***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 13 *****
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 15 Aug 13 at 21:25
|
Warning, contains adult language -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4l6Z3me_7A
|
>> Warning, contains adult language -
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4l6Z3me_7A
Troubled...
Half of me's PMSL and the other half finds it double scowly offensive.
|
Saw the start of the BAFTAs tonight and Graham Norton was making some light of the allegations.
Part of me thinks that it was just general humour but another part throught that it was done in such a way as if to say "its not that important to us celebs"
|
>> Half of me's PMSL and the other half finds it double scowly offensive.
I could tell after twenty seconds that I wasn't going to laugh and stopped watching. Never mind the scowlies, Hitler jokes are offensive. Very few people can get away with them (Mel Brooks is one - perhaps you have to be Jewish to pull it off... but even then... ).
What's funny really about two thoroughly disgusting beings talking about each other, one responsible for 30 million deaths and the other alleged to have abused a lot of children? Hitler of course is said to have abused his niece for many years. There's no need even to doubt it. He was as awful as you can get.
Perhaps this video is meant to make Britain feel great again, graft some of that Nazi glamour onto our stinking little subverter of popular culture.
'It's the uniforms'. Yuck.
|
|
Weren't Hitler's parents Uncle and Niece?
|
>>I could tell after twenty seconds that I wasn't going to laugh and stopped watching.
I agree with you completely AC.
The first few spoofs of "Downfall" were mildly amusing, but the flood of them since has become tiresome.
|
|
The first one or two were hilarious, the more there are the more tedious it gets. Pity, because its a very good film.
|
>> Hitler jokes are offensive.
Not automatically they're not. Depends on the circs.
|
Is this offensive, or just not very funny?
tinyurl.com/d6jhvho
|
>> >> Hitler jokes are offensive.
>>
>> Not automatically they're not. Depends on the circs.
Jokes about people or things that look like him are funny as are cartoons, satire (The Great Dictator for example) and even aircraft nose art from the war period.
Once they get into the Fuhrer's actions, attitudes etc they're on very thin ice.
I'm sure that like me and any other public servant who might have to upset the great unwashed from time to time you are also hardened to being likened to him and ignored it. Doesn't make it less offensive though - more so perhaps to Jewish staff.
|
|
"Attitudes". Hmmm: a public servant publicly referring to his employers as "the great unwashed"? ;-)
Last edited by: Roger on Mon 13 May 13 at 16:58
|
Ex-Coronation Street actor Andrew Lancel faced child sex charges
( mentioned previously www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=12467&m=282758 )
Well he's been cleared of child sex abuse.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-22846712
Hopefully some or all of the other accused stars will also get good news when their cases come up.
|
However, the Judge did remark:
"The defendant was acquitted on the evidence, and rightly so, but it is important that the complainant, who is clearly scarred by an experience, should understand that the jury verdicts does not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter or encounters with the defendant.
"It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the indictment and in particular before the complainant's 16th birthday, now more than 18 years ago."
Somewhat less than a ringing endorsement.
It's difficult to decide, but on balance, I don't think that it was right to say that.
The jury seemed to get to a decision quite quickly.
But, I guess, if you're not in court, you don't see the disposiyion of the accused, and witnesses.
|
Apparently the "victim" shared a flat with the accused some time after the offences were alleged to have taken place.
Here is another guy who went through hell after a malicious allegation -
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339400/Science-teacher-Christopher-Hird-slams-legal-cleared-sexually-touching-female-pupils.html
His accusers of course retain their anonymity This is one area of law which is in need of urgent reform, though it won't get it as politicians are terrified of the hysterical reaction of the ever expanding abuse industry.
|
A friend works in the local Waitrose store where an ex soap star is a regular.
Hes not been in for a couple of weeks and she overheard some colleagues discussing his absence and deciding that he may have been taken in under operation yewtree! Poor chap is probably just on holiday, but its easy to see how peoples reputations can be tarred with no case to answer
|
The local paper, reporting the Lancel acquittal, mentioned that the boy was now a ballet dancer.
Perhaps the advances were the other way round 18 yrs ago and Lancel rejected them. A simmering ' hissy fit ' and a view of the approaching band-wagon, perhaps ?
Who knows ? Only speculation.
Ted
|
Stuart Hall jailed for 15 months for sex assaults
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222
|
>>
>> Stuart Hall jailed for 15 months for sex assaults
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222
>>
>>
Judges sentencing remarks published near concurrently and available here:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/stuart-hall-sentencing-remarks-17062013.pdf
Ten years on the sex offenders register and registered with the barring and disclosure people.
Initially I though he'd get a suspended sentence but the details of the offences and ages of victims rule that out. He may well appeal though given his age and health.
I suspect we'll here more of the victim's impact statements in the press.
|
How utterly pathetic these fumblers are, and how sinister.
The mind boggles a bit at the length of the judgement that would have followed if Savile had ever been hauled before the beak. It would have rivalled War and Peace. And a hell of a lot of smug collusive suits and suitesses would have been fingered in the footnotes.
I'm glad Savile is out of our faces at long last but I would have liked to see some of those carphounds - still poncing shamelessly around in many cases - pinned to the wall for promoting and protecting the piece of crap for half a century.
But it would have been terribly boring. A wounded squirming rat is not a pretty or interesting sight.
|
I don't understand 15 months.
He molested children as young as 9 against their will or he didn't.
If he didn't, then it should be no jail sentence at all.
If he did, it should be throw away the key time.
Whats 15 months for? Its like he's a bit pregnant.
|
"suitesses would have been fingered in the footnotes."
!!
Maybe Mr Hall played his Joker ?
|
Sentence is being reviewed.
Door open for civil actions for damages - at his age he should worry - but his family might #inheritors!
|
>> I don't understand 15 months.
>>
>> He molested children as young as 9 against their will or he didn't.
>>
>> If he didn't, then it should be no jail sentence at all.
>>
>> If he did, it should be throw away the key time.
>>
>> Whats 15 months for? Its like he's a bit pregnant.
Throwing away the key is for big offences.
The molestation itself was at a (relatively) low level. Kids being given elocution lessons in their underwear is pretty odd but compared with penetrative offences against nine year olds it's small beer.
I he'd been sentenced under current legislation he might have got more but he has to be dealt with under rules at time of offence.
Looks about right to me given his age etc but I'd not be surprised if he appeals and succeeds .
|
A rape charge was "Left on file".
What does that mean?
|
Sorry Bromp, I don't agree. Its an offence against a 9 year old. So some adult thinks it wasn't a serious as it could have been. Perhaps not, but SFW.
Its an offence against a 9 year old - 15 months still makes no sense to me.
Except that;
>>he'd been sentenced under current legislation he might have got more but he has to be dealt with under rules at time of offence.
Is that true? Under legislation at the time, I agree. But under sentencing guidelines? I don't think that's true.
|
>>A rape charge was "Left on file".
Not dismissed, not taken into account, not "Not Guilty" can be prosecuted at a later date if the CPS so chooses.
|
|
But only in very exceptional cases.
|
>> 15 months still makes no sense to me.
The judge said his hands were tied.
Look FMR, any decent person would regard Hall as a horrible brute. But: last offence was 25 years ago; he's a sick guy in his eighties; others in the slammer will try to beat him up or torture him; he thought he'd got away with it and the shock alone must be awful; he's been totally disgraced.
I wonder if he'll survive the 8 months or whatever it is he will actually serve? Not many will care either way.
|
>> Sorry Bromp, I don't agree. Its an offence against a 9 year old. So some
>> adult thinks it wasn't a serious as it could have been. Perhaps not, but SFW.
>>
>> Its an offence against a 9 year old - 15 months still makes no sense
>> to me.
The sentence will probably kill him. I'll not comment either way if that is an appropriate outcome.
|
>> Is that true? Under legislation at the time, I agree. But under sentencing guidelines? I don't think that's true.
Watching the news last night, I think that is the case. They had to sentence him taking into account what the law said back then. Some of the judges words:
"There are no Guidelines specifically applicable to these particular offences. The Sexual Offences Guidelines only apply to offences charged under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but there is assistance to be derived from the principles set out in those Guidelines. Further it is important to note the maximum sentence available when these offences were committed by you. I have considered with care the judgment of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on the correct approach to sentencing for historic cases in the case of R v H and others [2011] EWCA Crim 2753.
For most of these offences the maximum sentence at the time and which the court must have regard to was 2 years imprisonment, and for the remainder it was 5 years. The maximum sentence for this type of offence has been significantly increased, since these offences were committed, to 10 years.
I guess he could have got two years for the worst crimes? So more when added up? I think the judge's hands were tied but maybe they'll increase the sentence.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him out sooner than 8 months on health grounds. I hope not!
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 18 Jun 13 at 08:09
|
Reading a bit more of the judge's statement:
The Sentence
The sentence of the Court is as follows:
For Count 1: 6 months imprisonment
For Counts 2 - 4: 3 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
For Count 6: 15 months imprisonment concurrent
For Counts 10 and 11: 6 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
For Counts 12, 13 and 14: 9 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
For Count 15: 15 months imprisonment concurrent
For Count 16: 15 months imprisonment concurrent
For Count 17: 6 months imprisonment concurrent
For Count 18: 9 months imprisonment concurrent
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 18 Jun 13 at 08:18
|
>> Reading a bit more of the judge's statement:
>>
>>
>> The Sentence
>> The sentence of the Court is as follows:
>> For Count 1: 6 months imprisonment
>> For Counts 2 - 4: 3 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
>> For Count 6: 15 months imprisonment concurrent
>> For Counts 10 and 11: 6 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
>> For Counts 12, 13 and 14: 9 months imprisonment on each count concurrent
>> For Count 15: 15 months imprisonment concurrent
>> For Count 16: 15 months imprisonment concurrent
>> For Count 17: 6 months imprisonment concurrent
>> For Count 18: 9 months imprisonment concurrent
>>
>>
Note all the 'concurrent' not 'consecutive' sentences.
There were 18 charges. If he'd got 6 months for each one consecutive, he'd be away for 9 years.
|
>> >> They had to sentence
>> him taking into account what the law said back then.
>>
Is that really true?
|
Yes. Makes sense really - that's when the crimes were committed.
If the crime was something else and the sentence back then was 6 months someone might not think as much about consequences. If the sentence was 5 years they might have.
I still think he should have gotten a longer sentence. Two years was a possibility it seems but his age was one mitigating factor as was pleading guilty. But he lived free for 25 years since he says he last did this. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were more than 13 offences but only those have come to light (so far).
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 18 Jun 13 at 08:31
|
The sentence should fit the criminal as much as it does the crime. To a 20yo chav who smashes a shopkeeper in the face while threatening the mans wife with a knife during a robbery 18 months is nothing. He'll be able to strut around inside free from any comeback and when he is released he'll play the hardman, boasting about the time he done some Paki and the types he associates with will no doubt regard him as some sort of role model.
A man like Hall will be utterly destroyed, he'll have a torrid time inside and he'll be in constant fear when he does come out. Exposure alone is enough to make him pay for his sins and sticking an eighty three year old away for umpteen years is just as expensive as it is pointless. It is highly unlikely he will ever be in a position to commit a similar offence again, so I think eighteen months is about right in this case.
|
|
^ I'm totally with this geezer.
|
>> Yes. Makes sense really - that's when the crimes were committed.
>>
>>
Death sentences, prison for homosexuality, hard-labour on a treadmill, birching young offenders?
I suppose there's no-one old enough to be deported to Australia in chains.
|
Good point Cliff! But the crime he'd be charged with if he'd done it now would be different as would the sentence. So there is certainly an element of the punishment reflecting the time of the crime.
One thing I do wonder is why the sentences are all concurrent - I know he's 83 but he's damaged the lives of umpteen young girls. And we only know about 13 of those.
|
>> One thing I do wonder is why the sentences are all concurrent - I know
>> he's 83 but he's damaged the lives of umpteen young girls. And we only know
>> about 13 of those.
>>
Well the sentence can hardly reflect what he might have done, can it? Otherwise we'd all be banged up.
|
One of the problems with consecutive sentencing it that the total time spent in prison may end up being more than that of another person who does something "worse".
Let's say Wayne has done ten burglaries over a period of a few years. Each offence gets a sentence of two years when the law catches up with him. Consecutive sentencing gives him twenty years. But in the next court someone is up for manslaughter and "only" gets fifteen years.
You might think that's what you want, but you have to think (or at least, the judge does) about whether a prolific burglar should be imprisoned for longer than a killer.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Tue 18 Jun 13 at 15:05
|
>> One of the problems with consecutive sentencing it that the total time spent in prison
>> may end up being more than that of another person who does something "worse".
>>
Yes (and good post), but one of the problems with concurrent sentencing is that it doesn't appear "right" to the man in the street - in the same way that a "life" sentence doesn't mean "life".
The correct way of handling is for the Judge to calculate an overall sentence for all the offences for which the accused has been found guilty. In other areas of life people don't pay debts concurrently, so there is no reason for prison to be any different.
The law could do itself a favour by overhauling it's language and methods a bit so that the man on the Clapham omnibus could relate to it easier.
|
>> You might think that's what you want, but you have to think (or at least,
>> the judge does) about whether a prolific burglar should be imprisoned for longer than a
>> killer.
I think VX is right.
The Judge considered consecutive sentences but decided against. His rationale is explained at page 6 of his published remarks.
|
>> I think VX is right.
Or even Crankcase
|
Saw several clips of Stuart Hall over the years on the box last night, and was struck by a certain similarity in gait and style between him and Savile. No doubt they knew each other.
It's hard to describe exactly, but seems to be most apparent in shots of them walking alone: a sort of falsely confident - conman-style - jailyard lope, head thrust forward, facial expression superficially agreeable, fundamentally blank and guarded.
Some will think I am imagining things. Could be, but I think I am seeing them. Observation of subtle detail seems a waste of time to many, but it's meat and drink to me.
|
>>
>> Some will think I am imagining things. Could be, but I think I am seeing
>> them. Observation of subtle detail seems a waste of time to many, but it's meat
>> and drink to me.
>>
>>
>>
So you must be aware of current celebrities whose creepiness you have noted for future attention when/if the truth comes out?
|
>> you must be aware of current celebrities whose creepiness you have noted
Can't say I am CP really. I don't scrutinise the comportment of celebs as a rule, or take much interest in most of them. And as you rightly suggest, many are creepy in an assortment of ways.
I really can't stand Madonna for example, but I doubt if she's actually a nonce.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 18 Jun 13 at 15:47
|
>> It's hard to describe exactly, but seems to be most apparent in shots of them
>> walking alone: a sort of falsely confident - conman-style - jailyard lope, head thrust forward,
>> facial expression superficially agreeable, fundamentally blank and guarded.
I walk slither like that but I'm not a perv.
|
On the other hand imposing concurrent sentences gives a hardened and prolific offender an opportunity to write-off lots of his crimes and wipe them clean almost scot-free. Buy one get 10 free.
It is also said to give the police an opportunity to improve their detection statistics by pursuading the offender to put his name down to a few that perhaps he had not committed.
One might almost think it would be an encouragement to collusion, perhaps a lighter sentence if he was willing to help the police massage their figures a little?
|
>> One might almost think it would be an encouragement to collusion, perhaps a lighter sentence
>> if he was willing to help the police massage their figures a little?
>>
An extreme example of which is seen in the States, where plea bargaining is par for the course. Eg Sammy Gravano (New York Mafia) murdered 19 people and got just five years in a cushy prison, simply because he ratted out John Gotti (the big boss) who got life, and died in prison.
|
>> Let's say Wayne has done ten burglaries over a period of a few years. Each
>> offence gets a sentence of two years when the law catches up with him. Consecutive
>> sentencing gives him twenty years. But in the next court someone is up for manslaughter
>> and "only" gets fifteen years.
If Wayne did his ten burglaries and got caught/sentenced for them all individually...then he might easily rack up individual sentences that might overtake one persons really bad crime.
There may well need to be a middle ground..but...the present system has someone come in with 20, 30, 50 whatever number of crimes, all lumped together and a softish sentence results.
No wonder some places unofficially keep a few in the drawer...wait until chummy has served his sentence...then nick him at the gate as he's coming out and send him back to court/gaol again with a new sentence.
|
'Bill Sikes, 47, pleaded guilty to three offences of breaking and entering and two of burglary, and was sentenced to eighteen months' penal servitude.
'237 other offences were taken into consideration.'
That's the way things used to be reported when I were a nipper, or something like that. I used to wonder what 'taken into consideration' really meant. I'm still not sure.
|
|
It saved the Peelers from having to write out another 237 charges basically, it was common practice amongst CID departments. The crimes were more or less written off there and then, it was a very good way of massaging crime figures, improving detection ways. Dis-credited largely by the West Midlands and Metro. Police.....sharp practices...
|
>> a very good way of massaging crime figures, improving detection ways. Dis-credited largely by the West Midlands and Metro. Police.....sharp practices...
Always was sharp practice if you ask me... and why is Merseyside missing from the list, and Glasgow and (cough) Manchester? Those big-city forces have special problems, knowImean? Hands off the Met! (up to a point)
:o}
|
|
Henry Cecil stories used to make great play on themes like this. Likeable rogues manipulating the system, very amusingly.
|
>> Stuart Hall jailed for 15 months for sex assaults
His lenient sentence is going to reviewed. Court of Appeal judges will decide whether the sentence should be increased.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23271739
|
>> >> Stuart Hall jailed for 15 months for sex assaults
>>
>> His lenient sentence is going to reviewed.
Sentence doubled to 30 months. Still far too lenient IMHO.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23460778#
|
Another fine piece by Anna Raccoon.
tinyurl.com/n4f9cuj
|
|
They probably know what it is now...
|
|
Paedophilia is an extrovert practise, and all public entertainers are extroverts.
|
>> Paedophilia is an extrovert practise, .
>>
"According to Wilson and Cox (1983), "The paedophiles emerge as significantly higher on Psychoticism, Introversion and Neurotocism than age-matched controls. [But] there is a difficulty in untangling cause and effect. We cannot tell whether paedophiles gravitate towards children because, being highly introverted, they find the company of children less threatening than that of adults, or whether the social withdrawal implied by their introversion is a result of the isolation engendered by their preference i.e., awareness of the social approbation and hostility that it evokes" (p. 324).[60]"
|
|
With other words,they are more likely to be introverts? Still waters.) I had the misfortune to work with a character for a short while who got excited about little girls.It didn't last long he run of the job complaining about me to a manager.I found out later he was divorced and not allowed near his children.Manager backed me up.
|
>> I had the misfortune
>> to work with a character for a short while who got excited about little girls.It
>> didn't last long he run of the job complaining about me to a manager.I found
>> out later he was divorced and not allowed near his children.Manager backed me up.
>>
I was once sat in an extremely busy custody suite (as the custody sergeant), when a detective brought in someone he'd arrested and wanted charging (accompanied by his solicitor).
The suggested charge put to me for me to decide was possessing and creating the worst type of images of child pornography on a computer (there's a scale of 1-5).
The defence solicitor interjected at one point and asked me if I'd seen the images and how could I properly judge what charge was pertinent if I hadn't seen them and judged for myself (fair point)...so..the detective went off and got 100 still images created by our photo lab as a cross section out of the thousands on a disc...and the the three of us (me, detective, solicitor) went into an interview room and started looking at them....
I managed three.
They were so awful, I physically did not want to look at any more. What's more, despite working in a lad's environment I've never discussed with anyone the actual content, not even mates. The other thing that struck me is I'm a nosey sod, if there's something you 'shouldn't see' you want to see it, it's a natural human reaction..but not this stuff.
I don't think I'm a shrinking violet and doing that job for 30 years I saw some crap..but those piccies were BAD.
Solicitor agreed....and what's more his bail application was decidedly half hearted compared to his previous workings.
|
>> Paedophilia is an extrovert practise,
Is it? I didn't know that.
>>and all public entertainers are extroverts.
Definitely not true.
I only know the tabloid version, but extraversion and introversion are not mutually exclusive; most people can exhibit both behaviours, though one might predominate.
They are not synonymous as is often assumed with gregariousness and shyness. Every time I have done a relevant test, such as Myers Briggs or something like this little quiz
www.thepowerofintroverts.com/quiet-quiz-are-you-an-introvert/
I come out slightly more extravert, despite the fact that I am generally regarded as shy.
Extraverts get their energy, mojo or whatever, from others - introverts have less need of external stimulation and generate their own energy.
|
>> introverts have less need of
>> external stimulation and generate their own energy.
So the quiet ones are the worst.
|
|
quiet people can be very brave and devious but who am I to judge?
|
I can be quite quiet, been known for it since I was a kyd, an ex spurt would likely mark me down as Asperger.
I've not not been devious in times past, I've had my brave moments too ...judge not, that ye be not judged!
|
I do remember on of my daughter's coming back from some training where she learnt (maybe obvious, but there ya go) that paedophiles will often carve their entire career or social life around putting themselves in a position to follow their interest e.g. vicars, choirmasters, school teachers, scout masters etc etc. Rather unfortunate theory to apply if your career choice happens to be one of those but for more normal reasons I suppose.
Actually it does sound rather obvious now I've said it, but when she came home and told us it seemed a revelation :-)
|
their interest e.g. vicars, choirmasters, school teachers, scout masters etc etc.
I fondly remember this sketch...says it all....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpq-1B_OTbY
|
>> scout masters
I think that has been a familiar stereotype for generations.
Hence the old snigger over Baden-Powell's "Scouting for Boys".
|
|
Extreme bad taste, but I can't help finding it funny. Why did they award it 3rd place in the best float competition if they found it so distasteful? Or did Jim fix it?
|
|
We are reaching the stage where there is only one opinion allowed on certain subjects. These are dangerous times.
|
>> These are dangerous times.
>>
Couldn't agree more, where only the approved (by whom) message is allowed and freedom of speech and expression are shouted down or legally curbed (internet bloggers) elected dictatorship isn't far away.
|
Totally disagree.
Anyone who agrees with me is free to say what they like.
The rest of you are going to receive visits at 6am and all your computers/tablets/phones seized.
|
An actual shot of the participants (DM): tinyurl.com/m2ya4wy
I think you probably had to be there - I'm sure comedians have been telling Savile jokes in their stand-up routines to live audiences ever since the story broke without anyone making much of a fuss.
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 12:42
|
I see his point of view. When I was at school a girl in my biology class took a shine to our teacher who was a strapping good looking chap in his early thirties.
She owuld often behave in a flirtatious way towards him, and she was very mature (and attractive) for her 15 years.
After our exams a couple of us were having a chat with him about it being his last class with us etc and he explained that he had enjoyed teaching most of us, but would be glad to not have to teach said girl any longer. I don't imagine this case was unusual, and in fact for younger teachers more the norm, although in the case of my 10 year old's teacher its the mums he fears!
|
hpw can you charge someone with
" • one offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged between 26 and 28, on a date between 1981 and 1983
It either happened on a given date, with corroborating evidence, or its just a "might have happened"
"I have no idea what year it was when he assaulted me your honour" has no chance of conviction.
|
|
I heard a very good comment by a barrister on the radio a few years back when he berated the CPS for bringing a string of historic abuse allegations against an individual where each case on it's own would fail through lack of evidence, but the sheer number of separate instances would make a jury think, "Well he must have been at it with all these victims".
|
That's what was likely to happen with Stuart Hall - but in the end he admitted the charges. But hard to prove any of these but with so many cases with similar details against someone, it must mean there is something to answer to.
So if Stuart Hall went to prison because he was guilty, and assuming DLT is guilty (not saying he is or isn't) then he'd be facing a custodial sentence too maybe? I suppose it depends on the offences.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 15 Aug 13 at 17:22
|
>> That's what was likely to happen with Stuart Hall - but in the end he
>> admitted the charges. But hard to prove any of these but with so many cases
>> with similar details against someone, it must mean there is something to answer to.
In the case of Savile at least, some of the victims were apparently very active and went into considerable detail on social media, and there were some bandwagon claims that were subsequently discredited.
No doubt they make these public arrests to flush out more evidence, but you can't help but think that isn't all it attracts.
|
>> "I have no idea what year it was when he assaulted me your honour" has
>> no chance of conviction.
Talking out of your bum, as usual Zero (although I suppose you'll claim you have some expertise in this).
If somebody punched you in the face 30 years ago, and somebody credible could corroborate that, are you trying to suggest that the assailant could get off, simply because you couldn't remember whether it was 1982 or 1983? It could be that the woman was assaulted several times over those years, but doesn't know the date of each assault (which is understandable).
Mind you, it seems that you like to give abusers the benefit of the doubt, given the links you have posted.
All of those worldly 14 year olds, just asking for it, eh? Not immature girls, trying to act older (and maybe appearing old to another 14 year old), and taken advantage of by abusers.
Perhaps child soldiers are OK, if they do it because they want to act like men. I suppose they are to blame, rather than the adults manipulating them.
Here is a link for you: www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/23521267
Not strictly relevant to Travis (given that his alleged victims are older), but a bit more insight that you'll provide.
|
>> Talking out of your bum, as usual Zero (although I suppose you'll claim you have
>> some expertise in this).
gosh you hit the ignore part of this conversation far earlier than you would normally. Well done.
|
>> gosh you hit the ignore part of this conversation far earlier than you would normally.
>> Well done.
Yes, I thought perhaps a dose of reality from a real victim of abuse, might shut you up quickly. Not such a comfortable read as all of your "schoolgirls gagging for it" claptrap, is it?
|
Bitchiness to one side, it seems a strange thing to progress unless someone was worried about the publicity involved in not progressing it.
And if it was serious enough then I'd have thought it would have stuck in the mind better than 81 - 81.
And this person was in their late 20s, I think, so hardly a schoolgirl - gagging or otherwise.
If its a minor then I think the culprit needs nailing to the wall, whatever, whenever and whoever. If its an isolated one bad-ish thing to a 27yr old who waited 30yrs before doing anything about it then I think that's going too far.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 15 Aug 13 at 17:37
|
Ah right
A victim and its all my fault.
Now you mouthy little prick, what links have I have I posted justifying the actions of abusers?
Where have I said "schoolgirls are gagging for it?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Aug 13 at 17:38
|
>> Now you mouthy little prick, what links have I have I posted justifying the actions
>> of abusers?
You've posted links, including the Eddie Shah link, that forward the idea that underage girls (who are, by definition schoolgirls) who agree to sex with older men (and maybe even pursue them) are to blame if abuse happens.
You might find it comforting to forward the argument that these girls enter into it as a consenting adult, just because they think it is what you do to grow up.
Have a re-read of the account by the abuse victim, it might temper your enthusiasm for that argument.
|
>> >> Now you mouthy little prick, what links have I have I posted justifying the
>> actions
>> >> of abusers?
>>
>> You've posted links, including the Eddie Shah link, that forward the idea that underage girls
>> (who are, by definition schoolgirls) who agree to sex with older men (and maybe even
>> pursue them) are to blame if abuse happens.
You will read, if you can read, that I deliberately headed that "Eddy Shah's take on it" the inference being that he is an odious little creep.
now think before you open your trap again and accuse others of justifying the actions of under age abusers.
|
What I presume Zero is getting at is that in theory to convict you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
These aren't civil cases where 51% certainty = win.
A convincing uncorroborated story should rarely, if ever, lead to a conviction.
In Scotland they are in the process of removing the need for corroboration, largely to help the conviction rates of sex crimes...
Perhaps a lie detector should be used in such cases to add a bit of 'scientific' credence to the he says/she says evidence, but I'm sure that's likely to be fraught with complications too.
|
>> You will read, if you can read, that I deliberately headed that "Eddy Shah's take
>> on it" the inference being that he is an odious little creep.
I don't believe that was your inference at all, and you certainly didn't suggest there was anything wrong with his reasoning when you posted it.
When a list of charges is posted, you're more than keen to blunder in and apply your complete absence of legal knowledge to discrediting them.
Posting arguments of others, without any criticism, and then suggesting that you posted it in an attempt to criticise it (rather than to put it forward yourself), is pretty spineless.
|
>> >> You will read, if you can read, that I deliberately headed that "Eddy Shah's
>> take
>> >> on it" the inference being that he is an odious little creep.
>>
>> I don't believe that was your inference at all, and you certainly didn't suggest there
>> was anything wrong with his reasoning when you posted it.
>>
>> When a list of charges is posted, you're more than keen to blunder in and
>> apply your complete absence of legal knowledge to discrediting them.
>>
>> Posting arguments of others, without any criticism, and then suggesting that you posted it in
>> an attempt to criticise it (rather than to put it forward yourself), is pretty spineless.
Now I am spineless? you have nothing to justify your accusations except waffle and now I am spineless?
forget it, you are beyond bothering with.
|
>> you have nothing to justify your accusations except waffle and now
>> I am spineless?
Waffle?
The fact that you present arguments, without comment or criticism, and then, when challenged, try to suggest that you strongly disagree with them.
If you believe it, stand up for your convictions Zero.
Or maybe, just maybe, I've managed to change your mind. I hope so.
|
>> >> Now you mouthy little prick, what links have I have I posted justifying the
>> actions
>> >> of abusers?
>>
>> You've posted links, including the Eddie Shah link, that forward the idea that underage girls
>> (who are, by definition schoolgirls) who agree to sex with older men (and maybe even
>> pursue them) are to blame if abuse happens.
>>
>> You might find it comforting to forward the argument that these girls enter into it
>> as a consenting adult, just because they think it is what you do to grow
>> up.
>>
>> Have a re-read of the account by the abuse victim, it might temper your enthusiasm
>> for that argument.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Eddie Shah says the girls who actively pursue older men have themselves to blame for their plight, but not that the men involved are themselves blameless. That's something I can sympathise with without absolving the older man from being responsible for doing what he knew was illegal. The account you refer to by the abuse victim involved her being raped - that is an entirely different situation, but those who get hysterical about any form of underage sex refuse to recognise the difference between consensual sex and a violent assault. That does the real victims no favours at all.
|
Pretty much exactly what RR said.
The girl flinging herself at a man and then complaining that she is entirely innocent is wrong and should diminish both sympathy and compensation.
However, whether the girl was flinging, begging or pleading, the man is wrong for having sex with a minor whatever the circumstances and punishment and penalty should not be diminished.
Rape or physically forcing is another matter and rape of a minor should be a capital offence. (IMO, of course).
|
>> Rape or physically forcing is another matter and rape of a minor should be a
>> capital offence. (IMO, of course).
I don't believe that the abuse story is one of forcible rape, but a lack of consent nonetheless, so is applicable here, I believe.
A girl in her early teens may allow a man to have sex, and even encourage it.
The issue is whether it is true consent. Freely allowing somebody to do something, and even encouraging it, is not necessarily the same thing as consent.
Consent requires some idea of the longer term impact, including the mental impact.
That is something that the victim in the story didn't have, and most 14 year old girls will not have.
An abuser can prey on that immaturity, and too many people will try to paint the child (because that is what they are mentally) as complicit.
The adult knows it is wrong, and they are the ones to blame, not a manipulated child.
|
Savile Row - Robin O'Reliant
