The Internet thinks it's Cliff Richard.
Surely not?
Surely not?
Grim... wrote:
Surely not?
He should be. Purely for his music if nothing else, certainly classed as causing unreasonable and cruel suffering.
Oh man, there'll be grannies rioting in the streets if they try and go after Cliff.
Stop it you guys, you'll upset chinny. Remember how uppity he got when you all named rolf.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Stop it you guys, you'll upset chinny. Remember how uppity he got when you all named rolf.
That's why I didn't quote the name, it could be any 73 year old bad song making man.
Hmm, I'll never think of "Livin' Doll" in quite the same light now...?
It's okay, I'll fetch my coat.
It's okay, I'll fetch my coat.
I've just read the last few pages of this thread and sorry if I'm stirring something up again but holy crap, why were people trying to debate with Cavey about a 50+ year old sleeping with a 16 year old?! That's all kinds of wrong! And yes, it's wrong wether the 16 year old is a girl or a boy!
I agree Gilly, but I suppose not everyone feels the same way. 
All I can say is, if anyone in their 50s had got their hooks into the Teen Angels when they were sweet sixteen, my reaction would've been something along these lines!
All I can say is, if anyone in their 50s had got their hooks into the Teen Angels when they were sweet sixteen, my reaction would've been something along these lines!
Max Clifford is guilty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600
Quote:
Publicist Max Clifford has been found guilty of eight indecent assaults on women and girls as young as 15.
Grim... wrote:
Max Clifford is guilty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600
Quote:
Publicist Max Clifford has been found guilty of eight indecent assaults on women and girls as young as 15.
Did you see the clip of his exit from court? He walked up to the press and said "my lawyers have told me to say nothing" then he stood there for 60 seconds like he was Prince William or something whilst they all took pictures!
No doubt it was this humility that helped the jury bring in their verdict!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28034427
According to the report out on Saville, he even abused corpses
I've never understood how any TV celebrity could get so much open access to hospitals. Putting the abuse aside for one minute he should not have had a set of keys to Broadmoor for security reasons alone.
According to the report out on Saville, he even abused corpses
I've never understood how any TV celebrity could get so much open access to hospitals. Putting the abuse aside for one minute he should not have had a set of keys to Broadmoor for security reasons alone.
"In 1988, Savile was appointed by the Department of Health as the head of a taskforce overseeing Broadmoor."
What. The. Fuck.
What. The. Fuck.
Just saw a great understated quote on the BBC site:
"Savile's interest in the dead was pretty unwholesome."
"Savile's interest in the dead was pretty unwholesome."
Trooper wrote:
"In 1988, Savile was appointed by the Department of Health as the head of a taskforce overseeing Broadmoor."
What. The. Fuck.
What. The. Fuck.
Seriously. What the fuck. I'm not talking about the sexual predator nature, at what point did someone go "what we need here, is a disk jockey"
They probably thought that here is a high profile figure who does a lot of work for charity, has an interest in the work they're doing and can get them some much needed press. I doubt they were asking him for advice on the day to day running of the place.
He abused a corpse? I'm not convinced that should be a thing. It'd be like abusing a steak, or a fish finger.
Grim... wrote:
He abused a corpse? I'm not convinced that should be a thing. It'd be like abusing a steak, or a fish finger.
Not sure how to read this, but anyway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_of_necrophilia
Grim... wrote:
He abused a corpse? I'm not convinced that should be a thing. It'd be like abusing a steak, or a fish finger.
Fish don't have fingers, but a steak wasn't once someone's mum.
Ah, that's what he meant.
One of those articles has this interesting little nugget of information:
One of those articles has this interesting little nugget of information:
Wikipedia wrote:
In Central Europe, until 200 years ago or pre-modern times, it was notable that if a betrothed girl passed away before her marriage day could be celebrated, the spouse could still consummate the ceremony by having sexual relation with the body.
American Nervoso wrote:
[...]a steak wasn't once someone's mum.
\
Say what?
WTF why is that calf so so small?
Grim... wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
[...]a steak wasn't once someone's mum.
\
Say what?
Animals do not have the same rights as humans.
American Nervoso wrote:
Grim... wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
[...]a steak wasn't once someone's mum.
\
Say what?
Animals do not have the same rights as humans.
They are disfranchised, so the King of the Jungle can hold on to his seat of power. I would have thought you'd have been all over this zoo-facism in your current mode.
Grim... wrote:
WTF why is that calf so so small?
Little legs.
Grim... wrote:
He abused a corpse? I'm not convinced that should be a thing. It'd be like abusing a steak, or a fish finger.
I agree.
MaliA wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Grim... wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
[...]a steak wasn't once someone's mum.
\
Say what?
Animals do not have the same rights as humans.
They are disfranchised, so the King of the Jungle can hold on to his seat of power. I would have thought you'd have been all over this zoo-facism in your current mode.
What's 'facism', hating Rod Stewart?
MaliA wrote:
Grim... wrote:
He abused a corpse? I'm not convinced that should be a thing. It'd be like abusing a steak, or a fish finger.
I agree.
Do you mean it shouldn't happen or shouldn't be against the law?
TheVision wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Grim... wrote:
He abused a corpse? I'm not convinced that should be a thing. It'd be like abusing a steak, or a fish finger.
I agree.
Do you mean it shouldn't happen or shouldn't be against the law?
I agree.
TheVision wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Grim... wrote:
He abused a corpse? I'm not convinced that should be a thing. It'd be like abusing a steak, or a fish finger.
I agree.
Do you mean it shouldn't happen or shouldn't be against the law?
Shouldn't be against the law, like drink driving and attempted murder.
Curiosity wrote:
TheVision wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Grim... wrote:
He abused a corpse? I'm not convinced that should be a thing. It'd be like abusing a steak, or a fish finger.
I agree.
Do you mean it shouldn't happen or shouldn't be against the law?
Shouldn't be against the law, like drink driving and attempted murder.
You're such a hardline conservative it's ridiculous sometimes. Just be cool.
TheVision wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Grim... wrote:
He abused a corpse? I'm not convinced that should be a thing. It'd be like abusing a steak, or a fish finger.
I agree.
Do you mean it shouldn't happen or shouldn't be against the law?
I don't think it should be against the law. it's a bit icky, but so is doing those needlework samplers of angels.
So I'm not the only one getting confused here? Good. Or bad.
Necrophilia is illegal to avoid spreading disease, I remember hearing.
BikNorton wrote:
Necrophilia is illegal to avoid spreading disease, I remember hearing.
Stay safe, use a condom (or living partner).
Sorry guys, stating the painfully obvious here: what about the *relatives* and loved ones of the deceased? The person may well be dead, but they'll still want the body to be treated with the respect it deserves, in all respect, memory and love for that person, not to have it defiled by some filthy, vile, perverse old cunt. I really don't think that's a big ask.
Cavey beat me to it.
I agree.
I agree.
TheVision wrote:
Cavey beat me to it.
I agree.
I agree.
Morally, it's pretty abhorrent and it's certainly taboo but I do understand why the question of illegality is being raised. I don't think you can abuse a corpse, it's not a person, it's a thing; it'd be like having sex with a mannequin. On the flip side of course, there are plenty of laws in place to guard against acts people deem immoral; a lot of them probably regarding sex. Like age limits and previously, buggery.
flis wrote:
Morally, it's pretty abhorrent and it's certainly taboo but I do understand why the question of illegality is being raised. I don't think you can abuse a corpse, it's not a person, it's a thing; it'd be like having sex with a mannequin.
It's NOT a "thing" though, it's the earthly remains of someone's wife, husband, mum, dad or child, and it's the only thing they have left of them. I don't mean to be out of order here, but how would you feel if, heaven forbid, one of your kids died and someone did something like this to them?
Odds on you wouldn't just consider them a piece of meat and fair game to be defiled in this way. We are more than just currently-breathing chunks of flesh.
In the end, I suppose these sort of laws are in place to preempt people from taking matters into their own hands.
Cavey wrote:
Sorry guys, stating the painfully obvious here: what about the *relatives* and loved ones of the deceased? The person may well be dead, but they'll still want the body to be treated with the respect it deserves, in all respect, memory and love for that person, not to have it defiled by some filthy, vile, perverse old cunt. I really don't think that's a big ask.
Agree 100%
Cavey wrote:
flis wrote:
Morally, it's pretty abhorrent and it's certainly taboo but I do understand why the question of illegality is being raised. I don't think you can abuse a corpse, it's not a person, it's a thing; it'd be like having sex with a mannequin.
It's NOT a "thing" though, it's the earthly remains of someone's wife, husband, mum, dad or child, and it's the only thing they have left of them. I don't mean to be out of order here, but how would you feel if, heaven forbid, one of your kids died and someone did something like this to them?
Odds on you wouldn't just consider them a piece of meat and fair game to be defiled in this way. We are more than just currently-breathing chunks of flesh.
Cavey wins the prize.
Edit: for being correct, not just saying something sensible.
"Sexual penetration with a corpse was made illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is defined as depictions of "sexual interference with a human corpse" as well as actual scenes (see also extreme pornography). As of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, it is also illegal to possess explicit and realistic depictions of sexual interference with a human corpse, electronic or otherwise."
Not sure when his last dabble with the dead was, but it wasn't illegal until 11 years ago
In finding this nugget of information I now have a nice Google search that has no doubt been flagged by the NSA already "is necrophilia legal uk"
The USA is not exactly aligned on this topic, you can be charged with a Class A felony to a Misdemeanour depending on which state you live in.
Ironically Nevada is one of the strictest with a Class A felony with a maximum penalty of life in prison with the possibility of parole
Not sure when his last dabble with the dead was, but it wasn't illegal until 11 years ago
In finding this nugget of information I now have a nice Google search that has no doubt been flagged by the NSA already "is necrophilia legal uk"
The USA is not exactly aligned on this topic, you can be charged with a Class A felony to a Misdemeanour depending on which state you live in.
Ironically Nevada is one of the strictest with a Class A felony with a maximum penalty of life in prison with the possibility of parole
What's the current legislation on corpse desecration? I imagine it's also illegal to cut the head off a corpse and play football with it.
asfish wrote:
"Sexual penetration with a corpse was made illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is defined as depictions of "sexual interference with a human corpse" as well as actual scenes (see also extreme pornography). As of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, it is also illegal to possess explicit and realistic depictions of sexual interference with a human corpse, electronic or otherwise."
Not sure when his last dabble with the dead was, but it wasn't illegal until 11 years ago
In finding this nugget of information I now have a nice Google search that has no doubt been flagged by the NSA already "is necrophilia legal uk"
The USA is not exactly aligned on this topic, you can be charged with a Class A felony to a Misdemeanour depending on which state you live in.
Ironically Nevada is one of the strictest with a Class A felony with a maximum penalty of life in prison with the possibility of parole
Disappointing that it wasn't fully trailed in the queens speech. Not sure when his last dabble with the dead was, but it wasn't illegal until 11 years ago
In finding this nugget of information I now have a nice Google search that has no doubt been flagged by the NSA already "is necrophilia legal uk"
The USA is not exactly aligned on this topic, you can be charged with a Class A felony to a Misdemeanour depending on which state you live in.
Ironically Nevada is one of the strictest with a Class A felony with a maximum penalty of life in prison with the possibility of parole
Cavey wrote:
Sorry guys, stating the painfully obvious here: what about the *relatives* and loved ones of the deceased? The person may well be dead, but they'll still want the body to be treated with the respect it deserves, in all respect, memory and love for that person, not to have it defiled by some filthy, vile, perverse old cunt. I really don't think that's a big ask.
I also fully agree with Cavey, shockingly. I think the sanctity of the dead is pretty important. I'm not a Christian but there's a reason why funerals are a vital element in life in all their ritual trappings, they are there for the bereaved to come to terms with a loved ones death and for them to make their peace, and for the living to cling to something vaguely reassuring for when their time comes, to feel that they won't go into the long dark fully alone.
Necrophilia, in its sick, selfish, obscene way turns the dead into a sick joke and destroys memory and feeling.
I also agree with Cavey.
Rolf Harris guilty on all twelve charges.
For sentencing, the judge will half trace the picture of a prison then turn round and ask...