Discussion
RYH64E said:
Read it all and contributed. To me, there is a world of difference between two teenagers having sex (15/16/17) and a much older man having sex with a teenager. It certainly isn't usual for an older man to have any kind of relationship with a much younger girl, not unheard of maybe, but not usual and a bit strange in my opinion.
OK - but YOU are looking at this through British eyes, not those of French or presumably Spanish origin, where they live in a different culture, where for some reason or other it is not unusual TO THEM.Mill Wheel said:
OK - but YOU are looking at this through British eyes, not those of French or presumably Spanish origin, where they live in a different culture, where for some reason or other it is not unusual TO THEM.
I'm British, Savile was British, the girls who have come forward were British, from your profile you live in Cumbria, this is a predominantly British forum - what do you expect?RYH64E said:
I'm British, Savile was British, the girls who have come forward were British, from your profile you live in Cumbria, this is a predominantly British forum - what do you expect?
It's like saying "well, drugs are decriminalised in Portugal and it's alright to smoke weed in Amsterdam so technically there's nothing wrong with me doing drugs in the UK because it's not illegal elsewhere". Or "well, adulterers in the ME are stoned to death so I'm going to throw this rock at my cheating wife". Oakey said:
RYH64E said:
I'm British, Savile was British, the girls who have come forward were British, from your profile you live in Cumbria, this is a predominantly British forum - what do you expect?
It's like saying "well, drugs are decriminalised in Portugal and it's alright to smoke weed in Amsterdam so technically there's nothing wrong with me doing drugs in the UK because it's not illegal elsewhere". Or "well, adulterers in the ME are stoned to death so I'm going to throw this rock at my cheating wife". 9/10, sir I tip my hat.
I also believe (I may be wrong) that if a british sleaze bag was on holiday in Spain and he abused a 13 year old he would not be protected by Spainish law?
is that right?
Edited by decadence on Sunday 7th October 08:17
Oakey said:
It's like saying "well, drugs are decriminalised in Portugal and it's alright to smoke weed in Amsterdam so technically there's nothing wrong with me doing drugs in the UK because it's not illegal elsewhere". Or "well, adulterers in the ME are stoned to death so I'm going to throw this rock at my cheating wife".
Even more to the point , since this is a motoring forum , many of the Autobahnen in Germany have no speed restrictions - so it ought to be fine to drive as fast as we like on our motorways ?What's that ? Some already do ? OK .
I think the wider point is that looking at the laws in other countries can sometimes provide food for thought. The British can't really give any lessons to many countries about sex. Any debate is underpinned by Sun-type, lynch the paedo type sensationalism, or (often in the same type of rag) sniggering at the back of the room. Forums aren't much different.
pitmansboots said:
A cigar-smoking TV presenter/DJ is a power broker of such immense controlling influence that not one abused person dared bubble him...F**k off.
.....
For me, I find it incredible that even a small number could be abused without at least one of them evidencing the abuse at or close to the time.
PMB, I know you are also big on "road safety" but I think your admiration for the Clunk Click bloke has gone a little far here......
For me, I find it incredible that even a small number could be abused without at least one of them evidencing the abuse at or close to the time.
It does seem to me that there must have been some illuminati level conspiracy to cover this all up if it's true. No incriminating photos (none different from any other celeb that can be dug up anyway) and certainly no absolutely indefensible video or still pics. From what I read, offenders like to keep mementos and images of their activities and these seem to be totally absent in this case.
I'd like a lot more evidence before I condemn him, certainly more than various middle-aged ladies surfacing and saying what he did without any independent evidence. I say this in the belief that if teh allegations are proven, his reputation deserves to be permanently tarnished, but I like to empathise in situations like this and I can imagine how I'd feel if he was a relative of mine and I had never seen anything to worry me.
I'd like a lot more evidence before I condemn him, certainly more than various middle-aged ladies surfacing and saying what he did without any independent evidence. I say this in the belief that if teh allegations are proven, his reputation deserves to be permanently tarnished, but I like to empathise in situations like this and I can imagine how I'd feel if he was a relative of mine and I had never seen anything to worry me.
All those Catholic Priests didn't take videos, and managed to keep things quiet for ages. That is how child abusers work. It is very hard for their victims to be heard. I do not know if Savile was guilty, but the absence of clear evidence and delay in the allegations are not in themselves indications that the allegations are not true. The cases against Gary Glitter and Jonathan King took a while to come out.
Breadvan72 said:
All those Catholic Priests didn't take videos, and managed to keep things quiet for ages. That is how child abusers work. It is very hard for their victims to be heard. I do not know if Savile was guilty, but the absence of clear evidence and delay in the allegations are not in themselves indications that the allegations are not true. The cases against Gary Glitter and Jonathan King took a while to come out.
I don't disagree with you other than to say that my understanding was that the church abuse took place rather earlier. I also accept that Savile, if guilty, would have been most active just prior to the prevalence of easily accessible recording devices. Having said that, limited technology didn't hamper Hindley and Brady back in the 60's.I concur that the delay in accusations is not necessrily an indication that they are untrue. However, there are plenty of cases of false accusations with sex offences and they are clearly easier to make when there is no recourse available to the accused. With multiple historical allegations, if not genuine, maybe it can be a little like the 200,000 people that crammed into Wembley to see the 1966 World Cup?
9mm said:
Breadvan72 said:
All those Catholic Priests didn't take videos, and managed to keep things quiet for ages. That is how child abusers work. It is very hard for their victims to be heard. I do not know if Savile was guilty, but the absence of clear evidence and delay in the allegations are not in themselves indications that the allegations are not true. The cases against Gary Glitter and Jonathan King took a while to come out.
I don't disagree with you other than to say that my understanding was that the church abuse took place rather earlier. I also accept that Savile, if guilty, would have been most active just prior to the prevalence of easily accessible recording devices. Having said that, limited technology didn't hamper Hindley and Brady back in the 60's.I concur that the delay in accusations is not necessrily an indication that they are untrue. However, there are plenty of cases of false accusations with sex offences and they are clearly easier to make when there is no recourse available to the accused. With multiple historical allegations, if not genuine, maybe it can be a little like the 200,000 people that crammed into Wembley to see the 1966 World Cup?
The thing with children is that they won't complain without support: from parents, that sort of thing. A 12-year-old might not even recognise that they had been abused as such, ie that it was an offence. As I said earlier, I know of an MP who had over 144 complaints of sexual abuse against him but, because each was an individual, they went no further as there was 'no evidence'.
Don't forget that it wasn't so long ago that famous, and titled, people, pillars of society, confidants of royalty, were convicted of abuse of children and then virutally let off and welcomed back into the society that they had frequented before their court case. On top of that, people can be paid off.
Abusers often pick their victims with care. Look at the Jersey home scandal. That went on for some years and some victims did indeed report the offences but they were not dealt with properly.
Then we have the greatest scandal of all time. It was world wide. Victims complained but were turned away. Priests were important and untouchable. There has had to be a sea change before such things could be mentioned.
Savile was important: an icon. And, the most significant thing is that it was autres temps, autres moeurs. Look up the case of Harold Challenor. Here was a police officer who presented the same half brick in court case after court case. The defence knew he was corrupt, the prosecutors knew he was corrupt, the magistrates knew he was corrupt but nothing was done. It was accepted, like child abuse.
Anyone else mildly annoyed with the sudden raft of people coming out and saying "someone famous groped me, I'm not saying who it is but *wink wink*"? I mean on the one hand it's good that they've come forward, but why now? Why not back when it was going on?
I can buy a certain amount of "no one would listen back then", but now Sandi-bloody-Toksvig has come out and made groping claims too. It's not like she even has a career to worry about, yet she's left it until now to reveal this information. Why?
I can buy a certain amount of "no one would listen back then", but now Sandi-bloody-Toksvig has come out and made groping claims too. It's not like she even has a career to worry about, yet she's left it until now to reveal this information. Why?
Derek Smith said:
Criminal history is replete with examples of serial abusers going unreported or, in the case of important people, with complaints not being taken seriously.
The thing with children is that they won't complain without support: from parents, that sort of thing. A 12-year-old might not even recognise that they had been abused as such, ie that it was an offence. As I said earlier, I know of an MP who had over 144 complaints of sexual abuse against him but, because each was an individual, they went no further as there was 'no evidence'.
Don't forget that it wasn't so long ago that famous, and titled, people, pillars of society, confidants of royalty, were convicted of abuse of children and then virutally let off and welcomed back into the society that they had frequented before their court case. On top of that, people can be paid off.
Abusers often pick their victims with care. Look at the Jersey home scandal. That went on for some years and some victims did indeed report the offences but they were not dealt with properly.
Then we have the greatest scandal of all time. It was world wide. Victims complained but were turned away. Priests were important and untouchable. There has had to be a sea change before such things could be mentioned.
Savile was important: an icon. And, the most significant thing is that it was autres temps, autres moeurs. Look up the case of Harold Challenor. Here was a police officer who presented the same half brick in court case after court case. The defence knew he was corrupt, the prosecutors knew he was corrupt, the magistrates knew he was corrupt but nothing was done. It was accepted, like child abuse.
I pretty much agree with that Derek. All I would say is that for the most part things are much, much better now. Some might argue it has now gone to the other extreme where all children (and accusers in general) are believed until it's found otherwise.The thing with children is that they won't complain without support: from parents, that sort of thing. A 12-year-old might not even recognise that they had been abused as such, ie that it was an offence. As I said earlier, I know of an MP who had over 144 complaints of sexual abuse against him but, because each was an individual, they went no further as there was 'no evidence'.
Don't forget that it wasn't so long ago that famous, and titled, people, pillars of society, confidants of royalty, were convicted of abuse of children and then virutally let off and welcomed back into the society that they had frequented before their court case. On top of that, people can be paid off.
Abusers often pick their victims with care. Look at the Jersey home scandal. That went on for some years and some victims did indeed report the offences but they were not dealt with properly.
Then we have the greatest scandal of all time. It was world wide. Victims complained but were turned away. Priests were important and untouchable. There has had to be a sea change before such things could be mentioned.
Savile was important: an icon. And, the most significant thing is that it was autres temps, autres moeurs. Look up the case of Harold Challenor. Here was a police officer who presented the same half brick in court case after court case. The defence knew he was corrupt, the prosecutors knew he was corrupt, the magistrates knew he was corrupt but nothing was done. It was accepted, like child abuse.
Just out of interest, do you accept that false allegations are sometimes made and sometimes you can get a kind of group hysteria resulting in multiple false accusations?
The person I find most difficult to understand in all of this is Esther Rantzen. She claims she knew all about it but failed to take action at the time she was one of the most powerful women in TV, not to mention the subsequent founder of Childline.
Durzel said:
I can buy a certain amount of "no one would listen back then", but now Sandi-bloody-Toksvig has come out and made groping claims too. It's not like she even has a career to worry about, yet she's left it until now to reveal this information. Why?
I think it is very important information. It suggests that somewhere out there is someone more deranged and evil than Savile, Glitter and Starr combined. decadence said:
ha ha! perfect reply! 3-0!
9/10, sir I tip my hat.
I also believe (I may be wrong) that if a british sleaze bag was on holiday in Spain and he abused a 13 year old he would not be protected by Spainish law?
is that right?
If ABUSE takes place, then the law in both the countries mentioned would prosecute the perpetrator concerned.9/10, sir I tip my hat.
I also believe (I may be wrong) that if a british sleaze bag was on holiday in Spain and he abused a 13 year old he would not be protected by Spainish law?
is that right?
Edited by decadence on Sunday 7th October 08:17
My observation applied merely to consensual liaisons, of which there have been many.
I also observed that affairs outside of marriage are not viewed in the same light as they are here - although the situation here is changing - e.g. Chris Hune's career was not affected by his affair and divorce - until it transpired that he (allegedly) broke the law by having his wife take his points!
9mm said:
I pretty much agree with that Derek. All I would say is that for the most part things are much, much better now. Some might argue it has now gone to the other extreme where all children (and accusers in general) are believed until it's found otherwise.
Just out of interest, do you accept that false allegations are sometimes made and sometimes you can get a kind of group hysteria resulting in multiple false accusations?
The person I find most difficult to understand in all of this is Esther Rantzen. She claims she knew all about it but failed to take action at the time she was one of the most powerful women in TV, not to mention the subsequent founder of Childline.
Oh, yes, there are false allegations of sexual offences and indeed that you get group hysteria. There have been a number of well documented examples.Just out of interest, do you accept that false allegations are sometimes made and sometimes you can get a kind of group hysteria resulting in multiple false accusations?
The person I find most difficult to understand in all of this is Esther Rantzen. She claims she knew all about it but failed to take action at the time she was one of the most powerful women in TV, not to mention the subsequent founder of Childline.
With regards all accuser being believed, it is not quite as it seems. The idea is that a rape allegation is treated the same as any other reported crime. If someone phones to report a burglary and an officer attends (don't laugh, stick with me on this one) then the asusmption the officer makes at the start is that it is a bone fide report. They do not make extended enquiries and look for confirmation from neighbours before ticking the box. However, when(?) the scientific invistigations starts and it finds that the window was broken from the inside then things change.
The police should not delay investigation until there is corrobative evidence. They do not in other cases so why in this one.
There was a rape/abduction in my village, Rottingdean, reported. The victim was put into the back of a vehicle and raped. The police ran through the reported actions and found a couple of things did not fit. They still continued with the enquiry but ran a parallel investigation for wasting police time. It is unusual but hardly unknown.
As regards Rantzen, not only is it her but her old man was in the business as well, and more important than her. If what she says is true then he must have known.
Derek Smith said:
Abusers often pick their victims with care. Look at the Jersey home scandal. That went on for some years and some victims did indeed report the offences but they were not dealt with properly.
Linking the Haut de la Garenne case with this thread, Sir Jimmy Savile was investigated by Jersey Police after a woman claimed she was indecently assaulted by him on the island in the 1970s. The alleged victim told police the attack took place while she was resident at the now infamous children’s home.A spokesman for the States of Jersey Police said: “During the course of the States of Jersey Police’s historic abuse investigation a verbal allegation of indecent assault said to have occurred during the 1970s at the former children’s home Haut de la Garenne was received. The allegation was investigated but there was insufficient evidence to proceed.”
In 2008 Saville angrily denied he had ever visited the home when asked by the press, but was later forced to concede he had been a visitor when a black and white photograph emerged of him sat in the school grounds surrounded by children.
Streaky
I think in these cases even if the girls were 16 or over its still pretty gross scenario.
I mean by this that take Rotherham. If men give 15 year old girl from rough background free booze then abuse her sexually, its not suddenly OK cause they are over 16.
So in Jimmys case if this is at all true, even if they were 16 or over, its still wrong based on his profession. You cant on the one hand be a 40-50 year old doing a childrens show then after hours having sex with 16 year olds let alone 13 year olds....age here like with that teacher is a massive angle yes, but not just a case of "well if she was 16 which she nearly was then this teacher would of been doing nothing wrong.." YES HE WOULD!
Same with Jimmy...underage or not, a 40 year old childrens entertainer should not of been getting jiggy with any young girls full stop....
I mean by this that take Rotherham. If men give 15 year old girl from rough background free booze then abuse her sexually, its not suddenly OK cause they are over 16.
So in Jimmys case if this is at all true, even if they were 16 or over, its still wrong based on his profession. You cant on the one hand be a 40-50 year old doing a childrens show then after hours having sex with 16 year olds let alone 13 year olds....age here like with that teacher is a massive angle yes, but not just a case of "well if she was 16 which she nearly was then this teacher would of been doing nothing wrong.." YES HE WOULD!
Same with Jimmy...underage or not, a 40 year old childrens entertainer should not of been getting jiggy with any young girls full stop....
He was obviously a bit eccentric and I'm not surprised at the allegations... however, remember back to the Dave Jones case.
An innocent football manager had his life and career devastated for a couple of years whilst he worked to clear his name.
It's this case alone that makes me very wary of condemning Savile until there's some concrete proof.
An innocent football manager had his life and career devastated for a couple of years whilst he worked to clear his name.
It's this case alone that makes me very wary of condemning Savile until there's some concrete proof.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff