[Keyser Soze]

Originally Posted by Beachhhhhhh

The point I was making is anyone can say anything.
It's PROVING it.
And it does help that the person is still alive so he can at least defend himself.
Remember the old saying?
Innocent until proven guilty.
You would think not.
How many so-called Celebrities recently have been arrested and charged with NOTHING.
And I mean NOTHING.
Think back to John Lesley.
Charged with nothing; but his career was over.
So it's ok for anyone to make an acusation and never question it?
Over 600 alleged victims came forward.
Don't you think £££ signs and compensation MIGHT have crossed some of their minds.
Oh no, perish the thought!
And Jimmy Savile is still dead.

Many of his victims are still alive though. They are human beings, too.

You might be the kind of person who is greedy and only thinks of the money, but not everyone is like that.

As I've posted before; any case that's in the news will attract a tiny minority of fantasists and attention seekers, or people after money.

However, the majority of people who go through the turmoil of going to the police, and reporting what happened (which will no doubt bring back horrible memories for them) are genuine. That's my opinion.

I think Savile's money should be shared around charities and given as anoymous donations to those charities so none of them have a moral dilemma about it.

His victims deserve closure of some kind though. I hope they get it.

As for other people being accused, I have also posted before that I think false accusations are disgraceful and can ruin a person's life. But if someone reports a crime to the police, the police must investigate it.

This nasty 'oh, they are all in it for compensation', 'they didn't complain when it happened' 'you don't ask for anyone's birth certifcate' 'she shouldn't have been dressed like that' 'she was begging for it' attitude stinks.

If one person makes a false accusation does that mean that all people who make accusations are lying? No it does not.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...58362&page=163

[lexi22]

Has he not been revealed as a paedophile yet? I think he has.

Thread in need of a title upgrade.

[nanscombe]

It's also a bit unfair on the other people who just happen to have been arrested, or just questioned, as a result of Operation Yewtree who have no link to paedophila.

[Keyser Soze]

Originally Posted by nanscombe

It's also a bit unfair on the other people who just happen to have been arrested, or just questioned, as a result of Operation Yewtree who have no link to paedophila.

Yes, the 'other' strand is a bit confusing. People see the word Yewtree and make the connection to Jimmy Savile.

Perhaps the cases involving older victims will be made into a different 'operation' in time.

[StrictlySC4]

Originally posted by Linda_Danvers
I agree with Rantzen in this one:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...stigation.html

These new arrests took the focus from the child abuse victims and may have been tainted the names of people like Dave Lee Travis and Jim Davidson forever, all of who haven't been formaly charged with anything, as far I'm aware. I find it distasteful the press saying "Savile's police" in the arrests. The only person connected with Savile who was arrested was his producer in "Savile's Travels". Where are the others? Who covered for Savile? Did someone procured for him? There was a paedophile ring(s) he was part of? She is right, all accusations should be investigated, but those not connected with Savile and child abuse should have another name.

Although I have little time for Esther Rantzen I have to agree with her article and the above post. Far too many people are coming forward for monetary gain and many of the women are, like the ones in the JD case, complaining of things that happened when they were in their 20s.


Having worked with abused children for many years I am appalled at the amount of newspaper space and police time that is being used for historic accusations of adult abuse. Abuse is still happening daily, mainly by family members, and children are still suffering as they are not believed or are too frightened to speak up. I wish the police would concentrate on the important issues and put the other issues to one side.

[alfster]

Originally Posted by lexi22

Has he not been revealed as a paedophile yet? I think he has.

Thread in need of a title upgrade.

Incorrect, he has been shown to *possibly* be an ephebophile.

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent children.

Ephebophiles are attracted to (mid to late) post-pubescent adolescents about ~15-19.

I believe the accusers were post-pubescent a the time of the alledged occurences. Happy to be proved wrong...although for the sake of kids hopefully not...

There is a big difference between Pedophiles and ephebophiles. Age of consent in even European countries is as low as low as 13 many 14/15years old whereas in the UK that would be breaking the law - as it seems Saville may have been based on the statements from the accusers...which is obviously wrong of him based on the ethical/moral/legal viewpoint of the laws in the UK.

[lexi22]

^^
1. I am aware of the above, thanks.

2. I don't give a flying fig about what it is he's been accused of or revealed as, I was merely making the lighthearted point that after 6 threads filled with accounts of his many and various deviancies and perversions, isn't it about time that the thread title reflected the content?

[alfster]

Originally Posted by lexi22

2. I don't give a flying fig about what it is he's been accused of or revealed as, I was merely making the lighthearted point that after 6 threads filled with accounts of his many and various deviancies and perversions, isn't it about time that the thread title reflected the content?

I didn't realise it was a humourous comment...we could change the title to:

"Saville revealed as randy letch and most probably broke the law with regards to age of consent."

"various deviancies and perversions"?

Hardly perverted or deviant I would have said...illegal yes...

[sozzled2day]

Originally Posted by lexi22

^^
1. I am aware of the above, thanks.

2. I don't give a flying fig about what it is he's been accused of or revealed as, I was merely making the lighthearted point that after 6 threads filled with accounts of his many and various deviancies and perversions, isn't it about time that the thread title reflected the content?

Agreed. How about 'Jimmy Saville revealed as predatory sex offender' which is what the police claim. Mind you, the term doesn't seem strong enough for someone who attacked the dying in hospices and children who had just had brain or spinal surgery.... what word is there for someone like that?.... that is in the dictionary!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013...dying-hospices

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

Agreed. How about 'Jimmy Saville revealed as predatory sex offender' which is what the police claim. Mind you, the term doesn't seem strong enough for someone who attacked the dying in hospices and children who had just had brain or spinal surgery.... what word is there for someone like that?.... that is in the dictionary!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013...dying-hospices

Quite. Difficult to know what to call him. Apart from sick. The Sick Sordid Sociopathic Life & Times of Jimmy Savile.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by sozzled2day

.. what word is there for someone like that?.... that is in the dictionary!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013...dying-hospices

Narcissistic psychopath presumably.

[Beachhhhhhh]

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Many of his victims are still alive though. They are human beings, too.

You might be the kind of person who is greedy and only thinks of the money, but not everyone is like that.

As I've posted before; any case that's in the news will attract a tiny minority of fantasists and attention seekers, or people after money.

However, the majority of people who go through the turmoil of going to the police, and reporting what happened (which will no doubt bring back horrible memories for them) are genuine. That's my opinion.

I think Savile's money should be shared around charities and given as anoymous donations to those charities so none of them have a moral dilemma about it.

His victims deserve closure of some kind though. I hope they get it.

As for other people being accused, I have also posted before that I think false accusations are disgraceful and can ruin a person's life. But if someone reports a crime to the police, the police must investigate it.

This nasty 'oh, they are all in it for compensation', 'they didn't complain when it happened' 'you don't ask for anyone's birth certifcate' 'she shouldn't have been dressed like that' 'she was begging for it' attitude stinks.

If one person makes a false accusation does that mean that all people who make accusations are lying? No it does not.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...58362&page=163

I haven't got the time replying to all your points (Got to get ready for work) I made my points above and stick with them.
I didn't say eveyone could be lying. But lets be honest here, an awful lot of people have suddenly come out of the woodwork so to speak. How the hell do you prove all these accusations?
Having to give any money received to charity would be a great idea.
Sorry, but I bet most of the accusations would then dissapear.
The guys dead for gods sake.
He can't even defend himself.
Put the shoe on the other foot for example.
How would you feel if you was the one accused, and you knew you hadn't done anything?
Read this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-recluse.html


..."You might be the kind of person who is greedy and only thinks of the money, but not everyone is like that..."

I'm not greedy. You don't know me; but I'm far from it.
I just know it's a two-way street.
We don't live in a "Disney" world and I do question some peoples motives (600+ of them)

[Keyser Soze]

Originally Posted by Beachhhhhhh

I haven't got the time replying to all your points (Got to get ready for work) I made my points above and stick with them.
I didn't say eveyone could be lying. But lets be honest here, an awful lot of people have suddenly come out of the woodwork so to speak. How the hell do you prove all these accusations?
Having to give any money received to charity would be a great idea.
Sorry, but I bet most of the accusations would then dissapear.
The guys dead for gods sake.
He can't even defend himself.
Put the shoe on the other foot for example.
How would you feel if you was the one accused, and you knew you hadn't done anything?
Read this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-recluse.html


..."You might be the kind of person who is greedy and only thinks of the money, but not everyone is like that..."

I'm not greedy. You don't know me; but I'm far from it.
I just know it's a two-way street.
We don't live in a "Disney" world and I do question some peoples motives (600+ of them)

You don't know me either. I have no time for abuse-apologists.

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Stuart Hall case referred to Crown Court
http://news.sky.com/story/1034395/st...-abuse-charges

[nanscombe]

Since this is a relatively new thread why not just start a new thread for the Operation Yewtree updates and start to put some distance between these people and Jimmy Savile?

There is probably no connection between most, if not all, of these people

There is also a danger that everyone is going to end up tarnished with the same brush, even if they don't deserve it.

[alfster]

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

You don't know me either. I have no time for abuse-apologists.

How about this for abuse-apologist?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-desires-light

Or trying to put some less knee-jerk thoughts into the subject.

the comments are more interesting than the article.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by alfster

How about this for abuse-apologist?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...-desires-light

Or trying to put some less knee-jerk thoughts into the subject.

the comments are more interesting than the article.

All he is doing here is trying to challenge some of society's attitudes to paedophilia in a calm and rational manner. There's certainly nothing calm and rational about the usual "depraved beasts who ought to be strung up", nor the "every man is a potential paedophile" arguments.....that's just outright hysteria and paranoia.

[What name??]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

All he is doing here is trying to challenge some of society's attitudes to paedophilia in a calm and rational manner. There's certainly nothing calm and rational about the usual "depraved beasts who ought to be strung up", nor the "every man is a potential paedophile" arguments.....that's just outright hysteria and paranoia.

There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.

He is excusing paedophilia. There is no such thing as consensual paeophilic relationships because children can't consent to sex, they simply do not have the maturity or knowledge to know the reprecussions on their bodies - much less their minds.

How is the theory he advocated different than those social workers in Norther towns who ignored the rape of children in care because they "consented" and therefore never investigated the fact that they had got involved with a manipulative and cohersive group that any adult who actually cared about them (ie most parents) would have put a stop to immediately recognising that there is something highly suspicious about adults who seek to attract children.

[alfster]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

All he is doing here is trying to challenge some of society's attitudes to paedophilia in a calm and rational manner. There's certainly nothing calm and rational about the usual "depraved beasts who ought to be strung up", nor the "every man is a potential paedophile" arguments.....that's just outright hysteria and paranoia.

Indeed, I agree to an extent.

My first sentence in that post was very much a rhetorical question to 'Keyser Soze' on their comment to 'Beachhhhhhh' of "I have no time for abuse-apologists.".

I thought Beachhh's comments were in that vein as well.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn;t seem to be the way it goes whne it comes to things like this and as is seen with John lesley destroys careers and lives even if there is a mere suggestion in some cases especially when people say 'No smoke with out fire.'...well, there can be smoke with out fire if someone throws a smoke-grenade into someone's life.

Here's someone else who had trial by media - luckily he has come out of it fairly OK in the end.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/no...-press-inquiry

It is why 'we' have to be careful about these sort of arrests and accusations...even if the seeming suggested evidence is overwhelming.

[katetow]

Originally Posted by What name??

He is excusing paedophilia. There is no such thing as consensual paeophilic relationships because children can't consent to sex, they simply do not have the maturity or knowledge to know the reprecussions on their bodies - much less their minds.

Hmmm, strangely enough in this country children are not able to know whether they want sexual relations until they are 16, and yet we seem to think they are able to know their minds enough to be criminally accountable from the age of 10. The fact is, all children mature at different rates - some are emotionally aware before 16, some less so. Some of these so-called paedophiles are probably on the less emotionally aware scale, whatever their age.

[What name??]

Originally Posted by katetow

Hmmm, strangely enough in this country children are not able to know whether they want sexual relations until they are 16, and yet we seem to think they are able to know their minds enough to be criminally accountable from the age of 10. The fact is, all children mature at different rates - some are emotionally aware before 16, some less so. Some of these so-called paedophiles are probably on the less emotionally aware scale, whatever their age.

The line I quoted was about paedophilia which is about pre-prubescent children so the age of consent is irrelevent.

Also there are different bands of the seriousness of offending in the UK based on the age of the child and a lot of discretion about prosecuting underage relationships - as there should be - as relationships are complex. There is a huge gap in the treatment of someone who rapes a 5 year old to someone who dates a 15 year old.

Those under 16 are not considered to be unable to know whether they want sexual relationships - that would be absurd - instead those who sleep with them are however considered to be at risk (though not much) of being prosecuted for it.

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by What name??

He is excusing paedophilia. There is no such thing as consensual paeophilic relationships because children can't consent to sex, they simply do not have the maturity or knowledge to know the reprecussions on their bodies - much less their minds.

How is the theory he advocated different than those social workers in Norther towns who ignored the rape of children in care because they "consented" and therefore never investigated the fact that they had got involved with a manipulative and cohersive group that any adult who actually cared about them (ie most parents) would have put a stop to immediately recognising that there is something highly suspicious about adults who seek to attract children.

I would say trying to understand it rather than excusing it. For reasons that are quite unclear, the subject has become a major taboo and the only line that is acceptable is "paedophiles are beasts and monsters and should be locked up for life".

Nobody wants to see sex between children and adults legalised or encouraged in any way but the hysterical and over the top response to something that seems to be very prevalent in society is doing nobody any favours. It's an unwelcome side to human sexuality but it is there and it is happening.....surely the only way to come to terms with it is to discuss it calmly and rationally.

[katetow]

Originally Posted by What name??

The line I quoted was about paedophilia which is about pre-prubescent children so the age of consent is irrelevent.

Also there are different bands of the seriousness of offending in the UK based on the age of the child and a lot of discretion about prosecuting underage relationships - as there should be - as relationships are complex. There is a huge gap in the treatment of someone who rapes a 5 year old to someone who dates a 15 year old.

Those under 16 are not considered to be unable to know whether they want sexual relationships - that would be absurd - instead those who sleep with them are however considered to be at risk (though not much) of being prosecuted for it.

Yes, this is all fair enough and I agree.

At the same time, I do also think a civilised discussion about paedophilia is going to help all involved, including victims. Obviously people are going to disagree, and some will have more extreme views than others, but the media way of reporting with words such as monster and predator really does not show the reality or help matters.

[What name??]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

I would say trying to understand it rather than excusing it. For reasons that are quite unclear, the subject has become a major taboo and the only line that is acceptable is "paedophiles are beasts and monsters and should be locked up for life"..

That is not true. Most paedophiles aren't even locked up for long periods much less for life which obviously gives the lie to that assertion.

The pretense that paedophiles are treated like monsters and locked up for life is just another side to the hysteria. That is not treating the subject in a calm and rational manner. Why not argue about the actual sentencing guidlines and treatment of offenders not pretend ones. Everyone knows that paedophiles aren't locked up and the keys thrown away because we regularly discuss how they are settled back in communities and what level of supervision they should have!

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.g...esAct_2003.pdf

[What name??]

Originally Posted by katetow

Yes, this is all fair enough and I agree.

At the same time, I do also think a civilised discussion about paedophilia is going to help all involved, including victims. Obviously people are going to disagree, and some will have more extreme views than others, but the media way of reporting with words such as monster and predator really does not show the reality or help matters.

I agree. However a civilised discussion doesn’t have to include hysteria on either side. Not lock them up and throw away the key for one offense when young nor the pretenders that this is what is done and that all sex offenders are victims of a lynch mob and need to be protected from getting investigated or named. The hysteria is in the media currently - not necessarily in the actual guidelines, courts or among actual readers. I think the article shows other very partisan views rather than an objective look or the basis of a reasoned discussion. It also conflates paedophilia with underage sex which most people just using common sense alone know is silly.