But, but, this is why men strive for fame!

Dave Lee Travis used fame to target vulnerable young women, court told

Indecent assault’s another matter of course but the whole point of gaining fame is that one therefore gets the babes. This is one of the basic motivating forces of our species (yes, women as well as men).

61 thoughts on “But, but, this is why men strive for fame!”

  1. I wouldn’t generally pay too much attention to this kind of case but it’s apparently been alleged that he sexually assaulted a woman on the live edition of Top of the Pops while introducing the Smurfs, which is about as surreal as it gets.

  2. Used to know a couple of guys who did DJing. They said that even if it broke even, they’d have done it, because they picked up more women working as a DJ than trying to pick up women on the dance floor.

  3. How do you rape someone whilst introducing the Smurfs on live TV? or did he just touch her up a bit, in which case to be honest, coming after him 20 years later seems a bit of a load of shit.

  4. It is a load of shit. Of all the various “progressive” strands, the Feminists are both the most unhinged and most vindictive. And, sadly, the most successful and rooted in the Establishment.

    Kitty Mackinnon famously concluded in “Towards A Feminist Theory Of State” that a feminist society is not compatible with liberal society (the “liberal” meaning the old sense of free, rule of law, equality before the law, blind justice etc). She was right. You can have one or the other. We have been drawn down the road to the other.

    The problem is the social power of women; the whole ghastly edifice depends on their manipulation of men, by persuading those men (it is very easy) that to support feminism is to be chivalrous, and gallant. Every man (or most, anyway) will do anything- up to and including sacrificing their life- in the name of gallantry. If gallantry can be demonstrated by sacrificing another man’s life, men will fall over each other to do so, like a big truckload of fuckwits. It’s a deep and pernicious problem, and until we address that, outrages like this are going to not only continue, but get steadily worse.

    The irony of it all is that in pursuit of gallantry, such men are willing to give up opportunities with attractive young women, for the mere approval of the least desirable women in society. The whole Victorianist system is ultimately a process by which such males are persuaded that the noblest thing they can do is chain themself to a miserable, frigid old bag; and agree with her that his normal sexual interests are a form of mental illness.

    The whole thing is a travis-ty. Geddit?

  5. IanB – good point, well made.

    Touching girls bottoms is great fun and they generally appreciate the attention.

    Mind you I live in Italy, I suspect if I tried that in England I’d end up either in jail or working for the BBC…

  6. Strange to see fame & DLT in the same sentence, without the context of the 70s hit single being on the turntable. Must be for a very low value of fame.

  7. BIS-

    Was nattering with my sister about this (we’re both 70s youngsters). People have just forgotten how big people like these DJs, Stuart Hall, etc were, in those grim, entertainment-poor days.

    I’ve thought for a long while there’s an element of Smashie and Nicey to this. By that point, our generation felt kind of embarrassed that we’d admired these fellows, they had become naff, and S&N encapsulated that perfectly. But it means we all get a very distorted impression of the past. An ageing woman might remember being on the Rolling Stones’s tour bus with a glow of pride; having had Smashie or Nicey would induce a quite different feelng of embarassment. Nobody’s going to feel boastful about that. It’s not hard to imagine that many might want to “re-imagine” such experiences.

    But at the time, they really were in relative terms big stars.

  8. @Ian
    I think you maybe more commenting on an era of captive audience broadcasting. There was a slot for a ‘celebrity’ DJ on Beeb & DLT was the man in the slot. The ‘celebrity’ is then manufactured around the man. It’s difficult to imagine someone with quite that shallow talent prospering otherwise.
    There’s a whole lot of people in broadcasting are similar. Write your own list. Attenborough would near the top on mine.
    With today’s diversity of suppliers & platforms you don’t get it. To cut ‘celebrity’ credentials is much more down to the individual. So you get some odd ones.

  9. Incidentally, worth looking back to the pirates, Caroline, London, City . S’pose Luxembourg. Their DJs were celebrities in their own right, carried the stations. It’s impossible the BBC would have had a slot fitted Kenny Everett

  10. The first intake of R1 DJs came from the pirates. Kenny Everett joined Radio 1 in the first intake, from Radio London.

  11. If it’s really just ugly women trying to stop. Birds from getting their arses pinched, why do fit birds complain?

    I can’t help thinking 1) that we haven’t yet heard the evidence and 2) that the anti feminist argument, that it’s all bollocks, is no saner than the feminist one that it’s all rape.

    That said, decades on it’s hard to see how there will be a fair trial. I can’t remember who I groped last week, never mind in 1978.

  12. If it’s really just ugly women trying to stop fit birds from getting their arses pinched, why do fit birds complain?

    I can’t help thinking 1) that we haven’t yet heard the evidence and 2) that the anti feminist argument, that it’s all bollocks, is no saner than the feminist one that it’s all rape.

    That said, decades on it’s hard to see how there will be a fair trial. I can’t remember who I groped last week, never mind in 1978.

  13. Birds from getting their arses pinched, why do fit birds complain?

    About what? Getting their arses pinched, or other birds getting their arses pinched, or something else?

  14. Ian, that is rather the point. Radio 1 was built around the talents from the pirates. Are you old enough to remember the painful “men in suits trying to be trendy” era of BBC preceded it?

  15. BIS-

    No, I’m part of the Radio 1 is the coolest thing in the world, everyone listens to Savile on sunday, TOTP is the highlight of the week generation.

    I’m not quite sure what you’re disagreeing with me about. I agree that much of the celebrity was a captive audience thing, hence when I said the “grim, entertainment poor” era. You look at it now and it was mostly shit. But it was the shit we had, so it seemed awesome, like people in the Soviet Union impressed by any food that wasn’t mouldy old crap.

  16. Oh, I think we do concur. Just look at it slightly differently.
    I can honestly say I’ve never tuned a radio to Radio 1 personally. Found music originally on Lux & pirate & my detestation of the Beeb & the horse it road in on was always visceral. Went straight from pirate on ships to underground radio.via AFN.

  17. BiS: Are you old enough to remember the painful “men in suits trying to be trendy” era of BBC preceded it?

    Ian B No, I’m part of the Radio 1 is the coolest thing in the world

    I’m part of the era that listened to the pirates for things like the Kenny & Cash show and then put up with Radio 1 and its union-rationed ‘needle time’ which meant endless instrumental covers by outfits like the Harry Stoneham Sound.

    Compare the BBC’s tidy, formulaic (and mimed?) TOTP with Cathy McGowan’s untidy but fun Ready Steady Go!

  18. So Much For Subtlety

    Cuffleyburgers – “Touching girls bottoms is great fun and they generally appreciate the attention. Mind you I live in Italy, I suspect if I tried that in England I’d end up either in jail or working for the BBC…”

    I think it is more or less expected in Italy. You have to do it even if you don’t want to. After all, as the former Prime Minister of France once said, when defending her claim British men were all homosexuals, she had lived in London and *no*one* pinched her bum. Therefore, obviously, all British men are Friends of Dorothy.

  19. So Much For Subtlety

    Interested – “that the anti feminist argument, that it’s all bollocks, is no saner than the feminist one that it’s all rape.”

    Except the anti-feminist argument has history on their side. America has just freed an elderly couple who spent over a quarter of a century in prison because of utterly bogus Satanic Abuse claims – and they were obviously bogus from the start. Everyone knows this is nonsense. What is more when you read the actual claims, people are going to prison because they allegedly put a hand on someone’s leg for a fraction of a second too long way back in the 70s – and that is even if the claims are true.

    “That said, decades on it’s hard to see how there will be a fair trial. I can’t remember who I groped last week, never mind in 1978.”

    I was taught that witchcraft hysterias lasted for a long time – or at least until people started accusing the local powers of taking part. It looks like we are reaching that point now:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538008/Woman-MP-accused-abusing-schoolboy-drug-fuelled-Westminster-sex-parties.html

    Of course if he claims that the politician came from Grantham it may run a bit longer. But personally I am hoping it is Diane Abbott.

    Providing attention on this scale for the mentally ill and their deluded fantasies is never going to end well.

  20. So Much For Subtlety

    This is one of the basic motivating forces of our species (yes, women as well as men).

    I would dispute that is a basic motivating force of women. Why would it be? They do not need fame to attract a mate. They need a short skirt and a quiet place. They will attract a mate if they are pretty. It is men that have the hard time pursuading women to have their children. That is why men need to strive for success – they need to be able to show that they are the owners of some good genes. They can provide. Their children will have children.

    So from an evolutionary perspective, this is all obvious – a famous man is obviously going to provide a good start gene-wise. Young and pretty girls may not understand their motivations but of course they want part of that. The man will want to have sex with them. They will have sex unless there are grown ups in the room making sure they don’t. In the end this is really a story about how British parents abdicated their responsibilities and allowed their daughters to slut it up. Now they are complaining.

  21. I would dispute that is a basic motivating force of women.

    Indeed, and this is probably part of the wimmins’ annoyance manifesting as whatever-wave-of-feminism-we’re-up-to-now. They just don’t accrue the fringe benefits from socioeconomic status that men do. Men in general just don’t care what job a woman does, so long as she looks presentable and has a reasonable personality.

  22. SMFS

    “Except the anti-feminist argument has history on their side. America has just freed an elderly couple who spent over a quarter of a century in prison because of utterly bogus Satanic Abuse claims – and they were obviously bogus from the start. ”

    Yeap, those responsible for that have a huge amount of damage to answer for. A pity they won’t.

    It even reached NZ, this poor bastard is still locked up;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ellis_(childcare_worker)

    Any wonder there are no men wanting to be teachers anymore? I do wonder if that was part of the plan.

  23. I have to say, I didn’t realize I was doing so at the time but I’m glad I’ve avoided all this feminist bollocks by marrying a Russian. My wife is as untypical and modern a Russian as you can get, but has zero time for feminism. It was quite amusing watching my feminist sister trying to recruit her to the cause, and failing miserably. I’m not sure I could hang out with a feminist for more than an hour or so at most.

  24. @ IanB ‘About what? Getting their arses pinched, or other birds getting their arses pinched, or something else?’

    It’s fairly obvious about what. Your argument seems to be it’s all bollocks got up by teh feminists to stop fit women getting their arses pinched because jealousy, or something.

    Whereas, I think some fit women actually don’t like their arses pinched by all and sundry. If you think I’m wrong, have a go, see where it gets you.

    But like I say, personally I’d like to wait for the evidence before I blame feminism, the meeja, a witchhunt, the left, PC PCs, a n other.

    @SMFS
    Because dodgy allegations of satanic abuse have been made, Dave Lee Travis should not be prosecuted?

    I’m not sure I see the logic.

    Who went to prison for putting their hand on a leg for slightly too long?

    Hardline feminists are nuts, we all know that, and I agree re attention seekers, but that doesn’t change the fact that blokes shouldn’t go around squeezing random tits uninvited – it’s just rude, most women don’t like it, and it’s against the law.

  25. Interested,

    Hardline feminists are nuts, we all know that, and I agree re attention seekers, but that doesn’t change the fact that blokes shouldn’t go around squeezing random tits uninvited – it’s just rude, most women don’t like it, and it’s against the law.

    The same set of criteria applies to a soft mini rugby ball hitting me on the head at work. People shouldn’t be doing it, I don’t like it, and is technically assault and therefore, against the law. If I march a co-worker from the early 90s down to the police station, do you think they’ll mount a full investigation into it?

    The reason they don’t is that despite all the talk of equality, it is still acceptable for women to be pathetic and expect an authority figure to fight on their behalf. There is no culture within women that I have observed of women being humiliated for being so – if anything, there’s reinforcement of it.

  26. Stigler, I’m not a woman, but those I know do seem to really not like strangers feeling them up.

    I think they would be less bothered about a mini rugby ball hitting them.

    The law certainly takes it more seriously (witness the available sentences).

    I don’t suppose straight men would much like gay men feeling them up, using force, and not stopping when asked – maybe that’s a better comparison?

    In that area, the cops got involved in a big investigation at my old boarding school, which led to a number of arrests and convictions.

    It never happened to me, but we all knew something odd was going on with one or two of the prettier boys and some of the masters.

    Some of those people have never quite got over what went on. I believe that one hanged himself, leaving a note that named the old Latin master.

    Should old Latin chap and the others who copped a feel have paid for it?

    Yes, I think they should.

    Did the cops only get involved because of the ‘straight lobby’, or some ‘hysteria’, or something to do with American satanists?

    I dunno.

    But I do know the feminists had nothing to do with it.

  27. The reason they don’t is that despite all the talk of equality, it is still acceptable for women to be pathetic and expect an authority figure to fight on their behalf. There is no culture within women that I have observed of women being humiliated for being so – if anything, there’s reinforcement of it.

    I’m not convinced that insisting that an authority figure intervene when a criminal offence is committed is “pathetic”.

    Anti-vigilante culture must come from the same root too; the idea being that enforcement should be performed by authority figures and that one should not seek to enforce the law oneself – just inform the relevant authorities, don’t confront people.

    I think there’s an interesting debate to be had on where that line should be, but we’ve all had the “if you had a problem with what I was doing, why didn’t you say so?” reaction … but also, I think most of us have refused to confront someone out of fear, whether we admit it or not. Socialising women not to be embarrassed of their fear, and socialising men to be embarrassed of being afraid isn’t helping either group to make a sensible decision of when a private confrontation is appropriate and when intervention from authorities is.

  28. Interested: A woman may not like having her arse touched and, in truth, it is a rather uncouth action in my book but to claim it as a life-spoiling sex crime is:
    1-An insult to victims of real sex crimes
    2-An insult to everybody. Because everybody –with the possible exception of a very lucky few-has had far worse happen to them or to someone they loved or both.
    I have watched 3 people I love die from heart failure and the aftermath of strokes. If they could be restored to life and health at the price of some gayboy touching my arse for 5 seconds I’d take the deal and so would most other people I suspect.

  29. So Much For Subtlety

    Interested – “Because dodgy allegations of satanic abuse have been made, Dave Lee Travis should not be prosecuted?”

    No. Because dodgy allegations have been rife in recent times, we should be careful about new allegations now. Especially as it has been a while since any allegations actually turned out to be true – look at the Jersey Orphan Home ones.

    “Hardline feminists are nuts, we all know that, and I agree re attention seekers, but that doesn’t change the fact that blokes shouldn’t go around squeezing random tits uninvited – it’s just rude, most women don’t like it, and it’s against the law.”

    I agree. Blokes shouldn’t. But then again, someone should not have their career destroyed some 30 years after the event based on some very poor memory and the promise of massive compensation. I am all for rapists and child molesters going to prison. Being executed even. But there ought to be some proof beforehand.

  30. So Much For Subtlety

    Interested – “Should old Latin chap and the others who copped a feel have paid for it? Yes, I think they should.”

    I think they should too. But paid how? Most sex offenders are sad pathetic little men who usually go no further than feeling some boy’s ar$e. Bad behaviour, but worth utterly destroying his life over?

    It seems so these days.

    The penalty ought to be proportionate. I don’t believe Rolf Harris is guilty of anything, but what could he possibly have done that would be deserving of the penalty he has got so far – even before a trial?

  31. @ Interested et al
    Women/girls should not be touched up/have bottom pinched/ breasts touched/face licked/whatever if they don’t want it. Face slapping was de rigeur when I was young – husbands/brothers/boy-friends tended to deal with the culprit enthusiastically and with more force (larger biceps). If none of those was to hand I should have expected Dad (plus a friend or two if he couldn’t give someone half his age what the guy deserved single-handed) to deal with it.
    As to queers, in more than four teen-age years that I spent at a single-sex school with over 400 boys there was just one case of boy-on-boy sex (it was widely suspected that it was instigated by the younger, alleged victim who was automatically pardoned, rather than the elder who was automatically expelled) and not a single suspicion of anything untoward by a teacher.
    I suspect an awful lot, not all, of the current fuss is invented.

  32. After all, as the former Prime Minister of France once said, when defending her claim British men were all homosexuals, she had lived in London and *no*one* pinched her bum. Therefore, obviously, all British men are Friends of Dorothy.

    After all, this isn’t true. I suppose you’re talking about Edith Cresson: her complaint was that in London “men in the streets don’t look at you”.

    Whatever the merits of the Travis case – to be decided by a jury which has heard all the evidence – indecent assault is and should be a criminal offence.

  33. @SMFS – ” I don’t believe Rolf Harris is guilty of anything, but what could he possibly have done that would be deserving of the penalty he has got so far”

    I’d imagine sexually assaulting an 8 year old might qualify

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25489501
    “Rolf Harris is facing three further prosecutions for sexual assault including one against a girl “aged seven or eight”, prosecutors have said.”

  34. Meanwhile, DLT apparently hugged a woman in her 20s and blew a raspberry. Blew a raspberry. For God’s sake. I mean, like somebody larking about.

    So here’s the thing. This “7 or 8 year old”. It was supposedly in 1968. Or 69. What possible evidence can there possibly be, even if it did occur? Can anyone even have a good memory of something that happened at that age, 46 years ago? I can barely remember anything from that age. Can anyone?

    I’ll stick my neck out here and say I honestly don’t believe a word of it. There’s no possibility of real evidence, so at best the jury are balancing nothing but whose testimony they believe. Such cases should never come to court, and we need a statute of limitations in all this. It really just appears that, as is now the modus operandi, Plod have trawled for allegations, selected those that they think will fly, larded on some that will evoke disgust reactions in the jury, and are hoping they’ll pull the rest of the allegations along with them.

    The proportion of men who are genuinely paedophile- that is, aroused by pre-pubescent girls- is very small, especially those also interested in adults. I call bullshit on it.

  35. PaulB-

    indecent assault is and should be a criminal offence.

    Not at the trivial level being slung at DLT, it shouldn’t. Even if these ridiculous allegations are true, they aren’t any sort of act worth of criminalisation.

  36. “Hugged” her?

    Then his hand was on that bit of your tummy below your belly button.

    No-one ever touches you there, it is quite personal. When he did that I kind of went to shrug him off.

    Another witness:

    He got his hand up my shirt and pulled my bra up.

    He was just all over my boobs. He was so heavy I was trapped in the seat. I could not get up. I thought he was going to rape me.

    I was crying, I was shouting at him to stop – then he did.

    Another witness:

    His hands came round under my armpits and he put one hand on each breast, he started to move my breasts up and down.

    This is not hugging. And yes, it should be criminal.

    There are legitimate questions to be asked about the quality of the evidence decades after the alleged assaults (reportedly some of the allegations are more recent). But if the allegations are true, the behaviour goes well beyond the sort of “larking about” which women can reasonably be asked to put up with.

  37. Paul-

    I haven’t read the full context of that second one, but of the three of them-

    the first one is ridiculous. This is a woman who was in her twenties, talking like a five year old.

    The third one was a classic “put you off” prank which are, or were, pretty much routine in that environment. I saw lots of that in my days in teh showbiz, perpetrated by both men and women.

    This really is just larking about, shoved into the “rape spectrum” ideology of radical feminism that has coalesced since the 1980s. Considering that Kitty Mackinnon didn’t even christen the term “sexual harrassment” until 1979 to start the legalist ball rolling, we need to remember how radically the whole “offficial” social code has changed during the careers of the men on trial.

    Even the unnamed Miss Boob-grab of allegation three admitted that if she’d complained at the time, nobody would have taken her seriously. Because nobody thought that way back then. It all arrived on a wave of hysteria in the 1980s.

    I remember trying to explain all this before in a long thread here; people are saying that one particular moral code- basically that of the Upper Class drawing room set should be applied universally across the culture, and retrospectively. The entertainment business and, indeed, many other workplace and cultural environments were more ribald, liberal, tactile and perhaps childish. A lot of people- again, of both genders and divers sexualities- rather preferred it that way, which is why they chose those environments to work in.

    I had a discussion about this with my sister and a mutual close (female) friend; we were all in theatre in those days (they’re both now early 50s, I’m late 40s). Neither of them- both independent, strong etc women- think this is anything other than ridiculous and feel the same way I do about it. Both of them having both received and perpetrated their fair share of tactile engagements which, in the sober environment of an oak panelled courtroom accompanied by theatrical sobs, would easily sound all kinds of wrong.

    It’s just the way things were. But this is, I realise, impossible to explain within the current paradigm that places everything on a “rape spectrum”.

  38. Also IanB you are arguing a case that pre-supposes that any of these “events” actually happened at all. Like the vast number of bullshit allegations against Jimmy Saville (eg “victims” claiming they were molested at TOTP recordings at Television Centre–with details that clearly identify the Television Centre–when the shows were recorded elsewhere and so on ad nauseum) I doubt any of them ever happened at all. Let alone as described.

  39. Ian: I’ve read and considered your arguments on this subject, here and elsewhere. And the more I consider them, the less substance they seem to have. If your sisters choose to consent to being groped by Travis or anyone else, I respect their choice, but it’s not binding on women in general. And there’s no such thing as non-consensual “larking about”.

    Indecent assault has been a crime since 1861 at least, this is not a new law being applied retrospectively. In the past, powerful men have often been able to take criminal liberties, but that didn’t make their actions legal, then or now.

    You may think the allegations ridiculous (which I take to mean something other than ‘untrue’), but the complainants apparently do not. I don’t understand why you think your view trumps theirs.

  40. Ecks-

    Despite the welter of obvious fantasy bullshit claims- particularly the whole Savile miasma- I’m working on the reasonable assumption that some of these trivial offences did occur. Largely because Plod/NSPCC have moved from a grand paedophile conspiracy down to this utter trivia, designed to “prove” the patriarchal conspiracy was oppressing womankind by, er, hugging her and blowing a raspberry. The fiend!

    Since indeed, as I’ve recollected at length, some evil people in the past did indeed dare touch each other prior to the recent regime. That gay barman who used to keep grabbing my bum in the Malt And Hops in the early 90s, I bet I can get a few quid for my PTSD, or something.

    I’m also thinking of all those people who assaulted me as a child, with their fiendish “tickling”. I sure didn’t consent, and indeed would beg them to stop, and they wouldn’t. I don’t think I’m ever going to recover from that, but a few grand in the bank might help, you know. Oh wait, that wasn’t The Patriarchy manifesting its Hegemonic Power from a Position Of Authority, it was my mum and stuff, so maybe that one was okay.

    Mind you, considering that the hysteria is now spreading to kissing grandparents…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10565258/Dont-force-children-to-kiss-Granny.html

    PaulB, seriously, it did occur to me that maybe the tickling example above may cast some light on what we’re talking about. It is a non-consensual bodily contact. The victim rarely wants it done. It is done out of badness, or to put somebody off- just like groping somebody for a lark when they’re on air. Do you see the similarity?

    See, it comes down to this. It’s very hard trying to explain my position- a liberal one- to somebody who has absorbed the progressive absolutist position. But it’s a question of whether an interaction between colleagues that is more familiar than one may like should count as an “indecent assault” in the legal sense, or merely as a social misunderstanding. There is some line where matters should be below the attention of the criminal law, and the argument here really is whether that line is currently in the right place.

    I don’t think it is, I assume you do. Take that gay barman. It would have seemed absurd to call the cops even though i told him repeateadly to stop grabbing my arse, even though I had not consented, even though I am not gay and- as he put it- he thought I could be turned. It was a social matter, not a criminal one. Surely?

    The reality here is that this cavalcade of trivia regarding DLT is only occurring because Yewtree want scalps and the grand paedophile conspiracy has proven elusive, whereas a trawl for complaints is guaranteed to turn up some women with axes to grind- Madame Boobs has apparently been dining out on her “DLT grabbed me” story for years as some kind of feminist PatriarchyWhatever spiel.

    And this is it really. We’re at a peak of intensity regarding the sacrosanctity of the dominant gender’s bodily bits after decades of feminist agitation, such that what once was dealt with as an everyday social matter, with sharp words or a slap, has become crimen exceptum and as such, my basic assertion is that we are now in a state of hysteria, off the rails, in la-la land, whatever.

    I appreciate you’ll entirely disagree and say this is all proportionate and proper, but really that is what it’s about; a sense of proportion. I think we’ve lost it entirely. You I’m sure disagree. But I’ve stated my case, and that’s all I can do…

  41. See, it comes down to this. It’s very hard trying to explain my position- a liberal one- to somebody who has absorbed the progressive absolutist position.

    Oh come off it. Climb down from your Shetland pony and get a grip – being opposed to non-consensual boob jiggling in the workplace is hardly illiberal.

  42. UKliberty: You come off it. Making a huge song and dance about nowt in order to advance the agenda of leftist femmi-commissar scum is not just “illiberal” it is evil.

  43. UKL-

    You are entitled of course to support the fanatics, but do remember that they won’t thank you for it. They’ll just come back for more; that’s what they always do.

    Consider this; the next stage is already underway. A law is about to be passed which will allow a magistrate to simply place a man under a “Sexual Risk Order”. This will declare them a sex offender, under arbitrary and time unlimited restrictions. No crime having been committed. No trial. Simply an opinion from Plod and a compliant (feminist or feminist influenced) magistrate. And that’s it, the man’s life is ruined; he is declared guilty in advance of a crimen exceptum that he has not yet committed.

    No more need for trials; even the ludicrously theatrical, biased ones driven by unevidenced testimony bundled by the activist State into a “narrative” is too onerous for the Feminists. Much easier to just declare guilt, without all that due process nonsense. We already have people declared guilty posthumously; we already have absurdly trivial misdemeanours dragged up after decades. But now, no need to even drag DLT into a courtroom to accuse him of touching a girl’s bottom in 1978. Simply put the testimony together, agree with the magistrate that he’s “that kind of a bloke”, and declare him guilty.

    The people you support will now be in the position of simply declaring any man they wish to guilty by fiat.

    Think very hard about what you’re supporting.

  44. Think very hard about whether I’m supporting a position or in fact criticising your position.

    And I’ve opposed such orders since at least February 2007.

  45. Then you need to fight the justifying ideology, otherwise your objections to one or more logical consequences of it are some mixture of inconsistent, useless and counterproductive.

  46. AFAIK the growth of civil orders breach of which is a civil offence didn’t spring from the feminist hegemony but the anti- due process hegemony (maybe there is some overlap, sure Ian will say); the same types behind control orders, ASBOs and (what the Lords seem to have saved us from) IPNAs, among many others:

    Over the past twenty years [this is in January 2007, so now it’s 24 years] public policy has increasingly reflected the view that criminal prosecutions and sentences alone may be an inadequate legal response to criminal and other unacceptable behaviour. – House of Lords Consitution Committee

    I think it’s reasonable to oppose restricting liberty without the bother of criminal proceedings and non-consensual boob jiggling in the workplace.

  47. Ian: requiring people to submit to unwanted fondling isn’t liberal, it’s feudal.

    And the illiberality of the proposed “Sexual Risk Orders” is a different matter altogether.

  48. Paul

    Ian: requiring people to submit to unwanted fondling isn’t liberal, it’s feudal.

    I’m sure you wrote this sentence because you thought it has some zing, but it is literally meaningless. The feudal system was a socio-political system of oaths of fealty (between males) and had absolutely, zero, nothing to do with what we are discussing.

    Neither are we discussing “requiring people to submit to unwanted fondling”, or indeed “requiring” anything, but rather the matter of whether or not such matters are of sufficient degree to be a subject for the criminal law; and if so, what sort of response there should be from the law.

    You see I think the history there is interesting; until very recently- well within my (and presumably your) adult lifetime- most of the population thought not, which is why in those (now considered) “dark days” such behaviour was a matter for depiction in the media as normal behaviour. It was of course often considered rude, impolite, etc, but a matter for a social response, not a legal one- and of course it is now verboten to say that, in some circumstances it would be welcome.

    It has taken decades of campaigning by Feminists with an (intellectually demonstrably erroneous) ideological theory to reconfigure acts of potential social rudeness as part of a rape spectrum, and thus to boost the perceived seriousness of them from “dirty old bugger who can’t keep his hands to himself” to “expression of rape culture”. Even just twenty years ago, the DLT case wouldn’t have made it to court or even been taken seriously- as indeed is constantly being admitted by all involved, except that rather than admit that it was simply because of a general perceived triviality (outside the Womens’ Studies Departments), this was due to an imaginary conspiracy of silence by Teh Patriarchy.

    As I mentioned above, the very concept of sexual harrasment didn’t even exist until Mackinnon coined it in 1979. It did not exist when DLT supposedly touched a girl’s bottom in 1978. The concept that such experiences could induce specific and extreme psychological trauma did not start being adopted into the legal system until the early 1990s.

    So without the (as we know, false) Feminist ideology, you’re left with the perception everyone had prior, which was simply a matter of, at most, being rude or annoying. Perhaps worthy of invoking the old indecent assault law in egregious situations; but worthy of the ludicrous pantomime on display before us with DLT? Not, I would argue, to anyone with a sense of proportion.

    The reality here is that Yewtree want scalps for justification. A genuine liberal should be more concerned with an arm of the state out of control, using profoundly dubious evidence gathering techniques, with the absurd biasing of the judicial process (women weeping behind screens and being allowed to present DVDs of testimony, fer heaven’s sake), railroading via bait and switch plea bargains (as with Hall), the fundamental impossibility of a true “beyond all reasonable doubt”, etc, than the absolutely negligible harm that any of the recruited victims could have suffered decades ago.

  49. UKL-

    AFAIK the growth of civil orders breach of which is a civil offence didn’t spring from the feminist hegemony but the anti- due process hegemony (maybe there is some overlap, sure Ian will say); the same types behind control orders, ASBOs and (what the Lords seem to have saved us from) IPNAs, among many others:

    Indeed, it’s part of general Progressivist reasoning. It’s worth remembering that the Feminists have always been central- arguably the core- of the Proggies since the 19th century.

    But the primary difference here is that while a court injunction might be inconvenient, as might an ASBO- though among a certain class it might even be a badge of pride, or at least considered trivial- being a registered sex case is utterly ruinous and indeed life threatening. There have been cases of vigilante groups attacking people simply for being on the register (sometimes including mistaken identity) and as we all know, one man has been burned to death in the street for merely being thought (falsely) a “paedo”. Nothing could be more serious than the state having the power to arbitrarily attach such a label to anyone, on a whim.

    But for me, the key point is that it has only been possible to pass such a law because of the Feminist ideology justifying it; it is their agitation and education that has led to legislation (to paraphrase the motto of the WCTU).

  50. Indecent assault has been a crime since 1861 at least, this is not a new law being applied retrospectively.

    It was an offence at common law in the 18th century, if not before. Codified by the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

  51. And this is one of the arguments for statutes of limitations in less serious crimes; because the same law can be on the statute books but applied differently in different times. People act in the context of their own era; at one time it may be that a law is not usually applied in some situation, and then another time it is.

    A well codified example of this is underage sex. It has been against the law for a long time. It is actually official policy however not to prosecute when both people are underage, currently (not actually sure they’re still applying this in all cases; they were a few years ago). But if 20 years from now, greater zealotry meant all underage sex were a cause for prosecution, many people would become retrospectively in danger of prosecution.

    Hence, the danger of these “historic” cases.

  52. it is literally meaningless

    As in it doesn’t mean anything? I sure that anyone but you would recognize that “feudal” has meaning beyond the particular definition you’ve copied out of your history book. We all know that in feudal times an overlord could take liberties with his subordinates: if the allegations are true Travis seems to have considered himself to be similarly entitled.

    Meanwhile, I don’t know what you mean by “progressivism”, other than that you don’t like it. The cases I quoted have something in common: the indecent assault was facilitated by physical, social, or hierarchical power. If it’s progressive to protect people from unwanted groping by the powerful, I’m pleased to be on the side of progress.

  53. Dave Lee Travis and “Ken Barlow” are “powerful”?.

    Jimmy Saville was powerful?. (This is part of the proggie-shite: that Saville was able to commit his “crimes” at the BBC in the 60/70s etc because he was too “powerful” to be questioned–as if he was a UK showbiz version of J Edgar Hoover. In fact BBC documents exist which show he was treated with snobbish contempt by BBC management of the time.)

    Bullshit.

  54. Even just twenty years ago, the DLT case wouldn’t have made it to court or even been taken seriously- as indeed is constantly being admitted by all involved, except that rather than admit that it was simply because of a general perceived triviality (outside the Womens’ Studies Departments), this was due to an imaginary conspiracy of silence by Teh Patriarchy.

    The perception that the complaints wouldn’t be taken seriously is hardly ill-founded; the authorities haven’t often taken rape seriously, the John Worboys case is a recent and egregious example of this.

  55. Bizarre. Women should not be subjected to unwanted sexual touching, and that is the end of it.

    It has nothing to do with being liberal, or ‘progressives’, or ‘feminists’.

    Call it democracy – 50ish per cent of the population (the women) by definition don’t want unwanted touching, and quite a few men don’t want it for their mothers, wives and daughters.

    Apart from anything else, let’s hear the…er… Evidence?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *