Operation Yewtree’s witch hunt continues in Great Britain. 80 year old entertainers get ruinous persecutions and rare convictions for groping willing groupie fans in the 1960íes to 1980’ies.
This was the rolling sexual liberation time before the feminist sex repression backlash. Britain’s sun had sexy topless 15 year olds on page 3, like Samantha Fox. In Germany, one could legally buy creepy nudist magazines with nude children of all ages. Playboy and Rock stars had their stable of 14 year old groupies that flew with them around the world. Child Porn was legal in most of the world.
-
Rolf Harris: Stephen Hawking and Cliff Richard must be next in the witch-hunt that is Yewtree
-
A grotesque politicised witch-hunt against males by Keir Starmer, the CPS and the police.
Recent scandals about historic abuse accusations against deceased men have typically led to a media-feeding frenzy, with lurid accounts in TV documentaries and newspapers, often alleging paedophilic abuse. They come with a Greek chorus of activists and campaigning charities demanding justice for ‘victims’ or, more accurately, complainants.
The result is a veritable tsunami of blame, engulfing every institution with which the deceased had dealings, each of which is targeted by claimant lawyers looking for compensation. Undeniably, the money motive looms large in these historic sex scandals.
And now:
Harris, who wore a dark suit and red tie and was supported in the public gallery by wife Alwen and other family members, sat in the witness box as he admitted that he might have complimented the girl’s bikini on holiday when she was 13.
What extreme worry: murder has a statute of limitation, but admiring adolescent beauties does not. Note that legal movies like blue lagoon could never be made again, as they clearly would be child porn by today’s laws.
Women are encouraged to come forward with false and exaggerated old claims, because they get government moneys and the right so sue for huge damages. And, of course, female false accusers (almost) never get as much as a slap on the wrist.
10 unproven allegations are considered proof of the crime. But these allegations were called for by a media frenzy that actually calls for such allegations and rewards them. Note also that there is a percentage of mentally unstable women who confuse fantasy with reality, and
Jimmy Saville
The film is entitled Naughty! (1971) and is up on Vanessa Hugdens YouTube channel – along with some other interesting soft-core sex movies of the time – interesting as an historical document as to ‘advanced’ attitudes. In that respect(I recall, now) there is also a somewhat squeamish section on Homosexuality in the film.
I am afraid my internet skills do not extend to such things as Down-loading whatever that may be.
@opus: can you help me to find that movie? Please also download it so you can mirror it once feminists discover it and have it deleted.
Actually, we all should promote video sites with less censorship then youtube. Which ones?
There is currently considerable historical blindsight.
I recently watched a low-budget British sexploitation movie from 1970 entitled Naughty! (it’s up on Youtube) It is a strange mix of stories and documentary: part of the film is concerned with the 1st (and for all I know the last) International Porn Film Festival which took place in 1969 in The Netherlands. The invitees included the boys from Oz Magazine and in their group of course none other than uber-feminist Germaine Greer, who it is has to be said was, in those days, fairly hot-to-trot. Everyone agreed the movies were boring but somehow it was about freedom – Man! Everything went; S&M, Animals, you name it, because any other view was repressive to human nature and that was a bad thing. In an age of endless and free internet sex (but obviously not involving Animals – other than of the human variety) such attitudes doubtless seem very strange.
Another part of the film took us back in time to Victorian London, where a devout family man spent time at the Brothel. Having left the Brothel he kindly gave a half-crown to a rag-a-muffin waif aged about nine years of age. He then took the waif behind a wall and put his hand up her long skirt. No flesh was shown but otherwise it left nothing to the viewers imagination. Would such a scene be so clearly filmed today, I wonder? I doubt it. The interesting thing is that the voice over does not criticise the man for interfering sexually with a minor who did not seem too unwilling (although of course she was) – the film is silent on that aspect – but merely criticises the man for Hypocricy. What conclusion are we to draw about a film which passed the rigorous standards imposed by The British Board of Film Censors such that it was certified as being fit for viewing albeit by an audience over the age of sixteen. I delight in discovering old movies where a ‘U’ certificate (for Universal Exhibition to all ages) has been granted to movies where one now thinks ‘how did THAT get ANY form of certificate?’.
I cannot recall what I did in the 1970s, perhaps some more-than-willing woman will decide to remind me.
Were I to attend at a police station and allege that an offence was committed (say a driving offence) forty or fifty years ago for which beyond my assertion there was not a shred of evidence, what, being charged with wasting police time, would the police do?
Suppose I were to allege that before the 1967 Sexual Offences Act that I knew of a sexual act committed by two homosexuals who I could name and trace, would the police and CPS be interested – and if not why not?
To answer my questions is surely to reveal the envy and misandry behind the persecution of aging celebrities.
Gary Glitter has just been charged with sex offenses that supposedly occurred in the 70’s. This is just absolutely ridiculously fucked up.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27720875
Thanks @Edwin. Gary Glitter has been imprisoned several times before. He seems to like girls on the younger side, approaching 12, though.
I wonder when they will go after the Rolling Stones and 90% of all other Rock bands who entertained entusiastically consenting groupies under 16 years of age. It surprises me that they don’t. Maybe they fear a backlash, and Gary Glitter, with his prior convictions is a good target, or maybe the test before going for the others.
Keep commenting!
The statute of limitations should be lowered to a year on rape. A year is plenty of time to report it and beyond that most accusations would be hard to prove anyway. If the only evidence is he said/she said bullshit then that should not be sufficient grounds to prosecute. The courts job should be to prove guilt, not to prove innocence and to do that they need evidence to back up the accusations.
And any money rape victims receive in civil court should go directly to cover the cost of therapy. It should not be given to them as profit since that would encourage false accusations and is not necessary for healing.
@Edwin, rape should be reported on the spot. If reported after 5 years, there better be proof beyond reasonable doubt. The main problem is the absurdity and travesty of justice that rape needs no proof, rather the accused needs to prove his innocence. Compound this with late reporting and the victim of the accusation can not sensibly defend himself and prove his innocence.
Also statute of limitations means that a proven rapist can escape justice, if not apprehended timely.
Still, good thoughts.
the false accusers should be prosecuted and named,then see how many file complaints.
it is quite hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an accusation is false, regarding what happened in 1975