the sir jimmy savile obe thread

[Mustn't grumble]

just for once i'd like to see someone have the courage of their convictions and for them to say 'apologies if no offence was taken; it was intended'.

isn't that what that Welsh singer did?

paedophiles - ie., sexual abusers of pre-pubescent children.

In medical discourse a paedophile is someone older than 16 sexually attracted to those who have yet to enter puberty. So it's in the head (& perhaps elsewhere), it's not touching someone - that's the everyday meaning of the word.

Sex with a 13 year old or under was always "statutory rape" on the basis that nobody of that age could be regarded as capable of giving consent to sex. 14 and 15 year olds can consent, but having sex with them is still a criminal offence, just not rape - unless, of course, they didn't consent.

1) I guess you are talking about Ireland &/or UK, but age of consent varies between countries, & in Spain is currently 13. Perhaps some countries still have no law of consent.

2) Just to be clear: in the UK for anyone 18 or over, any sexual activity (bar the 'reasonable belief' exception - (c)(i) below) is illegal with anyone under 16 - whatever the U-16 wants (Sexual Offences Act 2003):
"9 Sexual activity with a child
(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if —
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual, and
(c) either —
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9

3) You say "14 and 15 year olds can consent" but the Act says no such thing, although a lay opinion often does say such people can 'consent'; the Act mentions no age when someone has capacity to consent (sec. 74):
" 74 'Consent'
For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

4) In UK law the term 'statutory rape' does not appear.

5) In virtue of sec. 72 of the 2003 Act, "Offences Outside the UK", e.g. complying with Spanish law with someone 13, 14, or 15 would still be an offence for a UK citizen, i.e. they are liable to be put on trial in the UK.

 

[existentialist]

Yes, my comment about 14 and 15 year olds was an inference based on the fact that 13 year olds and under can't give consent. I hadn't intended to give the impression that formed part of the statute.

But lots of helpful clarifications there, thanks.

 

[revol68]

Yes, my comment about 14 and 15 year olds was an inference based on the fact that 13 year olds and under can't give consent. I hadn't intended to give the impression that formed part of the statute.

But lots of helpful clarifications there, thanks.

Well that's you on the list!

 

[existentialist]

Well that's you on the list!

I'm probably on lots of lists!

 

[existentialist]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/18/jimmy-savile-abused-1000-victims-bbc

The BBC will be plunged into a major crisis with the publication of a damning review, expected next month, that will reveal its staff turned a blind eye to the rape and sexual assault of up to 1,000 girls and boys byJimmy Savile in the corporation's changing rooms and studios.

Cunts. Bad enough that Savile was doing it, but to think that so many other people were complicit in what he was doing, and NOT ONE of them was able to act or get action taken is a damning indictment of the organisation that allowed that to happen.

 

[Barking_Mad]

BBC

A 73-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of sexual offences as part of a police operation prompted by the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal.

Scotland Yard said the man was arrested in north London earlier.

Operation Yewtree is the investigation into abuse by Savile and others, and police said allegations against the man held were not linked to the late DJ.

 

[Barking_Mad]

..

 

[Orang Utan]

..

...

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I can think of somebody who is 73. Fuck, if it is him it will kick all the other news stories into touch. I don't think he lives in nth London though.

 

[articul8]

There must be quite a lot of 73 yr olds around?

 

[articul8]

Here for example is a prominent 73 year old:
[edited - perhaps not - I bet wealthy 73 year olds are litigious]

 

[Dogsauce]

Is it Geri Halliwell?

 

[Dogsauce]

Fuck, if it is him it will kick all the other news stories into touch.

Maria Miller and David Cameron *really* hope you're right.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

So many amusing 'clues' could be posted, but we daren't.

 

[tombowler]

not who I thought it was he is one year too old according to google.

 

[articul8]

Its not July yet

 

[Pickman's model]

I can think of somebody who is 73. Fuck, if it is him it will kick all the other news stories into touch. I don't think he lives in nth London though.

what, sounds like

 

[SaskiaJayne]

No it dosen't, Mad Murdoch is 66.

 

[Pickman's model]

No it dosen't, Mad Murdoch is 66.

read the post does it SOUND LIKE MURDOCK? not IT IS MURDOCK

 

[tim]

So many amusing 'clues' could be posted, but we daren't.

Go on U75 needs its own new Sally Bercow!

 

[ohmyliver]

Is it Dave Burdoch from the infamous '70s Finchley Glam Rock duo Dandelion & Burdoch

 

[yardbird]

Anyone going away this year?

 

[clicker]

Anyone celebrating anything?

 

[Tankus]

No it dosen't, Mad Murdoch is 66.

ah ...ok ...so he is !

edit

Holyshit

 

[Wilf]

Sorry for my thickness, but why don't the papers name the arrestees? Realise there's a risk for websites or just twitter users, in that they might get the wrong name, opening them up to legal action for connecting that person to noncery. However, in cases where the official media genuinely know who has been pulled in and there's no injunction in place, what stops them? They would anyway be using phrases like 'alleged' and 'accused of'.

 

[Orang Utan]

Presumably they haven't been charged yet

 

[laptop]

Sorry for my thickness, but why don't the papers name the arrestees? Realise there's a risk for websites or just twitter users, in that they might get the wrong name, opening them up to legal action for connecting that person to noncery.

It's not just the threat of libel suits from those who can afford to mount them.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 says details that risk prejudicing an (eventual) court case shall not be published while "proceedings are active".

Newspapers tended to interpret this as meaning "after the suspect is charged" when faced with suspects with little influence - but came unstuck with reporting the arrest of Christopher Jeffries. Which is correct - wide presumption of guilt in the reporting could well have influenced a jury, had he been prosecuted.

 

[Wilf]

It's not just the threat of libel suits from those who can afford to mount them.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 says details that risk prejudicing an (eventual) court case shall not be published while "proceedings are active".

Newspapers tended to interpret this as meaning "after the suspect is charged" when faced with suspects with little influence - but came unstuck with reporting the arrest of Christopher Jeffries. Which is correct - wide presumption of guilt in the reporting could well have influenced a jury, had he been prosecuted.

Thanks Laptop.

 

[treelover]

BBC Panorama on now, new revelations about the monster and insights into how it was allowed to happen at the BBC, hospitals and other institutions and touches on the role of the establishment.

 

[goldenecitrone]

BBC Panorama on now, new revelations about the monster and insights into how it was allowed to happen at the BBC, hospitals and other institutions and touches on the role of the establishment.

Those two psychopaths, Thatcher and Saville, were made for each other. One fucked the nation's kids while the other fucked the adults. At least Diane had the good sense to stay away from him, not like Prince Nonce mates.