This article says that the culture that Jimmy Savile enjoyed at the BBC goes further back. Some NSFW language.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew- ... ertainment

Can't access it on piephone. Are you able to provide a quote?

Yeah, page not loading here at home either...

That whole site's down it seems.

Got mentioned in a tweet by Brian Cox. He's got A LOT of followers. Unsurprising result is unsurprising.

Assuming I've got the right end of the stick:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/39537 ... impson.htm

Indeed.

Mark

Didn't know which thread to post this in but:

Does anyone know when paedophilia became "illegal"? I recall Greeks having sex with boys and kids in the UK could get married around age of 13 (quick check says age over 7 yrs).

The site has been hosed by the 'Cox Effect'. I can't get to it now either. I am also hampered by being away from anything decent web connection wise thus weekend.

Basically, it seems that people were up to no good a generation before Savile, including Uncle Mack. However it seems that attitudes were very different, and it was not seen as 'wrong' in the sense that it is today.

It also says that there were a lot of problem people working in entertainment, or rather people with problems. I can't help thinking that other TV channels would have the same problems as the BBC. There are names mentioned, including Benny Hill (no direct allegations against him there). Conclusions can be drawn. History will determine how right yours are.

And if there are problems at the BBC during the times of Muffin the Mule, then I guess that theatre, music hall, and other places of entertainment will also be venues for such goings on.

It's quite a long article and covers much ground. Well worth having a read when it's back.

Err... ancient Greeks, before their embassy gets on the phone...


I'd imagine paedophilia became illegal the day we instituted a legal minimum age of sexual consent.

I see Harriet Harman has thrown her over-used oar in. Claiming that by not publicly naming those accused of sexual crimes against children before the court case begins we are somehow suggesting we as a society don't believe the testimony of child abuse victims.

No, it's because of two things you idiot, it's because we have the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' and because there are people who firebomb doctor's houses because they don't understand the difference between 'paedophile' and 'paediatrician', let alone what they'd do if the names of people who were merely being investigated were made public. Not everyone who is investigated is guilty. Christ almighty.

I almost feel like they should do what she asks for, on the caveat that any poor fecker who is beaten up in the street then found innocent gets to sue her into penury.

In terms of having sex with children it's been an offence for a very long time indeed, the first statutory reference (I believe) being the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861.

However, the age of consent has changed somewhat over the intervening years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_L ... Background

In terms of indecent images of children etc, you're looking at the Protection of Children Act 1978 (amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003).

I think that big stars like Saville were untouchable. So underlings would not be able to report it. The rest of the media are in anti BBC mode talking about survival of the BBC. It is far from that. There will be a few who might be sacked for failure to act but this could have happened anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk