Child protection
- Thread starter Dextraneous
- Start date
- Status
I wonder whether the mods think he brings some entertainment value to the forum. Can't see it myself.
That is not my intention. I created this thread with Saville in mind and how Yewtree seems to be extending its wings back to cover ups of 50 or so years. The question I'm asking is at what point in time will we decide to call it a day and accept that that's how things were since a different moral compass existed. Unfortunately (but I suppose inevitablyIf I might momentarily return to the intended discussion point of this thread (), the age of consent in the UK was set at 13 in 1875 which isn't really all that long ago. It again highlights how arbitrarily our sense of moral indignation can be "learned" and embedded into our culture and how easily we seem to forget that what is now considered reprehensible was fairly recently thought as being acceptable and normal.
Arbitrary yes, Dex, but we live in the here and now. Which is where our moral compass ought to be based.
So true. Fed up with people justifying Islamic atrocities committed now with what the knights did in the crusades.
) the thread has been taken away from the intended track and into the usual tedious and repetitive arguments by the OCD members 
Do you think there was a different moral compass then . Or a better question might be, did the moral compass of Savilles time really allow for the things he did?
I don't think at that time, and I was born in the sixties, that it was generally acceptable to force people to have sex, or to have sex with children.
Otherwise why the secrecy and cover up?
Doesn't the existence of a cover up suggest that society as a whole would have deplored his actions at the time?
As opposed to individuals who facilitated or turned a blind eye.
On the bright side, if there is one, our children are safer now than ever. The shame is that fear has curtailed their childhood freedoms and technology has taken away their innocence.
I don't think at that time, and I was born in the sixties, that it was generally acceptable to force people to have sex, or to have sex with children.
Otherwise why the secrecy and cover up?
Doesn't the existence of a cover up suggest that society as a whole would have deplored his actions at the time?
As opposed to individuals who facilitated or turned a blind eye.
On the bright side, if there is one, our children are safer now than ever. The shame is that fear has curtailed their childhood freedoms and technology has taken away their innocence.
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 673
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
Firstly, thanks to the mods for the clarification. It is very much appreciated.
Secondly, on topic, and I might be courting controversial issues here, I suspect that there is a difference between sex abuse of minors and vulnerable people, as in the Saville affair and other cases, e.g. abuse of many, many children in homes, etc, and the rather more questionable cases of "not strictly legal" sex, e.g. groupies hanging out at stage doors in the hope of some contact with their idols, perhaps like in the Ched Evans, or the Julian Assange case, although I haven't looked at those cases in detail, so apologies if I'm spouting nonsense.
In the straightforward cases like the Saville cases, I suspect the offences would not have been acceptable at the time that they were committed.
Whereas, I suspect, that there are cases that would have been considered "par for the course" or "minor breaches" at the time, but are now persued with vigour because it contributes to the image of "persuing justice" or even possibly regrettable actions by the "victims".
Edit; Just had another thought, is there a "mob effect" potential in sex abuse offences? Is one's moral compass so easily affected?
Secondly, on topic, and I might be courting controversial issues here, I suspect that there is a difference between sex abuse of minors and vulnerable people, as in the Saville affair and other cases, e.g. abuse of many, many children in homes, etc, and the rather more questionable cases of "not strictly legal" sex, e.g. groupies hanging out at stage doors in the hope of some contact with their idols, perhaps like in the Ched Evans, or the Julian Assange case, although I haven't looked at those cases in detail, so apologies if I'm spouting nonsense.
In the straightforward cases like the Saville cases, I suspect the offences would not have been acceptable at the time that they were committed.
Whereas, I suspect, that there are cases that would have been considered "par for the course" or "minor breaches" at the time, but are now persued with vigour because it contributes to the image of "persuing justice" or even possibly regrettable actions by the "victims".
Edit; Just had another thought, is there a "mob effect" potential in sex abuse offences? Is one's moral compass so easily affected?
Were the offenders not prosecuted and sentenced based upon the laws and sentencing criteria which existed when the crimes were committed?
I think it is true to say that sentencing is a lot more severe than it was back then.
If any of us were beamed back into the 1970's we would all be shocked at the attitudes of the day especially those towards women. Similarly children would be beaten openly in the street by their parents without fellow parents batting an eyelid.
Strange times the 1970's. I had a great time growing up back then in spite of the belt, the cane and the slipper.
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 673
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
Dunno. Aren't there limitations of statute, or whatever they're called, for some things but not for others?
The thing about the cane (and I got it at school) is that it never really worked.
Not with some of us anyway!
I saw recently the Corporal Punishment log for a local school , from the seventies, and it was the same names over again.
They recorded how many and where. Eg 'hand' 'seat'
Thinking about it, the worst thing about the cane was the waiting !
There's about 80 odd sharia courts set up now in the uk so that legislation won't apply to the women before those courts.
Under Islamic sharia law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses.
Under Islamic sharia law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses.
- Status
