Jimmy Savile: I'd like to comment but I can't...

[Iamwhomiam]

Allow me to explain for you Jakell, to the best of my ability. You wrote,

and again, Saville (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract from an element of the large scale organised abuse that doesn't involve celebrities.

Which for some reason I read as,

"and again, Jakell (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract away from an element of the large scale organised abuse to another that doesn't involve white skinned celebrities, to one involving brown skinned immigrants."

Obviously, not what you wrote, but my interpretation of your offering. Funny how that happens.

Mr. Fixx it, In response to my offering, you wrote,

And the two women sentenced during the same trial? Both convicted of unlawful imprisonment and conspiracy to procure a women under 21 to become a common prostitute. One was also convicted of two counts of conspiracy to rape.

If you do not understand the power asymmetries Jakell accepts as "always present," I can better understand the ignorance of your comment. You're not a stranger to RI, so I do not know how you, much like the court, finds these women truly guilty of their crimes, unless of course, you've never read any of the threads discussing the abused and their abusers.

Not sure what you mean by 'power asymmetries ', these are always present for abuse to happen, it's a given and hardly stands out in this respect.

You must believe the two women are as guilty as the men, even though they were only found guilty of aiding those who held power over them and, I must assume, those whom also greatly abused them as well. Simply put, you and the court have further victimized the victims of abuse.

While the whole affair is reprehensible, it is understandable these two women acted as they did. Slaves usually do the bidding of their masters.

[tapitsbo]

Jakell's not just being disingenuous this time, the truly interesting aspects of Rotherham type cases involved the indigenous institutional actors in the drama... some may see a hysteria over a racial other, some might see a silence in regards to a racial other (especially since this was explicitly aimed for by the local government). Either way "white" authority figures were very much interested in a coverup, just like with Savile

What "masters" are you referring to Iamwhoiam? Ones who treat children's bodies as a commodity to reward loyalty to corruption?

[Iamwhomiam]

Yes, I would agree with that, but not necessarily only "parents" or their own children.

The corrupt are everywhere, in every country, apparently throughout human history and should be understood as essential to controlling the lower levels of power.

We innocent westerners, are very good at ignoring corruption. In more than a few cases, it's as though their very lives depended upon keeping their eyes wide shut.

[jakell]

"and again, Jakell (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract away from an element of the large scale organised abuse to another that doesn't involve white skinned celebrities, to one involving brown skinned immigrants."[/b]

Er.. do I have a record of providing such distractions (for it is me you are referring to)?
I don't think I do. I won't bother asking for evidence, because there is none.

On this occasion it was the timing that struck me again. Nothing much has been heard for a while on these things, and then on the exact same day as a news story of this particular trial, then a Saville story pops up too.
Not saying it is a deliberate measure, it could be just that journalists look for similes, however distant and strained.

Here's my original comment:

and again, Saville (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract from an element of the large scale organised abuse that doesn't involve celebrities.

Notice I do not mention race, no need to complicate matters, and here you added 'immigration' too.

[jakell]

Color of a criminal's skin is looked at to set us apart, Jakell, to divide us and our attention away from the white skinned rapist to the brown skinned rapist. They are all men, Jakell, regardless their skin coloring, acting with heinous disregard of a woman's humanity and right to self determination. Men are the commonality and men are the criminal rapists.

All correct, so why do people here keep focussing on race regardless of my suggestions about sidelining it?

A good rhetorical question that bears repeating I think

[Iamwhomiam]

Unless one was blind to those found guilty in the article you posted, their being brown skinned Pakistani immigrants could not be misinterpreted. While you might not have written the obvious, that they were brown skinned Pakistani immigrants, but that is what was most apparent to me.

Perhaps I've entirely misread your motive in posting the article, Jakell. I may have, but I doubt I did. Because it's not news the police are corrupt enablers everywhere. So that leaves us what is news, the conviction of Pakistani immigrants for having committed abhorrent crimes against women.

Your article introduced race into the conversation and you posted it knowing its content.

All correct, so why do people on here keep focussing on race regardless of my suggestions about sidelining it?

Just as I wrote earlier,

"and again, Jakell (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract away from an element of the large scale organised abuse to another that doesn't involve white skinned celebrities, to one involving brown skinned immigrants."

Which was me paraphrasing this you wrote:

and again, Saville (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract from an element of the large scale organised abuse that doesn't involve celebrities.

It's often the case a racist avoids actually saying the words "kill the brown skinned man," but somehow we get his message when he says, "take care of him."

[tapitsbo]

the cover-up was justified by the officials in terms of the ethnicity of the perps. that is interesting beyond jakell's agenda, whatever that happens to be. the pattern of rotherham is not isolated either by any stretch. not THAT different from cops and officials protecting pimps and rapists from their own ethnic background, but still interesting because of how it corresponds or does not correspond to other narratives. the mismatch or dissonance with how we are told the system works is notable, especially given the messaging deployed en masse on this board, for instance...

iamwhoiam, i see in your replies shades of the same instinct that seems to have led to the coverup in rotheram and continuing media censorship on related issues. transparency about the situation is assumed to be in danger of unleashing "violence against brown bodies" in a scheme where some offenders are exposed and others are concealed... with time from Savile's heyday to the present, protected classes metamorphosize. to the truly paranoid, the cover-up itself might be itself intended to sow the seeds of ethnic strife, but i'm undecided on that...

[Joe Hillshoist]

Saville was never convicted whereas at least some of the darkies were.

Eventually.

Obviously there is a massive similarity between the situations - the only difference being the eventual convictions of all those evul muslamic ray guns.

John Lydon was calling Saville out nearly 40 years ago but nothing ever came of that or any of the other complaints.

[jakell]

Perhaps I've entirely misread your motive in posting the article, Jakell. I may have, but I doubt I did. Because it's not news the police are corrupt enablers everywhere. So that leaves us what is news, the conviction of Pakistani immigrants for having committed abhorrent crimes against women.
Your article introduced race into the conversation and you posted it knowing its content...

I didn't post any article, and this on a forum that is pretty profligate in the pasting of large bodies of text, plus pictures, I try to take a bit of care with these things. Here again is the motivation for my remark, it's as plain and unadorned as the original comment (although, granted, it is a subtle point)

On this occasion it was the timing that struck me again. Nothing much has been heard for a while on these things, and then on the exact same day as a news story of this particular trial, then a Saville story pops up too.
Not saying it is a deliberate measure, it could be just that journalists look for similes, however distant and strained.

and again, Saville (et al) pops up just at the right time to distract from an element of the large scale organised abuse that doesn't involve celebrities.

I noticed back in 2011, as the two stories broke, how one was massively preferred to the other in people's minds, in MSM and on here. I've followed this tendency through.

[tapitsbo]

I compared Rotherham to Savile's heyday, from which a host of patsies were hung out to dry, not Savile personally, although his case is clearly on the same institutional spectrum. And in both cases many enablers emerged unscathed

I never said the cases were the same - what are we trying to distract from here exactly? Joe and Iam you both seem to be tilting at windmills.

[jakell]

I compared Rotherham to Savile's heyday, from which a host of patsies were hung out to dry, not Savile personally, although his case is clearly on the same institutional spectrum. And in both cases many enablers emerged unscathed

I never said the cases were the same - what are we trying to distract from here exactly? Joe and Iam you both seem to be tilting at windmills.

Going by your last post, I'm sure you're aware that the issue is quite a bit more widespread than Rotherham, as it's the worst example though it's fair to use it as a label.

TBH, if it was just Rotherham I could dismiss it as a singular localised occurrence, heinous as it is (which I'm sure many people would like to do), all the other cases point to something bigger though.

[tapitsbo]

But returning to Savile, now that the dust is settled, I think it's plain to see that the UK establiahment was simply sinking further down the blackmail vortex. The mind contol/ritual abuse aspects were plain to see for readers of this board but most commentators were most squeamish about probing them. Of course the loss of legitimacy brought about by the Savile revelations was deserved, although that doesn't guarantee better replacements for entities the public lost faith in.

Since the limited hangout begun in the 1970s on mind control continues its afterlife but hasn't been cohesively been tied to the present day continuation of the programs (the work of certain extremely brave researchers aside), it is tempting to wonder about the coming cultural moment where the most disturbing and far-reaching implications of the Savile case will once again become grist for the mill of collective processing...

[Iamwhomiam]

Thank you for your insight, tapitsbo.

Linking to the article is not posting it, I grant you, Jakell.

So was the article you linked to supposed to distract one's attention away from Savile or was the Savile article supposed to distract one's attention away from the article you lined to, Jakell?

Your posting sure distracted my attention away from the Savile story.

[tapitsbo]

I was actually still thinking about Savile and his role in the occult. Somewhere in this thread people were imagining that discussing this would get them killed. In 2016, I kind of doubt it.

I can't work myself up to read about Rotherham on the British Democracy Forum that jakell used to link to and talk about it. Maybe you should take a peek there, Iamwhoiam?

[jakell]

So was the article you linked to supposed to distract one's attention away from Savile or was the Savile article supposed to distract one's attention away from the article you lined to, Jakell?

Your posting sure distracted my attention away from the Savile story.

Yes, I noticed. I don't know why though, the point I made was brief and subtle and it seems you got carried away with that angle I recommended we avoid.

It needn't distract though, the two can be regarded as fairly complementary. If the two happen to coincide so closely again, I will probably remark on it.