Children, the Jimmy Saville experience and the BBC

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
baboon
Children, the Jimmy Saville experience and the BBC
Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

A couple of months ago I wrote to WR suggesting an article on the the way democratic, civilised Britain has treated and was treating children. I didn't pursue it further with other issues coming to the fore. What initially provoked me was the Rochdale abuse case, where a group of men preyed on and regularly abused young girls who were mostly in "care" and were thus extremely vulnerable. The state, which was officially the "parents" of these children turned a blind eye with the police ignoring any complaints, the local authorities saving money by lodging them in cheap and insalubrious parts of the country (away from their own areas) and social services ignoring their plight under the totalitarian political correctness of "it is their choice". This issue was highlighted by the press in large part because the perpetrators were of Asian origin and thus the racist card could be played. But the issue is nationwide and the growing and vague, open-ended proposals made by the government over this issue, the cutting of minimum standards and initial assessments, the loosening of local authority rules, all mean that this abuse of vulnerable children in this area will get worse.

I was further reminded of the forced migration of  British children after the war to Australia and Canada where many of these children, some of whom still had parents in Britain, were subjected to a life of sexual, mental and physical abuse. We also have the ongoing economic attacks of both Labour and Conservatives (and Liberals) which sees the overall conditions of working class children deteriorating year on year and there are reports of child labour in Britain being only 2% lower than Sri Lanka. There were other issues concerning how Britain, again under the auspices of "political correctness" (which is just as much a right wing agenda as the left), has turned into the young female genital mutilation capital of the world.

Now the shit from  paedophile and serial sexual abuser, the "popular" (though most workers I know thought he was a mont) entertainer Jimmy Saville has hit the fan and his minders and providers throughout the BBC are in the process of being exposed as completely implicated in his sick pursuits - as indeed has been the NHS, the social services, the police (who received many complaints over decades) and other elements of the state. The abuse of vulnerable children is nothing new to the recent history of British capital. The Kincora boys home in Northern Ireland was regularly "visited" in the 60s and 70s by some of the prominent, pious Protestants of the British state with their own sexual predilictions and the recent Jersey "care" home scandal, where children were abused by prominent state officials (who have escaped any punishment) and maybe worse.  The Saville case exposes the BBC, not as the "voice of impartiality" but, in this case, as part of the rotten cesspool of a decomposing society where "entertainment" goes well beyond and deeper than some of the excesses brilliantly exposed in the film "They shoot horses don't they?". The British bourgeoisie are not stupid though and they've realised that the BBC has to come through as an "independent", investigatative force (this event is coincidentally timed around the expose of the Orgreave police plot against the striking miners which the BBC was also well complicit in) and the Saville business clearly puts it in a very bad light. So there will be "independent" investigations within the BBC and into the BBC, within the NHS, the police and so on and they are all aimed at shoring up the ideology of the capitalist state and obscuring the fundamental rotteness that lies within it.

KT
It's an article...

 

 

So lose the first para; tighten up the second and submit this as an ICC-online article, why not? Your analysis is spot-on and your bile justified.

Thing is, bourgeois society - particularly decadent bourgeois society - likes to present childhood as something special, magical, protected - hah! Hypocrites. Even the philanderer Dickens, in the ascendant period, saw through the cant and denounced such sentimentality.  See also the boys prison at Port Arthur, Tasmania, 'home' for the bread stealers and wallet lifters of 19th century London.

The juridical limiting of child labour (in agriculture too? - probably not!), school milk (to make better soldiers), education (to cope with modern capitalist machinery), etc – real achievements though they were for the class struggle - served in general only to immiserate the proletariat which was robbed of vital income. 

In recent times, Rochdale and La Gueren; Saville and Glitter; the systemic sexual abuse of children by priests from Belfast to Belgium, Dublin to New York and Boston, are horrific episodes. Battered baby is a staple diet of decomposition. Who can cope?

Didn't Marx write something about bourgeois society tearing assunder the mask of relations between men? It goes for sexuality and the warped power of the last class society too. 

 Previous class societies tended not to wallow in such illusions. Young twins – heirs to the English throne - are presumed murdered in the Tower of London. In Asiatic despotism, 5-year olds could be potential or future gods, or reincarnations. The rest, the lower orders, were integrated into work as soon as they could be. As for teenagers ... you should live so long. 

 

slothjabber
baboon wrote:A couple of

baboon wrote:

A couple of months ago I wrote to WR suggesting an article on the the way democratic, civilised Britain has treated and was treating children. I didn't pursue it further with other issues coming to the fore. What initially provoked me was the Rochdale abuse case, where a group of men preyed on and regularly abused young girls who were mostly in "care" and were thus extremely vulnerable. The state, which was officially the "parents" of these children turned a blind eye with the police ignoring any complaints, the local authorities saving money by lodging them in cheap and insalubrious parts of the country (away from their own areas) and social services ignoring their plight under the totalitarian political correctness of "it is their choice"...

 

There is one particularly sickening aspect to this that I think need attention drawn to it, and that's the classification of children as young as 13 as 'prostitutes'. From a BBC report that refers to an investigation into failings of Rochdale Social Services http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19739073 - "...The report also shows some officials believed vulnerable girls as young as 10 - who were being groomed for sexual abuse - were "making their own choices"..."

Googling the find the story, I found this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2012/sep/27/rochdale-child-sex-abuse-ring-bradford-barnado-s - which contains information about the same thing happening in Bradford during the 1990s. Young people being abused were classed as 'freely' working in the sex industry. From a community worker in Bradford intervied for the Guardian report: "...These young people weren't seen as victims. They were very much seen as perpetrators themselves and treated as adult prostitutes.Of course they weren't because they were all under the legal age for consent..."

 

This seems to me to be one of the most shocking parts of the whole business. Instead of being identified as victims, these children were seen as criminals.

baboon wrote:

I was further reminded of the forced migration of  British children after the war to Australia and Canada where many of these children, some of whom still had parents in Britain, were subjected to a life of sexual, mental and physical abuse....

... The abuse of vulnerable children is nothing new to the recent history of British capital. The Kincora boys home in Northern Ireland was regularly "visited" in the 60s and 70s by some of the prominent, pious Protestants of the British state with their own sexual predilictions and the recent Jersey "care" home scandal, where children were abused by prominent state officials (who have escaped any punishment) and maybe worse...

 

Another similar scandal was in the Leicestershire Childrens Homes under Frank Beck in the '70s and '80s; allegations surfaced for several years before there was any serious investigation, and even now, after Beck was convicted in the early '90s and shortly afterwards died in prison, there is still a fierce controversy as to whether this was merely the tip of an iceburg involving peers and local politicians, and indeed the manslaughter of one of the children in care, or whether the entire affair was blown out of all proportion and rests on nothing more than a manager of a care home being a bit zealous with restraint techniques.

 

I heard someone claiming the other day (on the bus on the way to the demo in London on Saturday) that Saville had visited the Jersey children's home at the centre of the recent investigations. No idea where that information may have come from or whether it is reliable, but it demonstrates a willingness to believe that there are connections between these episodes - even if it shows a risk of developing into a 'paedophile conspiracy theory', which would  in turn absolve the authorities from blame and society as a whole taking this more seriously: if it is a small group of secretive, well-connected, monstrous perverts doing this, then no-one else is to be blamed for failing in their duty of care to these children.

 

baboon wrote:

... the "popular" (though most workers I know thought he was a mont) entertainer Jimmy Saville ...

 

Don't know for sure what 'thought he was a mont' means, but I was unlucky enough to work with him briefly as a trainee in local radio in 1990 or thereabouts, and he seemed fairly unpleasant. "Why have they given me two young lads to work with, argh-urr, I would have much preferred some young ladies" he said several times. Well, probably, but we can't all pick who we work with, I'd have preferred not to work with Jimmy Saville.

Fred
Why was Jimmy Saville so

Why was Jimmy Saville so popular - if he really was? Why was he such a BIG STAR for the BBC? Could it be that he was seen by the bourgeoisie as a "stand-in" for the working class? They saw him, and presented him, as a working class man who'd made it in a bourgeois world. He thus proved something I suppose. Probably that we're all equal! But his swaggering show-off, immodest and totally asinine and vulgar way of carrying on had nothing working class about it. The reality was that of a petty-bourgeois, self-demeaning braggart, always ready to put himself down to play himself up, and that was the extent of his "comedy". And then of course he was "generous, with his money - something the bourgeoisie always loves - though his generosity is now exposed as something less than motivated by a love of humanity.

It may appear less than happy that I should attack this poor man now that he's dead, but the bourgeoisie are doing exactly that though they pedastalled him while he lived. Because he was their creation and he stood for many of the things they value, and want all of us to value too. Things like: Riches, fame, celebrity, achievement, success, the common touch, the ability to establish contact with the "lower orders" - from whence he came but his "celebrity" raised him far above - while somehow keeping the lower orders in their place and even teaching them a lesson. "Work hard like me and know your place and you also can be a success without having to be posh.".

But now the hidden truth is out, and it appears that several police forces were aware of what he was up to. But such is the power of fame and wealth in this disgusting society that folk are unprepared to believe the rich and famous are anything but "good". The decay of capitalist society is attaining appalling dimensions. It is to be hoped Savilles many victims find comfort in his exposure, but he's just an unhappy individual. The true culprit is this sick society of liars and hypocrites: in short, our rulers!

radicalchains
There are countless stories

There are countless stories and rumours that Saville among others were regular visitors, that there were kids being 'procured' for others (usually the wealthy) and that rape, torture and general abuse was a daily occurrence. On the island of Jersey apparently loads of abuse cases were dropped a few years ago and people investigating were sacked while those accused of abuse remained in their positions. 

If you listen to some of the witnesses and people of the island it seems police and people higher up knew something if not everything and were either protecting themselves or others by using threats, sacking people etc. The island is a curios place, it's tiny (9 miles by 5) yet there are billions in the offshore banks there. As well as being owned by the Queen where the chief judge and attorney general are brothers, it's not part of a bigger state. I think it may be a bit simple to suggest a cover up was done just to maintain the reputation of the island and its wealth. The theory that too many people on the island were involved seems exceedingly plausible.

The ruling class believe that they are the natural rulers of the world, that the lower orders serve their needs and requirements. We are their property and they think they can do whatever they like with us regardless of how barbaric it may be. The bourgeois media have appeared to suggest now Saville went into the work he did because he was a paedophile. Although this may be the case in some instances perhaps many surely this isn't the rule? It can suggest paedphiles are born and not made. 

I don't know what makes them, isolation, repression and prior abuse would seem to have something to do with it but what strikes me is the institutional form it takes whether it be priests, carers or some other authority. In contrast to the conspiracy-esque theories about Masonic rituals and Satanism I think relating to social decomposition makes far more sense. The disturbing fact is that we can't extract this kind of abuse. Though clearly it is one of if not the most abhorrent form from say seemingly random beatings and rapes of pensioners and so on that are carried out outside of institutions.

Just as someone appalled by this kind of horror might ask why did you do it? The perpetrator might equally reply why not? I can, therefore I will. 

 

Jersey: Island of Secrets - BBC1 Panorama - March 31 2008

http://youtu.be/fO4IME4g1kw

 

Adam Rickwood & The Medomsley Heroes FULL DOCUMENTARY

http://youtu.be/DOVMEg83Cx8

An emotional independent documentary on yet another institution of abuse