In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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'.

You've surpassed your self in stupidly. He sexually assaulted children
against their wishes - even if you believe a child can give assent to
such things.

I made that exact pint, thats was the one bit we DIDN'T know.and te ONLY
thing that is surprising.

He could have had consensual sex with half the country if they were of
legal age and there would have been no outcry.


Gay men have consensual sex with other adult gay men. Those who pray on
children are pederasts - nothing whatsoever to do with being gay.


You have totally missed the point. I was merely using that as an example
of something that would have been utterly taboo to be overt about in
the 60's (it was as illegal - probably more illegal - than screwing
jailbait is today) and is now totally acceptable. Turing nearly went to
jail for being tossed off by another bloke.

Complete nonsense. Homosexuality was accepted in the entertainment
industry long before it became legal. Turing was jailed for doing
something which is still illegal today.


ALL I am saying if you can drop your prejudices and see it, is that what
is acceptable today is not what was acceptable in the 60's. We are
totally tolerant of 'perversions' except those involving underage
children despite the fact that the age of consent goes as low as 13 in
some cultures.

It shows your true colours calling homosexuality a perversion. But try to
justify having sex with children.

So as I say, in the permissive 60's Jimmy wasn't doing anything wrong
EXCEPT to unwilling juveniles who had no chance to refuse.

So it would have been ok if they agreed? Good God.

And that was NOT a matter of wide knowledge - no way. As I said we all
knew he was a randy perve, but so were many people then. You would be
surprised how many bastions of the establishment were visiting miss
whiplash et al,. or getting access to distinctly younger than legal
crumpet. Or boys.

I don't give a stuff if the Queen herself likes being whipped. That is her
business. What is totally unacceptable is using a position of power to
inflict yourself on unwilling people - and even more so when they're
children.

The odd thing is, that in a way people were less surprised then, than
they are now.

I think life was a bit more realistic and earthy then, without so many
sheltered suburban illusions.

You make the mistake of thinking I am acting as an apologist for
Saville: No way, He was a gruesome perve. BUT I WAS answering the
questions as to why nothing was done, because apart from the fiddling
with people who couldn't say no, what he was doing was - if not common
acceptable or normal - not that unusual.In those circles.

Kiddy fiddling wasn't acceptable then or now. By the vast majority of the
population.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.