Eric Gill and the BBC

[lucillelarusso]

Listened to the today show and feeling sick.
Another example of the BBC's utter misogyny. They describe him as 'having sex' with his daughters rather than raping them, they defend his work. Revolting.

Momentarily confused him with other child sex offender Eric Joyce there. Had to read up on Gill.
I thought the bbc was woke? How can they can this anything other than rape?

but woke is Queer Theory and Queer Theory needs to decriminalise anything to do with sex

All sex is just sex, dontcha know?
And we should loud and proud about sex, all sex, get it?

I'll see myself out now.

The BBC has linked to a Guardian piece from 2009 which refers to Gill's "sexual experiments" with his daughters and claims that
"Their history challenges received opinion on the inevitability of damage done by child abuse."

Wtf.
BBC and Guardian need to sort this asap.

www.theguardian.com/books/2009/oct/17/eric-gill-exhibition-fiona-maccarthy

Guardian link - not to be read on a full stomach.

A statue which looks like a naked child with a dressed adult (note... I know this is not the characters in mythology they depict) created by a pedophile. How can anyone defend that particular statue staying?

@Bonhex

The BBC has linked to a Guardian piece from 2009 which refers to Gill's "sexual experiments" with his daughters and claims that "Their history challenges received opinion on the inevitability of damage done by child abuse."

Wtf.
BBC and Guardian need to sort this asap.

I was astonished to read the line from the Guardian article. How could the writer of that piece possibly know what damage was done by this man to his children?? Having outwardly successful marriages and having children doesn't mean that they weren't damaged, or that another child in the same situation might not be damaged. If they came out of their childhood unharmed with this unpleasant, strange, controlling man as their father then that is their good fortune/luck - not evidence that abusing your daughters isn't harmful.

Their history challenges received opinion on the inevitability of damage done by child abuse.

The writer of that piece seems aware that the adopted son may very possibly have been damaged.
But, that line is one of the dangerously weaselly things child sex abuse apologists say. No, damage isn't necessarily "inevitable", any more than abused children always turn into abusers. But the fact that some children may survive more or less ok is no excuse whatever. Playing Russian roulette with a child's life for one's sexual gratification or experimentation is never acceptable.

@highame

but woke is Queer Theory and Queer Theory needs to decriminalise anything to do with sex

What do you mean?

I was astonished to read the line from the Guardian article. How could the writer of that piece possibly know what damage was done by this man to his children??

Fiona McCarthy was Gill's biographer, and she interviewed at least one of his two adult daughters. The daughter told her that she hadn't been harmed by the abuse.

I'm not defending McCarthy, incidentally. I think it's an appalling article and Gill was a wicked man. The fact that his daughter claimed not to have suffered psychological harm is no excuse for raping children.

Fiona McCarthy was Gill's biographer, and she interviewed at least one of his two adult daughters. The daughter told her that she hadn't been harmed by the abuse.

I know that, I read the article. I am aware she interviewed the daughter(s) and the son. Just because the daughter said in interview that she hadn't been harmed doesn't mean she wasn't. People have all kinds of motivations for what they say to others on the record, she may not have recognised any harm for what it is, she may have been unable to recognise it as harm for many reasons, she may have been defending her father's artistic legacy etc etc.

It's just the surface level shallow approach, to have interviewed her and then on the basis of that alone to have decided that no harm was done. And then in the same article to recognise that harm was most definitely done to the son...

All because people are in thrall to this man's art.

All the BBC stories I have read and heard on this referred to it unambiguously as abuse, and so using “they” as if there is a single voice on this which differs from that view is disingenuous.

@Bonhex

The BBC has linked to a Guardian piece from 2009 which refers to Gill's "sexual experiments" with his daughters and claims that "Their history challenges received opinion on the inevitability of damage done by child abuse."

Wtf.
BBC and Guardian need to sort this asap.

Fucking evil bastards

“Just because the daughter said in interview that she hadn't been harmed doesn't mean she wasn't.”

Quite. I was abused as a child, I’m ‘fine’ day to day and don’t like thinking that I was harmed by it. I was though. Of course I was.

Ghislaine Maxwell also said she was not harmed by her fathers abuse.

Apologies for that post - I am not in any way linking/excusing women who sexually abuse or suggesting women who are abused are likely to abuse. I just think it is a startling and appallingly naive comment that they were not harmed because they say they were not.

Apparently someone took a mallet took the Broadcasting House statue yesterday - the coverage does make it very clear Gill was a paedophile & that he sexually abused his daughters. But they say it’s groups “like QAnon” that have been protesting about it; & that art vs artist bit is the most almighty tangle of: but the monstrous paedophile made such PRETTY things, & if we have to get rid of HIS stuff, we’re going to have to have a big bonfire of All The Pretty Things, so can’t we just keep the pretty things because the monsters are gone now?

Oh for goodness sake, they took a mallet TO the Gill statue on Broadcasting House. And for avoidance of all doubt, that’s in sense of walloping the thing, not for some reason presenting the masonry with the mallet.

On a more general point, I can't help feeling the fuss around Qanon has been very useful for these apologists and enablers. 'Feeling concerned about a potential safeguarding issue? What are you, some kind of Qanon crazy person?'.

@UltraVividLament

Fiona McCarthy was Gill's biographer, and she interviewed at least one of his two adult daughters. The daughter told her that she hadn't been harmed by the abuse.

I know that, I read the article. I am aware she interviewed the daughter(s) and the son. Just because the daughter said in interview that she hadn't been harmed doesn't mean she wasn't. People have all kinds of motivations for what they say to others on the record, she may not have recognised any harm for what it is, she may have been unable to recognise it as harm for many reasons, she may have been defending her father's artistic legacy etc etc.

It's just the surface level shallow approach, to have interviewed her and then on the basis of that alone to have decided that no harm was done. And then in the same article to recognise that harm was most definitely done to the son...

All because people are in thrall to this man's art.

Yes, surely what we know of child sexual abuse (rape) is that the child may have any type of reaction - many may say they aren't harmed, or may blame themselves, or see it as positive - they are children, and they've been groomed, and will have developed psychological defence mechanisms to cope with it.

tropicalsound Queer Theory emanates from Foucault's social theories. He became the big thing in Ivy League Universities in the US and it has been shipped over here. He is French Philosopher and paedophile but the French have been very protective of him so the truth of his sexuality wasn't widely known. He argues that it is repression that causes the problem, not paedophilia. He wants the breakdown of society. Queer Theory (QT) is both theory and political action. Definition is impossible, but QT can be summarised as exploring the oppressive power of dominant norms, particularly those relating to sexuality, and the immiseration they cause to those who cannot, or do not wish to, live according to those norms. Worth looking him up if you want to know more.

Has QAnon been protesting against this statue? And no-one else?

It's vile and should be removed.

or you might want to catch up with these threads www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4205121-Foucault
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4254817-BBC-Radio-4-programme-What-the-Foucault

And his dog, apparently.

@KimikosNightmare

Has QAnon been protesting against this statue? And no-one else?

It's vile and should be removed.

Quite. QAnon see paedophile conspiracies where there are none, but in this case Gill was a child abuser and this statue is vile. This may be my one point of agreement with QAnon types.