'Operation Yewtree' - the McCarthyism of our times??

[Stillhomewardbound]

I'm wondering if 'Operation Yewtree' is the McCarthyism of our times. Not so much 'reds under the beds' as 'showbiz paedos at the Beeb'. Whatever, there does seem to be an awful lot of them. Well, that is to say about 15 currently the subject of ongoing enquiries out of an organisation that would have employed some 30,000 staff and who knows how many freelance and contract staff. Oh, and isn't it interesting how these allegations have focused exclusively on the BBC (and even fewer which will actually lead to prosecutions). Yes, I wonder also how the fifteen or so regional ITV companies of the time ... Granada, YTV, LWT, Borders TV etc. were such organisations of sexual stricture as to be beyond reproach. Yes, funny how it was all going at the BBC.

As a former victim of sexual abuse myself I feel I have entitlement to suggest that we are witnessing a a tide of hysteria motivated, I know not by what, but perhaps predicated on a notion that we are swirling in the depths of a paedophiliac pandemic. There is no such pandemic. Sexual crimes against minors, acts of molestation, abuse amongst adults are as they have been for who knows how long and if nothing else, even if there was some sense to apparent police suspicions of a sexual conspiracy at the BBC, wouldn't common sense dictate that if it was institutional in such a large organisation then it would in all probability have been a phenomenon across an industry.

In the early days of Senator McCarthy's hearings by the HUAC (House Unamerican Activities Committee) there was a genuine post-war fear of communism. That it was a threat that simply was not there slowly came to be realised and at the same snail's pace a nation finally woke up to the reality that their democratic institutions were being used to conduct a witch-hunt.

No one specifically called for it then and I'm not entirely sure who's calling for this latter day witch-hunt now, but that's what I believe it to be; but who will be brave enough to suggest that enough is enough. We may have to wait a while longer because it seems to me that just to criticise this process for the media kangaroo court it has become is as good as to put oneself on the level of a sex criminal.

[Pabmusic]

I'm wondering if 'Operation Yewtree' is the McCarthyism of our times...As a former victim of sexual abuse myself I feel I have entitlement to suggest that we are witnessing a a tide of hysteria motivated, I know not by what, but perhaps predicated on a notion that we are swirling in the depths of a paedophiliac pandemic. There is no such pandemic...

How I agree with you. I respect your admission of abuse - and I don't have anything similar to confess - but 'abuse' was not a public issue anyway when I was a boy (late 50s/early 60s).

We are living in a puritanical age, in which the mores of an earlier generation are considered not just reprehensible but punishable. The conviction of a number of personalities from the 1960s and 70s will not bring true 'closure' to those who were abused (nothing does - closure is an imaginary idea) though it might bring a lot of compensation. It was telling to note that Richard Dawkins came in for much criticism for what he considered to have been mild paedophilia at boarding school ("You don't condemn the teacher who later killed himself? - you must be a paedophile yourself!").

It is interesting to speculate what future generations might think of this, just as we do about McCarthyism.

[amateur51]

How I agree with you. I respect your admission of abuse - and I don't have anything similar to confess - but 'abuse' was not a public issue anyway when I was a boy (late 50s/early 60s).

We are living in a puritanical age, in which the mores of an earlier generation are considered not just reprehensible but punishable. The conviction of a number of personalities from the 1960s and 70s will not bring true 'closure' to those who were abused (nothing does - closure is an imaginary idea) though it might bring a lot of compensation. It was telling to note that Richard Dawkins came in for much criticism for what he considered to have been mild paedophilia at boarding school ("You don't condemn the teacher who later killed himself? - you must be a paedophile yourself!").

It is interesting to speculate what future generations might think of this, just as we do about McCarthyism.

Not wishing to trivialise what shb has identified but isn't this another example of the social pendulumswining the other way? Decades ago the victims of abuse were ignored, made to feel isoltated, sklightly hysterical, etc etc. Just look at how long it has taken to come to terms of a sort with abuse by priests and clergymen, social workers in children's homes,in schools and in families of course.

Now we've admitted that abuse has happened in plain sight, while we were watching, nowwe've started looking for it everywhere, rather than giving it the cold shoulder of the past.

The problem is that many of the alleged crimes are 'historical', from decades past. Memories fade, new lives and new personae are created. However that doesn't mean that we should accept "oh he's an old bloke, it happened years ago, can't you just go for some counselling and let it lie?"

Nor should we assume that everyone (anyone?) is 'in it for the compensation' although how else is recompense to be sought for a life stalled, put on hold by a secret trauma? Money will never bring back the innocence of the past, but it might help to ease some of the pain & difficulties that have been caused. And in a strange way, it might quantify the degree of trauma experienced - "how much?!?"

There are no easy answers and I'm grateful to shb for raising the spectre of the witch-hunt. We must however be careful to build on what we have learned in recent years: the importance of listening to and valuing the testimony of the victim, and believing the possibility that what is alleged might be true. But we also have to retain the possibility that some people may seek to exploit a past injustice where no injustice exists. Investigatory staff will need good training and support, and the true victims will need a great deal more.

[Pabmusic]

...There are no easy answers and I'm grateful to shb for raising the spectre of the witch-hunt...

Oh yes. I don't mean to trivialise anything - it's just that there are probably many much younger people who might be held to account (and who are potentially more dangerous) but who will be passed over because they're less high-profile.

[scottycelt]

How I agree with you. I respect your admission of abuse - and I don't have anything similar to confess - but 'abuse' was not a public issue anyway when I was a boy (late 50s/early 60s).

We are living in a puritanical age, in which the mores of an earlier generation are considered not just reprehensible but punishable. The conviction of a number of personalities from the 1960s and 70s will not bring true 'closure' to those who were abused (nothing does - closure is an imaginary idea) though it might bring a lot of compensation. It was telling to note that Richard Dawkins came in for much criticism for what he considered to have been mild paedophilia at boarding school ("You don't condemn the teacher who later killed himself? - you must be a paedophile yourself!").

It is interesting to speculate what future generations might think of this, just as we do about McCarthyism.

How true, Pab. Precisely the point I made some time ago on another thread to the inevitable derision from some quarters, notably amateur51!

The New Puritanism (largely inspired by Political Correctness, Feminism etc), and no doubt a public display of intent by the police to catch paedophiles, would appear to be responsible for these curious arrests of old men who are alleged to have committed sex offences when times were so different. If any of these men were responsible for the rape and sex abuse of children then they deserve everything they get. However, I cannot be the only one who is extremely doubtful about allegations now being made by elderly women (and men) about events, some nearly half-a-century ago, when they were teenagers. I do not doubt that some of these accused men had 'reputations' and their actions would be condemned today, whilst not necessarily raising many eyebrows at the time. As you say, Pab, some of the relatively mild things that happened at school in the past might now be described as 'paedophilia'.

Also we must not equate these men with the Savile investigations which are quite separate. Savile appears to have been a nasty piece of work ... a true paedophile who quite revoltingly preyed on sick kids. Judging by some of the 'historic' charges now being brought against these old celebrities, it is wholly wrong to describe them in the same way, imv.

Finally, I cannot see how the police can bring charges against these men unless they either confess or they simply take the word of the complainant(s). Maybe they simply go by the number of complainants?

There must be a lot of worried old men around these days the way things are going. Surely it would be better for the police to concentrate on catching men who rape and abuse women and kids TODAY?

[amateur51]

Oh yes. I don't mean to trivialise anything - it's just that there are probably many much younger people who might be held to account (and who are potentially more dangerous) but who will be passed over because they're less high-profile.

All agreed Pabs, but I think the police have still much to do, particularly around attitudes to victims, as exemplified in the recent grooming gangs in Rotherham and Oxford where defensive attitudes in the police to race clearly caused problems. This is as much an issue of senior management as anything else, I feel.

[amateur51]

How true, Pab. Precisely the point I made some time ago on another thread to the inevitable derision from some quarters, notably amateur51!

The New Puritanism (largely inspired by Political Correctness, Feminism etc), and no doubt a public display of intent by the police to catch paedophiles, would appear to be responsible for these curious arrests of old men who are alleged to have committed sex offences when times were so different. If any of these men were responsible for the rape and sex abuse of children then they deserve everything they get. However, I cannot be the only one who is extremely doubtful about allegations now being made by elderly women (and men) about events, some nearly half-a-century ago, when they were teenagers. I do not doubt that some of these accused men had 'reputations' and their actions would be condemned today, whilst not necessarily raising many eyebrows at the time. As you say, Pab, some of the relatively mild things that happened at school in the past might now be described as 'paedophilia'.

Also we must not equate these men with the Savile investigations which are quite separate. Savile appears to have been a nasty piece of work ... a true paedophile who quite revoltingly preyed on sick kids. Judging by some of the 'historic' charges now being brought against these old celebrities, it is wholly wrong to describe them in the same way, imv.

Finally, I cannot see how the police can bring charges against these men unless they either confess or they simply take the word of the complainant(s). Maybe they simply go by the number of complainants?

There must be a lot of worried old men around these days the way things are going. Surely it would be better for the police to concentrate on catching men who rape and abuse women and kids TODAY?

I'm sure that Pabs will speak for himself but your shameless bandwagoning on this issue so that you can bash feminism and 'political correctness' yet again is a disgrace.

BaL calls.

[teamsaint]

I am genuinely puzzled by the suggestion that there is a new puritanism around.

Its not clear to me from the media, (including online), social attitudes or anywhere else.

I think part of what we are seeing with the various police actions is a willingness of those in even higher positions to sacrifice those lower down to save themselves.

[french frank]

Oh yes. I don't mean to trivialise anything - it's just that there are probably many much younger people who might be held to account (and who are potentially more dangerous) but who will be passed over because they're less high-profile.

But the media coverage might make people, young teenagers in particular, more ready to speak out. Do we know what arises out of complaints to Childline, for instance? Yes, media coverage is greater for high profile suspects, but that doesn't mean other cases aren't being dealt with.

Why so many at the BBC? I suppose it started there with the explosion of pop music, the coverage by the BBC (and it must have been much greater there in the 60s &70s than at ITV) and the particular vulnerability of young girls exposed to that world at the time.

As for witch-hunts: I think there is less of a link with McCarthyism than with the continued hunting down of ex-Nazis involved in 'historic' crimes. At least in the case of communism it is not now generally held to be a crime to be a member or passive sympathiser; and only was then because of the suspicions of what communists 'might' have been secretly engaged in. As far as I know, child abuse and racist mass murder are still illegal.

[Pabmusic]

I am genuinely puzzled by the suggestion that there is a new puritanism around.

Its not clear to me from the media, (including online), social attitudes or anywhere else.

I think part of what we are seeing with the various police actions is a willingness of those in even higher positions to sacrifice those lower down to save themselves.

What a neat suggestion. I'd not considered it. Makes you think.

[scottycelt]

I am genuinely puzzled by the suggestion that there is a new puritanism around.

Its not clear to me from the media, (including online), social attitudes or anywhere else.

I think part of what we are seeing with the various police actions is a willingness of those in even higher positions to sacrifice those lower down to save themselves.

Not 'puritanism' in the sense that, say, sexual matters cannot be discussed, ts. Today quite the opposite is so obviously true! However, there is a notable hypocrisy in the ready condemnation of the sexual behaviour of some in past times when just about anything involving consenting adults is now deemed acceptable, and attitudes generally are so different.

No, 'puritanism' in the sense that criticising some modern societal 'sacred cows' are considered by many to be quite beyond the pale and termed 'disgraceful' and 'shameful', as #7 demonstrates only too well!

This certainly equates with the recognition of religious 'blasphemy' in previous ages, imv.

[Richard Barrett]

Another aspect of this that springs to my mind is that it feeds very conveniently into the long-standing Murdoch/Tory attack on the BBC itself, as an insitution which (according to that narrative) has an "unfair advantage" over commercial media companies in being funded by the licence fee, and moreover supposedly expresses a "left-wing bias" in its news reporting and analysis. This is not in any way to trivialise the seriousness of the damage done to young people back then, still less to explain the present phenomenon away in terms of some ridiculous "political correctness" argument, but it is rather suspicious, as stillhomewardbound says, that it all seems to have gone on at the BBC and nowhere else in "show business".

I'm happy to say I was lucky enough not to have experienced any of these goings-on, or even to have heard about them at the time, which (given how rife they obviously were) just underlines for me how isolated and helpless the victims must have felt, being unable to tell even their closest friends about it and holding it all in until decades later.

[Richard Barrett]

the ready condemnation of the sexual behaviour of some in past times when just about anything involving consenting adults is now deemed acceptable

The clue is to be found in the phrase "consenting adults" I think.

[amateur51]

Not 'puritanism' in the sense that, say, sexual matters cannot be discussed, ts. Today quite the opposite is so obviously true! However, there is a notable hypocrisy in the ready condemnation of the sexual behaviour of some in past times when just about anything involving consenting adults is now deemed acceptable, and attitudes generally are so different.

No, 'puritanism' in the sense that criticising some modern societal 'sacred cows' are considered by many to be quite beyond the pale and termed 'disgraceful' and 'shameful', as #7 demonstrates only too well!

This certainly equates with the recognition of religious 'blasphemy' in previous ages, imv.

Explain to me (us?) how feminism has resulted in this new puritanism of which you mumble then.

[amateur51]

Another aspect of this that springs to my mind is that it feeds very conveniently into the long-standing Murdoch/Tory attack on the BBC itself, as an insitution which (according to that narrative) has an "unfair advantage" over commercial media companies in being funded by the licence fee, and moreover supposedly expresses a "left-wing bias" in its news reporting and analysis. This is not in any way to trivialise the seriousness of the damage done to young people back then, still less to explain the present phenomenon away in terms of some ridiculous "political correctness" argument, but it is rather suspicious, as stillhomewardbound says, that it all seems to have gone on at the BBC and nowhere else in "show business".

I'm happy to say I was lucky enough not to have experienced any of these goings-on, or even to have heard about them at the time, which (given how rife they obviously were) just underlines for me how isolated and helpless the victims must have felt, being unable to tell even their closest friends about it and holding it all in until decades later.

I think that events over at the Old Bailey during the next six months will show that different but equally shocking things were going on at News International, with a tangy hypocritical edge to boot.