Jimmy Savile

[hypochondriac]

Hypothetically if a 15 year old lied and said they were 18 when you met them out one night and you then had sex with her, would you say the man is to blame?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Hypothetically if a 15 year old lied and said they were 18 when you met them out one night and you then had sex with her, would you say the man is to blame?

 

Tours were like roman orgies, with women being passed from band member to band member, loads of women. Do we really expect 20 something year olds to check id's before each penetration?

[Frank's cousin]

Your initial point was that if a groupie threw herself at a star for "favours" then it's fine, regardless of age. It's not.

 

You now try to justify it by saying that if they're 15 then it's ok. It's not.

 

The point you also seem to make is that if the statutory rape is between a rock star and a child, then its ok. It's not.

 

You interpret what you believe to be my position but you'll see I've not said that at all. My point, simply, is that it's wrong for a grown man to have sex with a minor, ie a child under 16 irrespective of the circumstances.

 

You are correct in the eyes of the law, but you have to admit that there are young women who are 18/19 who look and behave like they are still 14/15 - and that there are 14/15 year olds taht look and behave like they are 19/20. Whilst under the law you are classified as a pervert irrespective of the physical and mental maturity of the person if stil 15 and 364 days, yet are not if they are 16 and are still looking like and behaving like children. Yes the law Needs a cut off, but in the way we perceive behaviour and assign 'labels'' to people, can we say its right to label someone a perv, if who they fancy looks 20, behaves like a 20 year old, and yet is 15... and they did not ask?

 

Irrespective of age, the issue at the BBC seems to be about power and influence which as stated before is very wrong regardless of the age of the victim.

[egg]

Hypothetically if a 15 year old lied and said they were 18 when you met them out one night and you then had sex with her, would you say the man is to blame?

 

The old trainspotting situation. That's very different to what's being talked about in this thread, and in the few posts above. There's a difference between being ignorant/turning a blind eye and being duped but it's an offence either way. In your scenario it would be hard to not be sympathetic if you had blatantly been lied to, particularly if you had met in a club or a bar where people are likely to have been id'd.

[hypochondriac]

The old trainspotting situation. That's very different to what's being talked about in this thread, and in the few posts above. There's a difference between being ignorant/turning a blind eye and being duped but it's an offence either way. In your scenario it would be hard to not be sympathetic if you had blatantly been lied to, particularly if you had met in a club or a bar where people are likely to have been id'd.

 

What about if you just had sex with them without asking their age and you weren't in a club? I mean it has never happened to me but it could have happened to most on here u reckon.

[egg]

Tours were like roman orgies, with women being passed from band member to band member, loads of women. Do we really expect 20 something year olds to check id's before each penetration?

 

You assume that these people don't know that these kids are kids. John Peel said that the girls were as young as 13. Jimmy Saville visited schools and childrens hospitals, met kids who wrote to his show, had dancers on top of the pops from schools. Assuming he had sex with one or more of these people, can it really be said that he had no idea that they were minors?

[egg]

What about if you just had sex with them without asking their age and you weren't in a club? I mean it has never happened to me but it could have happened to most on here u reckon.

 

You're guilty of statutory rape. A minor can't consent.

[hypochondriac]

Hey Alpine I can see you in Dads Army shouting "Were doomed all doomed"

 

I agree with you. I can see the obvious difference. Irresponsible certainly but so is taking loads of drink and drugs and loads of other things, it certainly wouldn't make them a paedophile.

[hypochondriac]

You're guilty of statutory rape. A minor can't consent.

 

In the eyes of the law possibly but I was asking what your opinion of it is?

[hypochondriac]

You assume that these people don't know that these kids are kids. John Peel said that the girls were as young as 13. Jimmy Saville visited schools and childrens hospitals, met kids who wrote to his show, had dancers on top of the pops from schools. Assuming he had sex with one or more of these people, can it really be said that he had no idea that they were minors?

 

If they knew they were minors and still had sex with them then that is clearly wrong. I'm not sure anyone is disputing that.

[saint si]

Thought experiment:

 

Two 15 year olds have sex.

 

The guy turns 16, and then they have sex to celebrate.

 

Then the girl turns 16, and more sex follows.

 

Then through a bizarre twist of fate, it is discovered the guy was actually kidnapped as a baby and lied to about his date of birth. Turns out he is still actually 15 after all!

 

Which one is a paedo?

[egg]

In the eyes of the law possibly but I was asking what your opinion of it is?

 

That was my opinion. I agree with the legal position.

[egg]

If they knew they were minors and still had sex with them then that is clearly wrong. I'm not sure anyone is disputing that.

 

That's not my reading of a few of the posts above.

[pap]

Your initial point was that if a groupie threw herself at a star for "favours" then it's fine, regardless of age. It's not.

 

You now try to justify it by saying that if they're 15 then it's ok. It's not.

 

The point you also seem to make is that if the statutory rape is between a rock star and a child, then its ok. It's not.

 

You interpret what you believe to be my position but you'll see I've not said that at all. My point, simply, is that it's wrong for a grown man to have sex with a minor, ie a child under 16 irrespective of the circumstances.

 

This Wiki entry on the age of consent across Europe is an interesting read.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

 

Spain is the lowest at 13. Incidentally, that was the age of consent in the UK until 1875.

 

Might be geographical and cultural bias at play, but I think the age of consent is about right in the UK. I don't like the way that a 16 year old nipper can get done for statutory rape for sleeping with his (illegally) consenting 15 year old girlfriend. Other parts of the world have already enacted "Romeo & Juliet" laws. Seems a better alternative than placing nipper on the sex offenders register.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws

 

With Savile and his ilk, there's really no room to manoeveure. As you say, grown men. With Savile in particular, it increasingly looks like he used his charity work to get himself into positions of trust, enabling him to prey on young girls well into middle age. I'm with TDD on this. I think he's guilty as hell.

[pap]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnvEdh3vAq8

 

Worth another watch.

 

Thanks for this Tokyo.

 

At the time, I'm sure the baffled public thought "Good old Jimmy. What an eccentric he is. Bit random though".

 

Watch it with the mindset that "Jimmy might be a sexual predator and paedophile", and it actually makes sense.

 

Louis might have had some sleepless nights recently.

[hypochondriac]

That was my opinion. I agree with the legal position.

 

Would you consider them paedophile?

[Jonnyboy]

New allegations: touched up a brain damaged kid:

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/savile-denied-child-abuse-2007-130300697.html

[View From The Top]

Jimmy Saville's last request was that after his death, his ashes be put into an etch-a-sketch so that kids can still fiddle with his knob.

[Jonnyboy]

Its all very confusing but in degrees of severity how do we order the following:

 

Jimmy Savile

The teacher that went to France

Rock stars

Hypochondriac

[pap]

Staff at Stoke Mandeville hospital told young girls to "pretend to be asleep" during Savile's visits.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9600123/Jimmy-Savile-did-ward-rounds-at-Stoke-Mandeville-to-find-young-girls-to-abuse.html

[Dig Dig]

Hypothetically if a 15 year old lied and said they were 18 when you met them out one night and you then had sex with her, would you say the man is to blame?

 

As a 30 year old, I don't go around trying to **** 18 year old girls and despite what people are saying on here, a 14, 15, 16 year old girl looks and acts young enough to throw caution to the wind.

[hypochondriac]

As a 30 year old, I don't go around trying to **** 18 year old girls and despite what people are saying on here, a 14, 15, 16 year old girl looks and acts young enough to throw caution to the wind.

 

I'm not saying it is right but there is a distinction between those who don't bother asking and those who actively seek out underage children.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Thanks for this Tokyo.

 

At the time, I'm sure the baffled public thought "Good old Jimmy. What an eccentric he is. Bit random though".

 

Watch it with the mindset that "Jimmy might be a sexual predator and paedophile", and it actually makes sense.

 

Louis might have had some sleepless nights recently.

 

That's what I thought Pap, watch the whole thing back and there are a few eye openers that's for sure. The bit where he has Luis's full address down on the paper before Luis arrived seems like a passive threat to Luis now. A kind of 'I know where you live'.

 

In the end though, Luis was taken In by the charity work and the 'personna' and it becomes a bit powder puff.

[ooh it's a corner]

I'm not saying it is right but there is a distinction between those who don't bother asking and those who actively seek out underage children.

 

When was the last time you had a conversation with a 14 year old girl and thought to yourself, "my, what an intelligent, thoughful human being, we have so much in common" ?

 

The last time I had a conversation with a 13 year old girl (my niece) I thought to myself, "good lord, I understand what you are saying but you think I am a grey haired old fart and I have no idea which band/boy/tv celeb you are talking about, but at the end of the day you are a 13 year old girl, and perhaps we are entitled to have different interests"

 

Any grown man not recognising the traits of a young girl (and therefore not bothering to ask for ID) is further up the food chain that those that actively seek out underage children, but not much......

[hypochondriac]

When was the last time you had a conversation with a 14 year old girl and thought to yourself, "my, what an intelligent, thoughful human being, we have so much in common" ?

 

The last time I had a conversation with a 13 year old girl (my niece) I thought to myself, "good lord, I understand what you are saying but you think I am a grey haired old fart and I have no idea which band/boy/tv celeb you are talking about, but at the end of the day you are a 13 year old girl, and perhaps we are entitled to have different interests"

 

Any grown man not recognising the traits of a young girl (and therefore not bothering to ask for ID) is further up the food chain that those that actively seek out underage children, but not much......

 

Hardly ever. Fairly often though we have students who are fifteen who come and work for us. In their normal clothes I could swear they are late teens early twenties it is very difficult to judge sometimes

[egg]

I'm not saying it is right but there is a distinction between those who don't bother asking and those who actively seek out underage children.

 

Yeah, ones wrong and the other is wronger. Are you trying to say that you believe that if you don't bother asking it's ok to f^ck a kid? Frankly you ain't making much sense to me.

[hypochondriac]

Yeah, ones wrong and the other is wronger. Are you trying to say that you believe that if you don't bother asking it's ok to f^ck a kid? Frankly you ain't making much sense to me.

 

No I am saying that I can envisage a circumstance where someone believes someone is older than they are and ends up having sex with them.

[egg]

No I am saying that I can envisage a circumstance where someone believes someone is older than they are and ends up having sex with them.

 

Wtf does that have to do with this thread? Saville was a nonce by all accounts, who f^cked and molested kids. Peel admitted getting blow jobs off kids. Peel admitted he didn't ask so by your rationale he's better than those who actively seek out children. Your grading dog sh!t into different categories of dog **** but it's all brown and smelly.

[saint si]

At the risk of confusing things with another thread, I think all hypo is saying is that there are all sorts of shades of grey here. As you say, some acts are "wronger" ... and thus by definition, some acts are less wrong also.

 

Knowing the age of the victim vs not knowing the age. Checking and being lied to vs deliberately being ignorant of the likely answer vs actively seeking out an underage girl. Being attracted to someone who appears to be a woman (but is arbitrarily not yet considered to be one in the eyes of the law) versus being attracted to a girl because she looks like one.

 

It is an emotive topic, and the media have certainly had their fun with it, but lumping all of these difference scenarios together as "sick paedos" doesn't help anyone - least of all victims or potential future victims.

[egg]

At the risk of confusing things with another thread, I think all hypo is saying is that there are all sorts of shades of grey here. As you say, some acts are "wronger" ... and thus by definition, some acts are less wrong also.

 

Knowing the age of the victim vs not knowing the age. Checking and being lied to vs deliberately being ignorant of the likely answer vs actively seeking out an underage girl. Being attracted to someone who appears to be a woman (but is arbitrarily not yet considered to be one in the eyes of the law) versus being attracted to a girl because she looks like one.

 

It is an emotive topic, and the media have certainly had their fun with it, but lumping all of these difference scenarios together as "sick paedos" doesn't help anyone - least of all victims or potential future victims.

 

The shades of grey go to mitigation, not culpability. Stealing a can of petrol isn't as bad as stealing the car to put it in but it's all dishonesty.

 

There is no grey area with sexual offences towards kids, just degrees oF severity.

[hypochondriac]

At the risk of confusing things with another thread, I think all hypo is saying is that there are all sorts of shades of grey here. As you say, some acts are "wronger" ... and thus by definition, some acts are less wrong also.

 

Knowing the age of the victim vs not knowing the age. Checking and being lied to vs deliberately being ignorant of the likely answer vs actively seeking out an underage girl. Being attracted to someone who appears to be a woman (but is arbitrarily not yet considered to be one in the eyes of the law) versus being attracted to a girl because she looks like one.

 

It is an emotive topic, and the media have certainly had their fun with it, but lumping all of these difference scenarios together as "sick paedos" doesn't help anyone - least of all victims or potential future victims.

 

Well explained thanks. I know it is difficult but I wish people could discuss this without getting all angry and abusive.

[saint si]

The shades of grey go to mitigation, not culpability. Stealing a can of petrol isn't as bad as stealing the car to put it in but it's all dishonesty.

 

There is no grey area with sexual offences towards kids, just degrees oF severity.

 

Well there are pretty obviously different degrees of culpability depending on intent, what the guilty party knew or didn't know etc., so I can't agree with that statement. And putting the nuances of criminal law to one side, looking at things from a moral perspective, there are clearly different degrees of immorality pertaining to different circumstances. It would be trivial to come up with extreme examples to show that, and there is a broad spectrum in between - that really being my point.

 

Anyway, enough de-rail...

[hypochondriac]

Well there are pretty obviously different degrees of culpability depending on intent, what the guilty party knew or didn't know etc., so I can't agree with that statement. And putting the nuances of criminal law to one side, looking at things from a moral perspective, there are clearly different degrees of immorality pertaining to different circumstances. It would be trivial to come up with extreme examples to show that, and there is a broad spectrum in between - that really being my point.

 

Anyway, enough de-rail...

 

Precisely well put sir. It isn't as black and white as egg makes out.

[alpine_saint]

I agree about the fact he has as yet not been found guilty of anything - and the Saints experience with dave Jones should tell us that its not always a clear cut as it first seems.... although in this case the evidence does seem to be pretty damning

 

 

However Alps re the multiple victims coming forward thing - have to disagree - that is quite normal - I guess in many cases like this its quite normal for victims to keep this hidden - in denial as they try and go on with tehir lives often shattered by such abuses... and only when one or two have teh courage later in life do others draw strnegth from that and also make the decision to come forward - not sure what the official psychological explantion/conditions, but suspect there is one.

 

Frank,

 

Here is one example of why I think this all band-wagon jumping :

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215910/Jimmy-Savile-What-Stoke-Mandeville-nurses-told-patients-Jimll-Fix-It-star-came-calling.html

 

A HOPSITAL, not some scared intimidated individual, knew about it and could have reported it....

[Frank's cousin]

At the risk of going off on a tangent - cultural and evoltionary perspectives do play a part in all this. First up, there is NO defence for anyone who seeks out and pursues underage girls, nor is ignorance an excuse in the eyes of the law.

 

Men are naturally biologically evolved to have sex and reproduce with as many women as possible - I could bore you all with the anisogmay concept, but basicallly we are designed to reproduce, and are only limited by the number of women we can impregnate...women have the same desire to reproduce, but are limited by the number of children they can give birth to in a fertile lifetime. This difference led to the evolution of secondary sexual characterists... physical, behavioral and emotional - as females had to be more 'choosy' and make sure that their investment in carrying a child would be rewarded and the father would stick around long ennough for the offspring to survive.... all interesting stuff... but the up shot is, from a biological perspective we are 'programmed' to be attracted to the most fertile women and women are at their most fertile between 15 and 25 depending on nutrition and their growth rates etc.... Its why many men dont find 'older women' attractive....

 

However, set against this is the emotional reward we seek - a by product of the fact it takes so long for our children to be able to look after themselves - so we have formed relationships with strong bonds that are designed to stop us 'straying' especially as we get older and stick around, - also when grand kids come along because they are also part of our family and contain our genes so its worth helping look after them as well to ensure they grow up strong and can pass on our genetic material to the next generation etc.

 

Finally you have cultural and legal influences - these are the bits that seem to change and perhaps cause the most difficulty. Even up to Victorian times, it was common for men to marry later after 'sowing the wild oats' - maybe at 30 or so, to younger women often still teenagers. Go back to Georgian times and a women still unmarried at 19 was starting to worry of being left on the shelf...

 

Rock stars with groupies in the 70s - a hedonsitic time in which many did things they probably went on to regret and feel ashamed of in later life. How many 20 somethings in a band touring and having the adulation that comes with that, would be turning down 'women' in post gig parties? I am not saying its right to abuse the 'power' of fame to get laid, but in these situations the only crime is if they were underage.

 

The BBC thing seems to highlight 2 or 3 seperate crimes - 1) the abuse of power to grope, and influence women into not complaining or partake in sexual activity against their free will. 2) the abuse of power and influence to prevent those victims form being taken seriously or stopped them reporting it in the first place and 3) the alleged targeting of girls that were obviously girls and not women.

 

All of the above are sickening behaviour for which there is no excuse

 

So why do more men not still fancy teenagers (16-19) - I would argue they do - probably most from a visual perspective, but tastes mature, we realise we have nothing in common with them and we are boring farts anyway so hardly ever likely to be an issue - unless you are a rock star or 'celebrity'.... rich... etc. For most of us the peopel we meet and spend time with with be in our generation so our emotional bonds will mostly form with people our owwn age, who we can talk to share experiences with etc. We are simply never in a position where the majority of our company is 15-20 year old, women. Teachers do, and its why we hear these stories. I would hazzard a guess that for very one we hear about becaus ethey run off together, there are 20 in which the teacher does what is MORALLY and LEGALLY right and avoids or deals with such a situation, even where he may be attracted to someone who is 16-17 - especially if they are only 22-24 themselves they still have enough in common so you can see why it happens, but you hope they have the strength of character morally and ethically to whats right.

[egg]

Well there are pretty obviously different degrees of culpability depending on intent, what the guilty party knew or didn't know etc., so I can't agree with that statement. And putting the nuances of criminal law to one side, looking at things from a moral perspective, there are clearly different degrees of immorality pertaining to different circumstances. It would be trivial to come up with extreme examples to show that, and there is a broad spectrum in between - that really being my point.

 

Anyway, enough de-rail...

 

That's a long winded way of saying that there are degrees of severity of noncery. That we agree on. Where I disagree with others is that I don't think its ever acceptable, morally or legally.

[dubai_phil]

Sorry, meeting a girl in a Members Club in a state with a Drinking Age of 21 and then finding out that they are underage after the event is Illegal. Ignorance is no defence in the same way ignorance of the law (in any country) is no defence.

 

HOWEVER, that discussion is WAY different to what this thread is about.

 

Namely that a Man is accused of having abused YOUNG girls. A Man sought out places where those Young Girls were defenceless. Where those Young Girls were Injured or potentially mentally disabled. Where a Man abused his position, abused his fame and used OTHER people to Procure DEFENCELESS Young Girls.

 

This is not only about some 15 year old who dresses and looks 18 on ToTP it is about Kids in HOSPITAL BEDS or in Care Homes that (in Jersey) have already been proven to have been Corrupt beyond belief.

 

By all means have a thread discussing the merits of Old Guys fancying Young Girls, but this is the Jimmy Saville thread and will by the look of things include the old Gary Glitter/Jonathon King crowd.

[Viking Warrior]

If this was the alleged scene in the 70's and 80's , is it not possible that young girls were taken advantage of by footballers stars of the day as well and actors etc

[buctootim]

If this was the alleged scene in the 70's and 80's , is it not possible that young girls were taken advantage of by footballers stars of the day as well and actors etc

 

Im dreading the the Donny Osmond and David Cassidy headlines....

[doddisalegend]

What gets me are there seem to be a lot of adults who knew about this and said nothing until now when it is all to late. These allegations that nurses told kids to pretend to be a sleep when Jimmy came for a visit ...I mean WTF why didn't they tell someone and get him stopped from visiting. Did people really care more about his charity donations than what he was (allegedly) doing to these kids?

[buctootim]

What gets me are there seem to be a lot of adults who knew about this and said nothing until now when it is all to late. These allegations that nurses told kids to pretend to be a sleep when Jimmy came for a visit ...I mean WTF why didn't they tell someone and get him stopped from visiting. Did people really care more about his charity donations than what he was (allegedly) doing to these kids?

 

 

Doesnt add up. You'll have around 40 people working on an average sized ward with hundreds of patients passing through each year. So over the years literally thousands of people will have first hand knowledge of Savile just from one ward.

[Suomi Saint]

Underage sex has always gone on and always will. The difference between a 16-year old tonking his 15-year old girlfriend, and Jimmy Savile's disgraceful antics, is as wide as the Grand Canyon. Jimmy Savile was a sick, predatory, kiddie fiddler, who used his celebrity to avoid prosecution. He was a fully focused paedophile. You cannot compare the two. What concerns me most about this case, is how did he get away with it? How large is this paedophile ring and who does it involve? You can get 2 years in gaol for nicking a tray of doughnuts, yet you can go on a 20/30 year spree of abuse and get knighted for it. Therefore, members of the Establishment must have been involved.

[Thedelldays]

Underage sex has always gone on and always will. The difference between a 16-year old tonking his 15-year old girlfriend, and Jimmy Savile's disgraceful antics, is as wide as the Grand Canyon. Jimmy Savile was a sick, predatory, kiddie fiddler, who used his celebrity to avoid prosecution. He was a fully focused paedophile. You cannot compare the two. What concerns me most about this case, is how did he get away with it? How large is this paedophile ring and who does it involve? You can get 2 years in gaol for nicking a tray of doughnuts, yet you can go on a 20/30 year spree of abuse and get knighted for it. Therefore, members of the Establishment must have been involved.

 

Or. He may be innocent

[Sheaf Saint]

Or. He may be innocent

 

Well yeah, there's always that. This whole thread is reminiscent of the kind of discussions that went on among Saints fans when the allegations against Dave Jones came out... Too many cases to be a one-off, no smoke without fire etc...

[dubai_phil]

Or. He may be innocent

 

A fair and legal point to keep in mind.

 

BUT then one has to ask the question. For a man who did so much GOOD - his work at Stoke Manderville helped to raise the profile of that hospital (I had a friend there in the late 70's and visited a couple of times. In those days it was a bunch of old Nissan Huts) and yet that hospital gave rise to the Paralympics and the wonderful scenes in London this summer.

 

IF he is completely innocent, HOW can SO MANY Police Forces have received complaints? 120 cases being investigated? IF he was Innocent then what has prompted such a massive "Attack on his character"

 

Innocent until proven guilty yes. Not even comparing this to a smoking gun.

 

What baffles me is IF he was innocent then this MUST be the biggest "Bandwagon" for depraved celeb baiters to jump on in history.

[Suomi Saint]

Of course everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Under the eyes of the Law, he will always be innocent. Hitler was never convicted of war crimes was he? Do you think he's innocent? Similarly, Blair.

[dubai_phil]

Oh and in comparison to the Dave Jones Case, that was "an incident", not 40 years of allegations from 120 different people (women AND men)

[Sheaf Saint]

Oh and in comparison to the Dave Jones Case, that was "an incident", not 40 years of allegations from 120 different people (women AND men)

 

There was more than one complaint against him IIRC, which is why a lot of people started to believe that there must have been some truth in them.

[Suomi Saint]

There was a woman on Sky News last night who recounted what she saw - Savile molest an unconscious disabled patient. You could tell by the emotion in her eyes that she was telling the truth. Too many people have come forward now for it to be a lie. In Dave Jones case, it was just a handful of complaints, which were all exposed as an elaborate lie.

[dubai_phil]

There was more than one complaint against him IIRC, which is why a lot of people started to believe that there must have been some truth in them.

 

Why I said An incident not "a complaint". Which was related to his particular work at a particular time. I do know that the details of what went on were well known in the Care Community and that they were in full support of him at the time, but I don't know any details of the actual complaint(s).

 

It is still VERY different from the Saville allegations which was my point