RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 11:08:35 AM)

Wish I hadn't read that. So abusing a nine-year old girl is at worst "a misdemeanour"?

Gobsmackingly misguided.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 11:15:11 AM)

It's the way she's putting over the idea that 'all' the likes of Hall did was an inappropriate touch which might make some people think 'well, yeah, I mean that isn't as extreme as rape or abuse, is it?'.

And then you remember the letter in The Independent from the girl he abused - because it wasn't the odd random touch he's been convicted of. So even those who've gone from the 'it's too long ago' argument and now want to try the 'but the odd kiss didn't harm anyone and isn't enough for a lynch mob' might want to pause and think a bit.




Chief -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 1:33:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbitonlass

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

quote:


A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.
Barbara Hewson told online magazine Spiked that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men".


WTF?  Yeah, because those poor old men are having such a hard time of it at the moment.....   Speechless!


That is just mental. 16 year olds are barely bright enough to know what's right and wrong when it comes to sex, how the hell is a 13 year old going to be able to make these decisions? The creeps would have a field day.




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 1:46:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbitonlass

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

quote:


A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.
Barbara Hewson told online magazine Spiked that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men".



What the actual fuck? How can someone even think like this? I'm stunned!




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 1:59:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbitonlass

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

quote:


A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.
Barbara Hewson told online magazine Spiked that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men".



What the actual fuck? How can someone even think like this? I'm stunned!


[image]http://img8.joyreactor.cc/pics/post/%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80-%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%BE-Tango-%26-Cash-324068.gif[/image]




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 2:31:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hobbitonlass

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

quote:


A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.
Barbara Hewson told online magazine Spiked that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men".


WTF?  Yeah, because those poor old men are having such a hard time of it at the moment.....   Speechless!



WTF! [sm=893banghead-thumb.gif]




MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 3:13:17 PM)

Oh, so acting like a creep and putting women in a horrible situation is just low level stuff? Well, that's good to kno... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, HEWSON, YOU UTTER TWAT!




Artoo -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 4:30:59 PM)

The only people that come out with that sort of shit are people who likely get their kicks out of similar or related acts and can "relate"! If I were a friend of the Hewson's I 'd be keeping my kids away from her place I can tell ya!




Phubbs -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 5:10:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

It's the way she's putting over the idea that 'all' the likes of Hall did was an inappropriate touch which might make some people think 'well, yeah, I mean that isn't as extreme as rape or abuse, is it?'.

And then you remember the letter in The Independent from the girl he abused - because it wasn't the odd random touch he's been convicted of. So even those who've gone from the 'it's too long ago' argument and now want to try the 'but the odd kiss didn't harm anyone and isn't enough for a lynch mob' might want to pause and think a bit.



Just a thought, this letter, how do we or anyone know its completely truthful? how can anyone prove that? it could easily be somewhat exaggerated no?.

Plus how do we know that at the time of these incidents the girl/s didn't possible encourage or maybe even enjoy what happened?? Maybe after the incident they realised what they had done and then decided they didn't like it?.

And on the 'its too long ago argument', again is it not possible that over the many many many years since the incident occurred that someones memories of the event could be somewhat faded and possibly exaggerated again?. Its perfectly normal for people to embellish the truth to make something sound better or worse. This is exactly how stories can get out of control over time because people may not remember everything clearly and add stuff on or make it up to fill in the gaps.




Rebenectomy -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 5:45:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Just a thought, this letter, how do we or anyone know its completely truthful? how can anyone prove that? it could easily be somewhat exaggerated no?.

Plus how do we know that at the time of these incidents the girl/s didn't possible encourage or maybe even enjoy what happened?? Maybe after the incident they realised what they had done and then decided they didn't like it?.

And on the 'its too long ago argument', again is it not possible that over the many many many years since the incident occurred that someones memories of the event could be somewhat faded and possibly exaggerated again?. Its perfectly normal for people to embellish the truth to make something sound better or worse. This is exactly how stories can get out of control over time because people may not remember everything clearly and add stuff on or make it up to fill in the gaps.



Christ you really are a piece of work, I really don't even know where to start in counter argument to something so vile as to imply that someone under the age of consent could have enjoyed/encouraged their sexual abuse. Hall pleaded guilty, bravo for him, but of course this gives us no reason to believe the words of his conceded victims, who lets face it, were probably gagging for it, or have embellished the issue because they're down right evil/nuts/female.




DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 5:45:52 PM)

Dear Phubbs,

Do piss off and troll somewhere else.

Yours,

The Empireonline Forum






MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 5:59:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Plus how do we know that at the time of these incidents the girl/s didn't possible encourage or maybe even enjoy what happened?? Maybe after the incident they realised what they had done and then decided they didn't like it?.



This motherfucker has sexually abused young girls, one of which was 9 years old. Do you have even the slightest notion of how fucking terrifying that is for someone who couldn't possibly mentally process what's happening to her?

How the hell you haven't been banned for your blatant shit-stirring is beyond me. Go back to writing reviews nobody gives a shit about, you twat.




DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 6:05:35 PM)

[image]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4zc1fMLux1rwcc6bo1_500.gif[/image]




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 6:05:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Just a thought, this letter, how do we or anyone know its completely truthful? how can anyone prove that? it could easily be somewhat exaggerated no?.

Plus how do we know that at the time of these incidents the girl/s didn't possible encourage or maybe even enjoy what happened?? Maybe after the incident they realised what they had done and then decided they didn't like it?.

And on the 'its too long ago argument', again is it not possible that over the many many many years since the incident occurred that someones memories of the event could be somewhat faded and possibly exaggerated again?. Its perfectly normal for people to embellish the truth to make something sound better or worse. This is exactly how stories can get out of control over time because people may not remember everything clearly and add stuff on or make it up to fill in the gaps.



Christ you really are a piece of work, I really don't even know where to start in counter argument to something so vile as to imply that someone under the age of consent could have enjoyed/encouraged their sexual abuse. Hall pleaded guilty, bravo for him, but of course this gives us no reason to believe the words of his conceded victims, who lets face it, were probably gagging for it, or have embellished the issue because they're down right evil/nuts/female.


Having had a module in the psychology of sexual abuse as part of my degree (quite a while ago I admit). This is the argument many paedophiles put forward as a reason for their abuse (not that I am suggesting that Phubbs is such just that he is utilising the same logic to excuse such actions). it is a case of attempting to sexualise children (as many of the victims were at the time of the alleged abuse) by essentially saying "they were asking for it". Also how can Phubbs who in the past has made posts complaining about the sexualisation of children then turn around and make a statement that individuals who were children at the time of such abuse may have been children acting in such a sexualised manner to excuse the abuse?

The important thing to remember is that especially in the case of Hall these were illegal acts with some who were children at the time with someone in a position of power using that position to influence and abuse children which was and is illegal. Other cases have alleged the same and in some cases allegations of outright force being used. Some cases may lack evidence, some may even be false but as long as they look at them and find those which are true and prosecute those who there is the evidence to prosecute than this is a good thing as these are not things victims just shake off (see the woman who after giving evidence on the abuse she received from her choir master many years ago committed suicide as a direct result of the torment she had suffered and the destruction of her life which started at that very point of abuse).

I really hope it is a case of trolling as if not you have to despair.




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 6:10:03 PM)

I think OYE brought out the Tango & Cash gif a bit too early.

Phubbs, there is absolutely no doubt now that you are trolling because nobody in their right mind would say something so abhorrent. You may as well admit it.




superdan -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 6:10:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

It's the way she's putting over the idea that 'all' the likes of Hall did was an inappropriate touch which might make some people think 'well, yeah, I mean that isn't as extreme as rape or abuse, is it?'.

And then you remember the letter in The Independent from the girl he abused - because it wasn't the odd random touch he's been convicted of. So even those who've gone from the 'it's too long ago' argument and now want to try the 'but the odd kiss didn't harm anyone and isn't enough for a lynch mob' might want to pause and think a bit.



Just a thought, this letter, how do we or anyone know its completely truthful? how can anyone prove that? it could easily be somewhat exaggerated no?.


I suppose it could, except that Hall has admitted to and will likely be found guilty of being a paedo. So that would likely indicate that the victim isn't lying at all and in fact recalls the events with horrifying clarity.

quote:


Plus how do we know that at the time of these incidents the girl/s didn't possible encourage or maybe even enjoy what happened?? Maybe after the incident they realised what they had done and then decided they didn't like it?.


This is one of the most sociopathic things I've ever read on here, or indeed the internet, ever. You are being an apologist for paedophilia and it's more than a little worrying to be honest.




DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 6:13:48 PM)

And may I just add, for any Phubbs apologists, that prefacing a deliberately antagonistic post with "just a thought" does not defuse the situation. Nor does the predictable air of petulance that will inevitably follow when the trolling sod is called out. That and the pathetic bleating of "ooh, now they're ganging up on me!" Save it.




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 6:16:08 PM)

I genuinely hope that there aren't any Phubbs apologists after that one.

This thread is making my blood pressure rise on the last two pages alone.




Hood_Man -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (9/5/2013 8:59:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

And may I just add, for any Phubbs apologists, that prefacing a deliberately antagonistic post with "just a thought" does not defuse the situation. Nor does the predictable air of petulance that will inevitably follow when the trolling sod is called out. That and the pathetic bleating of "ooh, now they're ganging up on me!" Save it.

He lost me at the word "thought."




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 12:59:26 AM)

Well, he appears to have gone into hiding without defending his comments.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 6:44:08 AM)

The Moderation Team are dealing with this - so moving on [:)]




Alistair81 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 11:26:03 AM)

quote:

Plus how do we know that at the time of these incidents the girl/s didn't possible encourage or maybe even enjoy what happened?? Maybe after the incident they realised what they had done and then decided they didn't like it?.


The thing that gets me about this statement is that even if this actually happened at the time of the offence (I'm referring to the older adolescents not nine year olds) it does not excuse the fact that a person in a position of responsibility/power etc. has totally abused that position. It is not good enough to say you just couldn't resist - it is you responsibility to do so and in not doing so you are acting in a totally inexcusable way and deserve to be punished for it. It is actually a total irrelevance - just because he/she "was asking for it" does not mean you should give in to them and to try to rationalise it in that fashion is mind blowing - yet it comes up time and again. It is conceivable that a 14 or 15 year old might want to become sexually active with an older person but there is no way that the older person is acting in the child's best interest if they were to agree, and if they did so they would still be committing a crime of abuse - it's cut and dry. How rational people continue to offer this as an excuse is beyond me (and it is not just sociopaths that do so).




Dpp1978 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 1:21:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

I have to actually agree here. I have heard some genuine horror stories about jurors (from people who work directly in that area) and the decisions they make, and it is true that in complex cases some are genuinely intellectually and emotionally incapable of coping. Sadly a lot see it as a burden rather than a civic duty and just want a verdict to get out of there. A jury is very much a Russian roulette situation and some are great with people who look at the evidence and make informed decisions, others are car crashes where they just utilise their opinion and what the person looks look to make a conclusion.


There is a reason that lawyers will often advise clients to opt for a trial in the Crown Court even where trial by magistrate is available. While the potential sentences available may be greater, the likelihood of an acquittal is increased. Magistrates are generally (to make a sweeping generalisation) case hardened and possibly jaded: they see many cases. They are far less likely to be swayed by even genuine emotional arguments as they have heard them all before.

Jurors may only ever be called on to serve once in their lives. They are more susceptible to emotional argument: especially where the defendant is particularly sympathetic or repulsive. Sometimes objectivity goes out the window and the guilty go free or the innocent are sent down. Many find it difficult to take away a person's liberty.

There is a reason that no-one has ever sanctioned a study on how rational/emotional the decisions of juries are. It'd open a real can of worms. It is a hugely flawed system but one which would be very hard politically to get rid of. It forms the cornerstone of the public perception of public justice; it is the plebs not the learned few who have the power to decide. It is a powerful symbol of democratic principles in action.

This potential lack of objectivity is largely why juries were abolished for the vast majority of civil cases. We keep it, and will probably always keep it, for criminal trials for the benefit of public justice (as opposed to private justice in most civil cases) but there is strong theoretical argument that a professional body of jurists would be a more effective way of coming to objective decisions as to guilt.



One of the interesting things about these cases is how some of them would have lapsed due to the effluxion of time elsewhere in the world. Most countries have a limitation period, after which any charge is barred by statute. In the EU the average limitation period for bringing a charge for sexual offences is 12 years after the event and in the US I believe it is 5 years. There are provisions for extending or suspending the limitation period for certain crimes (sexual abuse against children for example) but it has to be applied for. In the UK there is no statute of limitations for criminal acts, which is why a lot of these cases are decades old without any issue of time barring them. Evidentially they may be hard to prove, especially where the evidence is entirely based on 30+ year old testimony, but there is no legal bar on them proceeding.

I read an article before this particular storm broke advocating a statute of limitations on these sorts of cases. I wonder if the author has since changed his mind. I dread to think what the public opinion would have been had these cases been brought to light and the perpetrators been untouchable on a technicality.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 1:35:27 PM)

I was slightly gobsmacked by those 12/5 year limits until I got to the bit about an applied for exemption for child abuse. The latter time limit wouldn't be long enough for many abused to come of an age to realise what had happened to them.




Dpp1978 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 2:16:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I was slightly gobsmacked by those 12/5 year limits until I got to the bit about an applied for exemption for child abuse. The latter time limit wouldn't be long enough for many abused to come of an age to realise what had happened to them.


Generally with kids (at least in England) the clock doesn't start to tick until they reach the age of majority. I suspect, but don't know, that is the case elsewhere. In the US I know the clock can be extended almost indefinitely for child abuse cases: certainly for the duration of the victim's life.

This still wouldn't protect those who were young adults, over the age of majority but still vulnerable, who were preyed on by those in positions of trust. In such cases once the clock ran out there would be very little that could be done.




Goodfella -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 1:34:08 PM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222

15 months? Seriously? Is that it?

For sexually abusing girls for a continuous period of almost 20 years, with the youngest aged just 9 at the time of the assault! Surely I can't be the only one who looks at this sentence and thinks that it is disgustingly pathetic, I don't care how long ago the crimes were and I am stunned by his defence solicitor's argument that "13 isn't as bad as a possible 1,300 for which Saville is accused."

He'll most likely be out in far less than 15 as well, as we all know too well.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 2:08:16 PM)

I'm very shocked at how short the sentence is, for really the same reasons. Length of time in which criminal activity took place, a charge of rape staying on the file, all of it.




thatlittlemonkey -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 3:20:29 PM)

Please, don't for a second, believe that I am excusing the crimes or the length of the sentence (he should have far more), but I would imagine that his age would be a big factor in this. After all, at 83, 15 months could end up being a life sentence. However, it was not nearly as long as it should've been.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 3:49:42 PM)

But longevity is increasing, not decreasing. He's a relatively well-off first world male. There was no reported health issue made in court as part of a plea. I really doubt 15mths is close to a life sentence.

The judge seemed to be overly interested in the sentences at the time of the crimes - surely entirely irrelevant? If older generations didn't appropriately punish criminals that's their problem, and not one we should consider.




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:04:07 PM)

The sentence is going to be reviewed...

http://news.sky.com/story/1104682/stuart-hall-attorney-general-reviews-sentence




Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375