Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@anc wrote:
I don’t understand that teacher – as I have been led to believe, large toy manufacturers are purposefully making dolls etc with dark skin to be politically correct! :?
The teacher fell into the trap of thinking that any mention/portrayal of a ‘minority’ ethnicity is or racist. She was wrong, it’s a trap into which a lot of people fall, mention anything to do with colour and they assume there’s a problem.
Oh BTW regardless of what Rappers and their ilk do, there’s a whole load of black people who don’t want the ‘N’ word mentioned until AFTER they’ve been showered with cash, given a bloomin’ great big house and a car and surrounded by beautiful bodies in skimpy swimwear, after which they won’t care what you say . . . . .
The Gollywog on the jam jar? Why on earth would a large corporation selling a sugar based product want to promote the idea that it’s main ingredient was associated with cuteness and inoffensiveness rather than a history of barbaric slavery and (then) present of harsh inhumane employment? (Compare with the images of beautiful, poised adult tea-pickers and noble, muscular coal-miners etc. used to good/bad effect by other unethical employers).
Children loved gollywogs and saw no racist connotation? Long may the innocence of childhood continue!
One teacher refuses to allow a beautiful black doll into the classroom on Toy Day? That’s one teacher being unreasonable, not ‘us’ being afraid of offence – I doubt she thought she was representing any movement with her mistaken idea of racism.
We’re adults and some harsh realities exist, cars pollute, guns’ primary purpose is to kill and adults usually have functioning genitals. We have defined a different social context for many of the trappings of mid-20th century childhood.
And yes, I had a gollywog as a child, saw it then as no different from other toys. But I’m not 7 any more, and while I wish I was as cute now as I was then, I do find it as offensive as the casual violence that my peers and I took for granted, or the games of doctor over which I draw a veil . . . . . .
Unfortunately for quick and easy analysis, the original context and intent of the gollywog is larger and based on political and economic realities which made it inappropriate then and now in my opinion.
Nostalgia however, isn’t what it used to be . . . . . . . .
Not that much has changed. Paedophile rings still operate, individual paedophiles still prey on children. They work their way into positions where they have access to children, can escape detection and can intimidate their victims. They can be found hiding in plain sight as parents, carers, workers in education, the police, in highly respected professions, in low profile or voluntary roles and yes, celebrities.
People collude, cover up or don’t speak up either because of involvement, because their personal morals don’t exclude or criminalise the actions involved, because of fear of guilt by association or because they don’t think they themselves would be believed, they don’t know how it could be proved or because they don’t know how they can answer the question “why didn’t you come forward sooner?”.
Despite the hostility expressed towards ‘pervs’ of all kinds, even in JC there are people who feel brave enough to use highly dubious names, talk of their actions/inclinations towards children or ask other chatters in pm about the children they come into contact with through family or work. I hope the people concerned are reported, but the lack of faith often expressed in JC’s reporting system makes me think not.
Without paranoia or hysteria, we can act on the things we encounter that do worry us. Perhaps if more people did that about Savile and his ilk, things would have been dealt with justly and in time.
Have any of the women who have accused Saville of the child molestation offered any explanation why they didn’t come forward earlier?
It’s relatively easy to say one way or the other what we ‘would’ or ‘wouldn’t’ do one way or the other if it was us, but unless we have been a victim, we actually don’t know. However I wonder if we found out that someone had similarly molested one of our own children? Would their death draw a veil over events?
The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence, that is that they did not think a conviction was likely. Bearing in mind the low conviction rates of rapes and abuses that do get to court even today that does not mean that there was no evidence, but as it was 2007, evidence would have been weakened by then.
I’m not crass enough to expect any JC people who have been victims of abuse (statistically there must be) to offer “I was a victim and I did ‘X'” accounts, but from actual accounts, children – much like abused adults – are often overwhelmingly intimidated by the abuser and keep silence/tolerate abuse way beyond what seems reasonable.
It’s no more likely that a victim of such a crime would react logically and reasonably than that someone any other trauma.
The trouble with abuse is that it makes victims of more than just the direct targets, so yes, I do feel sympathy for Saville’s family and close friends who might not be aware of the previous allegations. But my main sympathy is for his child victims. Any unreasonableness in their responses is way overshadowed by the unreasonableness of what was done to them by someone they should have been able to trust.
As for the account of the new nurse’s encounter with Saville, While a grown woman being groped by Mr Saville has not had the betrayal of a quasi parental figure, even an adult can feel betrayed, hurt and even violated by behaviour far short of rape.
@anc wrote:
I’m might stuff a marrow, and I ain’t saying where or if/what with! :lol:
. . . . or where . . . . . :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Why didn’t the women say anything before? Let’s not forget abuse and sexualisation of ‘precocious’ young girls was winked at publicly in those days (it would have been the 70s).
In 1989 Bill Wyman married an 18 year old he had been “dating” since she was 13. The most the papers said at the time was that she was a “wild child” and the only fuss was about her going to night clubs, dancing on tables, consorting with celebrities with her mother’s support. There was none of the outrage expressed recently about the teacher running off with a 15 year old pupil. Gary Glitter and Jonathan King also carried out their crimes during the 70s and 80s. Perhaps a celebrity culture existed which sucked vulnerable egos into the idea that sex with a young teenager was a thrill to be pursued.
At the time they would almost certainly either not believed or dismissed as willing participants. Esther Ranzen is quoted as saying that such allegations were common at the time and were colluded with – not disbelieved, just not treated as anything worth making a fuss about.
By the time the public and the media took paedophilia more seriously, the victims were getting on with their lives, even then the seriousness of what had happened might not have hit them.
We all know the media doesn’t simply discover and report facts and it’s likely some ‘influence’ was brought to bear on the victims to go public. If the story is true, then for them it’s a no-win situation: if they had come forward while he was alive, they would have been accused of ruining the life and career of a much loved old man and it would probably have been put down to being able to sue him privately later.
They let him live out his life and come forward when the financial gains are much smaller and are disbelieved because they didn’t do it while he was alive to defend himself.
@panda12 wrote:
He’s dead ffs! He can’t defend himself!
I’ve been told he’s already talked about it in his autobiography. Which would mean no defence thought necessary. I haven’t read it but a sense of untouchability is common amongst celebrities.
@anc wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@anc wrote:
Being a farmer’s daughter, I have a very strong view on this………..
…………..YES, they should be culled, in this organised way, and vaccinated to stop this horrid disease. Farmer’s shoot them anyhow, even though it is against the law.
It makes me mad when ‘do-gooders’ don’t give their babies the MMR too – another debate, I agree, but along the same lines as the above – obliterate the diseases and no-one can die/be affected by it.
We have the means, so, fgs why not apply them?
. . . . or were you mad to begin with . . . . . :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I thought we were debating about badgers, not ‘cows’ :lol:
Hey! Just because they don’t give their babies the MMR, doesn’t mean you can call them cows!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
@anc wrote:
Being a farmer’s daughter, I have a very strong view on this………..
…………..YES, they should be culled, in this organised way, and vaccinated to stop this horrid disease. Farmer’s shoot them anyhow, even though it is against the law.
It makes me mad when ‘do-gooders’ don’t give their babies the MMR too – another debate, I agree, but along the same lines as the above – obliterate the diseases and no-one can die/be affected by it.
We have the means, so, fgs why not apply them?
. . . . or were you mad to begin with . . . . . :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
@(f)politics? wrote:
. . . But if it makes u feel better . . .
It doesn’t, this is not a happy subject. I’m sorry you think I was just scoring points. I wasn’t.
Although “perfectly accurate” is not quantified, an inaccuracy of 100% is pretty huge and undermines the other perfectly valid points you seem to be trying to make. As does the comment quoted above.
I don’t claim in-depth knowledge of this subject, or even that I’m right. I do have misgivings about the culling exercise. I respect your point of view.
I do believe this is a serious issue, worthy of serious comment, accurate information and suspension of personalisation and hostile sarcasm. I have voiced my misgivings, apologised for any offence. I wish you well f_pol.
