My BBC sex hell

4 November 2012

10:20 AM

4 November 2012

10:20 AM

For years I have kept this to myself; a damaged individual, bottling it all up inside. But now that others have spoken out I’ve found an inner strength, a sort of resolve.

Several times during the 1970s I was the victim of serial sexual assaults by BBC stars who are now dead. On one occasion I was violated, in the space of ten minutes, by Morecambe and Wise, Ronnie Barker, Sir Kenneth Clark (of “Civilisation” fame) and Eric Sykes. I was tied to a bed in a BBC dressing room and one by one they came in and practised their vile depravities upon my young body. The ringleader was Hattie Jacques, who sat on a chair in the room and, devouring a box of chocolates, encouraged her fellow stars, laughing and clapping and also ‘getting her rocks off’. On another occasion I was touched in my private area by several daleks who had invited me to see a recording of Dr Who. With those sucker type things they have. But that wasn’t as bad as the stuff with Morecambe and Wise. I will never forget that: my head pressed into the cushion and Ernie on top of me, whispering in a sinister manner in my ear, in time with his brutal thrusting: “Bring me sunshine. In your smile. Bring me laughter. All the while.”

They are all dead now so sadly cannot be brought to justice. But it is a relief for me to be able to share this with you now, and also with my lawyer who will be contacting the BBC tomorrow morning, sharp.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Weisler

    How hard did you bite the pillow Rod ?

  • Grotbag

    Rod Liddle beat up his pregnant girlfriend and my browser spell-checker is trying to get me to change “Liddle” to “Piddle”.

  • Jerry Owen

    Has anyone noticed the statue above the entrance to Broadcasting house? It is a statue of a seated man with a naked boy leaning in his lap. The man is holding the boys arms upwards and outwards a sign of strength over a vulnerable naked boy.
    It was designed by Eric Gill who had incestuous relationships with his sister abused his children and performed a rather personal act on his dog. Wether the dog was male or female I have no idea. But of course homosexuality is legal now anyway!
    The BBC is sniggering at us behind its back.

  • The Elderking

    My chances of working for the BBC were minimal – no celebrity relatives in there, not from the celtic fringe, not immigrant, not gay or female. Just working class English. We folks just content ourselves with having to pay for most of the paedo palace through a forced levy on ownership of a TV/radio.

    As for Wilhelms comment I think they DO like it up em. That’s the problem.

    I also contrast the BBC whining about its history of sexual harassment and child abuse coming out with their wall to wall coverage of the Murdoch empires travails over a few phone taps.

    • NibbleNobble

      You could always black up and wear a frock like Floella Benjamin. Or change your name to Kwame?

  • Susan G.

    This is unpleasant cynical reactionary drivel. Perhaps there was a time when Liddle didn’t reach for the lowest common denominator masquerading as outspoken radicalism, but that was a long time ago. It’s so much easier not to have to think and produce something clever and thoughtful. Pathetic, really.

    • Ross Hendry

      “Reactionary”? How so?

      • Susan G.

        ” Reactionary” because it is absent any imagination or thought, and merely seeks to use cynicism and nastiness to amuse.

        • Odysseus

          That’s a novel use of the word but o.k.

  • WetherspoonThree

    It’s a bit like Paul Foot, that 70’s doyen of the left wing journalists, who was so busying uncovering right wing plots that he totally overlooked that his own boss, Robert Maxwell was busy looting the Daily Mirror pension fund. Similarly, Esther Ranzen, whilst making programmes on the subject still managed to miss the child abuse by Jimmy Savile at the BBC in spite of dark mutterings in the canteen.

  • Poppy Swanky for Romney

    Just when I thought that no one could be more over-the-top than James Delingpole….

    Thanks for the face-blushing laughter!

  • Nigel Buckland

    Leslie Crowther? Yes. John Craven? No. Hughie Green? YES. John Noakes. No. etc. etc./

  • Sarah

    You have to admire the way Rod Liddle strives to navigate the social landscape to inviscerate the powerful lobbies and opinion orthodoxies to come out in favour of the unpopular underdog.

    Surprisingly though, when it comes to sex crime it turns out the unpopular underdog isn’t the alleged victim at all, rather, the underdog is our multimillionaire, well-connected entertainers. Meanwhile the social orthodoxy isn’t to blame, doubt or discredit alleged victims, but an overuse of the legal system and a public dialogue which takes them far too seriously.

    Without the free press there would be nothing to hold back the tide.

    • John Lea

      “Surprisingly though, when it comes to sex crime it turns out the unpopular underdog isn’t the alleged victim at all, rather, the underdog is our multimillionaire, well-connected entertainers.”

      Er, not quite. A vast number of ‘alleged’ victims are making claims against (mostly) dead celebrities. Because the BBC mis-handled the initial claims, the whole institution is now deemed to be guilty, each employee part of a vast peedo conspiracy (in much the same way as the police were deemed to be ‘institutionally racist’ in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence case). If some of these alleged victims are genuine, they have my sympathy, but simply because a number of people make allegations doesn’t make it true. Where is the proof here…or is that an old-fashioned concept? And do only the ‘alleged victims’ have rights? The initial Savile allegations have now escalated into a hysterical media-driven witch-hunt. And you would have to be very naive (at best) to think that some of those people who are now coming forward are not motivated by the idea of financial recompense.

      • Eddie

        EXACTLY! But hey, most people do conform to type as they have throughout history – most people are thick and join the mob (who it is aimed against is almost irrelevant).
        The worst thing is that all this hysteria does NOTHING to help children who are really abused; and false accusations of abuse (which you and me have received for being rational here) just devalue the word and concept of ‘abuse’ That makes in more likely that victims won’t be believed. The mob is guilty of that.
        Also, there are very many who join this hysterical mob to ‘prove’ they are not paedos though no doubt some are – and possibly many in child abuse charities (it’s great cover huh?) Just like everyon screams ‘racist’ at anything that moves – because if you are accusing someone else, that proves one’s own innocence.
        It’s an easy way to spray on a halo: just scream RACIST and PAEDO at anything that moves!
        ‘hysterical media-driven witch-hunt’ – oh yes, and let’s wait shall we for the compensation claims for innocent men whose lives get ruined by all this vile mobbing behaviour!
        And yes you are right – there are some victims and no-one has sympathy will real child abuse – but an allegation is not proof it happened! Itis DISGUSTING that some on this board (Sarah, Jan, Baron) are even suggesting that anyone daring to go against the mob and demand evidence must somehow by closet paedos who have ulterior motives for their thinking.
        Our society is truly disgusting – and I pity the children growing up in it.
        By the way, having lived overseas I can say that mainland European countries have a far better and healthier attitude to all this than we do. The Americans of course are mad on this – and we ape these hysterics. Maybe that is why the UK has the unhappiest most fcked up kids in Europe eh?

  • Kevinc

    I once saw Daddy Woodentop molest Baby Woodentop while Spotty Dog looked on. At least I think I did, it was all such a long time ago. In any case, after 50 years of being completely oblivious to the traumatising and debilitating effect this terrible event had on me, I now realise it did in fact ruin my life – preventing me becoming the brilliant, successful, famous, RICH person I would otherwise have been. My lawyers have been duly informed.

  • Wilhelm

    Newsnight was going to tell us about a senior conservative politician in the Thatcher government who was a child molester.

    Yet again the BBC blew it big time and bottled it. I suspect the BBC is planning a Christmas tribute to Leon Brittan, Lord McAlpine, Ken Clarke, Derek Laud .

  • Caroline Redbrook

    Savile shows the need to get these pedophiles before they can do their decades of harm to our children. Accused pedophile, Sylvain Kustyan, is formally charged with two counts of 1st Degree Sodomy of a ten-year-old little boy. His history of abuse dates back 20 years when he was a foreign exchange student. Kustyan, a French middle school teacher has led several groups of school children to England and Ireland. He is currently a fugitive from the law.

  • edlancey

    Who would have thought that, of all the BBC DJ’s of that era, Kenny Everett would turn out to have been the least sordid…

  • David Lindsay

    Naughty, Naughty.

    You know why.

  • JanCosgrove1945

    As the trickle turns to a stream, we have the Abuse Deniers in full spate here. It’s not only the BBC, though you’d think so, but other ‘trusted’ institutions. Have your cheap laugh Mr Liddle, on the pain of a lot of people who have not had justice and who would wait for ever if some had their way. Who has anything to fear from the independent inquiry into institutional child abuse which Fair Play for Children is calling for? I hope that when they run for cover they will find there’s nowhere for them to hide. And those of you, liked ‘spiked’ and its ex-RS comrades, who have lead the Denial cause are shown up to be the opportunist mountebanks that you are. Oh all those unfair CRBs, the Vetting and Barring, the affront to Pulman and other writer-tossers, the persecution of nice volunteers (like that splendid Sir Jimmy, think of all the money he raised, the children whose lives (?) he touched), think of the Big Society and we don’t want to put nice people off. Just months after Part V of the Protection of Freedoms Act crawled its way onto the statute books, here we see exposed the big lie behind the arguments. Why is it, I wonder, that the Spectator manages to publish far less about children and their needs than other journals and papers, and when it does it ends up being an execrable piece of mucky tissue?

    • Eddie

      Abuse deniers? Nope, Just people who demand evidence and see how many people have a vested interest in making false claims of abuse and exaggerating abuse.
      Facts and facts: Most abuse is done in the home, and most violent and emotional abuse of children is by women, not men. Sex abuse by men is facilitated by unstable single ‘mum’ families where mummy has boyfriends having access to kids to fiddle with them (another man’s kids usually).
      Your attempt to portray those who demand evidence of those accused as someone supporters of child abuse is 1) disgusting and 2) counter-productive: ever heard of crying wolf?
      You are clearly an idiot because you think STUPIDLY that CRBs protect children. Well, Ian Huntley and Savile would have passed with flying colours actually!” CRBs are just silly bureaucracy that protects no children.
      And the hysterical overly suspicious atmosphere idiots like you contribute to actually leades to the abuse of children – because overprotecting children IS abuse. You and your hysterical scaremongering kind (see the article about how the NSPCC fakes its figures) contribute to damaghing children’s lives.
      Want to protect chidren? Keep them away from their parents: most abuse is in the home by parents or carers – not anyone who has to have a CRB check. The witchhunts of hysterical women like you do nothing at all to protect children – in fact, I suspect a lot of those who want to have access to children delibately joun charities which purport to protect children as cover.
      And you need to understand that the rape of a 5 year old is most certainly NOT the same as the willing sexual participation of a 15 year old groupie who looks 17.
      Hysterics like you should shut up. You add nothing positive to this debate and most certainly do not protect kids by spreading hysteria and attempting to brand those who disagree with your emotional overreaction as child abuse deniers.

      • JanCosgrove1945

        Eddie, stoop to abusive language why don’t you? CRBs have been used to protect kids, I have seen the evidence. Sharing of information has and will prevent harm. Bichard made that point about non-sharing between 2 police forces over Huntley. Had they shared I doubt he’d have had that job and been where he was. CRBs help, they are no 100% solution. Nothing is 100% but risk assessment, which includes background checks, can reduce access by adults who intend/seek to abuse. Common sense – if I know a man or woman has a record of serial cheque fraud, do I trust him/her with the cheque book, at least unsupervised?

        You make my point at one stage in your posting – “I suspect a lot of those who want to have access to children delibately joun charities which purport to protect children as cover”. Extend that from ‘to protect’ to ‘to help’ and you have the question. I don’t think it’s “a lot”, I am sure it’s a small minority. But if one such person abuses 50 kids over 20 years, how serious is the problem if there are 50 such people in the UK? 2500 children. Or it’s 3000 who abuse 5 children each over 5 years = 15,000 children.

        I have seen CRB work as intended, removing a serial abuser from access which he’d had for 20 years in a junior soccer league. Let us suppose that he was the only person known in the UK to have such tendencies. Wouldn’t you want to check that a worker applying for a relevant job with kids was not him? You know this guy escaped justice for years, kids were too ashamed or ‘hooked’ to enable police to carry through a prosecution until the late 90’s – I’m even told his live-in 13 year old rent boy ‘lover’ shielded him. The child’s fault. 13 and described as a rent boy?

        All of you huffing and puffing here, get a sense of proportion and reality. If you deny such abuse has occurred and is occurring, then that is Abuse Denial. Get off the hobby horses and see what is emerging now. Or do you want such matters to remain hidden from accountability? If it’s all hysteria, an Independent Public Inquiry will reveal that clearly. Otherwise, wait for the floodgates to open wide.

        You know, there’s nothing more I would wish that it was shown all to be over-reaction. That people didn’t abuse on the scale feared. That when there were concerns they were shared and acted upon. That people in substantial numbers have not been abused as children in institutional settings. Who wants the opposite to be true?

        And if it were true, you want people to shut up, to remain silent, or to see the guilty escape?

        • Eddie

          You are the one choosing to use abusive language and attitudes: you say that anyone who dares challenge you and all others who say all accusers are telling the truth is an ‘abuse denier’. That is offensive and wrong. And pompous and self-righteous and dishonest.
          Being concerned about the witchhunt against people that you seem to support, and the way no-one seems to be looking at evidence but just belieiving ANYONE who accuses a man of abuse, is NOT being an abuse denier.
          It is idiots like you who take the debate into the gutter. Exaggerated and false accusations of abuse – and the attempted bullying of those who question this hysteria (which you just tried), makes the situation worse.
          Listen – Ian Huntley did not abuse and kill girls from the school at which he worked, so no CRB nonsense would have protected anyone! DOH! THE CRB CHECKS DO NOT IDENTIFY PAEWDOPHILES AND ABUSERS! Got that? There is NO magic test of that – but one can use the facts to deduce that most abusers are mothers, fathers, family contacts and other children – and NOT men in jobs wihcih allow contact with kids. Agreed? Look at the facts eh?
          There is not one child who has been protected by CRB checks – I have had to do several, paid a lot for them, which kept busy bodies and bureaucrats and hand-wringers like you in business eh? Nothing achieved at all – other than creating an unhealthy atmosphere of suspicion and lack of trust. MOST ABUSERS ARE IN THE FAMILY AND MOST ABUSE HAPPENS IN THE HOME. Got that? One third of child sex abuse is done by other children.
          Read the Spiked article to see what a LIE you exaggeration of abuse is. It includes ‘non contact’ abuse – whatever that may be!
          You are the one who needs to get a sense of reality and proportion: the hysteria people like you revel in damages children’s lives. You seem to confuse so many iussues that I really think need to listen to those who are rational and balanced about this. Your attitude is dangerous and can lead to innocent men being accused and having their lives ruined – something tells me a taste of that is the only thing that will make unhelpful hysterics like you see sense.
          We cannot have a society where all those who are accused are assumed to be guilty without evidence. And those over-emotional persons like you who just list cases of abuse to somehow justify your ill-thought-through ideas need to stop being so emotional and read up on law and moral philosophy.

          • JanCosgrove1945

            Eddie CRB checks DO identify those who have been caught out. So it’s sense to ensure you don’t employ them, paid or unpaid. Shimple.

            Clearly you have not worked in a situation where this has happened? I have. Also I worked in a situation where it did not happen because, in 1986, there were no CRBs. Please stop making emotive assertions and deal with facts. CRB has identified a good number of relevant people to employers who have not then employed them. You cannot dispute my maths.

            Savile was, it seems/is alleged, an institutional serial abuser. If it’s 300 kids, show me a domestic abuser on that scale. All I say here is that someone in an institutional setting has a far greater number of victims to choose from, and will do so given the chance. An inquiry within the right powers and framework will tell us what the scale has been. ‘spiked’ is not rational, they do not work with kids and they have an agenda, a very political one and they cannot stand in the same room as me and make it stick. I did it with Josie Appleton, she was laughed out. Answer this simple question: if 6.3% of offenders are non-domestic, do they account for just 6.3% of child victims? Answer that with proof, facts. An some logic. As the allegations flow, what is your bet at the number that will be proven false, malicious, unfounded? Go on, just do that. Then sit back and wait.

            How many leads do the Met say they are now following up? Why has Cameron re-opened the North Wales inquiry? Why was a US journalist barred from Jersey – she went there to look at tax haven and found the abuse stories from Haut de la Garenne. Why is John Hemmings MP reported to have threatened to leave the Lib Dem whip? How about Tom Watson MP’s questions?

            ‘spiked’, Appleton and Freudi have had their shot – he’s now on about how awful it is that there are people who object to male circumcision.

            No 90% of abusers are in the home. But that does not mean 90% of the victims, as I carefully explained before. Here’s our initial view:


            Then we had this critique which we also posted:


            So let’s take the critique:

            So if the pro group’s victim rate is 5, that 6.3% account for 14%

            At 10 children, that rises to 25% of victims, from 6.3%

            If you go up to 20 kids average, the 6.3% will account for about 40%.

            And at 35% this group would account for 54% of victims. That last-named is what this issues about – child victims. They are not hysterical inventions, they exist, many have not come forward. ‘spiked’ never talks about child victims only unfairly accused adults. Does that happen? Yes, of course. But don’t try to solve that by denying the extent of abuse as it turns out to be.

            In pushing Protection of Freedoms, the Home Office stated it was to redress the balance between human rights and child protection! Real ‘spiked’-speak. CP IS a human right. FULL STOP. This same department wrote to me recently re the ‘supervision’ issue in the new Act saying that if a barred person is in a job which is supervised, he is no longer barred! The HO is full of nonce-sense.

            You claim that we have moved form a situation where no child was believed to one where children are always believed. Proof? I mean, actual proof. And what of those who were disbelieved as children and are now feeling they have to come forward at last? This isn’t about children of today, which is what you make such a claim about, but children of yesterday where you yourself say they were not believed. Do we owe it to such people to give them a chance to speak at last?

            Savile is dead, we mustn’t disturb his rest? Well, for me, if there is a quick route to resuscitation this side of the Last Judgement dig the bugger up and put him in the dock, and if he is guilty then coop him up till that Day. But what of those still alive? I called people Abuse Deniers for reasons I am happy to discuss in the light of the history of the Holocaust. “he’s an old man, don’t put him on trial for crimes so far back” “We’ll never get the truth” “People will distort things to get revenge” “it happened but not on that scale” “he’s sick and can’t stand trial” “it’s a plot by jews (abused) to claim compensation”

            Listen to this personal testimony. When I had kids, I wanted a playful environment for them. My council said there was no call or need (Bognor Regis after all). So some of us got stuck in, I put in a bid for a second hand double decker, we converted it – and ran it for 28 years as The Bognor Fun Bus, a play centre on wheels we took round local towns and villages. We recorded 96,000 attendances, over 3,600 sessions, raised and spent £1.2 million, * employed staff, had volunteers, and I meet folk now all the time who were Fun Bus Kids – and they tell me what it meant to them.

            So your strictures are bogus, we faced these issues as they arose and learned as we went along. We shared that experience with many others across the country. My child protection outlook comes from that solid base of real-life events and people. ‘spiked’?

            This was the ‘little society’ in case Mr D Cameron is interested in what is being trashed at this time.

            Another issue conveniently overlooked by ‘spiked’ (well-named, they spike anything inconvenient). That is the colleagues one works with. So Jim Bloggs doesn’t want to be vetted. But if it turns out he has come into the situation without being vetted and is a wrong’un, how do you feel his colleagues – staff and volunteers – feel? I have seen that, when there were no checks and it came out in a local paper which is where people in the group read it. They don’t matter, ‘spiked’, not their rights we’re on about ….?

            * I can furnish a breakdown of types of source – also we recorded that for every £1 raised, our volunteers contributed at least £3 in terms of time&skills-worth.

            • Eddie

              CRB checks do NOT protect children. The tiny number of people will child-related convictions cannot get certain jobs, so no doubt abuse kids by ‘dating’ single mothers on estates.

              Has abuse got worse or better than 50 years ago? No – it’s the same. But the perceotion of risk has changed because of hysterics like you.

              Well done for destroying childhood. Overprotecting kids IS abuse – and for your information, most violent and emotional abuse is done by women: all those mothers who stop kids having contact with a father.

              You stupidly sem to think that your anecdotes prove something – and also that you are the only person who has ever worked with kids. Idiot. Self-righteous pompous idiot too. I know far more about this issue than you do – anecdotally and professionally. Your playbus sounds very pretty, but it is hardly a rational argument.

              ‘How many leads do the Met say they are now following up? Why has Cameron re-opened the North Wales inquiry?’
              And none of which proves a thing: Cameron is merely pandering to hysterical voters like you, esp the hand-wringing emo-hugging mummies; and the Met is no doubt following many leads – some or all or none of which will be backed up by real evidence.
              Now what part of the word EVIDENCE don’t you understand?
              It is tyhe role of politicians to protect the innocent against the moronic mob attitude that witchunters like you personify.

              Your false argument is that anyone who raises concerns about mob-fuelled hysterics like you wanting witchunts is somehow an abuse denier. LISTEN DUMBO: abuse happens and always will. No-one denies that it happens – but the vast majority of VICTIMS are in the home NOT in institutional settings. There are issues with financial incentives (the police call it ‘trawling’); many men have been wrongly accused too.

              For you and others to automatically believe claims of accusers is JUST as wrong as people automatically not believing any claim of allegedly abused.

              • JanCosgrove1945

                You think a playbus over 28 years is just a pretty story? Interesting, but then you didn’t work with those kids did you? It was fun, and there were mainly happy moments but we did get to see kids as life was treating them. Go onto a ‘sink estate’ in an area where life expectancy, for starters, is 15 years less than the ward just across a main road. [I got flack locally for referring to ‘third world Bognor’).

                Listen to what kids say about their lives, homes, families. Be there when kids tell you about abuse they know of. Easy to dismiss eh? My main memory is that we started with a simple aim of play and fun and only realised what it meant to kids when I was told, by a kid who had been with us 14 years and who was owning up to something he had committed. I asked him, why come to me. Because, he said, you people brought us up. Your jibes can’t remove that, nor undermine the experience of years working with a national children’s play organisation, Fair Play for Children, now as its National Secretary. We’re about the Right to Play – and as part of that we encourage safe play environments where kids can take appropriate risk like climbing trees, conkers, cardboard boxes, traffic-calmed streets, and where we want to ensure that those who work with kids do not abuse the trust children place in them.

                At no stage have I said every claim is true. I have posed you figures, logic. So tell me, is Mr Meesham telling the truth? Let’s deal with him as an example of an adult who says he was in care in North Wales 2 or more decades back and who speaks of widespread institutional abuse?

                Is the man who claimed he was abused by Savile at the age of 9 and was told, he says, that Savile told him he was King Jimmy and no one would believe him lying now?

                The hysteria has come from ‘spiked’, Ferudi and co, stampeding this Govt to take a party political stance instead of the all-party support which saw through the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 which ‘spiked’ et al have done their best to undermine and destroy. Misrepresentation, using its contacts in the media – how about the fact that the BBC invited me onto a Panorama programme, 3 each side of the argument, ‘spiked’/Manifesto Club one of the others on the opposing side – filmed, and then I find that though I am mentioned and shown as being there, I am censored out. A good experience for me I was told patronisingly. I said some clear things which were not in line with the-then standard line that it had gone too far etc. Panorama can go stuff itself. The BBC stands ton answer a lot of serious questions.

                Clegg tells us Vetting and Barring was evidence of authoritarian Labour and fails to mention that it was one of those Acts which passed with all-party support and that he was their Home Affairs spokesman in the Commons as it was steered through, with no opposition from him. Nor does anyone bother with the simple fact – not one employee or volunteer was put through vetting and barring under the original scheme, it was all “this will happen”. No pilot, no evidence, child protection sacrificed for political advantage.

                Nor any mention from the ‘spiked’direction that barring regimes have existed since 1933 at least. For example, the List 99 which was maintained by Education and where it was the Minister who, with expert advice, decided who would be barred. The Vetting and Barring Scheme took that function away from a politician and put it in the hands of the Vetting and Barring Board, a quasi-judicial body whose actions are subject to appeal, witness the nurses case. Why did everyone simply allow that old and administrative system to continue without protest because it is certain that there were real injustices to innocent people under that scheme. When ISA started operations, its task was to take List 99 and other lists and to combine them into 2 ISA lists, Children and Vulnerable Adults. One of its tasks was to contact people on the old lists to ask them if they wanted their barrings reviewed. It would be interesting to find out if that was carried out and, if so, what were the results.

                That is fact. Check it out. What V&B did, which also is carried into Son-of-V&B, was to enable a single certificate to be issued, which would be updatable so renewed CRBs would become a thing of the past. ‘spiked’ and co didn’t seem too keen to mention that fact, or that authors would not have to get checks done unless they volunteered to do so. Again, fact.

                I repeat, whatever else others want, i don’t want to find that all or most or even a large minority of these new claims are true. Why? Because who wants it to be true that kids were abused in large numbers and ignored, the crimes covered-up for whatever reasons? I do not. But it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen just to wish it away. Let there be an independent national inquiry with the right powers, and resources.

                Agree to disagree…. but are some of these claims, from adults, true and how do we find out how far things have gone? EVIDENCE you say. But, forgive me, it does seem to me to be the case that it is you who wants to prove it’s not true. I have to say, lots of separate inquiries run the risk of allowing links outside their remits to escape scrutiny. That is what Cameron is now facing with the North Wales Waterhouse inquiry that took place. People named by children but not in the public domain.

                • Eddie

                  Maybe you’re a paedophile though eh? Perhaps you should be arrested and questioned, just to make sure.
                  Don’t worry about everyone thinking you are guilty as accused.
                  We have to think of the children first!
                  Facts: CRBs do not protect children, as all evidence shows.
                  And listen, you pompous twerp: I am NOT saying abuse does not happen or that some of those who claim it has are not telling the truth: that is your ASSumption.
                  You are not rational about this at all, and like most screamomg skieking hysterics, you get all emotional and ue anecdote to scream WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN – despite your type of hysteria actually leading to children being damaged in an abuse-obsessed society.
                  Over-protection of children is abuse. Trying to convince evryone that the UK is some seething pit of child abuse is 1) a lie, 2) something that wil make idiot parents even more overprotective and so psychologically disturb their own children more.
                  The way you are approaching this whole issue is wrong and counterproductive.

                • JanCosgrove1945

                  Anyone who is suspected of being a paedophile on sound grounds should be looked at. You fail to understand a basic element of UK and international law re the interests of children. In any court or administrative proceedings affecting a child, the child’s welfare is a primary concern. As Parliament today admitted collectively, not enough people thought about the children, they are admitting the situation, and there is now general recognition that a lot of things were missed, ignored, in North Wales and elsewhere.

                  You miss the point -I have been involved practically in work which encouraged children to be outside, play freely, not be over-protected. I have written critiques of no-photos-at-school rules, for example – the nonce-sense that the BBC shows children’s feet in playgrounds when reporting child protection concerns in schools – I posed the idea of the paedophile foot-fetishist as a example of over-reaction through sarcasm. I certainly told a county agency distributing government money what they could do with their grant if they insisted no video, no photos. My line was “ask the kids if they mind, those who don’t want to be in the pic allowed to walk out of the picture, and parents are made aware pictures/video would be taken for publicity, record-keeping, training, grant-proving/application purposes.” Indeed, some of it will start to appear on line in due course partly as a fun-record but also to show what activity was carried out, and how and why.

                  But the real issue here is to what extent we now have to listen when there are multiple claims of historic abuse where we are being told by alleged victims that their reports and needs were ignored, at the very least. This is not about the current population of children, it’s about what happened to the predecessors, and why they were not heeded, if that is the case. In my setup, as far back as the late 80s, before we had access to checks, we developed a protocol, based on a known event and its lessons. It was that all staff and volunteers were obligated to share concerns quickly. They would look for major changes in behaviour by children, we explored the various ways a child might disclose, and WE SAT DOWN AND TALKED. There was a designated person who would have the responsibility of assessing what was being reported and shared and of taking action, independent of the management, but also reporting to it. That action could involve contact with social services, the police etc.

                  An example – a Saturday Club on the actual estate where a girl was murdered (recall Sarah’s Law?) But she was not one of our kids. We ran out of a delapidated youth club. I recall having to shoevl up human shit from the doorstep one morning before kids arrived. That was what was available, plus our Bus. There was a family of three kids, eldest girl 10, brother 8, sister 7. Usually very lively, good-humoured. One day after session one of our workers sweeping up (craft materials mainly) spotted a card a kid had made for her dad. He picked it up thinking she’d probably want it next week. He read inside and its message to dad was disturbing – whatever was happening with her was making her very unhappy. Indeed one reading of it could have suggested she was thinking about self-harm. He reported it, the session leader convened an after-session meeting and I was present as a volunteer but also had that child protection responsibility as a trustee.

                  The sharing brought out that workers and vols had noted negative changes in behaviour by all three kids. There was some speculation about what might be behind it all but it was made clear to me people were unhappy at seeing those kids clearly under some emotional strain. On the Monday morning I picked up the phone and spoke with a child social worker with whom we had agreed there should be an informal, quick ‘hotline’. She told me they did not know of this family, then later that they had checked with their school, and had, on the basis of what we said, sent a social worker to see the parents. Only to find that there was a serious separation/divorce issue going on with the kids piggy-in-the-middle. One of the commonest forms of abuse in my view, kids being used as emotional punch-bags by one or both parents.

                  Now that situation could have been the more popular conception of child abuse, of sexual assault. Or of other abuse e.g. physical which we might well not have seen evidence of. The point being made here is that I am in no way used to or tolerate “nonce-calling” and indeed I am attending a meeting tomorrow concerning a man who has been so labelled by the system which was there to protect him when a kid. But I will not stand by and let you get away with the sort of stuff you are peddling here, and on which Mr Liddle’s foul little article is based. When there are grounds to share concerns, that is what should happen. And if such sharing was hindered or perverted or ignored in any way then this is clearly the time for it to be re-visited.

                  I term this whole episode Savilegate not because of the gent himself – let the evidence be sifted – but because of what is now emerging. Watergate – a building. Watergate – governmental corruption and cover-up.

                  Where’s the hysteria in that? Tell me, will all these inquiries etc reveal what you allege, or not? I’m not saying either way. But I am, saying there needs to be a national inquiry into institutional child abuse. Two possible outcomes (with many shades in between).

                  One, it is shown there has been extensive abuse, not adequately investigated or reported, in as many institutions as may be named, and how and maybe why that lack occurred.

                  Two, it’s all largely false, in which case someone had perhaps better get weaving on why such a torrent has been unleashed.

                  Both extremes are important for society if either obtains.

                • Eddie

                  But nobody at all is arguing that children should not be listened to or that accusations of abuse should be ignored!

                  You WANT to believe that in order to attempt to portray all those who are healthily sceptical as somehow suspect and having ulterior motives.

                  It’s a bit like when everyone turns on someone and screams RACIST: one motivation for this ovine mobbing behaviour is to ‘prove’ oneself as NON-racist.

                  How best to prove oneself not a paedophile? Easy – join an organisation which is anti-psedophile, Perfect cover!

                  You say: ‘Anyone who is suspected of being a paedophile on sound grounds should be looked at.’

                  Definition of ‘sound’ is what exactly> Any accusation by anyone.

                  And what does ;looked at; mean? READ the links I gave for people whose lives have been ruined by faled accusations.

                  And people can and DO make false accusations! Money is a motivation. Soem damaged people are liars – many are in prison. And people want revenge against a system and.or may be mentally ill.

                  You assume everyone making an accusation is right and the accuses is guilty. And what exactly is the difference between that and a witchhunt?

                  It is as bad as assuming NO accuser is telling the truth – you are just the flipside of that discredited coin.

                  This hysteria will do NOTHING to protect children. CRBs do nothing to protect children Making working with kids very hard for men does nothing to protect children.

                  If we want to protect children we should take more babies away from their unfit mothers and adopt them out. And we should make sure as many children as possible grow up in stable two-parent families: ie the opposite of our single-mum-disaster-family-creating policies of the last 40 years.

                  And please realise: you are NOT morally superior in your views and you do NOT represent all children. OK?

                • JanCosgrove1945

                  Well, Eddie, there you go doing exactly what you accuse me of. If I met you after this I’d want to stick one right on your nose for your nasty innuendo. I don’t mind a rational debate – but from you this isn’t it.

                  You accuse me of accusing others. Where? All I said is that these allegations must not be ignored. Remember, it was Mr Liddle’s nasty attempt at humour at the expense of people who do suffer such abuse that brought me into this whole debate. A reaction against an attitude that sugests very little of abuse allegations are true. You say you have links to those falsely accused. Yes that happens too. But what we are seeing emerge seems to involve a very large number of people who say they were abused in Institutions as kids. You say I might be a paedophile. But I might be a victim. Or someone falsely accused. Or none of those. But you, Eddie, don’t know me at all. What you want is to prove that people like me are mal-motivated – we’re crypto-paedos, or unfeeling monsters who do not care about rights, or part of the child protection industry (redolent of the race relations industry maybe?).

                  I told you that tomorrow I shall be attending a meeting supporting a man accused of abuse whom I know is a victim, both of childhood abuse, and, unbelievably, of being now accused of being an abuser to the extent that the local authority and police want to serve an order on him. Based on tainted evidence within his family which his mother tomorrow will lay to rest by naming in a statement who was responsible. I don’t think you have any grounds at all to accuse me of ignoring false allegations nor of being unaware of what can and does happen. Funnily enough, he has only just yesterday told me that what one had heard on the local grapevine years back about a children’s home has real substance and names. Can’t say more, as it’s for police attention once we have heard the solicitor’s advice.

                  Stop ranting around decrying those of us who have worked hard to see systems set up which, when they weren’t there, allowed convicted paedophiles to work unknown in children’s organisations. And to be told where there is substantial police information of concern, and also when a person is barred by statute.

                  And those people can then be identified and not given jobs, paid or unpaid. As for the undiscovered offenders, you are no surely not suggesting that because we don’t know them, we shouldn’t seek to exclude those who are known. The unknown ones – that in an institution is the issue around proper risk assessment and subsequent measures – what I call children protection auditing. That has the same basis as – where can someone using this facility be at risk of falling down a step, tripping on a defective tile. Child protection is part of that proper, legitimate health and safety regime.

                  Let’ pose a question to which neither of us has an answer based on actual numbers. There are adults allegedly falsely accused by children within institutions such as schools, homes, scouts etc etc. How many adults? Involving how many children? How many of those have led to arrests, job losses, etc? And what is the adult-child ratio – is it 1 adult accused : 1 child accusing etc? There are children who are abused within institutions by adults. How many adults, how many children abused, how many children not believed, how many cases not taken forward?

                  You rail about CRB – it’s not perfect, we know that. But consider, lof the claims now being made, how many relate to well before CRB started disclosures in 2002? You cannot say that CRB didn’t expose these people, as it didn’t exist. In 1986, my local group couldn’t get police checks, vol bodies couldn’t. Some I gather went by the back door to get police info to which they were not entitled. My group was getting MSC funding at that time, administered by the County Council. They sent us candidates, we interviewed and, in those innocent days, asked verbally at interview did they have any convictions but we had no way of checking on that. We ASSUMED that the County would use its means of police vetting as they would with their own social workers, teachers etc. At a meeting one day attended by a senior social worker I was taken aside by him as he kept the County Child Protection Register and he asked me had we checked on everyone, and he knew we couldn’t so he suggested that I ask each staff member to sign a piece of paper (which I could not get checked out) and that if we continued to employ an un-named person there would be consequences for us such as loss of funding. So there we were, unable to get access to checks. So I did as asked, everyone signed, bar one man, from this MSC scheme. He admitted having a conviction for sexual assault on a ten year old child 4 years before in another county. We suspended him. I got to see his statement to the police (he agreed we could but said “it wasn’t like that”), we agreed to look into the matter and check his claim out but as we asked to see further material he backed out. He was sacked as he was subject to a Schedule 1 order under the 1933 children and young persons act barring him from such work, which we were not allowed to check on given the laws then prevailing. I said something about sharing – this was the first time we’d ever had such an experience, it got to the local press (you wake up to that if you’re volunteer or staff member). When we talked about it, some odd issues arose – that he had told a staff member that he had a paedophile lodger whom he had evicted. Then that a visit to a site one afternoon where the Bus was by the police was because they wanted to interview a 7 year old child in the middle of a session on our Bus top deck an about a report about abuse – it turned out to be his own daughter they wanted to speak to. Which the staff would not permit as they would not accept they were in loco parentis. A position I resolutely insisted upon with the Chief Constable when we exchanged correspondence.

                  It’s also true that when we interviewed the gent, he told us he had volunteered for a charity which provided weekend camping breaks for disadvantaged children which we thought at the time was great. Though he didn’t give them as a reference we’re told (by County). I couldn’t find that body in the aftermath and then, 4 years on, I came across it in a charity digest. I rang the Honorary Secretary, Mrs E, and asked if she recalled MrCJB. Oh yes, he’s still working with us, a very appreciated volunteer. When I asked her about background checks, she said they didn’t do them, as their volunteers were middle class people, very nice. So the “welcome as a rattlesnake in a lucky dip” syndrome emerged as I told her why I was going to tell her what I then told her. Blank incomprehension and “Well, we will have to speak with our Solicitor” (they could afford one?) What happened to him? Now, I don’t know. Is he now on the ISA child barring list ….? I have no idea. But, Eddie, I will tell you this, and you may believe it or not. I am sure, because I saw the evidence, that just after he left, someone tampered with the brakes of a co-worker’s car. I got some very odd notes, in different handwriting, and I am sure that he committed a serious sexual assault on an adult which that person has refused to allow to be followed up because of the trauma and fear.

                  We are not dealing with kiddie-fiddlers of popular myth, dirty raincoats and molester specs, this was and I suspect is a very dangerous predator. He’s out there. He’s not alone. How many children have been his victims, how many are silent even now?

                  You keep saying most abuse is domestic. I point out, AGAIN, that the institutional abuser is likely to access more child victims. As each child is a separate case, the institutional abusers account for a disproportionately large % of victims, it doesn’t take much for that 6.3% to account for 25% of victims and not too much a stretch to rise to higher %s. But effective checking and good practice, by the same token, has a substantial effect on prevention, which is the name of the game.

                • Eddie

                  I accuse you of that to MAKE THE POINT that your self-righeous outrage, your labelling of anyone who disagrees with you as being a closet paedo with ulterior motives, your irrelevant emotive listing of child abuse cases is irrational, pointless and liable to hurt children more than help them.
                  Your point about an institutional abuser having or victims does NOT mean that most children in institutions are abused or that most abuse takes place in institutions, MOST abuse – and really all but a few cases – happens in the homes, with family members or family friends.
                  But hey, far easier to get all sanctimonious by jeering at a bogie man eh!
                  As it is children in the UK are abused and damaged by not having any male influence of fathers and teachers – your padeo hysteria makes that situation worse and does NOTHING to help children in any way, not matter wht you self-righteously think.
                  You Jan are part of the problem, not the solution. And you really know a great deal less about this issue than rational people like men and many others – sadly, gthe hysterical mob personified by you has the upper hand and is setting the agenda. That may well change when many men (and it is almost always men, despite most child abuse being done by women, and half of murdered children being killed by women too) are shown to be innocent despite being accuses by ‘victims’ after the compo and sympathy.
                  Have you ever MET anyone who has been the subject to a false allegation of abuse? I have met several teachers who have been and it has ruined their lives – and most are broken now and will never return to teaching, Now THAT is abuse! And you are the abuser here!
                  And CRB checks do not prove a person is NOT a paedophile which idiot parents believe. In fact, the overconfidence and sense of security that silly piece of paper provides may well lead to even more child abuse.
                  But really, exaggerating child sex abuse through the abuse of statistics is disgusting, and people like you should shut up, for the sake of the children whose childhoods are being destroyed by all this emotional hysteria and paranoia.

                • JanCosgrove1945

                  Yes I have met someone who was the subject of a false report. When the court removed his children and gave custody to his ex, he lost his legal aid so he came to me and I acted as his MacKenzie Friend in his Appeal Court case a-minors v etc. I took affidavit statements from a range of people which included the ex’s boyfriend’s ex-wife who revealed him to be a violent, animal porn watching monster, and we proved that abuse had taken place in the home of the mother and boyfriend and not at the hands of the father. Also that events alleged could not have taken place and that a woman named by the ex-wife.mother was in fact an opportunistic fabrication. I also showed that the mother’s solicitors interviewed one of the children with the mother present without police and social services being informed, and that the tape of this ought never have to have been accepted by the lower court as evidence. The case was won for the father, I prepared it, the presiding Judges at Appeal were Lord Justices Mann and Purchas. More irrelevant anti-male bias? I looked at the facts and had no bias bar wanting the best for the two children. So do not presume to lecture me in the way you do. My stats are logical and accurate and you plainly are unwilling to move from your perch that more abuse happens in the home. It is more accurate to say that more individual abusers exist in home situations. But as I have tried to point out, those 90%+ may not account for 90% of the child victims because each abuser in the domestic situation has less children available to abuse than the abuser in the institutional setting. In the latter, the abuser, maybe working with others, may have access to and abuse far more children. Or are we not reading what adults who say they were abused in care are telling us about NUMBERS known to them to have been abused?

                  At no stage have I accused a single person known to me of being an abuser bar those now convicted. Yes we KNOW some teachers have such things happen to them, youth workers etc also. It is a risk of such work, alas. But there again we also know that there are those who claim false allegation who do turn out to be abusers. And that there are people who get away with abuse over years. Both your case and mine exist but I don’t deny yours, whereas you seem to deny that there is a need for CRBs.

                  Listen, they Do tell us who IS convicted / barred in many cases, and that had it been available to my group in 1985 would have meant that “CJB” would not have worked with us, and also, had his previous vol group known, with them either. Had the junior football league had access to CRB with local police intel, Mr David Lawrence’s career of abuse from at least 1975 to 1997 could have been a lot shorter. These are real cases when CRB did NOT exist and Mr DL was only removed when a pre-CRB pilot scheme revealed that intel. “Oh” one might hear “But that was hearsay, gossip, and he was removed from a position where he had worked for 2 or more decades, how unfair” But the fact is, Eddie, that 18 months later, the law finally was able to prove its case and he was sent to prison for multiple abuse. Conclusion, the intel was not mere hearsay and gossip, it was garnered carefully and only made available under the most stringent guidelines. What ISA has added is a means for such people to hear and challenge such material as barring is being considered. Mr DL was in another junior club league 3 months after release and, oh surprise, it was not yet doing CRBs. I remind you that he was arrested later for offences from 1975. That man was and may well be a danger to children. You want CRBs stopped. Don’t be daft.

                  Oh Manifesto/’spiked’ – here’s a link to spiked’s 2009 publication on the North Wales children’s home:

                  Let’s see how that stands up as the case is reopened …..

                  Look I have spent enough time with you, you have been rude and put forward so much repeated assertion, I have made facts and experience known. I have stood up for dads as well as kids and mums, so I’ll rest my case. I am not arrogant but I won’t shut up at anyone’s demand when I know a lot of things about this whole issue.

                  Today I attended a meeting with a young man saddled with a reputation as a nonce, I know he is not what is being said, I made a statement of good character about him based on knowing him and his mum since the early 90s. He was in care and today he confirmed something that has been a rumour in this area that boys like him were offered nights away from the care home to stay at a local hotel and enjoy discos because they were ‘underprivileged’ – arranged by a social worker, lasted sometimes two days. Known as The Breakfast Club. He having been abused at home wouldn’t go, but one asks the question – were those boys (and girls too I think) the ones a young dj reported to me in the 1990s that he had seen wandering about naked in the upper corridors, clearly under the influence, he said (and I think he knew) of drugs and alcohol. Dj had mental health problem, so did the boy in care …. we don’t believe them? The boy reported abuse by his stepfather to the police, not acted up, statement ‘lost’? That is ‘hot off the press’ don’t you DARE tell me it has to be made up. It is as possible as your false allegation cases.

                  I rest my case even if you now rant at me again. National Inquiry into Institutional Child Abuse – no thanks to ‘spiked’. Here, try this one from Frank Ferudi of ‘spiked’:


                  or his erstwhile colleague, Brendan O’Neill (down under):


                  I feel like shouting ‘bollocks’!

    • Eddie

      We have gone from a situation where hardly any children were believed when they accused people (esp family members or those they should defer to – priests, respected community members etc) to one is which ALL children are ALWAYS believed when they accuse an adult of ANYTHING. It is assumed the accused adult is guilty as accused – and there is no deterent to stop false accusers.

      Anyone who cannot see a problem like this is either blind or immoral or both.

      Of course, hypocrite manhaters like Harman side against those accuses, because she knows most accused will be men; the equivalent would be for men to assume that all mothers whose babies die of cot death are guilty of killing them, and we should expect the mothers themselves to provide evidence of their innocence. Doesn’t sound so great now, does it?

      Innocent until proven guilty is a standard of civilistion we should stick to rigidly despite the hysteria of those like you and a scaremongering media (which feeds off child abuse cases like a great big pervert because it gets the ratings).

      Look at those people falsely accused:
      It is one reason teaching is now over 70% female and horribly feminised (in the 80s half of teachers were men).

      We need trust, and we should not worship children in some kind of Kidocracy and infantalise them on the American model (which we are following): that is actually child abuse, as is pumping kids full of drugs like ritalin.

    • Eddie

      Just for the record: How much abuse of children have CRBs prevented?
      Most people who know the issues here (ie not most members of the public mob who are thick and uninformed) know that they have made no difference at all, because the level of child abuse in professions like teaching was so very low anyway.
      The CRBs have just created a bureaucratic industry which has enabled penpushers and paper-shufflers to make money and have jobs.
      Scrap all the CRBs and children will be no more or less protected than they are now.
      Question 2: how much child sex abuse happens in the home? (That’s be well over 90%)
      Question 3: How much child sex abuse is done to children by other children and young people (answer: one third). So should schoolkids have CRBs too now?

      • JanCosgrove1945

        Eddie 6.3% of abusers are from ‘professional’ situations. However, that does not mean that 6.3% of children who are abused are down to them. Simple maths. Domestic abuser victim rate = 1,2 children? Those who have access via institutions? You tell me. 5, 10, 20. Do that maths and we might see that such people, on whom CRBs are undertaken, account for a % far beyond their small numbers. If the average were 20 per abuser over ten years, see what that does to their representation amongst victims.

      • mikewaller

        This is a true story, but obviously of no statistical significance as it only concerns one individual in a charitable organisation of which I have some knowledge. He was the only person who “as a matter of principle” raised merry Cain about the iniquity of CRB checks. He then turned out to have a relevant conviction.

        On the broader issue, dear old Liddle really is our stinking press in a nutshell. Only the most stupid or bigoted would say all those claiming abuse made it up and/or are just after the money. Conversely, only the most starry-eyed would say every accusation is absolutely true and no accuser is interested in the money. For better or worse we will have to rely on the police inquiry and what follows to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Yet way before that has happened, there is dear old attention/cash seeking Liddle writing a piece which implies that all claimants are making it up and are just after the money. Given that among those who are now making allegations there is a significant chance that there are at least some who have been very badly damaged by their experiences, doing what Liddle has done really is contemptible. It puts me in mind of the famous rhyme:

        You cannot bribe or twist,
        Thank God, the English journalist;
        But when you see what he will do,
        Unbribed, you really have no occasion to.

        • Eddie

          “He was the only person who “as a matter of principle” raised merry Cain about the iniquity of CRB checks. He then turned out to have a relevant conviction. ”
          Now that is the sort of disgusting vile fale argument much loved of the mob. To imply that ANYONE who raises concerns about CRB checks must have some ulterior motive is really perverse and wrong.
          I could hint that all those obsessed about child abuse and working for charities involved in it are also closet paedophiles who do what they do to have access to children.
          Many MANY people have objected top CRB checks – despite the perverted accusations from idiots like you.
          Thos who do not want these silly pointless checks (which Savile and Ian Huntley would have passed by the way) are NOT closet paedos – they are rational people who accept abuse happens (no-one I know denies that, as it always will happen, like murder) but who thinks the hysterical paranoid parenting approach is wrong – and actually damages children. The erosion of trust in society is hurting kids – as Anthony Seldon so rightly identifes.
          CRB checks do NOT protect children – many people think they do, but they don’t.
          If you want to protect children then let’s start taking more children away from unfit single mothers at birth – that will protect many.
          Oh but far easier to blame the bogie man than to identify the real cause of child abuse: mummies and daddies and those within the home and the family. Does that reality give you nightmares eh?

        • rod liddle

          I didn’t say they all were, did I, you moron? Or imply they all were.

      • noodleking

        The answer is clear, ALL parents to be must be CRB checked pre-coitus (or at the very least, mid-coitus). Web cams must be installed in all homes (and in all rooms therein) and 128bit encrypted digital chastity belt devices must be worn by all children under the age of 21 when not being chaperoned by ageing, celibate, eccentric males.

        A facebook panopticon app is the ONLY solution to this dreadful business… Oh and we need to bring in the fat tax tpp, we need a wholistic approach to the development and maturing of our future consumers.

    • Eddie

      Why don’t you join this lot, Jan, and meet like-minded people?

      • JanCosgrove1945

        Eddie, don’t talk daft. Those are the people I loathe more than you may imagine. They are fascists, when my son was 2 they attempted to take him from our garden because me and my missus dared the stage an exhibition about the Portuguese colonialists in Africa – Mosley’s lot tried it, the SB sat on them rather hard. If ‘cichociemni’ means anything, my old man was one. In my family we have rather a thing about these types, from the BUF right up to BNP and now TB – personal, Anyway, look at their history and, boy, do they have some questions to answer re paedophilia … ‘Mr WM’ as Shakespeare might have put it if alive today?

        • Eddie

          Yep, but you reach the same witch-hunt mob conclusion as them by taking a different route!

          That is why it is SO important to be rational – and to keep the focus on evidence nd specpticism. That is the only sane way to proceed.

          And the best way to stop kids being abused is to start taking more into care ealrier and adopting them out: the access to abuse created by the context of unstable single mother families is frightening.

          Most abuse takes place in the home; the hysteria around the comparatively tiny number of people who abuse kids outside the home creates an unhealthy overprotective paranoid atmosphere which, ultimately, hurts children. And no, no anecdotal story used as attempted emotional blackmail changes that.

          • JanCosgrove1945

            Yes, no disagreement about evidence. Taking kids into care earlier – only if we’re sure they won’t face worse there. Adopters have to be CRBd and vetted by the way, as routine. As I say, those checks tell us who is KNOWN.

            No, most abusers are in the home, only 6.3% are in professional settings, so that means you cannot baldly keep stating most abuse happens in the home. Not if you look at the centre of concern, the child. The domestic abuser generally may access one or two kids, the 6.3% lot more kids, and that has to be the sensible basis for recording abuse, how many are abused by a single person in whatever setting. It doesn’t take much to shift those 6.3% from abusing 6.3% of victims to a much higher proportion.

            It is also common sense that people seeking to abuse serially will seek access in places where there are a lot of kids. That is why they need to have in place the right child protection framework which includes CRB and vetting, and risk assessment but not, in my experience, the daft and harmful, non-legislated mythology that, e.g. a kid can’t sit on your lap. Sitting on my Fun Bus, if a kid wanted a cuddle and climbed up, that’s what it got. But if it hung on me as I walked around, that’s tiring. Nor would we pick kids up unasked (rude) and nor would I haul some large child onto an inflatable …. you want up there sunshine, you get up yourself. [They did, and I saw other kids help them, it was part of the socialisation, kids feeling good about themselves, part of the group, getting a buzz from being nice to someone with a prob.]

            Oh don’t take photos it’s against child protection – it isn’t, I was told by a police officer associated with Ore that (apart from having to deal with the nasty stuff by doing it in relays so people could recover and be counselled) much of what they found was from e.g. catalogues, cute kids stuff on the web as ads etc.

            I do recall the dressing-up box incident where the kids recognised that one of them was (non-pc) very camp and when he found a bridesmaid’s dress he put it on, the other kids dived in the find him the headress – army cap, woolen hat, top hat, yellow safety helmet – he threw them off impatiently, then he found it! The look of relief, then “Ryan wants to get married, Ryan wants to get married’, shoving him downstairs, out onto a peddle truck (no lucky partner mind) and off round the field, as his bemused mum looked on. “I worry about him sometimes” she said to which I came bac; “Don’t worry, if he gets it outof his system now, he’ll not grow up to be a tory MP” (There was scandal at the time I think). “You’ve got a point there”. These days, no prob

            You dismiss anecdotal stories – so also then not “I know teachers unfairly sacked”, just as emotional. But why not emotional? A man losing his career and lifetime commitment. A child abused, life blighted. We need to hear the facts not blind assertion. And I base my beliefs on things I have seen and experienced, that is not emotional in motive, it’s what I have seen happen with real folk. Then I can back what I say. No one says, by the way, that what you say about unfairly dismissed teachers is not true.

            • Eddie

              Jan – there were checks BEFORE the CRB fiasco! But at least the government didn’t impose ridiculous CRB checks on all visitors to schools like writers.

              A CRB check only shows past convictions – so Ian Huntley and Jimmy Saville would have passed with flying colours and thus (in the eyes of idiot paranoid hysterical parents) been ‘safe’. Ho ho ho…

              I know plenty of anecdotal stories too – how about the innocent man whose life was ruined by false accusations for a 15 year old bitch pupil (she got no punishment for her lies). Many MANY more examples.

              It is TOO easy for peopl to make such flippant accusations – for reasons of revenge, or because theyr are mental and nasty, or because they want custody of kids, or because they want money in compo.

              I really do not think you appreciate that

              1) CRB checks have not saved one child from abuse and the system before that was adequate – all CRB checks have done is reinforce the wrong idea that the greatest danger to children is bogie men peadophiles out there, and also to be very anti-men and more or less brand all men as dangerous – which is bad for children. Also, people like part-time supply staff have to pay for each and every CRB check they have – maybe 5 or more a year! Stupid, wrong and unnecessary bureaucracy – much loved of penpushers and managers everywhere of course, because then they can tick boxes and pretend they are protecting children (which they are NOT). The CRB should be scrapped, and we should return to a rational system as before. The cost should be borne by the taxpayer too.

              2) Accusations of sex abuse are like no other: guilt is assumed and mud sticks, even if it has been created in the sick minds of hysterics and liars. Men falsely accused know this – and THEY are the victims here, not children.

              I do wish you would use some common sense and reason, and maybe meet some men whose lives have been ruined by the hysterical attitudes of this sick society.

              Your constant emotive harping on about how awful child abuse is proves nothing – it’;s like saying WATER IS WET. Of course it is! Saying child abuse is bad and listing examples does NOT prove any of your assertions!
              But then, irrational hysterics like you use every trick in the book to try and brand all those who disagree with you as somehow wanting to protect children less than you. Now THAT is sick. People like you are destroying normal childhoods for millions of children – not THAT is abuse. I have lived abroad – in southern and central Europe where they are not so hysterical: the childhoods of kids there is better, and I very much doubt they have more abuse, so overprotecting children in the UK is simply damaging them and is not necessary or effective.

              We need to protect adults from false accusations as well as children; we need a rational sensible approach to child abuse, which is less common that the hysteriucal campaigns portray (though some would argue overprotecting and child is child abuse, or giving the child no father or male influence is child abuse – and I tend to agree).


              • JanCosgrove1945

                So many errors fact. The CRB system was introduced in May 2002, following the Cullen Report into Dunbland and Thomas Hamilton – BECAUSE Cullen recommended it on the basis that information which had been available on Hamilton had not been shared – the whole point of CRB.

                Prior to that, statutory bodies could access police checks which contained records and, I think, soft intel. These were not available to other, non-statutory employers. I know this for an absolute fact. What I also know is that there was a Home Office funded pilot in the 90s, one part in Dudley, another at County level somewhere, and the third for some national voluntary bodies who were part of the then-National Voluntary Council of Child Care Organisations (now ?Action England or some such) and some other bodies, which included Fair Play for Children, of which I am National Secretary. This enabled us to get police checks on applicants showing convictions plus police intel. This was on behalf of member organisations of Fair Play who mainly were/ are small local voluntary groups delivering play and other sessions to children and young people under 18. We did around 8,000 checks there, fact. It closed in late 2001 prior to CRB launch.

                Yes that did save some kids from abuse – The David Lawrence case, serial abuser in children’s soccer. I know because I had the misfortune to have to read the details.

                The checks were not available to vol groups in 1986, hence ‘CJB’ with a criminal paedophile record was employed.

                Now authors did not have to get checks, totally untrue. The claims by Pullman etc widely touted with the help of spiked etc in our uncritical media who do not checks sources any more – the Vetting and Barring Scheme which never saw a single application processed because Cameron ordered the review which led to new arrangement in the PoFAct 2012 – the VBS specified a range of employments in which it was mandatory for staff and volunteers in them to be check against the 2 VBS lists re Children and Vulnerable Adults. However, authors were NOT included in that range. They were able, if they wished, to see a voluntary check as self-employed people if that was the case. The whole story was a mischievious farrago of no basis at all, yet it figured prominently in our wonderful media to help stoke the claims about “gone too far”. A simple check would have shown the claim to have been utterly without foundation and said authors up their bums. But, guess what, when the media were told, editors had the actual law spelt out to them, they …. did print it because it didn’t suit their agenda.

                An anecdote about checking your sources. On the 1 April when details were released in the national media about the Royal Wedding (THAT one, Princess of Hearts et al), stories were legion as to what she would wear, etc etc On page 1 of The Guardian was a report that British scientists had discovered how to control the weather for The Day, a little April Fool jest. Next to it was a report including a story that a welsh goldsmith, Alum Morgan Thomas, was to ‘fashion’ the wedding ring. The Daily Mail enthused that this was to a secret design by Lady Diana herself. The Times had it also on their front page, and there were others like Radio 4 who took it up. The Press Release arose in this manner. Playing scrabble one evening, a word was arrived at, ‘clandestine’, and in a fit of pique about ‘yet more’ roayl wedding overkill, the name of a Welsh town, in Powys, emerged – Llandestyn, and it became the home of said Goldsmiths whose Mayor was related to them, and who traced their ancestry to that great goldsmith who fashioned the royal diadem of the last true Prince of Wales, Ianto ap Thomas. The Mail even agreed that, provided they were blindfolded, their reporter and photographer could visit the secret mine location two months on ….. At one stage on that morning a call came from an irate gent demanding to know what was going on, he had seen the story, he had tried to get clarification from the jewellers, and Clarence House whom it appeared had seen the release but ‘refused to comment’ – his interest was “but I own the bloody mine where the gold is coming from” at which point a cod welsh voice was dropped (my wife), she told him it was a hoax. “A Hoax, a hoax, how can it be, I read it in the bloody Times!” I had gone out, and boy did I get it in the neck when I returned. The media are so self-regarding, that when I mailed them they’d been had, not a peep …. except from The Guardian’s reporter – I contacted her in character as Ianto Morgan Thomas, she said yes she was most interested in the story etc, and I told her there was a slight problem. Oh. It was a hoax and you’ve been had, to which she uttered “f+ck” as I pronounced Llandestyn, and she broke off and announced it to her colleagues and there was laughter and applause.

                A lovely anecdote, wholly true Batman, which demonstrated to me that when the press wants to believe something, or us to do so, claims may not be verified.

                So in this welter of allegations, that is what must happen. The problem now is whether we can get at the possible links between venues etc with umpteen inquiries, Haut de la Garenne the latest to be re-opened. Cameron says there’s a lot flying round, some at least of which may be mistaken i/d. Well, better get that single inquiry sorted eh David?

                Eddie. 12 men/women abuse 1 child each = 12. I man abuses 20=20. Where is the greater abuse? Do you measure eg 1 of the 12 did it 1x to 2, 6x to 4 etc Serial paedophiles DO target groups where they see weakness. That is clearly known. How many victims Mr Barry Bennell, how many Mr David Lawrence, Mr Jerry Sandusky, ‘CJB’, Sir Jiimmy Savile, his driver …… and who else ….

  • Baron

    Here’s one of the not so Dim blebies (not so dim for he knows well which way the bread’s buttered): “Paedophilia is a huge national problem that no-one thought about 50 years ago and is now something that concerns everyone, but this has become a witch-hunt against the BBC”.

    Would anyone think it possible the BBC bred chap may have said something similar about the phone hacking? Yet, just substitute ‘peadophillia’ for ‘phone hacking’ and the ‘BBC’ for the “Murdoch Empire’ and voila, the sentence is even more valid as before, the hacking didn’t last 40 years and, more to the point, wasn’t the saintly BBC also involved in phone hacking? Mark Thompson admitted as such. Arghhh.

    Baron wonders what the father of his would have to say about it all.

  • John

    What a sick newspaper to make jokes about child abuse yuck won’t buy it again

    • rod liddle

      it’s not a newspaper you idiot

      • Foxy Loxy

        Shouldn’t that be ‘it’s not a newspaper, you idiot’
        Anyway, great article. Looks like you’ve really upset the ‘vested interest’ brigade on this one.
        The Sub-Editor

        • Sarah

          ‘Vested interest’ brigade?

          Damaged abuse victims – are they the ‘vested interest’ brigade?

          Not the wealthy and well-connected who abused? Not the agents who protected? Not the authorities who failed or colluded? Not the journalists who feasted? Not the public who conceded? No, for you it’s the kids.

  • Baron

    Well, young Liddle, what would you say if one of your children were to be had by the albino then, tell us, spill it out, would you make a joke about it, shrug your manly shoulders, brush it aside avowing ‘the man’s dead, let him rest in peace’.

    It has finally hit you that being critical of the BBC may scupper your chances to do a job for them again, has it?

  • Wilhelm

    Jonathan Dumbledy has screamed ” There is a witch hunt against the BBC !! ”

    Really ? the poor dears, as Corporal Jones said in Dad’s Army ” They don’t like it up ’em.”

    • Baron

      Right you are, Wilhelm, hence their digging up the ‘crime of the century’ of the Old Australian again, not only ‘they don’t like it up’em’, they don’t like it anywhere near them, the tossers.

    • Eddie

      But – to automatically believe any accusation made by anyone about child abuse is JUST as bad as to automatically DISbelieve anyone who makes such allegations.

      Both of these scenarios lead to the hurting of innocent victims.
      Of course, politicians are pandering to the hysterical mob as they always do, and this will lead to pointles enquiries and bad law, which will then cause more problems as the innocent are wrongly lynched (remember that we live in a society where Paediatricians call themselves ‘Children’s Doctors’ just in case they houses and cars get torched by the hysterical mob mafde up largely of mothers who dress their 8 year olf daughters like whores it seems…. How very odd.))

      The BBC issue is a sideshow – and frankly the idea that the place was some den of disgusting monsters for decades is just some hysterical fantasy. Having said that, they did introduce the world to the gurning fang-monster called Esther Rantson… I’ve been having nightmares ever since 1979! Can I get any compo for the abuse suffered by watching the nightmare called That’s Life?

      • Eddie


        Today we learn that men who have been accused of being child abusers who shagged boys from north Wales children’s homes (who later accused people and name-dropped with abandon, without anyone looking at the facts or evidence) were never even in the area.

        Remember, damaged teenagers and adults often lie – and many are known liars with long criminal records. The sadness and damage of their backgrounds is no excuse for that behaviour – but these liars are only half the problem; the dangerous hysterics who automatically believe them without even examing their claims have an awful lot to answer for. I hope Philip Schofield et al are sued for libel, defamation and slander at the very least.

        Perhaps those hysterics and media hypocrites who feed of child abuse can now get a taste of their own medicine eh? Time to hunt the witch hunters? Time to lynch those idiots who attack the houses of paediatricians and innocent wrongly-accused men?

  • Wilhelm

    Really Rod ? How come Mr Liddle’s revelations don’t surprise me.

    Meanwhile back on planet Earth, the newspapers have finally come out and said that BBC childrens presenter ” Uncle Mac ” Derek McCulloch was a child molester, the parallels with Saville are striking, the BBC again covered it up.

    It seems the BBC stands for Bonking Buggering Children. Time to close it down.

    • Baron

      Wilhelm, if only, if only anyone had the courage to break up the monolith, they, the gnomes of politics, lack the fortitude, more to the point, they fear the BBC as much if not more as the lesser apparatchiks feared the Yorkshire albino. If the BBC escapes the latest scandal unhurt, only the sky will be the limit to their power.

      Had the boys at the top of the two largest political pyramids been able to look beyond the tips of their noses, they would have joined forces to at least curb the power of the beast. It’s the largest broadcasting entity in the world, it dominates all media platforms, old and new, it thumps competition, and most important, it camouflages its agitprop behind a screen of programmes not that different from what the much smaller commercial rivals pump out.

      Why is it no journalist has the guts to ask who gave the BBC the mandate to openly promote, amongst their other hobby horses, the MC policy that is so demonstrably failing societal cohesiveness, has been denounced by many who previously backed it including the Head of the Equality and HR Commission?

    • Shaw

      People would take your comment more seriously if you spelled Savile’s name correctly.

      • Caroline Redbrook

        However you spell it, he’s still a monstrous pervert.

      • Wilhelm

        Mr Shaw, you seem to be very upset about the misspelling of Mr Savile’s name, fellow traveller perhaps ?

      • Poppy Swanky for Romney

        I didn’t find it the least bit distracting.

  • Noa

    And what then are we to make of the gross sexual misbehaviour implicit in the recent Paxman Newsnight tie removal? This lewd divestiture is obviously a ‘dewlaps on top’ invitation to the wildest imaginable behind-camera debauchery, with cocoa.

  • Ed

    Disgraceful. Shame on Spectator for allowing this to be published. Whatever next?

  • darkhorse

    Ah yes, a hilarious joke about anal rape. Obviously abused children can laugh these things off, just with a bit of uncle Rod’s humour.

    • Baron

      darkhorse, my blogging friend, the MSM bunch is beginning to figure the chances of getting on the gravy train funded by the BBC £5bn budget may be zilch, naught, FA if they keep on barking at the Empire of Evil, hence their pulling back.

      It’s all about money, you know, the the stuff the BBC has plenty of.

  • Austin Barry

    ‘Blue Peter’. The clue is in plain sight in the title.

  • John Lea

    Brilliant! Did anyone else see that shyster lawyer on the news last week – speaking on behalf of her ‘traumatised clients’ – claiming that they were only interested in truth and justice, and hadn’t even raised the subject of financial compensation? Bullsheeeeeit!

    • Sarah

      And you know this because?

      Your are:
      A) Psychic?
      B) One of them?
      C) A lawyer at the firm in question with access to the client statements?
      D) Highly skilled in discerning lies via a third party on the telly?
      E) You don’t?

      • Eddie

        Well little Ms Sarah Potsenkettles, you always claim to somehow magically know that every accuser is telling the absolute truth if she accuses any man of rape or abuse.

        How do you know this? Errr you don’t. And yet without any evidence we know which side you will take.

        Are you psychic then? ( we know you’re psychotic, but the spellings diffrent love). Are you one of them? Are you a lawyer? No. You are not. You are a sexist misandrist crazy though who assumes all men accused of abuse are guilty by being accused (many of the accusers are told that compo may well be due and that must influence things! Others are druggies and in prison – and proven liars).

        You know nothing about ANY sex abuse or rape case, you just assume like an ASS than any man accused is guilty.

        You are therefore a proven hypocrite as well as a proven liar. Well done. You win deranged psycho bitch of the year award (against some quite stiff competition, one must say…)

      • Baron

        Sarah, spot on, you girl of courage, the Russians have a saying (there must be an English equivalent, the poorly educated Slav has no knowledge of it) ‘we judge others by our our own yardstick’, hence one has to forgive, pity the Leas of this world.

        Also, please, do wise up, stop responding to the Rottweiler’s postings, it ain’t worth it, he ought to have been put down years ago under the Dangerous Dog Act.

        • Eddie

          Baron, you arse! Agreeing with Sarah just makes you look silly and hypocritical. You must have noticed how Psycho Sarah regularly does EXACTLY what she is criticisng John Lea of doing: she assumes all men accuses of rape and abuse are guilty, again and again. Is that OK then?
          Why don’t you have a go at her for assuming all men accused of abuse are guilty by being abused – she knows NOTHING, has no EVIDENCE and just ASSumes like the manating harpie she is.
          YOu seem confused as usual oh vain pompous Baron. Perhaps your retirement on grounds of confusion and incompetence is in order: once a man starts agreeing with a hissy spitting misandrist who wants all men accuses of rape and sex abuse to be hanged without trial, it’s time to shut up, old man.

          John Lea by contrast makes the excellent point that the compo is a big factor here – claim Savile ‘abused’ you and get a slice of his estate’s pie, maybe £30k.

          Sarah as usual reacted hysterically and hypocritically. You agree with her. How very thick.

          Pots and kettles – and now Baron is a darkie too whose argument has shrivelled and died. Dem bones dem bones….

  • Sarah

    I detect the media getting bored of chasing this ambulance and are moving on to the next.

    By Tuesday they’ll say “enough is enough, we’ve had our fun with the BBC, let’s get back to work. There’s the American elections to milk, we can’t afford to still be talking about Saville when that cash cow comes round.”

    They thought this story was all about them you see.

  • Sarah

    Your mate, A.A.Gill has done it better in today’s Sunday Times Culture magazine.

    More nuanced, more humane, less easy to misinterpret as an attack on victims rather than the media by thick Spectator commenters like Ed-They’reInItForTheMoneyItNeverHappenedAndTheyProbablyDeservedItTheSlutsEnjoyIt-die.

    • Eddie

      Sarah – you really are a vile sick perverted excuse for a woman.
      I do not recall any poster here saying that the sluts deserved to be abused and raped and probably enjoyed it (I certainly did not): that is your fantasy – that men are all evil and woman-hating abusers – and without that figment of your deranged victimhood-craving imagination, your whole identity and argument would collapse huh?
      Now just go see someone about your obvious mental illness Sarah, befoe you hurt someone (maybe a child).
      Fact is, the biggest abuse in this whole affair is the way special interest groups are using it for push forwward their precious little agenda – especially the feminists who want to use it to get quotas at the BBC and demonise all men (just for the record, women are no more moral than men and actually commit most child abuse, as it happens).
      The most damaging thing here is that the hysteria about child abuse creates a context that ends up damaging children and far more of them than any real abuse or paedophiles out there: the anxiety, fear, destruction of trust, suspicion, and especially overprotection of kids IS abuse!

      • sarah

        “I do not recall any poster here saying that the sluts deserved to be abused and raped and probably enjoyed it”

        Let me jog your memory then:

        “The assumption that the teenage girl who pursues a pop star and gets what she wants is somehow a ‘victim’ is laughable.”

        “Some would say Mandy Slutsmith got lucky really.”

        “She couldn have stayed at home doing her homework – but no doubt her slut of a mother had dreams for her lickle gel…”

        “To portray men who have sex with younger women as somehow doing something wrong is silly: they are merely pawns in an evolutionary game.
        Anyone who sees Mandy Randy as a victim is a moron.”

        “The assumption is that teenie girl groupies are somehow ‘victims’. Well, having been in a band myself many moons ago, and witnessing what happens, I have to say that it is often the other way round, with young male performers having to take avoidance action to get away from these voracious nymphos!”

        “For a young man who has gone from a nobody to a rich and famous pop star to shag pretty girls is not really a crime, not even if the girl is 14
        or 15.”

        • Eddie

          Listen Sarah, you abusive psychotic twerp – taking remarks out of context is another of your tricks: JUST like the theatre producers who take ‘The Greatest Show in the West End’ from the critic writing ‘If this is the greatest show in the west end then I’n a dutchman’!
          For example, you conveniently leave off my point that a 14 year old girl may claim to be 17 and look it too! YOU DEVIOUS LITTLE TWISTED NUTJOB!
          And in NONE of the remakes above do I say children deserve to be abused and probably enjoy it!
          I say that too see all teen girls as victims of the famous men they target is naive at the least and dishonest in the extreme.
          Really, Sarah – GET A LIFE. YOu go trawling through hundreds of messages and copy and paste which takes you an hour, JUST to try and badmouth me!
          You are a proven liar. Did you or did you not accuse me of being a paedophile? And of being a teacher who was put on the child abuse register?
          Now THAT is even lower than your usual trick of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of racism and sexism.
          Now bugger off, and get help, you nutter twisted ball of bitch called Sarah. Really, no-one here reads your deranded rants.

          • Sarah

            “no-one here reads your deranded rants”

            You do, Ed love.

            • Eddie

              No I do not – I glance at them when addressed to me; when you are abusing other posters, I read your lies and show why you are a hypcoritical sick twisted little speck of manhating feminist fanny-phlegm dribbling down this otherwise interesting discussion page.
              Now go abuse a baby or something, love – just cry and blame your boyfriend when you’re arrested and you’ll get let off eh – like all the other mothers who kill their kids.

        • Baron

          Sarah, Sarah, why don’t you listen to Baron, ha, he knows, he’s been around for a while, just ignore the mad dog here, nothing good can come of it if you try to discipline him, he’s been barking mad most likely since he got booted out of the teaching profession, you just keep going, respond to others, let him bark.

          • Eddie

            Baron – liar, scumbag, thicko.
            So now you like Sarah accuse me of being booted out of the teaching profession eh? Well, are you psychic? How do you know ANYTHING about me.
            Oh no, you don’t. You are just desperate.
            Most probably you Baron are a child rapist and a long-term paedophile who now has lots of time on his hands (and cock) because he got booted out of…
            See how it works.
            Baron – just fuck of and spew your drivellking dribble elsewhere. Maybe on your kiddie porn mags eh?

            • Baro

              Eddie, is this the best you can do?, pretty mediocre even by your own standard, lsten, Baron has to go, when he gets back in the evening he wants to see you at your best, here’s a tip or two on the barbarian, doubts about evolution, from a Slav country, poorly educated (and it shows), calls you a Rottweiler…try, OK?

              • Eddie

                Baro? – are you Portuguese? My post a bit to Peri-peri for you Baron-Sarah-hybrid-thing?
                Well, if you can’t take it then don’t dish it out, chum.
                Now, be a good senior and stop having hissy fit episodes, stop accusing other posters of being paedophiles, recognise what a hypocrite you are for agreeing with Sad Sarah’s false accusations against others and then criticising others for doing the same to a far lesser extent. I know old men get a bit soppy, and that even some old manhating hag is better than your usual relief-strategy – but please, do your gushing somewhere else Baron Bore.
                I shall ignore your future posts and let you try and suck up to psycho Sarah – desperate old men really are sad to observe, as Seneca once said. Maybe time to follow his lead huh?

                • Baron

                  Eddie, 10 for effort, not more than 4 for the end result. Listen, why instead of f this and f that and stuff you deploy just a drop of wit, you know, the ability of one to express ideas in an amusing, entertaining manner.

                  An example: your brother ain’t a pimp, Eddie? Pity, you would have someone to look up to.

                  Also, Baron has noticed you got a severe bollocking on a blog next door? Learn anything from it?

                • Poppy Swanky for Romney

                  Baron: I for one really enjoyed that. : )

                • Eddie

                  Severe bollocking? Nope. I get weirdos and wankers like you making fale arguments, which I then destroy.

                  You are so thick that you agree with mental Sarah who accuses someone else of doing what she does in almost every post: assuming things without evidence. She assume all men accuses of rape and child abuse are guilty – yet has no evidence, no legal knowledge, no nothing. Just manhating bile and hatred.
                  Lea makes an excellent point – that you agree with Sarah’s hysterical mob over-emotionalism shows you to be a weak and stupid old man really.

                  You lose the argument – again! Baron really is showing his age… Time for an ovaltine perhaps…

          • Sarah

            I am actually starting to feel a bit bad that I might be dealing with a genuine mental patient.

            It’s a tough call. Do I leave him alone to rant obscenities at the world and risk him working himself up into such a lather that he graduates from showbiz teen-fan/slut-romance/rape cheerleading to kidnapping one and putting her in a lady cage he’s bought off the internet, or try to steer him away from a life of sexist crime and risk him having a psychotic break and eating someone?

            Let’s ask Rod Liddle, he’s got good judgement when it comes to this type of thing.

            • Eddie

              You are the mental patienty Sarah – as you admitted in a previous post. How DESPERATE YOU ARE to try and beg Rod to somehow censor me. How pathetic!

              Remember Sarah, you have accused me of being a sexist, a racist, a rapist, (possibly a papist), a child abuser and someone on the sex offender register because he abused pupils as a teacher.

              And your evidence for ANY of this? Errrr….

              I understand you are a psychotic loon, Sarah, and really do pity you and try to understand mental people (which is why I ask you to take your meds) so have not reported you. Any more though and I might.

              Now fuck off, weirdo stalker. Go spew your filth on some wimmins website and stay off here, manhating moron.

              • Sarah

                Calm down Eddie, you’re getting over-emotional and it’s affecting your memory again.

                I never said I wanted Rod to censor you. What I said was that he isn’t your friend and won’t be, no matter how much you hang around him like an incontinent Labrador begging your alpha male to notice you and favour you, by trying to copy his style and cynicism, but only coming across as a bitter hate-monger with a plain mind.

                He thinks you’re a moron who provides comedy on his blogs.

                I can tell. Because that’s what you are.

                • Eddie

                  Sarah Psycho – get help. Now.

                  You accused me of being a paedophile, someone on the child protection register.

                  Can you not see that false accusations like are disgusting and wrong – you are devaluing REAL accusations of abuse. You lying bint!

                  And now you claim to be able to read Rod Liddle’s mind! OMG you are SUCH a nutjob!

                  I have never claimed that Rod is my ‘fwend’ – that is you delusion Psycho Sarah.

                  Copying his style and cynicism? Errrr…. I have several books published in my name of prose in my sceptical satirical cynical style – I need to copy no-one.

                  And who are you copying? Karen Matthews? Or Rosemary West? Or perhaps Beverly Mental-Nurse?

                  Now go away psycho and have a good cwy on nursey’s shoulder. Bless…
                  Every site has its residnet feminist nutter – and you do make us all laugh a great deal, Sarah Psycho!


        • mikewaller

          Although not myself a believer, this exceptional post puts me in mind of the well known line from the Bible: “Out of your own mouth will I judge you …..”.

      • JanCosgrove1945

        No Eddie, the most damaging thing is to be molested and raped and then told to be quiet no one will believe you, and you’re a child. I’m neither female nor have a feminist agenda, worked for years with kids and with those who work with them. Most folk are fine, the ones who are not, we don’t want them there whatever else you do with them. I have seen police intel inform a group that a man working with them for 20 years had been under suspicion for much of that time – only, the police had been unable to inform them legally until then. It was not idle tatter, or malicious hearsay but carefully collected and matched information. He was removed from that group by its management. 18 months later he was FINALLY arrested (you don’t imagine they hadn’t tried before) he was convicted on nine charges, sent to clink. In Nov 2002 he came out, and 3 months later was in another group – CRB had started by then but the group was not getting such checks then. A Court Order removed him. He was then arrested, tried and convicted for crimes he’d committed in 1975 – read the letter from the brother of the man who as a boy of 9 was a victim then. “Over-protection”? To want to know if a man has committed abuse when he presents himself as that nice Mr Volunteer, or if he is barred? Have you spoken with kids about the risk of abuse? have you spoken with them if they have been abused? Don’t write such pretentious tosh, I’ll tell you which causes the most damage. Oh, damage can include not being believed by e.g. police and others if you say something. How’s THAT for ‘damaging’, often it seems over decades.

        • Eddie

          No – the most damaging aspect is the hysterica about child abuse which destroys all trust and makes children grow up overprotected and damaged because of the scaremongering by self-righteoud twerps like you.

          Your anecdotes mean nothing. I know abuse doees happen – and usually in the family because social workers leave children with unfit mothers (those babies should have been adopted at birth).

          Your overly emotional attempot at emotional blackmail is typical of the pompous sancitmonious attitudes of people like you. For your information, yes I have talkjed to kids who have been ‘abused’ (though a 16 year old drunk girl getting felt up by her bf who then regrets it afterwards is not abuse in any sane definition of the word) and I have also talked to men (mostly) who have been falsey accused of rape and abuse – by damaged women usually. Have you talked to them?

          You assume that if someone claims abuse then that is evidence that it happens; cases like this are all about opinion and perception (look at rape claims).

          The most damaging this is the level of hysteria those like you have introduced into society so that all men are now seen as abusers and even fathers are wary of touching and hugging their own kids in case someone gets the wrong idea.

          And it seems to me, we may have gone from a time where authorities (esp the church) disbelieved children, to one in which any accusation made by a child or adult of past abuse is automatically believed.
          Abuse is NO more common than it was, buit because of a hysterical media feeding on the scaremongering of idiots like you, people think it is way more common, that a paedo is behind every lamppost and so kids are not even allowed out to play – so get obese, asthmatic and psychologically disturbed, not to mention self-obsessed and fearful of the world., Well done: you and your kids have destroyed normal childhood. Bravo!
          How many children get abducted and killed by psycho paedos every year? 5. Same as 50 years ago.
          FACTS mean something; your hysterical fearmongering does not and you do it because you ENJOY it, not because you want to help children (because you are doing the opposite).

          Overly emotional people like you should leave the debate to rational professionals and perhaps go and hug each other – because I can tell you really enjoy your pity party and huggy-weepy misery memoirs.

        • Eddie

          You should a distinct lack of empathy for those men who are falsely accused.
          I hope that you are falsely accused of child abuse – and then let’s see if you want all men accused to be assumed to be guilty.
          Then you might learn to be rational.
          The answer is NOT to brand anyone accused of a crime; the answer is to look at the evidence.
          There are PLENTY of witchunts that happen because of idiots like you and your dumb beliefs about this issue – plenty of innocents who get lynched. People – adult and child – do make false accusations, for career reasons, revenge reasons or because they are damaged and mental (as many kids in care are).
          I have to say this because otherwise you and your kind will make another false argument: I have never been accused or suspected of child abuse.
          I do however know some men who have been – and obciously you couldn’t give a toss if their lives are ruined because of the lies of others. I REALLY hope you get accused of child abuse – tasting your own poison is the only way those like you will understand how to be grown up about this.
          How very East German of you. Maybe North Korea beckons. or China. I hear they deal out justice your way there, without trial.

    • Baron

      good answer, Sarah, thanks for alerting the barbarian to the ST food critic, this is what the man with the face of a stale pudding says “The BBC is answerable only to the licence-fee payers, its charter and the truth”.

      Absolutely, he couldn’t have been righter, of course, It usually helps if someone’s answerable to someone else that the latter someone has a mechanism through which to exercise that power like voting in elections, at AGMs, here though it’s a special case of answerability, the BBC’s derivative, it’s the fee paying public answering monthly or annually to the BBC demand to cough up.

      Baron asks you, could there be anything truer than that the BBC is answerable to the truth in a sense that the BBC decides what the ‘truth’ is then stick to being answerable to it?

      And the answerability to the Charter? If you read it (and the appended bits) you will not be hard put to see it can apply to a PR department of any modern outfit from a street corner garage to, well, to the BBC.

      Why is AA Gill still a food critic?

  • timinsingapore

    Timely antidote to the mass-hysteria. I wonder how many people would be coming forward if they didn’t think they might get some dosh out of it?

  • Eddie

    Hilarious! And true.

    We need to stop this hysterical and wrong trashing of dead men’s reputations, with anyone who wants to seek attention or claim compo or a share of some dead DJ’s estate making claims so flimsy that they crumble in the slightest breeze of scrutiny and examination.

    Summed up here:
    To be honest, I always thought Andy Pandy looked like a perv and what big ted did to little ted on Playschool doesn’t bear thinging about (and Floella Benjamin hasn’t been the same since either…)

  • Peter Martin

    Careful, stuff like this and you could end up being called, coyly, a ‘broadcaster’.

  • Jonny

    So that’s what the Daleks use their plungers for.

  • West Ham United

    I want to know what was going on behind closed doors in the Archers during the seventies. And what about Playaway, with Brian Can’t