The Savile disgrace

[loowisham]

Yes, he hosted Top of the Pops for a long time, and was the last person to appear on the final episode of the show.
That's too bad. Nationally respected people being nothing but the most base criminals.
Wasn't there an issue with Gary Glitter too? I remember he had a hit (could be wrong) called Rock and Roll and later, maybe eighties sometime or early nineties would make more sense he was found to have kiddy porn on his computer. If I'm taking the man's name in vain I apologize.

[BDunnell]

That's too bad. Nationally respected people being nothing but the most base criminals.
Wasn't there an issue with Gary Glitter too? I remember he had a hit (could be wrong) called Rock and Roll and later, maybe eighties sometime or early nineties would make more sense he was found to have kiddy porn on his computer. If I'm taking the man's name in vain I apologize.

Forgive me for saying so, but this can be easily Googled.

[Dave B]

Yes, but would you want that in your search history? :p

[SGWilko]

Yes, but would you want that in your search history? :p

Or would you want to be in his gang for that matter?

NB - other search engines are available.

[Dave B]

You weren't a DLT fan, were you loowisham? I've got bad news for you:

Dave Lee Travis arrested as part of Jimmy Savile sex abuse probe - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9680420/Dave-Lee-Travis-arrested-as-part-of-Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-probe.html)

[Mark]

Oh dear. I'm old enough to remember listening to him on Radio 1 - or at least his last show where he freaked out.

[SGWilko]

Oh dear. I'm old enough to remember listening to him on Radio 1 - or at least his last show where he freaked out.

I remember his Sunday lunchtime show with the pub quiz and double top.....

[loowisham]

You weren't a DLT fan, were you loowisham? I've got bad news for you:

Dave Lee Travis arrested as part of Jimmy Savile sex abuse probe - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9680420/Dave-Lee-Travis-arrested-as-part-of-Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-probe.html)

No Dave, have no idea who he is/was.

[inimitablestoo]

Just when I was saying this morning that I was surprised Rod Hull's name hadn't been brought into this, seemingly it has. Only now though, the best part of 20 years after Lee and Herring pointed out in their comedy routine that without Emu, that act would have been a whole lot more sinister...

I've gone for the Google link so you can choose to view/ignore your news outlet of choice:

Rod Hull used Emu to grope his fans... (http://www.google.com/news?ncl=d1UrjFKam5pF26MNFEMV5WdW8n20M&q=Rod+Hull&lr=English&hl=en)

[SGWilko]

Who's next then?

Roy Castle, Brian Cant and the chap off The Adventure Game who spoke backwards?

[Mark]

Roy Castle? I hope not, he always seemed like a nice chap. Met him once when I was about 10 and he didn't even abuse me once!

[Dave B]

I would make a suggestion but I hear he's hired Lord McAlpine's lawyer, and is taking legal action against anybody who has even heard of him, thought of him, or knows anybody with the same initials.

[BDunnell]

I would make a suggestion but I hear he's hired Lord McAlpine's lawyer, and is taking legal action against anybody who has even heard of him, thought of him, or knows anybody with the same initials.

McAlpine seems to be one of those wealthy people who feels that their reputation can only be restored by the award of large sums of money. Most strange.

[Mintexmemory]

McAlpine seems to be one of those wealthy people who feels that their reputation can only be restored by the award of large sums of money. Most strange.
Indeed as a card -carrying tory grandee and one of Thatcher's favourites he should have made a grand gesture and donated the settlement to a charity of his choice since ultimately he is dipping into public money. He had obtained 'satisfaction' in the matter so acting less like a pig in the trough would have been a 'noble' thing to do for someone so laughably ennobled!

[Dave B]

McAlpine seems to be one of those wealthy people who feels that their reputation can only be restored by the award of large sums of money. Most strange.
He also (rightly) warns of "Trial by Twitter" and yet seems to be using the media to proclaim his detractors guilty. Sally Bercow, for example, is an imbecile who tweets like a 12 year old schoolgirl; but she's an imbecile with a right to a fair hearing the same as anybody else. McAlpine's legal team, and much of the media, have already decided she's guilty, simply for asking in a faux-innocent way why McAlpine's name was trending.

I would suggest that McAlpine familiarise himself with the Streisand Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect), because before this legal action only a handful of people [wrongly, I should add for legal clarity] thought he was dodgy. Now...

[Knock-on]

At last, some good news. Tony Hall has returned to become the DG and a better choice I can't imagine.

I'm sure a firm hand will be placed on the tiller and wish him the very best. He's a man that can turn this mess around.

[Mark]

Entwhistle did seem weak. If that was reality or perception I don't know.

[Knock-on]

BBC News - Savile inquiry: Paxman said DJ rumours 'common gossip' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21543322)

This story still bubbles along. When Savills preference for Children was common knowledge at the BBC, I have to ask again why these supposed Investigative Journalists of a rumoured beacon for free press didn't have the balls or integrity to stand up for truth and justice.

[Mark]

Because the 'don't say anything' attitude still pervades everything, not just in the BBC. Just last week we had the NHS manager given a gagging clause to stop him speaking out.

[BDunnell]

BBC News - Savile inquiry: Paxman said DJ rumours 'common gossip' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21543322)

This story still bubbles along. When Savills preference for Children was common knowledge at the BBC, I have to ask again why these supposed Investigative Journalists of a rumoured beacon for free press didn't have the balls or integrity to stand up for truth and justice.

Could it be because, possibly, no-one ever had sufficient proof to publish anything? I can only say again that Private Eye is hardly known for being timid in such matters, yet it never ran a 'Savile is a paedo' story. Why? Because, quite simply, it never had the information concrete enough with which to go ahead.

[Knock-on]

Surely the benefit and onus of a free press would be to investigate these prolific rumours a dig up the evidence. I think Mark is closer to the truth. Don't rock the boat or you risk upsetting Auntie is my opinion. The question is why was Auntie so keen to surpress this? A culture of covering her ass? Because it was much more widespread than we know? Or just because...?

I was slated for my opinion at the beginning of this thread but the more that comes to light, the more disturbing it becomes.

[Dave B]

Surely the benefit and onus of a free press would be to investigate these prolific rumours a dig up the evidence. I think Mark is closer to the truth. Don't rock the boat or you risk upsetting Auntie is my opinion. The question is why was Auntie so keen to surpress this? A culture of covering her ass? Because it was much more widespread than we know? Or just because...?

I was slated for my opinion at the beginning of this thread but the more that comes to light, the more disturbing it becomes.
It's clear that the BBC was utterly incompetent in dealing with the Savile case, but to suggest that other news organisations suppressed it as part of some grand conspiracy is nonsense. One only has to look at the anti-BBC articles which constantly clutter up the Telegraph or Mail's websites to see that they have no qualms about "upsetting Auntie", and that's before you consider those publications linked to competitors such News International or Northern & Shell.

I think the papers are collectively upset that they failed to uncover the story, and despite bleating on about the supposed "threat" of the Leveson proposals it was actually the very heavily regulated ITV who broke the story, which rather undermines their argument about the forthcoming destruction of the free press.

[steveaki13]

All this still makes me uneasy and wonder what else has been and continues to be covered up in the BBC.

It will never have a satisfactory conclusion due to Saviles death. The BBC however do need to provide some answers.

[Daniel]

Surely the benefit and onus of a free press would be to investigate these prolific rumours a dig up the evidence. I think Mark is closer to the truth. Don't rock the boat or you risk upsetting Auntie is my opinion. The question is why was Auntie so keen to surpress this? A culture of covering her ass? Because it was much more widespread than we know? Or just because...?

I was slated for my opinion at the beginning of this thread but the more that comes to light, the more disturbing it becomes.

and you should continue to be slated for your opinion! Mark never said that there was a "don't upset auntie" culture, but a culture within organisations of keeping quiet. Two rather different things. Again, we go back to what people have said the whole time along...... did anyone in the BBC know for a FACT that Saville was abusing people? Not that I've seen, were there a lot of people who had heard rumours? yes. Two TOTALLY different things and you'd do well to understand that.

Personally I think the whole thing with the newsnight story was overblown. Was it the wrong decision? Yes, have there been far worse things done which have been let go in 5 minutes by the media. HELL YES

Two things I think were were chronically overblown last year, one with tragic consequences, was the Kate Middleton nurse thing and the Saville case. But then again the print media has had good reason to deflect criticism this year and make others look bad regardless of the consequences.

Like Dave said, the print media are just unhappy that they didn't know about this "pedo" and get to name and shame him while he was alive.

[BDunnell]

and you should continue to be slated for your opinion! Mark never said that there was a "don't upset auntie" culture, but a culture within organisations of keeping quiet. Two rather different things. Again, we go back to what people have said the whole time along...... did anyone in the BBC know for a FACT that Saville was abusing people? Not that I've seen, were there a lot of people who had heard rumours? yes. Two TOTALLY different things and you'd do well to understand that.

Personally I think the whole thing with the newsnight story was overblown. Was it the wrong decision? Yes, have there been far worse things done which have been let go in 5 minutes by the media. HELL YES

Two things I think were were chronically overblown last year, one with tragic consequences, was the Kate Middleton nurse thing and the Saville case. But then again the print media has had good reason to deflect criticism this year and make others look bad regardless of the consequences.

Like Dave said, the print media are just unhappy that they didn't know about this "pedo" and get to name and shame him while he was alive.

Exactly right.

[BDunnell]

All this still makes me uneasy and wonder what else has been and continues to be covered up in the BBC.

Why just in the BBC?



It will never have a satisfactory conclusion due to Saviles death. The BBC however do need to provide some answers.

About what, exactly?

[BDunnell]

Surely the benefit and onus of a free press would be to investigate these prolific rumours a dig up the evidence. I think Mark is closer to the truth. Don't rock the boat or you risk upsetting Auntie is my opinion. The question is why was Auntie so keen to surpress this? A culture of covering her ass? Because it was much more widespread than we know? Or just because...?

What rot. If you hadn't noticed, plenty of other media organisations are perfectly happy to 'rock the boat' in relation to the BBC, so that comment is meaningless. Other outlets do it with utter impunity, and from about as reasoned a standpoint as you are able on this subject to manage, namely one with its roots in outright opposition to the BBC.

Your view in effect contends that only at the BBC could Savile have got away with this. Complete rubbish. After all, he got away with it in hospitals to an even greater extent, as well as children's homes. And he would have got away with it at ITV had he been their star rather than the BBC's, of that there can be little doubt. You consistently ignore the fact — and it is a fact, rather than opinion — that the reason no media outlet ever published anything about Savile's behaviour when it was happening was because they didn't know. There was always tittle-tattle, yes, but nothing concrete to go on; not even as a starting-point. Do you believe 'Private Eye', for example, was scared to expose him? If so, that view, too, is blatantly nonsensical.

Maybe a read of this piece — it covers, in some respects, the same ground as the 'London Review of Books' one to which I linked much earlier, but is still worthwhile — will offer an alternative view as to why the whole business failed to come to light: What Jimmy Savile did to me as a young man | Paul Vallely (http://www.paulvallely.com/?p=7067)



I was slated for my opinion at the beginning of this thread but the more that comes to light, the more disturbing it becomes.

Rather, the more you post on this subject, the more sensationalist and more muddled your view comes across.

[Daniel]

What rot. If you hadn't noticed, plenty of other media organisations are perfectly happy to 'rock the boat' in relation to the BBC, so that comment is meaningless. Other outlets do it with utter impunity, and from about as reasoned a standpoint as you are able on this subject to manage, namely one with its roots in outright opposition to the BBC.

Your view in effect contends that only at the BBC could Savile have got away with this. Complete rubbish. After all, he got away with it in hospitals to an even greater extent, as well as children's homes. And he would have got away with it at ITV had he been their star rather than the BBC's, of that there can be little doubt. You consistently ignore the fact — and it is a fact, rather than opinion — that the reason no media outlet ever published anything about Savile's behaviour when it was happening was because they didn't know. There was always tittle-tattle, yes, but nothing concrete to go on; not even as a starting-point. Do you believe 'Private Eye', for example, was scared to expose him? If so, that view, too, is blatantly nonsensical.

Maybe a read of this piece — it covers, in some respects, the same ground as the 'London Review of Books' one to which I linked much earlier, but is still worthwhile — will offer an alternative view as to why the whole business failed to come to light: What Jimmy Savile did to me as a young man | Paul Vallely (http://www.paulvallely.com/?p=7067)



Rather, the more you post on this subject, the more sensationalist and more muddled your view comes across.

Pretty much. I love how (and I paraphrase somewhat) Knockie says "Well, you thought I was nuts before, but time has proven me to be correct!" when the truth is that it's still an overblown story (the allegations against the BBC) which is yet to grow any real teeth and show any real wrongdoing on the part of the BBC. Maybe in time the story will grow legs and it will come to light that there was a coverup whilst the abuse was ongoing, but it's not been proven yet.

[Knock-on]

and you should continue to be slated for your opinion! Mark never said that there was a "don't upset auntie" culture, but a culture within organisations of keeping quiet. Two rather different things. Again, we go back to what people have said the whole time along...... did anyone in the BBC know for a FACT that Saville was abusing people? Not that I've seen, were there a lot of people who had heard rumours? yes. Two TOTALLY different things and you'd do well to understand that.

:laugh: You're so keen to attack my posts that you fail to read them correctly before jumping on the keyboard to respond in your normal dismissive way :laugh:

Please go back and read the post in it's original context. I was responding to Bens post where he suggests nobody had any proof that Saville was abusing. I responded that I felt Marks opinion ws closer to the truth that there was a culture of 'keeping stum' and that my opinion was that people were scared to speak out against the Beeb fo fear of kissing their career goodbye.

Hell, it's not just the BBC. Police, Charities, Schools, Hospitals all turned a blind eye over this matter and that's why he could go on to abuse and rape so many children and youre so naive as to think nobody had the evidence to come forward.

People knew about this and did nothing for decades allowing him to continue his abuse. That's the disgrace.

[Knock-on]

It's clear that the BBC was utterly incompetent in dealing with the Savile case, but to suggest that other news organisations suppressed it as part of some grand conspiracy is nonsense.

Did I :confused: I was talking about the Beeb being a free press. The BBC is a huge organisation with the budget of a small nation, global reach and the power to influence governments. If your career depends on this oganisation, would you still be objective if it casts your company in a bad light? Well, it seems that some were brave enough to but still it was supressed.

[Knock-on]

What rot.

Complete rubbish.

You consistently ignore the fact — and it is a fact, rather than opinion — that the reason no media outlet ever published anything about Savile's behaviour when it was happening was because they didn't know. There was always tittle-tattle, yes, but nothing concrete to go on; not even as a starting-point.

Maybe a read of this piece — it covers, in some respects, the same ground as the 'London Review of Books' one to which I linked much earlier, but is still worthwhile — will offer an alternative view as to why the whole business failed to come to light: What Jimmy Savile did to me as a young man | Paul Vallely (http://www.paulvallely.com/?p=7067)



Rather, the more you post on this subject, the more sensationalist and more muddled your view comes across.

Sorry, took out the irrelevant bits.

My question was wether journalists, famed for their tenacious resilliance, should have got hold of this story before they did. You claim it was because there was no concrete proof but surely, a good investigative journalist would dig up and find the proof. There were strong rumours, people knew stuff, the police investigted six times but people were too scarred of roking the boat.

Like Daniel, you seem so intent on attackig me that you're unable to make a rational response to my posts or even understand them; to the point where you post articles that support my arguement! :laugh: I will try and type slower ;)

[BDunnell]

Sorry, took out the irrelevant bits.

My question was wether journalists, famed for their tenacious resilliance, should have got hold of this story before they did. You claim it was because there was no concrete proof but surely, a good investigative journalist would dig up and find the proof. There were strong rumours, people knew stuff, the police investigted six times but people were too scarred of roking the boat.

Like Daniel, you seem so intent on attackig me that you're unable to make a rational response to my posts or even understand them; to the point where you post articles that support my arguement! :laugh: I will try and type slower ;)

Knock-on, you're trying to hammer home a point of no importance. Why didn't journalists get anywhere? Because there was no evidence for them to go on. It's all very well you, someone who couldn't investigate their way out of a paper bag, saying, 'They should have done better', but it's simply not as simple as that. There was nothing to go on except gossip and hearsay, and that's not enough. And if you think 'Private Eye' was simply too scared to take Savile on, you have no idea about that publication. Why didn't they? Because, as Ian Hislop has said, they simply didn't know. No-one went to them with the story. Rather than turn your poorly-written fire against sections of the media you simply don't like, you ought to be castigating the police, whose failure outweighs all other failures in this affair. I'd add that the article to which I linked does not in any way support your stance, and the fact you think it does speaks volumes.

I might as well ask, 'Why didn't you go to the police about Savile?' The answer is the same. Because you, like many of the rest of us, merely suspected him of possibly being sexually deviant. However, that's not enough proof with which to go to the police.

[BDunnell]

Hell, it's not just the BBC. Police, Charities, Schools, Hospitals all turned a blind eye over this matter and that's why he could go on to abuse and rape so many children and youre so naive as to think nobody had the evidence to come forward.

What do you mean by that? 'Nobody had the evidence to come forward'? What a muddled train of thought. If you're talking about the victims, they clearly did have the evidence but were too scared to come forward. If you're talking about others — journalists, people who worked with him, etc — it is in no way naive to suggest that they didn't have the evidence. Some of those individuals, such as NHS workers, were also too scared. Journalists never had any or sufficient evidence to publish/broadcast anything until it was too late — there is, I repeat, no evidence to the contrary, unless you are privy to some, which I doubt. The police certainly failed to do their job, of that there can be no doubt, on the simple grounds that people did actually go to the police and subsequent investigation proved utterly inadequate.

Why, I wonder, do you end up feeling that people are attacking you rather than the content of your posts? Because said posts are full of cheap outrage and simplistic assumptions.

[Daniel]

Couldn't agree more Ben. Sadly Knock on will come back with more tripe..... More badly reasoned tripe...

[SGWilko]

I find it quite hard to believe that - in amongst the never ending scandal of phone tapping etc - not one of the low-lifes tapped Saviles phone....

Looking back, when Louis did his 'When I met Saville' program, he seemed to know that there were clear suspicions of abuse.

[SGWilko]

Couldn't agree more Ben. Sadly Knock on will come back with more tripe..... More badly reasoned tripe...

That's it - you've done it! This thread is now so much more credible with that snippet. :rolleyes:

We get that you do not share Knock On's opinion, are you unable to express your dissagreement in a more eloquent manner, that promotes constructive discussion? :down:

[BDunnell]

I find it quite hard to believe that - in amongst the never ending scandal of phone tapping etc - not one of the low-lifes tapped Saviles phone....

Looking back, when Louis did his 'When I met Saville' program, he seemed to know that there were clear suspicions of abuse.

He seemed to have heard the general gossip, but clearly he had no proof. Same with the Andrew Neil interview with Savile from 1995 that you may have seen on YouTube. None of it constituted enough proof with which to go to the police, let alone achieve a conviction. Much of it was tittle-tattle. The same cannot be said of the allegations people did actually take to the police.

[Malbec]

What do you mean by that? 'Nobody had the evidence to come forward'? What a muddled train of thought. If you're talking about the victims, they clearly did have the evidence but were too scared to come forward. If you're talking about others — journalists, people who worked with him, etc — it is in no way naive to suggest that they didn't have the evidence. Some of those individuals, such as NHS workers, were also too scared. Journalists never had any or sufficient evidence to publish/broadcast anything until it was too late — there is, I repeat, no evidence to the contrary, unless you are privy to some, which I doubt.

I think there was more to it than a mere lack of evidence. We forget how much work he did for charities of many types and how many vested interests there were in protecting his 'clean' image. After all he personally brought in millions for many children's homes, charities, hospitals and so on. Tearing him down would have put many of those charities in financial danger. He was not merely just another celebrity whose downfall would be soon forgotten about and of little consequence to anyone other than themselves. That would explain why many people turned a blind eye to his behaviour even when the children involved complained directly to headmasters and so forth.


The police certainly failed to do their job, of that there can be no doubt, on the simple grounds that people did actually go to the police and subsequent investigation proved utterly inadequate.

I think its also fair to say that many victims withdrew their allegations (which after all would be the only evidence left against him so many years after the abuse took place) once the police made it clear how Saville would behave if he was accused of abuse, which is to unleash his legal team on them and discredit them in public, humiliating them.

There is little each individual police investigation could have done to nail him given what we know now about the lack of information sharing between different police forces as late as the 1990s.

[SGWilko]

I think the charity work was something Saville did in order to gain access to the vulnerable. I don't think he did it as he was particularly charitable. It made him very rich after all - and gave him the power to be able to threaten to take away all his charitable donations.

The evidence was clearly available, but the will to use it against a highly paid legal team and the potential costs to do so wasn't.

[BDunnell]

The evidence was clearly available, but the will to use it against a highly paid legal team and the potential costs to do so wasn't.

Available to whom? Not the press. There is no evidence any media outlet had, at any time, enough material to run a story.

[BDunnell]

I think there was more to it than a mere lack of evidence. We forget how much work he did for charities of many types and how many vested interests there were in protecting his 'clean' image. After all he personally brought in millions for many children's homes, charities, hospitals and so on. Tearing him down would have put many of those charities in financial danger. He was not merely just another celebrity whose downfall would be soon forgotten about and of little consequence to anyone other than themselves. That would explain why many people turned a blind eye to his behaviour even when the children involved complained directly to headmasters and so forth.

This doesn't explain why no media outlet at all ever amassed the evidence to run a story. Some, I have no doubt, will have had no fear of doing so at all.

[Malbec]

This doesn't explain why no media outlet at all ever amassed the evidence to run a story. Some, I have no doubt, will have had no fear of doing so at all.

Yes it does explain the lack of investigation by the media in combination with his aggressive use of legal action by Saville. The lack of evidence is also a strong factor of course.

Ultimately the media do go for easy pickings, usually individuals who have few means to defend themselves. The harder it is to investigate a story and the fewer the 'returns' the less likely it is that the papers will fund an investigation (which aren't cheap by any means).

When is the last time you ever read of a paper bringing up an exclusive into corporate misbehaviour that wasn't already in the public domain? Whats the last charity you heard where a paper exposed fraud?

[Dave B]

As our press had no qualms going after MPs who were fiddling their expenses, I don't agree that they're scared to challenge authority or power when they have the necessary evidence. Then you must consider a now-defunct tabloid who took great delight at outing "paedos", often scarcely bothering with any proof - they certainly weren't afraid of the consequences. The Murdoch press in particular would have been salivating at the thought of destroying the reputation of someone so closely associated with the BBC. The fact that no news organisation exposed Savile surely suggests that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing beyond rumour and innuendo.

[Malbec]

As our press had no qualms going after MPs who were fiddling their expenses, I don't agree that they're scared to challenge authority or power when they have the necessary evidence.

Like all businesses newspapers do a risk/benefit analysis before any major investigation.

The expenses affair was a low cost investigation. A freedom of information act request for expense claims then a leaked document that merely required analysis. No lengthy investigation whatsoever.

Secondly MPs are easy targets, they only have their own personal finances to use to fight legal battles and parties will dump them at quite low levels of suspicion to prevent scandals from festering, just look at plebgate.

The benefit was that the affair ate up headlines for months on end and even now generates inside page news columns. That story had a great return. I don't see how a risky Saville investigation would have been as productive (before he died and when he could have fought back of course).


Then you must consider a now-defunct tabloid who took great delight at outing "paedos", often scarcely bothering with any proof - they certainly weren't afraid of the consequences. The Murdoch press in particular would have been salivating at the thought of destroying the reputation of someone so closely associated with the BBC. The fact that no news organisation exposed Savile surely suggests that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing beyond rumour and innuendo.

Most of those accused of being paedophiles had criminal records of just that activity, so the Sun was often merely making their convictions public. Again, information in the public domain and quick, cheap and easy to obtain. Again, most paedophiles do not have large personal funds to fight a legal campaign with so are easy pickings.

Mosley is the only time I can remember where the press picked on someone with the funds to fight back, and even then IIRC he only won on the issue that he was portrayed as a Nazi when he hadn't actually pretended to be one.

The press rarely pick on anyone who fights back. I can recommend a book called flat earth news which explains this quite well.

[BDunnell]

Yes it does explain the lack of investigation by the media in combination with his aggressive use of legal action by Saville. The lack of evidence is also a strong factor of course.

Ultimately the media do go for easy pickings, usually individuals who have few means to defend themselves. The harder it is to investigate a story and the fewer the 'returns' the less likely it is that the papers will fund an investigation (which aren't cheap by any means).

When is the last time you ever read of a paper bringing up an exclusive into corporate misbehaviour that wasn't already in the public domain? Whats the last charity you heard where a paper exposed fraud?

I'm not necessarily referring to papers, but Private Eye. The notion that it was unwilling or scared to run the story, or of the potential libel costs, I find somewhat fanciful.

Again, I say there is absolutely no evidence any publication, including the Eye, knew enough to run the story.

[BDunnell]

Mosley is the only time I can remember where the press picked on someone with the funds to fight back, and even then IIRC he only won on the issue that he was portrayed as a Nazi when he hadn't actually pretended to be one.

Jeffrey Archer. Sir James Goldsmith. Robert Maxwell.

[Dave B]

The press rarely pick on anyone who fights back. I can recommend a book called flat earth news which explains this quite well.
But had there been any firm evidence against Savile he would have been finished. Even with the hefty bank balance, his reputation would have been in tatters and his career over. No news organisation, even those with scant regard for due process, went after him.

[Malbec]

Jeffrey Archer. Sir James Goldsmith. Robert Maxwell.

All that is way before my time I'm afraid, but you're harking back to a time when newspapers had a higher income and took a punt on some spectacular investigations. One could add to the list things like the Vanunu affair. That kind of stuff just doesn't happen anymore.

My description of newspaper behaviour is more about the past two decades where investigative budgets have been slashed and most articles are cut/pasted from AP/Reuters.

[Malbec]

But had there been any firm evidence against Savile he would have been finished. Even with the hefty bank balance, his reputation would have been in tatters and his career over. No news organisation, even those with scant regard for due process, went after him.

There wouldn't have been firm evidence though, as Savile would have threatened each witness in turn. Would any news organisation been willing to run Jimmy fiddles with kids articles without witnesses willing to go through both a public and legal nightmare?

The police couldn't bring a solid case against him for this very reason, and they can to a degree protect the privacy of their witnesses. What makes you think the press could do so?

[Malbec]

I'm not necessarily referring to papers, but Private Eye. The notion that it was unwilling or scared to run the story, or of the potential libel costs, I find somewhat fanciful.

Again, I say there is absolutely no evidence any publication, including the Eye, knew enough to run the story.

The Private Eye though relies on informers and whistleblowers for its news doesn't it? It doesn't really investigate cases itself putting journalists in the field. I might be wrong on this matter though.

[BDunnell]

The Private Eye though relies on informers and whistleblowers for its news doesn't it? It doesn't really investigate cases itself putting journalists in the field. I might be wrong on this matter though.

Yes, you are. Not often I have to say that! The Eye does get many tip-offs, but it also uses a lot of proper investigative journalists; don't forget that many of its tip-offs come from journalists who can't place a story elsewhere owing to its sensitivity. If any publication would have known enough to publish something about Savile and hang the consequences, Private Eye is that one. But it didn't, because no-one came forward and the story simply didn't seem to exist beyond tittle-tattle.

[Knock-on]

I think the hundreds of victims that suffered abuse by Saville, including the ones that reported it to various organisations, and considering several well known figures have claimed the rumours were widespread, might disagree with your view that this was merely tittle tattle. In fact the term, in light of the extent of the abuse, could be considered offensive.

You can evangelise about Private Eye and pontificate on its role as a beacon of investigative journalism but the facts are that these rumours were widespread in some circles, victims did report abuse and for a variety of reasons, they were ignored.

It cannot be passed off as tittle tattle but a shamefully catalogue of failures which allowed this sexual predator to continue his sordid crimes for decades.

[BDunnell]

I think the hundreds of victims that suffered abuse by Saville, including the ones that reported it to various organisations, and considering several well known figures have claimed the rumours were widespread, might disagree with your view that this was merely tittle tattle. In fact the term, in light of the extent of the abuse, could be considered offensive.

You can evangelise about Private Eye and pontificate on its role as a beacon of investigative journalism but the facts are that these rumours were widespread in some circles, victims did report abuse and for a variety of reasons, they were ignored.

It cannot be passed off as tittle tattle but a shamefully catalogue of failures which allowed this sexual predator to continue his sordid crimes for decades.

No-one doubts the seriousness of the crimes. However, what can be brought very strongly into doubt — on the grounds that, for all your (fairly synthetic, but that's predicatable) outrage, there is no evidence for it — is the assertion that, at any point, any media outlet knew enough to publish a story. Can you offer any proof of any media outlet that even had the information, let alone was warned off? I very much doubt it, somehow.

Your comments are also somewhat muddled. You say that 'victims did report abuse' but 'were ignored'. True, but by the police, not by the media. I find this rather more serious.

[Daniel]

I think the hundreds of victims that suffered abuse by Saville, including the ones that reported it to various organisations, and considering several well known figures have claimed the rumours were widespread, might disagree with your view that this was merely tittle tattle. In fact the term, in light of the extent of the abuse, could be considered offensive.

You can evangelise about Private Eye and pontificate on its role as a beacon of investigative journalism but the facts are that these rumours were widespread in some circles, victims did report abuse and for a variety of reasons, they were ignored.

It cannot be passed off as tittle tattle but a shamefully catalogue of failures which allowed this sexual predator to continue his sordid crimes for decades.

You just don't get it. These sort of things can't be done because there's a suspicion...... there needs to be evidence or else the public would round up every suspected 'pedo' and lynch them.

It's easy to say that Saville was a paedophile after all this has come out, but not as easy when there isn't the damning weight of all these allegations.....

But feel free to ignore that :up:

[Daniel]

You just don't get it. These sort of things can't be done because there's a suspicion...... there needs to be evidence or else the public would round up every suspected 'pedo' and lynch them.

It's easy to say that Saville was a paedophile after all this has come out, but not as easy when there isn't the damning weight of all these allegations.....

But feel free to ignore that :up:

I seem to recall elsewhere in this thread perhaps, Knockie even placed the blame on the abused who didn't report their abuse. As someone who has done a tiny bit of training in the protection of vulnerable young adults, there are a multitude of reasons why people don't report.

But lets not let that get in the way of the synthetic outrage eh? :)

[Knock-on]

I seem to recall elsewhere in this thread perhaps, Knockie even placed the blame on the abused who didn't report their abuse. As someone who has done a tiny bit of training in the protection of vulnerable young adults, there are a multitude of reasons why people don't report.

But lets not let that get in the way of the synthetic outrage eh? :)

Really Daniel?? Really :laugh:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/155546-savile-disgrace-3.html#post1077830


It's quite sad, but not surprising, reading some of the rhetoric on here, seemingly blaming the media and public for being disgusted and wanting to ensure that the chances of abuse are lessened in the future. We even have people claiming abuse back then wasn't the same as abuse today, or even that he victims were in some way complicit :confused: I must be going mad because in my book, facts are facts and rape back then was the same crime that rape is today. How we deal with and focus on this type of crime is different but the crime itself is the same.

As for your tiny bit of training on vulnerable young adults, you have no idea. I have over ten years experience of working with abused and abusive children and young adults but I seem to remember you claimed my experience relating to such matters was irrelevant. Yet we should take someone who's wet behind the ears in these matters seriously :laugh:

You are really funny and crack me up. :D

[SGWilko]

I seem to recall elsewhere in this thread perhaps, Knockie even placed the blame on the abused who didn't report their abuse. As someone who has done a tiny bit of training in the protection of vulnerable young adults, there are a multitude of reasons why people don't report.

But lets not let that get in the way of the synthetic outrage eh? :)

Let what get in the way? Your incorrect recollection or your tiny bit of training?

[Knock-on]

No-one doubts the seriousness of the crimes. However, what can be brought very strongly into doubt — on the grounds that, for all your (fairly synthetic, but that's predicatable) outrage, there is no evidence for it — is the assertion that, at any point, any media outlet knew enough to publish a story. Can you offer any proof of any media outlet that even had the information, let alone was warned off? I very much doubt it, somehow.

Your comments are also somewhat muddled. You say that 'victims did report abuse' but 'were ignored'. True, but by the police, not by the media. I find this rather more serious.

Ben, you and Dan seem so intent on attacking the poster that you fail to comprehend the post.

Children reported abuse to a variety of organisations including schools, the police, charities etc but were severely let down. Why are you fixated on the media all the time? For the record, I agree that failures by the police in these cases should be throughly investigated. Had I have put it so directly, you would probably have said I was jumping on the bandwagon and demonstrating a synthetic desire to seek retribution or some such tittle tattle. ;)

Perhaps you are reading into my posts what you want to read?

[Mark]

Can we dial back the personal stuff please. All of you.

[Knock-on]

Sorry Mark

[Daniel]

Knock on, people are talking about you blaming the BBC because that's what you've been doing for the last few pages......

You make the claim that everyone in the media knew and that there were reasons (other than not being able to prove the abuse actually happened) that they didn't run the story when you have absolutely no proof of this.

In fact, in post 87 of this thread, you claim that there is no legitimate reason why people shouldn't report abuse.


Well, I cn only talk for myself but I couldn't sleep at night if I thought something was going on and not do something about it.

I offered 2 reasons why people might not and neither are valid in my mind. You say there are others and I don't disagree but they are all excuses to me.

Is there a valid reason why someone should let buse go unreported?

I find it hard to believe that you've spent 10 years working with vulnerable people, I really do if you have beliefs like that.

[Knock-on]

Knock on, people are talking about you blaming the BBC because that's what you've been doing for the last few pages......

I haven't been blaming the BBC but that the BBC along with other agencies such as the Police etc have seriously failed these victims by failure to either expose or prosecute Saville when his abuse was both common rumour and victims reported him. I am not blaming the BBC solely as there were widespread failings outside of that institution but feel that some people are very protective and reluctant to consider the BBC may have been at fault here.


You make the claim that everyone in the media knew

Rubbish again. I have said that there were widespread rumours as reported by several high profile BBC staff and that people must have known that this abuse was going on and did nothing.


..and that there were reasons (other than not being able to prove the abuse actually happened) that they didn't run the story when you have absolutely no proof of this.

I have never claimed to have proof of the abuse and it is churlish to demand that I provide proof. I am not an investigative Journalist and never claimed to be.


In fact, in post 87 of this thread, you claim that there is no legitimate reason why people shouldn't report abuse.

I find it hard to believe that you've spent 10 years working with vulnerable people, I really do if you have beliefs like that.

I said there were excuses that people give for not reporting abuse such as being scared of losing their job or losing Charity money but in my opinion, these are not legitimate. The only time there is a legitimate excuse is when the person being abused doesn't report their abuser. This is very sad and an incredibly brave act when a victim has the guts to screw themselves up enough to report a perpetrator and it breaks my heart when they're not taken seriously. I cannot convince you of my experience of working in the field I have and don't really care if you do or not. Enough people on here know me personally and know what I worked as so your scepticism is irrelevant.

However, I have seen some very traumatic cases and maintain that if it was me that discovered abuse, nothing would stop me reporting it. I don't care who it is or what repercussion I might sufferer because stopping one abuser would be worth the price. Perhaps if you work extensively with abused and abusive young people, rather than do a course, you might develop a similar intolerance of reporting abuse.

[BDunnell]

Ben, you and Dan seem so intent on attacking the poster that you fail to comprehend the post.

Children reported abuse to a variety of organisations including schools, the police, charities etc but were severely let down. Why are you fixated on the media all the time? For the record, I agree that failures by the police in these cases should be throughly investigated. Had I have put it so directly, you would probably have said I was jumping on the bandwagon and demonstrating a synthetic desire to seek retribution or some such tittle tattle. ;)

Perhaps you are reading into my posts what you want to read?

No. This is severely disingenuous. Your recent posts have all been about the media and its apparent failings; therefore, that's what I've responded to, and entirely legitimately, too. There is nothing more to add.

[BDunnell]

I haven't been blaming the BBC but that the BBC along with other agencies such as the Police etc have seriously failed these victims by failure to either expose or prosecute Saville when his abuse was both common rumour and victims reported him. I am not blaming the BBC solely as there were widespread failings outside of that institution but feel that some people are very protective and reluctant to consider the BBC may have been at fault here.

I'm sorry to mention this again, but the fact of your repeating this same line over and over again doesn't make it true, because, I say again, there is no proof that any news organisation knew enough legitimately to run a story, or, indeed, enough that could legitimately have formed the starting-point of a story.



Rubbish again. I have said that there were widespread rumours as reported by several high profile BBC staff and that people must have known that this abuse was going on and did nothing.

Did you, like I did, always think there was something 'wrong' about Savile? If so, why didn't you, or I, go to the police?



I have never claimed to have proof of the abuse and it is churlish to demand that I provide proof. I am not an investigative Journalist and never claimed to be.

This is painfully obvious from all your contributions on the subject. These indicate that you believe investigative journalists can and should investigate every rumour of a story of which they hear; that they can conjure stories up without any evidence being presented to them; that from the merest rumour, without anything concrete to go on, they can launch a full-scale investigation; and so forth. It isn't that simple, a fact that completely negates this part of your argument. Your expectations are unrealistic. There are many brilliant examples of investigative journalism one could cite, but in the vast majority of cases these involved people coming forward with genuine, believable leads. In the Savile case, as far as I'm aware, no media outlet was approached in that way.



I said there were excuses that people give for not reporting abuse such as being scared of losing their job or losing Charity money but in my opinion, these are not legitimate. The only time there is a legitimate excuse is when the person being abused doesn't report their abuser. This is very sad and an incredibly brave act when a victim has the guts to screw themselves up enough to report a perpetrator and it breaks my heart when they're not taken seriously.

You have, I feel, far too narrow a view of what constitutes 'legitimate' reasons for not coming forward. Who are you to decide what's 'legitimate' and what's not? Different people have different reasons for taking, or not taking, different actions. This is simply human nature and nothing you or anyone else might say will ever override it. Fear of losing one's job, for example, strikes me as an understandable motivation for not coming forward — examples of the treatment meted out to whistleblowers of one type or another bears this out time and time again. This doesn't change just because abuse is involved.



However, I have seen some very traumatic cases and maintain that if it was me that discovered abuse, nothing would stop me reporting it. I don't care who it is or what repercussion I might sufferer because stopping one abuser would be worth the price. Perhaps if you work extensively with abused and abusive young people, rather than do a course, you might develop a similar intolerance of reporting abuse.

This does not, with respect, confer on your view some greater value. In fact, I would argue your sensitivity might be a little too great, to the extent of yours being a view that legitimises potentially very damaging false allegations.

[Knock-on]

No. This is severely disingenuous. Your recent posts have all been about the media and its apparent failings; therefore, that's what I've responded to, and entirely legitimately, too. There is nothing more to add.

I actually reread my recent posts back to last year. I had 2 posts where I asked questions as to why this hadn't come to light and responses from Mark, Dave etc were very constructive and enlightening. Yours and Daniels of course were just poor attacks again. I even went to the trouble to clarify that rather than just the BBC and press, there were failings from many organisations but you ignore that. :rolleyes:

Just stick with your narrow closed view that I hate the BBC will you and lets move on.

[Knock-on]

I'm sorry to mention this again, but the fact of your repeating this same line over and over again doesn't make it tru

I could say the same so lets move on.


, because, I say again, there is no proof that any news organisation knew enough legitimately to run a story, or, indeed, enough that could legitimately have formed the starting-point of a story.

I never said they did. I just asked why they didn't when rumour was so rife.


Did you, like I did, always think there was something 'wrong' about Savile? If so, why didn't you, or I, go to the police?

I always thought he was a bit mad and an extrovert but never thought he was a Pedophile.


This is painfully obvious from all your contributions on the subject. These indicate that you believe investigative journalists can and should investigate every rumour of a story of which they hear; that they can conjure stories up without any evidence being presented to them; that from the merest rumour, without anything concrete to go on, they can launch a full-scale investigation; and so forth. It isn't that simple, a fact that completely negates this part of your argument. Your expectations are unrealistic. There are many brilliant examples of investigative journalism one could cite, but in the vast majority of cases these involved people coming forward with genuine, believable leads. In the Savile case, as far as I'm aware, no media outlet was approached in that way.

Boring.... Same old line trolled out time and time again. You're right. Move on. :rolleyes:


You have, I feel, far too narrow a view of what constitutes 'legitimate' reasons for not coming forward. Who are you to decide what's 'legitimate' and what's not? Different people have different reasons for taking, or not taking, different actions. This is simply human nature and nothing you or anyone else might say will ever override it. Fear of losing one's job, for example, strikes me as an understandable motivation for not coming forward — examples of the treatment meted out to whistleblowers of one type or another bears this out time and time again. This doesn't change just because abuse is involved.

As I pointed out, it is my opinion and if you think people can turn a blind eye to abuse, I respect your opinion and right to say it. What I think about someone with that opinion is not printable on here but it's your view and that's that.


This does not, with respect, confer on your view some greater value. In fact, I would argue your sensitivity might be a little too great, to the extent of yours being a view that legitimises potentially very damaging false allegations.

Please do not concern yourself with me. I have seen the outcome and effect of people that 'did nothing'. I would rather take my approach.

[BDunnell]

I actually reread my recent posts back to last year. I had 2 posts where I asked questions as to why this hadn't come to light and responses from Mark, Dave etc were very constructive and enlightening. Yours and Daniels of course were just poor attacks again. I even went to the trouble to clarify that rather than just the BBC and press, there were failings from many organisations but you ignore that. :rolleyes:

Just stick with your narrow closed view that I hate the BBC will you and lets move on.

You will note if you read it that my longer response above deals entirely with the issues in hand, yet you choose to interpret it, merely because I disagree with you, as a personal attack.

[BDunnell]

I could say the same so lets move on.

No, let's not.



I never said they did. I just asked why they didn't when rumour was so rife.

A few victims went to what they believed was the appropriate authority, namely the police. As far as I am aware, no victim went to any media outlet with their story.



I always thought he was a bit mad and an extrovert but never thought he was a Pedophile.

Really? You must have been in a minority. I was always of the view that it was a distinct possibility.



Boring.... Same old line trolled out time and time again. You're right. Move on. :rolleyes:

I would respectfully suggest that I am more aware of how investigations work than are you. Dismiss my comments as 'boring' if you like, but they are accurate, and you would do well to take them on board before offering a view as to the supposed failings of the media.



As I pointed out, it is my opinion and if you think people can turn a blind eye to abuse, I respect your opinion and right to say it. What I think about someone with that opinion is not printable on here but it's your view and that's that.


I don't think it's a case of turning a 'blind eye' to abuse — such language is over-emotive. There are reasons for not coming forward that might be hard for you or I to explain, but which, to someone else, might feel entirely legitimate. Not everyone behaves or thinks in the same way, and this goes for situations in which abuse is involved.

[Knock-on]

You will note if you read it that my longer response above deals entirely with the issues in hand, yet you choose to interpret it, merely because I disagree with you, as a personal attack.

Sorry Ben, you mistook what I wrote again. I never accused you of a personal attack on me but merely a poor attack of the post.

[Knock-on]

I would respectfully suggest that I am more aware of how investigations work than are you. Dismiss my comments as 'boring' if you like, but they are accurate, and you would do well to take them on board before offering a view as to the supposed failings of the media.



I don't think it's a case of turning a 'blind eye' to abuse — such language is over-emotive. There are reasons for not coming forward that might be hard for you or I to explain, but which, to someone else, might feel entirely legitimate. Not everyone behaves or thinks in the same way, and this goes for situations in which abuse is involved.

So, I should defer to your opinion because you have comprehensive first hand experience of being an investagative journalist (?) yet my expert experience of working with vulnerable and abused / abusive children and young adults renderes me too narrow in my view and ill equiped to explain why it is unacceptable for people to cover up abuse.

Rightyo fella. I'm gonna leave it there. This is getting too obscure.

[BDunnell]

Sorry Ben, you mistook what I wrote again. I never accused you of a personal attack on me but merely a poor attack of the post.

However you might put it, I disagree totally with your assertion. It wasn't a 'poor attack' at all. Rather, it was entirely pertinent and worthwhile.

[BDunnell]

So, I should defer to your opinion because you have comprehensive first hand experience of being an investagative journalist (?) yet my expert experience of working with vulnerable and abused / abusive children and young adults renderes me too narrow in my view and ill equiped to explain why it is unacceptable for people to cover up abuse.

Ordinarily I would agree, but in this instance your first-hand experience doesn't seem to be adding much beyond the sort of easy-to-express outrage one can find in any tabloid newspaper opinion column when the subject of child abuse comes up.

Personally, I feel your zero-tolerance approach with regard to those who elect to hold back on giving information is unhelpful for the reasons cited before. It does nothing to help the underlying causes — why do people feel too afraid to come forward? Merely saying that it's wrong they don't, that their reasons for so doing aren't good enough, avoids the fact of simple human fallibility (one that can't simply be removed from the equation or ignored just because the subject is abuse) and also avoids tackling the reasons that considerations such as employment make people fearful to tell what they know.

[Malbec]

So, I should defer to your opinion because you have comprehensive first hand experience of being an investagative journalist (?) yet my expert experience of working with vulnerable and abused / abusive children and young adults renderes me too narrow in my view and ill equiped to explain why it is unacceptable for people to cover up abuse.


Having read this thread through you and Ben are not contradicting each other.

Your point which you've stressed many times is a non-issue.

No remotely decent human being would ever feel that if someone, let alone a child, came to them claiming that they were abused that they would cover it up. You are hardly unique, merely normal.

However while this black and white right and wrong view of things may work at the ground level if you start looking into incidents (not just abuse but any situation where coverups occurred) in order to rectify them you'll find that attempts to reform organisations from preventing a recurrence always hit a big obstacle. Thats psychology, whether its the psychology of the abuser and the abused or group psychology and the power of denial amongst those who are in the position to identify and stop the rot.

This was true hundreds of years ago and its still true today. We can see it with the Holocaust, Mid-Staffordshire, Baby P, BRI, police brutality towards certain racial groups, the list is endless.

WRT Savile, perhaps you ought to ask yourself why it was that the women who approached the police then the BBC could only do so once it was clear the man was dying or dead. As someone who claims to work with the abused I'm sure you understand that abusers select people who will not speak out, and their reach is long. Victims feel under the power of the abuser regardless of time and distance and keep silent. They also knew that because of their histories their accusations would often not be heard.

The people responsible for those children were partly financially dependent on Savile, and we also shouldn't ignore his personality which was to bully those around him into submission.

I could go into a lot more detail but you would be better served into doing a little research into psychology and how it has enabled countless abuses and atrocities in the past.

Life is a lot more nuanced than you appear to give it credit for I'm afraid.

[Daniel]

Exactly Malbec, it just isn't as simple as Knock On tries to make out. I worked with a guy who was raped (by a girl) in his teenage years. He reported it and nothing was done about it. It's just not as simple as knock on makes it out to be.....

[inimitablestoo]

Sorry Mark
More than 24 hours on and you're still the only one, it seems. Very telling, that.

[henners88]

I think knock-on has been made a bit of a villain here for an opinion that is certainly not unreasonable IMO.

[Daniel]

Inimitablestoo, why should i apologise when I've not been making personal remarks? Knock on is the one who is saying things and then trying to backtrack....

[henners88]

You could apologise for the indirect insults you have made i.e questioning knock on's experience in his job etc. I haven't been involved in this thread for a while but in recent pages knockie isn't the only person using personal remarks. It's all tit for tat really guys.

[Daniel]

You could apologise for the indirect insults you have made i.e questioning knock on's experience in his job etc. I haven't been involved in this thread for a while but in recent pages knockie isn't the only person using personal remarks. It's all tit for tat really guys.

Not to be funny, but his experience only came out in the last few days. Not that I would bother to do so, but if I showed this thread to my former colleagues, they would feel that Knock On's experience and views don't really go together particularly well. it'd be like someone being a mechanic for the last 20 years and feeling that Japanese cars were the worst made cars and Italian/French cars were most reliable. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. No one is trying to make him out to be a villain, he holds and opinion that many don't agree with, it's hardly a big deal. I may disagree rather strongly/passionately with Knock-On, but in the big scheme of things does it make a difference? Not really.

[BDunnell]

Not to be funny, but his experience only came out in the last few days.

That isn't actually true. He did also mention it some time ago.

[BDunnell]

More than 24 hours on and you're still the only one, it seems. Very telling, that.

I, for one, don't feel any need to apologise. All I've done is point out what I consider to be certain unrealistic expectations about the extent to which journalists could have looked into the story, and the fact that I believe Knock-on's view regarding the withholding of information may be counterproductive as well as slightly simplistic. Nowhere have I questioned his own professionalism; rather, I've questioned whether his personal involvement in such matters offers us any particular extra insight.

[Daniel]

My bad, I haven't been on this thread for a while...

[Knock-on]

My bad, I haven't been on this thread for a while...

If you would like to pop back to page 5, posts 95 and 96 will refresh your memory. I believe you even replied to one of them on page 6.

[inimitablestoo]

Can we dial back the personal stuff please. All of you.

Why should i apologise when I've not been making personal remarks?

I, for one, don't feel any need to apologise.
Meh, I thought Mark's point was clear. Apparently not.

If only Sir Jim was still alive today. They could have made him Pope.

[Knock-on]

Pml :laugh:

[Daniel]

Meh, I thought Mark's point was clear. Apparently not.

If only Sir Jim was still alive today. They could have made him Pope.

Again, why should I apologise if I wasn't the one making personal remarks?

If only Hitler was alive today, you could have rogered him between his buttocks (for the hard of understanding, I am mirroring your pointless/irrelevant last remark(oops, that's a personal insult, for which I now apologise for)

[henners88]

I'd jump ship here Knockie before the Headmaster comes lol :)

[BDunnell]

Meh, I thought Mark's point was clear. Apparently not.

I disagree with the notion that anyone should apologise.

[Daniel]

I disagree with the notion that anyone should apologise.

I too agree, whilst Knockie's posts were slightly personal, I wasn't bothered. How can you discuss a topic in a spirited manner without making comments which could be taken to be personal by someone? Have any abusive comments been made recently? I don't remember any......

[BDunnell]

I too agree, whilst Knockie's posts were slightly personal, I wasn't bothered. How can you discuss a topic in a spirited manner without making comments which could be taken to be personal by someone? Have any abusive comments been made recently? I don't remember any......

One might say that the sarcastic use of emoticons within posts is far more offensive than anything anyone has posted using words.

[Daniel]

One might say that the sarcastic use of emoticons within posts is far more offensive than anything anyone has posted using words.

Agreed. Henners, apologise now or I report you to the authorities!

Kidding of course, nothing I've seen of late has particularly bothered me......

[BDunnell]

Agreed. Henners, apologise now or I report you to the authorities!

Kidding of course, nothing I've seen of late has particularly bothered me......

Nor me.

[Dave B]

Blimey, there's more apologising here than in a Lib Dem party political broadcast.

[Garry Walker]

Blimey, there's more apologising here than in a Lib Dem party political broadcast.

Hopefully less sexual attacks though.

[Knock-on]

I think it's funny in a way :laugh:

Ben and Dan would never be insulting and I am too thick to have an opinion worth considering :D

Lets drop the 'mutual love' and back to the thread otherwise the usual suspects will force it closed ;)

[BDunnell]

I think it's funny in a way :laugh:

Ben and Dan would never be insulting and I am too thick to have an opinion worth considering :D

Lets drop the 'mutual love' and back to the thread otherwise the usual suspects will force it closed ;)

It's not a matter of you being thick at all. Rather, as Malbec said, some of us are just suggesting that you may like to re-assess your view on this subject and look at the situation in a more nuanced way.

[SGWilko]

It's not a matter of you being thick at all. Rather, as Malbec said, some of us are just suggesting that you may like to re-assess your view on this subject and look at the situation in a more nuanced way.

What, the 'we think your opinion should be more like ours' point of view.

An opinion is just that - an opinion. Is it right or wrong?

You do not have to agree with it, but the idea of free speech suggests others opinions have as might right as yours to be heard.

Anyway, I don't see the point in Daniel posting - all he does is agree with you, might as well employ a parrott and be done with it!


I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[Daniel]

Yay! Personal insults!

nice sentiment sgwilko, but show me where people have said,that knockie isn't entitled to voice his opinion? Trotting out someone elses words when they're not even applicable is a meaningless gesture.

[SGWilko]

nice sentiment sgwilko,

Well, I thought so - but I am biassed in my favour.

If it is a meaningless gesture Daniel, move on - or can you not let go?

[SGWilko]

Yay! Personal insults!


Really, where?

[henners88]

Knock-on is allowed his personal opinion, just so long as he changes it slightly to something completely different. :p

[SGWilko]

Knock-on is allowed his personal opinion, just so long as he changes it slightly to something completely different. :p

What, like BDaniel's?

[henners88]

What, like BDaniel's?
I don't know, I voiced my opinion on this a while ago but thankfully they've all gone apart from the odd quote lol. I think we're in between a rock and hard place here. If Knock-on changes his view for the sake of others sanity, he'll fall into a clique, if he doesn't his whole career falls into question. Sounds like a job for Paxman. :D

[SGWilko]

job for Paxman. :D

I never could get the hang of that game......

[pino]

Too many childish comments/insults...closed !