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

That's an interesting one.

He's normally the first hanger-on on the scene when someone famous gets mud flung at them by the press. Who can *he* hire to save his skin?

"is one not supposed to get anonymity when charged and/or investigated (and not yet found guilty) of a sexual offense? "

Where on earth did you get that idea? That's never been true. When a man is arrested for any kind of sexual offence it's extremely important that his name and the offences he's not been proven to have had any part in are broadcast far and wide so that any other women (or men) who wish to make allegations about him have the opportunity to stick the knife in while he's ripe. Any effect these allegations may have on his relationships or subsequent life or career are, well, collateral damage and the fault of the patriarchy or something something something.

It's every single one of the alleged victims, including any who are later shown to have been lying or delusional, who are guaranteed anonymity for life.

What planet have YOU been living on where you think someone who's not guilty of a crime doesn't deserve to have their life ruined by an accusation?

"Who can *he* hire to save his skin?"

People don't hire him to save their skin. They hire him to manage their image and make as much money out of their notoriety as they can.

All I can say is - whoever has accused *him* had better have some very, very convincing evidence indeed, or they are frikkin toast and Clifford will make a(nother) mint destroying them.

Orcus



Ah, thanks for the update...my information was obviously a little out of date...they're moving quick at the moment.


Of course, the 'no smoke without fire' brigade will be out...to which I say 'You can easily get smoke without fire when you throw a smoke grenade into a room (or someone's life)'

Hmm OK, I genuinely thought that suspects of sexual offences should be kept anonymous under law until convicted but I see from this

http://www.insidetime.org/mailbag.asp?a=67&c=anonymity_for_defendants_in_sex_offence_cases

that this was repealed in 1988. I stand corrected, maybe I was thinking of youth offenders and victims.

The issues are more complex than I had thought reading that article.

Here's something I didn't know about that happened 17 years ago in the UK that may shed some light on why some people might be reluctant to bring charges to offenders

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

Indeed, Dr Freud was quite correct in his association
of sex and violence. The more one varies from the norm
the more likely the other will reach abnormal degrees.
That's why young men fight wars and old men start them.

~jwf~

I wish the media would stop referring to the investigation as a 'probe'. It seems ... inappropriate.

Mol

I wish the media would stop referring to male criminals as "gentlemen."

Agreed.

And if I hear the phrase 'lessons must be learned' one more time I'll kick the set in.

Well, I won't, cos it's our new TV. I'll just switch it off. I hate being off work when there's a huge news story on.

Mol

I think what is making me and my friends mad is that we know that people around him allowed this abuse to continue. And not just for a year or two, but for decades. Some because they are in denial, but most of the people who received reports were probably perpetrators too - or, if not, approving of such abuse.

Oh, sorry, I said "were probably perpetrators too" I meant to say "ARE probably perpetrators too"

Sorry, but it probably is true.

We need better systems of government of our society - systems that we can trust to carry through and keep abusive people away from the rest of us - systems that encourage and enable good health, education, methods to make a living and maintain excellent living standard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/11/jimmy-savile-abused-children-hospitals

"Jimmy Savile abused children across six decades at 14 hospitals including Great Ormond Street and a children's hospice, according to a police report. He also carried out 14 alleged assaults at schools.

Commander Peter Spindler of the Metropolitan police said Savile used his fame and celebrity status to "hide in plain sight", adding that he had "groomed the nation"."

If the allegations are true, you've got to hand it to the guy...he was 'good'!

I was rummaging around in my loft today, tidying away decorations and stuff, when I came across a 1979 copy of the TV Times annual.

Or as the police call it.....The sex offenders register.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21108337

Any reference to Saville now immediately followed by grovelling apologies.

Not grovelling enough - the article repeatedly refers to "people" abused by him, not "children."
Do they still not get it or are they in denial? Isn't this kind of glossing over the facts what allowed it to go on for so long, anyway?

Oh god

Do you not see anything wrong with that broadcast swl?

Personally I think it was a hilarious error . When something is obviously an oversight (any idea how hard it is to scan every piece of broadcast footage over the past 50 years for references to Savile?) what's the point in getting all huffy and puffy about it? People aught to stop trying so hard to get offended. It was a *mistake* and a pretty funny one at that. What you want- someone's resignation over an accidental broadcast?