Incredibly upsetting piece about the BBC and Savile

That's a great blog piece by Jackie Long.

If there are comments to be made about a rape victim and her online presence, that's for another thread.

Catherina - are you seriously saying if you don't agree with or approve of someone you're ok with them being raped?

[quote Bellusaurus]I loved this article by a friend of hers, including the photo of her coming out to meet the press after her work on Savile was vindicated. Hope - but doubt - she'll get the credit she's due.

www.channel4.com/news/by/jackie-long/blogs/my-friend-liz-mackean-a-forensic-journalist-who-had-time-for-people-who-others-ignored[/quote]
Must read!!!!!!

She was gorgeous inside and out. bloody hell I hope the programme does her justice.

I was surprised this was apparently not common knowledge, given that Private Eye had been making thinly veiled references to JS and his vile practices for decades. I thought everyone in the media knew.

Liz MacKean sacrificed was silenced and it cost her her position at the BBC and ultimately her career.

The voices of women were not enough.

Hundreds of women were raped but we are still left with those smiling pictures of JS and that hideous clip the teenager being groped on love TV.

One account said 'he molested at least one boy and numerous girls'. Why are we left with narrative that the abuse of boys is more abhorrent than the abuse of girls and women?

Anyway, OJ claims JM's tweet from page 1 of this thread (this story shows we should not dismiss witnesses when they report sexual coercion) equates trans people with Savile

"This is a BBC journalist comparing trans people to Jimmy Saville. Beyond belief, frankly." says OJ

Nope, says JM.

Well why doesn't BBC report of gay rape of straight men, says OJ.

We do, says JM. and here's a link to Journalism for Dummies.

(Can't be bothered breaching the secure citadel that is OJ's, "let's transform media" twitter account to take screenshots - that's verboten. Utter eejitry... But that's a paraphrase)

BBC rotten to the core and that cotton ceiling piece is one piece of evidence for that.

Why?

Specifically, why? Not an ad hominem attack. Not discounting the data which has been declared as being exactly what it is, qualitative in nature and the author has captured anecdotal evidence.

Do you or do you not believe that these events happened Catherina? And if they have happened, why are you trying to discredit the article instead of saying.... 'this is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. If there are males out there that are actively coercing lesbians, let's address it before it goes any further. Particularly if they are part of the LGBT+ community'.

Why instead are you participating in continuing the coercion through actively participating in discouraging any lesbians from coming forward in the future?

these 2 journalists that should read

The BBC as an institution is rotten, Imo. That does not negate the work of individual employees like Liz MacKean, working within an institution and trying to make it look hard at itself and do better. The rot comes from the BBC bosses ignoring people like her, threatening her job and marginalising her. The same goes for journalist's like Caroline Lowbridge and Stephen Nolan. Brave doesn't even cover what these 3 journalists have done in the current climate - a rotten, vicious, dystopian climate created by the people you align yourself with.

But, if you accept the BBC's rotten, then you must accept that Stonewall has helped make it so, since they effectively run it.

please go and read who you are aligning yourself with

Honestly, Catherina. Shall we simply keep posting all the really problematic posts that prominent transitioned males have said in the past?

You need to start addressing arguments on their merit and stop this constant 'look who you are aligning yourself with'! It has not worked so far, and frankly your repeated use of it simply shows that you have no arguments that will withstand robust discussion.

It is like telling us that there is only a few thousand ''GCs" in the UK.

Let's get down to it.

Does this person deserve to tell the world of her abuse? Yes? or no?

Do you honestly believe that only pure people should get to tell their story? Are you engaging in victim blaming?

CatherineJTV is referring to the BBC article on the cotton ceiling.

Please go and read who you are aligning with.

What on Earth do you mean? Are you trying to imply that she deserved it?

I mean unless you're endorsing punitive rape, you're making no sense here. And if that's what you're endorsing ... well it's of a piece with the most aggressive trans activism, unfortunately.

As you put it - please go and read who you are aligning yourself with. I doubt many people on either side of the "gender debate" have any time for Savile.

I cant put the OJ tweets up but John McManus has just handed him his arse gift wrapped.

you can go to her website and read for yourself - it is a rant about executing trans woman, with the specific names of who she would kill. Don't take my word for it. Please go and read who you are aligning with.

1. I don't know who you are referring to.

1. I am not aligning with anyone. I accept the interviewees are victims of coercive sex.

1. So what? Rape victims can be nice people or they can be unpleasant people. If they are the latter, they are no less a victim.

What's Talcum X said now, HDDD?

It's an incredible piece and I just cannot fathom how some people have twisted comments about it into a distorted comparison (Little OJ)

given that one of the witnesses currently calls for trans women to be killed on her website, I am not sure I agree.

Did you even bother reading the article @CatherinaJTV ? It is exactly your sort of thinking process that led to Savile's victims being dismissed by the BBC - they were "bad girls".

Also, how does one person's internet postings negate the other women's experiences as set out in the BBC investigation? Do you apply the same logic to all the bad apples in the trans community and their "choke on my lady dick" type postings?

Lordamighty

I wish someone would photoshop a picture of Saville wearing a T-shirt with the Amnesty International slogan “I am who I say I am”, to highlight how sinister it is.

It's been done, but I don't think it's appropriate to upload it here, assuming I know where to find it.

I loved this article by a friend of hers, including the photo of her coming out to meet the press after her work on Savile was vindicated. Hope - but doubt - she'll get the credit she's due.

www.channel4.com/news/by/jackie-long/blogs/my-friend-liz-mackean-a-forensic-journalist-who-had-time-for-people-who-others-ignored

I understand the BBC commissioned the drama but that they won't be making it themselves, which is something at least.

I agree, LondonWolf , I think it is in extremely bad taste to make what is essentially an entertainment piece about your own internal fuck up that led to the abuse of hundreds of children, and your own complicity in the cover up; to have a big time star mostly known for his comedy as the "star"; and then to no doubt flog this around the world. Will they be giving the profits to the victims? Or channelling them into Children in Need, which is effectively governed by Stonewall rules?