Newest Members
lilac, The Wife Of, smusab, whiteflag, North101
12287 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
adam319 (46), Bellemaman (36), Bob G. (58), S D Witwicky (38)
Who's Online
4 registered (WriterKeith, Cthulhu, 2 invisible), 33 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
12287 Members
73 Forums
63225 Topics
442118 Posts

Max Online: 418 @ 07/02/12 07:29 AM
Twitter
Topic Options
#83106 - 08/07/05 08:22 PM Has this woman any idea of what she is talking about?
Kirk Wayne Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 05/31/05
Posts: 499
Loc: Shrewsbury UK
From todays Observer

King may be a prat but he's served his time

Carole Sarler
Sunday August 7, 2005
The Observer

Contrition must have whacked the BBC with a heavy hand: it was very sorry, it grovelled, that it had allowed Jonathan King to appear on Five Live last week; it was 'not our intention to give him a platform to assert his innocence', simply to see whether 'his state of mind is typical of perpetrators of paedophile crimes'. The apology, we were told, was necessitated by 25 complaints - which would appear to be no more than a public service response, until compared with the 60,000 complaints about Jerry Springer: The Opera that provoked not a word of remorse.

On Tuesday, in much the same tone as the BBC's, every national newspaper solemnly reported the apology. Why? Hardly a week, one might have thought, with a dearth of news.

And so continues the demonisation of the old pop slapper King. Tabloids routinely stalk him. Since his release from jail in March he has been splashed across front pages for daring to stroll in a sunny park where, golly, children were present - presumably much the same accusation as would follow his purchase of a pint of milk in a family supermarket, all grist to the almost entirely accepted, if inaccurate notion that the man is a paedophile. For icing on the cake, there is the constant reminder that he served 'only' half of his seven-year sentence, dished up by commentators apparently unaware that so does every other prisoner of good behaviour.

This is not how convicted criminals are usually treated. Jeffrey Archer did his time, came out and was largely ignored; Jonathan Aitken came out and cashed in by writing about it; John McVicar, a thoroughly nasty piece of bodily harmer, came out, earned his keep as a crime 'expert' and had his story turned into an iconic eponymous film. For King, by contrast, his spell at Her Majesty's pleasure seems only to have heightened the desire for his vilification as a child molester.

Nearly four years ago, on these pages, I expressed disquiet at the severity of his sentence. I found him guilty in my own court, of artless arrogance, of being an utter prat and of 'an unappealingly ravenous appetite for men younger than himself'. All the same, I queried: seven years.

But at least then, unlike now, there was some latent appetite for the facts of his case: he was convicted of consensual sexual contact with teenagers three decades previously, based on uncorroborated accusations and with the accusers - this is crucial - knowing before testifying what would be the monetary value to them of a successful conviction, from both the state's criminal compensation tariff and Max Clifford and his merry men.

Children? No. King's amours, who came across as low-rent jailbait from, for instance, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Portugal, who went back time and again for his gifts and money, were, in fact, above the age of consent. On balance, they got more than they deserved and so did King; frankly, if every gay man with a glad eye for younger flesh were to be locked up, our prisons would explode.

That said, it is time, now, for King himself to put up and shut up. He does not sound like a man who takes advice, but if he were he would return to work as an able producer of music and stop his incessant campaigning to be recognised as 'innocent'. Partly this is because he probably isn't - certainly not in the sense that the word would pass muster on the Moral Maze - and partly because, crudely, his is a lost cause. However unfair, unremitting denial can become so irritating that it just results in throwing away good years after bad.

The fall-out from his trials niggles on. It would be correct, for a start, to acknowledge the element of sexual inequality: Bill Wyman, for obvious instance, was never punished for his long-ago relationship with a 13-year-old girl. Perhaps more disturbing is the reminder of how far the national mindset remains in thrall to paedophilia. What one could have hoped, a few 'name and shame' years ago, to be a grotesque but passing phase has flourished instead; the paedophile is our favourite bogeyman and the fact that King is not a paedophile means nothing beside the popular desire for him to be one.

And driving that desire are all those people whose hearts quicken and whose pulses race with the gasp, tut, complaint, smirk, joke or other expression of their titillation; people for whom any story involving sex becomes, de facto, sexy. Such people are, in a literal sense, perverts. Whether Jonathan King is also one is quite another matter. ENDS

I think this about the most stupid and unresearched copy I have ever read as far as King is concerned, once again I fired off an email to her and her editor. It reads:

Dear editor please find below a reply to Ms. Carole Sarlers article published in this weeks Observer.

Dear Ms. Sarler.

May I resepctfully suggest that you get your facts right before you write your articles.

As a survivor/victim of King and his one time good friend and promotions manager of Kings UK Records, the ex Radio One dj Chris Denning. I am the one that originally contacted the Max Clifford Organisation and then the National Criminal Intelligence Service. I feel I have a right to reply as I am sure you will agree.

Some of the inaccuracies in your article are laughable may I point them out to you?

Firstly

"Tabloids routinely stalk him" -

May I suggest that this is the other way around, Kings mindset courts the media for his own oxygen of publicity just by the things he says and wanting to get a reaction. It will, be the same when his autobiography is published. It will be a best seller purely through the fact that no self respecting publisher will touch it. Some of the biggest selling books of all time have been ones that have been banned or have tried to be banned, ie "Spycatcher". The same can be said of banned records.

"there is the constant reminder that he served 'only' half of his seven-year sentence, dished up by commentators apparently unaware that so does every other prisoner of good behaviour".

Ms. Sarler you have obviously forgotten that King was moved jails after contacting a London based radio station whilst in custody to proclaim his innocence, us survivors do not have the luxury of Kings contacts, or is that ok by you? Would you feel the same way if Ian Huntley/William Goad did the same?

I expressed disquiet at the severity of his sentence. I found him guilty in my own court, of artless arrogance, of being an utter prat and of 'an unappealingly ravenous appetite for men younger than himself'. All the same, I queried: seven years".

So someone who buggers/rapes another whilst they are underage should only get probation? This sounds as though you have taken on some of Jon Ronsons comments and beliefs.

"he was convicted of consensual sexual contact with teenagers three decades previously".

Sexual contact suggests that it was just a "quick wank" to quote Jon Ronson. King was convicted for definatley buggering one of his twenty six accusers and I certainly didnt consent to his advances at the age of fifteen (1971).

"knowing before testifying what would be the monetary value to them of a successful conviction, from both the state's criminal compensation tariff and Max Clifford and his merry men".

It is on record why I approached the Max Clifford Organisation, go and look at the police records, you have my permission and that can be arranged through Ruth Copperthwaite the Press Officer at Surrey police. However I did not actually speak to Mr.Clifford and in my original communiction with them I had not mentioned King only Chris Denning. I doubt very much that you would be interested why I did indeed contact the Clifford Organisation, or would you? As to the matter of Criminal Compensation that was not discussed by anyone except my solicitor and that was after the trial was over.

"Children? No". You are obviously interpretating the Childrens Act of 1944 (or whatever one it is that King constantly refers too) in the same way as King has.

"who went back time and again for his gifts and money, were, in fact, above the age of consent".

That is a pretty blanket statement. For one this Survivor did not return "time and again" and I was certainly not given any presents or money and I certainly wasnt legal. I think I know my own birth date better than you do.

"On balance, they got more than they deserved". I would love to know your reasoning behind this statement. In what way did I get more than I deserved?

And driving that desire are all those people whose hearts quicken and whose pulses race with the gasp, tut, complaint, smirk, joke or other expression of their titillation; people for whom any story involving sex becomes, de facto, sexy.

So reporting any story involving sex is sexy? Do you include sexual abuse of children in that context? If so that is very disturbing.

Whether Jonathan King is also one is quite another matter.

Good point ... But King is definately a haebophile. A heabophile is usually a male who is sexually attracted to boys aged between eleven and seventeen.

Please feel free to contact me on ***** ******.

I will be sending a copy of this email to your editor.

Kindest regards

Kirk Mc

Lets hope I get a reply but I am not holding out much hope but then again I did get one from Richard Stott of the Sunday Mirror, which was totally unexpected.

Cheers
Kirk
"Instigate change as it appears in our cuase it wont come naturally, sometimes it needs a little forcing"


Top
#83107 - 08/07/05 09:06 PM Re: Has this woman any idea of what she is talking about?
reality2k4 Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 07/06/04
Posts: 6838
Loc: Stuck between water, air, and ...
Kirk, I only flash read this about King because personally I hope that he, and his fellow perverts could be locked up forever.

Quote:
he fact that King is not a paedophile means nothing beside the popular desire for him to be one
How sick is that, but I guessed it, I wrote to the Guardian about an article to post on issues affecting CSA, and although initially they were all for it, I never even got a response.

I also reminded them that their paper is frquently read by the teaching profession who could gain valuable insight into this tragedy, still no reply.

That woman is talking through her sh*tter, wake up sister, why report without the facts???

Have they gotten rid of all the research assistants because of job cuts!

Is or was 14yo, the age of consent ever in this Country, answer no, but it seemed OK for them to do these things then, but not now, King is a pedophile, and will still be highly dangerous.

If he ever came near my kids, if I had any, he would not need to serve any sentence!

Why cant he just die?

ste

_________________________
Whoever stole the Sun, put it back and we'll drop all the charges!

Top
#83108 - 08/08/05 11:42 PM Re: Has this woman any idea of what she is talking about?
Lloydy Offline
Administrator Emeritus
MaleSurvivor
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 7071
Loc: England Shropshire
There are many people who write for the various media, or comment on TV and radio, that deliberately play the devils advocate in order to bring forth discussion that includes both sides the discussion.
I have no problem with that.

Carole Sarler BELIEVES what she writes, and that's altogether different.
It's also wrong in this case.

Dave

_________________________
Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you've imagined. As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler.
Henry David Thoreau

Top


Moderator:  Chase Eric, ModTeam 

I agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole discretion of MaleSurvivor.
I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor resources are AT-WILL, and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for any reason by MaleSurvivor.