IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home Forums |
the Carl Beech Disconnect
TOPIC: the Carl Beech Disconnect
|
|
the Carl Beech Disconnect 4 Years, 9 Months ago
|
|
Many good articles being published now about the appalling Carl Beech but...the media has written itself out of the promotion of his fantasies but so have so many others as well
Beech wasn't that unusual..100s of others were making similar ludicrous claims (the Hampstead "satanic" abuse that mirrored others from previous decades) and yet..
yet as this article demonstrates: most still accept that all the claims made about Jimmy Savile are true even though there was investigation, no corroborating evidence (and indeed as Anna Raccoon evidenced much that proves many of the alleged crimes by the main players were fraudulent)..
but Beech was convicted fro fraudulently obtaining compensation for being abused by..
Jimmy Savile !
bylinetimes.com/2019/08/01/the-justice-t...llegations-of-abuse/
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:the Carl Beech Disconnect 4 Years, 9 Months ago
|
|
Jo,
Last night I stumbled on some Michael Jackson fans outraged that his situation had been compared to Savile. I decided to leave comments for a handful of people pointing out how the two cases did indeed have numerous similarities. Needless to say, I didn't get far. But all we can do is approach these things in good faith. You never know, one or two might at least be left with the idea that claims about JS weren't quite as they seemed.
I don't think it's worth directing such people to Moor or Rabbit's blogs, as there's just too much for anyone to get into initially. I might suggest Mr Voxpopper's Jimmy Savile - a study in mendacity as a starting point, but would be happy to hear if anyone knows of something even better.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:the Carl Beech Disconnect 4 Years, 9 Months ago
|
|
Misa wrote:
Jo,
Last night I stumbled on some Michael Jackson fans outraged that his situation had been compared to Savile. I decided to leave comments for a handful of people pointing out how the two cases did indeed have numerous similarities. Needless to say, I didn't get far. But all we can do is approach these things in good faith. You never know, one or two might at least be left with the idea that claims about JS weren't quite as they seemed.
Well done on tackling the Jackson fans, Misa. They seem to be a feisty lot! I agree, I suppose there's no harm in trying to argue that the JS claims were unreliable, but it can be a soul-destroying exercise.
I don't think it's worth directing such people to Moor or Rabbit's blogs, as there's just too much for anyone to get into initially. I might suggest Mr Voxpopper's Jimmy Savile - a study in mendacity as a starting point, but would be happy to hear if anyone knows of something even better.
Mr Vox Popper seems to have done a very good job of summarising the situation. However, he concludes that "Savile ... undoubtedly had a sexual relations with teenage girls [over the age of consent]". Is that really true or is this an assumption based on claims by former Duncroft pupils, who seem to be distinctly unreliable? I also wonder if some people might be put off by Mr Vox Popper's title to his blog and description of himself as "Mr Right Wing". Moor Larkin or Rabbitaway would surely be best placed to produce a summary of their findings. I'd like to see something quite short with bullet points, but perhaps that's not feasible. As much as I admire them for their tenacity and excellent detailed research, I must admit that I sometimes feel a bit lost dipping into their blogposts. I recently had a discussion with Moor under one of his blogposts and he referred to the "beef biryani" incident, explaining what was meant. I had seen that referred to before in the blogs and comments, but had no idea what people were talking about. Having Googled <<"beef biryani" site:annaraccoon.com>>, I have discovered that Moor says that it was the original Duncroft allegation and believes it be an invented story. Well, if case zero was an invention, that surely puts every subsequent allegation on a rather wobbly footing.
Sheba Bear wrote:
Jo, you missed out that JS was the subject of a telly programme, so that makes it all true!
I also took that view, assuming that an ITV documentary must be reliable, though I did wonder where MWT had sprung from. It wasn't until I came across Anna Raccoon that I started questioning things.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:the Carl Beech Disconnect 4 Years, 9 Months ago
|
|
Misa wrote:
Jo,
My own view is that JS really wasn't very much interested in sex. Many saw him as asexual, and he at some point is on record as saying something along the lines of 'most people are probably not very interested in sex'. If his hand kissing and comments about 'dolly birds' are anything to go by, he really wasn't going about it the right way!
I think moor and rabbit are so close to things that it's immensely difficult for them to summarise – they just know so much, and things get complicated very quickly. And the fact that so many identities are obscured makes it incredibly difficult to lead someone through it all.
Re case zero: if the first person who claimed to have been abused was lying, how should we view all those who say 'me too'?
It looks as though there is a very good summary of the Beech case, and some wider issues, in the current Private Eye. The wonderful Rosie Waterhouse to credit, I believe. I'll see whether I can pick up a copy to post here unless someone else is able to do so.
Funnily enough I always thought Ted Heath, who has also featured in false allegations of late, came across as asexual.
Re Savile, I went from full believer (with the exception of the really wacky 'Jimmy donned satanic robes and chanted in a circle' stuff) to full sceptic in the space of five years.
In a way, I was 'primed to believe' as I remember reading Stuart Syvret's blog way back in 2008 and there were a few commenters dropping hints about Savile. All very vague stuff, gossip and rumours, nothing definitive. I think the case against Michael Jackson is a bit more compelling. Jimmy Savile certainly never took a 12 year old boy on tour with him for months on end.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:the Carl Beech Disconnect 4 Years, 9 Months ago
|
|
Misa wrote:
Jo,
My own view is that JS really wasn't very much interested in sex. Many saw him as asexual, and he at some point is on record as saying something along the lines of 'most people are probably not very interested in sex'. If his hand kissing and comments about 'dolly birds' are anything to go by, he really wasn't going about it the right way!
That certainly sounds plausible.
I think moor and rabbit are so close to things that it's immensely difficult for them to summarise – they just know so much, and things get complicated very quickly. And the fact that so many identities are obscured makes it incredibly difficult to lead someone through it all.
It's clearly very complex. I just wish there were a digestible summary, e.g. exposing the roots of the Savile claims rather than delving into branches or twigs, as important as they undoubtedly are.
Re case zero: if the first person who claimed to have been abused was lying, how should we view all those who say 'me too'?
My thoughts exactly. But it seems I was wrong to assume that Karin Ward was "victim zero", as she describes herself in a book, and copied by others. Moor has contradicted this (see his comment of 7 August 2019 at 17:43).
It looks as though there is a very good summary of the Beech case, and some wider issues, in the current Private Eye. The wonderful Rosie Waterhouse to credit, I believe. I'll see whether I can pick up a copy to post here unless someone else is able to do so.
Thanks for pointing this up. JK has posted it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:the Carl Beech Disconnect 4 Years, 9 Months ago
|
|
tdf wrote:
Misa wrote:
Jo,
My own view is that JS really wasn't very much interested in sex. Many saw him as asexual, and he at some point is on record as saying something along the lines of 'most people are probably not very interested in sex'. If his hand kissing and comments about 'dolly birds' are anything to go by, he really wasn't going about it the right way!
I think moor and rabbit are so close to things that it's immensely difficult for them to summarise – they just know so much, and things get complicated very quickly. And the fact that so many identities are obscured makes it incredibly difficult to lead someone through it all.
Re case zero: if the first person who claimed to have been abused was lying, how should we view all those who say 'me too'?
It looks as though there is a very good summary of the Beech case, and some wider issues, in the current Private Eye. The wonderful Rosie Waterhouse to credit, I believe. I'll see whether I can pick up a copy to post here unless someone else is able to do so.
Funnily enough I always thought Ted Heath, who has also featured in false allegations of late, came across as asexual.
Re Savile, I went from full believer (with the exception of the really wacky 'Jimmy donned satanic robes and chanted in a circle' stuff) to full sceptic in the space of five years.
In a way, I was 'primed to believe' as I remember reading Stuart Syvret's blog way back in 2008 and there were a few commenters dropping hints about Savile. All very vague stuff, gossip and rumours, nothing definitive. I think the case against Michael Jackson is a bit more compelling. Jimmy Savile certainly never took a 12 year old boy on tour with him for months on end.
How on earth can you think the case against the one who was proven innocent in court is the more compelling?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:the Carl Beech Disconnect 4 Years, 9 Months ago
|
|
Jo,
Thanks for pointing out the Private Eye article, and thanks to JK for posting.
That exchange with moor (your link) and tdf's comment about rumours highlight the difficulty. The 2007-09 police investigation clearly stirred the pot. All kinds of stuff was circulating, and seems to have been recycled or used as inspiration for more. At least one journalist was involved quite early trying to get one or more of the girls to go to the police. And, of course, gossip about JS had circulated forever. Early rumours seem to be that he's gay – he was on the cover of the first edition of Gay News. An episode ofTill Death Do Us Part (1975, S07E03) featured a comment along these lines. A Jerry Sadowitz show in about '88 featured a rant about the Cleveland child abuse panic and the suggestion that they should call in an expert – Jimmy Savile. I suspect this influenced many. From the 90s onward there seem to be lots of references (or now perceived references) to JS and and unhealthy interes in children. Then in 2008 he was accused of involvement with the 'House of Horrors', Haut de la Garenne, in Jersey. The Sun/NOTW tried to tie him to the supposed abuse and murder of children there. His solicitors sent a letter, and the paper backed down sharpish.
Who was victim zero? Part of the problem is it seems highly likely there was no victim zero. Where did the rumours start? Where do rumours ever start? How did we get into this mess? That's easy: the grown ups grew old and died; the supposedly restrained, responsible, thoughtful professionals, now, are kids who never realised they were supposed to think and behave like adults.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:the Carl Beech Disconnect 4 Years, 9 Months ago
|
|
Good thinking, JK. I searched Anna's blog with Google for "1964" and this was the top result:
Savile – Battersea – Some Facts
" In fact, the only connection between the two entries is not ‘a brothel’, nor Jimmy Savile, nor paedophilia, nor a 60s pop group, only the fact that of three women, one of whom is me, we had all, at some point in our life, been Duncroft girls.
I think I now hold the world record for managing to be in the most places where Savile is alleged to have abused and never even managed to meet him, never mind been abused by him.
I will report back again when the Met police get around to answering my subject access request.
Someone will explain to me one day, why, if Savile did commit so many offences, it is necessary to bolster his story with so many lies.
In the meantime – the ‘1964 document’ was not ‘secret’. DS Grey, who wrote the entry provided it to Operation Yewtree two years ago.
It contains no evidence that a pop group visited a ‘paedophile brothel’.
It contains no evidence that the house which Savile visited was a brothel, paedophile or otherwise."
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Re:the Carl Beech Disconnect 4 Years, 9 Months ago
|
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
tdf wrote:
Misa wrote:
Jo,
My own view is that JS really wasn't very much interested in sex. Many saw him as asexual, and he at some point is on record as saying something along the lines of 'most people are probably not very interested in sex'. If his hand kissing and comments about 'dolly birds' are anything to go by, he really wasn't going about it the right way!
I think moor and rabbit are so close to things that it's immensely difficult for them to summarise – they just know so much, and things get complicated very quickly. And the fact that so many identities are obscured makes it incredibly difficult to lead someone through it all.
Re case zero: if the first person who claimed to have been abused was lying, how should we view all those who say 'me too'?
It looks as though there is a very good summary of the Beech case, and some wider issues, in the current Private Eye. The wonderful Rosie Waterhouse to credit, I believe. I'll see whether I can pick up a copy to post here unless someone else is able to do so.
Funnily enough I always thought Ted Heath, who has also featured in false allegations of late, came across as asexual.
Re Savile, I went from full believer (with the exception of the really wacky 'Jimmy donned satanic robes and chanted in a circle' stuff) to full sceptic in the space of five years.
In a way, I was 'primed to believe' as I remember reading Stuart Syvret's blog way back in 2008 and there were a few commenters dropping hints about Savile. All very vague stuff, gossip and rumours, nothing definitive. I think the case against Michael Jackson is a bit more compelling. Jimmy Savile certainly never took a 12 year old boy on tour with him for months on end.
How on earth can you think the case against the one who was proven innocent in court is the more compelling?
He wasn't 'proven innocent', he was acquitted because the evidence in that specific case did not reach the legal threshold for guilty, which quite rightly is a high threshold. He paid off many others which never went to court.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|