Excellent piece

A Must Read.

35 thoughts on “Excellent piece”

  1. Ah, the good old days. Best not to think of them or talk too loud – to reminisce – in public.

  2. This is the entire point of the radfem campaign. A world in which any man can be denounced at any time for some sex crime no matter how ancient, ludicrous or utterly unsupported by anything resembling evidence. A world in which the entirely unsupported word of a malicious, gold-digging, emotionally-disturbed or even downright insane women can destroy any man as easy as snapping her fingers. A permanent Robespierre-like terror which can be unleashed on any man at any time with the bluebottles leaping into action on the flimsiest pre-text like Adam West getting a call on the batphone.

    Think of the power-to-harm these evil socialist bitches will have. You should–because they certainly are.
    But no–the average white-knighting nitwit will do nothing–not even to the extent of considering , case by case, the actual evidence of supposed wrong-doing against Saville and the Yewtree victims. If you do,reason will lead you to the conclusion that–apart from a possibly a bit of teenage bum touching and maybe “casting couch ” offers from Clifford (sordid but not a sex crime–they had the option of turning him down) these men have done NOTHING.
    But the radfems want a world in which men can do nothing and still be destroyed on the basis of totally unsupported claims by women.
    Thanks to the inaction of the average man (and the stupidity of political scum) it looks like they are going to get it.

  3. Yes the seventies were tremendous fun, but I don’t remember teen totties playing any part in my life or that of my friends. This still points to the Beeb being a den of iniquity.

    Meantime, can we please see Hodge and Harman jailed for their parts in enabling the moral morass?

  4. It’s a terrible piece.

    Firstly, I’ve not had a single broken night’s sleep worried as to whether the cops will knock on my door in the morning and accuse me of shagging underage girls 20 years ago, or raping/groping older women. Why? Because I would never have done any of these things, because they are wrong. Used to be most of us understood and accepted that, and those who didn’t were ostracised, at least.

    Secondly, it was a long time ago, but so what? All sorts of criminal offences are pursued for a very long time.

    Thirdly, he seems to be arguing that only men can be guilty of this sort of offence. No, women can too. If male victims don’t complain, whose fault is that?

    Fourthly, and relatedly, he’s making the usual mistake of lumping whole classes of people in together. Thus, for instance:

    ‘The impetus of the age came from women as much as from men. Erica Jong genuinely did speak for a generation of women when she espoused the ideal of “the zipless f—” in Fear of Flying. So women, too, are not innocent for having heated up the sexual atmosphere of that time, in which men like Savile, Hall and Harris could flourish and exercise their loathsome tastes and practices.’

    Er no. Erica Jong did not ‘genuinely speak for a generation of women’, any more than Mary Whitehouse did. She wrote a book.

    Some women liked to shag anything that moved. Some wouldn’t dream of shagging you until you married them. Some felt like it one day, but not the next.

    If it so happened (I’m not saying it did) that Neil Lyndon had sex with a 14-year-old schoolgirl, and she complains, and she can convince a jury, then that is that.

    Erica Jong has nothing to do with it.

    Nor does the passage of time (other than in respect of evidence).

    Nor does the fact that other women wanted to shag him.

    Nor does the fact that he himself was a target.

    And the jury is the key point.

    I didn’t sit in the trial of Rolf Harris every day, but the jury members did. I assume they were properly directed by the judge (if not there will be an appeal) and that they believed that the prosecution had proven their case to the correct standard of proof.

  5. I do seem to be in a minority of one in all this.

    Some commenter in the DT stated that in 1970 sex with 14 year old girls was regarded as “depraved”, which is simply untrue.

    I thought I’d led quite a sheltered life, but obviously I was a wicked hedonist. A friend of mine had a friend who was a cameraman on TOTP. who had much the same experience as the writer of the article.

    I haven’t read up on the cases, but the Old Bill must have upped their game to get convictions 40 years after the event, given the true rate of solving most crimes nowadays.

  6. Interested: Naïve to the point of being utterly stupid.

    You didn’t do anything so you have nothing to fear?. Jesus H Christ. Ever hear of the Guildford 4 or poor Stefan Kiszko?. And that was just the cops alone deciding who fitted the frame. There wasn’t a whole hate-filled political movement on the job trying to turn the apparatus of the state against men in general. Ever had a flaky girl-friend?. Or known a troubled woman who might be mentally festering right now and looking for someone to blame for all her troubles. You might not have done anything by OBJECTIVE standards. But those are just the standards the radfems want rid of. She says you victimised her–even if you only knew her casually/ set eyes on her once (or never). That what is in store for men. That you did nothing by the standards of reason and objectivity now means next to nothing. The femmis are not quite there yet –but who knows where they will be once they have completed their little foray into Westminster.

    Male victims don’t complain?. Have you tried it?. Never mind sex crime. Try complaining that you have been discriminated against at work if your a white male and not in one of the lefts favoured client groups.Remember Rebekah Brooks?. She used to be married to Ross Kemp and blacked his eye for him on one occasion. He did not retaliate. The tabloids produced the headline “Is TV;s hard man a big girl’s blouse?”. If he had blacked her eye in retaliation of course the same tabloids would have denounced him as a monster.
    Men complain— don’t kid yourself.

    And as for the trial of Rolf Harris. And the sacredness of jury trials “properly” directed by a judge.

    Lets just take one charge. Fiddling the 7 year old. A vile deed eh. She claimed she was at a fete or something such in a queue of autograph seekers and when she got to the front of the line Rolf touched her up with his “big hairy hands”. In front of the rest of the queue and everyone else at the fate. But leave that aside. The first thing to consider is whether this fete etc ever actually happened. Because no one can find any trace of it. She says this happened in 1968 or 1969(nice of her to narrow it down a bit) in the Portsmouth area. The police went thro every local paper and record in the entire area from 1967 to 1974. They even put out ads asking if anyone else had been at the fete (not mentioning Rolf or what is alleged: just ads to see if anyone else had any memory of being at any such supposed event the girl talks of). Nothing. So they can not prove that this event ever even happened. They obviously can’t definitely place Rolf at this event as they cannot prove there ever was an event to place him at. And there are no witnesses of the supposed fiddling because there aren’t even any witnesses to the fact that this event happened anywhere outside the troubled imagination of the women in question. Result of this farrago masquerading as a serious charge?. Guilty. British fucking juries directed by a Judge–naïve to the point of stupidity.

    The fact is that none of the Yewtree crap would have had the slightest chance of flying without the Saville hysteria working up a sufficient head of witch-hunting steam. Which is why the radfems used their expertise in creating media-fuelled panics to set it in motion.

    Interested–I don’t mind if your naive ideas help you down the toilet. What I resent is the fact that those like you, who have enough brains to see if they would just look and stop taking media-managed shite at face value, are too terminally smug to even bother. And are dragging the rest of use down the toilet with you.

  7. @Ecks
    Strangely, I have heard of the Guildford Four.

    Stefan Kiszko certainly was innocent, and his conviction would not now happen. Science and policing moves on, it really does.

    But leaving that to one side, there is no system of law known to man, or imaginable by man, which would remove all possibility of wrongful arrest and conviction.

    So we either have laws and cops, or we don’t.

    If you say we should have none, then you’re even madder than I already thought you were.

    I say we should have them, we should watch them pretty carefully, and we have to accept that they, and juries, will get things wrong. (They may even behave criminally, in which case they should be sent to prison for considerably more than the maximum sentence they would have seen imposed on an innocent party.)

    Re Rolf, if you had been in court every day and followed all of the evidence, then I might take you seriously – though you would still only be presenting one opinion against that of the jury.

    But you weren’t, and must therefore be basing most of what you say on stuff you have read in the papers and on conspiracist blogs and the like.

    So I’m afraid I will have to file the above, with the rest of your paranoiac, quasi-survivalist ramblings, in the folder marked ‘Insane Dribble by Man Dressed in Tinfoil Pyjamas’.

    Remember: if it’s Wednesday, it’s the red pills!

  8. Interested,

    Secondly, it was a long time ago, but so what? All sorts of criminal offences are pursued for a very long time.

    The difference here is about the law as written and the law as prosecuted.

    Consider underage sex. 16 year old boy shags his 15 year old girlfriend. Technically speaking that’s statutory rape. Under current sentencing guidelines that’s 8-13 years in prison, sex offenders register etc. And there is nothing in the guidelines or law about 16 year olds shagging 15 year olds, nothing codified about that. But in reality, the police, the CPS and the courts are not interested in such cases. They’ll throw “not in the public interest around”.

    But that doesn’t mean that in 30 years time that the public mood about that might change, that a witch hunt might occur and that some middle aged men with evidence still on servers of them having shagged a 15 year old when they were 16 won’t find themselves locked up for a decade.

    I doubt anyone went to jail for grabbing a 15 year old girl’s bum in the 1970s. Situation comedy considered bum-pinching as irritating rather than cause to prevent someone working with children for the rest of their life. Go and watch Gregory’s Girl sometime. There’s a conversation where a couple of teachers are basically talking about shagging girls, to the disapproval of another teacher, but you couldn’t write that today. The other teacher would be considered to be in the wrong for not calling going to the head or calling the police. Or if you want an example from the 1980s, Indiana Jones meeting up with the 25 year old Marion Ravenwood that he’d had an affair with 10 years earlier.

    And I’m not saying society was right then, but that was how society was. And Rolf Harris in some cases was only doing what he thought was within society’s parameters.

  9. @The Stigler: You’re right, the TV of the time is a good barometer of the social values of the time, probably a rather conservative one at that, as the more outre goings on wouldn’t make it into prime time entertainment. I recently watched an old episode of the 80s sitcom ‘Dear John’ (I admit it I’m a sad case with no social life!) where the main character is a teacher, and picks up this young woman and takes her out for a date to a wine bar (it was the 80s). He then goes to work on Monday and sees said girl in his school, in her uniform, she’s one of his pupils. Much embarrassment all round. The point being that such a thing today would be seen as a career ending occurrence, potentially even jail time. Then it was seen as a hilarious social faux pas that was suitable for prime time TV viewing.

    The past really is another country.

  10. @ Mr Ecks
    Guildford 4
    Has anyone ever suggested that the bombing did not occur?
    Has anyone ever named another person as the alleged culprit?
    Until then, I shall categorise them as “freed” rather than as “innocent” or “guilty”.
    @ The Stigler
    I have never heard of a conviction of a 16-year-old girl for sex with a 15-year-old boy – it is only teachers who are charged for sex with under-age boys. So there is still a double standard.

  11. Categorise however you like. The state fitted them up. Or does that not count–so long as somebody is being punished innocence is of no matter?.
    They were just an example–if you don’t like that one there are plenty of others.

  12. @ Mr Ecks
    As far as being punished innocence or guilt *does* matter.
    However, there is no evidence that they are innocent. So until there is, I shall not make your blind assumption.
    Remember “just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you” has a converse – sometimes the police are out to get them because they know they are guilty.

  13. theoldgreenfascist

    You really are a cretin. Evidence that people are innocent!? What evidence have you got that you are innocent of the bombing?

  14. @Ecks – no, the red ones.


    ‘I doubt anyone went to jail for grabbing a 15 year old girl’s bum in the 1970s. Situation comedy considered bum-pinching as irritating rather than cause to prevent someone working with children for the rest of their life. Go and watch Gregory’s Girl sometime. There’s a conversation where a couple of teachers are basically talking about shagging girls, to the disapproval of another teacher, but you couldn’t write that today. ‘

    The whole point is that people are conflating relatively innocent (though still unpleasant* and illegal) behaviour like ‘bum pinching’ with the fingering of seven year old girls.

    No-one who once pinched a girl’s bottom in 1976 is going to be before the courts for it.

    Indeed, Rolf Harris (to name but one) isn’t doing five years for ‘bum pinching’.

    In the article Tim links to, it seems to me that the author is talking about people with whom he had sex, not people the bums of whom he pinched.

    If that sex was consensual, he’s OK. If it wasn’t but he thought it was, or says he did, he’s still probably OK – see the (entirely justified) low conviction rates for rape, based wholly on this point, that juries do not like to convict in he-said-she-said rapes.

    I am aware of the existence of false allegations, and wholeheartedly in favour of anonymity until conviction, but it seems to me madder than Mr Ecks after a day in the sun to suggest that no cases from the past should be investigated, or that it’s all a ‘radfem’ conspiracy when allegations that a given individual digitally penetrated a child thirty years ago are put before a jury.

    I don’t know, and neither does anyone else but Rolf and the witness, whether it happened, but I also don’t fucking know whether any given person committed any given offence out of the millions before the court each year.

    All I’m saying is, let’s trust the people who heard all the evidence to decide. Unless anyone can suggest a better system, I’m all ears?

    Re the 15/16 years olds, again I think we have little to fear. As soon as something lunatic like that is brought forward I shall be against it, but I refuse to drivel on, Eckslike, against the ‘scum of the state’ on the basis that one day they might.

    *Believe it or not, some women do not like having their arses grabbed by random men. I know! Crazy?! The fact that some women don’t mind it is neither here nor there – you shouldn’t do it, and if you don’t like that fact you should lobby parliament for the law to change to allow a free go on any passing bird.

  15. @ theoldgreenfascist
    I could, at the time, prove that I was elsewhere.
    In a court of law in England evidence is heard from both sides, not just from the prosecution. Where do you live that hears no evidence from the defence?

  16. Interested: I’ll say it again in the faint hope of getting through the high volume sanctimonious bullshit that constitutes your internal dialogue.

    The state has not proved its case against Harris-esp in the matter of the seven year old. The info I have comes from the BBC and the Guardian –not massively reliable but certainly not friendly to Yewtree suspects. They proved absolutely nothing. The guilty on the 7 year old charge was a conviction purely on accusation with zero support–nothing. Never mind your self-justifying shite about “we weren’t in court so we don’t know” and trust the jury system. The whole point of Yewtree and the Saville hysteria is to damage and distort exactly that system.

    “All I’m saying is, let’s trust the people who heard all the evidence to decide. Unless anyone can suggest a better system, I’m all ears?”

    Actually you are all mouth but I’ll give you a better system. No one to ever be convicted of anything EVER without corroborating evidence. I’ll say it again for those like you who are hard of both sense and any sort of empathy. No convictions on unsupported accusation ever. No other evidence–NO CONVICTION.

  17. Some YouTube stuff about panics past. The author is dead against the Christian Right but they were only half the cause of the SRA panic. He does not mention the radfem social workers who were involved–and even more so in the McMartin and other childrens home capers.



    If you feel any scepticism coming over you about the Yewtree bullshit–just remember that I’m a nutter who has to take red pills.

  18. Interested,

    No-one who once pinched a girl’s bottom in 1976 is going to be before the courts for it.

    Indeed, Rolf Harris (to name but one) isn’t doing five years for ‘bum pinching’.

    Actually, that’s pretty much what the 2nd count was.

  19. Mr Ecks, one problem with what you propose is that it prejudges the value of one kind of evidence over another. When judging the evidence is a matter for the tribunal of fact. And take an extreme example: CCTV evidence shows me stabbing you, but you’re too frightened to give a statement (so no evidence from you in court). Are you seriously suggesting that it should not be open to a prosecutor to play the CCTV, and to adduce third party identification evidence of our respective identities? I’m putting to one side, btw, questions as to the legitimacy of a criminal complaint which lacks a complainant.

  20. bloke (not) in spain

    Looking back over comments by Interested, John Miller, couple others does so make me think of the back end of the 60s early 70. The scene in the Central London postcodes & few outposts with N & W numbers. Long hair, velvet strides. Familiar nods from names are now rock legends. The smell of pot & the shimmer of a world seen through a curtain of acid.
    Half a dozen stops on the District Line & another world. Aretha Franklin & Engleburg Humperdink. Crombie coats & Ben Shermans. The smell of Brut & hair lacquer. Drugs of choice, Watney’s Red & vodka & lime.
    What was right or wrong really did depend on what stops you got off at.

  21. Edward Lud: If there is CCTV of me being stabbed then there is evidence of a crime–even if I don’t testify. If I say you stabbed me–no lets say struck me (even in this day and age nobody can claim to be stabbed with no wound) but there is no wound, no witnesses, no other evidence then you should not be convicted on my word alone. That is what I’m saying.

  22. john77,

    But no-one believed them

    In fact the Home Office said it was unlikely the Guildford Four were terrorists but that wasn’t sufficient for an appeal or freedom.
    Perhaps TPTB were of similar mind to Lord Denning, who said the Birmingham Six’s appeal shouldn’t go ahead because if they lost it would be a waste of time and money and if they won it would bring the entire criminal justice system into disrepute. 11 years later he said that was wrong and the West Midlands Police had let us all down.

  23. Interested once wrote on here that he had to steward a pop concert (starring Miley Cyrus’s dad I think) where he was offered blow jobs by young girls to let them get at the main act.
    Sounds like the kind of thing going on at TOTP in the times in question.Or at any rock concert. I was backstage at a rock and roll gig (there is a slight difference) where the veteran “star” was approached by a middle aged fat guy who was trying to fix up his wife. The star declined the offer very gracefully.(Perhaps not.: on further thought I think he said he’d had two already.)
    Things were more confused than Interested now attests. But ,even then, I should think ,most people knew pre-pubescent girls (and boys) were off limits.

  24. “No-one who once pinched a girl’s bottom in 1976 is going to be before the courts for it. ”

    Isn’t that pretty much what DLT was up for (and still is)? In fact of almost entirely adult women (one 15 yo was included I think)?

  25. But, Mr Ecks, what if I am transparently a lying scumbag and you are the soul of probity? The problem is that you are seeking to rob the tribunal of fact of its proper task, which is to assess evidence. The rule you propose assumes that all evidence is of equal weight and value. On paper, that may be true… but it can be quite different when two different people give their live account of what happened.

    BiS, loved that description.

  26. If the ONLY evidence is the opposed testimony of two individuals and nothing else then there is no way of knowing who is lying and who isn’t–regardless of previous form (they have to prove you did the crime not say “He has a bad character so jail for him”). That is the point no conviction on “he did it ” alone. If there is NO other evidence then no conviction. It is unlikely in the real world that there is no other evidence. Which is exactly why the fiddled 7 year old charge against Rolf Harris is unsafe. Despite extensive efforts not one single scrap of supporting evidence was found–and indeed I would argue that the lack of evidence was so total that it constituted active disproof of the charge.
    Otherwise we live in a world where some woman can take a dislike to you ( or just be a nut) say “Edward Lud did X 40 years ago” and unless you have positive evidence to the contrary–very unlikely after 40 years–off to jail as a nonce you go. Which is exactly what the radfems want.

Leave a Reply

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