UK paedophilia scandal

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I actually was pleasantly suprised at my dealings with the aristocracy- they are a lovely bunch rather suprisingly, very down to earth, mindful of the cost of a thing (they often arent as rich as they appear) and decent people.
Its the rich who are a bunch of snooty stuck up snobs.

New money is often arrogant money.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I doubt anyone else in the country would have that without uproar- but thats the deal with Royalty- and for centuries-as you will be very lucky to also fall in love with the person choosen- its been common practice for both parties to have their 'real' lover on the side and in public to act the part og happily married- Diana broke that agreement, as far as I could tell she broke it purely out of a mixture of spite, jealousy and self publicity.

Damn whore!

And yet another.....

Coronation Street star William Roache is to be charged with two counts
of rape involving a 15-year-old girl in the 1960s, prosecutors have
said.- BBC

BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall has admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting girls including one aged nine.- BBC

Is there anyone left who was working in the UK Tv buisness between 1960-1980 who wasnt a sex offender?

Comedian Jimmy Tarbuck has been arrested over an allegation of child sex abuse dating back to the 1970s.

North Yorkshire Police confirmed that a 73-year-old man was arrested in Kingston upon Thames on 26 April.

The entertainer and quiz show host - who has an OBE for services to showbusiness and charity - was released on bail pending further enquiries.
A police statement said he was questioned about an alleged assault on a young boy in the late 1970s.- BBC

Reading all the updates makes me wonder if crimes like these are always so common, just lurking under the surface, or if the 1960s-'70s in the UK were a fluke. I really hope it's the latter.

The entire 70's were a fluke in most 'western' countries.

what galls me,is that these people have been honoured with OBEs, CBE or MBEs, Jimmy Saville had an OBE, Jimmy Tarbuck OBE, Rolf Harris CBE, God knows who else had what else ? Doesnt look good for the Monarchy if they can dish out honours willy-nilly, no-one investigating the recipient first, looks poor on the nation as a whole,in my view.

Did you know that anyone can be nominated for Queen’s honours such as an OBE, MBE, CBE or Knighthood for outstaning achievement in their field of work or community?

A Queen’s honour is considered to be the most prestigious personal award an individual can receive and can prove to be a life changing experience for many recipients. The benefits are:

• formal recognition at the highest level for the work and achievements of the recipient
• an enhanced profile and reputation for the recipient
• increased awareness of the work the recipient has undertaken

There are two routes by which people enter the process:

• nomination by an individual or a public/private sector organisation familiar with the work of the candidate e.g. a friend, business contact or spouse
• submission by a government department that has identified a candidate doing good work within its sphere of interest

Who can be nominated?

Anyone can receive an award if they reach the required standard of merit or service, and honours lists contain a wide variety of people from different backgrounds.

As the honours website says, anyone can be nominated, but only exceptional people are honoured. So if you want to see yourself or your candidate on the honours list, make sure your nomination has what it takes to make it all the way to Buckingham Palace by ensuring that the nomination form and letters of support are of the highest possible standard.

Achievement comes in many forms but honours committees are looking for someone who has made a difference in their field of work or community.

Honours can be awarded for all sorts of work - paid or unpaid - but you or your nominee must still be involved in the activity for which they are nominated.

Before your nomination is made, ask yourself the following questions.

Has the nominee:

• made a difference to their community or field of work?
• brought distinction to British life and enhanced its reputation?
• exemplified the best sustained and selfless voluntary service?
• demonstrated innovation and entrepreneurship?
• carried the respect of their peers?
• changed things, with an emphasis on achievement?
• improved the lot of those less able to help themselves?
• displayed moral courage and vision in making and delivering tough choices?

What happens to a nomination?

Nominations are collated and then segregated according to the nominee's area of expertise. Expert committees can then compare like with like - for instance, teacher with teacher - and the best candidates are put forward to the Prime Minister, who then presents the list to The Queen.

Once The Queen has given her informal approval, letters are then sent to each nominee asking them whether they would be willing to accept the proposed award. Once they have replied a final list is submitted to The Queen for formal approval.

Honours lists are published twice a year at New Year and in mid-June on the date of The Queen's official birthday.

Which order?

A committee considers the appropriate order and level. There is no need to specify this in any nomination. Note that:

•senior Civil Servants and military officers may be considered for the Order of the Bath
•diplomats and others serving the UK abroad may be considered for the Order of St Michael and St George
•anyone may be considered for awards in the Order of the British Empire
•anyone may be considered for the award of Companion of Honour

Which level?

Once the Order has been identified the criteria below are used by committees for deciding the level of award. The assessment committees also use precedent to aid their consideration.

Companion of Honour
A pre-eminent and sustained contribution in the arts, science, medicine, or government.

Knight/Dame
Awarded for a pre-eminent contribution in any field of activity, through:
•achievement or service to the community usually, but not exclusively, at national level
•in a capacity which will be recognised by peer groups as inspirational and significant nationally and
•which demonstrates sustained commitment

CBE
Awarded for:
•a prominent national role of a lesser degree or
•a conspicuous leading role in regional affairs, through achievement or service to the community or
•making a highly distinguished, innovative contribution in his or her area of activity

OBE
Awarded for:
•a distinguished regional or country-wide role in any field
•through achievement or service to the community
•including notable practitioners known nationally

MBE
Awarded for:
•achievement or service in and to the community of a responsible kind which is outstanding in its field or
•local 'hands-on' service which stands out as an example to others
In all cases awards illuminate areas of dedicated service which merit public recognition.

In terms of service the difference is determined by the extent of the person's influence. In terms of achievement the difference is determined by the significance of the person's impact in their chosen profession.

There is no application fee or nomination deadline and it can take 12-18 months for a decision.

Awards intelligence have extensive experience in helping people to apply for personal awards and have probably drafted more Queen's honours nominations than anyone else in the world. Our clients have enjoyed success right up to knighthood level

Alternatively hanging about with Charlie and shagging children also seem to work to get a Honour in this country.

whos next thats what I want to know. If they say Peter Purviss was a perv I think I am going to need some more therapy

Worse still...John Noakes ??

that would be Beyond the pale.

Is he still alive ? Was great on Blue Peter.

dunno but he was my hero as a kid.

TV presenter Rolf Harris has been charged with nine counts of indecent assault and four of making indecent images of children, police have said.
Mr Harris was first arrested in March by officers investigating historical allegations of child sexual abuse.
Six offences relate to the indecent assault of a girl aged 15-16 between 1980 and 1981 and three relate to a girl aged 14 in 1986.
The indecent images of children were alleged to have been made last year.- BBC

 There goes another childhood hero- he was instrumental in my becoming interested in art along with Tony Hart- Tony better not be next!!

I believe Tony Hart has passed away ? I used to like "Vision On ", the music was so catchy ! What is it with so called "nice guys" ?? well, they lull you into a false sense of security, on the outside they seem like the dad every one wished they had but, under the mask ?

 Execution at dawn. I am generally against death sentences and such, but sometimes a lynch mob sounds like just the thing.

There may be more appropriate punishments. I understand that child molesters are at the bottom of the pecking order in prison....

Yeah, at least there's that...

Rolf Harris? its like a nightmare, I still cant believe it.  

What shocked me more was that the latest offenses were so recent.
I am still not convinced about convicting people by todays standards for a crime committed in a time when law and attitudes were very different.* But the recentness of his activities shows he is a long term predator, not just a product of the atmosphere and attitudes of the 70's working environment at the BBC.


* I feel the same way when they drag some 90 year old Nazi to Court.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:*But the recentness of his activities shows he is a long term predator, not just a product of the atmosphere and attitudes of the 70's working environment at the BBC.

Were there no laws against such abuse in the UK in the 70's? 
I have very little sympathy for people who think that fame puts them above the law, and none for pedophiles.
Roman Polanski falls into this category for me as well. (Michael Jackson too.) I admire their art, but I loath the men.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:What shocked me more was that the latest offenses were so recent.
I am still not convinced about convicting people by todays standards for a crime committed in a time when law and attitudes were very different.* But the recentness of his activities shows he is a long term predator, not just a product of the atmosphere and attitudes of the 70's working environment at the BBC.


* I feel the same way when they drag some 90 year old Nazi to Court.

the law and attitudes were different but the crime was the same, and the pain the poor victim felt was the same.  Whether it was 1970 or 2007 the crime is the SAME. Pain transcends fashions in attitudes and changes in laws. Honestly I wonder how people can make that distinction, it doesnt matter how long ago it was.

I am thinking that morality shifts across generations. And the morality of one generation is not necessarily the morality of another.
Put it this way, if humans lived for hundreds of years would you put someone on trial for their part in WW1? The Boer War? Empire? Or perhaps closer to this case would you put someone on trial from the 1890's for raping his wife, even though it was the social norm that a woman could she not refuse her husband sex? How far back and across what social boundaries do you take it to?
The question I am getting at is how much longer after an event do you hold the current person responsible for their actions, especially when social norms have so dramatically gone through such an upheaval.
In the case of Harris is most recent was last year-he deserves to stand trial for that, he is still engaged in his crime.
But there are others accused now in their 70's and 80's who seem to have committed these acts solely in the 1970's and never again outside that period of history.
Does a person in their 80's bear any real resemblance any more to the person they were in their 20's?
Clearly Harris still does but others I am not so certain about- those for whom it was a brief period of fame and when society didnt seem to frown on their activity but to endorse it (a time when pop idols like Keith Richards were pictured without comment in the newspapers with 14 and 15 year old girlfriends on their arms), to be held partly responsible for a generation seems unfair in some gut way to me.
They are being judged by a different set of standards than to those which existed at the time.

The pain of the victim exists regardless of what happens. Nothing changes that.

its totally irrelevent what period of time crimes are committed, the crime is the same. it doesnt matter if attitudes have changed, the fundamental action of abusing a child is the same, you are letting them off the hook on a technicality. the physical act is the same, shagging is shagging whether its 1890 or 1990. if the crime was done last week it doesnt make it more important or serious than older crimes.

But is the crime the same in terms of the perpetrator- if you are raised in a society which gives no indication of it being wrong, that even seems to endorse it with pop stars shagging 15 year olds, and free love ahoy, and attitudes in society to women are such that grabbing a grope at work is everyday banter, is it the same?
Is that person as equally responsible as someone growing up in a society where it is clear cut defined that such action is beyond the pale and will be condemned and punished in the strongest fashion? Or does the society which normalised such behaviour and turned a blind eye to it, as it clearly was, not also bear some responsibility and which these people are now being collectively punished for?

If they are found guilty they should be punished, I am not advocating letting them off, but it should be proportionate to other factors too, at times this police operation has veered towards looking a bit like a witch hunt. I just think we have to be careful that society doesn't shed its collective guilt unfairly by scapegoating it through a bunch of old men, just so we can all go away feeling better about ourselves afterwards.