Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
The idea that all paedophiles are members of one big club seems to me naive.
Actually not. These people operate by word of mouth in a secretive way for a reason. They will only disclose to those know to them or introduced by somebody they trust or that move in the same circles. They can't be open about it they can't advertise so closed circles is where they operate.Maybe not one big club but many small interconnected clubs.
Edited by NoNeed on Monday 18th August 15:26
desolate said:
It's hard work how some of the webistes take a "fact" and end up in outer space somewhere.
Do you agree, though, that there seems to have been a unusually high proportion of generally bad eggs associated with the establishment (political and otherwise)?
And that considering mere mortals need to be squeaky clean to get their MBE after cleaning in a school for 50 years - how did Jimmy et al get so close to those in the hot seats?
My experience in the case of Smith is that the politicians exerted pressure via, one assumes, the security services. The file on him disappearing (although it didn't 'disappear' as there were other files in existence) suggests interference from 'above'. Do you agree, though, that there seems to have been a unusually high proportion of generally bad eggs associated with the establishment (political and otherwise)?
And that considering mere mortals need to be squeaky clean to get their MBE after cleaning in a school for 50 years - how did Jimmy et al get so close to those in the hot seats?
There are a number of reasons why the establishment might protect a sitting MP. At the time the UK was in the throws of a long civil war during which those in the establishment were killed. Just down the road from me Ian Gow was killed via a bomb and the full circumstances have not, going by google, been revealed. It was absolutely horrible.
So the government was a group under siege.
I'm not sure the award of honours is all that rigorous. Just look at the lists of those with gongs and lordships.
The internet, though, is a game changer - although how long this will go on for is a matter of some dispute. There were some officers on the original enquiry into Smith who tried to publicise their concerns at the time but the routes open to them were limited. The classic one, via one's MP, was more than a little risky. Whilst 'everyone knew', until it was public knowledge it could not be admitted.
Let's face it, would the pressure be on those in authority to facilitate further enquiries had it not been for the net?
Whilst Cameron, that unfailing judge of character, placed Brittan in a position of some sort of ambassador, those in authority must be considering the fallout of associating with those implicated, even by suggestion, in a cover up. Certainly this file than landed on Brittan's desk has only really come to light in the internet age.
There is a feeling that the main intent of those with authority and power is to maintain their position and in this they are aided by a security industry. Press barons, senior establishment figures, senior police officer, judges and such are there because, in the main, they sought the power that goes with the position. Murdoch may have saved The Times but his media conglomerate has been used to push his desires. We all now hate the BBC but a quick look at the content of the McTaggart Lectures might provide a reason for MPs and those seeking government to attack it.
Does anyone honestly doubt that it is a murky business at the top of the various estates?
NoNeed said:
Breadvan72 said:
The idea that all paedophiles are members of one big club seems to me naive.
Actually not. These people operate by word of mouth in a secretive way for a reason. They will only disclose to those know to them or introduced by somebody they trust or that move in the same circles. They can't be open about it they can't advertise so closed circles is where they operate.Maybe not one big club but many small interconnected clubs.
Breadvan72 said:
I agree with all that you say. Thread crossing for a moment, those who say that the persistence of Monarchy does our society no harm might reflect on the fact that someone like Savile gained credibility by hanging out with Royals, and it is just possible (possible, not definite) that soft prosecution decisions were influenced by a wish not to embarrass Royals. Not the fault of the Royals as individuals, but our fault for bending the knee, if (I say if) such things occurred.
The accusation goes much further than "gaining credibility" and whilst it is for another thread the desire to touch the hem of an aristo's garment plays a big part in all this. Whatever "this" is. Breadvan72 said:
NoNeed said:
Breadvan72 said:
The idea that all paedophiles are members of one big club seems to me naive.
Actually not. These people operate by word of mouth in a secretive way for a reason. They will only disclose to those know to them or introduced by somebody they trust or that move in the same circles. They can't be open about it they can't advertise so closed circles is where they operate.Maybe not one big club but many small interconnected clubs.
NoNeed said:
Breadvan72 said:
NoNeed said:
Breadvan72 said:
The idea that all paedophiles are members of one big club seems to me naive.
Actually not. These people operate by word of mouth in a secretive way for a reason. They will only disclose to those know to them or introduced by somebody they trust or that move in the same circles. They can't be open about it they can't advertise so closed circles is where they operate.Maybe not one big club but many small interconnected clubs.
Back in the day you had to become a priest, scout leader, kids sports coach or private school teacher. Or, it seems, a member of the "establishment".
Not very long ago people like Stephen Fry would regularly make jokes and throw away comments about being buggered senseless in schools and there was no outrage and desire to hunt down the perpetrators.
A big factor is that the victim, and their family, would hush it up as much as institutions within which the individuals operated. Fear, embarrassment and the desire not to rock the boat.
Many who did rock the boat where ignored.
One of the problems in discussing this is that people often have rather stereotypical notions of how the Establishment works. For example, people seems to assume that all independent schools are still as bad as they used to be (and many were very bad) and haven't modernised, and even assume that anyone who went to an independent school must have some sort of biased view on the subject (I didn't go to one, by the way). There also tends to be an assumption of widespread cleverness and cunning when the sad reality is often widespread cowardice and cock up, which may allow some more limited cleverness and cunning to succeed.
Breadvan72 said:
I agree with all that you say. Thread crossing for a moment, those who say that the persistence of Monarchy does our society no harm might reflect on the fact that someone like Savile gained credibility by hanging out with Royals, and it is just possible (possible, not definite) that soft prosecution decisions were influenced by a wish not to embarrass Royals. Not the fault of the Royals as individuals, but our fault for bending the knee, if (I say if) such things occurred.
It's nothing to do with royalty, I'd say, and everything to do with power. People gain credibility by hanging out with royals, sure, but if there was a presidency instead, would it really alter such behaviour? After all, there's been a huge amount of corruption (of minors) tolerated by the Catholic Church (to name but one institution); is your argument that all such powerful institutions are by their very nature a societally corrupting influence, as their power (whether real or imagined) engenders deference and altered behaviour by those who wish to benefit from their largesse?
Yes, pretty much. If you invest an institution with a quasi scared position, you encourage the touching the hem of the garment and bending the knee syndromes. Church, Crown, whatever. Republics are certainly not free of corruption, but they don't have bloated hierarchies of titled people floating around. There's something about old deference that lingers and festers a bit. Added to that, our whole system of public honours strikes me as fairly blatant and open corruption, hiding in plain sight, as it were.
jimmyjimjim said:
Derek Smith said:
some 40% of the male population have a criminal record.
Good god, really? Got a source? I'm not disputing you, but that's a large number!No source that I can link to. It was what I was told in 2002 from CRO records office. I was getting some stick from my boss because 'most' of my volunteers had CRO records, he feeling that this might be picked up by defences and used against an ID. So I did some research and discovered that there was a higher percentage amongst the general population than amongst my volunteers. The actual percentage was a bit above 40%.
This included all offences: those spent, those juvenile, those subject to ticketing, those with records when in the forces, all that sort of thing.
Remarkable indeed. Our guess in the office was from 15% to 25%, with me and my sergeant taking the higher ground.
I always hoped that there would be some argument about it in court but it never arose. One of my regulars had precons for GBH and GBH with intent. He was a very pleasant chap, quite intelligent, certainly well read - you could find him in the library most of the time - but could get nasty if he'd had a drink or three. We had a couple of burglars and on one parade the suspect said hello to one of them.
For reasons I won't go into, we did CRO checks on three firemen and found that all three were CRO, this despite our belief that this would bar them from being employed. I'm not suggesting, of course, that 100% of firemen are CRO. But a record is more common than you think.
I lived next door to a chap in Rottingdean whose five bedroom, all en suite, three reception, one office and two kitchen house, with views across the large garden and over the swimming pool to the sea was also CRO.
Another time, although on a parade run by my sergeant when I was at court, a witness identified the suspect (whose name he had given to the OIC) and also identified one of the volunteers as a local burglar. The OIC thought it reinforced the identification and it was included in the sergeant's statement but excluded at court.
But 40% isn't that remarkable when you give some thought to it. We imprison more offenders than any other western country other than the USA. There's around 100,000 prisoners at any one time.
Breadvan72 said:
Yes, pretty much. If you invest an institution with a quasi scared position, you encourage the touching the hem of the garment and bending the knee syndromes. Church, Crown, whatever. Republics are certainly not free of corruption, but they don't have bloated hierarchies of titled people floating around. There's something about old deference that lingers and festers a bit. Added to that, our whole system of public honours strikes me as fairly blatant and open corruption, hiding in plain sight, as it were.
We are discussing whether a large scale conspiracy could exist without being exposed for a great length of time, and all we have to do is look across the Irish Sea. Indeed, it went on in this country to a lessor, apparently, extent right up until recent times. The church seemed to think that the old deference remained intact and denied, denied and denied until it was forced into a position when it had to cough, and even then it was only partial acceptance. There seems to be little contrition.If you want to ruin your evening look up the complainants on YouTube. Heartbreaking. There was one chap, now seemingly in his 50s, who was abused but the main complaint he had was that the church refused to acknowledge his complaint, despite disciplining the priest by moving him to another parish to continue his offending. There was a rep from the church on a panel and he still did not accept what went on.
I've largely ignored the church in my comments on this thread, but a few years ago they were very much part of the establishment in a way that they no longer are.
But it happened in all institutions.
My mother worked in a children's home for the 'specially vulnerable' as a cook, which eventually included doing just jobs. Whenever I went to pick her up I had to remain outside, this before I was in the job. The reason being was that I was, and remain, male. The 'specially vulnerable' included those who had been abused in homes by the male employees and were sent to my mother's place because it was run by women and all staff were women. My assumption was that these would have been dealt with, but I wonder.
If you found a misper from a children's home they often seemed frightened of returning. None ever said anything to me but now I have the concern that I was sending them back to be further abused. Not a pleasant thought.
Breadvan72 said:
NoNeed said:
Breadvan72 said:
The idea that all paedophiles are members of one big club seems to me naive.
Actually not. These people operate by word of mouth in a secretive way for a reason. They will only disclose to those know to them or introduced by somebody they trust or that move in the same circles. They can't be open about it they can't advertise so closed circles is where they operate.Maybe not one big club but many small interconnected clubs.
.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28793654
By the mid-1970s, Righton had become a founding member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) which advocated sexual relationships between adults and children.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff