Interesting little piece on the BBC News site looking at the removal of monuments and acts of erasure of Savile's memory alongside similar responses to the Sandusky case over in the US:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20165466

Meanwhile, the sex abuse investigations have started, and arrests are being made and will continue to be made. There's even talk now of a possible paedophile connection to an aide to a former PM.

Top brass in various organisations including the BBC and some health authorities are finding themselves in the spotlight. Who knew what, when and how? Who gave permissions and access to vulnerable people? Who dismissed claims by victims?

And who decided to pull the Newsnight report that would have compromised the BBCs Christmas schedule of memorials to the late Savile? For what reason? And why, when questioned, did the editor give reasons he knew at the time to be false? Conspiracy or incompetence?

Things have taken a very dark turn, darker by far than the Savile scandal itself.

In the wake of the allegations against Savile, and then against the BBC for cover-ups and pulled sytories, some badly handled historic cases of abuse have been reopened.



One of the victims of that abuse attempted at the Waterhouse enquiry, to give names, descriptions and details of serious abuse committed outside the home, in other areas of the country with boys, himself included effectively sold/loaned for use by a paedophile ring extending way beyond the local area.

His evidence was disallowed, as beyond the remit of the enquiry and as constituting insufficient evidence for continued investigation. He is at the forefront now of trying to get this properly investigated.

At the time, as a lad, he got his hands on some of the photographs taken of the boys (himself included) being raped, some with the rapists clearly in view, including an advisor to the then Prime Minister. According to his testimony, when he went to the police, they took the photographs away and that was the last anybody saw of them. They also called him a liar.

Years later, when the Waterhouse enquiry was launched, lots of people were prosecuted and many went to jail: from the local area, from the home, from the paedophile ring that operated within it. But the men that came from outside, picking up boys in their expensive cars and taking them off to do horrific things to them were never prosecuted, and never investigated.

I saw him interviewed. He's calm, but clearly scarred by his experiences. He seems like someone who has been through hell and back, and now knows who he is. I was impressed and moved by him.


A second victim corroborates many of the details.


Full Newsnight report from last week. Terrifying the level of system breakdown during every stage:

Stuart Hall?
Et tu Brutus?
Oh no :sniff:

How can I ever relive the delight of Jeux Sans Frontières again?

I had it on VHS and was thinking of asking my bro to get it on DVD for Christmas (or give him my copy to have converted)

More recently he's been a commentator on 5 Live.
I rarely listen to live football, despite my digital radio being tuned into a sports channel, but I don't turn it off if he is on. Like Murray Walker and David Coleman he was one of my favourite pseudo-Uncles. Now he's one of the inappropriate kind.

One last memory before I forget him forever.
Penguins.

Fucking hell, I know. How many more friendly familiar faces from our youth are going to be uncovered as sex beasts?


If Tony Hart or Terry Nutkins end up on that list I'm done.

Got to wonder about Christopher Lillicrap though....

It happened to Elmo over here. I wasn't a huge fan, but still. :(

Yeah but the lad withdrew the allegations I think. That was one of those borderline of age of consent type things. There's a few of those in the current and ever growing sex abuse investigation.

I find those slightly less worrying than the younger and/or unwilling cases.

Like for instance, the late John Peel may have got a 15 year old pregnant whne he was in his late 20s. It's an abuse but it was also an ongoing 'relationship' rather than an unwanted assault.

Wrong, I think. And certainly illegal. And we can argue about whether a 15 year old is competant to give consent, but it's not really in the same league as some of the other cases.

And now Max Clifford.
But I wasn't ever not never going to buy a DVD featuring him anyway.

Jimmy Night...

University Rugby teams. What more is there to be said?

'Zactly.
Dirty birdies. Like squaddies.

I can tell stories of both that would make people heave (except Crimson Ghost). Work as a barmaid for a while and you get to hear and see a lot you decide to bury. Only in your mind of course. You need a big strong man to help you do it in real life. Given the right secateurs I couls probably manage the fingers though (Shallow Grave)

:facepalm:

Fred Talbot!?

Suddenly his giant map-leaping exploits don't look so charming...

I'm waiting for them to get Timmy Mallet.
Not for sexual abuse, just for sujecting children to his annoy.

If Timmy Mallet turns out to have been a kiddyfiddler, then the 80s are dead to me.

We had a controversy over a person in a similar role here. Charles Kuralt was a journalist who also had a very pleasant voice. He hosted a weekend talk show and narrated travel pieces across the US. He was involved in many philanthropic activities and had a reputation as a conservationist and naturalist.

After his death, it turned out that he had two families, although I gather that he was not technically a bigamist.

It's sort of like the US TV show "Green Acres", but with two wives;). Unlike some of the tawdry actions we're discussing here, it seems sort of idyllic. I also have to wonder if his wife didn't figure things out somewhere in those 29 years.