View Full Version : Desperate.
Oh come on Sandi, who would be desperate enough to want to grope you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19861146
What I can't understand is why are they just bringing this out into the open now, why not earlier?
C3.
Corrie, your comment is nothing short disgusting. Why did none of these people come forward? Because of comments like the one you have just made. Because these people were just as believed as the belief you placed in Sandi Tokvigs comments. Because they were "no-ones" who hoped to be progress. Because they were not sure if they had some cuplpability in what happened, and only hind sight and experience taught them that they had not.
Not all of us can be all knowing ever-wise and future predicting Corries.
Sorry Ju, I can't agree with you. Liz Kershaw has kept quiet for all these years about the presenter who fondled her breasts while she was presenting a live show. Ok, as you say she probably kept quiet so that she could progress and keep her job but why not name the presenter now? What has she got to lose?
In fact, if I were her I would have broadcast it live as it happened on the radio, everyone would have known about this abuse and who was doing it!!
And after that I would have kicked him where it hurts!!
I am sorry but I reckon there are quite a few jumping on the "Let's get Savile now he is dead" bandwagon!!!
C3.
If the accusations are true then those that are now making them should have made a noise when it happened all those years ago, could have stopped the accused assaulting others.
I am sorry, but this is not one person, nor even one group/type of people coming forward. Not all the people coming forward were abused physically. Some were young people working for the bbc at the time, who did not completely understand what they were witnessing. others took information to bosses who dismissed/covered up. none of these youngsters were "credible" just as none of the Rochdale kids were credible: they were in bad company, under foster care or in homes- what else could be expected.
If Liz Kershaw/ Sandi Toksvig named names they would be suspect of slandering without the possibility of defense. If they don't name them publicly, it's because they are hiding something. What can they do that is right? Maybe tell someone in authority, that now with their life experience and the weight of their professional reputation, what happened. And hope that maybe that will contribute toward preventing that it happen again.
When you are 20 years old in the eighties, when you have no voice or credibility and something like this happens, you will make any excuse in your mind not to make waves. And you will push it to the furtherest recess of your mind- almost to forgotten. If you do not understand this, Corrie, you have a very limited life experience either in years or in scope.
equusdriving
07-Oct-12, 20:40
if Corrie3 wants to condone the acts of paedophiles and perverts that's his prerogative!...................................... .................mind you it does give you an insight into what goes on in that head of his!
If the accusations are true then those that are now making them should have made a noise when it happened all those years ago, could have stopped the accused assaulting others.
I agree FocusRS, that is the point I was trying to make. The police actioned a lot of sex scandals in the 80's and if this went on at the BBC of all places then it would have been dealt with if it was reported in the correct manner.
C3.
equusdriving
07-Oct-12, 21:08
if Corrie3 wants to condone the acts of paedophiles and perverts that's his prerogative!...................................... .................mind you it does give you an insight into what goes on in that head of his!
not guilty because the victim is not attractive enough, he has really excelled himself this time!
if Corrie3 wants to condone the acts of paedophiles and perverts that's his prerogative!...................................... .................mind you it does give you an insight into what goes on in that head of his!
He's a Jimmy Saville fan!
He's a Jimmy Saville fan!
Of course I am sids, he left me his hot-tub in his will!!!
How's about that then boy's and girls!!!
C3.
Spongeboab
07-Oct-12, 21:45
Oh come on Sandi, who would be desperate enough to want to grope you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19861146
What I can't understand is why are they just bringing this out into the open now, why not earlier?
C3.
Thursday night's question time ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s6RxcNJKms
rich62_uk
07-Oct-12, 21:55
There were many adults who witnessed his attacks/abuse but they did not come forward as they themselves as adults did not think they would be believed, they were children.
Oh come on Sandi, who would be desperate enough to want to grope you?
Wow. This is incredibly offensive. So because she doesn't hold to your personal values of 'attractive', there's no way someone would have sexually assaulted her?
John Little
08-Oct-12, 09:10
Can't help wondering if anyone would be 'desperate' enough to grope C3... And how he would react if they did?
not guilty because the victim is not attractive enough, he has really excelled himself this time!
Totally agree with you, there, Equus. Corrie seems to think that only atractive people can be abuse or raped. Everyone else should be what? Grateful for the attention? I am disgusted at even the thought, but that is what I read between Corries lines, and yes, it does upset me. His is a very distorted view of abuse. He has no recollection of how much has changed in 30 years for women, how small the voices of women were (nevermind children who had no voices at all), how much you had to give up if you had or wanted a career and were female 30 years ago. If you were female and made waves, it was because you were hysterical and not cut out for the job. Many still think this, but at least we have come far enough along that saying so is frowned upon.
Can't help wondering if anyone would be 'desperate' enough to grope C3... And how he would react if they did?
They would have to be very desperate indeed John!!!
C3.
how much you had to give up if you had or wanted a career and were female 30 years ago. If you were female and made waves, it was because you were hysterical and not cut out for the job.
So are you saying that Women were prepared to be sex objects just to get, or hold onto a job at the stiff upper lipped BBC ??
Is that the price they were prepared to pay for getting their fame and fortune?
C3.
So are you saying that Women were prepared to be sex objects just to get, or hold onto a job at the stiff upper lipped BBC ??
Is that the price they were prepared to pay for getting their fame and fortune?
C3.
EVEN if they did, the fault still remains with the person who used their power for their own personal gratification and on those who covered up.
EVEN if they did, the fault still remains with the person who used their power for their own personal gratification and on those who covered up.
I agree Ju, of course the blame lies with the person doing the abusing. But my OP question was "Why have they left it until now" to say something? If I were Sandi Toksvig or Liz Kershaw there is no damn way I would have let it carry on, job or no job!!! I would have made my voice heard one way or another. It's interesting to note that the BBC have quoted as saying that not one complaint was received about abuse. Even in the 80's the police would have taken claims of abuse seriously and certainly other media who would love nothing less than to bring the BBC down and would have run their story, it would have been right up "The News of The World's" street!!!
I am sorry but in the case of Toksvig and Kershaw they only have themselves to blame for not putting someone (who even now they refuse to name) behind bars for a very long time!!! They should have blown the whistle there and then to stop others getting abused if nothing else. So what you are saying is that they both kept quiet and let other girls get abused just so they could keep their jobs. How selfish and morally wrong is that Ju ?
C3.
rich62_uk
08-Oct-12, 11:46
You are very naive corrie. No they would not of taken it serious in the 80's, the laws were all changing and in the word of one Police Officer to me ....... Its all like hot potatoes at the moment and no one wants to touch it ....... They would of lost their jobs which they had fought hard for and put up and shut up. Not all people are alike and its a shame it was not you that was abused at the time by him as you could of blown the whistle knowing that you are so perfect you would of given everything up for no reason.
. But my OP question was "Why have they left it until now" to say something? If I were Sandi Toksvig or Liz Kershaw there is no damn way I would have let it carry on, job or no job!!!
C3.
Because they had no voice. Because they had no life experience. Because they thought that they were in part to blame for what happened to themselves. Because it was the 80's. Because back then they were no one. Because they worked in a male dominated workplace. Because the worplace management was complicit in keeping things as they were. Because they were scared of what would happen to them and to their professional life if they did make too much noise. And, as so eloquently explained by Janet Street Porter, who was smacked by her mother when she described being abused at the age of 10 by her hairdresser, no one would believe them or would want to believe them or would listen to them.
Why do you insist that those who had the least power to make changes are those that should have made them? Why are they to blame for their fears ( however unreal you feel them to be), rather than those that instilled these fears into them?
I would have made my voice heard one way or another. It's interesting to note that the BBC have quoted as saying that not one complaint was received about abuse. Even in the 80's the police would have taken claims of abuse seriously and certainly other media who would love nothing less than to bring the BBC down and would have run their story, it would have been right up "The News of The World's" street!!!
C3.
Untrue. If you were a young female in the 80's you would never damage your reputation in this way. You live in cuckoo land, Corrie. A place totally divorced from reality.
Oh come on Sandi, who would be desperate enough to want to grope you?
But my OP question was "Why have they left it until now" to say something? C3.
No, your OP basically implied they were lying because they weren't attractive enough and they were now essentially bandwagon-jumping and lying to simply make the press.
What an odious person you are.
Life was different in the seventies and eighties and probably the nineties too. Ignoring what used to happen at school... I worked from 1977 when i was 13. Saturday jobs and the like. I started full time permanent work when I was 18 in 1982. I was no great shakes in the looks department and have always been on the plump side but I too was groped, fondled and harrassed from being 15 - I had big boobs and this seemed to be an invitation to colleagues and bosses to stick their hand down the front of my shirt or press themselves up against me in the stock room or stick their hands up my skirt.
Thing was I didnt know it was harrassment although i knew I didnt like it but I was well equipped with a good hard slap and a cheeky mouth so was able to get my own back. I was however hauled up for assaulting a colleage when I was 19 and I slapped his face after he thought it was appropriate to stick his hand inside my jacket and give me a good squeeze. This was after I had complained about his page three pictures that were ALL over the office that we shared. I asked him to take them down and he just laughed and the previous girl hadnt complained so was I frigid or what. Cue grope and slap. I was seen slapping him and reported to my manager - a man. I was given an offiial verbal warning and told not to be so touchy - he was taken for a beer and they all laughed about it in the pub. I didnt hand my notice in - it was 1982 work was scarce and I had applied all over the place for a management training programme place. The girlie pics stayed as long as it took for me to put stickers over all the relevant bits with CENSORED written in red pen. He took them down then and just took to leaving his copy of Fiesta open on my desk. He was the worst but he wasnt the only one. I never complained again.
Is it surprising these women didnt say anything? Fear, disbelief - remember these days were the days when women were expected to shut up and put up. Date rape didnt exist and if it happened you were expected to think it was just a bad night out and women were to blame for the lack of control by men because of their short skirts and their revealing tops. The "she was no better than she should be" was a common view and men often thought that a woman was theirs by right especially if they held positions of power.
IT was also much harder for women to get the sort of jobs that Sandi Toksvig and Liz Kershaw had - much harder. And it was harder to keep these jobs once you had them. I think you must have had to accept behaviour that you would never have expected in a million years. You were often not taken seriously and patronised all the time so why would you think that anyone would believe you.
What happened to me was not unusual, it was an everyday sort of thing. In the great scheme of my life it was nothing too terrible and it didnt scar me for life but I am not surprised that we are seeing people saying - actually this person did this to me too. They may have thought they were the only person this had happened to - that it was their fault - that they had been stupid or wicked and suddenly others are saying that it happened to them too. They may be revisiting things that they have tried hard to gorget and suddenly realising that these things were not their fault and that they were actually the victims of something especially nasty and that not only was it one man but that others may have colluded to enable wicked men to carry out these crimes. For crimes they were make no mistake
Could you not have talked to your Parent's about this abuse Squidge? Most Fathers would not let this sort of abuse happen to their Daughters and would have done something about it? Surely there must have been someone who could have helped you to seek justice? If anyone had abused any of my Daughters they would have ended up paying the price...one way or another!!!
C3.
changilass
08-Oct-12, 13:25
That's exactly why you couldn't tell your parents!!
No one wants to see their parents locked up.
Other side of the coin is they may not believe you, that is not a risk many would be willing to take.
They also wouldn't want parents to share their shame. It doesn't matter that it isn't their fault, they will still feel shame.
Corrie - I was a teenager - teenagers dont talk to their parents about anything - especially then. I was 15 in 1979 when my guitar teacher decided to teach me how to kiss. I was a little bit flattered - he was cool and hippyish and I am lucky that he never took it any further than teasing me and kissing me. My life was so separate from my parents lives - dont get me wrong my dad would have walked over coals for me - still would - and he is 77 but you have to understand that it was different for girls then. Today you are encouraged to tell, not to keep secrets and there is a much more open way of talking about these things. Then it was just part of what life was.... Blokes twanged your bra strap and tried to cop a feel at any available opportunity. Especially unreconstructed northern men! If you didnt put out you were frigid or a lesbian and many girls had to deal with that on a day to day basis. My parents brought me up to be confident and strong and I dealt with it they way I felt was appropriate - a hard slap, a sharp tongue and a witty reposte. I stood on my own two feet and it never crossed my mind to talk to my parents about this stuff - like i say - it wasnt unusual - it was just ordinary every day stuff. With the benefit of hindsight some was worse than others but i would never have thought to make an official complaint. And to admit to the world that you let yourself get abused (a word which wouldnt have been used then - maybe seduced - maybe i dunno something I cant write on this page) by someone famous and have it all over the papers and your parents would see and your family would see that you were no better than you ought to be...... not on your life.
equusdriving
08-Oct-12, 14:04
If anyone had abused any of my Daughters they would have ended up paying the price...one way or another!!!
C3.
what, unless they were to ugly/fat/unatractive to believe!
rich62_uk
08-Oct-12, 16:01
I did tell my parents. They did the right thing and called the Police. All in all four girls came forward and we were still told lack of evidence ! This was mid 80's. With that kind of support going on (which was usual at the time) its not exactly encouraging others to speak out is it.
It has been going on since time immemorial - my mum - starting work in 1953 in a typing pool had one of the works directors stick his hand up her skirt whilst she was taking dictation the stuff of old jokes? They are only funny because they have an element of truth in them. She thumped him and fortunately she told the typing pool manager - a woman and she didnt get into trouble.
Thinking about this we have to accept that these attitudes still prevail today. what? I hear some of you cry? it couldnt happen today. But these attitudes still persist. You only have to look at the situation with the grooming cases in Rochdale, the police and the social workers made a decision that the girls involved had CONSENTED to sexual relationships with these men; One of them was 13. They probably had the view that the girls were "no better than they ought to be" and therefore didnt take their complaints seriously. They asked for help and were dismissed, probably patronised and whilst I would hope not, I rather suspect the butt of some smutty jokes and innuendo. Any surprise that rape cases are under reported or that stuff only comes out years later?
rich62_uk
08-Oct-12, 16:08
As you say squidge, my mum was also groped when she was an evacuie in Wales during the war. She has only ever told me and to this day I am not allowed to talk of it to her. She has only told me a small amount but am sure there is far more.
rich62_uk
08-Oct-12, 16:11
Corrie. I feel you should apologise for making light of abuse and suffering.
Corrie. I feel you should apologise for making light of abuse and suffering.
Apologise to who rich? Are the members who have abused me on here going to apologise to me also?
rich62_uk
08-Oct-12, 16:26
Corrie. If you cant see that what you have said is cruel/hurtful and downright wrong then I feel there is no hope for you. I actually pity you. If an apology would help your feelings then I unreservedly apologise to you if I have hurt you in any way shape or form.
Invisible
08-Oct-12, 16:30
Apologise to who rich? Are the members who have abused me on here going to apologise to me also?
I haven't seen anyone apologise on the org previous to or since my 2 year absence, I don't see why you have to for expressing your opinion.
Rich, I will gladly apologise if you tell me who to apologise to. And no, you haven't offended me on here, but you only have to read some of the comments to see who could have. You are actually making me feel like one of the abusers now Rich. I made a lame joke about Sandi who claims she was groped, how do we know if she is telling the truth? If she were to stand up and name the Man then I will seek her out and send her a full apology.
Now, who an wants apology Rich?
rich62_uk
08-Oct-12, 16:39
Like I said if you cant see it then its not worth telling you. However you have upset me by your rude jokes. You should not feel like you have abused me as you have not you have upset me which are two different things.
rich62_uk
08-Oct-12, 16:40
Just because no one on here has ever apologised on here before does not mean they cant or wont in the future. Manners cost nothing.
Just because no one on here has ever apologised on here before does not mean they cant or wont in the future. Manners cost nothing.
It wasn't a rude joke, it was an insulting joke, something that Sandi has dished out many a time on the TV. I can easily apologise to Sandi but who else have I insulted?
I dont think Corrie should apologise for having an opinion.... perhaps he could accept that he had no idea what it was like being a young woman at that time and hopefully those of us posting have taught him a thing or two. Enlightened him a bit - I would hope - without rancour.
I dont think Corrie should apologise for having an opinion.... perhaps he could accept that he had no idea what it was like being a young woman at that time and hopefully those of us posting have taught him a thing or two. Enlightened him a bit - I would hope - without rancour.
You have hit the nail on the head Squidge, I only ever worked in all male industries so had no idea that things were as bad as you have told me. I knew there would be a bit of horse play in a few cases, but until this week only realised how serious it was. It sure gives us Men a bad name doesn't it? I can assure you that we are not all gropers and sexual predators.
I think it best if I delete this thread, dont you?
C3.
rich62_uk
08-Oct-12, 17:23
Thank you Squidge for your once again perfect way with words .... :)
rich62_uk
08-Oct-12, 17:24
I wouldnt delete it as some other people may learn from it.
I have just read this report by Mark Easton and it backs up everything that you have stated Squidge. Thank goodness things have got much better these days but I bet there are still a few that try it on!! Idiots that they are!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19870676
C3.
dragonfly
08-Oct-12, 18:14
squidge is right in what she says about being a young woman working in the 80's, it was definitely a mans world where women were venturing out into the working world and being taken on to do what had previously been male dominated positions and as such many women were subjected to sexual harassment but in those days it was, as you yourself called it C3, "horseplay". I supplemented my earnings by working part time in a bar when I turned 18 (1980) and I was constantly groped by the punters but I couldn't tell anyone as I'd have been out of a job... in fact groping was part of the job, keeping the guys in the bar buying drink... I didn't like it but had to put up with it, like Squidge I soon learnt how to stand up for myself, in a jovial but "thats enough" sort of way.
Just because Sandi is not attractive to you, I'm sure if she had an ample chest, many of the men she worked with wouldn't have been looking at her face.....men tend to look at the chest first, face some time later on. I'm sure that if women started every conversation off by staring at a guys crotch men would soon know how uncomfortable it is!
I once worked in a place where sexual innuendo and groping was the order of the day, and most of the women joined in too, but I wonder if that was just their defence mechanism kicking in; certainly some of them could hold their own in an argument, regardless of the gender they were arguing with. Though the worst offender was the male boss, some of the things he said to the women were crass, in fact I often felt embarrassed for the women, but being new to the place I didn't initially say anything. However after I'd been there about 6 months I said to the boss, "You could get a complaint of sexual harassment against you", he replied "are you complaining because you're not getting harassed?" then he walked away laughing. So I can understand why women back then were unlikely to speak out, in most cases the boss was male and they had a different attitude towards sexual harassment accusations, also the bosses back then were from a different era, so they turned a blind eye to what was going on, as long as the work got done.
Every day I saw groping being done, by the boss and other men, but also some of the younger women too. I myself was groped many times by the women but just laughed it off, because I'm a man to complain would have seen me being ridiculed for it, I'd have been branded a wimp or worse. Although I did join in the banter, I was never comfortable with it. Even amongst men I find certain things embarrassing, but because we have different levels of what's acceptable, then I just put up with it. Thankfully it's changed days and no-one needs to put up with sexual harassment, regardless of gender. And being older and wiser, I'd speak out sooner if I saw it happening, as much as I like to joke and laugh about, it shouldn't be at the expense of someone's dignity.
equusdriving
08-Oct-12, 19:07
It sure gives us Men a bad name doesn't it?
yes your attitude and comments to this kind of offence certainly does
I can assure you that we are not all gropers and sexual predators.
no that is correct and some of us don't call victims liars and say that people are"jumping on the bandwagon" either!
Metalattakk
09-Oct-12, 03:40
/...men tend to look at the chest first, face some time later on.
I've got the tar, but I don't have a brush. Can I borrow yours?
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z55/Metalattakk/f_doh.gif
They were talking about this on woman's hour this morning - Many women have experience of this and its worth a listen http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n651m if you are interested. ITs the first item so you wont have to search for it.
sassylass
10-Oct-12, 00:32
Thank you Squidge, Ju, Dragonfly, and others for speaking out so articulately. What many of us young women endured at the hands of male co-workers in the 70's and 80's would put a man behind bars today. Thank goodness it's no longer acceptable, and we are no longer silent.
dragonfly
10-Oct-12, 07:24
I've got the tar, but I don't have a brush. Can I borrow yours?
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z55/Metalattakk/f_doh.gif
yeah, I'll throw in the feathers too if you like?
Thank you Squidge, Ju, Dragonfly, and others for speaking out so articulately. What many of us young women endured at the hands of male co-workers in the 70's and 80's would put a man behind bars today. Thank goodness it's no longer acceptable, and we are no longer silent.
Yeah and we've traded that society for one in which it is now the men who stand the longest in front of a mirror and who are now fair game to portray as the objects of ridicule.
Sandi did report it and was asked why she did not enjoy it. Liz also reported and was asked if she was a lesbian. That was the attitude in those days. Corrie, you seem to be sick if you are in any way trying to find any mitigating circumstances for these sex abusers.
Obviously you have never been sexually abused, some of us have.
Sandi did report it and was asked why she did not enjoy it. Liz also reported and was asked if she was a lesbian. That was the attitude in those days. Corrie, you seem to be sick if you are in any way trying to find any mitigating circumstances for these sex abusers.
Obviously you have never been sexually abused, some of us have.
Gerry, I am not trying to find mitigating circumstances at all, quite the opposite!! What I am trying to find out is why did these Women have waited until Jimmy Savile is stiff in his grave before speaking out? What good is it going to do now he is dead? Surely they should have spoke out when he was alive and then the Courts could have tried him and sent him to prison along with all the other abusers.
I have no sympathy with abusers at all and no, I am not sick as you suggest!!
C3.
when i was a young 16 year old i work for a well known firm and there was a bloke there that would grope the young girls at every chance . when we complained to the boss we were told he only being freindly and laughed . perhaps the same happened to these girls , so if a person of high standings in the firm laughed it off what hope did they have of being beleived by anyone else. , and the ones that complained were soon put out of a job
And while we are on the subject, what sort of punishment is this......http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-19910758
12 months, probably be out in six ....that is no where near long enough in my opinion especially seeing that the victim was just 5years old when the abuse started. Does anyone think that 12 months was the right punishment??
C3.
rich62_uk
11-Oct-12, 16:39
http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/law/2012/oct/09/sexual-offenders-two-strikes-out
I (http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/law/2012/oct/09/sexual-offenders-two-strikes-out)f this happens it is still not far enough but a move in the right direction.
rich62_uk
11-Oct-12, 16:44
Corrie, quite a few Judges 'judgements' and personal lives are questionable.
changilass
11-Oct-12, 17:06
http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/law/2012/oct/09/sexual-offenders-two-strikes-out
I (http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/law/2012/oct/09/sexual-offenders-two-strikes-out)f this happens it is still not far enough but a move in the right direction.
Link just takes you to a page asking if you want to try out the Guardian, not to an actual story.
rich62_uk
11-Oct-12, 17:16
Best I can do is copy and paste it dont know what else to do ?
Justice secretary announces mandatory life sentences for rapists and other violent criminals who commit second serious offence
A hardline "two strikes and you're out" automatic life sentence for serious sexual or violent offences will be brought into force shortly, the self-proclaimed "tough" justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has told the Conservative party conference.
The change, which will be brought in during December, will mean rapists and other criminals who commit a second serious violent or sexual offence will get a mandatory life sentence. Penal reformers have warned that the policy, which was imposed on Grayling's predecessor, Kenneth Clarke, by David Cameron, risks fuelling a fresh rise in the record prison population in England and Wales.
"Everyone deserves a second chance, but those who commit the most serious offences, crimes that would attract a sentence of 10 or more years, cannot be allowed to just go on and on causing harm, distress and injury," said Grayling. "Those people are a real threat to our society, and we must treat them as such."
His conference speech, with its "back to basics" headline announcements, marked a sharp break with Clarke's liberal criminal justice policies. Grayling, who explicitly promised to be a "tough justice secretary", confirmed he would strengthen the law on self-defence against burglars for householders, ensure there was a punitive element in all community sentences, and make much greater use of electronic tagging to enforce curfews and exclusion zones.
The home secretary, Theresa May, reinforced the theme with her announcement of a new "pick a punishment" power for victims of anti-social behaviour and her promise that Conservative candidates in the first elections for police and crime commissioners to be held on 15 November will have a "laser-like focus on cutting crime".
The police minister, Damian Green, left no Conservative in the hall in any doubt that there had been a change of management at the ministry of justice when he joked: "Theresa used to say she locked 'em up and Ken let them out. Now Theresa locks 'em up, and Chris throws away the key." Clarke's much trumpeted "rehabilitation revolution" barely got a mention during the hour and a half law and order presentation at the conference.
Around the fringe the new prisons minister, Jeremy Wright, made clear that the change went deeper than rhetoric. He explained his view that some short prison sentences worked for some offenders and that Clarke's approach of trying to stabilise the 86,000 jail population by capping it was no longer official policy. The intention of "putting some bite" into community penalties will no longer be as an alternative to short prison sentences.
"I've made no bones about my intention to be a tough justice secretary. That means I want our justice system to be firm, fair and transparent," Grayling said.
He said he would demonstrate that he was on the side of victims by changing the law on the use of force for people protecting their homes against intruders.
Householders who hit out "in the heat of the moment" needed to be treated as victims, not criminals: "That is why we are going to deal with this issue once and for all. I will shortly bring a change in to the law. It will mean that even if the householder faced with that terrifying situation uses force that in the cold light of day might seem over the top, unless that response is greatly disproportionate, the law will be on their side."
In interviews he said that would mean that if a burglar had already been laid out cold then the householder would not be justified in then stabbing him.
Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust warned of the impact on prison numbers of Grayling's new hardline approach: "The question remains whether the new justice secretary can secure prison as an effective place of last resort for serious and violent offenders or whether his tough line will propel numbers out of control at enormous social and economic cost."
Grayling also said he wanted to bring the same large-scale payment by results approach to work to cut reoffending as he had with the contracts to help the long-term unemployed through the Work Programme when he was employment minister. The justice secretary has put on hold both the reform of the probation service and the current payment by results pilot schemes while the details are worked out.
May's "pick a punishment" scheme will involve the victims of the 232,000 offenders each year who are currently given an out-of-court caution for low-level offences. To be known as the community remedy, police and crime commissioners are to be given a new duty to offer such victims a "menu of punishments" to chose from. These may include paying compensation, repairing criminal damage or a restorative justice option.
"They will be given a list of options," said May. "They might want something restorative or punitive. They might want it to be carried out nearby or as far away as possible. But what matters is that the punishment will be chosen by the victim."
Mmm! I hope it all comes true and it's not just Party Conference promises. I do worry that we dont have enough room in our prisons though, there is no mention of building more capacity. And the thing they need to sort out is what is "Life"? I have seen it vary from 8 years to 18 years, there should be a mandatory figure of what "Life" really is.
C3.
changilass
11-Oct-12, 18:03
Aye there is, the new Grampian prison has more capacity than both Aberdeen and Peterhead combined, which it is replacing.
Other prisons in Scotland are going to be modernised, this process will also give more capacity.
Wether it will be enough to cope with this idea or not, we will just have to wait and see.
equusdriving
12-Oct-12, 15:59
c3 no you didn't mention my name, but likewise if I was to say "he's a racist, bigoted, hypocritical, paedophile supporting, sick individual" I am sure most people would know who I was referring to. So if you can't take it don't give it, and stop hijacking other threads to air your "chip" and by the way, why do you still have the unsavoury reference to SAVILLE'S HOT TUB as your location?
linnie612
12-Oct-12, 16:02
c3 no you didn't mention my name, but likewise if I was to say "he's a racist, bigoted, hypocritical, paedophile supporting, sick individual" I am sure most people would know who I was referring to. So if you can't take it don't give it, and stop hijacking other threads to air your "chip"
You're on the wrong thread !!![lol]
equusdriving
12-Oct-12, 16:10
You're on the wrong thread !!![lol]
no I am not its corrie3's thread
c3 no you didn't mention my name, but likewise if I was to say "he's a racist, bigoted, hypocritical, paedophile supporting, sick individual" I am sure most people would know who I was referring to. So if you can't take it don't give it, and stop hijacking other threads to air your "chip" and by the way, why do you still have the unsavoury reference to SAVILLE'S HOT TUB as your location?
linnie612
12-Oct-12, 16:13
You are you know, try this one![lol] http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?189112-A-different-from-your-normal-working-thread./page2 (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?189112-A-different-from-your-normal-working-thread./page2)
no I am not its corrie3's thread
c3 no you didn't mention my name, but likewise if I was to say "he's a racist, bigoted, hypocritical, paedophile supporting, sick individual" I am sure most people would know who I was referring to. So if you can't take it don't give it, and stop hijacking other threads to air your "chip" and by the way, why do you still have the unsavoury reference to SAVILLE'S HOT TUB as your location?Carry on......You are making yourself look very silly!!
equusdriving
12-Oct-12, 16:17
You are you know, try this one![lol] http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?189112-A-different-from-your-normal-working-thread./page2 (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?189112-A-different-from-your-normal-working-thread./page2)
no corrie3 has already hijacked that one so I am responding on his own one
equusdriving
12-Oct-12, 16:20
Carry on......You are making yourself look very silly!!
give me silly over SICK any day
why do you still have the unsavoury reference to SAVILLE'S HOT TUB as your location?
give me silly over SICK any day
why do you still have the unsavoury reference to SAVILLE'S HOT TUB as your location? It has been there for over 3 years, why haven't you complained about it before?
Silly Boy!!!
give me silly over SICK any day
why do you still have the unsavoury reference to SAVILLE'S HOT TUB as your location?I also believe that using capitals to shout is against Forum rules, but you dont care about Forum rules do you?
equusdriving
12-Oct-12, 16:30
I also believe that using capitals to shout is against Forum rules, but you dont care about Forum rules do you?
ok sorry about that, but why do you still have that unsavoury reference to Saville's Hot Tub as your location?
ok sorry about that, but why do you still have that unsavoury reference to Saville's Hot Tub as your location?
I will take it down when.........a). The Mod's ask me to............ or ...... b). When JS has been found guilty of any offence and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
I will not take it down just because it is bugging you!!
And answer my question, why didnt you complain about it when I first put it up in June 2010?
equusdriving
12-Oct-12, 16:34
It has been there for over 3 years, why haven't you complained about it before?
Silly Boy!!!
perhaps because he wasn't known as a paedophile then!, and under the circumstances I would prefer you not to think of me as a boy, as after reading your other posts it creeps me out a bit
equusdriving
12-Oct-12, 16:35
I will take it down when.........a). The Mod's ask me to............ or ...... b). When JS has been found guilty of any offence and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
I will not take it down just because it is bugging you!!
you could always replace it with a Gary Glitter one as no doubt you probably think he was framed too
you could always replace it with a Gary Glitter one as no doubt you probably think he was framed tooOf course he was framed, I thought everyone knew that!!
equusdriving
12-Oct-12, 16:54
Of course he was framed, I thought everyone knew that!!
no its only you and your kind, that think that he didn't do anything wrong
no its only you and your kind, that think that he didn't do anything wrong
My kind???? Gary and Jim are the salt of the Earth!!
equusdriving
12-Oct-12, 16:58
My kind???? Gary and Jim are the salt of the Earth!!
well on that note I will rest my case... guilty as charged, lock up your kids
well on that note I will rest my case... guilty as charged, lock up your kids
I went to school with Jim and Gary Bremner and I tell you they are fine folk!!!!
Mrs Bucket
12-Oct-12, 17:52
I agree with Ju it happens over and over complaints are made and then coverd up.
If the accusations are true then those that are now making them should have made a noise when it happened all those years ago, could have stopped the accused assaulting others.
Come off it, Jimmy Savile was a member of the establishment, they look after their own. If anyone at the BBC had tried to do anything the next morning they would have no job, no career, no future no friends and nothing would have been done.
Just look back to when I raised the subject of Hollie Greig on this forum and the Org Clique accused me of wearing a tin foil hat.
Why would anyone stand up and tell the truth when people like Julian Assange are publicly having their lives destroyed for doing just that?
If it had happened to my mother, sister, wife or daughter I don't think the advice I would give them would be to suck it up and think of your career. This is just my opinion but I don't think there is a job out there worth constant sexual harassment and if you lose friends to it then they were not worth keeping in the first place.
Good to see your input Fred.
Hasn't the Hollie Greig case been found to be baseless?
Good to see your input Fred.
Hasn't the Hollie Greig case been found to be baseless?
Has it? Who by?
Weren't the complaints made against Jimmy Savile during his lifetime found to be baseless? Wasn't he investigated by police at least six times starting in 1958 yet still given free access to vulnerable children?
If it had happened to my mother, sister, wife or daughter I don't think the advice I would give them would be to suck it up and think of your career. This is just my opinion but I don't think there is a job out there worth constant sexual harassment and if you lose friends to it then they were not worth keeping in the first place.
Thats assuming your mother, sister, wife or daughter told you in the first place.......... many people dont tell ANYONE about this stuff
Has it? Who by?
Weren't the complaints made against Jimmy Savile during his lifetime found to be baseless? Wasn't he investigated by police at least six times starting in 1958 yet still given free access to vulnerable children?
The two cases are very different, as for Savile it seems there was a collective ignorance of claims & rumours about him as well as lack of evidence / failure to investigate properly at the time, not a calculated and widespread coverup as alluded to in the Hollie Greig case.
The two cases are very different, as for Savile it seems there was a collective ignorance of claims & rumours about him as well as lack of evidence / failure to investigate properly at the time, not a calculated and widespread coverup as alluded to in the Hollie Greig case.
I think the two cases are very similar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Hollie%20Greig
If it had happened to my mother, sister, wife or daughter I don't think the advice I would give them would be to suck it up and think of your career. This is just my opinion but I don't think there is a job out there worth constant sexual harassment and if you lose friends to it then they were not worth keeping in the first place.
So suppose you are the manager of a children's hospital and a the nurse tells you one of the children says they were sexually assaulted by Jimmy Savile.
You can pick up the phone and ring the police, in which case your hospital will lose all the funding it gets from the Jimmy Savile charity and have to close, the staff will be out of work, the children will be without hospital beds.
Or you can say "tell her not to be silly".
Tough call aint it?
So suppose you are the manager of a children's hospital and a the nurse tells you one of the children says they were sexually assaulted by Jimmy Savile.
You can pick up the phone and ring the police, in which case your hospital will lose all the funding it gets from the Jimmy Savile charity and have to close, the staff will be out of work, the children will be without hospital beds.
Or you can say "tell her not to be silly".
Tough call aint it?
What would you have done?
What would you have done?
What difference does that make?
We aren't discussing me or anyone else on the forum, we are discussing the Jimmy Savile case and those involved.
What difference does that make?
We aren't discussing me or anyone else on the forum, we are discussing the Jimmy Savile case and those involved.
You mean that you see no difference between making that call to the police or telling her not to be silly?
I would phone the police in a heartbeat. My job would be to run a children's hospital within the boundaries of the law regardless of where the money comes from. Fail that one child and you would be as bad as he.
You mean that you see no difference between making that call to the police or telling her not to be silly?
I mean it makes no difference to the discussion what I would do. It is irrelevant.
It is a situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Fortunately a situation I have never been in and there is no need for me to be damned hypothetically even if that does disappoint you.
I think the two cases are very similar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Hollie GreigI beg to differ, one is about a man that was effectively allowed to do as he pleased with whoever he pleased whilst the latter is a sorry affair where a vulnerable young girl was exploited.
I mean it makes no difference to the discussion what I would do. It is irrelevant.
It is a situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Fortunately a situation I have never been in and there is no need for me to be damned hypothetically even if that does disappoint you.
It does make a difference if you are trying to drive a moral standpoint or to show example.
secrets in symmetry
22-Oct-12, 22:22
the latter is a sorry affair where a vulnerable young girl was exploited....sexually or otherwise....
I beg to differ, one is about a man that was effectively allowed to do as he pleased with whoever he pleased whilst the latter is a sorry affair where a vulnerable young girl was exploited.
In both cases vulnerable young people were exploited, Hollie wasn't alone there are fourteen other children involved in the case that we know of.
In both cases it was kept out of the mainstream media, there was covered up.
We do not know if Jimmy Savile acted alone or if, as is often the case, he colluded with others of his kind. We will probably never know.
It does make a difference if you are trying to drive a moral standpoint or to show example.
I'm not.
So it doesn't.
In both cases vulnerable young people were exploited, Hollie wasn't alone there are fourteen other children involved in the case that we know of.
In both cases it was kept out of the mainstream media, there was covered up.
We do not know if Jimmy Savile acted alone or if, as is often the case, he colluded with others of his kind. We will probably never know.We've yet to see if there was an actual conspiracy to cover up Savile's crimes rather than a collective ignorance. Bear in mind it seems the majority of his victims are coming forward after his death & the TV documentary.
In the Greig case there seems to be serious questions and holes in the allegations and the 'victims' don't appear to be victims.
I'm not.
So it doesn't.
so what was the point of your post?
We've yet to see if there was an actual conspiracy to cover up Savile's crimes rather than a collective ignorance. Bear in mind it seems the majority of his victims are coming forward after his death & the TV documentary.
In the Greig case there seems to be serious questions and holes in the allegations and the 'victims' don't appear to be victims.
I don't think numbers matter in this case one victim is one too many. Anyway from the report on last nights Panorama program on the BBC web site.
Liz Dux, a lawyer for some of the victims, told Panorama: "The stories that I'm hearing from some of the victims are that they did report the abuse and that no action was taken."
so what was the point of your post?
The point was to explain why people took the decisions they took.
I see on the news this morning that the Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust have announced they are to close.
As usual I was just trying to highlight the facts and as usual the clique were trying to obscure the facts by twisting the thread to talk about me. I wonder why.
Thats assuming your mother, sister, wife or daughter told you in the first place.......... many people dont tell ANYONE about this stuff
And it's assuming that if they told you that you believed them and it's also assuming that you don't think your mother/sister/wife behaved in a way to provoke the attention (remember, it's the 80's here- and even nowadays many would still at least think these things, but because sexual harrasment laws actually exist, most will not say that they do think them. As an adult male in the 80's your social position in realtion to your sister, wife and even mother was not the same as it is now). And it's also assuming you actually have a choice, that you will be able to find another job, that anything you say will not damage your career in such a way that professionally you are destroyed.
I don't think numbers matter in this case one victim is one too many. Anyway from the report on last nights Panorama program on the BBC web site.You're absolutely right, one victim is one victim too many. But the numbers do matter in both cases, in the Savile case it is now a question of a possible cover-up and the numbers do matter here.
Originally it appeared to be a couple of people who were too afraid to come forward with, I think, one was rebuked because she was in a care home, now it appears that some did make complaints at the time and these had no action taken.
The problem to unravel here is, was this a conspiracy or was this due to the era, culture and policing methods (and again police culture / institutional sexism etc.)?
I'm not saying any of this is in any way justifies what has happened but it needs to be correctly and factually identified if it is in any way going to help prevent others from committing these types of crimes and getting victims to come forward and listened too at the time.
You're absolutely right, one victim is one victim too many. But the numbers do matter in both cases, in the Savile case it is now a question of a possible cover-up and the numbers do matter here.
Originally it appeared to be a couple of people who were too afraid to come forward with, I think, one was rebuked because she was in a care home, now it appears that some did make complaints at the time and these had no action taken.
The problem to unravel here is, was this a conspiracy or was this due to the era, culture and policing methods (and again police culture / institutional sexism etc.)?
I'm not saying any of this is in any way justifies what has happened but it needs to be correctly and factually identified if it is in any way going to help prevent others from committing these types of crimes and getting, victims to come forward and listened too at the time.
It's how the system works, how it has always worked. A clergyman abuses a choir boy and the parents are asked not to involve the police for the sake of the church, the clergy man is moved to a different diocese probably to do it again. A boy is abused at public school and it's swept under the rug for the sake of the name of the school.
If the police do get involved the Chief Constable will make it clear that the constables aren't dealing with low life scum hanging around kids play parks, these are respectable professional gentlemen who just had a moment of weakness, the scandal would do more damage than good.
The Jimmy Savile case looks a lot to me like the tale of the emperor's clothes, everybody knew what was happening right in front of their eyes but nobody dare be the first one to speak out.
The Jimmy Savile case looks a lot to me like the tale of the emperor's clothes, everybody knew what was happening right in front of their eyes but nobody dare be the first one to speak out.Quite. So no actual conspiracy but a collective ignorance, if that is the case then we as a society need to ensure that people can speak out and support those that do.
Quite. So no actual conspiracy but a collective ignorance, if that is the case then we as a society need to ensure that people can speak out and support those that do.
Yes, a society where someone who sets up a website for people to tell the truth isn't branded a pervert by the very people who stood by and said nothing while a pervert was given a knighthood.
OK. I assume you mean JS getting a knighthood? I'm thinking this was probably done in 'good faith' as it wasn't openly 'known' he was a pervert, I'm sure had it been known then he wouldn't have got it. Jimmy Savile the fund raiser and 'all round nice guy' was knighted, not the despicable man he now seems to have been.
OK. I assume you mean JS getting a knighthood? I'm thinking this was probably done in 'good faith' as it wasn't openly 'known' he was a pervert, I'm sure had it been known then he wouldn't have got it. Jimmy Savile the fund raiser and 'all round nice guy' was knighted, not the despicable man he now seems to have been.
Surely they vet people who are to receive a knighthood. They must have known what was going on, it seems to me more likely they knew but didn't care, they were confident it would never become public knowledge as it hadn't with previous BBC presenters who had done the same things, even after their deaths. That was back in the days before the establishment realised that the internet could turn out to be as great a threat to them as the printing press was to the Catholic church, before the media instilled the terror of paedophilia into the hearts of the people to create an excuse to monitor and control it. It seems to me more likely such things were known to be common, especially in the upper echelons of society and were always covered up unless they needed an excuse to discredit someone.
I don't know what the vetting procedure is or was but I guess it will only be based on what people have been convicted of.
You know something more about other BBC presenters? And I really wouldn't put JS as an establishment man nor in the upper echelons of of society.
I think it was more a case of Jimmy Savile the 'all round nice guy and charity good-doer' getting a gong, quite simple.
I don't know what the vetting procedure is or was but I guess it will only be based on what people have been convicted of.
You know something more about other BBC presenters? And I really wouldn't put JS as an establishment man nor in the upper echelons of of society.
I think it was more a case of Jimmy Savile the 'all round nice guy and charity good-doer' getting a gong, quite simple.
Well no I don't know about other BBC presenters because it was covered up, John Simpson knew but he wasn't allowed to tell anyone so obviously nobody knows if Derek McCulloch was or he wasn't, that's how the system works. Nobody knows about any of the other "dirty old men" in the employ of the BBC either.
Jimmy Savile was very much a part of the establishment, you don't get a Papal Knighthood for nothing, he had a great deal of power which is how he got away with the things he got away with.
Well no I don't know about other BBC presenters because it was covered upSo how does that work then, you just know there was a coverup but don't know who, how, why or when?
So how does that work then, you just know there was a coverup but don't know who, how, why or when?
In his autobiography, written long before the Savile story broke, John Simpson says that as a young journalist at the BBC he knew of a well known children's presenter who was up to very much the same sort of things that Jimmy Savile was. After the presenter's death Simpson tried to go public and get the man investigated but was blocked by his bosses and severely rebuked.
So it was one other presenter, from way back. Apparently covered up by the BBC management at the time, hardly a top down establishment conspiracy.
So it was one other presenter, from way back. Apparently covered up by the BBC management at the time, hardly a top down establishment conspiracy.
You have to remember that some find it very hard to not to see a conspiracy or coverup, in anything.
So it was one other presenter, from way back. Apparently covered up by the BBC management at the time, hardly a top down establishment conspiracy.
But don't you think that if John Simpson back in the sixties had been allowed to expose the decades of sexual abuse of children by a BBC presenter the public might have demanded safeguards and Jimmy Savile might have been prevented from abusing his position at the BBC?
There were others, Wilfred Brambell was well known at the BBC for his liking of young boys.
You have to remember that some find it very hard to not to see a conspiracy or coverup, in anything.
It is a word Phil seems to use a lot, one I have not used. There seems to be a belief that if you can get the truth labeled a conspiracy theory then no one will believe it, or no one will admit to believing it.
13 December 2005: "Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States …There is simply no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop, because we never have been." – Jack Straw to the Commons foreign affairs committee
12 January 2012: "The allegations raised in the two specific cases concerning the alleged rendition of named individuals to Libya and the alleged ill-treatment of them in Libya are so serious that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated now" – the Metropolitan police
I have to say that I have never been a fan of conspiracy theories but after being horrified at the Hillsborough situation I am a little less sceptical.
rich62_uk
24-Oct-12, 21:49
Jimmy Savile was loved by the Nation. I wonder how many people would believe these woman ? Bit like Michael Jackson fans and others who believe he is innocent.
Further developments.
One person also contacted me to suggest that the Met held a vast quantity of material suggesting Jimmy Savile was a predatory paedophile. I do not know whether this is true but I do know the source and she has been 100% accurate in the past.
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/10/a-little-more-background-on-todays-pmqs
It is a word Phil seems to use a lot, one I have not used. There seems to be a belief that if you can get the truth labeled a conspiracy theory then no one will believe it, or no one will admit to believing it.Interesting. With references to 'the establishment' and 'coverups' etc. it kind of implies some sort of conspiracy.... by the establishment to cover things up.
I think it actually much more simple than that, I think Paul Gambaccini has a good angle on it: "This is not just the BBC this is history, this is a man who conned an entire society"
Interesting. With references to 'the establishment' and 'coverups' etc. it kind of implies some sort of conspiracy.... by the establishment to cover things up.
I think it actually much more simple than that, I think Paul Gambaccini has a good angle on it: "This is not just the BBC this is history, this is a man who conned an entire society"
I think we can all agree that those who decide policy at the BBC and the MET would count as establishment and it's looking very much like the evidence was there but it was ignored, the leads were there but they weren't pursued.
Interesting to see Tom Watson's site is down. And these 'links' to senior figures are falling apart.
Appears to be getting clearer when people stop muddying the waters.
Interesting to see Tom Watson's site is down. And these 'links' to senior figures are falling apart.
Appears to be getting clearer when people stop muddying the waters.
Hmm, so it is. Part of Lord McAlpine's wikipedia entry seems to be missing as well, the bit relating to Graham Ovenden.
Curiouser and curiouser.
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/ is back, probably a technical glitch.
And, indeed the page has now been updated with a reply to a letter from Rob Wilson MP.
Tom Watson is the man responsible for the demise of the News of the World. He received information from a reliable source that when the Metropolitan Police investigated phone hacking they had clear evidence that the extent of the hacking was far greater than had been admitted but chose not to investigate it. He used his position as an MP to push for an investigation and the investigation showed that his information was sound.
Now he says he has information from a reliable source that when the Metropolitan Police investigated the case of Peter Righton they had clear evidence of a paedophile ring which included a senior politician but chose not to investigate it. He is using his position as an MP to push for an investigation.
Please note that his statements have never related to a care home in North Wales, he has never mentioned a care home in North Wales nor said who the senior politician might be.
I hope this has made your muddy waters a bit clearer.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.