Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
dvo4fun
offlineMember
I (& mrs4fun) have an old [60-something] friend who, as a very young child, was abused by 'carers' whilst in a childrens' home over 50 years ago.
I'll not be surprised if, in the wake of the Savile stuff, we get a ranting phone call any day now - the pain doesn't simply just 'go away'. A young life can be spoiled in the same way as a nice Axminster with a gallon of used sump oil thrown over it.
Sorry - just had the 3rd Large One
Sinnick
offlineMember
VCG, really really good point.
I can try to answer; happy for others to comment:
1) Savile was a controversial public figure, so is the RC church; some saddo bastard (and friends ?) has no public image
2) Savile & the RC church were around for ages, and the offences were some time ago; it's serious but there are no surprises
3) The Savile and RC situations are no longer current (at least I hope so); the Welsh situation is still very topical
2)... there are no surprises...
So abuse is ok if you're expecting it?
3) The Savile and RC situations are no longer current...
I'm sure all the alleged victims who allegedly lived with the scars of what he allegedly did for years with nobody interested in what happened to them have got over it by now then. Now then...
I posted my previous comment to play devil's advocate a bit, and I'm still doing that here. You've had a crack at trying to explain it, but when you look at it in the terms I put it you're going to struggle to defend Savile jokes.
I'm not arguing with you, just trying to get my head around what seems like a bit of double standards on the 2 stories. I wouldn't dream of going near a story about the missing Welsh girl but I have commented on at least 3 Savile-based stories in the last couple of days saying that I liked them. I'm questioning my own attitude as much as anybody else's.
I think the difference is that no matter how many people come forward with stories of being abused by Savile, he's the celebrity, so he's the focus of the story and therefore the focus of the joke. Because of that people are comfortable reading/writing jokes about it because the story is about him, so they feel like they're reading/writing a joke about him rather than a joke about abuse.
The April Jones story is very much about her, because there is no bigger personality involved, just a missing little girl. So any attempt to make a joke even vaguely related to the story would come across as a joke about a missing little girl.
Some people will make those jokes anyway and try to defend them by saying everything's fair game or nothing is, or claiming that they're testing the boundaries of comedy, or being edgy, when actually they're just being a twat.
If April Jones had been abducted by Jimmy Savile where would that put the story in terms of the acceptability of joking about it?
writinginbsl
offlineMember
i completely agree with vcg-the savile jokes perhaps seem acceptable because he was famous and i guess many people feel pissed off because he was an icon in some ways. in general i think many people, including myself, feel justified in laughing/sneering at him because he was taking the piss all along, even accepting that 'things may have been different back then'. i guess that may be the same with why the rc church is attacked satirically-because of the hypocrisy/cover by some elements. i think humour may help us to express our contempt, which i guess is a good thing. perhaps we are getting our own back?
i accept it is difficult for the victims though-we had a paedo teacher at our local school when my children were there-wont go into details but the damage can go very far and very very deep.
so yeah-savile jokes are ok with me.
Sinnick
offlineMember
I'm not clear about the difference either, just trying to think through the several situations and trying to understand the boundaries - not just for me, but for anyone that reads my ramblings.
With things like this, I think it's healthy to think, read, discuss & analyse - I'm sure a therapist would also say that's a good thing.
beau-jolly
offlineMember
I think with Savile we all suspected he was a creepy, sanctimonious hypocrite and there is almost a sense of relief that he has been exposed as so. Shame its posthumous. As a philanthropist national treasure there must have been people around him who thought he was bulletproof, as I am sure did he. The jokes are like pointing and going "nah nah, told you so".
Re April Jones: The circus which grows up around these incidents always makes me a little uneasy. Like slowing down to look at a car crash I am as guilty as anyone for following the story. I can't imagine wanting to drive down there and help though. There is a bit of vicareous thrill-seeking. (What's the word? I don't mean "thrill" but you get the jist).
Nah nah, told you so. I said all along that he was a predatory sex offender rather than just a bit odd. Now look at all these people who've had their lives completely ruined by him; they prove I was right! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
beau-jolly
offlineMember
To be fair they had their lives ruined whether we joked about him or not. Now he has been exposed and more come forward and learn that they are not alone I imagine his victims will begin to get some sort of closure if they hadn't already moved on.
We had a predetory gay RE master at school. As a pretty boy with longish blond hair I would have been one of his victims had I not stabbed him. Not making any point, just remembering is all.
Didn't damage me. Or him for that matter. I heard he was now a big noise in the church.
Martin Shuttlecock
offlineMember
Personally, I wouldn't touch the April Jones story with a bargepole. However, I wouldn't hesitate to take a pop at the media, who seem to be revelling in the whole tragic affair. As they did with Raoul Moat and Derryk Bird. They're all over this like rabid dogs. Insensitive bastards.
beau-jolly
offlineMember
Re John Peel. Still loved and revered by many although he has openly admitted having sex with under aged girls. What is different? Well the way he tells it he was inundated with offers in America and as a niave young man didn't ask for ID first. Secondly he married a girl when she was 15 years old, so presumably it was not illegal then and there. OK its a bit seedy but he never came across as being predetory and has never hidden this past.
Tripod
offlineMember
The whole groupie scene of the 60s and 70s was based on young girls throwing themselves at rock stars. If it was a crime, it was seen as a crime without a victim. As for the guys? Well, "nice work if you can get it". It was the main reason a lot of guys started a band...
Ironduke
offlineMember
Have to admit, didn't feel the same sort of discomfort over that bloke taking the 15 year old girl to France. He's clearly rather odd at 30years of age, he's clearly abused a position of responsibility, but in the pictures and statements there didn't seem to have been forced coercion and leaves a significantly different feeling to the Saville reports. Not right (and certainly not condoned, before that tantrum replies arrive), far from it... but manifestly different of disquiet generated.
The All New Jeni B
onlineMember
I sort of agree there Id. The schoolgirl does appear to have gone willingly, and, I believe, had told pals that she was excited.
There's a world of difference between that situation and what is reputed to have occured with a number of prominent personalities at the BBC back in the day.
I admit to having laughed at some of the Savile jokes, but it was at his expense, not at his victims'.
As with many things, I suspect the 'power' of abuse can be undermined by laughing at it.
NOT the actual acts of abuse, but at the perpetrators. To my mind, it ridicules them, demeans them to laugh at what they've done in a derisory way, and empowers those who've endured that abuse.
I fully expect someone to tell me that that is entirely the wrong attitude, but for me, it works with the mental health issues suffered by someone close, and it works for my friend who was abused by her step-father as a child.
Username
offlineMember
Personally, I feel people have to have done something to deserve being mocked - whether that means they've just been an a-hole, too pretentious, etc.
Hard to see what this young girl or her family has done to deserve being laughed at.
As Jeni says, it's about redressing the power imbalance.
Yikes
offlineMember
Agree with all the thoughts above:
eg
"i completely agree with vcg-the savile jokes perhaps seem acceptable because he was famous and i guess many people feel pissed off because he was an icon in some ways. in general i think many people, including myself, feel justified in laughing/sneering at him because he was taking the piss all along, even accepting that 'things may have been different back then'. i guess that may be the same with why the rc church is attacked satirically-because of the hypocrisy/cover by some elements. i think humour may help us to express our contempt, which i guess is a good thing. perhaps we are getting our own back?"
and
"Personally, I feel people have to have done something to deserve being mocked - whether that means they've just been an a-hole, too pretentious, etc.
Hard to see what this young girl or her family has done to deserve being laughed at."
Ironduke
offlineMember
Perhaps there's a key in there- humourical barbs are a modern thrown rotten tomato at a villain in the stocks- a public expression of cntempt and villification.
Sometimes in the nature of a joke it needs thought to realise who is actually being mocked (like some of the Saville jokes) but actually, its normally your gut reaction that tells you 'comfortable' or 'uncomfortable', though can be difficult to rationalise that reaction back to logic.
beau-jolly
offlineMember
"The whole groupie scene of the 60s and 70s was based on young girls throwing themselves at rock stars. If it was a crime, it was seen as a crime without a victim. As for the guys? Well, "nice work if you can get it". It was the main reason a lot of guys started a band..."
Whereas a young girl thowing herself at a famous but creepy white haired man in a track suit...?
Ironduke
offlineMember
We were discussing Saville today...I said 'Now then' during an op, then repeated 'now then now then' automatically in Saville-style, then suddenly ralised Whoops, that isn't funny territory no more (was it ever?)
We arrived at a definite conclusion along the lines of 'Look at him. Why on earth didn't we see that coming. If you had to create a caricature paedo character...
Oxbridge
offlineMember
Impossible to set precise boundaries on this one. Partly, there's the old dictum that comedy = tragedy + time, partly we're all just complicated. I'm probably not the only person who's been moved close to tears by a tragic news story, then snorted at the jokes about it on pretty much the same day. Or maybe I am, who knows?
Anyway, I've got an absolute snorter that covers two of the above mentioned, which I'm assuredly not posting here. PM me if you're just as sick and confused...
You must log in to post.
