Stuart Hall.....child abuse allegations

[Fabricio the Guido]

I am starting to have serious misgivings about this theory that morality is historically determined, so that at a particular point in history different moral principles apply. If you use a universal moral approach, it plays into this idea that there is a limit to practical reasoning but at the same time some people seem to think it is wrong to use current eyes to look at activities in the past. I think at the time, some of these actions were probably known to be morally wrong but, a degree of sophistry was used to deal with the moral objections. So economic or darwinian theories were used to justify treating indigenous people differently, even though for example the manner of treatment clearly went against the teaching of the church or judea-christian principles. Niall Ferguson talks a lot of tosh about the British Empire, how for the time, it was benevolent and less inhuman than other colonial empires.

I think abuse was probably still abuse in the 1970s & 1980s, abuse of young women, girls and boys was criticised during the Victorian era so how could it have been more acceptable in the 1970s, 1980s?. This ahistorical view of morality is certainly intriguing and I take issue with this revisionist view of morality. Short point is that the moral principles, existed, even if they were abused and not widely respected by justified on spurious grounds. Take something like the killing of captured prisoners, often beached but widely accepted to be wrong even back to the Roman times.

[steveo]

In the 60s the Met were given orders from above to 'bag a pop star' for drugs possession.

This looks like a revisit to me.

Mix it up with a prurient press and a compensation culture and hold your nose

[Jeremy]

I agree with Fabricio, "different times back then", "it was the 70s", etc, cannot reasonably be used as a defence. Sexual abuse has never been OK.

But we need to remember that we have already had one false accusation of a public figure, and it won't be the last. We also need to bear in mind (as others have said) that morally, there is a world of difference between consensual sex with a 15 year old, and assault of a helpless young child.

[El Pibe]

That's pretty cynical steveo.

I'm not convinced we have a 'compensation culture' for starters, but I imagine for alot of these people coming forward it probably has a lot more to do with getting closure for their traumatised 9 year old selves, finally being listened to, and hey, perhaps even a sense of justice.

[dulwichtoo]

And only dead politicos are being accused Morrison and Smith - no living ones - funny that.

[BJL]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We also need to bear in mind

> (as others have said) that morally, there is a

> world of difference between consensual sex with a

> 15 year old, and assault of a helpless young

> child.

That might be, but legally they are both crimes - that's why people are being (belatedly) questioned and arrested. Having (heterosexual) sex with someone under 16 has been illegal since 1885 in England.

[Jeremy]

Yes I know that. I'm saying that they are different crimes and should not be considered equivalent.

[steveo]

We're all thinking of the children Pibe but isn't it a little odd that not many High Court judges or merchant bankers and their like have been arrested in the current cull?

Or does Operation Yewtree have Jimmy Saville's little black book?

[woodrot]

are HC Judges & Bankers more / less likely to be peadononcevilescums ?

I have no idea of the numbers or whether they are underepresented, but it would appear more likely that Hi profile TV n Pop music personalities would be in a better position to engage in serial noncery than a HC Judge, at the very least, due to their fame at the time

[steveo]

The police like monstering 'celebs' they always have and they always will.

[Huguenot]

I think it deserves making clear that a crime is a crime. Paedophilia is not an exception regardless of the era (except that it is).

Until recently (within the lifetime of people still alive today) it was okay for girls to be married at 12. In other words, it was okay to be a paedophile if daddy said so (mummies didn't get a look in).

It's also worth pointing out that a crime is only a crime if public opinion says so - police and the courts are highly responsive to public opinion, and the law as made in parliament is ONLY responsive to public opinion.

In addition, crimes need to be reported - there are plenty of transgressions that we all make every day that are technically illegal but we don't report them.

So all those people who are saying 'a crime is a crime even if it was the 70s' are right technically, but fundamentally wrong in practice.

Society makes laws by common acceptability, and the reality is that the despicable behaviour of these exploiters was not considered to be the same degree of crime at the time as it is today.

Hence we are judging these twisted manipulators according to the social mores of the present day, not according to those of the time. You cannot extrapolate their behaviour then to their attitudes today.

[LadyDeliah]

A bit like colonisation then Huge?

[Huguenot]

Well yes, exactly like colonisation.

[first mate]

Huguenot,

You are right and there are societies today that espouse and practise child sex.

In terms of our western social conditioning and the last few hundred years paedophilia is viewed as immoral, and there is an argument to say that the damage done to victims is bound up with internal tensions, the result of being involved in something so very socially taboo. So I do think that you have to view these things in context.

That said, I think it was Germaine Greer who once observed that paedophilia is so persistent in all societies (though how would she know) that perhaps it should be viewed as a natural part of the spectrum of human sexuality.

[maxxi]

An interesting side-note is that the crimes Harvey Proctor was convicted of over 20 years ago would not be crimes today thanks to the lowering of the age of consent for gay men. It was considered a kind of abuse back then as the 'boys' were underaged (17+) but would now just be kinky (the spanking bit not the gay bit).

[Loz]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it deserves making clear that a crime is a crime. Paedophilia is not an exception regardless

> of the era (except that it is).

>

> Until recently (within the lifetime of people still alive today) it was okay for girls to be

> married at 12. In other words, it was okay to be a paedophile if daddy said so (mummies didn't get a

> look in).

Strictly speaking, Paedophilia is wanting sex with the pre-pubescent. Hebephilia covers the early years of pubescence. Interest in the later teens is Ephebophilia.

The things you learn by reading the Guardian...

[Mick Mac]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Terrible. I really respected him.

Well he has been charged with the rape of a 22 year old and many other sexual assaults.

[red devil]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> He should've played the Joker...

He has, and accordingly had his sentence doubled... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23460778

[woodrot]

dirty old bastard.

theres another one coming up that if anyinthing it is much much worse than this. And im being serious here as well.

[woodrot]

edit. better keep things legal.