I imagine that whatever the victims felt upon seeing the man who'd raped and abused them made a peer of the realm, formally revoking the knighthood might go some way towards rectifying it.
I imagine that whatever the victims felt upon seeing the man who'd raped and abused them made a peer of the realm, formally revoking the knighthood might go some way towards rectifying it.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Still, you can't revoke what already ceased to be. A much more meaningfull gesture would be for the committee that advises on honours to issue a statement that says something along the lines 'given recent publications we regret that H.M. was advised to create mr. J. Saville a knight'.Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Congratulations America
No that's not true. I don't believe that a knighthood expires on death, people who were knighted (or a Lord etc) still have the title used when refering to them after death. We still use the title now, historical documents won't be edited 1984-style but new news articles will cease to refer to him as Sir as is still happening now.
Well, you have got one side who says it doesn't expire (you), and then we've got the other side saying it did expire (the -British- Cabinet Office). Who am I to believe?
I find it somewhat surprising to still see articles referring to him as 'sir' even though there is no real need to pay him that honour. Being dead and having turned out to be a scumbag during his life and all that.
Congratulations America
Link?
That's the way it works and why we should if need be withdraw his honour.I find it somewhat surprising to still see articles referring to him as 'sir' even though there is no real need to pay him that honour. Being dead and having turned out to be a scumbag during his life and all that.
source Read beyond the part where Cameron talks about stripping him of the knighthood.
I think they should simply stop referring to him as 'Sir', which they easily could.
Congratulations America
The Telegraph and The Guardian seem to haved dropped the honorific, interestingly enough the BBC still refers to him as Sir Jimmy Savile.
Congratulations America
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/wo...l.html?hp&_r=0 What the hell BBC?
Hope is the denial of reality
To me that sounded a bit like the German reason for continuing with the Olympics in Munich; 'they couldn't possible reschedule' back then either. I don't really know how it matters, unless they really have hard evidence against living people too.
Congratulations America
They do. At least four others according to the police.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Also at the time that Newsnight was investigating Saville? That would be very reproachable then. I was under the impression they just didn't want to cause a nuisance. But willfully keeping quiet over child abuse by people who were still alive; that is a different matter.
Congratulations America
Especially when doing the report might make the average Joe think poorly of the BBC. Better to suppress it.
Hope is the denial of reality
Just watching the Panorama investigation into the Newsnight investigation etc ... Some pretty shocking material here.
One of the Newsnight journalists (who interviewed on film an alleged victim) was very scathing about the way it was dropped saying "we weren't told to get more evidence, just that it was dropped".
So many former BBC people saying they'd heard rumours/seen suspicious activity but never thought to report it.
Anybody else bored already by the whole brouhaha they are building on top of this? For pete' s sake, the man is dead. Let his victims (the actual ones, not the ones who now try to ratchet up being touched by him at all into being raped) get counseling or get over it. I'm starting to feel it' s turned into a political type witch hunt now with ludicrous claims about kiddy mugger circles all over the place.
Congratulations America
Well there's actually been an arrest now from the investigation of this - already previously convicted child porn pervert Gary Glitter on suspicion of child abuse.
It just occurred to me that most of this happened at a time that you'd also see things on TV like Benny Hill and those Carry On movies.
Congratulations America
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20269114
OK the WTF's of this are continuing to get more absurd by the day.
Following the criticism of just abruptly dropping the Newsnight Saville story without looking for further corroborating data or anything else, on Tuesday Newsnight rushed out a story alleging a living former Tory politician abused someone who was in a children's care home. Rumours immediately spread on the internet on who it might be.
Rival ITV's Philip Schofileld then ambused the Prime Minister during a live interview handing over a card with names on it. Schofield never did any research into this beyond "5 minutes on the internet", no fact-checking. The camera caught the names on the card which again go straight to the internet.
Now the victim behind the Newsnight interview after seeing on TV who was allegedly the abuser has got in touch to the media to apologise and say its the wrong person. He'd got the wrong name and it was mistaken identity, it somebody else after all!
To go from killing investigations, to sloppy reporting without doing any investigating - not even confirming the identity let alone getting in touch with the person being accused to get their side.
Didn't we have a fight during the Olympics about parts of the UK state engaging in shameless self-promotion?
No not sure what you mean
The Director General has resigned.
The NYTimes decided to hire former BBC Commandant Director General Mark Thompson to its top post a few days ago...and now he's caught up in this too.
I can only hope this would finally lead to a substantial change in the BBC "business" model to remove its de-facto state-funding, but now we have Gaza and the BBC can beat people's attention towards that.
What exactly does the BBC business model and funding have to do with a sex scandal, exactly?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Many have criticized the BBC for being a crusty, insular institution that sits on the cashflow it gets from mandatory fees to promote its own insular worldview.
And apparently it was so cozy and insular they decided to protect a pedophile among their ranks.
Not that I disagree, but I don't see the connection between those two
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Clearly the venerable institutions hoisted upwards by the Invisible Hand, such as those operated under Unca Rupert, would never generate such scandals and self-serving denial, cover-ups and general awfulness
Right?
Right?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
John Humphrys interview of Entewhistle on the Today program was likely a big part of his decision to resign.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Not that I disagree, but I don't see the connection between those twoThe steady flow of state-mandated fees -- which flow regardless of anything -- creates the insular, consequence-free environment.
News of the World was shut down and Murdoch lost advertisers and almost lost broadcast licenses. It was a witch hunt, but nonetheless a business did fail because of its sins. That doesn't seem to be an option for the BBC, even as they shelter pedophiles and their reporters' barely-concealed biases lead to stupid screwups.
On what basis are you accusing the BBC of sheltering pedophiles?
Also, I'm not sure how you can say that the BBC is living in a "consequence-free" environment when this thing has claimed the jobs of two director generals in a row, and will likely cost a bunch more jobs at Newsnight.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Yes, every insular organization needs to have purges from time to time. So far I haven't seen anything that will change the fundamental insularity of the BBC in the long-term.
I didn't mean sheltering in the literal sense. I meant figurative sheltering in the fashion that's stirred this whole controversy.
So far, I haven't seen anything substansive from you about what this "insularity" and "consequence-free" environment at the BBC actually entails. You compared the BBC to the News of the World's hacking scandel which lead to the closure of the newspaper - need I remind you that this wasn't a case of shoddy journalism at the NoTW - they had plenty of examples of that - but of them doing something, persisently over and an extended period, that was actually illegal?
Another comparison to the News of the World - George Entewhistle resigned because a BBC programme wrongly linked a former Conservative minister (without naming him) to a child sexual abuse scandel in Wales during the 80s. In 2000, The News of the World 'began naming and shaming' paedophiles, which in turn lead to a series of vigilante attacks against suspected paedophiles, several of whom weren't paedophiles at all, just cases of mistaken identity, one of whom was in fact a female pædiatrician. The consequences to the News of the World? None. No legal censure. No resignations or job losses. Nothing.
So, sort of sheltering in a 'not sheltering' kind of way? Gotcha.I didn't mean sheltering in the literal sense. I meant figurative sheltering in the fashion that's stirred this whole controversy.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote