***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 19 *****
Continuing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 29 Mar 14 at 18:50
|
Dave Lee Travis to face retrial
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26322552
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Feb 14 at 12:49
|
|
Really didn't expect that. The two charges to be brought to court again are the more recent ones.... surely there must be some compelling reason for this rather than just doing it for the sake of going through the motions.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Feb 14 at 12:49
|
In spite of being in favour of prosecution for these cases I'm not sure retrial is right course here. OTOH if the accusers are willing to go through it all again then there might be a public interest case for going on.
If these are the recent instances, post 2000, then presumably they're less susceptible to juror doubts over 'historic' evidence.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Feb 14 at 12:49
|
>>
>> If these are the recent instances, post 2000, then presumably they're less susceptible to juror
>> doubts over 'historic' evidence.
>>
Why did they compromise the chance of successful prosecution by including the older allegations? Is the prosecution automatically obliged to bundle all allegations together into an initial job-lot, likely and unlikely?
|
this is a dangerous step by the CPS. I know it shouldn't happen, I know the judge will warn against it, but you me and the worms in my garden know that the jury on the retrial will be swayed by all the other charges being thrown out.
If the CPS lose this they can kiss all the other "trial by mud slinging" cases goodbye. And with it goes their credibility.
|
>> this is a dangerous step by the CPS. I know it shouldn't happen, I know
>> the judge will warn against it, but you me and the worms in my garden
>> know that the jury on the retrial will be swayed by all the other charges
>> being thrown out.
>>
>> If the CPS lose this they can kiss all the other "trial by mud slinging"
>> cases goodbye. And with it goes their credibility.
True. But the jury will also know that their fellows at the first trial could not agree even a majority verdict on these two cases. It may have been as few as three or as many as nine who were convinced.
As this is a retrial before a fresh jury neither side needs to run their case in same way as last time. The CPS can plug holes and the defendant will need to produce evidence focussed on these two, relatively recent, charges not the generality of 'long time ago/never happened'.
Everything still to play for.
|
"Everything still to play for."
and everything still to pay for……..
|
|
Of the two charges being re-tried the more recent relates to sexual assault of a journalist in 2008. The other is indecent assault in nineties. (Source - Guardian website)
|
"If the CPS lose this they can kiss all the other "trial by mud slinging" cases goodbye."
That's what they're trying to pre-empt, I imagine, but I'm not sure they've thought it through. It's amazing how access to other people's bottomless pockets clouds one's judgment!
And what happened to double jeopardy..?
Last edited by: J Bonington Jagworth on Mon 24 Feb 14 at 14:44
|
Double jeopardy doesn't apply because:
1 There was no verdict in the first trial for the offences in question so the law would never have applied
2. The 800 year old law preventing a second trial for the same offence was abolished in 2005
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 24 Feb 14 at 17:58
|
|
One of the charges is I believe related to an occasion when he is alleged to have squeezed a woman's bottom. For Christ's sake...
|
If he had tried to squeeze my bottom he's be flat out on the floor....end of.
Pat
|
|
Like a bit of rough sex do you Pat?
|
>> One of the charges is I believe related to an occasion when he is alleged
>> to have squeezed a woman's bottom. For Christ's sake...
So, if a gay bloke squeezed your bum......
|
|
Unless it was big bubba, I would be flattered if ANYONE squeezed my bum.
|
>> >> One of the charges is I believe related to an occasion when he is
>> alleged
>> >> to have squeezed a woman's bottom. For Christ's sake...
>>
>> So, if a gay bloke squeezed your bum......
>>
If a gay man squeezed my bum...I'd be less than impressed and there'd be violence immediately involved.. however... I wouldn't be sending it to court... and definitely wouldn't some years later.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 24 Feb 14 at 19:24
|
>>
>> If a gay man squeezed my bum...I'd be less than impressed and there'd be violence
>> immediately involved.. however... I wouldn't be sending it to court... and definitely wouldn't some years later.
>>
I wouldn't give any more than a "Not my scene, mate" unless of course if the bloke persisted when he'd likely lose a tooth or two. But like Westpig I wouldn't go running to the old bill either then or years later.
|
You don't have to resort to violence to prove your manhood.
A civil 'Unhand me, sir! I am not that way inclined' always suffices in my experience.
In my louche youth I worked with a café-full of screaming drag queens, and also associated with certain American artists and intellectuals notorious for being queer. At no point did any of these people, all of whom I remember with gratitude and affection, give me any kind of sexual hassle, although they might well have done had I been 'that way inclined'.
The drag queens weren't entirely convinced. 'You're camp dear. We can get you clients.'
'No thanks.'
'Oh all right. Silly tart.'
|
>>So, if a gay bloke squeezed your bum......<<
I would take it as a compliment and thank them for checking it is still there but my wife has dibs, no need to go all 1950's on someone.
The only time a problem starts is when they dont take the hint but the point at which I went to the police is a long way down the road from that.
|
>> So, if a gay bloke squeezed your bum......
>>
Takes me back to schooldays and a notorious art master.
Get me Yewtree 1212 please - on second thoughts, I think he died.
|
I'd be well chuffed if someone gave me bot a tweak...man or woman. Preferably woman though.
Mind you, they'd have to get a lad in to help !
HO
|
>> Mind you, they'd have to get a lad in to help !
Would you settle for the Genie if he let you rub his lamp in return?
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 25 Feb 14 at 01:44
|
The turn this thread has taken has reminded me of a song which had a big impact on my life and I still love it to this day.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoMvd4qa4ZM
Apart from it being incredibly sad it was these words which gave me the courage to do many things I would never have done in my life.
He said "Never wait or hesitate
Get in kid, before it's too late
You may never get another chance
'Cos youth a mask but it don't last
live it long and live it fast"
Pat
|
Nancy Blackett said it more simply in Swallows & Amazons:
"Grab a chance, and you won't be sorry for a might-have-been".
|
I think that's actually Cdr Walker, quoted by his younger daughter, Titty, in We Didn't Mean To Go To Sea.
Pretty similar to the contents of his first-ever-recorded telegram. They nearly were duffers this time though.
(Some gymnastics required to fool the swear filter...)
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 26 Feb 14 at 10:19
|
|
Long time since I read the books, but I think the basic idea crops up in more than one book. I still however regard "We didn't mean to go to sea" as one of the best.
|
>>> "We didn't mean to go to sea" as one of the best.
Yep... very well written. At the time I read it I was about the age of the Ransome kids and sailing in similar boats/similar places with F snr so the writing had a real resonance.
|
>> I think that's actually Cdr Walker, quoted by his younger daughter,
Yes, you could be right.
I'm sure it's quoted as the sub-title under one of the chapter headings, rather than actually spoken in the story.
IMO Missee Lee is best. Stirring stuff, and undertones of serious consideration of East/West pulls and allegiances.
|
I loved them all. Possibly Great Northern was my favourite , being keen on birds as a kid. I read them all in primary school at age of 8 or 9. Gave me a lasting love of The Lakes.
My teacher at the time said to the class that she knew of only 1 pupil who read Ransome and recommended the others to follow suit.
I'm trying to get 9 yr old grandson into them, he loves reading. I have Swallowdale to give him when I see him.
HO
Last edited by: Horace Ontaltwin on Wed 26 Feb 14 at 13:03
|
Agree on Ransome: read 'em all in the day.
Our 7 yr. old granddaughter is an avid reader, currently on Harry Potter, but I intend to introduce her to Ransome soon.
|
Yes, among the very best writing for children, accessible to all. In the sixties it was fashionable to denounce these books as 'bourgeois', but the complainers couldn't suggest any alternative half as good, let alone better.
Arthur Ransome was an interesting character, who depicts himself in the books as the Blackett girls' well-travelled uncle, Captain Flint. He spent a lot of time in the Soviet Union in its early days, apparently as a British intelligence agent using journalism as a cover. He married Trotsky's secretary and brought her back to England.
|
Ha ! Just had a flash of inspiration and bought his autobiography on Amazon ! Born in leeds, died in 1967 in Cheadle 2 or 3 miles from here.
HO
|
>> Born in Leeds,
As are all the best people!!
|
Pah ! I fart in your general direction !
HO
|
|
He was born in Weston Super Mare, not Leeds.
|
>> He was born in Weston Super Mare, not Leeds.
>>
Not what Wiki says:
"Ransome was born in Leeds; the house at 6 Ash Grove, in the Hyde Park area, has a blue plaque over the door commemorating the event".
news.bbc.co.uk/local/leeds/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8388000/8388891.stm
|
Not what Wiki says:
Wikipedia may be useful, but as it can be altered with no knowledge or authority cannot be trusted.
In my professional life, I did occasionally refer to it, but only where I'd read the entry and the subject was one I knew about. There are many tales of the media being led astray, although not much evidence as they cover it up as soon as they are aware.
|
>> There are many tales of
>> the media being led astray, although not much evidence as they cover it up as
>> soon as they are aware.
>>
So the picture of the blue plaque supposedly erected by the Leeds Civic Trust is a fake, and has been photoshopped from the genuine one in Weston-super-mare?
|
>> >> He was born in Weston Super Mare, not Leeds.
>> >>
1901 Census shows Arthur Michael Ransome born in Leeds in 1884. Living in Rugby, Warwickshire as a 17 yr old schoolboy.
Wiki shows middle name as Michell........Ransome attended Rugby School after schooling in Windermere.HO
|
>> He was born in Weston Super Mare
>>
That's right.
"Weston-Super-Mare",
6 Ash Grove
Leeds.
Our house is called "Shangri La".
(not really).
|
>>
>> >> Born in Leeds,
>>
>> As are all the best people!!
Mel B of the spice girls for instance....
|
|
Ahhh back on topic at last :-)
|
|
Trial now under way at Southwark and expected to last four weeks. 11 counts of indecent assault between 66 and 84.
|
"11 counts of indecent assault between 66 and 84."
Blimey, when I reach that age, I can't imagine that I'll have the energy!
|
So between 30 & 48 years ago?
He's not a very sympathetic character but going after people like this, with he said/she said evidence and little possibility of proof is not far short of dunking witches.
The case seems to be shaping up that he was an habitual groper, that potentially till leaves a shortage of proof in individual cases.
I really don't like the way this trend is going. Has the justice system painted itself into a corner, by taking the position that all such allegations must be tested in court?
|
>> I really don't like the way this trend is going. Has the justice system painted
>> itself into a corner, by taking the position that all such allegations must be tested
>> in court?
AS I'm sure we've said in a previous volume the CPS are in rock/had place.
Savile has made us acutely aware that in past these cases were, at all stages and for a variety of reasons, not taken seriously. Several women then come forward with credible and consistent allegations against particular individuals. They will be questioned to eliminate any whisper of collusion or searchers after cash for stories but the accusations still stack up.
If the CPS then decline to prosecute the understandable response will be that nothing has changed; victims are still not believed. OTOH if they let the courts decide and juries are not sufficiently convinced they're accused of wasting money and making matters worse for accusers.
If Clifford walks and the second DLT trial is split or NG I think they're near to being in a position where they have the evidence that however plausible the accusation juries simply will not convict on uncorroborated historical evidence.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 6 Mar 14 at 11:39
|
There ought to be a statute of limitations on groping. I can see going after someone who was messing with minors, and perhaps even rape. But ancient groping, inappropriate touching etc etc?
The CPS has criteria and a threshold. I hope that they are testing each and every individual case against those conditions.
Presuming so, and presuming it passes, what else can they do?
It would only be worrying if the cases were *not* passing those conditions, but were being progressed anyway for inappropriate reasons; e.g. fear of political backlash.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 6 Mar 14 at 11:46
|
>> There ought to be a statute of limitations on groping. I can see going after
>> someone who was messing with minors, and perhaps even rape. But ancient groping, inappropriate touching
>> etc etc?
I wouldn't agree with a formal limitation set out in law. However, if Cliford, DLT2 and Harris all ail then I suspect there will be a de facto limit.
|
>>I wouldn't agree with a formal limitation set out in law.
Why not?
Assume it was groping in an office, not a minor, not a vulnerable person, not by a person in position of trust (carer etc.) then for how long does it matter?
You wouldn't expect to be suddenly done for speeding if you'd been law abiding for the subsequent 20 years.
However, you deserve to get done for murder, even if you have been law abiding for the 20 years since.
So clearly there is a line, and it seems to me that the [5 year?] line should be above groping but below raping.
|
I started from a point of principle and practicality. Actually I think its the 'dangerous dogs' point.
It would be a law made following a specific public furore and would likely have unintended consequences down the line. Historic allegations are in the news ATM following Savile. I don't recall them being an issue three years ago and I doubt they still will be in 2017.
Practicality is still in play though. There are quite a range of charges prosecuted as either indecent assault or sexual assault - the legal definitions are similar. They range from copping a feel of someone's bum to hands in underclothing.
While I can sort of see a case for saying 'forget it' to the former the latter is beyond the pale.
|
Its difficult to see a way forward.
If prosecuting something was a simple way of resolving the doubt then it would be tolerable. But the personal and public impact of these trials on both the accused and the accuser seems to make them a very unhelpful thing for all concerned.
I obviously don't really understand the impact that the offence would have had - if it had happened to me then it would either have been serious enough to thump or report the offender, or it would have been trivial enough to forget about it, especially after a few years.
Consequently I realise that I am not the right person to understand why a "victim" would want to do this after 30 years.
But for my part I can't help but feel that most of the people involved should have got over it and moved on.
|
|
In cases that don't involve penetration or physical injury a statute of limitations would be a sensible move. As I've said before, telling someone that you fully understand why they waited 30 years to complain about having their boobs groped is re-enforcing the belief that being a victim is something to be ashamed of. Loud, immediate and clear about what happened should be the message put out, after all you are guaranteed anonymity, unlike the poors saps who are falsely accused.
|
Weatherman Fred Talbot has appeared in court accused of several historic indecency offences.
Remanded on bail to the Manchester Crown Court on Jan 19th 2015. That's one hell of a long time off !
HO
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 7 Mar 14 at 01:58
|
That's appalling. A large chunk of the man's remaining life that he must live under a ton weight, with his reputation already ruined. There's absolutely no proportionality in this at all.
The justice system shut put up or shut up. I'd be worried about what web of circumstantial evidence and coincidences they could come up with given so long to hatch the prosecution.
I feel fortunate not to be in any way a 'celebrity'.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 7 Mar 14 at 01:58
|
Trial of former Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans MP opened today at Preston Crown Court. Offences of sexual assault and rape between 2002 and last year.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/10/commons-deputy-speaker-nigel-evans-accused-court-sexual-assault-seven-men
|
Clearly not Yewtree. Recent stuff.
And the description here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26518718 does not make these cases sound even remotely serious. If making a pass at somebody is to become illegal, then the human race (in the UK) has just ceased procreating.
If trying to kiss somebody and being rebuffed is grounds for the police, then we're in a very worrying situation indeed.
|
>> And the description here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26518718 does not make these cases sound even remotely serious<<
"Without warning or any kind of invitation" Mr Evans tried to put his hand down a young man's trousers, the jury heard.
The man was "annoyed and embarrassed" and "made it clear to Mr Evans that he did not want to be touched in this way", the prosecution said.''
I think your idea of serious and mine vary by a huge amount.
>>
>> If trying to kiss somebody and being rebuffed is grounds for the police, then we're
>> in a very worrying situation indeed.
>>
Not quite like that if you read the whole article
>>Mr Evans was "often in drink" when he was "using or trading his position of influence" to attack young men, the prosecution claimed.
The jury of seven men and five women heard his behaviour was "repeated over time, despite warnings of respected colleagues".
Prosecutor Mark Heywood QC said: "It has also escalated in seriousness, no doubt because he believed that his position made it less than likely that someone would complain.<<
For that alone I would find him guilty.
Pat
|
So far as I can tell today has been taken up by the prosecution outlining its case so is never going to look good for the defendant. The charges are sexual/indecent assault and rape - some way beyond 'making a pass'.
In a heterosexual environment trying for an unreciprocated kiss (and I don't mean just a peck on the cheek) is pushing your luck and I don't suppose it's any different between gay men. The gay/straight equivalent.......?
|
The only way to look at this on a almost all male forum is to ask yourselves 'would you want another bloke trying to get his hand down your trousers'?
If the answer is No, then you know how the women have felt in a lot of the other cases.
Pat
|
>> The only way to look at this on a almost all male forum is to
>> ask yourselves 'would you want another bloke trying to get his hand down your trousers'?
>>
>> If the answer is No, then you know how the women have felt in a
>> lot of the other cases.
>>
>> Pat
Spot on.
|
>>
>> Spot on.
>>
Not quite no, sexuality comes into it. Being a different sexuality of those doing the 'hands down your trousers' act would play a big part in it.
Edit. I assume (yes I know..) they weren't all gay.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 10 Mar 14 at 20:23
|
>> Not quite no, sexuality comes into it. Being a different sexuality of those doing the
>> 'hands down your trousers' act would play a big part in it.
>>
Up to a point Lord Copper; unwelcome advances are same whatever.
|
Lord Copper ? Wooooosh
I wouldn't say they were 'the same' at all. The law sees them the same no doubt, but people? Not the same at all.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 10 Mar 14 at 20:29
|
>> >> Spot on.
>>
>> Not quite no, sexuality comes into it.
I would agree with sooty. Having an unexpected assault made on your private parts by another man may help you to understand how girls must often feel when pawed gratuitously by blokes, but it can't really be the same. Question of the roles we are supposedly raised to fulfil.
|
>>then you know how the women have felt in a lot of the other cases.
To an extent. What I struggle with is the idea that somebody grabs me and then 30 years later I complain to the police about it.
I'm not making a value judgement, I just don't understand.
|
>> To an extent. What I struggle with is the idea that somebody grabs me and
>> then 30 years later I complain to the police about it.
>>
>> I'm not making a value judgement, I just don't understand.
'Somebody', a member of your social circle, grabbing you is one thing. He's realistically a nobody and all his/your contemporaries know about his wandering hands and you/they can deal with him, as an equal, on those terms.
OTOH somebody 'famous' touches you up in a way beyond grabbing. You think you're on your own and worry nobody will believe you. Albeit the memory festers you live with it until, in a world where communication/standards are different several other people say 'he did X to me'.
|
>>
>> OTOH somebody 'famous' touches you up in a way beyond grabbing. You think you're on
>> your own and worry nobody will believe you.
>>
The alleged incident being played out today happened in 1967. Clifford was an unknown back then.
|
>>MP Nigel Evans, 56, used his "powerful" influence to attack seven men from 2002 to 2013, Preston Crown Court was told<<
...the alleged rape happened in 2013.
Pat
|
>>
>> The alleged incident being played out today happened in 1967. Clifford was an unknown back
>> then.
>>
That's the curious feature of all the Yewtree cases - they only involve people who are now celebrities.
If the past was a different country with different standards and morals etc, shouldn't we be seeing a flood of complaints against ordinary, non-celebrity people too? Are they going to be prosecuted "in the public interest" too? Or are they not of public interest?
|
>>Are they going to be prosecuted "in the public interest" too? <<
Are they being prosecuted but not noteworthy of being reported?
Pat
|
>> >>Are they going to be prosecuted "in the public interest" too? <<
>>
>> Are they being prosecuted but not noteworthy of being reported?
>>
>> Pat
I'm pretty sure they aren't. These cases require large resources.
The police and CPS are playing at it, hypocritically grandstanding by going for the big scalps.
|
If I had said that Manatee, someone would have demanded I post the facts to substantiate it;)
Pat
|
>> If I had said that Manatee, someone would have demanded I post the facts to
>> substantiate it;)
>>
>> Pat
It's an opinion, I obviously can't state it as a fact. But if I had, I'd tell them to do their own googling :)
|
>> I'm pretty sure they aren't. These cases require large resources.
>>
>> The police and CPS are playing at it, hypocritically grandstanding by going for the big
>> scalps.
Not sure about that theory, though I accept Clifford to be the 'odd one out' in these cases.
The start point was Savile and . In the aftermath people came forward with multiple/consistent allegations against other famous people. Far less likely that multiple complainants will come forward against some office bum fondler who retired anonymously to Tunbridge Wells.
|
>> > Far less likely that multiple complainants will come forward against
>> some office bum fondler who retired anonymously to Tunbridge Wells.
>>
That's true, but if the message we now want to put over is that this behaviour is now unacceptable, ought to have been back in 1970, and complainants treated with respect and listened to, then we are in fact saying the exact opposite.
We are dismissing someone's complaints as unimportant, not worth spending resources on investigating, and not in the public interest to pursue.
But if he is famous, then it seems the prosecutor will spare no expense and gleefully clock up another Yewtree number. And must realise that somehow the details will leak out, and the rumours will duely generate some more complaints to back up the first ones.
|
I don't think apparent absence of prosecutions of 'Joe Bloggs' means their complaints are treated as unimportant. Point about Yewtree cases is evidential value of multiple, independent and consistent allegations.
Unlikely that those would emerge for the two former colleagues I've previously mentioned who had predilections for groping and worse. Either there'd only be 2-3 willing to come forward or they'd have spoken previously in which case suggestion of collusion would devalue their cases.
|
>>I don't think apparent absence of prosecutions of 'Joe Bloggs' means their complaints are treated as unimportant.
I'm certain they are. No question in my mind.
Not that I have a problem with that, it's a very poor use of resources as far as I can see - there are plenty of active criminals to investigate without pursuing paper thin allegations against the elderly (and dead).
|
>> >> For that alone I would find him guilty.
>>
>> Pat
I'm sure you meant to add "if the allegations were proven beyond reasonable doubt".
|
>>"Without warning or any kind of invitation" Mr Evans tried to put his hand down a young
>> man's trousers, the jury heard.
>>The man was "annoyed and embarrassed" and "made it clear to Mr Evans that he did not >>want to be touched in this way", the prosecution said.''
>>I think your idea of serious and mine vary by a huge amount.
I've had unwelcome attention from men, and indeed women. And I suspect that most people here will have received some form of unwelcome attention too at some point. And I suspect most people here will have been regarded by somebody else as having given them unwelcome attention at some point.
I don't know about anybody else's trousers, but you'd have to undo mine if you wanted to put your hand down them. And nobody would get there unless I wanted them to.
It certainly isn't serious. He didn't do it. He just *tried* to do it - which of course description covers everything between having a fight with somebody and not getting much beyond thinking about it.
I mean, one of the alleged victims went behind a curtain with him! I've only ever gone behind curtains when I've wanted to. ;)
When I was 22 and a peer of the realm whom I had previously met but once and was a notorious gay briefly invited me to a rather grand dinner (to which I went) I'm sure I know what was going through his mind. As it was he behaved like the perfect gentleman, but then I made sure not to go behind curtains with him.
The alleged rape I am presuming will revolve around whether or not consent was given, rather than jumping out of the shadows. I may of course be wrong.
I'm not advocating a free for all; far, far, far from it. But the prosecutor here doesn't seem to be (wasn't yesterday, anyway) getting much beyond making a pass. And on these terms, making a pass is counting as some form of assault worth mentioning in court, and it makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
|
MM,
Getting a hand down trousers, unless you wear a very tight belt, is merely a question of angle of approach. Never had any problem when (consensually) fumbling under the back waistband of a girl's jeans.
My kid's generation talk of 'giving a wedgie' - grabbing rear of undergarment and pulling.
I suspect a hand approaching from rear could access front waistband in similar style.
|
I do have difficulty understanding the moral position of male sexual assault victims running screaming to the authorities. Personally I have never experienced an unwelcome sexual assault by a woman, although I have had to turn one or two down for one reason or another. And like others here I have been turned down myself, once or twice with a certain annoyance. But I remember the silly Mormon chap who said he'd been raped more or less when that rough blonde woman jumped on him... I bet even the other Mormons jeered. What was the idiot really complaining about? Nothing specific. Really really intellectually pathetic.
Few men have tried it on and they have been easily deterred. In any case no sane intelligent person really wants to have sex with an unwilling partner. That's a perversion FFS.
I am reminded though of the sequence in Roman Polanski's comic vampire movie, Dance of the Vampires I think it's called, in which the gay vampire first tries to seduce the naive central character played by Polanski himself, and then when Polanski runs away chases him through the corridors and courtyards of the obligatory spooky castle, suddenly revealing truly diabolical strength and speed... a hilarious, frightening sequence.
That's a brilliant movie.
|
>> I do have difficulty understanding the moral position of male sexual assault victims running screaming
>> to the authorities.
Why?
Like the Yewtree cases it's not just about sex but also abuse of massive imbalances of power.
If you cannot understand the male/male thing (from an I'd have punched his nose POV) try asking your wife or daughter.
|
>>
>> If you cannot understand the male/male thing (from an I'd have punched his nose POV)
>> try asking your wife or daughter.
>>
Perhaps if sexually assaulted by a lesbian.
|
>> If you cannot understand the male/male thing (from an I'd have punched his nose POV) try asking your wife or daughter.
Tsk. I've got three daughters and five granddaughters, and have done plenty of worrying about them. But of course I'd been slapped into line back in the mists of time by all sorts of feministical elements... and having had sisters and a mother I wasn't that sympathetic with male chauvinist piggery to start with.
I'm just talking about the utter wimpishness of running screaming to the authorities just from someone trying to feel you up. Obviously I don't think young victims of genuine rape or abuse shouldn't complain.
I must say though that had anything like that happened to me I wouldn't feel entirely justified in mentioning it for the first time fifteen or twenty years later. I would question my motives.
|
>>Never had any problem when (consensually) fumbling under the back waistband of a girl's jeans.
Really? Many was the time when I used to pray for a 3rd joint somewhere between my elbow and my fingers.
Mind you, since you were fumbling under the back waistband, perhaps we had a different target in mind.
;-)
(I neither like nor normally use smilies, but better safe than sorry).
|
>> I neither like nor normally use smilies, but better safe than sorry
OOh get her, ponce ponce...
Actually FMR I too thought for some time that smileys were beneath me. Then I realised that if I was that superior I wouldn't be wasting time on a site like this one where smileys are often used.
They are useful shorthand for 'only kidding' and 'doesn't anyone else think this is funny?'
|
>> They are useful shorthand for 'only kidding' and 'doesn't anyone else think this is funny?'
Similarly, I find the ! symbol to be useful shorthand sometimes for "I don't really mean it, don't bite my head off." Seems to moderate it somehow.
eg
Can't say I agree.
versus
Can't say I agree!
See what I mean?
Last edited by: Crankcase on Tue 25 Mar 14 at 16:15
|
>>Never had any problem when (consensually) fumbling under the back waistband of a girl's jeans.
That's the thing. Consensually. She was allowing you to. Without the permission it's a whole load more difficult unless there is a great physical imbalance. I find it difficult to believe that a weedy 56 year old had such a physical imbalance over a gilded youth.
|
Article in today's Guardian suggesting that some things have not changed as much as we'd like to think:
www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/24/stalked-and-beaten-student-stories-sexual-violence-clubs
|
|
If one is to believe the burden of that piece, things have got a whole lot worse than they were in my youth. Such gross behaviour did occur of course, but was resented and frowned on.
|
|
In another development it's being reported that Jimmy Tarbuck has been released without charge. In Max Clifford's trial a juror has had to be discharged after it emerged a witness was known to her.
|
Max Clifford is an obvious money target for a mercenary person. He says he never did anything and it's all lies.
But would a group of women get together years later and make something like that up out of nothing? That would be odd and unusual. But he will have the best shysters in the business proving that there can be smoke without fire.
|
>> But would a group of women get together years later and make something like that
>> up out of nothing? That would be odd and unusual.
I agree...but...(there's always a 'but')...
...there's a difference between using your position to your advantage, which let's face it many, many people do in all sorts of circumstances, inc powerful, rich men to get something decent on one's arm or to get a 'leg over'...
...to out and out criminality i.e. rape or serious sexual assault.
My thoughts are the former are now being witch-hunted about actions they took in a different era when a good deal of innuendo and hand on a bum was virtually acceptable, whereas now it is not.
I have no problem with the real pervert being prosecuted. Trouble is they are all being put in the same category, there's trial by media and we don't know who is who.
>> But he will have the
>> best shysters in the business proving that there can be smoke without fire.
..and there always will be.
|
>> Max Clifford is an obvious money target for a mercenary person. He says he never
>> did anything and it's all lies.
>>
>> But would a group of women get together years later and make something like that
>> up out of nothing? That would be odd and unusual. But he will have the
>> best shysters in the business proving that there can be smoke without fire.
>>
Hell have no fury etc... and some people hold warped opinions and grudges for decades..
(I expect Mr Clifford to be found not guilty.. Unless some real evidence is found)
|
>>(I expect Mr Clifford to be found not guilty.. Unless some real evidence is found)
And there's the issue.
I have no idea whether or not he is guilty. It sounds possible btu that is hardly proof.
And there appears to be no proof or even corroboration.
If someone says something happened, then that is not sufficient alone, even if true.
If someone else also says that same thing happened, then that may be.
But if lots of different people say that lots of different things happened, each without any independent corroboration, then I don't see how he can be found guilty of any one offence.
The approach to the trial seems really wrong to me. Rather than being able to prove any one incident occurred, they seem to be just trying to show that he's not very nice and so he might have done it.
Which is not any standard of proof I know.
And if he is guilty but found not guilty, then they are doing his victims no good at all.
|
>
>>
>> (I expect Mr Clifford to be found not guilty.. Unless some real evidence is found)
I dunno, unlike the other cases where evidence was "can't remember the exact year, location or the circumstances" there appears to be more substance in this evidence with corroborating references.
|
|
Agreed Zero, I think Clifford is on a sticky wicket with this one. Lots of separate references to his allegedly very small todger. Unless he can prove the witnesses got together and cooked that one up it's hard to believe (No pun intended) that they all invented the same story on their own.
|
|
I believe it was in the public domain before the trial so no doubt his layers will tell us...
|
|
On the other hand, Max has made some very powerful enemies over the years, notably in certain sections of the media. It wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility that a person or persons had decided to fit him up.
|
Operation Yewtree - henry k
