Not exactly, which is why I said “whoever employed them” rather than specifying any one organisation. The culture of the day was still completely against their behaviour which is why it was hushed up by those with financial interest in their careeers.
There will be other examples still happening which will only come to light once it becomes impossible to keep them covered up.

Yes, it’s true that women are more likely to speak out and, just as importantly, be listened to and believed but in the cases named the victims were underage which, in living memory anyway, has never been remotely acceptable.
My point is that the activities of these men were known about and tacitly accepted by their employers until it became impossible to ignore.

It's a combination of factors.

Britain has become more puritanical in recent years after the relative permissive excesses of the 60s to 80s. It was not remarkable for underage girls to be having sex, and it seemed to be more acceptable for powerful or desirable men to sleep with much younger girls or boys.
In that kind of environment, it is clear that a certain minority of individuals with power thought it acceptable to indulge in sexual activity that most of us would consider heinous.
I suppose that kind of perversion is nothing new, but probably never acceptable to the majority.

Then you had a conspiracy theory that some MPs and others ranking individuals were or had been paedophiles. All of a sudden, there was this big effort by the police to collar every 70s pop star, DJ or anyone else well known who could be prosecuted for being a nonce.
Now, a cynic like me is suspicious that this was all a smokescreen to hide the truth about certain elevated individuals and give the pitchfork brigade something to distract them.

That's not to say that these celebrities weren't guilty, but it is clear to me that their activities must have well known to many a long time before they were investigated. Especially Saville.

That's all untrue. I only dismiss conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. For instance, what you wrote above isn't one. I disagree because it isn't true.

You can think my opinions to be "old tosh" all you wish. That's just your opinion of me.

What I addressed are your attitudes, some of which I specified a few posts ago. Another is what you have just done above, which is to misrepresent another person's approach. Ana, lying.

Unless you expect me to repeat all your long and tedious justifications for these attitudes, which I doubt anyone would welcome, and I have no interest in doing, you are going to have to work out for yourself why your views on things are considered odious. I am sure you can manage it.

I'll just give you a starter. You effectively categorise all illegal immigrants as unwelcome scumbags and think they should all, without exception, be returned forthwith to their places of origin. Refugees, in your eyes, are just opportunistic chancers.

I, and many others, disagree with that and find that attitude lacking the compassion we are proud of showing in the UK. Such an attitude is odious.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yes, money is the answer to most things, and the great and 'good' tend to be believed.

I have also wondered if the relationships some of these people had with those in high positions was one of the reasons why they were collared. Maybe they knew too much.

They are here illegally. That is all you need to know.

If you want to live in Britain, then apply through the proper channels.

You advocate breaking the law now?

Not all refugees are opportunists. Some are fleeing peril.

That doesn't mean that we can take keep taking them. We have an existing population to look after, many of whom are struggling to pay taxes already, while illegals, travellers and the like pay none and cost us all.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (02 Apr 2022 6.38pm)