Discussion
How did "Kid" Jensen get his name? Next thing you know they'll be pointing the finger at DJs from Radio Fab FM (about 35 seconds into clip)....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzPUUfRcVik&fea...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzPUUfRcVik&fea...
TVR1 said:
And finally, assuming this is all true and the alleged activities were an 'open' secret amongst his contemporaries, who do you think is absolutely crapping themselves at this moment?
Is that really sensible? Suggesting names here is a bad idea imo. I do hope XXXX XXXXXXX ends up eating porridge though. I've never liked XXXX XXXXXXX.rohrl said:
TVR1 said:
And finally, assuming this is all true and the alleged activities were an 'open' secret amongst his contemporaries, who do you think is absolutely crapping themselves at this moment?
Is that really sensible? Suggesting names here is a bad idea imo. I do hope XXXX XXXXXXX ends up eating porridge though. I've never liked XXXX XXXXXXX.Love clues, me.
The BBC News channel just displayed images of the three women who claimed that Jimmy Savile interfered with them sexually. They showed a current picture of each of the women and a picture taken of each of them from the 1970s.
The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
thehawk said:
I've truly seen and heard some vile and sick stuff in my life, much of which has come via the internet. The darkest depths of depravity have been unearthed and I have often been repulsed at the levels that humanity can stoop too. How could we go any lower? Then I read this "Vanessa Feltz says she was groped by a famous guest on her chat show"
I'm shocked. She actually had a famous guest on her show?ViperPict said:
The BBC News channel just displayed images of the three women who claimed that Jimmy Savile interfered with them sexually. They showed a current picture of each of the women and a picture taken of each of them from the 1970s.
The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
About three days too late. The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
Lost_BMW said:
rohrl said:
TVR1 said:
And finally, assuming this is all true and the alleged activities were an 'open' secret amongst his contemporaries, who do you think is absolutely crapping themselves at this moment?
Is that really sensible? Suggesting names here is a bad idea imo. I do hope XXXX XXXXXXX ends up eating porridge though. I've never liked XXXX XXXXXXX.[small]Love clues, me.
Is naming such a big Deal???!!! I would be surprised if it was him.
ViperPict said:
The BBC News channel just displayed images of the three women who claimed that Jimmy Savile interfered with them sexually. They showed a current picture of each of the women and a picture taken of each of them from the 1970s.
The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
No - too late. That joke was already posted a few pages ago.The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
ViperPict said:
The BBC News channel just displayed images of the three women who claimed that Jimmy Savile interfered with them sexually. They showed a current picture of each of the women and a picture taken of each of them from the 1970s.
The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
We are talking about child molestation. The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
Carry on like that and you'll have 12 weeks inside
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that it was such an 'open secret' that scores of people in the media, positions of authority and even just random public must have known. Yet none of them claim to have done anything about it, not even the more serious kiddy fiddling stuff (not trying to play down the kershaw groping, but I can see how that could be brushed over in a male dominated environment).
I just find it hard to credit not one person stood up, not even a parent, and said something to the cops. Or is their claim they did, and somehow Saville and co were above the law. Frankly gobsmacked so many claim to have known, but did nothing. The same people that now are fronting up in the media to cry about how awful it all was.
Have to think Mike Smith is probably right, and this is getting way out of proportion, to the point of some grotesque absurdity. We're so many people really so apathetic to the point of complicity? If so then hard to see this story ending in anything other than shoeings for many.
If you get 12 weeks for posting a couple of sick jokes about a missing 5 y.o. What do you get for covering up / not acting upon widespread sexual abuse?
I just find it hard to credit not one person stood up, not even a parent, and said something to the cops. Or is their claim they did, and somehow Saville and co were above the law. Frankly gobsmacked so many claim to have known, but did nothing. The same people that now are fronting up in the media to cry about how awful it all was.
Have to think Mike Smith is probably right, and this is getting way out of proportion, to the point of some grotesque absurdity. We're so many people really so apathetic to the point of complicity? If so then hard to see this story ending in anything other than shoeings for many.
If you get 12 weeks for posting a couple of sick jokes about a missing 5 y.o. What do you get for covering up / not acting upon widespread sexual abuse?
Eric Mc said:
ViperPict said:
The BBC News channel just displayed images of the three women who claimed that Jimmy Savile interfered with them sexually. They showed a current picture of each of the women and a picture taken of each of them from the 1970s.
The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
No - too late. That joke was already posted a few pages ago.The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Too soon?
It's about the least offensive joke on the topic though...
A few quick observations:
- I used to think highly of the police, but this case is trying my patience - it is not for the police to make statements as they have done, ever, IMHO;
- Esther Rantzen set up Childline, yet claims to have known about JS and his exploits for decades; did she really think before opening her mouth?
- after all of the other exposes and claims over the last decade, are we really to expect that not one person made a complaint and, if so, why not?
There is no doubt that there was a curious sexual culture in the 1970s in show business. Young girls made themselves available to be groped and some groped them. Some girls deliberately went out of their way to try to be groped. Many didn't, but were groped in any case, and viewed it as 'one of those things'. Many regretted their actions, on both sides, but should that really, really be translated via a 2012 lens into something that it wasn't?
In the 1970s, we did at least have some sort of doctrine of personal responsibility - if you did something reckless, or put yourself into a stupid situation, unfortunate things might happen. Nowadays we have rewritten the rules, even if we can't re-code human nature; however stupid, reckless or irresponsible one party is, it is OK: after all, the Law says that no harm must come.
It is not heretical IMHO to state that young girls often went out of their way to get themselves into sexual encounters with their heroes - DJs, pop stars, and the like - at a time when such behaviour was not punished with the modern "throw away the key" attitude. Many, more scurrilous than I, might suggest that some of the complainants now are in fact keen to recast their own histories in a new light, one more in keeping with modern day social mores, and perhaps one in which they may obtain attention and, perhaps, money from the media.
There again, undoubtedly many sexual crimes did happen; rape is rape, after all, and has been for a long time. We mustn't lose sight of that, either. In fact, we must be fair and even-handed, something which seems to be out to lunch this week.
This is why we have (or should have) an impartial police force and judiciary, not a court of public opinion. Right now, we seem to have a rollercoaster of condemnation, a queue of old luvvies anxious to have their say (even at the expense of appearing just woefully weak-willed and even complicit in what they allege), and a police force who have decided that credulity is the only recipe.
If the man was guilty of heinous crimes, let the evidence be tested and presented, if only to show fairness. If he is guilty only of things which - at the time - would have been dealt with merely by a 'quiet word' or a reprimand, let them lie. And if his accusers are merely demonstrating a variation of buyers' remorse, or worse, let them be exposed to the same harsh light of attention they seem so keen to shine in the direction of the late JS.
For the record, I was no great fan of JS; I didn't really 'get' the appeal, despite his obvious charisma. But I firmly believe that there should be a statute of limitations for most crimes, and an onus - in the interests of fairness - upon accusers to come forward in good time for allegations to be tested. I'd also be in favour of a libel law for the dead; why should they be entitled to any less dignity and even-handedness after they've gone?
- I used to think highly of the police, but this case is trying my patience - it is not for the police to make statements as they have done, ever, IMHO;
- Esther Rantzen set up Childline, yet claims to have known about JS and his exploits for decades; did she really think before opening her mouth?
- after all of the other exposes and claims over the last decade, are we really to expect that not one person made a complaint and, if so, why not?
There is no doubt that there was a curious sexual culture in the 1970s in show business. Young girls made themselves available to be groped and some groped them. Some girls deliberately went out of their way to try to be groped. Many didn't, but were groped in any case, and viewed it as 'one of those things'. Many regretted their actions, on both sides, but should that really, really be translated via a 2012 lens into something that it wasn't?
In the 1970s, we did at least have some sort of doctrine of personal responsibility - if you did something reckless, or put yourself into a stupid situation, unfortunate things might happen. Nowadays we have rewritten the rules, even if we can't re-code human nature; however stupid, reckless or irresponsible one party is, it is OK: after all, the Law says that no harm must come.
It is not heretical IMHO to state that young girls often went out of their way to get themselves into sexual encounters with their heroes - DJs, pop stars, and the like - at a time when such behaviour was not punished with the modern "throw away the key" attitude. Many, more scurrilous than I, might suggest that some of the complainants now are in fact keen to recast their own histories in a new light, one more in keeping with modern day social mores, and perhaps one in which they may obtain attention and, perhaps, money from the media.
There again, undoubtedly many sexual crimes did happen; rape is rape, after all, and has been for a long time. We mustn't lose sight of that, either. In fact, we must be fair and even-handed, something which seems to be out to lunch this week.
This is why we have (or should have) an impartial police force and judiciary, not a court of public opinion. Right now, we seem to have a rollercoaster of condemnation, a queue of old luvvies anxious to have their say (even at the expense of appearing just woefully weak-willed and even complicit in what they allege), and a police force who have decided that credulity is the only recipe.
If the man was guilty of heinous crimes, let the evidence be tested and presented, if only to show fairness. If he is guilty only of things which - at the time - would have been dealt with merely by a 'quiet word' or a reprimand, let them lie. And if his accusers are merely demonstrating a variation of buyers' remorse, or worse, let them be exposed to the same harsh light of attention they seem so keen to shine in the direction of the late JS.
For the record, I was no great fan of JS; I didn't really 'get' the appeal, despite his obvious charisma. But I firmly believe that there should be a statute of limitations for most crimes, and an onus - in the interests of fairness - upon accusers to come forward in good time for allegations to be tested. I'd also be in favour of a libel law for the dead; why should they be entitled to any less dignity and even-handedness after they've gone?
Welshbeef said:
3. If formal complaints were made to HR lets get these files where as if its a case of 24 yo "oi cheeky you pinched my bum or cupped my great as I passed" one very different from the other.
The BBC is missing TV episodes from the 60's and 70's, so I doubt they have employment records left!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff