I didn't say he would refuse to attend court. I said he wouldn't participate.

The answer to any question asked by police would be "Go eff yourself". If they put him on the stand he would refuse to answer any question.

He accepts the charge of contempt of court willingly. He pleads guilty and answers question to that. He accepts his guilty of contempt of that court because he has total contempt for a system that would put him to trial for that.

But based on the evidence from the Sun article and no defence from the accused, would you convict him?

Why have you suddenly escalated the charge to rape as well? Savile was accused by the woman of a sexual assault. That's all the Sun said he committed against the woman. WTF has rape got to do with it?

I've had that dream. Not really a nightmare though. More like something that 3 billion men would sign up for in a heartbeat.

Actually, the accused doesn't even need to refuse to answer questions. I only gave that example because the stance would have mirrored the defence that Savile can offer.

The accused accepts that the facts submitted by the accuser are exactly as she says. He just disputes that it was sexual assault.

He thought she was a groupie because she acted exactly like the 500 other groupies who he's screwed. Every other girl that he's sent his car for has done pretty much everything he wanted. Many have been willing to do a hell of a lot more than he wanted.

So the accused just did with that woman what he has done with nearly all of the 1,000 women who he slept with. 992 of them would be with him within a day from wherever they were if they had a chance again. The other 8 are dead.

The accused says that yes, he touched her inappropriately judged by standard dating convention, but he's never really known that convention since he was 14.

When he realised the girl wasn't like his normal groupie and was after a "relationship" he realised they weren't compatible and asked her to leave.

Now, you convict?

You are asking whether a court would convict a male of sexual assault if he grabbed a female by the crotch against her wishes without the context of any other sexual activity or intimate contact, prior consent or prior discussion ?

Throw into the mix that the accused is not denying the offence because he is not answering any questions.

Yes of course a jury would convict, they might think the girl was a bit foolhardy to go to his room but her motive was totally innocent, she belonged to his fan club and was invited to meet him personally - thats a very innocent and very plausible reason for going along to his room.

A bunch of your facts are wrong. He didn't grab her crotch, he grabbed her hand and placed it on his crotch. It wasn't a room, it was a caravan.

We don't know what her wishes were, whether there was any other sexual activity, intimate contact or prior consent. There was prior discussion, because it was needed for her to be picked up from a specific place.

My opinion.

In English law (2003 but it'll do for us) "sexual assault" is when a person (A)

intentionally touches another person (B),
the touching is sexual,
B does not consent to the touching, and
A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

The accused is a famous entertainer with a reputation for womanising. One of the "perks" of fame is that it often attracts a certain type of follower who is willing to offer any manner of sexual favours in return for being in the presence of the famous person.

Because of that reason, I do not think it's unreasonable that the accused believed that sexual consent was implied by the acceptance of spending time at the caravan of the accused. The lack of a negative response to the comments "you're a nice little dolly bird" and being questioned if she would like to be locked in his cupboard so she could stay with him suggest that she was forewarned that his interest in her was sexual.

The incident of sexual contact took place. No comments were made as to what the response was by the accuser.

The accuser then said that the discussion took place about whether she was on the pill. The woman replied that she wasn't, the accused asked why and the accuser said, "Because I'm not that type of girl."

The accused then stood up, asked if the accuser had her bus fare home and ushered her out.

In my opinion the incident was just a clash of cultures between an extremely inexperienced woman and a man with perhaps too much experience of being given sex very easily.

Soon after the sexual contact was made a discussion took place between the two that amply illustrated the differing attitudes towards the situation they were in. The accused quickly ended their association and asked the accuser to leave.

Given that no sexual contact took place after the accused realised his companion was not consenting to that type of contact it would be wrong to find the accused guilty of sexual assault.

It is unfortunate that the accused has never got over the incident. But it is even more unfortunate that she never grew a ****ing brain either. The accused cannot be blamed for either of these unfortunate facts.

Fortunately your opinion will never enter British law.

A glib answer. A glib, wrong answer should I ever be called upon for jury service.

I think if Savile/Timberlake were convicted on that evidence then pretty much every man in the country probably should be. His offence was going too far, too quick. Once he'd seen he'd gone too far, he stopped.

Have you NEVER gone too far, too quick for a woman and then stopped? Never? Really???

As I said earlier in the thread, I never read about the details in the Savile case because reading about the sexual abuse of children is not something that is enjoyable, it's gut wrenching. But having actually read some of the "victim" accounts published in the newspapers I'm a lot less convinced that they are genuine child abusers and slightly worried that they were just doing what pretty much most men would have done in the 70's.

Given that the issue is child abuse and that men's lives are being ruined as a result, that doesn't sit easy with me. Now, if they have committed *real* child abuse and there are genuine victims then my sympathy for them ceases. It's just that the accounts I've read haven't been *real* abuse victims, they've just been victims of the mildest forms of groping and are abusing the backlash to receive a compensation payout and get a front row seat at the lynching.

On another tangent. The gay age of consent was set at 21 between 1967 and 2001. If Paul Gambaccini picked up a sexy 19 year old boy in 1975 and had sex with him, are we going to judge him by the standard of today, or the law as is stood? Or are we just not going to go there?

I wish we had a "shrugs shoulders" smilie to use, one that gave off an air of complete indifference.

You know when you go off on your "they're killing the NHS by privatisation" rant that you've done about 20 times in the last fortnight? *Their* shrug of the shoulders response can inspire your new smilie.

I wish that people would debate with reasoning and clarity, and not hide behind pathetic jokes when they cannot think of a proper response.

Debate ?

You make up stories and then argue with yourself for eight pages - I've no intention of getting involved in a cut-and-paste-athon, I apologise for not having grabbed your bait and provided you with hours worth of frantic scribbling, but there you are.

Remember that fans forum with David Howes ?