Author: James Collins
Poor Peter doesn’t know why everyone is outraged about Jimmy Savile. He thinks there is too much hype about the whole thing. He thinks people are hysterical. Have a look, it’s classic Reynolds all the way. Silly me, I thought that making apologies for a teacher that ran off to France with a teenage student was rock bottom. Peter isn’t just a digging man; he’s a genuine Welsh miner. The guy burrows through the bedrock of subhuman opinions like a mole on crystal meth.
Now you’ve skimmed the rather terse, callous and also notably ignorant opinion piece Peter has offered up in response to the public hullaballoo about Jimmy Savile and his disgusting proclivities. Peter wants to let the past be the past I guess, except that it isn’t in the past for the countless victims of Savile and those that worked to cover up his crimes. For them the nightmare is ever fresh in their minds, and no amount of media hysteria could begin to describe their torment.
The fact that Savile held the position he did as a public figure and still managed to get away with committing sex crimes against children raises some pretty major issues. What precisely was going on at the BBC that people decided to shelter Savile from the consequences of his actions is something authorities need to figure out. Willful blindness and behavior which facilitated these crimes falls under the scope of the criminal, and the perpetrators of these crimes need to be brought to justice.
I guess Peter only likes involving the police when it is his reputation at stake. The lives of countless victims of Savile and whoever else was involved aren’t worth much to him, because they aren’t Peter Reynolds. It takes a unique kind of arrogance to adopt that position.
Like the Catholic Church sex scandal, or the Boy Scouts of America, the Savile case raises issues of the institutional facilitation of sex crimes. We aren’t talking about an isolated incident; we are talking about a major British public institution which has fostered a climate appropriate for a sexual predator to ply his trade so freely. This isn’t one man being drawn into a bad light; it is potentially the entire culture at the BBC. If that isn’t worth some hysteria, what the hell is?
One might draw the conclusion that Peter Reynolds sympathises with men who wish to cultivate sexual relationships with vulnerable minors.
I suspect Peter is trying to be controversial at this stage. Like a child who isn’t receiving the positive attention he wants from his parents, he lashes out like this in order to substitute the missing attention with a more negative focus. Peter doesn’t have a clue how to make people like him, but he is damn good at making people hate him. Since he isn’t getting the cookie he wants, he might as well get a stern lecture when he sets the kitchen on fire.
Perhaps he believes that he can get famous this way. He might have notions of raising important issues with biting, satirical work. He might think all kinds of things, the sorry part is that he just comes off as a complete nutcase. Manufactured outrage at the public anger towards high profile child sex predators isn’t really the way to get people to notice you, that is, unless you lack any talent to offer otherwise. There, that’s it, isn’t it?
Peter doesn’t have anything useful or intelligent to offer, so he just pisses people off. Not really the kind of fellow you want representing you in Parliament. I’m sure the voters in the Corby by-election will agree too!