|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dave Lee Travis
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
I suspect Hell is the best place for this, as it's making me really rather cross (and it may make others equally cross for different reasons).
Dave Lee Travis has been found guilty of indecent assault, apparently for little more than patting someone's bottom. I was a teenager in the 1970s and I suspect that if a Radio 1 DJ had done that to most girls of that age, they'd have dined out on it for months.
On the other hand, the police in Yorkshire turned a blind eye for 15 years on girls being horribly abused, threatened and raped because they were afraid of being labelled as "racists".
I'm not suggesting that Mr. Travis is a paragon of virtue: what was quite unremarkable in the 1970s is taken as deeply offensive these days, and he may have used his position as a "celebrity" in a cavalier manner, but surely anyone can see that there's something wrong in the perspective of the two incidents.
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Link you posted
A former barmaid at the now-demolished Palace Lido on the Isle of Man said he had pinned her against the wall, grabbed her between the legs and groped her breasts.
It sounds a little more serious that your post suggests. The link article indicates that he was not convicted of this one specifically "for legal reasons". What does this mean? Perhaps he was technically convicted for what you indicated, and this and some of the other stories were what I think they call "similar facts"?
I certainly agree with your concern about sexual assaults not being investigated and pursued properly.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Oh God, here we go.
Whilst not seeking to belittle anyone, or trivialise anyone's right to privacy, etc, etc: why are the police wasting everyone's time with this sort of nonsense.
A 22 year old says she was groped - she told 2 other people working on the programme and they did precisely nothing: so why weren't they in the dock too for not supporting her?
If DLT groped her - and with the climate as it is today I don't take a jury returning a guilty verdict as proof of guilt - she also had the possiblity of redress through BBC disciplinary procedures or the civil courts.
No, she didn't choose either of those options.
Having some knowledge of the BBC at the time in question (1995) I can assure you that if a staff member had reported a sexual assault by another staff member (even a DJ) it would have been pursed relentlessly. DLT was not such a huge name in the 90s - more likely some would have seen it as an opportunity to at the very least shorten the rein on him.
Meanwhile, as piglet says, there's still no sign of anyone being charged with anything over the systematic grooming, drugging, rape and trafficking of 1400 young girls in Rotherham.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Link you posted
A former barmaid at the now-demolished Palace Lido on the Isle of Man said he had pinned her against the wall, grabbed her between the legs and groped her breasts.
It sounds a little more serious that your post suggests. The link article indicates that he was not convicted of this one specifically "for legal reasons". What does this mean? Perhaps he was technically convicted for what you indicated, and this and some of the other stories were what I think they call "similar facts"?
I certainly agree with your concern about sexual assaults not being investigated and pursued properly.
My apologies - at the time I posted the link, it only contained the information that he had been found guilty of "indecent assault", with virtually no detail beyond what I indicated.
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I confess I'm at a slight loss to understand why the OP is talking about patting bottoms in the 1970s when linking to an article about being found guilty of groping breasts in the 1990s.
EDIT: And now, we have a beautiful crosspost. Sigh.
[ 23. September 2014, 15:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I suspect that he was guilty of behaviour that would nowadays be considered inappropriate. I suspect that at the time, it was not always considered so, and it might have been encouraged by the victims.
None of which is to dismiss that fact that some personalities of the time did abuse their followers, and that DLT might have been one of them. Or to dismiss the traumatic effects of abuse.
I am also not arguing that not guilty verdicts mean that he did nothing wrong. All they mean is that there was insufficient definitive evidence of the particular charge. The legal position does not necessarily - in either way - represent fully the question of whether abuse happened.
Having said all of this, I think this whole case has been a waste of time - the majority of the charges brought against him have not been proven. He may not be innocent, but I think there are better uses of the resources available.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
On the other hand, the police in Yorkshire turned a blind eye for 15 years on girls being horribly abused, threatened and raped because they were afraid of being labelled as "racists".
No they didn't. It's because they labelled the children as slappers who were probably up for it and therefore didn't give a shit. The "Ooo, oo nasty political correctness made us scared to say anything" crap was made up afterwards. The S Yorks Police wouldn't know truth or integrity if they got up in front of them wearing truth and integrity t-shirts whilst singing the "I am truth; he is integrity" song on national Truth and Integrity day at a Truth and Integrity benefit gig. *Cough* Hillsborough *Cough* Orgreave *Cough*
[ 23. September 2014, 15:49: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (on South Yorks cases):No they didn't. It's because they labelled the children as slappers who were probably up for it and therefore didn't give a shit.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I suspect that he was guilty of behaviour that would nowadays be considered inappropriate. I suspect that at the time, it was not always considered so, and it might have been encouraged by the victims.
And this thread is ...
[ 23. September 2014, 16:00: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This thread is getting me confused. Are some people suggesting that grabbing a woman's breasts should be ignored by police and law courts? So women's bodies are open season for any passing male?
Why?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm certainly not suggesting that (for one thing, I've only just landed here). But I think it's become fashionable to chase down celebrity misdeeds from years gone by.
The 1990s is later than the 1970s, to be sure, but the climate has changed really recently. As evidence I suggest The Boat That Rocked, released in 2009, which rejoices in the free love culture of the 1960s and which I suspect would not get greenlit by any studio today because of the change in attitude - since 2009, not 1966.
Another aspect from where I'm sitting is what appears to be a kind of reverse Diana hysteria whereby former icons are suddenly found to have feet of clay and there is much gnashing of teeth. It seems to be peculiarly UK-centric.
And finally, I think these cases are voyeuristically popular due to their potential for people to exonerate themselves by thinking "well, I'm more morally upright than them" - an attitude prevalent among the criminals I know, and more especially among sex offenders.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm still not hearing any reason not to prosecute men who grab women's breasts or molest them in other ways. Historically, such women were ignored and called slags; so thankfully, we are seeing signs of a change.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by l'organist:
quote:
A 22 year old says she was groped - she told 2 other people working on the programme and they did precisely nothing: so why weren't they in the dock too for not supporting her?
If DLT groped her - and with the climate as it is today I don't take a jury returning a guilty verdict as proof of guilt - she also had the possiblity of redress through BBC disciplinary procedures or the civil courts.
No, she didn't choose either of those options.
Having some knowledge of the BBC at the time in question (1995) I can assure you that if a staff member had reported a sexual assault by another staff member (even a DJ) it would have been pursed relentlessly. DLT was not such a huge name in the 90s - more likely some would have seen it as an opportunity to at the very least shorten the rein on him.
A victim of a criminal assault is not legally or morally obliged to seek redress through civil proceedings and/ or internal disciplinary proceedings before reporting the matter to the police. That is what the police are there for. And whilst jury trials have their faults at least juries sit through the entire hearing and listen to all the salient evidence before coming to a conclusion.
Your claim that the British Broadcasting Corporation was some sort of best practice in dealing with sexual molestation among its employees can, I think, be dispensed with in three words.
Jimmy. Fucking. Saville.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still not hearing any reason not to prosecute men who grab women's breasts or molest them in other ways. Historically, such women were ignored and called slags; so thankfully, we are seeing signs of a change.
Yes, but how far back is it helpful to extend that change? The statute of limitations (or lack or length of it) makes me uneasy.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is not a change in the law, he is being prosecuted for breaking the law in force at the time - not, for example - the 2003 Sexual Offences act.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
No, but I think there's been in a change in the circumstances in which the law has been applied.
I'm not saying the situation then was desirable, but I'm still uneasy about things like this being prosecuted so long after the fact.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread is getting me confused. Are some people suggesting that grabbing a woman's breasts should be ignored by police and law courts? So women's bodies are open season for any passing male?
Why?
No. All I am saying (and others may differ) is that the time and resources taken against DLT for historical abuse that MIGHT not have been considered abuse at the time is not necessarily justified. Historical accusations are always difficult, and the number of original charges compared with the one conviction suggest that the result is not taking a serial abuser off the streets, but locking up someone who overstepped the mark at a time when it was considered acceptable. That does not mean it was acceptable.
I think that accusations of historical abuse should be highlighted, and, where appropriate, convictions made. I also thing that anyone today who grabs a womans breasts deserved to be arrested, convicted, and jailed. Today there is a whole lot more understanding that this behaviour is offensive and abusive, and not all women are "asking for it". The understanding of these actions, and the impact it has on the victims, is much better understood today.
So I don't believe that it is contradictory to say both that the conviction of DLT is not a good use of money AND that grabbing a womans breasts is unacceptable.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And you can make much the same case about the grooming of schoolgirls in Rotheram.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Grabbing a woman's breasts was considered acceptable? Whoa, which milieu are we talking about?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think it was only in the 1990s that the police stopped treating child prostitutes as criminals. I remember it being on the news. Certainly, in my life time and I was old enough to notice.
Because we have a ridiculously low age of criminal responsibility, an 11 year old "choosing" to sell their body was treated as having committed the crime of soliciting.
As for grabbing women's breasts being acceptable, have you seen this http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/29312669 ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Come to that, the existing CPS guidance still says:
quote:
When considering a child accused of prostitution, reference should be made to the policy document Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance, and the child should generally be treated as a victim of abuse. The focus should be on those who exploit and coerce children. Only where there is a persistent and voluntary return to prostitution and where there is a genuine choice should a prosecution be considered.
My emphasis, that bollocks is the kind of attitude that allows situations like Rotheram to develop.
[ 23. September 2014, 18:18: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
"I don't want the whole world thinking I am a sexual predator. I like tea and cheese!"
How to spot a sexual predator - offer him a cup of tea and a cheese sandwich. If he refuses, get the police.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Actually, that CPS guidance just pissed me off so much, I have emailed my MP.
[ 23. September 2014, 18:35: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And still this fucking shit.
We'll only prosecute older girls who are persistent - really you fucking morons a 15 year old is a child.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
As a survivor of sexual assault, responses like the OP are just why prosecution rates need to improve. Sexual assault is a CRIME. People's bodies belong to themselves, and violating that is wrong. Period. That does not mean that the cases of sexual abuse in Rotherham aren't horrific, of course not. Of course they should have been dealt with. But that has nothing to do with DLT's victim.
Responses like 'it was only a pat on the bottom' and 'well it wasn't illegal at the time' just feed the idea that women's bodies are for public consumption, and it stinks. Shame on you.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
We'll only prosecute older girls who are persistent - really you fucking morons a 15 year old is a child.
Yes indeed, and a child who is some 5 years over the age of criminal responsibility.
The article you reference describes the girls showing wodges of cash to Mohammed the corner shop owner to explain why they do it.
If these girls were going out shoplifting, or breaking in to houses, in order to make money, most people would expect them to be prosecuted. They are committing a different crime, but it's still a crime.
Each and every one of their clients is committing a more serious crime ("I thought she was of age" isn't going to fly in most cases) and their pimps are committing a serious crime.
But I'm not sure why I should think that a child selling sex is less culpable than a child selling drugs, picking pockets or shoplifting.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
We'll only prosecute older girls who are persistent - really you fucking morons a 15 year old is a child.
Yes indeed, and a child who is some 5 years over the age of criminal responsibility.
The article you reference describes the girls showing wodges of cash to Mohammed the corner shop owner to explain why they do it.
If these girls were going out shoplifting, or breaking in to houses, in order to make money, most people would expect them to be prosecuted. They are committing a different crime, but it's still a crime.
Compassion not your bag then?
No they are not (committing a crime) - prostitution is not illegal in UK (soliciting in a public place is). It is illegal to buy sex from a person who has yet to reach their eighteenth birthday.
My dog comes running when I call him because, taking advantage of his nature, I have trained him to think that the reward he may get is worth giving up his independence. In other words - I've groomed him to do what I want without question. Unfortunately some evil bastards treat other people worse than I treat my dog.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
My emphasis, that bollocks is the kind of attitude that allows situations like Rotheram to develop.
I'm a long way from being very familiar with the situation in Rotherham, but intuitively I'm having a hard time following this. How is not pursuing criminal charges against child prostitutes allowing their victimizers to get off the hook?
On the more general point, I think almost any criminal lawyer will tell you that a case gets harder to prosecute or defend the older it gets. It does the administration of justice no favours to have witnesses contradicting each other and sometimes themselves for that matter because they no longer have a clear recollection of even very basic points. All of which tells against running trials on old cases unless there is very compelling interest in doing so.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
... He may not be innocent, but I think there are better uses of the resources available.
That was the point of my (rather clumsily-put) OP.
Like everyone else here, I'm not suggesting that groping someone's breasts is (or was) acceptable, but when viewed in the light of what the men in Rotherham appear to have got away with, DLT's prosecution seems like a rather less beneficial "use of resources".
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
A 22 year old says she was groped - she told 2 other people working on the programme and they did precisely nothing: so why weren't they in the dock too for not supporting her?
If DLT groped her - and with the climate as it is today I don't take a jury returning a guilty verdict as proof of guilt - she also had the possiblity of redress through BBC disciplinary procedures or the civil courts.
No, she didn't choose either of those options.
Having some knowledge of the BBC at the time in question (1995) I can assure you that if a staff member had reported a sexual assault by another staff member (even a DJ) it would have been pursed relentlessly. DLT was not such a huge name in the 90s - more likely some would have seen it as an opportunity to at the very least shorten the rein on him.
Obviously I am not comparing apples with apples, but I reported a sexual assault at work through the proper channels of my (large, established, quasi-governmental) workplace, in 2007. Said workplace had a bunch of written policies about workers' rights and (allegedly ) well-developed procedures for dealing with any incidents. What actually happened to me was that I was shat on from near and far. I was told off for 'creating unnecessary paperwork' for people. I was told I would be being watched from now on. As far as I know, no investigation was ever mounted, and no formal procedures were ever instituted against the offender. (if they had been, then, according to the written policy, I should have been informed).
Obviously there was a big gap between what should have happened, and what did happen. but yes, I still had options. I could have contacted my union and had them make a big noise about it, I could have complained to an employment tribunal - I could, I suppose, have gone to the police. That I didn't do any of that stuff doesn't mean it wasn't a big deal, or that I imagined the whole thing. But, you know, I was disillusioned and I just crept quietly back in my shell so as not to prejudice my future job prospects. I expect a lot of workplaces depend on people taking that sort of approach.
And every now and then I sort of say to myself - 'It was 2007 - not 1950! How can this be?' It can be, and it still is, because organisations will always care more about their 'reputation' more than their staff.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
No they are not (committing a crime) - prostitution is not illegal in UK (soliciting in a public place is).
And what, exactly, do you think they were doing on the streets?
quote:
My dog comes running when I call him because, taking advantage of his nature, I have trained him to think that the reward he may get is worth giving up his independence. In other words - I've groomed him to do what I want without question. Unfortunately some evil bastards treat other people worse than I treat my dog.
I agree with all of this. I don't see why the fact that some combination of evil bastards, circumstance and whatever has trained some children to sell sex is different from some different combination of evil bastards, circumstance and whatever training other children to sell drugs, burgle houses and so on.
Criminals, by and large, are not born evil sociopathic bastards. They are made that way by their families, their friends, their neighbours. This is no more and no less true for teenage girls selling sex as for teenage boys carrying guns and trying to be the man.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
But selling sex, AIUI, is not in itself illegal in the UK. Child prostitution is illegal because of the concern that children are being victimized, not because selling sex is inherently illegal.
Public solicitation is another matter. It's basically a nuisance crime.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
Public solicitation is another matter. It's basically a nuisance crime.
Yes, and it is for this nuisance crime that the "persistent older girls" in the article are prosecuted.
They are also victims. Their clients, who are generally fully aware that they are underage, are all guilty of unlawful sexual activity with a child. Their pimps are guilty of arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence, and probably also of unlawful sexual activity with a child, and probably also rape.
But aren't young gangbangers victims, too? They are groomed into that way of life, just like these girls. Does the young gang recruit have more options than the young girl besotted with her "boyfriend"? Is the gangbanger any less used because nobody rapes him?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But aren't young gangbangers victims, too? They are groomed into that way of life, just like these girls. Does the young gang recruit have more options than the young girl besotted with her "boyfriend"? Is the gangbanger any less used because nobody rapes him?
Are we going to do this? Are we really going to do this? There is victimisation in gangs, yes. But fucking start a different thread. Adding this here seems very much more a distraction than a contribution. You may not intend it, but it reads very much like "fuck the girls, as boys are victimised too".
Hell, the OP gets it wrong as well, sorry piglet. It is not an either or, it is a both. Both situations are wrong and prosecuting one does not preclude prosecuting the other.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You may not intend it, but it reads very much like "fuck the girls, as boys are victimised too".
You're right, that's not my intent. My intent is to claim that there is nothing unique about child prostitution that means that we shouldn't prosecute children for prostitution in circumstances where we would prosecute them for other crimes.
Yes, preventing further exploitation of children is more important than prosecuting them. Helping these children get out of the situation they are in is more important than prosecuting them. Maybe prosecution is one tool in the arsenal to get the girls to stop.
Is prostituting children a more horrible abuse than using them as thieves or drug dealers? Yes, I think so - but it's a matter of degree and not something qualitatively different.
[ 24. September 2014, 05:58: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
We'll only prosecute older girls who are persistent - really you fucking morons a 15 year old is a child.
Yes indeed, and a child who is some 5 years over the age of criminal responsibility.
The article you reference describes the girls showing wodges of cash to Mohammed the corner shop owner to explain why they do it.
If these girls were going out shoplifting, or breaking in to houses, in order to make money, most people would expect them to be prosecuted. They are committing a different crime, but it's still a crime.
Each and every one of their clients is committing a more serious crime ("I thought she was of age" isn't going to fly in most cases) and their pimps are committing a serious crime.
But I'm not sure why I should think that a child selling sex is less culpable than a child selling drugs, picking pockets or shoplifting.
Have you read the descriptions of the rotheram cases, this was a gang grooming children into prositution, after which they were subject to violence to keep them engaged In the process - and one of the reasons no-one did anything effective about it was because it was seen as a "choice". Which is effectively - an older child supposedly returning voluntarily and persistently to prostitution.
And the Rotheram situation shows just how child protection goes down the toilet if the people around these children view their participation in the sex trade as voluntary.
If we do not accept "she led me on, she wanted it really" as a defence to the crime of sex with a child - then we should not be prosecuting a child for "leading men on, because she wanted it really."
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Yes, preventing further exploitation of children is more important than prosecuting them. Helping these children get out of the situation they are in is more important than prosecuting them. Maybe prosecution is one tool in the arsenal to get the girls to stop.
Yeah, right, because a conviction for prostitution won't effect their chances of getting legitimate employment in the future in anyway.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Yes, preventing further exploitation of children is more important than prosecuting them. Helping these children get out of the situation they are in is more important than prosecuting them. Maybe prosecution is one tool in the arsenal to get the girls to stop.
Yeah, right, because a conviction for prostitution won't effect their chances of getting legitimate employment in the future in anyway.
And this is one reason why prostitution is different to drugs or other gang activity.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
?
Someone convicted of drug selling or gang-related crimes has better employment opportunities in later life than someone convicted of prostitution.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Since I posted yesterday, several posts on this thread have further confirmed my beliefs about the real reason the Rotherham scandal occurred, and how normally reasonable people can hold views that can enable it. Worrying.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht: quote:
Yes indeed, and a child who is some 5 years over the age of criminal responsibility.
And a year below the age at which she is deemed to be capable of giving consent to a sexual relationship. ANY sexual relationship.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
You know, it's a long time since I've seen a thread scatter itself in so many directions at such high speed.
Shall I just amend the thread title to "sex and crime in the UK"? That might just about manage to cover it.
Or I could just change the title to "Rotherham" because frankly that's what the thread seems to mostly be about, right from the start. Mr Travis' conviction is just a launching pad for a bit of "go after the REAL criminals" frothing.
Which reminds me a bit of thinking that someone is only a 'sinner' if they do really bad things, not just a bit of mild falling short of the glory of God.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, the OP mentions Rotherham, but in a way which seems illogical to me, as if handling case A badly means that case B should be ignored or treated lightly? I just don't get that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread is getting me confused. Are some people suggesting that grabbing a woman's breasts should be ignored by police and law courts? So women's bodies are open season for any passing male?
Why?
This.
Groping a woman's breasts without her consent is wrong morally and legally now, it was so in 1990 and - heck - was in 1890. The fact that the prosecuting authorities' official (and unofficial) attitudes towards it have changed is to be welcomed but it doesn't alter the immorality and illegality of the act.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Since I posted yesterday, several posts on this thread have further confirmed my beliefs about the real reason the Rotherham scandal occurred, and how normally reasonable people can hold views that can enable it. Worrying.
Quite. Who knew that those pesky sexually-assaulted women were to blame for taking up all the police's resources?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the OP mentions Rotherham, but in a way which seems illogical to me, as if handling case A badly means that case B should be ignored or treated lightly? I just don't get that.
I think the point is that making a front-page scandal out of DLT makes people feel like Something is being done™ about sexual violence against women, but meanwhile, thousands of other vulnerable young women are still being abused and nothing is actually being done.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the OP mentions Rotherham, but in a way which seems illogical to me, as if handling case A badly means that case B should be ignored or treated lightly? I just don't get that.
I think the point is that making a front-page scandal out of DLT makes people feel like Something is being done™ about sexual violence against women, but meanwhile, thousands of other vulnerable young women are still being abused and nothing is actually being done.
I thought that the OP was actually saying that the Travis prosecution is a waste of time. That's the bit I find odd; contrasting it with Rotherham doesn't really support that argument, unless someone is claiming that the Travis case is diverting resources, which could be used elsewhere.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the OP mentions Rotherham, but in a way which seems illogical to me, as if handling case A badly means that case B should be ignored or treated lightly? I just don't get that.
I think the point is that making a front-page scandal out of DLT makes people feel like Something is being done™ about sexual violence against women, but meanwhile, thousands of other vulnerable young women are still being abused and nothing is actually being done.
I'm not sure that the solution to not enough being done to prevent sexual assault is to refrain from prosecution when someone brings in a complaint that is sufficiently well attested for the DPP to think "you know, we might just win this one".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the OP mentions Rotherham, but in a way which seems illogical to me, as if handling case A badly means that case B should be ignored or treated lightly? I just don't get that.
I think the point is that making a front-page scandal out of DLT makes people feel like Something is being done™ about sexual violence against women, but meanwhile, thousands of other vulnerable young women are still being abused and nothing is actually being done.
Yes, but that in part happens because we are still thinking in terms of cautioning and prosecuting children who are sexually exploited.
Some views - formed without due reflection - have unintended consequences in practice.
[ 24. September 2014, 12:57: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the OP mentions Rotherham, but in a way which seems illogical to me, as if handling case A badly means that case B should be ignored or treated lightly? I just don't get that.
I think the point is that making a front-page scandal out of DLT makes people feel like Something is being done™ about sexual violence against women, but meanwhile, thousands of other vulnerable young women are still being abused and nothing is actually being done.
Since when do the police or the DPP decide what is and isn't a front-page scandal?
The fact is, a person having an existing media profile is what makes this Travis case news (not that I'd heard about it on my side of the world until this thread, as he's NOT a celebrity here). Rotherham is news because of the scale.
Meanwhile, there are a vast number of other sexual assaults going on that none of you are suitably outraged about because you've never heard about them and you never will.
I can't see that any of these victims of crimes are inherently more deserving of empathetic outrage than others, which is why it's a bit mystifying for anyone to be upset about the fact that a man has been successfully prosecuted.
[ 24. September 2014, 13:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
