Dave Lee Travis arrested

[Tigger.ufo]

I am beginning to think that the word "paedophile" is becoming the most mis-used word currently.

Maybe I am wrong but I thought that a paedophile was an adult who is sexually interested in young children.

Which doesn't tie in with the 17yr old boy with a 15yr old girlfriend or even the older man who likes 15yr old girls (as they look mature) not, I hasten to add, that this is right before anyone has a go!



Heather

 

[big soft moose]

as I said earlier a 17 year old with a nearly 16 year old isn't the same thing as a 28 year old with a 14 year old - for one thing the mature adult has the judgement to know better.

Also theres a lot of dross being talked about "its perfectly possible fot a 16 yo to be be in love with a 65 year old - well quite - but the girls who were the victims of the various sexual predators weren't 'in love' they were basically exploited for short term sexual gratification.

There's a big difference between a 16 year old and a 25 year old forming a mutual and loving long term relationship , and a 25 year old plying an impressionable 16 year old with drink and drugs then shagging her on a back stage couch while she is semi conscious.

 

[Yv]

as I said earlier a 17 year old with a nearly 16 year old isn't the same thing as a 28 year old with a 14 year old - for one thing the mature adult has the judgement to know better.

Also theres a lot of dross being talked about "its perfectly possible fot a 16 yo to be be in love with a 65 year old - well quite - but the girls who were the victims of the various sexual predators weren't 'in love' they were basically exploited for short term sexual gratification.

There's a big difference between a 16 year old and a 25 year old forming a mutual and loving long term relationship , and a 25 year old plying an impressionable 16 year old with drink and drugs then shagging her on a back stage couch while she is semi conscious.

but you started it

As above yes you can - if he's a kid too then fair enough, but someone in their twenties has no business boinking 16 year old just because its legal

Seriously though, yes there is a huge difference between genuine harrassment and abuse of those that are vulnerable/non-consenting and a very willing 'mature' teenage girl and I think the point is that the law whilst technically black and white, does recognize that [and that certainly explains the Mandy Smith scenario] as Bernie suggested earlier.

 

[big soft moose]

I am beginning to think that the word "paedophile" is becoming the most mis-used word currently.

Maybe I am wrong but I thought that a paedophile was an adult who is sexually interested in young children.

Which doesn't tie in with the 17yr old boy with a 15yr old girlfriend or even the older man who likes 15yr old girls (as they look mature) not, I hasten to add, that this is right before anyone has a go!



Heather

technically speaking peadophiles are only interested in prepurbertal children , those under discussion here are either hebephiles (interest in 11-14 year olds) or ephebophiles( interest in late purpertal children 14+)

however whatever the nomenclature anyone who shags kids is a sick **** which is why I've preferred the more general term 'nonce'

 

[simonblue]

Jonathan King - 7 years, served 3½, still claims innocence.

Chris Langham - 6 months (reduced from 10 on appeal) for pornography charges

Cases pending:

Michael Le Vell - hearing due Sept 2013

William Roache - Jan 2014

That's the confirmed trial dates - there are a few more under investigation and pending.

Didnt Jonathan King admit to it later but said he had done wrong ?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I am beginning to think that the word "paedophile" is becoming the most mis-used word currently.

Maybe I am wrong but I thought that a paedophile was an adult who is sexually interested in young children.

Which doesn't tie in with the 17yr old boy with a 15yr old girlfriend or even the older man who likes 15yr old girls (as they look mature) not, I hasten to add, that this is right before anyone has a go!

Heather

Heather you are correct

The problem is that it has become the descriptive for any that fall outside a "norm" and a rallying point for the ill educated to latch on to in order to paint a title to those they fear.

We have seen threads that illustrate their ferrs of those photographers with "long lenses" in parks wherein the hobbyist cannot take pictures of daffodils with "macro" lenses without a concrrned pardnt rocking up in confrontation who later spreads "warnings" about the photographer on Facebook. The same facebook account, open to all and full of.... pictures of their own children..... Brilliant social warrior.

That the description of those in their 20s eho are goinv out with girls of a 'legal" age still being wrong for doing so also starts to eat away at a truth that cannot be tarnished. Once 16 the law determines that Girls and Boys have reached an age of maturity to make their own decisions about their bodies. This includes when and how they use them. The only legal way for that to be changed is if they are deemed not mentally capable of being able to mske those decisions. Once such a decision is made legal then that perskn moves into a category as an "at risk adult" and from then on those that are caring for or working with them fall under the requirements of needing a CRB vheck.

Other than those who are in a position of responsibilty (eg teachers), then it is down to the 16+ Girl or Boy to exercise choice on who they decide to have sex with. As a parent we may hope and pray that our offspring choose wisely and do not fall into the clutches of those that would do them harm be they 19-39 or older. In the absdnce of an illegal act bring committed what law is broken? The use of date rape drugs aside. Plying with alcohol? Yes to an under 18 but what of those who get themselves drunk before they go out - bsck to the burden of proof.

A 3am wander around anh city centre will illustrate the difficilty of determining the age of many "at rism" youths who have chosen to get bladdered. When something happrns who is to blame? Rites of passage? Lack of Parental responsibility? Immaturity? and so on.

In choosing to ruminate the matter - think of the balance to saying that an 18 or19 yead old is under risk of being misused by an older person 'n their 20s'. Remember this - in those age groups (Male and Female) are legally allowed to be in the military and can the go off to war to fight, kill and be killed, side by side. AND THEY HAVE. Where is the greater obscenity?

Steve

 

[Byker28i]

Instead of jumping on the media driven hype about celebrities, how about the catholic church? There's been gr more accusations against priests, and lots of allegations of cover ups by the church. That's worldwide abuse covered up.

 

[mid_gen]

Can = open. Worms, everywhere.

 

[Bernie174]

Byker
In all fairness, sexual assault isn't confined to the catholic church. I can remember recent cases where CofE clergy have been convicted too. But yes, it is a valid point that there are those in many organisations, Church Scouting, Teaching, Policing and social workers have all been convicted of sexual offences against children.
But, there's not the same level of hysteria. Nor, are there the same number of allegations, or such a wait to make those allegations.

 

[wack61]

When I was 32 and recently divorced I found myself out on the town with the guys from work , most of who were in their mid 20s

One had a girlfriend who was 18, she had a mate who made it obvious she was interested in me, all I saw was an immature girl who was impressed by an older man with a nice car, house, and a few quid to spend

I didn't encourage her and she eventually lost interest


Looking back 20 years on I think, did i make the right decision









No i think what a **** , what was wrong with me

 

[Russ77]

When I was 32 and recently divorced I found myself out on the town with the guys from work , most of who were in their mid 20s

One had a girlfriend who was 18, she had a mate who made it obvious she was interested in me, all I saw was an immature girl who was impressed by an older man with a nice car, house, and a few quid to spend

I didn't encourage her and she eventually lost interest


Looking back 20 years on I think, did i make the right decision









No i think what a **** , what was wrong with me

To try and make you feel a bit better.... I split from my ex-wife when I was 30, there was a 19yo girl who was showing an "interest" in me and I was receiving all kinds of texts/pictures from her

We eventually met up......... "MEH" is about the best description, in person she was quite shy, quiet and I found the who experience a little underwhelming if I'm honest.

To add insult to injury I then got bombarded with drunk texts/calls with her wanting to marry me

You may have dodged the bullet there

*NOTE* I didn't post this for bragging rights.

 

[jon ryan]

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 wife's convinced Rolph Harris will be next

He's been charged

 

[cambsno]

So, leVell has been found innocent... But his name has been dragged through the mud and he will forever be associated with being a pea do, while his 'victim' keeps anonymity!
Not that fair imo.

 

[viv1969]

Certainly not fair.
But I will await the news of the book deal / interviews for cash/ etc....

If I'm wrong I will be the first to apologise.

 

[posiview]

I can't begin to imagine the horror he's been through.

It must have crossed his mind at some point, "What if I'm found guilty?!".

Cheers.

 

[big soft moose]

So, leVell has been found innocent... But his name has been dragged through the mud and he will forever be associated with being a pea do, while his 'victim' keeps anonymity!
Not that fair imo.

CPS have defended their decision to prosecute.. like I was saying earlier legally innocent doesn't necessarily always mean didn't do it (though i'm not making any assertion either way on this particular case)... it just means can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt

 

[cambsno]

CPS have defended their decision to prosecute.. like I was saying earlier legally innocent doesn't necessarily always mean didn't do it (though i'm not making any assertion either way on this particular case)... it just means can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt

Not got a problem with that, but his career has and will be affected and his name has been tarnished. No need to publicly name until proven guilty. What if me or you were accused of the same. Would I get funny looks at the school gate? Would parents let their kids round mine to play with my kids? Of course not.

 

[Russ77]

So, leVell has been found innocent... But his name has been dragged through the mud and he will forever be associated with being a pea do, while his 'victim' keeps anonymity!
Not that fair imo.

Misunderstanding by all accounts..... the 14 year old escort he had in the garage for a touch-up was really a car

 

[andya700]

Certainly not fair.
But I will await the news of the book deal / interviews for cash/ etc....

If I'm wrong I will be the first to apologise.

In all honesty, I do not care how much money he makes as a result of this, because he has lost his job, and his name has been dragged through the gutter.
I am sure that if there had been enough evidence (given the current "post Saville era"), then he would have been charged and put in prison.
As he is now free, then I do not think it right that people should still try to cast aspersions on his character.

 

[andya700]

Misunderstanding by all accounts..... the 14 year old escort he had in the garage for a touch-up was really a car

Too soon Russ?

Why is it I can hear Frankie Boyle's voice saying that

 

[big soft moose]

In all honesty, I do not care how much money he makes as a result of this, because he has lost his job, and his name has been dragged through the gutter.
I am sure that if there had been enough evidence (given the current "post Saville era"), then he would have been charged and put in prison.
As he is now free, then I do not think it right that people should still try to cast aspersions on his character.

He hasn't lost his job - he was suspended while the hearing was being heard, ITV are in discussions with his agents about a return date (He said on the radio yesterday that he might take a holiday first)

And his name hasn't been dragged through the gutter - he was accused, then with the same amount of public fanfare he was vindicated this time next year hardly anyone will remember or care

Personally if I were accused of a crime I'd rather be tried for it and found not guilty than have the prosecution dropped for lack of evidence leaving people muttering darkly about no smoke without fire.

 

[viv1969]

He hasn't lost his job - he was suspended while the hearing was being heard, ITV are in discussions with his agents about a return date (He said on the radio yesterday that he might take a holiday first)

And his name hasn't been dragged through the gutter - he was accused, then with the same amount of public fanfare he was vindicated this time next year hardly anyone will remember or care

Personally if I were accused of a crime I'd rather be tried for it and found not guilty than have the prosecution dropped for lack of evidence leaving people muttering darkly about no smoke without fire.

Thank you Pete. Saved me typing.

 

[kestral]

He hasn't lost his job - he was suspended while the hearing was being heard, ITV are in discussions with his agents about a return date (He said on the radio yesterday that he might take a holiday first)

And his name hasn't been dragged through the gutter - he was accused, then with the same amount of public fanfare he was vindicated this time next year hardly anyone will remember or care

Personally if I were accused of a crime I'd rather be tried for it and found not guilty than have the prosecution dropped for lack of evidence leaving people muttering darkly about no smoke without fire.

So we should be sending YOU for trial every couple of years or so. Just so your found not guilty.LOL

 

[big soft moose]

So we should be sending YOU for trial every couple of years or so. Just so your found not guilty.LOL

except that i haven't been accused of anything :shrug: My point waas that if you were accused of something would you rather the accusation was refuted and laid to rest (assuming innocence of charge) or would you rather it just hung over you indefinitely without a chance to defend yourself

also he hasnt been tried every couple of years or so - he's been tried once - they originally looked at it two years ago but decided not to prosecute at the time as the evidence at that point wasnt sufficient.

 

[cambsno]

except that i haven't been accused of anything :shrug: My point waas that if you were accused of something would you rather the accusation was refuted and laid to rest (assuming innocence of charge) or would you rather it just hung over you indefinitely without a chance to defend yourself

also he hasnt been tried every couple of years or so - he's been tried once - they originally looked at it two years ago but decided not to prosecute at the time as the evidence at that point wasnt sufficient.

But mud sticks. He should not have been named. If that was you or me we would carry the stigma for ever, affecting relationships and quality of life.

 

[big soft moose]

But mud sticks. He should not have been named. If that was you or me we would carry the stigma for ever, affecting relationships and quality of life.

do you seriously think a celebrity could be tried without him being named - even if the court didnt name him the press would and the speculation as to who it was would also splash onto other wholly inocent and uninvolved parties.

Also there isnt a stigma to being found entirely innocent - no one can now say he's guilty without risking a libel suit , which wasnt the case before the case was tried and charges dismissed

 

[srichards]

If you don't name the accused then no one can come forward to offer evidence that they definitely didn't do it either. It cuts both ways. Secret trials are not justice and never will be.

 

[cambsno]

do you seriously think a celebrity could be tried without him being named - even if the court didnt name him the press would and the speculation as to who it was would also splash onto other wholly inocent and uninvolved parties.

Also there isnt a stigma to being found entirely innocent - no one can now say he's guilty without risking a libel suit , which wasnt the case before the case was tried and charges dismissed

So if that happened to me, do you really think things would go back to normal? That I wouldn't get funny looks or comments at the school gates or pub?

 

[big soft moose]

So if that happened to me, do you really think things would go back to normal? That I wouldn't get funny looks or comments at the school gates or pub?

And you think that that would be improved by the facts not being established ?

 

[andya700]

And you think that that would be improved by the facts not being established ?

Maybe it would be cured by people being charged with perverting the course of justice by making false allegations/accusations.
It may make people think a while before being too hasty.

 

[big soft moose]

Maybe it would be cured by people being charged with perverting the course of justice by making false allegations/accusations.
It may make people think a while before being too hasty.

i agree assuming its clearly established that is the case ( i don't know the exact circumstances of this case)

however we wouldnt want to see genuine rape victims getting charged with perverting the course of justice just because their attacker got off on a technicality

 

[cambsno]

And you think that that would be improved by the facts not being established ?

All I am saying is don't name the defendant unless he is proven guilty. Noting to do with establishing facts.

 

[big soft moose]

but if he was arrested people would know anyway - locally in anyones case and in the twittersphere for celebrities. So if he wasn't named unless guilty it would never be pulicised that he'd been cleared leaving only rumour and innuendo

better surely to establish the facts and publically proclaim that he's innocent (assuming they are)

 

[Garry Edwards]

but if he was arrested people would know anyway - locally in anyones case and in the twittersphere for celebrities. So if he wasn't named unless guilty it would never be pulicised that he'd been cleared leaving only rumour and innuendo

better surely to establish the facts and publically proclaim that he's innocent (assuming they are)

There's no solution to this. (Respectable) people who are charged with criminal offences always suffer from the adverse publicity, but the alternative is secrecy, which IMO is much worse.

As I see it, the real problem is the attitude of many people, who wrongly assume that just because the police have questioned someone, that they must be guilty of something, and that if they are charged then they they are inevitably guilty. People as stupid as that they typically assume that if the accused is subsequently found to be not guilty, that they "got away with it". Problem is, people with that kind of attitude are beyond hope, they can't be educated.

 

[viv1969]

He was accused publically.
He stood trial publically.
He was found innocent publically.
The only time that system would have failed is if any part of that had been done clandestinely.

 

[Bernie174]

As I see it, the real problem is the attitude of many people, who wrongly assume that just because the police have questioned someone, that they must be guilty of something, and that if they are charged then they they are inevitably guilty.

Which is the downside of the internet/social media. Before this came along, a few people might have muttered about it in the pub. The press cannot comment from charge to conviction, only report fact on pain of contempt of court.

But thats not how things work now, the public think they have a right to an opinion, evidence being optional in that, and to express that opinion in terms which amount to at least liable sometimes, and often that same contempt of court.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is ignored.

Instead we now have this new concept, "Oh they may have been found NG, but doesn't mean they didn't do it".

But there is only one test of whether they did or not, and that is a conviction, what isn't a test or evidence supporting that is opinion based on sod all.

 

[gramps]

Not guilty on 12 charges according to Sky News

 

[big soft moose]

But thats not how things work now, the public think they have a right to an opinion, evidence being optional in that, and to express that opinion in terms which amount to at least liable sometimes, and often that same contempt of court.
.

Sorry bernie but the public do have a right to an opinion , and expressing an opinion isnt libelous - its only libel if its stated as fact.

 

[KIPAX]

Not guilty on 12 charges according to Sky News

Innocent but tarnished