The keening and wailing from the feministas yesterday after prosecutor Robert Colover performed his duty as an official of the court and disclosed evidence which ‘suggests an explanation or partial explanation of the accused’s actions’ was ear deafening.

Initially, the commentators were baying for the head of Judge Nigel Peters, The Sun describing the expected â€™fury’ – for their readers did not know of the incident before The Sun published its story; children’s charities were quick to pile in behind – Paul Jackson, a junior numpty for the NSPCC described the disclosure as a ‘perversion of justice’.

Eventually, one or two media folk who could actually read, realised that the true ‘culprit’ was the barrister whose words the Judge was echoing. They clambered over each other to demand his head on a platter – 43,236 of the outraged trotted over to the grandly named ‘world’s petition site’ to demand that Attorney-General stop this heinous business of forcing prosecutors to disclose any fact that could possibly mitigate an offence against a woman. I’m surprised that they stopped short at that – why not demand that those accused of sexual offences not be allowed to conduct a defence at all?

This wasn’t the defence counsel blaming the victim – this was the prosecution barrister for the CPS speaking. We don’t yet – nor do any of the dozens of journalists wailing this morning – have the full transcript of the trial. But sheer logic, something sadly missing the the main steam media, tells me that it wasn’t Robert Colover voicing his personal opinion of the victim – he would scarcely  have been prosecuting if that was his belief – but Robert Colover disclosing that the prosecution held evidence which described the victim as ‘predatory and egging on the accused’.

Had he not done so, and had it later been discovered that the prosecution held such evidence, then an appeal would have held the entire conviction to be unsafe.

Robert Colover was complying with the Attorney-General’s own rules for disclosure. For doing so, he has this morning been presented to the Feminstaz as a duly suspended sacrificial lamb.

Do you really want to engineer a situation where the prosecution holds evidence that would exonerate you from, say, a driving offence, but keep quiet about a letter they received from the victim admitting that it was his fault?

Of course the victim in this case was a child, and the accused was alleged to have engaged in sexual activity with her – and that according to the Feministaz means that the rule of law should be thrown out of the window.

Why not dispense with the need for a court case? An accusation alone from a woman should be sufficient to lock up the accused for life without any need to traumatise the victim further…

Welcome to 2013.

Margaret Jervis
August 9, 2013 at 16:54

In the spirit of the NSPCC tawdry ‘pants’ campaign, this is how a Guardian
journalist ‘protects’ her daughter

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/dread-daughter-poos-smaller-girl-conform

Tom
Mein August 9, 2013 at 05:47

Would it not be easier to simply do away with Judges, lawyers and courts,
it would save a fortune, and allow people on Twitter to decide who is
guilty?

binao August 8, 2013 at 23:59

Think about it as a parent.
Many years ago, being very nosy but caring
parents we came across some unacceptable photos of a then underage girlfriend
of our schoolboy son. We were able to work out the location and likely snapper
and passed the matter over to the local police. Result was some unwelcome
investigation of the person’s home and business, and unfortunately, distress
to his wife.
Our logic for this action was simple, this was a clear case of
a mature adult indulging in activity that we would have found unacceptable if
the girl had been our daughter, and we also did not wish our son to learn that
such behaviour might be considered acceptable.
Old fashioned maybe, but we
regarded the activities of the adult as corrupting and exploiting. As parents,
we perhaps hoped others might see things the same way. The apparent compliance
of the girl was never relevant.
This story, however is about detection, and
the hope of prevention.
Justice in dealing with the offender is an entirely
different matter and should take a balanced view.

Ian B August 9, 2013 at 00:22

Think about it as a parent.

No no no. You won’t get anywhere with reasoning if you start from
there.

This is basically why our society has gone wrong. It’s this idea that you
should start from your emotional gut, like an omnipresent Oprah Winfrey
show. But in so doing, you’re automatically preset your conclusions. Much
like an Oprah Winfrey audience. What you’re supposed to do if you want to
approach objectivity is to think about it as if you’re not emotionally
involved at all. Think about it as if you’re an alien anthropolotist in
a flying saucer observing these mysterious Earthling creatures, or
something.

All you’re saying is “I believe this thing X, therefore X”. It doesn’t
get you anywhere. Like, “I wouldn’t want my son being a poof, therefore
being a poof is wrong”, etc.

Jonathan
Mason August 9, 2013 at 00:37

Yes, you are right, that is the problem. Because I have worked in areas
like mental health, prisons, and sex offending, I just look at these
things from a work perspective, which I am sure is what these barristers
and judges are doing. In a work situation, you are playing a role and you
can’t just say what you think from the gut without considering that you
are speaking on behalf of the state, the judiciary, the law, or whatever.
When that barrister said that “all her actions were predatory” he may not
even have been referring specifically to sexual actions as everyone
thinks, but no doubt he had far more information about the behavioural
record of that young woman than anyone who wants to comment. In any case,
I have not read that anyone asked him exactly what he meant and if the
word “predatory” had any specific meaning in that context.

When you read comments like those from women who comment in The
Guardian, the impression received is that many of the commenters were
themselves raped or sexually abused and are vicariously seeking revenge.
This is understandable, but it is no good if you are trying to craft the
most effective prison sentencing policy, and it is no good thinking this
way if you are working in the field. Think about it, do you really want to
hire prison officers who are determined to punish the inmates for whom
they are responsible to the maximum every day they go to work, just
because they can? Do you really want to hire police officers who will beat
accused rapists to a pulp so as to feel good about themselves? The whole
point of having a court is to have measured justice and punishment and do
away with the need for vigilante justice.

binao August 9, 2013 at 19:52

Last word: a gut reaction or emotional response would be a kick in
the nuts.
I’d like to think I’m a bit more civilised than that.

binao August 9, 2013 at 09:01

Unconvinced, Ian B.
Perhaps ‘think about it as a parent ‘ is
misleading. I was thinking more of our responsibilities than gut
reaction.
I certainly don’t support mob justice or vigilante action,
and am heartily sick of the oh so earnest Harriets and their constant
denigration of men.
I’m fully sold on the notion of ‘it’s not you I
don’t like, it’s what you’ve done’, and the need for emotional detachment.
I also understand that the balance of power between an apparent offender
and apparent victim needs careful examination if justice is to be fairly
done.
I did say that the story was about detection and that justice
should be balanced. But that’s for others to deal with.
I believe we
came across some unacceptable behaviour and passed information to the
‘proper authorities’; discreetly, too. I don’t really see what else could
be done.

JimS August 8, 2013 at 22:34

I wondered if you would pick up on this story and I’m glad that you
did.

The comments by Cameron and the ‘child protection’ industry are appalling.
Politicians make the law and the courts interpret it as written, not as
politicians smelling what they think is the flavour of the wind now think it
should be.

As for the ‘child protection’ industry the idea that a child becomes
‘predatory’ is because they have previously been abused and therefore it is
not their ‘fault so can’t be complicit is ridiculous. Every case should be
tried on the facts. Today the new truth is that all children are innocent,
yesterday it was that all men are rapists and no women is complicit.

We seem to be racing into a new era of lynch mobs, Mr Bloom “can’t say”
bongo-bongo land, Mr Colover can’t say “predator” and anyone who is unwise
enough to be free with Twitter or Facebook must be ‘outed’ and hounded down,
(apparently if a few people see ‘offensive’ behavior that is a crime but when
it is re-tweeted or ‘Youtubed’ to the masses it is saintly).

carol42 August 8, 2013 at 22:22

There is a very big difference between 12 year olds 50 years ago than now
but even then we got interested in boys at around 14 and todays 13/14 year
olds are about where we were at 16. Of course there are always some who were
sexually precocious at an early age, possibly as a result of some experience
but we didn’t know anything about that then and there were not as many
children from broken homes and drugs were virtually unheard of.
Times
change and maybe it’s time the law caught up. Strange to think you could leave
school at 15, get a job and get married at 16 and would certainly not have
considered yourself a child.

Lucozade August 8, 2013 at 23:08

Carol42,

At the end of the day, what are you realeseing eggs for if the thought of
trying to get them fertilized is so aborant?

I don’t actually have any children myself and know that these days it is
completely impractical to have a kid until you have your schooling behind
you, are settled and have seen a bit of life first. But it is surely natures
way of telling you something? And that’s why these days there have been
several methods of contraception developed.

I know people in their 20′s and 30′s that have still not had sexual
intercourse and if they are happy with that then that is absolutely fine,
but I also don’t see it as unnatural or wrong for someone at an age where
they have probably been realising eggs monthly for a couple of year’s at the
least i.e 14/15 to think about sex or even have it if they really want to as
that is what nature is suggesting and I don’t see why sex should be viewed
as a ‘bad’ thing, provided it is done safely…

carol42 August 8, 2013 at 23:30

I don’t think I suggested sex was a bad thing, it was just that without
reliable contraception the fear of pregnancy was very real. It was just
the way things were then, probably why many of us married very young by
todays standards. I first married at 17 and most of my friends were
married by 20, some even lasted! mine didn’t but my second lasted for 36
years until my husband’s death. With free, reliable contraception maybe it
is time to accept the changes and stop treating sexually active teenagers
as children who are helpless victims.

Lucozade
August 9, 2013 at 00:16

Carol42,

I just meant that the media and the likes of that Mark Williams
Thomas seem to view it as the worse thing imaginable, lol.

Yes that’s another thing, it’s probably a lot safer now than it’s
ever been due to antibiotics (if you were ever unfortune enough to catch
anything) and contraception that is supposed to be 99.9% effective. But
of course this isn’t just about sexual intercourse, if an older guy
(seems even 18′s too old at the moment) even kisses a girl under 16 or
vice versa, it seems he can be landed in trouble for it and branded a
paedophile/’child abuser’…

Chris
August 9, 2013 at 16:43

As I remember it from when I was a child – and I’m probably 20 or so
years younger than many of you – children were allowed to be children. We
looked like children, dressed like children and remained blissfully ignorant
about the birds & the bees until we were told about it sometime around
the cusp of puberty. Once we started developing into ‘young adults’ we acted
accordingly – and thus some teenagers of yore could quickly become very
alluring, others not so. But they were – and aimed to be – young adults.
Fertile young adults, with the benefits (or otherwise) of that
fertility.
We aimed to impress and ingratiate ourselves with other
adults.
Children, though, we’re like those on here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GktZgeOQWUk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVQs7TXsnT4
Indeed, 15 or
so years ago it was a case of “Generation Gap? What generation gap?”. You
mixed with people both older and younger in work and in play, and generally
age was irrelevant in how you related to people.
It’s all changed, and
the change can be dated to those born circa 1989/1990. Something MUST have
happened in the 11-16 education system in the late 90′s that changed the way
children developed (or not) into young adults – it can’t JUST be the
internet and reality TV? Even now, you can watch perfectly intelligent,
healthy and inquisitive children at 11 turn into emotionally retarded
imbeciles by the time they leave school – qualifications coming of their
“stretched” ears but remedial levels of real knowledge. They are quarantined
from adults, and a lot of workplaces have been mutated over the past few
years that ensure this playground continues well into their adult lives.

In terms of sexuality and growing, kids have sex thrown at them from
every angle from a horrifically early age – but, like the music they listen
to now, it’s sex without context, without feeling. All of those teenage
girls tottering about with their pert botties hanging out of their shorts –
the ones I actually find visually appealing are and far between, yet it
wouldn’t have been the case 10/15 years ago. They have zero sex appeal,
regardless of their womanly curves – coming across more like that visual
horror-fest of the early days of Channel 4, Mini-Pops.

Like cute little doggies, these kids are bred to remain playful doleful
little puppies all of their silly lives now. As such they may be attractive
amongst their own peer group – but not to those older and of a more
substantial mindset. The disease of idiocy is spreading fast though –
epidemic levels. http://chrisbarratt.wordpress.com/2012/05/

Lucozade
August 9, 2013 at 17:04

Chris,

I think some employers have complained that a lot of school leavers
these days are just not employable due to their lack of people skills,
something that could be changed, by teaching them those skills, lol…

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 17:08

@Lucozade
Or is that that they are simply prevented from learning
them?
Nobody ever “taught” me to be an adult, but nobody got in my
face about it either. I was allowed to be moody and be full of angst –
nobody gave me drugs or tried to counsel me to be “happy”…. like I used
to be as a child…………..

Lucozade
August 9, 2013 at 18:39

Moor Larkin,

Probably that’s more the case, or a bit of both.

I think it could be beneficial to teach people things like manners
and how to make a good impression at work, and interview skills as
some people might not get very good influences outside school and be
less likely to pick these things up.

I found a few self help books helpful, lol…

Ian B August 9, 2013 at 17:34

Sorry, I don’t agree at all.

I think the problem is, we all like to tell stories about the past.
That’s what history is; even personal history. It’s not facts, it’s
storytelling. We do our best to ground it in facts, but we end up
storytelling. Humans are natural storytellers, and the point is to get the
point across, not be accurate. So we end up, by accident, effectively
making shit up. This can go in either direction, good or bad, but tends to
one or the other; either the past (or one’s own past) was much worse than
now, or much better than now. It’s almost certainly very different in some
pertinent-to-the-story kind of a way.

The other point is that if we’re in conservative mode (whcih we
all love to do), we have to set some kind of a datum, a standard against
which we’re comparing the now. The problem is, we fail to consider how
“normal” that point itself was. It may be wildly abnormal. Take the 1950s.
That was by far the most socially conservative, regimented, austere period
in the 20th century after maybe the first decade of it, due to the Great
Depression, and a fuck-off war that had meant most of the men- now
fathers- had been in the forces polishing their boots and following
orders, and all the women had manned, er womanned, the Home Front, making
a sausage and a pat of butter feed a family of four and, again, following
lots of orders. The 1950s is thus not a good datum; it was the end of the
war, austerity and represents a particular moment in society.

Now, it’s also the case that 1950s-ism lasted long after the 1950s. My
sister and I have talked about this (she, b.1961, me b. 1966) to middle
english “nice” working class parents who married in 1959, and as such
represented the last gasp of that kind of childhood in which boys wore
shorts and played with model Spitfires and girls wore impractical little
skirts and played with dolls whether they liked it or not (my “tomboyish”
sister has such a horror of skirts as a consequence she doesn’t own a
single one, heh). So, if we compare “kids today” living in relative wealth
and freedom to our own childhood in the 70s, things seem very different.
But we ought to ask whether things really are *quite* so different, and
whether perhaps what happened after the 1950s stylee has been a
progression into abnormality or a relaxation back to normality.

Going off briefly at a tangent, I frequently make this point; what
social conservatives call “traditional” values (particualrly regarding sex
etc) are not traditional values at all, but a set of radical values
implemented in a first wave of “political correctness” in the Victorian
Era, which as said above had their last gasp as late as 1950 (though they
had already collapsed once in the 1920s, before the ruption of the
Depression Era and War Years put them back together again somewhat).
Britain was “traditionally” a liberal and bawdy country, as we see in
representations of the 18th century- lusty barmaids bulging from laced-up
tops, Restoration comedy full of people shagging each other. It was a land
of whores and brothels, taverns and courtesans, swept away by the suddern
arrival of First Wave PC. So in those terms, we may see rather than a
diversion into some form of social abnormality, instead a return to
normality; and in so doing see the Rad Fems and Bluestockings as a
reactionary movement trying to keep Victorianism in place. Both are simply
the modern incarnation of the First Wave of sexophobic upper class women
whose political correctness implemented a shaky century of sexual
repression.

And kids today? Well, I dunno. BBC Crackerjack were, after all, going
to want to feature nice children with their hair brushed and father is a
university lecturer and mother is a houswife who does charity work. But
thinking back to my immediate post-pubescent years (1979 or so onwards),
well.

I was at an average middle English comprehensive school. From 13 or so
onwards (even, talking the end of Middle School here) there became an
awareness that people, particualrly the more developed girls, were falling
off the virginity wagon. Lots of gossip, some of which may have even been
true, and of course much envy from those of us still on the wagon. Nine
year olds might have been lusting after Crackerjack Pencils, but not that
much older, the yearnings were quite different. And, here’s some anecdata:
the sister of one of my best friends ended up living with her English
teacher. Who was in his 40s.

So I’m not sure so much has changed, other than we are more “open”
about it; which on the one hand can be positive, with more sexual
expression in the media, but also very negative, since nowadays presumably
she and Mr ****** would be all over the Daily Fail with “paedo” all over
it. And this brings me to another point really. Back in the 80s as a young
liberal leftie PC kinda guy, I was greatly admiring of the whole “let’s
talk about it” ethos regarding abuse and rape (and indeed being gay) and
so on, because I believed it was all about helping victims. I thought it
was so that people wouldn’t suffer shame and have to hide and so on. I
don’t believe that any more.

It’s really all about putting a permanent spotlight on everyone’s
private life, so that those lives can be ruthlessly judged by a kind of
secular “ulama”. My friend’s parents were less than thrilled by her
daughter’s romantic choice, but back then there was something of a “well,
but you can’t do anything about it”. Now, you can. You use trumped up laws
to ruin people, and those laws are rigorous because nothing is private
any more. Binao below writes with glee at having, apparently, shone
his spotlight into a situation and got the man arrested, the girl
(probably) flung into counselling by quacks, a divorce (presumably) and
(at least) a “distressed wife”. There doesn’t seem to be a vestige left of
one particular traditional value of minding one’s own business which I am
seriously now thinking, in retrospect, may have been better after all. Not
because I want abuse victims to suffer in silence, but because what we
seem to have instead is anything and everything being labelled “abuse” and
the Oprah-isation of our sexual discourse has become one long, rolling,
neverending witch hunt.

Maybe it was better in 1979 when 13 year old girls were in reality
fucking their older boyfriends but everyone pretended they were really
like those nice kids on Crackerjack, after all. Or maybe rather than
choosing from a 1950s mythology, or the current mythology, we need to find
a new means of living in which the abused can get help but the
not-abused-at-all can be left alone to get on with their lives without the
glare of the moral spotlight.

Anna
Raccoon August 9, 2013 at
17:55

Excellent post sir!

Chris August
9, 2013 at 18:44

I’m not holding up Crackerjack as some shining example of 14 years,
more like 9 or 10 years – but about 10 years ago I was channel-hopping
on my sofa one friday night after a late shift and – like a train – I
was startled by these sights and sounds I’d buried in the back of my
mind twenty years earlier.
The thing that struck me is – and looking
at old photo’s I and my peers weren’t much different at that time – is
how child-like they/we looked. By 2003 of course, it was de rigeur for
kids to wear the latest adult fashions and hairstyles – back then there
seemed to be no pressure until the perils of secondary school looked. I
went to good schools, but ordinary schools with a high council estate
intake so we weren’t removed from ‘the street’.
At 13/14 you would,
through the teenage angst and sulks, expect to and want to socialize and
interact with adults. The tasty girls all had older boyfriends with
motorbikes or cars whilst us younger lads hid our sex under our beds.
That was the ‘norm’ – a few years later we were the older boys with
motors. Everyone saw it as a natural part of growing up – but nobody was
partitioned or shielded from one another, the junior school kids were
non-sexual children and the older ones going through the motions. People
were, by and large, uncorrupted – this was life.

Ian B
August 9, 2013 at 19:05

Chris, I’m not entirely sure what point you’re making here. I mean,
my above rant was a bit vague as well, I admit to that
But I don’t know what “pwople were, by and large, uncorrupted”
actually means. Are you asserting that teenagers weren’t “corrupted”
by sex, or by the media, or somebody else wasn’t corrupted, or
something else?

Certainly fashion options at the time were pretty awful- I
mentioend above that we were still struggling out of the ghastly child
fashions of the post war period- but I’ve always seen (and my sister
too, part of those reminiscences I mentioned above) that kids today
being able to wear cool clothes is a definite plus, and I wouldn’t
call it “corruption”. And another thing, it’s interesting that in the
current moral panic we keep getting schools in the news putting the
girls in trousers because they keep wearing short skirts. Well, I can
remember precisely the same ever-raising hemline competition when I
was at Upper School in the early 80s, except there wasn’t a moral
panic about it then. So I don’t know who’s being corrupted and what
this corruption is, in your philosophy.

Chris August 9, 2013 at 19:52

That sentence meant – kids were kids, teenagers were teenagers who
started shagging at certain points – yet the teens doing what came
naturally didn’t have any negative effect on the younger kids.
Nature’s line was drawn and adhered to, our childhoods weren’t
troubled by matters of the loin by the mechanics of sex being
explained at infant school or the need to parade about in the latest
fashions.
The media have ensured sex and other adult concerns are
peak-time family viewing on television so these things intrude into
childhood, a childhood which is stripped of the innocence I
experienced – yet never ends in terms of maturity. Hence a generation
of 20-somethings shamelessly behaving like children still.

Lucozade
August 9, 2013 at 22:26

Ian B,

Re: “I’ve always seen (and my sister too, part of those
reminiscences I mentioned above) that kids today being able to wear
cool clothes is a definite plus, and I wouldn’t call it “corruption”
”

I agree

Ian B
August 10, 2013 at 09:26

Chris-

I found this article t’other day which I think has a quite
interesting perspective regarding media “sexualisation”, etc.

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-grapes-of-tantalus-revolt-delusion.html

I don’t endorse everything he says on his site, but there are some
useful thoughts there, I think.

For me, one way of looking at the point I think you’re raising-
“The media have ensured sex and other adult concerns are peak-time
family viewing on television so these things intrude into childhood, a
childhood which is stripped of the innocence I experienced”- is that
it comes down to IMV the hegemonic infantilisation of teenage. It
seems to me that a characteristic of the progressive/puritan worldview
is a programme to stop young people growing up; it maintains an
illusion that teenagers are “children”, a word used all the time in
the matters discussed in this thread. When they are not “children” at
all but, after puberty, have undergone a fundamental psychological
shift towards adult concerns like sex, status, independence etc. But
officially they are expected to still have the interests (“pursuits”)
of childhood.

So this results in the media, who are trying to cater to the actual
interests of teenagers, to portray those things- most notably, sex. So
then it blurs inevitably down to the actual children since the
distinction- the “age of being mentally like an adult”- is in the
wrong place. That’s why on the one hand we see breakdown of “real
childhood” while on the other hand we see teenagers not “growing up”
because they keep being told over and over that they’re not supposed
to grow up.

Am I making any sense?

Moor Larkin August 10, 2013 at 09:57

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-grapes-of-tantalus-revolt-delusion.html

That’s a very good article. However, I doubt that this phenomenon
is restricted to the “Anglo-American” model. I’m sure it applies just
as much to the Franco-German one too (assuming the latter can be said
to exist). In short it is part of the “human condition” that “girls”
can be attracted to the predatory type of male, who has a sense of
dangerousness about them. It’s hard to generalise but I suspect what
happens is that because girls “mature earlier” they seek out what they
view as signals of maturity – cynicism and self-confidence being two
of these, as opposed to soppy doe-eyed boys who put them on pedestals
and worship them – and unfortunately those attributes often lie in
older and often self-centred men. The Beauty and the Beast Principle
perhaps. I recall the plot of “Skins” when it started (lost track of
its later evolution) revolved around a girl constantly choosing the
dangerous male over the nice young man.

It might be an interesting study to find out how many women of any
age find Spindler and Williams-Thomas to be *sexy*………
Nobody
could be more soppy and doe-eyed than those two……….

Chris August
10, 2013 at 09:53

Cheers for that.
This morning MWT and his braindead witches are
frothing at the mouth over this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387599/Teaching-assistant-jailed-affair-pupil-16-texted-naked-pictures-classroom-desk.html

Casting aside the ridiculous notion of 23 year men and 16 year old
being “paedophilia” (this redefinition is very handy for real
paedophiles isn’t it?), what we have here are two young people who are
both, more than likely, of that same emotionally retarded mindset – but
one is the “beast” and one is the “prey”. Conditioned to accept
everything they are told without argument, this is the ultimate
destination for them all.
They’re not going to argue are they?

Lucozade
August 10, 2013 at 14:53

Chris,

“Casting aside the ridiculous notion of 23 year men and 16 year old
being “paedophilia” ”

Would it still be “paedophilia” if the man was just 21? lol

carol42 August 9, 2013 at 20:13

Someone put it very succinctly: teenagers used to grow up but now they
just grow old.

Mina Field
August 10, 2013 at 09:22

I don’t understand why the discussion has turned into a critical
analysis of children and teenagers. The dire ‘abuse victims’ are middle
aged, some very late middle aged, and the girl whose behaviour was
discussed in the index court case has never complained, and she refused
to support the prosecution.

Ian B
August 10, 2013 at 09:28

Fair point, but I think any way forward has to come down to a
rational analysis of human development and growing up, because this is
at the heart of the matter. Because the hegmonic opinion of how
people- particularly teenagers- ought to be is in fundamental
contradiction to how they actually are.

Moor Larkin August 10, 2013 at 10:17

@Mina Field
@ I don’t understand why the discussion has turned
into a critical analysis of children and teenagers. The dire ‘abuse
victims’ are middle aged, some very late middle aged @

You are right insofar as this is exactly what the paedo-panic has
done. It is treating the ‘testimony’ of 50 year-olds as if it was the
‘testimony’ of a 14 year-old or a 9 year-old in some cases. This
illustrates how insidious organisations like NAPAC have won the ear of
the supposedly rational organisations in Society such as the CPS but
this has been the way the rational law decided to behave after the laws
of 2003 were passed.

This is an interesting article, looking back at the results that are
developing a decade later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3672591.stm

Ian B August 8, 2013 at 21:03

I’ll just throw in my usual schtick here, then.

The howlers are saying that this is a case of “blaming the victim”. The
problem they have with it is that in this case there was no victim. The
girl did not feel like a victim, any more than Megan Stammers felt like a
“victim” of “abduction”. She made the mistake of telling a “friend” what had
happened, who reported her. So that that point, both she and the man became
victims of the system. But, in terms of natural justice- which is often vastly
at odds with the law (see, for instance a century of Gay persecution)- there
was no victim. No abuse. No trauma. Nothing. Nada. Zero.

It is worth noting at this point what a consent law does. It does not
enable consent. Every woman, of whatever age, has the right to say “no”
already, which they routinely exercise. If they are ignored in that, it is
rape, a thoroughly reprehensible crime. So this law did not protect this girl.
She was already protected. It does not protect a woman from force. It prevents
her saying yes, legally. And, in effect, if a woman says “yes”, that is
the fault of the man who acts upon her wishes.

Because the point here isn’t just that said “yes”. She said, “Please”. Any
court that did not take that into account in sentencing would be a truly
barbaric place. But that of course is what the sex campaigners want. They do
not want just, decent courts. They want star chambers and, we are getting
close to that point now.

Now the expected reply here is, “the law says a 13 year old girl cannot say
yes. Because she has no mind (apprently)”. But ho hum, until a few years ago a
20 year old gay man couldn’t say yes either. The law should reflect reality.
When it does not, it is an ass. Currently, the law is an ass. It has been an
ass since the First Wave Feminists in the Victorian Era decided to make it
one, by implementing an age of consent at odds with reality. Not because they
wanted to protect young women from coercion (because they were already
protected by the rape law, at least as much as any other woman). They didn’t
want a woman to have a right to say “no”. They wanted to stop them saying
“yes”. Or, worse, “please”.

Human biology knows nothing of the law. The sex drive switches on in a rush
of hormones at around 12 in girls and a little later in boys. There is no
specific, precise, age. It varies from individual to individual, as those of
us who can still remember growing up (a dwindling minority, so far as I can
tell) will well remember, as we saw our peers in the school changing rooms
developing their secondary sexual characteristics, or noted the opposite sex
doing so; the sweet little boy suddenly developing a lantern jaw and
neanderthal brow, or that girl who suddenly had the Biggest Boobs In The
School. But once that biological watershed is past, young men and women (for
that is what they are, no longer children) will replace the pursuits of
childhood with the yearnings of adulthood- putting away their dolls and
thinking about boys, makeup, clothes, boys, popular beat combos, hair, makeup
and did I mention boys? And a little later, the boys moving on from Action Man
to trying to find their dads’ jazz mags.

So far as we can tell, the court recognised that this young woman was
beyond playing with dolls; mentally and physically developed, with a sexual
drive that she articulated. She, and the man she seduced, then ran into the
legalised version of the Victorian Dogma that “if we can only stop them having
sex before marriage, they will never develop a taste for it and live chase,
upright, christian lives”.

You can pretend all you like that a 13 year old isn’t capable of knowing
what she wants. But then you have the problem that you know damned well that
much younger people know what they want, because we know that a 10 year old or
a 7 year old knows damned well when they are being abused, and don’t want it,
and want it to stop. Even small children are quite capable of saying “no”, and
the tragedy is that so often they are in a terrible position where they are
now allowed to say no, and that is chld abuse, the most ghastly form of
rape.

This girl did not want to say “no”. She wanted to say, “yes, please”. And
that is what she did. And, just as in the Megan Stammers/Jeremy Forrest case,
the response of those who pretend to care as a pretext for imposing their
sexual hysterias is to destroy both her and, far more completely and terribly,
the man who said, “well, okay then”.

And now somebody will probably say, “Yes, but he knew what the law was, he
had a duty to obey it…”

Sure. So did Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing and Sir John Geilgud when he was
caught cottaging. How many posthumous apologies are they going to be handing
out 50 or 100 years from now when everyone admits how mad this was, when the
lives are long ruined, and the people long dead?

The law is an ass.

Chris
August 8, 2013 at 21:58

I was a fairly early developer for a boy – sprouting pubes when I was
still at Junior School, and shaving daily by the time I was 13. My childhood
was, on the whole, fine. I was immersed in music and pop culture over and
above anything else, got Smash Hits every fortnight from being 10 and
watched the evil Top Of The Pops every week from the age of 3. Yet despite
my immersion in this adult world (a world that the media now would have us
believe in was the heights of depravity) and despite my own early puberty I
never felt in any rush to jump headlong into adult sexual
relationships.
Yes I was streetwise (although not as much am now,
obviously), I was mature for my age but I never felt any great need to run
before I could jump.
And being a avid lover of your top-shelf porno mags,
I was as randy as any teenage boy ever was – but still no pressure to start
shagging for real.

And speaking of porno mags, here’s my anecdote. In my first year of my
comprehensive, there used to be an old demolished house on the edge of the
school grounds. One break I followed some of the lads from my tutor and we
climbed over the rubble. One of them found a newish copy of Mayfair and they
all had a gawp. “Perverts mags” the squeaked. “for perverts”! and slung it
aside. “Perverted? I don’t think so, stupid idiots” thought I, and slipped
it under a slab of dry concrete. I went and picked it up later – my first
‘mens magazine’ and how I studied the naked female form from that first
magazine until I managed to get hold of another.
Society seems to be
reverting back to those daft squeaky 12 year olds who aren’t 12 but possess
the exact same immature attitude. “Urgh, it’s for perverts” “Perverts!”
“That’s perverted!” “You must be a pervert!”
Except they are stupid, they
are doing this finger-pointing and name-calling whilst watching some freaky
tattooed female singer with her bits hanging out simulating masturbating on
stage, and singing about graphic sex. And they have sex, but it’s a joyless
empty sex – just like the generic joyless empty songs they hear piped at
them, over and over and over. “It’s what you do, innit”.
Just as long as
you aren’t more than a couple of years older than they are. Because then
they become victims, and the older people “perverts” or “paedophiles”.

Lucozade August 8, 2013 at 22:18

Ian B,

I agree with what you are saying, 13 might be a little to low for a legal
age of concent these days, but people are different and develop differently
in different areas at different rates. What’s not right for some maybe
perfectly fine for others.

I think the German age of concent is more realistic, it’s 14, but the
authorities can get involved if they feel someone under 16 is being taken
advantage of/exploited etc, so it clearly doesn’t just look at every case as
black and white and realises that some cases can involve exploitation etc,
but others do not. And I think it is still 18 for relationships with those
in a position of authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

I really think that the law is only really there to protect people so
actually feel it should kept as low as is safely possible, otherwise it just
seems like infringing on peoples freedom to make decisions for themselves
for no real good reason.

I remember being 13 and I felt like an adult for the most part, not a
particularly worldly wise adult, but there are woman in their 40′s who are
still not particularly worldly wise and there are woman in their 30′s that
appear doomed to repeat mistake after mistake, never seeming to learn from
them and some 13 year olds will be more mature than others. It’s just not as
black and white as they are trying to make out at the moment…

Mina Field August 8, 2013 at 18:22

I’m so glad you wrote this article today, Anna. Yesterday I was wanting to
poke my own eyes out with frustration at the coverage, and the almost total
absence of anyone asking, ‘whats the context’?
As for Cameron – Ted Treen
summed him up, re: bandwagons. As a lifelong conservative voter I can’t
understand how we are in a position where someone appointed a prime minister
who seems to have the IQ of an average 10 year old.

rabbitaway August 8, 2013 at 16:34

If the BBC plans to give away OUR money, WE should have the right to know
why and to whom – petition anyone ?

rabbitaway August 8, 2013 at 16:32

Now we know who the real predators are – as if we didn’t already ……

The BBC recently set aside £19.1 million for compensation claims, which are
likely to include victims who were abused by Savile. Many of his 214 known
offences took place on BBC sites.

A Scotland Yard and NSPCC report published last year found Savile spent
“every waking minute” ………. (I chopped the rest of this bit off on purpose)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10230031/Families-to-boycott-festival-after-Jimmy-Savile-float-won-prize.html

That’s 19.1 million quid of OUR money

Engineer August 8, 2013 at 13:51

One does wonder if this story would have received any coverage beyond a
couple of inches on page 12 if we weren’t in the middle of Silly Season. The
cynic in me has a nasty suspicion that some editors might see several days
worth of coverage in this, especially as we now have very senior politicians
making public statements about it (whilst probably not being in full
possession of the facts).

We really haven’t moved on much from “Burn the witch!”, have we?

Jonathan Mason
August 8, 2013 at 14:41

No. I am starting to think that there is a lot to be said for the
American way of having the judiciary as a separate branch of government from
the Executive and the Legislature, when we see Cameron jumping on board
this.

Cameron, like Obama, has turned out to be a terrible disappointment.
Hyped as one of the most brilliant young men of his generation at Oxford,
and was described by his tutor, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, as “one of the
ablest” students he had taught, yet the longer he is in office, the more
moronic he is becoming.

JuliaM August
8, 2013 at 15:45

“Cameron, like Obama, has turned out to be a terrible
disappointment. “

Not for those who knew something about them before their rise to power,
no…

Ian B August 8, 2013 at 21:12

Julia-

I was one of the few voices in our little blogosphere begging people
not to vote for him. Partly because I knew he’d be a terrible
disappointment to anyone in either the (a) traditional conservative or
(b) libertarian camps, and partly because it should have been Labour
left wallowing in the mess they’d created, rather than sitting in
Opposition saying “oh, if we’d been in power there’d have been none of
these TERRIBLE TORY CUTS” and so on.

As to Cameron being “brilliant”; that was in the context of a PPE
degree, which is the degree you do if you want a comfortable
establishment wonk job, and have an IQ below 85.

Ed P August 8, 2013 at 13:45

I love, “main steam”. I had a radio like that once!

Jonathan Mason
August 8, 2013 at 12:50

However, one has to admit that if the Stuart Hall case is taken as the new
standard for sentencing as recently set by the Court of Appeal, this offender
does seem to have been treated quite leniently, since from the few details
reported, the sexual act seems to have been more overt and gone beyond a
stolen kiss.

DtP August 8, 2013 at 12:40

We fostered for just over 7 years and the 2nd teenage we had was a real
fracking nightmare. As soon as we got her I realised I could potentially end
up getting banged up – by the good grace of God though the nipper kicked off
at my girlfriend and it deteriorated there. I had to stand at the other end of
the room from her because she was such a streetwise little shit who’d been
used to getting her own way through whatever methods that I would have been
just another stat. That teenage girls can be evil little bitches is a point of
fact – that some of them are aware of their burgeoning sexuality is again,
without doubt – that some of them know far more about sex than I ever will is
an unfortunate state of affairs in the 21st century. Sure, the guy shouldn’t
have been so nieve as to think some dimiutive little teenager can’t runi his
life – he shouldn’t have been attracted to her and should have told her to
fuck right off – maybe he did, I dunno. But what I do know is it ain’t taboo
to call teenage girls scheming little shits who can ruin your life in a
heartbeat.

On a brighter note – we then got a lad for the next 6 odd years and I spent
most of my time pushing him into hedges, wheelie bins, parked cars – well,
anything, really whilst he conjured up schemes to scare the shit out of me at
the most inappropriate times – happy days!

Jonathan Mason
August 8, 2013 at 12:40

As I have mentioned before, I worked for a while in Juvenile Justice in the
US. I remember one girl of only 12, who was definitely a very aggressive
sexual predator who preyed on other girls, often older than herself, so it can
definitely happen. But all of the young teenagers were sexually active and had
prostituted themselves for money and drugs. One girl of only 13 said she had
over 700 sexual partners.

However, in this particular case, it seems likely that the girl performed
oral sex on the man (surely this is the “sexual act” mentioned in the
bowdlerized reports of the case), very likely in exchange for money or
cigarettes, not for love or for fun. Remember that they met when the girl
approached him to buy her cigarettes at a time when she was truant from
school, so hardly an angel on several counts.

As Anna has said, we don’t have the full transcript of the case and we
certainly don’t have the full history of the girl who may be very well known
to the legal system. Whether the sentence was too lenient in the particular
case should be determined by comparison with similar cases and normal
sentencing practices. As I am not a lawyer, I am happy to leave this to the
proper legal processes.

JimmyGiro August
8, 2013 at 11:28

Who would win in a death match between Jon Venables and Mary Bell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bell

Fat Steve August 8, 2013 at 11:28

You are on the button on legal principles —for the little it is worth I can
see no possible argument to the contrary.
From the reports the Prosecutor
used two phrases to describe the victim —sexually experienced —-that is
clearly factual and probably an admission by the victim herself —-and
predatory —-and I opine predatory is less factual and is rather more opinion
extrapolated from facts.
I am as wary of Prosecutors or Defence lawyers who
venture concluded opinion too readily as I am of Feminists who extrapolate a
concluded critique of Society based on their opinion. Both leave themselves
open for a kicking and probably deserve it when they get it. I favour the
tradition that would express such issues less as conclusion but more as an
invitation to draw a conclusion and in rather less emotive and trite
language.
As to the Judge? Well Society puts him in place to form and to
express an opinion when it is appropriate to so do.—judges are not perfect but
waaaay better than the mob or Politicians —but Judges did in the past seem to
be able to express opinion more delicately yet without any loss to the
administration of justice .
But generally Anna your point is I think where
is all this going to lead? and it is a little difficult not to share your deep
pessimism

corevalue August 8, 2013 at 12:16

“Predatory” would suggest to me that the girl was the one activally
hunting for male partners. I don’t know the particulars in this case, but
relating to my own youth, I can remember several girls of that age who were
extremely interested in finding boyfriends some years older than themselves.

I do remember a case from Bristol, about 1976 or so, where a 17 -year old
lad was charged with offences against a 12 -year old. They’d met at a night
club where members were supposed to be over 18. To her credit, she turned up
as she was dressed for clubbing, rather than the school uniform the
prosecution preferred. The judge gave the lad a suspended sentence,
remarking that he would have himself found it impossible to judge her age,
given her physical development. A pity we can’t have that sort of common
sense back today.

OTOH, I had for a short while a severely damaged girl as a girlfriend,
whebn she was about 20. She’d been caught behind the bike sheds with her
similarly underaged boyfriend at school, when she was 14. He got sent away,
she got therapy. The therapists truly messed her up. Any physical contact,
which she craved, literally “locked up” her body, followed by floods of
tears of frustration (not mine, I must add).

Jonathan
Mason August 8, 2013 at 15:02

More likely she was just seeking to sell or exchange sex for money,
cigarettes, or drugs, rather than seeking a boyfriend for a sexual
experience. If she was seeking an older boyfriend, it would be for
commercial reasons, such as access to money, cigarettes, drugs, clothes,
shoes, use of a car, etc. rather than with a view to romance or marriage.
The middle-classes who get their knickers in a twist about this stuff
really have no idea.

Now once a lovely lady, a magazine reporter
Met some chaps one day
in the forces by the way
She said “Do tell me all about the good times
you get maybe”
They said “All right, sit down we’ll tell you all about
it baby”.

Do we have lovely time and get up at half past nine? Oh you have no
idea
When we wake up half dead, do they bring us tea to bed? Oh you
have no idea
And when we go to bye-byes and they put out the
light
Do all the corporals come round, to see that we’re all
right.
And does the sergeant tell us bed time stories every night Oh
you have no idea.

[George Formby]

Ian B August 8, 2013 at 21:16

“Romance or marriage”?

This is part of the problem, here in Protestantland. There’s this
continual perception that men want sex, and girls want love. Or men want
sex, girls want his money.

Girls actually want sex too. You know that thing when you just fancy
a shag? It’s just like that.

Lucozade
August 9, 2013 at 12:19

Ian B,

Re: “There’s this continual perception that men want sex, and girls
want love. Or men want sex, girls want his money.Girls actually want
sex too”

Agreed. Jonathan has a point too, where some girls will be willing
to have sex for money, alcohol etc, but not all, or maybe even most
girls are like that…

ZeroIntelligence
August 8, 2013 at 10:43

Streetwize mocking kids, unstoppable, any era, any age, under-age,
in-a-rage to pompous patronising Anglo authority figures.

“My Mind, My Body, My Choice – Mind Yer Own !”

Anglo bent-media mugged mum to under-age kid: “This 18+ vid’s not for you,
it contains ‘Sex, Violence, Swearing’

Streetwize mocking kid: “Wot, like in our schoolyard?!”

Nervous numpty Anglo Dad to 12 yr old son:” Er, Ur nearly 13 now, and we
need to talk about, er Sex!”

Streetwize mocking kid: “OK Dad. Wot don’t U understand ?!”

WorldWizeWeb: “No Sense Please They’re Sex-Obsessed Anglos”/”Mad Dogs &
Anglos Go Out In The Mid-Day Sun”

Bent-Brits & U.S.A. – U ptight S exual A ssholes.

Moor
Larkin August 8, 2013 at 10:51

@zerointelligence

1.1The ACPO Lead on Child Protection and Abuse Investigation (CPAI) has
released this position in response to the growing trend by young people to
take and share indecent photos, not only of themselves, but also of friends
and partners through SMS on mobile phones.
1.2 The taking of such
photographs is often due to children and young people taking risks and
pushing boundaries as they become more sexually and socially aware. With the
prevalence of mobile phones with cameras and internet access and the
increased use of Bluetooth technology, images can be shared easily between
friends.
1.3 Sharing indecent images in this way is colloquially known by
the term ‘sexting’ and it can have extremely damaging effects. In the US, a
number of young people have committed suicide after images taken of them by
previous partners were posted on social networking sites.
1.4 The 2010
Strategic Overview from the Child Exploitaiton and Online Protection (CEOP)
Centre also identifies a wider range of ‘risk taking’ behaviour by children,
including making online contact with strangers. The report highlighted that
it can be difficult to distinguish between
self-taken indecent images
resulting from grooming or facilitation by adult offenders who have a sexual
interest in children, from the images that result from children and young
people simply pushing boundaries and experimenting with their
friends.
1.5 An image on the internet has no natural lifespan; once
posted an image may be copied by many others including those who may be
predatory abusers. CEOP is aware of cases where self-taken indecent images
(which were not produced as a result of grooming or facilitation) have
ended
up on paedophile chat sites and forums.

1.10 Although there is no evidence of this occurring in significant
numbers in the UK, CEOP is aware of cases in the US where teenagers have
been prosecuted for sending indecent images of themselves to friends and
partners. The risk is that a purely criminal justice focused approach to
this problem may result in the prosecution of children in the UK.

2.4 Clearly some self-taken indecent images will be as a result of
grooming and facilitation by adult offenders. The primary purpose of police
involvement in these cases should be to ensure that the potential contact
with adult exploiters is properly explored. As per Department
for
Education guidance, the focus of investigations should not be on the
behaviour of children who have been the victims of abuse or exploitation but
on the adult offenders who ‘coerce, exploit, and abuse children and young
people’1
.
2.5 ACPO does not support the prosecution or
criminalisation of children for taking indecent images of themselves and
sharing them. Being prosecuted through the criminal justice system is likely
to be distressing and upsetting for children, especially if they are
convicted and punished. The label of ‘sex offender’ that would be applied to
a child or young person convicted of such offences is regrettable, unjust
and clearly detrimental to their future health and wellbeing.
http://ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/externaldocs/ACPO_Lead_position_on_Self_Taken_Images.pdf

rabbitaway
August 8, 2013 at 11:02

@Moor in short – you could, in theory be charged and convicted of
ABUSING YOURSELF
……. will I then (forty years later), find myself suing my younger self for
damages ? Erm, another sub thread please ….. all answers NOT ON A POST
CARD …… please

Moor Larkin August 8, 2013 at 11:23

In his autobiography Jimmy Savile speaks of his first sexual
experience being at age 12.
Does this make him a victim without a
voice? .

“At the age of twelve I had my first date with a real girl. She was
about twenty and worked in the dance hall cashbox.”
http://franticplanet.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/summer-of-savile-day-22-slapstick-first-dates/

Lucozade
August 9, 2013 at 09:20

Moor Larkin,

Re: “At the age of twelve I had my first date with a real girl. She
was about twenty and worked in the dance hall cashbox.”

I find it really hard to believe that a 20 year old woman would
agree to go on a ‘date’ with a boy as young as 12, lol

Do you think he may be exaggerating a little? lol

Ian B
August 9, 2013 at 09:44

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe she had the same cuteness==sexy reaction
that seemed to afflict many much older women regarding Justin Bieber,
a large part of whose appeal seems to have been based on his juvenile
appearance. It’s not unknown for women to fantasise about showing some
youngster the ropes.

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 09:51

@Lucozade
It’s not considered exaggeration when a 20 year-old
man has a date with a 12 year-old girl……
If
you follow that hilarious blog from 2009 there is much to wonder about
what exactly in Jim’s book one should take seriously….

@Curmudgeon
I’m not sure legal sanction is the best way to
discipline young people, but I imagine it’s better than doing nothing,
which seems to be ACPO’s response.

One thing that is striking is that ACPO seem to be deciding what is
an isn’t the law and who are ACPO? 300 appointed people apparently –
appointed by….. ACPO…….. They seems to be some kind of Trades Union so
far as I can see. Time the Daily Mail started kicking their Acpos in
my opinion…..

“There are presently 311 members of ACPO. Collectively, the 311
leading police executives provide a critical and an informed
understanding of the complexity of policing at local, regional and
national levels. Chief officers’ work through ACPO is ‘on top of the
day job’ and attracts no additional remuneration.”
http://www.acpo.police.uk/About/Membership.aspx

Lucozade
August 9, 2013 at 11:31

Ian B

Re: “Maybe she had the same cuteness==sexy reaction that seemed to
afflict many much older women regarding Justin Bieber”

I think Justin Bieber’s alright looking too now, wouldn’t listen to
his music though lol…

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 11:31

@Lucozade
Most likely a woman of 20 said to his mum, “I’ll take
him to the pictures for you and look after him Mrs. Savile.” I’ll drop
him him off at your house around 9…..

Curmudgeon
August 9, 2013 at 02:09

In the USA, there is no ‘in theory’ about this.

See http://www.technologytell.com/gadgets/46797/sexting-can-label-your-teen-a-sex-offender/

For those who don’t follow the link:

“A 15-year-old girl in Ohio and a 14-year-old girl in Michigan were
charged with felonies for sending along nude images of themselves to
classmates. Similar charges have been filed in cases in Alabama,
Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, and Utah.”

Lucozade
August 9, 2013 at 11:24

Moor Larkin,

Re: “It’s not considered exaggeration when a 20 year-old man has a
date with a 12″

Is that not usually the age where all the girls tower over the boys
by about a foot?

Perhaps it wasn’t actually a date or he was a few years older, lol…

Lucozade
August 9, 2013 at 12:09

Moor Larkin,

Re: “Most likely a woman of 20 said to his mum, “I’ll take him to
the pictures for you and look after him Mrs. Savile.” I’ll drop him
him off at your house around 9…..”

That’s what I thought – she was probably watching him for his mum,
lol…

Fat Steve August 9, 2013 at 13:08

@Moor Larkin —your views appear to me to be touchingly naïve if voiced a
little stridently—Savile not an entertainer???? —Gosh I thought he was part
of BBC Light entertainment but now with your input I know him really to have
been part of that creeping pernicious agenda of the BBC —yes the God Slot
extending 24/7/365. Sorry I still can’t get the connection with Mother
Theresa and even less your reference to force feeding (hamburgers or
propaganda?)

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 13:17

@Fat Steve
Savile had no BBC contract after about 1977. They
declined to renew it so he worked freelance so he was no part of anybody’s
agenda except his own. He was only grudgingly offered an ongoing annual
renewal each year after 1973. That was in Radio. He never ever had a
contract with BBC Television.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/we-were-all-taken-in.html

If Barry Norman was an entertainer then I accept that Jimmy Savile
could be so described.

I’ll give up on Mother Theresa, it’s plainly too much too soon………..

Fat Steve
August 9, 2013 at 13:28

Gosh Moor Larkin —so its only if you are an employee that you can be
an entertainer? Yea right…….. so no self employed contractor
is…….anything???? Well at least I have that part of your argument ….but
yea your analogy between Jimmy Savile and Mother Theresa is waaaaay
beyond me …….I am relieved to say

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 13:34

@Fat Steve
No, the logic was that if Savile was not a BBC
employee he could hardly be “part of that creeping pernicious agenda
of the BBC —yes the God Slot extending 24/7/365.”

He was a television presenter. Before that he was a disc-jockey. He
claimed no talent and if you watch him, it is difficult to discern
any. He was in truth probably the first Reality Star. Popular simply
because he seemed to be so ordinary. I guess that if he had a single
“talent” it was his supreme self-containment and self-confidence;
those attributes currently to be viewed as only possessed by the
psychotic……..

Fat Steve
August 9, 2013 at 13:46

@Moor Larkin
Aaaaahhh I am starting to follow your train of
thought —-presenters of light entertainment and disc jockeys are not
entertainers …….they are…..????? Perhaps not Aaaaaahhhhh after all
….More ….well actually ………Moor Arrrrrrggggghhhh!
BTW the God Slot
reference in my post was a rather poor attempt at humour following on
from your reference to St Jimmy’s ministry

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 13:58

I noticed the Ministry thing. Seeing as you’ve reintroduced
religion as opposed to ministering to the poor and needy……..

Mother Theresa never seemed to try and “big up” Catholicism but
rather just concentrated on her getting practical help for her little
sisters of the poor. I mean everyone knew she was catholic but she was
never part of any propaganda mission on behalf of the Papists or
anything (well not that I remember). But that she was Nun is a fact I
guess.

In a similar way Jimmy Savile never routinely appeared on Celebrity
Squares or any of those formats, celebrating his being an Entertainer.
He used his meaningless fame to extract practical help for his
endeavours in the world of the needy in his own backyard and Eire, but
he patently never glad-handed and back-slapped because most
celebrities say they didn’t like him and thought he was weird. I can
imagine a few bishops and cardinals thinking the same about the
annoyingly ministering Mother Theresa.

Parallel lines or random chaos? I just go with the evidence.

Fat Steve
August 9, 2013 at 16:06

@Moor Larkin
Mother Theresa never tried to big up Catholicism
—yea right Mother Theresa did good works coz……? well yes coz she was a
Catholic Nun …..called to good works by her Catholic faith which drew
heavily on Catholic mysticism rather than practical outcomes for their
own sake —-I have never seen any photo or film of her other than her
hands clasped and looking down —-hers is the classic image of someone
who seeks spiritual salvation through the negation of self.
As for
St Jimmy? Well not quite the same I think even if you take away the
Roller/Jingly Jangly Jewellery/Cigar —–his image is that of the
importance of self
Now Moor if your point is that they both did
good works I am not going to argue —but I will argue the model they
respectively used was different and that motives might well be
different —-look at the Theroux video and the broken ankle exert if
you doubt the centrality of self to Savile’s life—-and I think I could
mount argument that the legacy of each of them is rather
different—-and would have been different even if the Duncroft Girls
hadn’t made their play for fame.
Still Moor if you think them the
same as you clearly appear to the best of luck to you

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 16:16

@fat steve
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287427/Was-Mother-Teresa-saintly-Researchers-spark-controversy-claiming-care-sick-dubious-handling-cash-suspicious.html
Check
out the comments…….

I’ll check out Jimmy’s ankles when I get home…..

Fat Steve
August 9, 2013 at 17:20

@Moor Larkin
Christopher Hitchens already has had a go at Mother
Theresa though I know little about her perhaps because her world was
one well outside my experience—but I take your point about criticism
of her and indeed criticism of Savile after his death—–and pondering
matters I can’t ever recall him ever having made any statement that
was critical of others –my interest is quite why Savile was as popular
and as influential as he was —he was probably a hugely intelligent man
behind what was I suspect a façade and one that had great appeal for
many —how he crafted that façade and why it proved so popular still
escapes me but popular it was—-ands his downfall has relevance I
suspect to understanding his popularity though I take his popularity
his façade and his downfall as a measure of the Society in which he
lived. Apart from Anna’s contributions in respect of Duncroft I have
yet to see anything that amounts to what I would call evidence about
the man behind the façade (and Anna’s evidence disproves rather than
proves) though my feeling is that he would not I think be the sort of
person I would particularly admire even if one could get behind the
façade. So is MWT the public face of virtue for the next few years
much as Savile was in the 70s and 80s?

Chris August 9, 2013 at 20:19

In my opinion, the reasons for the vilification of Jimmy Savile are
many… but one that particularly strikes me is that he is the
antithesis of the kind of persons thriving in the media in recent
times.
He was perhaps the ultimate free thinker – in “show
business” but outside of it, popular in his prime by sheer force of
personality (charisma) and the charity work and help was often without
fanfare.
Free thinkers and genuine mavericks – and bonafide,
unapologetic eccentrics – are not allowed to thrive now. What better
way to stamp any such potential out than to destroy the 20th century
eccentrics in death; destroying all the good done and a new standard
of “what not to be”.
We hate it when our friends become successful
– and if they’re Northern, that makes it even worse…
http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/55739/

Belsay Bugle
August 8, 2013 at 10:31

It wouldn’t be a show without Punch!
Cameron has to add his tuppence
worth to the venom of the feministas and the metropolitan lefties.
Does
anybody else find it sinister when our prime minister expresses support for
the mob over the rule of law?
What is the muppet trying to say? That a
prosecutor and judge should suppress evidence to achieve an unjust
result?
Just because his wife eggs him on over the muesli doesn’t mean he
has to open his silly mouth.

Ted Treen August 8, 2013 at 13:00

Cameron can’t ever see a bandwagon without experiencing an overwhelming
urge to jump on it…

Prat!

Fat Steve August 9, 2013 at 10:20

@Moor Larkin
No Moor I don’t feed my physical hunger with fast food or
feed such little intellect as I possess with media burgers.
I think you
may not have quite got the point I was making. Jammy Savile was no doubt a
man of great ability —so was Ray Croc who started Mc Donalds —I just happen
to think the products they both purveyed with such skill and ability did not
go much beyond the banal —hugely popular though

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 10:36

@fatsteve
Savile didn’t purvey anything. He was just a TV presenter
and disc-jockey making a living. Here’s what he says about himself in
1973.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lyzIGVMca6s/Uf5ZqHPKrDI/AAAAAAAACuc/NVdAZC3gmHM/s400/image002.jpg
What
he did outside of work was minister to the paralysed the sick and the
dying. Like Mother Theresa, he is now vilified by the oh-so-clever
classes. There are things that make me sick but it is rarely fast
food.

Fat Steve
August 9, 2013 at 12:25

I like to think I am on safe ground to claim Savile sold
entertainment—purvey is what we all do when we interact with others—-I
tend to think his ministry (as you term it) was part of his act —you
might want to look at the part of the Theroux documentary and his broken
ankle if you think his motives were just selfless altruism —but people
construed it as selfless altruism when that is what they wanted to
believe —just as now they want to believe he was a serial paedo—-much as
they construe a hamburger as a restaurant meal —-and I suppose a
hamburger does qualify as a restaurant meal if ones definition of a
restaurant meal is limited—Savile qualifies as a minister if one thinks
what he did was ministry though to a sophisticated mind ministry as
rather wider connotations than that which Savile did just as a
restaurant meal implies rather more than a hamburger——but hey Moor who
am I to make a qualitative judgement though you appear to have done so.
Just like the prosecuting silk in the above case —- one can jump perhaps
from someone who initiates contact with someone to that initiator
becoming a predator and so one can jump from an entertainer to being a
minister—watch a great movie ‘Leap of Faith’ if you want to identify the
connection between entertainment and Religion —all binary judgements
offered up to a rather simplistic manner —-a rather crude and to me
unconvincing two dimensional image of most of humanity who cannot be
classified by a convenient label .I am not sure I can quite make the
connection with Mother Theresa that you do.

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 12:38

@Fat Steve
But Savile wasn’t an “entertainer”. By 1973 he was
widely-quoted as working just one day a week. He had no need to work
since he had made enough money to be comfortable for the rest of his
life – primarily it seems because he needed relatively little money to
meet his life’s needs, having no interest in a celebrity lifestyle.
Unlike the very religious Cliff he never bought himself an estate on
Barbados. So what you are left with is a man, who for 13 weeks a year
after 1975, turned up one day a week to film Jim’ll Fix It and now and
again to ‘present’ Top of the Pops. Otherwise he was barely to be seen
on the telly or anyplace else except several hospitals.

What was he doing there? Well, incredible as it would seem to the
modern world of celebrity, he just did portering and generally mucking
about to cheer the bed-ridden up. In between he did a lot of sponsored
cycling and running and so was able to generate considerable
money-streams to what he thought of as Charity, but nowadays is deemed
to be the more seripus responsibilities of the State – ie the NHS.

How much nursing did Mother Theresa do? Very little because she was
moving amongst the Heads of State and the Vatican persuading and
cajoling these centres of power to find a few crumbs for the poor in
health and needy that she sponsored. If you cannot see any connection
between the two people then I suspect you have become too used to the
recent fad for force-feeding.

Ergathones the
Philosopher August 8, 2013 at 10:03

Ach, might as well pop this link in here too, as it’s more relevant, and
the Grauniad has already been invoked…

Sweeping generalisations based on *one* case, anybody?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/07/misogyny-society-abused-children-predatory

Ted Treen August 8, 2013 at 12:58

Come on, Ergathones. When did you last (or ever) read anything by La
Toynbee that wasn’t arrant nonsense?

Ergathones the
Philosopher August 8, 2013 at 14:03

I must say I’d been blissfully unaware of the Grauniad and its minions
for the most part… but an otherwise sensible friend of mine posted the
article on Facebook last night and considering recent threads of Anna’s, I
had to have a peek and/or chuckle.

Oh and in your “abnegation” list, don’t forget those horrible video
nasties that turned so many people into axe-wielding cannibals at the dawn
of the 80′s!

Couldn’t agree more, society today no longer asks “Who did this?” but
rather “How many different people can we blame – other than the
perpetrators and ourselves – for allowing this to happen?”

Jonathan
Mason August 8, 2013 at 14:49

Historically I have found Toynbee to be quite a good-hearted sort, but
like all these newspaper columnists, she is lazy and sometimes just churns
out the required number of words on the bete noire du jour. She does not
have a transcript of the trial, and certainly does not have a case-history
of the 13-year-old in question, nor does she have any data on sentencing
patterns for sexual offenses, but that does not stop her from offering
opinions based on zero facts about the events or people under discussion.
This is an incredibly common phenomenon that we see a lot also in
discussion of the health service. These people don’t do any proper
research, either by reading relevant documents or by interviewing people
who have first hand knowledge. They just get their “facts” from other
bloggers or press releases from lobbyists and run with them.

Jonathan
Mason August 8, 2013 at 17:11

I posted a comment on Comment is (Un)free this morning and it has
already been deleted. What I said was basically the first paragraph
above, slightly rewritten:

“Historically I have found Toynbee to be quite a good-hearted sort,
but… she does not have a transcript of the trial, and certainly does not
have a case-history of the 13-year-old in question, nor does she have
any data on sentencing patterns for sexual offenses, but that does not
stop her from offering opinions based on zero facts about the events or
people under discussion.”

I then added that I had experience of working in the health
department of a Juvenile Justice facility where there were girls in this
age range who actively prostituted for money, drugs, etc., and that this
was by no means a rare phenomenon. I then pointed out that all we know
about the young woman in question was that she had initially approached
the man to ask him to buy her cigarettes while she was absent from
school, so most likely she is in a state of delinquency, and it is
highly likely that the oral sex she offered was in exchange for
cigarettes or money.

I can kind of see that they might have deleted it in case in was
libellous towards the young woman, but can you libel an unnamed person?
Anyway, it just shows how difficult it is to have a straighforward,
honest discusssion based on experience, and how more posts from one side
of the argument than the other might end up being deleted. After all,
you can say anything you like about someone who is a convicted criminal
as they have no reputation to lose.

Moor Larkin August 8, 2013 at 17:38

@Jonathan Mason
I doubt it is anything more technical than that
your historical truth might hurt someone’s feelings.

Fat Steve
August 9, 2013 at 09:52

@Jonathan Mason

You are on the button —in this day and age —–many —not just
journalists or feminists or barristers are experts on everything
—knowing immediately the answers to all things for all men—always
others of course —usually doing so without much knowledge but with
much bias——emotional usually ——and sometimes personal axes to grind
including wealth and five minutes of fame.Judgement has become a
matter of instant binary decision un nuanced by relevant facts —-the
intellectual equivalent of fast food —-still it feeds the hunger of
the general populace and keeps them out of greater mischief —-that was
Jimmy Savile’s great talent I have come to think and why I believe him
to be such a good metaphor for the last half of the last century

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 10:07

@fat steve
@ the intellectual equivalent of fast food……… that
was Jimmy Savile’s great talent I have come to think and why I believe
him to be such a good metaphor for the last half of the last century
@

I think you’ve been munching too many media burgers mate. Savile
may have been a strange entertainment phenomenon, but he was also a
man of great substance, except he preferred to portray himself as the
Court Fool, probably out of an old-fashioned sense of British modesty.
The only mistake he made was to not realise that the British would
become so flabby-minded that they can barely remember when they last
fed their fat faces, never mind who did what thirty years ago.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64871000/jpg/_64871838_154699320.jpg

Jonathan
Mason August 9, 2013 at 14:54

Yes, I know, but just offering some reasons why public discussion,
for example in The Guardian, tends to be tilted to one side. Another
point is that while a senior policeman can use his office to declare
that Savile spent every waking minute thinking about rape and
paedophilia, all I can say is that he may indeed have been a serial
rapist and paedophile, but so far I have not seen or heard any
evidence that convinces me this is so, so I would prefer to keep my
mind open.
I can’t categorically prove that he wasn’t those things,
which would never be possible.

Which is a much more limited and less exciting point of view.

Incidentally, Florida gets a lot of stick over sensational court
cases, for example Terry Schiavo, Trayvon Martin, Casey Anthony, but
part of the reason for that is that Florida has freedom of information
laws that mean that all public business, including documents, must be
made available to the press and the public. In Florida the underlying
data and affidavits from the Yewtree Report could not be kept secret.
Perhaps the names and addresses would be redacted for publication, but
not the substance of the allegations.

Brian August 8,
2013 at 10:00

Shouldn’t that be FeminiStasi?

I’ve just had a look in the online CPS Sentencing Manual and can’t find
“predatory and egging on” in the (short) list of mitigating factors. Are there
any other examples of “elephants in the room” that may not be mentioned in
court?

Brian August 8,
2013 at 16:13

Robert Colover is getting the Barbara Hewson treatment. One wonders if a
particular charity’s self-interest is driving this witch hunt.

Moor Larkin August 8, 2013 at 17:04

A bit of color to Colover seeing as he’s flavour of the moment.
http://www.theshowtrialofmarkkennedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/An-Interview-with-Bob-Colover.pdf

Yes, the police job is to make a case, but once the case gets to court,
the job of the barrister is to present the evidence that’s legally
admissible to a jury for them to decide, no prosecution barrister should
go into court and say I think this man is guilty because of x,y and z and
therefore you should think he’s guilty, um, crown court doesn’t work like
that, no court should work like that, its not the job of the advocate to
say I’ve looked at the evidence and in my opinion he’s guilty, and no
defence barrister should go and say I’ve looked at the evidence and I
think he’s not guilty, and therefore you should think hes not guilty,
we’re not there to give our opinions, um, we’re there to present cases,
um, and the role of the prosecuting barrister, which
can include taking
a decision which the prosecuting authorities sometimes don’t like, but the
prosecution barrister, in discussion with his, with the CPS, the Crown
Prosecution Service, who represent um, the prosecuting authority, they can
sometimes take the decision not to proceed
cases where the police may
say well, we think we’ve got a case, and the barrister may have to point
out that they haven’t got a case, or that, in fact, the case is not as
strong as they think, for technical reasons in court, they think, its
their view that the judge will exclude the evidence, um,
and so, the
job of the prosecuting barrister is to act very very fairly and not to,
not to go, obviously to press for a conviction in cases where the evidence
supports it, but he shouldn’t, she shouldn’t add a personal aspect to
it.

JuliaM August 8,
2013 at 09:33

“I’m surprised that they stopped short at that – why not demand that
those accused of sexual offences not be allowed to conduct a defence at
all?”

Harriet and Vera would have eventually got round to it, had they not been
kicked out of office (and straight into another one, in Vera’s case)…

rabbitaway August 8, 2013 at 08:57

Anna, it’s so easy now to manipulate people to jump to the wrong
conclusions and encourage them to air their displeasure online. Whoever
started this online petition thing must be wishing they hadn’t bothered and,
as for ‘comment is free’, well let’s not go there shall we.

Ted Treen August 8, 2013 at 12:18

The whole of modern life seems to be a complete abnegation of personal
responsibility
Naughty?
it’s not your fault; you suffer from
ADHD.
Fat/Obese?
it’s all the fault of those evil fast-food
merchants.
Unsuccessful in life?
None of it is your fault (even if you
ARE a lazy sod) – it’s your parents’/school’s/employer’s fault.
Can’t be
arsed to think?
Not your fault (see above) – the nice newspaperman will
do it for you.
Also, many more examples, unfortunately, when any form of
effort, responsibility or rational thought is called for.

But then, what do you expect from a populace reared on hand-outs,
electoral bribes, and The Jeremy Kyle Show?

JuliaM August
8, 2013 at 13:26

And if your child kills herself, why, it’s all the fault of Ask.fm! No
blame should attach to YOU. Even the Prime Minister of the UK won’t dare
suggest you might be responsible.

Curmudgeon
August 9, 2013 at 02:37

Parents are never ever responsible. The recent case of a 12 year old
girl raped in Walthamstow:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23537098

I’m glad the scum who did this will face trial but no-one asks why a
12 year old girl is wandering the streets alone at midnight. Why is no
action taken against parents who completely absolve themselves of all
parental responsibility?

Ted Treen
August 9, 2013 at 11:58

“…no-one asks why a 12 year old girl is wandering the streets alone
at midnight.”

That was the first thought that came to me when I first heard/read
about this sorry case:- but then I’m viewed as not just old-fashioned,
but positively antediluvian by my younger colleagues…

And I’m only 63…

Moor Larkin August 9, 2013 at 12:03

Surely it’s a fundamental Human Right for anyone to do anything,
however stupid – so long as there is no law against it.
Perhaps a
law against 12 year-old’s walking the streets on their own at night is
required.
Perhaps extend it to all children if not under 18′s, to
comply with UN Human Rights best practice.
Such laws would have the
advantage of making the streets much safer for the rest of us………