Kevin Spacey

[richardfinegold]

Kevin Spacey made advances to a fourteen year old boy some thirty years ago,that was illegal then, and remains illegal now.There are a number of reasons why this is so, an important one centres on the belief that underage children are deemed by law to be unable to give informed consent, girls as well as boys.

Pedophile behaviour is always an attack on a child's trust.

From my perspective as a gay man, Spacey made a calamitous misjudgement by coming out at the same time as gay, thus conflating two different situations. This only reinforces the widely held belief that gays are pedophiles.

On the wider issue of unwanted sexual advances on women and men by persons in positions of power, it seems to me that we sadly lack definitions. Most of us would agree that unwanted touching is different in scale to violent rape, but the tabloids make no such distinction and give equal credence to either in their headlines. It does seem strange that victims come forward with circumstantial evidence as much as a generation later than the events described. I am not suggesting that some of these histories are trivial, or condone the perpetrators actions, but at the moment the surrounding hysteria seems a bit excessive.

I am not disagreeing with any of this, ff, but taking issue with the argument that a scandal such as this is necessarily a career killer. The Public is fickle, has short memory, and after a time tends to actually honor a pariah

[teamsaint]

I am not disagreeing with any of this, ff, but taking issue with the argument that a scandal such as this is necessarily a career killer. The Public is fickle, has short memory, and after a time tends to actually honor a pariah

Response is determined by the media, not by the public's memory span, I suggest.
And it really depends on who you are.
Some people do their time,and the media let them off the hook, others guilty of similar offences are never allowed to rehabilitate their careers.

[vinteuil]

R
Some people do their time,and the media let them off the hook, others guilty of similar offences are never allowed to rehabilitate their careers.

... which I think is your position re: Robt: King?


.

[teamsaint]

... which I think is your position re: Robt: King?


.

No, it isn't . My position is that people should, as far as possible, be treated equally.

He has got off far more lightly than others in both classical and other music for similar offences, and the media, including R3 have been complicit in ensuring this unequal treatment. Despite having committed very serious offences against children, he isn't barred from working with them.
Outcomes will never be entirely fair, but that is no reason not to seek fairness, or to point out huge disparity in treatment or outcome.

[vinteuil]

My position is that people should, as far as possible, be treated equally.
He has got off far more lightly than others in both classical and other music for similar offences

... I didn't and don't have access to all the info before the judge at the trial. Nor I imagine do you. In this case I am happy to accept that the judge made the right judgment, and that, once a criminal has purged his penalty sentence, he is entitled to resume his place in society with all that that entails.

.

[eighthobstruction]

The latter indeed

....Oh I thought you were talking about Martin Luther King....(same/similar double standard)

[teamsaint]

... I didn't and don't have access to all the info before the judge at the trial. Nor I imagine do you. In this case I am happy to accept that the judge made the right judgment, and that, once a criminal has purged his penalty sentence, he is entitled to resume his place in society with all that that entails.

.

Judges make errors. The BBC management , as we are seeing very clearly, has failings, and makes errors of judgements.

Others convicted of very similar offences, ( EG Jonathan Rees -Williams, ex Chapel Royal) have been unable to make a return to any kind of musical life, let alone resuming the kind of career that King has been able to.

There is a disastrous inequality in King's case. Other convicted offenders simply have outright bans on their music being performed on the BBC. Whether this is right or not, is another matter.

And as a sideline to Robert King's particular case, the fact that he wasn't barred from working with children is quite extraordinary, and completely unjustifiable. Allowing people to rehabilitate their careers is one thing. But a convicted child sex offender not being barred from working with children , at least for a very long time ? Ludicrous.

[vinteuil]

.

... I think the court knew more about the case than you do.


.

[teamsaint]

.

... I think the court knew more about the case than you do.


.

obviously.

Doesn't mean he got it right on sentencing though. ( Edit...although I would say that from what little I have read, the actual prison term given does seem broadly in line with other similar offences, as far as one can tell).

A lot of people who undergo very intrusive DBS checks might have something to say about the issue of barring too.

[doversoul1]

.

... I think the court knew more about the case than you do.


.

Then was not the court obliged to explain why Robert King was an exceptional case?

I don’t think this is a legal matter but it is a matter of attitude, perception, preference etc. of the society or more precisely, that of classical music world.

[Petrushka]

Then was not the court obliged to explain why Robert King was an exceptional case?.

Why would they do this? The case is tried in court, not in the media or anywhere else, and the verdict and sentencing carried out on what has been heard in evidence in that court. To do anything else would make a mockery of the law. We, the public, cannot know the very many shades of meaning given in that evidence. The judge and jury do with verdict and sentencing carried out accordingly. Nothing is ever black and white and what might look like a lenient sentence in one case may seem unduly harsh for another in the 'same' crime.

[teamsaint]

He was convicted of a series of child sex offences, and given a substantial, and probably appropriate prison sentence.

Quite why he wasn't barred from working with children really is a mystery.

As a contrast ,public sector workers can, for example , be barred from working, ie lose their job, just for simply living with somebody who has a caution for ABH. But King was left free to work with children. IMO that needs explaining. In any case, he should have been barred as a simple precaution, even if the judge did think he was probably a reformed character.

http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/childcare-disqualification-requirements/

[doversoul1]

Why would they do this? The case is tried in court, not in the media or anywhere else, and the verdict and sentencing carried out on what has been heard in evidence in that court. To do anything else would make a mockery of the law. We, the public, cannot know the very many shades of meaning given in that evidence. The judge and jury do with verdict and sentencing carried out accordingly. Nothing is ever black and white and what might look like a lenient sentence in one case may seem unduly harsh for another in the 'same' crime.

That is my point; this is not a legal matter. The question is why Robert King is not treated by society, including the BBC, in the same way as those who committed similar crimes and served their prison terms?

[ed.] reading ts’s post, it does seem to have some legal aspects.

[french frank]

Quite why he wasn't barred from working with children really is a mystery.

As far as I know, a judge usually gives a quite lengthy summing up and explains the sentence given if it is not usual. It's not unusual for an appeal to be made if someone disagrees with the sentence on the grounds that it's too lenient or too severe, and changes can be made on appeal. Was there an appeal in this case, or were those involved satisfied?

[teamsaint]

As far as I know, a judge usually gives a quite lengthy summing up and explains the sentence given if it is not usual. It's not unusual for an appeal to be made if someone disagrees with the sentence on the grounds that it's too lenient or too severe, and changes can be made on appeal. Was there an appeal in this case, or were those involved satisfied?

The only thing I can find online, ( and I haven't looked that hard) are the brief comments quoted in the Telegraph report, about his change in life since the offences.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553503/Conductor-jailed-for-abusing-boys.htm