Why give this sad little man the publicity he so obviously craves?
Convicted paedophile Jonathan King - who served half of a seven-year sentence for abusing underage boys - has resurfaced with a provocative song about mass murderer Harold Shipman, the BBC reports. Erstwhile pop svengali King claims the musical ditty, entitled The True Story Of Harold Shipman, is not actually about Shipman, but …
Why give this sad little man the publicity he so obviously craves?
Particularly as most people would have been otherwise unaware of King's latest offering, something I suspect that most of us would have been happy to remain in blissful ignorance about.
Jonathan King's song sucks - so what's new?
Never before have I felt that El Reg should kill a story, but this may be the exception.
There really is no need to feed the arrogant King ego.
YouTube should kill the video as well.
We ought to ignore King and get on with our lives.
Get a clue.
The Sane World.
...that King can't tell good taste from bad, let alone right from wrong.
Come on. You're not even trying. Go find something really offensive, or controversial, or something to wind up the little censorship nazis. You're obviously having an off day if you think this is going to do it.
Always just the fringe of success.
...as a "paedophile"...
(a) it's inaccurate. It's not as if he was chasing after toddlers; all of the young men he dallied with were very close to the age of consent anyway. It's all relative - if Mr. King had had the good sense to move to a different EU country before doing his dirty work, it may not even have been a crime.
I don't like King at all, and he is a dirty old sod for sure, but I'm heartily sick of the media making out that if you have sex with someone the night before his/her 16th birthday, you're as bad as Ian Huntley or the Moors murderers. Get some frickin' perspective for buggery's sake.
(b) er, have you heard some of the other songs he's done recently, like "Vile Pervert" (where he seems to be comparing himself to Jesus and the Pope, among others). Calling him names only encourages him to release more of this crap.
I didn't want to comment on it until I'd seen it (and nobody else should), so I watched it. To me it says nothing relevant about the media, King was convicted in court, despite having the funds to get top notch legal council, Shipman was found guilty after overwhelming evidence, does King make a case for euthanasia? maybe that's a healthy debate, if anything I think it makes the case for the opposite, but can't really see how this relates to King.
Perhaps King believes there is no such thing as bad publicity (tell that to Ratner), does he think that his career will come back? George Michaels did, but George is a nice guy who can sing (acts like a twat sometimes) and King is a convicted paeophile, who can't, they're not the same thing at all (ooooh that remends me, where's Gary Glitter?).
So we are feeding this with every comment? if you truly object to him then ignore him or even boycot everything he might make money out of, such as Fosters lager and Orson. But do it quitely, or he'll make a fuss and get more publicity.
The point of the song is that the media feeds off itself, inflates and exaggerates, can't resist a caricature or a headline or a simplistic view - and we, as the public, like that because we are too lazy to bother with in depth analysis.
The reaction to the song has totally reflected that view.
As to whether I'm a "sad little man" or a "dirty old sod for sure", I'm in no position to judge myself.
I leave that to those who know me.
Not those who read about me and believe the image.
Have a nice day Registerians. And try Satan's Ultimate Weapon Of Mass Destruction on You Tube.
For the next level of your education.
(a) He was found guilty of "four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences on boys aged 14 and 15" not quite the night before their 16th birthday then?, 'paedophile' sounds accurate to me, I guess you're assuming the boys consented as well? their testimony indicated not, back in 2001 (2000?) male rape had only just been recognised as a crime in England, perhaps today he would be convicted of rape as well?
(b) Nobody is calling him names, legally he has been found to be a paedophile, the press are refering to him as what he legally is, a paedophile.
Sorry, but I have no time for Nambla sympathisers, the line has been drawn at 16, like driving a car when you've passed your test or operating on people when you're qualified, near enough is not good enough, never cross the line and you'll never have an issue.
No, the men (now middle aged) making the claims all said they enjoyed themselves but were below the age to be able to consent.
So why would they say that if nothing happened (as I claim)?
Because otherwise the jurors would find it odd when they returned so frequently.
So the prosecution told them to say they enjoyed themselves. Actually they did - because nothing sexual happened.
And I'm NOT even a (wrongly) convicted paedophile. The definition of a paedophile is someone who enjoys sex with children. The legal definition of a child is "a person under 14" - Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
But let's not bother about truth and reality. Let's enjoy the better story.
That's the likely true story of Harold Shipman.
PS Sorry if all this is a bit above your head, Anon.
The Children and Young Persons Act 1933, chooses to use "young person" as a defintion for people aged 14-15, and a child as a young person under 14 but this is typically applied when the young person has, or may have committed a crime (police searching rights etc.), not as a defintion for protection of the child.
Indecency with Children Act 1960, except where otherwise stated, "child" means a person under the age of sixteen years.
The Protection of Children Act 1978 defines a child as someone under the age of 16
Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Clause 37 of the Bill defines a child as, "a person under the age of 18".
The NSPCC defines a child as under the age of 16 http://www.nescpc.org.uk/nescpc/definition.html
If I were a legal person I would use the newest act for the defintion of a child (the 1978 act seems definitive to me) rather than a 1933 act (didn't we used to send children to workhouses and up chimneys then?)
Reading details of the case as reported by the Guardian certainly indicates to me that it was premeditated (using "seduction kits") and non consentual (I'm not a psycologist and do not understand the psycology of abuse).
At the end of the day, let's get the facts and make our own minds up.... I have..... (no more Fosters for me and the Orson CD might just go on the barbie after I finish drinking my Sol with a slice of lime)
Believe the media (The Guardian failed to report that the "seduction kits" claim was thrown out of court since the police had failed to produce them - they were actually souvenir packs from Concorde flights)... but since you prefer the ease and simplicity of believing the headlines, feel free to do so.
Sally Clark was a baby killing murderess until a hard working Leeds solicitor managed to prove she was an innocent cot death mother.
But go with the flow, Mike - it's so much easier.
Every time there is an article about dirty perverts chasing young boys for sex, there is a flurry of paedophile apologism in these comments pages.
I feel slightly revolted by the idea that The Register has a readership that includes so many NAMBLA members, or wannabe members.
Some bloke aboved wants us to believe that Johnathan King isn't a paedophile by trying to deny that a 14-year-old is a "child".
You disgust me.
So anyone who thinks there might possibly be grey areas when it comes to these issues is a "Nambla sympathizer", according to one poster. Ri-ight. Must be nice and cosy in your black-and-white fantasy world.
As I said, jet across to Spain or any of several other EU countries, and doing what King was convicted for (whether or not he was ACTUALLY guilty, which is a separate matter) probably wouldn't be a problem at all. So don't kid yourself that we're talking about moral or legal absolutes here.
By the way, there is no such thing as being "legally a paedophile", because the word does not exist in the legal lexicon. The phrase "convicted paedophile" is little more than a tabloid idiom; literally speaking, it makes about as much sense as calling someone a "convicted heterosexual".
To use the correct definition, paedophilia is a sexual preference for persons who are children in a strictly biological sense, i.e. pre-pubescents. Post-pubescent 14 and 15-year-olds are, of course, biological adults, so the moniker is entirely inaccurate in this case. You can scream tabloid headlines all you want, but it doesn't alter the facts.
"Dirty perverts chasing young boys for sex"... dear oh dear, here's a poster with problems.
You can always tell a sick mind when they feel the need to shout.
I don't approve of any dirty perverts, whether they chase boys or girls, grannies or lorry drivers.
But back to the matter in hand.
Is it so wrong to write and record a song suggesting (the "likely" true story) that the media and police and CPS exaggerate, sometimes to a ludicrous degree?
Whether the track is musically and lyrically good or bad is something I cannot possibly decide - others will do that for me.
But there's no harm in stoking up a bit of controversy.
Don't let's be beastly to the Germans.
I am surprised that only one other contributor has really got to the heart of the matter here.
Just like all of his output since the mid 1960's, this puerile little ditty is utter crap!
If he hadn't given the media and legal authorities a reason to censure him, they would have had to fabricate one, just to shut him up.
And I don't know why Mr. King is so upset about the people who believe what they read in the popular press. Aren't they, the very same people who once bought his banal "Terpsicorean" musings?
I am not a Jonathan King fan, as I was mentally scarred after I had to endure that awful "Entertainment USA" program in the 1980s - and there was something about the lopsided smile that I could not get along with ...
But, here is a point that is probably worth making:
All the people who are saying that he is a convicted paedophile because that's what he was sent to prison for, should remember that now he has served his time, and therefore in the eyes of the law has been seen to have paid his debt to society.
For the most part, arguing about the ins and outs of everything that led up to the court case and everything that led up to it is completely irrelevant. Even the fact that he has served time for those offences would be kept from a jury if he were ever accused of something similar, for the reason that he has already served his time for them.
And Jonathan, you should know better than to try to 'clear your name' at this point - it's all in the past now, and raking it all up again serves no purpose.
As for the song on YouTube, I have not seen it.
If nothing happened, why bother with the "they weren't children because they were over 14" argument? One of the sure signs of lying is justifying something you claim to have not done. Eg. Even if I had stolen the pie, it was only a small pie. I didn't shoot the cat but it looks like it died quickly. I didn't have sex with minors, but they were only a little underage.
That area can be quite difficult. When I was 18 I was at a party and getting to know a girl who later turned out (yes, I found out before I could unintentionally break the law) to be 15. I was drunk, young and she looked at least 17. I really wish that they would sort out the law, because as it is I can see a lot of court cases being the parents finding out that their little girl isn't as innocent as she seems and looking for someone to blame.
I hate paedophilia as much as I hate rape but it's not always clear cut, and while I respect the Guardian as a news source, like anyone else they're out to sell papers, so I approach cynically.
Also, the song is tripe.
Simple message: Mr King committed an extremely serious criminal offence. He was aware that his actions were criminal at the time. He was tried and convicted fairly by a court of law - not the media and not the police.
By committing this crime he has involved his victims in a process that they did _not_ consent to, nor could they be reasonably be expected to be able to deal with or foresee. It may be that, as adults, they are comfortable with their past - but Mr King could not have known that this would be the case at the time.
More importantly he was old enough and wise enough to accept that prosection was a possible and plausible outcome.
So, please, don't try and claim this is a moral grey area.
Oh, and "no harm in stoking up a bit of controversy"? Well, if were talking about Tracey Emin's 'art' then no. No harm at all.
Raking up the emotional pain and anguish of rape victims, or child abuse victims and the families and friends of murder victims? Yes. You cause a lot of harm Mr King. More than you can possibly know. Clearly more than you care about.
My appeal continues (on and on and on... it's easy to sympathise with the thousands of other victims of the judicial system like Sally Clark) but the only reason I've mentioned I'm not actually even a (wrongly) convicted paedophile is because people keep bring it up (it's a better story) and I'm a language pedant.
As for bothering to "clear my name", we all know that's a lost cause (though it would be "a better story") but I do hope if, as I expect, the ECHR throws out my convictions, it may assist future (and past) victims of this incredible situation (having to prove your innocence of false allegations from decades earlier with not a shred of proof or evidence, just one person's word against yours, and police/media/CPS assistance to create "similar" claims to convince a jury).
It appears that King is following the line of thinking that if you shout a lie loud enough and often enough people will start to believe it.
Instead of trying to revile the police and courts , if you want to do some good perhaps you should think about putting your financial weight and your mouth behind some of the victim support groups.At the end of the you were caught out. Just be a man and take your medicine. a while ago I could have recommende a good doctor.
Hmmm. My, albeit naive understanding has always been the following.
The "Age of Consent" marks the point before which a person is legally considered to be incapable of giving consent. That has always seemed really clear-cut to me. doesn't matter how eager, or what-not they seem. They are legally incapable of consenting and so can't and haven't.
So, have sexual relations with anyone below that age and your commiting rape with a minor. Easy enough to understand I've always thought.
"The point of the song is that the media feeds off itself, inflates and exaggerates, can't resist a caricature or a headline or a simplistic view - and we, as the public, like that because we are too lazy to bother with in depth analysis.
The reaction to the song has totally reflected that view."
Actually, I did understand the point - but others have made similar points in a far, far better way.
The majority of us would have learnt about the song from news reports. Given that these reports included quotes from the song and, to some extent, discussed what the song was about, I think most of us would have got the 'point' -and it's not as if the song possessed any lyrical sophistication or ambiguity.
I think the reaction to the song largely stems from:
a) The song's quality.
b) Who the (for want of a better word) artist was.
If you removed the above 'b' from the equation, we wouldn't even be discussing this song; it would just one of the many god awful Internet offerings that has no value - artistic or otherwise.
Should we be surprised that King is trying to rub people up the wrong way to get publicity for what is, even by the merest listening, a very poor quality and deliberately provocative piece of work indeed?
I'm not sure that comparing his case to Sally Clark is really very relevant, she was convicted on the basis of one piece of evidence which a group of experts belived could only have occurred in one way, subsequntly when it was proved to be flawed science she was cleared, the legal system worked, and as much as I genuinely feel for Sally and there's nothing that can take back the suffering that she went through as this will stay with her for life, this is the risk we run when we have laws to protect people.
Jonathan's case however is in a different ballpark, the evidence came from five victims regarding incidents spreading over several years, I believe there was another case being prepared against Jonathan (real name Kenneth btw.) with another six alleged victims, it was pulled, I don't know why, but I suspect the evidence was either weak or non-existant, remember the prosecution has to prove guilt.
As to 'grey areas' and the definition of what is and isn't a paedophile, Johnathan indicated "The definition of a paedophile is someone who enjoys sex with children." and argues that 14 and 15 year olds are not legally children (specifically quoting the 1933 act). Every other act that I know of (specifically, ones realted to the protection of children) defines a child as at least 16, so I guess we will have to differ on that point, he has a right to believe what he believes, no matter the arguments or facts we put forward.
Do I have sympathy that a 16 boy who has consentual sex with a 15 year old girl may be commiting a crime? yes (the CPS would probably not consider it in the public interest to pursue this anyway). Do I have sympathy for a middle aged man having nonconsentual sex with a 14 year old boy is considered a criminal? No, none, but that's my prejudices (and I suspect most peoples).
Jonathans time has passed, young people today don't know or care who is is, perhaps the popularity he enjoyed once can only be replaced by controversy, even if it all turned out to be a huge conspiracy people still wouldn't be interested, yes there would be a couple of talk shows for a few months, he has a great career behind him, he's 60 odd, time to retire.
proving my point again and again.
Sally Clark (I'm sorry to tell you Mike) is dead but I don't suppose you care very much.
These things happen in our "laws to protect people".
There was no evidence in my case - yes, my convictions were of claims by five people whose stories did indeed contain similarities.
They had never met each other (and one had never met me). But they did all meet the same investigating police officers.
I too would never have believed the truth about our system until this happened to me. I sincerely hope the same never happens to you. But I do know that karma is a far stronger influence than you would ever believe.
And please remember, when I was a teenager there WAS no age of consent for gay sex. And for all my adult active life (including the period of my convictions) the age of consent for males was 21.
Filthy paedophile of 21 has sex with 20 year old child!!!
I didn't realise that Sally died in March, she was only 42, this indeed is even more of a tragedy, I guess she never received the publicity in death that she received in life, I do care, it's a sad story (and not just for Sally, but the parents who went through the grinder too) but I won't pretend to be profoundly affected by her case, I never knew her nor any family member personally.
The first stage in recovery is to accept you have a problem, perhaps we have come some way to identifying an underlying reasons for the denial, repression of homosexual feelings when Jonathan was a teenager? social stigma? a misalligned age of consent? There are professionals who are really very good at helping people move on with personal issues, counselors who offer confidential emotional support perhaps? It couldn't possibly hurt to talk to somebody and it might help (perhaps he does, let's not assume)
Loved every minute of it. School was great fun.
Jonathan, do you use an Apple Mac?
Have you got something against Apple Macs?
Is anyone here actually DENYING that the newspapers in this country - and not just the tabloids - actually *define* reality for almost everyone?
Their mission is to sell papers, and they do that by reporting - and frequently creating - 'news' items with a flavour that pulls in the punters. And those items, given the banality of the real world, usually have the colour and volume cranked up as high as it will go. It's quite possible nowadays to make a front-page story out of 'Dog Bites Man' - you just have to change the dog to a Pit-Bull, change the bite into a near-fatal savaging, and the man into a celebrity.
In circumstances like these, where everything we read is wide of the truth at best, I think it's quite possible for Shipman to have been a misguided Angel of Mercy, and Mr. King himself to have been entirely innocent. I'm not saying it's so, but it's just as likely as the received wisdom that goes for 'facts'.
See the recent 'Queen's angry walk out' out for further details.
Really valid point, and yes we get popularised views of the news and current affairs, and I don't think anyone here is denying that this happens (the readership of the Register tends to be a perceptive bunch). Occasionally we the public take the media at face value and don't look behind the headlines for the facts.
But (and it's a huge walloping, J-Lo size but) it doesn't mean that what is being fed from the media isn't true, nor that the legal system is controlled by the media.
Shipman killed lots of old people, he was found guilty of 15 counts of murder and one of forging a will.
Did the press exaggerate the number of murders? Was every single one of them asking to be euthenased and he was just 'being kind'?
I accept that it's possible that he could have aided suicide in some cases, but lets get the facts whip out occams razor and set to work.......
OK, by now I assume that everybody has read all the facts and made up their own minds, no? really? you had the opportunity to get the facts and didn't even click on the link? oh maybe that's because we need the press to distil and feed us soundbites of the news, any yes we need the volume cranked up on 'what they consider important' to be more visible.
I spent an hour (well more like 50mins) on the inquiry website and I think the media wasn't too far wrong with the reporting of scope of the case and I don't think it's possible that for the majority of the cases that was an 'Angel of Mercy' (not even a misguided one). Further if the "the colour and volume cranked up as high as it will go" in some way helped start the investigation to how something could go on unchecked for so many years then the media did an invaluble service to society.
Could King be entirely innocent? of the victims he says "They had never met each other (and one had never met me). But they did all meet the same investigating police officers." is this an accusation of some kind of consipracy? so yes it is possible, but not very likely.
Chris makes some really valid points, but both of these cases have (just about in Kings case) run their course and the media seems to have been right, Shipman=Mass murderer, King=paedophile. Perhaps a better case to make Chris' point is that of Matthew Kelly who was cleared of all allegations of sex abuse, but I suspect that many members of the public still believe he did something, and yes the media must take their blame for this (I hope this is the point Chris is making).
What Chris doesn't go on to say and I would be interested on his opinion is, do we have any personal responsibily for our own 'pinch of salt'? At the end of the day WE are at fault for believing what we WANT to believe, the media is a powerful force, but only because we are too lazy (or don't have time) to find out the facts.
I believe you have my general point - but also, in these specific cases I truly don't think we have enough reliable information (versus the mountains of colourful rubbish we DO have) to have safe opinions on either of these cases.
Just to dig into the drivel a moment: Shipman apparently topped scores of old women with morphine O/Ds. Now that's about the most peaceful death that anyone could be lucky enough to experience - drifting off into a warm buzz, *without even being aware they were dying.* His actual crime against these women, it seems to me, is hugely less that someone who murders just once, but inflicts prolonged pain and suffering.
(Of course, his crimes' true victims are the families and loved ones left behind - who are likely in no condition to draw comfort from the blissful passage of their relatives. I'd still maintain that, statistically, Shipman probably spared many of his victims a much more horrible passing in later years, had they lived.)
Which is not to excuse Shipman. If anyone knows what motivated him it's not reached my ears, but dispatchers of the elderly seems occasionally to crop up in white coats. To simply categorise him - as you do above - as a 'mass murderer' is to ignore both this mystery and the special treatment given by society to those who are madder than they are bad. Shipman was not like Gein, or even Dahmer. His acts were more like involuntary euthanasia than murder. And he was ipso facto insane.
About Mr. King's case I know little - little enough that I am prepared to accept his version of events as no less likely or more biased than the media's. At least one side is horribly wrong, but it's the papers who have the previous form on lies and sensation.
As far as personal responsibility for swallowing the junk we're fed - I don't think fault is an issue here. Having spent time in a country where the media was all state-controlled propaganda, blaming the readers seems unjust, and blaming the writers irrelevant. The system is corrupt.
Please read the stuff at http://www.the-shipman-inquiry.org.uk (this details the official enquiry, actual statements, not media spin, no added colour or volume), please at least have a quick look there's more 'reliable information' than you will ever need to have a safe opinion.
Most of the 15 counts of murder were when the biddies were in fair to good health (for their age). Read about Lizzie Adams, ex professional dancer, who still danced.
When you say "I'd still maintain that, statistically, Shipman probably spared many of his victims a much more horrible passing in later years, had they lived."
Well durrr.... yes being painlessly put to sleep certainly does stop the risk of much more horrible passing in later years. But it also takes away the perfectly healthy years they had left, they may have missed their great grand children being born, seeing in the millenium in etc. Shipman took decades of enjoyable life from them.
I drew my conclusion (opinion if you will) that Shipman was a mass murderer from the fact that he was found guilty (by a court of law) of killing 15 people.
When I read the newspaper headlines that he "could have killed another 250" I wondered what "could" means, as it turns out (from the official enquiry) it's unlikely that he was responsible for anywhere near that number, and in fact most likely most of them died of natural causes.
When I'm 66,if I have my wits about me and my health I hope that nobody takes it upon themselves to "save me a horrible passing in future years".
While I disagree with your opinion that his acts were "involuntary euthanasia" I do believe that the media frenzy whipped up turning the 15 murders into possibly hundreds caused suffering for the families that had relations under Shipmans care that died of natural causes.
>but it's the papers who have the previous form on lies and sensation.
Sensation yes, but lies? I think sensation makes up most of the form, but not lies, we do have laws protecting people from lies and there are very few cases that prove a media source lies compared with the amount of truth that gets reported. Don't confuse a lie with exageration, they report what they find, if you chose to trust the source it's your fault, don't blame the messenger.
I still maintain that if we, the general public really cared that what was being reported was clear unbiased truth we would read past the headlines, and delve into the facts, but we don't, and that is our responsibility, don't forget all media is not created equal, you can get political opinion from reading the Sun or you can read Hansard, you choose the media, the system is not corrupt, we are.
I certainly don't think he was innocent. The point I am making is that the media (understandably) and the police and CPS (disturbingly) inflate and exaggerate the facts to fit the desired story.
This was certainly so in my case. Ages were lowered (which I was able to prove in the majority of cases which were then ordered abandoned by the judge). Incidents which simply didn't happen were added to those that did (yes, I met someone; yes, I played them music for opinions; yes, I sent them promo copies... dozens of "yeses" to one little "nope" - the sex).
Add a few total lies to the mix of general truth and you get a conviction - wrongly described by media as "paedophile" and A MUCH BETTER STORY.
Likewise Shipman; if he started as a mercy killer, got a taste for power; made a pathetic and inept attempt at forgery - a sad opportunistic murderer is not "the worst serial killer in history".
Instead of glorifying a mass murderer, why doesn't Jonathan King use YouTube to post a video apology to the victims of the crimes for he was convicted and imprisoned?
Great idea Mike; should I just ignore the fact that I was wrongly convicted and go ahead?
Pity you didn't give that advice to Sally Clark - she might still be alive (inside) today.
PS where in the lyric do I glorify Shipman? Perhaps you haven't bothered to listen to it.
I'm puzzled by your insistence on categorising Shipman as a 'mass murderer', as if the categorisation itself somehow helps one to think about the matter. The phrase itself is misleading: a 'murderer' is one who murders another, but the gut response to such a description is much more simplistic. The label implies a quantum of evil in that person that is mentally increased for a 'mass murderer', pro rata with the number of victims - with an added bonus for being weird enough to murder en masse in the first place. Is this fair?
A murderer may be evil, desperate or insane. A mass murderer is almost certainly insane. Society doesn't judge the insane by the standard of the sane, specifically because they may not be evil at all. I feel that Shipman was nothing like 100 times (or whatever) more evil that one who murders once.
Jonathan has brought up the concerted attempt by his accusers and the media to categorise him as a paedophile - entirely because succeeding would automatically make him seem more evil in the eyes of those judging him, legal and public - regardless of the actions of which he was accused.
I think he's right to consider this serious: what chance does a paedophile have in court, let alone in public? In this country even an *accused* paedophile is automatically guilty - for who would take the word of a paedophile that he's innocent? Even were Jonathan guilty on all counts, his misdeeds pale if his victims are adults. At the ages we are now told they were, it seems to me they were much closer to adults than to childhood.
Knowing as little as I do of the facts and accusations, in the media environment we inhabit I would not be at all surprised at all if Mr. King has nothing at all to pay or even apologise for. It fits the data.
No problems with your analysys of 'mass murderer', perhaps by using the word 'mass' it inflates unfairly his crimes, personally I understand what I mean by the word 'mass' which is more than 'multiple', more correctly he is a 'serial killer' (with dictionary definition, something like "more than two killings over a period of time, giving the killer time to reflect on the killings").
>it seems to me they were much closer to adults than to childhood.
True, and women who go out drinking wearing short skirts are 'asking for it', the law is the law and there is a line, this line has been drawn at 16, drop it to 14 and you will have the same argument for 13 year olds and as you say ^n
A person who sexually abuses a 1 year old baby is not less of a paedophile just because the child won't remember it (memories form much later), it's a dictionary definition, King is a convicted paedophile (according to legal and dictionary definitons)
We have to use words to describe people, we could say:
Shipman the murderer
Shipman the mass murderer
Shipman the serial killer
Perhaps the last description is most accurate, I think it sounds more dramatic than mass murderer, but technically more accurate as it is based on dictionary defintions and facts.
>Knowing as little as I do of the facts and accusations, in the media environment we inhabit
>I would not be at all surprised at all if Mr. King has nothing at all to pay or even apologise for. It fits the data.
I assume, not knowing the facts you wouldn't be surprised if has everything to apologise for either?
>In this country even an *accused* paedophile is automatically guilty
Maybe to the media and public, but not legally, that is what we have the courts for, if you want more info have a look at the second trial.
King will never apologise because he denies anything happened, perhaps when he said that he "repressed no feelings when he was at school" and "it was great fun" he was having gay sex with other boys his own age and can't see why (later, as a middle aged man) it wouldn't be OK to have sex with teenage boys again, maybe he can't see the difference between two consenting teenage boys and one middle aged man and a non consenting teenage boy, apart from King, the victims and others who gave evidence we don't and will never know. Apparentlly he enjoyed prision, I wonder who were his associates? did they share any common likes and dislikes? did he feel at home?
With regard to Shipman, It's interesting that Johnathan says the CPS inflated the facts to fit the desired story, I couldn't find anything about this in the official inquiry, and no references in the summary either, I'm not convinced this happened, or maybe it's all part of the same conspiracy that got all the witnesses to give the same story to put King away and the hundreds of people involved in the enquiry are all just part of it (pass Occams Razor again please).
Mike Belch makes a good point, I don't recall King ever condeming the crimes that he was found guilty for (regardless of his guilt, Sally publicly indicated grief towards the parents), if he did then at least the Nambla sympathisers wouldn't have a martyr, I'm not interested on Kings actual opinion of Nambla, but I do wonder if he would publically support or condem them? (maybe a middle of the road, "it's their opinion"). We know that Jonathan doesn't consider 14 year old boys as children, is this the reason he doesn't like the 'p' word? we can debate whether a 14 year old boy is ready to cope with the hormones rushing through his body and whether his sexuality is defined then, but I don't think we need middle aged men physically helping them with their choice.... do we?
And yes, the suggestion that it was likely Shipman was just helping the dying does run the risk of gloryifying his actions as 'mercy killings' they were not, read the inquiry (oh, no King won't do this because it's all part of the media/police/CPS conspiracy) unfortunately shipman has queered the milk for the euthanasia debate, but the actions resulting from the enquiry will at least make it less likely to ever go on as long again before being caught.
Here's the IT angle.... just because you use a Mac it doesn't mean you're homosexual (maybe just more.... 'artistic') ;-)
As I've said, the Shipman song is intended as a commentary on the morality and behaviour of media, police and CPS.
Yes I have read the Shipman report. I have my own opinions but they are not relevant.
No, I don't approve of adults having sex with people below the age of consent and I believe if you choose your residence you should abide by the rules of that society but I felt that it was absurd for the two genders to have different ages of consent and chose to ignore that - society agreed with me and equalised them (two days after my arrest for allegations from 35 years ago).
I experienced at first hand the way the police and CPS (and media) work. Before it happened to me, I would never have believed it was standard practice to "assist" witnesses in order to gain convictions.
As Sally Clark condemned mothers who do kill their babies, so do I condemn anyone who abuses children (or adults). But we don't have to admit to (or express remorse for) crimes we did not commit.
And sadly, though Sally (and Angela and Donna and Paul Blackburn - 25 years - and Williams-Rigby and Lawson and Robert Brown and the thousands of other miscarriages of justice who won their appeals) could say the system got it right in the end, millions of others without the resources or energy to fight know that, much more often, it does NOT rectify mistakes.
And those who refuse to see this are begging for karma to kick them in the balls so they will find out at first hand.
.....will write the entire works of WIlliam Shakespeare
One thing for sure is that Jonathan is guilty of is spending a lot of time alone with young boys and not realising that it may be seen as inappropriate, you could argue he's only guilty of stupidity or even shame on us for thinking anything wrong was going on, how has he been punished for this? He was sent to prison which apparently he enjoyed, and short of not ever being likely to be invited onto celeb big brother (where other has beens and unknowns grab some public spotlight) he career wasn't affected as it had wound down already.
What is more likely tho? have allegations of sex abuse stretching from between 35 to 20 years ago all been made up by the police and CPS? did they then convince the witnesses to go into court and purjor themselves just to get a conviction?
Is it possible that every witness lied about the sex abuse? and the police and CPS have formed a huge consipracy with the witnesses? and this conspiracy still hasn't fallen apart today? Yes, of course it's possible, but it is very, very unlikely, I believe the phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Are the same people who accuse the police and CPS of co-ordinating this clever and seemingly bullet-proof, consipracy involving a huge number of people where not one person involved in the conspiracy has finally cracked and owned up, the same people who call the police and CPS incompetent?
Theoretically possible is not the same as practically possible. To me the likelyhood of Jonathan being innocent is as likely as the assaults being committed by aliens, an evil twin separated at birth or a by gang of marrauding monkies fed up with being stuck in front of their typewritters all day.
Anon (MonkEYS surely?) but you've again proved my lyrical point.
They (Police/CPS) don't always INVENT. They usually INFLATE.
"Guilty of spending a lot of time alone with young boys"?
Yes - but they were all teenagers, often girls too, often families and adults - but none of those were mentioned which makes it seem dominant.
It wasn't. I spoke to, contacted, met, hosted in my house THOUSANDS of people and gained a lot of knowledge and pleasure from that.
Stupidity? Why? In those days it was perfectly acceptable if unusual (most "celebrities" cultivate unavailability; I was the opposite).
The "huge" conspiracy was just the standard quantities of "trawl by media" and ended as a mere FIVE men with all others acquitted, ordered abandoned or dropped.
That's the frightening thing. Blurring lines, lowering ages, assisting statements...
Works like a charm, as it did on you.