What were you doing 45 years ago?

[theclaud]

No alternatively about justice having been done in the Stuart Hall case. I agree with you. I just think the same result could have been achieved without naming names at the enquiry stage. We'll have to agree to differ on that point.

(with apologies to Adrian for the yellow facery).

 

[Shortmember]

The accusation is rape, not taking a girl to bed. You are confusing rape with sex.

An adult who has sex with someone under the age of 16 is ,in the eyes of the law committing rape, even if the minor gives their consent.

 

[SquareDaff]

Yawn!!

 

[MacB]

Yawn!!

I'm not surprised you're tired it must be exhausting being so wilfully myopic but try a little more. You seem fond of anecdata and thought experiments so try this one and some of this is only my reading between the lines and may lack factual accuracy:-

Stuart Hall was questioned based on 3 allegations and he was named
After being named a further 10 people came forward with allegations
These allegations were examined and the consistency, as explained in the article linked to many posts ago, led to the prosecution
This subsequently led to a guilty plea as, one would assume, he was 'banged to rights'

The above raises some questions:-

were any of these allegations made in years gone by and dismissed?
would these sorts of allegations even have gained any 'eartime' 20/30/40 years ago?
had he not been named prompting others to come forward would they have proceeded based on the original complaints?
based on his initial outraged denials can you have any doubt that it was only sheer weight/volume of evidence that forced a guilty plea?

 

[ayceejay]

Are you sure about that?

I suggest you look up the definition of 'non-consensual sex rape' as well as the law pertaining to 'abuse of trust'. The law of consent did change in that same year (1967) coincidentally but I believe that only had an effect of homosexual sex.

 

[srw]

I suggest you look up the definition of 'non-consensual sex rape' as well as the law pertaining to 'abuse of trust'. The law of consent did change in that same year (1967) coincidentally but I believe that only had an effect of homosexual sex.

You do realise that Roace's alleged crime took place in England?

 

[srw]

An adult who has sex with someone under the age of 16 is ,in the eyes of the law committing rape, even if the minor gives their consent.

Prove it. And remember that Roache was in England, as are most of us.

 

[ayceejay]

You do realise that Roace's alleged crime took place in England?

I don't get your point there srw as I am referring to English law, if you mean can I prove that Roach DID rape under age girls obvious;y I can't.

 

[Aperitif]

45 years ago, I was playing cricket 'above my age level' - a certain M. Gatting was playing in the same side and we were hammering county opposition. (Thanks to me him)
I don't really have an opinion but - some page back there was use of the word 'imagination'. It is not an easy word to use in this instance.
I happened to read an article in The Guardian yesterday, which 'felt' just right to explain the difficulties faced...

Amy (not her real name) was 17 and working in a hotel when the veteran broadcaster assaulted her during a break in the filming of an edition of It's A Knockout.
"I went along to the auditions to see if I could take part in it, and I was chosen to be a cheerleader," she told ITV News.
"We had afternoon tea in the town and about early evening, because I worked in a hotel, I had a staff room and I met him in the hotel where I worked."
The teenager had walked through the hotel lobby and got to the top of the stairs leading to the staff rooms when she heard "this voice behind me".
"It was him, and he started talking to me. Obviously if you work in a hotel you talk to the residents.
"Then, as I went to go through to touch the door-handle, he pushed me up against the wall and he tried to force himself on to me. He grabbed hold of me and he started kissing me and then he tried to force himself on me.
"I struggled, I tried to push him away, and it was only the fact that there was someone walking along the corridor and the floors creaked that he stopped and I managed to get away.
"That was 40 years ago and I never told anyone."
She added: "I will never, ever forget that voice and that's the part … over the years every time I've heard his voice on the television, on the radio, I just think: 'How can you do it, how can you be like that in full view of everyone after everything you've done?'"

"I'm so pleased it's all coming to an end … very, very relieved that it's nearly all over. I can start thinking that what happened at that time wasn't my fault.

There are plenty of guilty people out there. It stinks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/stuart-hall-victim-never-forget-voice

 

[srw]

I don't get your point there srw as I am referring to English law, if you mean can I prove that Roach DID rape under age girls obvious;y I can't.

To the best of my knowledge (and I'm happy to be proved wrong) there are two distinct crimes.

Rape - non-consensual penetration - which can be used whatever the age of the victim. If the victim is young enough (15 is not) then any penetration is defined as rape.
Sexual abuse - involving a child under the age of consent in sexual activity.

Society's response to sexual abuse is generally stronger, especially when the child is younger. But it's also seen (quite rightly) as unusual and those who commit it as rare deviants. To focus on the fact that the alleged victim in the case under discussion was 15 is to label the alleged offender as a sexual pervert, not someone who is using violence against a woman. Which is, in turn, a depressingly common activity.

Those who focus on the age of the victim are probably getting confused with the law in the US, where (if I understand it right) sexual abuse of a child is defined as statutory rape.

 

[SquareDaff]

All sides of the arguement summed up quite nicely in this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22391562

 

[SquareDaff]

I'm not surprised you're tired it must be exhausting being so wilfully myopic but try a little more. You seem fond of anecdata and thought experiments so try this one and some of this is only my reading between the lines and may lack factual accuracy:-

Stuart Hall was questioned based on 3 allegations and he was named
After being named a further 10 people came forward with allegations
These allegations were examined and the consistency, as explained in the article linked to many posts ago, led to the prosecution
This subsequently led to a guilty plea as, one would assume, he was 'banged to rights'

The above raises some questions:-

were any of these allegations made in years gone by and dismissed?
would these sorts of allegations even have gained any 'eartime' 20/30/40 years ago?
had he not been named prompting others to come forward would they have proceeded based on the original complaints?
based on his initial outraged denials can you have any doubt that it was only sheer weight/volume of evidence that forced a guilty plea?

The yawn was to show how bored I've become of anyone that doesn't agree with yours/some others viewpoint is automatically wrong. I've listened to your arguements and I can see the merits in some of what has been said. I've put counter arguements back. I've not been playing games but I HAVE seen the effects of both sides of the coin. I haven't got personal. Unfortunately the same can't be said for some of the counter arguement proponents.

Look at the link for the BBC web site I've posted. I'm sure a similar debate will be held there soon.

 

[srw]

Which takes us back to this

1 TMN to Adrian. Sometimes something just needs to be repeated over and over again until it sinks in.

 

[middleagecyclist]

This is what I was doing 45 years ago (please note the pictures in the link are not actually of me. I would be the smaller one).

 

[ComedyPilot]

45 years ago, I would have been doing this....................maybe......