Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:38 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

It's possibly sheer coincidence but could there be something in it?

Certainly not the sort of thing you'd get from members of the Socialist Workers Party that's for sure!

Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:16 pm  

Mintball wrote:

But then there's Stuart Hall (who did admit at least some of the claims against him).

Four of the Birmingham 6 admitted their guilt too.

Was Hall's guilty plea a genuine guilty plea because he was finally admitting what he'd done, or simply the choice of spending 8 months in jail rather than many years?

The main reason that the Birmingham 6 were released eventually was because of campaigning for years by dedicated lawyers and the media. I don't think the media exists today to overturn a miscarriage of justice.

I don't know whether Stuart Hall is guilty and deserves jail. I don't know whether Michael Le Vell is innocent and deserves his not guilty verdict. But I'm not sure anyone else knows either. Or cares.

[DaveO]

Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:36 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Raises an interesting point – and one that Jerry has raised more than a few times here.

If that incident was, say, a goosing, is it yet another illustration of how attitudes have changed over the last, say, 40 years?

And is it right to be prosecuting cases on the basis of changed attitudes in the here and now?

I wonder how many men of a certain vintage are glad they aren't famous?

If operation Yewtree went looking at say senior managers in local council's or companies back then I bet they would soon have a list as long as they have with them targeting the celebs of the time.

That said you could argue we should not want to pardon the 300 odd first world war British soldiers who were shot by firing squad if we are going to accept things that happened back then did so because they reflect the attitudes of the time.

If we consider that wrong, why would we not want to prosecute alleged rapes because they occurred in the 70's and 80's?

I think the answer is with the men shot by firing squad it is a defined number many of whom were unjustly shot given what we know of their cases now whereas I can't help feeling there must be hundreds of men who behaved in the working environment no differently to the likes of DLT and he and other celebs are only being charged because they are celebs.

By that I am not saying it was routine for men to commit the more serious offences DLT has been charged with but it certainly wasn't uncommon for the odd grope to happen. Maybe being famous the likes of DLT had far more women hanging around to give him the opportunity and while that is no excuse for assault I don't think it necessarily means he was any more of a sexual predator than those senior managers I alluded to.

I also think it is a matter of degree. Jimmy Savile was on a different level compared to the list of offences DLT has been charged with and I am not sure it is in the public interest to be trying someone who grabbed someone boob and said "securi-titty" as one of the charges. Stick to the alleged rape and more serious allegations if you are going to do it at all.

Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:09 am  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

Certainly not the sort of thing you'd get from members of the Socialist Workers Party that's for sure!

Very good point, succinctly made.

Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:12 am  

DaveO wrote:

I wonder how many men of a certain vintage are glad they aren't famous?

If operation Yewtree went looking at say senior managers in local council's or companies back then I bet they would soon have a list as long as they have with them targeting the celebs of the time.

That said you could argue we should not want to pardon the 300 odd first world war British soldiers who were shot by firing squad if we are going to accept things that happened back then did so because they reflect the attitudes of the time.

If we consider that wrong, why would we not want to prosecute alleged rapes because they occurred in the 70's and 80's?..

It's a very interesting question.

I think one of the differences is the evidence or lack of it.

One of the things that concerns me about the current situation on sex abuse cases is that of evidence. There will be no forensic evidence, no records etc, nobody will have alibis that can be checked – so it simply comes down to one person's word against another's.

And I agree with the rest of your post.

Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:14 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

... I don't know whether Michael Le Vell is innocent and deserves his not guilty verdict. But I'm not sure anyone else knows either. Or cares.

I think people do care. The social media storm after the verdict, where people were either claiming that he must be guilty, irrespective of the verdict, because the woman must be believed, or the opposite of that, that the woman should be (in effect) hung, drawn and quartered etc etc.

And the former – that the woman (because that is how it is always talked about) should be automatically believed – is a growing view: and a very dangerous one, IMO.

Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:22 am  

Mintball wrote:

One of the things that concerns me about the current situation on sex abuse cases is that of evidence. There will be no forensic evidence, no records etc, nobody will have alibis that can be checked – so it simply comes down to one person's word against another's.

In the case of Stuart Hall, it was multiple people's word against his. Many victims came forward telling the same broad story of his abuse, none of whom knew each other.

Had it been just 1 victim, I doubt it would have gone as far as it did.

[DaveO]

Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:14 am  

Mintball wrote:

I think one of the differences is the evidence or lack of it.

One of the things that concerns me about the current situation on sex abuse cases is that of evidence. There will be no forensic evidence, no records etc, nobody will have alibis that can be checked – so it simply comes down to one person's word against another's.

This is my concern also. I can't remember what I was doing last week half the time so how the accused are going to disprove the allegations I really don't know.

I suppose being the celebs they are what they were doing or where they were working may well be a matter of record but that can be used against them to place them where the alleged offences took place. It would only help them if it placed them elsewhere at the time of the alleged offences so DLT working on Top of the Pops is already circumstantial evidence he was where one of the offences is alleged to have taken place whether he has any recollection of the time or not.

Unless they can uncover a tape of that film of him committing the offence on Top of the Pops I can't see how this is anything other than his word against that of his accusers.

Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:46 am  

I'm just wondering how many ageing Rockers who had ther heydays in the 60's & 70's are squirming?
Then, to have your pick of 'groupies' was considered a perk of the job.
OK, any possible complaint now would be defended as consensual sex, but again, without firm proof (e.g. DNA evidence from any resulting offspring), it's down to one word against another.

There's also the stigma to consider... Would any successful, respectible mature lady ever wish to rake up and air their past lifestyle in public?

Re: Historical sex abuse suspects and their politics : Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:49 am  

DaveO wrote:

...

Unless they can uncover a tape of that film of him committing the offence on Top of the Pops I can't see how this is anything other than his word against that of his accusers.

They did. they played it to the jury.