djc wrote:
On 11/10/12 10:41, Brian Gaff wrote:
Don't you find it very odd though that all these people are coming out of
the woodwork now that he has gone? Where will be the justice without
him to
stick up for himself.
I find it all a bit strange unless there is some money to be had.
sorry to
sound so cynical, but to me, no matter how well respected he was these
accusations should have been brought forward during his life in my view.


Yes, very strange.
On the one hand, slightly creepy wierdo so not surprised, on the other
it seems strange that nothing ever came to light while he was alive.

It did. Time and again. BUT who want to go up a against a national hero
with a knighthood and a personal fortune enough to hire lawyers?

He's not the only perve with a knightood by a ling chalk, either.

Best way to attain respectability after a dodgy career/life is to spend
money on charities. And whatever party is in power.

Best way to find vulnerable children is to support a charity that looks
after vulnerable children.


Even if there was a lack of proof surely he should have been quietly
dropped from programmes and ignored by charities etc. It not as if he
was that famous or rich or otherwise with some hold over those people
with responsibilities.

He was both famous and rich.

So I reach two conclusions, those who run the media and charities are a
vulnerable and stupid when it comes to celebs as any putative victim.

yes.

And that it is another unanticipated consequence of everyone living
longer that there is less chance of all concerned being dead, buried,
and forgotten long before historical revisionism catches them ut.


indeed.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.