andyh wrote:
Liberals, and liberalism, did exactly that, and in precisely the way that I have set out.

It is liberalism/left-wing politics (ie: the politics of egalitarianism and freedom) that has repeatedly attacked sexual morality since the end of the war. It is the liberal left who produced the sexually expoitative "free love" revolution. It is liberalism/left-wing politics that by its core principles:
* contradicts itself (by telling people to stop telling people what to do),
* denies the existance of morality (by opposing hierarchy and by doing so opposing the idea of "right" and "wrong"), and consequently
* creates the space for 'people' like Savile to act in a moral vaccuum (because when there is no allowance for hierarchy, on the grounds that it is inherently anti-freedom, there is no place for the idea that a type of behaviour is "wrong" as "right" and "wrong" are themselves a hierarchy where "right" is superior and "wrong" is inferior).

If all that you can manage s keyboard warrior jibes and a selection of smileys I suggest you are not even remotely qualified to discuss anything on these matters.

In short: Savile was given space to act because the 70s and 80s were an increasingly morally rarified environment that was being made such by the bullshit of liberalism that by its anti-hierarchy nature denies the possibility to tell anyone that they are wrong without contradicting yourself.

Mr Shiny wrote:
Complete denial of reality Mr.Shiny.
The law is quite clear on this matter, it is illegal to have sex with underage kids, it has been for a very long time.
There is nothing that so called 'liberals' have managed to change about this.
The only reason the police have not acted is quite simply because of corruption and cronyism, it is this corruption and cronyism that the daily mail and perhaps yourself seek to hide by pointing at 'liberals' for some bizarre reason.

The wall is falling down on these sick individuals now who are predominantly in high society positions which they considered to be untouchable. I laugh while they desperately try to pin the blame and focus the attention on anything but themselves and their own stupid actions. They will have their time up against the wall, just as will anyone who tries to defend them.

andyh wrote:
I am not saying that they have changed the law itself, but rather how the law is carried out; with people turning a blind eye to underage sex as a result of the liberalised attitudes to sex after WWII and more especially the social and sexual "revolution" of the 60s.

The increased sexual permissiveness came out of that era of social and sexual revolution and it is that which gave Savile (and Wyman and the rest of the perverts infesting our media) the space to operate in, with people turning a blind eye as the notion of "perversion" was increasingly attacked as old fashion and anti-freedom.

It is liberalism/left-wing politics, with its pro-equality and thus anti-hierachy (and consequently anti morality) bullshit, that gave us that situation in the manner that I have already described. Liberalism is undefendable by anyone who honestly looks at what it means in practice.

i think instead of its being liberals/conservatives allowed pedos to grow, its more a case of pedos are everywhere and took advantages.

Mr Shiny wrote:
They turned a blind eye to it because he was a BBC celeb.
Did the police not arrest and convict many other pedos?
Has it not become a 'big deal' merely because of his celeb status?
Is it not merely criminal behaviour that is 'indefensible'??!
Were you last in the queue when God was handing out the brains?
Do you work for the daily mail?

ffs lol :p

batou wrote:
Took advantage of their social position as 'untouchable' yep.
Obvious to a pet gerbil tbh..

batou wrote:
What did they take advantage of though? They took advantage of people who would turn a blind eye to the seduction of young teens. What kind of a person would turn a blind eye to the seduction of young teens? One who either thought it acceptable behaviour (a fellow pervert) or one who existed in a moral desert with no clear ideas of right and wrong from which they could act.

Liberalism/left-wing politics creates precisely that moral desert. It:
* enshrines equality
* equality means no one above another - no one gets to tell another that they are wrong, as that would require an acceptance of hierarchy
* this leaves people unable to judge someone's behaviour as wrong without contradicting the egalitarianism at the core of liberalism/left wing politics

No one here is arguing against decency. The point is that Liberalism is, despite what we are told, opposed to decency because decent/indecent is a hierarchy, and liberalism will not accept hierarchy because that is anti-egalitarian (and liberalism is at its core egalitarian). I do wish people would wake up and realise that liberalism is self-contradicting bullshit.

rape is a crime. pedophilia is a crime. dont you think everyone agrees, except pedos.. seriously, there is some organized network shit going on here. its a big deal, and its serious exploitation. when they act alone is bad, but grouped up is terrible. i understand your theory but its not politics, its people. pedophilia isn't a mental disorder, or a political leaning, its deep down to the heart sickness and the only cure is death or isolation.

batou wrote:
I think that it is too easy to think it is just a paedophile ring, this is far wider than that. Its also a moral desert where people turned a blind eye to this depravity because depravity is being increasingly taught as being normal (and if you call it depravity you are somehow an anti-liberty moralising authoritarian ).

Look at how sexual deviance and porn have come to be accepted in society since the 60s. We now have music videos that would never have been shown 50 years ago. We have hard-core porn in mainstream films. We have a society where promiscuity is now accepted as normal, where family breakdown is common, where BDSM is accepted and where since the 80s soft-core porn has been included in a daily newspaper.

Think of the recent sex abuse case in Rotherham, where a blind eye is STILL being turned (and you cannot seriously claim that Pakistani immigrants are somehow part of a paedophile ring with police and social services). The blind eye gets turned because Liberalism has so erroded our morals that we now are left unable to act because we are unsure if sex with a 15 year old is actually a crime. And if we doubt it, we get perverts like Tatchell (hiding behind gay rights) promoting a lower age of consent, and we get the fore-runner of liberty, under the leadership of two future labour cabinet minsters, arguing for it as far back as 1976.

If the suggestion is being made that one refrains from being a paedo because a superior in the heirarchy tell one not to, then Mr Shiny, I would have to strongly disagree. A non-paedo does not commit such atrocities because mainly the person does not feel attracted to non-adults and also because one is aware that one does not wish yo cause harm to others because one does not wish harm on oneself. That is called reciprocity.

Under your suggestion that one needs a heirarchy in order for a superior to limit one from such depicable behaviour, then one would have to question just who was limitting ones superior's superior and so on. Until one arrived at the top to find an unguided autocrat with no moral compass of his/her own.

Either that or you imagine that the superior at the top is also morally superior somehow.

Very Aurthurian.

OOOOhhhh. So THAT is it. Well hello there.

mr shiny, im not so naive to think that is even the case. maybe pedos pushed liberal ideas as a means to their own end. i think such pure concepts as equality and freedom have a shadow.

mikey mikey wrote:


'Just so long as I'm the dictator, hur hur hur'

mikey mikey wrote:
If that were indeed the suggestion then I too would have to disagree with it. But then, that isnt the suggestion, is it.

Liberalism demands equality. Equality opposes hierarchy. The notion of something being "right" and "decent", and of something else being "wrong" and "indecent", is itself reliant on hierarchy (of values), on inequality, on the recognition that "right" and "decent" are superior to "wrong and "indecent" (and thus that they are not equal).

When you enforce behaviour in someone, for example by not letting them abuse Children when you catch them at it like Savile was repeatedly, you are acting in a hierarchy where they, and their behaviour (shagging a child), is deemed inferior to you and yours (stopping the repulsive little pervert). Liberalism fights against that, promoting a world of equality (and thus opposing hierarchy, and consquently attacking the idea that keeping children safe is superior to abusing them).

Mr Shiny wrote:
Unless they're above you in the hierarchy in which case ofc they go unpunished
After all, its do as they say not as they do right?
Stalin would be proud of you and have you as his little pet.
The ayatollah has a vacancy coming up soon, perhaps you'd be interested?

andyh wrote:
What are you on about? I'm not talking about a hierarchy in an organisation. I'm talking about hierarchy itself. Inequality. The idea that somethings are superior to others. Does Maslow's hierarchy of needs refer to an organisation? Does the hierarchy of applications running on a computer refer to an organisation? Does the hierarchy in a set of priorities in a "to do" list refer to an organisation with a chain of comman? Hierarchy is just the principle that somethings are superior and some things are inferior.

If you tell someone “no, don't do that” (such as a perverted DJ raping a child), you are recognising a hierarchy where you and your view are right/superior and they and their view are wrong/inferior. And rightly so!

Liberalism, being based on equality, cannot abide hierarchy (because hierarchy is by definition unequal) and so is opposed by its very nature to you stopping said pervert DJ from raping said child). If you were to stop him raping the child, you would be "betraying" liberalism because you would be denying egalitarianism by saying that your principle (that raping children is wrong) is superior to his principle (that they are valid prey).

So where liberalism has spread in our society, it is spreading also this idea that there is no right or wrong because in order to believe in right and wrong you have to believe that the right person is superior to the wrong person.

Why are you so opposed to seeing this?

It reads to me like people may be misinterpreting your explanation, Mr Shiny, as support for liberalism (as per your description).

I'm not so politically astute, but I do think that hierarchy, in terms of financial wealth and power (by 'virtue' of celebritydom and being in a position to threaten to pull the plug on masses of charitable funds) played a significant role in Saville's having been allowed to get away with the things he did.

Gilly wrote:
You don't have to be politically astute to see it was glaringly obvious that it was an abuse of position within society and many others who did not want the bubble burst who were also within high societal positions who allowed it to continue.
Cronyism, corruption, simples.

No liberal this that or the other bollocks necessary.

If you nick food to feed your kids then you're a criminal.
If you're a banker and take everyones wealth to pay for food then you get away with it.

Keep on believing in your blessed hierarchy KOTG

Clearly you are more interested in trolling than honest discussion.

Natural 'hierarchy' ie. adults protecting their children, is a hierarchy that nature enforces. Children are incapable of protecting themselves from adults. It is not the same as a forced hierarchy by our peers. Nature also tells us children are not sexually mature therefore are not able to enter into a sexual relationship as an equal.

Paedophilia will never equate to child liberation!

liberalism is not the absence of morals and values - Liberalism is about freedom from oppression.

Abuse is a form of oppression, homophobia, sexism, racism and religious intolerance all lead to oppression - Paedophilia, rape, inequality are all forms of abuse therefore oppressive which is the antithesis of what a liberal stands for.