The Thai people have a tolerant approach to relationships between couples of very different ages, but exploitation of children does not sit well; they have very strong family standards. Yes, of course some spectacular vice exists in Bangkok, just as it does in most major cities of the world, but if child exploitation is uncovered it is punished, and punished severely. Mr. Gadd paid for his sins in a Cambodian prison, and I bet that wasn't much fun. Unfortunately, he was released and then, because other nations didn't want him, he had to return to the UK. And thus it began. Our obsession with paedophilia is more dangerous than Gary Glitter's return.
Glam rock had some incredibly talented artists, but Gary wasn't one of them. Just a pop poseur in a silver suit with a pedestrian voice and blah songs. But the girls liked him, apparently. No accounting for taste.
By late 2008, Gary's return to the UK seems to have sparked the now out-of-control paedo conflagration. The UK press actually commented on the syndrome at the time, expressing some concerns about a rising tide of reactionary behavior and citing incidents such as the arrest of a grandmother, who was guilty of nothing more that taking a photograph of a completely empty public swimming pool.
Jimmy Savile was still above ground at the time of these writings at the links. He had been interviewed in 2007 under caution, by the police, after allegations made by someone at Duncroft, and sent on his way. The Surrey police provided a letter to the complainant, simply stating that they had found no grounds to take matters further. The complainant then forged this letter, to state that they declined to proceed because Savile was "old and infirm." Legally, they can't do that. Age is no defense to a criminal charge if warranted. Fake letter that cast doubt on Savile victim's claims
Savile's name does not appear in any press coverage of paedophiles, suspected or otherwise, until after his death, when he could apparently be accused of just about anything.
The 'thousands' of accusers have dwindled down to less than 150, and none of their claims have seen the stern light of the law, just their say-so and a law firm that's doing what they have to do to make payroll. I'm not even sure that they believe these stories any longer.
Nowadays, as the Savile affair drags on - still not paying off for complainants or counsel - should you so much as disagree on-line with the likes of Liz Dux of Slater & Gordon, plaintiff counsel for the claimaints with unproven accusations, or with an unbalanced woman who is part and parcel of the Duncroft conspiracy, or with self-appointed 'child protection expert' Mark Williams-Thomas, [who seems to do nothing these days but stake out celebrity trials, tweeting endlessly and quite often inaccurately, about the various goings-on, as if his opinion is somehow sacrosanct], or their flotilla of self-interested and usually misinformed supporters, then prepare for attacks of such juvenile spite it would make your head spin.
There is a reference to a preoccupation with books such as the one Karin Ward wrote which included her mostly imaginary experiences at Duncroft and the BBC, as well as recollections of her abuse at the hands of family.
"Daddy's Little Girl," by Julia Latchem-Smith is particularly mentioned. It was published in 2007.
Same year that someone from Duncroft went to the police and alleged that she saw something, and then the search on social media began.
I am not in favor of the snobbish title of this thread, and the original poster is ticked off mildly, but it makes interesting reading. Why are working class people obsessed with paedophiles?
So, why is this still going on? Why was Ben Ibrahimi murdered for doing nothing more than taking photographs of some young yobbos trashing his hanging plants and being a person who wanted to keep himself to himself?
There is something sinister about the continued prurient interest. I can understand a certain class of lawyers wishing to jump on the gravy train. But why has the press joined the pursuit, when in 2008 they had a clearer and more objective view of the impending storm?
Now, they are as bad as the pitchforkers, and in fact do everything in their power to keep the hounds whipped up - using such words as "pervert," "shocking" and of course, that old chestnut, just bound to get the attention of the bottom-feeder, "Jimmy Savile." As a former press agent, I'm tempted to note that the advertisers have a role in this sort of frantic hyperbole. Circulation, or what we call hits/view these days, was/is all-important to the survival of the media outlet.
Why don't all these self-righteous "do-gooders" realize that the decimation of the Savile Trusts would leave deserving charities and the complainants with nothing if the lawyers had their way, and their considerable pound of flesh? I speculate that Justice Sales felt that way, when he ruled that the charities were to remain involved in the distribution of the Trust monies. I haven't read his opinion, if indeed he's published it yet, but that would be equitable to my way of thinking.
Just what is everyone getting out of this, besides a chance to indulge their ongoing obsession, i.e. fingerpointing, blaming, excoriating, accusing - who appointed them judge and jury? Do they seriously think that all that foaming at the mouth does anything to change the status quo? Money doesn't fix anything in the long run, and at this rate it looks like the payout will be in favor of the lawyers, unless they drastically cut their fees in favor of the claimants. Let's not hold our breath on that one.
Most importantly, what does all this do to protect children from paedophiles who are not celebrities or staff of care homes? Or what we call here in the States "deep pockets."
Far as I can tell, sweet bugger all. Just the continued rattle of empty vessels at work in their own interest.