'Operation Yewtree' - the McCarthyism of our times??

[Mr Pee]

Did you read not yesterday's papers about the secret six-year
affair between two top people at NI and Downing Street then??

Do please explain what relevance a relationship between two consenting adults has to do with the alleged sexual abuse of minors. Go on, enlighten us.

And I find it interesting that you accuse Scotty of "shameless bandwagoning" because he raised the issues of feminism and political correctness, both of which are more relevant to the subject under discussion than the alleged goings-on at News International, which your chum Richard Barrett shoehorned onto the thread; yet you raised no objection to THAT piece of shameless bandwagoning.

[french frank]

because he raised the issues of feminism and political correctness, both of which are more relevant to the subject under discussion...

What is the relevance of feminism and political correctness to the subject under discussion?

[Mr Pee]

What is the relevance of feminism and political correctness to the subject under discussion?

And what is the relevance of the News International story? Why not add that to your question?

[french frank]

And what is the relevance of the News International story? Why not add that to your question?

Clearly, it's of no relevance whatever (other than the media angle) but I don't think anyone said it was, did they? But you were the one who said feminism and political correctness were of 'more relevance' to the current subject, which is why the question was directed at you and your comment.

[amateur51]

Do please explain what relevance a relationship between two consenting adults has to do with the alleged sexual abuse of minors. Go on, enlighten us.

And I find it interesting that you accuse Scotty of "shameless bandwagoning" because he raised the issues of feminism and political correctness, both of which are more relevant to the subject under discussion than the alleged goings-on at News International, which your chum Richard Barrett shoehorned onto the thread; yet you raised no objection to THAT piece of shameless bandwagoning.

I raised the shabby world of NI journalism as an example of a large institution other than the BBC where moral standards may be said to have slipped, as you know full well.

The two people's sexual relationship per se is not my object of concern: rather it is the shameful way in which they apparently supported staff and freelancers in their illegal attempts to hack other people's phones, looking for evidence of extra-marital affairs, the death of a schoolgirl and the recreational life of Prince Harry. They apparently used this illegally obtained information to sell their newspapers by shaming those involved in extra-marital affairs while they were doing the self-same thing. That's hypocrisy in my book.

[amateur51]

Well, I'll repeat what I said again, and aeolium said in greater detail. This is the bit from the OP which seems fundamentally flawed:

A witch-hunt based on fears and possible threats is different from a 'witch-hunt' in search of criminals. This isn't about a 'threat that isn't there'. It's about crimes that were committed, and insofar as they were crimes, they can't be written off as the 'mores of the time'.

Historic child abuse has been uncovered in any number of institutions. If this kind of media 'witch-hunt' makes it less likely that such a culture will exist again, it will have served a purpose, prison sentences and all. The emphasis being on the 'culture': no one would imagine that individual cases will not still occur.

And let's remember that this new approach to investigating sex-related crimes came about precisely because of the growing number of women police officers and a feminist perspective on investigations such as the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper and the Savile case. Feminist critiques have certainly had an impact on policing but almost entirely for the good from where I'm standing

[scottycelt]

What is the relevance of feminism and political correctness to the subject under discussion?

I'll try and explain.

Both have a huge influence today on the strict definition of 'paedophilia'. Modern society believes that an adult male celebrity who has sex with girls who throw themselves at him and then turn out to be under-age is in the same category as a Jimmy Savile who deliberately and calculatingly preys on kids. That is the way society has changed because people (including women) didn't tend to believe that before. Like everything else there are degrees of culpability in areas of wrongdoing. For example, if I see a wallet lying in the street and decide to keep it rather than handing it in to the police that is wrong but hardly in the same category as if I pick-pocketed the same wallet from a person's body.

The big danger in the current wave of arrests for 'historic' offences is that everyone charged and found guilty is now automatically termed 'a paedophile'. The word wasn't even in use 40/50 years ago. Instead there was sniggering talk of old men in dirty raincoats enticing young children with sweeties. Does anyone seriously believe that is the case with most if not all of these recent arrests?

Recently a barrister was suspended and even publicly rebuked by David Cameron and other authorities because he dared to describe an under-age girl victim as herself a 'sex predator'. If it was true why isn't he now allowed to say it? It may be an uncomfortable thought for all decent people that an under-age girl can be a sex predator but if she can be a thief and even murderess at that age why not a sex predator? Even if the barrister is talking bonkers he surely has the right to say what he said with out the unwarranted interference of David Cameron or any other outsider?

I suggest the obvious influences of both feminism and political correctness in dictating that such things, however true, simply cannot be said. After all, that is clearly evident on this very forum!

[amateur51]

I'll try and explain.

Both have a huge influence today on the strict definition of 'paedophilia'. Modern society believes that an adult male celebrity who has sex with girls who throw themselves at him and then turn out to be under-age is in the same category as a Jimmy Savile who deliberately and calculatingly preys on kids. That is the way society has changed because people (including women) didn't tend to believe that before. Like everything else there are degrees of culpability in areas of wrongdoing. For example, if I see a wallet lying in the street and decide to keep it rather than handing it in to the police that is wrong but hardly in the same category as if I pick-pocketed the same wallet from a person's body.

The big danger in the current wave of arrests for 'historic' offences is that everyone charged and found guilty is now automatically termed 'a paedophile'. The word wasn't even in use 40/50 years ago. Instead there was sniggering talk of old men in dirty raincoats enticing young children with sweeties. Does anyone seriously believe that is the case with most if not all of these recent arrests?

Recently a barrister was suspended and even publicly rebuked by David Cameron and other authorities because he dared to describe an under-age girl victim as herself a 'sex predator'. If it was true why isn't he now allowed to say it? It may be an uncomfortable thought for all decent people that an under-age girl can be a sex predator but if she can be a thief and even murderess at that age why not a sex predator? Even if the barrister is talking bonkers he surely has the right to say what he said with out the unwarranted interference of David Cameron or any other outsider?

I suggest the obvious influences of both feminism and political correctness in dictating that such things, however true, simply cannot be said. After all, that is clearly evident on this very forum!

One of the young women who was a victim of either the Rotherham or Oxford grooming gangs had the point about her possibly being a sexual predator put to her by Sarah Montague on Radio 4 recently. Her answer was that she certainly enjoyed being treated well initially but sat no point was the sex enjoyable, and she had to be so drunk and/or drugged during the sex acts.

It was clearly not consensual and the idea of her being a sexual predator was so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous.


I don't find the wallet story to be analagous at all.

[MrGongGong]

Recently a barrister was suspended and even publicly rebuked by David Cameron and other authorities because he dared to describe an under-age girl victim as herself a 'sex predator'. If it was true why isn't he now allowed to say it?

DO you really need to ask this question ?
How on earth are we supposed to create a society where victims of violence , sexual or not, have the confidence in reporting crime to the police when they are likely to be blamed for something and have even more trauma heaped on what must be a terrible thing to suffer ?

[teamsaint]

spot on , Gongers.
sometimes we need to use a little bit of imagination.

These kind of situations are ones where the power imbalances really do have to be taken into account.

I had to give evidence in a small( county?) court about 10 years ago , in what was , frankly , a really pretty trivial case.
Faced with giving evidence, the defendant, (a rather sad sight he was), and two young and not very aggressive barristers, I was shaking like a leaf, and sweating buckets.

I can't even begin to imagine what such a situation, or other parts of the process, must be like for young victims when faced with the full machinery of an expensive defence, high level police under pressure, and so on.

[french frank]

Modern society believes that an adult male celebrity who has sex with girls who throw themselves at him and then turn out to be under-age is in the same category as a Jimmy Savile who deliberately and calculatingly preys on kids. That is the way society has changed because people (including women) didn't tend to believe that before.

I think the change in attitudes had more to do with the social reformers of the late Victorian age who campaigned for the raising of the age of consent to stop the trafficking in child prostitutes, than with feminism and political correctness.

[MrGongGong]

I suggest the obvious influences of both feminism and political correctness in dictating that such things, however true, simply cannot be said. After all, that is clearly evident on this very forum!

I'll try and be polite but its rather hard
This is utter nonsense
Maybe folk trying to excuse the shameful and systematic abusive behaviour of some folks in some religious institutions might like to make up this shite to try and justify the "evils" of the modern world.
BUT it's a blessed relief that the influence of these people is on the wane.......

Many of us are more than aware of the abusive acts of the past and the terrible damage that has been done, to somehow decide that "political correctness" (something that turns into a bit of a straight banana ) or "feminism" is responsible is simply ridiculous.

[amateur51]

I'll try and be polite but its rather hard
This is utter nonsense
Maybe folk trying to excuse the shameful and systematic abusive behaviour of some folks in some religious institutions might like to make up this shite to try and justify the "evils" of the modern world.
BUT it's a blessed relief that the influence of these people is on the wane.......

Many of us are more than aware of the abusive acts of the past and the terrible damage that has been done, to somehow decide that "political correctness" (something that turns into a bit of a straight banana ) or "feminism" is simply ridiculous.

Your reference to 'a bit of a straight banana' made me laugh out loud, MrGG - many thanks!

[Anna]

What a difficult subject - I think, historically, the 1960s permitted men free rein to 'grope' or 'fondle' because that it how it was then, accepted, and accepted by those girls, as the done thing in the BBC or pop music culture. I don't think someone having a fumble of your breasts or your bum is equivalent to rape and false memory must come into it, possibly?

Institutions, such as Catholic, well, that's a different thing, it was institutionalised, endemic and totally awful.

As to feminism, as a feminist, I totally despair of young girls (and this makes me sound like around 100 years old which I am not) going out into city centres, with their skirts so short they are exposing their bums, getting mullered and crying about rape afterwards whilst they are unconscious through JaegerBombs.
Emmeline would be turning in her grave. This is not Feminism, it's females trying to be males, and it doesn't work.

[jean]

...as a feminist, I totally despair of young girls (and this makes me sound like around 100 years old which I am not) going out into city centres, with their skirts so short they are exposing their bums, getting mullered and crying about rape afterwards whilst they are unconscious through JaegerBombs.

As another feminist, I cannot tell you how much I wish you had not written that, especially the last bit.

No time for more now.