Thursday, October 4, 2012

Saint Savile abuses with impunity for decades, while ordinary citizen is sent to jail for hitting the wrong button

I used to watch Jim'll Fix It when I was a young child, and although I liked the basic idea of the show, I was never a big fan of Jimmy Savile himself - not because I had any intuition about his dark secret, but because I didn't like his occasional displays of impatience towards the children who came on. Heaven only knows what it must be like to switch on the TV at tea-time on Saturday, and see a children's show being presented by a man who raped you a quarter of a century ago and got away with it, and who you know in all probability raped other underage girls and got away with it.

The most impressive thing about last night's documentary is that it contained very little sensationalism - the facts were simply painstakingly documented, and as such they spoke for themselves all the more powerfully. There was only one unfortunate moment when the presenter couldn't resist dabbling in a little tabloid-style psychology, and suggested that Savile's views on the treatment of Gary Glitter revealed a sick attitude to sex. That may be fair comment, but it still detracted from an otherwise clear-sighted and objective approach to getting at the truth. I sometimes wonder if the slightly hysterical tendency to view all child abusers as inhuman monsters actually contributes to the ability of the likes of Savile to get away with sexually assaulting young girls on an industrial scale for so long. If you hear a piece of information that threatens to instantly turn a person you hold in high esteem into a depraved animal, it becomes all too easy to want to bury that information and the person who gave it to you.

By contrast, if you don't have any prior emotional investment, the absolutism of the need to be disgusted by even the slightest whiff of child abuse can lead to someone entirely innocent being branded a monster. Witness this utterly unbelievable story from a few days ago about a man who spent three months in jail because he accidentally sent a sexually explicit text to everyone in his address book (including two young girls), instead of just to his girlfriend as intended. I'm quite sure there are otherwise sensible people out there who would defend to the death Craig Evans' jail sentence on some kind of 'zero tolerance' principle, even though the facts of the case leave no real room for doubt that he simply made an innocent mistake that a great many men and women could potentially have made.

So one man rapes and abuses with impunity and enjoys a lifetime of being lionised as a saint for his troubles, another man hits the wrong button on his mobile phone and ends up in jail. This is a mad, mad world we live in.


  1. I read with utter horror the story of the lad who sent the text to his girlfriend, and accidentally everyone else, presumably including his mum, his boss, his Great Aunt Matilda and his best mate. How embarrassing!

    Of course I believe we should be protecting the young from predators, but, because two under-age (in the UK) girls, got this text, this lad spent time in prison and will be on the sex offenders' register, which means he will no longer be allowed to do his job.

    I haven't a clue what the answer is.

    Don't text intimately? Don't have children or under 16 year olds in your phone book? Learn how to use your ever more complicated phone? Guard against slippery fingers?

    Or maybe we could get a few more judges with just a little bit of common sense.

    And yes, celebrities can get away with anything, it seems. Because even Esther Rantzen had heard the rumours that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile, and despite her undoubted interest in and concern for children and their care, she did nothing, because he was too big a star.

    Too big a star?

    Goodness. What would happen if a REAL star did something like this?

    I think we may be about to find out more. Mr Savile was well connected: a friend of the likes of Mrs Thatcher, Mr Heath, and many others in the glitterati of politics and show business and rumours are rife about the number of visits he made to Haute La Garenne, the orphanage on Jersey.

    I didn't like Savile at all as a kid. I thought he was ridiculous with his silly noises, daft way of talking and "'ars about that then?'.

    I had no inkling of anything sinister. I just thought he was patronising and a prat.

    And that was before I found out he was a close friend of Mrs Thatcher.

  2. Apparently the story about the accidental text came from the Daily mail and only 1 other "anonymous" publication. Could it be BS?
    Just asking.

  3. I suspect that here are files inches thick on celebrities who may or may not have done some despicable things, but due to pressure being exterted nothing is done.
    I worked in the bar at the HoC, and I heard a plethora of stories on individuals. When you had 635 making up the membership there were some exceedingly dodgy apples in the barrel.
    I do however believe in innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes the status of the person makes it too hard to do anything when the MSM supports them against you.
    All treated the same under the law, I do not think so. Savile remains not proven, just.

  4. A fairly clear sighted analysis James.

    I'd merely add that you also left out those pitiful wretches who exploit such cases and their victims to make a transparent political attack off the back of it like the lunatic PBtories on political betting. Also in the case of the Sun, the NotW and some other tabloids to whip up the readership into a mob like frenzy to up their circulation.

    Serious cases like this deserve sober and serious analysis and actions to prevent them ever happening again.

    You manage to highlight the issue without libelling anyone. Alas! the dimmer PBtories just can't manage that and the subject has been banned on there thanks to the same hyasterical simpleton who got the other child abuse cases banned for her moronic attempts to smear and libel using them.

    A mad, mad world indeed.

    But can you imagine a political website that banned people who had NOTHING to do with the libellous allegations and just logged in to find himself banned by a cowardly moderator looking to lash out at someone because of his PBtory friend's stupidity?

    Hard to imagine such an embarrassing and ludicrous thing happening to a site that claims to be "non-aligned", but that's how low PB has sunk.

  5. Don't be too hard on the moderators, Mick. After all, "Plato" and "Mick Pork" are very similar names, and it's so easy to ban the wrong person by mistake. 798 times.