Media scrambles to handle fallout from Savile revelations. Celebrity emphasis.

The media is being heavily directed to make the Savile narrative one of a problem with celebrity culture and celebrities, and avoid all suggestion of procurement of children by people with access to kids like Savile for rape, torture and killing by very powerful people.  I received this email asking me to respond to their researches which are carefully arranged so as to avoid the public looking at why Savile provided girls to Prince Charles, Edward Heath and others.

As follows -


Dear HMT Curteis,

My team of journalists are preparing a feature article on Blind Celebrity Worship: The Jimmy Savile Debacle.
we are trying to understand how a celebrity could get away with abusing children oover a 30 year period.
We are considering the following points and would gladly appreciate your inputs:
  • Why are we so trusting of celebrities in general, particularly with young and vulnerable children?
  • Why are we so surprised by the events that have unfolded in the media, depsite the fact that in hindsight, the signs were already there?
  • Why did the institutions where the abuse took place 'cover up' or at best 'fail to act' despite the fact that allegations were made against Jimmy Savile some 20-30 years ago.
  • In your opinion do celebrities do things like this because of the power that we give them or do would-be abusers seek these positions of power to facilitate their abuse?
Thanks for your help and best regards,
*******

I replied as follows -








The Tap Blog hmtcurteis@gmail.com



4:54 PM (12 minutes ago)










to Dr *******








If you read the posts on The Tap Blog, you will see what the contributors feel about Jimmy Savile as a procurer of kids for Royalty, Prime Ministers and more, how children were farmed for sexual abuse and serial killing in childrens homes.


I suspect you are trying to cover up by ignoring the main issues raised by Jimmy Savile.


Dear HMT Cuteis, (sic)




Could you please remove my personal details from your website – you have published my personal mobile number.  You are not entitled to do this. I am not a member of the mainstream media and I am not even old enough to remember Jimmy Saville and hence have nothing to cover up. What you have printed constitutes defamation.




I think what you’ve just done is very unfair. I have asked these question to you but you have no idea what questions I have sent out to other individuals e.g Psychologists who are qualified to talk about this issue from a psychologists point of view.




I am not involved in writing or researching the article, my journalisms interns are. I was making this enquiry on their behalf.




Regards,






The Tap Blog replied -





I am a blog.  I have removed your personal details.  It sounds like someone's paying you for a bit of 'scientific' analysis to create some news 'narrative'.  Not my bag.