Jimmy Savile 'household name' sweep

[mudskipper]

Max Clifford says sexual assault charges against him are 'nonsense' | UK news | guardian.co.uk

"The charges include an indecent assault against a 14-year-old girl in 1966, and indecent assault against an 18-year-old woman in 1974/75. Clifford also faces three charges of indecent assault on a 15-year-old girl in 1977/78 and indecent assault against a 19-year-old woman in 1978.

He is also charged with two indecent assaults against a girl, aged 16 or 17, in 1981/82, indecent assault against a 19-year-old woman in 1980/81, and two indecent assaults against an 18-year-old woman in 1984/85."


MC born in 1943

1966 - aged 23
1974 - aged 31
1977 - aged 34
1978 - aged 35
1981 - aged 38
1984 - aged 41

So we're hardly talking about a 20 year old getting off with an underage girl. And a fair number of different women complaining, so should definitely be taken seriously which it seems to be. What the articles don't mention is when the initial complaints were made. Is part of Yewtree revisiting cases where complaints were made years ago and not pursued?


From wikipedia:

Indecent assault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- An offence is indecent if a 'reasonable person' would believe it indecent, whatever the belief of the accused.
- An offence is not indecent if a 'reasonable person' would believe it not indecent, whatever the belief of the accused.

As a jury should consist of 12 reasonable people who will have all the evidence, I'm sure if there is no case to answer then common sense will prevail.

[tractor]

...

Max Clifford says sexual assault charges against him are 'nonsense' | UK news | guardian.co.uk

"The charges include an indecent assault against a 14-year-old girl in 1966, and indecent assault against an 18-year-old woman in 1974/75. Clifford also faces three charges of indecent assault on a 15-year-old girl in 1977/78 and indecent assault against a 19-year-old woman in 1978.

He is also charged with two indecent assaults against a girl, aged 16 or 17, in 1981/82, indecent assault against a 19-year-old woman in 1980/81, and two indecent assaults against an 18-year-old woman in 1984/85."


MC born in 1943

1966 - aged 23
1974 - aged 31
1977 - aged 34
1978 - aged 35
1981 - aged 38
1984 - aged 41

So we're hardly talking about a 20 year old getting off with an underage girl. And a fair number of different women complaining, so should definitely be taken seriously which it seems to be. What the articles don't mention is when the initial complaints were made. Is part of Yewtree revisiting cases where complaints were made years ago and not pursued?


From wikipedia:

Indecent assault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- An offence is indecent if a 'reasonable person' would believe it indecent, whatever the belief of the accused.
- An offence is not indecent if a 'reasonable person' would believe it not indecent, whatever the belief of the accused.

As a jury should consist of 12 reasonable people who will have all the evidence, I'm sure if there is no case to answer then common sense will prevail.

This is also common sense. I think the key point is whether a complaint was made at the time. If it wasn't it's likely to be his word against theirs and after this length of time that is hardly likely to be damning evidence. I'm sure the cps wouldn't give the go ahead for charges unless there was more evidence. However there are many times in the past 20 years where the cps has done less than cover itself in glory and likewise old bill of many forces.

[sasguru]

Grow up. Play the ball, not the man. This isn't justice, this is a witch hunt.

I'm struggling to get your point. It's not justice to prosecute someone for breaking the law?
Or are you arguing that certain laws can be ignored, particularly if they involve famous people abusing underage teenagers?
The UKIP barb was relevant in this case, the particular demographic that votes for UKIP (middle-aged men) is quite likely to have attitudes like yours.

[MarillionFan]

Makes one wonder why there's no statute of limitations in this country.

He said, she said after half a century is ridiculous.

I don't even know what I was doing 48hours ago, let alone 48years!!!

[ctdctd]

Makes one wonder why there's no statute of limitations in this country.

He said, she said after half a century is ridiculous.

WZeityS.

We had a teacher who delighted in wielding a bamboo cane in 1970
Another teacher threw a board rubber at me in 1975 and hit me on the head (may explain a lot!) - was that assault?
My (departed) mum went at me with a riding crop in 1976 - was that assault?

It could have been because I was a tulip teenager and I deserved it - but if either had become famous, would I jump on a possible bandwagon? I'd like to think not.

Culture was different then. Close the book and move on.

[MyUserName]

The idea of it being a long time ago and we should move on is where would the line be drawn, which offences should it cover etc.

I would have thought, though, that legally there would be a difference between abusing a helpless child and believing a 15 year old who said she was 16. Perhaps there is a difference in sentencing?

[vetran]

WZeityS.

We had a teacher who delighted in wielding a bamboo cane in 1970
Another teacher threw a board rubber at me in 1975 and hit me on the head (may explain a lot!) - was that assault?
My (departed) mum went at me with a riding crop in 1976 - was that assault?

It could have been because I was a tulip teenager and I deserved it - but if either had become famous, would I jump on a possible bandwagon? I'd like to think not.

Culture was different then. Close the book and move on.

That was all legal then.

Now if the Teacher had hit you until you had permanent physical damage you might have a case.


Sexual relations with a person under the age of 16 however has been illegal for decades.

Man on Man was illegal at lot higher ages, should we apply the law as it stood then or now if some celebrity had gay sex with a 17 year old boy?

Must agree however that some situations that would now be treated as a criminal offence now (putting arm round girl / kissing her without invitation/slapping bottom) this is not a bad thing but it is different to then. This is the 'grey area' we need to be careful of.

[SimonMac]

Just because it was the culture back then, doesn't mean it wasn't wrong, for a large part of the first half of the 21st century it was the culture to treat Blacks and Irish as lower class citizens, but I think we can all agree it was wrong.

The problem with this is that a lot of people are jumping on a band wagon, yes in the hope for some sort of compensation, which marginalises the real victims of some pretty serious abuse.

[Old Hack]

We had violent teachers. One threw me out of a ground floor window, I was aged 8 and was being cheeky at worst. Another pulled a chunk out of my hair, as he attempted to carry me across the classroom by holding my off the ground by my hair, and one geography teacher actually physically assaulted me for mocking his 'welshness'. Not one of these teachers were sanctioned by the school and I actually got the cane for the Welshness comment, which then led to a detention, as I couldn't do my technical drawing, as my hands were swollen. When I was 14, they brought in a new rule, which said you couldn't hold the cane any further back than the vertical, so we had one teacher circumvent this rule by standing on a chair, so he could properly hurt you.

A lot of the teachers we had, would be in jail right now. So yes, things were completely different. However, if you're a mid 30's male, in the entertainment industry, and you're chasing girls who tell you they are 16, who then it is discovered afterwards, aren't, then you've created that particular whole world of pain yourself; this sin't some 18 year old finding out he's slept with a 15 yo, these are grown adult men trying their luck out with young girls.

Obviously, imo.

[vetran]

Bad yes, criminal at the time not sure.

Many of the girls at school (1970s - 80s) had boyfriends in their 20's, they had cars and their voice had dropped.

30's guys sleeping with teens wasn't particularly unusual. Rock stars sleeping with who they like was perfectly normal, girls of all ages throwing themselves at them was common.

was it 'wrong'? yes probably, was it intentionally criminal? no.

Think about Hugh Heffner he has spent the last 30 years deflowering (or at least plucking) girls a third of his age. Is it distasteful? yes, can they lock him up for it? no.

You have to apply the laws of the time, except possibly where they have been relaxed (homosexual relations). Anything else is revisionism.

Now Gary Glitter & Jimmy Saville actively procured young children,they would have revolted people then.

If a member of the rolling stones slept with a girl who they thought was 16 are they even in the same universe of guilt?

To be truly guilty they needed to know or at least suspect that their conquest was <16.

I suspect they are rolling up groupies with active child molesting, probably to avoid revealing there was a child molesting ring that included VIPs.

If you think Ashes to Ashes isn't a fairly true representation of the 80's your memory is failing. Looking back on it we flinch but it was that way, people used the N word in public,we fff'd and blinded in the workplace, grabbing a bit of buttock did happen, women were treated differently almost as second class citizens.