More hysterical nonsense about Cliff Richard and Jimmy Savile. Britain’s witch hunt continues. Famous entertainers get prosecuted for "crimes" they allegedly committed 40 years ago, during the sexually liberated 1960’ies and 70ies. They get charged with alleged "child sex" with 15 year old more than willing "children", or, more absurdly, *rape charges by women who somehow were not able to clearly say "no". These men were so famous, they needed security guards to keep the screeching teenage girls away.
The source accused the police of organising a “fishing expedition”, claiming that the raid had been carried out in an attempt to generate the maximum amount of publicity. Telegraph
The prosecution is based mainly on "mutual corroboration": if 4 women, independently, allege the same type of crime, it must be true. In the case of a common violent criminal this is likely to be true. In the case of a celebrity known by 30 million women, it is quite likely that a few psychologically imbalanced women join the fray. After all, they can earn fame and money. Prosecution is also based on "recovered memories", long debunked by Elisabeth Loftus. And on rape accusations that are most likely false. Cliff Richard, like Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile, is famous enough that his case was quoted in German "Der Spiegel". Thanks to the antifeminist and his commentators for furnishing further details on the British celebrity sex hysteria.
The friend said: “The whole thing is appalling because what they are doing, they are just going in there making as much noise about it as they can and seeing if anyone comes out of the woodwork to back it up. And if they don’t, they will still have wrecked someone’s life.” Telegraph
It is amazing that the sex hysteria persecution goes against fairly decent men, and not against the 70’ies rock bands that were famous for sexual debauchery with adolescent groupies. Maybe the purpose of these sex witch hunts is to instill fear in the common decent man?
In the sexual liberation of the 60’ies, 70’ies, age of consent was considered repression of the past. A faction of the German Green PartyGerman Green Party openly favored abolition of age of consent laws, the maligned Rind Study showed that no damage can be shown to arise from *consensual_ underage sex.
When will anyone learn that if you carry out a police-media trawl of any and every celebrity, then inevitably a line of variously motivated complainants comes forward? This is just as would be expected no matter how clearly innocent is the target. And they don’t come much more obviously innocent than Cliff Richard.
It’s not as though this phenomenon is unknown or non-researched. It’s taboo, of course: Professor Keith Soothill’s findings about the amazingly trivial varied motivations of women making false rape allegations is never even mentioned in the media. And that’s before you consider the research on the hopelessness of human memory even for events which have just happened, never mind putative occurrences of 30 or 40 years ago, for which ‘false memories’ are readily constructed. The media spotlight and financial recompense enter the fray with high-profile police-media trawling; as does the issue of the sheer volume of individuals – the entire population – from which there are significant numbers of psychologically disturbed women seeking a peg on which to hang their aberrant life histories, supposed PTSD, etc. When you have literally thousands of sexual encounters in your past, then it’s a fair bet that a lot of now ageing females are going to redefine consensual and, indeed their initiated advances, as now somehow non-consensual.
The report on Savile is merely yet further cataloguing of mere allegation, on the spurious grounds that parallel allegation must be mutually corroborating. It’s profoundly false to rely on the very phenomenon your investigative methods in themselves were bound to produce as justification for your investigation and its mode. It’s a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ almost certain to result in miscarriage of justice.
It’s not that all there is here is invention, of course; it’s not least the exaggeration of behaviour which appears to be nothing out of the ordinary for a very high-profile youth-cult celebrity. At worst, Savile was described as a "sex pest". No doubt he had a presumptive attitude that a kiss or cuddle from him usually would be welcome. That’s because usually obviously they were. But it is madness to extrapolate the likely high volume of sex he had with young women and older girls in his trailer by the TOTP studio to try to make out that somehow this was with unwilling partners, and that he transferred this behaviour to a hospital setting. [More hysterical nonsense about Cliff Richard and Jimmy Savile]
And apparently a Royal was also involved though they can’t release his name out of propriety.