-
Posts
-
abusers rely on people being scared to speak up.. and how stupid they are going to feel afterwards. “should ” an allegation be made. Easier nowadays to speak out but 30/40 years ago ??… it just did NOT happen.. Did’nt it ?
??
I Dunno Jen, full on molestation meaning ? i think what he supposedly did is very important to all this, and there is so much speculation such as
He was known for this kind of behaviour but his high profile and the good work that he did made him practically untouchable.
Known for ? if it was that known they would have plenty of support to do something about it… and
Fellow broadcaster Paul Gambaccini said he had been “waiting 30 years” for such stories to come out.
Speaking on ITV1’s Daybreak programme, he said newspapers had been primed to run similar stories while Sir Jimmy was alive, but the star had intervened to prevent their publication.
“On [one] occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said ‘well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville – do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations.’ And they backed down.”
Would they back down if they really thought they had a story with proof and evidence? i doubt that, hell if they thought the story had any real credence , they’d run it facts or not, and some supposed silly threat abt a hospital losing their donations if they really thought this was fact would not stop them.
It’s not “one” person that suddenly was molested but to scared to talk up, “allegedly it was many” and all of them were too scared to stand up ?
I’m just not easy with such wishy washy allegations, with no real proof or evidence to back them up.
Personally, i think its more a case of a man who maybe wasnt perhaps an angel, a bit cheeky pushed his luck a bit perhaps with pretty women, much like many men will do if you met them and “agreed” to a hug, an unknown non celebrity man, who you would maybe kick in the groin maybe slap maybe say geroff matey walk away and that be that, but hey its a well known name so lets make it a huge public thing of it now he can’t answer for himself. If there is so many people who suffered from him s is being alleged i can’t believe they didn’t pipe up, when the allegations came up in 2007, were all those people really in a position maybe 30 years on they couldnt speak up then ? when he was no threat to them ? as hard as i try to understand this, i can’t. And even more suss, these people who apparently are scared to get ridiculed for saying this now, are doing so anyway, but didnt at any opportunity they had up to now, even when he was accused and investigated, when their allegations would maybe have some credence be listened to seriously, didnt come forward, oh i dunno just none of this fits for me.
And to say it will be better for them to get this out when they feel safe to do so.. that is what counselors, psychiatrist and the likes are for, to let these people unburden themselves, or even the law is there so they can make these allegations against someone (who is here to make against). But no we’ll just make a documentary on tele and media now he has gone.
suss .. verya good post, poli(and thanks to Mrs T for an earleir post.
Many people are scared to speak up to abuse for a number of reasons. One is family – if a member of the family molests you, you are frightened and embarrassed. Depends on your age, of course. Another – maybe relevant here – is a threat to your livelihood. If you complain about St Jim, youa re threatened wiht the sack because his money may not be so forthcoming etc. If that is the case, then the people to investigate are the people who threaten you – they’re complicit in sheltering an abuser.
You and especially Mrs T have made some telling points about Jim beng the normal Jack-the-lad, pain-in-the-backside for young women. But if their employers weren’t offering the full protection and care for their employess whihc they’re legally compelled to do, then that’s where the problem lies in this particualr case, and where it nedds to be nivestigated.
No the problem was Jimmy, his behaviour towards women (whether you think of it as abuse or just a pervy man copping a feel when he could) then threatening to withdraw his support for the good causes when confronted. The problem was compounded by people being afraid to tackle it, from the people who heard the rumours but turned a blind eye, the newspapers who didn’t print what they had, the people who were witnesses but didn’t say anything because of who he was, the employers who didn’t support their staff and so on…
It’s easy to say why didn’t they come forward sooner but just try putting yourself in their position if you can. You’re a young teenager. A man that is in the public eye, who does a lot of good work for charity (we’re not talking about just turning up at events and raising a few quid here and there, he raised over £40 million), that everyone thinks is wonderful, who was one of your childhood heroes, molests you. You are not physically hurt and there were no witnesses so there is no evidence, just your word against his. This is 30 years ago when very few rape cases came to court as the attitude to the victim was so very different to the attitudes of today. Paedophilia is a word unknown to most although almost everyone knows at least one “dirty old man that you wouldn’t leave your kids with”.
Yes some will jump on the bandwagon, but some will also be genuine victims…can you begin to see why they might not have come forward sooner?
@(f)politics? wrote:
I Dunno Jen, full on molestation meaning ? i think what he supposedly did is very important to all this…
For heavens sake poli, do I really need to give all the gory details? It was NOT just a cheeky old man going a little too far, it was way beyond that. If she had taken it further and if anyone had been prepared to believe her, support her and take action then it would have been sexual assault. Now do you need any more detail than that?
@(f)politics? wrote:
He was known for this kind of behaviour but his high profile and the good work that he did made him practically untouchable.
Known for ? if it was that known they would have plenty of support to do something about it… and
Fellow broadcaster Paul Gambaccini said he had been “waiting 30 years” for such stories to come out.
Speaking on ITV1’s Daybreak programme, he said newspapers had been primed to run similar stories while Sir Jimmy was alive, but the star had intervened to prevent their publication.
“On [one] occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said ‘well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville – do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations.’ And they backed down.”
Would they back down if they really thought they had a story with proof and evidence? i doubt that, hell if they thought the story had any real credence , they’d run it facts or not, and some supposed silly threat abt a hospital losing their donations if they really thought this was fact would not stop them.
Silly threats about a hospital losing their donations? He put Stoke Mandeville spinal unit on the map, he raised over £40 million for charities, a large proportion of which went to Stoke Mandeville. Silly threat? The media then is different to the media of today. I’m sure that the media of today would have no compunction in running the story. But then?
@(f)politics? wrote:
It’s not “one” person that suddenly was molested but to scared to talk up, “allegedly it was many” and all of them were too scared to stand up ?
I’m just not easy with such wishy washy allegations, with no real proof or evidence to back them up.There is safety in numbers, but what if you think you’re the only one? And what kind of proof or evidence would you accept?
It’s you and a man in a room, perfectly innocent and above board but then he sexually assaults you. You are so stunned that you don’t fight back (and yes, for all that we think we would do if it happened to us, when it comes down to it most of us just freeze). There are no physical marks on your body, no witnesses, your word against his. How do you prove it happened? What proof would you accept poli?
@(f)politics? wrote:
Personally, i think its more a case of a man who maybe wasnt perhaps an angel, a bit cheeky pushed his luck a bit perhaps with pretty women, much like many men will do if you met them and “agreed” to a hug, an unknown non celebrity man, who you would maybe kick in the groin maybe slap maybe say geroff matey walk away and that be that, but hey its a well known name so lets make it a huge public thing of it now he can’t answer for himself.
Oh well that’s ok then, he was just a bit cheeky and pushed his luck with teenage girls…no harm done eh?
@(f)politics? wrote:
If there is so many people who suffered from him s is being alleged i can’t believe they didn’t pipe up, when the allegations came up in 2007, were all those people really in a position maybe 30 years on they couldnt speak up then ?
Maybe they would have if they’d known about it, but it wasn’t publicised was it?
Just to say that my reasons for sharing my story wasn’t to say “he’s guilty, hang him!”, it was simply to show that he wasn’t the saint that so many seem to think he was. No more, no less, and I don’t think I have anything else to add to this discussion that I haven’t already said so I will bow out.
well, the employers are still alive, and they need to be investigated in the public interest, whether Jim tried to fix it with them by threatening to withold funds or whether they were scared he might.
Which comes first – an employer’s duty to proitect the employee, a legal obligation, or the protection of funds??
Apparently some of these allegations were looked into in 2007 by Sussex Police, which resulted in no evidence. However, I dont think it was made public, which begs the question, if it had, maybe others would have come forward?!
The only way around this, in my opinion, is for the victims to take a lie detecter test?!
I dunno, I think we may never know.
I do feel sorry for his family atm though :(
I can’t believe the rubbish excuses on this thread defending a dirty old man using his position and money to abuse young women,!
Jesus there’s none so blind as those who refuse to see eh :roll:@retake012 wrote:
I can’t believe the rubbish excuses on this thread defending a dirty old man using his position and money to abuse young women,!
Jesus there’s none so blind as those who refuse to see eh :roll:But he’s dead! What do you want? A posthumous trial? If found guilty, imprison his skeletal remains?
Execute his dead body?
I’m sorry but regardless of whether he’s guilty or not, nothing can take away the fact he’s brown bread and nothing is going to change that. He is never going to stand trial and justice or exoneration will never be served.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!