Wednesday, 12 July 2017

WHO'S WHO - SCALLYWAG



'Who's Who' of organised child sexual abuse, by Scallywag.

6 comments:

  1. Link as yet unread, but for the record let's note that the 'scallywags' were the English version of the European stay-behind network. It scored a mention on QI with Orwell being a notable member.

    This may mean nothing apropos its above use, but that not withstanding it is what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The word 'scallywag' is a descriptive noun.
    Your post (Anon, 20:29) needs clarification, because at present it's meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, let's put it this way - when I read this headline my first thought was that this was an article about the English stay-behind network. But it's not. It's about the newspaper that worked to uncover the English paedophocracy.

    Okay, fine, but it's a curious coincidence don't you think? And yes, scallywag is a noun but it's also true that it's an obscure one, comfortably outside the 4000 word daily vocab.

    And yet here are two opposing ends of a spectrum each using the same uncommon word to describe themselves.

    But whatever - let's just call it a coincidence. No skin off my nose.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Information comes to light from sources and messengers of varying degrees of respectability, reliability and trustworthiness:

    Who brings us information about anyone or anything?

    People with personal grudges and axes to grind. Sages and seers. Political chess-players seeking political advantage from genuine whistle blowing... or nurturing damaging false rumours.

    Concerned citizens who prize truth and justice. Intelligence operatives planting false stories, framing the innocent, setting the news agenda, or creating public opinion. Gossips with little regard for accuracy. Media organisations and advertisers with agendas financial and socio-political.

    Survivors pursuing justice. Researchers scrupulously dedicated to objectivity. Embittered ex-spouses unable to see clearly. Foreign states with geopolitical motives. Mischief makers. Story tellers. Truth tellers.

    To name but a few.

    Clearly the origin of a serious allegation or account is important. So too the identify of the messenger. (Do we know and trust the source and the messenger, or are they anonymous, or biased, perhaps prone to exaggerate, or lacking solid evidence to back up their assertions?)

    But even more important than the source and the messenger of an allegation or account is - I believe - the veracity of the information itself.

    Whenever information - of any description - is brought to the public's attention, we (the public) can try to confirm or refute that information based on what we already know: using information that other sources and messengers have placed in the public domain or confided to us privately.

    Ultimately a lie (or gross distortion) is a lie (or gross distortion) no matter how apparently credible the source or the messenger who brought it to our attention. And, by the same token, a Truth is a Truth is a Truth no matter how untrustworthy, lacking in evidence, or motivated by malice the source or the messenger who brought that Truth into the open.

    Just as lies can come from the places one least expects, so can truths.

    Serious allegations must be taken seriously, no matter the origin of them, until they can be disproven or verified.

    I sometimes find facts and useful information in the BBC, the Times and the Daily Mail, for example, just as I find many untruths and distortions emanating from those organs, too. Likewise, I sometimes find useful information coming from the mouths of gossips, spin doctors, and liars... just as I find untruths and distortions emanating from those places, too.

    I won't believe something just because the Russian, North Korean or British government said it, for example; but nor will I disbelieve something just because the Russian, North Korean or British government said it. Etcetera, etcetera.

    Many an important truth is not heard because the 'wrong' person spoke it, and many a fantasy believed because of the speaker's authority/credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Absolutely, you'll find no disagreement on this end. Sorry if I appeared contrary. It was not the intention.

    Rather than disagreeing with the destination, or the route, or the means of getting there, I was merely noting something curious out the window. As it were.

    regards

    ReplyDelete
  6. skally was a very common term and was used to describe a ned or casual of Liverpool in the 1980's. Before that is was used in Liverpool as the way in London we might say cockney or geezer. In the 60's and 70's it was widely used by the older generation to describe some one mischievous. To bring into doubt the great work of the magazine of this name is a way of causing doubt. There are some who can be trusted. The truth is ever uttered only directly experienced....

    ReplyDelete