The Great British Whine Industry.
During the week I had recorded an episode of Piers Morgan’s interview series. A case of nothing else worth recording really – the others I have seen have been a succession of women agonising over some dreadful trauma in their life, not my cup of tea at all; Piers seems to have a talent for bringing out the tears and the ‘ahhh’ factor from the audience.
This episode was different, not just from other Pier’s interviews, but from television in general lately; this one was Karren Brady. It wasn’t her achievements that galvanised me so, it was her reaction to set backs in life. ‘why did you write books’; ‘I was turned down for a journalism college, and I thought, I’ll show them’. ‘How did you come to work for David Gold’ – ‘I went to sell him advertising, and he offered me a job on the spot’. Such an incredibly positive person.
Piers did his best to elicit the tears; ‘How did you feel when you had a miscarriage’. (How do you think she felt, you plonker!) But there was no ‘it was the worst moment of my life’, or ‘I still weep to this day’, no attempt to milk the moment for all it was worth, just a dignified ‘incredibly sad’ and onto the next question. She wasn’t traumatised for life by a footballer saying ‘I can see your tits’, she just snapped back at him – ‘well you won’t from Crewe’, and promptly sold him to Crewe football club. She sold her husband, footballer Paul Pecshisolido twice – there’s a pragmatic woman! Her phone has been hacked, during tense business negotiations – but we haven’t heard her wailing to Leveson. She just got on with life.
Reflecting on my evening’s viewing, I realised what a rarity it was. Our screens are perpetually filled with whiners. When personal tax allowances are raised to bring thousands of low paid workers out of the sights of the tax inspector altogether – we don’t hear the jubilation of those who benefit, we don’t hear what they might do with the extra money; we are transported to Tower Hamlets to hear from a family with four children who have been out of work for two years – and can’t afford a holiday, and now ‘fear’ (always the fear!) that they may be asked to cut back further because the council gave them a four bedroom house and now say they only need three bedrooms and this ‘could’ (always the could!) result in £7 a week being cut from their housing benefit.
The great army of whine-managers make sure of that. I once calculated that 10% of the Scottish population were fully employed holding the hand of the other 90%; listening to their tales of woe and hardship, ‘supporting’ them in their needs. Fictitious dramas on television displaying some rare event, a flipping cow dying on some deserted hillside, will be followed by the announcement ’if you have been affected by issues portrayed’ etc – and you know that someone is employed to sit at the end of the phone to listen to a stream of viewers who may once have heard of someone who is sure that they might have been in a village where a cow once died, and oooh, it was awful and they’ve never been able to get over the horror of it all. A child dies on holiday with its parents in a foreign land – a sad event; but before we know it, the ‘bereavement counselors’ have been moved into their local school to help the children get over the trauma of little Johnny not being at that school any longer.
Every possible hurt in life is being managed by an army of trained – and paid – whine-managers. Now that Greater Manchester Police are producing statistics to show how many Goths and EMOs get shouted at in the street, you can be sure that someone somewhere is registering a charity to support traumatised Goths. Someone else will be applying for a grant to renovate a derelict building as a drop-in centre for EMOs ‘too scared’ to dress as EMOs’ for fear of what might happen to them. No doubt the NHS are already scheduling laser operations to remove Goth tattoos for those who can show that since the age of 8 they had always known they were EMOs, and now they are 43 they wish to leave their Goth husband/wife and reveal their inner self to the public at large.
Social media is the new weapon of choice for the permanently outraged, who wish to attract the attention of the paid whine-managers. During the past fortnight, we have had the ridiculous spectacle of the Twittophobes working themselves into a lather over a man employed to ensure that men paid hundreds of thousands of pounds every week to kick a pig’s bladder round a field, actually turned up and kicked said pig’s bladder, who turned out to have parents who belonged to the Fascist party in a foreign country, half a century ago. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the son of immigrants himself, and Communist immigrants to boot, resigned his Directorship of the football club in protest at this risk of traumatising the fans in the terraces. Other footballers are ‘being supported’ in their distress at some neuron-challenged and inebriated dork allegedly shouting ’put him on the bonfire’ in their general direction. I say allegedly, because no one can actually be found who heard that cry from the terraces, but the media reported it, so it must be true, and the footballers were black, so it must be racist; ‘Footballers against Racism’, in a straight nick from the ‘Giving Victims a Voice’ rule book of investigating traumatic claims, says it is convinced it occurred, even without evidence, and therefore something must be done to support the precious footballers. Presumably those fans had spent ‘every waking moment’ thinking about being racist, and were the most prolific racist chanters the UK has ever known…
Which brought my mind back to the Savile topic, and what has driven me on in my search for the truth about the Duncroft allegations. I was sent an excerpt from a blog post lurking in some dingy corner of the Internet during the week; it seems the writer has utterly missed the point and is labouring under the impression that I ‘am keen to protect the reputation of my old school’, as though Duncroft was some sort of upper class boarding school – though I have seen elsewhere – was it Vanity Fair? – that the ‘elite were fighting to get their wayward children in there’!!! Hilarious stuff. I have no brief to protect Duncroft’s reputation, I wasn’t aware that it had a reputation to be protected actually. What I am very keen on, and this blog has always been very keen on, dating to some years before Duncroft was ever a word the media had touched, was truth and honesty.
Honesty is not just a matter of the precise mechanics of how an incident is described, but also the depth of importance it is given in the great scheme of things. When the media persist in using words like ‘abused’ to describe utterly minor and irrelevant incidents in someone’s past – then I am deeply offended. There is real abuse, child abuse, in the world. It is not well served by parading egotistical attention seekers who were once patted on the bum by someone in the public eye as ‘victims of child abuse’. Who should we blame for this state of affairs? Should it be the sad creatures who 30 years after leaving care are still to be heard whining and bleating ‘that they weren’t adequately supported’ on leaving care? Who cannot leave behind their fleeting moment of discomfort, the passing insult to their breasts, the arm that was put round them 30 years ago, which they now seek to use to see themselves included as ‘victims’ that require the services of the army of whine-managers?
Or is it the Whine-managers that we should blame? Those who seek to create a career out of parading these ‘victims’, encouraging them to hang onto past incidents and blow them up out of all proportion in order to seek the security of a substitute mother who will kiss and make it better with a cheque? Is it fair to say ‘blow it up out of all proportion’ – I think it is. Remember the original Duncroft allegations came from a woman who claimed to have witnessed – and ‘conspired in’ is not too strong a word – an incident during which a visitor to Duncroft ‘maybe’ – for was it under a blanket or not? – encouraged another girl to put her hand near his groin. Since they had arranged a code-word beforehand, you can be sure that they felt they could ‘arrange’ for this to happen if she sat next to him – yet this girl chose to sit next to him. She could have sat anywhere, she could have avoided the situation, if it even happened, but no, they allegedly conspired to ensure that it did happen. Was it a dare? A teen-age bet? Whatever; 30 years later at least one of the women is still trying to make a story out of it – even though the other girl involved apparently told police that she would like to ‘punch’ the first girl for dragging her into this tale!
That story has been taken up by the professional whine-managers, embellished, publicised, and used to create an industry. An industry which brings shame to Britain. ’More high profile Savile arrests’ scream the media – as a jumped up taxi driver who may have been employed by the BBC at one time is arrested and charged with sexual offences that had nothing to do with Savile…
I find it hard to believe that a country which can produce Karren Brady can also produce middle aged women so pathetic, so terminally dependent, so outrageously devoid of any backbone and gumption, that their sad world revolves around reliving such minor incidents, if they even occurred, for the benefit of those who make a living out of peddling these tales. What also amazes me, is that for all these journalists now coming out of the woodwork saying ‘we knew all along he was creepy, never married, eyes too close together, those poor girls’ who have been wasting their time hacking the phones of third rate entertainers and past customers of Los Angeles prostitutes – not one of those investigative reporters ever thought to hack Savile’s phone! Too busy hacking the likes of Kim Kardashian’s phone to see if she had broken the heel of her shoe again, or Karren Brady to see what the overpaid footballers were up to. Not one of those girls ever thought to ring Childline, even anonymously. Not one of those investigative reporters thought to contact Barnardos, surely in the same business of ‘child protection’ as the erstwhile television ’child protectors’.
I see yesterday that Scotland Yard commander Peter Spindler has jumped ship from the appalling Yewtree ‘investigation that never was’. ‘Spindler’s List’ of 12 arrests, one charge so far, has become an embarrassment to the nation. The police involvement in the whine-managers dark arts will take a long time to live down. The justice system is damaged, perhaps irreparably. The spirit of Torquemada lives on, where debate is driven by prejudice and supposition, by fear not fact; the media preferring to give air time to the unhinged armchair moralists screeching ‘cover-up’ whenever their chosen celebrity unaccountably fails to make the ‘arrested’ list than to the likes of Karren Brady.
All I can say is God bless Karren Brady for convincing me that the entire septic isle hasn’t gone stark raving bonkers.
April 12, 2013 at 10:09@Moor – you know that what you are doing is 100% right when ‘coincidences’
start to occur – like people having the same thoughts as others at the same
time ! Great stuff Mr Jung …..!
April 11,
2013 at 22:08Here’s the actual contents of the email from MWT on June 2, 2012.
“Morning Sally
I have no interest in James Robertson Justice.
All the
best.”- April 11, 2013 at 18:21
Another thing – so he started investigating JS himself at no one else’s
behest (or bank rolling !) ……RUBBISH….. time to contact the brummies ?- April 11, 2013 at 18:19
Just how did this bloody program come about ? I came across this article
from the Birmingham Evening Mail wherein MWT describes being too busy to work
on the JS expose until after SJS had, rather conveniently, kicked it …….that
the originator of the story was a journalist NOT from the BBC !!!! WTF am I
reading here ? ……..Answer’s please !
April 11, 2013 at 19:08Rabbitaway,
The Sun and Sky had been chasing the same story at the time Newsnight
were preparing their piece, I think that’s why they were so desperate to get
it out as quickly as possible without actually taking the time to
‘investigate’ properly.I am extremely suspicious of the Sun….
April 11, 2013 at 09:32Have contacted a documentary maker, lts see if they reply.
-
April 11, 2013 at 10:37 Even if it’s true – I don’t want to read anywhere that ITV has got a
bafta for that crap !- April 11, 2013 at 19:13
Ellen,
Once this is all sorted out it would make a good movie too, lol
April 12, 2013 at 11:01Yeah, I think that also, we could all have a part…….. Maxine Peake for
me!
- April 11, 2013 at 09:30
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/26/itv-jimmy-savile-sex-scandal-documentary
Like the comment, about making this film if he was also alive. Would’ve
given a years mortgage to see that. E- April 10, 2013 at 15:39
@Anna – re Karin – exposure was aired 3rd October 2012 – she was ‘out’ –
Panorama Tuesday 22nd October inc her piece for Newshite – she was ‘in’
…..what made her relent ? She courted more of the same attention – of course
her health had improved but still ! ……no, she wanted in on the action pure and
simples ….! Ker ching !- April 10, 2013 at 13:23
No Moor – I’m not buying that – remember Newsnight hired MWT, Keri was
interviewed on camera for this program – Could it really be that she never
mentioned the other monster to him at the time ! Someone is lying here and I
don’t need to read the blog. This version of events makes no sense. Keri Keri
gave the interview shortly after SJS died at the behest of M Jones who’d been
snooping about for months. When the program was pulled that was that and the
boys in Scarborough could happily begin their chip, chip chipping away at that
black granite ! Somehow ITV get’s wind and it’s all systems go again but lets
dig a bit deeper shall we before letting the world know of the super scooper
(nights are gonna find me……!). Meanwhile, millions of children, were left at
risk from various monsters prowling the highways and byways ! BIG SMILEY- April 10, 2013 at 09:59
The Bloody hypocritical bastards ……dancing on Jimmy Saviles grave, ‘outing’
him to the world as a PP in the name of safeguarding ‘our children’ and all
that nonsense ! Too afraid to name a living monster but leave an investigation
that should have been BY THE POLICE to an EX COP ! Herein lies the truth as to
WHY the ITV program was made – to entertain to shock the nation NOT to
safeguard ANYONE !
I feel better now !- April 9, 2013 at 20:33
Re last link – when you go on this you’ll get crappy ads – just click the
top right hand x – Enjoy !- April 9, 2013 at 20:29
Here’s the real Have I got news from you with Jimmy Savile, Dianne abbot
etc 1999 a gem !- April 9,
2013 at 18:06 Just wanted to follow up on my post to Moor regarding the Daily Express
article regarding “Frances.” Frances does work, told me herself she works in a
shop while trying to find more interesting things to do workwise that meet her
qualifications. She is no more stressed than I am, btw. Unless a symptom of
stress is playing games on Facebook. Wotta lotta rubbish!- April 9,
2013 at 18:00 Moor, I can’t find the comments section of your blog. I found it for a
minute, but now it’s gone. So, just to address the “Frances” issue – her last
name isn’t Jennings anymore. This hilarious piece ran in the Express at the
end of January. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/373567/Jimmy-Savile-abused-me-and-I-was-nearly-killed-but-school-did-not-ring-police.
Boo hoo, Frances, spare me! Thousands of pages of your report from Barnardo’s?
Er – no. About two hundred is the average.
April 9, 2013 at 18:41Hi Mewsical,
Yes, there seems to be a blogger bug there. I find that if you “reload”
the page it generally then appears.
Be seeing you, I hope.re. your Link…. Frances, possibly Angie, and now Sandra?
Could this be
why Yewtree has 600 complaints and only 200 possible crimes?………
- April 9, 2013 at 15:05
Drip, drip – I see more people are using our links to the more obscure
sites discussing SJS !http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/jimmy-savile-cold-aggressive-menacing/2749#comment-80314
April 9, 2013 at 13:04Moor Larkin.
Ms E gave only 1 statement to the police and has never discussed it with
anyone in the media , so to say that she has changed her statement is
incorrect and just goes to show how people can twist things Around on websites
to suite thier own agendas- April 9, 2013 at 13:10
@Lisa
So presumably “Sarah” has purloined a real story?
April 9, 2013 at 14:14
- April 10, 2013 at 13:15
Lisa,
Re: “just goes to show how people can twist things Around on websites to
suite thier own agendas”Not just on websites, on mockumentaries, the news, the papers and
statements to the police too….
- April 9, 2013 at 12:05
Back on topic with la Brady and jaundiced views of the mainstream
newspapers. This Blogger might be worth keeping an eye on for the future, both
for any critique of the past and for some possible footie insider chat….“I detest the tackiness of the Daily and Sunday Sport so I’m glad to see
the back of their smut. But I also have some unforgettable memories of the
days I worked for the Daily Sport myself – and became the only journalist to
be involuntarily pushed out of the door TWICE.”“I could throw in an anecdote or two about Sullivan’s protégé Karren Brady,
who also put her oar in once or twice. But I’ll leave that for another day
because I’ve kind of warmed to English football’s first female managing
director over recent years.”
http://grumpyoldgran.com/2011/04/09/goodbye-daily-sport-you-never-were-any-good-at-figures/- April 9, 2013 at 10:12
@Moor – just speculating here but I got the impression that Ward ‘got the
huff’ that the original BBC program was shafted – I’m sure this is discussed
in ‘what the bbc…’. remember exposure was made in a hurry, by the time the
beeb docu was made JS was the most hated man in rhe world ! Maybe, she had
second thoughts. Her reluctance to take part in another film (she was filmed
for newshite) lends weight to the set up angle ! She was also ill ……I’ve got
more on FJennings will put on your blog ….!- April 9, 2013 at 10:19
Moor, I have also added a comment to your blog – might be worth you
taking a look….- April 9, 2013 at 10:22
Already replied to…
April
8, 2013 at 20:10Wow, a whole article about whiners and I didn’t see a single mention of
“Self Pity City”, the UK capital of whining.
I didn’t watch the show but
have always found Karren Brady refreshing. People who can see what needs to be
done and quietly get on with doing it are worth their weight in footballers’
salaries.
April 8, 2013 at 20:48@Ian R Thorpe
Funny you should mention that. I just happened on Anna’s
Sept 12th 2012 blog yesterday. lol. Blogging gold.-
April 8, 2013 at 22:19 and right on cue, they make the death of Lady T all about,
‘me,me,me’
- April 8, 2013 at 19:19
Mewsical – Thanks for providing this – will read in full later -Great stuff
!- April 8,
2013 at 18:56 I recently did some Duncroft/Savile posts on my blog (click on my name to
have a look if you want) and was then attacked by a former Duncroft person in
the comments section. At first I thought I’d leave it alone and just not
bother with the comments, as they are moderated. Then, I decided to make a
post out of her accusations. If you want to see the caliber of these people,
go on over and have a look for yourself.
I’m glad to hear that Spindler has
decided that fishing for tiddlers is a complete waste of public and police
resources, and one can only hope that the Operation is closed down, along with
all the others that are going to come up with bugger all as well.-
April 8, 2013 at 20:06 @Mewsical
Yes, glad to see the back of Spindler, and I agree that we
might see a winding-up of Yewtree. No doubt with a comment like, ‘The press
are unfairly implying that those arrested under the Yewtree op are involved
in kiddy-fiddling (the Press, not we at the Met, oh no, no, no)’.- April 8, 2013 at 22:14
@Mewsical
Your Post mentioned has added a whole new dimension to one I was in the
process of writing myself.
Here it is: http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/total-recall.htmlMany Thanks for letting me know, via here, that you were “back in the
game”.
Moor- April
8, 2013 at 23:02 Moor – I just read your latest post with the incredibly Photoshopped
photo of the ‘girl from 1968.’ I mean, come on, anyone with half an eye
can see that arm is completely out of the proportion. Savile’s head
appears Photoshopped on. Let alone, unless things changed rather quickly
after I left in late 1965, whenever a celeb/minor royal came by, we were
provided with suitable clothes to wear. If you look at the photo of
Princess Marina, we’re all wearing clothes selected for us by the staff,
and we didn’t wear them on any other occasion – nor would we want to! Ugh!
I concede that by the mid-70s the girls were allowed bit more freedom to
choose their daily wardrobe, although clingy and/or suggestive was no
doubt frowned on. The photos I have seen of the girls of that era show
some individual style, but otherwise nothing remarkable. I don’t give any
credence to that photo at all, sorry. Too obviously fake.On another note, and in comment on “Sarah,” the Stoke Mandeville choir
“victim” – she is related to a woman from Duncroft. No surprise there,
I’ll bet, let alone “Sarah” is the one who refused to go further with her
complaint. Shows good sense – all he did was kiss her inappropriately.
Since when was that a reason to begin a hue and cry which has turned the
UK upside down and cost thousands if not millions of pounds?As to the photo of the other girl, that’s genuine enough. I know her
identity as well. As well as telling some piffling story to the Express of
late, she’s recently been on Facebook, slagging this blog off. And there
we were, being informed that none of them even read it!- April 9, 2013 at 00:31
My main point being of course that MWT presents his yellow witness as
being from 1968, which means she would have to be be six years older
than everyone from 1974, and neither he nor his fellow-producer noticed,
or had ever seen the person before, or recognised the pixellated-out
face in that old photo from someplace else?
And how come there ended
up appearing to be only two Duncroftians in Exposure, when the
newspapers, who had been evidently briefed by sources from the
production, seem to keep referring to four?
At what point does dodgy
journalism become outright fraud?
I’m still trying to figure out why
Ms Ward got chopped. Was she under exclusive BBC contract or something?All questions are rhetorical of course…..
April
9, 2013 at 02:08Ms Ward got chopped due to the emergency injunction granted to FS
lawyers, allegedly the only reason he lost the following day was the
fact the media stated they had no intentions of revealing his
name.- April 9, 2013 at 09:41
@wellwisher
But it says he only got the injunction “late on Wednesday night”,
which would have been October 3rd, the night of broadcast. I cannot
see how Ward’s section (which must have been large) could have been
edited out and leave enough left for the broadcast still to be made.
The piece where she implicates the “smelly man” would just not need to
have been included, and she would still have had plenty to say about
Savile that would have been corroborative, so I cannot help but feel
she was never included in the MWT script.The manner in which Glitter was included suggests also that she was
never involved in the Exposure show insofar as MWT was at great pains
to have Fiona say Glitter never abused her…….But Ward’s story was the
front-page story for the Daily Mirror on the actual broadcast day so
it’s not like she had faded from the scene……- April 9, 2013 at 10:13
I cannot see how Ward’s section (which must have been large)
could have been edited out and leave enough left for the broadcast
still to be made.You could just have hit on the reason as to why it turned out to
be such a pastiche of ‘investigative journalism’!!!So I cannot help but feel she was never included in the MWT
script.Was she even prepared to be, given the way she was led up the
garden path by MJ? Bear in mind she had just finished chemotherapy –
and I don’t want to harp on about it, but you wouldn’t credit it the
way in which it changes your mind about what is important in life.
It’s an old cliche that cancer changes your view on everything, but
its an old cliche because it is true! A bit like having a baby, you
can use all the words in the world to describe it, but until you
experience it, you don’t really understand.She also had an (altered) and reissued book to consider, and may
have made the quite understandable decision, all things considered,
that feathering her own nest was a damn sight more important than
feathering MWTs nest.- April 9, 2013 at 10:19
@Annaraccoon
I would give way to your experience except la Ward was the
front page of the Daily Mirror on October 3rd, leading me to think
she had figured out she was going to get a lot more dough
elsewhere than she could ever get via the MWT show, which was
self-confessedly made very cheaply (in the wacky world of the
media anyhow – £170,000)- April 9, 2013 at 10:47
On re-reading what you said again, perhaps we are saying the
same thing… :thumbs-up:The way MWT almost seems to be differentiating his show by
explicitly saying “Glitter did not abuse Fiona” also makes me
wonder if he was already very aware that her story was suspect
anyway – not that that stood in the way of the Mirror or
Panorama.- April 9, 2013 at 23:27
@anna
Karin was included in ITV exposure… She states so herself
in her online blog, she contacted MWT… http://decrepitoldbag.blogspot.co.uk/2012_10_01_archive.htmlAlso, if you watch when FS went on This Morning they showed
the clip that was cut from the program with the tag mark in
the bottom corner saying ‘ITV Exposure’, she was only cut from
the program due to a last minute edit, the same reason why her
online book was taken down…coincidence…I think not!!!- April 10, 2013 at 00:31
@ wellwisher
This footage presumably? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARvVtlTJhi0
This
would explain why so many newspapers refer to her being in
the show, when she actually wasn’t.They had Dee Coles lined up too it seems.
- April 10, 2013 at 19:46
Moor Larkin,
To be fair to Fiona, I didn’t find her story any more
suspect than the other’s….
- April 11, 2013 at 20:22
@annaRaccoon just found this, have you seen it? Very dangerous
what they’re doing in my opinion and libellous….- April 11, 2013 at 21:08
- April 11, 2013 at 22:02
The little lovelies over there at the 1970Duncroft simplesite
(with all those foodie screen names – still waiting for beef
biryani to comment) – need to get some bad news. They have
featured James Robertson Justice in one of their posts, and made
stupid claims that we, the 60s girls, are covering up something
bad that happened in relation to his visits. I am extremely
sorry to inform them that a) nothing happened during his visits
and, b) I received an email from Mark Williams-Thomas over a
year ago which briefly and firmly stated, “I am not interested
in James Robertson Justice.” So, that takes care of that,
ladies. Bebe was trying to whip up some interest in him, if I
recall rightly, before she scampered off to the Mail with her
nonsense about Savile in 1965. So ladies,you don’t have to
believe me, but as you place so much credence on Mark perhaps
you can either go argue with him or better still, put a cork in
it before you make yourselves look more and more ridiculous.- April 11, 2013 at 23:19
http://1970duncroft.simplesite.com/189735068
How synchronous is that!
I’ve just finished this: http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/searching-for-justice.htmlI can hear the old guy’s movie laughter booming around inside
my skull……
-
April 10, 2013 at 19:39 Moor Larkin,
I’m waiting for it to be revealed as one big hoax, though it wasn’t
shown on April fools day?It’s definitely a fraud though. Programmes like that should be
factual, that was fiction. It would be bad enough if half your
witnesses and accusers on a so called documentary were telling
complete fantasy tales – but it looks very much like with ‘ITV
Exposure: The otherside of Jimmy Savile’ they all were….
April 8, 2013 at 18:20Agree with everything you say and despair at the utter waste of time and
money to say nothing of reputations ruined even if no charges are brought in
Yewtree and the Levison business. There is something far wrong with people who
claim to be traumatised by trivial incidents decades ago, it is all very
depressing.-
April 8, 2013 at 18:33 Carol42
I felt guilty posting that link but you are so right – don’t
get depressed it’s just anger turned against the self ….big smiley face
xx
- April 8, 2013 at 17:24
Here’s a person who would have good reason to whine – had anyone bothered
to listen out for her – Disgusting !
April 8, 2013 at 15:49Years ago I was the chairman of personnel at my local council. The
personnel department put on a seminar for councillors about workplace
harassment and how it was dealt with in our council.
The chief executive’s
experience was shaped by discovering some time after the event that a female
employee had resigned because she was being repeatedly propositioned by her
line manager despite asking him to stop. He summed up our policy very simply:
“If an employee is being sexually or racially harassed in the workplace, what
we want is for that behaviour to stop. The first action is for the victim, or
their friend, to ask the perpetrator to stop. Only if it persists should it
become a disciplinary matter”.
Today, of course, such an approach neither
keeps lawyers in business nor fills newspaper columns, so would be considered
old-fashioned.
April 8, 2013 at 15:35I wonder what would happen if every person in a country was simultaneously
offended by one person, prefereably a furriner.Heck, it has happened:
Now we will see if New Zealand has to import all the ‘grief counsellors’
from Australia to deal with the mass trauma and whether Princess Mary (who is
from Tasmania ) will be burned in efffingigy.
April 8, 2013 at 15:56“..we were welcomed ….. with a half-naked man in a grass skirt”
I’d
pay to see that.
April 8, 2013 at 15:24*breaking news* Hell has frozen over…
Within hours of entering hell Thatcher has closed all the furnaces and
sacked all the stokers and privatised the devils work to Atos, Crapita, and
G$S.The stokers are in uproar “it’s just not fair, what have we done to deserve
her?”
April 8, 2013 at 15:28@ JonathanWilson
The Lady’s Not For Burning
-
April 8, 2013 at 15:38 Anyone got a light ?
-
April 8, 2013 at 15:52 Her funeral is to be privatised.
- April
8, 2013 at 16:17 I take it she is to be buried privately or otherwise. Cemeteries
are council run operations and grave diggers are, by and large council
employees. Surely Mr Serwotka would not dream of persuading other
unions to call a series of one day strikes that just happen to fall on
……
April 8, 2013 at 20:49My mate reckons they should ship her off to the Falklands and use
her as a scarecrow to frighten away the Argentines.
-
April 8, 2013 at 16:14 *BREAKING UPDATE*
Tax payers alliance say that Thatchers funeral
should be privatised to save tax payers money, Ed miliband has demanded an
enquiry, and Camoron has said he will PFI it so his chums at funerals4u in
partnership with G$S can charge 20% interest on full amount over the next 30
years and make a killing while IDS has said he could do it for 53 quid “if
he had to” and cleggyweggy is playing in the sand pit.
April 8, 2013 at 17:52Strange that you would wish to expose the low calibre of your wit, no
accounting for taste at all.A little decorum would not be amiss, but then again perhaps that is
another characteristic that is in short supply in yUK.-
April 8, 2013 at 18:14 Cascadian,
Re: “Strange that you would wish to expose the low calibre of your
wit, no accounting for taste at all.A little decorum would not be amiss,
but then again perhaps that is another characteristic that is in short
supply in yUK”Margaret Thatchers death….?
- April 8, 2013 at 14:46
Re: “The justice system is damaged, perhaps irreparably”
I don’t think it will ever be damaged irreparably, but I do sort of worry
that we may be heading in the direction of going back to the way it was in the
18th century!!
April 8, 2013 at 13:44Her phone has been hacked, during tense business negotiations – but we
haven’t heard her wailing to Leveson. She just got on with
life..It would have been peculiar to give evidence to an inquiry into the ethics
of the British press if it concerned the ethics of a football club. I endorse
your condemnation of the orgiastic sentimentality that has made so much of our
culture so unpleasant to observe but if we are to uphold “truth and honesty”,
“witness testimony” should not be confused with “whining”.Your points about the women (and the men?) who have made allegations
against Savile also leave me wondering what it is about them that you find
annoying. That they did not speak before? Yeah, that would have been helpful,
though if they were abused I could empathise with their embarrassment.
That it should not be the press to whom they speak? Yeah, I see your point.
That they should not be dishonest? Damn straight! But, and correct me if I’m
wrong, there seems to be a note of disdain towards people saying anything,
regardless of who they speak to or the accuracy of their words. That seems
harsh. The uncritical treatment of this affair is vexing – I regret that I,
for one, was late in questioning it – but if people have facts to offer I’d
love them to be expressed, so we can get a clearer image of this murky
business.-
April 8, 2013 at 14:16 @Ben Six
Try reading just about everything Ms Raccoon has said on the
subject in her various posts. Then hop over to Moor Larkin’s blog and do the
math !- April 8, 2013 at 14:46
My point about the original women was not that they didn’t speak before,
but that they spoke at all. Even their allegations amount to sod all at
best, and a conspiracy to entrap at worst, nothing more than a desire for
publicity and victimhood. I don’t make the mistake of conflating the later
allegations that have emerged, for we know not what they amount to, with the
original allegations. Nor do I concur with the opinion that ‘good has come
out of it’. Maybe. We simply don’t know. What we do know is that the
original allegations didn’t amount to a row of beans. See my earlier
posts.
At best, the original two girls could have said to staff at
Duncroft – ‘two of us got together to see whether Savile would put one of
our hands on his groin if we gave him the opportunity, and he did’….that
alone would have been sufficient to see him off the premises for good. No
great embarrassment in saying that and whether they were believed or not is
utterly irrelevant – the staff would have made damn sure that no one else
was in a position to make such allegations again anyway – for his
protection. That is where ‘he could have been stopped earlier’, which is the
common mantra, truly belongs.
As for abuse victims reluctant to speak
out, that does apply if you are talking about one girl in a normal home who
may be reluctant to name an Uncle etc – remember most of these girls had
already confessed to staff at various establishments that they had been
abused by Uncle Tom Cobley and all – no reason not to add Savile to the
list.
It is the area of applying a mantra that may apply to one group of
children to all victims of abuse, even historic abuse, to girls who had
freely admitted to being abused many times before, that I struggle with
it.
No sympathy whatsoever with the current wailing which has ruined many
lives, costs millions of pounds we can ill afford, and lost many good people
their jobs. Out of all proportion to the original allegations.- April 8, 2013 at 15:51
and your point about the media not speaking up is most relevant.
An ex-editor of The Sun (on hacking charges) has been screeching on
HuffPost about how he “had heard all the rumours” and wanted to “expose
Savile” but JS had top lawyers and would sue for libel….except that
doesn’t explain why the same editor promoted Savile week after week, month
in and year out on his charity walks in those shell suits.
And why same
editor sent his journalists and photographers to Savile’s funeral and
“wept” along with 30,000 grieving fans.Honestly..do they believe this stuff?
- April 8, 2013 at
16:02 - April 8, 2013 at 16:04
@ Honestly..do they believe this stuff? @
They probably have a pretty good idea of what their readers want to
believe, and do their best to deliver it.-
April 8, 2013 at 16:34 JoBlow,
Re: ““had heard all the rumours” and wanted to “expose Savile” but JS
had top lawyers and would sue for libel….”Expose him for what? By encouraging girls who claimed to have a hand
placed on their bum 30 years previous or women who claimed he tried to
get off with them in a caravan in 1970 to go to the police when they
didn’t want to (probably just wanted a bit of money for a story), by
publishing stories that he had “refused to help the police with their
enquiries” during the 2008 Haut de la garrene investigation when the
police hadn’t even asked him to help with their bloody inquiries,
lolAnd could the Sun not have afforded good lawyers too?
- April
8, 2013 at 16:37 Ah, forgive me. I thought you were making a broader judgement.
I am inclined with disagree you on the worth of reporting the first
allegations (though they should, indeed, have been reported at the time).
It is a witness’s duty to tell the truth, and society’s to assess the
claims and respond to them appropriately. Your essays, among others, have
indeed proved that we have been failed and, in the cases of those of us
who did not question the reports, have failed in this
department.-
April 8, 2013 at 16:51 Bensix,
Re: “I am inclined with disagree you on the worth of reporting the
first allegations (though they should, indeed, have been reported at the
time)”That’s IF they even happend, i’d put money of the Stoke Mandeville
choir girl forced snog being total ballony, for lots of reasons….- April 8, 2013 at 17:08
@ i’d put money of the Stoke Mandeville choir girl forced snog
being total ballony, for lots of reasons…. @Not least for the fact that it changed radically between 2008 and
20122008:
Ms.E [Sarah] is now in her early fifties. She described
her encounter with Jimmy Savile thus. As a teenager she was a member
of the Girls’ Choir. On one occasion, when she was about fourteen, the
choir had performed at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, and Jimmy Savile had
been there. Just as the choir was getting onto the coach, Jimmy Savile
was “acting the clown, shimmying up and down a flag post on the
left-hand side of the hospital”. He called Ms.E [Sarah] over and said
“give us a kiss goodbye”. She thought nothing of it and went over to
him, expecting a kiss on the cheek; instead, he kissed her on the lips
and put his tongue inside her mouth. Ms.E [Sarah] said she was
shocked; she sprang away from him and got onto the coach. She didn’t
know if anyone else saw, but she didn’t discuss it with anyone except
her sister Ms.D because she was “mortified”.2012
“Sarah”
“I wrote to Jimmy Savile to tell him of the
choir I was in. A few weeks later, on a Saturday, my mum said Jimmy
Savile had been on the phone. He’d got my letter and had called to
chat to me. When mum told him I wasn’t in, he said he’d call back. He
then called again while I was out, and finally he called a third time
and I spoke to him. The choir was going to perform at Stoke Mandeville
and he said he would come and watch.” “After the concert when everyone
was getting on the coach to leave I ran up to him to let him know I
was the one who had sent him the letter about the choir. Before I knew
what had happened he’d stuck his tongue into my mouth; it didn’t seem
to bother him that other people could have seen what he was doing. I
was just so shocked. I pulled away and dashed onto the coach. I
couldn’t believe what had happened. Looking back now I realise he had
been grooming me at home and arranging to come and see me in the
choir……..”http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/exposition-pt8.html
-
April 9, 2013 at 13:01 Such as ?
- April 9, 2013 at 13:11
@Lisa
the Phone calls?
For starters……..-
April 10, 2013 at 13:05 Lisa,
Re: “Such as ?”
Well, I noticed from an extract from Meirion Jones’s interview for
the ‘Pollard review’, taken from Moor Larkin’s blog entitled “Did
winks and whispers fix it for Jimmy Savile?” that Meirion Jones is
noted as saying “Effectively what we’ve got is nine who we TALK TO. A
tenth, who was abused at STOKE MANDEVILLE, and – there are 11 – okay,
the ten girls that we TALKED TO and ONE who was SISTER of one of the
people WE TALKED TO.When asked “So ten Duncroft and the SISTER of one of those is 11,
who is somebody else -” he responded “Although ALL OUR COMMUNICATIONS
WITH HER ENDED UP BEING THROUGH HER SISTER”.He was then asked “The Duncroft SISTER?” to which he replied “but
we BELIEVED that what we were getting there was a true picture of what
was going on”.Oh he “BELIEVED” did he? How did he KNOW that what they were
getting was “a true picture of what was going on”?It looks like he is basically telling them that Ms E (of Alison
Levitt’s CPS report)/”Sarah” (of the ITV Exposure mockumentary) was
not a part of the preparations of the axed Newsnight piece and that
ALL her ‘testimony’ came THROUGH HER SISTER.Well, if she was not a part (clearly did not wish to be a part) of
the axed Newsnight piece, then perhaps she was not a part (did not
wish to be a part) of the making of the ITV Exposure mockumentary
either? And the ‘testimony’ for that either came through her SISTER or
the interviews they got for the axed Newsnight piece? It probably
did,
as her SISTER (“Tracie” – in the comments of Anna Racoon’s
blog) said in https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-seven/
on 10/11/12 at 18:42 that “the fact that she (*her SISTER*) REFUSED TO
BE INTERVIEWED by MWT (*Mark Williams Thomas*) or the newspapers tells
you that she doesnt want the limelight on her”, this would help
explain the difference between the account told by her to the police
in 2008 and the over dramatised and further embellished account we
were given on the ITV Exposure mockumentary. From the Newsnight
‘investigation’ onwards it looks like Ms E (of the CPS report) may
have had no say in the telling anymore. With the Newsnight piece her
SISTER Ms D (of the CPS report) wanted involved but Ms E did not, Ms D
perhaps took the opportunity to ‘embellish’ the tale slightly and make
it juicer, but there would be no doubt in my mind that by the time Ms
E’s tale had reached the ITV Exposure makers and Mark Williams Thomas,
if Ms E HERSELF still had no involvement in the telling, it would have
been exaggerated, dramatized and embellished to the hilt, with a story
of a random, opportunistic stolen snog from a teenager, being
exaggerated and embellished into “grooming”, and “trying to take
advantage of a 14 year old CHILD”, and the impression that this event
had perhaps scarred her for life or haunted her all these years, when,
according to Alison Levitt, Ms E told the police in 2008 that she
“never considered going to the police about what (*she claims*)
happened” because she “thought it was so INSIGNIFICANT at the
(*alleged*) time” and that she thought it “would be a WASTE OF POLICE
TIME”I don’t know whether Ms E (of the CPS report) had just been put up
to telling this story by her sister Ms D, who wanted involved but had
already told the police “nothing had happened to her”, though claimed
to know that Jimmy Savile had been “acting dodgy” at Duncroft and that
“he got involved with underage girls and made an inappropriate play
towards them”, when she (“Tracie” in the comments of Anna Raccoon’s
blog) said ” No I NEVER SAW HIM (*Jimmy Savile*) AT DUNCROFT, which
was just as well as my relatives abuse pre dated my stay at Duncroft,
If I had seen him, it wouldnt have been a blow job that I would have
given him, it would have included a very sharp instrument and I
proberly would have ended up in Holloway” in https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-seven/
on 10/11/12 at 19:19.The account given in Alison Levitt’s CPS report and the account Ms
D or “Tracie” (in Anna Raccoon’s past lives and present misgivings
part 7) gives in https://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-personal-stuff/past-lives-and-present-misgivings-part-seven/
differs slightly too.In Alison Levitt’s CPS report we are told:
“After the police had spoken to Ms C, they attempted to contact
other girls who had been at Duncroft at the relevant time. As names
emerged, they were sent identical letters which, again, gave no
indication as to either the identity of the suspect or the incident
under investigation. One of those contacted was Ms D. She too asked DC
S whether the incident concerned Jimmy Savile, who she said was
“acting dodgy” at Duncroft: “he got involved with underage girls and
made an inappropriate play towards them”. She told the officer that
nothing had happened to her, but she MIGHT know of others to whom
things had been done. She appears to have mentioned MS G and something
about the issue having been discussed on the Friends Reunited
website.A FEW DAYS LATER she contacted DC S again, and said that one of
those to whom she had been referring was in fact her older sister, Ms
E, who had not been at Duncroft but had had a run in with Jimmy Savile
whilst she was a member of a Girls’ Choir in a town north of London.
Ms D said that she had in fact known what had happened to her sister,
but had FELT SHE SHOULD CHECK WITH HER BEFORE PASSING HER DETAILS TO
THE POLICE”.Yet Ms D or “Tracie” said in the comments section of Anna Raccoon’s
‘Past lives and present misgivings part 7′ blog on 10/11/12 at 18:42
that:“The surrey police sent letters to the girls who were at Duncroft
in the 70s asking them to contact them ref a hisorical complaint. I
knew who they were talking about before I even called them (*because,
as she told the police back in 2008, she had seen the issue being
discussed on the Friends Reunited website*). I also knew of the abuse
that my relative had inflicted on her from JS, maybe not as serious as
some that I have read but still abuse. I SPOKE TO HER BEFORE I CALLED
THE POLICE AND SHE GAVE ME PERMISSION TO GIVE THE POLICE WOMAN HER
NAME AND ADDRESS, from there the police took her statement”.Well, that is not what the police are saying, the police are saying
when they spoke to her first, she said nothing happened to her but she
MIGHT know others to whom things had been done, and then contacted
them AGAIN A FEW DAYS LATER with this information about her sister.As both the police and Ms D/”Tracie” have said, Surrey police sent
letters to the girls who were at Duncroft during the relevant time
asking THEM TO CONTACT THEM ref a hisorical complaint, and as she says
“I knew who they were talking about before I EVEN CALLED THEM”So, given she already “knew who they were talking about before SHE
even CALLED THEM”, why did she not (as she tried to pretend she did on
Anna Raccoon’s blog, but not according to the police) speak to her
sister and get her permission to pass her details on BEFORE she
contacted the police the first time, if she had known this information
about her sister and Jimmy Savile all along? Why, if she knew this
information about Jimmy Savile and her sister and knew, from the
discussions she had seen, and probably had, on the Friends Reuntied
website, that the police wanted to talk about Jimmy Savile and had
left the ball in HER COURT to contact them, did she ring them to
simply tell them nothing had happened to her, but she had seen/heard
gossip on the Friends Reunited website that he “was “acting dodgy” at
Duncroft: “he got involved with underage girls and made and
inappropriate play towards them”” and that she MIGHT know of others to
whom things had been done?My guess is that by the time she had said that “she MIGHT know of
others to whom things had been done” the cogs had already started
turning, but initially she had had no intention of bringing anyone
else in on it and, originally she had had no intention of saying
anymore to the police than what she had said about nothing having
happened to her but that she’d seen and heard gossip on Friends
Reunited.I also noticed in the comments of Anna Raccoon’s ‘Past lives and
present misgivings part 7′ that she originally attempted to give a
false impression of what went on during the police investigation by
saying on 10/11/12 at 18:14 that:“the investigation involved another 14 year old who had NO CONTACT
WITH DUNCROFT HERSELF but itvwas bought to light during the duncroft
complaint. Her abuse did not take place at duncroft . It was made very
clear in news reports that there were two historic complaints made to
the surrey police. I have seen the letter from the cps that she
recieved and it stated that no further investigation due to lack of
evidence”The investigation she is talking about only involved ONE 14 year
old (potential victim), and that was Ms D’s (of the CPS report) sister
Ms E, who “was bought to light during the duncroft complaint”, by HER
(Ms D), who went to Duncroft, was included in the investigation by the
police and who had seen what was being said about it and Jimmy Savile
on the Friends Reunited website. Therefore this ’14 year old’s’
“contact with Duncroft” is through her sister. Yet she trys to
disaossiate herself from it and gloss over the ‘relationship’ of Ms E
to someone else in the investigation (HER) and how she was brought in,
because, obviously, that would perhaps raise questions of collusion,
and “oh, isn’t that convenient….?”.She only came clean that this other “14 year old who had no contact
with duncroft herself but itvwas bought to light during the duncroft
complaint” was a “relative” of hers when challenged on 10/11/12 at
18:32:“When you say “another 14 year old,” I assume you mean a woman now
in her 50s? Could you perhaps provide a newslink to buttress your
claim about two historic complaints? And when you say “I have seen the
letter from the CPS that she received …” could you let us know under
what circumstances that occurred? If this additional victim was
revealed during the Duncroft complaint, doesn’t that confirm that the
initial complaint was made solely by a Duncroft woman? And why would a
completely unrelated victim come forward, i.e. “brought to light,” as
a result of what I assume was a confidential police investigation. How
did this “come to light” exactly?”To which she then had to come clean(ish) and responded 10/11/12 at
18:42:“i am not going to provide a newslink, im sure that you can dig
around and find that yourself, the fact that she refused to be
interviewd by mwt or the newspapers tells you that she doesnt want the
limelight on her. The surrey police sent letters to the girls who were
at Duncroft in the 70s asking THEM TO CONTACT THEM ref a hisorical
complaint. I knew who they were talking about before I even called
them. I also knew of the abuse that MY RELATIVE had inflicted on her
from JS, maybe not as serious as some that I have read but still
abuse. I spoke to her before I called the police and she gave me
permission to give the police woman her name and address, from there
the police took her statement. You sound Suprised that you didnt know
all this, but really there was no reason for you to know, your
interest was in girls from Duncroft”I also found it strange that, according to Alison Levitts CPS
report, Ms E said “she didn’t know if ANYONE ELSE SAW, but she DIDN’T
DISCUSS IT WITH ANYONE EXCEPT HER SISTER MS D because she was
“mortified”.Well, if I was to hazard a guess it would be that there would have
been plenty other people around IF this incident happened like she
said it happened. She would probably have been with a bunch of girls
who were also boarding the coach, if they had all boarded and she was
the last one they would have been waiting on her, and probably those
in charge of/taking the trip/choir’s eyes would have been on her, if
others had yet to board others would have probably been behind her
when she left the que to go over and give Jimmy Savile a “kiss
goodbye”. That’s not to say they’d necessarily have been paying
attention, but as he was a well known television personality it does
make it a bit more likely that others would have turned to look and
see what was going on.I also find the claim that “she didn’t discuss it with anyone
except her sister Ms D” odd.Apart from being just a little bit TOO CONVIENIENT that she “didn’t
discuss it with anyone except her sister Ms D”, the woman who attended
Duncroft approved school in the late 1970′s, had seen gossip about
Jimmy Savile on Friends Reunited, including from another complainant
Ms G, and who had been one of the women the police had chosen to
involve in the investigation by sending her a letter, Jimmy Savile
would have been on tv every week for the next 21 years. Did she have a
television in the house during those subsequent 21 years? Did she
never once by chance, flick over to Totps on a Thursday or Jim’ll fix
it on a Saturday? You’d have thought just once, in those following 21
years she’d maybe have made a passing comment about the time she
encountered him outside Stoke Mandeville hospital and what he was
like? No? I would have.
I’d also have probably told some of the
other girls when I got on the coach and had a laugh about it, even if
it had grossed me out, but that’s just me.As I said before, I find this little anecdote and how it came about
just a little bit TOO CONVENIENT, and suspicious.- April 10, 2013 at 13:24
@Lucozade
Forensic! :thumbs-up: …
-
April 10, 2013 at 14:46 Moor Larkin,
It looks like “Charlotte” (called Charlotte in the ITV Exposure
mockumentary), changed her story between the preparations for the axed
Newsnight piece and the ITV Exposure mockumentary too, according to
Meirion Jones in his interview for the Pollard review (again from your
blog “Did winks and whispers fix it for Jimmy Savile?”):“her account of being groped in the caravan and so on and then
complaining, WHAT SHE DIDN’T SAY AT THE TIME TO US, BUT YOU KNOW,
SUBSEQUENTLY SAID, is that she was put in lockdown for two days as a
result of that”Why would she have missed out an important detail like being put in
lockdown for two days as a result when Newsnight spoke to her?And why, as the staff at Newsnight seemed to believe back in
November, if the only woman they spoke to who wasn’t involved in the
2007 (2008?) to 2009 police investigation was Karin Ward, and the
other 9 or so were, was this not mentioned to Surrey police back then?It could be that Newsnight have made a mistake (nothing knew there)
or it could be that a woman who originally told the police in 2008
that she didn’t remember anything untoward happening at Duncroft and
never mentioned Jimmy Savile, has since decided she wants “in on the
action” and created this little story….?
- April 8, 2013 at 13:42
Blimee Thatcher’s dead !
- April 8, 2013 at 15:29
rabbitaway,
Re: “Blimee Thatcher’s dead !”
I can’t believe it….
April 8,
2013 at 12:47“Fictitious dramas on television displaying some rare event, a flipping
cow dying on some deserted hillside, will be followed by the announcement ’if
you have been affected by issues portrayed’ etc – and you know that someone is
employed to sit at the end of the phone to listen to a stream of viewers who
may once have heard of someone who is sure that they might have been in a
village where a cow once died, and oooh, it was awful and they’ve never been
able to get over the horror of it all. A child dies on holiday with its
parents in a foreign land – a sad event; but before we know it, the
‘bereavement counselors’ have been moved into their local school to help the
children get over the trauma of little Johnny not being at that school any
longer.”Oh, amen thrice over! How I cringe at hearing these!
April 8, 2013 at 20:09You realise that back in 1940, there wouldn’t have been time for schools
to do anything BUT grief counselling, if the idea is to help little children
process all they’ve seen which might be disturbing to them. Plenty of little
Johnnys and Janeys were no longer in attendance (either because they were
relocated, or– you know…). You hope little children don’t become too
hardened, like the combat veterans who tell new members of their squad
“Don’t tell me about yourself, ‘coz I might get to likin’ ya, and if
anything happened to ya, I might miss ya– and there’s way too many lads I
miss, already.” But as Anthony Hopkins observed in Shadowlands, when his
character is receiving condolences for his widowerhood, and a friend tells
him, “Well, Jack, you still have your work to occupy you– life must go on, I
suppose,” to which Hopkins replied, “I don’t know that it MUST, but it
certainly does!”, his way of telling his friend and colleague, thanks for
your concern, but bugger off, I’m working all the feelings through, and
you’re just re-opening the wound. When is the optimum time to stop, before
all we’re doing is making children wallow in it lest they become cold and
callous? You come up with the answer to that and you’ll be doing all of us a
great favour.
April 8, 2013 at 12:44Of course you have to have the right sort of whine too.
Some years ago I attended a seminar by the welfare department of the
organisation that I worked for at the time. It was led by a meek-looking and
sounding man, the empathy just oozed out of him. At one point we were told
about alcoholism, the need to look out for the employee who always took Monday
off etc.and the caring, sharing response we were to adopt and the recovery
plans that the employer could put in place. A voice from the back called out,
“What if he has a drug problem?”. Our meek man suddenly went red in the face,
“That is a crime”, he barked, “and MUST be reported to the police!”. Wrong
‘wine’ mate!- April 8, 2013 at 12:42
Re: “Now that Greater Manchester producing statistics to show how many
Goths and EMOs get shouted at in the street”Why? Lol
April 8, 2013 at 12:36I’m fairly sure that the whiners are people who have already “given up”.
Once they’ve given up they find that they don’t get on and can’t work out why
so it must be someone else’s fault. In self-indulgent moments I rail against
things that other people have done to me. The trick is to realise that you
can’t do anything about it, so move on.
April 8, 2013 at 12:33“Where there is blame, there’s a claim” ran the thinking of the TV ads. We
can these days shape that to “Where there is a feeling funny, there is plenty
of money.”Money for the business of being hand-holders and pacifiers and listeners,
etc.Quite an industry, really. All needing training, all needing registering,
all needing to be organised. I mean, you can’t have ‘helpers’ wandering the
streets just looking to help people, right? Non-sufferers would just think
that was someone being kind. Like that good Samaritan chap who wasn’t part of
a registered charity for some reason.- April 8, 2013 at 12:29
@Anna
Yes, and ‘God bless’ all who sail in this happy ship of exposition
and uncommon sense !
Going back to a comment on Moor’s blog yesterday, it
set me thinking. Why did DS Gray hold that massively OTT press conferance post
the ‘Savile strand’ of utree January 2012 ? Why on earth was the findings of a
report not much better than a CSE school essay paraded as some, post criminal
trial, celebration of guilt ? Onwards ……!- April 8, 2013 at 13:18
Savile’s interview with Andrew Neil that you pointed me towards the other
day is a perfect example of how NOT joining the Whining Industry can leave
you deemed to be suspicious and evasive however. You can see Andrew Neil
becoming increasingly infuriated as Savile refuses to *open up* to him and
reveal his innermost thoughts about his mother and why he has “never been in
love”…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-mJ4a0ODPBM-
April 8, 2013 at 13:31 @Moor – thank God for youtube …… Jimmy was a great example of what it
is to get up and get on with things rather than sitting about feeling
sorry for yourself and waiting for some other bugger to build a hospital
wing ! I’ve left a comment about questions to ask DS Gray on your blog ! I
like Andrew Neil but JS as usual held his own despite some fairly strong
stuff in there !- April 8, 2013 at 13:41
The Queen is a good exemplar for never explaining and never
complaining and her “coldness” prompted much belly-aching back in
1997.
-
April 8, 2013 at 13:36 @Moor and another thing, in this interview he dispels that crap about
spending 5 days with his dead mother in his flat. She was in Jimmy’s
sister’s place and he was just one of many who spent time with her.- April 8, 2013 at 13:42
I liked the story he also about the ground being frozen that year so
they couldn’t dig the hole……- April
8, 2013 at 13:48 Ah bless him normal reaction to death of a loved one in winter
!Wow Thatcher’s gone – no state funeral …….!
-
April 8, 2013 at 20:52 @Moor Larkin
Was it in that show that he alluded to ‘having her to
himself’? I have to admit, whatever he was trying to say there he did it
badly, and made it sound very strange. His own worst enemy sometimes, I’m
afraid.- April 8, 2013 at 22:15
@Mina Field
In this funny old world, simple, honest people often are their own
worst enemies…..
- April 8, 2013 at 12:13
@ you can be sure that someone somewhere is registering a charity to
support traumatised Goths @That’s how it started:
“GMP has worked with a charity set up following the murder of 20-year-old
goth Sophie Lancaster in 2007.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22018888- April 8, 2013 at 12:14
- April 8, 2013 at 13:40
Moor Larkin,
The thing about the way many ‘goths’ dress is that they are so easily
identifiable as ‘goths’, it’s like a uniform.And what is an ‘Emo’?
April 8, 2013 at 14:12It’s short for emotional & you have it right as Emo (not EMO: it’s
not an acronym).- April
8, 2013 at 19:42 “Emos” are goths who brightened up their wardrobe with a few garish
colours. Wikipedia derives “Emo” from a music scene in America in the
mid-1980′s, but I have also heard one version in which supposedly it came
from American police slang to describe “emotionally-disturbed persons,”
i.e., people causing a small commotion, but technically not breaking any
real laws except possibly the old catch-all “disturbing the peace.” In the
written report, the cop would refer to the person as an EDP (who’s usually
drunk or high, or a nutter off their meds) if they were not being violent
or abusive to anyone, or to the cop in particular, therefore not
warranting being arrested, and just in need of being run off the street,
either to their home or a shelter; however, in colloquial conversation,
Officer Smith might tell his/her Sergeant, “Yeah, Sarge, took care of that
Emo call, got the person home in one piece, no problems…” The kids who
pioneered the “movement” apparently may have been of the sort who were
likely to require the police’s services in this respect and may have taken
the name as a way of “owning” it. (cf use of the N-word in the black
community.)
April 9, 2013 at 23:52Having observed my daughters fellow classmates, emos are those
adolescents going through a depressive patch, able to recognise that
conforming with the majority is pointless, a betrayal of their
individuality by society, and then conform with each other hair, gear
and music wise.-
April 10, 2013 at 19:26 Ljh,
Re: “Able to recognise that conforming with the majority is
pointless, a betrayal of their individuality by society, and then
conform with each other hair, gear and music wise”I’ve noticed that, all the goths dress the exact same because they
are individuals too, lol….
- April 10, 2013 at 01:03
@moorlarkin
“Ward made the claims in an ITV documentary aired earlier this week.
Although she identified the third man, ITV was forced to edit out his name as
he is still alive and has disputed the claim.”- April 10, 2013 at 07:52
@wellwisher
Yes, but if you premise is correct they didn’t edit out his name did they;
they edited out Karin, except I don’t think they did…..Her blog says she invited MWT to come and interview her only on 2nd
October, late at night. I am no TV production expert but I cannot see how she
would ever have been expected to be edited into a documentary of that sort in
the time available. Bear in mind that she WAS front page in the Daily Mirror
on 3rd October however….. Was her story instead sold to the Mirror perhaps
because it was too late for Exposure?It’s fairly clear the Mirror were very close with the Exposure show because
they printed verbatim what “Angie” says in the programme, but they had her
text on September 27th.“The Exposure show was broadcast on October 3rd 2012. On Sepetmber 27 the
Daily Mirror had the entire programme leaked to it in advance.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-documentary-tv-star-1351439- April 10, 2013 at 09:43
Sorry, I think I meant “Val” not “Angie”…….. >:-
- April 10, 2013 at 09:52
Blimme this is synchronity at it’s best ! Moor, just sent an email on this
very matter but my point is – Why were there no arrests until AFTER exposure ?
Did they even tell the police that another, ‘living’ sex fiend walked the BBC
corridors abusing ‘children’ ? If they didn’t then surely they should be named
and shamed. Oh, and don’t tell me MWT didn’t know this …..!- April 10, 2013 at 13:07
@rabbitaway
I noted on the October 3rd Blog that wellwisher referred us to, that the
blogger says“Today, I have telephoned Metropolitan police, as Mark Williams Thomas
advised me to do. I now have to wait for a local police officer to call at my
home and take a statement. This is not over; it has only just begun.”I think this is what the legal profession would call “covering one’s
arse”.
It may also explain why it is that the first MWT appears to know of
it, is on October 2nd, 2012……..- April 10, 2013 at 13:33
Moor another thing – the BBC program told us that the interview was being
SHOWN for the first time – so it MUST have been the one done for Newshite
again no arrests – no police investigation ZILCH !- April 10, 2013 at 13:40
@rabbitaway
You cannot expect the police to go round arresting people when there is no
actual evidence whatsoever.
For heaven’s sake…..- April 10, 2013 at 13:50
@Moor – maybe some people will have to send their apologies for not
attending the effing bafta’s on the basis that they have been ‘unforseeably
detained’ elsewhere – ha ha !- April 10, 2013 at 13:53
@rabbitaway
They’ll be forever remembered as the BARFTA’s in my coal shed……………
- April 10, 2013 at 14:00
@Moor – there’s ‘nee’ coal in our sheds any mare – a certain lady, not for
turning, burning or owt else put paid to that ….but that’s all I’m saying
about her ….I have shown remarkable restraint so far in that direction …..!
Big Smiley- April 10, 2013 at 14:13
By the way Moor, I spent the whole bloody day yesterday looking for JS
wearing that sodding sweatshirt – I ended up dreaming about him !!!!!!- April 10, 2013 at 14:58
- April 10, 2013 at 20:12
Moor – Can’t wait to read this crap – no doubt it will be in line for the
Booker prize !!!!!http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9781782193593
- April 10, 2013 at 16:09
@rabbitaway
Just be thankful we’re not N. Korea, or about now Mark would be shuffling
into power, and sharpening his warheads…..- April 10, 2013 at 16:30
Jimmy’s was ready …..! Great photo – crap paper !
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4595906/Royal-Marines-destroy-Savile-memories.html
- April 10,
2013 at 20:11 The despicable conduct of Meirion Jones boggles the mind. How DARE he do
such an unprofessional thing? But then, we have Duncroftians who came over
here and published the contact information for Margaret Jones. Just a bunch of
low-lifes.- April 11, 2013 at 20:49
Mewsical,
Holding a badge saying “NSPCC is great” too, lol (bet Jimmy Savile wouldn’t
be saying that now.
{ 121 comments }