Discussion in 'World Events' started by Mathers2013, Oct 23, 2013.
Was e bad?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It would seem that he had serious character flaws. He also did a great deal of good in his charitable work. Like all humans he was a mix of good and bad.
It Is Sufficient To Say He Was Dangerous
He was a pathological danger to other people, it seems. Regardless of what moral label you want to put on it (e.g., bad), the more vital question in this particular case is functional. I can accept a proposition that one is not "bad" because one cannot "help oneself", but if the result is that one is "dangerous", there are more important questions to address than moral characterization.
That statement can be furthered, it could be implied that the charity work was exploited so as to be in the predicament to have those character flaws. This means any good that would of been seen by doing charity work was perverted.
No, He wasn't bad, he was evil.
He molested and abused hundreds of young women and children.
He took a young cub scout away from his friends, and abused him in a back office at the BBC.
They had to disinter him and cremate his body,
otherwise he would have been dug up and put on youtube.
Not many people you can say that about.
You are correct. I have assumed, because I tend to see the best in people, that the charity work was genuine; that he recognised his own failings and this was a way
of trying to compensate for them. However, he might equally have been using it cynically to create an atmosphere of trust and give access to those he wanted to abuse. I can be conned by psychopaths. Ordinary people rarely fool me.
I've only heard that he was good at something.
At molesting children for example. A bastard who got lucky and died before being exposed
I don't think it was luck.
The police had lots of evidence against him.
They chose not to believe it.
I don't know about that He is a bad man or not.
I'm not making a judgement on his soul, merely his actions.
Who can judge what makes an evil man evil?
Much of it may be caused by circumstances beyond his control.
But the danger for any vulnerable person who came into contact with this evil man was grave.
Or maybe they chose not to act on it.
There really is something curious about the mentality of police. Even though they are no longer all Masons in England, they still have a masonic mentality. Find yourself among policemen, socially, and you are terrible aware of being an outsider. Savile's status had somehow managed to "buy him in". He had friends in the police force. Even though he wasn't a cop, Savile was felt by the police to somehow belong to the same masonic community. He was friend not foe. To act against him would be to betray "one of the anointed". It would be a breach of solidarity.
Having worked at the bbc, there is no way on earth those nosy people did not know.
Bbc are military intelligence uk media group if you did not know, and they will know about all there employees, and you cannot tell me they did not know about a person like that.
You are right. But there's also this thing in the BBC about demarcation of responsibility. Unless there was a deputy assistant director of morality with special responsibility for weeding out paedophiles, no one would regard it as his duty to act. In fact, any particular individual would most likely regard it as ultra vires.
Separate names with a comma.