Jimmy Savile

Now there really is vile in Jimmy's name. The things that allegedly went on are VILE.

I am not condoning anything allegedly done to Children however we must remember the climate was different 50 years ago. What young man, pop star, DJ would not resist a girl flaunting herself at them. We know what went on and did they ask if they wee under 16? No.
But the rest? No way, it is sick!

There is a responsibility on all society to protect children. However I notice over the years a softening to attitudes to sex with Children. Under 16s are children and must be protected from themselves as much as the predators. Look at the 30 year old teacher going to France with his 15yr old pupil,  yes the law will deal with it but was the girl co-earced? Yes she's under 16 so must e protected by law. It is WRONG.

Again however, how much under age sex goes unpunished? HOw many over 16's are prosecued for sex with under 16s? very few I think. The law sees it as pointless. But where do we draw the line? If Jimmy Savile is a criminal then so are the rest. ZERO  tolerance I say.

Children by definition do not understand what they are doing and the over 16's must be told (by prosecution) that it is against the LAW. That is why thelaw exists.

Parents must exercise their responsibilities and accept that under age sex is against the law. It is there because it ruins lives.Children are sexualised at a far too young age and we mus stop it.. Letting unfettered access to the internet is responsible as well - parents again must be made responsible and society has to accept the constraints.

IF we cease to protect our vulnerable children where does that leave us?