Discussion
Oakey said:
gtdc said:
Would it have been considered quite so shocking then though? Thinking back to schooldays in the 70s it always seemed perfectly normal to have at least one teacher that was a complete wrong 'un.
I'm not talking about going after prepubescent children but behaving in what is now considered an inappropriate way with older girls. Under the official age of consent but how did the saying go? Grass on the pitch? I remember when Bill Wyman was "dating" Mandy Smith when she was what? 14 or 15 istr. It was a bit of a tabloid scandal but because of the age difference rather than the fact she was under age.
How'd that work out for Jerry Lee Lewis?I'm not talking about going after prepubescent children but behaving in what is now considered an inappropriate way with older girls. Under the official age of consent but how did the saying go? Grass on the pitch? I remember when Bill Wyman was "dating" Mandy Smith when she was what? 14 or 15 istr. It was a bit of a tabloid scandal but because of the age difference rather than the fact she was under age.
Didn't want the Catholics to feel singled out here...
Sorry Eric!
Cheib said:
Here's one. Abramovich.
Girl I went to school with is a regional television/radio presenter. As soon as he bought Chelsea and thus became a name the media were interested in she received a memo written to all presenters saying that on no account was anyone to speculate where his wealth may have come from/make jokes about gangsters etc etc.
Obviously nothing to do with the subject of this thread but just stop and think about how many articles you've read over the years about the rage to riches story of Roman Abramovich. Be a great human interest story but there's very,very little written about one of the world's richest men or indeed many other "properly" wealthy people. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Abramovich but there is quite simply a "do not trespass" sign for journalists.
Ergo. A very large broadcasting organisation can't afford to be sued by someone that rich.
You don't even have to look that far. The Times are currently in the middle of a libel case with an Essex 'businessman' after they printed an article saying he was the head of Londons largest organised crime gang. Now, this is a guy that has been acquitted of violent assault, has knobbled witnesses, was remanded for 'allegedly' slashing someone up and released when the victim retracted his statement, appeared at a County Court mob handed and started brawling with a rival firm, has threatened police officers and SOCA and the MET have admitted he's been under surveillance for decades and that he's an extremely dangerous man. But because he hasn't been convicted of anything for two decades (because these people avoid getting their hands dirty for the most part) the Times are now in the position where they have to defend their claims. Anyone from the East End knows what he's about but as always witht hese things, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove and some people are extremely good at hiding the evidence. Girl I went to school with is a regional television/radio presenter. As soon as he bought Chelsea and thus became a name the media were interested in she received a memo written to all presenters saying that on no account was anyone to speculate where his wealth may have come from/make jokes about gangsters etc etc.
Obviously nothing to do with the subject of this thread but just stop and think about how many articles you've read over the years about the rage to riches story of Roman Abramovich. Be a great human interest story but there's very,very little written about one of the world's richest men or indeed many other "properly" wealthy people. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Abramovich but there is quite simply a "do not trespass" sign for journalists.
Ergo. A very large broadcasting organisation can't afford to be sued by someone that rich.
Mr_B said:
What does that prove though, the girl is unidentified and could be 18.
jaybirduk said:
Met Police taking the lead on a national investigation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19837906
The evidence is too overwhelming, I have no doubt he was a dirty pedo who was probably rather smug on his death bed that he got away with it.
Was he a paedophile? I looked at paedophilia on wiki and it concerns kids, or prepubescent children. So far SJS liked under age fully formed girls?The evidence is too overwhelming, I have no doubt he was a dirty pedo who was probably rather smug on his death bed that he got away with it.
Twincam16 said:
There's a hell of a lot of dirt on Cowell already, much of which was put in that book that came out earlier in the year. No kiddy-fiddling, but he does appear to have a serious aversion to relationships and only seems to bother himself with women purely on the basis that they'll make him look good in public. No real friends either. He's a very odd fish for sure.
None of that sounds like 'dirt' in the SJS sense.Halb said:
jaybirduk said:
Met Police taking the lead on a national investigation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19837906
The evidence is too overwhelming, I have no doubt he was a dirty pedo who was probably rather smug on his death bed that he got away with it.
Was he a paedophile? I looked at paedophilia on wiki and it concerns kids, or prepubescent children. So far SJS liked under age fully formed girls?The evidence is too overwhelming, I have no doubt he was a dirty pedo who was probably rather smug on his death bed that he got away with it.
Halb said:
Was he a paedophile? I looked at paedophilia on wiki and it concerns kids, or prepubescent children. So far SJS liked under age fully formed girls?
You're arguing semantics. Girls start puberty at 11 and as young as 10. That doesn't make you any less of a nonce if you f
k an 11yr old. Oakey said:
Halb said:
Was he a paedophile? I looked at paedophilia on wiki and it concerns kids, or prepubescent children. So far SJS liked under age fully formed girls?
You're arguing semantics. Girls start puberty at 11 and as young as 10. That doesn't make you any less of a nonce if you fk an 11yr old. there is a difference but for current purposes the difference is irrelvant
Halb said:
Eric Mc said:
It was still a criminal offence. In English and Scottish Law, a person under the age of 16 is still a child when speaking about sex offences.
I'm not sure what I typed to suggest it wasn't a criminal offence. I was more interested in the use of the term, paedophile.Oakey said:
You're arguing semantics. Girls start puberty at 11 and as young as 10. That doesn't make you any less of a nonce if you fk an 11yr old.
As sickening as it is, its not semantics, they are psychiatric disorders.k an 11yr old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
pork911 said:
nonce, rock spider whatever you want to call it yes, paedophile no
there is a difference but for current purposes the difference is irrelvant
I suppose you might be right that it doesn't mater in this instance.there is a difference but for current purposes the difference is irrelvant
Eric Mc said:
I'm not bothered about what it's called. I'm more concerned about the legality.
Good for you.Eric Mc said:
Halb said:
Eric Mc said:
It was still a criminal offence. In English and Scottish Law, a person under the age of 16 is still a child when speaking about sex offences.
I'm not sure what I typed to suggest it wasn't a criminal offence. I was more interested in the use of the term, paedophile.
pork911 said:
Eric Mc said:
Halb said:
Eric Mc said:
It was still a criminal offence. In English and Scottish Law, a person under the age of 16 is still a child when speaking about sex offences.
I'm not sure what I typed to suggest it wasn't a criminal offence. I was more interested in the use of the term, paedophile.Bedazzled said:
Just watched the documentary on ITV player and I've got mixed feelings because he's not around to defend himself. It seems like they're ruining his reputation now because they couldn't press charges at the time. I felt very sorry for the victims, but they should have taken him to court really, imho.
But omg, that early TV show where he was sitting among all those young girls with Gary Glitter made my skin crawl!
It's not the victim of a crime who "takes someone to court". It's the authorities - usually through the Crown Prosecution Service. In order for that to happen, the police have to be certain that the case they are building against the individual would have enough substance for a court hearing to be appropriate. But omg, that early TV show where he was sitting among all those young girls with Gary Glitter made my skin crawl!
These girls had an uphill battle even explaining to the nearest trusted adult what had happened to them - let alone the police or the CPS. In fact, as was mentioned earlier, one girl was locked up in solitary confinement after she told the people who ran the children's home what Savile had done. What chance had these kids at all.
It makes me so sad and angry - to be honest.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff