And the Savile hysteria carries on

Rape is indeed a very bad thing. But there’s rape, there’s sexual assault and then there’s groping someone.

The BBC will be plunged into a major crisis with the publication of a damning review, expected next month, that will reveal its staff turned a blind eye to the rape and sexual assault of up to 1,000 girls and boys by Jimmy Savile in the corporation’s changing rooms and studios.

Hmm:

The report will, however, express frustration that some of those closest to Savile or culpable for allowing him to go unchallenged have refused to co-operate. His criminality peaked in the 1960s and 1970s, when he was middle-aged and at the height of his career at the corporation, but continued right up until the last filming of Top of the Pops in 2006 when at the age of 79 he groped a girl aged between 13 and 16.

No, I don’t think that gr4oping a teenage girl is a good idea. However, I’m also damn certain that it’s very different indeed from raping someone….anyone.

Yet we’re getting all of this bundled together in one great number. To switch it to another crime against the person we’re adding up all the murders and the GBHs and the times when someone barged through a crowd bumping into people.

Hmm, maybe barging through a crowd isn’t exactly the same as groping someone but you get the meaning. And it’s not a particularly helpful way of looking at matters.

Wouldn’t mind a bit of clarity here rather than the hysteria that seems to be happening.

55 comments on “And the Savile hysteria carries on

  1. “Hmm, maybe barging through a crowd isn’t exactly the same as groping someone but you get the meaning. And it’s not a particularly helpful way of looking at matters.”

    No, it’s definitely not helpful – equating sexually assaulting a child with barging through a crowd.

    Ridiculous is the word that springs to mind.

  2. Having singularily failed to catch Jimmy Savile, we now have the unedifying spectacle of authority trying to catch up by prosecuting anyone with a “name” for almost anything they have done, all it seems based on partially recalled or even invented evidence 50 years old, for things that almost any able-bodied youth of that era probably is equally guilty of.

    To judge the mores of 50 years ago, when anything went, but now’s much stricter standars, probably fuelled by women’s lib, is simply not fair, and certainly not justice. That some DJ rubbed up against a poor girl 50 years ago is NOT prosecutable now.

    For clarity, I do not approve of real crimes perpetrated by anyone against women, but 50 years is certainly “beyond reasonable doubt”, therefore inadmissable.

    Alan Douglas

  3. “The report will, however, express frustration that some of those closest to Savile or culpable for allowing him to go unchallenged have refused to co-operate. “

    I expect Matthew Hopkins ‘expressed frustration’ when the witches refused to tell him all the details about their Sabbath with the Devil, too…

  4. Having read a few biographies of well known bands of the 1970s, there must be a fair few musicians of that era shitting themselves that plod will come knocking.

    On Savile et al, there does seem to be something very Soviet about the recent prosecutions.

  5. I’ve been groped a few times. At the lighter end of the grope scale, I’ll admit (it, also, being a spectrum from arse-pinching upwards). It was an occupational hazard of going to, well, almost anywhere where people gathered to drink and dance.. back when I used to do that sort of thing.

    Once place had a revolving dancefloor, and a couple of 40-something ‘aul slappers.. regulars.. used to stand on the edge and cop a feel of whatever part of any unsuspecting young chap they could. They were probably responsible for 50 or more ‘rapes or sexual assaults’ every single night. Beat that, Jimmy.

  6. No, it’s definitely not helpful – equating sexually assaulting a child with barging through a crowd.

    Twat.

  7. More femmi-horseshit designed to keep the pot boiling.
    The tripe being peddled is that Saville got away with his “crimes” because he was some sort of awesome power at the BBC back in the 60/70s, like some kind of J Edgar Hoover of the UK entertainment world. Go read the blog “The Death of the Life of Jimmy Saville”. The blogger, Moor Larkin, has a cache of actual BBC documents pertaining to Saville from that era. Far from Saville being a huge, untouchable presence at the BBC, the management treated him with snobbish contempt.
    I also see that same type of tripe used against Saville is also at work in the present trials. Some woman supposedly raped by William Roche in 1968 was warned about him beforehand by “Mike Baldwin”–presumably she means the actor Johnny Briggs, unless TV characters speak to her directly out of the box–who didn’t start on the show until 1976 ( and no, barrack-room lawyer leftists like PaulB, he didn’t work on the show before then–not according to his IMDb entry).

    The report will start to fall apart from the instant it reaches the public domain–as have the other allegations about Jimmy Saville–but you won’t hear that in the MSM.

  8. I must admit to being slightly dazed when I heard that the Corrie guy had raped someone 47 years ago. Then she met him again and was raped again but was too traumatised to mention it.

    And then to hear that an ancient DJ had put his hand up a girl’s skirt 30 years ago.

    Over the top or what?

    Some people have taken umbrage at Tim’s metaphor, but I think they have missed the point. Treating a grope as sexual assualt has connotations that don’t bear thinking about.

    Given that it is almost impossible to prove that you haven’t groped someone in a crowd, I wonder how Doug and Dick would feel if they were charged with sexual assualt by a nasty 15 year-old who had picked them out at random?

    Harriet Harman for one would be delighted at such a development, as it would achieve her stated aim of getting a greater accusation/conviction ratio.

    And finally, I think the last sentence of the quote above illustrates perfectly the mind set of the everyone involved in reporting and prosecuting. They don’t know who the girl is, because otherwise they would know her age. What they do “know” is that she is underage by either 0 or 3 years. Yeah, right.

  9. Look, are we really bothered about the truth here? The BBC & distributed luvviedom is being chewed up by exactly the same process that they’ve used to discredit anyone that didn’t share their views.
    Surely, large portions of popcorn & settle back for the entertainment’s the best option. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

  10. Correction: Johnny Briggs appeared in an episode of Coronation St in 1974 as a character called Frank but that is still 6 years after the alleged warning he is supposed given in 1968. (thanks to a female friend who is a Corrie fanatic)

  11. @John Miller

    “I wonder how Doug and Dick would feel if they were charged with sexual assualt by a nasty 15 year-old who had picked them out at random?”

    Bad…?

    “Given that it is almost impossible to prove that you haven’t groped someone in a crowd”

    Errh – no, that’s not how the law works (generally, with a jury). There has to be proof that you committed the crime, you don’t have to prove that you didn’t. And yes, I am not naive, but there is a burden of proof and that would be difficult to achieve in the circumstances you have said.

    “Treating a grope as sexual assualt has connotations that don’t bear thinking about.’

    The 19th C is calling… it wants you back. Look, groping is a form of sexual assault under English Law, both when done to adults:

    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
    (b)the touching is sexual,
    (c)B does not consent to the touching, and
    (d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

    And when done to children under 13:

    Sexual assault of a child under 13
    (1)A person commits an offence if—
    (a)he intentionally touches another person,
    (b)the touching is sexual, and
    (c)the other person is under 13.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

    – This is latest law. Presumably something similar was extant when the crimes are meant to have taken place as English Law can’t be retroactive –

    That’s why Tim’s analogy is ridiculous – barging through a crowd bumping into people does not come under GBH legislation, whilst the ‘groping’ does – however much you might think that treating ‘touching’ children or adults sexually without their consent as a crime has connotations that don’t bear thinking about.

    We’ve been treating as such (where appropriate) for some time. Could you let me know about the connotations that don’t bear thinking about, please?

  12. I find it very hard to believe that 1000 people were abused and not one of them went to the police to report it at the time, or even years later when he clearly didn’t have any celebrity power. If we were talking about a dozen people, maybe. But out of a thousand, not one made a complaint?

    Did he even have access to children on that many days at the BBC?

  13. BIS: Yes it does matter to the rest of us because all men are the target. What the femmis want is the law on an accusation=guilt basis. No need for proof or even sanity to apply.

    Take the claim of 1000 molestations at the BBC by Saville.

    Did Jimbo OWN the BBC?. Was he free to walk in anytime he wanted, hang out there, wander around the dressing rooms (most of which would be needed for other artists on a daily basis) busily lining up women to molest?No–he was just one artist among many and far from the most important.
    The BBC was a place of business with schedules and commitments and time pressures at the high-end for any industry. Like any other such place it operates controls on who is allowed in –the more so with all the celeb-hungry types who would just have loved to get in there. The BBC commissionaires were almost celebs in their own right. So when was Saville doing all this molesting. He would have been at the BBC for filming, interviewing etc as arranged. He would not have been able to turn up on spec and wander in (can you wander into your place of work at all hours? esp if you are not due to be working). One of his accusers has said that she was given the number of a dressing room at the BBC by Saville and told she could call him anytime.(of course she has lost/can’t remember the number assuming dressing rooms had such phones). Was Saville able to hang around the BBC all day every day, in the same dressing room, regardless of the organisations need, on the off chance that some girl might phone him?
    Also if these molestations were serious (not backside pinching or a casual breast-brush-by—those are not sex crimes regardless of the subjective evaluations of femmis -everyone of us has suffered far worse than that in this life) they would have taken time and opportunity to set up. Most people are too embarrassed to ask someone out in front of others and many hours are often spent trying to find a time/place to speak to people privately. How much more so would that be for someone planning to seriously grope/molest another. Or are they suggesting that Saville just saw someone he took a shine to and jumped them then and there regardless of who was around?. How many times did Saville visit the BBC in the 40 years 1960 to 2000 ?.If he was there twice a week, every week, that is 4000 odd visits–suggesting he was able to commit a serious sex crime in a crowded building 1 visit out of every 4 and get away with it. Does that sound credible?. To anyone?,. Does any one really believe that one man could commit a thousand serious sex crimes and nobody would know or do anything about it?. It is credible only if his “crimes” consisted of bum-pinching and minor groping. All of which would have, without the femmi-haters stirring things to serve their twisted agenda, been forgotten long ago.Frankly, so many lies have been told I don’t even see a reason to believe Saville was even guilty of bum-touching either.

  14. “Did he even have access to children on that many days at the BBC?”

    Clearly, the fiend was capable of tampering with the space-time continuum too…

  15. JuliaM,

    I’m thinking that even in the 80s they were recording series on videotape, so wouldn’t have done the whole series of Jim’ll Fix it in maybe a day or two. Top of the Pops? Once a month, maybe?

  16. Hi JuliaM

    Well aware of those cases – unforgivably distressing for the children involved as well as the adults affected. A nightmare.

    Nobody was wrongly convicted.

    My point is that Tim is wrong. He says ‘But there’s rape, there’s sexual assault and then there’s groping someone.’ That’s wrong – under the law. ‘Groping’ is sexual assault as long as the parameters are met.

    Making wild inaccurate claims to demonise a sector of society… very tempted to call that hysterical but not sure if people do irony very well around these parts :-)).

    ‘Bundled together in one great number’ is the right, responsible thing to do if the author of the report thinks Saville’s actions meet the definition of ‘sexual assault’.

    Course we don’t know how accurate the newspaper report is, nor will the truth of the claims of Saville’s crimes every be tested in court (remember in your examples there were no convictions).

    And anybody who claims that ‘groping’ is harmless should just try it. A visit to the Magistrates or Crown Court will make a wonderful introduction to reality.

  17. Richard Feynman said-

    “In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas–he’s the controller–and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.”

    I think it’s time for a corresponding concept of “Cargo Cult Law”. As with CC Science, it masquerades as the real thing, and its practitioners believe they are doing the real thing. But they aren’t.

    Humans do not do truth very well. The primary human means of conveying information is storytelling, a process in which truth is only one, optional component. The purpose of a story is to convey a message, an essence. You want to warn the children of the tribe not to eat toadstools in the woods. You tell them a tale of a child who suffered a lurid death because he ate a toadstool. There was not actually any such real child, but the children are scared away from the toadstools and the purpose has been achieved. It is thus a strategy which over the fullness of human history has been adaptive.

    And storytelling is about enjoyment; a more lurid and exciting tale is preferred by listeners. We routinely knowingly (but not admittedly) indulge in telling and listening to exagerrated and even entirely fictional stories, around the camp fire or the pub table. A good story confers status on the teller, and liking from and bonding with the audience. Storytelling easily escalates as each teller attempts to outdo the previous one. There is frequently a form of competition between storytellers. “You ‘ad a cardboard box? Luxury!”.

    This form of the “competition of suffering” became a major growth industry, via therapy and American daytime TV, in the 1980s. To be a victim became the highest form of storyteller, and week after week TV shows competed to outdo the previous level of lurid. The victim became a highly admired person with considerable status and earned the badge of the “Survivor”, the person who had “survived” against all odds, to be able to sit on Oprah’s sofa and tell their story. Under such incentives, never since the Enlightenment has testimony been so unreliable.

    Science and law are both epistemologies deliberately designed in the knowledge of humanity’s instinctive disregard for truth. They impose stringent rules on the search for truth, because they are applied in situations in which truth, rather than a good story matters. We do not want the scientist who says down the pub he splitted the atom last week; we want good solid evidence- the best truth we can get- that he actually has split the atom. Likewise in law, we want to know, to the best of our ability, whether Alice really did murder Bob, not the most enjoyable story about Alice murdering Bob. Thus, various rules are applied, some of which seem so obvious as to be silly, such as corpus delicti which requires that you must first prove that Bob actually has died and was murdered before Alice can be tried for it. But such rules are there to keep everything, as best as possible, on the rails in terms of truth.

    Law is a weaker “truth” than science, because it needs an answer within a certain time frame, with limited evidence. So we have a most basic rule, that if there is not very good evidence that Alice did murder Bob, she must walk free, even if everyone in the storytelling community thinks she’s as guilty as hell.

    The problem is, phrases like “innocent until proven guilty” have become sloganised. People have lost sight of the profound reason for them. They have long since started to see them as silly old formalities that get in the way of retribution. “Justice” has ceased to mean following the cautious epistemology and come to mean “getting a preferred outcome for victims”. It has been forgotten that a legal process is required- for those epistemological reaons-to be sceptical of everyone; not just the accused, but the accuser, and every witness, and police, and anyone offering testimony.

    Sex crimes have become crimen exceptum and thus the establishment, and many citizens, have become actively hostile to the sceptical process required for justice. Piece by piece, it has been dismantled. But the form remains. We still see all the external panoply of law; persons with official titles, “reviewing” evidence. The wigs, the robes, the oak-panelled rooms, the judge in his control tower with bamboo headphones on his head, the lighting of fires by the runway. But the substance is no longer present.

    So it is with a report such as this. The woman who carried it out- who has, after all, an official title as a perpetrator of law- no doubt believes that she has carried out a legal process. She has produced what she considers to be a legal judgement. But the essential essence of the legal epistemology is absent. It has the form but absent of substance. And so it is in court rooms, as intrinsically impossible to prove allegations are judged purely on which story the jury find most enjoyable, as weeping “survivors” behind screens follow scripts learned from professional counsellors and Oprah.

    Pathological law. Cargo Cult law. We may as well admit it; the Englightenment is truly over.

  18. Doug,

    “My point is that Tim is wrong. He says ‘But there’s rape, there’s sexual assault and then there’s groping someone.’ That’s wrong – under the law. ‘Groping’ is sexual assault as long as the parameters are met.”

    But that’s like comparing nicking a penny chew with hacking a bank and stealing millions. They’re both technically theft, but we’re talking about a different gravity of crime.

    The game being played here is using the term “sexual assault” when the public imagination of what that means is normally far graver than bum pinching.

  19. The Stigler

    ‘The game being played here is using the term “sexual assault” when the public imagination of what that means is normally far graver than bum pinching.’

    I can’t see that – I just see hysteria whipped up by people who don’t understand the meaning of sexual offences – and probably can’t be bothered to read the link to the law I posted (in case it might change their mind?).

    Sexual assault IS unwanted sexual touching. That’s it (though with under 13s there can’t be consent given anyway).

    There are of course others:

    ‘Rape and other offences against children under 13
    5.Rape of a child under 13
    6.Assault of a child under 13 by penetration
    7.Sexual assault of a child under 13
    8.Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity’

    And there are other obscenities for child sex offences and adults. Have a look.

    If you don’t think touching adults or children sexually against their will should be a crime, then fine – that’s your opinion. But at least don’t use inflammatory and inaccurate language to make your point, because that way leads to hysteria – which ironically is what everyone says the ‘other side’ is doing.

    Personally I couldn’t give a rat’s tail what the public imagination might or might not be – it’s never impressed me.

    I can not see how your theft analogy fits – once sexual touching gets beyond a certain level it will be considered another, more serious offence – not sexual assault.

  20. The question of whether something is worthy of being against the law- especially in a climate of hysteria like this- is important. The “it’s the law, innit?” argument isn’t much use. We all know that these vague and arbitrary offences exist on the statute books, but the problem is whether they should be there at all because of the actual application of them.

    50 years ago, what Alan Turing did (pick up a teenager and bugger him) was illegal. He was duly tried, convicted and punished. There was no miscarriage of justice. Still, he has now received a public apology from the State on the apparent basis that what he did never should have been against the law.

    There would be more of an argument in favour of the current system if it were only being used in egregious circumstances; but there are already laws against those more egregious offences anyway. The reality is that groping isn’t in any meaningful sense “sexual” touching, except in a more puritan mind where anything between the neck and the knees are dirty parts. It’s just touching. Whether touching should be a crime in any society that one wants to consider free is, at the least, highly debatable.

  21. “I can not see how your theft analogy fits – once sexual touching gets beyond a certain level it will be considered another, more serious offence – not sexual assault.”

    OK, so what’s the crime when someone, without a woman’s consent inserts a fist into her vagina?

  22. ‘OK, so what’s the crime when someone, without a woman’s consent inserts a fist into her vagina?’

    Don’t be crass, The Stigler. It’s right there in the Sexual Offence Act 2003 which I linked to earlier.

    Assault by penetration
    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
    (b)the penetration is sexual,
    (c)B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
    (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
    (3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
    (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

    Sorry for the foulness, but you asked and couldn’t be bothered to follow the link.

  23. Ian B

    Not sure where you coming on form this. It’s Puritan to consider children’s genitals for sexual pleasure as wrong?

    Good luck with that one.

  24. Sorry, that got muddled:

    Ian B

    Not sure where you coming on this. It’s Puritan to consider touching children’s genitals for sexual pleasure as wrong?

    Good luck with that one.

  25. Doug, first a snippy-

    It’s Puritan to consider touching children’s genitals for sexual pleasure as wrong? Good luck with that one.

    (50 years ago) It’s puritan to consider sodomy wrong? Good luck with that one.

    Etc.

    Main point is, we’re not talking about children anyway. The sexual assault law applies to adults.

  26. “The reality is that groping isn’t in any meaningful sense “sexual” touching, except in a more puritan mind where anything between the neck and the knees are dirty parts.”

    Ian B, you’re usually quite sensible, but this offering indicates a serious case of being completely fucked in the head.

    The only hope is that you’re using some strange definition of “groping” that nobody else has previously been aware of.

  27. Anyhoo, the SOA2003

    Sexual assault
    (1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
    (b) the touching is sexual,
    (c) B does not consent to the touching, and
    (d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.”

    IANAL, but nowhere in the act can I find an actual defintion of “sexual”.

    Okay, here’s a hypothetical. Say you have a girlfriend, and she’s a Latvian immigrant with poor English, and you accompany her to a minimum wage job interview for a job making sandwiches. The woman doing the interview, an officious Polish woman with better English than your girlfriend, is rude and obnoxious, and insulting to your girlfriend, treating her like something found on the bottom of a shoe. The interaction becomes somewhat heated and eventually you say to your girlfriend, “this isn’t worth it, let’s go” and, as a final flourish take the pen the woman had issued your girlfriend for her English test and stick in in the front of her V-neck sweater in lieu of a pocket to stick it in. And you leave.

    Is that a sexual assault?

  28. Ian B

    These people objecting to being touched sexually against their will – bigod sir, we could horsewhip the fillies in my youth and they never dared complain.

    And then they got the vote. The world, sir, has gone to the dogs. To the dogs I say.

  29. PJF-

    Are bottoms automatically sexual parts? Interesting question. “Charlie X”, Star Trek season 1. Charlie is a naive teenager raised by aliens who does not know normal human behaviour. Captain Kirk swats Charlie on the buttocks; it is a normal “manly” interaction and sign of affection. Later, Charlie copies this by swatting Yeoman Rand on the butt, which offends her. Hilarity ensues.

    (Presumably in a modern rewrite of this story she would be permanently mentally scarred and require counselling and copious compensation).

    Why is Charlie’s butt not a sexual part, but Yeoman Rand’s is. Would his butt become a sexual part if Kirk were gay? Or if Charlie were?

    Is not even the word “groping” excessive as a description of what is no more than merely touching? Is any of it worthy of the attention of the criminal law, and might we not surmise that the steadily escalating sense of “wrong” of these acts is due to the puritan body horror, rather than rational judgements of what the word “sexual” actually describes?

  30. Is that a sexual assault?

    Well, it’s likely being a prat, but the question is…

    Do you get sexual satisfaction from sticking pens down women’s sweaters?

  31. Doug – how many times have you heard a TV or news report referring to someone being arrested for sexual assault by penetration, and how often do they refer to sexual assault? How many people know that offence exists rather than just the offence of sexual assault?

  32. Doug-

    Not personally, and neither does my neighbour. But that’s the charge against him. Does mere prattishness become a sexual act if cleavage is involved?

    Is it even sane to contemplate the life ruining judgement of “sexual assault” on someone for such a trivial act? Will my neighbour get a chance to explain that triviality when the Sex Register Vigilantes arrive to do him over?

  33. I understand your argument Doug, but my fear is that law – under Labour and the Coalition – in recent years has bowed to fashion.

    Double jeopardy was shown the exit when it became expedient to keep trying the Stephen Lawrence suspects. Conversely, IRA murderers were reprieved to facilitate the modification of the Warmonger Blair theme.

    Remember the girl given a two year jail sentence for stealing two bottles of mineral water during the riots?

    No, the once inviolate English Law has become far too malleable by 20th century and later politicians by a bit of media manipulation.

    As ever, it’s designed to get thee and me. Dear old Esther Rantzen, unable to bear a moment out of the limelight, waded in at an early stage of the Savile mess and stated that his predatory activities were well known to her.

    Is she helping the Old Bill with their enquiries? Is she an accessory after the fact? No, she’s a sleb, and founded childline, so she’s exempt.

    No, it’s ye and me they are after – witness that the first gun the establishment reached for with dear old Julian was the sexual offences magnum.

    So, i don’t care about DLT, or the Corrie guy, or Savile. (because he’s dead). What I do care about are the bastards who knew what was going on and turned a blind eye to it all. Step forward the whole of the BBC and ITV.

  34. We don’t know that anyone “turned a blind eye” to anything. There are so many false claims and compensation chasers using the absurd idea that the BBC was responsible that at this stage it is actually most rational to apply scepticism and assume that it is all a put up job. We really do not have any worthwhile evidence that Savile did anything beyond goosing a girl or two; which as Doug keeps poiting out is, yes, a crime, but the harm of which is so microscopic that any compensation would be measured in pennies.

    And really, I think this indicates among other things that there should be a new distinction between criminal and civil law; it should be impossible to make a separate civil claim regarding a criminal act. Criminal acts should be dealt with by criminal procedings, and if the alleged perpetrator is dead, that would be the end of it.

    Nothing can, or should, stop people spreading rumours (however vile) after a person’s death (they are already starting on Mcalpine) but it should be a legal impossibility to take any legal action on the basis of alleged, unproven and unprovable crimes by the deceased (and likewise if a person is found innocent in a criminal court, it should be impossible to then bring a civil case).

    The only way back to rationality is going to be the closing of the compensation purse.

  35. ‘What I do care about are the bastards who knew what was going on and turned a blind eye to it all. Step forward the whole of the BBC and ITV’

    Well there’s a piece of sanity I wholeheartedly agree with.

    Though I don’t got for a moment think that the British Law has ever been inviolate. The executive hates an independent judiciary and has always been trying, and often succeeding, to pack with its acolytes and toadies.

  36. “how many times have you heard a TV or news report referring to someone being arrested for sexual assault by penetration, and how often do they refer to sexual assault? How many people know that offence exists rather than just the offence of sexual assault?”

    But we do now, and so we can have an intelligent conversation.

    And yes, I do take your point but the media reporting might just be an unwillingness to get too graphic.

  37. “This “sanity” being a crazy conspiracy theory. Fucking hell.”

    Always a possibility, but I have direct knowledge of this happening in cases of child sex abuse and do know it takes place.

    I am sorry about your mate. From the facts that you have presented, it does sound a bit of a stretch and a good lawyer should be able to help, IMHO. Has the CPS actually said they will prosecute on that charge? They do often refuse to pursue silly charges the police make.

    I suggest that you are thinking of the Law as some guardian of morality. It’s not, it reflects society. And yeah, whilst I was being facetious I do think that universal franchise had a lot to do (over time) with the change in mores about sexual assault and non-consensual sexual touching.

    Not just women but men with daughters too, as well plenty of others.

    As well as society becoming wealthier and not having to put up with the crap that people used to just have to accept.

    It can’t be compared to homosexuality, which is a normal state of being.

  38. IANAL, but nowhere in the act can I find an actual defintion of “sexual”.

    it’s in section 78.

    78“Sexual”
    For the purposes of this Part (except section 71), penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that—
    (a) whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or
    (b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.

  39. Fancying teenage girls is a normal state of being too.

    Unfortunately, what the Feminists have been able to do is replace the discrimination against a small minority (gays) with discrimination against the majority (straight men). This is not progress.

    As to whether there has been a “change in mores”, that is debatable. What we’ve seen is the capture of the State and public discourse by a hardcore of campaigning fanatics and lunatic and disgraceful moral panic. You really need to stop thinking this is some kind of general social evolution towards better standards (the Progressivists always run with that bullshit). It’s the deliberate imposition of a brutal regime by ideologues.

    Essential to this understanding is to remember the “forgotten history” that at the time these supposed offences took place, the actual everyday public morality was heading in the opposite direction, as the First Wave Feminist regime had collapsed in the post war period. Just like the sodomy law, the age of consent law (above puberty) was seen as a dead letter by liberals and a matter of increasingly minor concern by most ordinary people; the stereotype of the opponent of the sexual revolution was an old fuddy duddy, doomed to extinction. Mary Whitehouse or some father with brylcreemed hair saying his daughter looks like a slattern in her mini-skirt. It was generally thought that such silly old fools would fade away.

    So, now we have a second Feminist regime. We will have to tolerate it again until, as before, the misery, extremity and internal contradictions bring it down. And then, just like apologising to Alan Turing- a victim of the last time their ideology was dominant- people will be looking back at the Savilocalypse and wondering how we all went mad and saying, “never again”.

  40. UKL-

    Thanks,

    IASNAL, but reading that, stripping out the verbiage it seems to be entirely circular. It basically says “sexual means something a reasonable person would consider sexual”. It says nothing objective at all.

    Waving a banana at someone might be considered sexual. Or not. Who knows?

  41. ‘with discrimination against the majority (straight men)’

    Lost you there. What discrimination?

    ‘You really need to stop thinking this is some kind of general social evolution towards better standards’

    Never said it was, I said it was a change. You’re making this up.

    ‘It’s the deliberate imposition of a brutal regime by ideologues.’

    Who mentioned conspiracy theories?

  42. I doubt a “reasonable person” would consider merely “waving a banana” to be sexual.

    Every time I see that picture of David Miliband, I have to touch myself in an indecent manner.

  43. I think Anna Raccoon did a fine job of demonstrating that at least some, and therefore likely most if not all, the accusations against Saville were bollocks. She just so happened to have been in the same dorm room where the alleged assault took place.

  44. There’s no English Statute of Limitations for sexual offences. Almost all the current wave of actions are ‘he-says/she-says’, with women in their 60s accusing men in their 70s and 80s, and courts accepting 50-year-old memories. That’s a bloody disgrace.

    And it’s a very British disgrace – according to http://www.theopinionsite.org/should-britain-have-a-statute-of-limitations-on-sex-crimes/

    The average limitation period across the EU is about 12 years from the date of the alleged offence with a maximum of 20 years if the alleged victim was under age at the time or if violence was supposedly involved.

  45. Both Anna Racoon and Moor Larkin have done an excellent job of exposing how much horseshit the “evidence” against Saville is.

    Several postings back Doug said that nobody was wrongly convicted in the various satanic/nursery panic capers in the US. Within the last month several people in the states have finally been released after 25-odd years in jail for such “crimes” which would have been laughed out of court at the Salem witch-trials. Evidence produced by social workers questioning children in shifts, putting endless pressure on to finally produce “normal” accusations and also such accusations as:
    * Being molested aboard a UFO
    *Ditto aboard a hot air balloon (almost a funny irony if you leave out the 25 years of imprisonment).
    *Ditto in a vast network of caverns and excavated underground rooms beneath the children’s nursery involved–they were no such rooms/caverns–they checked.
    * Children claiming that they witnessed babies being thrown into a sharkpool–this in the American mid-west–a pool owned and paid for (the sea-world sized salt pool needed for sharks would have cost millions) by a middle-class bloke who owned a nursery?–no answer was provided as to how shark/salt water pools etc were all assembled secretly– nor was any trace ever found of such an installation.

    On the basis of such utter shit several people received multiple life-sentences. How, in the supposed 20th century could such a thing happen?.
    Because the femmi-liars are expert at starting and stirring up panics using their leftist buddies in the media as well as ambitious law-dogs who see career advancement at hand. So expert are they at stirring up venom and demented public emotions that it has taken 25 years for heads to cool enough in the US to get these people out of jail cells they were put into on the basis of no real or objective evidence at all. No one should ever be convicted on unsupported testimony EVER–and thanks to the femmis ability to appeal to a section of latent nutters and confabulators in society, even multiple testimony unsupported by evidence is no longer safe.

  46. Thomas-

    Good article. Another aspect is that there is a doctrine of corroboration (I forget the proper name) as policy which is that similar claims from different people are taken to establish a “pattern”; if two accusers have similar elements in their stories, they are used as corroboration.

    The enormous and obvious problem with this is that there are not that many variations on an abuse story, so coincidences will be common- “He plied me with drink”, “He had me in his caravan”, “He said, ‘How’s about that then?!’ afterwards” and so on.

  47. Currently Scots law requires corroboration before there is any prosecution or conviction.

    However, despite opposition from almost all the legal profession and judiciary, the brain SNP dead justice secretary is planning to abolish it.

    The SNP are fascist cvnts.

  48. Hello Mr Ecks

    To be very pedantic I said that nobody was wrongly convicted in the two cases she bought up. That doesn’t mean that I think everything was copacetic, and was only meant to suggest that the law worked in those cases. It would be lovely to think that the people who invented the scenarios and bullied the children suffered severe consequences, but I doubt it.

    False accusations are horrific especially when created by the bullying and badgering of children.

    If you have time, I would be interested in the cases you mentioned if you have any further info about them.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.