Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator

RDM said:
Wouldn't it be pretty much none considering what "paedophile" actually means rather than the tabloid definition that is flung around these days?
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia:

Pedophilia = primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children
Hebephilia = primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals aged approximately 11–14 years
Ephebophilia = primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19
Teleiophilia = sexual interest in adults
Gerontophilia = sexual preference for the elderly
 
spoffle said:
There is rape, and then there is statutory rape, one is lacking consent, and the other the consent isn't deemed valid or applicable. In fact, you could say there's a third if you count deception as one.
Click to expand...

The question is about consent. Consent is either not given by someone capable of giving it or not actually obtainable as the person is not able to given consent. As consent should be gained the default position is always not given until demonstrated otherwise. There are not too different types of rape just people who don't seem to understand simple logic or people looking to make excuses.
 
lowrider007 said:
I don't think anybody would disagree with you there, I certainly wouldn't but I didn't think we were talking about 'children' under the age of 13.

And also,

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Law/Question1005262.html
Click to expand...

Not really sure what the link is supposed to mean, statutory rape isn't something you can be charged with in the UK. It is an American criminal offence.

Regardless, I would still see coercing someone into a sexual act as a serious sexual assault and not make some sort of "Well, it isn't real rape" excuses that some are coming out with.

lowrider007 said:
All I was getting at with my posts was it's not as black and white as hurfdurf was making out, claiming that anyone having sex with a minor under the age of 16 was classed as rape, that is incorrect, when dealing with sex between an adult and a minor between the ages of 13-16 it is a large grey area depending on very specific circumstances and all these are taken into consideration on a case by case basis,

Read through this,

http://stretlaw.co.uk/2012/04/27/ne...pe-of-children-by-felicitygerry-via-stretlaw/
Click to expand...

I am not really sure if the allegations against Jimmy Saville fall into that grey area though. If true then he used a position of trust to sexually assault young girls. I would say that coercing someone into sex is rape in those sorts of circumstances.

You get to very dodgy ground when you start categorising rape, playing down the seriousness of sexual assault or otherwise providing excuses to either vilify victims or let perpetrators off.

Sometimes when reading these boards you would think that the vast majority of rape allegations are women lying about it for one reason or another when the evidence would suggest otherwise.
 
tbh said:
According to Wikipedia:

Pedophilia = primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children
Hebephilia = primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals aged approximately 11–14 years
Ephebophilia = primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19
Teleiophilia = sexual interest in adults
Gerontophilia = sexual preference for the elderly
Click to expand...

You're now on a list for googling that.
 
The modern generation of idiots who trust wikipedia .....

Note the Oxford english dictionary definition of Paedophile is ...

Definition of paedophile


noun

a person who is sexually attracted to children.

There is no mention of the age of the child.
 
Last edited:
Meridian said:
Actually he is perfectly correct. I've seen no end of people on these forums, which are by no means as extreme as some sites, saying that if women get drunk and then go off with a man, then they have effectively consented to sex. The view that "they were asking for it" is still prevalent in the country at large. Oddly, it's more common amongst women, which is why the Prosecution prefers male juries, the Defence prefers female. It's why the Defence still goes after a victims background, even though technically they aren't allowed to.
Click to expand...

How do you cope with having to read it? It makes me feel sick and stresses me out no end if I think about it too long or discuss it with rapists/rape apologists/misogynist that are prevalent in today's society.
 
spoffle said:
What on you on about? You don't think it's right to suggest some people should be more aware of the reality of things? That if they go wandering off by themselves, drunk, that some one might try to take advantage of them? You're actually asking me for a source on that too? Because it never happens, right?
Click to expand...

I can show you stats that show you are wrong, you can't show me stats showing that what a girl wears will affect how likely to be raped she is, and that idea, which is inherently wrong and which shows me you know nothing about rape, actually harm women when you parrot them incorrectly.
 
spoffle said:
This establishes that you're not actually reading what people are saying. You are seeing a hint of disagreement on something you've said and constantly copy and pasting that pathetic line, because not once have I made excuses for rape, you odd man child.



It seems like your issue is being told you're wrong.
Click to expand...

No, my issue is that people parrot incorrect statements about rape, particularly men who know nothing about rape, and then go "OH BUT COMMON SENSE?!" when all the stat's and evidence from rape and rapists show that you are wrong, and you are doing more harm than good repeating such flawed ideas about rape.
 
hurfdurf said:
snip
Click to expand...
Very good :cool:.

Why do people always seem the miss the point?.

I blame the just-world hypothesis/fallacy.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/the-just-world-fallacy/

Extract of the article.

"The Misconception: People who are losing at the game of life must have done something to deserve it.

The Truth: The beneficiaries of good fortune often do nothing to earn it, and bad people often get away with their actions without consequences.

A woman goes out to a club wearing stilettos and a miniskirt with no underwear.

She gets pretty drunk and stumbles home in the wrong direction.

She ends up lost in a bad neighborhood. She gets raped.

Is she to blame in some way? Was this her fault? Was she asking for it?

People often say yes to all three in studies asking similar questions after presenting similar scenarios.

It is common in fiction for the bad guys to lose and the good guys to win.

It’s how you would like to see the world- just and fair.

In psychology, the tendency to believe this is how the real world actually works is called the Just-World Fallacy.

More specifically, this is the tendency to react to horrible misfortune, like homelessness or drug addiction, by believing the people stuck in horrible situations must have done something to deserve it

The key word there is deserve. This is not an observation bad choices lead to bad outcomes."

Worth a read.
 
Last edited:
June Thornton, now 80, a former nurse, said she was lying in a four-bed bay in the Brotherton wing after undergoing back surgery in 1972 when she witnessed Savile sexually assault a patient at Leeds General Infirmary. Savile was a volunteer porter at the hospital.

She told the York Press newspaper: “There is no doubt whatsoever that it was Jimmy Savile and that he molested that woman.

“I can still remember seeing exactly what he did. He just helped himself to her. He molested her. He rubbed his hands over her chest and further down her front.”

The woman was unable to resist and it is believed had undergone neurosurgery.

“Whenever he came on the telly after that, we would have to turn it over. I couldn’t bear to see him. He was an obnoxious person. He was evil and I hope he is in hell," Mrs Thornton added.
 
spoffle said:
What on you on about? You don't think it's right to suggest some people should be more aware of the reality of things? That if they go wandering off by themselves, drunk, that some one might try to take advantage of them? You're actually asking me for a source on that too? Because it never happens, right?
Click to expand...

People get stabbed because they walk down the wrong road, deemed wrong because some dickfister is on it with a knife, they should have taken responsibility for being stabbed. Some kids go to school and a bloke comes in with a gun and shoots them, stupid kids, flack jackets and this would never happen. Some young lad is out with his mates and some thug decides to glass him because he knocked his pint over, stupid young lad should know not to knock a thugs pint. Because it never happens, right?

You really need to stop being silly on the Internet and whilst I can understand the point you are trying to make I disagree when some Internet person makes it in the same way I do when a judge makes it. I wouldn't take advantage of a drunk girl who is dressed in a way that makes my willy hard....and I say that having had the chance a few times because I have self control and respect, even when I'm smashed off my face. Defending scum that don't is not something I feel able to do and the whole "she was asking for it" show the people who feel that need to have a word with themselves in my book.

The fact it happens show the problem not the reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom