Paul Daniels has committed the ultimate crime of the new orthodoxy, he has dared to question.
Daniels, 74, was accused of “belittling” the victims after he said in a blog post that he has been “wondering if all of [Savile’s] accusers are for real”.
Given the sheer volume that have now come out of the woodwork and the possibility of a class action against Savile’s estate, I would be inclined to suggest that Daniels may very well be right. However, he is not allowed to be right, for in the days of the paper-thin skin and obsessive offence seeking, he is not allowed to make such remarks – for feelings may be hurt.
Mark Williams Thomas, a former child protection officer who was behind an ITV documentary which exposed Savile as a paedophile, said: “For someone like Paul Daniels to come out and belittle victim’s evidence that’s being given against Jimmy Savile is a disgrace because he [Savile] is proven to be an offender.”
Is there a new definition of proof we have yet to come across, that has hitherto been shielded from our eyes? Savile is accused, certainly. There is a body of evidence that suggests guilt – but proved? No, not proved. There has been no trial, and the evidence, some of which may well be manufactured or embellished has not been tested, so not proved at all. Not even close. The best we are going to get is a balance of probabilities given that the accused is dead and cannot mount a defence. And, to be fair, the balance of probabilities isn’t looking too good.
To make the point that some of this evidence might not be reliable is hardly belittling, it is to make a sound observation. Indeed, to the inquiring mind seeking a truthful outcome to an investigation, such scepticism is to be welcomed – or, at least, such rigor should be welcome. But these days, when witches are abroad and must be hunted down, to admit to being a witch is suicide.
I think this comment by one of them there super-smart, moral-high-ground lefty types from a previous post is relevant:
“Saying that some opinion or analysis is designed to “shut down” dissenting voices is one of the more unintelligent cliches of the right wing blogosphere”
As I replied, it may be a cliche but it was the truth then, and it’s the truth now.
Are we now to have guilt by consensus? The evidence is ‘settled’?
It’s a good bet most of the people currently being “questioned” as part of Operation Yewtree will never be charged with anything, let alone convicted, but their lives will forever be blighted on the “no smoke without fire” principle.
It’s looking like he wanted to get the first strike in:
http://news.sky.com/story/1029650/paul-daniels-reveals-he-kissed-schoolgirl
XX Mark Williams Thomas, a former child protection officer who was behind an ITV documentary which exposed Savile as a paedophile, XX
Oh aye?
Well, laddie, no matter WHAT colour of totalitarian you happen to be, one of the main reasons to “expose” someone, is to hide YOUR OWN failings.
What have YOU hidden in the closet?
Is it possible that Savile was abused by under-age girls?
Nothing new here.
There is always a prevailing orthodoxy, which, equally always, will have faults, errors & downright lies in it.
One that has NOT changed since I was at school (1950-64) is that “School sports are good for everyone”. [ ANd “build character”, whatever that means. ]
Questioning this gross lie now, will get you the same hysterical reaction it did in 1957.