Ohio Saint Posted 9 October, 2012 Share Posted 9 October, 2012 There used to be a bloke who looked just like that who hung around outside our school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 October, 2012 Share Posted 9 October, 2012 Won't be long before 'Peado' is going to be a workable theme for a fancy dress party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StDunko Posted 9 October, 2012 Share Posted 9 October, 2012 I've heard that the fancy dress costumes are so popular that some sizes have already sold out. If you want to buy one, there are still some some adult sized tracksuit tops available, but you will have to squeeze into children's bottoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9597158/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-was-a-predatory-sex-offender-police-say.html In the first official estimate of the scale of his crimes, Scotland Yard said its team was pursuing 120 separate lines of inquiry against the late BBC presenter. So far eight criminal allegations have been formally recorded against him, two of rape and six of indecent assault, involving girls aged between 13 and 16. Ye Gods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Seems to me the met police are fishing for information and influencing the judges etc already . What happened to the fundamental rules of innocent until proven guilty ! How can a senior detective speak to the media and say savile is a predatory sex offender etc . Let justice take its course . At least the welsh police are saying nothing in terms of the April jones case so they do not compromise the case and ensure bridgers rights . Would the Met being going public because it is a celeb who is dead also what about the rights of those other celebs who are allegedly implicated . I have no respect for the met police . Innocent till proven guilty . Just do your investigation with discretion and integrity . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Seems to me the met police are fishing for information and influencing the judges etc already . What happened to the fundamental rules of innocent until proven guilty ! How can a senior detective speak to the media and say savile is a predatory sex offender etc . Let justice take its course . At least the welsh police are saying nothing in terms of the April jones case so they do not compromise the case and ensure bridgers rights . Would the Met being going public because it is a celeb who is dead also what about the rights of those other celebs who are allegedly implicated . I have no respect for the met police . Innocent till proven guilty . Just do your investigation with discretion and integrity . His headstone was removed last night: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/saviles-headstone-removed-family-011016948.html Will be broken up and disposed of, after the having the inscription on it destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 I'm a little bit stunned by everyones shock and horror about these revelations, I thought it was common knowledge he was a nonce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Hatch he may well be guilty . but let the justice process take its course. Like the allegations about Dave Jones. so many people junped on the band wagon and dont forget the police leaked his arrest to the media before he was arrested at his dads funeral. Those allegations all but ruined a good man. I still belive in innocent till poven guilty. The man is dead and can not defend himself. I watched the freddie starr inverview again he is being convicted with out a full investigation he doeshe not have a right to innocence as well.? The police should say nothing until such times as and if and when this matter comes to court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 I'm a little bit stunned by everyones shock and horror about these revelations, I thought it was common knowledge he was a nonce. That is only a part of it Hatch. The "Shock & Horror" and "bad publicity" that this is giving the UK is the real issue. It's a How far does this go? and Who knew? Problem and the fallout could be very damaging to innocents as well as Guilty Parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 It's funny how Pete Townsend got to close the Olympics, despite accepting a caution for looking at kiddie porn. Are people waiting for him to die before registering their outrage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 His headstone was removed last night: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/saviles-headstone-removed-family-011016948.html Will be broken up and disposed of, after the having the inscription on it destroyed. This act disturbs me. He hasnt been found guilty of anything by trial, and has no recourse for defence. Until the end of whatever investigations are now planned he had a right under the norms of justice to rest in peace. I also find it concerning that incidents of alleged abuse dating back many decades are now coming out like a floodgate has been opened; if a few people had spoken up at the time of their alleged abuse, many many others might have been spared from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 It's funny how Pete Townsend got to close the Olympics, despite accepting a caution for looking at kiddie porn. Are people waiting for him to die before registering their outrage? Yes. Lynch mobs are even more distasteful and vulgar when undertaken posthumously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 This act disturbs me. He hasnt been found guilty of anything by trial, and has no recourse for defence. Until the end of whatever investigations are now planned he had a right under the norms of justice to rest in peace. I also find it concerning that incidents of alleged abuse dating back many decades are now coming out like a floodgate has been opened; if a few people had spoken up at the time of their alleged abuse, many many others might have been spared from it. I agree about the fact he has as yet not been found guilty of anything - and the Saints experience with dave Jones should tell us that its not always a clear cut as it first seems.... although in this case the evidence does seem to be pretty damning However Alps re the multiple victims coming forward thing - have to disagree - that is quite normal - I guess in many cases like this its quite normal for victims to keep this hidden - in denial as they try and go on with tehir lives often shattered by such abuses... and only when one or two have teh courage later in life do others draw strnegth from that and also make the decision to come forward - not sure what the official psychological explantion/conditions, but suspect there is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 I agree about the fact he has as yet not been found guilty of anything - and the Saints experience with dave Jones should tell us that its not always a clear cut as it first seems.... although in this case the evidence does seem to be pretty damning However Alps re the multiple victims coming forward thing - have to disagree - that is quite normal - I guess in many cases like this its quite normal for victims to keep this hidden - in denial as they try and go on with tehir lives often shattered by such abuses... and only when one or two have teh courage later in life do others draw strnegth from that and also make the decision to come forward - not sure what the official psychological explantion/conditions, but suspect there is one. Maybe there is a decent explanation, but imo it makes the whole issue look opportunistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Maybe there is a decent explanation, but imo it makes the whole issue look opportunistic. Agree it can give that impresssion, but think we need to be careful here. One would hope that there no bandwagon jumpers who see 'compensation', but only genuine victims who finally have an opportunity to find some sort of justice - if there is a case to answer. As to why no one said anything at the time... the culture then was one of these sorts of things being 'acceptable' - albeit hushed up and swept under teh carpet, and women had litttle chance of being taken seriously or if theyr were, they were encouraged to drop it or else find a lower glass ceiling to nay future within such organizations - that was not just the BBC but any large corp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Seems to me the met police are fishing for information and influencing the judges etc already . What happened to the fundamental rules of innocent until proven guilty ! How can a senior detective speak to the media and say savile is a predatory sex offender etc . Let justice take its course . At least the welsh police are saying nothing in terms of the April jones case so they do not compromise the case and ensure bridgers rights . Would the Met being going public because it is a celeb who is dead also what about the rights of those other celebs who are allegedly implicated . I have no respect for the met police . Innocent till proven guilty . Just do your investigation with discretion and integrity . Influencing what Judges and for what reason? The police are accepting information about Saville but won't be investigating him as such, given thta he's dead. It seems clear that this kind of noncery was widespread back in the day (evidence=John Peel confession/marriage). There are people still living who deserve to be outed and dealt with in the boundaries of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 It's funny how Pete Townsend got to close the Olympics, despite accepting a caution for looking at kiddie porn. Are people waiting for him to die before registering their outrage? Townshend has been, almost universally, exonerated since that one occasion in 2003, with most people accepting his defence that he was researching for his book -- writing about his own experience as a victim of child abuse. I'm not aware of any other allegations against him. Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Totaly agree with your Commments Alpine for a change. well said He hasnt been found guilty of anything by trial, and has no recourse for defence. Until the end of whatever investigations are now planned he had a right under the norms of justice to rest in peace. I also find it concerning that incidents of alleged abuse dating back many decades are now coming out like a floodgate has been opened; if a few people had spoken up at the time of their alleged abuse, many many others might have been spared from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Egg whether it was wide spread or not , There is a judicial process to be followed. The Met police should have maintained their silence until the investigation was complete. Not blab to the press. like they did in the Dave Jones case and know doubt about many other cases. Have they not learnt a lesson from the potential outcomes of the leverson enquiry. Oh let me think Is it not true to say the MET are seriously implicated in the hacking scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Townshend has been, almost universally, exonerated since that one occasion in 2003, with most people accepting his defence that he was researching for his book -- writing about his own experience as a victim of child abuse. I'm not aware of any other allegations against him. Are you? Sorry, but accepting a caution is accepting guilt. How many people would accept a caution for this type of crime if they were innocent? It seems that Saville is guilty, despite not having the chance to defend himself. But Townsend is innocent despite having the chance to prove his innocence , but accepting his guilt and being placed on the sex register. This "researching for a book" defence is interesting. Do we accept that defence from anybody or just famous people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 His headstone was removed last night: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/saviles-headstone-removed-family-011016948.html Will be broken up and disposed of, after the having the inscription on it destroyed. It should be remembered that Saviles family are also victims of this, in a different way of course. I can only applaud their actions and the dignified comments they've made. "(We) are deeply aware of the impact that the stone remaining there could have on the dignity and sanctity of the cemetery," a statement released on behalf of the family said. Out of respect to public opinion, to those who are buried there, and to those who tend their graves and visit there, we have decided to remove it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Egg whether it was wide spread or not , There is a judicial process to be followed. The Met police should have maintained their silence until the investigation was complete. Not blab to the press. like they did in the Dave Jones case and know doubt about many other cases. Have they not learnt a lesson from the potential outcomes of the leverson enquiry. Oh let me think Is it not true to say the MET are seriously implicated in the hacking scandal. What? There will be no judicial process with saville - he's dead. Jones, leverson, hacking etc have nothing to do with revelations about Saville and potential revelations about others. In respect of the latter, proper investigation and judicial process should follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Sorry, but accepting a caution is accepting guilt. How many people would accept a caution for this type of crime if they were innocent? It seems that Saville is guilty, despite not having the chance to defend himself. But Townsend is innocent despite having the chance to prove his innocence , but accepting his guilt and being placed on the sex register. This "researching for a book" defence is interesting. Do we accept that defence from anybody or just famous people? He did not look at kiddie porn. Even the police investigating him knew that there was nothing in it. He registered his credit card with a website, and then removed it, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 He did not look at kiddie porn. Even the police investigating him knew that there was nothing in it. He registered his credit card with a website, and then removed it, nothing more. Why on earth accept a caution and be placed on the sex offenders register then? I repeat, would you be so understanding if the "offense" was committed by a normal member of the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Why on earth accept a caution and be placed on the sex offenders register then? I repeat, would you be so understanding if the "offense" was committed by a normal member of the public? A caution is accepted in lieu of conviction, ie to accept one is an acknowledgement of an offence. I've no idea what Townshend was supposed to have done though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 (edited) He did not look at kiddie porn. Even the police investigating him knew that there was nothing in it. He registered his credit card with a website, and then removed it, nothing more. Thats not what the caution says, nor what he has admitted to. The website records showed he had dowloaded images but his arrest came four years after the offence, after he had changed computers. Edited 10 October, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 A caution is accepted in lieu of conviction, ie to accept one is an acknowledgement of an offence. I've no idea what Townshend was supposed to have done though! Yes, he was on the radio yesterday and they discussed this. The alternative for him might have been a court case and I think he said that he went for the caution to put and end to things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 The alternative for him might have been a court case and I think he said that he went for the caution to put and end to things. Would you accept this defence from a normal member of the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Thats not what the caution says, nor what he has admitted to. The website trecords showee he had dowloaded images but bis arrest came four years after the offence, after he had changed computers. Not necessarily: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19876936 Make of this one what you will: http://www.petetownshendisinnocent.com/essaysf.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Would you accept this defence from a normal member of the public? As far as I am concerned everybody is a normal member of the public. Does anybody have a transcript of the caution. According to him, he accepted his guilt in accessing the website, not for downloading anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Not necessarily: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19876936 Make of this one what you will: http://www.petetownshendisinnocent.com/essaysf.html His story has changed over time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2648987.stm http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-207_162-536249.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 I'm certainly not apologist for him, merely a seeker of truth, but you have to be careful not to read into those reports things that aren't there. (I can't open the second one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 (edited) you have to be careful not to read into those reports things that aren't there. (I can't open the second one) Thats true. And no-one can be sure (though the evidence is stacking up) Savile is guilty of rape as the law then stood - though undoubtedly he was a nasty creep who used money, fame and influence to cajole young girls into sex. For what its worth I think Townsend probably did view the site and not for book research and not because he's a paedophile - but out of prurient curiosity. The net opened the possibility to do all sorts of things - from arguing with strangers on football boards to seeing what Marilyn Monro looked like dead, to two girls one cup. There are many many things most people have seen once but afterwards wished they hadnt. Edited 10 October, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Thats true. And no-one can be sure (though the evidence is stacking up) Savile is guilty of rape as the law then stood - though undoubtedly he was a nasty creep who used money, fame and influence to cajole young girls into sex. As we've seen from the Peel quotes, this was considered a "perk" of the job. No doubt the music idustry has a lot of dark secrets, where stars have taken advantage of their fame to use and abuse groupies and young girls. The media's response is very selective. Bill Wyman was banging a 14 year old, I wouldn't want Michael jackson baby sitting my kids, and the same week the witchhunt against saville was in full flow, Townsend was being interviewed by the very same media outlets. It's not new. The killer, Jerry Lee Lewis was married to his 13 year old cousin, Elvis met Preiscilla when she was 14. If you read Bill Graham's book most of the acts he promoted in the 60's & 70's were taking advantage of girls, hell it's one of the reasons blokes got into rock and roll. I laughed at Janet Street Porters outrage on question time, ranting about "some of the things going on in dressing rooms" before adding "although perfectly legal". Just because no star would want a blow job off her with those teeth, she seemed to find it all very distasteful. I find it strange that people are so outraged that stars took advantage of young women, what will be the next great revelation, that some stars took drugs or some were **** heads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Yes, it was the culture of the time. It shows how much society's attitudes have changed that this sort of behaviour is now seen as unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney Fudpucker the 3rd Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 So who's next? My money's on DLT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Yes, it was the culture of the time. It shows how much society's attitudes have changed that this sort of behaviour is now seen as unacceptable. No, it shows how wrong society was that this was once perceived by some as acceptable. I'm not sure it was ever the general attitude though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 My mate worked on top of the pops years ago and he told me abck then about a lot of similar behaviours taking place. The thing is was the sex consensual? ...guess its still a crime if the young lady was under the age of consent. At a guess, at Radio and some ITV and BBC TV stations, this behaviour was widespread...then we have pop concerts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 So who's next? My money's on DLT. Mike Smith seems to be getting his defence in early doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 No, it shows how wrong society was that this was once perceived by some as acceptable. I'm not sure it was ever the general attitude though. Groupies have always existed and I doubt very much that id was asked for or produced. It's part of rock and roll, what do you want a load of One Direction type bands. Whats so unacceptable about a star receiving favours from a groupie, both know what the score is.Unless these young girls thought they were going to become the next Yoko Ono and be the star's soul mate forever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Egg the point I am making is the Met should keep their comments confidential until the investigation is completed . and not feulling the witch hunt brigade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnvEdh3vAq8 Worth another watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Groupies have always existed and I doubt very much that id was asked for or produced. It's part of rock and roll, what do you want a load of One Direction type bands. Whats so unacceptable about a star receiving favours from a groupie, both know what the score is.Unless these young girls thought they were going to become the next Yoko Ono and be the star's soul mate forever? Sounds like thin ice to me. If I read you correctly you're saying it's ok for a grown man to have sex with an under age girl, if she's a groupy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Egg the point I am making is the Met should keep their comments confidential until the investigation is completed . and not feulling the witch hunt brigade As long as they're not throwing names around I don't see the harm in letting the people that should be worried feel worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpb Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Oscar Wilde is hailed as being a genius - it's odd how his image has been protected considering he openly cavorted with under aged boys whilst living in Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 (edited) Sounds like thin ice to me. If I read you correctly you're saying it's ok for a grown man to have sex with an under age girl, if she's a groupy. He's not saying that at all... we have to remember something here, as unpaletable as it may sound, other countries have and have had different laws over time - even here go back a couple of 100 yeras and 13 was fine... nw thankfully they are still considered children and rightly protected by the law. But before we condemn the entire BBC as perverts, lets get at least one thing staright - there is a difference between a groupie a who at 15 is 'mature' physically and thinks she is mature enough emotionally to throw herself at some rock star - who does not ask her age, and the wierd unexplainable types that prey on small and young children - yet they are the same thing in the eyes of the law. There are 15 year olds out in clubs on saturday nights in every town in the country who would pass for 20, and is everyone who has ever not asked for proof of age a perve who should be on the SOR? The problem with the Saville and BBC story is more that power was alledgedly used to influence women into doing things against their will... and that is something else again as its not restricted by age. If said accused KNEW the girls were underage then they are guilty as they had the responsibilty to walk away form those situations, but we do need to be honest that someone who looks at a women who looks like she is 20 and finds her attractive is not suddenly a pervert because she is only 15... even if the law says they are... you walk away when you know and if sensible in this day and age you try find out, but this is not fancying kids it fancying women.. Edited 10 October, 2012 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 He's not saying that at all... we have to remember something here, as unpaletable as it may sound, other countries have and have had different laws over time - even here go back a couple of 100 yeras and 13 was fine... nw thankfully they are still considered children and rightly protected by the law. But before we condemn the entire BBC as perverts, lets get at least one thing staright - there is a difference between a groupie a who at 15 is 'mature' physically and thinks she is mature enough emotionally to throw herself at some rock star - who does not ask her age, and the wierd unexplainable types that prey on small and young children - yet they are the same thing in the eyes of the law. There are 15 year olds out in clubs on saturday nights in every town in the country who would pass for 20, and is everyone who has ever not asked for proof of age a perve who should be on the SOR? The problem with the Saville and BBC story is more that power was alledgedly used to influence women into doing things against their will... and that is something else again as its not restricted by age. If said accused KNEW the girls were underage then they are guilty as they had the responsibilty to walk away form those situations, but we do need to be honest that someone who looks at a women who looks like she is 20 and finds her attractive is not suddenly a pervert because she is only 15... even if the law says they are... you walk away when you know and if sensible in this day and age you try find out, but this is not fancying kids it fancying women.. We couldn't disagree more. Your interpretation of the post I was relying to is wrong. I correctly interpreted what is written, and you all but say the same thing. The fact that it's a rock star involved with a star struck child doesn't make it right. I find it staggering that anyone could try to justify a grown man having sex with a minor, regardless of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 We couldn't disagree more. Your interpretation of the post I was relying to is wrong. I correctly interpreted what is written, and you all but say the same thing. The fact that it's a rock star involved with a star struck child doesn't make it right. I find it staggering that anyone could try to justify a grown man having sex with a minor, regardless of the situation. Nobody is saying anything of the sort, certainly not me. What I am saying is that a perk of the job as a Rock star in the 60’s & 70’s was groupies hanging around. As I said on an earlier post my favourite singer Richard Manuel used to get the roadies to go out into the queue of waiting girls and take their pictures. Richard would then decide who to “invite” backstage. Did he also ask the roadie to check id’s? I seriously doubt it. If he then banged a 15 year old without realising, does that make him a peado? Maybe he owed the girls a “duty of care”, but the guy was an alcoholic and heavy drug user, I doubt it ever crossed his mind. Would I want my 15 year old daughter given a rock star a blow job, of course not. But, then I wouldn’t want her doing it at 17, 18 or 35. Your argument seems to be, if she’s 15 and her birthday is midnight, you’re a peado at 11.50pm, but not at 00.05. My opinion is there is a massive difference in a star taking advantage of a groupie he fancys who turns out to be 15 , than in a man doing so on the basis that she is 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 We couldn't disagree more. Your interpretation of the post I was relying to is wrong. I correctly interpreted what is written, and you all but say the same thing. The fact that it's a rock star involved with a star struck child doesn't make it right. I find it staggering that anyone could try to justify a grown man having sex with a minor, regardless of the situation. I think the duckhunter answers well above - the problem I have is these days (and as the law has to have a cut off point rightly so) folk are immediately 'perverted' if the object of their desire is 15, even if they dont know and she looks 20 - yet How many of those doing the accusing in that situation, also seem to 'prefer' their women to follow the current 'fashion' to be shaved to resemble children? Which is freakily odd in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 10 October, 2012 Share Posted 10 October, 2012 Nobody is saying anything of the sort, certainly not me. What I am saying is that a perk of the job as a Rock star in the 60’s & 70’s was groupies hanging around. As I said on an earlier post my favourite singer Richard Manuel used to get the roadies to go out into the queue of waiting girls and take their pictures. Richard would then decide who to “invite” backstage. Did he also ask the roadie to check id’s? I seriously doubt it. If he then banged a 15 year old without realising, does that make him a peado? Maybe he owed the girls a “duty of care”, but the guy was an alcoholic and heavy drug user, I doubt it ever crossed his mind. Would I want my 15 year old daughter given a rock star a blow job, of course not. But, then I wouldn’t want her doing it at 17, 18 or 35. Your argument seems to be, if she’s 15 and her birthday is midnight, you’re a peado at 11.50pm, but not at 00.05. My opinion is there is a massive difference in a star taking advantage of a groupie he fancys who turns out to be 15 , than in a man doing so on the basis that she is 15. Your initial point was that if a groupie threw herself at a star for "favours" then it's fine, regardless of age. It's not. You now try to justify it by saying that if they're 15 then it's ok. It's not. The point you also seem to make is that if the statutory rape is between a rock star and a child, then its ok. It's not. You interpret what you believe to be my position but you'll see I've not said that at all. My point, simply, is that it's wrong for a grown man to have sex with a minor, ie a child under 16 irrespective of the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now