A bloke who's a loner dresses and acts like a nonce and thinks he is the most important person in the world. Hmmm. I knew... and didn't do anything. Mind you I had no proof. To me he was just another pervert.
There are lots of them in Showbiz. There seems to be more gay ones than straight, but that's because there are probably more gays in showbiz than most professions.
Troubled comedian, racist and wifebeater, Jim Davidson, writing on his hilarious (unintentionally) blog.
Update: 'The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has written to the Vatican to ask if Jimmy Savile's papal knighthood can be posthumously removed, the Church has confirmed.
'The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, asked Church officials in Rome to investigate the matter, recognising the "deep distress" of the late presenter's abuse victims...'
BBC News.
Satire dies once more! Hypocrisy throws a party!! Irony spontaneously combusts!!!
Update: Fascinating, lengthy essay by Andrew O'Hagan in London Review Of Books; "If the Savile story – and the stories that constitute a hinterland at the BBC – turn out to involve a great conspiracy, it will be a conspiracy that the whole country had a part in..."
PS The O'Hagan piece has gone viral on Twitter - hopefully not because his subtext could be "it was mainly The Gays".
Posts
w-ait-- the pope is infallible... the holy spirit is working through him ….how could he and god have misstepped conferring prestigious honours on a wrong'un…it's not possible. no0o0o0o0.
ReplyDeleteThe O'Hagan piece is junk. It's a collection of spurious points - loads of men on the Brighton beach were reading a book that touched on paedophilia??? Wow, what like when loads of people were reading Lolita? Were they all paedos too? - he keeps on going back to Gamlin who had "boys" regularly at his London flat; yet it says they visited him there or were rent boys, so they could well have been mid or even late teens considering the views of homosexuality at the time; he doesn't ask the man whose testimony he's relying on how old they were or seemed. He just lets the suggestion that they were "young" stand on its own. And the man even says that the "young boy" who he had a coffee with probably thought Gamlin would give him a job; so how young can he have been? - the last quote of that biographer summed up the whole article to me: "He (Gamlin) was an actor wasn't he? Part of a BBC paedo ring, I presume".
ReplyDelete"I presume" would have been a good title for the whole piece.
He kept going back to Gamlin again and again. It read like a good bit of research about a single (gay) person - who may have had sex with and exploited underage boys or may have just liked younger men - that was padded out with a lot of guff.
The Joan Bakewell quote where she says "The homosexual element was murkier. You just didn’t hear about it": does she mean murkier as in it was unknown or murkier as in darker and more exploitative. The second sentence seems to suggest it was just unknown, in the shadows as one would expect, but it's just left there in the piece to suggest that the gay "element" was full of paedophilia.
And why doesn't he write more about "Uncle Mac"? His vileness and the abuse he inflicted on children seems far more certain and there are various people who have attested to his crimes, but he just glides over him and instead focuses on Gamlin even though there's absolutely nothing concrete presented in his piece against Gamlin.
It's fucking depressing that this bunk is being forwarded all round twitter and now the FOF as some kind of paragon of journalism.