skinz Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Some of whom froth at the mouth when it comes to gender issues and gendered sexual violence pertaining to Islam. Interesting how the most vociferous celeb defenders of the Savile expose, Operation Yewtree and others have since been arrested; am thinking Davidson, Roache, Clifford et al and let us not forget Savile's defence of Glitter. It's a bit contaminating to be honest knowing that those who have this protectionism thing going on inc those on here are very questionable. I spose it's small comfort that they are online rather than out there somewhere. Some of the stuff coming out over this thread is so self damning I wouldn't be surprised if the nonce squad were taking an interest in this thread. ---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 21:46 ---------- All entertainers from the sixties, seventies and eighties must be bracing themselves for accusations from superannuated groupies; and you can't say that "if they're innocent they have nothing to worry about" because as we all know, mud sticks. Why does "mud stick"? Serious question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 All entertainers from the sixties, seventies and eighties must be bracing themselves for accusations from superannuated groupies; and you can't say that "if they're innocent they have nothing to worry about" because as we all know, mud sticks. If their past comes back to haunt them then that is their own undoing. Sexual assault is sexual assault. Rape is rape. They were illegal then as they are now, the only shift there has been is in women having more of a voice and a culture which tolerates it slightly less. They thought that they had got away with it, protected by the cult of celebrity and a culture that trivialises sexual violence against women and children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Stark Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 If their past comes back to haunt them then that is their own undoing. Sexual assault is sexual assault. Rape is rape. They were illegal then as they are now, the only shift there has been is in women having more of a voice and a culture which tolerates it slightly less. They thought that they had got away with it, protected by the cult of celebrity and a culture that trivialises sexual violence against women and children. You just don't let up do you? Nowhere in the post you quoted does it mention any person in the ongoing investigations, it mentions all entertainers from a certain era and straight away you jump in with the rape, abuse rant. What is it with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Sarah Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Society tolerates it slightly less? Are you insane? Saying stupid untrue things like that is what will put people off ever coming coming forward after a sexual assault! You make it sound like rape is tolerated with comments like that I am literally seething after reading that tripe! Oh and whilst im at it, men can be victims of sexual assault too. You might want to remember that the next time you go on one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Society tolerates it slightly less? Are you insane? Saying stupid untrue things like that is what will put people off ever coming coming forward after a sexual assault! You make it sound like rape is tolerated with comments like that I am literally seething after reading that tripe! Oh and whilst im at it, men can be victims of sexual assault too. You might want to remember that the next time you go on one. Obviously not, people are coming forward...something I would have thought you would be championing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I'm sure you'd agree that it would be grossly unfair of me to assume that you think genital mutilation of children is a great idea on the grounds that you never said otherwise. Equally for you to infer something about Suffragette because she's never expressed an opinion about is is equally stupid. Be fair,she keeps replying on this thread but she does seem to be dodging the posters question. I dont know whether Le Vell, Roche or any other person under investigation are innocent or guilty,what i do believe is that it is grossly unfair to name any person under investigation for delicate cases like these until proven guilty ,the "victims" are granted anonymity whether lying or not therefore the accused should be.likewise if the accused should be found innocent of any charges i.e the police dont pursue the matter any further then I believe the accusers should be investigated for,at least,wasting police time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Sarah Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I've always thought this should be the case in any "person v person" type accusation. ---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 21:56 ---------- You are claiming that the acceptance of sexual assault is the same between now and the 60/70's? No, you got that totally wrong im saying its totally different. That suffragette person is making out its almost the same with the "tolerates it slightly less" rubbish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Society tolerates it slightly less? Are you insane? Saying stupid untrue things like that is what will put people off ever coming coming forward after a sexual assault! You make it sound like rape is tolerated with comments like that I am literally seething after reading that tripe! Oh and whilst im at it, men can be victims of sexual assault too. You might want to remember that the next time you go on one. Most of my posts have not been gender specific, so yes, I know that men and boys are victims of rape. Society still does not accept the gravity and frequency of rape, that is evidenced by many comments on this thread, the attrition and conviction rates. I, by the way, am not society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 You tell me now, what if any credible evidence you can possibly think of that would prove rape from such a long time ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22374518 Chief Crown Prosecutor Nazir Afzal said the evidence against Mr Roache had been "carefully considered" and as a result, the Crown Prosecution Service would be charging him with two counts of rape. "We have been reviewing evidence and providing early investigative advice to Lancashire Police since 1 March," he said. "Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Roache to be charged." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Stark Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Be fair,she keeps replying on this thread but she does seem to be dodging the posters question. I dont know whether Le Vell, Roche or any other person under investigation are innocent or guilty,what i do believe is that it is grossly unfair to name any person under investigation for delicate cases like these until proven guilty ,the "victims" are granted anonymity whether lying or not therefore the accused should be.likewise if the accused should be found innocent of any charges i.e the police dont pursue the matter any further then I believe the accusers should be investigated for,at least,wasting police time. Excellent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.