OT Westminster sleaze.

[ramAnag]

You wont win RA, if what the BBC broadcasts does not fit a persons own IMO warped view of reality then they criticise, of course the Beeb aren't perfect, what organisation run by human beings is? But compared to other media its reporting is objective (only tories and right wing ones complain about its so called left agenda), balanced and often very good. Of course accuracy can be an issue, but generally only where they are IMO dumbing down so that the less intellectually able amongst us are able to get a grasp of the situation.

And so onto the sleaze and so called political correctness, whilst agree that there is a too much "white noise" about certain alleged incidents and boy dont the media love any story that involves ***, mind you doesn't the general public or a large number of them love reading about it? BUT the essential part of the story here is being lost in the white noise, which is the abuse by ( mainly) men in power of women for their ***ual gratification and that where it happens surely most right thinking people would condemn?

Is it really acceptable for a superior to ask an subordinate employee to buy *** toys for them? Is it acceptable for ***ual favours to be asked in return for career advancement or indeed for just keeping ones job? Is it not rather sad and pathetic that a person would use their power to force a person to engage in ***ual activity with them who would not do so otherwise?

I’m not really looking to ‘win’ Swale. I respect Andy’s opinion even though, as far as the BBC are concerned, I don’t agree. I also accept your point about about this being about the abuse of power but that is not and has never been, confined to Westminster.
Returning to the original point though...we are dealing with largely articulate adults here. Some may have been hard done to but, imo, this doesn’t begin to compare with the alleged abuse of young and largely inarticulate people by those with real power in the sixties, seventies and eighties.
Tawdry tales of old powerful men and young ambitious women along with excuses for PC bashing will only act as yet another smokescreen to conceal the truth of what really happened back then.

[BaaLocks]

Or, alternatively, there are a multitude of individuals breathing a sigh of relief that at last they can speak about things that they have been holding in silence, some for decades. So they didn't want to be the one who put their head above the parapet first - does that make them weak or a liar? No, it makes them human and it makes them people who are bound by their need to work, earn money and progress their careers in the way they wish to. What exactly do you think an actor / journalist / minor politician is going to get from trying to advance your career through this means? One week on 'I'm (not) a Celebrity'? I seriously doubt it. I don't say there won't be the odd case of fif**** minutes of fame but in 99% of the cases there is limited smoke without fire.

There have been too many who have been allowed to behave without fear of recourse, indeed with hope of leverage (meaning they have the ability, perceived or real, to derail or impact if the person refuses). The 'casting couch' and it's various synonyms in different industries have been the unspoken reality since God was a boy and I welcome every opportunity to smash them into oblivion in the same way as we did with Saville et al.

Have I personally behaved badly in the past? You betcha - I can think of many occasions where I have inferred or suggested things outside of a normal working or business relationship (I'll leave it to your collective filthy minds to decide what) but I have never tried to force the situation based on my position (ooh vicar!) or seniority (age or rank). If that can be proven (and it is innocent till proven guilty) then people should be punished accordingly, if it can't then there will no case to pursue.

However, I do believe society will be a better place for it and for that reason we should allow all to speak and be heard. In every case like this, from gays being allowed to express ***uality, womens rights in the workplace, ethinc minorities etc there is always an understandable reaction when it is initially aired and a feeling that we somehow have over reacted to the issue. But, once the dust has settled, in every single case I feel we come out of it in a better place and I believe we will do so once again.

[Andy_Faber]

I’m not really looking to ‘win’ Swale. I respect Andy’s opinion even though, as far as the BBC are concerned, I don’t agree. I also accept your point about about this being about the abuse of power but that is not and has never been, confined to Westminster.
Returning to the original point though...we are dealing with largely articulate adults here. Some may have been hard done to but, imo, this doesn’t begin to compare with the alleged abuse of young and largely inarticulate people by those with real power in the sixties, seventies and eighties.
Tawdry tales of old powerful men and young ambitious women along with excuses for PC bashing will only act as yet another smokescreen to conceal the truth of what really happened back then.

yes we got off the point and back to the OP, yes you are right

[swaledale]

Or, alternatively, there are a multitude of individuals breathing a sigh of relief that at last they can speak about things that they have been holding in silence, some for decades. So they didn't want to be the one who put their head above the parapet first - does that make them weak or a liar? No, it makes them human and it makes them people who are bound by their need to work, earn money and progress their careers in the way they wish to. What exactly do you think an actor / journalist / minor politician is going to get from trying to advance your career through this means? One week on 'I'm (not) a Celebrity'? I seriously doubt it. I don't say there won't be the odd case of fif**** minutes of fame but in 99% of the cases there is limited smoke without fire.

There have been too many who have been allowed to behave without fear of recourse, indeed with hope of leverage (meaning they have the ability, perceived or real, to derail or impact if the person refuses). The 'casting couch' and it's various synonyms in different industries have been the unspoken reality since God was a boy and I welcome every opportunity to smash them into oblivion in the same way as we did with Saville et al.

Have I personally behaved badly in the past? You betcha - I can think of many occasions where I have inferred or suggested things outside of a normal working or business relationship (I'll leave it to your collective filthy minds to decide what) but I have never tried to force the situation based on my position (ooh vicar!) or seniority (age or rank). If that can be proven (and it is innocent till proven guilty) then people should be punished accordingly, if it can't then there will no case to pursue.

However, I do believe society will be a better place for it and for that reason we should allow all to speak and be heard. In every case like this, from gays being allowed to express ***uality, womens rights in the workplace, ethinc minorities etc there is always an understandable reaction when it is initially aired and a feeling that we somehow have over reacted to the issue. But, once the dust has settled, in every single case I feel we come out of it in a better place and I believe we will do so once again.

LIKE - this is indeed the true issue that needs to be recognised and dealt with appropriately.

[swaledale]

I’m not really looking to ‘win’ Swale. I respect Andy’s opinion even though, as far as the BBC are concerned, I don’t agree. I also accept your point about about this being about the abuse of power but that is not and has never been, confined to Westminster.
Returning to the original point though...we are dealing with largely articulate adults here. Some may have been hard done to but, imo, this doesn’t begin to compare with the alleged abuse of young and largely inarticulate people by those with real power in the sixties, seventies and eighties.
Tawdry tales of old powerful men and young ambitious women along with excuses for PC bashing will only act as yet another smokescreen to conceal the truth of what really happened back then.

Its not a compsrison RA, thats like saying we should ignore robbery and only focus on murder and I didn't say it was just about Westminster, its about organisations.

As for respecting Andys opinion, that is indeed your right, but I would question your judgement on that!

[ramAnag]

Or, alternatively, there are a multitude of individuals breathing a sigh of relief that at last they can speak about things that they have been holding in silence, some for decades. So they didn't want to be the one who put their head above the parapet first - does that make them weak or a liar? No, it makes them human and it makes them people who are bound by their need to work, earn money and progress their careers in the way they wish to. What exactly do you think an actor / journalist / minor politician is going to get from trying to advance your career through this means? One week on 'I'm (not) a Celebrity'? I seriously doubt it. I don't say there won't be the odd case of fif**** minutes of fame but in 99% of the cases there is limited smoke without fire.

There have been too many who have been allowed to behave without fear of recourse, indeed with hope of leverage (meaning they have the ability, perceived or real, to derail or impact if the person refuses). The 'casting couch' and it's various synonyms in different industries have been the unspoken reality since God was a boy and I welcome every opportunity to smash them into oblivion in the same way as we did with Saville et al.

Have I personally behaved badly in the past? You betcha - I can think of many occasions where I have inferred or suggested things outside of a normal working or business relationship (I'll leave it to your collective filthy minds to decide what) but I have never tried to force the situation based on my position (ooh vicar!) or seniority (age or rank). If that can be proven (and it is innocent till proven guilty) then people should be punished accordingly, if it can't then there will no case to pursue.

However, I do believe society will be a better place for it and for that reason we should allow all to speak and be heard. In every case like this, from gays being allowed to express ***uality, womens rights in the workplace, ethinc minorities etc there is always an understandable reaction when it is initially aired and a feeling that we somehow have over reacted to the issue. But, once the dust has settled, in every single case I feel we come out of it in a better place and I believe we will do so once again.

Outside of the first paragraph I agree and identify with every word of that Baalocks, but you and Swale both miss my point. We are now going to face months of Westminster navel gazing as it enters into interminable investigation of itself.
In the meantime, in the same way as we hammered the hateful Savile but largely ignored the organised and arguably more sinister child abuse perpetuated by the Catholic Church, so the alleged abuse organised by and for some of the political and social elite in this country will continue to go uninvestigated.

As for you and Andy, Swale...I just don’t get it. You are two of the best posters on the site imo but squabble like children. It is possible to have healthy productive disagreement without just repeatedly adopting a diametrically opposed stance based on personality.

[Andy_Faber]

As for you and Andy, Swale...I just don’t get it. You are two of the best posters on the site imo but squabble like children. It is possible to have healthy productive disagreement without just repeatedly adopting a diametrically opposed stance based on personality.

I think you’ve yellow carded me without reason there Ramanag, please look back through the thread.

[Andy_Faber]

. I respect Andy’s opinion even though, as far as the BBC are concerned, I don’t agree.

I still think BBC are the best around by a mile R, just that their rating has dipped to my eyes (and ears) recently.

[roger_ramjet]

Outside of the first paragraph I agree and identify with every word of that Baalocks, but you and Swale both miss my point. We are now going to face months of Westminster navel gazing as it enters into interminable investigation of itself.
In the meantime, in the same way as we hammered the hateful Savile but largely ignored the organised and arguably more sinister child abuse perpetuated by the Catholic Church, so the alleged abuse organised by and for some of the political and social elite in this country will continue to go uninvestigated.

As for you and Andy, Swale...I just don’t get it. You are two of the best posters on the site imo but squabble like children. It is possible to have healthy productive disagreement without just repeatedly adopting a diametrically opposed stance based on personality.

No it isnt

[BaaLocks]

Outside of the first paragraph I agree and identify with every word of that Baalocks, but you and Swale both miss my point. We are now going to face months of Westminster navel gazing as it enters into interminable investigation of itself.
In the meantime, in the same way as we hammered the hateful Savile but largely ignored the organised and arguably more sinister child abuse perpetuated by the Catholic Church, so the alleged abuse organised by and for some of the political and social elite in this country will continue to go uninvestigated.

1: What is the alternative? Do nothing? We have to respond and act accordingly. Sometimes we get it wrong (Gambaccini) but as long as the process is more than just judgment we should be able to ensure that the right cases get handled in the right way.

2: Not sure we will have months the navel gaze, given we have already put ourselves on the clock on a rather more distracting, and irrelevant, piece of political legislation that needs concluding in two years. This will be chip paper within two weeks but hopefully the few that get caught in the interim will teach the others that change must happen. After all, it is all about challenging those individuals to act differently going forward and they can only do that if they truly believe there is risk that their actions will be (excuse the pun) exposed.

3: I think we did attempt to bring to task many in the Church and other areas (inc. sport) where the bodies are trusted to care for children. It's not over and it won't stop but I'd hope we continue to push for change and repercussions wherever we can equally. The law will always be there to obstruct for those who can afford the best (e.g. Lord Janner) but that does not mean we should give up and go home.