Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the sir jimmy savile obe thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minnie_the_Minx said:
That's the impression I'm getting, because apparently there's no super-injunction
Click to expand...

If there were an injunction and it were really super, we couldn't be told there was one. That's what the "super" bit means.

But I had the impression that even Mr Justice Eady had stopped issuing these. Though... how could we tell?
 
We shouldn't assume this is necessarily about kids. The Savile related inquiries will have picked up on all sorts of potential offences. Needless to say, not an attempt to defend him, or say any offence is 'worse' than any other. If he's done something, I hope he rots.
 
laptop said:
If there were an injunction and it were really super, we couldn't be told there was one. That's what the "super" bit means.

But I had the impression that even Mr Justice Eady had stopped issuing these. Though... how could we tell?
Click to expand...

No idea
 
Just for the record Rolf Harris has suffered clinical depression before in his life.

Here.

Also, reading the lyrics to Two Little Boys (which he didnt write) im not sure what people are trying to say, apart from making a lame joke for effect.
 
later said:
He's a CBE, CBEs aren't guilty.
Click to expand...
What does the queen do with all those Sirs and CBEs she has to grab back? She'll probably send Edward out at 2 a.m. to hang then round Michael Jackson's neck outside Craven Cottage. His biggest job since It's a Knockout (which was originally hosted by Stuart...)
 
Any idea how big a crowd 'latest name' had on the Pyramid Stage at Glasto last time he was there?

The previous time, two years before on the JazzWorld Stage (renamed West Holts now) the field was so packed it was considered dangerous.

We were there for those gigs on both occasions :(
 
Whoever that is being interviewed in the Mirror can fuck right off.

“Is everyone in their 50s and 60s, or older, often in the twilight of their careers, even genuine national treasures, going to be hounded for what may or may not have happened in the past – while the police go off with smiles on their faces?
Click to expand...

Smiles on their faces? And yeah, duh, people will be questioned for things that may have happened in the past. National treasures, oh great, way to miss the entire point of Saviles shield against justice :facepalm:
 
ymu said:
Grace Dent nailed it months ago:

The Jimmy Savile abuse scandal means men across Britain will sleep uneasily, remembering past 'conquests'
Click to expand...
Not all men. But yes, I think that for men of a certain age, the rather free-and-easy attitudes of the 1960s and 70s towards "jailbait" may be coming back to haunt some of them. I was born a little too late to be part of that generation, but I do recall, even well into the 1980s, how suspicious many men were of anyone who didn't subscribe to the whole objectification/"pwhoar" mentality: unless you were a very strong character, there was immense pressure to go along with it, if not actually participate.

So I imagine there may well be quite a few who were reluctant participants whose consciences are now giving them serious gyp, not to mention the prospect of an early morning knock on the door. Let alone the ones who knew exactly what they were doing.
 
She in no way implies that it was all men. If there's an issue it is with the sub-editor, but it's a perfectly normal turn of phrase which is generally understood to imply 'some members of this group'.

I have a small amount of sympathy on the basis that no one was saying it was wrong back then, even though plenty mysteriously knew anyway. But I'm not convinced the actuality has got as much better as is implicitly assumed. It's not as overt, but that's not the same thing at all.
 
ymu said:
She in no way implies that it was all men. If there's an issue it is with the sub-editor, but it's a perfectly normal turn of phrase which is generally understood to imply 'some members of this group'.
Click to expand...
Sure. I just get a little edgy around that kind of generalisation - you can be sure that if a similar one was applied to "women", it'd be leaped upon from a great height!

ymu said:
I have a small amount of sympathy on the basis that no one was saying it was wrong back then, even though plenty mysteriously knew anyway. But I'm not convinced the actuality has got as much better as is implicitly assumed. It's not as overt, but that's not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...
Well, I have some sympathy, but not that much. I think that, while the kind of sexual harassment most of us would consider beyond the pale was somewhat normalised, anyone who sat back and thought a bit for themselves would have realised - as I think (hope!) I did - that it wasn't any way to behave around another human being you had any respect for.

And I agree about how much change has taken place - I think there is more awareness, but there is still a group of people (OK, men) for whom the treatment of women as no more than sex objects is acceptable and maybe even normal. We're making some progress, but it's the kind of progress that would be very quickly lost the minute the efforts to push back that kind of behaviour stopped.
 
I'm not convinced that swapping wink-wink nudge-nudge for overt jokes about sexual violence is an improvement.
 
A BBC driver (some say Savile's driver) - some of the charges relate to a boy under 14 years old when the offences were alleged to have been committed.

David Smith, who drove for BBC personalities in the 1980s, is accused of committing buggery with a boy under 16 years old in July 1984.

Smith has also been charged with two counts of indecent assault and two offences of gross indecency on a boy under the age of 14, the Crown Prosecution Service announced on Wednesday.
Click to expand...
 
"Committing buggery"? How in fuck is it OK to use arcane homophobic terminology when the crime is known as "rape". :facepalm:
 
I imagine it's probably because male rape was only criminalised at the same time as marital rape in 1994. They might be using the language to refer to the alleged crime at the time.
 
ymu said:
Fair point. I will consider letting it go. :hmm:
Click to expand...

It occurred to me because I just happened to have clocked it when checking the legislation timeline for marital rape yesterday. This evening I had a quick look at when "committing buggery" exited from the statute books forever. Only 10 years ago when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 repealed s143 of the Crim Just and Pub Order Act 94.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymu
ymu said:
"Committing buggery"? How in fuck is it OK to use arcane homophobic terminology when the crime is known as "rape". :facepalm:
Click to expand...

Because (and IANAL, so I'm sure one will be along to correct me if I'm wrong) he has to be charged under the the charge extant at the time the offence was committed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
Kaka Tim
The 2024 General Election prediction thread - Who is the Urban 75 Ballot Box Nostradamus?
2 3 4 5
Replies
125
Views
5K
MrsArcanum
MrsArcanum
Pickman's model
Sir mark rowley's time is up
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
GarveyLives
G
blossie33
Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked to the UK as a child
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Lord Camomile
Lord Camomile
Pickman's model
sir stephen house's time is up
Replies
5
Views
581
GarveyLives
G
Back
Top Bottom