Incredibly upsetting piece about the BBC and Savile

[SomepeopleareTERFSgetoverit]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/02/jimmy-savile-bbc-journalists-risked-jobs-reveal-truth

As we know, the testimony of the victims was dismissed because they had troubled backgrounds but I had not appreciated how hard Liz MacKean fought for the story and what it cost her as the BBC closed ranks in her face.

@FindTheTruth

"he seemed to speak in catchphrases that created what Jones described as “a screen between him and people around him”

Jingle
slogan
Mantra

reminds me of something

Yes, funny that 🙄😉🤔😡

"10 years on we've done nothing to deal with cover-up culture. There is still no law to make BBC managers or hospital chiefs or school heads report sexual abuse. Mandatory reporting now please. RIP Liz "

@FindTheTruth

"10 years on we've done nothing to deal with cover-up culture. There is still no law to make BBC managers or hospital chiefs or school heads report sexual abuse. Mandatory reporting now please. RIP Liz "

It's mind blowing that you can report a non-crime hate incident, if someone feels offended on behalf of someone else over something that wasn't intended to be offensive, but you're not forced to report sexual abuse.

Is that right? Is that what he means by mandatory reporting? I didn't know that.

Honest question - are any crimes illegal to not report?
E.g. If I strongly suspected my neighbour robbed a bank would I be prosecuted if a court proved I had reason to suspect him of having done so?
Given that in some places there might be social pressure to look the other way for organised crime, a law like this would be useful.

For something like sexual abuse it totally makes sense, but I can imagine it would be difficult to prosecute. Pupil tells teacher she is being abused, teacher tells nobody because child is difficult, it turns out to be true - then what? Teacher is prosecuted for not having spoken up? How? We know from the woeful rape conviction rates that "he said, she said" normally favours "he", aren't we putting the same victim through that twice?

Or have I totally got the wrong end of the stick here?

The journalist, Poppy Sebag Montifiore, who wrote the article worked with Liz on the investigation at News night, according to John McManus tweet.

FlyingOink I'm pretty sure there is a legal requirement for a teacher to report such abuse Or if not very strong guidance so that at least they would be dealt with under a school's disciplinary process.

@Datun

Liz MacKean should have a statue. She should be on the fucking fourth plinth.

Dear lord.

The woman who is responsible for bringing to justice one of the most depraved predators in this country, and no-one even knows who the fuck she is.

Totally agree.

@Helleofabore

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?

Because they did not check the background of their "informants" for this piece, despite the long prep time for it...

Catherina

ONE person has said some horrific things.

That ONE person does NOT discredit what is happening at all. And is the person who has been attributed to coining the term. Which Stonewall has used for a seminar I believe.

Try again Catherina and maybe answer the rest of that post. Or are you so comfortable in pointing out one bad person to discredit lesbians from speaking out.

Do you solely get your opinion fed to your by twitter? Can you really not see the effect of what you and others are doing?

Do you believe that any trans person who has said violent or unpleasant things towards other people should not be allowed to speak out if they have been assaulted or raped? That they've lost their right to be listened to? Or is this just women who can only be listened to and cared about if they're proven to be wholly pure and innocent?

Because frankly I care about and would want action taken about any person being harassed and assaulted, regardless of whether I personally liked or agreed with them. That behaviour is unacceptable in all circumstances, to anyone, in any circumstances. I find this whole 'human rights are reserved only for the good and politically on message' thing really disturbing.

If you and others applied that logic to the women who spoke out about Saville, what do you think would have happened when it was finally proved that he was guilty.

And about all those prominent transitioned males saying absolutely deplorable things about females...and those trying to discredit lesbians who have spoken bravely despite such outrageous adversity, are you so very comfortable with who YOU are aligning your beliefs with?

Really?

Because they did not check the background of their "informants" for this piece, despite the long prep time for it...

What the hell does that mean? This is disgusting. Do we need to check the background of rape victims to see whether or not they are pure enough not to be raped???

Ugh. Still, I have to say, after all the other things that have been reported, talked about, discussed, this one, single, BBC article, has brought everyone out of the woodwork.

Good for them. It's absolutely kryptonite.

@CatherinaJTV... I find it very bizarre that you are talking about 'background checks on "informants" quoted in an article' when this thread is all about the absolute horror that hundreds of women who were raped and abused over a period of decades were not heard or given a chance to be heard because they did not reach the bar set by men as to whether their story was credible.

As a result of institutional failure within the BBC, care homes and numerous NHS hospitals, this sexual abuse was allowed to continue because the 'witnesses' or informants were not 'credible'.

The facts have been investigated and there is NO DOUBT that JS was the perpetrator of hundreds of serious crimes that significantly affected the lives of hundreds of people. We will never know the full extent of this but we do know that many people were unwilling to put the lives of those women, girls and boys before the depraved sexual needs of a powerful man.

What the hell does that mean? This is disgusting. Do we need to check the background of rape victims to see whether or not they are pure enough not to be raped???

From this and other threads, it does seem that we are well and truly back to 'purity' of victims before they are worth listening to.

The Rotherham victims were dismissed as not credible - working class "tarts" who drank and took drugs. Unpure.

The Magdalen laundry victims were dismissed as not credible - fallen, unholy women having babies out of wedlock. Unpure.

What about the trans women sex workers murdered in Brazil. Do you dismiss their victimhood because they are prostitutes. Unpure?

[quote ChateauMargaux]@CatherinaJTV... I find it very bizarre that you are talking about 'background checks on "informants" quoted in an article' when this thread is all about the absolute horror that hundreds of women who were raped and abused over a period of decades were not heard or given a chance to be heard because they did not reach the bar set by men as to whether their story was credible.

As a result of institutional failure within the BBC, care homes and numerous NHS hospitals, this sexual abuse was allowed to continue because the 'witnesses' or informants were not 'credible'.

The facts have been investigated and there is NO DOUBT that JS was the perpetrator of hundreds of serious crimes that significantly affected the lives of hundreds of people. We will never know the full extent of this but we do know that many people were unwilling to put the lives of those women, girls and boys before the depraved sexual needs of a powerful man.[/quote]
Every word of this.

Because they did not check the background of their "informants" for this piece, despite the long prep time for it...

I presume the elipsis indicates your own embarrassment as you read back what you were typing and realised you were posting victim-blaming nonsense on the Feminism section of a forum. Why not retain some dignity and simply refrain from it?

Let me be very clear. If someone was raped, I do not care what they were wearing, I do not care about their political affiliation, I do not care about their sexual history, I do not care what they write in their diary.

And I certainly do not care what they blogged before or after. Although I will note that if I saw anyone trying to discredit a victim of sexual abuse as somehow deserving of abuse retrospectively, based on their blogging after being abused, I would find that especially heinous.

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.

Brilliant. I couldn’t believe Amnesty was gaslighting women at the Filia conference with that abusers’ motto.

@TedImgoingmad

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

So what?* Does that mean she can't be coerced into sex by TRAs? Are only the pure of heart allowed to be victims of rape?

*and I don't believe anything you post anyway.

The poster nailed it

So, while we have a poster moralizing on whether a victim of rape or sexual assault is ‘pure’ enough to believe, to be allowed to speak about it even if it harms the person or persons who attacked her, did that same poster denounce all abuse from transitioned males towards females one by one? Singling out the attackers? Or even those who nailed a dead rat to a rape centre door?

Or is it just women speaking out against it that they have an issue with?

I asked that yesterday. I haven't had an answer yet.

But no, I suspect the whole moral purity thing is exclusively standards to be applied only to female humans who have not identified out of being known as such.

Someone mentioned the Magdalen Laundries above where the impure sinners could be locked up, beaten, starved and known only by numbers for decades for having had sex or a baby out of wedlock. Forever damned and excluded from human rights by the Catholic church. What with the burn the witch and transubstantiation and sins that can never be forgiven and .... these politics are all a bit grimly familiar really.

Impure! Impure not unpure! Bloody hell, menopause is making me illiterate.

Anyway, women down the ages have always been subject to the purity test in one way or other. Anyone less pure than the Virgin Mary is not to be trusted, believed or given their full humanity.

The most disgusting thing about Savile and the Beeb is that everybody knew what Savile was like. Private Eye used to write about it. Viz used to have comic strips about it. When the internet came along it was all over the internet too.

The Beeb protected him because he was a cash cow.

If there is a parallel with trans extremism to be drawn, it's not with the cotton ceiling piece at all, which was a timely and important piece of journalism. It's with the child abuse that is going on NOW with teenagers being given mastectomies and children being sterilised and having their brain and bone development halted. Everyone knows it's wrong but most people keep quiet because of the huge amounts of money it's making for surgeons, trans 'friendly' therapists and so-called activists.