I have always been firmly opposed to long term, successful conspiracy theories, finding them both malevolent and implausible.
One of the main reasons I find them implausible is that the number of people who would need to cover up a conspiracy is so huge that it is simply crazy to think it could be done successfully.
However in the case of Jimmy Savile's probable abuse of young girls, it appears that his behavior was known by hundreds of people and no one went public. This is partly due to our libel laws, but no one would have been sued for tipping off the police, yet this does not seem to have occurred.
Should I therefore re-evaluate my contempt for conspiracy theories in general? Except the 9/11, Diana and JFK conspiracy theories of course, which are still retarded.
The Grauniad is disturbed
1 hour ago
9 comments:
JuliaM has just pointed out at her place that David Icke went very public about it - he was presumably in a position to know, but his allegations appeared alongside his assertion that the Royal Family were shape-shifting lizards bent on world domination.
Yes David Icke did have er credibility issues.
If I was involved in something utterly evil I'd tip David Icke off so that he would denounce me and I could use that to discredit all accusations.
What a brilliant plan! *cackles*
Ross, you also forgot to mention that the Moon Landing conspiracy theories are just as retarded.
Although the JFK bumped off by the CIA/Mafia/Defence Industry theory is probably not so wide of the mark.
There's no need to change your view as The Savile case is not a conspiracy. The people who stayed silent did not meet and agree to do so - they did not conspire. They acted individually to protect the institution on which they depend for their living, anticipating (correctly as it seems to have turned out, given the BBC's response to the story) that it was what the institution would expect.
It's deplorable obviously, but it's natural human behaviour. They weren't protecting Savile, they were protecting the source of their own generous and lightly-earned income.
Should I therefore re-evaluate my contempt for conspiracy theories in general?
Yes. The similar Penn State case provides even better evidence that one should.
Mr Paine is right that there doesn't seem to have been a conspiracy in Savile's case but what's interesting is the amount of people who were in a position to know about his crimes, or at least to be suspicious of them, yet did absolutely nothing. This suggests that if a group of people did conspire to do something a far larger number of people whom we might expect to stop or expose them might well fail to do this.
I like your David Icke plan. I wonder whether he knew that Savile was an alligator?
Tom- that is a very good point, there was no actual conspiring as such, just people passing the buck.
Bensix- they didn't just not do anything- they gave him a TV show that involved him interacting with children on a weekly basis.
Come one, Jimmy Savile didn't do it.
Post a Comment