I'd paste it here but it's quite lengthy:

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=...mp;ct=clnk&gl=uk

Some parts of this are interesting, but it gets more contentious as it progresses and ends up with some really irritating generalisations.

For example:

the BBC employed him for nearly all of that time and the nation loved him. If the Savile story - and the stories that constitute a hinterland at the BBC - turn out to involve a great conspiracy, it will be a conspiracy that the whole country had a part in

Now, it's a jump he doesn't acknowledge to claim that because Savile was considered 'popular' therefore 'the nation loved him' and are thus in some way to blame for him. That's even more of a specious argument than the one about the public being responsible for the banking crisis.

I don't know of anyone who 'loved' Savile, or even liked him. Maybe I've moved in rarefied circles. His popularity mainly, it seems to me, stemmed from his charity efforts. True, he was associated with two very popular shows, but most people I know watched TOTP in spite of him, not because of him (in fact,it was always an irritation for me when he was host, but the show was all about the music - that's why people watched, regardless of what naff DJ was doing the links), and Jim'll Fix It was a clever format that, again, many watched for the features on the kids rather than for Savile himself, who always seemed such an incredibly cold person I never enjoyed his presence on screen.

Another problem with O'Hagan's piece is his apparent inclination to equate homosexuality with paedophilia. So what if he knows there were men at the BBC (unlike anywhere else?) who went with young men (he seems to use 'boys' as a convenient catch-all phrase to suit his bias). That's another issue to the one he thinks he's addressing and exposing.

And what of 'light entertainment'? He claims "there's something creepy about British light entertainment and there always has been". Really? And 'heavy' entertainment, drama, isn't 'creepy' in the same way? Has he ever talked to actors?

All in all, a disappointing piece that is as misleading in its way as many of the tabloid rants.

Yeah BLT (not DLT/Hairy Cornflake, Jim's D.J. pal).

NO single institution but PARLIAMENT can ever claim to represent "The British Public".

Cept that is the Mob-Rule LYING LOUD-Minority Brit best-selling daily Dumbed Down drivel SUNazi selling to less than 4-million mugs, and read/viewed by about 8-Million morons, from a UK population of 66-Million with 45-Million electorate.

Daily Brit Mob-Rule Media TOTAL sales of ALL SIX UK-Totalitarian-Tabloids promoting 'climates of fear' for fat-fees/mucho-compo/greed/ratings/profit, SUN/Mail/Mirror/Express/Star/Sport? - is a sad 8-Million. With combined LOUD Mob Rule TOTAL Tabloid reader/viewership of BIG-Print/BIG-Pics/BIG-Tits an even sadder, circa 16-Million on a good day.

Good Day.

To misquote (not Winny Pooh Bear) but Grave-Spinning Winnie War-Winner For Democracy, "Some Democracy, MUCH Hypocrisy !"

LoL.

Headache headache headache HAC - no more, please.

So sorry JK, U used to be SUCH FUN !

Just the Bottom/BUM lines then.

NO single institution but PARLIAMENT can ever claim to represent "The British Public".

To misquote (not Winny Pooh Bear) but War-Winning now Grave-Spinning, Winnie For Democracy, "Some Democracy, MUCH Hypocrisy !"


Er, LoL ?

HAC wrote:
So sorry JK, U used to be SUCH FUN !

Just the Bottom/BUM lines then.

NO single institution but PARLIAMENT can ever claim to represent "The British Public".

To misquote (not Winny Pooh Bear) but War-Winning now Grave-Spinning, Winnie For Democracy, "Some Democracy, MUCH Hypocrisy !"


Er, LoL ?

For gawd's sake stop it!

I found that an odd and rambling piece.

Is this really the same Andrew O'Hagan who wrote the novel 'Be Near Me' - a very intelligent and VERY sympathetic account of a priest's sexual love for a 14 year old boy??

Sounds like he's taken a lot of stick and even suspicion over that book and an article like this is a chance to stress that he's as paedohysteric as the next man, but still morally superior to the mob.

Regarding the supposed conflation with homosexuality and paedophilia - until one generation ago, and even for most of the 60's, homosexuality was illegal. Therefore, there was no age of consent for homosexuals. Therefore homosexuals throughout history who couldn't or chose not to remain celibate sought out the most attractive objects of desire - teenage boys, just as heterosexual men would seek out 14 and 15 year old girls if there was no particular legal and social barriers against it and no female and social driven institution of marriage to promote monogamy.

Homosexuality as something between two men of equal age and status is largely a very recent invention brought about by the decriminalization of homosexuality itself (and even more harsher penalties than ever for 'paedophilia' both hetero and homo), and more recently, by the promotion of gay marriage.

This is why it's utterly absurd to cannonise Alan Turing on the one hand, and condemn somebody like Jonathan King on the other (whether or not he did have sex with an 'underage' person).

Alan Turing almost certainly had sex with boys younger than the 19 year old he was finally 'caught' with. Do people really think he was just about the only homosexual from history (before it was legalised) to make sure he only had sex with boys older than the heterosexual age of consent? Why? They wouldn't have treated him any worse, or scarcely any worse, than they did if they had caught him with a 15 year old instead of a 19 year old. Why would he make a moral decision to abide by a heterosexual age of consent when it didn't apply to him (as homosexuality was entirely illegal) and that age of consent was anyway the result of the same Victorian puritan bill that criminalized homosexuality itself (the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885)? Back then it was also understood that the reason for a (heterosexual) age of consent was to avoid young girls being impregnated and left holding the baby. This obviously didn't apply to boys.* Feminists had yet to invent the modern abuse myth that pinching a girl's bum will cause her marriage to collapse 29 years later.

*Under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 the age of consent only applied to men having sex with girls - it did not apply to women having sex with boys (or indeed women having sex with girls). I assume this was changed in the 1956 revision of the act.

No. Didn't get that one. Rather twisty. He says JS wasn't intelligent? I Thought he was a member of MENSA. So, he had a high IQ. If that doesn't make him intelligent, I don't know what does!

Quite a bad piece that.

It was around now in 1959, when he first appeared on TV on the panel of "Juke Box Jury". The only person (on the panel)to vote Paul Anka's "Put Your Head On My Shoulder" a hit. He certainly recognised a hit, when he saw it. Then, on another JBJ, The Browns were hiding in the wings, when "The Three Bells" was released. It turned out the group, were actually staying at JS's gaff!

Though I'd say his memeory wasn't that good. As some of the things he said, on later occasions didn't match, what he'd said previously. He always said that "Cathy's Clown" was the first record he played on Radio Luxembourg. But I don't believe that is correct, as I think he started on RL in 1958...It was on the Warner Brothers Record Show, hence the constant plug of the Everlys. To, which he was always relating stories. During 1961, he'd got the new release "Ebony Eyes". He didn't like this death piece & flipped it, over & said to the record company "If you push "Walk Right Back", it will go to number one...& of course it did!

I was at a Steam Fair in 1977 at Olympia. There was a sponsored run, around the balcony. JS was doing the run & the steam from the fair, turned his hair a ghastly blue colour. There was a recording of Van McCoy's "The Shuffle" be played almost constantly in the Fair & JS told the tale in 1981 on "The Old Record Club" on Radio One...Though he recalled the event correctly on that occasion, on telling the story again in 1985, he said it was "The Hustle" & not "The Shuffle".

Yes, he was full of interesting tales. But he certainly wasn't unintelligent, like that rather rubbish article says. That's got to be the worst one i've read...& I wasn't to keen on the wording used. Over use of the "P" word...when we know, it's not exactly the correct word for JS's "alleged abuses".

I think it's a superb piece that explains far more than any enquiry will. Joan Bakewell gets it right when saying it's impossible to transfer values form one era to another and demand an explanation.

He also touches on the media's promotion and participation in all this whilst trying to portray itself as a concerned observer.

3 words : Alfie aged 14

The latter parts reminded me of 'Sympathy for the Devil's' fatuous line about who killed the Kennedys - 'It was you and me'. Sounds 'deep' but is just vacuous nonsense. I don't think O'Hagan knew how to conclude so he resorted to the 'we're all implicated' tosh. Like a dog chasing its own tail, he made himself dizzy.

Pre-emptive 'Sorry' to Gawd and, higher-authority JK

A MALE journo committed suicide from severe depression after rightly complaining about being SEXUALLY BULLIED by a Beeb FEMME-PERV journo.


www.coventrytelegraph.net/search.cfm?cof...805114&sa=Search