PDA

View Full Version : Indecent assault.


G-CPTN
2nd May 2013, 10:23
It might be appropriate to start a new thread?
Stuart Hall admits 14 counts of indecent assault on girls young as 9 | Metro News (http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/02/stuart-hall-pleads-guilty-to-14-counts-of-indecent-assault-on-girls-as-young-as-nine-3710490/)

500N
2nd May 2013, 10:43
Makes my mind boggle what all these guys have done.


What I would like to know is what is being done to look
at the BBC and the culture within that allowed all this to
be covered up for so long.

G-CPTN
2nd May 2013, 10:54
BBC News - BBC to tackle bullying at work (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22378554)

G-CPTN
2nd May 2013, 12:32
BBC News - Coronation Street star William Roache denies rape charges (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22378146)

Curious Pax
2nd May 2013, 12:49
What I would like to know is what is being done to look
at the BBC and the culture within that allowed all this to
be covered up for so long.

If you think this is just the BBC then I would say you're being pretty naive. More to do with the celeb culture in the 60s/70s/80s - BBC, ITV, you name it it will have happened.

Of course since the 80s it would seem that all this sort of stuff has stopped....;)

VP959
2nd May 2013, 13:18
It doesn't come as much of a surprise to me that some celebs behaved like this then, and I'd be gobsmacked if things can be shown to be significantly different today.

I got tickets to Top of the Pops back in the late 60's (courtesy of the late Roy Castle who was a family friend at the time). The young girls in the audience (typically around 14 to 16 at a guess) were quite openly groped by both the presenter and one or two of the guys in the bands. The girls didn't seem to object to it, if anything I got the impression that quite a few of them would have happily gone in for a fair bit more had the opportunity presented itself.

rgbrock1
2nd May 2013, 13:51
This "indecent assault" case is despicable, yes.

But pales in comparison to the Ohio, USA piece of human excrement who was recently put to death - lethal injection - for the rape and beating murder of a 6 month old infant. Yes, 6 months old.

Alloa Akbar
2nd May 2013, 13:59
both the presenter and one or two of the guys in the bands.

Be a sport.. name names!! :ok:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd May 2013, 14:05
The Bay City Rollers manager was jailed for indecent assault of underage boys, according to this source..
BAY CITY ROLLERS | The Ultimate Rock and Pop Music History Website - ROKPOOL (http://rokpool.com/content/bay-city-rollers)

Out of common decency, I will not post an image of the group.

rgbrock1
2nd May 2013, 14:13
Fox3. Being a former US Infantryman I occasionally have lapses in the decency department. Therefore:

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/292462/Bay+City+Rollers.jpg

VP959
2nd May 2013, 14:26
Be a sport.. name names!!

TBH, I can't for the life of me remember who the bands were, and I'm not even sure who the presenter was. I know it wasn't Saville, as I think I'd have remembered if it had been him. My best guess is that it may have been either Simon Dee or maybe Tony Blackburn.

G-CPTN
2nd May 2013, 14:37
You're safe with allegations against Simon Dee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Dee) (brown bread).

VP959
2nd May 2013, 15:06
Bit of a sad tale that. I'd not heard that he'd gone downhill like that and was now dead.

onetrack
2nd May 2013, 15:22
Can you imagine how many rock stars are now crapping themselves in fear of a knock on the door from Mr Plod? - after thousands of young girls made themselves available for "servicing by a star"??
Yes, it's not quite the same as being a pedo who pursues unwilling youngsters - but even so, screwing 14yr & 15yr olds, will still get you time in HM Hotel if its proven - even many years after the event.
I know a fair number of men in that category, and many hold senior and respected positions today. They only hold those positions because the girls have said nothing, and probably never will.

VP959
2nd May 2013, 15:37
Can you imagine how many rock stars are now crapping themselves in fear of a knock on the door from Mr Plod? - after thousands of young girls made themselves available for "servicing by a star"??
Yes, it's not quite the same as being a pedo who pursues unwilling youngsters - but even so, screwing 14yr & 15yr olds, will still get you time in HM Hotel if its proven - even many years after the event.
I know a fair number of men in that category, and many hold senior and respected positions today. They only hold those positions because the girls have said nothing, and probably never will.

My recollection of groupies was that they viewed bedding rock stars as a badge of honour, and were proud of it (even if some of them were under age).

Clearly there are some cases where people, like Saville and Stuart Hall, were the instigators, but I suspect they are vastly outnumbered by the cases where young girls pretty much threw themselves at rock stars and their ilk.

It's all very well and proper to say that abuse took place all these years later, but how realistic is it to expect that a rock star only a few years older than some of these girls should have the will power to resist?

I think some today may have forgotten the massive changes in society that happened in the 60's, with sexual liberation being promoted widely and the advent of the pill taking away one of the last remaining reasons for girls not to indulge in sex freely. Chuck in a healthy dose of teenage hormones and the mania that surrounded many rock stars at the time and it was inevitable that things like this were going to happen.

Evanelpus
2nd May 2013, 15:43
Yes, it's not quite the same as being a pedo who pursues unwilling youngsters - but even so, screwing 14yr & 15yr olds, will still get you time in HM Hotel if its proven - even many years after the event.

And if you are found guilty (beyond any reasonable doubt) so you should do time. But, if you are like me, I can't remember what I was doing 40 days ago, let alone 40 years ago. :ugh:

PukinDog
2nd May 2013, 15:54
Unfortunately this dirtbag won't get the punishment he deserves. After all, isn't that pedophile, child porn-loving Gary Glitter walking around free instead of rotting in prison?

tony draper
2nd May 2013, 16:11
Why this plead guilty or found guilt come back in a Month for sentencing thing? I seem to recall ay the end of a Trial the Judges telling the punter to stand up and delivering a sentence there and then.
:confused:

dazdaz1
2nd May 2013, 16:22
Tony...He pleaded guilty in April at his first appearance, but it could not be reported (in the press) at that time. His appearance today allowed the plea to be made public.

Daz

angels
2nd May 2013, 16:26
Tony - The judge often asks for reports to help in sentencing.

When I did jury service we found an odious burglar guilty. The judge asked for reports before sentencing and I checked out the result. He got four years for one charge of burglary. A bit severe one may think.

Further checks found the judge was told this guy specialised in burglarising single girls and leaving evidence he had been there. A fag end, a rope, a mask, stuff like that. He enjoyed the psychological terror of this.

I'm sure the judge would have given him more if he could, but the maximum was four years and that is what he got.

rgbrock1
2nd May 2013, 16:32
PukinDog:

I haven't heard Gary Glitter's name in years and was somewhat astounded by what you wrote about child porn and all that. (Maybe I should get out more!)

Anyway, I did a little reading about him on the web and was again astounded by what he's been up to. What a real dirt bag.
I'm really surprised that he's not in prison where he belongs.

Then again, he seems to float around on his boat a lot, looking for save harbors. A real POS.

G-CPTN
2nd May 2013, 16:40
Nowadays the court will seek 'reports' about the convicted person to determine whether there are extenuating circumstances that might affect the sentence.

Capetonian
2nd May 2013, 16:42
Gary Glitter is a repulsive character and deserves the opprobrium he has attracted. But ..... is he any worse than so many others who hid behind their masks of popularity and respectability (Clifford)? Glitter was targeted by police in Cambodia (or Laos?) for doing what tens of thousands of men do every year, going there to have sex with young children.

They got away with it, he didn't because he was 'high profile'. He was also set up as the relatives of two young girls took them to his house in order to get money from him. Not in any way condoning his disgusting acts, but he has been judged more harshly than many others who have done the same or worse.

Isn't this ironic?

PR guru Max Clifford claimed dozens of big-name stars from the 1960s and 70s have contacted him because they fear being implicated in the widening child abuse scandal.

He said young girls threw themselves at the celebrities but they ‘never asked for anybody’s birth certificate’.

Mr Clifford said: ‘I think there are a lot of very famous people who are very concerned and very frightened.’


Years ago, I came back from Costa Rica to Madrid on a flight that stopped in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) and the seat next to us was occupied by a rather repulsive and vastly oversized Bavarian man in his 60s who, on finding out that I spoke German and my partner didn't, started to tell me about his trip to the DR, the primary purpose of which was to have sex with girls as young as 12, telling me that you could 'buy' these young girls for about $10 for 24 hours 'und zey will have sex as often and howeffer as you vant'. Before I lost the will to talk to him at all, I asked him if he felt it was morally and legally acceptable to do this, and he replied that the laws did not apply if he was out of his own country (hello ?) and that he was doing the girls a favour as if they weren't getting $10 from him they'd be eating scraps of rubbish out of the gutters.

The whole experience nauseated me and I managed to get us moved away on the pretext that he was so large that we could not sit comfortably - which was true.

I often wish I had reported him to the police when we arrived but as it was in Madrid I felt the Spanish authorities would probably be disinterested in the acitvites of a German in a third country.

PukinDog
2nd May 2013, 17:03
Capetonian
Gary Glitter is a repulsive character and deserves the opprobrium he has attracted. But ..... is he any worse than so many others who hid behind their masks of popularity and respectability (Clifford). Glitter was targeted by police in Cambodia (or Laos?) for doing what tens of thousands of men do every year, going to have sex with young children.

They got away with it, he didn't becuase he was 'high profile'. He was also set up as the relative of two young girls took them to his house in order to get money from him. Not in any way condoning his digsuting acts, but he has been judged more harshly than many others who have done the same or worse.

Isn't this ironic?

You sure use a lot of moral relativism to condone something you say you aren't condoning.

That scumbag should have still been in prison for child porn during the time he was later in SE Asia molesting children.

He's only judged more harshly than many others if those others are from countries that turn a blind eye to this sick type of exploitation. Where I'm from having sex with children abroad, no matter what 10,000 Brits and/or Euros get away with in Cambodia, Thailand, Viet etc, can still get me arrested and thrown in a U.S. federal pen for up to 30 years. If there's enough evidence to prove that I'm planning to travel abroad for that purpose, I can also wind up in a federal pen before the crime happens.

What are the laws of your country? Do they care if you have sex with kids when you're outside your own borders?

rgbrock1
2nd May 2013, 17:14
PukinDog:

Although I share fully in your revulsion at acts of sex with minors I do have to question your premise that having sex with children/minors outside the U.S. is punishable by law here.

When you are outside the U.S. our countries laws are no longer applicable. Or so I thought?

PukinDog
2nd May 2013, 17:31
rgbrock1
PukinDog:

Although I share fully in your revulsion at acts of sex with minors I do have to question your premise that having sex with children/minors outside the U.S. is punishable by law here.

When you are outside the U.S. our countries laws are no longer applicable. Or so I thought?

Not for awhile now. It falls under the Protect Act...

US federal law provides a penalty of 10 years to life for any person who knowingly transports a minor in interstate or foreign commerce or in any US commonwealth, territory or possession with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual behavior. For those readers who did not study federal jurisdiction in a US law school, federal jurisdiction may be established quite easily by simply crossing a state border while traveling from US one state to another or having a prohibited item or communication pass beyond US state border is a that is required. The same penalty also applies to any person who, using the US mail or any means of interstate or foreign commerce or in any US commonwealth, territory or possession, “knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces” any minor to engage in prostitution or any criminal sexual behavior. Criminal sexual behavior includes child pornography.

It is also illegal for any US citizen or legal permanent resident to: (a) travel in foreign commerce “for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person” or (b) travel in foreign commerce and actually engage in “any illicit sexual conduct with another person”. The penalty for the foregoing is up to 30 years imprisonment. The same penalty is also applicable to anyone who attempts or conspires to commit any of the foregoing crimes or who for personal gain “arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates” the travel of any person knowing that such person is traveling in foreign commerce with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. Illicit sexual conduct is defined as (i) any commercial sex act with a person under 18 years of age (reasonable belief that the person was at least 18 years old is an affirmative defense) or (ii) any sexual abuse of any person under 18 years of age, which includes any sexual contact with any person under 16 years of age regardless of consent. The US federal criminal code also makes aiders and abettors liable as principals for crimes against the United States.

Repeat offenders are subject to life imprisonment (unless the death sentence is applicable) for a federal sex crime involving a minor if the defendant had previously been convicted of a federal or US state sex offense involving a minor. Otherwise, penalties for repeat offenders involving sex crimes are doubled.

The statute of limitations is not applicable during the life of the victim for violations of federal laws against the sexual abuse of minors. In addition, if later, prosecutions may be brought up to ten years after the crime.

So nowadays they're pretty serious about what U.S. citizens do abroad when it comes to these particular crimes.

Capetonian
2nd May 2013, 17:34
That scumbag should have still been in prison for child porn during the time he was later in SE Asia molesting children.

Should people go to prison for possession of child porn? Probably, yes, and certainly if they are distributing it. There is the old argument that if there were no demand for it, it wouldn't exist, and kids wouldn't be thus exploited. I'm not sure I agree with that. There are degrees of culpability.

What are the laws of your country? Do they care if you have sex with kids when you're outside your own borders?
I've no idea of the laws of 'my' country (which could be any one of three) as it's quite irrelevant to me since I have no intention of having sex with children. I rather thought that it would be a crime under most jurisdictions, regardless of where the offence actually took place.

Milo Minderbinder
2nd May 2013, 17:35
"What are the laws of your country? Do they care if you have sex with kids when you're outside your own borders? "

UK law has universal jurisdiction over UK subjects in relation to child sex offences anywhere in the world.

KAG
2nd May 2013, 17:40
PukinDogYou sure use a lot of moral relativism to condone something you say you aren't condoning.
This is exactly with this kind of small sentence that you can see somebody is smart and he is not being sold the idea without thinking. Yep, you got that one right, that's exactly called moral relativism and it stinks a bit.



The Postman is sometimes right, but that's only because he is not wrong.

G-CPTN
2nd May 2013, 17:51
BBC News - Former colleague: Stuart Hall 'was a complete nuisance' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22386373)

PukinDog
2nd May 2013, 17:51
Capetonian
I've no idea of the laws of 'my' country (which could be any one of three) as it's quite irrelevant to me since I have no intention of having sex with children. I rather thought that it would be a crime under most jurisdictions, regardless of where the offence actually took place. The nature of exploitation depends on responses like yours "I rather thought that it would be a crime under most jurisdictions..." which is another way of trying to wash your hands of something we shouldn't tolerate as a species, like slavery, knowing those laws aren't effective enough because the problem still exists. Traveling abroad and exploiting children for sex because wealth and corruption make it do-able is a form of slavery and rape.

Sailor Vee
2nd May 2013, 18:01
He may well have entered a guilty plea now, but was vehemently denying the 'spurious' charges last year. There will be more like him, now trembling in the wings awaiting the morning raid. Hopefully they will not be given the chance of disguising/destroying any signs of their predilections.

However there are still people who may be innocent, and should not have been named until formally charged, not at the arrest of 'under suspicion of.....'.

Lonewolf_50
2nd May 2013, 18:06
If I may ask: is there such a thing as a decent assault? :confused:

RG, in a just world your BCR picture would get you a few days in the stockade on cake and wine. :p

Capetonian
2nd May 2013, 18:28
PukinDog
The nature of exploitation depends on responses like yours "I rather thought that it would be a crime under most jurisdictions..." which is another way of trying to wash your hands of something we shouldn't tolerate as a species, like slavery, knowing those laws aren't effective enough because the problem still exists. Traveling abroad and exploiting children for sex because wealth and corruption make it do-able is a form of slavery and rape.

I've read this a couple of times and I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be accusing me of 'washing my hands' of this because I don't know the law pertaining to sex with minors. I don't need to know them as they are irrelevant to me, it's a no-go area. Maybe you'd like to clarify, ask a direct question, or make a direct accusation.

rgbrock1
2nd May 2013, 18:32
Lonewolf:

BCR picture?????????????? :confused::confused::confused:

G-CPTN
2nd May 2013, 18:49
Bay City Rollers (http://www.pprune.org/7822886-post10.html).

flash8
2nd May 2013, 19:09
Bay City Rollers.

Liking the Rollers should also be a crime, of having extremely bad taste...

rgbrock1
2nd May 2013, 19:09
Oh, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

<is it me, at my age, or does anyone else suffer from the 'missing the obvious syndrome' on occasion?!!!>

OFSO
2nd May 2013, 20:13
As a matter of definition, what is a "decent assault" ? Slasher ? Anyone ?

Flying Serpent
2nd May 2013, 20:44
this perhaps?

Karate Man Beats Up Bully!!!! - YouTube

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd May 2013, 20:45
the distinction is between 'assault' (e.g. fisticuffs) and 'indecent assault'.

G-CPTN
3rd May 2013, 18:43
BBC News - Broadcaster Stuart Hall: some abuse victims to sue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22406035)

Fox3WheresMyBanana
3rd May 2013, 20:39
It's about justice.
He has admitted guilt. Compensation is part of justice.

hellsbrink
4th May 2013, 05:07
Compensation awarded by a judge as part of the judgement of such a case is part of justice, as we know.

Suing someone in a civil case to get your hands on anything and everything you can after the criminal case is over just smacks of money-grabbing and not "justice".

Capetonian
4th May 2013, 05:35
Isn't this compensation culture is driven by lawyers, rather than the victims?

A friend was abused for many years by her father, and eventually, many years later, was persuaded by her husband to go to the police and have him locked up if possible, although beaten to a pulp would have given her more satisfaction. She was not remotely interested in getting money from him. Somehow the circling vultures moved in to persuade her to claim compensation. Sickening.

KAG
4th May 2013, 06:54
Relative definition of "friend" for some lonely JB pprune posters who most of the time have only 3 friends at most (yes I know sorry the internet friends don't count) in the whole world because they hate everybody:

"Somebody you have heard of/invented/saw on TV/or is a friend but only by chance and matches perfectly what you want to say very conveniently.

Mention this friends several times but don"t vary too much the story. Oh! I did change it a bit? I am sorry.

What is relatively sickening:
1-being forced to get compensation as a victim or
2-being rapped by a paedophile amator of incest? YOUR GUESS (but remember, you are on JB so be open minded).

RELATIVITY is my religion.


The Postman was doing fine until now...

Capetonian
4th May 2013, 06:57
KAG, why don't you just go away until you've grown up, or got the bitterness and jealousy out of your system? Do everyone a favour, including yourself.

parabellum
4th May 2013, 07:18
The music and light entertainment industry today and when they have done with that it will be professional sportsmen, ever seen the groupies that follow the big teams around? It is more about money than justice and in some cases the victims coming forward to rebut the glorification of individuals, Jimmy Saville for a start, (and so they should).

vulcanised
4th May 2013, 12:07
I would have thought that ten years would be a sufficient period from the time of an incident to report it.

Beyond that - you've obviously learned to live with it.

G-CPTN
4th May 2013, 12:40
Stuart Hall put home in wife's name 'to avoid payouts to victims' | UK news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/04/stuart-hall-home)

G-CPTN
4th May 2013, 19:02
BBC News - Tory MP arrested over rape allegations, PA sources say (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22414334)

radeng
5th May 2013, 10:30
PukinDog

>It is also illegal for any US citizen or legal permanent resident to: (a) travel in foreign commerce “for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person” or (b) travel in foreign commerce and actually engage in “any illicit sexual conduct with another person”.<

As prostitution is illegal in most of the US, does this mean that an unmarried male US citizen over the age of 18 is, theoretically at least, guilty if he visits and has sex in a Berlin brothel?

PukinDog
5th May 2013, 12:34
radeng
As prostitution is illegal in most of the US, does this mean that an unmarried male US citizen over the age of 18 is, theoretically at least, guilty if he visits and has sex in a Berlin brothel?

It would depend on how old the prostitute he is having sex with is. Do they have child prostitutes in Berlin brothels?

Not even theoretically does the Protect Act deal with adult prostitution. It's specifically designed to deal with the sexual exploitation of children. Also, the Federal Law is a thing unto itself, State Laws are irrelevant. The Act sets a Federal law standard for U.S. citizens traveling abroad.

It's really not that complicated if you look it up and read it it's entirety. "Protect" stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today".

Victor Inox
5th May 2013, 15:04
Regarding the arrest of Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans on charges of gay rape, I wonder whether anyone here can help me with understanding the practicalities involved in a man forcibly entering another man's anus, if the supposed victim is unwilling? Defies any imagination.:ugh::ugh:

G-CPTN
5th May 2013, 15:12
Rape needn't involve lower apertures.

VP959
5th May 2013, 15:28
Regarding the arrest of Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans on charges of gay rape, I wonder whether anyone here can help me with understanding the practicalities involved in a man forcibly entering another man's anus, if the supposed victim is unwilling? Defies any imagination.

Worth noting that, at the moment at least, he hasn't been charged with any offence at all. He was arrested and questioned, but not charged, and has been released on police bail.

The MP in question is openly gay and has stated that the two men who have made the allegations were friends he's known for some time. He commented here that he'd seen one of them socially a week ago: BBC News - Nigel Evans denies rape claim as 'completely false' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22417941)

If what he has said in his statement is true (and accepting that we've seen some other public denials recently that have turned out to be untrue) then given that the alleged offences took place between 2009 and March this year one has to wonder quite what is behind these allegations.

Victor Inox
5th May 2013, 18:02
The MP in question is openly gay and has stated that the two men who have
made the allegations were friends he's known for some time.


I saw Nigel Evans on the news and making the above statement. It puzzles me that he did not simply name his accuser(s), since his own identity is now also in the public domain.

Rape needn't involve lower apertures.

The, as the potential victim, you'd obviously bite very, very hard. Problem solved.

VP959
5th May 2013, 18:50
I saw Nigel Evans on the news and making the above statement. It puzzles me that he did not simply name his accuser(s), since his own identity is now also in the public domain.

Puzzled me a bit, too. Either he's the decent sort who believes that one shouldn't stoop as low as one's accusers, or he's been briefed to come across as appearing to take the moral high ground.

Be interesting to see how this case pans out. I rather suspect that there may be an element of mischief here, perhaps a lovers tiff that's ended up in a bit of vindictiveness.

Mr Chips
5th May 2013, 19:06
Not sure he is allowed to name his accusers, that being the law regarding rape.

I thought that there are usually questions asked of a victim when they don't report a rape immediately...(which strikes me as wrong)

Milo Minderbinder
5th May 2013, 19:14
Linked in more ways than one - The Steeple Times - News of the bold, the talented and the influential (http://thesteepletimes.com/today/linked-in-more-ways-than-one/)

Stuart Hall: How blind eye was turned to his behaviour - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10037788/Stuart-Hall-How-blind-eye-was-turned-to-his-behaviour.html)

Tankertrashnav
5th May 2013, 22:54
I wonder whether anyone here can help me with understanding the practicalities involved in a man forcibly entering another man's anus, if the supposed victim is unwilling? Defies any imagination.:ugh::ugh:


You've obviously never heard of rohypnol.

Effects of Rohypnol | Rape Treatment Center (http://www.911rape.org/rape-drugs/rohypnol/effects-of-rohypnol)

radeng
5th May 2013, 22:59
So where did my posting of about 1350 GMT go? It appeared.......for while. Mods didn't like it?

How long until this one disappears?

Victor Inox
6th May 2013, 06:07
You've obviously never heard of rohypnol.


I obviously have, but not in the context of this case, which seems to have lots of question marks hanging over it.

As I pointed out earlier, it's weird that the accused party has been named, but not the accuser(s). There is more to this than presently meets the eye.

Tankertrashnav
6th May 2013, 08:45
That is standard procedure in England (and the rest of the UK I'm guessing) in the case of a man being accused of raping a woman - she is guaranteed anonymity until the end of the trial, and thereafter in the event of a conviction. It would seem logical to apply the same rules in the case of a male complainant, but we'd need a lawyer to confirm whether this is in fact how it works.

Ancient Observer
6th May 2013, 12:53
When I was at Uni I had a friend, a Geordie, who was not terribly successful with the Uni ladies.
One Summer vac he got a temp job as a roadie with a (then) famous band.

When he came back to Uni, he told endless stories about Groupies, who, when they could not get the band members in to bed, were very happy to get the roadies in bed instead. Some of the Groupies had most unpleasant sexual preferences.

Assuming that the Groupies are still alive, and would be happy to make public their experiences, I suspect that every Band member in the UK is somewhat worried about their sexual pasts......

OFSO
6th May 2013, 12:57
A thread drift I know but the activities of groupies are far more pleasant than discussing forceable anal penetration -

- did any of the Plaster Casters ever write their memoirs ?

Capetonian
6th May 2013, 13:05
The writer of this book, Groupie, was the daughter of a housemaster at my school. You can imagine in the late 1960s how that went down. The book and all mention of it was banned by the school, which guaranteed a few hundred sales, particularly since it mentioned her father, who was a famous cricketer, and without naming the school, left the reader in no doubt.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Groupie-Jenny-Fabian/dp/1844499561

jamesdevice
6th May 2013, 13:16
Still have memories of an Eric Clapton concert at which I was "security" on the stage door After the concert we managed to clear the hall except for one particularly insistent fifteen or sixteen year old, who however many times we dragged her away kept coming back to "talk to Eric...." In the end one of the roadies violently twisted her arm up her back and muttered, "OK if you want to meet f***ing Eric I'll show you f***ing Eric......" and disappeared into one of the dressing rooms with her. No idea which "Eric" he showed to her, but I've a good guess. No idea what happened to her. At the time it was no longer my problem. Stupid girl deserved whatever happened. Concert was pretty poor anyway....talking to the roadies they reckoned they'd not even bothered to plug Clapton's guitar in, he was that stoned. All the guitarwork was done by a chap named Nico Ramsden.

G-CPTN
22nd Oct 2013, 20:32
BBC News - Stuart Hall stripped of OBE by Queen after sex offences conviction (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24023832)

radeng
22nd Oct 2013, 20:44
It always puzzles me why pop stars, actors, footballers, athletes etc actually DESERVE any of the honours. Let alone any public money to support the parasites.

500N
22nd Oct 2013, 20:50
radeng

Understand where you are coming from but isn't that a bit harsh ?

A fair few receive them for the length of time they have been doing it,
same as some in other fields.

I have been surprised at how soon young athlete's are bestowed honours
such as the last Olympics.

Actors ? Dame Helen Mirren a worthy recipient ?

radeng
22nd Oct 2013, 20:57
500N

I'd query even 'Flash Harry' (Sir Malcolm Sargent), and even Sir Arthur Sullivan and Sir William Gilbert.

At least Sir Nigel Gresley and Sir William Stanier actually were responsible for advancing knowledge and making major contributions to winning WW2.

500N
22nd Oct 2013, 20:58
Like you, I query a few of them.

I need to look those one's you listed up as I don't know them.

500N
22nd Oct 2013, 21:01
" I'd query even 'Flash Harry' (Sir Malcolm Sargent), and even Sir Arthur Sullivan and Sir William Gilbert."

It seems this lot, well before our time were all at the top of the tree in terms of music, literature, drama, theatre etc. That's from the brief read I did of each.

radeng
22nd Oct 2013, 21:26
>It seems this lot, well before our time were all at the top of the tree in terms of music, literature, drama, theatre etc.<

Quite so, but did it REALLY deserve a knighthood?

I am reminded of Gilbert's song for the Gondoliers

'Small titles and orders for mayors and recorders,
I get, and they're highly delighted,
MPs baronetted, sham colonels gazetted
And second rate aldermen knighted.
Foundation stone laying, I find very paying
It adds a large sum to my makings.
At charity dinners, the best of speech spinners
I get ten per cent of the takings'

500N
22nd Oct 2013, 21:30
It was a different era then, so who knows what went on.

In some of those eras, you have to remember that Commissions (as in military officer) were purchased, not earned.

So who is to say that "contributions" were not made for the knighthoods ;),
especially when the status that went along with it helped a lot in those times.

Just my HO.

Tankertrashnav
22nd Oct 2013, 22:06
I'd certainly rather see the likes of Andy Murray wearing the OBE than some of the brown-nosing time servers I saw sporting the ribbon when I was serving.

Not for nothing was that particular gong known as "Other Buggers' Efforts" :*

radeng
22nd Oct 2013, 22:22
I wouldn't give any of these 'honours' to people who had done their job - be they sport people, show biz, TV personalities, newspaper people or especially civil servants. Sir Bullsh*t Bloggs KCMG because he brown nosed and rose in the bloody ministry - no way. Even Mary Jones who delivered the post for who knows how long.

Honours should be for people like Susan Smith for running Guides or Scouts for 30 years, Bill Bloggs for years with RNLI or SJAB or BRCS and the like, Mary Jane for her years with WRVS, and also for people involved with heritage preservation. Recognition of people who VOLUNTEERED their time and effort - not got paid for it, regardless of how successful they were.

500N
22nd Oct 2013, 22:27
radeng

That's it.

Gongs just for "doing the job" as opposed to doing something exceptional
or as a volunteer. The exception might be for long service type in fields
including pollies but they have to have been just more than average.

Just my HO.

Tankertrashnav
22nd Oct 2013, 22:33
The British Empire Medal, which as the "bottom tier" of the Order of the British Empire was abolished in 1994, with recipients who would previously have received it (village postmistress, district nurse, service NCO etc) from then on receiving the MBE. This was all part of John Major's big push to bring some equality into the honours system. Separate gallantry medals for "other ranks" were also abolished at the same time.

The BEM has now been reintroduced to reward just the sort of people radeng mentioned, so that from now on you can be sure that anyone who receives the BEM (and the number is being kept quite low on purpose) will be a deserving volunteer, not a time serving civil servant or serviceman/woman who just happens to have kept their nose clean for the requisite number of years.

G-CPTN
23rd Oct 2013, 16:51
BBC News - Hall charged with 16 sex offences (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24646305)