Jimmy Saville biopic

[mudsticks]

It doesn't in court, or at least not any more.

In the 27 or so years I've been going to court attitudes to sex abuse victims have improved a lot, which does tell us improvement was needed.

The days of a judge making a clumsy comment about the length of a woman's skirt are gone, and it never happened very often anyway.

Also worth bearing in mind there are now a lot more women barristers and judges who, as a general point, have a better understanding of these matters than men.

In the 1990s I saw male - and female - defending barristers get stuck into rape victims for alleged slutty behaviour, often when there was clearly none.

But there are now procedural rules, albeit complicated and subjective, to prevent that.

I hope things have improved - i'm sure in some cases they have.

But conviction rates are still extremely low, as are the number of cases even brought before court.

Many people are still extremely wary of coming forwards at all, for fear of the treatment they will receive, and from fear of being retraumatised by the whole process.
I know the police and the courts are trying to put in place measures to improve matters, but according to reports I've heard progress has been very slow, and patchy to say the least.

I'm not even going to go near the phrase 'slutty behaviour" that just sounds like another "She was asking for it" type of phrase, used to excuse assault, that we should have left behind long ago.

It's really not that difficult to comprehend the ideas of consensual / non consensual sexual activity.

The fact that some people choose to pretend they 'don't get it' is just more excusing of very poor behaviour.

Now you are implying Trump and Johnson are just as bad as Savile.

No I'm not doing that at all, perhaps you actually need to read what I have written, and then return to your English comprehension books.

I am clearly saying that people are still voting into office, men with very poor attitudes towards women, and towards sexual harassment, assault, or disrespect of women, and their bodies in general.
In Trumps case he said some very creepy stuff about his own daughter

The fact that these men are voted in at all, implies that many of the voting public find unimportant these careless attitudes.

That to me, and many others, is very troubling, as it sets a tone.

It might be expected that our leaders would set good examples by their behaviours .

The two I mentioned clearly do anything but that.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I am clearly saying that people are still voting into office, men with very poor attitudes towards women, and towards sexual harassment, assault, or disrespect of women, and their bodies in general.
In Trumps case he said some very creepy stuff about his own daughter

The fact that these men are voted in at all, implies that many of the voting public find unimportant these careless attitudes.

That to me, and many others, is very troubling, as it sets a tone.

It might be expected that our leaders would set good examples by their behaviours .

The two I mentioned clearly do anything but that.

Johnson does not set a good example at all, but that is mostly about his lack of respect for his wife and children.

Trump is in a different league with his comments about women and what he could do to them. Yes it is troubling that so many are still willing to ignore this and vote for him, but what is truly mind-boggling is that so many of his supporters, who think the Sun shines out of his arse, are women. Do they have no self-respect or empathy with those of their own sex?

The same, to a lesser extent, applies to the blue-rinse brigade who cheer on Johnson's every word at party conferences.

 

[mudsticks]

Johnson does not set a good example at all, but that is mostly about his lack of respect for his wife and children.

Trump is in a different league with his comments about women and what he could do to them. Yes it is troubling that so many are still willing to ignore this and vote for him, but what is truly mind-boggling is that so many of his supporters, who think the Sun shines out of his arse, are women. Do they have no self-respect or empathy with those of their own sex?

The same, to a lesser extent, applies to the blue-rinse brigade who cheer on Johnson's every word at party conferences.

I know, it is, as you say, somewhat miind boggling.

Some might opine that it's down to a degree of what could be termed 'internalised misogyny'

That is, the belief that women, including themselves even, are only due as much respect as society itself chooses to bestow upon them, for sticking to 'the rules'.


That this 'respect' is only earned through given markers, traditionally alotted by patriachal norms.

Ie chastity, and modesty, combined also with fecundity, (soccer mom culture) appropriate levels of attractiveness, and general devotion to servicing the needs, and desires of that patriachal society.

Anyone stepping outside of that, is seen as some kind of mad, or bad, or transgressive woman, threatening to the 'contract'
She will gets what she 'deserves' and only has herself to blame for the consequences, of stepping outside 'the boundaries' .

We as women, are messaged from birth, to comply with this narrow set of 'acceptable' parameters, and behaviours, or face disapproval, or worse.

Overriding all that takes no small degree of effort - I can assure you

Having said that, figures are showng a slide away from women supporting Trump.

Sure some will still be 'true believers' in some weird twisted fashion.


And maybe others will vote as their menfolk darn well tell them to -
-or maybe not once in the voting booth -
-here's hoping.

Johnson btw has made many many remarks pertaining to his disrespectful attitude towards women - quite besides his domestic record - a quick shimmy over to that thread >>> would reveal as much

I'm afraid I have to get back to the kitchen now

 

[steveindenmark]

I can't think who you mean. One of these perhaps:
Fausto Coppi, Charly Gaul, Jacques Anquetil, Raymond Poulidor, Tom Simpson, Eddie Merckx, Bernard Thevenet, Francesco Moser, Pedro Delgado, Laurent Fignon, Sean Yates, Claudi Chiapucci, Stephen Roche, Giani Bugno, Marco Pantani, Eric Zabel, Bjarne Riis, Richard Virenque, Alex Zulle, Stuart O’Grady, Frankie Andreu, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Lance Armstrong, David Millar, Ivan Basso, Floyd Landis, Jan Ullrich ………..oh, I'm getting bored now.

And that's just a selection of the better known riders, but only going back to 1949. The first cases start back in the 19th century.

Very good. So who do you think I was referring to? Spoiler. Everyone else knew 🙄

 

[Chris S]

Boom-boom!
(to quote another 70s entertainer)

Oh no, don't tell me he's a wrong un as well, I used to love his show.

Derek Fowlds used to have his hand up Basil's bum.

 

[Milzy]

I’ve known people’s lives destroyed through sexual abuse and many end up taking their own lives.
Why is British comedy just full of Peado jokes? Also lads banter calling each other nonces etc? It’s serious stuff so why joke about it?

 

[mudsticks]

I’ve known people’s lives destroyed through sexual abuse and many end up taking their own lives.
Why is British comedy just full of Peado jokes? Also lads banter calling each other nonces etc? It’s serious stuff so why joke about it?

Yup, sadly all of above.

The jokes??

A need to deflect, and diminish in the face of challenging, and uncomfortable truths.

A bit like the "it's just bantz" defence when pulled up over "locker room jokes"

 

[Rusty Nails]

I’ve known people’s lives destroyed through sexual abuse and many end up taking their own lives.
Why is British comedy just full of Peado jokes? Also lads banter calling each other nonces etc? It’s serious stuff so why joke about it?

Which comedians do you listen to? I am not aware of comedy being "just full of paedo jokes". There is a wide range of comedy styles, and the nasty stuff is just an unpleasant part of that range.

 

[Milzy]

Which comedians do you listen to? I am not aware of comedy being "just full of paedo jokes". There is a wide range of comedy styles, and the nasty stuff is just an unpleasant part of that range.

Many British comedians do it. Jimmy Carr is a prime example. There’s lots like him.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Many British comedians do it. Jimmy Carr is a prime example. There’s lots like him.

I can't stand the nasty little man and haven't watched or listened to him for many years. I'll have to take your word about any others. It may just be that we watch/listen to different stuff.

 

[stephec]

Many British comedians do it. Jimmy Carr is a prime example. There’s lots like him.

Jimmy Carr is a bit of a wankstain though, and that's before he starts with his spaz jokes.

 

[Brads]

I detest the air that that little gobshite breaths.

 

[mudsticks]

I can't stand the nasty little man and haven't watched or listened to him for many years. I'll have to take your word about any others. It may just be that we watch/listen to different stuff.

Thing is there's plenty of dodgy stuff going around, passing as 'comedy' even on here.

It's not just one or two 'nasty' comedians, that we can conveniently demonise..

But if you challenge any of it you're just being 'po faced'

Or 'can't take a joke'

Or doing 'pc gone mad'

Or even
'Oh you can't say anything nowadays'

It's all symptomatic of the same issue, of not being willing to face up to, and deal with some nasty truths.

Yes of course, humour can be a way of squaring up to, or even dealing with difficult things.

But so often it's just used as a way of punching down, making light of, or deflecting from difficult stuff, and then we all quickly moving on to other less uncomfortable matters.

So nothing is really resolved, tackled, or advanced.

It's done so routinely, here, and elsewhere that its wholly unremarkable.

If you persist with the issue - you're just being 'a humourless bore'.

Which is, as we know, the worst sin imaginable, in the whole of Brittanialand.

 

[stephec]

Thing is there's plenty of dodgy stuff going around, passing as 'comedy' even on here.

It's not just one or two 'nasty' comedians, that we can conveniently demonise..

But if you challenge any of it you're just being 'po faced'

Or 'can't take a joke'

Or doing 'pc gone mad'

Or even
'Oh you can't say anything nowadays'

It's all symptomatic of the same issue, of not being willing to face up to, and deal with some nasty truths.

Yes of course, humour can be a way of squaring up to, or even dealing with difficult things.

But so often it's just used as a way of punching down, making light of, or deflecting from difficult stuff, and then we all quickly moving on to other less uncomfortable matters.

So nothing is really resolved, tackled, or advanced.

It's done so routinely, here, and elsewhere that its wholly unremarkable.

If you persist with the issue - you're just being 'a humourless bore'.

Which is, as we know, the worst sin imaginable, in the whole of Brittanialand.

Or if it happens on Facebook, and you pull someone up on it, you're obviously a snowflake.

 

[Pale Rider]

I'm not even going to go near the phrase 'slutty behaviour" that just sounds like another "She was asking for it" type of phrase, used to excuse assault, that we should have left behind long ago.

That's why I used it - to give an idea of what some cross-examinations used to be like.

All victims are different, which makes coming up with a universal witness care package difficult.

Some ladies might appreciate the vulnerable witness suite with its pastel shades, comfy sofa, and box of tissues ready at hand.

Other ladies may take one look at it and say they are being stereotyped and patronised.

Low conviction rates is a topic on its own.

Some cases are poor evidentially - the guy may well have done it, but the evidence to prove it is not there.

Due to political pressure, no one earlier in the process - police or CPS - will stick their head above the parapet and give the victim the bad news.

Instead, the crappy case is sent for a trial, and there's the inevitable car crash when a judge and jury gets hold of it.

The victims who tend to succeed are the ones who don't set out too stridently to secure a conviction.

A calm and relaxed (in the circumstances) demeanour in court goes down well.

I've seen a couple of victims fairly recently who didn't hang around to wait for the jury's decision.

I spoke to one, partly to check if she hadn't left the building early because the court staff had treated her poorly.

"No," she said. "I just wanted my day in court to have my say, I'm not that bothered about the verdict."

Very smart approach to the game of tactics which is a court trial.