• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Jimmy Savile (aka: paedo speculation megathread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
it does happen the other way round, but overwhelmingly not
Click to expand...

Maybe it does and we just don't hear about it so much. Teenager boy gets it on with an older women he thinks 'JACKPOT' rather than thinking he's been abused / a victim??
 
YellowPolkaDotHalo said:
Ed: Thinking about what Marmalade said about Rossiter being complicit.
The people that watched that film and said nothing they too are complicit and also culpable IMO
in ColtDans words 'twisted fuckers'.
Click to expand...

erm, you mean the people that watched the video after it was released and put online are complicit?

If that's what you mean, I need to say that I strongly disagree. Hugely so.
 
My original comment about the Leonard situation [if it happened as is being reported], was centered around the fact that he willingly sat by, and watched a rape (a crime) take place, and not only that, took pleasure in it, rather than making an attempt to stop it or object to the situation. It seems, IF TRUE, that he was there to take advantage of th situation.

He could of prevented a crime from taking place if he wanted (or objected to it), and should of imo, otherwise he is culpable (in that situation). What makes him complicit is that he took pleasure in the situation and didn't object.

This differs from the situation you mentioned totally. Once the act occurred and the girl was taken advantage of in the situation you illustrated, people who were not there cannot be seen as 'complicit' in a crime (if it actually was one, I'm not sure it was) that they were not witness to.

If your beef is with people watching the video online, and you think they're complict, I'm not sure what your grounds are for that. You don't know the circumstances of how everyone came to watch the video, nor what their reaction to it was.

Whomever uploaded the video has more culpability but again, it depends on the circumstances of how that actually came about too

(typing from bed and on a funny angle in case spelling n stuff is orf)
 
the girl was 16, this isn't about being underage.

[edit]
you deleted your comment sepher? how come?
 
Last edited:
Marmalade said:
My original comment about the Leonard situation [if it happened as is being reported], was centered around the fact that he willingly sat by, and watched a rape (a crime) take place, and not only that, took pleasure in it, rather than making an attempt to stop it or object to the situation. It seems, IF TRUE, that he was there to take advantage of th situation.

He could of prevented a crime from taking place if he wanted (or objected to it), and should of imo, otherwise he is culpable (in that situation). What makes him complicit is that he took pleasure in the situation and didn't object. I dont know if the pupils that watched the video took pleasure in it or not.
Its been common knowledge for years that the girl has mental health issues. She apparently was oblvious to the fact that the video had gone online. If they had any kind of conscience or 'personal integrity' they would have told her in my humble opinion.

This differs from the situation you mentioned totally. Once the act occurred and the girl was taken advantage of in the situation you illustrated, people who were not there cannot be seen as 'complicit' in a crime (if it actually was one, I'm not sure it was) that they were not witness to.

The boys knew the girl was ill Marmalade. Getting her drunk, having sex with her and filming it isn't a crime but it should be. The pupils that watched it and taunted her are complicit in as much as she had a breakdown and ended up in hospital due to the humiliation.
Put it this way.. if someone sent you a link to a video of someone in your community who has mental health issues what would you do? Watch it? Or let the person in the video know? What would you think of the person that had sent it?

If your beef is with people watching the video online, and you think they're complict, I'm not sure what your grounds are for that. You don't know the circumstances of how everyone came to watch the video, nor what their reaction to it was.
Regardless of the reaction they knew the girl, knew she was ill and pressed play adding to her humiliation.

Whomever uploaded the video has more culpability but again, it depends on the circumstances of how that actually came about too.

I'm not sure what circumstances could make uploading a video, thats going to humiliate someone to such a degree, acceptable. But i'm prepared to accept that we all have different ways of looking at things


(typing from bed and on a funny angle in case spelling n stuff is orf)
Click to expand...


My response is in bold there i'm not sure how to chop up a post.

...
 
Last edited:
Did they force her to get drunk and have sex with them Yella or did they just all get drunk and then shag? What sort of mental health problems are we talking about? Surely if they got her drunk and then forced her to have sex that's rape and them putting a video of it online would be a good step in them getting done for it. It would be kind of stupid to put a rape tape online and incriminate yourself.
 
Shes bi-polar and has had a few really psychotic episodes. They took advantage of that Spade regardless of whether she seemed willing or not.

Ed: Bear in mind that they were fully aware of that.. They went to school with her.
 
Last edited:
Yella, I'm not ignoring your reply, just having a productive few hours doing domestic goddess work and showering n whutnot.

We agree on a lot of things based on what you've written btw, just from different angles. Will shoot you a repy later on when I'm back in couch potato mode
 
578942_437059679681758_1366908744_n.jpg
 
TheSpade said:
Him being a good actor doesn't come into it if he was wanking off in the corner watching a rape. It's not relevant.
Click to expand...

You seem awfully willing to believe this story spade. Remember, this guy wasn't a kid - he was 18, he'd already been "raped" before he went back to the same place, met the same blokes and got "raped" again. Now that to me sounds a little careless. I think once you've been raped somewhere you think very carefully about how you avoid being raped the next time you go there. Y'follow? And why would you wait 40 years before you reported it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top