ForumGarden

With the recent Imprisonment of Max Clifford for historic sexual offences, am I alone In thinking about changing attitudes ?

Not mentioning any names but one of my husbands pals late Father was a national entertainer. We were discussing this recently and he was telling us how 14 year old girls queued outside the dressing rooms to meet his Father who always behaved like a perfect gentleman but he has told us of the culture of this during the 70's and 80's. Girls as young as 12 would arrive at TV stations and theatre's alone and where other entertainers would often give them a kiss, a pat on the bottom etc.

I agree with that culture from the 70's. As a teenager, I babysat for a young woman who was a dancer In such shows such as Saturday Night at the Palladium. She told me back then that there was one particular national entertainer that dance troops had a tacit agreement that no girl was to ever be alone with him backstage. Apparently he was a menace touching breasts, pinching bottoms etc. But It was a culture that was accepted In those days.

Growing up In Brighton In the 70's, I was fortunate to have many high profile bands come to town to play and we used to queue up to meet them also when we were around 15 years old. Again, there was a culture where It seemed the norm for young girls to be handled.

So what I wonder Is this...

Back In the 70's, should this culture during the entertainment Industry have been almost accepted ?

Was It really different back then and the norm ?

If It was the norm, then Is It fair to prosecute now 40 years on? Today even patting a young girls bottom Is sexual assault or Indecency.

Times have changed, and for the better. Woman are protected now but Is the likes of Clifford now being prosecuted because of changing attitudes and not what they actually did?

No it wasn't accepted but then as now you get those who believe it is the norm that women should put up with it and in some cases are clearly asking for it and some categories of women are up for it regardless of what they say. In the case of clifford it looks like he saw it as one of the perks of the industry. Look at the attitude in the bradford rape cases - the police didn't take it seriously because of their perception of the victims as being "that type" for want of a better way of putting it.

Lets forgive the muslim grooming gangs because they have a different set of values then?

Bruv;1453169 wrote: Lets forgive the muslim grooming gangs because they have a different set of values then? I didn't really want to go down that route although gmc Is right. Police and Social Services failed the victims of MGG's by a preconceived perception that the girls were of low worth.

What I was Interested In, was that If that culture was not acceptable during the 70's and 80's In the entertainment business, then why was so much of It buried? Although, I understand young girls thinking they'd never be believed over someone famous. It just seems that with all these cases coming to light although most have been found not guilty, their attitude seems to be that those were the times and It was harmless.

I'm not talking about rape and serious assault as allegedly carried out by Savile, but the pats on the bottom, the kiss on the cheek etc. We are seeing celebs prosecuted for such things. What has changed since the 70's and what makes us now view any slightest misdemeanour. as serious sexual assault ?

Bruv;1453169 wrote: Lets forgive the muslim grooming gangs because they have a different set of values then?


Try reading before you reply that's not what I wrote. The police did not take complaints seriouisly because they saw the girls of being of the type that would be willing to take part.

‘She had Spanx on’: why the CPS dropped one rape case – as prosecution and conviction rates fall even further - Crime - UK - The Independent

In one case, a lawyer told a woman who had been raped that they would not be pursuing her case, “particularly bearing in mind the type of underwear that you had on at the time. The woman, who has asked for anonymity, says she was wearing Spanx – body-shaping hosiery.


How about this one from the states?

Judge lets off rapist with a light sentence after hinting the victim, 14, was promiscuous and noting that she had already had three lovers and a baby...which the girl DENIES | Mail Online

Couldn't make it up could you

Or in the UK

Call for changes in law after rape acquittal sparks outrage - Telegraph

Twice this week the rape laws have been called into question. First, Amnesty International expressed its shock at the findings of a poll suggesting that many people believe that if a woman flirts, fails to say no clearly, wears sexy clothes or drinks too much, she is partly or totally responsible if she is raped.


Most blokes with half a brain can work out that if someone is unconsious they are in no position to consent on the other hand there are still plenty of blokes that think it's Ok to hit their girlfriend if they provoke them.

gmc;1453171 wrote: Try reading before you reply that's not what I wrote. The police did not take complaints seriouisly because they saw the girls of being of the type that would be willing to take part.

‘She had Spanx on’: why the CPS dropped one rape case – as prosecution and conviction rates fall even further - Crime - UK - The Independent



How about this one from the states?

Judge lets off rapist with a light sentence after hinting the victim, 14, was promiscuous and noting that she had already had three lovers and a baby...which the girl DENIES | Mail Online

Couldn't make it up could you

Or in the UK

Call for changes in law after rape acquittal sparks outrage - Telegraph



Most blokes with half a brain can work out that if someone is unconsious they are in no position to consent on the other hand there are still plenty of blokes that think it's Ok to hit their girlfriend if they provoke them.
I saw that case In the States about the Spanx pants. Obviously a desperation pleas from the prosecution although I have to say having bought some spanx once, I can understand how It could be used by the prosecution. After the first ten minutes of trying to get mine on, I got them as far as my thighs, threw a hissy fit and threw them In the bin...Imagine wrapping an elastic band around your scrotum and you'll understand better. I digress

The reason I mentioned In my OP about the young dancer I baby sat for was because unlike the girls viewed as worthless by police In the MGG's, these dancers were not from the sterotypical sink estate on benefits. The dance troops who were good enough to dance on Saturday Night At The London Palladium were all qualified dancers put through Ballet and dance schools by wealthy parents. They were not as young as 11 yrs old as with the MGG's but mid twenties.

Yet, It was still believed back then In the 70's that they were fair game.

I ask about changing attitudes because by todays standards, attitudes have changed over sexuality. We accept homosexuality as the norm, Erotica and nudity Is everywhere particually on our TV's. As an example, compare the times when Bill Grundy's career was destroyed In 1976 when The Sex Pistols used the F word on his show. Women walk around showing flesh and no-one bats an eyelid. Stores sell Bra's for 8 year old girls. It's all acceptable these days... yet while we have become so far more tolerant about sexuality, we are prosecuting the likes of Dave Lee Travis for allegedly grabbing someone's bum 40 years ago.

You're still not reading things. The spanx case was in the UK. The other one was in the states, what was notable about it is that is was a FEMALE judge that basically said it was OK to rape a fourteen year old because she was sexually active. The sentence a ommunity service at rape crisis centre.

Being tolerant about sexuality is one thing, someone using a position of authority or power to take advantage of someone is something else altogether. Dave lee travis allegedly groping some one is a bit differenty from Max Clifford being convictedof sexual assault.

gmc;1453236 wrote: You're still not reading things. The spanx case was in the UK. The other one was in the states, what was notable about it is that is was a FEMALE judge that basically said it was OK to rape a fourteen year old because she was sexually active. The sentence a ommunity service at rape crisis centre.

Being tolerant about sexuality is one thing, someone using a position of authority or power to take advantage of someone is something else altogether. Dave lee travis allegedly groping some one is a bit differenty from Max Clifford being convictedof sexual assault. My apologies, I had It In my head the Spanx case was American.

Now you're talking about attitudes of the defence and judges In rape cases and not changing attitudes. I don't think there has been any change to speak of over the decades when It comes to the way rape victims are viewed by defence lawyers nor Judges. I can remember one rape case decades ago where the defence held up the knickers the victim wore on the night of the rape and suggested to the jury that because they were old and a little tattered, she must have been a woman of loose morals. Nothing really changed since then, so much so, that we are mid review judicial wise at the way rape victims are cross examined In court as we speak. One example Is the way Rottweiler Barristers defending the accused gangs In the Rochdale Grooming scandal were allowed to Individually cross examine each girl on the witness stand. It meant that each girl was being cross examined by 9 different barristers for weeks on end. It looks now that this Is to be changed so only one elected defence can cross examine once where there Is more than one rapist accused.

I heard Peter Hain last night talking about the mother of 10 who was abducted and murdered in 1972. Whilst expressing an understanding of how the children would feel, he said that it was 42 years ago and that there wouldn't be any evidence for a conviction. How is it different for some of the prosecutions for sexual abuse that took place 30/40/50 years ago?

Edit: and I think I can see where you're coming from, Oscar. With the exception of Jimmy Savile and Max Clifford's actions, less serious inappropriate touching was written off as the actions of dirty old men or men with wandering hands and, within our own groups, we knew to avoid them. That doesn't make it right but that was how we dealt with it then. Can we really impose our current culture and views on the past?

theia;1453282 wrote: I heard Peter Hain last night talking about the mother of 10 who was abducted and murdered in 1972. Whilst expressing an understanding of how the children would feel, he said that it was 42 years ago and that there wouldn't be any evidence for a conviction. How is it different for some of the prosecutions for sexual abuse that took place 30/40/50 years ago?


Good point. The two cases have a similarity In that both historic sexual abuse cases and the Mother of 10 could rely only on witness testimonies. I agree.. If we are to say the murder can't be tried successfully due to witness only testimonies, then why are we destroying people's lives for groping someone's bun 40 years ago and that trial being based solely on witness's?

If Peter Hain believes evidence so flimsy In the murder, then the same parallels need to apply to all historic cases. Otherwise It does smack of witch hunts.

I agree with gmc that historic sex cases where serious rape and assault took place need to be answered to. Why should they get away with It ? But to destroy a 70 year old man's life for pinching a girls bum 40 years ago ???? NO

Freddie Starr will NOT face charges over sex assault claims | Mail Online