Threads

See more results

Topics

Usernames

Mumsnet Logo
Please
or
to access all these features

What is your favourite conspiracy theory?
835

julieca · 06/12/2021 21:38

I love the crazy conspiracy theories. So my favourite ones are that birds arent real and that Paul McCartney is dead and the man we see now is a lookalike.
What about you?

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 14/12/2021 00:30

In fact, some have speculated whether certain bodies set up to protect children may even have been in reality deliberately designed to (at least partially) provide a cover, in case certain brave children did speak out about what famous people had done. Kind of slotting themselves into a 'who guards the guards' position.

If it was your uncle, who's a postman in your little home town, we will ensure that he gets the full weight of justice that he deserves; if it involves somebody famous and influential.... well, we'll 'take the action that we deem appropriate'.

Please
or
to access all these features

Sayhellociaociao · 14/12/2021 00:32

Which two older ladies…I’m guessing ER is one, who’s the other?

Please
or
to access all these features

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 14/12/2021 00:35

It was the Chief Executive of Children in Need who said that Saville would never get anywhere near it while he was involved.

Ah, yes, that sounds familiar now - thanks for clarifying that.

Presumably, he must have spoken to a number of people - many of them in high positions - throughout the years to ensure that was (and remained) the case, though. Interesting how ALL of them 'apparently' must have just shrugged and assumed his fervent strength of feeling was because of Savile's appalling dress sense or something and just nonchalantly accepted his desire not to have a charity fundraising powerhouse on board, without ever even questioning why.

Please
or
to access all these features

julieca · 14/12/2021 00:39

I am sure they knew why.
I watched a programme about Saville and he was interviewed. He said he had no proof that anything had happened, but he had heard the rumours that Saville was dodgy.

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

julieca · 14/12/2021 00:40

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 14/12/2021 00:48

Liz MacKean's Wikipedia page is an interesting read.

It appears that she was trying to expose JS, but was prevented from doing so from on high.

Please
or
to access all these features

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 14/12/2021 01:02

Which two older ladies…I’m guessing ER is one, who’s the other?

We're not bringing to mind a very small North Yorks city, are we?

Please
or
to access all these features

Rhannion · 14/12/2021 01:42

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Which two older ladies…I’m guessing ER is one, who’s the other?

We're not bringing to mind a very small North Yorks city, are we?

Someone with a double barreled name who likes to hike, and is often on ITV in afternoon week day programme with other women.
Please
or
to access all these features

JustJustWhy · 14/12/2021 07:28

This is out in the public arena: ChildLine founder and former BBC presenter Esther Rantzen had been alerted to Jimmy Savile's abuse of children. Ms Rantzen told the BBC she had heard only rumours, and therefore said nothing at the time because "a rumour is not evidence."

However, JS never actually bothered to even hide it. He arrived at a breakfast meeting with a teen who had clearly stayed in his room. EVERYONE knew. EVERYONE.

Please
or
to access all these features

Riverlee · 14/12/2021 07:44

Until Childline, I don’t think child abuse factored in many people’s consciousness. Men ‘dating’ underage girls wasn’t considered unacceptable in those days. Childline gave a voice to children they didn’t have previously. Was Childline set up partly in response to the JS rumours, possibly so.

People question why people didn’t come forward sooner, especially women. To be honest, I don’t think they would have been listened to, even the big names, and it would have been career suicide. There wasn’t the mechanisms in place we have today, plus it was a very male dominated world. It would have taken a brave person to speak out against the big stars of the day.

Please
or
to access all these features

MsWaffle · 14/12/2021 08:10

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

JSP

Red hair
Teeth

Please
or
to access all these features

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 14/12/2021 09:34

Ah, thank you, @Rhannion & @MsWaffle

I hadn't heard anything about the other older lady I pondered - although her male namesake (no relation, I gather) was heavily involved in silencing Liz MacKean.

Please
or
to access all these features

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 14/12/2021 09:41

This is out in the public arena: ChildLine founder and former BBC presenter Esther Rantzen had been alerted to Jimmy Savile's abuse of children. Ms Rantzen told the BBC she had heard only rumours, and therefore said nothing at the time because "a rumour is not evidence."

It's true that a rumour is not evidence, but any half-intelligent adult who really cares knows full well that you don't just ignore them out of hand without investigating further. I'll bet she wouldn't have dreamed of using a childminder for her own child about whom there was a (very, very widespread and longstanding) 'rumour' that they were an abuser.

Plenty of evidence comes as a result of following up rumours and suspicions: you don't get many criminals just randomly volunteering the information themselves.

Please
or
to access all these features

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 14/12/2021 09:43

People question why people didn’t come forward sooner, especially women. To be honest, I don’t think they would have been listened to, even the big names, and it would have been career suicide. There wasn’t the mechanisms in place we have today, plus it was a very male dominated world. It would have taken a brave person to speak out against the big stars of the day.

Interestingly, there was at least one powerful woman who very much would have been listened to - who was evidently so untroubled by the 'rumours' that she and her husband hosted JS for Christmas Day for more than a decade.

Please
or
to access all these features

julieca · 14/12/2021 09:46

Whistleblowers always have their careers destroyed and are rarely listened to, even now. Look at the whole thing around Corey Fielding. Apparently, everyone knew about that.
People then knew child abuse was wrong, but teenagers of 14 and 15 would have just been seen as "slags" by many people, they still are in many cases.
Saville worked hard to ensure he was protected. From the Freemasons to the police. He cultivated friends in high places from the Royal Family to the government.
The only way to have tackled that was evidence. You go to someone and say I have heard Saville abuses kids and had a teenager in his room overnight. But you have no proof, when asked Saville denies it and no one will back you up. Nothing would happen.
And even now many people are too ready to believe implausible excuses or give obvious predators the benefit of the doubt. Just read MN.
Its why when people say that everyone knew I think they are only partly right. Yes they will have heard the rumours. But some will have dismissed them as - they are only jealous of his success and saying that because he is not married. Others will have thought he was really gay and it was a smear campaign against a closeted gay man. People frequently deny what is in front of their eyes.

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

Ddot · 14/12/2021 10:10

A nurse reported him but was told to shut up

Please
or
to access all these features

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 14/12/2021 10:43

And even now many people are too ready to believe implausible excuses or give obvious predators the benefit of the doubt. Just read MN.

That is very true.

Even on this thread, we've had people state that they point-blank discount any suggestion of any conspiracy as ridiculous and/or a clear sign that the person asking the question is somehow deficient. ALL conspiracies: the very suggestion that ANYBODY will EVER plot with other people to do bad things.

You're right about powerful people ensuring that things are shut down and, if necessary, those who put their heads above the parapet are ridiculed or destroyed. Going back to the death of Diana, just supposing that the DofE had been wholly responsible for it, does anybody truly believe that somebody would dare/be able to expose him, that person remain safe and normal justice be carried out against the perpetrator?

Even now, they've just discussed on the TV that Prince Andrew has 'asked' (which I imagine carries significantly more weight than if you or I asked) for the evidence to be sealed. How remarkable for an innocent man, outrageously accused of involvement in/connection to such an appalling crime, wouldn't want all of the evidence to be clearly seen and examined, in order to exonerate him completely and rightfully restore his impeccable reputation for all to see.

Please
or
to access all these features

dropitlikeitsloth · 14/12/2021 12:47

Just heard one… the Mona Lisa and other famous paintings shown in museums are copies, the real ones are held in vaults.

Please
or
to access all these features

julieca · 14/12/2021 15:26

I dont believe that. But most of us wouldn't know the difference anyway.

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

Itsalmostanaccessory · 14/12/2021 15:38

@dropitlikeitsloth

Just heard one… the Mona Lisa and other famous paintings shown in museums are copies, the real ones are held in vaults.

This isnt exactly a conspiracy theory. Its sort if just fact.

Museums and galleries have replicas of their important artwork made. That's a fact. It is discussed quite a lot. They do it so they can display the replica if the original needs any maintenance done, or if there are security concerns.
Sometimes they dont have replicas and they just put up a sign saying the piece is currently being maintained. But they do use replicas and they do display them without putting up a notice to tell you it is a replica.

Some museums permanently display replicas because the original is just too delicate to put on display. They sometimes tell you it is a replica. They sometimes dont.
Please
or
to access all these features

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 14/12/2021 15:49

That's just weird, displaying a replica. Why are these paintings worth tens of millions of pounds anyway, if somebody can create a replica that looks just as nice/indistinguishably different in a museum?!

I suppose they clearly label it as a 'replica - original being maintained' or whatever? If not, that does seem a touch deceitful: if I wanted to see a photo of the Mona Lisa, I could just see it online - no need for me to travel all that way to its actual home, just to see a mock-up.

Please
or
to access all these features

Itsalmostanaccessory · 14/12/2021 15:56

They dont always label it, no.

Mostly, if they are permanently displayed a replica (which museums do for a lot of statues and skeletons etc) then the description will read that it is a replica. But for short term switched due to maintenance or security concerns, they wont always put up a sign. This isnt a secret. Lots of art critics and museum writers etc have written about the use (and sometimes over use) of replicas.

Please
or
to access all these features

youdontnome · 14/12/2021 16:42

So I kind of see something in this:
Governments keep locking down so that airlines and other businesses go bust, leaving the few airlines left to inflate their prices astronomically and therefore denying air travel to lower earners and also working towards green targets similar with restaurants, many will go bankrupt leaving the more expensive ones to cater to the well off whilst us at the bottom go without.

Please
or
to access all these features

JustJustWhy · 14/12/2021 16:59

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

That's just weird, displaying a replica. Why are these paintings worth tens of millions of pounds anyway, if somebody can create a replica that looks just as nice/indistinguishably different in a museum?!

I suppose they clearly label it as a 'replica - original being maintained' or whatever? If not, that does seem a touch deceitful: if I wanted to see a photo of the Mona Lisa, I could just see it online - no need for me to travel all that way to its actual home, just to see a mock-up.

And that's part of why I don't "get" art. If it looks exactly the same, what's the difference?
Please
or
to access all these features

Ddot · 14/12/2021 17:03

Mona lisa has been stolen before and cut from frame, it is now much smaller. It needs to be protected so fake one on show. Shame really

Please
or
to access all these features
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.