Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


Oh really? So you were there then?

IIRC he wasn't jailed at all. - he took a chemical castration instead.

"What the court offered Turing was a choice: a prison sentence, or a
€œtreatment€� for his homosexuality, organo-therapy, which was in effect a
form of chemical castration. €œIt is supposed to reduce sexual urge
whilst it goes on, but one is supposed to return to normal when it is
over,€� Turing wrote in a letter to a friend on April 17. €œI hope theyre
right.€� The effects of the organo-therapy were not as straightforward as
Turing hoped. He grew breasts as a result of the oestrogen, suffered
bouts of depression, and started to see a therapist."


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.

I didn't call it a perversion. I called it a 'perversion' because in
those days that is what it was called. I put it in inverted commas
because I don't consider it that and nor is it seen that way now.


You are showing YOUR true colours, trying to raise straw men.




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.

Sheesh you are a right moralising little prick arent you.

I don't know what 'all right' means. Girls like to shag too, you know.
Or perhaps you don't. Even 15 year olds. I have no idea whether its
right or wrong to oblige them, and I am hardly likely to face that
dilemma at my age, but I am certainly old enough not to pronounce moral
judgement on them for doing it.

Some would have definitely considered it something to brag about.


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.


Well quite, and I never said it wasn't. So I am not sure why you are in
a moralising tizz about this.
I said it twice and I'll repeat it: Its very hard to disprove consent in
the BBC context, and the under age thing is a technical offence. 10
seconds to midnight on her 16th birthday its illegal and 10 seconds
later its legal. Doesn't that strike you as weird? I accept that the
law has to draw a line, but its terribly arbitrary and one hopes judges
take a view on the individual case.


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.

When is a kiddy a young woman? that's one point. How many girls, then or
now, are virgins on their 16th birthday?

There is as far as I know no evidence that he assaulted pre-pubescent
girls. Certainly my GF was no virgin when he propositioned her, and not
under age.

I am, less incensed by the underage than by the lack of consent
especially in girls who were clearly vulnerable and in no position to
say no. That upsets me far more - less wanting to do jailbait, more
doing it to jailbait that didn't want it. That's just lack of class.

So the kiddy bit? not so bothered. The fiddling - which implies using
authority to make something not desired happen, that I don't forgive..


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.