|
|
Post by redstriper on Jul 26, 2014 10:02:30 GMT
linkGot to say he makes some valid points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 10:08:27 GMT
Surely they weren't all that ugly ...?
|
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Jul 26, 2014 10:28:06 GMT
I've thought all along someone at the BBC or in government kept this covered up for so many years.
Equally i think someone is now driving all these charges for some reason. It does look a bit like they're going after everyone they can think of and seeing what sticks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 10:33:22 GMT
This is western society for you. The same western society that spent more money on Monica Lewinski's blow job investigation, than the whole of the 9/11 investigation and the subsequent 9/11 Commission Report.
Onner bothered. It's a pile of steaming shit. But the UK seems to get its kicks from this sort of "entertainment". Whose next? Bruce Forsyth?
I'm not feeling proud.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jul 26, 2014 11:42:24 GMT
Sometime I think some of this maybe trying to apply the standards of today to yesteryear.
Just watch pretty much any British comedy from the 1970's and the attitude seemed to be massively difference towards woman than today.
I'm not suggesting that it was just like Carry On or Benny Hill - but the fact that this portrayal was accepted - just demonstrates society's attitudes back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by harrysburrow on Jul 26, 2014 12:30:14 GMT
Sometime I think some of this maybe trying to apply the standards of today to yesteryear. Just watch pretty much any British comedy from the 1970's and the attitude seemed to be massively difference towards woman than today. I'm not suggesting that it was just like Carry On or Benny Hill - but the fact that this portrayal was accepted - just demonstrates society's attitudes back then. Very interesting and valid point mate. |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jul 26, 2014 12:48:39 GMT
Sometime I think some of this maybe trying to apply the standards of today to yesteryear. Just watch pretty much any British comedy from the 1970's and the attitude seemed to be massively difference towards woman than today. I'm not suggesting that it was just like Carry On or Benny Hill - but the fact that this portrayal was accepted - just demonstrates society's attitudes back then. Very interesting and valid point mate. ...and BTW, I'm not talking about the some of the stuff (like Gary Glitter) here, just some of the more minor stuff - which is treated much more harshly (correctly) today, but seemed to be more tolerated back then. |
|
|
|
Post by harrysburrow on Jul 26, 2014 13:14:30 GMT
Very interesting and valid point mate. ...and BTW, I'm not talking about the some of the stuff (like Gary Glitter) here, just some of the more minor stuff - which is treated much more harshly (correctly) today, but seemed to be more tolerated back then. I know what you meant mate. As with everything in life, the process of sorting stuff out has to go from one extreme to the other before landing somewhere in the middle? And when the powers that be first set their stall out, they usually start with the comparatively "minor" stuff purely because it's an easier and less complicated target. The old days have a lot to answer for. |
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Jul 26, 2014 14:00:43 GMT
In the past, child abuse was ignored, and ridiculed and condoned ..the child was never believed.
Then Ester Rantzen came along and everything changed..not overnight..but a revolution in child protection/safeguarding took place.
Things that took place then..in a different age and context , which were ignored, have now become criminal offences.
The police have no other option than to investigate and pass on to the CPS.
Some innocent people will be caught in the net almost inevitably. That will be massively damaging to them personally. Some people's evidence may not be true..there is 'smoke without fire' unquestionably. Abd if people make false allegations they need to be prosecuted.
I get the feeling sometimes that 'over compensation' is taking place because the police are terrified of missing anything.
The shotgun approach...pepper everything in the vicinity with lead pellets and hope some of it sticks.
No wonder some peoples lives are destroyed in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 26, 2014 15:21:21 GMT
The witch hunt is the cover up.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Jul 28, 2014 16:48:09 GMT
The witch hunt is the cover up. Is there, or has there ever been, a big news event which was NOT a conspiracy in your eyes ? I can see credence in some of what you post on various topics, but suggesting that EVERY event mentioned on here is manipulated by shady figures does make you look a little bit paranoid. Could I be right, or am I myself part of the establishment trying to blow smoke ?  |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 28, 2014 18:07:40 GMT
The witch hunt is the cover up. Is there, or has there ever been, a big news event which was NOT a conspiracy in your eyes ? I can see credence in some of what you post on various topics, but suggesting that EVERY event mentioned on here is manipulated by shady figures does make you look a little bit paranoid. Could I be right, or am I myself part of the establishment trying to blow smoke ? There is often stuff we are not being told or the news items themselves are there to mould opinion. Even if you don't accept we are being told what to think, we are being guided as to what to think about just by what's being featured on the news. Or what not to think about, as the case may be, by what's being omitted. Piss-take all you like but were you told the truth about Savile? |
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Jul 28, 2014 19:53:54 GMT
I wasn't taking the piss - your conspiracy theories always provide a pause for thought and that is fair enough. I am suggesting that if you make everything out to be a conspiracy then your objectivity and credibility can easily be called into question.
Who knows, if the new investigation only reveals evidence against politicians who are all conveniently already dead I may have to agree with you on this particular one.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 28, 2014 20:02:03 GMT
Sometime I think some of this maybe trying to apply the standards of today to yesteryear. Just watch pretty much any British comedy from the 1970's and the attitude seemed to be massively difference towards woman than today. I'm not suggesting that it was just like Carry On or Benny Hill - but the fact that this portrayal was accepted - just demonstrates society's attitudes back then. Although that is valid a lot of these crimes would have been acted upon if the victims had felt able to come out. They were still against the law. |
|
|
|
Post by localloser on Jul 29, 2014 15:06:13 GMT
Is there, or has there ever been, a big news event which was NOT a conspiracy in your eyes ? I can see credence in some of what you post on various topics, but suggesting that EVERY event mentioned on here is manipulated by shady figures does make you look a little bit paranoid. Could I be right, or am I myself part of the establishment trying to blow smoke ? There is often stuff we are not being told or the news items themselves are there to mould opinion. Even if you don't accept we are being told what to think, we are being guided as to what to think about just by what's being featured on the news. Or what not to think about, as the case may be, by what's being omitted. Piss-take all you like but were you told the truth about Savile? No we weren't told the truth about Savile. I have just finished reading "In Plain Sight - the life and lies of Jimmy Savile" by Dan Davies. In that book he reveals that West Yorkshire Police (based in Leeds) had NO records of reports or complaints about Savile on their files. Not one. Nor did North Yorkshire (he had a flat in Scarborough). Nor did any other police force. His boast that "If you go for me, I will take half this station with me" leads one to think that the police were part of the cover up. Remember too that some retired policemen were members of Savile's Friday coffee club although the force denied this. Consider too that many years ago Barbara Castle took a portfolio to the editor of the Bury local newspaper near her Blackburn constituency. This portfolio contained allegations of paedophilia against a number of very prominent politicians of the day. Just as this was about to be published a number of plain clothes policemen with London accents came to his office and not only told him he couldn't publish the material, but took it away with them. When the editor protested, he was shown a D notice, signed by a judge which stated that publication of the material would be an offence for which he would be prosecuted. So one thinks that the judiciary were part of the cover up. Also consider that when Princess Di died, the Queen told Paul Burrell that there are "Dark forces at work in this country". I don't know what she meant by that, but I'm beginning to wonder that if you put together paedophile politicians and other celebrities protected by judges and police what the hell else is going on? |
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Jul 29, 2014 18:14:22 GMT
I'm reading the Dan Davies book..a decent read & very interesting in a factual low key way.
In my opinion Saville was highly likely to be in the Freemasons & thats where a lot of his connections with The Police were from..That doesn't necessarily mean that The Police covered things up or lost things because they were involved in paedophile rings (although that may have been the case)..but simply because they were trying to protect a fellow mason.
Or both !!
|
|
|
|
Post by localloser on Jul 29, 2014 20:24:49 GMT
I wondered about the freemason connection too, but on reflection I believe it's much more organised than that. The police were told by their superiors to drop anny inquiry. Savile was interviewed in his own office by two female police officers who were clearly out of their depth. I don't believe that every police officer - epecially the women! - is in the freemasons. Savile stated that he was not appointed to his post at Broadmoor (That in itself is utterly bizarre) by Edwina Currie, but by someone "much higher in the hierarchy than her". And it has later been revealed in the telegraph that the senior civil servant who did appoint Savile to Broadmoor waa himself banned from working with children. So it seems that at that time at least, there was something dirty and vile at the heart of the "establishment", whatever that is.
At the same time, though, we must not forget the "ordinary" people who turned a blind eye to Savile. Nurses told patients to pretend to be asleep, or to forget about what had happened. Hospital porters accompanied female patients to an "office" in the bowels of Leeds Informary where Savile raped them, and were accompanied back to the ward by a different porter. A head porter left more money in his will than he could possibly have earned during his life.
So we have a culture which allowed Savile to do what he wanted to whoever he wanted. We know that the culture at the BBC was similarly lax. Dave Lee Travis also worked at the BBC at the same time as Savile, and worked on Top of the Pops where teenage girls were brought in as eye candy or as fresh meat for people like Savile. I don't know whether DLT is guilty or not, but there are some frightened women out there who were assaulted by famous people who have not yet been brought to justice.
Its all very scary. I wouldn't have wanted to be a young woman when I was a young man.
|
|
