this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
85 points (100.0% liked)

Creepy Wikipedia

3945 readers
2 users here now

A fediverse community for curating Wikipedia articles that are oddly fascinating, eerily unsettling, or make you shiver with fear and disgust

image

Guidelines:
  1. Follow the Code of Conduct

  2. Do NOT report posts YOU don't consider creepy

  3. Strictly Wikipedia submissions only

  4. Please follow the post naming convention: Wikipedia Article Title - Short Synopsis

  5. Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails.

  6. Please refrain from any offensive language/profanities in the posts titles, unless necessary (e.g. it's in the original article's title).

Mandatory:

If you didn't find an article "creepy," you must announce it in the thread so everyone will know that you didn't find it creepy

image

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Darkard@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago (5 children)

He wasn't revealed, it was a widely known but never spoke of fact. It was only allowed to be "revealed" when he was dead and there was no money to be made from him anymore.

The truth is that he was allowed to get away with it because he was famous and making TV executives rich.

Anyone who lived around Leeds during his heyday knew he was fucked up.

[–] Devi@kbin.social 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There's a lot of talk now how "everybody knew", but it's not really true. Unless we're collectively saying the whole country delivered their children to be molested for a giggle.

Nobody or very few "knew", people certainly had suspicions, and there was conversation about him being a bit of a ladies man, or liking younger women, or even being inappropriate with kids, but the vast majority of people didn't suspect anything or he wouldn't have had the opportunities that he had.

[–] decadentrebel@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

John Lyndon is one example of a person taking credit for supposedly warning people a long time ago but his claims were vague enough that he could easily be talking about anything.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That and English libel laws, which were designed to prevent the servants from challenging their abusive betters, and thus are heavily weighted against the defendant to the point where the US refuses to recognise UK libel judgments against its citizens.

There’s a number of British public figures alive today about whom one knows terrible truths will emerge the moment they’re confirmed dead and thus unable to sue.

[–] frefi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago

I thought the BBC was publicly funded, so it's not?

Either way, covering this up is disgusting and vile, especially since he apparently hosted a kids show

[–] JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago

Another example of how evil the BBC has been, over the years. They literally protected a paedophile for decades.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

So many people knew. So so many. And after it all came out they were more than happy to blame it all on him and act like he did it all himself. Nobody went down for it, nobody was published for helping him abuse hundreds