There is no justice to be had for savilles victims by publicly stoning the BBC DG.

There are many in this case that should hang their head, there are many that knew what saville was, yet we focus on the nearest scapegoat on which we can vent our spleen.

He's dead. retrospective justice by proxy does nothing to help any of the victims.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Pierre

He's dead. retrospective justice by proxy does nothing to help any of the victims.

Finding out why he was allowed to get away with it for so long and if others were involved might help them a lot. Especially if others are still alive, potentially still abusing victims and could be brought to justice.

Originally Posted by Pierre

explain:

.

It's daft because in one sweeping statement you have removed any obligation of the BBC ,stoke mandeville etc of any responsibility for ignoring the rumors and basically giving Savile the opportunity to continue his sordid behavior by not investigating him and listening to patients and guests .So yes very daft ,i will even go as far as to say ignorant of the wider implications so there should be no "moving on"

b) why it's insulting.

By telling everyone to "move on" you are saying that nothing can be done for the victims .Well yes there is, plenty.The victims can be heard and more importantly believed for the first time in their lives .Other people who are living and still working with children may be outed ,attitudes towards troubled kids may change and for all we know given the attitude that seems to be prevalent in organisations such as the BBC this sort of abuse may still be happening which would explain why people who are high up are stumbling over questions they should really have the answer to ,so again there should be no "moving on".

There is no justice to be had for savilles victims by publicly stoning the BBC DG

Well up to now at best he has shown gross incompetence and his grasp of the importance of the problem has been dire ,at worst he has used his position as (at the time) program planning director to protect the BBC from criticism and possible criminal proceedings

He's dead. retrospective justice by proxy does nothing to help any of the victims

The victims have every right to be heard and believed ,they also have every right to see people who turned their backs to protect the likes of Savile and Glitter face justice or at least public humiliation

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by martyh

It's daft because in one sweeping statement you have removed any obligation of the BBC ,stoke mandeville etc of any responsibility for ignoring the rumors and basically giving Savile the opportunity to continue his sordid behavior by not investigating him and listening to patients and guests .So yes very daft ,i will even go as far as to say ignorant of the wider implications so there should be no "moving on"



By telling everyone to "move on" you are saying that nothing can be done for the victims .Well yes there is, plenty.The victims can be heard and more importantly believed for the first time in their lives .Other people who are living and still working with children may be outed ,attitudes towards troubled kids may change and for all we know given the attitude that seems to be prevalent in organisations such as the BBC this sort of abuse may still be happening which would explain why people who are high up are stumbling over questions they should really have the answer to ,so again there should be no "moving on".



Well up to now at best he has shown gross incompetence and his grasp of the importance of the problem has been dire ,at worst he has used his position as (at the time) program planning director to protect the BBC from criticism and possible criminal proceedings



The victims have every right to be heard and believed ,they also have every right to see people who turned their backs to protect the likes of Savile and Glitter face justice or at least public humiliation

Well put. In the past I have wondered about things you post but this is well said

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

The BBC's problems seem to have been compounded by trying to cover things up because it might have disturbed the Xmas schedules and the glowing tributes planned for Savile. In that the DG seems to have been a willing participant and as such has to take some of the flak.

Again there is no proof of that.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

The BBC's problems seem to have been compounded by trying to cover things up because it might have disturbed the Xmas schedules and the glowing tributes planned for Savile. In that the DG seems to have been a willing participant and as such has to take some of the flak.

Not only is there a total lack of evidence for this, what we have seen and heard over the past several days suggests if anything, the opposite. George Entwistle behaved as one who really did not want to know; possibly because he wanted to avoid knowing anything that would oblige him to change his schedules, possibly because as a senior BBC manager he didn't want to be seen to be interfering in an editorial process.

I'm curious though - when you say that the BBC's problems "seem to have been confounded by trying to cover things up," exactly what is it that makes it seem that way to you?

Originally Posted by Damien

Again there is no proof of that.

There is no proof for any of the allegations even from the alleged victims.There does however seem to be a general acceptance that there was some abuse even though there is no proof other than a lot of "he said, she said" ,so if we are going to accept that as evidence or proof then it must be accepted that others including the DG aided directly or passively by showing astounding ignorance ,even if it can't be proven by emails or recordings

Originally Posted by martyh

There is no proof for any of the allegations even from the alleged victims.There does however seem to be a general acceptance that there was some abuse even though there is no proof other than a lot of "he said, she said" ,so if we are going to accept that as evidence or proof then it must be accepted that others including the DG aided directly or passively by showing astounding ignorance ,even if it can't be proven by emails or recordings

No. First of all no one with any knowledge is offering first-hand accusations of covering things up. Whereas we have several people, most not connected to each other, saying Savile abused them. We've already been though the issue of victim's testimony counting as evidence - it does.

Originally Posted by Damien

No. First of all no one with any knowledge is offering first-hand accusations of covering things up. Whereas we have several people, most not connected to each other, saying Savile abused them. We've already been though the issue of victim's testimony counting as evidence - it does.

and i've accepted that ,so if we accept that and count that as credible evidence then other accusations such as those levelled at the BBC in general must be true because otherwise the former could not have happened, the only question in my eyes is how much the high up in the BBC turned a blind eye ,and it appears to be a lot
.I agree with Chris in that the DG did not deliberately cover up evidence but colluded by not bothering to follow up on the initial investigation by newsnight,or failing by gross incompetence to realise what was being uncovered so yes he must be guilty and must be hung out to dry

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

An email is now doing the rounds in which Peter Rippon, the "stood aside" editor of Newsnight, is described as saying Savile's offences were not that serious, happened a long time ago and were perpetrated against girls who were not too young.

It seems that a lot of people share the view of Peter Rippon, in that sex with post pubescent girls is more acceptable than pubescent girls.

As well as paedophilia and incest, i've just been reading that Savile has now been accused of being a necrophile. Just where will this end?

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/...d-necrophilia/

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It seems that a lot of people share the view of Peter Rippon, in that sex with post pubescent girls is more acceptable than pubescent girls.

It's not entirely surprising though, is it. While the State decrees that sex under the age of 16 is illegal, the State on the other hand is quite willing to hand out contraception, up to and including the morning after pill, to underage girls, not always with the knowledge of the child's parents.

The notion that underage, teenage sex is tolerated, if not technically approved of, has become embedded in our society, and all we have left is a messy, ill-defined debate over exactly when it should be treated as a crime and when it should simply be covered up with a quick, secret visit to Boots.

Until we resolve that central contradiction in public morals, there will be very many people up and down the country watching this story unfold on their TVs and in the newspapers, quietly thinking what Rippon is supposed to have said aloud.