File this under "Headlines that left you speechless"

[janet]

Dotsie, Tony, very well said.

Amen to that.

[Bouncy Castle]

A colleague told me today that when she was about 18/19, she got feeled up by her boss. She was taking dictation, and her boss felt her legs and asked "tights or stockings?"

Her first Christmas Party included "The Boss" of the company slow dancing with all the women, even if they didn't want to.

[Jan Van Quirm]

But Jan, as an ex-teenager who did get felt up by men on occasion, I would have to say that none of those men would think they would have anything to hide, or that they did anything wrong. I would say it's unlikely that anything would come of this anyway unless there were witnesses. Or even if there were witnesses, if they have a sudden attack of amnesia.

None of this means that Starr had sex with minors. But is it such a stretch to think that he could have groped one?

No it isn't a stretch because that's what some blokes are like and back then 'just mucking about' was the norm for a lot of people, especially for someone like Starr, who at that stage of his career was very often out of control with whatever excess he was on and lauded for being wacky with it. So, with that in mind, it's also not particularly a stretch to think he went too far with a young girl without actually meaning anything by it and yes, she may have been frightened ever since, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was something he'd have made a habit of before and since. Like eating hamsters?

He's a substance abuser and professionally he's never been particularly known for being a children's entertainer (since the hamster incident) and although he might like young women he's always openly been with adult females, which is more than can be said for Savile. Yeah, perhaps he might have tried to cop a feel and that's not a great thing, but that doesn't automatically make him a potential or habitual paedophile does it? Mud will stick, but so far he's not tried to hide, is being investigated and is currently on bail - innocent until proved guilty and if there was any hard evidence then you can be sure he wouldn't be out in this current climate of notoriety, if only for his own protection.

[Quatermass]

Enough of the Jimmy Savile stuff, for the time being at least. Doubtless there'll be more sordid details to come out.

Anyway, And Now For Something Completely Different:

A Tetris pumpkin...

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/OddSpot/2012/11/02/Man_carves_tetris_pumpkin_for_Halloween_812049.html?cid=ZBP_NEWS_L_L6-8_MancarvestetrispumpkinforHalloween_RSS_011112


A talking elephant...

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/OddSpot/2012/11/03/Korean_talking_elephant_812297.html?cid=ZBP_NEWS_L_L6-4_Scientistsdiscovertalkingelephant_RSS_021112


...and a unique way of crossing from Mexico into the US turns into an epic fail...

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/OddSpot/2012/11/02/Novel_bid_to_cross_US_border_fails_812001.html?cid=ZBP_NEWS_L_L6-9_NovelbidtocrossUSborderfails_RSS_011112

[Batty]

Starr has also been attending his one-man shows in various theatres. He hasn't cancelled any, when he could have faced being heckled or abused, so I just don't believe that he is a paedo. If other girls had spoken out against him, then I would think differently, but one accusation in 30 years shouldn't automatically condemn the man.

Dotsie, I was once 'felt up' by an uncle. It only happened once and I never told anyone about it, as I just removed myself from the situation I found myself in. He never did it again though.
You also have to remember that in the 70's people acted differently to how they act now. A quick grope then was somehow accepted - it shouldn't have been, but it was.
If someone had a grope now the police would act differently, in the same way that rape victims are now treated with more sensitivity than they were 30 years ago.




.

[Catch-up]

Starr has also been attending his one-man shows in various theatres. He hasn't cancelled any, when he could have faced being heckled or abused, so I just don't believe that he is a paedo. If other girls had spoken out against him, then I would think differently, but one accusation in 30 years shouldn't automatically condemn the man.

It shouldn't automatically mean the accuser is a liar either.

[Dotsie]

But Jan, as an ex-teenager who did get felt up by men on occasion, I would have to say that none of those men would think they would have anything to hide, or that they did anything wrong. I would say it's unlikely that anything would come of this anyway unless there were witnesses. Or even if there were witnesses, if they have a sudden attack of amnesia.

None of this means that Starr had sex with minors. But is it such a stretch to think that he could have groped one?

No it isn't a stretch because that's what some blokes are like and back then 'just mucking about' was the norm for a lot of people, especially for someone like Starr, who at that stage of his career was very often out of control with whatever excess he was on and lauded for being wacky with it. So, with that in mind, it's also not particularly a stretch to think he went too far with a young girl without actually meaning anything by it and yes, she may have been frightened ever since, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was something he'd have made a habit of before and since. Like eating hamsters?

He's a substance abuser and professionally he's never been particularly known for being a children's entertainer (since the hamster incident) and although he might like young women he's always openly been with adult females, which is more than can be said for Savile. Yeah, perhaps he might have tried to cop a feel and that's not a great thing, but that doesn't automatically make him a potential or habitual paedophile does it? Mud will stick, but so far he's not tried to hide, is being investigated and is currently on bail - innocent until proved guilty and if there was any hard evidence then you can be sure he wouldn't be out in this current climate of notoriety, if only for his own protection.

So one occasion doesn't deserve punishment then? I'm not saying that one grope makes him a habitual paedophile, but it's still illegal, and it's still a sexual offence against a minor. It's only one offence he's been arrested for, as far as I know.

[Dotsie]

Dotsie, I was once 'felt up' by an uncle. It only happened once and I never told anyone about it, as I just removed myself from the situation I found myself in. He never did it again though.

Batty, I was once repeatedly felt up by a fat, sweaty old man I worked with, was told that it was normal and putting up with it would make my working life easier. When it went further than a simple grope, I told my boyfriend who immediately had me to the police station. Suddenly no-one at work could remember any occasion where any female member of staff had been groped, or any conversations they might have had about it. I was the only girl who complained. So presumably that makes him innocent?

Oddly enough, the male police officers were a lot more sympathetic than the female one. But what that man did was disgusting, and I really don't see why I should have put up with it (BTW, I lost my job as well).

[Jan Van Quirm]

So one occasion doesn't deserve punishment then? I'm not saying that one grope makes him a habitual paedophile, but it's still illegal, and it's still a sexual offence against a minor. It's only one offence he's been arrested for, as far as I know.

And if it was still the 1970s (or whenever) then yes once could be enough, especially with a minor, because it could have been investigated and prosecuted far more successfully at the time. If this is the only allegation against Starr now then the CPS (state prosecution service for non-UK peeps) are going to have a hell of job making a viable case in law, because it's effectively his word against hers unless the moment was actually caught on camera OR she told anyone about it at the time of the alleged offence and not just gone to the press decades after it's supposed to have happened?

I'm not saying Starr is innocent or guilty, but after this period of time has elapsed and if this is the only matter that the police have to look at involving him, then it's going to be a very flimsy case to take to court. I didn't watch Newsnight last night, but I see that police are following up that reporting and, if they have sufficient evidence with 2 people (males) making allegations of multiple abuse and it being institutional and therefore possible to corroborate, even so long after the event, then that's a far more serious allegation that echoes the controversy sparked by Savile's vile behaviour. He worked with so many people over the years so this investigation will be huge and 'guilt by association' is entirely possible, so every complaint must be looked at carefully. However, that also doesn't mean that each new allegation should be accepted without question, because yes, there are people out there who might court sensationalist attention without minimal or unprovable evidence to back up their claims.

One accuser on one occasion is certainly enough to be believed, but there is still a burden of proof before you start screaming child molester at every person who shared a platform with this pervert, else where does it stop? Did the Queen happen to laugh indulgently at him 'innocently' grooming kids at the reception when he was knighted? That's ridiculous, but if this degenerates into everyone becoming a suspect simply because they worked at the BBC on one of his programmes or once took a cup of coffee to him for 5 minutes then it's going to be a very long and tortuous process. The police are investigating Starr and if there's a case to answer he'll be prosecuted, but one report seized on by the press doesn't make him more guilty than not.

Oddly enough, the male police officers were a lot more sympathetic than the female one. But what that man did was disgusting, and I really don't see why I should have put up with it (BTW, I lost my job as well).

That's absolutely horrible (especially about you losing your job because of it), but I'm not too surprised the male officers were more sympathetic than the female because in some ways that sort of behaviour was almost looked on as a rite of passage for women, including the police force Happily these days it's not something you feel compelled to tolerate under the cloak of it being 'just office banter'...

[Batty]

Batty, I was once repeatedly felt up by a fat, sweaty old man I worked with, was told that it was normal and putting up with it would make my working life easier. When it went further than a simple grope, I told my boyfriend who immediately had me to the police station. Suddenly no-one at work could remember any occasion where any female member of staff had been groped, or any conversations they might have had about it. I was the only girl who complained. So presumably that makes him innocent

Dotsie, what happened to you is appalling, and no one should be subjected to that kind of treatment. It doesn't mean that every man who has ever been accused of something is automatically guilty, though.

It shouldn't automatically mean the accuser is a liar either.

I'm saying that we should keep an open mind, until the police have finished their investigation.

[Catch-up]

It shouldn't automatically mean the accuser is a liar either.

I'm saying that we should keep an open mind, until the police have finished their investigation.

I agree. I just didn't think this sounded like you were keeping an open mind.

Starr has also been attending his one-man shows in various theatres. He hasn't cancelled any, when he could have faced being heckled or abused, so I just don't believe that he is a paedo. If other girls had spoken out against him, then I would think differently, but one accusation in 30 years shouldn't automatically condemn the man.

If I misunderstood, I apologize.

[Batty]

To me, a paedo is a habitual predator, not someone who in 30 years, may or may not have groped one person, who may or may not have looked under age.
Savile looked like a sleazeball, who I've never trusted. There was just something about him that I never liked, whereas in 30 years, I've just never felt that Starr was.
I also wrote that 'If other girls had spoken out against him, then I would think differently,'
Even now, if other people come forward about Starr, then I will admit that I am wrong about him. I was just attempting to argue the case against taking for granted that Starr is guilty, based on the word of only one person after all these years.

Keeping an open mind also means not automatically assuming that the victim is always truthful, and the accused always in the wrong.

[Quatermass]

Well, more paedophile news in the UK...

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/World/2012/11/04/Tory_link_to_UK_paedophile_ring_812774.html?cid=ZBP_NEWS_L_L2-1_TorylinktoUKpaedophilering_RSS_041112

[ChristianBecker]

I really wonder why the bigpondnews Q posts always show up totally messed up on my computer.
Anyway, this statement is rather worrying:
"In the home it was the standard abuse, which was violent and sexual; outside it was like you were sold..."
That's like saying: Well, you know what it's like in homes. We are used to that...
Really sad.

[Catch-up]

Keeping an open mind also means not automatically assuming that the victim is always truthful, and the accused always in the wrong.

I absolutely agree! It also means not assuming the accuser is lying based upon when they had the courage to come forward or whether anyone else has the courage to join them in coming forward (assuming there are other victims, which even if there aren't doesn't lessen the crime).

I can't believe Starr is guilty.

There hasn't ever been any rumours about him, apart from this one accusation, and a sexual predator would not stop at only one 'victim'.
How many of these accusers will be after 15 minutes of fame and a pay out??

This does not sound like you had an open mind. I think what people were trying to illustrate with their personal stories is that this type of approach further victimizes the individual and makes it far less likely that someone else will come forward. Who wants to come out about something horrible and humiliating just to be accused of looking for a payout or 15 minutes of fame? I'm not saying people don't do this. But there should be an "open mind" about the accusation until it's been investigated, just like you suggested. Not trying to beat up on you here Batty, honest! But people have shared some very personal things just to illustrate these points and I think it's important to acknowledge that.