Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to the www.Britmovie.co.uk forum

If this is your first time on the new forum since March 7th, 2017, please re-register with us once more.
Paypal contributions for the care and feeding of the forum may be made here:
PayPal Donations

The old bulletin board archive can be found here:
http://filmdope.com/forums/
See more
See less

How strange this is happening now, why not then.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How strange this is happening now, why not then.

    It all started with Bill Cosby, now Kevin Spacey, even a former U.S. president, all these incidents took place years ago, now it is coming out. How many more celebrities or others going to come out with simular stories?

  • #2
    It's always gone on hasn't it? From the casting couch to underage rock groupies. It goes with celebrity & I suppose depending on the individual some do take advantage even though it's wrong!

    Comment


    • #3
      It's as old as the hills. Still wrong though. But I sense a craziness creeping in when people are being attacked for touching someone inappropriately - and it turns out to be a friendly, innocent pat on the shoulder.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Eric7885 View Post
        It all started with Bill Cosby, now Kevin Spacey, even a former U.S. president, all these incidents took place years ago, now it is coming out. How many more celebrities or others going to come out with simular stories?
        No actually it all started with Jimmy Savile- a minor British radio/TV celebrity who was in the public eye for 50 years, whom during life was considered a rather poor presenter, not actually liked by many but was tolerated for his florid eccentricity and regarded as a 'good egg' who raised millions for charity and helping other's less fortunate with sheer hard graft on his part.... 40 odd years and not a single solitary word, rumour, hint,gossip, anywhere else about anything negative about him. Was regarded as a loner, asexual, a practising Roman Catholic and one of the few gentiles in show business who supported Israel in public ..

        Suddenly!! ...when he died, he became Britain's enemy No.1 who apparently had abused adults/children/females/males..and even the sick and the dead and was such a powerful person and so above the law that the BBC/governments/royalty quaked in their boots about getting on the wrong side of him..
        The press had a field day and while the public usually say 'don't believe what you read in the press' they were ready to accept anything said about Savile

        If you had lived through the Savile years you would rightly question that this is one of the most bizarre phenomenon you have witnessed.

        The same could be said of Rolf Harris who is now seen as a serial rapist despite his accusations being limited to touching.
        Last edited by Bert Quark; 25th November 2017, 01:19 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bert Quark View Post
          If you had lived through the Savile years you would rightly question that this is one of the most bizarre phenomenon you have witnessed.
          I would suggest that most of us who lived through the Savile years were not surprised and do not have our heads in the sand.

          The same could be said of Rolf Harris who is now seen as a serial rapist despite his accusations being limited to touching.
          Really? Seen by who? Where do you get that from? He was never charged with rape.

          Curious that anyone could defend those two lecherous sleaze bags the way you do (in a previous conversation as well as here).

          Comment


          • #6
            Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle 1921

            Comment


            • #7
              I would suggest that most of us who lived through the Savile years were not surprised and do not have our heads in the sand
              Indeed. Savile was clever, subtle, and used his fame and connections to his advantage. Indeed, his persona worked to his advantage - a bit of an oddball, but selfless. And he didn't just fool the BBC (which seems to have got a lot of grief), but also the NHS, various charities, and even Margaret (he spent a Christmas at Chequers with her).

              In the seventies, child abuse wasn't something that was talked about much - victims didn't come forward, there was little awareness, and if victims did try to tell their story, they were often simply not believed. And Savile was a big name, whose TV shows was hugely successful. That fame meant that people seemed to trust him, or even thought they knew him.

              But Savile was always a bit odd - the Theroux interview showed clearly a very strange person. There was always gossip, rumours, etc. But proof is another matter, and libel laws can work well if your rich. But you cannot libel the dead. And thats the point at which it all started to spill out.

              As for Arbuckle, the rumours around what exactly happened to Virgina Rappe will never be proved - it was a mess even at the time. Rappe wasn't exactly an angel (Anger wrote that he had apparently give much of the studio crabs), and a lot of people at that party were very drunk. Arbuckle certainly paid for it - he was cast out (Buster Keaton hired him after the final trail under an assumed name to get him work), bankrupted and drank himself to death. The moguls, on the other hand, has no fallout from their turns on the casting couch.

              Comment


              • #8
                I watched PBS news hour yesterday here on TV. One commentator surmised that maybe since Trump was elected

                the coming forward of so many victims of historic sexual assaults could be a backlash

                against his election & the perceived culture of sleaze he exudes!

                As for Roscoe Arbuckle. the court found him not guilty of all charges & the judge apologized to him. He still lost his career though!
                Last edited by wadsy; 25th November 2017, 10:42 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bonekicker View Post

                  Indeed. Savile was clever, subtle, and used his fame and connections to his advantage. Indeed, his persona worked to his advantage - a bit of an oddball, but selfless. And he didn't just fool the BBC (which seems to have got a lot of grief), but also the NHS, various charities, and even Margaret (he spent a Christmas at Chequers with her).

                  In the seventies, child abuse wasn't something that was talked about much - victims didn't come forward, there was little awareness, and if victims did try to tell their story, they were often simply not believed. And Savile was a big name, whose TV shows was hugely successful. That fame meant that people seemed to trust him, or even thought they knew him.

                  But Savile was always a bit odd - the Theroux interview showed clearly a very strange person. There was always gossip, rumours, etc. But proof is another matter, and libel laws can work well if your rich. But you cannot libel the dead. And thats the point at which it all started to spill out.

                  .

                  So people keep saying these days that basically people in the 20th Century were naïve and fawning towards celebrities but i'm afraid that does not quite ring true..Long ago a well known, much loved Coronation St actor was taken to court over allegations of inappropriate behaviour with young girls at a swimming pool, he was found innocent, but the press ripped him to shreds and he died of boozing.
                  The MP Cyril Smith had concerns about his behaviour recorded at a police station in about 1970.

                  .....and this comes to my central crux about Savile- in his whole career - not a bad word said about him, not a hint. not a muttering, not even a tiny column inch on page 23 of a newspaper saying something like Savile had taken an injunction out on Joe Bloggs for saying so and so...NOTHING! Surely you would have to agree that in 50 years(with such an implied rampant sexual appetite) he would have had to be superhuman not to have made a mistake somewhere and at the height of his fame the 'News of the World' would have thought they were kids who had been given keys to the sweet shop and lapped it up selling millions of copies.

                  So Shirley Brahms this is not a defence of Savile (or perverts) this is questioning what has been put before me, because as we know not many of us liked him very much anyway and apparently he never interacted much with BBC staff either- so that brings us onto the next puzzle-. so in the light of that why on earth would the BBC wanted to vigorously hush up anything said about him? ..To avoid a scandal they could have just had a word in his ear, wrote a cheque and quietly just dropped him...likewise all the hospitals he worked in- they need not of told him why they did not want him there anymore but just quietly dropped him ..his last day on earth was spent working in Broadmoor Hospital.


                  As for Rolf Harris - if you read some of the stuff people said about him at the time of the trial you would have thought he was the Yorkshire Ripper 2

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In complete contrast to the hysteria and paranoia about child molestation that has been whipped up by the media over the past thirty years or so, things were very different in the early 1970s. I remember about 45 years ago reading at the bottom of an inside page in the local paper about a delivery driver who ‘indecently assaulted’ two eleven years old boys who were helping him on his round. The prosecution said the offences occurred during ‘horse play’ in the back of his van. The man was fined £30 and had to pay court costs and that was the end of it. The Greek word ‘paedophile’, that has been practically done to death by the media during the past thirty years, wasn’t even mentioned in the report. If it had been mentioned, the readers wouldn’t have known what on earth it meant. In fact, I don’t think that the general public were all that much bothered about such things back then as they are now. Also, I don’t think that the problems regarding child molestation are any worse now than they were in the 1970s; 1960s or 1950s. It’s just that it seems worse now because the media go on and on about it all the time.
                    Last edited by darrenburnfan; 26th November 2017, 05:34 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Growing up during the 1950s we were always told not to accept sweets from strangers. Or if we do, hold out for the coffee cremes

                      But that was the extent of the warnings we got. No scare stories all over the newspapers & TV

                      Steve

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bert Quark View Post
                        .....and this comes to my central crux about Savile- in his whole career - not a bad word said about him, not a hint. not a muttering, not even a tiny column inch on page 23 of a newspaper saying something like Savile had taken an injunction out on Joe Bloggs for saying so and so...NOTHING! Surely you would have to agree that in 50 years(with such an implied rampant sexual appetite) he would have had to be superhuman not to have made a mistake somewhere and at the height of his fame the 'News of the World' would have thought they were kids who had been given keys to the sweet shop and lapped it up selling millions of copies.
                        (Please don't tell me what I "have to agree"!)

                        He didn't need to be superhuman to avoid being caught, he just needed all the devious, sly traits typical of a paedophile. And he managed very well.

                        So Shirley Brahms this is not a defence of Savile (or perverts) this is questioning what has been put before me, because as we know not many of us liked him very much anyway and apparently he never interacted much with BBC staff either- so that brings us onto the next puzzle-. so in the light of that why on earth would the BBC wanted to vigorously hush up anything said about him? ..To avoid a scandal they could have just had a word in his ear, wrote a cheque and quietly just dropped him...likewise all the hospitals he worked in- they need not of (sic) told him why they did not want him there anymore but just quietly dropped him ..his last day on earth was spent working in Broadmoor Hospital.
                        Ah yes, working in Broadmoor Hospital....

                        The full extent of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile at Broadmoor Hospital has been revealed in an independent report.

                        Investigators looked into 11 allegations of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile at the high-security psychiatric hospital in Upper Broadmoor Road, Crowthorne.

                        The report released today uncovers the details of the “opportunistic sexual predator’s” behaviour at hospitals.

                        Kate Lampard QC, who oversaw the investigation by the Department of Health and West London Mental Health Trust (WLMHT), reveals at some point during his time at Broadmoor, from 1968 to 2004, Savile was given keys which allowed him unrestricted access to ward areas, day rooms and patient rooms.

                        Alternative entrances to some wards allowed him to reach areas unsupervised and without the knowledge of those in charge.

                        Some staff enforced strict security procedures and distrusted Savile’s motives while other staff were more tolerant and failed to enforce strict security and supervision.

                        Department of Health 'deeply sorry' over 'depraved' activities of Jimmy Savile at hospitals including Broadmoor

                        Dr Bill Kirkup CBE, lead investigator into allegations at Broadmoor Hospital, said: “There were 11 allegations of sexual abuse directly related to Broadmoor by Savile.
                        Six involved patients at the time, two were staff and three minors. Two were male and nine were female. We were able to test in detail the veracity of six of these accounts and we concluded all of them were sexually abused by Savile. Two, both patients, were subjected to repeated assaults.”

                        Another five accounts were reported to operation Yew Tree but the identity of the victim was unknown and could not be traced.

                        Dr Kirkup added fewer people had come forward from Broadmoor Hospital than elsewhere.

                        He said: “The numbers are likely to be a significant underestimate of the true picture. Patients were very strongly discouraged from reporting at the time. The surprise is so many did find the courage to come forward. Taking all that into account there seems to me no doubt that Savile was an opportunistic sexual predator throughout the time he was associated with Broadmoor.”

                        The report into Savile’s abuse at Broadmoor showed security systems and procedures were improved while Savile was associated with the hospital.

                        His right to keys was not formally withdrawn until 2009, but the use of personal keys was taken away after new security arrangements were introduced in 1998.

                        Savile stopped visiting the hospital after being told how these new arrangements would operate in 2004.

                        Steve Shrubb, chief executive for the WLMHT responsible for Broadmoor Hospital, apologised to Savile’s victims.

                        He said: “For 150 years Broadmoor has provided treatment to some of the most mentally ill patients in England. Broadmoor Hospital is often the first safe place our patients have found in their lives. Lives which have often been filled with violence, neglect and abuse. This is what makes the reading of the detailed investigations into the abuse so disturbing.”

                        He added although it had been 15 years since the abuse Savile put his victims through it was only now the full extent of his behaviour has been uncovered.

                        Mr Shrubb said: “For all those years patients and staff who were abused by Savile have kept silent. Some from fear that they would not be believed. Who would believe a dangerous mentally ill patient against a national hero. Or because of fear that they would be punished for speaking out. I want to say thank you to those who were abused by Jimmy Savile in Broadmoor, you have shown great strength and bravery in speaking out about these awful events. I realise my comments can’t heal the injuries that Jimmy Savile has inflicted on you through his callous abuse of your vulnerability but I can offer my most sincere and heartfelt apologies on behalf of Broadmoor Hospital and the WLMHT.”


                        This should answer your question about the BBC.

                        Dame Janet Smith report: Key sections
                        As for Rolf Harris - if you read some of the stuff people said about him at the time of the trial you would have thought he was the Yorkshire Ripper 2
                        It's what the court found credible that counts.













                        Last edited by Shirley Brahms; 26th November 2017, 05:48 PM. Reason: typo

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The MP Cyril Smith had concerns about his behaviour recorded at a police station in about 1970.
                          And that was it. Nothing else happened, and any possible evidence was simply ignored. He ended up with a knighthood, and any investigations of him were stopped at a very high level. He got away with - he's the case that proves the rule.

                          Also, I don’t think that the problems regarding child molestation are any worse now than they were in the 1970s; 1960s or 1950s. It’s just that it seems worse now because the media go on and on about it all the time.
                          Agree with the first point (just look at the institutional scandals now emerging), but not the second. The media may shout loudly, but often then equally shout about political correctness gone mad/witch hunts. The News of the World notoriously some years ago wiped up a campaign against pedophiles which ended up with a mob trying to smash up the house of a female pediatrician. Scare stories are not helpful, but neither is silence.

                          There is a hidden scandal, and you dont need to be paranoid to see there is a problem. I was very upset some years ago when it emerged that British police had been passed a large amount of data about those who had bought appalling images on the net, following an investigation of the FBI, but not everyone had been investigated on that list, simply because there were insufficient resources - thats a disgrace.

                          He didn't need to be superhuman to avoid being caught, he just needed all the devious, sly traits typical of a paedophile. And he managed very well.
                          Yep. And he hid in plain sight - his public persona, media and charity work served very well to give him access and credibility.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by darrenburnfan View Post
                            In complete contrast to the hysteria and paranoia about child molestation that has been whipped up by the media over the past thirty years or so, things were very different in the early 1970s. I remember about 45 years ago reading at the bottom of an inside page in the local paper about a delivery driver who ‘indecently assaulted’ two eleven years old boys who were helping him on his round. The prosecution said the offences occurred during ‘horse play’ in the back of his van. The man was fined £30 and had to pay court costs and that was the end of it. The Greek word ‘paedophile’, that has been practically done to death by the media during the past thirty years, wasn’t even mentioned in the report. If it had been mentioned, the readers wouldn’t have known what on earth it meant. In fact, I don’t think that the general public were all that much bothered about such things back then as they are now. Also, I don’t think that the problems regarding child molestation are any worse now than they were in the 1970s; 1960s or 1950s. It’s just that it seems worse now because the media go on and on about it all the time.
                            This reads as if reports of child molestation are just a big yawn to you. Blaming the media for reporting these matters is shooting the messenger.

                            The general public were not all that much bothered about such things back then as they are now? Really? We certainly are better-informed these days, no small thanks to investigative journalism, and victims becoming empowered to come forward and be counted.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by darrenburnfan View Post
                              In complete contrast to the hysteria and paranoia about child molestation that has been whipped up by the media over the past thirty years or so, things were very different in the early 1970s. I remember about 45 years ago reading at the bottom of an inside page in the local paper about a delivery driver who ‘indecently assaulted’ two eleven years old boys who were helping him on his round. The prosecution said the offences occurred during ‘horse play’ in the back of his van. The man was fined £30 and had to pay court costs and that was the end of it. The Greek word ‘paedophile’, that has been practically done to death by the media during the past thirty years, wasn’t even mentioned in the report. If it had been mentioned, the readers wouldn’t have known what on earth it meant. In fact, I don’t think that the general public were all that much bothered about such things back then as they are now. Also, I don’t think that the problems regarding child molestation are any worse now than they were in the 1970s; 1960s or 1950s. It’s just that it seems worse now because the media go on and on about it all the time.


                              I do agree with you about the 'media frenzy' side of things, but the general tone of your post makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X