Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator
- Thread starter fidget
- Start date
Are you really asking me to try and rationalize adults having sex with children?
I appreciate that men used to be able to get away with it, that doesn't make it right...
Why are the police not investigating this allegation?
I don't think he consummated the marriage till a few years later to be fair. Then again she was probably about 14/15 when that happened.... different times etc...
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,122
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Teenager, but if it makes it sound more sinister then keep calling them "children", and yes I think during that era it was acceptable for an adult to have sex with a teenager depending on certain circumstances, some girls at that age back then were very mature and ready to marry and start a family at 16, it was still a hippy love era back then, my mum and dad at the time even though they had a large age gap between them both had very common interests, main one being the Hare Krishna movement at the time which was very popular for 'hippy types', they were into that in a big way, went to meetings and temples etc, and they were big into photography, had their own enlargers etc, I have pictures they both printed and developed themselves right from when they first met, my mum was not some dew eyed little girl wearing My Little Pony Pajamas when they met.
So yes, I do believe in some circumstance an 'older' man can fall in love with a teenager and have sex of them and it not be a perverted event, I agree with the age set by law but that doesn't mean that everybody below that age isn't mature enough to have a relationship, and at the same token I'm sure there are some people above that age level also that aren't mature enough to have an 'adult' relationship either.
Last edited:
No, no it is not rape. An offence yes, but not rape as i'm sure the mum/child consented.
The law sees it as sexual assault - it's a criminal offence. This is because in the eyes of the law we are unable to give informed consent to sex when still a child.
A boy who has sex with a girl under 16 (17 in NI) is breaking the law. Even if she agrees.
If she is 13-15, the boy could go to prison for two years.
If she is under 13 he could be sentenced to life imprisonment.
A girl age 16 or over who has sex with a boy under 16 can be prosecuted for indecent assault.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,072
I know and look how brazen he is, I wonder what he'd have been like if they weren't present.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,254
- Location
- North Sea
I'd have said things he gave away of his own volition in interviews and his own autobiography were pretty damning in their own right personally. It seems to be bizarre that he was pretty much confessing to abusing young girls, almost boasting about it as far back as the 70's, yet this has only just come to light.
This question has been answered, it was rape.
He groomed children well under age and forced the relationship into being sexual. If you listen to the victim's accounts they talk of him being too strong, holding them down by sheer bodyweight, one even says she specifically asked him not to go all the way once he started to molest her, which he answered with no and then proceeded to anyway.
Someone grooming multiple underage girls and having sex with many of them is totally different to two people being in an actual relationship where one of them is slightly underage.
I'm afraid your dad isn't even in the same league as Jimmy Saville
.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,215
A person under the age of 16 is still legally a child, so it is the correct definition. The term teenager is a very broad definition in any case - the difference between a 13 and 19 year old is vast
Well you did use the term "technical rape" to suggest that there are differing degrees of rape and that some rape may not actually be rape at all. It is pretty thing ice, especially in the case were we may have a person of power using and abusing that power to have sex with impressionable young people.
I watched the documentary last night. Pretty disturbing to be honest.
It has certainly swayed me to the persuasion that he is guilty. However I simply don't see where this is going to lead?
The guy is dead, what sort of justice can truly be sought for the victims?
It has certainly swayed me to the persuasion that he is guilty. However I simply don't see where this is going to lead?
The guy is dead, what sort of justice can truly be sought for the victims?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,307
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Why are the police not investigating this allegation?
Perhaps because it was a different time in a different place when we didn't have the laws we have now.
I've no doubt it was happening in this country at the same time so it's no big deal.
Exactly, made even worse by the fact some of the girls it seems were specifically vulnerable.
In an unequal relationships (adult/child or teacher/child) it's always going to be ethically wrong - as one party doesn't have the ability to give real consent (which can only occur between equal parties).
From the accusations made, this is the behaviour of a sexual predator who specifically targeted young, vulnerable children & teenagers.
While a moral grey area exists with girls on the borderline of 16 in a minority of cases, it's hardly the situation here.
Besides, why do people always bring in "almost 16 year old with an adult" as if it's some kind of defence for child abuse?.
I'd love to know statistically how many paedophiles go for girls who are almost 16 - as I've got a feeling it's not many.
Wouldn't it be pretty much none considering what "paedophile" actually means rather than the tabloid definition that is flung around these days?
Look at the amount of people in here who, when a girl is raped, automatically assume she is lying, or wonder what she was wearing and what she did to deserve getting raped.
It's all part of the rape culture we live in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
You accuse me of saying stupid things when you replied to this very thread with
So basically, you thought that if she was 16 it would have been all OK? And then you think we are a bit odd to condemn people with no real evidence.
1 in 4 women will experience rape or attempted rape in their life time.
The conviction rate for rape is 6%
This is out of all the women who have the ability to and are willing to admit to a complete stranger that they have been raped, when the prevailing feeling is to try and force themselves to forget it and pretend it never happened, and not deal with the attitudes presented towards rape victims.
The attitudes presented to women who are raped is that she is lying or that she deserved it.
No other crime is treated in such a way.
But no, your right, I should grow up and think of the poor poor menz who are so quickly judged.
Is it any surprise that most rape victims never come forward when people like you have the reaction you do, and are quite happy to sickeningly share it with the world with your gross opinions.
You are a rape apologist. Check your privilege and educate yourself.
Last edited:
hurfdurf you clearly have some issues related to this subject that gets in the way of you being objective about it.
There are lots of issues over rape accusations, such as false ones where the person accused is treated as if he was guilty simply because he's been accused, even when he's found innocent.
It's not anywhere near as black and white as you're trying to force upon people, and you're not doing yourself any favours at all by forcing your opinion on people as if it's objective facts. Like you're doing with lowrider, telling him that his dad basically raped his mum, and how there aren't two kinds of rape.
It would be a good idea if you educated yourself on the matter before having a rant the way you have been. There are actually two types of rape, despite the fact that you want to pretend otherwise. At the moment, you are just making a monumental show of yourself.
There are lots of issues over rape accusations, such as false ones where the person accused is treated as if he was guilty simply because he's been accused, even when he's found innocent.
It's not anywhere near as black and white as you're trying to force upon people, and you're not doing yourself any favours at all by forcing your opinion on people as if it's objective facts. Like you're doing with lowrider, telling him that his dad basically raped his mum, and how there aren't two kinds of rape.
It would be a good idea if you educated yourself on the matter before having a rant the way you have been. There are actually two types of rape, despite the fact that you want to pretend otherwise. At the moment, you are just making a monumental show of yourself.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
attacking a dead man who can't defend himself, real classy stuff happening here 
Oh this is going to be good. What exactly are the "two types of rape"?