Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the sir jimmy savile obe thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Orang Utan said:
One could always not post horrible things when you're drunk. You still have some control over what you say!
Click to expand...
Well booze changes people and makes them see things in a different way. I'm sure that woman from NI wouldn't have given 24 strangers blow jobs had she not been intoxicated. The answer is to control the drinking.
 
existentialist said:
One of the things we are going to have to do if people like Savile are to be prevented from harming children is to make sure that we - and children - are aware of the risks before they arise.

In too many of the stories, one of the narratives was firstly disbelief by those being abused at what was being done, and secondly complete ignorance as to what to do about it.

But the other narrative, which seems to me equally as important, is that of the individuals who knew something was wrong, and who either did not say something, or tried to say something, and were silenced or ignored, because it didn't fit with the facts as perceived by the person hearing the reports.

And make no mistake that this is unusual. If you look through the history of inquiries into pretty much every serial sex abuser, there are stories - usually many stories - of people who had their suspicions. Sometimes they did report them, sometimes they didn't. And when they reported them, all too often the reports were ignored. Here's just one example, of a teacher who abused children at a school for twenty years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3853953.stm

This is the timeline of the abuses perpetrated by John Owen, the disclosures, and his eventual suicide that resulted in the Clwych Inquiry into how he was able to abuse children in a school and elsewhere for all that time. The inquiry finished in 2003, and it is clear that, in regard to the difficulty people had in getting the disclosures taken seriously, the problem was very similar to the Savile one.

Yet, over a decade later, we were still facing the same problems. And I am not at all convinced that, if another cunning, charismatic and prolific abuser is operating today (and, trust me, they are), it will really be that much easier for those around them who suspect all is not well to blow the whistle and be heard. Or at least easier enough to enable disclosures to be made and acted upon.

Eventually, after 20 years, the police, having previously investigated and decided there was nothing to worry about, finally reinvestigated. Owen killed himself the day before he was due in court to face charges relating to those years of abuse. Can we be sure someone isn't out there, hidden in plain view, building another 20 year career of abuse reasonably secure in the knowledge that nobody will dare risk blowing the whistle on them?

Sure, there is a case for last-ditch protection, and it makes sense for children to at least know what is OK and what isn't, but the child protection focus should really be on ensuring that the situation never gets to that point in the first place.

And the best defence for children against everything from bullying to abuse is actually self-esteem and the knowledge that they are listened to. Abusers are good at picking out likely victims. They generally aren't going to pick on forthright, well-connected and resourced kids when they can abuse isolated, insecure children who are far more likely to respond to the abuser's overtures and far less likely to be able to tell anyone else what is happening.
Click to expand...

I think ppl have to realise how very common abuse is & rather than think it is perpetuated by monsters (tho I totally understand that feeling of hated, disgust & wanting to other abusers) accept that ppl who abuse can b kind, loving, popular, have kids & families who love them & yet still commit horrendous crimes. We prob all know abusers, some of them r good at hiding in plain view. It's just recognising that*average, normal, friendly, likable* ppl do abuse & not to feel disbelief if someone discloses that this has happened to them because the perpetrator seems unlikely.
 
existentialist said:
One of the things we are going to have to do if people like Savile are to be prevented from harming children is to make sure that we - and children - are aware of the risks before they arise.

In too many of the stories, one of the narratives was firstly disbelief by those being abused at what was being done, and secondly complete ignorance as to what to do about it.

But the other narrative, which seems to me equally as important, is that of the individuals who knew something was wrong, and who either did not say something, or tried to say something, and were silenced or ignored, because it didn't fit with the facts as perceived by the person hearing the reports.

And make no mistake that this is unusual. If you look through the history of inquiries into pretty much every serial sex abuser, there are stories - usually many stories - of people who had their suspicions. Sometimes they did report them, sometimes they didn't. And when they reported them, all too often the reports were ignored. Here's just one example, of a teacher who abused children at a school for twenty years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3853953.stm

This is the timeline of the abuses perpetrated by John Owen, the disclosures, and his eventual suicide that resulted in the Clwych Inquiry into how he was able to abuse children in a school and elsewhere for all that time. The inquiry finished in 2003, and it is clear that, in regard to the difficulty people had in getting the disclosures taken seriously, the problem was very similar to the Savile one.

Yet, over a decade later, we were still facing the same problems. And I am not at all convinced that, if another cunning, charismatic and prolific abuser is operating today (and, trust me, they are), it will really be that much easier for those around them who suspect all is not well to blow the whistle and be heard. Or at least easier enough to enable disclosures to be made and acted upon.

Eventually, after 20 years, the police, having previously investigated and decided there was nothing to worry about, finally reinvestigated. Owen killed himself the day before he was due in court to face charges relating to those years of abuse. Can we be sure someone isn't out there, hidden in plain view, building another 20 year career of abuse reasonably secure in the knowledge that nobody will dare risk blowing the whistle on them?

Sure, there is a case for last-ditch protection, and it makes sense for children to at least know what is OK and what isn't, but the child protection focus should really be on ensuring that the situation never gets to that point in the first place.

And the best defence for children against everything from bullying to abuse is actually self-esteem and the knowledge that they are listened to. Abusers are good at picking out likely victims. They generally aren't going to pick on forthright, well-connected and resourced kids when they can abuse isolated, insecure children who are far more likely to respond to the abuser's overtures and far less likely to be able to tell anyone else what is happening.
Click to expand...

I think ppl have to realise how very common abuse is & rather than think it is perpetuated by monsters (tho I totally understand that feeling of hated, disgust & wanting to other abusers) accept that ppl who abuse can b kind, loving, popular, have kids & families who love them & yet still commit horrendous crimes. We prob all know abusers, some of them r good at hiding in plain view. It's just recognising that*average, normal, friendly, likable* ppl do abuse & not to feel disbelief if someone discloses that this has happened to them because the perpetrator seems unlikely.
 
existentialist said:
In your shoes, I'd be wondering why I felt so strongly about a group of people whose only significant factor, to you, is what they do for a living.

It's worth remembering that - unlike a lot of the mental health profession - counsellors are one of the few whom you only go to because you want to. A counsellor won't see someone who doesn't want to be there. So they present no threat to you. Counsellors don't diagnose or section, either.

When you get right down to it, the core of what counsellors do is listening. Just that.

So your hatred of a profession whose primary task is to listen to people who want to be there seems a little extravagant.

And it is interesting to note, to drag this back on-topic, that one of the recommendations of the Clwych Report I mentioned earlier was that schools should have counsellors present. Why? To listen. Because the inquiry came to the conclusion that there was nobody independent enough of the system who was listening to the kids who were saying what was going on.

I imagine that your feelings about the counselling profession come from some kind of negative encounter you've had with them in the past (although I am appalled at how often people are told they're receiving "counselling" and it turns out that whoever they're getting it from, it's not a counsellor, so don't be too sure you're hating the right profession), but if you stop and think slightly rationally for a moment, you may well come to the realisation that abusing a person you've never met on an internet forum because of the way you feel about his chosen profession, on the basis of some experience you've had with (quite possibly not even) another member of the same profession isn't really on.
Click to expand...

You've got a point there - I was out of order with the fat stuff & I've never had any experience of counsellors/counselling - I put you in the same bracket as social workers just as a way of getting on your case. Which was out of line. The way it happened was, I felt like I was making a reasonable point about accusations of sockpuppettry and such & a few posters got on my case about it. So I reacted. In a completely unreasonable way. And it wasn't even you who I was mainly pissed off with. So sorry about that, I was out of line & I shouldn't have done it.

And soz for dragging the thread off topic as well.
 
cp2l.jpg
 
existentialist said:
One of the things we are going to have to do if people like Savile are to be prevented from harming children is to make sure that we - and children - are aware of the risks before they arise.

In too many of the stories, one of the narratives was firstly disbelief by those being abused at what was being done, and secondly complete ignorance as to what to do about it.

But the other narrative, which seems to me equally as important, is that of the individuals who knew something was wrong, and who either did not say something, or tried to say something, and were silenced or ignored, because it didn't fit with the facts as perceived by the person hearing the reports.<snip>
Click to expand...

That bolded bit is definitely true. Puts me in mind of this fucker
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pervert-priest-jailed-968872

who was a teacher at this grammar school I went to for a couple of years before I got kicked out. He never did owt to me but everyone knew there was something up with him - His nickname was Pere Vert, which is french for father Green, but also Pervert - If the kids were onto it, the staff must've been.
 
Frances Lengel said:
You've got a point there - I was out of order with the fat stuff & I've never had any experience of counsellors/counselling - I put you in the same bracket as social workers just as a way of getting on your case. Which was out of line. The way it happened was, I felt like I was making a reasonable point about accusations of sockpuppettry and such & a few posters got on my case about it. So I reacted. In a completely unreasonable way. And it wasn't even you who I was mainly pissed off with. So sorry about that, I was out of line & I shouldn't have done it.

And soz for dragging the thread off topic as well.
Click to expand...
I hate you when you are being reasonable. :mad:
 
Frances Lengel said:
That bolded bit is definitely true. Puts me in mind of this fucker
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pervert-priest-jailed-968872

who was a teacher at this grammar school I went to for a couple of years before I got kicked out. He never did owt to me but everyone knew there was something up with him - His nickname was Pere Vert, which is french for father Green, but also Pervert - If the kids were onto it, the staff must've been.
Click to expand...


27 assaults on 6 boys....apparently he was given responsibility for the boarders. He had an open door policy and liked the pupils to see him as a "father figure" whom they could talk to........
... abuser in plain sight....

He gets 30 years but will serve only 6?
Wtf?

We have spoken a lot about prevention and counselling here.
It might be worthwhile having a look at the length of sentences served by convicted paedophiles.
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
Court procedures need looking at too...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/09/frances-andrade-courts-son

Remember this case?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that though. A defence lawyer needs to be robust in their treatment of witnesses. In the end, she chose to top herself and that was down to her and no one else. Changing court procedures on the basis of something like that isn't really the way to go IMO. By all means protect witnesses by means of screens or video links and such, but everyone deserves a fair trial and to be defended properly.
 
toggle said:
1. existentialist is far from the only person who felt you were extrapolating from your own feelings, a view of how abuse victims react - by fighting back - a view that just happens to be one of those myths that surround public opinion of the 'proper victim' that often presents as a barrier to victims seeking proper support, understanding and justice. it is hardly surprising that people reading this found it distasteful. it is surprising that anyone who states they have worked in abuse prevention/damage control/recovery not to be aware of how common this myth is and how damaging and upsetting it can be to those that didn't react by fighting.
Click to expand...

Frankly, propagation of the myths around what constitutes a "proper" or "real" victim of sexual assault continues to feed negative attitudes in the criminal justice system. We still have police officers and prosecutors, allegedly "experts" in sexual offences, making assumptions that, for example, the way an assault is reported/the way the victim relates the assault signifies whether the claim is true or not - a crying victim, riven with shame, is more plausible than someone who coldly relates the facts, even though dissociation is common enough to be the majority reaction both to the actual assault as it happens, and in the aftermath.
There's also the fact that even young children, with regard to response to sexual assault, can be extremely pragmatic, and work out that attempting to resist violently will not pay a premium, just as some adults being sexually-assaulted will do.
 
existentialist said:
. I'm pretty sure I remember you saying something about hitting people, too.

If you need post numbers and links, I'll find them when I'm not on my phone.
Click to expand...

You're incorrectly referencing a different thread, mate..........
Where I was talking about my own personal experience of abuse...as you know.... and I really am sick of you making it into a generalisation.
 
Frances Lengel said:
I'm not sure about that though. A defence lawyer needs to be robust in their treatment of witnesses. In the end, she chose to top herself and that was down to her and no one else. Changing court procedures on the basis of something like that isn't really the way to go IMO. By all means protect witnesses by means of screens or video links and such, but everyone deserves a fair trial and to be defended properly.
Click to expand...


Think in her case she was poorly advised by the police to avoid therapy so that her trauma would remain fresh... like an open wound.


Vera Baird QC
"The theory used to be unless literally the pain of being sexually abused comes out, because she hasn't had help to come back to normal, the jury will be unimpressed.

"If that is the way they thought then it is firstly … abysmal psychiatry and secondly it is an appalling misjudgment. The wellbeing of the victim must be far, far higher than this ludicrous tactical consideration."

Jurors in the case against Brewer, who was found guilty of five counts of indecent assault on Friday, were not told of Andrade's death until after they had reached a verdict.
 
Frances Lengel said:
Bullshit speculation about a poster being a sockpuppet without proffering any supporting evidence is proper dickhead behaviour. And any poster subject to such bullshit is perfectly entitled to defend themselves without nobheads crying about the thread going off topic.
Click to expand...

Playing the threadcop really doesn't suit you. It makes you seem hypocritical. :)
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
You imply that I in some way was party to this view that 'proper victims' fight back. As I recall existentialist posted about this in response to my original post and insisted that his interpretation of my original post was this very thing. You are now using the same language and by implication assuming yet again that my original post reflected this view.
I've already said I'm done on this thread.
Click to expand...

1. you're attempting to distract rather than answer again. really, if you are incapable of remembering what you wrote a few days ago there's always the search function.


2. You've already been told that existentialist is far from the only person who interpreted your posts as extrapolating that most victims fight from your response to one event. your attempt to isolate him as the cause of your problem behavior won't work any more than a similar trick worked in your attempts to accuse EG of harassing you.

3. someone who actually had experience working around DV would not have promoted this myth, would have recognized that 'proper victim' is a common generic term used in discussion. to the point I can find it in the titles of academic papers, on blogs, on advice sites for dv support groups.

4. someone who worked with proper abuse support orgs would recognise that extrapolating a generic victim response is a fundamentally flawed approach, one only taken by people who have occasional contact with victims who usually do a lot of damage through being judgemental.

and you're done? because you're now backed into a hole that you've created through your own bullshit and claims of a background that your behavior, language and knowledge show that you either haven't expereinced, or haven't learnt a fucking thing from.


Spymaster said:
She's avoiding getting ripped to pieces by you lot.
Click to expand...

if she can't handle having what she says torn apart then she could always try posting up less clueless crap

she could then try not lying to cover for the fact that she understands far less than she claims.

then she could stop throwing about accusations of bullying and trying to turn discussion into one that is all about her as 'victim'
 
existentialist said:
I think it's more likely to be wishful misinterpretation, TBH. Going by her form on this thread, she tends to be very selective in her recollection/reposting of what she and other people write.

Or am I being too charitable?
Click to expand...

yes.

once or twic might be accidental.

this is every post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
Sir mark rowley's time is up
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
GarveyLives
G
blossie33
Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked to the UK as a child
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Lord Camomile
Lord Camomile
Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
Pickman's model
sir stephen house's time is up
Replies
5
Views
570
GarveyLives
G
T & P
Arise Sir Tony (Blair)
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
367
Views
13K
gosub
gosub
Back
Top Bottom