The British Broadcasting Corporation – a Monument to Paedophilia.
In 1932, the British Broadcasting Corporation, pride of the British people, commissioned the architect Lieutenant Colonel G. Val Myer, to design a building as their corporate headquarters which would embody the spirit of the organisation as they pushed their version of British values across the airwaves to a world still coloured pink on the map of ‘the Empire’.
The building was designed to look like a great ocean liner sailing across the airwaves. Today it is strangely reminiscent of the ill fated Titanic.
In the ‘bow’ of the building, Lord Reith commissioned a sculptor to carve out of stone the figures of Prospero and Ariel from Shakespeare’s The Tempest. So far so good.
Sadly, the sculptor he chose was none other than Eric Gill, a man who confessed in his own diaries to being a prolific paedophile; who had an incestuous relationship with his sister, his dog and his own young daughters…
Lord Reith could not have known this at the time – but he was alarmed when he saw the statue. Indeed, the BBC press office were kind enough to tell me that the matter of the size of Ariel’s penis caused such concern that not only were ‘young maidens said to blush’ on passing the statue, but the sitting MP for St Pancras at that time, tabled a question in parliament claiming that the statue was ‘objectionable to public morals and decency’. They are unfortunately not able to confirm that Lord Reith ordered Gill to take a chisel to his masterpiece and ‘circumcise’ it…a rumour that has been oft repeated.
Prospero, for those who have never read The Tempest, was the man who famously put to sea in the ‘rotten carcass’ of a boat. T’was only the applause of ‘an audience’ which could free him.
So there we have it, for students of hindsight. Lord Reith managed to chose a paedophile sculptor to embody the image of the BBC as a floundering creature in a rotten carcass searching for the applause of the audience whilst clasping a child with oversized genitals.
You couldn’t make it up.
Can I respectfully suggest to Lord MacAlpine, that he takes the £185,000 of tax payers money he has been awarded by the BBC for not actually being named in a broadcast by an outside unit under the auspices of an acting editor, reporting to an acting head of broadcast, under the watchful eye of an acting Director-General, and commission a new statue to represent the BBC.
Perhaps the figure carved in stone of the last remaining acting broadcaster speaking to the nation from the underground bomb-proof shelter they had built back in 1942? I’m told it is still there, probably packed full of acting head’s of something or other.
*Earlier posts on the subject of the BBC, paedophilia, and Jimmy Savile.
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-one/
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-two/
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-three/
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-four/
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-five/
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-six/
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-seven/
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/news-shite-and-the-perfect-storm/
https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/the-bureau-for-instigative-churnalism/
November 18, 2012 at 12:32
-
Reply to Bugger (the Panda)
“As for “unreliable witness,” another old useful slur. If you had been
buggered as a child, on a regular basis, I don’t think that is in dispute, if
anyone did have major psychological I would be more than surprised.”
I think your grammar is mangled here, but I think Messham was an adolescent
when this happened. In legal terms a child is anyone under the age of 18, but
that is not the way the word “child” is used in normal usage.
If being regularly buggered as an adolescent caused major psychological
problems that make a person unable to give true witness statements, then a
large number of Old Etonians would probably fall under this heading. The fact
is that Messham WAS involved in a libel trial involving a police officer and
his testimony did not hold up. He named 49 men at the Waterhouse tribunal and
made allegations of all kinds of other kinds of nonsexual abuse, none of which
was substantiated by anyone else or by corroborating evidence. The finding
that he was an “unreliable witness” was really a euphemism for saying that he
was a chronic liar and that his evidence could never stand up in court under
cross examination. This was the reason that the names of many of the accused
were sealed by the Waterhouse tribunal–that they came solely from Messham and
that there were no secondary witness statements to support his claims.
This is not to say that there wasn’t buggery at the North Wales care home,
just that there was never enough sustainable evidence to bring Messham’s
elaborate claims to court–a situation that could have easily been discovered
by the Newsnight team if they had done a thorough job of checking out
Messham’s credibility.
- November 18,
2012 at 09:08
-
Details of the St John ambulance paedophiles and their paedophile
protection network which stretches all the way to London, are here:
http://www.stjohnnz.com/
- November 17, 2012 at 19:07
-
I wouldn’t know, not living in the UK these days – in fact not for about 45
years. When exactly were Americans closing in … we didn’t hear about that
here? Obviously don’t watch British TV – presume you mean the BBC, so all that
hot air was completely wasted on me. I wouldn’t pay any sort of money to one
station though, too much monopoly. But expressions like ‘selfish filth’ ain’t
going to win you any fans, my friends. Oh, and what Engineer said.
- November 17, 2012 at 17:23
-
Oh blimey – tinfoil hat alert!
- November 17, 2012 at 18:19
-
Are you denying that Blair didn’t put a 100 year D-notice on Operation
ORE because Scotland Yard and the Americans were closing in on members of
his cabinet? People like you are the reason there is so much misery in the
world today. You are ignorant and suffer from cognitive dissonance. But,
even more worrying, is the fact you want to remain ignorant. A stereotype
T.V. watcher, completely gormless, exactly how the Rothschild owned
paedophile BBC like them, totally stupified.
- November 17, 2012 at 19:20
-
Tina – not quite clear which comment you’re ranting against? And – are
you referring to yourself as a stereotype tv watcher, completely gormless
etc., etc. (disturbingly self-effacing)? Your whole comment seems somewhat
out of context.
- November 18, 2012 at 15:19
-
Hmm. A rich seam of ass-hattery to mine here.
1. Op ORE was an utter shitting disaster. The reason it all went quiet
in the press is because people realised that Steve Nelson and Micheal Meed
were lying toe-rags (see Duncan Campbell’s “Sex, Lies and the Missing
Videotape”). Now, I’m fairly sure that a few paedos got away with it. But
then far more people had already their lives completely ruined for,
frankly, buying access to adult porn and then having their credit cards
used by scumbag web masters.
2. “D Notice”? You mean “DA Notices”, don’t you? Right – these don’t,
generally, have an expiry date and have (sssh in the back, stop
sniggering) absolutely no legal force what so ever. Do you really expect
that if Paul Dacre had got wind that one of the zaNu-Liebour cretins was
being investigated (and the bloody DA Notice would have told him if
nothing else did) he would have kept his rent-a-gobs on leash? You may be
deluded but you don’t need to a play an idiot on the internet.
3. The Yanks did no investigating of any UK IP addresses. These were
passed, in bulk, to the NHTCU and then parcelled out to the relevant local
forces.
4. Which branch of the Rothschild family do you think owns the BBC?
‘Cause, you know, the BBC Trust? You might just want to read the BBC
Charter (2006 is the latest version.)
- November 18, 2012 at
15:26
-
November 18, 2012 at 20:15
-
Not only do I concur with your post but I must applaud your use of
the phrase “utter shitting disaster”…..I shall store this for future use
at an appropriate time. My gracious thanks
- November 17, 2012 at 16:58
-
A great deal of selfish filth on here who are more concerned with monetary
concerns rather than the misery and death these vile paedo’s have inflicted on
small children. It is a tremendous asset for the Zionist, Labour Government of
Britain to be able to use D-Notices and gag orders, to stop investigations
into the parliamentary ranks who are complicit in child rape. But, as long as
there are the same said brainwashed filth who are only concerned with the
‘T.V. Licence’ and the financial ramifications, these paedophile rings will
persist like a canker ion our midst. It almost beggars belief that there is
anyone so immoral, that they are still willing to court and pay for a licence
from the paedophile scum at the BBC. How low can some so-called ‘humans’
stoop?
- November 17, 2012 at 18:23
-
Hurst – what we really need to be able to get vile child-abusers behind
bars is hard evidence. So far, there seems to be very little of it about.
The internet, and good solid investigative journalism has it’s part to play;
but we all know that there is plenty of rubbish on the internet too –
scurrilous rumour, conspiracy theories and general unfounded gossip. The
sort of internet rubbish that accuses innocent people of vile crimes does
not help one bit in bringing the genuinely guilty to justice, and what is
more, it probably wastes a great deal of Police time in following up ‘leads’
that turn out to be unfounded or just plain vexatious.
I know I’m wasting pixels typing this, but someone has to state the
obvious.
- November 17, 2012 at 23:23
-
+1. Blimey!! We get rid of one nutter and another couple pop up!!
- November 17, 2012 at 13:46
-
I seem to have come a bit late to this particular blog fight re Measham,
McAlpine and Newsnight & BBC.
I believe that there are some facts which are facts but do not seem to be
known to many.
The actual investigation work for the Newsnight’s piece was outsourced by
them the The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. I am not sure whether initial
idea was in-house or presented to Newsnight by the TBIJ
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/
The responsibility for the verification of the named individual was that of
the BBC and I believe that they pulled his name for the transmission as
insisted by the BBC Legal Dept. It appears that neither the BBC or TBIJ had
asked Measham if it was the named individual or, had shown him a photo of him
from the time of the abuse or even an up to date one. The BBC did not contact
McAlpine to ask for his comments and thus give him a chance to refute the
allegations. Pretty much secondary school journalism stuff.
The tweet that possibly started the wild goose chase on the blogosphere
emanated from an individual in teh TBIJ before Newsnight ran the story. This
has been accepted by the TBIJ and their Editor in Chief has resigned.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/11/15/statement-from-the-bureaus-trustees/
Continuing with the named individual, there are any number or people
carrying that particular surname but not so many within striking distance of
that care home and only one who was known to visit it in his Rolls Royce.
I cannot find the reference, but is is from a blogger with a penchant for
standing by his posts and he stated that the original inquiry into the abuse
allegations stated that Meesham (correct spelling now) had not identified the
named Lord but another member of his family. So how come the target changed
during the TBIJ / Newsnight exposé.
It seems very convenient that the whole media feeding frenzy has been
deflected onto the bloggosphere and any number of piss awful “journalists” are
squeaking that the Bloggoshere needs to uphold the same standards of integrity
and and conformity to the Law that the MSM have to. It seems that irony, or is
it hypocrisy are alive and well in this endangered news sector.
Sorry if some of my points have been covered in earlier post but I arrived
late and haven’t the stamina to read the entire thread.
B (tP)
- November 17, 2012 at 19:23
-
Bugger (the Panda) said: “I cannot find the reference, but is is from a
blogger with a penchant for standing by his posts and he stated that the
original inquiry into the abuse allegations stated that Meesham (correct
spelling now) had not identified the named Lord but another member of his
family. So how come the target changed during the TBIJ / Newsnight
exposé.”
Assuming Messham is the witness referred to as Leon here:
” And who was [Mr B]? For the first time in his long saga, Leon became
reticent. He had been threatened and burgled and had had his car attacked,
he said. He would give no more – except for this man’s surname. Which
happened to match that of one of Mrs Thatcher’s most prominent
supporters.”
Later adding: “Since Mr B has been identified only by surname, it is not
clear whether the witnesses are referring to Mrs Thatcher’s colleague.
Leon’s evidence suggests that they are not – he said that he thought Mr B
was dead, whereas Mrs Thatcher’s supporter is still alive and
prominent.”
And if ‘Leon’ isn’t Messham then he could be the second person referred
to to mention a name – that time positively identifying the man in a
statement to the police but then not identifying the man at the
tribunal:
“However, the Guardian has established that another survivor of abuse
gave a long statement to police on September 9 1993 in which he provided a
thoroughly detailed account of being sexually assaulted by a wealthy man. At
that time, he positively identified this man by name and photograph as Mrs
Thatcher’s former advisor and recorded in his statement how a friend had
told him “You’re going to bring down the government”. However, when this
witness came to the tribunal he declared that he was unable to identify the
man.”
-
November 17, 2012 at 21:22
-
Just hang on a minute, when it came down to it (in court) the victim
DIDN’T identify the perpetrator as anyone in the public eye? So what is
the point of your post? More mudslinging? Because if you throw
enough…..?????
Lord McAlpine WAS NOT involved in anything untoward in Wrexham. That is
abundantly clear. What saddens me most, aside from the fact this poor chap
was subject to trial by Internet, is that I’ve spoken to several
“sensible” people who have been left with the impression that there may
still be something dubious about this man. This is utterly unfair. That is
why he is right to sue every person who named him online. I hope this is a
watershed moment, this has happened (libel) to a lesser degree to many
people in online forums/networks. I hope one of Lord McAlpine’s many
positive legacys is that his decisive action here teaches all the
irresponsible twitterers/ facebookers/ forum users, that they cannot
defame people with impunity, accusing them of horrendous crimes, unless
they have the proof to back it up. Or expect to be sued.
- November 17, 2012 at 21:33
-
Ah, The Fragrant Lord McAlpine
Cop this
http://www.ishtarsgate.com/forum/showthread.php?3641-An-Open-Letter-to-Lord-Alistair-McAlpine
and this
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/lord-mcalpine-shock-new-question-from-australia/
- November 18, 2012 at 02:18
-
Anna-Marie,
Perhaps it isn’t clear enough. Bugger (the Panda) had commented that
they had read a blog post by someone they find credible which said Lord
McAlpine wasn’t named at the tribunal. My post with a link to a report
about the tribunal written at the time it was taking place, and the
quotes I have highlighted from it, is in support of that.
Of the two victims to be connected to this issue – ‘Leon’ and the
second one – neither named Lord McAlpine at the tribunal. ‘Leon’ only
said a surname and thought his abuser was dead (so could not have been
Lord McAlpine). The second one *is reported to have named someone
connected to Thatcher* in a statement to the Police some years earlier
but changed their story at the tribunal. Whatever motive Davies had for
including that comment to me that witness sounds unreliable.
- November 18, 2012 at 10:34
-
@ Bugger (the Panda) and Alan,
Your points are abundantly clear. As are your motives. I have read
the links provided…in short more aspersions about Lord McAlpine, none
of which stand up to any kind of scrutiny or indeed mean anything.
Lord McAlpine doesn’t need to be purer than the driven snow to have
the right to sue for libel. I have no reason to believe he’s anything
other than a decent chap with normal human strengths and weaknesses.
What is so difficult for people to understand?
Lord McAlpine is not implicated in the goings on at the N Wales
children’s home.
Lord McAlpine’s cousin was implicated but the witnesses were deemed
unreliable (appropriately it seems), therefore no further action was
taken.
Lord McAlpine is not responsible for anything his cousin did or
didn’t do. His cousin was never tried for these crimes so he should be
afforded the presumption of innocence that we all enjoy.
Lord McAlister was horribly defamed. He is perfectly entitled to
address that legally and frankly what he does with any monies received
is nobody else’s business.
The real issues that arise here are;
The myriad of difficulties involved in maintaining the emotional
and physical safety of “looked after children”
The huge potential for injustice for victims of abuse when they
come forward due to the standards of evidence required (although I see
no way around this)
The huge potential for injustice faced by the wrongfully accused.
The dangers of irresponsible journalism and irresponsible Internet
use.
- November 18, 2012 at 10:39
- November 18, 2012 at
11:46
-
\Anne-Marie
This reply is actually to Anne-Marie below but this blog does me
allow to reply to reply to replies.
Let us take your last post starting with an assertion that my
assertions are abundant clear. That is an empty slur and no more than
that. You know nothing of me as I of you and should not saw you do.
I never said ever, that Lord McAlpine was implicated in the
goings-on at the N Wales children’s home. Please re-read my posts
before drawing conclusions and then leading smoothly into making
innuendo’s about my motives.
He was not and never was named by the BBC and they did not release
his name to the Twitter and other social media. Again please re-read
what I have written.
If the BBC did not name him and only said that his name was now
bouncing around the blogosphere, that is not a a defamation. The
people who did that was the TBIJ and the editor of that on-line
journal has resigned.
Do you honestly believe that Lord McAlpine, and other members of
his family, did not know anything about a member of the family,
shareholder and officer of one of the family construction businesses?
That, as far as it goes, does not constitute any crime but for him to
say that it was not him, and he has been libeled as has his family
businesses is a bit rich. The BBC by caving in tout de suite together
with McAlpine’s solicitor menacing the social media commentators of
legal action and demanding they contact him to settle is great wee
manoeuvre to shut the whole thing down, when it needs ramped up to get
the real truth aired. The BBC has been neutered and the inky fingers’
press is salivating at having a club to beat the web press over the
head; so dire are their circulation figures.
As for “unreliable witness,” another old useful slur. If you had
been buggered as a child, on a regular basis, I don’t think that is in
dispute, if anyone did have major psychological I would be more than
surprised.
One last point regarding the BBC’s cave in and pay out. There were
many comments on the blogosphere naming Lord McAlpine some years ago
and one or two books were printed naming him. He did nothing so was
that or was that not a tacit admission of culpability or could it be
used in defence later in response to subsequent and similar
accusations?
I believe several bloggers are sitting and waiting with impatience
for a writ to be issued against them for what the BBC deemed worthy of
paying out from our TV taxes.
This is not going to fade away, I think.
- November 18, 2012 at 19:58
-
Why thank you Ms Raccoon
@ Bugger (the panda)
I’m not sure how my clarifying that you and Alan had made
yourselves abundantly clear could constitute a slur….
This I think will be my last comment on the matter, because I have
the strong impression that your mind is made up, and sadly closed,
resulting in your preoccupation with the reluctant Red Herring, Lord
McAlpine.
Your postings are contradictory. While you state categorically that
you do not believe Lord McAlpine was involved in paedophilia, you go
on to bemoan his complaints of damage to his reputation on the grounds
that “he must have known” his cousin had previously been implicated,
although not by a credible witness. Do you really not see the lack of
logic in your complaint? My grandfather was tried and convicted of
treason in the 1950s, quite correctly I might add. By your logic
someone can now accuse me or my mother of treason with impunity
because my grandfather has already blackened the family name?
Nonsense.
As far as previous accusations against Lord Mcalpine? Do you really
not see the difference between being named by a small scale magazine
(now defunct) or a book by someone who’s website constantly accuses
politicians of all parties, celebrities and the Royal Family of being
reptilian aliens, and an episode of Newsnight on the BBC broadcast
with much fanfare? Which event made headlines? Which event led to Lord
Mcalpine having the press outside his door? Perhaps that answers your
question about why Lord McAlpine was compelled to speak out this
time?
As for the term “unreliable witness” being “convenient” and a way
to silence the abused due to the psychological damage caused by tha
abuse; this is unhelpful and emotive. The fact is in this country it
is required that individuals are not convicted of a crime unless a
jury are sure “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they are guilty. I for
one do not want to change this. Mr Messham’s evidence WAS unreliable.
I do not doubt that he suffered abuse and I am dismayed by this. But
my dismay does not change the fact that his story was found to be
contradictory and changeable. Therefore it would be a miscarriage of
justice were someone to be convicted of any crime on his word alone.
When and if corroboration exists that evidence can and should be
considered on its merits.
Has Mr Messham been abused? Has he been let down by the system that
was meant to protect him? I don’t doubt it.
Should we lower the standards of evidence for criminal conviction
in order to ammeliorate my own dismay? or to satisfy public lust for
retribution? No.
- November 17, 2012 at 04:55
-
“Children in Need” on BBC TV (Fri 16 Nov) was the annual opportunity for
the population of UK to SHOW that they ‘Think of the Kiddies’
And the
‘stars’ who appear receive a lot of coverage in MSM. SO – what was the ‘Daily
Mail’ headline this Saturday morning?
“Children are vulnerable, and news in
recent weeks has been an awful reminder’: Wogan refers to Jimmy Savile scandal
on Children in Need… but FAILS to name shamed star”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234191/Children-Need-2012-Sir-Terry-Wogan-refers-Jimmy-Savile-scandal–fails-presenter.html
- November 17, 2012 at 02:08
-
“He could have been hung by his meat and two veg?”
I lived in the South
(USA) for about 4 years, and a “meat and three” is the same standard. Btw,
macaroni cheese is a veg by their standard.
- November 16, 2012 at 20:37
-
Whatever Eric Gill’s sexuality depravities were, he did leave us the Gill
fonts and I was just looking at some of his copper and wood engravings –
they’re quite exquisite!
- November 17, 2012 at 02:08
-
Hitler left us the Volkswagen.
- November 17, 2012 at 04:50
-
“Hitler left us the Volkswagen.”
No, that legacy belongs to Ferdinand Porsche…
- November 17, 2012 at
10:57
-
No – that legacy belongs rightly to Hans Ledwinka.
-
November 17, 2012 at 15:38
-
It belongs to Hitler, at least as to design and specs. Of course,
he didn’t manufacture the car, simply commissioned it. Here’s the
explanation and his drawing of the car. http://raisingstar5.blogspot.com/2011/05/volkswagen-and-hitler-untold-story.html
- November 16, 2012 at 14:49
-
Licence payers pay 185,000 pound fine.
If that means the BBC can’t make another episode of “Strictly Come
Dancing”, then I shall consider it, money well spent!
- November 16, 2012 at 15:28
-
Lord McAlpine did say that he would not demand excessive damages from the
BBC precisely because he was conscious that Licence Fee payers would be the
ones paying. Perhaps if he had pressed a little further, we might have been
spared Newsnight, Strictly, Eastenders and Radio 1.
- November 16, 2012 at 15:33
-
It would be nice if he donated it to “Children in Need”.
- November 16, 2012 at
17:07
-
So that Stonewall can get some and …. I wouldn’t give the steam off
my coffee to The Terry Wogan Ego Show. (Edited to read ‘coffee’).
- November 16, 2012 at 18:34
-
“I wouldn’t give the steam off my coffee to The Terry Wogan Ego
Show.”
I thought I was the only one who really hated Wogan, step up to the
bar and let me buy you a drink…
- November 16, 2012 at 20:08
-
I too could never understand why he was so celebrated. I mean, you
find him everywhere. You turn your back for a second and up he pops
AGAIN, just when you thought he’d taken retirement!
A bit like the Last of the Summer Wine. Just why does the Beeb keep
this particular programme going?
- November 16, 2012 at 12:20
-
Good to know that you keep track of the stats. I don’t dislike you but I
don’t believe every word you say.
In the good old days your blog used to link to many others and so it was
easy to read and then link. Now you have no such links so I’m not here so
often. You know, I’ve seen you flounce off several times, vowing never to
return, you’ve handed over the blog to others and then come back and pushed
them out of the way. You’re obviously completely addicted to this blogging
stuff and that’s fine but don’t expect slavish devotion because your stories
are not always plausible even though I’m sure they are based on truth, as you
see it anyway.
You have admitted yourself that you had a good education. That is not
inconsistent with a difficult childhood. You were not self taught. That is
almost impossible and also doesn’t tally with what you have previously
admitted.
Your latest thing seems to be denigrating the BBC, because of some rubbish
about Jimmy Savile that may or may not have happened in a particular school a
long time ago. You seem to think it’s important, and warrants a series of
posts where the readers await the next instalment with baited breath. You’re a
good writer but I’m certain there was a lot of artistic licence in those
accounts.
I am sorry if you are ill. I hope you make a full recovery. But really, you
should reinstate your blog list and explain just exactly what you have done
with the guy who took over this spot for all of five minutes, never to be
heard of again. And next time you threaten to go you should probably mean it.
Or better still don’t do it again. Because for all those who welcome you back
there are others who do not understand what is going on or who you have
trampled on.
- November 16, 2012 at 12:25
-
Excuse an illiterate prat speaking up again, Jim, but who the fuck are
you to tell someone what to do with their own blog? Go mow your own
lawn.
- November 16, 2012 at 12:27
-
I concur. I think that how yous spells it.
- November 16, 2012 at
12:42
-
Why on earth should I reinstate a blog list or advertising or anything
else on your say so?
Why would you bother to read a blog you have so many problems with?
I have banned you before because you are obsessed with attacking me and
other posters rather than debating the issues under discussion. This is not
a drop in centre for the mentally ill – and you are not welcome to drop in
any longer…
You are now permanently banned and will remain so.
- November 16, 2012 at 13:17
-
He thinks he’s Jim’ll Fix It.
-
November 17, 2012 at 23:12
-
Excellent!
-
November 16, 2012 at 18:37
-
Well done. Jim needs a long cure course with strong enemas thrice
daily, at both ends.
- November 17, 2012 at
14:34
-
Oh God – He’ll be full-time on Guido now.
- November 16, 2012 at 13:07
-
@ denigrating the BBC, because of some rubbish about Jimmy Savile that
may or may not have happened in a particular school a long time ago. You
seem to think it’s important @
I have lived in the UK all my life and this whole Savile farrago has left
me questioning the nation I live within. I have passed through Thatcherism
and Blairism and a few wars along both those pathways, but this hate-filled
Un-Reason that has been allowed to take hold of the country just now is
deeply disturbing. I think the BBC has been seriously dysfunctional and it’s
behaviour borders on the insane. Because the British have always believed it
to be some home to balance and sanity, it’s plunge into the whirling waters
of shape-shifting Ickeian monsters is dragging the national mindset with
it.
The Police in this country are now arresting disc-jockeys on the basis
that they may have groped a grown woman forty years ago. We have the BBC
paying out £200k to McAlpine, while the book written by Icke in 1998,
carrying that libel in print, remains unchallenged and is waved from the
internet like a red flag at a mad bull. This is the level our legal system
and public opinion has been reduced to – impotent rage and incipient
madness. This IS important, and the BBC lies deep at the heart of the whole
darkness.
- November 16, 2012 at
13:16
- November 16, 2012 at 13:35
-
“The Police in this country are now arresting disc-jockeys on the
basis that they may have groped a grown woman forty years ago. “
Spot on! And they clearly feel that that’s what is expected of
them. So will the new commissioners sort it out?
No. They can’t.
- November 16, 2012 at
13:39
- November 16, 2012 at 13:54
-
“I have lived in the UK all my life and this whole Savile farrago has
left me questioning the nation I live within.”
I left England in 1980, and the country I once knew has become quite
unrecognisable to me. The last time I visited was 10 years ago for my
mother’s funeral and I have no plans to return again ever, even to
visit.
I suppose the “arrest” of someone like Dave Lee Travis may really be an
attempt to use the threat of confinement and prosecution to see if they
can extract some evidence of some more substantial misconduct (like
pedophilia) on the part of others out of him, but on the face of it, it
seems quite absurd. Maybe the police are just going through the motions to
placate one element of public opinion. I understand the police are now
bound to investigate all complaints received, no matter how bizarre, even
about insulting language used by footballers or referees during matches. I
am just waiting for Australian cricketers to be arrested for “sledging”
twenty years ago.
It’s interesting that over the decades the BBC and independent TV in
the UK have made numerous TV series featuring police detectives of various
kinds, but I don’t know if they have ever dealt with this kind of subject
matter. It certainly never came up on Dixon of Dock Green.
-
November 16, 2012 at 14:20
-
It is clearly “unrecognisable” precisely because you left 32 years
ago, and haven’t visited for ten years. I left the town of my birth at
17½, have spent 28½ years elsewhere, and rarely return. When I do, I
find much of it changed to the point of bits of it being unrecognisable,
but that’s as much a result of me not actually being there to witness
the passage of time there, as the passage of time itself.
At teh time, Dixon of Dock Green certainly dealt with issues
that people would now be convinced that it didn’t.
- November 16, 2012 at
16:43
-
It is unrecognizable in the sense that it is hard to imagine that
in 1980 the police would have arrested a man for jiggling a woman’s
breasts in 1939.
- November 16, 2012 at 20:13
-
I think Granada tv’s brilliant Prime Suspect series included ‘this
kind of subject matter’ – Mirren at her best! Prime Suspect (Helen
Mirren – Complete) series available in a 14.64Gb download on kat dot ph
if your country of residence isn’t anal and you can download from said
site. Excellent series, not to be confused with the US version which did
not work.
-
November 16, 2012 at 21:14
-
We living here maybe don’t notice how changed it is. It has a much
more educated ( well at least degree holding, so thats moot )
population. A much more cynical population. A much wealthier population,
and a much more ethnically diverse population. But despite our grumbles
it is still a quite good place to live. We don’t get all those bloody
strikes we got in my youth. I never knew any kid at my school who’d been
on an airplane. We have a long life expectancy. Few people live in damp
overcrowded housing. Sure there are problems, but our government isn’t
shooting at us – yet.
Its not all that bad.
- November 17, 2012 at 01:11
-
I visited England 15 years ago after a long time away. I was
delighted to visit again all the beautiful places , the villages, the
Cathedrals, the Tudor and Roman bits and pieced-togethers, and I went to
see my relatives in my old home town – Coventry. Clearly what the
Luftwaffe started, the Coventry City Council finished. I was happy to
get back to my new home but still retain the fond memories of the
heritage.
-
November 16, 2012 at 14:24
-
I do wonder how many of the arrests made so far will result in charges
being brought to court. I suspect that the police are investigating
thoroughly, but not finding much real crime. Maybe we’ll end up with a
couple of token charges of groupie-groping to justify the expense and
expenditure of police time, and avoid the embarrassment of having to say
that they found no real case to answer against anybody.
- November 16, 2012 at 15:47
-
Yes, it may well end up like Operation Pentameter–a few people
convicted, but no findings of forced human trafficking into the UK on a
massive scale. Even now, with so many claims that Savile is one of the
greatest pedophiles ever known, as far as I know there is no allegation
known to the public that he had intercourse with any girl under
16–though something may turn up eventually.
- November 16, 2012 at 16:59
-
Ah, but in the 80′s Gene hunt was the face of the police, so probably
he would have been equally as culpable.
- November 16, 2012 at 18:18
-
There’ll be no denigrating of Gene Hunt! :/
- November 17, 2012 at
14:36
-
Perhaps a gene hunt will settle the matter.
- November 17, 2012 at 14:58
-
er…… Gene Hunt is a fictional character invented just a few years
back to give a particular impression of the Police way back. It is a
bit like a portrayal of Mrs Pankhurst being the face of the struggle
for women’s equality.
- November 16, 2012 at
15:54
-
Moor, From this side of the world, I too often look back at the country
of my birth in wonder. If it weren’t for frequent contact and reassurance
of family members, and relying only on the semi-hysterical tone of the UK
mainstream media, I would automatically assume the inhabitants were
borderline psychotic.
- November 16, 2012 at 16:56
-
@Bill Sticker
Indeed, some of my friends advise me not to get so het-up, and I must
admit that I walked around the supermarket this afternoon and men, women
and children were brushing up against each other constantly, seemingly
without need of police escort or prior verification by the relevant
authority. It is a parallel society perhaps, and parallel lines
seemingly never meet..
- November 16, 2012 at 17:55
-
I wish I had written that.
It’s exactly how I feel.
- November 16, 2012 at 17:07
-
@ James – it’s ‘bated breath.’
- November 16, 2012 at 18:27
-
That’s one that really grates, along with ‘Tow the line’..! It’s ‘toe’!
Grrrr!
-
November 16, 2012 at 19:54
-
…state of the ark..
..off his own back…
-
November 16, 2012 at 19:59
-
Tow the line does have its own meaning if you think about it, but not
the same as toe the line. My pet peeve over here in the US is “off of,”
i.e. get off of my back, he ran off of the road, etc. Ugh. And of
course, “He was hung for his crimes.” “No. “He was hanged for his
crimes.” As my granny used to say, “Meat is hung, people are
hanged.”
- November 17, 2012 at
00:49
-
He could have been hung by his meat and two veg?
- November 17, 2012 at
14:39
-
My beef is with all the journos and politicians who don’t know the
story of King Canute, who never tried to hold back the tide, but used
it in a demonstration of the limit of his power – and for his efforts,
has been misrepresented ever since.
- November 16, 2012 at 11:47
-
Wikipedia on Gill (Sounds like one of those ‘Massingberd’ obits in the
Telegraph)
“A deeply religious man, largely following the Roman Catholic
faith, his beliefs and practices were by no means orthodox.” –
- November 16, 2012 at 19:27
-
Hi Thor2Hammer–Gill was a Catholic convert. Something chosen, rather than
imposed by upbringing. That’s different.
How this relates to his sexual appetites must be interesting. Those
appetites, incidentally, give a bit of a lie to Anna’s “The British
Broadcasting Corporation – a Monument to Paedophilia”.
In fact he appears to have screwed anything that moved. Children were a
minor part of it. “BBC–A Monument to (Unbridled) Sexuality”. Has a different
ring. While being equally inaccurate.
- November 16, 2012 at 11:10
-
Strange how attitudes vacillate. I’ve read several articles in various
different published organs praising Gills’s artistry to the skies. Only one or
two mention in passing his ‘unconventional private life’. I can’t help
thinking that the same writers who praised Gill would excoriate any senior
politician (especially a Thaterite one) found to have even looked at a naked
child. Ever.
Maybe if the statue is replaced, it should be a representation of a hole
beneath the waterline, the result of striking the iceberg of fact whilst
several officers were not present on the bridge (and the captain was asleep
with cotton-wool stuffed in his ears). Not one that will sink the ship, but
definitely enough to cause the drowning of a couple of matelots, some panicky
bailing-out by the minions, and a hefty repair bill.
Though quite how people of Gill’s mindset would interpret the request for a
representation of a hole, one shudders to think….
- November 16, 2012 at 11:54
-
An excellent idea – it could be represented by a carefully designed
symbolic hole in the wall of Broadcasting House below pavement level, a
major work of art for our time.
You could even have a small plaque set into the pavement to mark the spot
– making the actual hole, is, of course, unnecessary, so it has the benefit
of saving a great deal of expense.
Who knows, it might even win some kind of award!
- November 16, 2012 at
13:17
-
Considering all the money they’ve made for the BBC over the years,
there ought to be a Dalek up there.
- November 16, 2012 at 13:32
-
+1
- November 16, 2012 at
13:49
-
The Dalek’s inside running the thing
- November 18, 2012 at 15:28
-
Dalek? I thought John Birt had left the building.
-
November 16, 2012 at 19:42
-
Maybe if the statue is replaced, maybe it should be a representation of
the infamous Goatse image.
Many licence-payers consider a substantial proportion of Auntie’s output
emanates for a similar source, and, has a similar constitution.
- November 16, 2012 at 10:53
-
Mr Amfortas, I don’t know who the fuck you are but for someone who claims
an IQ of 149 you are surprisingly illiterate. Good for a laugh though, and
obviously a complete prat.
So there you go Mrs Raccoon. I can still insult your commentators.
Especially when they are delusional fools.
- November 16, 2012 at
10:57
- November 16, 2012 at 11:19
-
You don’t know who I am, Jim? You poor chap. You must be surrounded by
illiterate prats and even suspecting I might be one more has obviously
tipped you over the edge into impoliteness.
- November 17, 2012 at 23:10
-
Jim/James (this chap has an obvious identity crisis), it is said that
when one is reduced to making ‘ad hominem’ remarks about your interlocutor
then… you’ve lost the argument. Time to cast off, mate…
- November 16, 2012 at 10:28
-
Aha! Ahoy right back at you. I don’t care to be aggressive because you are
a good person and you have had difficult times. How was I supposed to guess at
your background? You should have been honest from the start because it was
completely obvious that you were not some uneducated kid from Liverpool.
If I lack a sense of humour then so do you. You take all this stuff so
seriously, like it makes a scrap of difference whether or not you were in the
know about Jimmy Savile. Believe me, I’m not a fan, but the thought of digging
up a body is truly ridiculous, and this over reaction is fuelled by your
exclusive revelations.
The world is in a mess right now. People are in revolt across Europe,
Israel is starting a war, the people of the USA are dependent on food stamps.
And you expect anybody to care about the sensibilities of a school girl who
didn’t see what was going on in some care home forty years ago? It’s really
not that important. Jimmy Savile is dead. The issue is redundant, but I do
believe in the BBC as, in the main, a force for good and truth.
- November
16, 2012 at 10:32
-
I fail to see how somehhow it’s Anna’s ‘exhaustive revelations’
that are fuelling the country’s increasingly hysterical paedogeddon!
- November 16, 2012 at 10:34
-
But then, given you think Israel is somehow ‘starting a war’, I’m not
sure I’d care to see your explanations. They will no doubt be just as
absurd.
- November 16, 2012 at 10:55
-
Believing in the BBC as a force for good and that Israel is starting
a war are happily consistent with one another.
- November 16, 2012 at
10:58
- November 16, 2012 at 10:34
-
Maybe, jim, we should say the same about the world being in a mess and
revolting people on food stamps, when so many were murdered by Stalin and
Mao and co. Heck, all pales into the daily trivia and we should not talk
about our own experiences.
- November 16, 2012 at
10:53
- November 17, 2012 at 23:05
-
Jim, by the ‘Ahoy’ references, I take that you are a nautical type
chap…
If so, then you have clearly ‘missed the boat’ with reference to Anna’s
background, which is clearly recorded through this blog, if you could be
bothered to make the effort.
‘As it happens’… oh, that phrase!! It DOES matter about the whole Jimmy
Savile affair. The BBC have clearly made major mistakes. A dead man’s memory
has been villified, without the necessary proofs. Clearly, he was a very odd
man, but where is the EVIDENCE that he did any of what is now alleged? It
may come to pass that such matters can be proved but… Others too have been
dragged into this maelstrom, rightly or wrongly, like ‘usual suspect’ Paul
Gadd (Gary Glitter). I suspect that many more will have their collars felt
as well. We trusted the BBC as a bastion of truth and exemplary conduct. It
has been proven to be far less than that. Anna, by contrast, can be relied
upon to tell the truth, no matter how personally painful for her the act of
doing so is.
So… either get your facts right or sail off somewhere else, perhaps where
the sun doesn’t shine!
- November 17, 2012 at 23:06
-
And… that’s ‘vilified’ for all you pedants out there!
- November 18, 2012 at 12:50
-
You were gently but well rebuked by Anna,in the preceding ^post. She has
every right and entitlement to post on what she wishes and you have the same
right and entitlement to search out compmore
- November 18, 2012 at 13:06
-
You were gently but well rebuked by Anna in the preceding
post.
Smarting from this encounter you respond by saying that Anna isn’t
writing about what is important in the world today, although you yourself
took the time to join in this apparently unimportant discussion. It seems
odd that you don’t explain how and why you are the right person to be the
final arbiter of what people may write about. Odd that is, until you tell us
that you believe that the BBC is ” in the main, a force for good and
truth”.
Probably time to cut your losses.
- November 16, 2012 at 10:10
-
There’s a blog here, which illustrates how the past can be a very foreign
country indeed.
http://stoneletters.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/eric-gill-and-incest/
- November 16, 2012 at 19:01
-
Hi Moor–Interesting link. Thanks!
A fundamental question raised by Anna’s post is: Must
artistic/scientific/etc achievements be downgraded if we learn
distasteful/disgusting/immoral facts about that persons life? The most
famous candidate may be Leonardo da Vinci. He left no sexual diary, so we
don’t know anything for sure. It is widely believed he was homosexual. He
surrounded with young apprentices. The two most well-known are Salaì
(arrived aged 10) are and Melzi (arrived aged 15). We don’t know for sure if
Leonardo had sex with either, or if he did, at what age. It is reasonable to
suspect he did, possibly at an age which by current law makes him a
paedophile.
Now what? We can rest in comfort that we will never know for sure. But if
we did, would it make any difference to Leonardo’s standing? I doubt it.
More contentious: Two of our National Treasures are Alan Bennett (78) and
David Hockney (75), both gay. If they had sex before 1967, they were
criminals. With 20 year-olds before 1994, with 18 year-olds before 2000, or
15 year-olds now–they are paedophiles. (I have no evidence of, nor am I
suggesting, this.) That is if you equate paedophilia = sex below the legal
age of consent. I don’t.
Better to restrict the term to those having sex with
children–prepubescents.
- November 16, 2012 at 09:41
-
You couldn’t make it up? I think you could.
Mrs Raccoon, I have bowed down when faced with your undoubted integrity. I
have read your enchanting accounts of events, some of which stretch credulity
to breaking point. I salute your worshipping fans and I acknowledge your
fundamental decency. For all that, I am sceptical because I think you bring a
lot of baggage alongside your entertaining stories. That is not to say that
you are lying, sometimes though, you tell less than the truth.
You can suggest that Lord MacAlpine takes tax payers money and then shuts
up. (You did that yourself?) The difference being that he is a public figure
and might have to deal with vilification and abuse when he has done nothing
wrong. Not to mention the obvious, that the guy is too rich to be bothered
with small change.
I appreciate what you write. Sometimes though your stories are
inconsistent. That doesn’t matter if you’re writing a work of fiction, but if
you’re holding yourself up as a bastion of truth, then you need to be accurate
and accountable.
- November 16, 2012 at
09:48
-
Aha! Ahoy there James, the man who thought I had a ‘privileged’
background! I wondered when you would show up…..
The suggestion that Lord MacAlpine use his money to commission a new
statue to represent the BBC was made tongue in cheek – satire, not a genre I
would expect you to understand.
For the benefit of anyone else devoid of a sense of humour, I think Lord
MacAlpine was fully entitled to receive compensation.
- November 16, 2012 at 12:26
-
The McAlpine thing is very strange. Messham had been apparently making
this allegation for twenty years to anyone who would listen, yet had not
been sued by McAlpine, presumably because he had no money. Now McAlpine is
suddenly ready to sue anyone who passes on the allegation. McAlpine says
he sympathizes with Messham!!!!!!!!!!!! Messham now says it is all a case
of mistaken identity.
Question I have are who was the man in the photograph shown to
Messham–if indeed this ever occurred? Could the police have been confused
about the man’s title if he was a member of the same family, or could it
have been a different Tory politician like Sir Peter Morrison, who was
said to be a pederast and who lived in that part of the world (MP for
Chester).
I think Messham has a lot to answer for, not least because he has cost
the BBC license fee payers 185,000 pounds, but no one seems to want to
hold him responsible for anything.
-
November 16, 2012 at 14:05
-
It’s possible that McAlpine didn’t sue Messham because he didn’t know
that Messham was the source of the allegation. It seems that Messham has
mental health problems (and given his experiences as a child, that’s not
altogether surprising), making his witness testimony one that should be
independently checked before being taken at full face value.
How McAlpine’s name came to be the subject of rumour in the first
place is not explained; there again, the whole subject is surrounded by
the unexplained, or it wouldn’t be subject to so many rumours,
scurrilous or otherwise.
The best way forward is to allow the police to properly investigate
complaints made to them in confidence, and not to go fuelling the
already overheated fires of rumour and conspiracy. Investigative
journalism may help, but not if it’s intention is party political
mischief or smearing.
- November 16, 2012 at 14:23
-
“I think Messham has a lot to answer for, not least because he has
cost the BBC license fee payers 185,000 pounds, but no one seems to want
to hold him responsible for anything.”
NO! The “journalists” who did not checkhis story are responsible. He
is as much a victim as anyone in this sorry saga.
- November 16, 2012 at
14:27
-
November 16, 2012 at 21:03
-
The whole sordid affair has cost the tellytaxpayers ( oh I have an
email today telling me mines is due in 2 weeks ) about £650k.
Entwhilstle’s 450, Lord M’s 185 and the noble Lord’s expenses too.
I really hope however, that he takes “the knickers” off Mr Speakers
mouthy unelected wife. And if he gets substantial damages from her, to
donate those to the Conservative Party – very publicly.
-
November 17, 2012 at 22:50
-
I’m with davidb on this one. Mrs. Bercow is a sad trial to ‘er
‘usband… What (apart from her fairly obvious physical charms) could
have attracted him to someone so apparently devoid of common sense?
She is embarrassing in the extreme! Her dubious academic antecedents
do nothing to recommend her either, yet the truth of Twitter and its
ilk is that one merely needs to be famous, or semi-famous, or famous
by association to attract ‘followers’ and thereby place oneself in a
position to broadcast one’s thoughts to the masses, although in her
particular instance it is fairly certain that ‘twits’ who follow her
merely do so to see how far she can ‘drop herself in it’ next!
I have no interest in ‘twittering’ myself and, hopefully, Mrs.
Bercow will soon come to realise that making fatuous broadcasts, in a
horrid attempt to ‘out’ someone – who later proves to be completely
and utterly innocent of any crime of that nature is an expensive one
to make.
- November 17, 2012 at
23:50
-
I thought the whole Messham MacAlpine matter was dealt with years
ago in Richard Webster’s book http://www.richardwebster.net/print/xanniversary.htm
- November 17, 2012 at 21:25
-
It is indeed odd. The BBC doesn’t name McAlpine but ends up behaving
as if they had. Meanwhile the many places both online and in print that
have kept this fallacious rumour going for years are ignored (though
some of them certainly have the resources to make them worth suing).
Just to clarify: were I to say that the CEO of a FTSE100 company was
a paedophile (but I refused to name them) and then someone came along
later and produced a name (which proved to to be wrong) would I be
expected to compensate the CEO? While nobody bothers to contemplate the
possibility that one of the other 99 actually is a paedophile?
And will Lord McAlpine be suing Google for providing links to various
websites that still perpetuate the rumour?
-
November 17, 2012 at 23:29
-
The press were allowed to run with a complete falsehood about the
Duncroft situation. They didn’t do anything other than believe this
falsehood because they wanted to – no fact checking, nothing.
- November 16, 2012 at 08:23
-
“…..the underground bomb-proof shelter they had built back in 1942? I’m
told it is still there, probably packed full of acting head’s of something or
other.”
Hmmmm. I know that part of it contains the archives of black propaganda
developed during WW2 and much of it quite filthy. The most depraved minds of
the nation were utilised in the war effort. Lies and accusations of sexual
perversity were the stock in trade and of course some understanding – if not
actual experience – of that sexual perversity was needed.
-
November 16, 2012 at 08:04
-
He was indeed a bizarre man, but very talented as a graphic designer as
well as a sculptor. I hadn’t known that there was that rather surprising
sculpture of his on the old Broadcasting House.
- November 17, 2012 at 23:51
-
Bizarre?!! Not just bizarre but also the damnable qualifier “but” As in
“bizarre, but…”
What’s bizarre is your soft soaping downplaying crappola.
I’m think
something more along the lines of – a miscreant scumbag demon who should be
have been hanged sooner than later.
- November 18, 2012 at 11:11
-
Well said.
People don’t half come talk thoughtless crap
sometimes…
{ 108 comments }