Meow

The Dean posted an article by Brian Moore in The New Statesman in the other Savile thread which started like this:

The problem with paedophilia is that you have to go to bed really early.” Hands up if you don’t think that’s funny? Hands up, and be honest now, if you were tempted to laugh but then reminded yourself that child abuse is no laughing matter? You’re right, it is no laughing matter, but then triviality isn’t the main aim of jokes; they don’t mean you don’t take the subject seriously. What is damaging is the failure to take seriously the people who really matter – us, the victims.

Making a joke on an adult forum doesn't mean you don't think it's a serious matter. Black humour is often a way of coping or dealing with a horrendous issue.

Miss Anne Thrope

Isn't that the basic equivalent of the "if you don't like it, leave" argument?

I'm here, I've read it, I get to express an opinion as the self-appointed sanctimonious - I want to say Christian Brother (better yet, Xtian brother) but that would be pissing on my own argument - nanny of the forum (only slightly less dodgy)..

My issue is not so much the jokes, as Savile and Glitter are fair targets for anything. It's the speculation - even jocular speculation - about others, without any evidence, that I think is really out of order. Good and innocent peoples' lives have been ruined by this kind of shit as this subject stirs up more paranoia than any other (remember, for example, the attack on the house of the paediatrician, in Wales it was I think). Gay people have been particularly vulnerable to this in the past, and not just the distant past (Section 28 - another reason to dance on Thatcher's grave - was only repealed in 2003 after twice being rejected by the House of Lords). My sensitivity to this is not without a very solid foundation.

Meow

I fully understand your issue with the speculation. Such things have ruined careers and lives. I also dislike the assumption from some people (not necessarily on here) that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles which is absolute nonsense.

goonerseba

........... I admit it - I used to have a moustache and a mullety hairstyle. I therefore confess to using various ten-year-old girls and boys as knob jockeys.......


However bad taste they are......

Meow

Don't take issue with me. That isn't my comment.

goonerseba

I realise that Meow, just not sure how to put multiple quotes into a reply !

Bit below the belt though I thought ('scuse the pun) even for here.

The Dean

I was being deliberately perverse/ironic - it just seemed to me that we were trotting out a list of 'likely' paedophiles based on their appearance....... I admit I exaggerated the point rather tastelessly.

scrubbedexpat141

I get your point and understand the libellous nature of what 'we' as a collective are insinuating.

Being gay and being a paedophile are two very different things.

ALso - I think that case you mention was a paediatrician in Portsmouth...which about sums up that city of ****tards.

Miss Anne Thrope

Hmm, gratuitous (albeit nicely done) Pompeii-bashing from the usual suspects: makes me think now that it might be an urban myth.

scrubbedexpat141

Good point. Although....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/au...ection.society

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/8897

I stand completely corrected.

Meow

Were there not instances of paedatricians being targeted at the time of the Soham murders?

the_red_sheep

Of course this is a horrible topic and the things which happened to those children is horrific and unforgiveable. However, it is very much the ‘British’ way of dealing with such things to make jokes, however tasteless about them. It’s a coping mechanism, like firemen who can makes jokes at the scene of accident. It in no way diminishes the seriousness of the crime or takes away from the suffering of the victim, but it does demystify and humanise the perpetrator. Is it ok to make a joke about Hitler today, would it have been during the war? Of, course because it belittles him and reminds us that despite what he did he just one man.

As for anyone being the self-proclaimed ‘nanny’ of the board, oh please, really?? We’re all grown-ups and, save the odd troll, we are intelligent enough not to need a moral compass kicking our shins when there’s some, albeit tasteless, banter. The speculation implicating others is, certainly in my case, firmly tongue in cheek, no one is taking it seriously. And, no one on this thread has overtly mentioned or named people based on their sexuality.

To quote Stephen Fry, “It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more...it's simply a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that,' well so ****ing what?”

flares

Julian Clary

Miss Anne Thrope

I agree with your first paragraph 100% - thought I'd indicated that in what I said.

But the speculation is different and I felt it necessary to take a stand. It's not that I am offended, I'm saying I think it is wrong, much as people here point out other things they believe are wrong, whether it's defaulting on debts, mistreatment of low paid staff, reckless driving etc. Of course anyone can then say "so f**king what?". By the way you say "no one" is taking it seriously. Are you sure? You've checked and no little element of this may reside in anybody's mind to be spewed out later somewhere else, perhaps even semi-consciously and become the kind of baseless rumour that ends up causing real damage to real people? Just a thought...

And while it may be true to say that "no one on this thread has overtly mentioned or named people based on their sexuality", the key word here is "overtly". The sly suggestions obviously implied by some candidates is what made me want to challenge this.

Anyway, I thought that describing myself as self-appointed sactimonious nanny would suggest that I was trying not to take myself too seriously but alas, apparently not

scrubbedexpat141

So ****ing what you self appointed sanctimonious nanny.