to think that in 2012 we are both enlightened and educated enough to tell the difference between a homosexual and a paedophile?(258 Posts)
Hey Mr Cameron?
Care to explain your comments on This Morning?
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?
Well two of the names on that list were of gay men. Most people with half a brain cell will know that gayness doesn't equal nonce but sadly there are dimbos out there who can't make that distinction. I think it's irresponsible of PS to be handing out a list of names on live television. He needs reprimanding for that. It's a job for the police, not a jumpe- tv presenter. Interesting about turn he's doing after defending Jimmy Saville the other week...
I think at the bottom of this is a general attitude (From David Cameron and other politicians) that we should forgive homosexual politicians for paedophilia because in their opinion they were only rent-boys and back then things were different so the only way they could satisfy their needs was to use rent-boys who in their minds were really only offering a service which they probably think was acceptable behaviour for politicians who might lose their jobs if it be known they were gay.
I am of course just guessing but it seems fairly typical to me that the tories would get all arse over tit about this in an attempt to explain why this was all ok.
Have you seen the list Bupcakes?
"Isn't in interesting, for example, that the moment Savile was 'outed', lots of others came forward"
in what way interesting?
You think some of them or the majority of them might be lying? to gain what? publicity?
If I am correct most of them have gone to the police, not to the papers.
Victims of abuse often don't say anything about their abuse unless others do. You know, like all those kids who were abused by priests. Or perhaps they were lying too?
I think it was shit pseudo journalism by a crap tv programme. BTW am I the only person on the planet who only can guess at one of these people's identities? I feel like I have been living under a stone recently.
VoiceofUnreason - I don't agree with that way of thinking by the way but I do think that there will be attempts to cover all this up. I really do believe that it has previously been covered up and that it could be very damaging for all kinds of different politicians (maybe not just the tories) and that they will try anything to stop it coming out, even using the kind of 'logic' I described in my other post.
Voiceofunreason, how do you know no-one else has come forward re Leonard Rossiter? If they've taken it to the police as they should have done, do the police have to tell the press the instant they get another report? (genuine question)
think at the bottom of this is a general attitude (From David Cameron and other politicians) that we should forgive homosexual politicians for paedophilia because in their opinion they were only rent-boys and back then things were different so the only way they could satisfy their needs was to use rent-boys who in their minds were really only offering a service which they probably think was acceptable behaviour for politicians who might lose their jobs if it be known they were gay
Biggest load of shite I have read on MN EVER. And that's saying something.
Flags are waving here for Phillip Schofield. What a load of rubbish that people dont know the difference between a peadophile and someone who is gay.
Yet another bumbling idiot interview with Cameron who is drowning fast in a pit of his own crap by not being honest.
PS was asking him what millions of other people are asking. How can you go on the internet and find 5 names listed of high profile people being accused of a disgusting crime and will they investigate them. Nothing wrong with that.
its simple really, DC should have answered the question with 'everything is being investigated' even though no one would believe him. Why throw in the Gay comment?
dueling - you haven't read my post correctly, perhaps deliberately. I was not saying anything remotely implying the stuff about Savile is incorrect. I was pointing out that it is ALREADY becoming a witch hunt and that there are people who are being named, or may be named, who are totally innocent because there are some fantasists or unstable people who do make things up. We see people make up false claims of rape but mud sticks.
The point I made was that when Savile was outed, lots of others came forward to back it up. Yet NO ONE has come forward to back up the naming of Leonard Rossiter. Which suggests to me that while everything about Savile is correct, the likelihood of the allegation against Rossiter - of whom there were NO rumours or suspicions prior to last week, neither when he was alive or after he died in 1984 - is probably nonsense. But the mud will stick.
Which is WHY Cameron is right to be wary of people jumping on a witch hunting bandwagon.
Tunip, I haven't seen it but a quick Google will tell you a few of the names.
Tunip - bearing in mind the police volunteered info about how many people have contacted them about Savile, the fact that the whole abuse thing is becoming huge, the fact that many people are choosing to notify the papers with their stories about Savile, I find it extremely unlikely we wouldn't have heard more about the Rossiter suggestion if even one more person has come forward about it. The newspapers are just dying to dig up as much as they can on this.
Possibly to assuage some of their own guilt in not blabbing about Savile in the past when it seems almost guaranteed some people in the press had heard the rumours.
Dueling - sorry for the 'perhaps deliberately' in my earlier post but as crikey said, your previous posting was so astonishing, I was taken aback.
"you haven't read my post correctly, perhaps deliberately"
"there are people who are being named, or may be named, who are totally innocent because there are some fantasists or unstable people who do make things up."
How do you know which people are innocent? I am not sure who you mean.
"Yet NO ONE has come forward to back up the naming of Leonard Rossiter"
I hadn't even heard this particular rumour.
"Which is WHY Cameron is right to be wary of people jumping on a witch hunting bandwagon"
his statement that this may become a witch-hunt against gay people is completely ridiculous. He could have said that it might become a witch-hunt. I have no idea why he felt the need to single out gay people.
I think part of the problem is the way the interview is being reported by news agencies and turned into an edited sound-bite: it actually encourages people to connect paedophilia with homosexuality. DC should have followed up thus: "we don't want to encourage a witch hunt against people who are gay, *because it is wrong to equate homosexuality with paedophilia*". But the way the interview has been edited will in fact encourage people to do just that: "there shouldnt be a witch hunt against gay people, but some of them are paedophiles."
Never thought I'd say it, but the boiled ham was right, ridiculous piece of "journalism" by the ps.
You only have to look at some of the threads that have been on here to see how tenuous connections can morph into "facts" by the
paranoid tin foil hat wearers suspicious.
generally I am not a conspiracy theorist in any way, however I do believe that there has been a very big cover-up over who was involved with abuse in the North Wales Children's home. I do believe that names were buried/with-held etc. I believe those victims who have come forward telling similar stories about how the abuse happened.
The case against several people working in the homes has already be proven.
This is more than just hearsay, there is proper documented stuff from many years ago and it will be very damaging if it is shown to be true. It's not over the top to think that the current governement would want to bury this story.
Interestingly pop bitch has just commented that in the 80's it received many email rumours of ps being involved in a gay relationship.
How would he have liked it if his name was handed to the pm live on television on the basis of an internet search?
Just watched the clip on Sky News, and for once I think DC has a point.
There IS a real danger that innocent people will be caught up in this; and too many very stupid people do think that homosexual=kiddy fiddler.
Obviously this is not the case. I want everything investigated with the finest tooth-comb and the brightest lights, and I want the guilty to be brought down; but I DONT want completely innocent men or women who are gay to be targeted, either because their sexuality makes them inconvenient to some or because some people are too fucking thick to understand that gay does not mean paedophile.
Totally inept as usual. His fury and panic were funny to behold.
Dueling is spot on I fear with her description of how people have (and will) justify the abuse of underage rentboys.
I didn't watch this btw.
PS has always struck me as an arse though and naturally I'm no fan of Dave either.
It certainly wasn't an answer to PS's question (the correct answer, of course, being "WTAF, you crazy shit-stirring loon?")
But he's right that too many people do seem to think that there is some sort of natural affinity between the two. So I presume it was on his mind anyway - it's certainly been on mine as this thing unfolds.
There was a big cover up but it was years ago and nothing to do with Cameron.
Sorry, but you really can't lay the blame for this one at his door.
There was a widely-read blog linked to on a thread on here last week that was throwing all sorts of wild accusations around including implying that at least one prominent politician was a paedophile purely on the basis that someone whose name was the same as the politician's middle names was once arrested for cottaging.
This conflating of homosexual and paedophile is already well underway amounting to trial by internet of people not in a position to defend themselves against innuendo and rumourmongering. So, much as I hate to say it, I can see where DC is coming from.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.