The King Of Swing Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 It doesn't matter whether a girl is one year under the age of consent or six years  But it really does.  No it really doesn't.   Dirty bastard.   I really need to start reading over what I type before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvertedSmiley Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 It doesn't matter whether a girl is one year under the age of consent or six years  But it really does. Not in the eyes of the law. It is sex with an underage person either way. I find the defence of Savile because the alleged victim was "only a year under the age of consent" quite bizarre, really.  This is the key aspect for me at the moment. Would I be going too far in saying that the actions over the past few days basically have Jimmy down as guilty? Aren't there memorials to him and whatnot being removed already? That's what does my head in a bit about this kind of thing. As soon as the allegations broke it pretty much ensured that Saville's reputation was done, regardless of him actually being guilty.  He was a creepy looking fucker, and was definately a tad eccentric. Throw in some allegations, and a shitload of the old "I heard from a guy who used to mop the floors at BBC headquarters" type stories and it's all done & dusted.  Even if these allegations come to nothing, and nothing can be proved the guy is painted as guilty anyway, and everything positive he ever did over the years has been swept under the carpet. I think that's probably the greatest shame in this whole episode, from both points of view. Savile's reputation from now on is always going to be that of a child abuser because he isn't here to defend himself against the accusations, and I would guess that no-one can. There is also no way for the alleged victims - of which there are said to have been 40 come forward - to achieve any kind of justice or closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted October 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 It doesn't matter whether a girl is one year under the age of consent or six years  But it really does. Not in the eyes of the law. It is sex with an underage person either way. I find the defence of Savile because the alleged victim was "only a year under the age of consent" quite bizarre, really.  I can see the point you're making but I will never agree that having sex with a 15 year old is no less bad than having sex with a ten year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalaxyV.2 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 That sounds awfully odd mate. Â There is also no way for the alleged victims - of which there are said to have been 40 come forward - to achieve any kind of justice or closure. Â I think it can. For a lot of victims of abuse its coming to terms with it themselves thats the biggest achievement and release. The fact that they can talk about it may be a way of coming to terms with it. OK Saville wont pay for this if true, but for them, the peace of mind they may reach as part of their own journey can help them move forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 Didn't enjoy Rita, Sue and Bob Too then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I can see the point you're making but I will never agree that having sex with a 15 year old is no less bad than having sex with a ten year old. Â Anyone who would agree with it should be locked up as a precaution, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maytrix Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 It doesn't matter whether a girl is one year under the age of consent or six years  But it really does. Not in the eyes of the law. It is sex with an underage person either way. I find the defence of Savile because the alleged victim was "only a year under the age of consent" quite bizarre, really.  The age of the person involved does matter somewhat. However the offence is still the same if found guilty.  Sex with a person under 13 is indefensible in a court of law and consent is irrelevant, as Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'm not to up to date on this, but I was reading somewhere that John Peel has been dragged into the whole thing  Yup, the Daily Fail  Seems to be trying to paint a picture that all Radio 1 DJ's were paedo's by the looks of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 The Daily Mail there, taking its stories from old Julie Burchill columns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 The Daily Mail there, taking its stories from old Julie Burchill columns. Â And there, against all odds, we have a new frontrunner in the 'most loathsome person mentioned in this thread' competition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted October 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 Even if these allegations come to nothing, and nothing can be proved the guy is painted as guilty anyway, and everything positive he ever did over the years has been swept under the carpet. As the days have gone by this has bugged me more and more. My gut feeling is that the accusations are true, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the guilty without a trial attitude that's going on. Everything good he ever did, and that's a lot by the sound of it, it quickly being swept aside, footpaths being renamed, questions about whether charitys should take money left to them, memorials being removed, and that's just the stuff by official institutions. I mean it's hardly a suprise that the lynch mop element are about defacing stuff. It just all feels a little as though a trail or investigation wouldn't be needed because everyone has decided based on what they read in the papers. Â I can see the point you're making but I will never agree that having sex with a 15 year old is no less bad than having sex with a ten year old. Seriously? I know it's a bit off the specific subject of the thread, but are you telling me you think a 16/17 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is as bad as the same guy year old having sex with the 10 year old down the street? Or for that matter, reverse it and the guys 15/10 while the girl is 16/17? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Seriously? I know it's a bit off the specific subject of the thread, but are you telling me you think a 16/17 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is as bad as the same guy year old having sex with the 10 year old down the street? Or for that matter, reverse it and the guys 15/10 while the girl is 16/17? He's saying the exact opposite of that, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bellenda Carlisle Posted October 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 Fucking hell Kris, there are a couple of negatives in my sentence but it does make sense if you read it - my deathmatch loving buddy is correct. Opposite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted October 9, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 Fucking hell Kris, there are a couple of negatives in my sentence but it does make sense if you read it - my deathmatch loving buddy is correct. Opposite My appologies, I re-read it several times and couldn't get my head round it because you said it was no less bad, which implied you were saying it was the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Freebird Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 My appologies, I re-read it several times and couldn't get my head round it because you said it was no less bad, which implied you were saying it was the same. The key part though was when he said he would never agree that it is no less bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.