Given that our football ain't saying all that atm, I personally welcome any reasonable discursive threads. Just such a shame we can't ever achieve their potential without blazing rows kicking-off! Kids stuff innit?
Thanks Beth. My apologies to Brix and all the other posters for my actions too. It is a subject that's close to my heart since my brother (about the nicest and most knowledgeable man I know) is openly gay. No reason for me to resort to name calling though. Lastly, sorry to Shefford. As I said, I normally like and agree with a lot of your posts and, although I realise that we'll never agree on this one, I shouldn't resort to petty name calling.
Apology accepted and reciprocated. If everybody agreed on everything, the world would be a boring place. Anyway, U Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs!
Cheers Brixton..as always calm and sensible moderating. I appreciate homosexuality is a really touchy subject. and although I did try and get off the subject of homosexuality a couple of times (after all it did start about Megan and her teacher) I do react to people using pseudoscience to promote their cause. I use pseudoscience (in a different place I would call it something else) for a living, so I have react to people who try to bull**** a bull****er Anyway tomorrow is the start of our season so must prepare for that Cheers Brixton
Shame we still have to label people according to their sexual preferences / orientation in anything other than non-consensual relationships including those with children. Imagine having to be introduced to all and sundry in such intensely personal terms.
Nice one Shefford. Now with Sku's permission as OP, I'd like to address Beth's effort to divert the morality debate onto the as yet unproven issues relating to James Saville, OBE. Several allegations of under-age sex and one of rape from what I read about our Uncle Jim... not to mention back-burner concerns about a touch of the Oedipus Complex going on. If true, makes a mockery of his image as a moral icon and claims of asexuality. Seems Jim might well have fixed it in more ways than we realised at the time. Those speaking out now have a lot to answer for themselves.
Big point is...as yet unproven...and I would imagine will always be unproven....but the whole thing stinks. I would put ALL the attacks in the state of "rape of an underage child"...(it is not like the Mandy case at all, where I really believe she was fully consenting)/ Every child was attacked..... It is difficult to blame the children...one at least spoke out and was put in solitary for speaking out against a great man/funder raiser like Uncle Jim. These scenarios are never simple I am more interested in what the BBC knew, and covered up to protect a BBC star and Saturday Night Prime Time audience icon And what more is there People like that don't just touch up 10 children in a short term action....it goes on for years and usually escalates
I'm surprised these accusations are only coming out now, rather than then. It is a shame that those that allege abuse can only speak out now, rather than then. I would assume it is much easier to deal with an allegation of this nature as it happens. In summary: now, then, now, then, as it happens.
So our morality debate now enters the cover-up / whitewash stage... We're talking the protection of ratings figures over sexual impropriety (to put it mildly). Now THAT is a morality issue involving major institutions and individual ITKs. Trouble is it seems morality ain't the be all and end all when it comes to commerce. Thought the Beeb, being free from advertising constraints, was always THE moral standard-bearer... Just goes to show dunnit. Is nothing sacred?
Brix - good call on the Sir Jimmy debate. When Louis Theroux did a piece on the cigar smoking bling DJ, he came across as very eccentric. A smokescreen perhaps? From memory there were two parts where LT pressed; one on his treatment of misbehaving at his discos (a concept SJS invented) - and another on the women in his life. SJS seemed to suggest that a slap in the cellar was de rigour to cool off any troublemakers. As for the ladies and why he was single he suggested that relationships caused him brain damage!
I'm a generation living post-Saville... just know him as the bloke that wore bad jewellery that Hugh Dennis imitates on Mock The Week. And now he's much worse than that it seems.
There's another slant on this - aside from closure for victims (partially and not proven) the BBC's longest standing rivals. Can impartiality be shown or will it be turned into an over-sensationalised circus?
Yes that was partially my point too Matt. What part did the BBC play in this...and we may not know correctly from an ITV documentary. There was a short and simple piece in the Times today, that said just the bare bones without too much sensationalism. It sort of implied that maybe people knew a bit about this and maybe Saville was considered a "golden goose" on the rating front and maybe not too much internal "witch-hunting" was called for...or maybe that is my jaundiced view of what was going on. It saddens me that life isn't just nice and that certain people with some sort of "power" do not prey on other littler people.
