h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My Money's on Noel Edmonds but I wouldn't put it past them to go for Kenny Everett - he's dead after all - no problems for defamation.

Lord McAlpine settles with the BBC:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20348978

He is 'conscious that any settlement will be paid by the licence fee-payers, and have taken that into account in reaching agreement with the BBC'.

And being a very rich man by (I suspect) the standards of most Hootooers, has settled for a mere £185,000. And a high ranking resignation. And a public apology.

PP.

Yeah, well if it is, Orcus, I will cry.

What on the gods earth is going on?

Is no buggar safe?

Or was it not just 'another time'*?

I can help but feel that my entire childhood was lie. Flash Gordon, Belle and Sebastian, Why Don't You, How (Fred Dinenage, anyone?)

Byker Grove...ooh Ant and Dec... are they next?

Should we be feeling that?


*not condoning anything, but a wee bit skeptical of all the allegations

Ant and Dec have got each other.

>>Flash Gordon,

The clue' s in the name.

or are you thinking of Flesh Gordon?

"witch hunt" Well, yes, I did say earlier here that we do have to be careful BUT that doesn't mean we just stop looking for possible abuse because there are victims, not alleged victims but Victims, who were not protected and who have not been protected down through the ages. Why? Sometimes out of fear of retribution. Mainly, i think, because oh gosh oh gee Uncle Willy wouldn't do that to little Sally or Tommy, what a monster you are for even Thinking such a thing. Oh, and yes, one more Why - because Joe Blow canNOT control his sex urge and why should he, everyone knows boys will be boys and they can't help it it's natural.

You know, if I was a sexual abuser or a friend of a sexual abuser, I would cast aspersions at innocent guys to muddy the waters and confuse people to be afraid to not hurt innocent guys and then nothing gets done except for the fiddlin' the almighty fiddlin' we got to have our fiddlin' After all, it's worked before.

While it's very laudable to seek justice for events that happened no matter how long ago, just what can be done for the victims? There's not going to be a financial loss, so I don't think seeking damages is appropriate. In many cases the alleged abuser is dead, so unable to serve some sort of punishment. And anyway, how does that help the person who suffered the abuse?

From my own experience, it happens much more often than people choose to believe, and it's usually someone known to the child, rather than an idosyncratic and megalomaniac DJ.

"Damages" or financial compensation could pay for counseling - a friend and I were discussing how much we have spent through the years for counseling, and how much it has helped, for sexual abuse we suffered as children (yes i was one of the "alleged victims")

Punishing the perpetrator is not so much the issue anymore as trying to heal them or control them if they are unhealable. But the reason it is important that all this is brought out into the open, discussed, facts looked at, discisions made, is because the subject needs to be understood and known about by everyone in order to stop it. It is possible to stop it. I believe there are countries or societies on the planet that have a low incidence of this kind of behaviour and i believe they could serve as a good example of how to get this child abuse to stop.

As far as most of the abuse being done by people the victim knows, this is part of how the abuser does it - the familiarity, the alleged trustworthiness. I think this is how these big guys in entertainment pull of their abuse. We had some coach guy at a university raping little boys. It was a recent scandal here in the states. I forget his name. There were others involved too because they saw it or knew about it and didn't make sure it was stopped.

It needs to be stopped. Yesterday.

We cannot talk about it enough.

clare

<"witch hunt" Well, yes, I did say earlier here that we do have to be careful BUT that doesn't mean we just stop looking for possible abuse because there are victims, not alleged victims but Victims>

When we go 'looking' for things we tend to lose ethical/moral/due-process foresight...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Can I suggest you some erading of the MacCarthy Communist Witchhunts that destroyed many people's careers (espaically in the enteratainment business driving many abroad and many never to work again do to no evidence other than pointing of fingers.

We have due process here which gets trodden on.

Here is the case of Chris Jefferies:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/22eac290-eee2-11e0-959a-00144feab49a.html#axzz2COFTAQKI

Generally speaking, councelling is available in the UK without HAVING to pay for it. Of course it CAN be bought and there may be the perception that a thing 'bought' is of a higher quality than a thing 'paid for'. And of course that an expensive thing is better than a cheap thing. But than that's a whole other discussion.

I'm pretty certain that years ago, I read about an experiment where some (American?) (Marines?) were either sold or given grasshoppers to eat. The ones that bought them enjoyed them more than the ones who got them for free.

I'm still cross that a very wealth man in the UK has accepted £185,000 in damages (effectively) out of the public purse following a shoddy bit of jouralism. He was named as an alleged abuser. Within a week there was a high level resignation and a public apology. I think I may have mentioned this already. I also suspect that had it been me named, that I wouldn't have had a £185,000 payout. But then I can't afford expensive lawyers (which are obviously better than cheap ones). (PP shoot self in foot over free / cheap / expensive argument. )

PP.

When was the most recent incident involving JS? Do we know yet?

Because the 70s, 80s, even the 90s, were a very different landscape for child safeguarding in the UK. There is now a much greater awareness, both among professionals and among the general public, of how abuse is perpetrated, of the steps that can be taken to minimise the opportunity to abuse, and of the responsibility to report concerns.

An enormous amount of work has already been done here and I'm not sure what benefit there is *in general* in beating ourselves up about abuse which occurred when there was no real safeguarding framework at all.

I'm not denying there is likely to be a benefit to victims.

I'm not saying we should be complacent.

And of course people who are still alive and who committed crimes should be brought to justice.

Those are all good reasons for an enquiry. But I'd quite like to swap the hysteria for some acknowledgement of the historical context. It's quite possible that what happened *then*, apparently quite easily, wouldn't happen *now*, because of the safeguards introduced in the intervening years. If there are allegations relating to, say, the last five years, then that suggests there is still a lot more work to do. But if not, then that suggests some of the steps we as a society have already taken may actually be working.

Mol

>> It's quite possible that what happened *then*,
apparently quite easily, wouldn't happen *now*..<<

They say the more things change the more they stay
the same. I mean can you imagine Santa Claus not
being allowed to smoke his pipe, eat high calorie
cookies and tooth rotting candies or have children
sit on his lap?


~jwf~

I know someone who this year, got asked to volenteer to 'be Santa', for a charity/Kids event... He declined, as as I'm prone to agree, 'the risk is too high', whilst we've entered this alternative sense of justice when an accusation with no evidence is sufficient to accuse, convict and jail someone, at the first point of their being the merest inkling of a suggestion at some inappropiate behavior... There is a sense in which it is too easy to move from the burden of guilt, and innocent until proven, towards a more 'victum' centrik view, and bipass the middle ground entirely, and move the unfairness, or perceived unfairness/predjuice from one end of the spectrum to the other
I just wonder if, in twenty or so years after any convictions of the living, occuring as a result of the current witch hunt, we'll all be up in arms, and critical of the LEGAL SYSTEM, WHEN INNOCENT PEOPLE WRONGLY JAILED COMES TO LIGHT... iF, OF COURSE IT DOES,

~jwf~ you forgot to mention the drink driving of sleigh

2legs, there are off course miscarriages of justices but entering in to alternative universe, that post sounds really ranty to me and is the last thing that is needed

discussion generally is getting far to polarised, too hyped, too emotional, would help if everyone took long breaths before pronouncing judgements of any kind

>> I mean can you imagine Santa Claus not
being allowed to smoke his pipe, .... or have
children sit on his lap? <<

Reckon there could be some good news in it for women wanting seasonal job opportunities.
I think there is less of an issue of having children sitting on Mrs Claus' lap than her inebriated
more rotund other half.

I suppose nowadays they have the child sit several metres from santa with the chosen present
being thrown over to the parent.

"discussion generally is getting far to polarised, too hyped, too emotional, would help if everyone took long breaths before pronouncing judgements of any
kind", Exactly... My point, I was just saying, that at the moment, whilst we've got a trial by the media in place, is the last time possible any sensible judgements can be made regarding most of the cases and increasing number of acusations that the witch hunt via the media has produced...

I agree with you about media hype but there are also investigations going on that aren't anything to do with the media and these are getting labelled in the same breath as a media 'witch hunt'

not lumping that on you 2legs

You did say 'we've entered this alternative sense of justice when an accusation with no evidence is sufficient to accuse, convict and jail someone, at the first point of their being the merest inkling of a suggestion at some inappropiate behavior...

Who has been on trial, let alone jailed on the merest inkling of inappropriate behaviour?

If we want to talk about context,the legal framework for reporting, to getting to trial and then convicting sex offences is, well, shit

hmm, sorry that last sentence wasn't best expressed I just ran out steam and I is not good at writing