Grim Fairy Tales…The Savile Allegations.
I was struck by the number of people – allegators – in the past series of Savile reports, who had contacted Yewtree merely out of a wish to validate other reports of abuse.
In plain English – although they had no evidence of abuse themselves, or were fabricating it, it was out of a sense of solidarity with abuse they were convinced had taken place. Every single one of them had come to the decision that this was the right thing to do (or even the most profitable thing to do) in the wake of a television programme that stated as fact that Savile was a paedophile – a programme that based its evidence on a) material which was not considered substantial by the BBC, and b) has itself not been corroborated by the extensive investigation into the Duncroft girls claims by Operation Outreach, and c) would most certainly have been the subject of a massive defamation tort had Savile still been alive.
The Emperor not only has no clothes – but is standing on a bed of quicksand.
There has been much talk of those other unfortunate individuals who have been caught up in Operation Yewtree, vilified, defamed, and spat out with no charges. Their names are legion.
In one sense, their, and Savile’s, ruined reputations is partly at the own hand – because they had made their living by their very celebrity.
Yet there is another, much, much, larger group of people who have equally been defamed, and irretrievably damaged, by the media obsession with the Savile saga, which has encouraged these grim Fairy Tales.
They are in no particular order:
First and foremost – those 90% of victims of abuse within their own family, who must now queue up behind the ‘Yewtree chancers’ and wait their turn for a weary police officer to take them seriously, or a harrassed social worker to remove them from danger, or a therapist to help them make sense of their lives.
Then there are the children currently in care, who have been told daily in the news that their carers are a useless bunch; they might seem like cheerful, helpful, souls who have their best interests at heart, but without the threat of imprisonment – they couldn’t be trusted to tell anyone that their charges were being abused. That is one Hell of an insult to a group of people who have a pretty thankless task as it is.
There are the Duncroft staff, one of whom passed away never knowing that their names had been cleared of some dreadful accusations, and another who has had her advanced years blighted by hurtful libel as reward for having worked so hard to get what was in its day the most advanced and liberal scheme ever imagined to give girls a second chance of independence and a rewarding life.
There are the other Duncroft girls, who have given up their anonymity and rebuilt lives – and make no mistake, 100s of us did take advantage of what was then a unique opportunity to get our lives back on track from difficult beginnings and have made a success of it – and have had to read and explain to our families the appalling lies told by the media of how we were emotionally deprived helpless waifs living under a dreadful regime of uncaring incompetence. We weren’t.
There are the thousands of NHS staff who, the media would have us believe, are so feeble and morally incompetent, that a few gold chains round the neck of someone who spins records for a living is sufficient to blind them to appalling abuse to helpless children in favour of not upsetting a ‘celebrity’ – a reticence they can only be cured of by threat of a prison sentence.
The same goes for the hundreds of BBC staff, who, surrounded by far greater celebrities than Jimmy Savile, are painted as equally feeble and morally incompetent once catching sight of that track suit, and ignoring the pitiful pleas of abused children under their nose.
All these people have children of their own, are normal, everyday, folk – yet they have been defamed as monsters who wilfully ignored the distress of children. I simply don’t believe it.
What I do believe, is that if mandatory reporting had been brought into legislation as some wished, then it would have been open season on every care home in the country. Disgruntled ex-residents would have been queuing up to claim that they were abused and had reported it, as this past series of reports has shown they are perfectly capable of doing so. Then the lawyers would have simply shown that there was no record of the abuse being reported – as there wouldn’t be when it hadn’t happened – and successfully sued the organisation.
This would have helped no one who deserved help. I note the distress of many on social media, ‘disappointed’ that no evidence could be found of intelligent caring folk deliberately ignoring ‘truly awful, dreadful abuse’.
Now that I’ve gone through ALL the allegations of abuse by Savile at the various Children’s Homes dotted around the country – you might imagine that there would be a collective sigh of relief, an outpouring of ‘at least our Children were safe in the Children’s Homes’. There hasn’t been.
It is a strange world when people would prefer that children had suffered.
But the cost of intervention in chaotic families – at least at the last resort stage of removing children – looks increasingly unsustainable. I looked at the latest reported figures for five local authorities in England: in Birmingham, the forecast overspend this year in children’s social care is currently £10m; in Salford it is £5m; in Sheffield it is £2m; in Liverpool £3m; in Kent it is currently £8m. In all cases the cost overruns are attributed in the main to higher than expected increases in the numbers of looked after children.
We blew 7.3 million on investigating media hype, instead of looking after current children.
You will be relieved to hear that Ms Raccoon is now going to shut up for at least a week….
Barman! Give me hand back up those stairs!
- macheath
March 5, 2015 at 9:14 am -
Bravissima!
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 9:26 am -
Another everyday story of the abuse of the truth happening under our very noses in the Street of Shame.
I’m not surprised you’re calling for the barman; it’s enough to drive one to Drink. Tell him to chalk the first one to me. - Helen
March 5, 2015 at 9:45 am -
For me the appaling squandering of funds on pandering to the whim of the professional survivor group is tragic. As someone who works on the front line with disabled children, I was saddened to hear from a colleague that 30 youth workers have had their jobs axed in a money saving exercise in the neighbouring Borough. There is not a person I know of who works with these children and young people who is not attuned to signs of potential abuse, nor would they hesitate to report any suspicions. It is what we do. We have always operated Mandatory Reporting as part of our general duty and responsibility to our charges. We now have the fear of prosecution and many, myself included will leave this occupation because the risk of working with children and young people is just becoming too much to bear.
Helen
- Peter Raite
March 5, 2015 at 10:47 am -
Indeed. Mrs R is a teacher, and is mystified at the demand for mandatory reporting backed up with criminal sanctions, given that they already operate de facto mandatory reporting nacked up with disciplinary sanctions. It is also somewhat ironic for her, given that many years ago, while working supply, she lost literally thousands of pounds in earnings due to an investigation into a false allegation against her (a supposed “inappropriate conversation”) taking several months before anyone even bothered to ask her for her version of what had actually happened.
- Helen
March 5, 2015 at 11:07 am -
For our teachers who have been falsely accused, the complaints have been made to the NCTL and we are already 2 years down the line with no hearing and no sign of this happening any time soon. It is a disgrace that good teaching staff are taken out of service whilst enquiries and hearings are undertaken and I would wager that a lot of the complaints are vindictive and malicious in nature – they certainly are in our case. The time lag is unacceptable.
- Helen
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 11:24 am -
I have a friend who works in social care with “difficult youngsters”. I asked them how on earth “this works” these days. He told me that virtually every single one of them has had to undergo a formal investigation at some point, and this is quite usual these days. They have procedures in place so that none of them can ever be reduced to it “being their word against the child”. Anyone allowing themselves to get to that point would simply have committed professional suicide anyway. Every single “incident” is written up and cross-witnessed by all involved immediately the incident is over. He says that the only thing that makes it worth the hassle is that the kids are always clearly so genuinely sorry when they get over their tantrums and their childlike innocence shines through. They told me that some of the kids seem to have some kind of clinical issue (with their brain/mind) but most of the problems simply seem to be derived from broken/drug-infested home environments.
- Ian B
March 5, 2015 at 11:25 am -
The saddest fact of all this is they don’t care how many people they hurt. They don’t even care about “the children”. It’s virtually psychopathic.
- Eric
March 5, 2015 at 2:12 pm -
Indeed, and as someone who is ancient, this was pretty much mandatory in the Savile era – 70s, 80s etc. There wasn’t so much documentation, but nobody actually ignored reports.
The “nobody listened to me, I did report it”, is stock excuse #1 for “Why did you only mention this when you thought you might get money out of it” question (stock excuse#2 is “scared” “intimidated” etc.) Surrey Police springs to mind here…..
Helen, no sane person is going to work with difficult children, or even children in a tough area. It’s borderline suicide for males as it is.
- Old Geezer
March 5, 2015 at 4:49 pm -
It is tough for the teachers, the carers, and the children, but think of all the money the lawyers make.
- Old Geezer
- Peter Raite
- Bandini
March 5, 2015 at 11:05 am -
Many thanks for keeping the torch of investigative journalism alight. In comparison many of those who claim to shine a light into shadowy places are turning out to be little more than sputtering wicks [sic?].
Regarding those “who had contacted Yewtree merely out of a wish to validate other reports of abuse”, the impression formed from the few reports I’ve had time to delve into is that many people were ‘just trying to help’ by coming forward with their silly tales of being offered cups of tea, etc., hoodwinked by reports of two-year old victims – or the vanishing eight-year old S.Mandeville girl promoted by the lawyers in cahoots with the gore-hungry press – into believing that their inconsequencial trivialities might have had some minor role to play in cracking the crime of the century.
God knows what they thought of seeing themselves chalked up on the Savile’s Victims board. Is it too much to hope that money-in-the-form-of-compo won’t silence them all forever?- Peter Raite
March 5, 2015 at 11:10 am -
It’s very like the neighbours or co-workers of suspected murderers/sex criminals. They queue up to say either how normal or how creepy they were (as applicable), in part to get their faces on TV , but also from some desire to be part of something “big.” What they have to say invariably adds nothing whatsoever to how the case is pursued, but when it comes to Savile, they are woven into the cloth simply because they is no other thread available.
- Bandini
March 5, 2015 at 12:04 pm -
Indeed. The standard police quote may well be useful in genuine investigations where false leads are discounted & a real search for the truth is made:
“No matter how insignificant you think it might be, what you saw could be vital to our investigation.”
But in this case the verdict was pre-ordained, and the insignificant would be twisted to fit. I find it genuinely frightening to see randy nurses’ voluntary exploits presented as ‘crimes’ and they as ‘victims’. And what’s worse is the media repeating the lie over & over, hammering it home. I mentioned one of the SM ‘victims’ (number 29) who was such a case previously in a comment. I really wasn’t expecting to see her story chosen by The Guardian to illustrate this article:
“In harrowing detail, 60 men and women have recounted the abuse they suffered at the hands of Jimmy Savile many years ago.”
Ye Gods, she had a fling with him! Nothing more! When she’d had enough it fizzled out, and that was that! Yet anyone simply relying on the media – something I shall never again do – will understandably think that she suffered at his hands and that a crime took place. She didn’t. It didn’t.
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 12:11 pm -
“Finally Sir Jimmy Savile’s real crime is out in the open!
He was exclusively heterosexual!
Something needs to be done to expunge this sick stain on our social history.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/sir-jimmy-saviles-crime.html- thedude
March 6, 2015 at 10:48 pm -
Well, heterosexuality (male heterosexuality anyway) pretty much is illegal in the UK these days.
- thedude
- Moor Larkin
- Cloudberry
March 5, 2015 at 12:28 pm -
the impression formed from the few reports I’ve had time to delve into is that many people were ‘just trying to help’
I wouldn’t be surprised if that affected the court cases too. A claimant in one of them gave an interview afterwards expressing amazement at the guilty verdict and saying she had wanted to open the door for other women to come forward.
- Bandini
- Eric
March 5, 2015 at 2:08 pm -
It’s a distinct possibility that the people ‘supporting’ and the same people making claims for money, and I wouldn’t put it past the lawyers involved doing this either, or the police, just to keep the money/jobs train going.
- Peter Raite
- Engineer
March 5, 2015 at 11:39 am -
Anna – I hear what you say about mandatory reporting and the threat of imprisonment hanging over care home workers, frontline NHS staff, teachers and the like, particularly in light of the Savile scaremongering. However, there is another aspect to this highlighted by the scandals in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and elsewhere, where it seems that failure to report was not a matter of honest mistake, but a wilful and systematic refusal to accept clear and repeated evidence. I suspect the proposed legislation may be an attempt to address that problem, rather than another imposition on those already acting, as best they can, in good faith.
Whether this turns out to be a case of extremes making bad law (Dangerous Dogs Act, for example), and ends up being misapplied as the RIPA provisions did, I suppose remains to be seen. But – what response should government make to the scandals of Rotherham et. al.?
- Helen
March 5, 2015 at 12:09 pm -
The problem that I foresee is that it will be the minions at the bottom who will be sacrificed on the altar of MR. I feel sure that those at the top will have a get out clause. Good people will be the cannon fodder for MR.
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 12:25 pm -
From my understanding of the way things already are, there should no fear of MR in the current milieu. Anyone not fully protected by the paperwork and systems in place would most likely be behaving nefariously anyway. That MR must be made with strict time limits is however for certain. If it is not, then innocent folk like Janet Cope and Slvia Nicol and Miss Jones will most certainly be liable to imprisonment in the future. That they will plead their innocence will merely serve to make their sentences longer.
- Peter Raite
March 5, 2015 at 12:46 pm -
This is really the problem at the heart of mandatory reporting. If years down the line someone is accused of not passing on a report of wrong-doing, the onus will be on them to prove that they never received it themselves in the first place. That will be easy enough, either way, if there is an e-mail trail, but what if the claim is that the complaint was verbal, or on paper? Will it merely come down to who gives the most convincing testimony? We already know that in many of the Savile reports, the punches were pulled at the end simply because, “the complainant was convincing.”
- Peter Raite
- Engineer
March 5, 2015 at 1:20 pm -
Helen, I hear what you say. However, one thing is very clear from the Rotherham reports; the minions at the bottom did their job by raising concerns (rank and file police officers excepted). It was higher up the management chain, even to the top of both paid executives and elected councillors (even, by his own admission, the elected MP at the time) where the problem lay. I suspect that’s where the legislation is aimed. I do, howver, share the concerns that the legislation might be too crude to be properly effective.
- suffolkgirl
March 5, 2015 at 6:29 pm -
Actually I am not at all clear that if the Rotherham reports do say that. There was clearly a dispute between Rotherham youth workers and some other social workers and, of course, the police, as to what exactly was going on. That’s not the same as ignoring a problem, and really, this was an issue about identifying a new kind of crime. At least, new to the Rotherham area. This kind of gang pimping has been going on in London for decades.
I am not sure that the reports really show any sort of real ‘cover up’, not one which would stand up to any real judicial scrutiny, and personally I don’t think the Louise Casey report is worth the paper it’s written on. She’s a senior civil servant popular with both Tories and Labour for turning round hatchet jobs in quick order and has no background in managing social services or indeed local government full stop.
- suffolkgirl
- Moor Larkin
- Helen
- Peter Raite
March 5, 2015 at 12:07 pm -
I suspect it is a combination of bother Rotherham et al, and pre-judging the whole historic abuse bandwagon on the strength of a few claims that complaints were supposedly made at the time, but not acted upon. Even the proven geographically-specific cases seem a result of differing reactions, rather than blaming a over-arching manifestation of “political correctness.” The latter might be applicable to social services, but I strongly suspect that for the police it was more a reflection of how they – at an individual level – separate victims into either “deserving” and “undeserving,” with perhaps “indifferent” in the middle. They’ll not knock themselves out investigating the burglary of the home of a known drug abuser, but they will if it’s one of their mate’s place.
- GildasTheMonk
March 5, 2015 at 12:44 pm -
I walked past the gleaming new offices of Slater & Moron in Manchester this week. Brash, confident, wealthy. Paid for by?
- Peter Raite
March 5, 2015 at 12:49 pm -
I was off work for a couple of weeks recently with mild food poisoning. The number of adverts for S&G on during daytime TV was quite depressing and actually managed to make me feel slightly more ill than I was already!
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 12:54 pm -
Pannone’s had probably paid for it long before. S&G are more akin to asset strippers than business builders.
https://www.facebook.com/PannoneSolicitors/photos/pb.264479046964826.-2207520000.1425559971./364065847006145/?type=3&theater
- Peter Raite
- Pud
March 5, 2015 at 1:02 pm -
I know from popping into the Racoon Arms now and again that many of the accusations against Jimmy Savile have been proved to be false. Apologies if I should have been paying more attention, but is there such a thing is a proven accusation? Or even a possibly true accusation, such as it’s known that Savile was at the same location as the alleged victim at the same time and with opportunity to commit the assault?
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 3:04 pm -
For the avoidance of doubt. No, none proven. I don’t think there is even an event outside of the Duncroft stories where a victim and a witness coincide. There are witnesses claiming to having seen things but they never have a victim to corroborate the tale, and of course the victims are legion, but there is never a witness who corroborates them. The only possible exception that springs to mind is the original “Beef Biryani” and associated Duncroft stories and they have been proved to be false stories, albeit nobody in the Establishment will admit it.
- Moor Larkin
- Pete
March 5, 2015 at 1:50 pm -
“There are the thousands of NHS staff who, the media would have us believe, are so feeble and morally incompetent, that a few gold chains round the neck of someone who spins records for a living is sufficient to blind them to appalling abuse to helpless children in favour of not upsetting a ‘celebrity’ – a reticence they can only be cured of by threat of a prison sentence.”
I actually trained as a State Registered Nurse during the late 1970s, when Jimmy Saville was allegedly running around Stoke Mandeville sexually abusing women and children while nurses discreetly withdrew and left him to get on with it. And I distinctly recall the type of ward sisters who prevailed in those days. Contrary to modern myth, there weren’t necessarily great nurses- most of them had scarcely opened a book since they first qualified in the 1950s, or even 1920s in some cases, and were woefully out of touch with new developments in wound care and the rest of it. Nonetheless, they were very strong-minded characters. And their most distinctive quality was their “old-fashionedness”- they would have felt perfectly at home had they been transported back into the 1940s- indeed they’d probably have preferred it. Many of them were lifelong spinsters, whose attitudes were formed in the days when women had to choose between marriage or career.
Even in the wider society, this was long before the days of “celebrity culture”. This was the days when the usual reaction of anyone over 40, watching Top of the Pops, was along the lines of “get your hair cut!” “they look like monkeys!” and “is that a boy or a girl?”
And we are asked to believe that in a far more prestigious hospital than the bog-standard suburban DGH where I trained, registered nurses were so overawed by this long-haired, eccentrically-dressed, somewhat uncouth professional celebrity, that they left the treatment room so he could sexually abuse a child patient in the middle of having her wound dressing changed!!!
It is all totally absurd, and worse than that, a gross slander on hundreds of highly dedicated people. Yet throughout the whole of the mainstream media, not a single voice is raised in opposition to this collective frenzy. I’ve heard two people who worked closely with JS at Stoke Mandeville disputing the allegations on radio 4. Both were interviewed with the kind of patronising disbelief normally reserved for the members of some eccentric cult, such as the Flat Earth Society.
- Peter Raite
March 5, 2015 at 2:03 pm -
I suspect that a lot of it is down to people looking back through spectacles tinted by today’s prevailing attitudes to celebrity.
- The Blocked Dwarf
March 5, 2015 at 3:45 pm -
” And I distinctly recall the type of ward sisters who prevailed in those days.”
A somewhat sickly child , I was in hospital a couple of times during childhood in the mid 70s…back when there was such a thing as a “Childrens Ward” , a Childrens’ ward with real proper Nurses and a Matron whose power was second only to God, The Doctor and The Head Cleaner -in that order of ranking. I can recall one young trainee nurse getting a tongue lashing from Matron for the CRIME of her regulation skirt (they still wore skirts and blouses and STARCH) being just over her knees. Not the 50s or the 60s but the 70s…post Summer Of Love and a foul beast slinking away from a grassy knoll. And it must have been a particularly vicious BLASTING for it to have reduced the ‘modern missy’ to tears and imprinted on my 7 year old mind.
Am i really expected to believe that such a Matron would have allowed someone like JS access to HER patients’ genitals? Someone so concerned about moral standards that they’d hand out a Marine’s style ‘beasting’ for a couple of millimeters of exposed kneecap?!?!?!?
- Peter Raite
March 5, 2015 at 3:51 pm -
Sadly a diet of Casualty and Holby City suggests that medical staff do not always have their minds on the job….
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 5:12 pm -
Sex in a hospital has all the allure of sex in the lav on Easyjet
- The Blocked Dwarf
March 5, 2015 at 5:23 pm -
“Sex in a hospital has all the allure of sex in the lav on Easyjet”
I married a trainee nurse and lived for several months in a student nurses block of flats…. so may I just say I disagree …and have not only the Tshirt but the STD test results to prove it
Word to the next generations:
never, Never, NEVER, N E V E R party with student doctors or nurses…and I say that as a professional alcoholic.
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 5:30 pm -
IN the hospital wards?
is what I mean…- The Blocked Dwarf
March 5, 2015 at 6:04 pm -
Where did you think I meant?! Mind you this was back when wards had Smoking Rooms and the hard surfaces throughout the ward were not CDiff colonies attempting world domination.
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 7:41 pm -
I have always known I was a simple soul who liked the simple things of life… * sigh * …
- Peter Raite
March 6, 2015 at 9:56 am -
Of course, that was back in the day of hospitals lava-washing their own uniforms, and visiting hours per day barely making it into the plural, and being strictly regimented.
- Moor Larkin
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Moor Larkin
- Peter Raite
March 6, 2015 at 9:54 am -
Like on trains, I try never to have to use aeroplane toilets for their actual intended purpose!
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Moor Larkin
- Ian B
March 5, 2015 at 4:27 pm -
I was in hospital a number of times for extended periods in the 70s as a child and that is what I remember too.
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 4:46 pm -
I was in hospital for two or three protracted periods in the 1970’s as a growed-up still-just teenager. Two major memories are the two nurses who asked me if I was married because I didn’t seem embarrassed at being naked when they helped me into the bath, and the male nurse who seemed very determined that I would have that suppository up my bum, notwithstanding my embarrassed attempts to avoid the experience. He won the argument, but I got to sit on the throne.
- Peter Raite
March 5, 2015 at 4:56 pm -
To my relief, my sole experiences of hospital as a child were to confirm I really had broken my collar bone in 1976 (“Keep this sling on for a few weeks, and try not to move it….”), and then a brief visit to A&E around 1979/80, where a sturdy Irish nurse cracked jokes while she sewed up a gash in my finger (a genuine bicycle repair injury!) without anaesthetic. I doubt the no-nonsense attitude of any of the staff I encounteredwould have been condusive to letting a minor celebrity use their workplace in the manner which some people now would have us believe.
- Ian B
March 5, 2015 at 6:22 pm -
Since I was mostly in for what we used to call “bowel problems”, I have endless memories of stuff shoved up my bum by nurses who were kind, but absolutely insistent. I’ve done my best to remember Jimmy Savile climbing in through the window and shoving something else up my bum, but no luck so far.
Despite this, none of the wards I was on to my recollection smelled of “vomit and faeces” as one of the victim cohort luridly described in the Guardian report. I wonder if this was a literal case of making shit up.
- Peter Raite
- Moor Larkin
- Peter Raite
- Bill Sticker
March 5, 2015 at 4:57 pm -
Pete, total concurrence. Given the level of supervision on the wards I worked in 1982-3, I too fail to see how sexual abuse of the scale and type alleged by Savile could happen. Apart from nursing report at shift change (And even then with at least one Auxiliary or SEN on duty ‘on the floor’ as it were) there was always someone within call. Even on night shift.
We did have ‘celebrity visits’ by local dignitaries, but they never went anywhere without a Staff Nurse or Ward Sister in tow, not to mention all the other staff come to ogle the famous person. And always in daylight. Outside of visiting hours (remember them?) even the local vicar had to get permission to come onto the ward. So yes, I too am highly sceptical of the hospital abuse claims.
- Peter Raite
- Carol42
March 5, 2015 at 2:31 pm -
I wonder how many good people will avoid anything to do with children or young people who desperately need their help because of this fiasco. I certainly would have second thoughts if I was considering such a career. So many lives ruined and all on the basis of unprovan allegation, we will live to regret this but it will be too late.
- windsock
March 5, 2015 at 4:02 pm -
I was a volunteer mentor to children in care. Believe me, even pre-Savile we were given thorough training and warnings about how words and actions can be misinterpreted. I made sure I was never alone with those whom I mentored and everything that happened was in a public place. It wrenches the heart though that you couldn’t give a distressed teenager a hug for fear it would be mis-interpreted, especially by those who were in care as a result of previous sexual assaults.
I now volunteer in (hopefully) less muddy waters.
- eric hardcastle
March 5, 2015 at 10:26 pm -
Personally I would never even entertain the thought of working with children under the current hysteria, no loss there for the youth of the world but I guarantee many young people thinking of a career as social workers etc are having second thoughts.
However your statement that you made sure you were never alone with a child on the surface seems sensible except : now anyone can claim that you got them by themselves alone and assaulted them.
Your ability to produce a witness who was with you at the time will be of no help as that witness is likely to be defamed as these reports evidence & they will have said to be so incompetent to have not even noticed you were being dragged into a star’s dressing room etc.
The odious Mark Williams-Thomas supported by many is demanding someone pay the price for the Witch having escapes punishment hence they are now looking for “accomplices”(ie: underpaid & over-worked nurses)
Although of course the fury is that the reports make him look like the dangerous fool he is.I can only think body cameras may be the only protection to film every moment of your life but they raises the privacy problem.
- eric hardcastle
- windsock
- Boris
March 5, 2015 at 4:44 pm -
Can someone pls explain to me in a way that makes sense the conundrum it this. My impression is:
On one hand, you have hundreds of white girls in care, the most vulnerable (in the true sense not the bullshit politician sense) being abused in the main by Pakistani Muslims, whilst the council and police actively strive to look the other way even when their own reports etc show its going on.
One the other hand, there’s this almost Salem like witchhunt of blokes for fairly innocuous (when compared to Rotherham / Oxford) allegations committed 30+ years ago, compounded by the transformation of Saville into Charlie Manson (with Leon Brittan soon to follow I presume)
Now my impression is that the global Establishment (regardless of political party) is massively pro-immigration and seems to want to reduce the white populations of European nations to minority status. Stories like what has happened in Rotherham and Oxford (with more to follow) might finally be the pin that awakens the sleeping white populations.
So I perceive the mega high profile attached to the bullshit and the witchhunts to be a grotesque example of whataboutery. That whenever the immigrants tendencies are highlighted, you get a cry of “whatabout…..” in return.
Des anyone have an explanation of the contrast between the two scenarios?
- Peter Raite
March 5, 2015 at 4:48 pm -
Well, thinking there is a “global Establishment” desiring to “reduce the white populations of European nations to minority status” is your problem. Since the vast majority of the people in charge in Europe are themselves white, why would they want to do what you suggest? You shouldn’t confuse unintended outcomes with planned results.
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 5:05 pm -
It’s been a conspiracy since 1970
http://youtu.be/F3_MfDYVKlg - JimS
March 5, 2015 at 5:45 pm -
I see, merely asking the question is now a ‘problem’! When the ‘Rotherham’ story first broke our Deputy Children’s Commissioner rushed out a report to tell us that men everywhere were abusing children and Savile certainly helped that convenient message, while covering up the relative abuse rates for different groups of ‘men’.
My old school was 100% ‘white’ and there was a constant battle between the girls and the head mistress over how high a skirt could be hitched above the knee. This is no longer a ‘problem’ as the school is now 100% Pakistani ‘heritage’ children and barely an ankle is on display. Surprisingly the school governors think that the children should be brought up as ‘conservative’ Muslims but that isn’t a ‘problem’ for a secular democracy, just an unintended consequence of introducing an alien culture, a culture hardly noted for its ‘liberal’ values.
Why have our leaders rejected our culture and values. Who knows, I certainly don’t. Must be my ‘problem’.
- Peter Raite
March 6, 2015 at 9:59 am -
No, you thinking there is a “global Establishment” desiring to “reduce the white populations of European nations to minority status” is your problem. Whatever one thinks of the efficacy of multi-culturalism, it inherently means not rejecting anyone’s culture, including the native one.
- theantifeminist
March 6, 2015 at 10:34 am -
“Whatever one thinks of the efficacy of multi-culturalism, it inherently means not rejecting anyone’s culture, including the native one.”
Multi-culturalism is implicitly anti-white. Any celebration of ‘white’ or ‘European’ culture in the same manner as ethnic culture is frowned upon as ‘racist’. The term hardly even makes sense in the context of a society which is still 90% white, without a dilution and demeaning of that native white culture and its values, many of those values being totally irreconcilable with those of the non-native values (for example, promotion of liberal sexual attitudes and Islam).
As far as whether or not there is a ‘global establishment’ with a conscious desire to ‘reduce the white populations’, they would have to be pretty stupid not to have woken up after half-a-century to the fact that mass third-world immigration is having that effect. EU elites do appear to want the dissolution of nation states and with it the ideas of nationalism, and allowing unrestricted immigration together with multi-culturalism is leading inevitably to a steady break down of national identities within Europe.
“Why have our leaders rejected our culture and values”
Our leaders were brought up under Cultural Marxist values like the rest of us and taught to hate white male European civilisation and regard the lowliest African tribe as equal. Another reason, more pertinent to the subject of this blog, is because feminism, the dominant narrative, has much in common with Islam. Both seek to highly regulate the free sexual market in a way that preserves the ‘price’ of sex, and in a way which is very favourable to women. This is why feminists very rarely criticise Islam despite its supposed ‘oppression’ of women.
- Moor Larkin
March 6, 2015 at 11:53 am -
It’s no doubt pertinent to England that “the establishment” remains to the public eye as right-wing old duffers with gout whereas post-Blair it is replete with left-wing fascists like SIR Stammerer or Lady Lampard CBE.
- Peter Raite
March 6, 2015 at 4:31 pm -
That “Any celebration of ‘white’ or ‘European’ culture in the same manner as ethnic culture is frowned upon as ‘racist’,” is not an inherent component of multi-culturalism.
- Moor Larkin
- theantifeminist
- Peter Raite
- Johnnydub
March 5, 2015 at 5:55 pm -
“Since the vast majority of the people in charge in Europe are themselves white, why would they want to do what you suggest?”
Well Sweden politicians have made it a crime to criticise Multiculturalism, whilst at the same time Sweden has become the country with the biggest rape crisis in the West.
Its not logical, but it is happening.
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 7:37 pm -
It’s fairly apparent that Sweden has major issues with “feminists” who are leading the charge to pretty much class all heterosexual male behaviour as a potential rape, so I’m not sure Sveden is necessarily a useful example other than that where they have gone, maybe we can go too. Sweden was of course the leading nation in the Permissive Society. No coincidence there I suspect. Action generates Reaction.
I do wonder when it was that Multi-Racialism became Multi-Culturalism. I have to say that if I went to live in Dubai I wouldn’t want to merge with their culture, but so long as I made a life for myself in my own personal ghetto I do hope they would allow me to exist racially. No hand-outs or local council translated leaflets expected either if I chose to stay apart from the hosts expected either.
- Johnnydub
March 6, 2015 at 2:43 am -
Moor, I don’t think this is invented rape as in the Julian Assange scenario, this is cultural suicide.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
- Peter Raite
March 6, 2015 at 10:10 am -
I’d be wary of anything the Gatestone Institute had to say on anything.
There seem to be a lot of factors going on in Sweden, not least because they appear to have a much wider definition of the crime rthan the rest of Europe, and yet apparently there was a 5% fall in reported cases in 2013.
- Peter Raite
- Ian B
March 6, 2015 at 2:03 pm -
If you agree with my argument that 2nd wave feminism was a reaction against the sexual revolution by sexual puritans, it makes sense that it would be most powerful in countries that (a) embraced permissiveness and (b) have a powerful Protestant cultural heritage.
- Johnnydub
- Moor Larkin
- Moor Larkin
- Moor Larkin
March 5, 2015 at 5:32 pm -
Now you mention it, I haven’t come across a single suggestion that any of the 1400 rapees got pregnant, but to be fair I haven’t done any research.
- Peter Raite
- AdrianS
March 5, 2015 at 5:42 pm - Ian B
March 6, 2015 at 2:04 pm -
In other news, I see the police in the Danczuk case have found some “further allegators who have bravely come forward”. Quelle surprise.
- Alexander Baron
March 8, 2015 at 7:41 pm -
Just in case no one noticed:
as the people here said, it was all a feeding frenzy for the lawyers.
- SW
March 30, 2015 at 5:59 pm -
Anyone prepared to claim, 20+ years down the line, that you buggered them when you didn’t is unlikely to have any difficulty in claiming that you took them to a quiet place when you didn’t. These ‘modern’ safeguards won’t protect you at all after even a short period of time.
- Alexander Baron
May 26, 2015 at 6:50 pm -
Another nutter crawls out of the woodwork:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-vow-justice-over-abuse-104327911.html#hhNHUR3
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }