Ship of Fools: Dave Lee Travis

Thread: Dave Lee Travis Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028034

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

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.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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 ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

And you can make much the same case about the grooming of schoolgirls in Rotheram.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Grabbing a woman's breasts was considered acceptable? Whoa, which milieu are we talking about?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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 ?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

"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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Actually, that CPS guidance just pissed me off so much, I have emailed my MP.

[ 23. September 2014, 18:35: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

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.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

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.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

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".

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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 ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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."

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

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".

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

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 ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

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.

Likewise: ISTM akin to saying that the police and CPS shouldn't be interested in investigating shoplifting cases because of the number of armed robberies which occur.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

The question is, in these terms, not so much whether the police / CPS should be prosecuting shoplifting, as to whether they should be prosecuting, now, shoplifting offences from 20, 30, 40 years ago.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I'm not sure that I would be in favour of a 'statute of limitations' approach to criminal prosecutions: the judicial system is pretty good on the whole IMO in weeding out evidence that is so badly deteriorated due to time-lapse that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, both at trial and also in pre-trial prosecution decisions. In the DLT case, the system worked because, despite the passage of time, the jury found the complainant's evidence sufficiently credible and compelling to convict.

The alternative - to have a civil-style limitation period - would lead to the bizarre situation that it's OK to, say, commit mass murder as long as you lie low or go on the run for x years.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

It does feel like most of the celebrities I watched an TV during my childhood are now helping police with their enquiries. [Disappointed]

And back to the matter in hand. It's sad that in the 21st Century, we're still having to fight 19th Century attitudes to rape, sexual assult and the like.

Tubbs

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

"If you can remember the 70s....you're probably guilty or a victim of some offence or another..."

[ 24. September 2014, 14:19: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It does feel like most of the celebrities I watched an TV during my childhood are now helping police with their enquiries.

And back to the matter in hand. It's sad that in the 21st Century, we're still having to fight 19th Century attitudes to rape, sexual assult and the like.

Tubbs

Yes, I think there is still a deep-rooted misogyny at large in various agencies. If you couple that with a contempt for working class children, you can see why kids who were being abused, were either not listened to, or were labelled slags, who were asking for it.

I read recently the pitiful story of the actress Samantha Morton, who was abused in a residential home by her care workers. She complained, but nobody listened.

I'm not sure how these attitudes can be changed, as they probably exist quite commonly in society at large.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"If you can remember the 70s....you're probably guilty or a victim of some offence or another..."

Prefer the orginal, "If you can remember the 70's, you weren't really there" rather than the varient, "If you can remember the 70's, you may end up helping the police with their enquiries".

Tubbs

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Yes except the original was "If you can remember the 60s you were not really there."

Jengie

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Yep - my quote was a parody of the 60s one

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

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?

Well more broadly, the age of criminal responsibility is too low.

More importantly, how can we as a society claim that we are horrified about Rotheram & at the same time prosecute children for the very behaviour we are supposedly horrified about. It is disgusting that this is still on the statute books, it is absolutely fucking appalling.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
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.

Sure, and that makes the abuse she has suffered all the more horrible, but isn't relevant.

Teens under the age of consent can be, and are, prosecuted for rape, too. Being under the age of consent isn't some kind of magic get out of jail free card that means you aren't responsible for anything that you do if it's a bit sexual - it means precisely that you are not deemed competent to consent to sex, so anyone that has sex with you commits a crime. It does not in any way prevent you from being guilty of a sex crime.

Doublethink argues that the age of criminal responsibility is too low. I don't agree, exactly - I don't think being unable to do anything about criminal behaviour in young children is helpful. I do think that the methods for dealing with young criminals should be more oriented towards reform than they appear to be - it seems that what we have now for young criminals is a largely pointless wrist-slapping exercise. I don't know what the right thing to do is, though.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Isn't relevant !?! WTF is wrong with you ?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Isn't relevant !?! WTF is wrong with you ?

The fact that it is illegal to have sex with minors does not alter the fact that it is also illegal for minors to solicit sex for money.

Yes, of course the former is a much worse crime, but the fact that children can't consent to sex doesn't render them magically unable to be guilty of soliciting any more than it renders them magically unable to be guilty of rape.

In the normal case (and I hate being able to use words like normal in connection with child prostitution), probably the best action is not to press criminal charges against a child who is guilty of soliciting, but if the criminal charge gains you leverage to extract the child from that situation, why not use it?

[ 25. September 2014, 05:41: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Lots of reasons. First, as illustrated somewhere on this thread, arresting them does little to change anything for them.
Second, labeling as criminals children who are essentially victims, affects how they will be looked on and treated. As is evidenced by current attitudes.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Lots of reasons. First, as illustrated somewhere on this thread, arresting them does little to change anything for them.
Second, labeling as criminals children who are essentially victims, affects how they will be looked on and treated. As is evidenced by current attitudes.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this. This is the same when you are dealing with children who are guilty of lots of different crimes. There must be much better ways of dealing with children involved in criminal activity than a court date in four months time, where they'll get a slap on the wrist. But making it not a crime can't be the answer.

In the original article, the explicit claim was made that children involved in prostitution are not usually charged with an offense. Which is fine.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second, labeling as criminals children who are essentially victims, affects how they will be looked on and treated. As is evidenced by current attitudes.

Would such children be added to the register of sexual offenders?

(I would find that quite horriffic, but know little about UK law.)

Huia

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Yes - although entry on the sex offenders register can be for a time limited period.

(I've worked with teenagers on the sex offenders register - I get all the best jobs)

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

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".
The "Ooo, oo nasty political correctness made us scared to say anything" crap was made up afterwards.

Really?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Not making a big deal of the ethnicity of the offenders is a very different thing from not dealing with the abuse.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

To add - that concerns about being seen as racist may have had an effect on mentioning the ethnicity of many of the abusers I can believe; that people were ignoring the abuse because of the ethnicity of many of the abusers I do not. It was because of the low status and perceived criminality of the victims, together with a good helping of that river in North Africa.

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :

Coming back to DLT for a second:

I wouldn't remotely suggest that what he has done is anything other than wrong, nor would I suggest that he should not have been punished, but some of the evidence that was brought at the trial does make me question where we draw the line in defining unwanted touch as a "sexual assault".

One of the witnesses in the DLT case, brought in to show that he "has a propensity towards laying his hands in a sexual manner on young women" complained that he "he stroked down her back before resting his hand on her lower hip". To be honest, I would be astounded if you can find an adult women in the Western world who hasn't experienced unwanted touch at that sort of level, and the number of men who have administered that sort of unwanted touch would utterly overrun the prison system. DLT wasn't prosecuted for this, obviously, but it was part of the evidence against him.

Now, I'm all for sexual assault being taken seriously, but somewhere here things are bound to get ambiguous. Unless every person asks specifically about every way in which they touch every other person, sometimes people are going to be touched in ways they don't like. I am now envisioning two teenagers, pausing briefly in some enthusiastic snogging for the following conversation:

Boy: "Darling, would it possibly be OK with you if I moved my hand three inches further down your back to a position where it might possibly overlap slightly with your bra strap, and thereafter might I caress your left shoulder blade slightly. This move would in no way imply that I would be allowed to make any further move at any future time".

Girl: "Go ahead darling, and whilst we are talking, might I possibly move my left hand from your knee towards your groinal area by as much as 5 cm? Again, this would not imply that you agree to any further move on my part."

Whilst I exaggerate, I know plenty of people - men and women - who in their late teens would have felt that a night out was a failure if they hadn't at least snogged a stranger, and a certain amount of experiencing other people's wandering hands was part of the enjoyment of that. I've had my bum pinched in clubs plenty of times by unidentified men, and whilst I'd personally rather it hadn't happened, I know other women who see it as only an enjoyable part of the game.

I've also, sadly in common with too many other women on this thread, experienced other more serious forms of unwanted touch in more troubling contexts and in some cases have failed to report that to my relevant superiors. Whilst in a couple of instances I certainly should have taken things further, and my employer (or in one case school) should have come down like a ton of bricks on the individual concerned, I am not at all sure that I would have wanted to see those individuals prosecuted, nor that a criminal conviction and time in jail would be commensurate with the offence against me.

Now, the seriousness of this type of offence must at least in part be dependent on the distress caused to the victim and hence I wouldn't want to comment on the specifics of the DLT case, but I feel I am increasingly illustrating the existence of a blurry region, in which boundaries are very difficult to draw.

One thing I am pretty sure about, is that if I walked into a police-station and reported a couple of incidents which happened to me at school 20 years ago and which are not that dissimilar to the actions for which DLT has been convicted, I would not expect any action to be taken. I expect with only minimum effort, I could find several other girls who had similar experiences with the teacher I am thinking of, but even if I took them all with me to the police station, I have no expectation that the teacher in question would be investigated, unless I accidentally turned up something much more severe than what happened to me.

Is the fact that the police would ignore me right? Probably not, although I am also not sure I would want the teacher in question to go to jail. What it does illustrate though is that it is as much DLT's celebrity status and the current media furore over Saville which has lead to his conviction as his actual actions. If every woman who had an experience like mine in the 70s, 80s or 90s, with a male who was not a celebrity came forward, there is no way we could even begin to investigate all these cases.

I'm left with two questions:

Where do we draw the line in defining sexual assault in cases of unwanted touch, without excessively limiting normal human interaction?

and

Is it appropriate to pursue celebrities for offences of this type committed a long time ago, when we are in no position to be pursue non-celebrities for very similar offences given how hideously common they were at the time?

I don't have answers to these questions, but I think they are worth asking, and go beyond the knee-jerk "doing wrong stuff is wrong and must be punished" which some people may be applying to the DLT case.

Best wishes,

Rachel.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Except unless I am confused, DLT didn't do these things in the club, he did them at work. As much as I don't to be grabbed on in a club, I agree that it is not shocking. To be felt up or stroked at work? I would be indeed shocked and outraged. And yes, if one goes back some years, it would not have been shocking for such things to happen at work either. But let us thank feminists who have gone before us rather than try to send the world back there!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not making a big deal of the ethnicity of the offenders is a very different thing from not dealing with the abuse.

If you're trying to identify the offenders, their race is relevant.

This is what makes me bang my head against the wall, sometimes. People become so indoctrinated with the basic ideas of non-discrimination without grasping what non-discrimination actually MEANS. They end up with a message of "don't ever mention race", instead of a message of "don't mention race unless it's pertinent".

You end up with a foolish aversion to the word 'Pakistani' and a complete inability to distinguish between "the abusers were Pakistani" and "Pakistanis are abusers".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
Unless every person asks specifically about every way in which they touch every other person, sometimes people are going to be touched in ways they don't like.

Correct. And in fact the law has had to wrestle with this exact problem. The common law (basis of UK system and most other English-speaking legal systems) actually says that ANY touch of another person is technically assault. It then says, though, that we accept a certain degree of touch as part of functioning in society instead of all living in isolation.

It then ends up getting a bit vague, about how whether touch is socially acceptable or not depends a lot on context.

This works most of the time, with a lot of stuff that is clearly okay or clearly not okay, but I think it's inevitable that it gets a bit blurry near the dividing line between the two. I've only quoted a little bit of your post but I agree with lots of the things you've raised - these are real issues, and difficult ones.

[ 25. September 2014, 23:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
Unless every person asks specifically about every way in which they touch every other person, sometimes people are going to be touched in ways they don't like.
Correct. And in fact the law has had to wrestle with this exact problem. The common law (basis of UK system and most other English-speaking legal systems) actually says that ANY touch of another person is technically assault. It then says, though, that we accept a certain degree of touch as part of functioning in society instead of all living in isolation.

Italics mine
That is fucked up. It is of the same reasoning as "all sex is rape".
Touch is a fundamental communication trait amongst primates. Any type of touch could be an assault, depending on context would be a better standard.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It then ends up getting a bit vague, about how whether touch is socially acceptable or not depends a lot on context.

Context is everything. And the border between acceptable and unacceptable is messy and inconsistent and difficult.
I do not ever see it being anything else.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
Unless every person asks specifically about every way in which they touch every other person, sometimes people are going to be touched in ways they don't like.
Correct. And in fact the law has had to wrestle with this exact problem. The common law (basis of UK system and most other English-speaking legal systems) actually says that ANY touch of another person is technically assault. It then says, though, that we accept a certain degree of touch as part of functioning in society instead of all living in isolation.
Italics mine
That is fucked up. It is of the same reasoning as "all sex is rape".
Touch is a fundamental communication trait amongst primates. Any type of touch could be an assault, depending on context would be a better standard.

But as soon as you mention context, the rest becomes semantic distinction without a practical difference (and frankly, I haven't consulted my textbooks lately to check whether the word "is" is the one used). The point is simply that there isn't some kind of degree of force or length of time required. The legal requirement is just 'touching'.

[ 26. September 2014, 03:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The common law (basis of UK system and most other English-speaking legal systems) actually says that ANY touch of another person is technically assault.

Not in Massachusetts, at least - assault entails an intent to do harm, as described in these model jury instructions, which include this citation:

quote:
Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 399 Mass. 841, 845 n.7, 507 N.E.2d 694, 696 n.7 (1987) (an assault is “any manifestation, by a person, of that person’s present intention to do another immediate bodily harm”)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Orfeo,

I think Dave is correct that intent is the key. Even to the point that no physical contact need be made.

Back to your reply to me, there is more than a semantic difference between what I said and what you said. How a law is phrased can affect how it is prosecuted.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes. my legal education was a long time ago but IIRC (i) assault need not entail physical contact (ii) for any crime to take place (excluding the few where there is strict criminal liability: owning a sawn-off shotgun is one that comes to mind in England & Wales) there must be intent- a 'mens rea' (guilty mind) as well as an 'actus reus' (guilty act). I think- I'm not sure- that any touching might in theory be a trespass to the person, which is a tort (a civil wrong, for which e.g. damages might be claimed if harm or loss or damage could be shown to have occurred, but not a criminal offence), but I might be mistaken about that.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not making a big deal of the ethnicity of the offenders is a very different thing from not dealing with the abuse.
If you're trying to identify the offenders, their race is relevant.

This is what makes me bang my head against the wall, sometimes. People become so indoctrinated with the basic ideas of non-discrimination without grasping what non-discrimination actually MEANS. They end up with a message of "don't ever mention race", instead of a message of "don't mention race unless it's pertinent".

You end up with a foolish aversion to the word 'Pakistani' and a complete inability to distinguish between "the abusers were Pakistani" and "Pakistanis are abusers".

Yeah, I know; it's just that there's a narrative developing here of "because they were Pakistanis the politically correct council and police decided to let them get away with it because it'd be considered racist to prosecute pakistani men"

Which is bollocks.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Consent is also key to whether something is assault or not, going back to the nightclub example. Whether or not the alleged perp reasonably believed the complainant was consenting is relevant to the mens rea here also.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The fact that it is illegal to have sex with minors does not alter the fact that it is also illegal for minors to solicit sex for money.

If you can't do compassion, try logic. If it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex it follows that it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex in return for money.

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Consent is also key to whether something is assault or not, going back to the nightclub example. Whether or not the alleged perp reasonably believed the complainant was consenting is relevant to the mens rea here also.

And this is where, it seems to me, things get very difficult and blurry...

There was a thread some time ago which included some comments about teaching sex education to young adults, and moving on from "No means no" to "Only yes means yes" - i.e. someone should positively assent to sex, rather than just fail to refuse it, before you assume their consent. That's a really good idea. However, if we apply this at all levels then we get into the ridiculous situation I parodied above (Darling, would it possibly be OK with you if I moved my hand three inches further down your back...). Without that sort of approach, it is difficult to tell whether what the alleged perp believed was reasonable in many instances, and particularly for offences dating back many years, our perceptions of reasonable will have changed over the relevant time period.

Best,

Rachel.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex it follows that it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex in return for money.

You're equivocating on two different meanings of "consent" there. Consent as in "age of consent" doesn't mean that there's some hitherto unused piece of neural hardwiring that instantly and automatically gets switched on when a person turns 16 (or 18,17,15,14,13,12... depending on where they live) which means they can suddenly agree to things they were previously incapable of agreeing to. It means that the law still considers that they have been wronged if someone has sex with them, regardless of their actual state of mind. Obviously a person who "cannot consent" in that legal sense might still make a positive choice - and, as has been pointed out above, could even make a choice to commit rape.

I basically agree that prosecuting children for prostitution is as heartless as it is stupid, but the argument that they cannot in actual fact consent to do something because the law presumes them not to have consented when it is done to them is clearly nonsense.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If you can't do compassion, try logic. If it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex it follows that it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex in return for money.

You illustrate perfectly the logical failure that I am trying, badly, to point out.

Yes - a child can't consent to sex, whether or not money is involved. This makes it a serious criminal offense (statutory rape or whatever - name depends on jurisdiction) to have sex with that child, whether or not you are paying for it.

But a child, who cannot consent to sex, can still commit rape, and be found guilty of that offense. If, for example, a 15 year old boy forces his adult teacher to have sex, he is guilty of rape. The fact that he isn't competent to consent to sex doesn't get him off the hook for committing rape. (The fact that he is a juvenile will have a significant effect on his sentencing, but not on the fact of his guilt.)

Teenagers raping adults is rare, but it happens. I hope this example is sufficient to dispel the notion that someone who is not competent to consent to sex can't commit a sexual crime.

Now let's go back to the teen prostitutes. Prostitution itself isn't a crime in the UK, but soliciting is. So in the case of teenage children selling sex on street corners, the crimes committed are:

1. Unlawful sexual activity with a child, committed by the client. "I thought she was 18" is potentially available as a defense, but in the majority of cases is unlikely to be credible.

2. Sex with a prostitute who has been forced into prostitution, committed by the client. This is a strict liability offense, and as far as I can see should apply automatically in cases of child prostitution, because the child can't consent.

3. Paying for the sexual services of a child, by the client. Again, I thin this one is strict liability.

4. Kerb-crawling, by the client again.

5. Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence, committed by the child's pimp.

6. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography, committed by the pimp.

7. Also all the standard pimp crimes, committed by the pimp - living of immoral earnings, pimping etc.

8. Soliciting, committed by the child prostitute.

This list may not be exhaustive.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
<stuff>

This list may not be exhaustive.

nor indeed, useful.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex it follows that it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex in return for money.
You're equivocating on two different meanings of "consent" there. Consent as in "age of consent" doesn't mean that there's some hitherto unused piece of neural hardwiring that instantly and automatically gets switched on when a person turns 16 (or 18,17,15,14,13,12... depending on where they live) which means they can suddenly agree to things they were previously incapable of agreeing to. It means that the law still considers that they have been wronged if someone has sex with them, regardless of their actual state of mind. Obviously a person who "cannot consent" in that legal sense might still make a positive choice - and, as has been pointed out above, could even make a choice to commit rape.

I basically agree that prosecuting children for prostitution is as heartless as it is stupid, but the argument that they cannot in actual fact consent to do something because the law presumes them not to have consented when it is done to them is clearly nonsense.

I don't think I am. as I understand it, the law presumes children cannot consent to sex because it is thought that up to the age of consent, they are too young to weigh up rationally the pros and cons of having sexual intercourse with a particular person on a particular occasion. It is not that there is some physical wiring - it's that we, as a society, have decided they don't have the judgement.

If they don't have that judgement absent the question of financial incentives, how does introducing a financial incentive make the ability to judge suddenly present?

The question is not whether the child agrees to do it, but whether that agreement means anything. The introduction of consideration into the transaction doesn't seem, to me, to affect that.

Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :

The DLT case highlights a few concerns for me:

Number one: Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable doubt?

"I was touched 20 years ago" - I'm going to be harsh here on the victim, but it seems to me there is a prima facie impossibility to that ever passing the "reasonable doubt" test and should never get to court.

Number two: The unfairness of fame. One principle of law is that everyone should be judged equally in front of it. IT does seem that with some of the Celeb cases, that is not happening. They are getting put in front of juries for things that no police force would ever consider taking to court for a non-famous person. I'm not sure that can be right.

Number three: The concept of consent itself binary: "Yes/no", however, the process of how an individual establishes whether consent has in fact occurred is simply not so clear cut, and it is that second point which is what a court of law is really assessing.

A defendant should be found "not guilty" if he is able to show that, in good faith, he (or she) had good reason to feel consent to something had occurred, even if, in fact he was mistaken...again, going back to the principle of reasonable doubt. (If the circumstances give reasonable assumption of consent, then, logically and legally, it must be the case that there is reasonable doubt as to how authentic the alleged victim's later denial of consent is, and hence make conviction unsound.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:

Number two: The unfairness of fame.

We, as a society, forgive the famous far more than we persecute them. So, yes, fame is unfair.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Whilst I am categorically NOT saying that some of it is not justified, as some of it clearly is, and about time to, but since the early 1990s abuse, particularly [in UK] sexual abuse, has become a fashionable subject - prior to that, of course, there was a growing body of evidence of the prevalence of physical abuse [Maria Colwell, Paul Brown, etc.] but suddenly it took off in the press and the public consciousness. Looking back at my child care days in the 1970s I can name a dozen or more kids who were at one time or another in my care who had probably been sexually abused - but put that in the context of dealing with around a thousand kids in that decade.

The pendulum swings and, hopefully, it will swing back - but not, I hope, all the way.

Let's have justice and fairness but let's move away from the hysteria - we don't need witch-hunts!

[ 26. October 2014, 09:51: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Whilst I am categorically NOT saying that some of it is not justified, as some of it clearly is, and about time to, but since the early 1990s abuse, particularly [in UK] sexual abuse, has become a fashionable subject - prior to that, of course, there was a growing body of evidence of the prevalence of physical abuse [Maria Colwell, Paul Brown, etc.] but suddenly it took off in the press and the public consciousness. Looking back at my child care days in the 1970s I can name a dozen or more kids who were at one time or another in my care who had probably been sexually abused - but put that in the context of dealing with around a thousand kids in that decade.

The pendulum swings and, hopefully, it will swing back - but not, I hope, all the way.

Let's have justice and fairness but let's move away from the hysteria - we don't need witch-hunts!

In the 1970's you weren't really trained to see it - and if it was spotted then only the most extreme cases ever got to court. It was sort of "understood" as cultural in some circles (public schools e.g).

In any event what we class as abuse today was often seen as high spirits or the wandering hand then. It was all brought home to me when my form teacher from 1970 - 71 was convicted of abuse just a few years ago. A lot of the stuff he did, made sense many years later - to report it then would've meant we were laughed at or even disciplined ourselves.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

I agree with Exclamation Mark: we're guilty of judging previous generations by today's attitudes and standards.

To take an extreme example, if you spoke treason against the king 500 years ago you were put to death horribly; now you'd probably get a job with the Grauniad.

When I was growing up (rather more recently [Big Grin]

), corporal punishment was an accepted hazard of childhood - and you soon found out where the boundaries were. These days if a teacher (or anyone else) so much as looks at a child the wrong way, the child seems perfectly entitled to cry "abuse".

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

No, I think that's the wrong way around.

We put up with stuff in the 70s and 80s that we no longer find acceptable. The wandering hands, the quick grope in passing, the permanently abusive comments (which would have been described as being a bit off colour then).

Why should it be acceptable that men (and women in those female dominated workplaces where, for example, the errand boys were abused) could embarrass and grope members of the opposite sex for their own amusement?

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... stuff ... that we no longer find acceptable ... [my italics]

That's my point - it may not actually have been acceptable, but it was, in a way, accepted, because it hadn't yet occurred to anyone to raise objections.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... stuff ... that we no longer find acceptable ... [my italics]
That's my point - it may not actually have been acceptable, but it was, in a way, accepted, because it hadn't yet occurred to anyone to raise objections.

I don't think it was because it never occured to anyone. It was because the victims had no power and culture pressured them to endure the abuse.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There were people who objected at the time. They just garnered additional abuse for lacking in a sense of humour or being stuffy.

Eventually enough people objected enough for this to be seen as unacceptable now.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I wonder how many pop stars and TV celebrities from the 60s and 70s are waiting in silent fear for the two uniforms to appear on their doorstep after an opportunist accusation from a girl or girls who can remember sleeping with said pop star after a concert when he was young and attractive to hundreds of groupies and she (they) were actually only 14 at the time.

I was reading only a couple of weeks ago, the autobiography of a 1980s singer in a very popular group, who said that every night the roadcrew would usher girls into the dressing room and there would be full on sex every single night with numerous girls.

Did any of them have birth certificates to prove their age? Of course not.
Did anyone know these girls' names or where they came from? Were records taken? Of course not.
Were the pop stars sober enough to know the difference between a 15 year of and 16 year old? Of course not.

We all know about groupies - someone, someday, might think it'll be a good idea to make an accusation. There will be no proof either way of course, and the case might never get anywhere. But as we know, once the accusation is made, guilt is decided immediately by the media.

And, God forbid that a boy makes the accusation!
SCR anyone?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder how many pop stars and TV celebrities from the 60s and 70s are waiting in silent fear for the two uniforms to appear on their doorstep after an opportunist accusation from a girl or girls who can remember sleeping with said pop star after a concert when he was young and attractive to hundreds of groupies and she (they) were actually only 14 at the time.

You'd say the same about Jimmy Savile would you? That he was just 'sleeping with girls' who happened to be only 14?

Having sex with a 14 year old is abuse - however keen or 'up for it' they were at the time.

The police in Rotherham are only just discovering this fact too.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder how many pop stars and TV celebrities from the 60s and 70s are waiting in silent fear for the two uniforms to appear on their doorstep after an opportunist accusation from a girl or girls who can remember sleeping with said pop star after a concert when he was young and attractive to hundreds of groupies and she (they) were actually only 14 at the time.

You'd say the same about Jimmy Savile would you? That he was just 'sleeping with girls' who happened to be only 14?

Having sex with a 14 year old is abuse - however keen or 'up for it' they were at the time.

The police in Rotherham are only just discovering this fact too.

erm, I would never defend such behaviour in the slightest; but you have missed the point.

It is well-known that musicians and singers have always had groupies and lots of sex. I am saying that if they assumed that they were all over 16 they might have inadvertantly slept with someone who pretended to be of age who wasn't.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder how many pop stars and TV celebrities from the 60s and 70s are waiting in silent fear for the two uniforms to appear on their doorstep after an opportunist accusation from a girl or girls who can remember sleeping with said pop star after a concert when he was young and attractive to hundreds of groupies and she (they) were actually only 14 at the time.

You'd say the same about Jimmy Savile would you? That he was just 'sleeping with girls' who happened to be only 14?

Having sex with a 14 year old is abuse - however keen or 'up for it' they were at the time.

The police in Rotherham are only just discovering this fact too.

erm, I would never defend such behaviour in the slightest; but you have missed the point.

It is well-known that musicians and singers have always had groupies and lots of sex. I am saying that if they assumed that they were all over 16 they might have inadvertantly slept with someone who pretended to be of age who wasn't.

Innocence is one thing, ignorance is another, and too often people in an exalted position have misused that privilege. Politicians do it, movie producers do it, pastors do it, pop stars and broadcasters do it too.

We shouldn't be surprised and we shouldn't be condemnatory. But we have to deal with it.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

There is also a difference between a reasonable belief, or actually not giving a toss.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I was reading only a couple of weeks ago, the autobiography of a 1980s singer in a very popular group, who said that every night the roadcrew would usher girls into the dressing room and there would be full on sex every single night with numerous girls.

And this is considered a defense? If its true then the singer is choosing to behave recklessly. In such a scenario it seems very likely that the singer will at some point have sex with a girl below the age of consent, on a substance, drunk, pressurized by peers and all manner of other vulnerabilities. They are completely culpable for it and deserve the attention of the police.

If they want to have free-wheeling sex they can join a swingers club with consenting adults of their own age.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It is well-known that musicians and singers have always had groupies and lots of sex. I am saying that if they assumed that they were all over 16 they might have inadvertantly slept with someone who pretended to be of age who wasn't.

Ignorance is no defence.

If they abused children then they should answer for it.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It is well-known that musicians and singers have always had groupies and lots of sex. I am saying that if they assumed that they were all over 16 they might have inadvertantly slept with someone who pretended to be of age who wasn't.
Ignorance is no defence.

If they abused children then they should answer for it.

<Devil's advocate>
But if they honestly believed that the person they had sex with was over the age of consent, shouldn't that be taken into account?
</Devil's advocate>

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I was reading only a couple of weeks ago, the autobiography of a 1980s singer in a very popular group, who said that every night the roadcrew would usher girls into the dressing room and there would be full on sex every single night with numerous girls.
And this is considered a defense? If its true then the singer is choosing to behave recklessly.

What? Are you seriously suggesting that rock musicians act recklessly? Don't be ridiculous. Next you'll be trying to tell me that sometimes they drink alcohol and <gasp> take drugs!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It is well-known that musicians and singers have always had groupies and lots of sex. I am saying that if they assumed that they were all over 16 they might have inadvertantly slept with someone who pretended to be of age who wasn't.
Ignorance is no defence.

Sexual Offences Act 1956:

quote:

A man is not guilty of an offence under this section because he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen, if he is under the age of twenty-four and has not previously been charged with a like offence, and he believes her to be of the age of sixteen or over and has reasonable cause for the belief.

Ignorance is, in certain circumstances, exactly a defence.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

And that was first superceded when ? Because I suspect it was before the 2003 act.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Also, why do people find - don't fuck children - such a weird and complicated idea ?

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And that was first superceded when ? Because I suspect it was before the 2003 act.

As far as I can tell, s6(3) - which is what is quoted - wasn't repealed until the 2003 Act came in.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I was reading only a couple of weeks ago, the autobiography of a 1980s singer in a very popular group, who said that every night the roadcrew would usher girls into the dressing room and there would be full on sex every single night with numerous girls.
And this is considered a defense? If its true then the singer is choosing to behave recklessly.
What? Are you seriously suggesting that rock musicians act recklessly? Don't be ridiculous. Next you'll be trying to tell me that sometimes they drink alcohol and <gasp> take drugs!

I think the word she intended to highlight was " choosing."

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And that was first superceded when ? Because I suspect it was before the 2003 act.
As far as I can tell, s6(3) - which is what is quoted - wasn't repealed until the 2003 Act came in.

Note the 'age 24' clause. Most of those charged were over that age when the offences happened.

(Jimmy Savile born 1926, DLT 1945, Chris Denning 1941: it looks like the cases may have been chosen so that the age 24 clause could not be used in defence)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

(Jimmy Savile born 1926, DLT 1945, Chris Denning 1941: it looks like the cases may have been chosen so that the age 24 clause could not be used in defence)

Yes indeed. The law seemed to be aimed at avoiding prosecuting the young man who pulls a made-up-to-look older underage girl in a pub/club, although it would protect younger rock stars too.

Note also the clause that said "you get one get out of jail free card. If you've been charged with sex with a minor before, you're now on notice that you have to be extra specially careful" so you can't keep on using the "but she looked older" excuse.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sexual Offences Act 1956:

quote:

A man is not guilty of an offence under this section because he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen, if he is under the age of twenty-four and has not previously been charged with a like offence, and he believes her to be of the age of sixteen or over and has reasonable cause for the belief.
Ignorance is, in certain circumstances, exactly a defence.

Italics mine. So much of English law depends on this concept of reasonable cause for the belief. I am reasonably sure (sic) that not caring does not constitute reasonable cause.

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The fact that it is illegal to have sex with minors does not alter the fact that it is also illegal for minors to solicit sex for money.

If you can't do compassion, try logic. If it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex it follows that it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex in return for money.

This.

Sex with a child (and we can argue about how we define this but...) is a crime because legally it cannot be consensual sex as a child is unable to give a legally valid consent. The same legal principal applies to having sex with someone who is unconscious or significantly under the influence of drugs or alcohol as it is not possible under such circumstances for them to give consent. Obviously the specifics of any case are complicated - especially if you are trying to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt but the principal is clear. This in part is where the Yes means yes kind of thinking is coming from - not that one needs written consent to have sex but to think about consent in an entirely different way.

Prosecuting children for prostitution is insane and we need to change the law on that:

Premise 1: A child cannot consent to sex.
Premise 2: Offering a child money does not change their ability to give consent.
Conclusion: A child can be convicted of prostitution.

How can I put this? Hmmmm...

What the fuck? [Mad]

And seriously if the motivation is to help such children then we need to wake up to the fact that treating them not as victims (in totality) but as criminals is totally and completely counterproductive.

A child prostitute is technically a criminal (because our law is wrong) but surely morally, logically and you know - humanly she (or he) is a first and foremost a victim and that status supercedes what else is going on and makes any criminality ridiculous. And some sort of functional argument that is might be a way in to offer help is nonsense.

Coming back to the OP. I'm not sure of the details of DLT's case and I have no particular interest in looking but here's a question: if we as a society get serious about the notion that any sexual assault / harassment is unacceptable is that more or less likely to lead to people taking seriously the accusations of teenage 'slags' when they come forward? A 15 year old who is selling sex is not making a reasoned choice but there has been a journey to get them there. And that journey is abuse. Full stop. No question.

Now, if you look at some of the details of what the response needs to be it does get complicated because vulnerable teenagers will escape from social service care homes to meet up with their 'boyfriends' (This is no hypothetical it's in the Rotherham report). But yeah, let's just treat them as criminals coz that'll really help. My point is that I'm not pretending that it's easy and maybe that's really the thing - saying 'oh yeah, they're still criminals' is dangerously simplistic.

AFZ

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think the word she intended to highlight was " choosing."

That's it. Choice => consequence. The fact that the choice fits a stereotype is neither here nor there. Or bankers would get a free pass on corruption, scientists wouldn't have to try to communicate, doctors could be arrogant and politicians could get away with anything.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0