BS: Jonathan King

Subject: BS: Jonathan King
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 05:55 PM

It seems that Jonathan King's parole is now to be turned down.

He may be a real git, but did he really deserve what he got for (if it be so) pulling a few young lads nearly up to the age of consent, giving them booze (which they wanted) and showing them porn (which they wanted) and then giving them blowjobs?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:01 PM

If that's the case, then no. A heterosexual wouldn't have been dealt with in that severe way.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:02 PM

Don't know enough about the case. But had forgotten he was even inside. Guess he abused a position of 'trust'. Knee jerk reaction, seems pretty harsh.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:43 PM

I guess he does not have Michael Jackson's popularity.......Or his money.

But if that is the law and he was proved to have broken it - there are certain punishments laid down to guide the judge.

Perhaps it was thought that there was more than a good chance of him breaking the law again? Perhaps a few young boys may be a little safer while Johnathan King is kept away from any contact with them?

For the actual cases that come to court in these matters - do tend to be the tip of an iceberg.......

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:48 PM

It is remarkable that Oscar Wilde has become a symbol of oppression to gay people, his works are acclaimed etc etc. His treatment is an example of the wicked behaviour of Victorian authority in the old days. Whereas Jonathan King, accused of precisely the same activities, is a pervert rightly imprisoned. How does this make any kind of moral sense? Wilde liked lads and did naughty things with them. Hero. King liked lads and did naughty things with them. Hang the paedophile!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:53 PM

This report says that he is to come out of prison on the 29 March. Is this wrong?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4315421.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 07:00 PM

From the Daily Mail.

Giovanni di Stefano dismissed a report that King, sentenced to seven years in November 2001 for sex offences against young boys, had been told that a parole application is to be torn up.

Mr di Stefano produced a copy of a Parole Board decision dated February 17 2005 confirming that the successful music producer was "suitable for early release on licence".

Mr di Stefano said: "Parole has been granted, Mr King will be released on March 29, not the 28th because that's Easter Monday.
"He will be released from HM Prison Maidstone, he has fulfilled the criteria."

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 07:11 PM

It is remarkable that Oscar Wilde has become a symbol of oppression to gay people, his works are acclaimed etc etc. His treatment is an example of the wicked behaviour of Victorian authority in the old days. Whereas Jonathan King, accused of precisely the same activities, is a pervert rightly imprisoned.

Time may take the same view of Jonathan King but at the time when Wilde was also imprisoned - he too was thought to be a 'pervert rightly imprisoned.

But are we saying that adults sexually preying on the young is OK? Well if you are a rich, powerful or famous man with a liking for young girls - I supose we are...........

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Mar 05 - 10:25 PM

It should perhaps be borne in mind that I think his victims were mostly 16 or over, so if they had been female, they could validly have consented to sexual activity.

Oddly, I would feel differently if he had compelled his victims to adminster oral sex to him, or if he had buggered them.

At the times of the offences, King was in his twenties.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 05:11 AM

It should perhaps be borne in mind that I think his victims were mostly 16 or over, so if they had been female, they could validly have consented to sexual activity.

You say "mostly" But do you accept that the offences he was charged with were the only ones this predatory pedeophile actually committed up until his trial? If so he would be a strange if not a unique case.

There are cases where a jury having aquitted on these charges - have to then sit with horror - listening to a long list of previous convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 05:47 AM

Can you see Oscar Wilde on a Gay Pride march? In Wilde's time public morals were different, and while I don't know what age Lord Alfred Douglas was, I don't think he was young enough for the label paedophile to be applied to Oscar. It does however seem odd to me that sexual crimes where force is used like heterosexual rape, often attract a lighter sentence than crimes like Jonathan King's where coercion is used and not violence. Not that I'm excusing either, I just find the publics' movable moral values amusing, as their point of view about a crime is conditioned by their view of the person committing it. The fact that the more well off amongst them can hire high profile lawyers and PR men, and get off with crimes that you or I would go to jail for doesn't help either.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 05:53 AM

Hmm, the articles at the BBC site I see say:

"King was convicted of four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences against boys aged 14 and 15, after an investigation by Surrey Police."

I can't really see Richard's angle on this. Even I was to quite legaly and with consent have sex with 16 year old girls, would not sex with one 14 year old get me into trouble with the law?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 06:18 AM

yes but not 7 years trouble, I see offences like this dealt with in the local papers every week.....there seems to be some sort of double standard being employed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: greg stephens
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 06:19 AM

Alfred Douglas was over 16, but others of Oscar's acquaintance weren't, as I understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: burntstump
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 06:38 AM

The law in the uk is a complete piss take, so inconsistant, what about the guy who ran a 12 year old over and killed him, no license, no tax and over the limit and gets 8 weeks in the slammer because the couldn't prove negligence. And he his in the uk illegaly.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 06:46 AM

Agreed the law can be strange WLD but let's say to add to my 14 yr old example, I'd inticed them with alcohol knowing I was in control and they wouldn't make my sentance worse?

And King, I believe did it more than once...

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: GUEST,Mortimer Snurd
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 10:37 AM

Feckin turd burglar, he should have his balls shot off, or made to spend the rest of his life on an island with Wacko Jacko.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 10:53 AM

Well so much for the liberal view............

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 11:25 AM

Ah the voice of enlightenments rings out, I suggest you emigrate mate in case it's made compulsory!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 12:32 PM

Well, let's try this angle. If I were a 14 or 15 year old boy and a 25 year old woman (preferably prettier than Jonathan King) took me away in her Rolls Royce, gave me expensive booze, showed me hot porn, and then gave me a blowjob, she would have committed a crime , but if I were to complain of what she did I would have thought the proper name for my crime would be major ingratitude.

I may be wrong, but I don't think King was charged with buggery.

If, on the other hand, the taste police wish to charge King with making several disgusting records (downwards from Johnny Reggae) I might support them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 01:07 PM

Can't agree there Richard. I'd still see it as abuse.

But, on that one, putting myself as the victim, it is more than likely I would have been happy to have been abused,

The responsible person would still have to be the adult.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Mr Red
Date: 05 Mar 05 - 07:19 PM

Jonathan King new what he was doing, not all the young boys did. Like so many of yoof - they know what they know, but they don't know it all. They just think they do. JK knew that and used it.

I saw the TV program - and in his usual cynical publicist way he was anything but humbled by it. In a Jonathan King way he was arrogant.

I don't think we could feel any sympathy until he was a little less overwheening. Maybe the parole board felt that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 10:36 AM

Isn't the age of consent a bit of a grey area anyway? None of my female friends (myself included) waited until we were 16....and no, i don't think it did any harm whtsoever. Why is it different for gay men? I mean, in some cases there's going to be an obvious instance of someone abusing a position of trust (gay, straight, whatever)....but most of the time underaged sex takes place between individuals who are both underaged, and in instances where there is an abuse of power happening, i can't see how having an age of consent is much of a deterent.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 12:05 PM

BI, very right. I think most people (if having the choice) start before the legal age limit, and how huge is a difference of 15/25 or 14/20, or 13/18? Much younger, however, would worry me.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Mar 05 - 07:19 PM

In Neil McKenna's book, the secret life of oscar Wilde, I think there is the suggestion that Wilde felt a great deal of pride in his sexuality when he eventually faced up to it. up until the business with Douglas's dad (the monumental repercussions of which would have surprised everybody) Oscar lived his gay life with a great deal openess and frankness.

So maybe a gay pride march wouldn't have been so far off the mark.

I love reading about the Wilde case, does anybody know any good sites? chatrooms devoted to it? Or am I sole addict.

Back to King. I hope he can rebuild his life. He is an intelligent man and it shouldn't too bad for a hedgehopper anonymous. I wish I was just as clever at marketing my songs as he was with his stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 08:19 AM

I wish he's been as clever at writing songs as you are with your stuff, wld.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 12:20 PM

I may be wrong, but I don't think King was charged with buggery.

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/king%20refused%20parole

The following from the site linked to above.

Cambridge-educated King was convicted on four counts of indecent assault, buggery and attempted buggery on five youths aged 13-15 between 1983 and 1989.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 05:05 PM

I stand corrected, thank you for the source Sham.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathan King
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:49 AM

I only assume that this source is correct about the buggery. They may be wrong?

Buggered if I know - but we may yet get to the bottom of it.........