"Got away with it"????



WTF did he do?

He thought he was going to be screwing an easy, hot chick. An easy, 20 YEAR OLD, hot chick. His driver picks her up in his Rolls Royce, drops her off at his caravan.

He's not ambiguous about what he wants. He wants it now. He gets on with it.

He asks if she's on the pill. She says not, "I'm not that type of girl." He pretty much shows her the door because what he thought she was "his type of girl" clearly wasn't.

Seriously, if that allegation was made to the police today against Justin Timberlake or a PL football player do you think the police would be treating it seriously? IMO they'd have been going down the "treat the mental time waster respectfully but get her out of here as quickly as possible" route. The Sun article didn't mention it (can't think why), but it was her that didn't want the case to be followed up, not the police or CPS.

If she'd gone to The Sun with that story when Savile was alive. I don't think there's a chance they'd have been interested. The journalist would be, "This is a POS, the woman is a flake". If an idiot journo did write the article, the editor and the lawyers would be binning it and concluding that they needed to get a new writer.

If the woman had wanted the police to act further, I think the chances of a conviction are practically zero. And that's just on a lurid article from her side.

But when it's a dead guy The Sun can write about the vile paedo and how Savile ruined her life. The police are clearly counting that as one of Savile's offences. In fact, hers was one of the cases that had been brought to the police before the Savile documentary.

You can't libel a dead guy. And if only every criminal would die so they couldn't defend themselves over allegations the police would appear about 100 times better than they are.

I read about Wilfred De'ath, who was arrested as part of Yew Tree. De'ath claimed that it wasn't him because he hadn't even got the job that got him access to that type of event at the time. I was staggered that he was being arrested over a 40 year old allegation of groping at the cinema.

I read another "victim" account where Savile was hitting on a girl who says she was 14 at the time. Savile kissed her "with his disgusting cigar breath". Savile asked the girl if she liked it, she said she didn't so Savile left her alone and went looking for a girl who was up for it.

I think Savile definitely broke the law by sleeping with under age girls. I think he is *probably* guilty enough of enough vile crime that he pretty much deserves his reputation shredding anyway. But just on reading the highlights I am in no way convinced that Savile is anything near the predatory paedophile that he's been painted as.

Do I think the police would treat an allegation of sexual assault seriously today regardless of who "the star" was ?

Yes I do, at the least they'd investigate it further rather than just dismissing it in the way you suggest, their would be on the line if they didn't - 30 or 40 years ago they could wave the girl away with a lecture on how no-one would ever believe her if she repeated her tale, it happened, and not just to females either, if you were black in the 60s and 70s then your access to justice was also pretty limited, have a read up of the David Oluwale story the investigation of which was seen as an attack on the Leeds police force by the Met - a couple of my friends joined the police in the mid 70s and it was still a very sore point within the ranks.

When I was 14 or 15, in the early 70's, a number of girls at my school would regularly go to a local Thursday night disco. It was notionally 18+ but younger girls could easily get in. Saville would often turn up unannounced and do an impromptu DJ set for half an hour. While he was on stage the bouncers would wander round asking girls (the underage ones) "would you like meet Jimmy backstage". The girls I knew wouldn't go anywhere near him. They knew of his reputation and regarded him as a dirty middle aged man. But apparently others did unless someone warned them off.

Because I was aware of his reputation I kept a mild interest in any press reports about him. Whenever there was a positive article about him, praising his charity work, there would often be another article a couple of pages further on about child abuse or underage sex. It was like an in joke. Once when he'd received an award (might have been his knighthood) I read a glowing article about him in one of the sundays. On the next page was an article about child abuse and the small number successful prosecutions. An unnamed senior police officer was quoted as saying something on the lines of "we're keeping tabs one well known public figure who we keep getting complaints about. But we'd never get a conviction, the general public regard him as a saint. No jury would believe a young lass over him".

I think the media generally were complicit in allowing Saville to get away with it. But the BBC employed him, protected him, turned a blind eye to his behaviour and deserve every bit of criticism they receive.

You read that Sun article and conclude sexual assault???

Seriously???

IMO if that is that standard of sexual assault then I'd expect that every man is guilty of it.

Do I believe that there have been MASSIVE abuses of power by the police, especially on blacks? Yes. I am sure of it. I was reading yesterday about a Black Panther who was virtually executed in the US. It made me sick reading about it. It's stunning that people were allowed to get away with some of the things they did.

But all Jimmy Savile did to that 20 YEAR OLD WOMAN was assume that she was up for it when all the indications are she was up for it. There is nothing in that article which says that she indicated in any way that she didn't want what he was doing.

If Jimmy Savile was the vile sexual predator he's painted as he wouldn't have sent the woman packing when she said she wasn't on the pill because she "wasn't that type of girl".

[i“He jumped on me and pulled my hand to his crotch."
[/i


Its worthy of further investigation by any police force who have it made to them as a statement, its certainly not acceptable for any male to behave like that within a few minutes of meeting any random female and I doubt you'd find many men guilty of that.

Depends what circles you move in of course.

And if someone had warned them off they'd have obviously said no.

It was the 1970's. Girls didn't like sex. They were not impressed by rich men who were on the TV. Being the famous guy from TV who was centre stage in the nightclub has never been a prize to anyone.

No girl would have ever said that she didn't go backstage when the truth was that they went back stage and was a willing party to everything that was done to them. Women are always plain and honest, especially about sex.



So the papers were writing about child abuse, they just weren't interested in writing about a famous guy they knew who was committing it???

But actually, they were very interested Savile's child abuse. They just explained it to the public with a special code that the public should have been smart enough to work out.





Child abuse. The quickest and easiest way to guarantee a laugh. Who doesn't like a joke about children being abused?



That's so awesome. I just wish I had that job of writing that glowing article about a child abuser knowing that we were so clever that we'd be stitching him up at the same time on the next page.

I think I'd enjoy my job so much that week I'd refuse to pick up my pay packet.

There's no flaws with that stupid scenario is there? There's no one who would read the glowing article about the knighted Savile, think that he was a truly great guy getting his just rewards and watch his TV shows with even more respect for him? They wouldn't give that article about child abuse a wild swerve and never put the two together like you were able to?



The BS keeps piling up.

The general public regard him as a saint. Mainly because the papers keep calling him a saint, when really it's the stupid public's fault for not understand the hieroglyphics of the daily press and their special code.

We, the police, are watching this child abuser openly abuse children. But we can't do anything because no one would believe a child. Or us, when we're watching it.



You were complicit in his behaviour too. You knew what he was. You knew the retarded game the media were playing. You obviously supported their retarded code because you kept buying the papers.

Go to jail. Give yourself in. You knew of child abuse. You did nothing. Operation Yew Tree would be pleased with the conviction. They probably won't be getting any unless you guilty people start admitting your guilt.

She wasn't a random female. He'd sent his Rolls Royce to pick her up from the B&B she was staying in. They clearly had that arrangement. Or it was just a massive piece of luck that a Jimmy Savile fan club member was just picked up luckily by Jimmy Savile's driver and she just accepted any offer of a ride in a Roller.

Why was she going to his caravan?

Have I ever done that? No. Have you ever done that? I'd guess no as well. Do I think that nearly every member of a certain LS6 RL team has acted like that? Pretty much.

The main reason being that we have to work to get some. If we did what Savile did then we'd be getting a slapped face and our association with the girl would be over.

But during a date where you thought you were getting lucky did you get explicitly get permission to take things to the next stage? I doubt it. If you ask for explicit permission then you're not likely to get it. At each stage of where you progressed you are risking an assault charge if you apply the judgement against Savile to standard dating practice.

Have you ever touched a woman's breast who then knocked you back? If you have, I hope you go and hand yourself in to the police.

IMO Savile probably had hundreds of women picked up by his driver. I'd assume his technique worked higher than 90%. His techniques would get him whatever the hell he wanted most of the time. On this occasion he thought she was an easy groupie who he was going to do and treated her like that. It became clear she wasn't like that and she was going to make him work for it. He pretty much realised they were on completely different pages over where they were and he showed her the door. She left, disappointed that that she wouldn't be married to her idol after all.

She chooses to believe that she was sexually assaulted. She's got that right. She'll probably get paid out because of that and pick up 10 grand in "compensation".

I think genuine sexual assault is a massively serious crime and should be treated as such. I don't think humouring this stupid woman as being a victim of a genuine sexual assault helps anybody.

I love the way you make up stuff.

Its very entertaining.

You believe that that woman is a genuine victim of a sexual assault?

For example, Justin Timberlake is accused of doing that. He responds to that with a "Go eff yourself with your crazy ****" and refuses to even participate in the trial.

So the only evidence is the nonsense that the Sun wrote.

You'd convict?

The example doesn't work.

If anyone is accused of sexual assault and the CPS consider that the evidence is good enough to go to trial (as you suggest), then he can't say "Go eff yourself..."

And thats where your example stops.

If the accused refuses to participate in a trial then the trial will just proceed with only the prosecution case.

Personally, if think if a groupie made that allegation against somebody after that happened then I think they have every right to refuse their participation.

The reason I use this as an example is because Savile obviously cannot defend himself because he's dead. No trial is going to proceed so her version of the events is the only one put forward (and I'm not even disputing her version).

Savile and Justin Timberlake's defence would be the same. Savile because he is dead. Timberlake because he thinks this is BS. They can't go ahead with the trial against Savile, but they would be able to with Timberlake.

On that evidence, would you convict?

(Nice attempt not to admit I'm right though.)

But your example of a live celebrity refusing to attend a British court on a criminal charge of rape (because the CPS would have reviewed and re-reviewed all of the evidence before proceeding), simply because that celebrity states that the charge is BS, is ridiculous because it just would not happen that way, its a criminal charge and the celebrity would be extradited if necessary otherwise any foreign "celebrity" could travel the world raping at will and then shut themselves away in their LA mansion and shout "Its all bull" through the letterbox.

Or buy off the victims but that only seems to work in the USA.

The point should be made though that it must be an absolute nightmare for young males who become overnight celebrities through music or acting (but mainly music) and who then suddenly find thousands of young girls literally throwing themselves at you - still, even after everything that has been revealed and reviled these past twelve months.

In particular when we were playing the "Who's Next" sweepstake last year my money was always on a young Scottish band from the 1970s who's trademark was peddling rubbish to young girls while wearing lots of tartan clothing - their manager served jailtime for indecency so they weren't exactly guided or protected very well by him and had they been so inclined could have hand picked a dozen young girls every night for years.

The last I heard of them they were playing in a pub in the centre of Leeds to 40 or 50 (mainly) middle aged women who would probably still have followed them back to their hotel if requested.

I didn't say he would refuse to attend court. I said he wouldn't participate.

The answer to any question asked by police would be "Go eff yourself". If they put him on the stand he would refuse to answer any question.

He accepts the charge of contempt of court willingly. He pleads guilty and answers question to that. He accepts his guilty of contempt of that court because he has total contempt for a system that would put him to trial for that.

But based on the evidence from the Sun article and no defence from the accused, would you convict him?

Why have you suddenly escalated the charge to rape as well? Savile was accused by the woman of a sexual assault. That's all the Sun said he committed against the woman. WTF has rape got to do with it?

I've had that dream. Not really a nightmare though. More like something that 3 billion men would sign up for in a heartbeat.

Actually, the accused doesn't even need to refuse to answer questions. I only gave that example because the stance would have mirrored the defence that Savile can offer.

The accused accepts that the facts submitted by the accuser are exactly as she says. He just disputes that it was sexual assault.

He thought she was a groupie because she acted exactly like the 500 other groupies who he's screwed. Every other girl that he's sent his car for has done pretty much everything he wanted. Many have been willing to do a hell of a lot more than he wanted.

So the accused just did with that woman what he has done with nearly all of the 1,000 women who he slept with. 992 of them would be with him within a day from wherever they were if they had a chance again. The other 8 are dead.

The accused says that yes, he touched her inappropriately judged by standard dating convention, but he's never really known that convention since he was 14.

When he realised the girl wasn't like his normal groupie and was after a "relationship" he realised they weren't compatible and asked her to leave.

Now, you convict?

You are asking whether a court would convict a male of sexual assault if he grabbed a female by the crotch against her wishes without the context of any other sexual activity or intimate contact, prior consent or prior discussion ?

Throw into the mix that the accused is not denying the offence because he is not answering any questions.

Yes of course a jury would convict, they might think the girl was a bit foolhardy to go to his room but her motive was totally innocent, she belonged to his fan club and was invited to meet him personally - thats a very innocent and very plausible reason for going along to his room.

A bunch of your facts are wrong. He didn't grab her crotch, he grabbed her hand and placed it on his crotch. It wasn't a room, it was a caravan.

We don't know what her wishes were, whether there was any other sexual activity, intimate contact or prior consent. There was prior discussion, because it was needed for her to be picked up from a specific place.

My opinion.

In English law (2003 but it'll do for us) "sexual assault" is when a person (A)

intentionally touches another person (B),
the touching is sexual,
B does not consent to the touching, and
A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The accused is a famous entertainer with a reputation for womanising. One of the "perks" of fame is that it often attracts a certain type of follower who is willing to offer any manner of sexual favours in return for being in the presence of the famous person.

Because of that reason, I do not think it's unreasonable that the accused believed that sexual consent was implied by the acceptance of spending time at the caravan of the accused. The lack of a negative response to the comments "you're a nice little dolly bird" and being questioned if she would like to be locked in his cupboard so she could stay with him suggest that she was forewarned that his interest in her was sexual.

The incident of sexual contact took place. No comments were made as to what the response was by the accuser.

The accuser then said that the discussion took place about whether she was on the pill. The woman replied that she wasn't, the accused asked why and the accuser said, "Because I'm not that type of girl."

The accused then stood up, asked if the accuser had her bus fare home and ushered her out.

In my opinion the incident was just a clash of cultures between an extremely inexperienced woman and a man with perhaps too much experience of being given sex very easily.

Soon after the sexual contact was made a discussion took place between the two that amply illustrated the differing attitudes towards the situation they were in. The accused quickly ended their association and asked the accuser to leave.

Given that no sexual contact took place after the accused realised his companion was not consenting to that type of contact it would be wrong to find the accused guilty of sexual assault.

It is unfortunate that the accused has never got over the incident. But it is even more unfortunate that she never grew a ****ing brain either. The accused cannot be blamed for either of these unfortunate facts.

Fortunately your opinion will never enter British law.

A glib answer. A glib, wrong answer should I ever be called upon for jury service.

I think if Savile/Timberlake were convicted on that evidence then pretty much every man in the country probably should be. His offence was going too far, too quick. Once he'd seen he'd gone too far, he stopped.

Have you NEVER gone too far, too quick for a woman and then stopped? Never? Really???

As I said earlier in the thread, I never read about the details in the Savile case because reading about the sexual abuse of children is not something that is enjoyable, it's gut wrenching. But having actually read some of the "victim" accounts published in the newspapers I'm a lot less convinced that they are genuine child abusers and slightly worried that they were just doing what pretty much most men would have done in the 70's.

Given that the issue is child abuse and that men's lives are being ruined as a result, that doesn't sit easy with me. Now, if they have committed *real* child abuse and there are genuine victims then my sympathy for them ceases. It's just that the accounts I've read haven't been *real* abuse victims, they've just been victims of the mildest forms of groping and are abusing the backlash to receive a compensation payout and get a front row seat at the lynching.

On another tangent. The gay age of consent was set at 21 between 1967 and 2001. If Paul Gambaccini picked up a sexy 19 year old boy in 1975 and had sex with him, are we going to judge him by the standard of today, or the law as is stood? Or are we just not going to go there?

I wish we had a "shrugs shoulders" smilie to use, one that gave off an air of complete indifference.

You know when you go off on your "they're killing the NHS by privatisation" rant that you've done about 20 times in the last fortnight? *Their* shrug of the shoulders response can inspire your new smilie.

I wish that people would debate with reasoning and clarity, and not hide behind pathetic jokes when they cannot think of a proper response.

Debate ?

You make up stories and then argue with yourself for eight pages - I've no intention of getting involved in a cut-and-paste-athon, I apologise for not having grabbed your bait and provided you with hours worth of frantic scribbling, but there you are.

Remember that fans forum with David Howes ?

WTFever. You were in no way involved in any debate with me in any of the threads. Your summation of the preceding pages is entirely accurate and is the same conclusion anybody reading the threads would reach.



Yeah, of course. I haven't had a brain injury which would mean I'd forget a meeting with a board member of the RL club I support.

Go on then, make your point. I doubt it will be very sharp.

Oh nothing really, you just didn't seem to have much to say for someone who types an awful lot, in fact, I don't think you spoke at all did you, not to anyone ?