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

[Mr Pee]

Why does this make my skin crawl?

I have no idea.

[Stillhomewardbound]

I was away today so not able to take part in the debate, though not much of it releated to my original post, but on subsequent reading one post did enage with the posts I raised and I've responded accordingly: As ever, through the chair, and with all due respect to my honourable friend:

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.

MyCarthyism was hardly a struggle between differing ideologies. If it had been recognised as such, it is unlikely public opinion would have turned against it so as it did. If there really had been a communist conspiracy in the US does anyone believe Hollywood would have been where they lit the fuse?

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).

Twice, the term 'the UK entertainment industry' is applied and suggesting it is the subject of some industry-wide investigation, whereas a specific point of mine is that only one company has been subject to any scrutiny, ie. the BBC.

Later there are references to non-specific examples of institutional abuse with the added clause, 'especially the BBC'. Why especially the BBC, I'm wondering, no more than say Sainsbury's, ICI, the IOD, the IPPR, etc, etc.

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.

Some of us in this House, so to speak, were employees of the Beeb and worked with, or in close proximity to some of the persons against whom allegations have been made. Or we might just have been around, such as myself, when accompanying my dad on studio visits to Television Centre, but this is a picture I don't recognise at all. The BBC for all its faults is a very public and open body. By virtue of its Charter it has few places to hide, not like, say the closed worlds of the Vatican, or in Ireland, the order of the Magdalene Sisters, or the Roman Catholic church in Ireland itself. The BBC has never had the option to control and manipulate its reputation to the extent that is imputed.

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.

.... and here it is where we come to the nub of the problem and what I feel is my justification for suggesting there's a casual conspiracy at play. Let me re-run part of the quote above: "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."

Well, that's as if to say, and posit as fact, the accusation 'Well, they were probably all at it, weren't they?'. How about us replacing the name of Savile with 'Shipman, Harold', the GP who despatched some 250 patients to a premature demise. I don't recall any clamour of concern at the time that the 'medical industry' was riddled with mass murderers.

It is accepted that Harold Shipman was a complete one-off, how is it not possible that Jimmy Savile was a complete one-off?

How is it in these ongoing enquiries there's an implication of an unseen iceberg of abuse at the BBC with Savile at its peak?

Savile was an active and participatory ambassador for who knows how many charities and institutions. He was a regular Christmas guest at Chequers. He was an apparent confidante to the Prince of Wales; and yet only the BBC gets it in the neck every time.

Take Stoke Mandeville Hospital at which Savile had a shocking level of access for a non-medical associate, and with little shortage of innuendo and suggestion about his conduct there. Has it been the subject of of any police investigation? Could there not have been some ring of compliance there?

Well, there may well have been but it seems the police are much busy knocking on the doors of former BBC stars (only) while it could be suggested they have half the phone book to work off?


PS. Oh! News just in as I right: the result of enquiry by the North Yorks Constabulary who directly questioned Savile but found no case to answer. So, that's alright then. Funny that. Sort of. Not. Very.

[teamsaint]

Harold Shipman a one off?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247000/Dr-Jane-Barton-escapes-struck-prescribing-potentially-hazardous-levels-drugs.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/we-demand-justice-the-families-at-the-heart-of-gosports-hospital-scandal-1689030.html

When these supposed "One offs " happen,there is a good chance that there is an underlying pattern.

[MrGongGong]

Harold Shipman a one off?

There are very many people in the UK (probably a majority) who are supporters of it being legal to do more or less what Shipman did.
but back OT ?

What is very worrying is that there is (and this applies to wider society as well) and increasing level of suspicion around those folks who might be seen to be a "bit odd" or simply "eccentric". The assumption is that there is always something "fishy" as with the case of the retired music teacher in Bristol a couple of years ago who was assumed to be guilty of a terrible crime simply on account of his "strangeness". A bit more tolerance of difference would be a good thing, which is NOT to excuse abuse which is simply wrong (though some folks still seem to have a problem with what the word NO means, maybe looking at that part of the dictionary rather than words that start with M would be a good idea ? )

[Beef Oven!]

Furthermore, somebody who leaves their house with all the windows open should not be too surprised when they return to find the place burgled. That doesn't excuse the robbery but displays an extraordinary degree of stupidity and at least part-culpability on the part of the occupant, surely? Same with women who wander around town at night drunk and half-naked. They have chosen to be irresponsible and therefore expose themselves to greater danger.

Agreed. For me at least, it's about modesty. This is what makes the idea of women wearing a burqa or niqab so compelling. I'm pretty certain that in communities where such garments are the norm, there is a correspondingly low incidence of rape, especially where rape is defined, reported and investigated even-handedly. I know that most forumites would agree with me on this, albeit with a slightly different analysis.

[scottycelt]

Why does this make my skin crawl?

Like Mr Pee, I have absolutely no idea unless it's some sort of feeling that women are somehow less 'clever' and cunning than men? I certainly don't believe that.

Take the case of the willing prostitute and client. Whom is exploiting/taking advantage of whom in such a situation?

You tell us!

[Mr Pee]

Agreed. For me at least, it's about modesty. This is what makes the idea of women wearing a burqa or niqab so compelling. I'm pretty certain that in communities where such garments are the norm, there is a correspondingly low incidence of rape, especially where rape is defined, reported and investigated even-handedly. I know that most forumites would agree with me on this, albeit with a slightly different analysis.

I think that is going from one extreme to the other, beefy. It is the combination of scantily-dressed young women, large amounts of alcohol, and provocative behaviour that can lead to trouble.

And while we're on the subject, does anybody else agree that those accused of rape or other sexual offences should remain anonymous until a verdict has been delivered? There have been a number of cases over the years where men were falsely accused yet their names were splashed all over the newspapers. Of course, one could argue that this could apply in other types of criminal case as well, but rape is an area where it is very easy for a woman to make a false accusation.

[teamsaint]

[QUOTE=MrGongGong;348440]There are very many people in the UK (probably a majority) who are supporters of it being legal to do more or less what Shipman did.
but back OT ?

Looks on topic to me ! SHB mentioned about Shipman being a one off, like Savile.
I was pointing out there are patterns.
What some people might or might want is surely irrelevant?

Jane Barton's patients and their relatives didn't get to express an opinion until far too late.

[Mr Pee]

Looks on topic to me ! SHB mentioned about Shipman being a one off, like Savile.
I was pointing out there are patterns.
What some people might or might want is surely irrelevant?

Jane Barton's patients and their relatives didn't get to express an opinion until far too late.

I don't think one other case constitutes a pattern.

And as for Mr.GG's point -(which I only saw in your quote since I thankfully have him on ignore)- I do not think that you can equate euthanasia to end prolonged suffering, with the consent of all parties involved, with the deliberate murder of patients. "More or less?" Nothing like.

[amateur51]

Well. some of us don't like your idea of 'civilisation' any more than you like ours. So maybe it's best to leave it at that on this occasion.

You always know when scotty's on the ropes when he reaches for 'some of us'

Frankly, I think your second point is deeply insulting to women and indeed thoroughly sexist. Are you suggesting that girls are not capable of taking advantage of boys as well as vice-versa? That has certainly not been my experience!

Furthermore, somebody who leaves their house with all the windows open should not be too surprised when they return to find the place burgled. That doesn't excuse the robbery but displays an extraordinary degree of stupidity and at least part-culpability on the part of the occupant, surely? Same with women who wander around town at night drunk and half-naked. They have chosen to be irresponsible and therefore expose themselves to greater danger. They must accept some responsibility for being irresponsible. They are women ... they are just as capable as men in making sensible decisions ... well, aren't they?

You'll do your back in permanently one of these days, reaching like that

[amateur51]

I have no idea.

Is that the motto of the family Pee, I wonder?

[teamsaint]

I don't think one other case constitutes a pattern.

And as for Mr.GG's point -(which I only saw in your quote since I thankfully have him on ignore)- I do not think that you can equate euthanasia to end prolonged suffering, with the consent of all parties involved, with the deliberate murder of patients. "More or less?" Nothing like.

when does it become a pattern? When should be worried?
soon? when its somebody we know? when it affects somebody in the public eye?When it all becomes a bit inconvenient? when its in Hampstead, and not in Gosport?

The point is surely that patterns are often there and we need to be aware that these supposed one offs may indeed be tip of an iceberg.

[amateur51]

I think that is going from one extreme to the other, beefy. It is the combination of scantily-dressed young women, large amounts of alcohol, and provocative behaviour that can lead to trouble.

And while we're on the subject, does anybody else agree that those accused of rape or other sexual offences should remain anonymous until a verdict has been delivered? There have been a number of cases over the years where men were falsely accused yet their names were splashed all over the newspapers. Of course, one could argue that this could apply in other types of criminal case as well, but rape is an area where it is very easy for a woman to make a false accusation.

Does the same reasoning apply to the allegations against former Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans MP, I wonder?

[scottycelt]

You always know when scotty's on the ropes when he reaches for 'some of us'

You'll do your back in permanently one of these days, reaching like that

Okay then, millions of us if you insist on a much greater degree of accuracy. I was being my usual modest self.

Have you actually anything of particular worth to contribute to this discussion, amsey ... ? :winkeye:

[Beef Oven!]

.........It is the combination of scantily-dressed young women, large amounts of alcohol....

I think that in societies where alcohol is banned, there are almost no cases of rape whatsoever. We need to get smart about social policy and look outside European thinking and permissiveness.