Suzanne Moore in the Guardian re Jimmy Saville

[GetOrfAKAMrsUsainBolt]

I am very sorry as I am on my phone and can't link useless.

But I think it is a very good article - gets away from the media arguing with itself and the whole 'deputy heads must roll' at the BBC, and discusses that the key point about all of this is the fact that children have been abused.

Anyway I think it sums up a lot of what I have seen on Mumsnet.

he's had a letter from Jonathan King telling her how kind Saville was....

Oh good god that says it all

I read today that police have gone into his cottage in glencoe to search it has been left as it was , I am not sure what they will find if anything,

Did anyone listen to the sound cloud? Has a comedian speaking about it all the way back in 1988. Terrible.
Was a relief to read a JS article without his FACE staring at me, in all different guises

I thought this when I watched the BB4 programme last night. I don't care who was to blame at the BBC, it all felt rather self absorbed tbh.

It's a good article. It is so easy for this issue to turn into "top management at the BBC messed up 30 years ago, but we're awesome now" type thing, where the people (who knows how many) who's lives he destroyed are ignored. i can just see that happen - instead of facing up to a culture where sexual abuse of women and children is, on some level accepted and/or seen as the victim's fault (see Ken Clarke, Julian Assange, George Galloway), it could turn into a couple of senior people getting fired, the BBC management wringing their hands and going "oh dear, we're very sorry" but no real change happening.

There was one thread on here where people were all "oh, leave the BBC alone it was 30 years ago" BUT, they're not the ones who exposed it (and recently pulled programmes that could have been an expose), some of the comments of BBC employees have left a lot to be desired.

It just sickens me.

Suzanne Moore's article is good to the point that it makes me feel sick to stomach, those poor children.

I so agree - where is the Panorama investigation into a fucking DJ being given the keys to Broadmoor. Where are the investigations into Stoke Mandeville? Or someone REALLY doing something about what appears to be the grand master of all hush ups in Jersey? Why has everyone's attention been focused on a few very highly paid TV execs? It's so pop will eat itself its ridiculous.

What the hell re Jonathan King saying JS was kind? That's like Idi Amin saying Saddam Hussein had good manners.

But did he finish the sentence? "JS was kind ... "of an abusive evil cunt?

I do think the whole thing has become rather prurient, even (especially?) on mumsnet. People are behaving as though having the ability to google makes them some kind of crack investigative team, and they are bandying round names and initials like thes no tomorrow, without a thought for the consequences.

Of COURSE we should be aware of the abuse of children, believe them, support them, help people recover. And we need to be vocal about how we will not allow the issue to be buried and be only half-heartedly tackled by the authorities.

But I think that there is a world of difference between the legitimate activities of politically campaigning on behalf of victims, and supporting survivors emotionally (GOOD activities mumsnet is great bringing people together over); and mindless tittle-tattle and playing Columbo from the sofa. It is weird and creepy to see some posters getting so excited about it. That is every bit as irresponsible and ridiculous as the Daily Mail wetting its pants about being able to lynch the BBC.

The Suzanne Moore article was brilliant.
BOF you have expressed very eloquently my own thoughts.

It was a brilliant article. Someone should tweet her this thread too

As usual the comments in the guardian are disgraceful 'don't turn this into a feminist bandwagon' ffs

good article. agree with bof too, i feel there is much buried underneath the whole savile abuse scandal, but am not going to play sleuth. it will all out in the end.

Agree with getorf. This is now about panorama vs newsnight vs itv vs George entwistle. It should be about the prevalence of child abuse and what we can do about it.

Fwiw if I had been that Newsnight editor I think I would have dropped the story too because it's a story of vileness but it speaks of another age. Yes this stuff still goes on but attitudes really have changed. A slightly strange seeming man like JS would not get to present kids tv now - not only because he was odd but also because of the cigars! JS as abuser is just not the sort of story Newsnight does. Like the awful April Jones story. That's not their beat either. Doesn't make it not awful. Just not their subject.

But this has all become a witch hunt with some ordinary journalists in the firing line for deciding to follow another story instead. Victoria Derbyshire has been saying the same thing apparently.

Good article. Yy to bof. Still think people don't care because they were 'slutty' teens. Makes me angry

I agree completely UltraBOF.

The 'ooh what about him.i heard he was involved and he knows so and so' is making me really worry about some posters.

It feels very much as if what happens to victims is a good excuse to have a gossip.

Personally I would prefer a little more respect for the seriousness of it.

Yes agree that it's all salacious and lots of horrible gossip about others. Everyone would be better off thinking about how abuse happens in familiar environments instead of all this Daily Mail No 10 and show biz gossip.

Perhaps this BBC rubbish is just massive displacement activity for the male establishment who just don't know how commonplace this is in children's lives and cant really cope with the idea. See also the long thread on here about sexual assault of women and how common it is and how nice men don't know that this is a fact of life for women.

Yup, thought this would happen.

If it's the Catholic Church under discussion, it's all right to bring up things that happened years and years ago and dissect them again and again, even when current Catholics try and explain that, in England at least (don't know much about Scotland and Ireland) it is very unlikely abuse could happen. We are all guilty by association, it seems sometimes. I have been told on MN that I am condoning paedophilia by going to Mass.

But when it's the BBC, it's not right to keep bringing things up because they happened years ago and it's not fair to the current management and employees, who might have their feelings hurt.

Sorry, missed out the word 'now' in my post above: it is now very unlikely abuse could happen in the Catholic Church in England, is what I meant to type.

Abra1d
I am not sure anyone is saying that are they?

The point is not whether people should be blaming the BBC or not, but why the meda seems to view that as the only significant story.

Catholic church was implicated because of active decisions not to remove living priests from their roles. Here the perpetrator is dead and no one who is currently being interrogated on him ever met him!

Also what pagwatch said.

Pagwatch I don't necessarily say that people on this thread are saying this, but just that some sacred cows are more sacred than others!

I completely get what everyone is saying on this thread. Of course the abuse and the attitudes which allow it to happen are the most important things here. Suzanne Moore expresses that brilliantly.

But I kind of feel that the BBC stuff is important too - because it's part of the culture which allows abuse to take place and minimises the effect on the victims. E.g. Peter Rippons statement that it was "just the women"'s word for it and that wasnt enough evidence. That made me feel so sick and angry. If it wasn't for this kind of institutional sexism, we wouldn't have Savile, Rochdale etc.

And to be fair to the Panorama programme, it did talk quite a bit about the victims and how their lives were ruined.

I totally get your point and agree re prurience.

I am just so bloody depressed at the whole horrible, revolting story. God knows.

Assuming that those in charge had no knowledge at all about JS, I still don't understand why they would let him be in charge at Broadmoor, when AFAIK he had no qualifications for that sort of job? How do they pick people for those sort of jobs now?