You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
but given that Led Zep spent the entire of the 70's gleefully boffing everything that moved, all of whom willingly threw themselves at them, I doubt there'd be much sinister about it
In the cold light of day, a story about an underage girl off her face on drugs being abused with a swordfish, is a bit more than "rock and roll debauchery".
A swordfish?
Don't be disgusting, it was a Red Snapper.
oldboy - Member
There can't be many TV or rock stars who shagged anything and everthing that came their way in the 60s/70s who aren't expecting their time in court to come, can there?
I've been waiting for the entire Rolling Stones to get arrested...
[i]Odd that people seem to overlook John Peel's penchant for 15 year olds.[/i]
Is this that 1 single incident Julie Burchill wrote about? Or has more come to light?
Is this that 1 single incident Julie Burchill wrote about?
A 3 month affair with a 15 year old, who became pregnant? I suppose we can ignore it as he only did that once. Especially as he had a better taste in music than the other BBC DJ's who we want to hang.
Not that I want to defend sex with underage girls, but I'm struggling with this belief that girls magically turn into woman on their sixteenth birthday.
Ie, if she's 16 everything is perfectly fine and happy, you can be as debauched as you like, get married, get her pregnant, break out the whips and chains and Nutella, and no-one bats an eyelid; yet if she's 15 years and eleven months old then he's a nonce and everyone else is reaching for the pitchforks.
he had a better taste in music
You reckon?
[img] 
[/img]
if she's 15 years and eleven months old then he's a nonce
The definition of a paedophile is someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
The media seems to have changed this to mean being attracted to anyone below the age of consent. Not the same thing.
However, I would suggest it's immoral for older men to exploit their fame and to have sex with very young girls. Dirty old men are dirty old men.
Unless you're in Spain, when you're only a paedo if she's 12, or America when you're still a paedo at 17 (depending on state).
[i]A 3 month affair with a 15 year old, who became pregnant? I suppose we can ignore it as he only did that once.[/i]
That's why I asked - never heard of that.
[i]You reckon?[/i]
No doubt. He was the only one to play your crap anyway 😉
I love the way he seems offended that the cops didn't make an appointment to search his gaff. What a dick.
Cougar - Moderator
...yet if she's 15 years and eleven months old then he's a nonce and everyone else is reaching for the pitchforks.
If you are older, then you should have the maturity to not shag if in doubt.
I grew up in the 60s and we knew to avoid children, we knew it was illegal, and had serious consequences.
There's no excuses, 15 years and 11 months means you should display some maturity and wait a month.
We knew it then, we know it now.
I love the way he seems offended that the cops didn't make an appointment to search his gaff. What a dick.
I think the point was that, while he might not have expected a warning, having the entire news media, including helicopters, ready and waiting as their little convoy headed in is possibly taking the piss.
The coppers must know they are not going to find anything relating to an incident in the 1980s in CR's flat. The whole point of the exercise is the media circus. The police are hoping that the publicity draws out a few more allegations that they can stitch into some sort of credible case.
His reputation is completely trashed, whether this initial allegation has any truth in it or not. Perhaps he deserves it, and perhaps it's the only way to convict the Stuart Halls and Rolf Harrises of this world, but I'm still uncomfortable with it.
If you are older, then you should have the maturity to not shag if in doubt.
Sure. Don't get me wrong, it's still pretty morally bankrupt; aside from anything else, it's an abuse of power. My point was, as gobuchul said, it doesn't sit easily with me that someone can go from fine upstanding citizen to kiddy fiddler for the sake of a couple of months either way on a partner's age.
It's essentially the speed limit argument again. We need to have a limit to (theoretically at least) protect young people from the likes of Savile. But it's an arbitrary one-size-fits-all figure, you don't just throw a switch on adulthood when you hit sixteen. I don't doubt that some people are "mature" before their sixteenth birthday, and expect that similarly there's plenty of folk who still aren't well into their 20s.
There's no excuses, 15 years and 11 months means you should display some maturity and wait a month.
This is what I'm getting at, really.
If you're a fifty year old rock star (say), you probably shouldn't be shagging a sixteen year old girl any more than one who's fifteen and 11 months. That month is your "do not go to prison" card, but it doesn't suddenly make it morally justifiable.
Ie, that one month makes sod all difference to anything at all beyond the possibility of legal action. It's the sort of wooly thinking that empowers the Sun to work up its readers into a froth with their "SHE'S NEARLY LEGAL NOW LADS, WAYHAY!" countdown timers. Three days to go till you can shag Hermione! Only a week till this unknown with massive breasticles can get them out on Page 3!
FFS.
Mark E Smith 😆 has he punched you in the face Woppit
Cougar - Moderator
"If you are older, then you should have the maturity to not shag if in doubt."
Sure. Don't get me wrong, it's still pretty morally bankrupt; aside from anything else, it's an abuse...
From a more pragmatic viewpoint:
If you're in a relationship with the girl, you'll know her age and respect it.
If you're just out for a shag, all the more reason to be careful. Underage kids loaded with hormones aren't noted for discretion which is why we have these laws - to protect them.
There have been cases where people have been charged with sex with a minor (15) and the corruption of said minor. And the judge has thrown out the corruption charge due to the minor being "no stranger to cock".
The age of consent is to protect minors from adults so if a 15 year old of dubious reputation came on to you as an adult you should say no out of moral decency aswell as it being the law even if she looks 18.
And I think a 16 year old is to young for any one over the age of very early twenties in my mind.
But at 18 you have to accept they are an adult and if only because they are free to make there own mistakes I think age difference is no longer an issue.
These are only my views.
It's essentially the speed limit argument again. We need to have a limit to (theoretically at least) protect young people from the likes of Savile. But it's an arbitrary one-size-fits-all figure, you don't just throw a switch on adulthood when you hit sixteen. I don't doubt that some people are "mature" before their sixteenth birthday, and expect that similarly there's plenty of folk who still aren't well into their 20s.
In some countries the age difference is also taken into consideration - a 16-year-old with a 15-year-old is very different to a 35-year-old with a 15-year-old.
The cases which are really wrong are the ones where an underage girl is charged with distributing child pornography for sexting pictures of herself.
It's very complex, and a cut-and-dried age of consent doesn't help - it leads to things like the Sun's countdown to when Charlotte Church was legal.
Aye, I'm sure there's plenty of 16, 17 18 yo who are probably still a bit immature to make proper decisions about sex. Also I think a sliding scale may be more applicable, 16 with a 17yo fair enough, 16 and a 50yo something fairly wrong there but 16 and early twenties still seems not quite right. At that age a couple of years difference is a lot. As cougar says a young person hits their 16th birthday and suddenly it's open season and anything goes....that makes me pretty uncomfortable.I don't doubt that some people are "mature" before their sixteenth birthday, and expect that similarly there's plenty of folk who still aren't well into their 20s.
Especially when our attitude to sex and sex education isn't really all that great
it leads to things like the Sun's countdown to when Charlotte Church was legal.
Never happened.
The Sun is a shitty newspaper but this is one thing it got the blame for off a Guardian journo that never really happened.
[url= http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2012/01/truth-about-that-charlotte-church.html ]Read this.[/url]
Broadsheet journalist telling lies! Who would of thought that? 🙄
Didn't know that. This is real though?
[img] 
[/img]
The Sun is a shitty newspaper
As I said. I don't buy tabloids. Don't buy many papers.
However, as I wrote earlier:
The definition of a paedophile is someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.The media seems to have changed this to mean being attracted to anyone below the age of consent. Not the same thing.
I would also suggest that the picture suggests that those 2 articles were next to each other in the paper, I bet not.
I am not sticking up for NI here, just highlighting how all media is biased.
In no way am I defending under age sex, it is legally and morally wrong.
But it's worth bearing in mind that the age of consent at 16 is relatively new (Victorian?), British (other developed nations have higher and lower ages) and therefore arbitrary figure.
It also is out of step with various other age restrictions in the UK. You can marry, have sex and kids at 16, but not drive, vote, drink, enter various legally binding contracts, watch or make porn, and now you are expected to be in school and/or training till you are 18.
The whole age of majority mess needs harmonising. Not sure whether everything should go up to 18 or down to 16.
Edit- also agree that the definition of paedophilia is grossly misunderstood by the press, public and internet hardmen. Several friends of mine have relationships with big age gaps, none were underage, none are Jimmy Saville.
16 and early twenties still seems not quite right.
I am going to go out on a limb here.
A 16 old girl is physically mature enough to have sex. And I will accept an argument that they are probably not emotionally mature enough to have sex if you accept an argument that neither are most 20year old men.
Never happened.
Just checked. It was the Daily / Sunday Sport that did the Page 3 countdown, with a then-15 Linsey Dawn McKenzie.
neither are most [s]20year old[/s] men
FTFY 😉
I am going to go out on a limb here.A 16 old girl is physically mature enough to have sex.
You're going to have to qualify that I think, I'm not sure where you're going with it.
You're [i]physically [/i]mature enough to have sex after puberty, pretty much by definition. Emotional maturity comes much later (assuming it arrives at all...)
The whole age of majority mess needs harmonising. Not sure whether everything should go up to 18 or down to 16.
I always thought it was a bit odd that you could have sex legally at sixteen, but had to wait another two years before you could watch someone else do it.
Could there be any truth in allegations that Elm Guest House is linked to snuff movies?
Also 16 year olds and twenty year old could move in the same circles so it would not be uncommon to make a connection.
Where a 40 year and 16 year , the forty year old probably went out of there way to make it happen
Broadsheet journalist telling lies! Who would of thought that?
In wholly unrelated news, I met her last weekend. She didn't strike me as the sort of person who would lie intentionally for sensationalism reasons.
IIRC John Peel has said in interviews that when he was working in America he routinely had sex with underage girls.
Edit: yup, including regularly with a 13 year old. He also described himself as abusing them.
Chip that's part of the problem, at any age some will be very mature for their age others will be very immature which is why an arbitrarily defined age limit line in the sand between don't touch and knock yourself out isn't really all that great.A 16 old girl is physically mature enough to have sex. And I will accept an argument that they are probably not emotionally mature enough to have sex if you accept an argument that neither are most 20year old men.
And I'm sure it's not just older males preying on younger females, I know how strongly you feel about sexual equality
She didn't strike me as the sort of person who would lie intentionally for sensationalism reasons.
However, she did write this. Which simply is not true, but is quite provocative.
Charlotte Church was 15 years old when Britain's best-read daily newspaper began a public countdown to the day on which she could be legally ****ed.
hmm 16yo at school, playing on the street, living with parents vs 20yo working, out in pubs, living in own house?Also 16 year olds and twenty year old could move in the same circles
Like I said it varies a lot person to person
So if we don't have a set age, who decides if your mature or not.
At 16 I had 20 year friends, at twenty I had 16 friends.
At the age of 19 I had a girl of 15 knock on my front door who I had only met once before previously.
Now at 15 she was a fine figure of a young woman.
Anyway she knocked on my door and on opening said she was going to suck me dry.
Now people I knew at the time would have invited her in an closed the door, I stepped out and closed the door behind me. Went for a walk and basically asked her what are you like.
I did this because, maybe some what I knew she was 15 but mainly because based on both meetings I saw her as damaged ( I am not trying to be derogatory with that statement) and thought I would be taking advantage of the situation.
I saw her 5 years later with someone else in a pub looking absolutely beautiful and I did kick my self a little bit.
But at 19 I did not look at her at 15 as a child but as a peer, a peer who was under the age of consent.
It is complex but a line has to be drawn in the sand to make an initial arrest possible and then digression will be the the job of the CPS or the courts .
Anyway she knocked on my door and on opening said she was going to suck me dry.
Don't worry, they can't cross the threshold unless you invite them.
Don't worry, they can't cross the threshold unless you invite them.
[img] 
[/img]
[b]Could there be any truth in allegations that Elm Guest House is linked to snuff movies? [/b]
[i]Could[/i] there be? Sure, anything on the David Icke forums [i]could[/i] be possible.
hmm 16yo at school, playing on the street, living with parents vs 20yo working, out in pubs, living in own house?
Equaly my younger bothers 25 and to all intents and purposes living at home, when not at uni where he's socialising with 18yr olds, and other friends left home completely at 16.
hmm 16yo at school, playing on the street,
How long ago were you 16! It's not even cider behind the spar anymore, it's all legal highs and snapchat!
agreed and hopefully the CPS do a good job of not putting 16yos who have sex with their 15yo partners on the sex offenders register, but will prosecute older people and take issue with terms like "predatory" being applied to 13yos.It is complex but a line has to be drawn in the sand to make an initial arrest possible and then digression will be the the job of the CPS or the courts .
It's more the "once passed this line everything is legit" part that I had issues with. AFAIK a much older person "grooming" a 16yo is all above board and legit - If I'm wrong please feel free to educate me.
....anything on the David Icke forums could be possible.
🙂
He wants a PROPER answer ! he posted the question in [b]bold![/b] because nobody was listening !
I led a sheltered life 😳 no cider on the park for me til I was over 17How long ago were you 16!
It's an established fact that if you say something that everyone ignores, requoting it in [b]bold[/b] makes it far more important.
Oh, no, wait, my mistake, it's still a weaselly Daily Mail headline tactic. Is Cliff Richard a nonce? Does cinnamon cause cancer? Could there be any truth in a random statement in isolation?
So let me put it back to you. We don't know. Could there be? Sure. There could also be truth in the allegations I've jut made up that Elm Guest House is run by insectoid aliens from the planet Splort, come down to Earth in the 70s to establish an intricate plot to take over the world by mind-controlling celebrities.
Do you think it's true? Do you have any evidence? Can you provide us with good reason to think that it may be true? Is there something we can discuss? Or are you just dropping random hearsay and conjecture into the conversation like a stone bonker and expecting us all to go "oooh"?
Or are you just dropping random hearsay and conjecture into the conversation like a stone bonker and expecting us all to go "oooh"?
Can I have £3.75 to win on this one please.
Hang on.....
Cinnamon causes CANCER !!
....shit...
Glad to see I've got you thinking a bit...
I can't personally verify this is gospel, but Chris Fay of NAYPIC is a primary witness:
(WARNING!! Traumatic)
Glad to see I've got you thinking a bit...
Well, yes, you have. Problem is what you've got us thinking is "Nurse! he's on the internet again!"
Glad to see I've got you thinking a bit...
Do you actually believe that ?
🙄
Well, yes, you have. Problem is what you've got us thinking is "Nurse! he's on the internet again!
You have a Nurse at your beck and call?
Don't worry, just stop taking the pills, once the sedation wears off, you'll be able to understand the world far more clearly...
Do you actually believe that ?
I have evidence to suggest that if nothing else, there is a great deal of truth involved...
I have evidence to suggest that if nothing else, there is a great deal of truth involved...
That not an answer to the question I asked.
Never mind. I should know by now that engaging conspiracy nutters in any sort of conversation is a total waste of time.
As you were.
It's not an answer to anything, it's just a number of positive-sounding words vomited together in a meaningless fashion.
What evidence do you have?
That not an answer to the question I asked.
Oh dear, my bad, are you the spider and I'm the fly?
I don't want to believe it, but I accept there are many dark things in this world... look at Ian Watkins
Review this piece, then make up your own mind:
I am another person uneasy with CR's name plastered across the media when he has not been charged - or even interviewed if I have read reports correctly.
I heard a bit of an interview with Jim Davidson a week or two ago who also got caught up in similar accusations (over 16 though) and the cases have now been dropped. Whatever you think of his brand of comedy he had a rough year and he claims lost £500k income! Jimmy Tarbuck was cleared as well. Their careers are likely to suffer with the 'no smoke without fire' attitudes.
I don't want to believe it, but I accept there are many dark things in this world
[img] 
[/img]
I'm with blackhound on this Jimmy Tarbucks career is the real issue here.
Oh dear, my bad, are you the spider and I'm the fly?
I don't want to believe it, but I accept there are many dark things in this world... look at Ian Watkins
Review this piece, then make up your own mind:
Bloody hell, your really not very good at comprehension are you.
Read what I quoted.
... and then read the question I asked.
(You may not have realised this, but Your opinion about Elm Guest House, or what "evidence" you think you have uncovered are things I really couldn't give a toss about)
You may not have realised this, but Your opinion about Elm Guest House, or what "evidence" you think you have uncovered are things I really couldn't give a toss about
Am I to take it that you have no qualms about MPs and other high ranking VIPs taking children from care homes to be sexually abused and perhaps even tortured and killed?
Am I to take it that you have no qualms about MPs and other high ranking VIPs taking children from care homes to be sexually abused and perhaps even tortured and killed?
Why would you assume that from what I said.
You quoted what I said right above your post.
Read it again and see if you can figure out what it means.
Whilst jivehoneyjive is clearly a bit of a loon, let's not forget this:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/11/missing-child-abuse-files-home-office-chief-mps
A loon, in the 80s:
😆
I don't believe in ghosts, God or UFO's.
I think man landed on the moon and I think Oswald shot Kennedy.
I can't think of any other conspiracy theories I believe in either.
Apart from this one.
Too many missing documents, too many lapses of memory, too many unconnected people with similar stories regarding the same people.
I can't think of any other conspiracy theories I believe in either.
Apart from this one.
Apart from jivjivejiveys lack of comprehension skills and him making incorrect assumptions
Nobody else has said they don't believe it either.
Well in that case, why don't we forget our differences and kick some high level butt 8)
As a peace offering, here is a further piece of evidence to corroborate the previous article regarding seizure of the tape:
[url= https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/49075/supplement/10308 ]See Paragraph regarding Customs & Excise[/url]
Well in that case, why don't we forget our differences and kick some high level butt
Don't forget to call Shaggy and Wilma first.
I'll start the Mystery Machine.
Baggsie being Daphne.
Too many missing documents, too many lapses of memory, too many unconnected people with similar stories regarding the same people.
This^.
There is definitely something going on. Those "Pie and Mash" interviews that were linked earlier seemed credible.
As a peace offering, here is a further piece of evidence to corroborate the previous article regarding seizure of the tape:See Paragraph regarding Customs & Excise
Well, I've read the original article and the corroborating evidence.
All it prooves is that back in 1982 Customs and Excise conviscated some dodgy films from a guy with a Dutch sounding name.
I don't think you're going to get a high profile conviction based on that.
I don't think you're going to get a high profile conviction based on that.
Given that Mi5 are also keen to hamper progress, I daresay you're right at this stage; however, through awareness and exchange of information, pressure will build and a fuller picture will form.
There also seems to be a trend towards a narrative portraying these men as lone abusers, however:
Lets not forget Savile was also linked to Elm Guest House, along with Bryn Estyn, Haut de la Garenne and countless other institutions, all apparently with their own links to paedophile rings, both national and international...
No one is denying that there are some connections that may have existed and should be investigated.
But too many threads are disappearing up their own backsides with constant repetition of the conspiracy theories and resultant baiting of the theorists. Can't we just put all that on hold until something tangible comes along on that front?
My money's on "no"...
But too many threads are disappearing up their own backsides with constant repetition of the conspiracy theories
On this, and every other Internet forum.
It's almost like "conspiracy theory propagation" is a way of making money out of gullible people.
Start a website, full it full of conspiracies, gullible folk flock to it and increase the readership, advertising prices go up, and people can sell conspiracy books and stuff to a captive market.
Seems like a good idea.
(Damn, beaten to it. By almost everybody)
O.K. I'll do it.
[b]Of course, Cliff Richard already has a criminal record.
It's called "Mistletoe and Wine".[/b]
Try the fish, I'm here all week.
No one is denying that there are some connections that may have existed and should be investigated.But too many threads are disappearing up their own backsides with constant repetition of the conspiracy theories and resultant baiting of the theorists. Can't we just put all that on hold until something tangible comes along on that front?
Given multiple investigations being interfered with by the intelligence services, not to mention whitewashing at the highest levels of government; given the minimal police resources currently attributed to what is evidently a very disturbing network of criminal pervertion, it's probably more in the public interest to propagate this information far and wide to avoid further cover up...
let's not forget this:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/11/missing-child-abuse-files-home-office-chief-mps
Now, about that whole truth thing...
Yet again jivehoney and the point have completely failed to intersect.
We know! You keep bloody telling us. Can you not tell us again until something new has come to light. Please!?!?
Though I am beginning to come up with a theory as to why so many conspiracy theorists appear to suffer sudden and unexplainable "accidental" deaths..... 8)
Well, you have to give me kudos for effort... 😉
Instead of being bent over by the authorities and passively accepting the situation, at least I have the gumption to actively investigate and fight back... now, in the name of progress, contribute some of your knowledge; by discussing this in the open, awareness is being raised...
unless of course you don't want that...
8)
jivehoneyjive - Member
...Given multiple investigations being interfered with by the intelligence services, not to mention whitewashing at the highest levels of government; given the minimal police resources currently attributed to what is evidently a very disturbing network of criminal pervertion, it's probably more in the public interest to propagate this information far and wide to avoid further cover up...
This sounds like bonkers tinfoil hat stuff, but...
A few years ago when I lived in Queensland there was a lonely voice making the same accusations. She was tarred with every brush around, but kept it up. I thought she was just bonkers.
Eventually there turned out to be just what she had claimed - a high level network of paedophiles protecting each other. Police, judges, media personalities and politicians. The real killer was that one of the politicians was the leader of the opposition, and was likely to be the next Premier.
So keep your minds open. Powerful people can get off with murder if they stick together.
(Google Franca Arena - you can still see some of the attacks on her)
Instead of being bent over by the authorities and passively accepting the situation, at least I have the gumption to [s]actively investigate and fight back[/s] keep repeating myself ad neauseum until everybody is sick of bloody reading it
😉 🙄 
Thanks for that Epicyclo... 50 years ago the internet would have been bonkers tinfoil hat stuff;
Truth is often stranger than fiction; would we be riding bikes of the calibre we are today if it wasn't for the Eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815?
The resulting ash cloud affected the weather to such an extent that crops died and as a result many horses perished, necessitating the development of alternative transport.
Wild, wacky, tin foil stuff, but true nonetheless...
You'll have to excuse me Mr Woppit, but given no-one else mentions these cases, I have to assume a prevailing air of ignorance and thus go on a crusading mission to educate the heathen masses... 😉
which reminds me:
😥 ➡