Me and a friend went on a coach to the seaside when I was a kid and there were a couple of bloke in the seat in front, talking to us all through the trip and when we got to the seaside they asked if we'd hang out with them and we said no and a year later they were arrested, it turned out they were a paedophile couple who preyed on young boys, so these gay couples who prey on young boys do exist and it must be much more common than with straight couples because the woman, unless she's really messed up, would in 99.99% of cases be against that sort of thing.
Were you 17 at the time, if not, how is this revelevant to the DM article?
Me and a friend went on a coach to the seaside when I was a kid and there were a couple of blokes in the seat in front, talking to us all through the trip and when we got to the seaside they asked if we'd hang out with them and we said no and a year later they were arrested, it turned out they were a paedophile couple who preyed on young boys, so these gay couples who prey on young boys do exist and it must be much more common than with straight couples because the woman, unless she's really messed up, would in 99.99% of cases be against that sort of thing.
The stats don't bear this out. it's more likely to be men in. general. but straight men do prey on children more often than gay men or women. you are misinformed. not denying your experience though.
It's probably deliberate. Remember all the made-up controversial articles every time there's a historical episode? They do it with most live comedy shows as well.
I suppose we ought to be grateful that they did use the story in an anti-Leveson editoral piece... you know the sort of thing
"This is the sort of story we wouldn't be able to print if the politicians and Hacked Off got their way over restrictions on the freedom of the press"
I don't really think you can call a paedophile Gay or straight. Paedophilia is something in itself. I don't think it does anyone any good to try and say Gay or straight people are more likely to be a paedophile.
It also has nothing to do with this story - JNT and partner targeted young men, not children. The story has been given legs simply because the age of consent for Gay men at that time was 21 and these men were under 21. But they were not children.
Me and a friend went on a coach to the seaside when I was a kid and there were a couple of blokes in the seat in front, talking to us all through the trip and when we got to the seaside they asked if we'd hang out with them and we said no and a year later they were arrested, it turned out they were a paedophile couple who preyed on young boys, so these gay couples who prey on young boys do exist and it must be much more common than with straight couples because the woman, unless she's really messed up, would in 99.99% of cases be against that sort of thing.
And the prize for the most ignorant post of the year so far goes to......
It's a bit much for this faker to claim that JNT & his partner "targetted" anyone. They were just meeting some young men in their late teens. If it was young women of the same age no-one would see it as a scandal.
I see the BBC call these claims "extremely serious" - no they are not.
Me and a friend went on a coach to the seaside when I was a kid and there were a couple of blokes in the seat in front, talking to us all through the trip and when we got to the seaside they asked if we'd hang out with them and we said no and a year later they were arrested, it turned out they were a paedophile couple who preyed on young boys, so these gay couples who prey on young boys do exist and it must be much more common than with straight couples because the woman, unless she's really messed up, would in 99.99% of cases be against that sort of thing.
Do you write for the Daily Mail? You certainly show enough ignorance and prejudice...
Newspaper sensationalism, in the week the program comes back.
The BBC will have to say anything that involves sex in a story will have to be taken seriously.
Then hopefully it will blow over, as it doesn't involve minors and both men are dead.
Nothing will be gained from it, apart from the accusers jumping on the bandwagon.
Were you 17 at the time, if not, how is this revelevant to the DM article?
And if you were 17 , then that is not paedophilia
When men in their mid-30s are using positions of influence to obtain sexual favours from 17 year olds of either sex, it doesn't have to be paedophilia or even illegal to provoke the reaction - "ugh, that's creepy".
When men in their mid-30s are using positions of influence to obtain sexual favours from 17 year olds of either sex, it doesn't have to be paedophilia or even illegal to provoke the reaction - "ugh, that's creepy".
I know, but my post was a response to another poster who, by relating an incident when he was 'a kid' regarding some 'gay' paedophiles. was implying that the DM article was about the same sort of behaviour.
I think there is a big difference between child abuse (paedophilia) and something involving someone aged 17 (above what is now the legal age of consent), unless there was something more serious, like rape, involved.
Trust the Daily Mail to attempt to ruin the 50th Anniversary. They do anything to provoke any kind of scandal. How the hell do we know the Daily Mail themselves didn't cover up any paedophile activities by celebrities?
Trust the Daily Mail to attempt to ruin the 50th Anniversary. They do anything to provoke any kind of scandal. How the hell do we know the Daily Mail themselves didn't cover up any paedophile activities by celebrities?
I doubt it'd ruin the 50th Anniversary if they found out he was a serial killer! It's still a separate production team so there'd be no logical reason to scrap the current show.
The late Nathan-Turner is accused of targeting underage boys for sex.
This type of writing is deliberately meant to make the reader think "peadophile" , was he wrong if he coerced boys into sex, yes of course no one should abuse their position. But none of the people concerned wants to make a complaint, and whilst those boys at 17/18/19 were under the then legal age for homosexual sex at that time as it was 21 the term "under age boys" is very bad journalism to my mind. And if they want to go the underage gay sex route from that era then they will be arresting a large percentage of the country I would think.
Yes anyone who interprets young men as "boys" deliberately like this is just displaying their homophobia.
If those in their late teens - young men and women - are seen as illegal then how many marriages and parents would be breaking the law?
Also "targetted" can mean anything but this is just slurring JNT who was a great man
Good old Colin Baker on Twitter - he's getting huge support over the appalling Mirror front page which had the headline 'Doctor Who Sex Scandal' with a picture of him (as the Doctor) next to JNT.
My recollection of libel law is that a headline + misleading picture can result in a successful case. Something about people rushing past a newspaper stand would glimpse the front page and make the wrong assumptions (you cannot assume people will read the story).
Good old Colin Baker on Twitter - he's getting huge support over the appalling Mirror front page which had the headline 'Doctor Who Sex Scandal' with a picture of him (as the Doctor) next to JNT.
My recollection of libel law is that a headline + misleading picture can result in a successful case. Something about people rushing past a newspaper stand would glimpse the front page and make the wrong assumptions (you cannot assume people will read the story).
Good old Colin Baker on Twitter - he's getting huge support over the appalling Mirror front page which had the headline 'Doctor Who Sex Scandal' with a picture of him (as the Doctor) next to JNT.
My recollection of libel law is that a headline + misleading picture can result in a successful case. Something about people rushing past a newspaper stand would glimpse the front page and make the wrong assumptions (you cannot assume people will read the story).
The late Nathan-Turner is accused of targeting underage boys for sex.
This type of writing is deliberately meant to make the reader think "peadophile" , was he wrong if he coerced boys into sex, yes of course no one should abuse their position. But none of the people concerned wants to make a complaint, and whilst those boys at 17/18/19 were under the then legal age for homosexual sex at that time as it was 21 the term "under age boys" is very bad journalism to my mind. And if they want to go the underage gay sex route from that era then they will be arresting a large percentage of the country I would think.
Something of an exaggeration, don't you think?
I think you meant a large % of "homosexuals under the age of 21" not "the whole country".
I think you meant a large % of "homosexuals under the age of 21" not "the whole country".
Nope. It would be the % of people that engaged in homosexual activity with people under the age of 21, regarrdless of their own age. Goodness knows what they did when they found two twenty year old men together. Throw them both to the lions? What a shocking state of affairs. No wonder some people behaved more furtively than necessary.
On the bright side we have gone from that sort of nonsense to a Tory pm pushing through gay marriage law. And Cameron used to be pro clause 28. until his wife told him to stop being such a tosser and get with the 21st century.
The predatory aspect of the story is what is worrying. That sort of behaviour is wrong whatever the sexuality of the perpetrators.
But the whole focus on the 'underage' angle is ludicrous and is based on what modern society recognised was a discriminatory and archaic law that needed changing. Abortion was once illegal. We moved on. Would a story about a celebrity having an abortion at the time when it was wrongly against the law play up the angle in such an insidious way that this has been done? One hopes not. Typical lazy gutter press though because in the post Savile climate they know such things sell papers. Note the use of 'boy' which straight away conjures up horrible thoughts. These were not 'boys'. They were not children. By any stretch. There may have been unsavoury goings on, predatory behaviour and abuse of powerful positions to get sexual gratification. But hey! We often hear of such things and when its straight male rock bands doing such things its portrayed often as 'laddish fun' and people revel in the sleaze. There is a clear seam of homophobia when stories like the JNT thing are reported. Sad.
Nope. It would be the % of people that engaged in homosexual activity with people under the age of 21, regarrdless of their own age. Goodness knows what they did when they found two twenty year old men together. Throw them both to the lions? What a shocking state of affairs. No wonder some people behaved more furtively than necessary.
On the bright side we have gone from that sort of nonsense to a Tory pm pushing through gay marriage law. And Cameron used to be pro clause 28. until his wife told him to stop being such a tosser and get with the 21st century.
Ok. Good correction to my correction, but my actual point still stands.
Comments
Were you 17 at the time, if not, how is this revelevant to the DM article?
And if you were 17 , then that is not paedophilia
The stats don't bear this out. it's more likely to be men in. general. but straight men do prey on children more often than gay men or women. you are misinformed. not denying your experience though.
I suppose we ought to be grateful that they did use the story in an anti-Leveson editoral piece... you know the sort of thing
"This is the sort of story we wouldn't be able to print if the politicians and Hacked Off got their way over restrictions on the freedom of the press"
It also has nothing to do with this story - JNT and partner targeted young men, not children. The story has been given legs simply because the age of consent for Gay men at that time was 21 and these men were under 21. But they were not children.
And the prize for the most ignorant post of the year so far goes to......
I see the BBC call these claims "extremely serious" - no they are not.
Do you write for the Daily Mail? You certainly show enough ignorance and prejudice...
The BBC will have to say anything that involves sex in a story will have to be taken seriously.
Then hopefully it will blow over, as it doesn't involve minors and both men are dead.
Nothing will be gained from it, apart from the accusers jumping on the bandwagon.
When men in their mid-30s are using positions of influence to obtain sexual favours from 17 year olds of either sex, it doesn't have to be paedophilia or even illegal to provoke the reaction - "ugh, that's creepy".
I know, but my post was a response to another poster who, by relating an incident when he was 'a kid' regarding some 'gay' paedophiles. was implying that the DM article was about the same sort of behaviour.
I think there is a big difference between child abuse (paedophilia) and something involving someone aged 17 (above what is now the legal age of consent), unless there was something more serious, like rape, involved.
To be fair, perhaps its more about the author cashing in on the 50th anniversary with this book.
It seems a bit coincidental that he's sat on these stories for the better part of 30 years and then happens to publish his book in 2013.
I do appreciate he also had to wait until both men were dead so he couldn't be sued for libel.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4860044/Dr-Who-pervert-had-links-to-Savile.html
The late Nathan-Turner is accused of targeting underage boys for sex.
This type of writing is deliberately meant to make the reader think "peadophile" , was he wrong if he coerced boys into sex, yes of course no one should abuse their position. But none of the people concerned wants to make a complaint, and whilst those boys at 17/18/19 were under the then legal age for homosexual sex at that time as it was 21 the term "under age boys" is very bad journalism to my mind. And if they want to go the underage gay sex route from that era then they will be arresting a large percentage of the country I would think.
If those in their late teens - young men and women - are seen as illegal then how many marriages and parents would be breaking the law?
Also "targetted" can mean anything but this is just slurring JNT who was a great man
My recollection of libel law is that a headline + misleading picture can result in a successful case. Something about people rushing past a newspaper stand would glimpse the front page and make the wrong assumptions (you cannot assume people will read the story).
I hope he gets tonnes of cash.
It's as if Leveson had never happened.
My thought too. The Daily Mirror used to have something of a reputation. Long forgotten. Hope Colin sues the tosspots.
Even sadder to think the last time Colin was on the front page of the tabloids was when he was sacked from Who back in 1986.
Now he's back, wrongly implicated in a sex scandal that's nothing to do with him.
There's an online petition here to show support for getting an apology etc from the Mirror.
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/daily-mirror-apology-to-colin-baker-for-sex-scandal-image-run-a-withdrawal-issue-and-make-a-personal-apology-to-colin
A friend of Colin's has cancelled his advertising in the rag..
Something of an exaggeration, don't you think?
I think you meant a large % of "homosexuals under the age of 21" not "the whole country".
Nope. It would be the % of people that engaged in homosexual activity with people under the age of 21, regarrdless of their own age. Goodness knows what they did when they found two twenty year old men together. Throw them both to the lions? What a shocking state of affairs. No wonder some people behaved more furtively than necessary.
On the bright side we have gone from that sort of nonsense to a Tory pm pushing through gay marriage law. And Cameron used to be pro clause 28. until his wife told him to stop being such a tosser and get with the 21st century.
But the whole focus on the 'underage' angle is ludicrous and is based on what modern society recognised was a discriminatory and archaic law that needed changing. Abortion was once illegal. We moved on. Would a story about a celebrity having an abortion at the time when it was wrongly against the law play up the angle in such an insidious way that this has been done? One hopes not. Typical lazy gutter press though because in the post Savile climate they know such things sell papers. Note the use of 'boy' which straight away conjures up horrible thoughts. These were not 'boys'. They were not children. By any stretch. There may have been unsavoury goings on, predatory behaviour and abuse of powerful positions to get sexual gratification. But hey! We often hear of such things and when its straight male rock bands doing such things its portrayed often as 'laddish fun' and people revel in the sleaze. There is a clear seam of homophobia when stories like the JNT thing are reported. Sad.
Ok. Good correction to my correction, but my actual point still stands.