Rape allegations against Jimmy Tarbuck

[UrbaneFox]

Sorry, but if I had concerns as she says she has, esp regarding a vulnerable group of children,then I would have thought reporting those concerns/suspicions, even anonymously would have been a priority?

Since Jimmy Savile was exposed it has been quite clear that reporting assaults or suspicions often got you absolutely nowhere, whether it be teacher, priest, residential social worker, police officer, MP, National Treasure or parent.

 

[ymu]

He heralds it with that winky smiley.

Not just me who noticed that then.

 

[cesare]

Not just me who noticed that then.

Butcher's has already called him on it too.

 

[ymu]

Butcher's has already called him on it too.

I missed that. But it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Nice one.

 

[coley]

I missed that. But it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Nice one.

Your posts, 287 and 290, at this stage it was, as I said a reflex post given a group of children at risk, yes i should have thought it through. And perhaps shown a bit more sensitivity but then along comes 291, out of the blue I am "harassing you" and it goes from a debate to a personal rant on your part, but hey what's new in that.

 

[UrbaneFox]

Plus, not being believed is worse than the original offence, for most. The post-Savile flood is people realising that they can get justice now.

Ah, yes, you said it.

 

[ymu]

Ah, yes, you said it.

Yebbut, my posts don't get read.

As Coley is repeatedly demonstrating by stabbing himself with his own needle.

 

[coley]

Since Jimmy Savile was exposed it has been quite clear that reporting assaults or suspicions often got you absolutely nowhere, whether it be teacher, priest, residential social worker, police officer, MP, National Treasure or parent.

That's not the case now though, is it? allegations are taken seriously and the people making them are treated seriously and with respect. long overdue but it is what's happening now.

 

[ymu]

Are you really this immensely self-absorbed? Or just too immensely focused on being a creep that reading posts would be irrelevant regardless?

I am. It is quite complicated finding files from 15 years ago and, funnily enough, not something I want to spend all my time focusing on.

I am also trying to track down the Australian GP who assaulted me when I was 18. Feel free to judge me for not going after the guy with a sunglasses stall at a stopover near Singapore. There's only so much I can do on my own and I have a fucking life to live in the meantime.

You are an ignorant creepy cunt. You have been doing this to multiple women for months. Your poor little old man act is transparent. It never did work very well and it really isn't going to be a goer for much longer, the way you abuse people's gullibility.

 

[coley]

Are you really this immensely self-absorbed? Or just too immensely focused on being a creep that reading posts would be irrelevant regardless?



You are an ignorant creepy cunt. You have been doing this to multiple women for months. Your poor little old man act is transparent. It never did work very well and it really isn't going to be a goer for much longer, the way you abuse people's gullibility.

Immensely self absorbed? Try looking in a mirror.

 

[ymu]

Still digging? Good grief.

 

[existentialist]

That's not the case now though, is it? allegations are taken seriously and the people making them are treated seriously and with respect. long overdue but it is what's happening now.

We've made a lot of headway, but there's a shitload more ground to cover - the experiences of the victims in the recent Rochdale abuse/rape cases being a pretty fresh example.

In my view, we will NEVER be able to sit back and say "job done" when it comes to handling such cases - the minute that happens, we'll start sliding backwards again.

 

[coley]

Still digging? Good grief.

Thanks to a couple of people on here I have developed a little bit more understanding, you on the other hand?
Oh aye, the smiley wink? its the I pad,it's the only emotion thingy I know how to do on it, aye us old dodderers shouldn't be allowed on here should we.

 

[UrbaneFox]

That's not the case now though, is it? allegations are taken seriously and the people making them are treated seriously and with respect. long overdue but it is what's happening now.

There is, I hope, some serious rethinking about how to deal with such allegations. We cannot say 'that's not the case now' because the landscape doesn't change in a few months. It takes time. I am not just referring to the police here, but newspapers and web messageboards.

And no, I don't think all allegations are taken seriously. I detect some puffing and panting about celebs being charged with historical offences. Jim Davidson fondled a girl's breasts in 1971? Hasn't she got over it by now?

People bringing historial cases to court may face 'Why didn't you say so at the time' trauma, accusations of being an 'attention seeker', 'stirring up trouble', 'cashing in on the national mood' - the sort of thing that has kept them quiet all these years.

 

[existentialist]

I don't want to come across as being unpleasant here, coley, but your naïvete is starting to come across as a little wilful. Perhaps you might do a little exploring of the issues yourself?

 

[coley]

We've made a lot of headway, but there's a shitload more ground to cover - the experiences of the victims in the recent Rochdale abuse/rape cases being a pretty fresh example.

In my view, we will NEVER be able to sit back and say "job done" when it comes to handling such cases - the minute that happens, we'll start sliding backwards again.

Agreed,though I would like to see a bit more headway made in the cases of those with LD, they are a group who still need to be taken a lot more seriously.

 

[coley]

I don't want to come across as being unpleasant here, coley, but your naïvete is starting to come across as a little wilful. Perhaps you might do a little exploring of the issues yourself?

There are a lot of issues that I will admit I need to get up to speed on and if I make the odd faux pas it is through genuine ignorance and if called out on it I have no problem in apologising and learning from the experience, if,to be accused out of the blue of harassing someone, tends to make me a tad wilful,then what do you expect?

 

[seventh bullet]

I don't want to play sex abuse top trumps, and from reading this thread I see others here with experience have already eloquently put important things across to you, but as a survivor of abuse myself you're coming across as not entirely serious and a bit weird in all honesty. I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but if that isn't the case then I politely suggest you find another subject on which to take the piss.

 

[pissflaps]

 

[existentialist]

There are a lot of issues that I will admit I need to get up to speed on and if I make the odd faux pas it is through genuine ignorance and if called out on it I have no problem in apologising and learning from the experience, if,to be accused out of the blue of harassing someone, tends to make me a tad wilful,then what do you expect?

Yeah, it's easy to get pissed off when you're catching flak, but perhaps it helps to remember that people who've been through this shit tend to be a little touchier than most about being misheard/misunderstood, especially as that has often been a part of their traumatic experience.

And (another word to the wise) being wilfully naive probably isn't going to help make things more comfortable - quite the contrary. I thought carefully before I made my "wilful naivety" post to you, as I am trying very hard to be at home to Mister Reasonable on all scores, but it got posted because even my efforts at not feeling a bit got at, given my own history, weren't enough to stop me from feeling a bit pissed off by it myself.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's not the case now though, is it? allegations are taken seriously and the people making them are treated seriously and with respect. long overdue but it is what's happening now.

No, it really isn't "what's happening now".
What's actually happening now is what's known in criminology circles as "cherry-picking", where the state (via the police and CPS) will be filtering these allegations/complaints, and only following up those with the best prospect of a successful prosecution. This is exactly what happens with all allegations of any form of sexual assault.
yes, the interviewing officer may be solemn and respectful (although that isn't always the case), but the process that decides what happens to your complaint is anything but "respectful" - it's a cost/benefit exercise which basically dictates that if there's less than a 65-70% chance of your case succeeding, it doesn't make it onto the starting blocks. It's not justice, only it's semblance

 

[andysays]

No, it really isn't "what's happening now".
What's actually happening now is what's known in criminology circles as "cherry-picking", where the state (via the police and CPS) will be filtering these allegations/complaints, and only following up those with the best prospect of a successful prosecution. This is exactly what happens with all allegations of any form of sexual assault.
yes, the interviewing officer may be solemn and respectful (although that isn't always the case), but the process that decides what happens to your complaint is anything but "respectful" - it's a cost/benefit exercise which basically dictates that if there's less than a 65-70% chance of your case succeeding, it doesn't make it onto the starting blocks. It's not justice, only it's semblance

This is absolutely true, and your point is worth making, but it's also worth pointing out that it's true of all allegations of pretty much any criminal act - only the ones judged to have a high chance of successful prosecution actually get prosecuted.

There is, however, a difference between being followed up and eventually being prosecuted.

The reasons why many historic allegations of sexual abuse are particularly unlikely to be judged in this category should be obvious - not only did the events happen a long time ago, but there are unlikely to have been any witnesses other than the accused and the accuser.

 

[ymu]

That isn't true. There are some for whom there is only one allegation, but for most of them there are several. Stuart Hall gave up the fight when nine independent complainants who had never met described his MO.

Historic allegations are no less serious.

The victims are now empowered adults who the CPS cannot afford to be seen letting down after Worboys and Rochdale and the Sapphire Unit criminality and the Met cover-up of the investigation into its failures.

The CPS system for deciding whether or not to prosecute is inherently discriminatory. The Rochdate rapists were reported by one of their first victims, but the CPS deemed her an unreliable witness.

Because of course, rapists generally pick on people who are not vulnerable and are likely to be believed.

That is what is known as institutional sexism. How can there ever be justice when the system is devised and run by the kind of people who don't experience the crime, do not understand the dynamics and most likely have enjoyed a good giggle with their mates about it down the pub at some point in their lives, if not still.

 

[danny la rouge]

I suspect that is a large part of the reason behind why it is said - it clearly separates the overlapping Venn diagram conflating 'rape' and 'sex' which has caused and continues to cause great problems in dealing with the issue. I wanted to limit my question to how much evidence we have that it is true that it is always 'about power', though. What the 'about' bit means is obv important in picking that apart.



This just seems to be saying that it is a violation and an abuse of power, which I have no argument with. Your paragraph previous to this suggests that there is more going on when we say 'rape is about power', though, and that we are positing motive or reasoning or at least saying something about the meaning of the act that goes beyond this prosaic explanation.

For example, murder is an abuse of power but we don't say 'murder is about power'. We accept that the reasons for it can include a massive gamut of things from revenge to money right through to wanting to impress Jodie Foster, and we accept that a messy bundle of reasons and motives do not somehow make the act defensible.

I'm not aware of the sitcom you mention - it sounds quite charming and I did think you were talking about some execrable 70s shite until the end of the sentence.

I don't think we're disagreeing here. What I'm saying is that anyone can be sexually aroused. And anyone might be sexually aroused when their intended partner doesn't want sex. However, it is not everyone who goes ahead and takes it anyway. It's that difference (the difference between sex - which, in long hand, we might call "sex between consenting adults" - and rape) that we need to look at. The difference is what makes that act rape.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not sure the sentence I've highlighted is accurate. Some (a minority) of sex offences against children are carried out by people with genuine delusions about the suitability of what they're doing. I'm not keen on standing up for people who do things that revolt me, but I'm not convinced it's fair to apply such a label so sweepingly.

I don't disagree with your second sentence, but I also think it's perfectly congruent with what I've been saying. Just because a person might be deluded about the suitability of what they're doing doesn't mean that it isn't about power.

Some rape is carried out by people with genuine delusions about the suitability of what they're doing. The natural justice of a husband taking his conjugal rights, for example.

 

[8ball]

I don't think we're disagreeing here. What I'm saying is that anyone can be sexually aroused. And anyone might be sexually aroused when their intended partner doesn't want sex. However, it is not everyone who goes ahead and takes it anyway. It's that difference (the difference between sex - which, in long hand, we might call "sex between consenting adults" - and rape) that we need to look at. The difference is what makes that act rape.

No, we're not disagreeing on any of that - it's all common ground except for the 'rape is about power' formulation, which works in the manner that you have quite precisely defined, but I've had a dig around and that does not seem to be a majority understanding of this form of words.

I think as a message/slogan it had utility in a particular time and place (putting a clear demarcation between rape and sex where attitudes could get them confused), and maybe we are actually still in that time and place. I think it's a double-edged sword, though. It can lead to an expectation that extreme force has to be a factor, which I don't think is fair on victims who decide not to fight back and then don't have clear distinguishing injuries, and I think it also makes it easier in some of those 'date rape' (ugh! - hate the term but just using it for brevity) scenarios for young men who have had it hammered into them that rape is all about power, domination, and violence, to not link that concept up in their mind with clear and active consent as opposed to a lack of resistance, or assuming passive consent from a partner that is really in no condition to be actively consenting.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think it's a double-edged sword, though. It can lead to an expectation that extreme force has to be a factor

That's not how I understand the word power, but you make a fair point. However I still think there's utility in getting young men to think about power in terms of assuming their wishes should trump their partner's.

 

[existentialist]

That's not how I understand the word power, but you make a fair point. However I still think there's utility in getting young men to think about power in terms of assuming their wishes should trump their partner's.

In spades.

Young men often see it as a polar thing - either they're "nice" (frequently too nice, to a slightly creepy extent), or "dominant" - because they're sold a message which says, in terms, "treat 'em mean and keep 'em keen".

One of my biggest challenges with the young men I work with is getting them to see women as people first, and women second, rather than as some kind of commodity.

 

[ymu]

That's not how I understand the word power, but you make a fair point. However I still think there's utility in getting young men to think about power in terms of assuming their wishes should trump their partner's.

Yeah, I think that is exactly right. We are men and women, not amorphous human beings. So, what should it mean to be a man?

That is not for me to decide but I would like it to include an awareness that they have a physical power and (currently) institutionalised advantage and that manliness means not needing to abuse those advantages and risk hurting others. Including other men. Fists are for when the words have run out and only a weak position needs to resort to them first.

Kinda thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Fists are for when the words have run out and only a weak position needs to resort to them first.

some people have more words than others.