|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 22:09:59 GMT
I don't know if the scandal was mentioned much on other continents, but in Europe the Jimmy Savile pedophile/rape scandal was big news everywhere, even though outside the British Isles, we really didn't know who he was. We just knew that the BBC is emminently respected and that it was a major black blot on its reputation. However, without really discussing the case, I thought that this photo was really amazing at how it appears that vice really does have a physical effect on people as the years go by. Can you imagine having even the least bit of trust in anybody who looks like this? Shades of Dorian Gray! And yet here is how he looked introducing a performance by the Rolling Stones in ancient times.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Feb 21, 2013 8:01:24 GMT
Gad -- his teeth!
|
|
|
Post by mossie on Feb 21, 2013 8:45:46 GMT
I'd better not let you see mine, the mercury is really starting to blacken them ;D
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Feb 21, 2013 9:01:38 GMT
That was from the bromide in your tea, mossie.
|
|
|
Post by lugg on Feb 21, 2013 9:28:56 GMT
There is something about him that was always offensive / ugly , even in his younger days
There would be kind of a poetry following ITV's success at the RTS awards for their Saville exposure documentary..if it was not for the fact that Michael Le Vell (Kevin Webster from Coronation St) has now been charged with similar offences too
|
|
|
Post by slowcoach on Feb 21, 2013 13:02:23 GMT
I don't know when they are going to stop, but they are digging in a cesspit.
If they dig, they will have to trawl through some of the dodgier parts of the sexual revolution and associated liberation movements.
One problem is that attitudes were very different 40 odd years ago, a lot of people were pretty relaxed about paedophilia. That may seem incredible but the notion that children have sexual rights, along with gays, lesbians, and the disabled could be made to fit together in a package. Support/advocacy groups existed for all of them. PIE was perhaps the most visible advocacy group for paedophilia. It was eventually brought down by some of its other activities which supported paedophilia more directly.
As I recall, the usual suspects for paedophile rings or networks were: the professions (law, education, medicine, church), the legislature (particularly the aristocracy) and civil service. I was expecting a huge scandal to break decades ago but it didn't, it still might, but I doubt it, better to stop digging.
|
|
|
Post by nautiker on Mar 4, 2013 9:05:00 GMT
that’s an interesting question you raise here, kerouac - and 'appears' is the key word. I think there’s a very, very thin line between what we’ve been conditioned to read into an appearance (especially if it’s just a pic) and which human characteristics actually do show. children stories always tell us of ugly witches and scar-faced brutes as the villains, and cinema is full with these stereotypes (e.g. there’s a German theatre/TV actor I quite like: Jürgen Tarrach (https://www.google.com/search?q=j%C3%BCrgen+tarrach&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=de&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Ils0UYXaNMaotAay0oGAAg&biw=1280&bih=699&sei=VFs0UdcFh4y1Br3QgKgJ), who has quite some record of playing child-molesters, used car dealers, sleazes etc….). at the same time, we might all agree that a tremendous number of evildoers are just plain people: largest number of child abuses happen at home or from some ‘kind’ neighbour, most of the most evil Nazis were well-educated, well-groomed and well-mannered men etc. – so if evilness doesn’t necessarily show, I wonder whether one can claim it shows at all? ugly = bad is much too easy imo.
as someone who hardly knows anything about Saville, if you told me that pic showed a badly aged Christopher Lloyd who had been dazzled by a spotlight just when he was trying to light his cigar, I would have thougt: well, bad teeth – and?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 4, 2013 9:50:46 GMT
The adage 'appearances are deceptive' is true enough. How many times do you hear of some heinous crime and the neighbours of the offender state they never thought he was like that. On the other hand there was a case in the UK a few years ago whereby a young woman was murdered, the offender was actually a male in the next apartment - but during the investigation the landlord was targeted as he looked a bit weird. Needless to say he was completely innocent. And yet on the other hand (if there are three hands) could you believe this man is guilty of indecent assaults on women - Or this one of child pornography - I know I could as they 'look the type', but they aren't the same man in case you thought otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by lugg on Apr 19, 2013 13:38:50 GMT
And now it is reported that Rolf Harris has been named as having been arrested and bailed by Operation Yewtree.
|
|
|
Post by rikita on May 6, 2013 21:29:00 GMT
I don't know when they are going to stop, but they are digging in a cesspit. If they dig, they will have to trawl through some of the dodgier parts of the sexual revolution and associated liberation movements. One problem is that attitudes were very different 40 odd years ago, a lot of people were pretty relaxed about paedophilia. That may seem incredible but the notion that children have sexual rights, along with gays, lesbians, and the disabled could be made to fit together in a package. Support/advocacy groups existed for all of them. PIE was perhaps the most visible advocacy group for paedophilia. It was eventually brought down by some of its other activities which supported paedophilia more directly. As I recall, the usual suspects for paedophile rings or networks were: the professions (law, education, medicine, church), the legislature (particularly the aristocracy) and civil service. I was expecting a huge scandal to break decades ago but it didn't, it still might, but I doubt it, better to stop digging. i read a bit about that in an article (and more in the comments after the article) about daniel cohn-bendit ... and while especially with things said in comments on the internet, i am not sure which parts are true and which are rumours, i was still surprised that this is a topic that isn't discussed more often - or at least not one i had heard about before...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 5:44:07 GMT
There were a number of articles about Daniel Cohn-Bendit in France and he addressed the questions in lots of interviews on French television. The whole "case" against him was the fact that he was living in a commune in the 1970's and had made one of those blanket liberal statements at the time along the lines of "children have sexual feelings too, a lot earlier than one might think" and also the fact that people regularly walked around naked in the commune, at all ages.
Nobody was able to prove that anything "wrong" ever happened there (besides drug use), but naturally statements like that are more than enough to set certain people off.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift1 on May 13, 2013 10:55:32 GMT
It seems that most days now yet another 'celebrity' is dragged into the limelight in the UK for alleged offences pertaining to rape and paedophilia. Serves them right.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 17:29:41 GMT
Why should priests have all the fun?
|
|
|
Post by rikita on May 13, 2013 21:53:41 GMT
well according to what i read (and the articles were in a newspaper close to the green party, so i would suppose not ones just automatically wanting to make him look bad), there is also the issue of some thing he wrote in the book though.
trying to translate one of the paragraphs in question (only found the quote in german online): "It happened several times that some children opened the fly of my trousers nad started touching me. I reacted differently according to the circumstances, but their wish posed problems to me. I asked them "Why aren't you playing with each other, why did you chose me and not other children?" But if they insisted, I touched them anyway."
Another passage describes that five year old girls hitting on him and flirt with him...
Afaik he does say that he wrote those passages more to shock rather than that these things actually happened... But anyway, writing this is a little bit more than just writing that children have sexual feelings... On the other hand, I don't know more about the issue than what I read in a few articles, so I don't really know much ...
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 14, 2013 6:40:16 GMT
It sounds more like a dirty old man justifying himself; "It wasn't my fault".
Sure, blame 5 year-olds.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 10:32:00 GMT
I was babysitting a five year old girl once who was crawling all over me and the sofa when she suddenly locked her thighs around my face and said "Smell me!" I was mortified and disentangled myself instantly yet I did not feel authorised to scold her. I certainly wouldn't put it in a book or on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 14, 2013 11:47:58 GMT
Okay -- I shouldn't jump to conclusions. But it does make me wonder what she learned from her parents.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 11:52:38 GMT
Yes, well her mother was not exactly an innocent flower -- you've probably heard about these English women who run off and marry French men from the Toulouse area. (She spoke really atrocious French but with a Toulouse accent -- it was hilarious.)
As for the little girl -- Lydia -- to this day I have not been able to decide if she was 'innocent' or 'guilty.'
|
|
|
Post by rikita on May 15, 2013 9:25:38 GMT
i think part of the problem is the interpretation. children, even if in theory they know about sex, don't really know what they are asking for, i think. they can't comprehend the emotional implications yet. so the problem i see with the text is not that he says children were trying to touch him and asked him to touch them - but that he says he sometimes obliged. the reaction of the adult should be like yours, i.e. stopping the thing. and maybe say "no, i don't want that" or something along those lines. i agree it is difficult of course to decide what to say so the child on the one hand won't grow up sex is dirty, but on the other hand knows it shouldn't let itself be touched or touch adults...
there have been some situations like that with my little brother - on the one hand, he was fascinated by breasts for a long time, but i don't think it was sexual, it was more a combination of the memory of the comfort they gave him as a baby, and the fact that they are somehow secret and usually covered. when he tried to touch mine, i usually just told him that i don't want him to touch them. also, he used to sometimes touch himself with other people present (like when he had his bath) or offered to me touch his penis - in those instances i was a bit unsure of what to say, because of not wanting to make him think that is dirty... so i said something along the lines that this is something a bit private, and something for his girlfriend when he has one. i don't know if that was the right thing to say or not...
so my main problem with that excerpt of the text is him saying he did actually touch the children... though he claims now that these parts aren't true, but it makes me wonder why he wrote that then...
|
|