Discussion
OpulentBob said:
The Hypno-Toad said:
(dons tinfoil hat.)
Honours list today.
Eshter Rantzen - freely admits that she knew Savile was abusing children at the BBC in 70's but despite setting up Childline at the time this abuse was being carried out, couldn't do anything "because Savile was too powerful,"....
Made a Dame.
My morning office rant was about this very story. Honours list today.
Eshter Rantzen - freely admits that she knew Savile was abusing children at the BBC in 70's but despite setting up Childline at the time this abuse was being carried out, couldn't do anything "because Savile was too powerful,"....
Made a Dame.
She should not accept it and apologise for what she knew at the time. f
king criminal old dragon.General Price said:
OpulentBob said:
The Hypno-Toad said:
(dons tinfoil hat.)
Honours list today.
Eshter Rantzen - freely admits that she knew Savile was abusing children at the BBC in 70's but despite setting up Childline at the time this abuse was being carried out, couldn't do anything "because Savile was too powerful,"....
Made a Dame.
My morning office rant was about this very story. Honours list today.
Eshter Rantzen - freely admits that she knew Savile was abusing children at the BBC in 70's but despite setting up Childline at the time this abuse was being carried out, couldn't do anything "because Savile was too powerful,"....
Made a Dame.
She should not accept it and apologise for what she knew at the time. f
king criminal old dragon.She should be disgusted with herself having not tried to help those innocent children.
FFS
Getragdogleg said:
what could she have done ? bearing in mind the cover up goes so deep.
She could have stood up and taken her chances, fought for those who didn't have a voice after all she was bleating on about childline the entire time this was happening - why bother?She decided not to and perhaps you have to question is she actually any better than the man himself?
You also however have to bear in mind he's actually never had a fair trial, he hasn't been convicted of any offences and is I'm afraid, innocent.
HoHoHo said:
That is terrible and I can't believe that she knew about the situation and did f-all and now is accepting her trophy.
She should be disgusted with herself having not tried to help those innocent children.
FFS
It might be useful to direct this at the "honours committee" (or committees, if that applies) who decided it would be a good idea for her to recieve this honour. Don't forget that "the institution" doesn't just pull names out of the air, rather people nominate those they think deserve an honour with reasons why said proposee should receive it).She should be disgusted with herself having not tried to help those innocent children.
FFS
I've posted elsewhere on here that I suspect that, if we stuck to the 'standards' of 20 or 30 years ago with regard to who receive honours, relatively few would he issued nowadays... (This is a rant for another thread
.)This sort of thing, as posted just upthread, waters down and cheapens the basic concept of the Queen's Honours (whether for New Year, her Birthday or whatever occasion). The committee(s) behind the decisions to hand out honours to these people (not just Rantzen but also Woolf etc) needs a stern talking-to, and quite possibly a few slaps
; but then Rantzen etc have not been found guilty of any offence and are - as such - innocent (just as Savile is)...
HoHoHo said:
Getragdogleg said:
what could she have done ? bearing in mind the cover up goes so deep.
She could have stood up and taken her chances, fought for those who didn't have a voice after all she was bleating on about childline the entire time this was happening - why bother?She decided not to and perhaps you have to question is she actually any better than the man himself?
You also however have to bear in mind he's actually never had a fair trial, he hasn't been convicted of any offences and is I'm afraid, innocent.
Take Royal Marsden top Cancer surgeon Joseph Thomas - didn't do him much good did it?
dandarez said:
HoHoHo said:
Getragdogleg said:
what could she have done ? bearing in mind the cover up goes so deep.
She could have stood up and taken her chances, fought for those who didn't have a voice after all she was bleating on about childline the entire time this was happening - why bother?She decided not to and perhaps you have to question is she actually any better than the man himself?
You also however have to bear in mind he's actually never had a fair trial, he hasn't been convicted of any offences and is I'm afraid, innocent.
Take Royal Marsden top Cancer surgeon Joseph Thomas - didn't do him much good did it?
Conian said:
Esther did get involved with childline, others didnt
maybe she felt powerless to tackle saville, who we know to have had some powerful allies, but she could do SOMETHING to help other kids
all credit to her for doing that much, others didnt
Whilst I agree with your thoughts I'm not personally sure if I could do one and not the other.maybe she felt powerless to tackle saville, who we know to have had some powerful allies, but she could do SOMETHING to help other kids
all credit to her for doing that much, others didnt
Janet Street-Porter was asked why as a powerful woman within the BBC she did nothing on QT. Then on Loose Women she sticks the boot into Simon Danczuk's wife for the selfies. But both Street Porter and PCC Paddy Tipping, now Notts. PCC, who was formerly in social work/child services at Notts. where kids were abused in kids homes are both big cheeses in the Ramblers Association.
I think someone in the editorial team of Loose Women should have told Janet Street Porter not to go there. She was worried about the message Mrs Danczuk's selfies send out when her husband campaigns about child sexual abuse but can't see how dodgy it looks given the link to Tipping via the Ramblers Association?
Instead of giving Mrs Karen Danczuk a hard time about her selfies Janet Street Porter should be grilling Paddy Tipping over a camp fire about what he knows about child sexual abuse in Nottinghamshire?
I think someone in the editorial team of Loose Women should have told Janet Street Porter not to go there. She was worried about the message Mrs Danczuk's selfies send out when her husband campaigns about child sexual abuse but can't see how dodgy it looks given the link to Tipping via the Ramblers Association?
Instead of giving Mrs Karen Danczuk a hard time about her selfies Janet Street Porter should be grilling Paddy Tipping over a camp fire about what he knows about child sexual abuse in Nottinghamshire?
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 3rd January 20:53
A top doc at Stoke Mandeville has been found guilty of noncing.
One of Jim's mates no doubt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stoke-m...
One of Jim's mates no doubt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stoke-m...
Edited by dudleybloke on Friday 6th February 18:30
Oakey said:
I see Fred Talbot has admitted to having sexual contact with pupils at Altrincham Grammar School.
Could he be convicted of anything from that alone? At the time, the age of consent for homosexual acts was 21, so at the time, he was committing an offence. However, the age of consent has since been reduced to 16.The other issue is under current law, an adult commits an offence if he has sexual contact with somebody under the age of 18 if they are in a position of authority over that person, even if they are over the normal age of consent.
Am I correct in saying he is in the clear on both counts as the first act is no longer illegal, and the second was not an offence at the time?
dudleybloke said:
A top doc at Stoke Mandeville has been found guilty of noncing.
One of Jim's mates no doubt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stoke-m...
The Court found no connection between the two. I can't decide whether that's more or less chilling, tbh.One of Jim's mates no doubt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stoke-m...
Edited by dudleybloke on Friday 6th February 18:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff