Lohkee wrote:
Well, that, and the Brits really love a good witch-hunt. Operation Ore, anyone?

Oh, God, yes! It's like a national sport.

Studio36

Lohkee wrote:
Yep. A lot of good people completely destroyed by false evidence. Very sad, really. Any semblance of reason and good evidence was quite happily tossed to the wind. Feeding frenzy would be a gross understatement

People do not become life long buggerers without the aid and comfort of others. Same thing for Sandusky, he was one of many.

Abi Hill wrote:
Allegedly, if this is all true of course (and it's sure looking that way), there are a LOT of young people who have had their lives changed irrevocably by one man's twisted perception of what is ok and what isn't (and his accomplices of course).

I don't like the idea its only really come out of the woodwork since he's passed but I appreciate that sexual assault takes a lot of courage to report, no less when it's someone as high profile as Jimmy Savile and co.

That was then. Where were the parents?

Today? One can often ask the very same question!

Studio36

Lohkee wrote:
Well, that, and the Brits really love a good witch-hunt. Operation Ore, anyone?

"Ore" means "Hooker" in British

Viking Models wrote:
People do not become life long buggerers without the aid and comfort of others. Same thing for Sandusky, he was one of many.

I worked cases from Ore, did you? People killed themselves when accused of crimes they (provably) could not have committed even if they had wanted to. It was a witch-hut based on false evidence from the U.S. (credit card fraud anyone?) that the U.K. has since apologized for. Sucks to be a dead person when the apology comes.

rp_photo wrote:

"Ore" means "Hooker" in British

News to me, and I grew up there

surinity wrote:
I must admit I have a perverted sense of humor, but the interview with the lady who ran the girls school for intelligent girls who couldnt quite fit into society but would do anything for one of jimmies cigarettes, apparently, is quite surreal

In another recent but completely different case the social workers involved publicly voiced the opinion that the girls had made "a lifestyle choice" [to give away a little pussy in exchange for other stuff that they wanted - alcohol, drugs and material goods.] These are girls, and boys as well, "in care," but that does not mean that they are in a secure facility [locked up]. Quite the opposite. They are literally free to come and go as they damn well please, and some of them do exactly that.

Looking around my own inner city neighbourhood, I would have to be sympathetic to that view in broad general terms. I used to take one of my dogs to the park in the early hours [3 - 4 AM] and I was never surprised, but always on my guard, encountering 13, 14, and 15 y/o kids on the street at those hours. Sometimes they were clearly drunk, high on drugs, or both, and looking for trouble. Having a large drolly hound with me was an obvious deterrent, however,

Studio36

Lohkee wrote:
Maybe I'm dating myself here, but who wasn't boinking their brains out by the time they were 13? No one that I can think of

True dat. There is one I know in the neighbourhood as we speak, who is 12 [13 now I think] and servicing the local lads in exchange for ????. They are not only screwing their little brains out, but, by any measure, are actually prostituting themselves.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

True dat. There is one I know in teh neighbourhood as we speak, who is 12 [13 now I think] and servicing the local lads in exchange for ????. They are not only screwing their little brains out, but, by any measure, are actually prostituting themselves.

Studio36

So, not much has changed from the late 60's? Chuckles. Oh how I miss ol blighty.

Lohkee wrote:
So, not much has changed from the late 60's? Chuckles. Oh how I miss ol blighty.

The only change since then [possibly] is the current belief amongst a lot of the "yoof" that oral, anal, and hand-jobs aren't even considered having sex at all.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
The only change since then is the current belief amongst a lot of the "yoof" that oral, anal, and hand-jobs aren't even considered having sex at all.

Studio36

These things weren't considered "sex" then I think what Americans do not understand is that the "age of consent" is much lower in Europe. Jebus, I was a bar tender when I was 18 (Black Lion Inn, Bristol, Witchurch). 16, you could go to the bar. No problem. Holy crap! By American standards I'm a pedo!!!!!! (and loved every minute of it).

rp_photo wrote:

"Ore" means "Hooker" in British

Wouldn't that be 'Ore as in the Cockney of whore with the H sound silent?

Designit - Edward Olson wrote:

Wouldn't that be 'Ore as in the Cockney of whore with the H sound silent?

Nope?

Lohkee wrote:
Maybe I'm dating myself here, but who wasn't boinking their brains out by the time they were 13? No one that I can think of

HUH?

SAND DIAL wrote:

Lohkee wrote:
Maybe I'm dating myself here, but who wasn't boinking their brains out by the time they were 13? No one that I can think of

HUH?

boinking = screwing = fucking in case you aren't familiar with the word "boinking"  aka "bonking"

As for girls and boys of, say, 13 > 16 ever since the concept of Gillick competence was enshrined into British law the statutory age of consent [nominally 16] has become very flexible when the question is sex with one of their peers. Unless there is some element of coercion or force involved, and a formal complaint is made to the police, prosecutions for u-age sex are very rare.

Studio36

T B O L wrote:
The latest celebrity to have been interviewed is reported by friends to be suicidal. I hope the police have acted appropriately otherwise the backlash will be overwhelming - particularly given this particular celebrity's widely held popularity. He can't be identified currently - not that that's much protection!

That's strange we've been seeing his name in forums everywhere... He did that song "tie me kangaroo down boys" and uses a wobble board for music.

What about the 60s 70s and 80s when rock bands had tons of groupies and lots of sex. I guess now the floodgates will have to open and they'll all come under the microscope and this will open up a HUGE can of worms both socially and ethically.... And still today rock stars and groups do this, but no one checks for ID's or such have they?

What do you think?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
What do you think?

The government should just bite the bullet and recognise the facts of life on the ground. Then lower the age of consent to, say, 12 and get it over with.

Oz recognises Gillick as a legal concept too. Simples!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
The government should just bite the bullet and recognise the facts of life on the ground. Then lower the age of consent to, say, 12 and get it over with.

Oz recognises Gillick as a legal concept too. Simples!

Studio36

Dunno if I can agree with this one. Why should there be an age of consent at all? People gonna do it when they are ready to, well, do it. Nature. You can't, no matter how much you might want to, really control nature via legislation

Lohkee wrote:
Dunno if I can agree with this one. Why should there be an age of consent at all? People gonna do it when they are ready to, well, do it. Nature. You can't, no matter how much you might want to, really control nature via legislation

mas simpático

Studio36

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
First off this is a huge story and I'm sad for the victims. Now having said that is this some new kind of hysteria that it seems to come up in the media a lot?

Today forget commies, the new hysteria is "peds under the beds" or on street corners or public loos..... That's the new hysteria so to speak IMHO...

For those of you from the UK so I'd love to know your thoughts on this whole Jimmy Saville thing........We're only just hearing about it now in Australia with lots of big names being questioned..

It's just my opinion but this is getting to the point of becoming a potential witch hunt...

Could it be that a lot of innocent people might be charged and it will become a he said /she/he said affair. Unless they can find evidence that is foolproof. The finger pointing just will not end.

Why are they only going after the dead and half dead when there are bigger fish to fry. And even here the various inquiries have very limited terms of reference.

And I know these things go high up and are well orchestrated. Even here....


So where is the real fire????

I don't know if it's a big deal here or not, but I've never heard of him, if that helps.

ArtisticPhotography wrote:
I don't know if it's a big deal here or not, but I've never heard of him, if that helps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile


He was an icon in the U.K. who did many good things for charity.

studio36uk wrote:

The government should just bite the bullet and recognise the facts of life on the ground. Then lower the age of consent to, say, 12 and get it over with.

Oz recognises Gillick as a legal concept too. Simples!

Studio36

What's a Gillick?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

What's a Gillick?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
What's a Gillick?

Gillick competence is a term originating in England and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (16 years or younger) is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge. In this case the issue of proscribing contraception. And where a minor [U-16] seeks contraception advice or prescribing it must be reasonably presumed they are already sexually active or considering becoming sexually active. Just as day follows night follows day, and so forth.

The standard is based on a decision of the House of Lords in the case Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402 (HL). The case is binding in England and Wales, and has been approved in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

The Gillick case involved a health departmental circular advising doctors on the contraception of minors (for this purpose, under sixteens). The circular stated that the prescription of contraception was a matter for the doctor's discretion, and that they could be prescribed to under sixteens without parental consent. This matter was litigated because an activist, Mrs. Victoria Gillick (née Gudgeon), ran an active campaign against the policy. Mrs Gillick sought a declaration that prescribing contraception was illegal because the doctor would commit an offence of encouraging sex with a minor, and that it would be treatment without consent as consent vested in the parent. Mrs Gillick was unsuccessful in the courts.

The House of Lords focussed on the issue of consent rather than a notion of 'parental rights' or parental powers. In fact, the court held that 'parental rights' did not exist, other than to safeguard the best interests of a minor. The majority held that in some circumstances a minor could consent to treatment, and that in these circumstances a parent had no power to veto treatment.

Lord Scarman and Lord Fraser proposed slightly different tests (Lord Bridge agreed with both). Lord Scarman's test is generally considered to be the test of 'Gillick competency'. He required that a child could consent if he or she fully understood the medical treatment that is proposed:

"As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed." Lord Scarman

The ruling holds particularly significant implications for the legal rights of minor children in England in that it is broader in scope than merely medical consent. It lays down that the authority of parents to make decisions for their minor children is not absolute, but diminishes with the child's evolving maturity; except in situations that are regulated otherwise by statute, the right to make a decision on any particular matter concerning the child shifts from the parent to the child when the child reaches sufficient maturity to be capable of making up his or her own mind on the matter requiring decision.

Because of this court decision the current view is that this case, in legal terms, has implications in areas such as e.g. sexual consent.

The Gillick competence doctrine is part of Australian law: see e.g. DoCS vY [1999] NSWSC 644.

Studio36

Lohkee wrote:

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
What's a Gillick?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

Yup, and where you have someone who is, as it is sometimes said, 13 going on 30 you, as a parent, a policeman, or a prosecutor, have a problem with them and their legal capacity to consent to sex.

Studio36

Groupies became prominent in the music scene in the 1960s and 1970s. This was prior to the murder of John Lennon in December 1980, and before security levels for bands increased significantly. Female groupies in particular have a long-standing reputation of being available to celebrities, pop stars, rock stars and other public figures. Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant is quoted as distinguishing between fans who wanted brief sexual encounters, and "groupies" who travelled with musicians for extended periods of time, acting as a surrogate girlfriend or mother, often taking care of the musician's valuables, drugs, wardrobe, and social life

rp_photo wrote:
"Ore" means "Hooker" in British

News to me, I've only heard of Ore in the context of metal deposits in rock.

In my work, by the time the common populace has cottoned on to the slang being used it is already to old to use by those who originated the meaning for the term. I have never heard of the meaning you purport.

By the way, it is International English as opposed to 'in British' and not American English.

Designit - Edward Olson wrote:
Wouldn't that be 'Ore as in the Cockney of whore with the H sound silent?

The word is whore pronounced hor and is not cockney but does indeed mean prostitute.

Ore is something different.