Dave Lee Travis arrested

[Bernie174]

DLT now charged. What a complete FARCE this operation Yewtree is

Quite a sweeping statement without seeing any of the evidence.

Name the accusers and then see if there are any complaints

Makes no sense at all!

There are questions about time taken to make the allegations, but eeking those answers out is the job of DLT's defence team.
The same should also be said of those that assume there were allegations made at the time, again, the facts rather than automatic assumptions will doubtless come out, and the proper people to decide guilt or otherwise will give an opinion.
Endless guessing achieves nothing.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Name the accusers? Are you okay in the head?

I think "accusers" was meant to be "accused"

 

[kestral]

Name the accusers? Are you okay in the head?

Perfectly right in the head, thanks. Are you? or do you just follow along like the rest of the sheep, it seems so.
There is no reason what so ever that the accusers should not be named.They can make a whole host of false allegations which do not result in a conviction and the accused person who has stood trial and been found not guilty has no comeback.There are many cases where sex allegations are made and found to be totally untrue.Yet the accuser is not named and is protected by law.There is a debate as to wether the law should be changed to name the accuser.Get em named then see if they want to start jumping on the band wagon 30yrs later, utter FARCE 100%. Oh! a 15 year old child, how shocking!They are on the **** round town at that age full of meow meow,wearing shorts skirts and no knickers.Get real,that or learn about real life.

 

[akr]

Perfectly right in the head, thanks. Are you? or do you just follow along like the rest of the sheep, it seems so.
There is no reason what so ever that the accusers should not be named.They can make a whole host of false allegations which do not result in a conviction and the accused person who has stood trial and been found not guilty has no comeback.There are many cases where sex allegations are made and found to be totally untrue.Yet the accuser is not named and is protected by law.There is a debate as to wether the law should be changed to name the accuser.Get em named then see if they want to start jumping on the band wagon 30yrs later, utter FARCE 100%. Oh! a 15 year old child, how shocking!They are on the **** round town at that age full of meow meow,wearing shorts skirts and no knickers.Get real,that or learn about real life.

There is certainly an argument for anonymity for the accused in cases where they crime carries extra stigma.

As for no reason the accusers should be named, you really can't think of a single reason? Why do you think it is granted at present?

If we ignore your sweeping statement about all 15 year olds walking around town in the manner you describe, I'm not sure what relevance that has being a victim in this scenario, as clothing and state of mind are completely irrelevant to being assaulted. Anyway I imagine this will be a sensitive issue for some but your last sentences especially are in poor taste in my opinion.

 

[Johnd2000]

There is certainly an argument for anonymity for the accused in cases where they crime carries extra stigma.

As for no reason the accusers should be named, you really can't think of a single reason? Why do you think it is granted at present?

If we ignore your sweeping statement about all 15 year olds walking around town in the manner you describe, I'm not sure what relevance that has being a victim in this scenario, as clothing and state of mind are completely irrelevant to being assaulted. Anyway I imagine this will be a sensitive issue for some but your last sentences especially are in poor taste in my opinion.

+1

 

[cambsno]

I can sympathise to a degree with kestrel. It's easy for someone to make something up and the accused will go through an awful ordeal, and even if totally innocent, would still have the stigma and finger pointing. What needs to happen is that false accusations need to be treated more seriously and carry the same sentence that the accused would have got if guilty.

I think that in these cases the accused should have the same rights as the accuser, I.e. annonimity unless found guilty.

 

[viv1969]

The wife's convinced Rolf Harris will be next

Your wife was correct.

 

[onomatopoeia]

There is no reason what so ever that the accusers should not be named.They can make a whole host of false allegations which do not result in a conviction and the accused person who has stood trial and been found not guilty has no comeback.

Just so you know, in the last week or two a woman was imprisoned for perverting the course of justice for making malicious allegations of rape. She was named. I saw it reported on the Times website I think.

I would agree there is an argument for anonymity for defendants when the victim is not named, but that's not without problems either.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Perfectly right in the head, thanks. Are you? or do you just follow along like the rest of the sheep, it seems so.
There is no reason what so ever that the accusers should not be named.They can make a whole host of false allegations which do not result in a conviction and the accused person who has stood trial and been found not guilty has no comeback.There are many cases where sex allegations are made and found to be totally untrue.Yet the accuser is not named and is protected by law.There is a debate as to wether the law should be changed to name the accuser.Get em named then see if they want to start jumping on the band wagon 30yrs later, utter FARCE 100%. Oh! a 15 year old child, how shocking!They are on the **** round town at that age full of meow meow,wearing shorts skirts and no knickers.Get real,that or learn about real life.

Oh my gosh.

What possible relevance does their clothing have?! Even if a girl was walking naked down the street utterly off her face on alcohol/drugs it doesn't somehow make it any less abhorrent if somebody acted to take advantage of that.

Whilst I agree that there probably are too many false claims, the last thing we need is to publicly discourage victims from coming forward. There's no public need to name and shame those who cry wolf as long as they face repercussions for doing so when it can be proved.

 

[viv1969]

Oh! a 15 year old child, how shocking!They are on the **** round town at that age full of meow meow,wearing shorts skirts and no knickers.

Let me guess, in kestrel-land, if she looks up for it, she is up for it. :bang:

I don't care if she's 15 or 50, wearing a boiler suit or stark naked; sober or off her head on drink or drugs. No-one has the right to lay a finger on her.

 

[andya700]

Oh my gosh.

What possible relevance does their clothing have?! Even if a girl was walking naked down the street utterly off her face on alcohol/drugs it doesn't somehow make it any less abhorrent if somebody acted to take advantage of that.

Whilst I agree that there probably are too many false claims, the last thing we need is to publicly discourage victims from coming forward. There's no public need to name and shame those who cry wolf as long as they face repercussions for doing so when it can be proved.

A highly unlikely situation, but as you say it isn't asn excuse to take advantage of someone.
However, when I was at school, and when I started work, there were certain 15/16 year old girls who were going out with older men, and in my class a couple of 15 year olds who used to target pop/rock stars and racing drivers. The fact is that they deliberately put themselves in situations where they would end up sleeping with these guys, they also looked far older than their true age.
How many guys on here can honestly say that they have asked the age of a girl they met at a nightclub or concert or party?

 

[andya700]

Let me guess, in kestrel-land, if she looks up for it, she is up for it. :bang:

I don't care if she's 15 or 50, wearing a boiler suit or stark naked; sober or off her head on drink or drugs. No-one has the right to lay a finger on her.

Unless of course it was done by mutual consent.

 

[viv1969]

Unless of course it was done by mutual consent.

Indeed, but then it's not occurring because someone believes it's their right is it.

 

[Russ77]

Let me guess, in kestrel-land, if she looks up for it, she is up for it. :bang:

I don't care if she's 15 or 50, wearing a boiler suit or stark naked; sober or off her head on drink or drugs. No-one has the right to lay a finger on her.

Agreed but I don't think that's what Bernie meant.......

If DLT or any of these other high profile celebs went out of their way to indecently assult/rape young girls then they deserve everything they get coming to them. By the sounds of it Stuart Hall was a "predator" and went after younger girls.

That's a whole different kettle of fish to a sexually active 15 year old setting out to sleep with a celebrity. Yes in an ideal World we should all stop and insist on proof of age before we sleep with someone, perhaps with a form for written consent just to protect ourselves but this isn't an ideal World.

Without using it as an excuse, alcohol, even if a small amount is consumed could impair your judgement enough to make a bad decision to sleep with someone who appears to be old enough but is in actual fact under 16.

I'm not for one minute saying the girls/women who wander around drunk wearing next to nothing deserve to be treated differently but equally, alcohol could impair their judgement enough to put them in bad situations.

 

[big soft moose]

Oh! a 15 year old child, how shocking!They are on the **** round town at that age full of meow meow,wearing shorts skirts and no knickers.Get real,that or learn about real life.

Ah yes the "she was gagging for it M'lud" defence, beloved of nonces and rapists everywhere

2 points

a) just because she's dressed provocatively doesnt mean anyone has a right to assault her

b) Even if she is "up for it" if she's under age its the adults responsibility to say no however tempting it may be to do otherwise

 

[kestral]

Look at this article. http://www.thisishullandeastriding....tory-19395676-detail/story.html#axzz2c7pCh31f

All three found NOT Guilty unanimously by a jury.But the accuser is still not named.It is this business of protecting the accuser that I don,t like.All these people who are accusing these celebs are full grown mature adults,not children.If they want to come out after 30yrs because the bandwagon has started rolling then in these circumstances they should be named,at least after the trial.The truth of the matter is that at the time of these alleged events(which they were happy to go along with at the time) the accusers thought they were going to get more out of it than they did.
How can Jimmy S have abused hundreds of people (that's about three Bus loads up to now) and they did not complain at the time or told someone who has then said "right lets go to the police".
This business about not being able to defame a dead person wants looking at as well.How must friends and relatives of Jimmy S feel when the dead man is unable to defend himself against ANY accusation put.The guy had an OBE and made millions for charity and his reputation has been totally destroyed in the name of salacious media hype.Maybe society has a skeleton in the cupboard it does not want anyone to know about.

 

[big soft moose]

.The guy had an OBE and made millions for charity and his reputation has been totally destroyed in the name of salacious media hype.:

Or to put it another way a lifetime of abusing young and vulnerable children has finally been exposed - one of the main reasons it wasnt properly investigated while he was still alive was the " oh sant jimmy is so wonderful how dare anyone say anything aganst him" attitude

 

[welly]

Look at this article. http://www.thisishullandeastriding....tory-19395676-detail/story.html#axzz2c7pCh31f

All three found NOT Guilty unanimously by a jury.But the accuser is still not named.It is this business of protecting the accuser that I don,t like.All these people who are accusing these celebs are full grown mature adults,not children.If they want to come out after 30yrs because the bandwagon has started rolling then in these circumstances they should be named,at least after the trial.The truth of the matter is that at the time of these alleged events(which they were happy to go along with at the time) the accusers thought they were going to get more out of it than they did.
How can Jimmy S have abused hundreds of people (that's about three Bus loads up to now) and they did not complain at the time or told someone who has then said "right lets go to the police".
This business about not being able to defame a dead person wants looking at as well.How must friends and relatives of Jimmy S feel when the dead man is unable to defend himself against ANY accusation put.The guy had an OBE and made millions for charity and his reputation has been totally destroyed in the name of salacious media hype.Maybe society has a skeleton in the cupboard it does not want anyone to know about.

You don't understand how the law works very well, do you?

 

[viv1969]

The guy had an OBE and made millions for charity

Ohhhhh, oh okay then. I hadn't realised that an OBE was also a licence to abuse. Best call off the whole investigation then, eh? :bang:

 

[seriousrikk]

Maybe society has a skeleton in the cupboard it does not want anyone to know about.

It does. Plenty

Your mindset is one of those skeletons because sadly there are a lot of people out there who are equally wrong.

Just because someone has an OBE and has raised significant sums of money - and is also dead - doesn't mean they are (or were) above the law.

 

[big soft moose]

Ohhhhh, oh okay then. I hadn't realised that an OBE was also a licence to abuse. Best call off the whole investigation then, eh? :bang:

My mate Mick got an OBE for services to nature conservation a few years back - I don't recall him getting a special badge to say he was above the law at the same time, but i could ask

 

[TriggerHappy]

Look at this article. http://www.thisishullandeastriding....tory-19395676-detail/story.html#axzz2c7pCh31f

All three found NOT Guilty unanimously by a jury.But the accuser is still not named.It is this business of protecting the accuser that I don,t like.All these people who are accusing these celebs are full grown mature adults,not children.If they want to come out after 30yrs because the bandwagon has started rolling then in these circumstances they should be named,at least after the trial.The truth of the matter is that at the time of these alleged events(which they were happy to go along with at the time) the accusers thought they were going to get more out of it than they did.
How can Jimmy S have abused hundreds of people (that's about three Bus loads up to now) and they did not complain at the time or told someone who has then said "right lets go to the police".
This business about not being able to defame a dead person wants looking at as well.How must friends and relatives of Jimmy S feel when the dead man is unable to defend himself against ANY accusation put.The guy had an OBE and made millions for charity and his reputation has been totally destroyed in the name of salacious media hype.Maybe society has a skeleton in the cupboard it does not want anyone to know about.

The only thing wrong with that article is that it names - and inevitably links for life - the names of three men to a crime they didn't commit. I'm firmly of the belief that papers shouldn't be allowed to name people until they've been found guilty.

I'm truly appalled and sickened by some of the things you've said. Should people not speak up about someone once they're dead? Do some good deeds suddenly balance out wrongdoings?

There's a lot of evidence against Jimmy Savile and his alleged actions that needs investigating. Dead or alive, that needs to be done now it's come to light. The really disgusting thing in all of it is the number of adults who worked with/near him at various places and were suspicious of his behaviour but never spoke up earlier. I think there's something like 200 witnesses that have since come forward. That's a staggering number who kept quiet.

I added some bold to part of your post. That particular sentence really rubbed me up the wrong way. You have absolutely no idea whether the alleged events were consensual or not so please don't pretend like the victims (again, allegedly) were up for it at the time but have since had a change of heart about what they did. What an obtuse attitude you seem to have.

 

[big soft moose]

Th.

I added some bold to part of your post. That particular sentence really rubbed me up the wrong way. You have absolutely no idea whether the alleged events were consensual or not so please don't pretend like the victims (again, allegedly) were up for it at the time but have since had a change of heart about what they did. What an obtuse attitude you seem to have.

It was people holding the same outdated 'blame the victim' attitude that led to these things not being brought to light at the time.

I'd also note that with JS the alledged offences are not limited to the "I thought she was of age , and anyway she was well up for it" type (not that i'm condoning that either)

 

[andya700]

Ah yes the "she was gagging for it M'lud" defence, beloved of nonces and rapists everywhere

2 points

a) just because she's dressed provocatively doesnt mean anyone has a right to assault her

b) Even if she is "up for it" if she's under age its the adults responsibility to say no however tempting it may be to do otherwise

The point is Pete, that as I pointed out in one of my posts, you would be very hard pressed to even imagine that some of the girls were underage.
One of our stupid relations used to let her daughter go to adult nightclubs (with her Saturday job colleagues who were older) at the age of 14, and could see nothing wrong with that. At 14 she was 5' 10" and looked about 18, so that is not really very fair on the guys in the nightclub IMO. Her mother simply said that the guys should know better than try to get off with a young girl, totally ignoring my suggestion that she should not be there in the first place.
I don't think that anyone is talking about "nonces and rapists" - violent people who force young women into sex. This is a far more complicated scenario, not helped by the fact that it happened so long ago.
I do not know how you could possibly prosecute someoneafter that length of time - what would be the evidence?
At least in the Saville case, there were many witnesses who decided to crawl out of the woodwork - pity they didn't do that sooner or more young girls may have been spared his advances.

 

[big soft moose]

The point is Pete, that as I pointed out in one of my posts, you would be very hard pressed to even imagine that some of the girls were underage.
One of our stupid relations used to let her daughter go to adult nightclubs (with her Saturday job colleagues who were older) at the age of 14, and could see nothing wrong with that. At 14 she was 5' 10" and looked about 18, so that is not really very fair on the guys in the nightclub IMO. Her mother simply said that the guys should know better than try to get off with a young girl, totally ignoring my suggestion that she should not be there in the first place.
.

A lot of the saville allegations werent like that though - presumably you wouldnt have said that a young mentally deficient girl in a hospital bed was gagging for an aging pervert to come and finger her against her wishes ?

Also a lot of the saville thing were mentioned earlier , but they were suppresed - principally because of the attitude that "he does so much for charity, how dare you suggest he's not perfect"

 

[andya700]

How can Jimmy S have abused hundreds of people (that's about three Bus loads up to now) and they did not complain at the time or told someone who has then said "right lets go to the police".
This business about not being able to defame a dead person wants looking at as well.How must friends and relatives of Jimmy S feel when the dead man is unable to defend himself against ANY accusation put.The guy had an OBE and made millions for charity and his reputation has been totally destroyed in the name of salacious media hype.Maybe society has a skeleton in the cupboard it does not want anyone to know about.

I think that you should go and read up some more about Jimmy Saville, and the doors which were left open for him, the many people and the police who colluded in order to protect him.
There were people who thought just like you, that because he has an OBE, does charity work and raises millions, that he is somehow above the law, and can be let loose on the most vulnerable in society.
I would like to see the people who helped Saville and covered up for him also face charges and go to prison.

 

[andya700]

A lot of the saville allegations werent like that though - presumably you wouldnt have said that a young mentally deficient girl in a hospital bed was gagging for an aging pervert to come and finger her against her wishes ?

Also a lot of the saville thing were mentioned earlier , but they were suppresed - principally because of the attitude that "he does so much for charity, how dare you suggest he's not perfect"

I agree Pete, particularly with Jimmy Saville (I thought this was the Dave Lee Travis thread), but I think there may well be other young girls who were around at that time, went after other celebrities and now think the time is right to try to "cash in" on what happened/what may have happened/happened in their imagination.

 

[big soft moose]

You could be right - It does depend on the case , but the police arent (on the whole) stupid , and ought to be able to tell the difference between the genuine and less genuine cases.

consent/didnt consent assault is hard enough to prove at any time - 30 years after the fact it must be damn near impossible

 

[Bernie174]

It's always the same points that come up, time and time again.

The problem with rape, and more so now than in the past with the advent of DNA, proving sex did, or sometimes didn't take place is reasonably easy. Proving or disproving consent really is tough.
She says she didn't. He says she did. Who do you believe?
In other words, rape isn't like mr x hit mr y with a bat in front of 200 witnesses and walked off muttering "I'm glad I did that!".
It isn't clear cut and I'd suspect there's a lot of rape convictions as well as aquittals which are very unjust.
So, yes, both sides should not be named.
The counter argument is the same as Kestrals for naming the victim, if you name them, others may come forward to say the same thing happened with that person to them.
It's a balance, that is impossible to get right.

None of this applies so much in DLT's case. the offences are too long ago, and there is no DNA or other forensic evidence. Well, unless someone filmed it. So it is just one word against another, and nothing supporting either side. Is that not a bit dodgy? Yes it is on the face of it, but I've not seen the evidence.

As for the 15 year old, again, there's no evidence she was on the prowl, or that she was hoping to have a career in the local convent. What is clear though is 30 years ago, when I was around that age, a 15 year old virgin was rare. Maybe she was the exception, and maybe she was not out to bag a celeb. But the opposite might have also applied.

Lastly, I'd put cash on the likelihood that there's been some jumping on bandwagons, but the process is as it is, and has to be gone though.

 

[MartynK]

Yip. First of all, the prosecution have to satisfy the court that the alleged act took place. That might be very difficult after so many years, and there's no case to answer if they're unable to do so.

Consent has to be informed consent, and the complainant has to be competent to give it. Age, intoxication, drugs, mental impairment and a couple of other things come into it. That's also going to be quite a challenge, for the defence, if they try to rely on it.

 

[andya700]

It's always the same points that come up, time and time again.

The problem with rape, and more so now than in the past with the advent of DNA, proving sex did, or sometimes didn't take place is reasonably easy. Proving or disproving consent really is tough.
She says she didn't. He says she did. Who do you believe?
In other words, rape isn't like mr x hit mr y with a bat in front of 200 witnesses and walked off muttering "I'm glad I did that!".
It isn't clear cut and I'd suspect there's a lot of rape convictions as well as aquittals which are very unjust.
So, yes, both sides should not be named.
The counter argument is the same as Kestrals for naming the victim, if you name them, others may come forward to say the same thing happened with that person to them.
It's a balance, that is impossible to get right.

None of this applies so much in DLT's case. the offences are too long ago, and there is no DNA or other forensic evidence. Well, unless someone filmed it. So it is just one word against another, and nothing supporting either side. Is that not a bit dodgy? Yes it is on the face of it, but I've not seen the evidence.

As for the 15 year old, again, there's no evidence she was on the prowl, or that she was hoping to have a career in the local convent. What is clear though is 30 years ago, when I was around that age, a 15 year old virgin was rare. Maybe she was the exception, and maybe she was not out to bag a celeb. But the opposite might have also applied.

Lastly, I'd put cash on the likelihood that there's been some jumping on bandwagons, but the process is as it is, and has to be gone though.

Good post. Exactly as I see things - in other words almost impossible to form a reasonable opinion.

 

[MartynK]

I daresay the current spate of complaints about sexual abuse that allegedly took place a generation ago may have encouraged some people to climb on the bandwagon, but none of us know what really happened. It's going to be very difficult to prove these cases, and easier for the defence to show reasonable doubt.

I assume the police, and the CPS, have explained that fabricating a complaint, or exaggerating, can constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice which is a very serious matter. I don't suppose this would be any easier to prove though, unless the complainant admits it, which isn't very likely.

 

[Bernie174]

Martyn
I doubt it.
The same applies to any criminal allegation, and apart from pointing out the wording at the top of a statement form, we didn't explain that any porkies could lead to their own appearance before the Courts.
In any case, its rare for the CPS to proceed with Attempting/Conspiracy to pervert or perjury. In fact as I recall, you'd need an independent witness for any of those before (in the old days) the DPP would even think about charging.

 

[MartynK]

Martyn
I doubt it.
The same applies to any criminal allegation, and apart from pointing out the wording at the top of a statement form, we didn't explain that any porkies could lead to their own appearance before the Courts.
In any case, its rare for the CPS to proceed with Attempting/Conspiracy to pervert or perjury. In fact as I recall, you'd need an independent witness for any of those before (in the old days) the DPP would even think about charging.

OK. I wrote this based on my own experience in a Scottish force, quite a long time ago. Things may have changed now - I don't know - but we didn't record written statements as such, and the complainant didn't have to sign anything, so there was no "true to the best of my knowledge and belief....." caption involved. We could, and did, advise people to think very carefully about what they were saying if we had significant doubts though.

FWIW, I did say that it would be very difficult to prove now in any case.

 

[Bernie174]

Martyn
I find that strange, unless you mean at the point of reporting the crime? In which case, the same would be true in England & Wales.
But beyond that, a statement would be required, and that would have the certificate at the top which (should) be signed before the statement is taken.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm not playing down or under estimating the devastating effects of true rape. I've known 2 women who were raped.
The first one was raped by a stranger at knifepoint, and when he had finished with her he stabbed her. She survived physically, another victim didn't.

She formed a loving relationship with one of the police officers she met on her case, but he told me that it took more than a year before he could even hold her, and there was no sex in the relationship. She got herself a GSD for protection, wouldn't go outdoors without her dog.

The other girl, I knew much better. This was a date rape, she felt absolutely worthless afterwards. Like most in that situation, she didn't report it, she thought that it was her fault for getting into that situation. Sex for her became an obligation but she didn't get any pleasure from it. Moving on, after about 5 years she formed a new relationship with a very kind man and everything apparently became OK after that, I lost touch with her about 25 years ago but by then she had a couple of kids and everything seemed OK.

But I'm extremely sceptical about historic allegations involving celebrities. Why? Because in the 60's and early 70's I was on the edge of that scene, as a photographer, and I know what went on, all the time. In my own experience, it was the girls who were the predators, and celebs were their target. And if they couldn't get near the celebs, and they usually couldn't, then anyone who knew them, or had met them, or were in some way involved with them, would do instead.

Yesterday, I was shooting with an old mate of about the same age as me. He used to be a roadie/driver at about the same time and he told me that he can't remember any of the girls who besieged him back then. Like me, he never came on to any of them, he just didn't turn them some of them down.

The opportunities were endless. Girls got into dressing rooms, hotel rooms, vehicles, all the time, no doubt bribing the security and hotel staff with sex. Every one of them claimed to be at least 18.

I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who genuinely took advantage, or who assaulted anyone, but it's difficult to see why anyone would want to when there was so much choice. And I can't see how anyone can actually remember any of the girls involved.

 

[viv1969]

Because in the 60's and early 70's I was on the edge of that scene, as a photographer, and I know what went on, all the time. In my own experience, it was the girls who were the predators, and celebs were their target. .

And as you say yourself, this was just your experience, and by no means covers every situation in every circumstance. And predator? Jesus. :shake:

And if they couldn't get near the celebs, and they usually couldn't, then anyone who knew them, or had met them, or were in some way involved with them, would do instead..

That doesn't make "taking them up on it" acceptable.

Like me, he never came on to any of them, he just didn't turn them some of them down. .

Sounds like you were both absolute charmers at that time....take the easy pickings rather than the tougher alternative.

The opportunities were endless. Girls got into dressing rooms, hotel rooms, vehicles, all the time, no doubt bribing the security and hotel staff with sex. Every one of them claimed to be at least 18.

It doesn't matter where they got into, or how they got in; ejecting them would have been the simple, smart, and RIGHT thing to do. Just because they made the claim to be of age didn't make it so.

Sometimes I can't believe the justifications I read, and believe even less that those making them completely believe them.

 

[Gremlin]

Well said Gary and so true.
I had friends at that time also underage who would do anything to meet their latest dream celeb and let's face these guys like your mate are only human.
I would not defenbd the likes of savile or glitter they were predators of underage girls, in glitter's case I saw that first hand when he lived near where I did, he was yuk to me and I was too old to be of interest (18), but many of the local girls weren't, and he seemed a reasonably decent guy, at that time no one realised what was going on as it wasn't so well publicised, but you could also say the girls were willing vicitms

 

[andyscott]

I think people need to be sensible about this.

Jimmy Saville cases should be heard in court, they haven't but because he is dead they can throw accusations around and almost claim it's fact. He has not been convicted of anything and nothing has been proven.

No one unless they are involved in the cases actually know what happened they are just spouting what the papers have said.

All should be tried in court and if found guilty serve the appropriate sentence.

As for the well she dressed like x or tried to get into his room etc, both parties have responsibility, of course the way you dress does not give permission. But we all need to be aware of risk, do you stroke a big stray dog, no. Do you walk down a real dark alley in a rough area? No. Yet you don't deserve to be assaulted if you do.

I

 

[Bernie174]

Andy
While I agree with you, dress and behaviour doesn't give anyone the right to rape, what Garry is saying is that the actions of the girls he was involved with, along with their apparent age, meant it was anything but.
Now, many years later, it's very easy for one, or some to cry rape, and how they were taken advantage of.
Now, no one is saying that IS what happened, just there is a danger in investigating allegations or trying possible offences that old.
It only takes 2 or 3 women who may well have been perfectly willing then to sense some cash, and independently make the same allegation to turn something that wasn't anything but lack of a demand to see a birth certificate to check age (and lets face it we don't do that!) into 'predatory sexual behaviour' by the celeb.
As I've said though, I have not seen the evidence, and it may be that it is very strong. I hope it is, for everyone's sake.