Posted                       

quote:

---

I don't jump to convict a person. I leave conviction to proper process and not to assertions. (#407)

---

quote:

---

The first comment is that while investigative journalists often preface material by paying lip service to the presumption of innocence, that is a principle in which I strongly believe. I am not sure that many others posting on this thread have the same strength of belief in that principle as I do. (#463)

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying that there's no evidence against Savile which would warrant a prosecution. What I do ask is why Esther Rantzen - who seems from her Wikipedia entry not to have been a person who could have been ignored - did not go to the police with some solid evidence at the time, and when a prosecution could have been commenced. It seems to me that she in particular has a lot of explaining to do. While it would now be too late to do anything about Savile's knighthood, HM might well need to consider taking away Rantzen's CBE. (#403)

---

quote:

---

Rantzen's comments show much more than mere rumour reaching her ears, but rather a basis for a chat to the police.(#410)

---

quote:

---

The comments from Ms Rantzen say that she should have taken some strong steps at the time.(#463)

---

quote:

---

As for the nurses referred to in the Metro article that Tubbs refers to - what an utter dereliction of duty on their part, if what they now say actually occurred. (#403)

---

quote:

---

What about the nurses? As a group, they would have been able to make their concerns known, even were they unable to be accepted individually (#407)

---

quote:

---

As for the nurses - why did they not take better steps to protect those in their care? Even if, they being simply women, any reports they made would have been rejected, why did they not keep an obvious eye on what was happening in their wards?(#410)

---

quote:

---

The material from the nurses astounds me. They say that they were concerned about Savile, but even if they could not report their concerns, they could amongst themselves have taken direct steps to keep Savile under scrutiny while he was at their hospitals. Instead, they did nothing.(#463)

---

quote:

---

Nursing has traditionally been a profession dominated by women*, and quite a few of them were pretty tough. Think, for example, of the matrons described in Mary Renault's biography; on a more mundane level, consider a ward sister who wants visitors out after hours. The nursing hierarchy was, by and large, of women until the head matron answered to the, then invariably male, medical superintendent. (#467)

---

quote:

---

I find it hard to accept that had a girl gone to the police in the 70s with complaint about Savile, her complaint would not have been investigated properly. It would have been here. The evidence for that is that during the 60s, there was a series of gang rapes, concentrated in an area of Sydney, but perhaps in other states as well. The case for the accused at trial was always that the girl had consented, and the girl would be cross-examined for days by counsel for each of the accused to try to show this. In each case, it was word against word, and in case after case, there were verdicts of guilty with heavy sentences. This shows to me that the police would accept and investigate the complaint and that in subsequent proceedings, the girl's evidence was that preferred by the jury. (#410)

---

quote:

---

I don't doubt your opinion, but stick to mine. (#481)

---

quote:

---

I noted before that the bulk of "old" cases against pople in authority now coming before the courts here are based on complaints by men who at the time were afraid of being labelled as queer in a generally homophobic society. How does that compare to the UK experience? (#522)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Ignorance is no defence, I'm afraid.

And it's this unconscious unthinking sexism and misogyny is what allows the casual objectification of women and their maltreatment.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But he only targeted women in his attacks.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Seems like you really, really want it to be, though.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Ignorance is no defence, I'm afraid.

And it's this unconscious unthinking sexism and misogyny is what allows the casual objectification of women and their maltreatment.

---

It is the "un" aspect to which I referred. Unintelligent, unsympathetic, unconscious and, I'll bet, unhappy too. Look how miserable the typical racist or homophobe is. Ditto misogynists and all other misanthropes for that matter. I don't think I've seen a happy racist in my life, certainly not a sober one.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Seems like you really, really want it to be, though.

---

It's easier to shut people up if you can accuse them of one of the big "-ism"s.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And his attitude and refusal to accept accounts of women arguing on the thread

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't think I've seen a happy racist in my life, certainly not a sober one.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

I don't think GeeD is consciously sexist, I think that he's unconsciously sexist

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I noted before that the bulk of "old" cases against people in authority now coming before the courts here are based on complaints by men who at the time were afraid of being labelled as queer in a generally homophobic society. How does that compare to the UK experience? (#522)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Point of information; various men were interviewed for the exposure documentary. Including the guy who related how he had gone to JS's flat, a schoolgirl had turned up, JS had taken her into his bedroom, noises had issued from the room, JS came out and washed his genitals in the sink, the girl left. This guy stated he did not report the matter because he thought JS might beat him up. His account was interspersed with statements of how demeaned he felt by JS treating him as of no importance.
.

---

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Point of information; various men were interviewed for the exposure documentary. Including the guy who related how he had gone to JS's flat, a schoolgirl had turned up, JS had taken her into his bedroom, noises had issued from the room, JS came out and washed his genitals in the sink, the girl left. This guy stated he did not report the matter because he thought JS might beat him up. His account was interspersed with statements of how demeaned he felt by JS treating him as of no importance.
.

---

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
GeeD has not acknowledged anything said by other posters in that thread. People have bent over backwards explaining the laws and attitudes of that time, what the hospitals were like at the time, how JS had access to patients when he was a volunteer and was given keys to wards as a celebrity. Nurses did report incidents and nothing happened. Nurses have enough to do taking care of patients ill enough to be in hospital.

---

quote:

---

Your opinion is so lacking in basis of fact as to be not worth considering.

---

quote:

---

GeeD didn't go after the majority male filled profession of chauffeurs who have stated they knew what was going on and that those who made any reports were fired.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:

GeeD didn't go after the majority male filled profession of chauffeurs who have stated they knew what was going on and that those who made any reports were fired.

---

I do so dislike arguments from silence. Almost as much as I dislike arguments that say if you don't criticise absolutely everyone who can be criticised it must be because you're prejudiced against the people you did have a go at.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

I don't think GeeD is consciously sexist, I think that he's unconsciously sexist

---

I, OTOH, think he a consciously prejudiced, disagreeable and confrontational individual, who can manage baseless and insulting remarks on pretty well anything.

---

The wrong kind of versatility

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:

GeeD didn't go after the majority male filled profession of chauffeurs who have stated they knew what was going on and that those who made any reports were fired.

---

I do so dislike arguments from silence. Almost as much as I dislike arguments that say if you don't criticise absolutely everyone who can be criticised it must be because you're prejudiced against the people you did have a go at.

---

When one vehemently disparages only 1/3 of the professionals who are speaking up about the abuse with the viewpoint they are to blame because they didn't singlehandedly stop the abuse while ignoring the other 2/3 with the professionals blamed being one gender and those not blamed by this poster, sometimes silence does speak of their viewpoint. He went after the nurses repeatedly and with a vengeance while uttering not one peep about anyone else.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

GeeD in the amended post: What I do ask is why Esther Rantzen - who seems from her Wikipedia entry not to have been a person who could have been ignored - did not go to the police with the evidence she now says she had, and when a prosecution could have been commenced. It seems to me that she in particular has a lot of explaining to do. While it would now be too late to do anything about Savile's knighthood, HM might well need to consider taking away Rantzen's CBE.

---

quote:

---

I can't accept that the word of someone as Esther Rantzen appears to be would not have been listened to (#407)

---

quote:

---

me If eye-witnesses were not listened to, what makes you think someone like Esther Rantzen who had only heard the gossip and innuendo could do? You know, the stuff you're telling us not to go on. And why is she being pilloried when she presented a light entertainment programme called That's Life during the time period. She only started Childline in 1986, so after the time when Jimmy Savile was most active (which was the 70s according to the Met Police statement). Why is she supposed to have thought back to rumours from 10-15 years before and thought that needed investigation? (#408)

---

quote:

---

Sioni Sais in answer to #407 I'm surprised too, not because Esther Rantzen was especially repected at the BBC but because her husband, Desmond Wilcox, was editor Man Alive from 1965 and Head of General Features at the BBC between 1972 and 1980. If Esther Rantzen saw or heard anything would she have taken it to he (now late) husband first? You can make of that what you will (#409)

---

quote:

---

GeeD: The comments from Ms Rantzen say that she should have taken some strong steps at the time. (#463)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
When one vehemently disparages only 1/3 of the professionals who are speaking up about the abuse with the viewpoint they are to blame because they didn't singlehandedly stop the abuse while ignoring the other 2/3 with the professionals blamed being one gender and those not blamed by this poster, sometimes silence does speak of their viewpoint. He went after the nurses repeatedly and with a vengeance while uttering not one peep about anyone else.

---

Yes. That is an argument from silence.


I am not sure what is going on here, but curiosity linked to our PMs speech in the Oz Parliament last week. It was a bloody good speech, and hit the nail on the head for the most part. It did so because Jules had specific references to statements that were sexist and misogynist by the man she was roasting - the opposition leader Tony Abbott.
However, in the wake of the speech every polly in my country has been trying to pin sexism and misogyny on everything. Normal arseclownery has been baptised in the confession of St Germaine of Greer as anti-womanist. It's crap.
If Gee Dee was an arse, that's enough to call him/her to hell, isn't it? Why try and make his/her statements what they aren't?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
GeeD starts with an attack on Esther Rantzen, pages after this has already been discussed and explained that she would have been acting on hearsay and rumour, with a particularly strong attack:

---

quote:

---

in answer both Sioni Sais and I suggested that Esther Rantzen was not the best person in position to challenge the situation with Jimmy Savile,

quote:

---

Sioni Sais in answer to #407 I'm surprised too, not because Esther Rantzen was especially repected at the BBC but because her husband, Desmond Wilcox, was editor Man Alive from 1965 and Head of General Features at the BBC between 1972 and 1980. If Esther Rantzen saw or heard anything would she have taken it to he (now late) husband first? You can make of that what you will (#409)

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

As for the nurses referred to in the Metro article that Tubbs refers to - what an utter dereliction of duty on their part, if what they now say actually occurred. (#403)

---

quote:

---

What about the nurses? As a group, they would have been able to make their concerns known, even were they unable to be accepted individually. (#407)

---

quote:

---

Sioni replied What about them? Links with showbiz and fame in general are prized by charities. Why would anyone interfere with the Good Work of the hospital? Oh, and they were women. (#408)

---

quote:

---

GeeD: As for the nurses - why did they not take better steps to protect those in their care? Even if, they being simply women, any reports they made would have been rejected, why did they not keep an obvious eye on what was happening in their wards? (#410)

---

quote:

---

GeeD The material from the nurses astounds me. They say that they were concerned about Savile, but even if they could not report their concerns, they could amongst themselves have taken direct steps to keep Savile under scrutiny while he was at their hospitals. Instead, they did nothing. (#463)

---

quote:

---

GeeD: That's what I'm not so sure about. Nursing has traditionally been a profession dominated by women*, and quite a few of them were pretty tough. Think, for example, of the matrons described in Mary Renault's biography; on a more mundane level, consider a ward sister who wants visitors out after hours. The nursing hierarchy was, by and large, of women until the head matron answered to the, then invariably male, medical superintendent. (#467)

---

quote:

---

GeeD... taking action in the wards. On their own admission they did not do this. (#483)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, because she was a "big name" who might have had a better chance of being heard than anyone else. Not because she is a woman.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, because she was a "big name" who might have had a better chance of being heard than anyone else. Not because she is a woman.

---

Actually totally inaccurate at the time.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
It’s good to see that CK has used the word “misogynist”, which seems to be the word of the week.

---

It's only the word of the week locally.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, because she was a "big name" who might have had a better chance of being heard than anyone else. Not because she is a woman.

---

Actually totally inaccurate at the time.

---

Perhaps, but would someone who freely admits that their only information about her is from Wikipedia be expected to know that?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
There rea onther couple of posts missing as well. In one, CK misuses the word “hypocritical” to mean “he disagrees with me”; in the second, I am all but accused of lying.

---

quote:

---

What gets me most about this is the sheer hypocrisy of GeeD waltzing onto this thread, telling us all that we're spreading rumour and innuendo and turning into a lynch mob, and in the same breath and thought instructing us to lynch Esther Rantzen, who was peripheral to this at the time, and the nurses who are coming forward to say how guilty they felt at the time for not being able to do more.

---

quote:

---

No, I'm sorry but I have b]never seen the film - and until now have never heard of Roger Graef either.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

in answer both Sioni Sais and I suggested that Esther Rantzen was not the best person in position to challenge the situation with Jimmy Savile,

quote:

---

Sioni Sais in answer to #407 I'm surprised too, not because Esther Rantzen was especially respected at the BBC but because her husband, Desmond Wilcox, was editor of Man Alive from 1965 and Head of General Features at the BBC between 1972 and 1980. If Esther Rantzen saw or heard anything would she have taken it to he (now late) husband first? You can make of that what you will (#409)

---

---

Sioni can confirm or deny this for himself, but I read his post as agreeing with GeeD's point that Rantzen might actually have been in a position to do something about it at the time.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, because she was a "big name" who might have had a better chance of being heard than anyone else. Not because she is a woman.

---

Actually totally inaccurate at the time.

---

Perhaps, but would someone who freely admits that their only information about her is from Wikipedia be expected to know that?

---

But if someone only knows their information from Wikipedia, why should they put themselves up as judge and jury against those who were there at the time and ignore all their posts and comments from first hand knowledge?

---

quote:

---

GeeD had purported to have read that thread. I had said repeatedly that at the time Esther Rantzen wasn't in a position to do anything and she would just have been going on hearsay and rumour.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I was hoping that it was something like sexism that is possible to challenge and hopefully help people change their viewpoint.

Ah well, another over-optimistic moment crumbles in the face of reality.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
<Throws peanuts from the gallery>

Curiosity is usually uptight. Gee D is usually cool. I haven't read the thread to death but I remain staunch in my bias and discrimination.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
…and hopefully help people change their viewpoint.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, I'm coming round to too thick to read for comprehension and an overweening self-belief that means the world does revolve around him and he is always right.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I do also note that Marvin hasn't challenged my conclusions on the posts about nurses

---

quote:

---

or that GeeD was being unreasonable on the Jimmy Savile thread.

---