Jimmy Savile

Great caution needed in these allegations So very easy to start a rumour, but, mud sticks: No matter who the recipient may be!

Yes I agree, allegations are not convictions. On the other hand, it has been an open 'secret' amongst police and media organisations, and when investigation reports are shredded to prevent victims suing, and many people come forward with the same names complaining that they weren't listened to before, we have to ensure the pressure is kept up to avoid further cover-ups. Offenders involved in paedophile rings have been naming these names for years, and the reason they are on the internet is because they have been 'outed' out of frustration. Anyone who believes this new propaganda about these 'elite' abusers only being gay, should be equally cautious. It's an attempt to undermine the strength of the public's feelings about what is, as yet, the tip of the iceberg.

I don't think there's anything laughable about any of this JO. I do agree that some of the names mentioned brought me up short. Such prominent people in such high positions and positions of power. But then so was Jimmy Saville. What was previously unthinkable is now all too believable.

Of course these allegations now have to be investigated and this time investigated fully and, as when said the public have to ensure that there are no further cover ups.

The mud has already been thrown gramps, the names are all out there, but if these people are innocent then they need to be given a chance to clear their names.

What the public won't tolerate is the old boy network simply closing ranks again and protecting their own.

Does anyone else think that Philip Schofield should not have presented the names on a piece of paper to David Cameron like that? I didn't see the programme, only a clip on the news but to me it seemed not the right way to discuss a dreadfully serious topic.
BTW I don't know the 'names' either!!

I know 'two wrongs don't make a right' but Dave's response was equally inappropriate, see previous postings.
I can see that there must be a huge amount of frustration about the seeming inactivity, investigations are promised but we all know how long these can take. Added to that previous investigations haven't exactly exposed the extent of the abuse.
P.S. Apart from one name, I haven't a clue either Jean!

It now appears that one noble Lord, head of a large construction company, may have been wrongly named, as the accuser gave only a family name and said the abuser was dead. Or could it be that the deceased relative is being used to protect the real culprit. The plot could hardly get thicker, with accusations that people were murdered by the security services to stop them speaking out, and even that Jill Dando could have been a victim.
Just because many conspiracy theories are rubbish, it does not mean that they all are.
Even if the abusers prove to have been lower down the chain in the police force, children's homes, hospitals, magistrates, etc. I hope that they are pursued with the full force of the law. I don't suppose the victims were any less traumatised.

Can we be sure that the Guardian has not carefully thought out a way to name the individual, whilst staying inside the law themselves?

I can assure you Nanadog that I find nothing laughable about child sexual abuse.

having grown up in S Wales where there were corrupt men's networks pervading the police, the freemasons, local councillors etc nothing would surprise me. However trial by twitter is not on.
There are 8 enquiries taking place and "the story" needs a rest now, while they do their work, rather than all and sundry trying to anticipate their findings.

I don't mean GNners should stop discussing - just that the press need to back off and so do people on twitter and FB

I wonder if online publishing companies can be sued in the same way that the printed press can be.

Philip Schofied was wrong to do that, but I empathise with his frustration about the whole sorry business. He has spent a lot of time interviewing victims of sexual abuse and will understand the impact on them, I'm sure. But he is not an investigative journalist. David Cameron was wrong to imply that paedophiles will be confused with gay people. Perhaps that's how he thinks, but most people aren't that daft.

The names are easily found. Just type something relevant in Google and pages of stuff will appear. These names have not suddenly appeared out of the blue. There are constructive and informed Internet sites that evidence each of their allegations and cross-reference them. This information has been presented to the authorities several times, and covered up when it has gone higher up the chain.

I do like a good conspiracy theory, and a conspiracy-busting alternative explanation. There are no alternative explanations being offered here.

Jingle yes, why don't these names take it to court and thrash it out? Or perhaps they don't want people to look closely at these issues? I remember a red-top paper taking the plunge and putting 'Murderer' headlines on their front page to provoke the killers of Stephen Lawrence into court action. If only .....

I never thought I would be defending David Cameron, but I think he was simply commenting because the names he was given happened to be those of gay men. I don't think for one minute he intended to imply that all gay men were potential paedophiles - he is backing gay marriage, after all. I am quite sure that some of his best friends are gay!

Discussed this with my gay son last night. He finds it hilarious that Cameron came out with his daft comment. He said 'there are responsible gay men who don't put a foot wrong, promiscuous gay men who take sensible precautions when having consensual sex with adults, reckless gay men who take risks when having consensual sex with adults, bi-sexual men who manage to retain some integrity and conduct relationships monogamously, bi-sexual men who blow relationships out of the water because they can't be faithful to their partner, and completely apart from all that, there are paedophiles who harm children, who might also be gay, straight or bi-sexual. Just because they might also be gay should not be a reason for them to avoid prosecution by hiding behind complaints that there is a witch hunt against politicians who happen to be gay. Those responsible gay politicians who do not step out of line will be highly offended by these paedophiles climbing refuge under the gay banner.'

Sorry JO I've misunderstood you. It was your use of the word ludicrous which to me means ridiculous - laughable - absurd - funny - comical.

iPad paying tricks again. Should say 'claiming refuge under gay banner'

Yes. Perhaps it was a bad word to use. Perhaps I don't actually know the meaning

DC was right (can I really be saying this?) not to be drawn into the stunt, but I did not think the use of the word gay was particularly helpful, as it ijmplied a confusion in his mind betweem gay and paedophile. I don't think it is what he actually thinks, but it was open to misinterpretation.

Remember there are people in the audience who hounded out a paediatrician from home becuase they did not understand the langauge.

I think he was only saying that we shouldn't tar all gay people with the paedophile brush.

Perhaps most of the people on that list were gay. Who knows?

I think he had a good point. One that was well worth making.

Following the debacle about Philip Schofields "list" on the news last night, and out of sheer curiosity, I have to admit that I spent yesterday evening trawling the internet trying to find these so called names. I was staggered by what my search threw up and revelations that I came across, they almost seem too far fetched to be true, and whilst I can see that these accusations, maybe unsubstantiated, although some I came across seem to be able to corroborate their findings, they could easily be deemed as "trial by Twitter/internet" It nevertheless horrified me to think that if even a fraction of what I read is true. It makes the expenses scandal almost insignificant because that was only about money and this is a far more important issue, the abuse of vulnerable youngsters. I don't know what to believe anymore, I think the whole Jimmy Saville thing opened such a can of worms. Before the full extent of his history was revealed I, like many other viewed him as a slightly eccentric oddity, how he had everyone fooled. The fact that a lid seemed to be so tightly on his appalling practices and his name seems to be linked to so many care home/special school scandals it was as if he was acting as some glorified pimp for these shady, creepy high ranking figures to access children, it sounds almost Dickensian and horribly depraved. The sheer fact that obviously so many people knew about his shady goings on makes me wonder who we can trust and believe. It seems that some of these abuses have been going back many years and I imagine the perpetrators 30 to 40 years ago did not foresee there would be such mediums as the internet and Twitter which is very unforgiving in that there's no hiding place. I don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing and whether any sort of libel laws apply in the way they would if someone was wrongly accused in say a newspaper. If we go back to our own childhoods, particularly those of us who were brought up say Catholic we would never have believed the wholesale scale of abuse in that organisation and it's with all that in mind that makes me now question every hierarchy and institution there is given how such a mighty presence as the Catholic church manged to sweep so much under the carpet. I gather one of the main suspects has made a statement in which he seems to exonerate himself from the allegations, but I don't believe the man who spent some of his childhood in the North Wales home is making it all up, and when they did an investigation back in the 90s it seems it was all a whitewash. The Freemasons seem to be implicated in a lot of what I have read and they have always appeared to be a strange and questionable lot to me. I think the whole matter will run and run until the people who feel they have been so badly let down get some sort of justice.

I know I'll most likely get flamed for this, but I wonder if it the most sensible thing to try to investigate these very old men now. Surely they will know they can't continue, if they are still active.

Isn't best to just let them die quietly now? What can be gained? I do not believe it can bring any peace to the young victims now. They will have lived their lives burying these memories. I'm not sure it would even be good for them to stir it all up.

No, jO5! Why should they die quietly? Why should they not be named and shamed? Why have some of those young people more than likely ended their own lives because of the abuse they suffered? That is what can be gained - the knowledge of what these vile people have done and how many young lives have been ruined.

I didn't mean to make anyone angry.

I just don't see how it can help anyone now.

Suppose unless one has been a victim of sexual abuse it is hard to put ourselves in their place .

Maybe though , they want someone to pay for what they put through .

Just a thought .

I understand that what the children went through would have been horrific. Especially as they were children needing even more love and care than most. I do understand that.