HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » United Kingdom (Group) » BBC covered up a second '...

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 06:24 AM

BBC covered up a second 'national treasure' child abuser known as Uncle Dick, claims Corporation vet

The BBC covered up a second paedophile who abused children repeatedly in the corporation’s toilets, it has been revealed.

Revered journalist John Simpson claims a radio presenter, at the time one of the biggest names at the BBC, preyed upon youngsters after they won competitions to tour the studios and meet him.

But when Simpson, who has worked at the BBC for more than 40 years, tried to expose the predatory paedophile to Corporation bosses, he was called an ‘idiot’ and instead told to praise the star.

>

Claims that bosses covered up child abuse spanning 40 years by a second paedophile, said to be 'a children's favourite', will cast further doubt on the practices at the Corporation.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218932/BBC-covered-second-national-treasure-child-abuser-known-Uncle-Dick-claims-John-Simpson.html#ixzz29YC3BKwA

This is going further and further downhill. Simply search "radio presenter death in 1967" to find out to whom this refers.

17 replies, 2444 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply BBC covered up a second 'national treasure' child abuser known as Uncle Dick, claims Corporation vet (Original post)
dipsydoodle Oct 2012 OP
non sociopath skin Oct 2012 #1
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #6
LeftishBrit Oct 2012 #2
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #3
oldironside Nov 2012 #4
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #5
oldironside Nov 2012 #7
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #8
T_i_B Nov 2012 #9
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #10
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #15
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #16
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #17
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #11
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #12
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #13
fedsron2us Nov 2012 #14

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 07:07 AM

1. I didn't need to Google. The name was a giveaway to everyone of my age!

We boomers aren't going to have many illusions left, by the end of this.

One thing does seem to be becoming clear. Paedophilia doesn't appear to be quite as much of a minority interest as we've previously believed.

I wonder what we, as a society, propose to do with that insight.

The Skin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to non sociopath skin (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 05:55 PM

6. Graham Greene got very close to the uncomfortable truth about the exploitation of children

when he wrote the following about Shirley Temple

The owners of a child star are like leaseholders--their property diminishes in value every year. Time's chariot is at their back; before them acres of anonymity. Miss Shirley Temple's case, though, has a peculiar interest: infancy is her disguise, her appeal is more secret and more adult. Already two years ago she was a fancy little piece (real childhood, I think, went out after The Littlest Rebel). In Captain January she wore trousers with the mature suggestiveness of a Dietrich: her neat and well-developed rump twisted in the tap-dance: her eyes had a sidelong searching coquetry. Now in Wee Willie Winkie, wearing short kilts, she is completely totsy. Watch her swaggering stride across the Indian barrack-square: hear the gasp of excited expectation from her antique audience when the sergeant's palm is raised: watch the way she measures a man with agile studio eyes, with dimpled depravity. Adult emotions of love and grief glissade across the mask of childhood, a childhood that is only skin-deep. It is clever, but it cannot last. Her admirers--middle-aged men and clergymen--respond to her dubious coquetry, to the sight of her well-shaped and desirable little body, packed with enormous vitality, only because the safety curtain of story and dialogue drops between their intelligence and their desire.

His reward was to be hounded out of the country

The truth is that sexual exploitation is just one of the many risks that children run when in the company of adults.

Violent and sadistic treatment by grown up figures of authority is an even more common threat

In fact the two pillars of abuse often supported each other in the past when the threat of force was routinely used to coerce children thus making them less likely to complain about adults who sexually abused them.

It was one of the bizarre facts of British society is that it thinks that smacking kids bottoms is character forming for young people but that fondling their bottoms is going to permanently corrupt them.

I am not sure that is a totally valid distinction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 09:04 AM

2. Child abuse is too often condoned, and this was even more true in the past

E.g. the old pop song 'Young Girl' where the underage girl is basically blamed for tempting the singer with 'that come on look in your eyes'.

While nowadays sometimes people go overboard, not letting their kids go outdoors in case they meet a paedophile, I would hope that nowadays more people would have the common sense to realize that someone who uses celebrity status to engineer lots of meetings with star-struck kids MAY have the wrong motives.

But even very recently there have been all these horrible cases of 'grooming' of young girls, ignored for a long time by the police. We have a lot of lessons to learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 06:58 PM

3. A long article in the LRB, including 'Uncle Dick' and others from the 50s

which rather damns the Light Entertainment department as having a significant sub-culture of paedophilia:

In the issue of Lilliput magazine for May 1943 Gamlin wrote an essay called ‘Why I Hate Boys’, which is signed ‘A School-Master’. It was a developing theme, boys, children, whatever, and in 1946 Methuen published a book written by Gamlin and Anthony Gilbert called Don’t Be Afreud! A Short Guide to Youth Control (The Book of the Weak). The book is just about as funny as it wants to be, with author photographs (‘aged 7 and 8 approx’) and a caption: ‘The authors on their way to the Psychoanalyst’. Gamlin, in common with later youthquakers such as Jimmy Savile, never liked children, never had any, never wanted any, and on the whole couldn’t bear them, except on occasion to fuck. And, again like Savile, Gamlin managed all this quite brilliantly, hiding in plain sight as a youth presenter full of good sport but who didn’t really care for youth and all its pieties. This was in the days before ‘victims’ – days that our present media and their audiences find unimaginable – but it gives context and background to the idea of an eccentric presenter as a teasing anti-hero within the Corporation. Auntie was essentially being joshed by a child abuser posing as a child abuser. ‘Before we examine the second stage of the malignant disease of Youth with a capital Y (sometimes conveniently glossed over by the mystic term “adolescence”),’ Gamlin wrote in his book, ‘it should be remembered that all Youth, like ancient Gaul, is divided into three parts: The Imponderable – The Improbable – The Impossible. No successful treatment is possible if this fundamental division is ignored, for although the three parts combine to make the unwholesome whole, they remain distinct (if revolting) entities, and treatment must vary accordingly.’ In Savile’s day, a decade on from Gamlin’s prime, such avuncular kidding could gain you your own TV show plus charity-god status, an almost nationalised belief in your goodness and zaniness and readiness to help.
...
A friend of Gamlin’s remembers going to see him in a flat in All Souls Place in the 1950s, just round the corner from Broadcasting House. A man from Light Entertainment used the flat during the working week and Gamlin often stayed there with young boys. It was clear to the friend that both men were renting the boys, and that the boys were young: ‘They were boys with the kind of good looks that would seem very lewd in a woman.’ He also remembers going for a coffee with one of the boys from the flat. ‘The boy was nice,’ he said, ‘very young. He thought he might get a job or something of that sort. And it was clear the men were using him for sex. Broadcasting House was well stocked with men interested in sleeping with young boys. It was a milieu back then. And people who sought to be sexual predators knew that. It wasn’t spoken about.’

People who worked at the BBC then are reticent about the sexual habits of the time. They speak like survivors – many of the big names are dead, some for more than forty years – and have an understandable wish to resist the hysteria, the prurience, the general shrieking that surrounds discussions of sexual conduct, whether risky and deviant or not. When I spoke to David Attenborough he was amazed to hear that someone he knew might have been named by others as part of the scene surrounding Gamlin at All Souls Place. I don’t hesitate to believe him: he clearly knew nothing about it. Others saw much more than he did and can put names to the people involved, but most of them wanted to tell their stories off the record. The BBC isn’t the Catholic Church, but it has its own ideals and traditions, which cause people to pause before naming the unwise acts that have been performed on its premises. Perhaps more than any church, the BBC continues to be a powerhouse of virtue, of intelligence and tolerance, but it is now suffering a kind of ecclesiastical terror at its own fallibility. One has to look further into the institution to see another, more obscure tradition, the one that leads to Savile and his liberty-taking. There was always an element of it waiting to be picked up. Many people I spoke to wished to make that clear, but – feeling the Chorus watching from above – they asked for anonymity.

One presenter told me of being ‘grabbed’ in Broadcasting House by Malcolm Muggeridge, who spent most of his time in the 1960s railing against the permissive society, ‘pot and pills’. The Muggeridge grope wasn’t welcomed but it didn’t seem totally irregular to the person on the receiving end. She could name at least one other person, a politician, who thought it was OK to put his hand up the skirts of young women at the BBC. It wasn’t irregular. What was irregular was the idea of talking about it, even now.

http://cdn.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:03 AM

4. Fascinating...

... seeing Muggeridge's name come up, because I found myself watching this the other night.



Well, what a pious, self righteous hypocrite. According to his own dogma he is now burning in the firey lake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldironside (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 05:37 PM

5. Muggeridge was a notorious womanizer in his younger days

who then chose to repent when he was past it (claiming to be a latter day St Augustine). He had become a bit of a standing joke by the end of his life but it should be remembered he was one of the few people prepared to speak the truth about the horrors of the famine in the Ukraine during Stalin's campaign of forced collectivisation of agriculture in the 1930s

I am not sure it is entirely fair to lump Muggeridge together with the paedophiles who appear to have been active at the BBC in the 1950s and 1960s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fedsron2us (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 06:49 PM

7. It sounds like...

... he only chose to repent when he was past it. By that token, Joe Orton could have been a saint. And sticking your hand up a woman's skirt is different from being a womaniser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldironside (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:34 PM

8. You obviously dont know many womanisers

because that is exactly how a lot of them operate. Most don't seduce girls by their charm or good looks. Instead they crudely hit on large numbers of women knowing they will get slapped or fought off most of the time but that eventually they will get lucky. It is purely a percentage game. Believe me these people exist in all area of life too, including academia. No female student was safe from the wandering hands of archaeologist Sir Mortimer Wheeler

Anyway Muggeridge's lewd behaviour pales compared to the rumours that are still rumbling around about the abuse that happened in Welsh children 's homes in the 1970s to 1980s. It goes right to the heart of Tory central Office and the political establishment in the UK. The tabloids that have been very keen to expose dead or nearly dead celebs and clowns as perverts are stunningly silent about what has gone on there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fedsron2us (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 03:42 AM

9. Referring to last night's Newsnight are we?

The piece about the Welsh care home, although horiffic did have the feel of something hastily edited due to the the threat of legal action.

As to who the senior Tory nonce is, I've seen a couple of names bandied about on social media websites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #9)


Response to fedsron2us (Reply #10)


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #15)


Response to fedsron2us (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:31 PM

17. lol

"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."



Now you've reminded me that's me sorted out for the next 10 hours or so - its ages since I watched the entire House of Cards trilogy back to back .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 10:45 AM

11. Maybe it was Thatcher herself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 11:32 AM

12. Here is an extract from a 1997 Guardian article on the North Wales child abuse scandal

Secrecy imposed on the exposure of alleged child abuse – news and feature
The Guardian
Published October 1997 No comments... »

News story -

Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual abuse in children’s homes in North Wales.

The names of the alleged members of the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal’s chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court proceedings if they print them.

The Guardian today publishes for the first time detailed evidence about the alleged ring which is said to have been based in Wrexham, in North Wales, and to have infiltrated local children’s homes over a 20-year period. Witnesses claim that members of the ring used their connections with police and social services to conceal their activities. All of the accused have denied the allegations. Those who have been named to the tribunal include:

* A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter. Two witnesses have told the tribunal of a rich and powerful man who belonged to the alleged ring.

* The son of an influential peer who admitted to police that he had been having sex with an under-aged boy from one of the homes. Despite his admission, he was never prosecuted.

* A powerful public official who has previously been cleared of abuse. Six different witnesses have given separate accounts to the tribunal of his alleged rape of young boys. Another has reported him attending parties in Wrexham which were supplied with boys from a children’s home.

* Two social workers and two police officers, one of whom was accused of abuse on four separate occasions and exonerated each time, another of whom has since been jailed in another part of the country for gross indecency with a child.

* More than a dozen other local men, including an executive with a local authority, a senior probation officer and a director of a major company.

All of those who have been named as members of the alleged ring have denied the charges, either in evidence to the tribunal or through their lawyers.

When the tribunal was established last year, it had been assumed that the press could report its proceedings, using the laws of privilege which allow them to name names from court cases and public hearings without fear of libel actions.

However, Sir Ronald then ruled that the media could not report the name of any living person who was accused or likely to be accused of abusing children in the North Wales homes unless they had previously been convicted of such an offence. Since then he has extended his ruling twice: he has granted anonymity to one man who died 16 years ago and to another who has twice been convicted of sexually assaulting boys from a North Wales home.


http://www.nickdavies.net/1997/10/01/secrecy-imposed-on-the-exposure-of-alleged-child-abuse-news-and-feature/

This was organised and systematic abuse yet most of the alleged perpetrators were not charged and the press was gagged.

So what gives. How come Freddie Starr is fair game for exposure by the press even though he has not yet been charged yet all of the people listed above have been granted legal anonymity

This stinks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fedsron2us (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 11:39 AM

13. I think that on this occasion

a rolling stone will gather some moss.

And no - I didn't mean one of The Rolling Stones literally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 11:53 AM

14. This story was lost in the happy clappy days of the first Blair government

All the political parties were happy to connive at the muzzling of the press just as they had been when Lord Boothby was threatened with exposure in the 1960s and the Labour party agreed a cover up to protect Tom Driberg who was also likely to be implicated in the scandal. However, the issue it is back with a vengeance now particularly as a lot of the UK population are not on love with the establishment at the moment. With so many internet forums and Twitter leaking the names of some of those involved then they are going to struggle to contain it this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread