Friday, 16 November 2012

The Dead, Old, and the Falsely Accused Come On Down To the Show That Never Ends


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.

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:

theantifeminist said...

"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.

Professor Sapient said...

Excellent feedback, observation and comment, thank you.


It gets oh so complicated!