shaznay Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Why didnt they complain at the time instead of 30 years later, how many women must have been groped by men that weren't celebrities in the seventies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_ Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Why didnt they complain at the time instead of 30 years later, how many women must have been groped by men that weren't celebrities in the seventies. No money in it then? Police not interested? It could be anything really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 One of the points made in the trial was that attitudes were different then, and pinching someone's bum wasn't considered wrong. So in effect he was being tried by todays standards for something that was ok back then. Apparently the jury agree'd, pinching someone's bum decades ago isn't a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Such behaviour wasn't talked about then. Your word against another, more so when a rich and powerful, well known celebrity is concerned, as was the situation with Jimmy Savile. The recent high media profile in this subject has brought back many memories for many who were abused, by high profile celebrities, currently accused of this in the media today. People have finally decided that taboo subjects can be talked about, more so when they discover they weren't the only victims of this crime by a high profile celebrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Why didnt they complain at the time instead of 30 years later Power, shame, credibility, never happened. A multitude of reasons shaz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Such behaviour wasn't talked about then. Your word against another, more so when a rich and powerful, well known celebrity is concerned, as was the situation with Jimmy Savile. The recent high media profile in this subject has brought back many memories for many who were abused, by high profile celebrities, currently accused of this in the media today. People have finally decided that taboo subjects can be talked about, more so when they discover they weren't the only victims of this crime by a high profile celebrity. So you're saying that the juries in these high profile cases were wrong and the celebrities were in fact guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Why didnt they complain at the time instead of 30 years later, how many women must have been groped by men that weren't celebrities in the seventies. Because 30 years down the line the accused person is unlikely to be able to provide an alibi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Power, shame, credibility, never happened. A multitude of reasons shaz. I was looking for an article which confirms our 6% rape conviction rate. That, according to the article in the guardian in 2012 is a very wrong figure. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates. And those percentage rates have gone up too. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/23/rape-conviction-rate-high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Because 30 years down the line the accused person is unlikely to be able to provide an alibi. Recent acquittals would suggest the accused person isn't required to 'provide an alibi'. ---------- Post added 14-02-2014 at 12:34 ---------- I was looking for an article which confirms our 6% rape conviction rate. That, according to the article in the guardian in 2012 is a very wrong figure. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates. And those percentage rates have gone up too. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/23/rape-conviction-rate-high Interesting stuff tfh, although I'd like to see the reasons for the differences between the attrition and conviction rates, it might well suggest that the vast majority of rape reporters (88% according to the Guardian article) aren't being believed or their allegations don't stack up. I've only quickly read the Guardian article so might be barking up entirely the wrong tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Recent acquittals would suggest the accused person isn't required to 'provide an alibi'. Recent acquittals have suggested that the ability to provide an alibi might have saved the need for folks to sell their homes in order to defend against 30 year old accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.