Exposure:the Other Side Of Jimmy Savile

[GhoulishDoolish]

Ahhhh yes the South Yorkshire police, famous for their prolific works of fiction

[manxman1980]

 

 

The 'age of consent' argument is a total red herring. What should be addressed, but isn't and is actually being advocated, is the systematic abuse of children in society. Forget the age, whether it be 13,15,16 whatever. When you have predatory adults exploiting YOUNG children and it being covered up by the establishment (and even organised by such) that's what needs addressing. We as a society have let it become a huge, widespread, organised, underground industry. What kind of society have we degenerated to?

 

I disagree that the "age of consent" argument is a total red herring. It is relevant to what is being discussed and the key point has already been raised in this thread which is consent. Without consent everything is abuse regardless of age, however, the "age of consent" is relevant because there is no real reason to say that someone who is 16 years old is anymore able to make a sensible decision than a 14 year old.

 

I am not necessarily in favour of lowering the age of consent, however, as part of this whole sorry mess I would prefer that thought were given to addressing this arbitary age of 16 as being old enough to consent to sex. At least in the Isle of Man you can also vote at 16 years old and learn to drive, whereas in the UK the limits are all different.

 

The problem is defining what is consent and what is abuse especially in a situation where there are normally only two witnesses. I am not defending those who have abused children or adults.

[GhoulishDoolish]

Not sure that age of consent is relevant to Jimmy Savile since he did not give a shit about consent or age.

 

Police stuffing up the inquiry is relevant so why change the subject?

[Lxxx]

 

 

 

The 'age of consent' argument is a total red herring. What should be addressed, but isn't and is actually being advocated, is the systematic abuse of children in society. Forget the age, whether it be 13,15,16 whatever. When you have predatory adults exploiting YOUNG children and it being covered up by the establishment (and even organised by such) that's what needs addressing. We as a society have let it become a huge, widespread, organised, underground industry. What kind of society have we degenerated to?

 

I disagree that the "age of consent" argument is a total red herring. It is relevant to what is being discussed and the key point has already been raised in this thread which is consent. Without consent everything is abuse regardless of age, however, the "age of consent" is relevant because there is no real reason to say that someone who is 16 years old is anymore able to make a sensible decision than a 14 year old.

 

I am not necessarily in favour of lowering the age of consent, however, as part of this whole sorry mess I would prefer that thought were given to addressing this arbitary age of 16 as being old enough to consent to sex. At least in the Isle of Man you can also vote at 16 years old and learn to drive, whereas in the UK the limits are all different.

 

The problem is defining what is consent and what is abuse especially in a situation where there are normally only two witnesses. I am not defending those who have abused children or adults.

 

Lack of consent, otherwise known as rape, is a different topic altogether.

[manxman1980]

Lack of consent, otherwise known as rape, is a different topic altogether.

 

I agree with that point as it should be so regardless of age. The point I was making about consent is why do we say that at age 16 you are mature enough to give consent for sex yet someone who is (for arguments sake) 15 years and 9 months is not mature enough? The age of consent being set like this makes no sense.

 

In some (but not all) of the cases coming to light there is a possibility that the child concerned gave consent and lied about their age. As evidence there was an article on a woman who had consented to sex with John Peel whilst under the age of 16. The Police were or had investigated that but the woman (girl under the age of 16 at the time) stated that she was fully aware of what she was doing at the time and wanted it. Technically the law says that John Peel committed an offence. Is that right?

 

As to those who abuse/rape others then yes they should face criminal investigation, charges and justice.

[Lonan3]

 

Lack of consent, otherwise known as rape, is a different topic altogether.

 

I agree with that point as it should be so regardless of age. The point I was making about consent is why do we say that at age 16 you are mature enough to give consent for sex yet someone who is (for arguments sake) 15 years and 9 months is not mature enough? The age of consent being set like this makes no sense.

 

In some (but not all) of the cases coming to light there is a possibility that the child concerned gave consent and lied about their age. As evidence there was an article on a woman who had consented to sex with John Peel whilst under the age of 16. The Police were or had investigated that but the woman (girl under the age of 16 at the time) stated that she was fully aware of what she was doing at the time and wanted it. Technically the law says that John Peel committed an offence. Is that right?

 

As to those who abuse/rape others then yes they should face criminal investigation, charges and justice.

I'd like to go back to what I said earlier about Portugal - where courts are given significant leeway if they decide a young person's inexperience has been taken advantage of even if they're technically above the age of consent. It is an area in which the law, applied rigidly, does not always equate to justice.

[Lxxx]

 

 

Lack of consent, otherwise known as rape, is a different topic altogether.

I agree with that point as it should be so regardless of age. The point I was making about consent is why do we say that at age 16 you are mature enough to give consent for sex yet someone who is (for arguments sake) 15 years and 9 months is not mature enough? The age of consent being set like this makes no sense.

 

In some (but not all) of the cases coming to light there is a possibility that the child concerned gave consent and lied about their age. As evidence there was an article on a woman who had consented to sex with John Peel whilst under the age of 16. The Police were or had investigated that but the woman (girl under the age of 16 at the time) stated that she was fully aware of what she was doing at the time and wanted it. Technically the law says that John Peel committed an offence. Is that right?

 

As to those who abuse/rape others then yes they should face criminal investigation, charges and justice.

This will always be a contentious issue but I would rather draw a line in the sand at 16 and deal with the grey areas as and when they arise. Rather this than lower consent to 13, assume they are then mature enough to handle sex inbetween Maths and Geography lessons and invite more sexual predators from the illegal fringes into the legal framework.

[Roger Smelly]

Well just stumbled across the great Jerry Sadowitz's you tube clip of sa "vile"

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQX3PzZ94NU

[CrossRoss]

sadowicz is pretty funny and bang on.

 

 

 

who would have thought john lydon of the sex pistols would be bang on the money with regard to jimmy savile?

[Roger Smelly]

This whole subject is rotten to the core, its like a sh*t pile the more you scrape away the more is revealed.

[The Sick Moon]

Perfectly natural reaction to the creepy old fucker. I used to hide behind the sofa when Jim'll Fix It was on then emerge to watch the Daleks.

 

Lol! Now then, now then, the Daleks would have been terrified of this monster. Even the dead weren't safe!

[Lxxx]

Was there a more vile human being?

[Chinahand]

Sadly, yes.

[slinkydevil]

Lol! Now then, now then, the Daleks would have been terrified of this monster. Even the dead weren't safe!

 

 

I mentioned this earlier in the thread:

 

 

 

Does anyone who read Ecstasy by Irvine Welsh, remember Freddy Royle from the short story 'Lorraine goes to Livingstone'? Freddy Royle was a TV celebrity who got off on paedophilia and necrophilia but hospital trustees would turn a blind eye because he did so much for the hospital and NHS. He had a deep Somerset drawl, perhaps a reflection of the yorkshire drawl, and similar eccentric attitudes.

I remember reading this at the time (1996) and discussing with friends that we thought it was based on a real celebrity, but maybe exaggerated. I'm not insinuating anything, just commenting.

“Freddy Royle had had, by his standards, a tiring day prior to his late afternoon arrival at St. Hubbin’s. He had been in the television studios all morning filming an episode of From Fred With Love. A young boy, whom Fred had sorted out to swim with dolphins at Morecambe’s Marineland, while his grandparents were brought back to the scene of their honeymoon, was all excited in the studio and writhed around in his lap, getting Freddie so aroused and excited that they had to do several takes.”

“Yes, the trustees knew all about Freddy Royle, Glen reflected bitterly. They knew the real secrets of the chat-show host, the authors of several books, including Howzat! – Freddy Royle On Cricket, Freddy Royle’s Somerset, Somerset With a Z: The Wit of the West Country, West Country Walks With Freddy Royle and Freddy Royle’s 101 Magic Party Tricks. Yes, those trustee bastards knew what this distinguished friend, this favorite caring, laconic uncle to the nation did with the stiffs they got in here. The thing was, Freddy brought millions of pounds into the place with his fund-raising activities. This brought kudos to the trustees, and made St Hubbin’s Hospital a flagship for the arm’s-length trusts from the NHS. All they had to do was keep schtumm and indulge Sir Freddy with the odd body.”

[tameelf]

did savile visit nobles or childrens home when he was here ??