Mintball wrote:
a) I can't imagine what you're "professional" in, then, if it is presumed that one carries one's working life into this little realm of cyberspace. After all, if you presume that this and the work for which I am paid are connected (why?) then it is logical to assume that the work that everyone does is also connected to what they do in cyberspace in a non-work capacity.
The skills of carpentry, driving a truck, being a cashier etc don't really transfer to web forums.
The skills of reading and comprehension do.
To read THAT story and come to THAT conclusion??? Were you watching TV at the same time and mixed up the TV show and the article? Maybe you outsourced the writing of your post to an Indian with only a few weeks of learning the English language?
d) Did you struggle to understand my second, rather more detailed post on this thread? If so, what did you not understand about it?
I understood it. It was "Blah, blah, blah, evade the point, make pathetic half excuses BS, blah blah blah."
But seeing as you feel it's worthy of response, I'll respond to it.
I doubt very much that "complex" was meant as an indicator of 'sleeping with women'.
Well your doubts were wrong. The cited newspaper articles in The Sun which were mainly about picking up women at marathons. There was a media report about Saville being some kind of gangster as well.
Your statement was that "someone at the top of the tree knew about him". The inference that they knew he was a paedo but still chose to push for him receiving a knighthood. There was no evidence whatsoever that the people at the top knew Saville was abusing kids.
It has been pointed out a number of times that for someone to have spent so many holidays at Chequers, he must have been vetted by the security services.
So someone at the top knew Saville was a pedo and didn't bother telling Thatcher, who was at Chequers with her ****ing family? Or did they tell Thatcher and she wasn't bothered?
But more likely the security services held rudimentary background checks and nothing came up. Once he'd been checked once, and stayed at Chequers with no incident, they probably never even bothered checking again.
His own 1974 autobiography made entirely clear that he was abusing his position for sex.
"Abusing his position"??? He was a TV and radio presenter. He managed ballrooms.
I suppose you think that all the PL football players are "abusing their position" because they get loads more sex than they would if they weren't footballers? Of course not. This is pretty much 180 degrees away from your actual position on the matter.
The mainstream media knew - and chose to nothing.
If someone knew Saville was fiddling with kids and they did nothing then they should be in jail.
But thinking that Saville is a creepy weirdo and being jealous that he gets loads of women isn't *knowing*.
Pretty much the whole of Great Britain *knows* that John Terry had an affair with Wayne Bridge's wife.
Now, the problems with that are: 1. She wasn't Bridge's wife, she was his ex gf. 2 Both Terry and VP vehemently deny that they ever had sex. 3. There's no actual evidence from anyone else that they were having an affair. The only evidence was Terry visiting her house.
But because the whole country knows that JT screwed Bridge's wife, Terry loses the England captaincy, Capello loses his job as England manager and Terry receives years of vile abuse.
Now, Jerry has previously made some excellent comments on the change in culture in this respect, and I think he's essentially correct.
The culture around workplace harassment has changed massively. The culture of policing has changed massively. But somehow I don't think fiddling with children was any more acceptable then than it is now.
The point is that the BBC has been made a scapegoat - largely for reason of political agenda
The BBC has received a kicking. The rest of the media happily multiply that kicking. If there are many people who knew that Saville was abusing children THEY DESERVE THAT KICKING.
but it is increasingly clear that a great many people, including some in positions of great influence, knew that Savile was "complex", and did nothing.
Knowing that Saville is "complex" means precisely F**K ALL. Knowing that he is "complex" could mean that he's a faggot, that he's weird, strange, that he disgracefully gets tonnes of women that I don't get, that he likes to visit West End dungeons and get whipped.
None of that "complexity" was worth doing anything about.
If someone suspected that part of his complexity was that he fiddled with kids then they should have alerted the police. But that is "complex" because an allegation of sexually abusing children can ruin lives.
If someone knew that Saville was abusing kids and did nothing then I wish there was a hell that they could burn in.
And goodness, it's fairly widespread knowledge that Phil the Greek worked his way through the lady's maids and that Andy is not exactly 100% hetero.
Widespread knowledge = puerile gossip. I neither know, nor care, about either of their sex lives.
So again I'd suggest that, unless the 1980s were a sudden time of sexual Puritanism, it was not about consensual sex between adults.
Suggest it all you want. The documents don't back you up at all. It doesn't work for IDS, and it clearly doesn't work for you.
