Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator

Can we stop using that phrase, certainly for me at least this is not a situation where someone has cried wolf and I believe them primarily because 'there's no smoke without fire'.

There is already a substantial amount of very compelling evidence and we've still probably not seen the last of it.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I've got to admit a certain amount of surprise that "in fact Saville instigated the DJ disco genre solely to gain access to boys" - I'd personally thought disco started some time in the 1970s in America but now I find out it was purely the work of one man in England...
Click to expand...

I do believe when they say 'DJ Disco' they mean the guys that went round doing mobile disco's and I think Saville was the first to do this in the 60s.
However, if he was into young girls I doubt he will be into young boys.
It's usually one or the other.
 
Dimple said:
I do believe when they say 'DJ Disco' they mean the guys that went round doing mobile disco's and I think Saville was the first to do this in the 60s.
However, if he was into young girls I doubt he will be into young boys.
It's usually one or the other.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is what they meant but it's not particularly clear to me. The article also suggests that he was a necrophiliac as well, it's quite an exceptional range of sexual perversions that he stands accused of - as you say it tends to be much more limited usually but that's not an absolute rule of course.

I'm also not sure what the comment about Prince Philip has to do with anything but perhaps it's one of those things I just don't need to know.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Perhaps that is what they meant but it's not particularly clear to me. The article also suggests that he was a necrophiliac as well, it's quite an exceptional range of sexual perversions that he stands accused of - as you say it tends to be much more limited usually but that's not an absolute rule of course.

I'm also not sure what the comment about Prince Philip has to do with anything but perhaps it's one of those things I just don't need to know.
Click to expand...

david ike is hardly a valid source of information.
 
aardvark said:
david ike is hardly a valid source of information.
Click to expand...

Rubbish! How can you dispute an argument like this....


I guess you're just one of those gullible people that believe the moon is 'real' and the world's governments are comprised of humans when anyone with a brain knows they are shape shifting lizards. :rolleyes:

Wake up man!!!

:D:D:D;)
 
estebanrey said:
Rubbish! How can you dispute an argument like this....


I guess you're just one of those gullible people that believe the moon is 'real' and the world's governments are comprised of humans when anyone with a brain knows they are shape shifting lizards. :rolleyes:

Wake up man!!!

:D:D:D;)
Click to expand...


can't argue with logic like that :p:p
 
Apparently one of the interviewees in ITV's documentary has complained about being included in the programme.

She said "I only sent them a mail telling them my story, I didn't want to take part. My letter was only the start of it, One letter and now I'm a part of it"
 
Last edited:
spoffle said:
Okay, firstly you're taking the position of me having said they deserve it, or only have themselves to blame for it if it happens due to the way they are dressed.

I didn't say that, so cut it out. There are people with issues out there who think it's okay because the girl is wearing next to nothing. These people exist, and they use this as an excuse, reason or justification to do what they want to do.

Where the hell did I say "she deserves it", or defended the people who've done it? Can you point that out for me because I can't see it.

Your examples also are poor and don't work. Knocking a pint by accident isn't generally something that takes a concious effort. Dressing in next to nothing, being smashed drunk and staggering around is putting yourself at risk when you know there are people out there that take advantage of people who are in that situation.

Again, they don't deserve what might happen to them, the fact that they are risking their well being whilst in that state doesn't change, and why is it such an issue to point that out? It's simply not a sensible thing for them to be doing, you might live in fairytale land where you think and strongly suggest that a woman shouldn't have to be concerned with how she's dressed, where she is, and what state she's in could be a risk to her personal harm, but that's not the reality of it.

Do yourself a favour and take note of what I'm actually saying, notice that I'm not entirely talking about clothing worn, note that I am talking about multiple things. Being smashed drunk, staggering around in quite a vulnerable state. It'd be great if that wasn't something we'd need to worry about, but that's not the real world.





Cut out out you utter man child. What I've said, what you're saying I've said, are two very different things. Also that ridiculous image you posted? It's idealistic nonsense, the world doesn't work like that. The guy's implying that the perp is never blamed for their actions, which is absolute nonsense for one. Some people act like it would have been the girl's fault, I'm not saying anything of the sort and yet you're sperging out over what I said suggesting I did say it was her fault.

Why should I pretend that the girls who put themselves in that situation aren't taking a risk when we know there are people about that would do that? Complacency? Complacency doesn't mean it's her fault, it does however mean that there are steps people should take to make sure they're not making themselves vulnerable being in that sort of state.
Click to expand...

You are a disgusting rape apologist and you are blaming the victim, let me point out how.

You may not straight out blame the victim for her own rape, but will do so indirectly by putting the responsibility of preventing rape on her shoulders, as opposed to rapists' shoulders.

If you are a woman, you have most likely grown up hearing people give you a long, long, list of things that you should/should not do in order not to get yourself raped. This list includes:

1) Not wearing a short skirt.
2) Not taking walks without a male friend with you.
3) Taking self defense classes.
4) Not drinking alcohol or doing drugs (not because of the health risks, JUST so you don't get yourself raped)
5) Not leaving your drink alone.
6) Avoiding certain hairstyles.
7) Avoiding wearing heels.
8) Not wearing a low cut blouse.
9) Carrying pepper spray with you.
10) Not living by yourself.
10.5) Not living with anyone else
11) Refraining from passing out during a party.
12) Not flirting with a person who you aren't willing to have sex with.
13) Not dancing with a person who you aren't willing to have sex with.
14) Maintaining your virginity.
15) Not walking in certain ways.

and if you don't follow that list, well then, it's your fault anyway! You didn't get raped, you got yourself raped!

A lot of the people who tell women how to not get raped claim that they aren't blaming the victims. They claim that, even though it's not technically the victim's fault if she didn't follow all of the rules as to how not to get raped, it's still a woman's responsibility to learn all of these rules in order to prevent her own rape. A lot of them may not straight out blame the victim for her own rape, but will do so indirectly by putting the responsibility of preventing rape on her shoulders, as opposed to rapists' shoulders.

Aside from rape and some other hate crimes, like the assault and murder of trans people, I am not aware of any other crimes that people try to end by giving the responsibility of ending it to the victims. We don't tell people that they shouldn't drive in order to avoid getting hit by drunk drivers. We tell people not to drive while drunk. We don't tell people not to dress like they're rich in order to avoid getting robbed. We tell people not to steal. It's that simple. The responsibility of preventing rape should be completely focused on teaching people, men and women alike, to respect each others bodily autonomy and on teaching people the meaning of consent. Consent is not silence or a "well.. I guess". Consent is an enthusiastic YES! Consent doesn't mean that one person is just laying there, staring at the wall blankly. Consent is when both partners are very much engaged. Our society has this idea that, unless a woman is screaming for the other person to stop and is using a lot of physical force, that she has consented and it's okay for the man to go on. That is not what consent is.
 
tumblr_ltk6qcb3zS1qcfoo3o1_500.jpg
 
hurfdurf said:
You are a disgusting rape apologist......
Click to expand...

You've got a screw lose with regards to this subject matter, your taking what spoffle is saying completely out of context, you have no objectively on this subject AT ALL.

People have a 'certain' amount of responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and their actions which could further or lesson the chances of you being a victim of crime, it's basic common sense, you leave your car unlocked and it gets robbed then in some 'small' way that isn't really surprising, is it right that should happen?, no, you have a young girl out in the middle of night wearing next to nothing, drunk, in a known 'dodgy' area alone then no, I wouldn't be surprised if she might got attacked/abused in some way, did she deserve it, NO, read that again, NO, had she been more responsible could she of potentially avoided the crime, YES, it's not a nice world out there and most people are very concious of that, our waitresses in work do not walk home alone at night on the late shift, they are being responsible, why do you think we lock our doors at night?, there are sick individuals out there.

As a 'male' I avoid certain areas at certain times, regular short cuts that I normally take in the day turn into dark unlit back alleys in the night and become prime locations to 'jump' someone, so I avoid them at night, it's just being safety concious, it's not about dictating a specific set of rules to women that they should adhere to and if they don't they are to blame for getting assaulted, it's just about being sensible, men or women, we both have to be responsible, it's just that women are statistically more likely to get raped than a man is and as a result have to be a little bit more weary of their surroundings in certain situations, 'ideally' we should be able to dress and go where we like at any time of the day in any area without the fear of being a victim of crime but that's impossible in this current era.

A women should never feel that they are to blame for rape, ever, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with being safety concious and therefore giving you a lessor statistical chance of being a victim of crime, we all can benefit from that, and a lot of us do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom