I’m a male primary school teacher, I know the risks of a false accusation.
I was not arguing that you can legislate away risk to children, but you could ensure that all accusations are documented and passed on to the relevant authorities (which is what happens currently in schools), and make failure to notify an offence.
As to the rest of my post it was more towards calling bullshit on the claims that Savile was untouchable that a lot of the press is claiming.
100% disagree. All I see from that article is a bitter old man who now has a convenient excuse for his shitty life and journalism on a par with the World Weekly News.
Let’s dream up the perfect tabloid scandal
[ul]
[li]Start with an allegation that a dead celebrity had sex with one or more underage girls[/li][li]Add in a second celebrity (who is also conveniently dead)[/li][li]Add a third celebrity who is an actual, convicted pedophile (never mind that he was into pre pubescents, the public won’t know or care about the difference)[/li][li]Add in a fourth celebrity who is only remembered for a single very famous headline (Freddie Starr ate my hamster)[/li][li]Let’s add in a catholic priest and a sprinkling of ten year old boys (why would a pervy old man who apparently likes teenaged girls be at all interested in grade school boys?)[/li][/ul]
All we’re missing at this point is for big name (but also conveniently dead) politician/judge/bishop to be involved. I’m sure the Daily Mail can come with someone who is prepared to make those allegations in pretty short order
Again, I am not saying that Jimmy Savile didn’t have sex with fourteen year old girls. What I am saying is that what we are seeing on TV and in the papers is 100% by the desire to make profit and not a search for truth.
Incidentally, having sex with with girls with girls as young as 13 was hilarious in the 1970s was hilarious. Cite.
And as I read that story, this one appeared in the sidebar:
Screenshot:
That’s hilarious. Almost as good as the Daily Star/Brass Eye Paedophile special one from years ago…
(http://screenagers.me/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/chestswell.jpg)
Yep, that one is an all-time classic.
Looking more and more lime I was right
Is it just me, or has there always been something sleazy about Bruce Forsyth?
NB - I am NOT insinuating he’s a paedophile, but if his basement turns out to be full of buried blondes, I wouldn’t be surprised.
One suspects he knows where “the bodies are buried” if not literally, seeing that is the only plausible explanation for him still being on TV.
His jokes are like an oil tanker. Functional, ugly and cumbersome. plus you can see them coming from miles away, you can’t change their course, you know it is going to seem like forever until they arrive and it’ll be bad news when they eventually do.
Tortured analogy over.
We don’t know all of the background, true, but I think it’s a bit lazy to assume that journalists misrepresent or pollute the facts by default, just because they’re journalists.
It sort of was accepted, if not acceptable - that might seem like a pointless distinction, but what I mean is: it’s not, and has never been, socially acceptable to throw a TV out of a hotel window, but if you’re Keith Richards, nobody is very surprised when it happens, and you seem to just get away with it, because you’re Keith Richards.
Drugs, violence, obnoxious rudeness, selfishness, general lawlessness and yes, relaxed sexual boundaries are all things for which ‘showbiz’ people seem to have been granted a greater allowance. Maybe not so much nowadays, but in the 70s, definitely.
Why not? Politicians do it all the time. And journalists these days so often have an agenda of their own or their master’s. I mean, look at how Dopers go on and on about Fox News and Murdoch.
Looks like the BBC thinks there is something to the story. http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/bbc-chief-issues-an-apology-to-jimmy-savile-s-abuse-victims-1-5004580
It’s just been on the news that Scotland Yard say he was definitely “a predatory sex offender”. Here you go. Can’t say I’m surprised.
Who’s profiting?
The newspaper publishers selling newspapers and advertising space, the TV companies selling advertising time, both have a financial incentive to keep the story running and running, and releasing prurient details is a time honoured method of keeping people watching/reading.
That’s not to say anything so far has been false, just answering your question.
So what?
Not all news is Fox news. I see no value in these hasty generalisations.
The Daily Mail pretty much is though. Their anti-BBC agenda and misrepresentation of the facts is pretty blatant
The BBC don’t sell advertising time or newspapers, and they’re still running the story (their latest- his headstone has been removed from his grave).
Not entirely true. The BBC website has ads if you browse to it from outside the UK. IN the grand scheme of things it probably isn’t relevant to this discussion, but I thought I’d say.
Sure, however, as far as I know, I’ve not relied on the Daily Fail as a primary source in this (or indeed, any) discussion.
