I think she meant:



In fairness, he did apologise:



So it was all the cameraman's fault

So am I right in thinking that you associate paedophilia with homosexuality then?

I think he meant that a homosexual man would have sex with a boy, a hetero man with a girl, which seems to have some logic. Given that to me there is no logic in being attracted to a child

Cameron's response to Schofield which seems to have upset everyone was to state the dangers of assuming all paedos are homosexual. Given he appears to have upset everyone with that statement it would appear the common belief is that they are.

What he actually meant was that in general most sex offences with boys would have been perpetrated by gay men. What he didn't mean was that most gay men would have perpetrated sex offences with boys.

Exactly my point.

From what I saw Schofield was saying here's a list of tories who are suspected of child sexual abuse. It was Cameron, trying to deflect the issue, who brought up the 'is it because they is gay?' angle.

What isn't being said, apart from one sentence in an interview with Stephen Messham, is that its all about the bloody freemasons.

I'm sure I've read that with paedophilia, little distinction is sometimes made by the perpetrator as to the gender of the child. A paedophile who has offended against boys might well lead an apparently heterosexual adult sex life and not regard himself as homosexual.

If true, it's yet another reason to avoid the spurious linking of the two.

^ at last, the voice of reason.

There's no logic in any attraction - nobody makes a conscious decision as to what age, gender, size or fetish is going to attract them.

Absolutely, I was just referring to the fact that my previous statement shouldn't be read as meaning I thought that there was any logic to paedophilia.

Regardless of the drive, paedophilia is deviant behaviour. In my eyes inexcusable, regardless of sexual orientation. Other behaviours I also consider to be distasteful are not in the same league. If you wish to have a relationship with your dog/mum/dead girlfriend/best mate that's up to you, just not my bag.

Bold to emphasise that this is my opinion, others are entitled to a relationship with their dog/mum/dead girlfriend/best mate. Although remember no matter how enjoyable you may find any of these, only the last option is legal

I heard or read something many years ago,that one of the reason's men are attracted to beautifull women is that they look most child like !!

Strange i know.

Or they look like thier mum, apparently

Yes, sorry if I was not clear on that

There is a considerable difference between seeking, grooming and abusing persons you know to be under the age of sexual consent, and having sex with someone who is under the age of consent. Both are crimes but one is significantly more intentional than the other, much like the difference between murder and manslaughter I guess.

It seems clear that some famous people have had sexual contact with some of those who were star struck, it also seems clear that some of those people were under the legal age of consent. It is absolutely the responsibility of an adult to not seek to take advantage of young people and to ensure that persons they seek to have any sexual contact with are of legal age. We will probably never truly know if any of these persons making allegations were asked their age, and if they were, then told the truth. Young folk often inflate their ages in order to get what they want. I was drinking in Pubs well before I was 18. I never smoked but many of my friends were, and well before they were 16. Many girls and boys also seek to “Attain adulthood” well before they are 16 too, this is nothing new. From my last year at School I worked evenings as a DJ with a mobile disco and also in two clubs in the town with the over 18 age restriction. I would regularly see girls who I knew were several years younger than me in the clubs seeking men. Many of them were most successful in their regular endeavours.

One lesson you would have thought we would have learned throughout all this would to not be thrusting young girls into similar situations. This could start by not pandering to the idolisation of POP stars. Just this week though I saw the Surprise programme on ITV. It gave two young schoolgirls the opportunity to meet their POP idols. Both girls declared which one of the hunky fellows they “Liked the most” and he was immediately requested to sit between the two girls on the sofa. What do the TV people think it is these young girls would like from their idol, far more than just sitting I suspect

100% agreement, Bob.

As you say, it is the adult on the occasion whose responsibility it is to ensure that their acts are legal - but as you also say - how many people of *either* sex are actively engaged in activities not legal for their age? If I walk down to half the pubs in town I'll guarantee that many of the youngsters there are under age (which of course is different for different activities - go figure) and without knowing them personally how might one be expected to know their true age?

Again - this is not condoning abuse. It's hard to see, though, how someone deliberately pretending to be older than they are, and instigating a relationship which is strictly illegal, *is* abuse (even though the law has to define some limit).

I think the definition probably needs to include 'who is the controlling party?' somewhere. I suspect that in the case of Savile and others like him, the factor in his/their behaviour was not 'she's under age, woohoo!' but more likely 'she will do what I tell her to.'

As I said: I was around Television Centre at the time. I was certainly aware of the rumours - but to me that was all they were. Even in my late teens and early twenties I was uncomfortable with these kids, mostly girls, and I avoided them and the places they might be found. So, I have no direct experience. Nonetheless it still strikes me that there's the difference between 'seeking out' and 'being controlled' - and one question which hasn't been asked: how many of those people now complaining have moved, in their minds, from the first group to the second in the intervening years? How many are remembering memories of memories of memories? Forty years is a long time...

Anyone remember the Orkney child abuse events in the early nineties? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5272092.stm ? We should learn from that and not leap to conclusions.

You've been dipping into your "Essay concerning Human Understanding", by John Locke, again, haven't you.

I told you - it is for Christmas day!

Dear Noel Edmonds,

Please give me £100k or I will say you w***** me off on Swop Shop. Is it a deal, or no deal?

Yours,

Brewster

Did he give you a Crinkly Bottom too?

Heh. I was tickled listening to Radio 2 this afternoon, when they played John Lennon and Elton John recording of "I Saw Her Standing There."

With the immortal lines:

#She was just seventeen
#If you know what I mean

<nudge nudge wink wink?>

He was too sly on his own turf. It was nearer Dangly End.

Apparently Savile's career really took off in 1967 when, backstage at Top of the Pops, he introduced Cream to the Small Faces.

To be fair, though, I think we are are only talking about minor aberrations.

Oh, bravo. Well played, sir.

With the news that the police have now arrested Dave Lee Travis can anyone here think of a male Radio DJ from that era who wasn't creepy?

Maybe I should stress that I'm saying creepy in a vaguely uncomfortable sense. Obviously we would never state or imply that anyone had done anything nasty in an abuse of children/trust kind of way...

[Lawyers: Have I covered my arse. So to speak...?]

Bloody hell, DLT, the hairy monster. Used to be the best show on the radio....

Oh dear

I thought it was the Hairy Cornflake, but maybe I'm just naive...

While we are going around arresting tedious DJ's, can someone arrange for a knock on the door at Steve Wright's house? Surely producing the same show, every day, for endless decades is a crime against the nations ears?

I will have to write to my Police and Crime Commissioner if not.