Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator

[ethan]

Out on bail.... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...allegations-against-jimmy-savile-8320008.html

I think he is absolutely right with his comments sadly and whilst I don't agree with any of that kind of behaviour, one only has to look at shows like Benny Hill which attracted audiances of 21.10 million viewers typifying male actions towards women which he referred to as comedic illusions

 

[NeilF]

I think he is absolutely right with his comments sadly and whilst I don't agree with any of that kind of behaviour, one only has to look at shows like Benny Hill which attracted audiances of 21.10 million viewers typifying male actions towards women which he referred to as comedic illusions

Yes, I can understand some of the comments, and that society was somewhat more 'sexist'. But I don't recall it ever being OK to fondle/abuse/molest 12yr old girls for example? Yes society was different in the 70s/80s, and our outlook slightly different, but even then such activity was illegal, and just as damaging to those on which it was inflicted.

In short, if people in positions of influence used it to abuse underage children I see no reason why they should get away with it because they carried it out tens of years ago. And I suspect the victims feel the same.


The charges in his case seem somewhat vague at the moment, so I'm not really sure what he's being charged with? Anyone?

 

[SickAsAParrot]

I can just imagine the carnage if every woman who 'went backstage' at a pop/rock concert, whilst underage, put in a complaint.

That would be every rock musician from the past 60 years in jail.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

DLT comments were fair and justified - lets just see how the crazy media spin it now. still hes said his peace and if everyone wants to go OTT about it then god help us all.

 

[Diagro]

my teacher touched my shoulder after class, Im guna sue him now he is dead!

 

[ethan]

Yes, I can understand some of the comments, and that society was somewhat more 'sexist'. But I don't recall it ever being OK to fondle/abuse/molest 12yr old girls for example? Yes society was different in the 70s/80s, and our outlook slightly different, but even then such activity was illegal, and just as damaging to those on which it was inflicted.

In short, if people in positions of influence used it to abuse underage children I see no reason why they should get away with it because they carried it out tens of years ago. And I suspect the victims feel the same.


The charges in his case seem somewhat vague at the moment, so I'm not really sure what he's being charged with? Anyone?

He was supposed to have groped or fondeled an adult in 1967

 

[NeilF]

He was supposed to have groped or fondeled an adult in 1967

So it's unfortunate timing then to me mixed up in all these child related cases? ie: At worse its sexual harrassment? (Why am I thinking of a panda? )

 

[TJM]

So it's unfortunate timing then to me mixed up in all these child related cases? ie: At worse its sexual harrassment? (Why am I thinking of a panda? )

It's sexual assault, which is illegal and despicable behaviour. Any decent human being would know it's wrong, even in the 1960's.

 

[NeilF]

It's sexual assault, which is illegal and despicable behaviour. Any decent human being would know it's wrong, even in the 1960's.

Well, I don't pretend to know the specifics of the case, but my point is simply it doesn't seem to be related to paedogeddon.

 

[TJM]

Aye, it's unfair for him to be caught up in it, but my sympathy is limited since his defence is 'I only assault women, not kids.'

 

[dowie]

Tis slightly unfair to have his photo next to the super-nonces as part of the media's latest paedageddon campaign. If he's just groped a couple of co-workers then I think Mr Travis' main problem is mostly down to the fact that he is ugly:

 

[_lecro_]

Tis slightly unfair to have his photo next to the super-nonces as part of the media's latest paedageddon campaign. If he's just groped a couple of co-workers then I think Mr Travis' main problem is mostly down to the fact that he is ugly:

LMAO , i nearly fell off my chair

 

[Destination]

It's sexual assault, which is illegal and despicable behaviour. Any decent human being would know it's wrong, even in the 1960's.

Is it?
Was it?

He is reported to have felt a woman's breasts while she was reading the news on radio, and now 42 years later she is suggesting she had a problem with it.
Right, good for her.

-edit
Times change, and the world moves on
It wasn't that long ago where it was legal for a man to rape his own wife. Now it is 'illegal and despicable, and every decent human being would know it was wrong'.
The world well certainly the UK is a very different place from the 1960s and 1970s.

 

[Xordium]

Now it is 'illegal and despicable, and every decent human being would know it was wrong'..

Wouldn't it be fairer to say it wasn't illegal. You can things which aren't illegal but morally and ethically wrong.

 

[Malevolence]

Am I the only one who's now wondering where David 'Kid' Jensen got his nickname from?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Wouldn't it be fairer to say it wasn't illegal. You can things which aren't illegal but morally and ethically wrong.

To say it wasn't illegal is true but if we're being pedantic it simply wasn't really possible for it to exist as a crime - marriage provided an implicit and conclusive presumption that consent was granted by the wife to the husband. If there was no possibility of a lack of consent then no rape was possible - it was a logical outturn but predicated on a rather abhorrent presumption that has rightly been dismissed.

 

[NeilF]

Am I the only one who's now wondering where David 'Kid' Jensen got his nickname from?

LOL!

 

[RoboCod]

To say it wasn't illegal is true but if we're being pedantic it simply wasn't really possible for it to exist as a crime - marriage provided an implicit and conclusive presumption that consent was granted by the wife to the husband. If there was no possibility of a lack of consent then no rape was possible - it was a logical outturn but predicated on a rather abhorrent presumption that has rightly been dismissed.

I think people forget (or are too young to appreciate) how different our society was just 50 - 60 years ago, particularly before the feminist movement. Wow, I think women even had less stature than they do in fundamentalist Muslim states!

 

[LOAM]

I was punched in the face when I was 6. 33 years later I would like the perp arrested for assault. Who do I need to call, the police or the press ?

 

[chris-82]

Yes, I can understand some of the comments, and that society was somewhat more 'sexist'. But I don't recall it ever being OK to fondle/abuse/molest 12yr old girls for example? Yes society was different in the 70s/80s, and our outlook slightly different, but even then such activity was illegal, and just as damaging to those on which it was inflicted.

In short, if people in positions of influence used it to abuse underage children I see no reason why they should get away with it because they carried it out tens of years ago. And I suspect the victims feel the same.

I agree you did what you did and you should pay for it no matter how long ago it was you are accountable for your actions which seems to be slowly forgotten.

I can just imagine the carnage if every woman who 'went backstage' at a pop/rock concert, whilst underage, put in a complaint.

That would be every rock musician from the past 60 years in jail.

And each and every one would deserve the judgement they receive.