Multi-Million/Billionaires Owning Farms
Society & Culture2 mins ago
Freddie Starr: Third Arrest Over Alleged Sexual Offences
80 Answers
Just flashed up on the Sky News alert app.
At this rate and for him to be arrested on the day that all the other household names appeared in court one does wonder if he'll actually be able to get a fair trial, if he is indeed ever charged!
At this rate and for him to be arrested on the day that all the other household names appeared in court one does wonder if he'll actually be able to get a fair trial, if he is indeed ever charged!
Answers
I'm not sure why Starr hasn't been charged ? The Police have had ample time to investigate and bring charges. I am not a fan of Starr in any shape or form and if he is guilty of any offences, he should feel the full force of the law. But to dangle him on a piece of string for so long doesn't seem entirely fair to me. All those others arrested at about the same time are now in...
10:22 Thu 16th Jan 2014
FredPuli43
/// Contributory negligence, or is it contributory ignorance, AOG ? Must remember that if I leave my window open and a burglar gets in and steals my stuff.His mitigation is "I am a habitual burglar. Mr Puli should not present me with a temptation which is irresistible to a man with that unhappy condition" ///
No but 'Mr Puli is partly responsible for his house being burgled.
Just the same as if Mr Puli was to walk down the middle of the M1 and a drunken driver was to knock him down.
/// Contributory negligence, or is it contributory ignorance, AOG ? Must remember that if I leave my window open and a burglar gets in and steals my stuff.His mitigation is "I am a habitual burglar. Mr Puli should not present me with a temptation which is irresistible to a man with that unhappy condition" ///
No but 'Mr Puli is partly responsible for his house being burgled.
Just the same as if Mr Puli was to walk down the middle of the M1 and a drunken driver was to knock him down.
No internet, no mobile phones, no hundreds of channels on 24/7...
The teenagers today are not as naive and are more sexually aware.
Your usual claim is 'it didn't happen in my day' when things did happen in your day. Sexual abuse was swept under the carpet, youngsters weren't believed or made to feel guilty.
Today they have help lines, charities, magazines....
The teenagers today are not as naive and are more sexually aware.
Your usual claim is 'it didn't happen in my day' when things did happen in your day. Sexual abuse was swept under the carpet, youngsters weren't believed or made to feel guilty.
Today they have help lines, charities, magazines....
AOG - "/// Your position with this response appears to be the same as the general attitude of the day when these offences were committed - it must be the vistim's fault, not the perpetrator's. ///"
You stated that you wondered what the victim was doing in the toilets with that person - which infers a degree of responsibility on the part of the victim - why would a woman or girl enter toilets with a man?
Why indeed - but since the facts advised are that she was in the ladies' toilet, and the accused entered and assaulted her there.
Quite how that equates to being in any way the responsibility of the victim is honestly beyond me - but if you can find a reasoned argument why a woman assaulted by a man in a ladies' toilet is partly her responsibility, I'd be very keen to read it.
"And where have I said that, or even hinted on it, I was just showing the other side of the coin merely to instil debate.
But having said that and also in no way condoning what is alleged to have happened in anywhere, it has to be said that in some cases some of the responsibility has to fall partly upon the victim."
I would suggest that playing devil's advocate around such an emotive subject is a difficult position to take without the inference that you think the victim is at least partly responsible for the actions of the perpetrator.
But of course, you haven't done that - you have made your position abundantly clearly by advising that "... in some cases, the responsibility has to fall partly on the victim."
That has to be one of the most outrageus statements i have ever read in all my years on the AB.
The idea that you can add insult to injury to an sexually abused woman by advising that the abuse is partly her fault is indefensible.
That gives carte blanche to any man who wishes to force his attentions on a woman because he can use the oft-used and utterly abhorent cliche - "she was asking for it ...".
To the best of my knowledge, no woman 'asks' to be sexually assaulted, and the inference that placing herself in some pre-determined situation infers that she is willing to be assaulted is an appalling attitude designed to excuse the vile behaviour of a man with no self control or respect for other people.
I hope you are never on a jury involving a sexual assault on anyone of my aquaintance - your pre-war attitudes to male behaviour make me shudder.
You stated that you wondered what the victim was doing in the toilets with that person - which infers a degree of responsibility on the part of the victim - why would a woman or girl enter toilets with a man?
Why indeed - but since the facts advised are that she was in the ladies' toilet, and the accused entered and assaulted her there.
Quite how that equates to being in any way the responsibility of the victim is honestly beyond me - but if you can find a reasoned argument why a woman assaulted by a man in a ladies' toilet is partly her responsibility, I'd be very keen to read it.
"And where have I said that, or even hinted on it, I was just showing the other side of the coin merely to instil debate.
But having said that and also in no way condoning what is alleged to have happened in anywhere, it has to be said that in some cases some of the responsibility has to fall partly upon the victim."
I would suggest that playing devil's advocate around such an emotive subject is a difficult position to take without the inference that you think the victim is at least partly responsible for the actions of the perpetrator.
But of course, you haven't done that - you have made your position abundantly clearly by advising that "... in some cases, the responsibility has to fall partly on the victim."
That has to be one of the most outrageus statements i have ever read in all my years on the AB.
The idea that you can add insult to injury to an sexually abused woman by advising that the abuse is partly her fault is indefensible.
That gives carte blanche to any man who wishes to force his attentions on a woman because he can use the oft-used and utterly abhorent cliche - "she was asking for it ...".
To the best of my knowledge, no woman 'asks' to be sexually assaulted, and the inference that placing herself in some pre-determined situation infers that she is willing to be assaulted is an appalling attitude designed to excuse the vile behaviour of a man with no self control or respect for other people.
I hope you are never on a jury involving a sexual assault on anyone of my aquaintance - your pre-war attitudes to male behaviour make me shudder.
Sadly , Andy, people who make AOG's disingenuous comments about sexual assault are still on juries; and they are all women ! It is the women who you can see saying to themselves "Silly cow ! What was she doing? Talk about asking for it, when you are not! No more sense than she was born with ! What did she think? Well, of course, she wasn't thinking straight, but still. If she were my daughter....!Poor bloke. Doesn't deserve jail..." And, hey presto, your bloke walks. It's what we call 'jury equity', after that branch of law, equity, which provides justice when a strict application of the law would not.
I would think most teenage lads and young men in the sixties and seventies tried it on with girls whenever they could and yes even 'touched them up' and probably got a slap for it but then everyone moved on. If these cases in the public eye are on a par with what most young men got up to in those days then I cant help thinking there might be pound signs involved. If it's more serious then fair enough, they need to be brought to justice.
/// That has to be one of the most outrageus statements i have ever read in all my years on the AB. ///
/// The idea that you can add insult to injury to an sexually abused woman by advising that the abuse is partly her fault is indefensible. ///
Oh for goodness sake Andy get off your high horse of PC outrage, and stand up to reality.
You are simply putting all women under the same roof, and I am afraid that cannot be done as some have different moral behaviour than others.
And so yes, although it may be unpalatable to hear, in certain circumstances 'SOME' women can be partially to blame.
"If one plays with fire then one can expect to be burnt"
There now add that to what must be your very long list of most outrageus statements you have ever read in all your years on the AB.
/// The idea that you can add insult to injury to an sexually abused woman by advising that the abuse is partly her fault is indefensible. ///
Oh for goodness sake Andy get off your high horse of PC outrage, and stand up to reality.
You are simply putting all women under the same roof, and I am afraid that cannot be done as some have different moral behaviour than others.
And so yes, although it may be unpalatable to hear, in certain circumstances 'SOME' women can be partially to blame.
"If one plays with fire then one can expect to be burnt"
There now add that to what must be your very long list of most outrageus statements you have ever read in all your years on the AB.
AOG - "Oh for goodness sake Andy get off your high horse of PC outrage, and stand up to reality."
I am sorry to read that you think my view is based on my 'high horse of PC outrage' and that I should ' ... stand up to reality."
My reality is this - if a woman walks into a room stark naked and chats to every man in the place, she still has a right to her perogative of saying no to anyone about anything.
The notion that a woman being in a certain place at a certain time, dressed in a certain way, and behaving in a certain way means that she is giving off non-verbal signals that she is willing to be sexually assaulted is frankly ludicrous.
My experience with women is not huge by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing i have learned is this - if a woman wishes a man to make an approach in a sexual manner, she will let him know. If she is not sending out any such signals, and the man acts as though she is, and proceeds to a sexual assault, then the notion that he was 'led on' etc. ad nauseum, simply does not provide any defence whatsoever.
If a woman struggles and says 'No', it's a reasonable conculsion that any apparent indications of attraction have been misread, and any man with any degree of respect and control will stop at that point, and apologise.
To continue on the basis that trhe woman must have been 'interested' because of the aforementioned behaviour / dress / location is absolutely no defence what ever for any man in any situation.
it is not about decided complicity by the victim, it is about a man seeing an opportunity to behave appallingly, and taking it, regardless of the reactions of his victim at the time.
If you see that as being on my 'PC high horse', then I am delighted to say 'Giddy up!"
I am sorry to read that you think my view is based on my 'high horse of PC outrage' and that I should ' ... stand up to reality."
My reality is this - if a woman walks into a room stark naked and chats to every man in the place, she still has a right to her perogative of saying no to anyone about anything.
The notion that a woman being in a certain place at a certain time, dressed in a certain way, and behaving in a certain way means that she is giving off non-verbal signals that she is willing to be sexually assaulted is frankly ludicrous.
My experience with women is not huge by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing i have learned is this - if a woman wishes a man to make an approach in a sexual manner, she will let him know. If she is not sending out any such signals, and the man acts as though she is, and proceeds to a sexual assault, then the notion that he was 'led on' etc. ad nauseum, simply does not provide any defence whatsoever.
If a woman struggles and says 'No', it's a reasonable conculsion that any apparent indications of attraction have been misread, and any man with any degree of respect and control will stop at that point, and apologise.
To continue on the basis that trhe woman must have been 'interested' because of the aforementioned behaviour / dress / location is absolutely no defence what ever for any man in any situation.
it is not about decided complicity by the victim, it is about a man seeing an opportunity to behave appallingly, and taking it, regardless of the reactions of his victim at the time.
If you see that as being on my 'PC high horse', then I am delighted to say 'Giddy up!"
-- answer removed --
AOG - let me offer you a reverse scenario.
i am in court for assault - soecifically, punching a complete stranger in a pub.
My defence?
He was 'asking for it'.
We were in a pub which is where fights occur.
He was dressed in a tight tee-shirt showing his muscles which means he thinks he is a hard case. I bumped into him and spilled his drink. He looked around at me, in a funny way, obviously looking for trouble, so i punched him before he could punch me.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
All the ingredients are there - location, dress, provocation - so using your logic, i am not guilty of any offence - he was, as stated, asking for it.
Over to you.
i am in court for assault - soecifically, punching a complete stranger in a pub.
My defence?
He was 'asking for it'.
We were in a pub which is where fights occur.
He was dressed in a tight tee-shirt showing his muscles which means he thinks he is a hard case. I bumped into him and spilled his drink. He looked around at me, in a funny way, obviously looking for trouble, so i punched him before he could punch me.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
All the ingredients are there - location, dress, provocation - so using your logic, i am not guilty of any offence - he was, as stated, asking for it.
Over to you.
Latest Posts
Crosswords11 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.