Getting out of hand.

[Gullflyinghigh]

This board is so full of politically correct people it's unbelievable.

Kissing someone is not assault in my book. If someone tries to kiss you and you don't want them to, try saying "no".

What age has to do with it is that her age was the reason she was interviewed.

This happened in the 60s and 70s. Many of you weren't around at the time. Let me tell you life was a lot more fun back then. And I mean for both guys AND girls.

I, being mid-20's and 6'3 bloke would have no issue telling someone 'no' regardless of the situation but, and here's a wacky thought, I don't think the same would apply to a 17 year old girl when faced with a grown man.

Still, following your outlook, let's say she politely says no but he carries on. Now she's saying no and struggling but he's insistent.

She finally shakes him off and comes home more than a little upset. Are you seriously telling me that in your eyes the bloke did nothing wrong because she got away? Is that what you'd tell a daughter? A friend? Maybe it was a case where she 'was asking for it'? Possibly it's an occupational hazard of being a girl that should be just be accepted? Where is your lined crossed?

Evidently I wasn't around in the 60's, I only know the social standards of the modern day and after reading some of the posts on here I'm bloody grateful that I do.

 

[theonesmith]

Evidently I wasn't around in the 60's, I only know the social standards of the modern day and after reading some of the posts on here I'm bloody grateful that I do.

Completely agree with this!!

People saying that it should be anonymous are also overlooking the stringent process the police go through before charging someone - they really only do it if there is strong evidence. If the detectives believe the evidence is strong enough to charge then I think it is in the public interest to detail this, as it allows for more evidence to be collected. Generally there is no smoke without fire. I do wonder how many more sick old men Operation Yewtree is going to uncover..

 

[shaolinpunk]

Why keeping suspects' identities secret is against the public interest | Media | guardian.co.uk

 

[clapham_gull]

I was surprised he had pleaded guilty after the firstly denying strongly and the fact the crimes were so long ago.

But then you read the details. It appears some victims were children of his friends. The children did tell their parents but instead of reporting him they just kept their kids away.

To me this is the most important aspect of how society has changed and should answer some of the doubters.

Simply it was often thought that the authorities would ignore it, or the Police probably correctly at the time felt that up against a well paid barrister the case would fall apart.

The Police need a pat on the back over this case. They have done a superb job.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

The Police need a pat on the back over this case. They have done a superb job.

Agreed. And this is how it started.

 

[Wozza]

Agreed. And this is how it started.

That is AMAZING.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

That is AMAZING.

Wozza ........... are you being facetious ?

 

[Meade's Ball]

Agreed. And this is how it started.

Just having a read through of the letter at present and it's a horridly difficult read. Necessarily upsetting though to remind ourselves of what never ever to be and the lifelong effects of such wrongdoings.

 

[goldstone]

I, being mid-20's and 6'3 bloke would have no issue telling someone 'no' regardless of the situation but, and here's a wacky thought, I don't think the same would apply to a 17 year old girl when faced with a grown man.

Still, following your outlook, let's say she politely says no but he carries on. Now she's saying no and struggling but he's insistent.

She finally shakes him off and comes home more than a little upset. Are you seriously telling me that in your eyes the bloke did nothing wrong because she got away? Is that what you'd tell a daughter? A friend? Maybe it was a case where she 'was asking for it'? Possibly it's an occupational hazard of being a girl that should be just be accepted? Where is your lined crossed?

Evidently I wasn't around in the 60's, I only know the social standards of the modern day and after reading some of the posts on here I'm bloody grateful that I do.

I cerainly do not condone any of the serious abuse that went on, but back in the 60s grabbing a snog if you could was part of what life was about. My concern is that if this continues the way it's going, then every bloke who was in his 20s or 30s in the 1960s will be in court for kissing a girl who has now, 50 years later, decided she maybe didn't want to be kissed after all.

 

[Randsta]

Pretty sure if he raped a 15 year old girl he'd remember.

If you remember the 60's you weren't there!

 

[Wozza]

Wozza ........... are you being facetious ?

No. It's a great story.

 

[FamilyGuy]

Much as I appreciate that suspects should be charged with crimes they may have committed I think that these allegations of sexual assault etc against personalities is getting out of hand. Just using the latest Bill Roache how can he or any other suspects be expected to remember the precise details of these allegations from the 1960s. I know people will say that it will live with the victim for ever but I find it hard to accept that any suspects will get a fair trial after such a length of time.

Would you hold the same opinions if you discovered today that in the mid-1960's he'd abused a lady in your immediate family?

A crime is a crime is a crime - and these activities by the police send a message to would-be abusers that there is no hiding place.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

Lewis Dunk's football career from being a glittering star has hit the skids. Whatever way , if he is innocent the damage is devastating, most to his mind and ability to carry on his job I would imagine with all this hanging over him. If he is guilty that is the consequence, if he is innocent it is just wrong. Accusers and the accused should both be named.

Innocent or guilty Dunks carreer has been destroyed, he would be playing PL football right now and earning the millions that go with it

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Innocent or guilty Dunks carreer has been destroyed, he would be playing PL football right now and earning the millions that go with it

I seriously doubt that he's that good yet.

 

[glasfryn]

Can you clarify please your stance on this.

Are you really suggesting that there should be a time limit on reporting crimes of a sexual; nature?

the only reason that this has come to the fore is because Bill Roach is a celebrity, someone has already suggested that any time limit should be done on a case to case policy
I was always talking about the Bill Roach case no other Hall has admitted his crimes and will duly be dealt with.

Many of the girls abused by Stuart Hall came forward once his name had been released. He's admitted he is guilty of this abuse. Without his name being in the public domain as a suspect/person of interest then many of the victims may not have done so. He is guilty, but would've got away with it.

The naming of suspects should be decided on a case by case basis - having a blanket rule makes no sense.

this is very sensible and may be the way to go

You are one wierd ****er. And this is me being polite. And as for that cat-nonce; shocking attitude towards women.

I can only assume you are referring to me cat lover I am NONCE I am not please take some time to apologize
I said before this is quite staggering

If you remember the 60's you weren't there!

I was around then and remember every minute

 

[Lady Whistledown]

No, I'm not saying that, but treating it as a crime Get real.

Carrying this on to it's logical conclusion, 40 years from now, people will be convicted for kissing people on the cheek in 2012 without being invited to. Ooh, he kissed me on the cheek when we met, it was awful, I felt so "used", I tried to push him away .... etc etc

What about the nine year old victim, should she have said no to being kissed on the lips and fondled by Stuart Hall?

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

I cerainly do not condone any of the serious abuse that went on, but back in the 60s grabbing a snog if you could was part of what life was about. My concern is that if this continues the way it's going, then every bloke who was in his 20s or 30s in the 1960s will be in court for kissing a girl who has now, 50 years later, decided she maybe didn't want to be kissed after all.

It might feel like it but it's not the 1960's in the dock, it's individuals who may have something to account for that took place during that decade (or so, I'm aware it's not all 60's related).

From my own perspective I'm aware of the 60/70's free way of life and, if all was consensual, more power to them. It seems like the issue is that the over-arching attitude at the time would've made it harder to say no as who's going to listen anyway? As you've said, 'grabbing a snog' was a part of life, if someone were to make a complaint would they have been taken seriously or considered a prude? It may only be coming out now as sexual assault (or whatever the actual phrasing is) because we live in a time where it will, rightly, be taken seriously.

Unless there's been a mention of it in the press that I've missed, I don't believe that anyone has yet been.charged with stealing a kiss, it all sounds a bit more serious than that.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

the only reason that this has come to the fore is because Bill Roach is a celebrity, someone has already suggested that any time limit should be done on a case to case policy
I was always talking about the Bill Roach case no other Hall has admitted his crimes and will duly be dealt with.



this is very sensible and may be the way to go

I can only assume you are referring to me cat lover I am NONCE I am not please take some time to apologize
I said before this is quite staggering

I was around then and remember every minute

If I feel an apology is warranted I am happy to deliver one. I have appologised to a number of people on her over the years. But, I find your comments and inherent attitude dated at best and utterly utterly shocking at worst. I dont want to apologise to you.

 

[goldstone]

What about the nine year old victim, should she have said no to being kissed on the lips and fondled by Stuart Hall?

It's OK, Edna, I do not condone kissing nine year old girls. That is way out of line.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

I've read this thread from the start and to be honest I am staggered by some of the comments that some individuals have made. Their attitudes to women, victims of abuse and their perception of how things are/should be are shocking.

I know times change, but we are not talking about fashion crimes..............abuse is abuse. An abuse of a child carried out 40 years ago is just as bad as if it happened today, and the abuser is just as guilty today. It must have been difficult beyond belief for the victim that the abuser appeared so famous and almost untouchable.There must never be a time limit.

I cant believe that fellow NSC have suggested a time limit on being able to report abuse. That it seems alright to ply a girl with some booze in order to get sex and so on. It would seem that those that hold those views are from the 60/70s themselves and obvioulsy still live mentally in that period. One even suggested that boys/girls had more fun. I think what they meant was sexual fun. Did they? Did they really? Or did certain men who believed that all women were fair game and that no maybe actually didnt mean no (after plying with booze, power, allure of fame, a bit of coercion etc)...........had the fun. I supect in those on the receiving end didnt have such fun.


I wonder if those on NSC who suggested that it was ok to booze (which alcohol is a drug) a girl up in order to have sex with, or the other person who feels that its ok to try and kiss a girl who doesnt want it and is able to fight someone off who assaults her whilst doing so, shouldnt report it as no crime has taken place. I wonder what those individuals would say if it happened to their grandaughters (or someone equally close to them)?