***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 15 *****
Continuing the debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 24 Jan 14 at 01:35
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24835343
>>
>> ....and throw the key away.
Innocent until proven or are you referring to offences like Jeux Sans Frontiers and football commentary over laden with Shakespearian allusion etc. ?
|
|
The BBC have a warehouse full of old Top of The Pops episodes which they run on BBC 3 regularly. The number they can actually show must have dropped alarmingly, nothing featuring Gary Glitter or presented by Savile, DLT or Paul Gambaccini. They must be wondering if they'll have to junk the lot if there are any more arrests.
|
>> The BBC have a warehouse full of old Top of The Pops episodes which they
>> run on BBC 3 regularly. The number they can actually show must have dropped alarmingly,
>> nothing featuring Gary Glitter or presented by Savile, DLT or Paul Gambaccini. They must be
>> wondering if they'll have to junk the lot if there are any more arrests.
Or rename it? Pop at the Tots perhaps?
|
Now sticking your hand up someone's skirt at a party or falling into temptation with a well developed and willing 15 year old is one thing, but the frame of mind this guy must be in is impossible for any normal human being to understand.
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ian-watkins-trial-lostprophets-singer-6343182
And the complicity of the mothers of the babies involved defies any rational analysis. One case where all three really should have the key thrown away.
|
>> but the frame of
>> mind this guy must be in is impossible for any normal human being to understand.
...especially his Baptist minister (step-)dad and mum; very sad.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514133/Ian-Watkins-The-Baptist-ministers-stepson-warped-online-porn.html
|
Sanguinary hell.
I don't hive him much chance of surviving chokey.
|
>> I don't hive him much chance of surviving chokey.
He'll be in solitary, or perhaps with the one or two kindred spirits he will be banged up with. It will be expensive.
Bad people alas don't always get their comeuppance in this life. It's the sort of thing that makes you wish there was an eternal afterlife.
|
It's just a knee jerk reaction.
:)
|
Lost Prophets perve gets 35 yrs bird for kiddy fiddling ! Keep the good news coming !
Ted
|
These people are incomprehensible unless you see them as former abuse victims themselves trying to become their envied and admired abusers, which many seem to be. But I can't bring myself to care much what happens to them.
He and those mothers will be expensive to protect in prison. A lot of anger waiting for an outlet in those places.
|
>> He and those mothers will be expensive to protect in prison. A lot of anger
>> waiting for an outlet in those places.
>>
I believe they have a special wing for offenders of a similar type. So all the nonces are together.
Did I ever tell you that I met Straffen in Broadmoor? Pleasant enough fellow, but a bit soft.
Last edited by: Duncan on Thu 19 Dec 13 at 06:52
|
>>
Lost Prophets perve gets 35 yrs bird for kiddy fiddling,,
...and the mothers should have got longer than that.
Pat
|
>>
>> ...and the mothers should have got longer than that.
>>
>> Pat
>>
They got off very lightly IMO. No-one can use any excuse for doing that to their own child, the instinct of most human beings would be to lay down their own life first.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25447856
Not a happy bunny - and rightly so...unprofessional idiots.
|
It's gone and happened again.
Steps star Ian H Watkins has expressed his anger after having his picture used on a news story about a child sex offender for the second time.
www.mtv.co.uk/news/steps/397896-ian-h-watkins-wrong-picture-child-sex-headline
|
|
As I understand it I think this is just the nature of the software. I am not sure if it is down to human error e.g I am not sure if it was the software that associated H from steps with the story or if the picture was indeed manually uploaded by a google employee.
|
|
It really doesn't make a blind bit of difference if it's a human problem or a software problem, it is pretty inexcusable given the scale of the exposure in can generate, but I guess he has precious little comeback on google
|
So while London has DLT as its attraction Roache appears before his northern audience at what was once Preston Assizes.
DLT is batting on a very sticky wicket and I'd not want to be his defence counsel.
This one will run and run......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 14 Jan 14 at 19:22
|
|
one of the alleged offences happened on camera filming TOTP. Easy to prove or disprove I would guess.
|
And the Rolf Harris one is interesting. A defence lawyer will make much of:
Six of the indecent assault counts relate to a girl aged 15 between April 1980 and April 1981, and one relates to the same alleged victim when she was aged 19 between January 1984 and January 1985.
Offences so bad as a 15 year old, she came back for more 4 years later when she was 19
The other two charges relate to the alleged indecent assault on a girl aged seven or eight between January 1968 and January 1970, and a girl aged 14 between January 1975 and January 1976.
And date of alleged offence(s) unknown, some time in a two or one year time scale.
|
and a girl aged 14 between January
>> 1975 and January 1976.
>>
>> And date of alleged offence(s) unknown, some time in a two or one year time
>> scale.
>>
That one does seem odd. The know how old she was at the time but not the year? Or am I missing something?
|
>> And the Rolf Harris one is interesting. A defence lawyer will make much of:
>>
>> Six of the indecent assault counts relate to a girl aged 15 between April
>> 1980 and April 1981, and one relates to the same alleged victim when she was
>> aged 19 between January 1984 and January 1985.
>>
>> Offences so bad as a 15 year old, she came back for more 4 years
>> later when she was 19
>>
>>
>>
>> The other two charges relate to the alleged indecent assault on a girl aged seven
>> or eight between January 1968 and January 1970, and a girl aged 14 between January
>> 1975 and January 1976.
>>
>> And date of alleged offence(s) unknown, some time in a two or one year time
>> scale.
Jeez, the old myths about rape etc die hard don't they.
I'm emphatically not referring to Regina v Harris but....
Maybe victim is a child star and has career needs that require her to work with a man who she thought had previously touched her up. If she dared make such an allegation about a superstar perhaps she was assured it would be 'all right this time'
Or maybe she was a relative and nobody believed a second cousin could grope a family member.
|
=
>> Jeez, the old myths about rape etc die hard don't they.
No they don't and thats a completely stupid and inappropriate remark, and to infer i accept that rape is acceptable will get you a slap if i see you down the pub.
Pillock.
|
Freddie Starr has been rearrested after a new sexual offence allegation was made to police
news.sky.com/story/1195107/freddie-starr-arrested-over-new-sex-allegation
|
What exactly did you mean to imply by the statement 'she went back for more'.
I'm sorry if I misread and hit a nerve but it sounds a bit like 'she was asking for it'.
There was a top banana from the CPS on radio the other day talking about public misconceptions around rape and sexual assault. What you're saying sounded a bit like the examples she gave.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 14 Jan 14 at 20:30
|
>> What exactly did you mean to imply by the statement 'she went back for more'.
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry if I misread and hit a nerve but it sounds a bit like
>> 'she was asking for it'.
Not at all. I was saying that the original alleged offence, was so bad, so heinous, so horrific, that as a much more mature 19 year old, she didn't manage to a: avoid meeting him again or b: tell him his behaviour last was unacceptable and she expected no repeat this time.
Nor did she, as a 19 year old, report the offence to the police at the time. Knowing it was the second time he had done it.
ANY of which, a decent defence will be bringing up. It not a matter of coming back for more, its a matter of not avoiding it given previous experience.
|
>> =
>> >> Jeez, the old myths about rape etc die hard don't they.
>>
>> No they don't and thats a completely stupid and inappropriate remark, and to infer i
>> accept that rape is acceptable will get you a slap if i see you down
>> the pub.
>>
>> Pillock.
The inference is yours. I did not intend to imply any such thing. it's just that some of your thinking around victims and how they get into that position looks very iffy
|
Roache and others committed their alleged offences in the sixties when the music industry was full of this sort of thing. The Rolling Stomes wrote songs about noncing, more or less.
I wouldn't have done it but lots of people got tempted by groupies who later said it made them feel dirty. Roache and Travis and some others have had bad luck because chancers can remember who they were and have decided to change their stories. Doesn't mean the filthy old brudes weren't taking unfair advantage.
Personally I was terrified of adolescent girls even when I was adolescent myself. Can't trust them an inch especially twenty or thirty years later. Really worth avoiding.
|
The Rolf Harris one is interesting in that he has also been charged with making and possessing indecent images of children. That would be a very hard one to defend unless the police and CPS have made an absolute howler.
BTW, what happened about Tarbuck? He was arrested on sexual assault allegations to.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 14 Jan 14 at 21:03
|
>> BTW, what happened about Tarbuck?
Last seen going for a Jimmy ;)
I'll get me coat.
|
There are some aspects of this that make me worry about the truth of all these allegations.
Potential complainants have been assured - by the police - that they will be believed, in order to persuade them to come forward.
The names of those arrested have been publicised for the same reason.
When the police did not disclose the identity of a BBC radio presenter arrested last year (subsequently revealed to be Paul Gambaccini), there were protests -
Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said it was "chilling for officers to refuse to confirm names of those detained or charged".
Tory MP Philip Davies, a member of the Commons culture committee, said people arrested on sex offence charges should be named to "encourage other potential victims to come forward".
I get the impression that the police, as might a jury, consider a material number of complaints about the same individual as evidence in itself.
A lot of public figures must be worried, not about being arrested for something they did long ago, but for something they didn't do.
The conventional adversarial approach of the police, that of focussing on evidence that supports allegations, might not serve us well in this situation. To defend a case based on number and similarity of accusations, when social media may have been a factor in reviving victims' memories, must be nigh impossible.
Pointing any of this out might look like defending "paedos" which is possibly why the mainstream press has for the most part not done so. Even the reports of a high profile person like Terry Gilliam, a close friend of Gambaccini, saying it looks like a witch hunt were mainly confined to the blogs.
Have I lost the plot?
|
>> Have I lost the plot?
>
NO.
you have not lost the plot.
I really fear that innocent people ARE getting caught up in this.
I expect a flood of 'exclusives' hitting the papers after convictions.
Quick question: How many of us, have always checked proof of age, and got written consent before having our wicked way with a young lady?
Many (most?) men are probably guilty of underage sex, at some point, and ALL of us could have had a rape case brought against us, if a girl woke up, and regretted the act....
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 15 Jan 14 at 10:05
|
>> NO.
>> you have not lost the plot.
>>
>> I really fear that innocent people ARE getting caught up in this.
>>
>> I expect a flood of 'exclusives' hitting the papers after convictions.
>>
>> Quick question: How many of us, have always checked proof of age, and got written
>> consent before having our wicked way with a young lady?
>>
>> Many (most?) men are probably guilty of underage sex, at some point, and ALL of
>> us could have had a rape case brought against us, if a girl woke up,
>> and regretted the act....
There is, post Savile, obviously the possibility of a witch hunt. Ultimately, the jury is the backstop against that and we don't know who else's name has come up but not proceeded beyond the allegations stage.
If there are, as seems to be the case with the allegations against DLT, a spread of consistent accounts from people not previously known to each then alarm bells ring. Anna Raccoon alleged that the Duncroft story that set the Savile hare running had been, for want of a better word, enhanced by a Facebook group for former inmates. I'd be pretty sure the Police and if not them then certainly the defence will have looked for any such link in these cases.
As to 'exclusives' following a conviction that is of course possible. Why should a victim whose evidence has convinced a jury not milk the market for the price of a new car. OTOH there was no such rush for gold from Stuart Hall's victims. The only account I heard was a from a woman with whom he'd had a sexual relationship with him while she was either under age or barely of age. It sought to explain the background and how she was inveigled into the business rather that kiss/tell.
Yes, we were probably all a bit cavalier about the age of consent at one time or another. However, the women concerned were our near contemporaries in age and background, typically while we were still at school. Very different from men who were older. Harris and Roache were in their forties at the time of the alleged offences, DLT a little younger. All were celebs who's faces and publi personae were known to the whole nation. There's a consistent thread of being disbelieved amongst the cases introduced in the prosecution's opening (which is all we've heard so far).
|
>> Many (most?) men are probably guilty of underage sex, at some point,
Maybe for you but I don't think the "most" is true today it certainly wasn't among my contemporaries in the 60s and 70s
>> and ALL of us could have had a rape case brought against us, if a girl woke up,
>> and regretted the act....
As I say, speak for yourself, I know it couldn't happen / have happened to me or probably all, certainly most of my close friends
|
>> >> and ALL of us could have had a rape case brought against us, if and regretted the act....
>> As I say, speak for yourself, I know it couldn't happen / have happened to me or probably all, certainly most of my close friends
>>
Are you seriously saying you and and most of your friends have never had a one night stand?
If so, maybe you need to change your name to Monk.
|
>> Are you seriously saying you and and most of your friends have never had a
>> one night stand?
>>
>> If so, maybe you need to change your name to Monk.
One night stands or even being f - buddies with contemporaries is one thing.
Having your boobs groped or worse by a much older and previously unknown guy, even a rich/famous one, is a different proposition.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 15 Jan 14 at 20:44
|
>> One night stands or even being f - buddies with contemporaries is one thing.
>>
>> Having your boobs groped or worse by a much older and previously unknown guy, even
>> a rich/famous one, is a different proposition.
>>
Agreed.
But my point is that consent could be given, but if the female wished, she could claim it was never given... then the man would find himself with a rape charge.
In the case of the stars, many men in the public eye did find women (girls) throwing themselves at them.
At the time, many would have taken up the offers. Later on the women could regret the act.
We could well be seeing the results right now.
There is a scene in Pink Floyd film 'The Wall' that portrays girls getting backstage...
Using sex to get backstage, and after getting sex from the band
whilst not a documentary, the story is based on facts.. that kind of thing DID happen back then.
Last edited by: swiss tony on Wed 15 Jan 14 at 20:58
|
>Having your boobs groped or worse by a much older and previously unknown guy, even a rich/famous one, is
>a different proposition.
It certainly is.
Some years ago, before Mrs K. and I tied the knot, we went to a New Year fancy-dress at dad's golf club. We went as Bonnie and Clyde with a twist. I was dressed in a long evening gown, high heels, blonde wig and lots of makeup. Mrs K. was in one of my old pinstripe suits, black fedora and carrying a violin case.
Late in the evening I went to the bar to get more drinks. Waiting to be served, someone grabbed my ass and gave it a sharp squeeze.
I am still traumatised - I thought it was Mrs K. who'd come to give me a hand but it was a leery old geezer with bad teeth.
PS.
Have you ever considered how difficult it is for a bloke to go for a P dressed as I was? One hand holding the gown up, the other holding tights down, standing in high heels trying to hold a steady aim.
It ain't easy.
|
>> Are you seriously saying you and and most of your friends have never had a
>> one night stand?
Yes
Name I have suits me fine thanks, don't think I am as unusual as you think
|
>> The inference is yours. I did not intend to imply any such thing. it's just
>> that some of your thinking around victims and how they get into that position looks
>> very iffy
The inference is not mine, it is merely you hugely escalating the events to suit your own agenda. NOWHERE in any of the cases against Harris mentioned rape, violence, penetrative sex either actual implied or threatened.
Now lets look at the more likely events in the charges without your "Sun" like headlining. Its likely to have been inappropriate touching. Given the era in which it happened, it was considered then to be much less serious - almost a non offence. I don't suppose any girl of that era wasn't exposed to such behaviour at some time or other, and I don't suppose any bloke who lived through that era hasn't "copped a feel" at some time or other either.
We are, in effect, judging and trying people by todays standards, standards that at the time of the offence did not exist.
Nothing is to be gained by following the majority of these "historical allegations" through, and if Harris gets off because of the paucity of evidence, great harm will have been done in persuading women to bring charges against men for sexual assault.
These prosecutions are not in the public interest, merely a huge knee jerk reaction for peoples failure to protect young girls from that disgusting git Saville. It is nothing more and nothing less than trying to soothe a guilty conscious.
And as for the charges against DLT, they are of course proven. Even being forced to look at him should carry a charge of visual assault.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 15 Jan 14 at 10:06
|
Zero,
I have no agenda except one that says non-consensual sexual contact is unacceptable. The myths that affect rape (wanted it/enjoyed it, didn't fight, provocative dress etc) also extend to the sort of offences with which Harris and DLT are charged. In that context the phrase 'went back for more' riled me.
There are all sorts of possible reasons why a woman in the Harris situation might meet him again. Two which I've suggested are profession or family. Rather than address those you continue to bluster on.
We don't know how assertive an individual woman might be at 19 rather than 15. My son's contemporaries are that age. While I suspect the women are pretty savvy, in today's environment, about sexual boundaries a lot of them of both sexes are amazingly sheltered/naive and unassertive in other fields.
To a degree I share your concerns about digging up historic offences and judging them by today's standards. My Mother's comment, based on work in a bank the late forties/early fifties was that a guy putting his hand on your knee was, like blotting your ledger, an occupational hazard.
OTOH 'copping a feel' of a minor was never acceptable, neither were hands in clothing.
|
>> There are all sorts of possible reasons why a woman in the Harris situation might
>> meet him again. Two which I've suggested are profession or family. Rather than address those
>> you continue to bluster on.
Its not bluster. I ignored them because they are simply too poor to be used as good reasons and are not valid. The girl could simply have kept her distance, you need to be pretty close to be assaulted, its not done by proxy you know.
You are still trying to apply todays standards (standards I whole heartedly support BTW) to yesteryears social standards.
|
>> Its not bluster. I ignored them because they are simply too poor to be used
>> as good reasons and are not valid. The girl could simply have kept her distance,
>> you need to be pretty close to be assaulted, its not done by proxy you
>> know.
>>
>> You are still trying to apply todays standards (standards I whole heartedly support BTW) to
>> yesteryears social standards.
As I said I have some concerns about the old rules/today's standards thing but I don't think they should be a bar where under age women, never mind pre-pubescent kids are concerned.
To dismiss the place of work example as too poor to be used suggests a wish to avoid the issue. Did you never at any time in your career have a colleague or boss with wandering hands? How do you imagine women who had the choice of braving his behaviour or damaging their careers dealt with it.
One woman I worked with in the eighties couldn't face such a prospect and got herself a transfer. She had to accept the first post on offer, less prestigious and with fewer opportunities than the one she left.
Avoiding that guy, who was nearest I've ever encountered to an office psychopath, probably cost her four years career progression and thousands of pounds.
Others braved him with varying degrees of success. If they were groped or subjected to innappropriate sexist 'banter' then could you really say they went back for more?
|
>> How do you imagine women who had the choice of braving his behaviour or damaging their careers dealt with it.
<<
In my case I gave up after 9 years in sales. for a complete change of career as a lorry driver.
I know how it feels to be in the position of 'some' of these women.
As a pubescent child you were told you were imagining things by parents and indeed, anyone who had any influence, specially if the person was 'above' your status.
Later as a young adult it was 'expected' you would suffer anything so as not to have to be different.
As an adult trying to make a good career, it was nothing short of bribery to get contracts.
As Z says it was how the world was then....but I can certainly understand the deep feelings of resentment by those women because they were in an impossible position and have finally seen the chance of speaking up to get some recompense.
In my case it worked out as the best decision I ever made, but the fact remains it shouldn't have had to made for those reasons, and I do sometimes wonder what if...
Pat
|
>> Now lets look at the more likely events in the charges without your "Sun" like
>> headlining. Its likely to have been inappropriate touching. Given the era in which it happened,
>> it was considered then to be much less serious - almost a non offence.
Which is presumably why at least some of the reports were apparently ignored by the police at the time.
>> We are, in effect, judging and trying people by today's standards, standards that at the
>> time of the offence did not exist.
In some cases, it sounds like that.
>> if Harris gets off because of the paucity of evidence, great harm will have been
>> done in persuading women to bring charges against men for sexual assault.
Or indeed if Harris is innocent, and lucky enough to be acquitted.
Conversely, if it is clear that uncorroborated (either by other witnesses, a complaint at the time, or any forensic evidence) allegations will secure a conviction then we might expect at least some fabricated complaints.
>> And as for the charges against DLT, they are of course proven. Even being forced
>> to look at him should carry a charge of visual assault.
It's an ill wind!
|
Here's a good debating point:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill
Because he died in 1940 his immense reputation is still intact, and is in a sense immune from retrial.
But imagine that he died last year, and those revelations about his private life had now emerged. He would be being mercilessly judged by present-day standards, and everyone would be rushing to demolish his work.
|
Smelly human being, great artist though... not all that rare a combination. I know a little about Gill who was a friend of some of herself's forebears and stayed here in the twenties I think. One of herself's cousins inherited a huge bluestone bas-relief that must weigh at least half a ton but is extremely beautiful (theme of young girls with flowing hair). It used to live in a house 300 yards from where I am now and I always loved seeing it. It's gone now, whether sold or into storage I don't know but probably sold because inherited by two or three people.
It's odd that herself's people liked Gill because they were highly moral although not exactly po-faced... perhaps they didn't know about his incestuous child abuse. In any case people often tolerate bad behaviour by the very talented.
|
>> But imagine that [Eric Gill] died last year, and those revelations about his private life had
>> now emerged. He would be being mercilessly judged by present-day standards, and everyone would be
>> rushing to demolish his work.
I hope he would have been at least harshly judged then, had his proclivities been generally known.
Hardly a quick feel, not that there is anything of that kind I need to justify, I add hastily.
To the extent that these other people were gropers and worse, using their positions to coerce women or preying on young girls, I despise them. I just hope they are all guilty, because they have as good as been tried and found so before they get anywhere near a court.
I think there needs to be some judicial control over these investigations - they look self defeating to me, as far as finding the truth goes.
Too late now.
|
The thing I most agree with Zero's stance is...if a young lady/girl had something happen to her that she was horrified with or did not like...why not steer well clear of the perpetrator?
Why would you go anywhere near the creep..and allow it to happen again?
I'm not talking about the poor little sods that are too young to do anything about it or are in family situations that does not allow you to steer clear...I'm talking about near adults/adults who travel to nightclubs or t.v. shows or whatever.
I think the culture has totally changed (which is positive) and people are now looking back on things and thinking 'hang on a minute'...which is a totally different scenario to someone like Jimmy Savile.
If radio 2 are to be believed, some of the evidence in Bill Roach's case has a young lady think she's having a relationship with him, whilst no doubt he thinks all he's doing is having a bit of fun with someone who is consenting*.....well, that's a fundamental difference between the sexes that has gone on for donkey's years and will continue to do so.
* as long as she is old enough
|
I agree with that bit too WP, and I really do realise how hard it must be for men to see this as a woman sees it as well.
Pat
|
|
Try us Pat. I'm willing to give it a go...(no smut inferred or intended) ....:-)
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 15 Jan 14 at 17:44
|
There's no correct/easy way to put this so I'll resort to lorry driver speak.
A quick fumble to a man is just that, it's good for his ego and better than nothing at all.
Forgotten in two minutes and seen as completely trivial ( I do understand that)
A quick fumble to a woman/girl when it's wanted can be just the same, but if it isn't wanted it is a complete violation of your inner body.
Now, this makes you resent the fact that you have to accept it because no-ne else will believe it happened or tell you not to be so silly.
Years may pass but the resentment you feel never goes away.
You actually feel it is your fault that you attracted that type of attention and you really did ask for it.
....when all you want is reassurance you are being offered promotion because of the quality of the work you've done.
Pat
|
He he, you lot always run away when I say it like it is:)
Ignore her....she'll go away!
It's a man thing, and it's ok, I understand that too.
I've worked with men far too long.
Pat
|
>> He he, you lot always run away when I say it like it is:)
>>
>> Ignore her....she'll go away!
>>
>> It's a man thing, and it's ok, I understand that too.
>>
>> I've worked with men far too long.
What are you babbling on about woman?
< mutters > must be her hormoans (sic)
|
>> A quick fumble to a woman/girl when it's wanted can be just the same, but
>> if it isn't wanted it is a complete violation of your inner body.
>>
>> Now, this makes you resent the fact that you have to accept it because no-ne
>> else will believe it happened or tell you not to be so silly.
>>
>> Years may pass but the resentment you feel never goes away.
>>
>> You actually feel it is your fault that you attracted that type of attention and
>> you really did ask for it.
Pretty much the point I'm making to which I'd add the conundrum of dealing with it while holding on to your job and career progression.
|
>> The thing I most agree with Zero's stance is...if a young lady/girl had something happen
>> to her that she was horrified with or did not like...why not steer well clear
>> of the perpetrator?
A reasonable start point but.......
All we know at the moment is that allegations against Rolf Harris involve a number of incidents. Two are said to involve the same woman at 15 and four years later at 19. We don't know how they were brought together. Was she a young star booked to appear with him on stage or TV? Was she a relative or perhaps the daughter of friends/neighbours delighted to be invited to the home of a star?
Avoiding him in former case damages her career. In latter it's just to embarrassing particularly give his status to refuse and say why to your parents? Maybe you hope that at 19 you'd grown the balls (as it were) to smack his chops only to find you haven't; instead, as before you're frozen to the spot and nauseous.
We may find more when trial opens in April.
WP - you worked, as Zero and I did, from the seventies through to last few years. You too must have had bosses/colleagues with a reputation for trying it on with women officers or Civ staff.
Did you never watch them struggle to balance the options of action with chances of detriment to their careers?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 15 Jan 14 at 17:45
|
>
>> WP - you worked, as Zero and I did, from the seventies through to last
>> few years. You too must have had bosses/colleagues with a reputation for trying it on
>> with women officers or Civ staff.
>>
>> Did you never watch them struggle to balance the options of action with chances of
>> detriment to their careers?
I have watched a few sleep their way up the ladder......
|
>> I have watched a few sleep their way up the ladder......
It's rough on the poor darlings though. And tends to make them a bit rough if they weren't to start with.
|
>> I have watched a few sleep their way up the ladder......
I should add, lest I be accused of being too flippant. For most of my career, I have worked in a company and industry where discrimination of any kind was simply not tolerated, and women were treated with the upmost respect and they frequently made it to management positions. In my last 14 years at work I had worked for female managers.
Funnily I also had a job for a while, as a senior female sales exec's "bag carrier" In this case it was because she dealt with major Japanese Banks, and the senior Japanese execs would simply not talk to her, so everything had to conduit through me. Surreal.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 15 Jan 14 at 18:25
|
>> I have watched a few sleep their way up the ladder......
I've certainly heard it suggested though never with any proof. The guy I mentioned up thread was well known for giving favours such as temporary promotion to young women who'd caught his eye. His favourites also got glowing reports that males of similar or greater ability could not hope for.
A guy I'm still in contact with swapped jobs with me into the psycho's empire. He lasted four weeks before bailing out to another vacancy claiming he'd only get progression if he wore a skirt and changed his name from john to Joan!
|
Mrs and I started work in mid 70s. Mrs was at a big bank in the city and says there was often horseplay which they thought nothing much of, and occasionally also what would now be regarded as well -out-of-order stuff but then they just tried to avoid the creepy ones.
However she said that had anything happened to her of the DLT flavour she wouldn't bother raising it now, nearly 40 years on. Move on...
|
>> Mrs and I started work in mid 70s. Mrs was at a big bank in
>> the city and says there was often horseplay which they thought nothing much of, and
>> occasionally also what would now be regarded as well -out-of-order stuff but then they just
>> tried to avoid the creepy ones.
>>
>> However she said that had anything happened to her of the DLT flavour she wouldn't
>> bother raising it now, nearly 40 years on. Move on...
If it actually happens and you can compartmentalise it like that then fair enough. If you can't and it's genuinely stayed with you in way Pat hints at then maybe you'd want to exorcise it.
|
|
Back in the 70s I don't remember compartmentalising and seeking closure. Must have come along with H&S... :-)
|
"Here's a good debating point:"
Twenty years ago I used to work for an art director in a publishing house who would insist we set dust jacket flaps in Perpetua. I hated it, it's heavy, and bereft of elegance. The amount of times I was called to his office when he caught me changing Perpetua into something more tasteful after approval. Gill also cut the typeface Joanna and although it borrows some of Perpetua's characteristics it has wonderful slab serifs. It's a modern man's font and if you have to choose a Gill Serif on your book flaps then it should be Joanna.
Of course everyone in the world has Gill Sans in his computer system and when it's spaced properly (and it often isn't) it is a beautiful font. But Eric Gill was heavily influenced by Edward Johnston who designed the most famous and utterly perfect 'San Serif Johnston' which has simply never been bettered. Everyone in London who travels by tube will see it, I needn't say why.
Funnily enough I chose this career, not because of the work of Eric Gill, Baskerville or Goudy, but because the only books I could get my hands on at 6 years old was Enid Blyton. I wasn't interest in the stories, I just fell in love with the printed page.
Sorry, drifted it a bit there.
|
>> Sorry, drifted it a bit there.
Well done though. Believe it or not I'd forgotten he was a typographer although I knew. Tsk.
|
And I never knew he was a catholic who was into paedophilia.
Mind you, you often see both in the same sentence don't ya...?
|
>> catholic who was into paedophilia.
>> Mind you, you often see both in the same sentence don't ya...?
You do, but I have to say that from my own experience of Catholicism in childhood this is pretty wide of the mark. I suppose my experience was more scattered and disparate than most people's. But even in the mainstream I don't think being jumped on by priests was a common experience. There would have been bad presbeterys just as in the London fuzz there are bad nicks.
What I can remember as an altarboy, apart from having to wear seldom-washed joke clothes, was the trembling eagerness displayed by some priests early in the morning for the measured dose of sort of Spanish sherry stuff which, after it had been poured reverently over their fingers and raised in a ceremonial manner, the priest at last got to drink. Some of those middle-aged Irish cats used to improve visibly during the early morning masses. By the end of the nine o'clock one they were feeling almost mellow and normal.
I can remember one priest making impatient 'All of it, for God's sake!' gestures when I was a bit too dozy and reverent one early morning. Naturally being too young to have an alcohol addiction yet I assumed the whole thing was symbolic, and a few drops were enough. How wrong I was.
|
Maybe others on here watched the rerun of Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads.. Series two staggered to have the Christmas Special near to Christmas Day 2013. Anyway....
...I was slightly shocked to see what they implied was the norm so to speak. I was even allowed to watch these shows as a child in the 70s. But the last episode with them in fancy dress etc. and being with each others partners was done as comedy in the 70s but... what do you add? I was a child in the 70s so cannot comment.
Obviously this is my view of a Comedy Drama in the 70s but the undertone in this production says a lot too. Sadly.
|
>> ...I was slightly shocked to see what they implied was the norm so to speak.
you need to be working very hard indeed to be shocked by what was shown or implied not he likely lads.
Love thy neighbour however was a completely different kettle of fish.
|
Gill's brother, MacDonald 'Max', married (for his second wife) his goddaughter, Priscilla - Johnston's daughter.
Anyway, I'm sad to say I never get into trouble for sending out letters in Garamond rather than house Times New Roman. Makes me happy though...
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 22 Jan 14 at 12:18
|
Dame Janet Smith's report into Savile's offending is likely to be published next month:
www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/18/jimmy-savile-abused-1000-victims-bbc
|
From that article - "...until the last filming of Top of the Pops in 2006 when at the age of 79 he groped a girl aged between 13 and 16."
How come the girl who (presumably) reported this can't remember how old she was in 1976? Even if she can't remember, she could have worked it out?
Unless I suppose it was something someone (thought they) saw and reported on the victim's behalf.
It'd be very hard to dispute that this stuff took place but some of the evidence does seem a bit flaky.
|
>> From that article - "...until the last filming of Top of the Pops in 2006
>> when at the age of 79 he groped a girl aged between 13 and 16."
>>
>> How come the girl who (presumably) reported this can't remember how old she was in
>> 1976? Even if she can't remember, she could have worked it out?
>>
>> Unless I suppose it was something someone (thought they) saw and reported on the victim's
>> behalf.
Perhaps there was a complaint or kerfuffle at the time, which some of those present have since given an account of, but it was more or less ignored and the girl remains unidentified.
|
>> Perhaps there was a complaint or kerfuffle at the time, which some of those present
>> have since given an account of, but it was more or less ignored and the
>> girl remains unidentified.
Dame Janet's inquiry has written to everyone who worked at BBC at time asking them what they knew or saw. So if somebody saw Savile grope a girl at that final recording but she's never reported it then best estimate of girl's age is that given by witness.
|
|
Well unless the girls age is proven, and or a complaint by the victim is made, no offence took place.
|
The BBC is said to be in trouble for allowing the beastly Savile to commit a thousand offences against young girls on its premises. Actually I don't suppose it even noticed. The BBC itself had a rich and thriving noncing culture from my own childhood radio star Uncle Mac onward, laid out in some detail in a lively piece that appeared some months ago in the London Review of Books.
What the BBC, all the other mass media without exception and a large number of the great and good really ought to be in trouble for is arrogantly imposing this disgusting individual, whose unpleasantness was always extremely obvious, on a swindled nation as a representative of 'youth culture' over fifty goddam years. The LRB piece missed that point completely and clearly thought people actually liked and admired Savile for his silly noises and bullying demeanour. They didn't of course. They just thought they ought to pretend to. Yet another proof of what a spineless uncultured silly lot the British are in some ways.
|
>> The LRB piece missed that point completely and
>> clearly thought people actually liked and admired Savile for his silly noises and bullying demeanour.
>> They didn't of course.
I'm afraid I did at the time AC (obviously I didn't notice the bullying bit). It was only after the Louis Theroux programme that I realised he was a bit 'odd', although nothing like as bad as we now know to be the case.
|
|
He ran his shows like a ramrod sergeant-major. Those miserable teenage girls bopping out of time while the old brute quacked away, on telly at last but it wasn't much fun... it was always obvious, right from the start. Children and teenagers are easy to swindle but I'm a bit shocked at the way their parents just let it happen.
|
>> Well unless the girls age is proven, and or a complaint by the victim is
>> made, no offence took place.
If some girl had her norks felt by a dirty old man then an offence was committed. There's obviously no question of prosecution so no neither is evidence to the criminal standard needed.
I suspect in practice this one's only come to light as a potential last offence.
|
Having read some of the DLT court case reporting I think it's very likely the physical acts described by victims were carried out by DLT broadly as stated. They sound very much in keeping with a bloke who had a lively way towards women back then. Whether they justify the specific charges against him are for the judge and jury to decide of course.
In the early 70s DLT came to our local midlands town club/disco to do a DJ set one night. At this time he was at the peak of his fame and on radio 1 in the daytime.
I was 16 or 17 and didn't go but knew many who did. The excitement from girls in our school was at fever pitch with lots of chat about how to get a record played, dedication announced on the night and the biggest prize was to get a dedication read out by him on radio 1 the next day.
One of the most attractive girls in our school with model looks, effortless style, maturity way beyond her years and a knowing way was happy to tell people she would do "anything" to meet him and get her name read out on radio 1 the next day. She was 14 and had a history of doing "anything" for the 6th form lads and was a really good example of the traps out there for DLT types in the 70s.
Not making any right or wrong judgements just saying.
|
>> One of the most attractive girls in our school with model looks, effortless style, maturity
>> way beyond her years and a knowing way was happy to tell people she would
>> do "anything" to meet him and get her name read out on radio 1 the
>> next day. She was 14 and had a history of doing "anything" for the 6th
>> form lads and was a really good example of the traps out there for DLT
>> types in the 70s.
If DLT's defence was they were willing and appeared over 16 then such 'traps' may be relevant.
As it is he's saying none of it happened.
Up to now all we've heard is prosecution witnesses. Will e very interesting to see if he gives evidence (and thus opens himself to cross examination).
|
Are there special rules for this sort of case?
It seems to be regarded as evidential in these recent cases that there are multiple similar complaints. That doesn't generally apply, does it? A lot of people complaining that they had all been burgled by the same bloke would require the same sort of proof for each as it would for one complaint?
I suppose the only reason he might give evidence is if he or his counsel think there is value in the cross examination. Actual evidence that he hasn't done anything is going to be fairly hard to come by I should think, and it could be difficult to provide alibis for crimes that allegedly happened "sometime in the 1990s".
He lives about 3 miles from here. Never seen him.
|
From what we've heard about the way the BBC was (Or still is) run back then it seems a highly ridiculous organisation. The presenters had far too much power and even the top brass were wary of upsetting them, particularly in the case of Savile. When you think that these people were merely employees and could have been replaced a thousand times over by people just as good or better you have to wonder what was going on, particularly in the days when the BBC had a virtual monopoly on national radio. All of the big names, no matter who they were, needed them more than the organisation needed any one DJ. Each and every one of them would have been finished and forgotten if they'd been cast aside.
I remember ten years back when Jimmy Young was given the boot. All the Beeb did was decide they were not going to renew the 80 year old's contract, which they had every right not to do. Yet the pathetic wounded howls from a washed up geriatric who was long past it suggested he'd been stabbed in the back and forced out of a job which was his by right. Laughable really, these people could do with a spell in the real world of work to learn what it's actually like.
|
>>>Yet the pathetic wounded howls from a washed up geriatric who was long past it suggested he'd been stabbed in the back and forced out of a job which was his by right.
Not so different to the way DLT flounced on air when he realised his contract wasn't getting renewed on radio 1.
|
>> He lives about 3 miles from here. Never seen him.
Try wearing a skirt.
|
>>Having read some of the DLT court case reporting I think it's very likely the physical acts described by victims were carried out by DLT broadly as stated.
I haven't read it very carefully, but I suspect you're right and he doesn't come across as a particularly pleasant person.
But a report I read was from one woman complaining about a hand up the back of her skirt. Its wrong. Its unacceptable. But is it worth a court case 30 years later if that's all there was to it?
Aside from anything else I would have expected her to have moved on.
But perhaps I misread it.
|
There was some stuff the other day about him dancing the Lambada vigorously and with a lot of grinding at some corporate bash, with a girl who he'd previously given an award to for her dancing. He also asked her to sit on his knee at the top table, and put his hand on her leg at some point.
She wasn't a victim, so was presumably there to set the scene, show a pattern of behaviour.
The report (on the Beeb website) was written almost as though he was grooming her, and on first reading certainly gave the impression of a really dirty old man.
But quite honestly, none of what happened sounded particularly outrageous, given the context - big star doing what he's there to do, and doing it large. If he'd sat in a corner only talking when spoken to then they'd have demanded their money back. I can also remember having grindy dances with women which we done as fun, especially with a crowd watching. It usually takes two to grind.
|
Part of the problem must be that celebrities are used to having plenty of women who throw themselves at them, leading them to think they are irresistable to the opposite sex and every woman is there for the taking needing only a hand on the thigh to have them gagging for it.
From what I've read DLT comes across as more of a misguided old fool rather than a Jimmy Savile type dangerous predator.
|
|
As any fule kno there were lots of naughty 'liberated' teenage girls in the later sixties. There's a big difference though between taking - always unequal and exploitative - advantage of the chick bonanza and actual kiddy-fiddling. DLT stands accused on tonight's box of messing with someone we weren't shown, but who said she was (and sounded) severely handicapped. Just as bad as the horrible Savile.
|
>> DLT stands accused on tonight's box of messing
>> with someone we weren't shown, but who said she was (and sounded) severely handicapped. Just as bad as the horrible Savile.
>>
I hadn't heard that allegation.
|
Sure you're not getting your perverts mixed up?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25852536
|
>>> getting your perverts mixed up?
Yes, I was. Realised that while I was out this evening. There are so many of the carphounds crowding the mediasphere at the moment. That's my excuse.
|
|
Without your glasses on they look like the same bloke anyway.
|
>> Without your glasses on they look like the same bloke anyway.
Yeah, greybeards... I shaved with a certain urgency yesterday. Can't be too careful.
|
Funny that ! Lud....I shaved my beard and tache off a coupla days ago ! Wife says I look like Peppa Pig's dad now !
Cheeky mare !
HO
|
>>
>> She wasn't a victim, so was presumably there to set the scene, show a pattern
>> of behaviour.
>>
>>
It's curious that in all other areas of human behaviour, and misbehaviour, it is considered commendable to set a good example.
If you have thievable items in your car, hide them from view so as not to tempt thieves. People who leave their car unlocked or the key in the ignition are considered to be partly to blame if it is stolen. Flaunting an expensive coat or phone while strolling through a gang-ridden territory or just a rough housing estate is considered to be "asking for it" to be stolen.
Drawing no conclusions, just wondering.
|
>> Drawing no conclusions, just wondering.
>>
Are you saying that if you dress like a tart and act like a tart, that someone might think you are one?
|
>> It's curious that in all other areas of human behaviour, and misbehaviour, it is considered
>> commendable to set a good example.
>> If you have thievable items in your car, hide them from view so as
>> not to tempt thieves. People who leave their car unlocked or the key in the
>> ignition are considered to be partly to blame if it is stolen. Flaunting an expensive
>> coat or phone while strolling through a gang-ridden territory or just a rough housing estate
>> is considered to be "asking for it" to be stolen.
>>
>> Drawing no conclusions, just wondering.
The person who steals your car or from it is still a criminal. Same applies to handling other assets put on display!!
|
>> The person who steals your car or from it is still a criminal. Same applies
>> to handling other assets put on display!!
>>
Oh yes..even tarts have rights
|
>> The person who steals your car or from it is still a criminal.
>>
Yes, but it is considered acceptable to apportion a little bit of blame.
Aren't damages sometimes reduced on that basis?
|
>> Yes, but it is considered acceptable to apportion a little bit of blame.
>> Aren't damages sometimes reduced on that basis?
Not in cases of sexual offending. In the early eighties HHJ 'Bertie' Richard reduced a rapist's sentence on grounds of mitigation for victim's contributory negligence by way of provocative dress.
The court of appeal disagreed profoundly and Judge Richard's career went no further.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 14:06
|
|
Most women like to consider themselves 'attractive' - and sometimes it works too well. I can see a case being made for the wearing of the burka.
|
Joker ? - R.P.