 |
| A nice suit for a court appearance |
The nephew of the late broadcaster Sir Jimmy Savile has said his family is ''disgusted and disappointed'' that allegations his uncle sexually abused school girls have been made when he is no longer around to defend himself.
Sorry mate, when it comes to child abuse, there is no statute of limitations. All of the people that turned a blind eye to this back then, and the institution of the BBC itself is also as every bit to blame. That's the rules the BBC have set, and now it's time to apply their own standards to themselves.
Saville Row
Meanwhile, the cops take the easy option and arrest Gary Glitter, who already had a UK conviction for possessing child porn, not to mention the more infamous case of child abuse in Vietnam. They kept him for 10 hours to prove they are looking hard for scapegoats.
Well said Zen. The BBC disgust me.
ReplyDeleteHow is the BBC any different to the Catholic Church, which is fervently defended by many commenters on this blog? They're both guilty of the same thing
ReplyDeleteLiberalLeftie,
ReplyDeleteThey're not different in that way, if they have both turned a blind eye to abusers.
However, what I find interesting about all of this is that child abuse has been a bit more widespread than previously thought. So many times I've been in arguments with people online telling me that the Catholic Church supports child abuse and that the most dangerous person a child could be left alone with is a Catholic priest. That's patently not true.
I see quite a lot of good coming out of the vociferous condemnation of the Church with regards to child abuse - it's changed the way things were heading in terms of the vast majority of people thinking it's either not that big a deal or presuming nothing can be done. Those paedophile groups that keep trying to create social acceptance of their deviancy are going to have a harder time getting any traction in an environment like this that is getting less liberal.
"How is the BBC any different to the Catholic Church,"
ReplyDeleteIn many respects with regard to the alleged crimes they are no different, and yet I suspect that in the final analysis, they will be treated differently. We certainly wont see Dawkins calling for the BBC to be shut down and the CEO incarcerated. Unless he thinks it would help his cause to destroy the Catholic Church, so I suppose he is psychotic enough to contemplate the collateral damage as being acceptable.
"which is fervently defended by many commenters on this blog?"
Not so. Pedophiles of any profession or vocation need the full force of the law thrown upon them (actually, I'd argue more than the full force of the law, because it has just as much been a failure of the law enforcement and justice process back in the 60's and 70's that failed us too. Judges would put pedophiles into therapy, not prison. Disgusting by today's standards.)
The people that specifically covered up abuse also need to be put in front of the court system.
No argument from me on that score, and I resent your accusations that it isn't otherwise.
I just don't buy into the rather general arguments that the vast percentage of good priests that are completely innocent of any wrong doing, should be taken out and shot just because some people don't like the Catholic Church and want to blame 100% pf the people for the crimes of the few. So I take a little time to check the facts of the case, and sometimes the facts stand and the parties that are guilty are indeed guilty and lock them up and throw away the key. Or bring back capital punishment, and let God sort them out.
But the point of this post is not to defend the Catholic Church, but just to ask if the BBC will apply its own standards to its own crimes? Probably not, but as I'm sure you are keen to argue - there is no reason why they shouldn't. And whatever the law does or doesn't do with all the people involved in the "blind eye" syndrome should not excuse the BBC from taking retrospective action and also awarding massive compensation payments to all who may now chose to step forward.
Lawyer up victims, it's your chance for justice, no matter how long ago it happened.
Yes, this sickness is widespread. Yesterday, the boxing great Sugar Ray Leonard publicly stated that he was abused as well.
ReplyDeleteZen
I guess that you are describing what is real hypocrisy (and exposing the real hypocrites).
I read a book a few years back where the author states that 'people react to how they feel about truth'. Clear case of nuttiness.