Discussion
Zod said:
We had a swimming teacher like that. It suddenly dawned on me one day about fifteen years after I left school that he had been a low level paedophile (I've not heard any allegations of anything more serious thant spending too much time around the showers and whackingg boys' naked arses with a pump to turn them into "baboons").
Is there a difference (in law) between a child abuser and a pedophile?daz3210 said:
Is there a difference (in law) between a child abuser and a pedophile?
I guess it's the adding in of a sexual element. Plenty of people abuse kids but not sexually, they beat them and stub cigarettes out on them. Those particular monsters wouldn't end up on the sexual offenders register.TwigtheWonderkid said:
daz3210 said:
Is there a difference (in law) between a child abuser and a pedophile?
I guess it's the adding in of a sexual element. Plenty of people abuse kids but not sexually, they beat them and stub cigarettes out on them. Those particular monsters wouldn't end up on the sexual offenders register.Interesting that you think older men "letching" at younger women bad - in France the men seem more than happy to admire younger women openly - and the younger women seem happy to be admired and even form liaisons with older men - even married ones!
Affairs carried on by married partners of both sexes are generally more acceptable than in Britain - and it seems it is no obstacle to political ambition to have been found romancing another woman while married.
Perhaps this is because divorce is considered a greater evil there?
Saville would have been more roundly criticised in France for his fashion sense than his sexual preferences!
Affairs carried on by married partners of both sexes are generally more acceptable than in Britain - and it seems it is no obstacle to political ambition to have been found romancing another woman while married.
Perhaps this is because divorce is considered a greater evil there?
Saville would have been more roundly criticised in France for his fashion sense than his sexual preferences!
Breadvan72 said:
It is time to own up to the fact that many of us, me included, are guilty of spelling Savile incorrectly.
If it is MANY of us, can we all be wrong - surely it was HIS mistaken spelling, after all just look at his taste in clothes, vehicular transport and young companions! 
9mm said:
Blimey, all that sport I've played over the years. I've only just realised that the changing room banter was masking the fact that we were all paedos or victims of paedos. I'd never thought of any of my assorted sensei, rugby coaches, team-mates, PE teachers, squash partners, etc as perverts but clearly I've been completely blind to it. I can think of a couple of occasions when our music teacher came in to the changing rooms to talk to the PE teacher so clearly he was at it as well!
The fact that no-one has ever made an allegation of anything beyond being smacked on the arse with a towel just proves the power these pervs hold over us. A kind of paedo-illuminati at work? Same with just about every girl I've ever talked to. Every one of their PE teachers was a lesbian! They know, not because they were physically assaulted, but because these women spent a lot of time in the changing rooms 'looking at them!' Feck knows why, in many cases.
You honestly think that a middle aged PE teacher should of been whipping young boys bums with a towel while they were in the showers?The fact that no-one has ever made an allegation of anything beyond being smacked on the arse with a towel just proves the power these pervs hold over us. A kind of paedo-illuminati at work? Same with just about every girl I've ever talked to. Every one of their PE teachers was a lesbian! They know, not because they were physically assaulted, but because these women spent a lot of time in the changing rooms 'looking at them!' Feck knows why, in many cases.
SERIOUSLY??
Lord....
decadence said:
You honestly think that a middle aged PE teacher should of been whipping young boys bums with a towel while they were in the showers?
SERIOUSLY??
Lord....
I think it's hilarious. I thought that kind of behaviour was pretty hilarious at the time. There was no whipping going on but I seemed to recall it being the thing to do amongst many kids at that time. People got slippered on the arse occasionally too. It was the preferred method of discipline back then. There was nothimg sexual about it and the thing that convinces me of that was that no-one ever complained or even whispered about any sexual impropriety. Our PE teacher was regarded simply as a mean bSERIOUSLY??
Lord....
d who was good at his job. Furthermore, I'd have expected a raging pervert to develop his evil ways, perhaps by touching, getting his own kit off or perhaps introducing a camera into proceedings. None of that happened. All I can say to you is don't ever play rugby - you may faint at the goings on.I think what this thread brings to light is the cultural change over 30 years.
30 years ago if a man was with a 14 year old, people thought it was a 'little strange' but, it went on in the public eye - Bill Wyman, Jerry Lee Lewis (although a bit before).
Now people who do the same must do it is secret as there is the 'p word' for them. It brings outrage, and it's illegal.
It then brings the factor that 30 years ago the risk of being caught in the culture of then was that it wasn't the worst thing in the world. Whereas today I am pretty sure stars of today would not even dream of doing the same things - because they will be judged through the lens of the culture today.
The issue of this thread is that actions of 30 years ago are being seen through the lens of the zeitgeist today.
A PE teacher would not whip boys bottoms with a towel today (even innocently if that's possible) for fear of being banded as a paedophile, and would expect to be so if he did.
30 years ago if a man was with a 14 year old, people thought it was a 'little strange' but, it went on in the public eye - Bill Wyman, Jerry Lee Lewis (although a bit before).
Now people who do the same must do it is secret as there is the 'p word' for them. It brings outrage, and it's illegal.
It then brings the factor that 30 years ago the risk of being caught in the culture of then was that it wasn't the worst thing in the world. Whereas today I am pretty sure stars of today would not even dream of doing the same things - because they will be judged through the lens of the culture today.
The issue of this thread is that actions of 30 years ago are being seen through the lens of the zeitgeist today.
A PE teacher would not whip boys bottoms with a towel today (even innocently if that's possible) for fear of being banded as a paedophile, and would expect to be so if he did.
Breadvan72 said:
It was wrong then, as now. Slavery and bear baiting were wrong when they were practised. Moral relativism can be taken too far.
I do agree - that's not my point though.My point is that if you owned slaves 250 years ago the public held a very different view of you - whether they agreed with slavery or not.
A slave owner did not have to risk his reputation my his immoral act. My point is 30 years ago, and as time has gone on JS's acts have been increasingly repugnant in the public eye - int he same way the PE teachers of 30 years ago now know they cannot play certain 'games' because those acts will be construed differently, even if they have no sexual interest in their pupils.
That's my point.
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.
I sense ex NOTW reporter types with the smell of a story and those suddenly realizing that rich, dead old men apparently fiddling with them years ago can pay dividends.
Don't get me wrong; if he did it just once, he should be dug up and fed to the fishes off his beloved Scarborough; equally so for those who run the story without proof and make untrue accusations.
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.
I sense ex NOTW reporter types with the smell of a story and those suddenly realizing that rich, dead old men apparently fiddling with them years ago can pay dividends.
Don't get me wrong; if he did it just once, he should be dug up and fed to the fishes off his beloved Scarborough; equally so for those who run the story without proof and make untrue accusations.
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.
9mm said:
decadence said:
You honestly think that a middle aged PE teacher should of been whipping young boys bums with a towel while they were in the showers?
SERIOUSLY??
Lord....
I think it's hilarious. I thought that kind of behaviour was pretty hilarious at the time. There was no whipping going on but I seemed to recall it being the thing to do amongst many kids at that time. People got slippered on the arse occasionally too. It was the preferred method of discipline back then. There was nothimg sexual about it and the thing that convinces me of that was that no-one ever complained or even whispered about any sexual impropriety. Our PE teacher was regarded simply as a mean bSERIOUSLY??
Lord....
d who was good at his job. Furthermore, I'd have expected a raging pervert to develop his evil ways, perhaps by touching, getting his own kit off or perhaps introducing a camera into proceedings. None of that happened. All I can say to you is don't ever play rugby - you may faint at the goings on.Breadvan72 said:
Slavery and bear baiting were wrong when they were practised.
But they weren't were they.They were looked on as OK, and in law they were, perfectly normal things to do.
Much the same as hanging used to be legal and the accepted thing to do with murderers.
It is only because society has changed its view/attitude that slavery/bear baiting/hanging is no longer practiced or accepted (or legal).
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.
You are aware about the large number of simultaneous and independent instances of systematic abuse in the Catholic church on both sides of the Atlantic that only came to light recently?...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.
Abusers have been proven to get away with is for many years because the abuser is in a position of power, and no young individual comes forward for fear of what might happen, and/or if they do their claim goes nowhere as it is rubbished.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff