to think that in 2012 we are both enlightened and educated enough to tell the difference between a homosexual and a paedophile?

(258 Posts)
isupposeimabitofafraud Thu 08-Nov-12 14:38:31

Hey Mr Cameron?

Care to explain your comments on This Morning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE67Zu9qOBw

The only thing I'm getting out of that, is his own prejudices and the whiff of a lack of leadership and yet another cover up.

If Mr Cameron wants to save his own neck and not drown in this sick sea of corruption then taking it seriously and not being dismissive of the claims and accusing people of homophobia, might be a good place to start...

Together with an overall inquiry into why there have been so many institutional failures with regard to child protection and to gather all the conclusions of the 6 million other investigations that have been started post Jimmy Savile, for their findings are scattered to the four corners of the country by the wind.

I'm fuming. I don't want crappy ill thought out warnings about a witchhunt, it wouldn't BE a witchhunt, if the government actually started to take control of the scandal and handle it properly, sensitively and starting taking it seriously rather than acting reactively.

For weeks it was obvious that the Jimmy Savile revelations were going to spread and given what the government do know, and the fact they have both the intelligence and foresight to be able to see the direction it was going to head and act accordingly. Instead they have sat on their hands and hoped it would all die down, go away and we'd all forget about it. Well I'm not forgetting about it. I want PROPER answers and an institutional change of attitude and action. Not more crap.

Isn't this exactly how we got into this mess in the first place, by officials dismissing those who did report or trying to discredit them?

Haven't they learnt ANYTHING yet?

/rant.

perfumedlife Fri 09-Nov-12 21:12:17

But surely their gayness, rumoured or otherwise, is irrelevant? Surely if DC read the same online rumours, the gayness of the alleged abusers was the least shocking or relevant of the hideous tale? I genuinely don't get why he needed to mention sexuality. I thought these people had advisers confused

trockodile Fri 09-Nov-12 21:23:53

But the point DC was making surely is that while their sexual orientation should be irrelevant, that it is sadly not-and that people are generally willing to believe worse things about homosexuals. Which seems to be correct.

perfumedlife Fri 09-Nov-12 21:28:12

Well, that would have stayed irrelevant if he hadn't brought it up as the only way the public at large would have heard these names, in any official way, was if they were arrested for questioning. Apart from the PS internet trawl, the only ones naming names were The Speaker's wife (forget her name) on twitter and the Guardian and they named a straight person!

You seriously think the general public weren't capable of (or willing to) finding exactly the same names PS did? You do know that a huge amount of people use Twitter right? Because a hell of a lot of names have appeared on there!

ProphetOfDoom Fri 09-Nov-12 21:51:08

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

perfumedlife Fri 09-Nov-12 22:01:53

No MurderofGoths that's why I said 'in any official way'. The general public, twitter/facebook users have always done this stuff, the fact is DC was giving credence to something by mentioning sexuality when he should have dismissed it for what it was, unsubstantiated rumour (at this stage anyway). It was the Speaker's wife and a national broadsheet that named names, with the BBC coming close to doing so too. They don't need lecturing about gay witch hunting surely, so why address internet users who are hardly going to give a stuff what he says and stop digging?

perfumedlife Fri 09-Nov-12 22:05:37

But don't get me wrong, I think PS was an prize idiot for grandstanding, it was hardly groundbreaking research he handed over, and smacked of desperation to be on message to me after his previous treatment of Savile victims. I would have treated that with the contempt it deserved, not furnished it with a grave concern that was unwarranted. But I also think DC direction to give evidence to the police rings a little hollow when victims have in the past and not been believed.

EdgarAllanPond Fri 09-Nov-12 23:39:46

They don't need lecturing about gay witch hunting surely, so why address internet users who are hardly going to give a stuff what he says and stop digging?"

that's what Schofield was asking for - an answer to the buzz on the internet. DC gave one - probably he shouldn't. but it was a fair answer to give.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now