Exposure, newsnight etc discussion part 2

[MrsjREwing]

Last thread full.

Steve has released a statement responding to Lord McAlpines statement.

I don't think security let down those high up, I think they knew and carried on hanging out with Savile.

I'm another one that no longer thinks the Royals were clueless about the darker side to JS.

How can Edwina Currie sit there and say that during Saviles time at Broadmoor he warned the Government about a possible IRA cell. She didnt flinch when she said it, bearing in mind he was just a rubbish DJ, why the hell would he know about potential IRA cells unless he was moving in far more sinister circles that they must have been very aware of. That should surely scream warning bells to the Royal family considering Lord Mountbatten was supposedly murdered by the IRA in 1979.

He was a visitor at Broadmoor for over 20 years before his appointment as a staff member. Who was he visiting and why? I'm beginning to think the links to the Krays and Peter Sutcliffe arnt as ridiculous as it sounded 4 weeks ago.

Something attracted him to Broadmoor or someone

These are all questions that should be easily answered but no one seems to be asking them, not even the mainstream media.

Wednesdays ITV part 2 exposure. Not much new; but the P.A to Savile for 20 years, was interesting. The BBC reports will be the next interesting thing. Dont think many people will be charged

"Well thats another childhood myth shatteted.
It is alleged BH was buried next to his partner. Which is nice but BH was very harsh in his public condemnation of homosexuals"

Doesn't that article relate to Cardinal Newman, not BH?

I fear this is all going to end in another huge cover-up, unless there are some seriously persistent and courageous journalists out there.

Public interest will wane once the dramatic revelations of recent weeks fades in people's memories - and we live in a country still ruled by people who don't have to answer to Joe Public. Let's suppose senior members of the establishment were found to be involved in some way - do we really believe they'd be brought to justice? Or would they simply disappear from public life, move abroad, keep a low profile, and live out their years unchallenged?

I know what I think.

I think the cover up has already started. The BBC has paid a huge amount of money to a man they didnt name. ITV has just paid the same man 125,000 when not one person could read that list of names or the other 4 would have also sued.

I'm not in anyway saying McA is guilty of anything but why pay out for nothing, other than to calm down the public interest and discredit the entire social media sites which they have absolutely no control over. It must frighten the shit out of all those with secrets that people can chat at any minute of the day
to others about anything and compare notes.

It wont be long before the Leveson inquiry restricts all reporting in mainstream media and i'm guessing not long after social media will be monitored and shut down when found to be slightly critical or questioning of the establishment.

Its almost as though they have orchestrated this entire thing to achieve the ultimate media control. The McA thing was hyped up to take the focus of Savile and his links to those in power and then they could justify the clamp down when the whole McA thing was discredited.

Thought i would post a light hearted tweet that made me smile!

tompride.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/justin-bieber-to-sue-uk-twitter-users-after-1000s-ask-why-the-f-is-he-always-trending/

Its quite fitting considering whats happening

Quite, Mrcrumpswife - to the tweet, and to everything you say.

I can feel the outrage waning and hear the swoosh of things being swept back under the carpet.

mrscrump - that has been an underlying concern/suspicion of mine - that this has either been orchestrated or will happily be exploited to clamp down on freedoms of communication particularly with regard to the internet.

haven't watched exposure 2 yet. not sure it's worth it to be honest the obvious, important questions are not being asked.

I cant understand why so many people are indifferent to it all. I'm beginning to think its because the children involved started at the very bottom of the social pile so are seen as disposable. It makes me want to throw up just writing that down but why else are people not screaming about this from the rooftops.

We are talking hundreds of victims of child abuse by those in power whether it was social workers/teachers/care workers/politicians/church members, the list is endless yet people are throwing away the days papers and forgetting about it.

Can you imagine if we were talking about a mainstream Primary School in a leafy Surrey village which had every pupil violated in the most sickening way. There would be hell to pay, questions asked and answers demanded. It wouldnt matter if it was 10,20 or 30 years ago.

Exposure 2 was a pointless bag of shit and has done nothing for the victims who need some answers and acknowledgement to the hell they have been put through because everyone turned a blind eye.

I cant stand to watch Esther Rantzen simpering away saying that she wishes one of the victims had phoned childline as they could have stopped it. What a joke that is. Half the kids cant get through even though they receive millions in donations every year and anything passed to the police has been ignored and hidden away

I think people were shocked initially, but there's a sort of mentality which wants to believe it's being dealt with, that we're safe out here in our nice little communities, that our leaders are honorable.

Shock wears off and the initial impetus to "stop this happening again" is lost -all useful stuff for those who'd rather keep it that way.

It makes me shudder, though I realise that my impotent shuddering helps no-one.

Just watch - it'll be as swallowedAfly predicts; at the moment, we have a certain freedom online that we don't have elsewhere, we're free-ish to communicate with others world-wide, and therein lies power. But wait. The guys in charge don't want that; they want us to feel alone and isolated - just like those children.

my feeling is that they allow people like lizard people guy to say and print whatever they like exactly so that any ideas outside of the MSM or coorporately generated discourse can be readily scoffed at.

it gets so you can't have a conversation with somebody very accepting of the establishment about how few hands all of the products, companies, conglomerates etc etc etc are actually in for example without them accusing you of believing in the illuminati. you know? things that are just plain simple facts they hear as paranoid nonsense.

it's quite a clever strategy for herding sheep. fortunately some of us are more like cats.

But what can us cats do....
It's driving me nuts.
Look at us in news no one looks at news. It's not even in the popular searches. You have to type in the path ( or I do as still haven't Sussed this site out)
I have been visiting mumsnet for about 4 years I never went into this bit ever.
We should be in Aibu or chat doing something.
Hurumph

no - we're sharing information and making links. we wouldn't get to do that elsewhere. it's been nice that this thread has been as 'considered' as it has for the most part.

There were people complaining about threads like this is aibu and in chat, the very people who were taken advantage of as children, talking of this caused triggers, I took it they hadn't dealt with being abused and had burried it and couldn't face it, fair enough if that is how they deal with it, I won't be someone they push their displaced anger onto either and I also left chat out of respect for their feelings.

I'm a long time lurker on this thread and I'm sure many others are reading with interest but not necessarily posting. I've been following this sorry story from overseas since it broke and like many others on here am so frustrated by the media's coverage of events. Mrscrumpswife I agree with everything you say and share your anger. A few weeks ago I would have totally dismissed some of the stuff that's been linked to from here as complete nonsense and fantasy. Not now though. I don't think anything would surprise me anymore.

Just watch - it'll be as swallowedAfly predicts; at the moment, we have a certain freedom online that we don't have elsewhere, we're free-ish to communicate with others world-wide, and therein lies power. But wait. The guys in charge don't want that; they want us to feel alone and isolated - just like those children

Yep. They have been discussing this on This Week just now (after Question Time) Richard Bacon was on there saying that if we got rid of all these forums and people were compelled to use only their real name it would stop a lot of the nastiness.
Maybe Richard et al should take a look at some of these forums sometime. There are a LOT of MNers posting on this site who are experiencing domestic abuse. Some of them have been completely isolated from friends and family by their partners. News flash for you Richard...isolation is often part of the abuse. Some women and men as well do not even realise they are being abused (if the abuse is psychological or financial or even physical because a lot of people can be in denial as a survival mechanism. Sometimes that first tentative post on a site like this can be the first step to them getting help and can also ultimately lead to them contacting an organisation like Womens Aid or Refuge and getting out.
Their confidence is usually eroded by the abuse and talking to people on a forum like this can help.
And that wont happen if they are forced to use their real names on here as they wont take the risk of their partners finding out!

maybe we could make a deal - we'll identify ourselves online if all masons identify themselves to the public and their employers?

I know one person complained, it's completely fair that we are not triggering people to relive their abuse but I feel that linking and chatting here is not enough. We need to do something or we will be like ikes website. Everyone can talk about the evidence but nothing happens.
It's like when we were kids we were warned what strange men we were not to talk to, accept sweets from but no one arrested them.
It appears that only dead men will be found out.
Sorry for moaning but I feel I have to do something but I am clueless into what to do . It's frustrating

lockedout and everyone else, I feel the same.
What can we do?

www.guardian.co.uk/social-care-network/2012/nov/23/jimmy-savile-moral-panic?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Morale panic my arse, and its in the Guardian of all places

In the case of Jimmy Savile, it is likely that some vulnerable people (children and those in care settings) were sexually assaulted. But it is less certain whether all those currently alleging abuse were, just as it is not clear yet whether he was at the centre of a paedophile ring involving a large number of other prominent figures.

Again, this is not to minimise the harm that may have been done. Child sexual abuse is always unacceptable and can have extremely damaging, long-term consequences for the victims.

FFS

"Child sexual abuse is always unacceptable and can have extremely damaging, long-term consequences for the victims." no shit, Sherlock. Why don't the journalists do some proper investigation?

'So what is really going on here? Ultimately, the Jimmy Savile story is about sex and children ? and so to the media this story, while being abhorrent, sells newspapers and captures the public imagination. It was ever thus, as a historical look at previous scares shows us.'

To me, this is a total misunderstanding of what happened. Newspapers and many people had rumours about Savile for many years and yet they never took an opportunity to sell newspapers; he was not exposed until one year after his death, when people who had previously ignored rumours suddenly admitted that they had been conned by Savile all along. Why didn't they expose him? We are told because he threatened to stop his marathon runs and his charity work and that he would see them in court. And so he was knighted and no one exposed Sir Jimmy until one year after his death - not one day, one year.

'It's also about trust ? about trust in public bodies, in the BBC, politicians, the health service, the police, social workers. We blame the public bodies that are meant to protect us, to uphold the highest standards. In doing so, we look away from the other troubling things facing society today: the increasing gap between rich and poor, prisons bursting at the seams, children growing up in poverty, asylum seekers living in detention centres.'

The reason the public don't want to deflected from the lack of trust caused by the Savile affair, is because if the public can't trust our institutions over that, then what can they trust?