It boggles
the mind what has happened since the revelatory news about Jimmy Savile. Presupposing that I am more sceptical
than most over these types of allegations, I expected the normal conversations
from friends and colleagues, accompanied by hand wringing of the first kind,
obligatory when discussing children and sex (shush now).
Imagine the surprise
when I actually got the opposite. With
the exception of one ill-informed individual, uniformly, everyone else seems to
smell a rat, a rather large diseased rat with a pointy hat and a broomstick. Never before
have cries of witch-hunt from the folk with whom I have discussed the case and
subsequent fallout been so loud, new sceptics arise perhaps.
It seems that it was with a gradual escalating disbelief and then pure astonishment followed
by derision that most greeted this particular manifestation of a MediabuboTM, led by the press, the great and good
and anyone else near a microphone.
Evidentially, jokes are
flying thick and fast across the networks and social media outlets, some rather
good and most lame, about a subject that normally causes the majority of folk
to lose their sense of humour, which departs like three men in a boat along with
critical reasoning and intellectual rigour.The surprising
amount of flippant remarks, including from MP’s and their wives, seems to have
aided in making this normally unassailable “dominant narrative” (of historic
abuse, victimology, schadenfreude and its sexually titillating
cousin jouissance) seem terribly naked and vulnerable, ripe one could say, for some serious intellectual disection .
Perhaps it is worth wondering whether
this particular narrative has run its course so many times that people have
started to ask questions as to its veracity. It certainly has not happened
media wise with one exception, that of the Daily Mail. Despite a normalcy towards
exaggeration and fabrication, they seem to have taken the proverbial bull by
the horns and actual cast some doubt on the veracity of not just Steve Messhams’ allegations (what a cock up!) but on
whether or not some rigour will be applied to other allegations as well. Brave
stuff in current times.
I cannot help
but agree with them, other fundamental questions need answering and some blogs and
commentators are attempting to answer them. The individuals over at Spiked Online have a
plethora of probing and pertinent articles worth a look, as does the
writings of Anna Racoon, particularly
as she was at one of the homes involved in the initial allegations.
Even David Cameron
has joined the bandwagon after the odious Philip Schofields attempted to kick his
political balls around one of those dismally cheerful morning television
studios. I am watching question time as I write this and they are having the
same discussion as they always do about this subject and it is going nowhere,
catch up on IPlayer and have a fume as I do, Harriet Harman is particularly vile.
So far, so same old unfortunately, as the media merry go round grinds into action as each abuse scare plays out, spraying gobbets of damaging pus across the full societal spectrum and in doing so, further poisoning intergenerational relationships and without doubt, demonising men.
So far, so same old unfortunately, as the media merry go round grinds into action as each abuse scare plays out, spraying gobbets of damaging pus across the full societal spectrum and in doing so, further poisoning intergenerational relationships and without doubt, demonising men.
The usual suspects (NSPCC et al) line up to
quote horrifying statistics ad nauseum, but as per has nothing to say about
the false allegations that have caused an elderly man some dreadful grief, or
the fact that poor Steve Messham seems to have form for lying, and not on a
small scale, again see Daily Mail above.
As for Savile, Cyril
Smith and as of today Dave
Lee Travis (The Hairy Cornflake) alongside other accused, dead and alive,
yes dead (god help us) this raises questions about the application of modern
morality to historic allegations, particularly when coupled with rampant and manaufactured hysteria and those damned goggles of abuse we all seem forced to wear.
Rightly, some
will say that the date of the crime does not lessen the seriousness of it and
in cases where evidence is available, they are quite right. However, historic allegations
are often word against word and despite the silent shaken head denial of
Harriet Harman on Question Time this evening, are devastating to all
individuals involved whatever their status in the story. I use that word deliberately
because that is what some of these allegations come down to, who can tell a
better story in the theatre of court.
Perhaps now the time is coming to recognise that our police procedures, laws and courts have become infected with pus from this paricular MediabuboTM and it's predecessors with a reversal of
traditional safeguards like innocent till proven guilty, when a story (or gossip) becomes the
only evidence, emotionalism rules the roost and memories are seen as concrete certainty even when they go back 50 years?
Children lie,
adults lie, but, despite it being hard to believe that they would put
themselves through the anguish of a revelation about abuse on a whim, they may not realise at the time how this particularly Kafkaesque monstrosity works. The lure of money, fame, mental illness, malice or an explanation for their own sorry lives or behaviour can be incentives. The fact that numerous cases have
surfaced where false allegations of rape and abuse condemned an innocent
(usually a man) to years in jail, illustrate that they do, even if we find the idea unpalatable.
Must we now ask
ourselves with 400 plus allegations against Savil, how did he get away with it
and equally as important, why did no one do anything or say anything before? I have my suspicions that many of these opposed assaults were nothing of the sort, and unless the odious behaviour with the alleged victims is proven to be true, we must be very careful what we accept as fact. It is in no one interest that society blindly believe the word of an individual on myths perpetrated by vested interests. Is this not the price we pay for true justice?Will the enquiry into
an enquiry (urk!), some more enquiries and a possible further enquiry lead to
the truth?
Doubtful
here, it will only lead to the "politically correct" truth if it reaffirms the dominant narrative
discussed earlier. If, gods forbid, and as the new abuse industry sceptics seem
to suspect, that a great many of these allegations will prove to be false,
misleading or a conflagration of truths, halve truths, exaggeration and misremembering, will we have the courage to start bottling this damaging nonsense and try a fresh approach in considering that the definition of abuse is now so wide as to be almost meaningless at
this point?
Should we also consider that gleefully labelling folks as victims for small affronts is probably not a good idea and that in many cases, it may be better just to get over it and get on with your life.
Should we consider a statute of limitations?
Should we consider the removal of compensation and replacing it with top notch counselling?
I think it
most certainly is time we did all four above, and quickly, otherwise we may
never find a solution to the problem under scrutiny, I only know of one way to
halt the vast majority of child abuse and that involves a camera in each room of every
household with children monitored 24hrs a day by the state. Are there any
takers out there for that idea? Thought not, but if we are really that serious
about tackling child abuse of all kinds that is what the NSPCC and their ilk
would be calling for, along with us.
Until that
time, is our interest not at best hypocritical and at worst negligent and
salacious? The MediabuboTM
is after all, like its Black Death counterpart which required a devastating fire to do away, equally infectious. Somebody light the kindling please
and lets find a new way.
2 comments:
"Rightly, some will say that the date of the crime does not lessen the seriousness of it and in cases where evidence is available, they are quite right."
Excellent article, but I disagree with you on this point, and you perhaps contradict your previous paragraph.
The date of the crime does lessen the seriousness of it, if the crime was less serious at the time and era it happened in.
As you rightly point out, we are viewing actions (allegedly) performed at the height of the sexual revolution with our 21st century paedo-finder abuse goggles on.
This is a form of historical revisionism. We turn Alan Turing into a secular martyr for involving himself in a criminal act with a teenage boy that carried a possible death penalty at the time, and yet we are now arresting disc jockeys for gropes that took place 40 years ago when nobody gave a ****.
Yes, having sex with underage groupies and groping women's bottoms might have been illegal 40 years ago, but not only have attitudes towards the seriousness of those crimes changed beyond recognition, so have the punishments.
So these people (the living ones) will be punished according to today's penal code, not those of the time in which the crimes took place for which they are being punished for.
Excellent feedback, observation and comment, thank you.
It gets oh so complicated!
Post a Comment