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

[Mr Pee]

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".

Unbelievable.

[Mr Pee]

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.

Really? You obviously have insider knowledge of News International.

Do tell us more, oh all-knowing one.

[amateur51]

Really? You obviously have insider knowledge of News International.

Do tell us more, oh all-knowing one.

Did you read not yesterday's papers about the secret six-year
affair between two top people at NI and Downing Street then??

[eighthobstruction]

....whoops posted on wrong thread....

[scottycelt]

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

I have already explained and you continue to demonstrate the validity of the explanation!

It is not the existence of feminism that is the puritanical aspect here but the fact that it cannot ever be challenged without immediate cries of 'sexism' or 'Neanderthal male attitudes' (or in your case 'disgraceful' and 'shameless') in order to prevent proper debate on the matter!

In other words the things we don't want to hear must never be discussed. Is that not intrinsically puritanical?

[Stillhomewardbound]

I worried a good bit through the night about having generated this post, so I'm pleased to there has been an intelligent and mature response.

I recognise and sympathise with the point about the danger of ignoring voices of abuse but as in process of enquiry surely there has to be a sense of perspective, that was why I drew the analogy with McCarthyism which had an undue obsession with Hollywood.

So, in the current environment, the focus and most of the accusations centre almost exclusively on very high profile broadcasting entertainers working for a single enterprise, and yes, isn't it a coincidence too far that this institution has for a good few years now been the subject of persistent political and media attack by those who will brook no voice of dissent and commercial interests that seek to make a commercial gain by the dismantling of the BBC.

[Richard Barrett]

In other words the things we don't want to hear must never be discussed. Is that not intrinsically puritanical?

But we're talking about things which are for the first time being discussed. Is that not the opposite of puritanical?

[amateur51]

I have already explained and you continue to demonstrate the validity of the explanation!

It is not the existence of feminism that is the puritanical aspect here but the fact that it cannot ever be challenged without immediate cries of 'sexism' or 'Neanderthal male attitudes' (or in your case 'disgraceful' and 'shameless') in order to prevent proper debate on the matter!

In other words the things we don't want to hear must never be discussed. Is that not intrinsically puritanical?

You don't discuss these things scotty but by all means go ahead. Construct an argument please. I am highly amused that anything I say could stop you in your tracks.

[jean]

It is not the existence of feminism that is the puritanical aspect here but the fact that it cannot ever be challenged without immediate cries of 'sexism' or 'Neanderthal male attitudes' (or in your case 'disgraceful' and 'shameless') in order to prevent proper debate on the matter!

It is not clear to me what sort of 'proper debate' you would like to see on the subject of feminism, because you have never taken any steps to initiate one.

Lobbing accusations unsupported by any argument doesn't count.

It's only fair to add that your own avatar at the time cried out for the appellation Neanderthal. Keep the present one, and I might have to call you a lipstick lesbian.

.

[french frank]

It is not the existence of feminism that is the puritanical aspect here but the fact that it cannot ever be challenged without immediate cries of 'sexism' or 'Neanderthal male attitudes' (or in your case 'disgraceful' and 'shameless') in order to prevent proper debate on the matter!

But this is surely right? Any attack on 'feminism' is inherently 'sexist'. You can criticise a woman, or a particular issue (State Pension age for example), or a news item, or behaviour, or tactics, by putting forward criticisms of the narrow context.

So you're right: 'feminism' can't be challenged as a concept, any more than 'racial equality' can be challenged, without voices being raised in protest.

[aeolium]

I worried a good bit through the night about having generated this post, so I'm pleased to there has been an intelligent and mature response.

I recognise and sympathise with the point about the danger of ignoring voices of abuse but as in process of enquiry surely there has to be a sense of perspective, that was why I drew the analogy with McCarthyism which had an undue obsession with Hollywood.

So, in the current environment, the focus and most of the accusations centre almost exclusively on very high profile broadcasting entertainers working for a single enterprise, and yes, isn't it a coincidence too far that this institution has for a good few years now been the subject of persistent political and media attack by those who will brook no voice of dissent and commercial interests that seek to make a commercial gain by the dismantling of the BBC.

I really don't think the comparison with the McCarthyist campaign stands up. That was a witch-hunt against people for the political ideas they held (or in some cases were alleged to have held) even though those ideas were not against the law and indeed were protected by constitutional rights. The trials of those in the UK entertainment industry have been on charges of acts of very serious sex abuse and which were against the law when they were alleged to have taken place, however long ago. The entertainment industry has not been singled out, as this follows numerous trials and inquiries into historic sex and physical abuse in institutions (religious, mental, care, reformatory etc). It has not proved easy to prosecute such cases, as for instance this case shows (and indeed the Savile experience).

Why might there be more cases coming out now related to the entertainment industry and especially the BBC? I suggest because it was a huge organisation and as with other large organisations where we know such abuse took place there was a culture of reputational protection (as well as a greater tolerance of sexual harassment) - for the organisation as well as for the famous and powerful celebrities who might otherwise have been vulnerable to allegations. And as with the other institutional abuse cases, it will be difficult to obtain a successful prosecution without allegations from multiple sources given the time lapse. It goes without saying that all those accused are presumed to be innocent unless found guilty. Yet given the evidence amassed relating to Savile I don't think it should come as a surprise if there were others in the entertainment industry who also offended.

[vinteuil]

... for those with access to The Times there is a good piece by Matthew Parris on just this subject today : he takes a similar position to stillh'wardb'd in his Opening Post...

[scottycelt]

Again the three 'closed-minds' and rather haughty responses to my post only confirm my point. I need add nothing more.

However, getting back to the original post I think it was a refreshingly honest one and congratulate shb on it.

I don't want the issues of 'feminism' or 'political correctness' to overshadow the main point and will simply say that I can also see the connection/similarity with McCarthyism, but this time the intolerance isn't just coming from the Right.

We all have to observe things as we find them however much these observations may greatly displease others whether feminists or Neanderthals-turned-lipstick-lesbians.

[teamsaint]

Maybe its because its Saturday, but again I find myself baffled.

what is it that "we" are supposed to be tolerant of ?Offences 30/50 years old? People getting away with things because they are powerful, or are being protected by the even more powerful?

There are agendas everywhere, and we need to be alert to them, but as Aeolium so eloquently points out, its not just the media that have been put under scrutiny. One of the most worrying aspects of these events is the ecident close relationship between Savile and the WY police. And if it happened there....
Looking upwards is usually a good idea.

[french frank]

and will simply say that I can also see the connection/similarity with McCarthyism, but this time the intolerance isn't just coming from the Right.

Well, I'll repeat what I said again, and aeolium said in greater detail. This is the bit from the OP which seems fundamentally flawed:

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 ...

A witch-hunt based on fears and possible threats is different from a 'witch-hunt' in search of criminals. This isn't about a 'threat that isn't there'. It's about crimes that were committed, and insofar as they were crimes, they can't be written off as the 'mores of the time'.

Historic child abuse has been uncovered in any number of institutions. If this kind of media 'witch-hunt' makes it less likely that such a culture will exist again, it will have served a purpose, prison sentences and all. The emphasis being on the 'culture': no one would imagine that individual cases will not still occur.