Jimmy Savile Discussion: "Dr" Fox cleared of all charges

Roland Rat's a nonce? Mind blown.

Well having seen the documentary, I can't say there was anything in it either way which could be used as evidence. It was incredibly light on witnesses or facts to back up what anyone said, and I don't know how the girls can be so sure they were only 15 at the time or that they admitted their age. I dont see how that could be corroborated. It probably just about calls for an inquiry, but I didn't see anything that could stand up in court really. Esther came off as a right cow though, happy to stick with him and be his best friend whilst alive, also doing her bit for the kids, whilst admitting she had heard the rumours and done strawberry float all about it!

One thing I do know is that guy Mr De'ath has the best name I have seen in a long time!

captain red dog wrote:Well having seen the documentary, I can't say there was anything in it either way which could be used as evidence. It was incredibly light on witnesses or facts to back up what anyone said, and I don't know how the girls can be so sure they were only 15 at the time or that they admitted their age. I dont see how that could be corroborated. It probably just about calls for an inquiry, but I didn't see anything that could stand up in court really. Esther came off as a right cow though, happy to stick with him and be his best friend whilst alive, also doing her bit for the kids, whilst admitting she had heard the rumours and done strawberry float all about it!

One thing I do know is that guy Mr De'ath has the best name I have seen in a long time!

Yeah, pretty much this. I actually fell asleep in the final segment, so will have to re-watch it, but, but it's almost certainly safe to say he was rattling plenty of underage girls... I don't really see what can or should be done about it.

It's the current trend to call for an inquiry, but I don't really see what that would achieve either.

The guy responsible cannot be punished now, so it's all utterly moot.

captain red dog wrote:I don't know how the girls can be so sure they were only 15 at the time

Seriously?!

That's disgraceful. They should almost certainly have an apostrophe either side of the 's' on 'persons'.

Radio 1 posted a photo on their Facebook feed earlier. Suffice to say, it quickly got taken down

Fittest she's ever looked, TBH.

Eighthours wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I don't know how the girls can be so sure they were only 15 at the time

Seriously?!

Your mind can play tricks on you. I was just chatting to the Mrs about how old we were for our first time and I was out by a two years (funnily enough I was convinced I was younger than I was, and I wasn't trying to exaggerate!). How do we know they haven't convinced themselves they were only 15 through the passage of time.

Having said that, in this instance I was looking more along the lines of "how could they prove they were 15" at the time. A lot of the stuff in the documentary were claims of "I saw him with a girl that looked about 12 years old" which isn't in anyway evidence as it is purely subjective, or the girls saying they "definitely" told him they were only 15, which I find highly unlikely under the circumstances. Most telling for me was the woman who said she didn't realise what had happened until later in life and would now describe it as rape. I simply don't think it's realistic at all for somebody not to realise they were raped until it suddenly dawned on them further down the line.

I'm not saying I don't believe he did it, but what I would say is that the documentary didn't contain anything that would allow a court to make a conviction. You had witnesses where there was no known victim, and victims with nothing to back up their story and only one side of the story full stop. Admittedly the "victims" stories were quite similar but you still couldn't rule them out as circumstantial.

captain red dog wrote:

Eighthours wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I don't know how the girls can be so sure they were only 15 at the time

Seriously?!

Your mind can play tricks on you. I was just chatting to the Mrs about how old we were for our first time and I was out by a two years (funnily enough I was convinced I was younger than I was, and I wasn't trying to exaggerate!). How do we know they haven't convinced themselves they were only 15 through the passage of time.

Having said that, in this instance I was looking more along the lines of "how could they prove they were 15" at the time. A lot of the stuff in the documentary were claims of "I saw him with a girl that looked about 12 years old" which isn't in anyway evidence as it is purely subjective, or the girls saying they "definitely" told him they were only 15, which I find highly unlikely under the circumstances. Most telling for me was the woman who said she didn't realise what had happened until later in life and would now describe it as rape. I simply don't think it's realistic at all for somebody not to realise they were raped until it suddenly dawned on them further down the line.

I'm not saying I don't believe he did it, but what I would say is that the documentary didn't contain anything that would allow a court to make a conviction. You had witnesses where there was no known victim, and victims with nothing to back up their story and only one side of the story full stop. Admittedly the "victims" stories were quite similar but you still couldn't rule them out as circumstantial.

I dunno... you know how old you were by what year you were in at school, if you were taking exams at the same time you were being made to stick a finger up Jimmy Savile's bum, etc.

These things stick in your head. Or they would in mine.

Poser wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Eighthours wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I don't know how the girls can be so sure they were only 15 at the time

Seriously?!

Your mind can play tricks on you. I was just chatting to the Mrs about how old we were for our first time and I was out by a two years (funnily enough I was convinced I was younger than I was, and I wasn't trying to exaggerate!). How do we know they haven't convinced themselves they were only 15 through the passage of time.

Having said that, in this instance I was looking more along the lines of "how could they prove they were 15" at the time. A lot of the stuff in the documentary were claims of "I saw him with a girl that looked about 12 years old" which isn't in anyway evidence as it is purely subjective, or the girls saying they "definitely" told him they were only 15, which I find highly unlikely under the circumstances. Most telling for me was the woman who said she didn't realise what had happened until later in life and would now describe it as rape. I simply don't think it's realistic at all for somebody not to realise they were raped until it suddenly dawned on them further down the line.

I'm not saying I don't believe he did it, but what I would say is that the documentary didn't contain anything that would allow a court to make a conviction. You had witnesses where there was no known victim, and victims with nothing to back up their story and only one side of the story full stop. Admittedly the "victims" stories were quite similar but you still couldn't rule them out as circumstantial.

I dunno... you know how old you were by what year you were in at school, if you were taking exams at the same time you were being made to stick a finger up Jimmy Savile's bum, etc.

These things stick in your head. Or they would in mine.

This is really not true. Rape victims can quite easily lock things away in their mind, only for them to come out later in life. It is totally plausible that its been locked away in part of their heads and only comes out during councilling.

Not sure what your point is. Locked away or not, you'd know how old you were when you started being groomed for sex by a celebrity.

Regardless of the amount of pohsychological 'prising' it takes to get the info out, it'd still be there.

Besides... 'he used to come to our school and park his caravan in the grounds... taking us for rides in his Rolls Royce' - there's a fairly slim chance these girls were over 16.

captain red dog wrote:Your mind can play tricks on you. I was just chatting to the Mrs about how old we were for our first time and I was out by a two years (funnily enough I was convinced I was younger than I was, and I wasn't trying to exaggerate!). How do we know they haven't convinced themselves they were only 15 through the passage of time.

A fair comment, although I suspect most people have a fairly vivid recollection of their earliest sexual experiences - and I can only imagine that if you are fiddled about with by a man in his 40's at an early age, one might retain a pretty good recollection of the incident.

captain red dog wrote:...A lot of the stuff in the documentary were claims of "I saw him with a girl that looked about 12 years old" which isn't in anyway evidence as it is purely subjective, or the girls saying they "definitely" told him they were only 15, which I find highly unlikely under the circumstances.

Perhaps. Let's call that 'moot'. The sort of thing a jury might be asked to ponder.

captain red dog wrote:Most telling for me was the woman who said she didn't realise what had happened until later in life and would now describe it as rape. I simply don't think it's realistic at all for somebody not to realise they were raped until it suddenly dawned on them further down the line.

I struggled with that point, too. In this age of 'recovered abuse memories' I suppose anything is possible.

captain red dog wrote:...the documentary didn't contain anything that would allow a court to make a conviction. You had witnesses where there was no known victim, and victims with nothing to back up their story and only one side of the story full stop. Admittedly the "victims" stories were quite similar but you still couldn't rule them out as circumstantial.

I suspect if Sir Jimmy were still alive the CPS might well be moved to instigate proceedings against him. Dodgy recollections and 30-year old tales of abuse and rape didn't stop anyone banging away Jonathan King - though he protested all along there was no way anyone could prove anything alleged by the victims to have happened actually did happen. The court didn't agree with him. Ho-hum.

captain red dog wrote: I simply don't think it's realistic at all for somebody not to realise they were raped until it suddenly dawned on them further down the line.

With all due respect, you've never been a victim of rape. Women are given a multitude of bullshit reasons why rape isn't rape; like they were asking for it, being drunk means it wasn't rape, if they didn't scream no it wasn't rape and so on. It's very easy to be in a situation that is a 'grey area' in terms of what society deems as rape and the truth only dawns on you when you're more mature and have had more experiences. I can't comment on her specific situation, but it's entirely possible that something she thought was expected of her and only through time has realised that the coercion and pressure put on her means she was raped.

From the October Chat Room thread.

bigcheez2k3 wrote:Kunt and the gang have done a song about Jimmy Saville

BraithGwirod wrote:

captain red dog wrote: I simply don't think it's realistic at all for somebody not to realise they were raped until it suddenly dawned on them further down the line.

With all due respect, you've never been a victim of rape. Women are given a multitude of bullshit reasons why rape isn't rape; like they were asking for it, being drunk means it wasn't rape, if they didn't scream no it wasn't rape and so on. It's very easy to be in a situation that is a 'grey area' in terms of what society deems as rape and the truth only dawns on you when you're more mature and have had more experiences. I can't comment on her specific situation, but it's entirely possible that something she thought was expected of her and only through time has realised that the coercion and pressure put on her means she was raped.

I mean in so far as these girls weren't forced into things by their own accounts and the likely (since we have no evidence) scenario is they wanted to have sex with him due to his fame. I don't think it's then fair to call it rape years down the line when you regret it.

I'm talking about girls over 16 there, obviously under 16 is rape by any definition of the term. I just don't see how it could possibly be proved given there would be no way at all to verify their ages at the time of the incidents in question.

Uh oh. Looks like we've got another rape thread Suffice to say if you don't feel violated at the time, or 30 years later, then why would you ever try to re-imagine the past to turn a sexual encounter into rape?

captain red dog wrote:

BraithGwirod wrote:

captain red dog wrote: I simply don't think it's realistic at all for somebody not to realise they were raped until it suddenly dawned on them further down the line.

With all due respect, you've never been a victim of rape. Women are given a multitude of bullshit reasons why rape isn't rape; like they were asking for it, being drunk means it wasn't rape, if they didn't scream no it wasn't rape and so on. It's very easy to be in a situation that is a 'grey area' in terms of what society deems as rape and the truth only dawns on you when you're more mature and have had more experiences. I can't comment on her specific situation, but it's entirely possible that something she thought was expected of her and only through time has realised that the coercion and pressure put on her means she was raped.

I mean in so far as these girls weren't forced into things by their own accounts and the likely (since we have no evidence) scenario is they wanted to have sex with him due to his fame. I don't think it's then fair to call it rape years down the line when you regret it.

I'm talking about girls over 16 there, obviously under 16 is rape by any definition of the term. I just don't see how it could possibly be proved given there would be no way at all to verify their ages at the time of the incidents in question.

By one definition of the term

Like I said; I can't comment on the specific situations of these women. But to say that if you didn't immediately scream 'rape' then it wasn't is a pretty ridiculous thing to say.

Fatal Exception wrote:Uh oh. Looks like we've got another rape thread Suffice to say if you don't feel violated at the time, or 30 years later, then why would you ever try to re-imagine the past to turn a sexual encounter into rape?

But maybe you only realise how you were violated with time? What if you hid your true feelings for years for fear of the backlash? It's an entirely different debate as to whether these women are making accusations for fame and money, and even if they are; that doesn't mean you can tell victims how they deal with sexual assault.

To be fair he hugged me pretty tight at Glasgow Half Marathon. I was wearing my old school athletics jacket and look about 12 anyway.