Grist! :)
I'm with you on the Salem witch hunts Karen - I wondered why The Crucible has kept popping into my head recently!
Brian.
Let me say that I agree entirely that unwanted touching or groping is not acceptable. But you need to get to grips with certain facts of life that either you have not been directly party to or have through higher social skills steered clear of.
There has always been, and it is still the same today, the female that is prepared to use her sex appeal to get on. The problem that arises is when she has achieved her aim, and the men around her don't know or understand this.
So lets think about the claims of being groped and touched.
To this day Television, Radio and Show Business are still the most sought after industries to get a job in. So what did they do to get the opportunity of the job in the first place? Was this another 'casting couch'?
Back in the 60' and 70's almost every job created was created by a man. And I now come me back to my statement about a man whose ego is being flattered. A fluttering of the eyelids, a sultry look.
She claims rape and went back for a second session. After being raped?
Today in truth the situation is just as bad if not worse.
Today you have youngsters who believe that becoming famous and a celebrity is a job you apply for. Just look at the so called 'Reality Talent' shows that are in abundance thanks to Mr Cowell. The audition isn't an audition, it's a job interview! Watch some of the reactions from these young people. And when they go away disappointed how do you think they feel toward Mr Cowell and the show organisers?
So what happens to them next? They go off and other greedy 'men and women' offer to make them famous but.........
Have you seen some of the modern music video's? The girl singers of today are selling far more than their voices, they are selling their looks which also sadly means they are selling their sex!
They go on stage wearing skin tight body suits leaving nothing to the imagination.
Can you imagine Pet Clarke or Julie Andrews turning up to sing wearing nothing more than a thong and a body suit; and I can tell you first hand some of these girls do away with the thong in case there's a line that will spoil the smooth contours of the suit. And they also know that it will have the boys asking the question of is she or isn't she. I have heard the conversations.
ABBA were the first to know that skin tight gets you noticed.
But back to the basic issue.
The main issue here is should British tax payers money, and a lot of it, be wasted on frivolous claims where neither the claimant, or the alleged perpetrator can actually recall, with any certitude, what really took place so long ago. And in truth the claimant is riding on the coat tails of others.
And to follow this line of thinking on, the British Media industry is DRIVING SALES AND THEREFORE PROFITS generating lies, invented statistics and half truths to sell their news to a readership demanding more and more sordid sex scandals.
It is a sad fact of life that SEX SELLS and anything the British public can get their hands on to gossip about is a money generator. There are specific 'gossip' magazines selling in their millions weekly to members of the British public who want to read every word in case there's a juicy scandal about someone famous.
And of course where there's infamy, there's a publishing house with cash ready to exploit the infamy if it will generate more sales.
Reading some of the comments made here, either the writers have been protected from, have led sheltered lives, or that they have consciously decided to ignore what is printed in the big selling gutter press.
Mr Daily Mirror Maxwell and Mr The Sun Murdoch have all become super wealthy off the back of scandal.
Do you think that telephone hacking has been performed because they could or because they were looking for a scandal to perpetrate?
So who is actually in the driving seat of these allegations?
And finally.
You talk of social workers. To my knowledge there were no social workers around in the 60's or 70's or certainly not in the area that I lived in.
'Grist' Norman! it is the part of grain separated from the chaff when preparing it for grinding in the mill. It also means the grain that has already been ground at the grist mill, which is the process before grinding flour. I only know because my first own house was 'Mill Cottage' that had originally been the millers house next door to the then still working mill (pre conversion to posh apartments).
Litigation and lawyers, perhaps so, but that is a topic to make my blood boil and not in defence of the legal profession either as a couple of my lawyer friends would remember.
During this discussion we have by definition almost have concentrated on the sexual side of things, and I am wondering if this is incomplete in itself.
For me one of the most worrying things has been the introduction of the 'no win, no pay' litigation. Rightly or wrongly I believe/feel this has been a direct cause in the attacks on individuals - 'why not have a try? - you can't lose'. Cynically I don't believe it was genuinely introduced to assist people getting help from the Law - I simply can't accept lawyers as being altruists.
Again without strong evidence to support my statement, it seems to me that this system is open to massive abuse - including blackmail. As others have pointed out it is easy to blacken a reputation, but not easy to clean off the muck left. To accuse someone of homosexuality in days of yore was tantamount to career destruction - true or not. As we all know the media of today certainly appears not to have any conscience or standards of behaviour. Spurious legal cases can only be gris to their particular mills? (What the hell is 'gris' anyway?)
Sure thing. On that last point though, I always try to remember that all of us in this world sees his or her environment as the centre of the world and believes the entire world should also be like that, especially as it was at point X we can idealise. Yes or no?
The problem there is that the world is different and ever changing once we leave our own backyard and over time. Some of the world has progressed, some of it actually for the better, other places have gone back and some far too far. There is no perfect canvas on which to paint our picture. Thus recent events, which only interest and affect those people in the UK who bothered to look at them, do not make much of an impression on the world generally. I try, not always successfully, to always think globally and realise my own backyard is where my feet are firmly on the ground but is not the centre of the axis on which this planet spins. The day the human race becomes perfect is when there will be little point in our existence because we will then begin to bore ourselves into extinction.
Véronique, I wil refer you to the reply I have given to Brian Milne on the matter of êducational qualifications offered as the ultimate arbiter of truth and/or reality. I accept that my reaction was precipitate and apologise for that. We all have our blind spots I fear.
I am not sure that any of us can claim to be 'representative of our age' as we have all chalked up our own individual experiences that would preclude such a generalisation. Possibly the teenagers in the conformity stage of life could be thus described, but beyond that we all suffer from being individuals.
Yes, being older than people's parents always comes as a bit of a surprise, but I suppose that is what life is all about. Daily shocks of looking in the mirror don't help either! Another surprise is belatedly recognising just how the immediate post-war years affected the thinking of my generation and 'class'.
For me at least they have stayed with me as part of my character, the good and the mostly bad. Notably the resentment of not even remotely having the chance to get a so-called decent education. Others with more 'normal' or 'usual' family structures didn't face this, even in the same street I lived in. These things DO affect your life, although usually suppressed.
That's my only excuse.
I agree with every word you wrote here.From the beginning I was reminded of the 'The Salem Witch Hunts'
Treating women(or men) and their wishes with respect is of course right and hopefully today's laws go some way to insure that but looking backwards does not seem to be helping anyone. We all know how easy it is to change the memory of a situation over time and 50 years is a long time! It may be, as you have suggested ,that these people had some grievances that within the attitudes of the day were more 'accepted' but it may also be that more open discussions which occur today in the media about the things that can happen, may have changed their image of what really did!
So, like you, I believe the time has come to put to rest the past and look to the present where there is still so much abuse( slavery of women, online pornography, child abuse, etc) to which these resources could be redirected
Brian your point is well made and we have mentioned this before as ' being creatures of our experiences'.
I do admit to suffering an intense sensitivity when educational qualifications are presented as the ultimate argument - largely because I don't have any at all. This is a failing of mine, (amongst many others!)
All I have to offer if anything at all, is rather hefty chunks of having 'been there, done that' - before even having the T-shirt was considered. It doesn't blind me to my own prejudices though, which curiously perhaps have almost always been confirmed and even reinforced in my travels.
As we have discussed before, my birth and background in the 1940's and 50's was not an asset at the time, most of all in the UK, although I believe/hope this would not be the case today, so that much has improved. On the other hand I suspect (without any real proof) that we have also thrown the baby out with the bathwater in a lot of behaviour of today.
Sure thing Brian but not the same as the harassment that has been complained about and tried. The point there is that in studio make up rooms staff in the department were 'touched up', or at least they say. Part of the testimony was from those who said that those young women would have lost their jobs had they been doing a come on with the accused. So, it was harassment on trial and not what you were describing.
The perspective you are writing about is a tricky can of worms. Firstly, sex with anybody under 16 has been and offence since an age of consent was set. That means that anybody over that age, any girl or woman who went with you aged less than 16 was breaking the law and could have been/still could be prosecuted. Consensual sex between minors tends to be 'treated' by sending in several social workers, a psychologist and putting the kids on probation. No comment other than !!!! on that.
There are many, many prosecutions each year for harassment and abuse, the couple we have just seen were big enough to attract a lot of attention. They also attracted unreliable witnesses who were testifying about events up to 30-ish years ago, but none of which are comparable with what you are saying.
However, what you are saying is largely true where you came in. However, as for saying it is 'the man responsible' is far from the truth, the lawyers and courts are fully aware of that. It is not a 'witch hunt' at all. It is the duty of the law to investigate, to present the investigation to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether or not there are sufficient grounds for a prosecution, which was the case there, then send it on to the courts. Acquittal in the UK means it is done, other countries have an appeal against sentence system for complainants and that has been used in them in such cases.
Yes, certainly there have been cases brought that are contrived and that is wrong. However, to exonerate the actions of any man or woman where there is a plausible case, particularly where more than one person comes forward and more so in the case of Saville, who clearly cannot be tried, where complaints were brought on numerous occasions for many years but all treated as 'one offs' that have now be re-examined and are embarrassing the CPS. That is a very different story to yours.
Blaming morals is easy, proving actions difficult but simply dismissing complaints is injustice against people who have been hurt mentally or physically who were not coming on to those celebs. Do not be guided by the witnesses who were pulling the wool over people's eyes. If society turns things round and collectively refuses to do anything for people who have been mistreated then those who do such things would do so with impunity and where would we then stand morally?
Absolutely agree and well-said, far better than I attempted.
Looking to the Bible for a literal legal perspective is like suggesting Sharia Law. Equally extreme, and offensive to the great majority.
Agreed, Dorothy, but there is a principal.
And Brian, things should had been left that way. Vicars & officials whose concience allowed them to perform these ceremonies rarely caused a fuss, though perhaps there were a few exceptions. Nowadays officials are being forced to conduct such ceremonies even if they do not wish to. Fair enough if their objection is merely homophobic but for many it goes against their fundamental beliefs. Some of those feel that their own human rights are being violated & this can lead to anger aimed at the gay community rather than the legal system. Left alone gay ceremonies would have just been another of those things.
I want to share this with all you who have commented here and ask you to think about what you’ve all written either in favour or condemnation.
it’s now 2014 and oh how times have changed and morals have moved on.
I was quite famous in the 70’s and I’m quite still well known. But I want to give you a different perspective to think about. I have used a email alias to protect my real identity.
At the turn of the decade in 1969 I played in a youth brass band and a reasonably successful pop group. I was then just 13 years of age soon to be 14. Ages for working were not a barrier in those days as they are today. Being in a pop group was not seen as work.
Still at senior school playing rugby and doing gymnastics, I was a fit, healthy young man determined to have a '6 pack' body. I swam daily, I did weight training to boost and develop my muscles. At 14 years of age I had a size 18 neck, 42" chest and a slim 30" waist. I looked, I felt the part. And clearly the young girl players in the brass band thought so as did the women who attended the gigs where I was playing in the group.
As a healthy hormone driven 14 year old who was discovering that it wasn’t just for stirring the tea with, my sex life started early. I was in demand. I didn't need to go looking, it came to me and so very easily.
But what I really want to explain is how it was in the 60's and 70's with 'celebrity' sexual freedom that today is taboo.
From the age of 13 through to 19, I was out 7 nights a week. Monday's pop group rehearsal. Tuesday's and Wednesday's with the brass band and Thursday's, Friday's, Saturday's and Sunday's performing with the pop group. And I was getting willing sex every night of the week from older teenage girls through to women in their 30's.
The girls in the brass band loved me, the women attending the gigs adored me. What I learned about the women attending the gigs though is the real point of this message.
So many women used pop bands and celebrities as a means of a sexual score board. These were the 'groupies'.
I remember one woman telling me how she had attended gig where The Fortunes were playing and during the interval she had 'scored' with every member of the group in their dressing room. She bragged of having most of her sexual encounters in dressing rooms. What's more she wasn't alone. Performing as a 'support' band at big concerts there were girls at every gig willing to have sex and perform sexual acts just so they could say they had 'scored' this celebrity or that celebrity. It was clearly a competition. The 'groupies' doing what they did willingly and knowingly.
Are the 'groupies' still around today? Yes they are, they're just getting younger!
I wonder if any of those 60’s and 70’s 'groupies', so free with their sexual favours then, are now the one's complaining that they were sexually abused?
I’m still considered to be a bit of a celebrity, but I wonder if I had stayed in the public eye as much as my peers whether I too would now be facing charges?
I do not want to find myself on the receiving end of a tug from the law. I can provide you with lot's more information about celebrities I know and worked with with whom we shared the groupies and I'm absolutely certain that some of the accusations being faced are being made by the women who 'gave away' their favours and now regret doing so or who have an idea that there's big money to be had in the scandal.
It takes a very strong man to walk away from a woman offering sex on a plate to him.
I re-iterate that am still in the entertainment industry albeit I now tour doing 60’s/70’s events.
But back in the late 60's early 70's I too was part of the 'free' scene and now that I am a lot older and more mature I'm more aware and, I have to say, certainly not proud of my 'conquests'. I don't go around bragging about what once was. I am very aware that my sexual history has put my wife at risk of cervical cancer because of the number of 'un-protected' partners I had back then.
But I also have to say i wouldn't have had so many partners if the girls, the women, hadn't been willing partners.
Back then and just as it is today, a man with a desire for sex cannot guarantee to find a willing partner. A woman on the other hand can. The 'Pill' made that possible. A woman can go into a bar, a club, attend a concert, and with 99.99% certainty leave with a willing partner. A man cannot. So what does he do? As a last resort turns to a prostitute to fulfil his natural needs. But! Then runs the risk of getting caught and being dealt with by the Law.
And they said the pill levelled the playing field. I don't think so!
So it seems to me that so many of the accusers today are conveniently forgetting how the 'pill' was the start of the sexual revolution and changed women's sexual outlook. The pill changed the playing field 180º for women. Women with a hunger or strong sexual drive and desire could easily find a willing man and without the hang ups of relying on the man to arrive with a condom. There is an old saying and forgive the crudity, 'a standing dick has no conscience'. The saying has been true since Adam and Eve.
Societies morals haven't changed. Society still looks down on women who present themselves as sexually free; no more or less as they did in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's etcetera. Average Joe and Josephine's take on the moral behaviour of young women today is just as it has been throughout the decades. To their own children it's, “do as I say not as I once did”.
Teenage girls of the 60's wore mini skirts. School girls across the decades have always turned over the waist band of their skirts to make them shorter to attract the lads. But it doesn't make them tarts nor does it make them available as sexual beings. Teenage girls of today wear micro skirts and even less. Last Thursday evening I attended a karaoke bar. Most of the young girls were wearing shear see through leggings and little underneath. They weren't dressed up, they were in their ordinary every day 'fashion' wear as worn by so many young women. Bare midriffs. Boob tubes all abundant with the warmer weather. Fashion clothing being sold on the high street to anyone of any age with sufficient cash to buy. Retailers satisfying the need of the willing buyer.
All men know the term 'jail bait'. But how many men presented with a young female falling all over herself to get him into bed could actually say no! I would say it's almost an impossibility and the older the man the more flattered his ego that sex is being made so easily available. This has ben the same for decades. It wasn't that long ago that families paired their daughters with fathers best friend.
But eventually the girl/woman who has been so free with her favours finds a conscience. So now we have a lot of once 'sexually free' women, looking back on their lives, suddenly having serious pangs of conscience, wanting to rebuild their reputations if only to themselves. But they did 'it' with someone who was and still is a celebrity. Someone easy to target and take a poke at: get even with.
I doubt that any of you who have written here would ever look for let alone find a 'groupie' to talk to for an alternative point of view, or more to the point a female who once was, who will admit to being one, purely because of what she will turn herself in to in the eyes of today's society.
Britain needs to address some simple facts and get off this witch hunt.
Britain needs to get to grips with the fact that some women become prostitutes because they have a high sexual drive, want the sex, and are happy to give a consenting service to like minded individuals: and get paid for doing so. Not all prostitutes are 'forced' in to service.
Britain needs to get to grips with the simple fact that a man can be caught out by a young girl made up and dressed up to look a lot older and, the poor chap has been suckered in by a consentient being wanting to give what's on offer.
Britain is too strung up that it must be the man responsible.
We all know that their are perverts out there. For the perverts chop their penis's off altogether. If they are too old to use it now then yes make them pay. lock up for good and throw away the key.
But right now Britain is looking at every man no matter what his age and is just longing to start pointing yet another sordid finger.
Don't ruin a man's life because at one time he was suckered in by a willing female who now has a conscience and wants revenge for her own misgivings.
More to the point, don't ruin a famous man's life because at one time he was taken for a ride.
And finally.
A close lady friend who was a teacher in a comprehensive school disciplined two 14 year old boys who then accused her of groping them. She lost her job, her pension, her mind (nervous breakdown), and it took a QC Barrister to break the story the two boys had dreamt up.
She was given her reputation back, but not her life.
Mark, it is an odd one in some ways. In the 1980s I had a trusteeship for a London based charity. One of my fellow trustees, another Brian at that, was a vicar, rode a huge motorbike and was gay. Moreover, he had a vicar boyfriend. He was already performing gay (marriage) blessings and (unregistered) weddings by the time I met him in 83. Otherwise he was just an ordinary vicar. His bishop knew about his gay stuff but was also proud of a good pastoral worker for his parish and several charities he worked with, so he got away with it. When he died in 2002 a very large number of gay clergymen attended his funeral, that even surprised me since I had had no idea how many there were within easy reach of north London alone, along with all the other clergy and I think what had been his third bishop during his career.
The point is that it was all very discreet but it was there since? If the church (Anglicans in this case) can be tolerant enough to live and let live unofficially and welcome gay people into its community without a fuss, then secular society has much to learn from them. I practice no religion or dogma but have learned a great deal from believers and see no backlash coming out of overtness, in fact see much of the fear of being what one really is gradually diminishing there.
I didn't bother to look at wiki but I bet it goes into the hundreds, if not thousands, of species who indulge in same sex non procreative activities...
Mary Douglas, got a soft spot there. When I was still a student she came up to give the occasional lecture being a good friend of Meyer Fortes, our professor then. Purity and Danger was published in 1966, a couple of months before my first year began, it is an excellent recommendation and her strict Roman Catholic upbringing shapes how she saw all that is considered to be dirty in a particular society is any matter, be that substantive (dog poo) or symbolic (swearing) and all else in beliefs and practices that is considered out of place. It is a good start, must get it down from the shelf again and stick my nose in.
As always, Brian, I can rely on you to debate the issue in a level headed & sensible way! I enjoy reading contra arguements when they are put in a sensible & thought out manner. I think that when one resorts to name calling any credibility is lost.
Answering Veronique's response, I am not focalising on sex, merely trying to make the point that mammals cannot procreate if in a homosexual relationship. If this was a natural state of affairs the breed would soon become extinct. Thus my use of the term "not natural". The phrase leads one to use the term "unnatural" to which a thesaurus will give many alternatives, includung abnormal, perverse, freakish & perverted to name a few. Although these words are associated with the term unnatural, they do not correctly confer my point. I would prefer the basic meaning of "not in accord with physical nature," the correct & far less inflammatory meaning.
I also totally agree with Veronique's point that what goes on behind closed doors is their business, however adventurous. This should also apply to spiritual relationships, too, but many are being forced into recognising these relationships against their will. If a gay couple choose to form a life partnership then good luck to them. If some choose to have a religous ceremony then thats fine too. But others take their religion seriously & hold Leviticus 18:22 & 1 Corinthians 6:9 close to their beliefs (I looked it up) & these poor souls are being forced to go against their religion by laws brought in by those who believe that open recognition of gay couples should be mandatory. I can't help but feel that this forced recognition will produce a dangerous backlash (as it has in some countries) pushing gay rights back many years. Maybe my point is simply "too much, too soon" & if left to progress quietly gay rights would be accepted far more easily. One has to bear in mind that feelings run 50/50.
Many species of mammal, especially our primate 98.8% identical DNA ones, do Mark. Well, at least the males do. Dominant males often 'roger' any of their own species irrespective of gender. Have you never seen dogs at it? Or bulls and immature bulls? I wonder what your 'medical details' are? If you have seen recent reports on being female or gay and genes then you will have seen what science is saying: no differences between any of us apart from those associated with reproductive functions. Those do not always work as the reproductive 'plan' should be and are probably behind orientation. So men are not in any way superior to women and gay men and women are no different to the rest of us. Metaphorically, the wiring has simply worked differently.
As for you being homophobic, absolutely not from what I have read. You have a fairly conservative view on difference without being against it. Fine. If we were all the same imagine the discussions here? Somebody would put up a topic, a couple of people write 'yes' and then it would be time to repeat the same process with another topic to which 'yes' is all we would get. How boring to even contemplate. Nothing compares with a good meaty debate.
I don't as it happens think you are necessarily homophobic - what intrigues me is this focalisation on sex - why are you so bothered about what consenting adults do with each other; whatever it is, whatever their orientation if it is within a consensual relationship, it is their business. I think the argument "it isn't natural or we would all be indulging" absolutely extraordinary - we do plenty of unnatural things and don't do plenty that are in fact natural...
I expect heterosexuals get up to some pretty 'weird' stuff too but do most people really spend any time speculating about it? And again I don't see the sex/marriage link at all, do you imagine people marry just so they can have sex?
Dorothy, The definition of a bigot is, according to the Oxford dictionary, someone who is intolerant towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
By putting my views on a discussion forum I am inviting others to express different opinions. Far from intolerant, I think. You comment, however, DOES seem to indicate a certain intolerance to mine?
I am quite aware that my honesty might not fit squarely with some & that there is a slight undertone of homophobia coming my way despite my confirmation that, whatever my thoughts on the subject, I am quite happy to live & let live. Being gay may be a natural state for some, but gay sex is not or we would all be indulging. Without going in to medical detail mammals do not perform gay sex naturally. There may cases where animals hve been seen to indulge but it is not what one would routinely see going on in the wild. If it was natural we would not be having this discussion. Let's try & leave this indignation that any criticism aimed at homosexuals can only be hostile. I have never been a gay basher or given a gay person a hard time over their feelings & never would. My gay friends know of my feelings about gay marriage & oddly perhaps respect them. One of them actually feels the same way (bless you, Chas).