The Natural Philosopher wrote:
ARW wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
djc wrote:
On 12/10/12 12:50, DerbyBorn wrote:
I don't think we should judge "yesterdays" actions by "todays"
standards. Bear in mind that DJs and Pop Artists had a
following of "Groupies". When faced with Groupies what was a
bloke expected to do (by his peer group and
by the groupies). as far as the BBC is concerned, I expect
they felt some sort of duty to allow stars some access to
their fans. It was a long time ago!

Well, yes, up to a point. That no action was taken 40+ years
ago is understandable. But it seems there were whispers about
him even then. Perhaps that didn't reach those with influence.
But in the years that followed there must have been people
aware of rumours who had by then been promoted to positions
where they could have advised against employing him etc. Were
none of them in the 80s, the 90s perceptive enough to be aware
that times were changing, that what might have been tolerated
ten or twenty years past was no longer, that he was a bit of a
throwback, a liability at the very least.
I think it was more teh climate of te times. The swinging sixties
when a bit of sex on te side was intesenly laudable.

Rocks stars had groupies, young girls threw their knickers on the
stages. Jimmy was a working class lad who made a name for himself
and indulged himself in young girls, found he could get away with
it, and carried on.

Much like today its all Peruvian marching powder and Russell Brand
type stuff. Or being 'gay'.

It simply wasn't that unexceptional. Jimmy of course was at the
limit of what was acceptable, but he was useful and charismatic
and did a lot for charity. And a lot of the girls didn't have to
be there. Now it transpires a lot DID have to be there and were
very unwilling, well it sheds a slightly different light on it.

I know my GF was propositioned by Jimmy, she told me so. BUT she
wasn't anywhere near the BBC hierarchy so she could say no without
losing her job. She thought he was 'creepy'. I didn't like the
false bonhomie and superficial poppishness of him anyway. I was
into heavy rock and blues, and that was miles away from Donny
Osmond and the Bay City Rollers.
Really I think the truth is somewhere in between,. Lots of girls
advanced their careers on their backs, and a few who didn't found
it tougher going. Mostly saying no, might at the worst net you
the sack. Jimmy probably found he could succeed with the stupider
more helpless and more innocent sort who tended to follow the pop
scene around, and made hay, and overstepped the mark,, simply
because he could get away with it. Everybody knew he was doing
loads of skirt, but not many people knew that it was underage and
unwilling skirt.


You mean kids and rape?



yes. If you want to put it that way.

Let's face it, there are possibilities which are more, or less, legal
and reprehensible.

overage girls who enjoyed it (consensual sex, legal)
overage girls who accepted it as a price to be paid (prostitution,
quasi legal.)
overage girls who didn't want it, said so and didn't get it (No sex,
legal) ditto, but who got it anyway. (rape, illegal)
underage girls who enjoyed it (consensual sex, illegal but probably
about 20% of adults have done it at least once judging by teenage
pregnancies)
underage girls who accepted it as a price to be paid (prostitution,
illegal.)
underage girls who didn't want it, said so and didn't get it (No sex,
legal) ditto, but who got it anyway. (rape, paedophilia,or child abuse
depending on your degree of moral outrage, illegal)

So he had a lot of choice then:-)

The only thing that surprises me is that is accused of ****ing underage
girls not underage boys.

--
Adam