Possibly not the night to book the comedy powerhouse that is Clare Balding.
Did anyone catch the tumbleweed blowing through HIGNFY tonight?
(64 posts) (25 voices)
I missed it, but is there ever a night when you should book Clare Balding?
Plus she reinforces the stereotype that lesbians aren't hot, horny and into no-strings three-ways with middle-aged slightly overweight men.
That's one "Balding" that does NOT turn me and my super-hot Japanese girlfriend Akiko on.
Balding men? Different story. Totally get us horny. We just want to paint a nipple on a bald man's head and suck it like it was an extra firm boob. A really big hard tittie.
Dear Miss Tits
I too have a third nipple but it is located in a slightly embarrassing place. When aroused it turns into a really big, hard pulsating tittie but I'm not sure you or Akiko would feel comfortable sucking on it.
It's not much to look at but it really is extra firm.
Could I be wong?
CB to BJ in 3 moves!
She did make one pretty fair joke but I forget what it was. (When I say "make" I mean "read out")
<EDIT> Thinking back I remember starting to watch it but don't remember stopping. I think I must have falen asleep after the first 5 minutes. Was it bad?
It was a bit grim - mainly because of the mega-depressing news stories they had to play with.
I won't have a word said against Clare Balding. An all round professional, verging on national treasures status. And I don't think it's fair to judge on sexual proclivities - apart from Jimmy Savile of course.
I'm all yours, SugerTits.
I think it was just right - they could hardly do a knockabout routine, could they?
And I think that Lenehan's take o the right wing media using it as an excuse to bash the Beeb and NHS was spot on.
I think she did Ok. Not a natural comedian, but she survived. Maybe the script writers could have found better lines for her on the tricky topics, and Ian & Paul weren't exactly as acerbic as usual either. Certainly a few tumbleweed moments.
Agreed, the scriptwriters didn't do her any favours and the panel were ill at ease.
As we have seen on these very pages, trying to get a laugh out of the Saville travesty has not been easy.
Hislop and Merton largely ducked the issue, seemingly unwilling to get involved....hanging Balding out to dry and struggle along with some pretty weak ammunition. I agree it was unfair to expect her to turn this most difficult of subjects into comedy gold.
There will be many celebs and national treasures shifting uncomfortably in their seats right now.
But how far do you go with something like this and exactly where is it going?
What is a sexual predator.
How about the devoted monogamous couple celebrating their Golden wedding anniversary....he was 18, but she was just 15 when they first shared a bed together. Is he/was he a sexual predator.
In the eyes of the law Yes...in the eyes of the Daily Mail he should be jailed.
How many NB regulars have had underage sex?
How many 'victims' were thrilled to have been 'bedded' by a world famous celebrity at the time...but now see a fat compensatory pay cheque being dangled in front of them?
How many have dined out on it....until now?
Interestingly, nobody has accused Saville of rape...just underage sex.
Saville is clearly guilty of the most hideous of crimes....but who else is going to get caught up in the rush for a front page story?
On the bright side at least this is one news story that won't involve Wayne Rooney
Interestingly, nobody has accused Saville of rape...just underage sex.
There are rape allegations against Savile. And what's happening, in legal terms, when an under-age person 'gives consent' to sex?
How many NB regulars have had underage sex?
I've had under-age sex with myself (though not recently). There was no element of coercion.
God knows where the Savile revelations will end up. Since there's no burden of proof attached to any allegations, there'll likely be many, many more: some true and no doubt some false...
Professional experience is now thankfully receding in the rear-view mirror but I think that comparative ages and the 'power balance' are both relevant when deciding on prosecution. Ages 17/15 unlikely, though for any under-ager I think it would be statutory rape [though having said that I did once encounter a 17 year old on a Community Service Order for 'Unlawful Sexual Intercourse' after his 15 year old girlfriend became pregnant], 37/15 a definite prosecution and somewhere in between lies the rather vague 'line'. School Teacher/pupil or Youth Worker/Youth always a no-no. Media big-shot/adoring under-age fan, well let's bring out the baseball bats; I may not have the precise legal terminology there.
Over to Jeni for more up-to-date legal-ish stuff (albeit from a rather 'strange land').
The laws on rape differ quite dramatically between the two UK legal systems, but you're pretty much on the nail there dvo.
Generally, consideration is given to the ages of both, and, at least in Scotland, the power ratio between them too.
Basically, if the two are broadly within the same age group, there are unlikely to be charges although they may both be referred to the Childrens' Reporter.
With the Savile allegations, his age, power and celebrity would have counted against him, although you could bet your life that his Defence team would have focused on claiming that many of his alleged victims were willing participants who were, for want of a better phrase, StarFuckers.
Curiously, discovered through facebook yesterday evening that the brash, sardonic and over-bearing music teacher/choirmaster/organist (hands down at the back, too easy) at my school who had an entourage of choir favourites that I can remember being referred to as 'Cochrane's gay-boys'...well, he's now serving his second jail term for various paedophilic sexual abuse including a 6year old girl, and his first jail term was due to the abuse of a group of ten boys age 12 and upwards from our school who were his 'special circle'. No names were included, but details of the evidence of abuse were given that made me weep.
A number of those boys were in my class at school. He was obsessed by the Titanic, and had a bedroom at his flat done up like a cabin. There was a photo of him in the school magazine with 3-4 of those boys, having visited a Titanic icon (grave of a survivor, I think).
Relevance here is...you look back at Saville and think 'how could he have got away with it with so many?' and you look at the pictures an think 'wasn't it staring everybody in the face? How could they have all been so blind?'...but then this case is exactly the same. I knew some of the teachers didn't like him; the jibes were open; but never realised there would actually be truth behind them, and so many boys?
Returning to the theme of this site...never been so thankful I have a voice like a rutting boar and got bumped from the choir in my life!
It's horrific how many instances of abuse surround us all, and as a parent, it terrifies me.
My dad laughingly tells stories about being a Choirboy, and how he always felt 'left out' to not be among the Priest's inner circle. It seems that for an awful, horrendously long time, abuse in the Catholic Church was almost a given, and that everyone was so used to it that it wasn't seen as something to do anything about.
I am grateful that I was always a loud, gobby, little shit who would be too great a liability to have abused.
Angus Deayton sniffing coke off a tart’s tits doesn’t seem so bad now, does it?
I was abused by my housemaster at a minor public school. Every Friday night all the boys had to stand naked on the ends of their beds, so that the housemaster could come and inspect us for a disease we called ‘scrot-rot’ (but which may not have actually existed). The examination required him to handle our genitals, sometimes using a torch. Now, I’m not saying this was abuse on the sort of scale that Jimmy Savile organised; it was just what happened on Friday nights. I never questioned it, or complained. It’s amazing how aberrant behaviour can be ‘normalised‘ if it’s done routinely.
The housemaster got away with it, like JS. I’d assumed the creepy old bastard would have been dead by now. Then, a couple of months ago, I saw him on TV, interviewed as the biology master who had done most to influence a young Richard Dawkins (hopefully due to his inspirational teaching rather than his wandering hands).
I can at least report that I’ve been scrot-rot-free for nearly half a century...
If anyone says they're running the Marathon for charity, I will be deeply suspicious of them from now on
IronDuke -- I went to the same school as you! Been thinking about the organ master (organ master, I mean really...) a lot lately with the Savile thing. The thing is, every boy in that school KNEW he was dodgy, and I can't believe senior teachers weren't aware of problems too. Same thing as with Savile. What I feel bad about is how the boys who were victims were teased and mocked for being part of his circle (I even remember that school magazine photo, and the jokes about how you couldn't see where his hands were).
And everyone must remember the John Leslie thing with Ulrika? At the time there was a lot of similar stories coming out, and speculation about who in telly young attractive researchers ought to stay clear of...Any big company or institution is liable to have problems like this, but it's the response when it comes out that matters. Trying to say it was a long time ago, a different era, or that there was no definitive proof (when any allegations might have been swept away rather than looked at properly) shouldn't cut it whether the organisation is a church, or school, or broadcasting company.
Oh and I didn't see HIGNFY. But does anyone know if the transcript of Savile's appearance on it that's going around the internet is genuine?
Here's the hoax transcription:
It's well written & sounds authentic, but Paul Merton states categorically it's not real.
The whole point of the age of consent, surely, is that until you hit that age you are deemed not competent to consent, regardless of whether or not you are a raging hormone who desperately wants it, because you are not mature enough to understand the implications. (Personally I would put the age of consent at 20, but that's not going to be practical... I think we can all at least agree that there should be one.) So anyone who knowingly has sex with somone below the age of consent is therefore committing a crime, albeit that his own age is bound to be a factor n the sentence.
I went to a regular comprehensive school and as a result of law abiding well meaning teachers, have suffered from chronic scrot rot all of my life.
I did think "uh oh, lawsuit" when the Jimmy Savile business came up on the show - it was extraordinarily aggressive and the very important word ("alledged") was not used. Even though it's getting to the point where the innocence of Savile is becoming more and more unlikely, there's still no solid physical proof that he put his hoo-hoo in anyone's cha-cha without consent which means that he has to be a "suspected paedophile" or "alleged child rapist". Until they exhume his body and scrape some evidence of a little girl's undercarriage from under his fingernails, we'll all be relying on his very suspect mannerisms and general hearsay.
Oh, and I know I haven't done anything about my name yet - it's being intensely debated by family and friends on the very reliable Facebook. So far the only recommendations have been 'kimlllixit' and 'kimllfumblit' (by my own mother!) so I'm amazed that I haven't been removed from the site.
Do you think Savile traumatised his alleged victims further by climaxing in character?
Anyone else notice that they utterly sidestepped the issue on The News Quiz ? Probably for the best...
The only shocking thing about the Savile case is that it's girls and not boys he abused.
I always found him a strange character, especially after the Louis Theroux doc.
Thanks SuburbanDad, you've just succeeded in creeping me out for the rest of the day *shudder*
The JS issue is an absolute goldmine for comedy, however it's so easy to forget that there are (alleged) victims involved who're probably shuddering every time they see his cigar-smoking, tracksuit-wrapped figure on the news. Actually, I'm not even a victim and I get the heebie-jeebies when I see anyone wearing more bling than they actually weigh.
It's strange to have so many allegations and accusations aimed at a dead man. You can't libel the dead, and you can't give them a fair trial either. So all this collective anger has nowhere to go. It seems obvious that Savile did most of the things he's accused of... but there's still something vaguely unsettling about judging a man's character on accusations rather than by a jury of his peers. I'd be fascinated to hear what he might have to say for himself... but this is one story that's never going to come to any kind of conclusion...
In the age of the super injunction, Carter-Ruck successfully defending the indefensible in libel cases, the press bricking themselves waiting for Leveson's conclusions, authorities trawling social networking sites and successfully prosecuting individuals over crass and insensitive remarks, or even wearing offensive t-shirts, it's hardly surprising that when an opportunity presents itself to have a go at someone beyond the law, either in defence or accusation,the press have a feeding frenzy.
As the story develops some of the allegations start to sound like Savile was living his own personal paedophillic carry on movie on a scale wherein it's almost impossible to believe that there wasn't a substantial amount of, at the very least indirect, collusion by people looking the other way.
Hislop on HIGNFY said, "Well of course we'd all heard the rumours at the time but...". maybe inaction on rumours is a sign of the times. Private Eye used to have the courage to publish and be damned. I remember when they broke the stuff about Robert Maxwell's shennanigans. They got sued and almost bankrupted when the libel action found against them. Even post mortem when the Eye's claims were vindicated, they didn't get their money back. In other words the system has forced even those in the know to keep their mouths shut unless they have some bloody incontrovertible evidence to back up their claims, and even when they do that may not be enough when the bad guy belongs to the right club.
Interesting in the Savile case, thus far accusations of institutional complicity have been somewhat circumspect, more implied than levelled (and a former Chairman of the BBC trust further loads the dice against transparency by reportedly saying that any enquiry much find that the BBC had no knowledge of Savile's activities). Really that is where the focus of any investigation should now lie in order to bring some kind of justice to any victims. Maybe those truths will to some extent be unveiled in due course, I'm sure a few minor players will eventually get thrown to the wolves; but for the time being its far easier to kick off about the dead (alleged) perpetrator of the offences, who can't mount a defence, than it is about those who directly or indirectly abetted his activities but are able to kick off and start suing on the basis that any accusations are only here say and therefore slanderous and defamatory. So ultimately yeah, some clown will say lessons have been learned now lets draw a line under it and move on.. and so it will fade into memory and be dug up as a reference next time a celeb turns out to be a pervert or a nonce (and there've been a few over the years).
You must log in to post.