In all these cases so far, sentencing has been guided by the sentences that typically applied then - not now. However, I agree that it would be unthinkable that past attitudes towards underage prostitutes and homosexuality could dictate current legal policy. However, I don't know if that really arises as a risk. It seems as if you are saying that because comparing the law now and then creates legally fuzzy areas, we should not proceed. Are you saying that? If so, I can't agree. I think we should proceed against what have widely regarded as crimes for a long time, if not in all cases in the past, certainly for at least the last 30-40 years.

I feel like you're slightly raising the same argument as is sometimes wheeled out in the DJ / musician trials - that "in the 60s and 70s, things were different". How true is that really? Did people generally sanction the abuse of young children by grown men? No. Of course not. Did they sanction the taking advantage of vulnerable teenage girls and boys, not by other people almost their own age, but by men in their 40s and 50s? (Savile and Smith) No! They did not.

With the entertainment industry prosecutions they have generally kept it on the straight and narrow so far. Either the victims have been obvious children or the allegation has been of a lack of consent. The CPS has been careful not to prosecute DJ/singers for not checking the birth certificates of groupies. The exception was perhaps Harris but that was in a setting where he could reasonably have been regarded as being in loco parentis.

The entertainment industry cases that have been hovering around young adulthood have mostly concerned females and the demarcation lines were undoubtedly clearer.

I am certainly not saying "do not investigate". The ordure is getting pretty deep.

However, to conduct an investigation successfully, there has to be boundaries and so far there are none. If this investigation is not going to fail amongst recriminations, the inquiry needs essentially to create a past that half existed. It has to set out a code of moral behaviour that most people both today and then would have subscribed to and only investigate conduct that breaches that twin standard.

Reply 65

nulli tertius

Original post by democracyforum

I'm pretty sure Brittan was involved in those same allegations

Yes, but merely because it is alleged that he had procurers in central London who were given to kidnapping doesn't mean that he could not have procurers in north London who paid hard cash.

These are separate allegations from separate sources and need to be kept separate.

Reply 66

Fullofsurprises

Original post by nulli tertius

Agreed that the cases need to be based on solid and agreed legal foundations.

I don't share your faith in the legal community that the entertainment industry trials so far have all been based on the wise policies of the CPS. Why, for example, have there been no investigations and arrests of members of the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin, when numerous books allege flagrant abuse of young victims, their own autobiographies confess to various criminal sexual acts and it is clear that (for example) a number of members of those bands raped very young girls against their will, not just once, but on an organised, regular basis. We could speculate as to the reason why no charges have been pressed. Let's just speculate for a minute and suggest that it might be because of their cult, untouchable, establishment status and not because of any lack of evidence or legal case. Perhaps also because they are very rich men who can bring forwards battalions of lawyers and who operate in an altogether different zone of elevation than the pathetic Paul Gadds or a slimy ex-DJ.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 67

democracyforum

Original post by n00

They even lived on the same street and had dinner together

proof : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqmjHMWLQAk

To lead the #csainquiry, you needed to have had dinner with Leon Brittan, or be a relative of Leon Brittan.

What a sham of an enquiry

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 68

democracyforum

Original post by nulli tertius

What are the current allegations ?

And what were the allegations I was making, that countered them ?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 69

nulli tertius

Original post by democracyforum

What are the current allegations ?

And what were the allegations I was making, that countered them ?

n00 has drawn attention to these allegations

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-tory-leon-brittan-photographed-5037869#ICID=sharebar_twitter

which apart from the fact that they concern Brittan are entirely distinct from these allegations:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/westminster-paedophile-ring-abuse-victims-4638748

Reply 70

nulli tertius

Original post by democracyforum

You really couldn't make that up.

She probably knew Brittan better than David Cameron and Theresa May.

Reply 71

the bear

Original post by Fullofsurprises

No indeed - and clearly his paedophilia and rape of minors was of the gentlemanly sort too and the way it was covered up (along with the large number of similar crimes committed by politicians) by the helpful security services and policeman was also 'splendidly gentlemanly' and the abiding love they all had for Thatcherism and she for them was absolutely terrifically ripping.

I'm sure working class oinks like Jimmy Savile should never have been allowed in to such august circles, it was only going to cause trouble for the private clubs of rich old white men attacking children at will and with impunity.

honestly i thought better of you Fullof. you mustn't believe things you read on the internet.

:mad:

Reply 72

Fullofsurprises

Original post by the bear

honestly i thought better of you Fullof. you mustn't believe things you read on the internet.

:mad:

There seems to be an awful lot of smoke in this case and it's hard to think there isn't at least a small fire and possibly a big one. Time will tell I suppose.

Reply 73

Fullofsurprises

Original post by nulli tertius

You really couldn't make that up.

She probably knew Brittan better than David Cameron and Theresa May.

Perish the thought that the establishment would try a brutally obvious stitch-up even in grotesquely inappropriate contexts like this and then attempt to stick with it even in the face of completely and stonkingly obvious exposure of the truth.

She sounded to me like she'd even trained for the part, she was full of professional half-truths and evasions the last time I heard her quizzed about it on Today. Mandelson would have been proud.

Reply 74

n00

Original post by nulli tertius

You really couldn't make that up.

She probably knew Brittan better than David Cameron and Theresa May.

How do you suppose a mistake like that gets made?

Reply 75

nulli tertius

Original post by n00

How do you suppose a mistake like that gets made?

You can take Fullofsurprises' view that it is all an establishment stitch up. I personally think it is breathtaking arrogance. It is very similar to Lord Hoffman sitting in the Pinochet case despite being a patron of and his wife being an employee of one of the parties to the appeal. I think it just doesn't enter the head of people like that the anyone could possibly doubt them. The first chairman of the inquiry Lady Butler-Sloss was in an even worse position. Her brother was Attorney General when Elm Guest House was raided. He must have been consulted.

I don't buy this idea that anyone of sufficient gravitas must know these people. They are of a different generation to today's movers and shakers. Moreover it is not about knowing them. Most senior people would purely know him in a professional capacity. If they had had a meal with him it was probably decades ago. For goodness sake, even I've met Brittan.

Butler-Sloss was Michael Havers' brother. Fiona Woolf was dining chez Brittan only two years ago. The establishment isn't that small that the only people available are the relatives or dinner guests of people who, even if they were not suspects, clearly had relevant evidence of the events of the time.

Reply 76

democracyforum

Never trust anyone who has a name like , Butler-Sloss,

and looks like Jimmy Savile.

Reply 77

n00

Original post by nulli tertius

You can take Fullofsurprises' view that it is all an establishment stitch up. I personally think it is breathtaking arrogance.

What's the difference?

Reply 78

nulli tertius

Original post by n00

What's the difference?

The first is a deliberate cover up. The second has no intent to cover up. They believe that they will conduct a fair and impartial investigation into their relatives and pals.