I haven’t been closely following the Jimmy Savile affair. For those who don’t know who the heck he was, he was a famous BBC radio and TV disc jockey, and also host of Jim’ll Fix It, a TV show in which he ‘fixed’ things so that people could meet people they’d always wanted to meet, or have other dreams come true. He presented both the first broadcast of Top of the Pops in 1964, and the last in 2006. He wore a blonde wig, and sported a big cigar. And now, a year after he died aged 84, they’re saying he was a serial paedophile all his life.
Sir Jimmy Savile was a ‘predatory sex offender’, police say
Police called Sir Jimmy Savile a “predatory sex offender” as it emerged that he is now suspected of abusing up to 25 young girls in allegations dating as far back as 1959.
There’s something that stinks to high heaven about this story. And the main thing that stinks is this: why is it that it’s only now, a year after his death, that these stories going back 50 years and more are emerging? And is there any truth in them?
The Slog has provided some interesting background:
But was Jimmy Savile a predatory rapist paedophile? I very much doubt it.
From the late 1950s until around 1964, Savile was the resident DJ at Belle Vue’sTeen & Twenty Disc Club in Manchester. My elder brother – aged around 15 – went there with his mates to pick up teenage girls. From 1963 until some time after 1966, Savile owned Beat City, a basement disco in Manchester’s financial area. The Slog – aged around 15 – went there with his mates to pick up teenage girls. Back then, Jimmy Savile was in his mid thirties.
It was perfectly obvious to everyone at the time (including a shy teenager by the name of George Best) that the DJ was a celebrity, and attractive to young girls. Throughout his DJing sessions, Savile was besieged by girls asking for his autograph. More often than not, he’d pick two or three out and chat them up. More often than not, he’d disappear with them at the end of the session. I don’t think any of us imagined that the sexual activity to come later would represent rape.
His former PA, Janet Cope, has spoken in his defence.
“Jim often said it only took one girl to blab to the newspapers for money, and a celebrity like him could be wrecked for ever.”
So what’s the likely truth? I suspect that the Slog is nearest the truth. Savile was major player in the 60s’ pop music scene, and was on the receiving end of adulation from teenage girls, and probably took advantage of it.
But if he did, then so did the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Yardbirds, Herman’s Hermits, Freddie and the Dreamers, the Searchers, and every single pop music band in England. And in America. And more or less everywhere else. Because if you wanted to get laid, the very best thing you could do was to get yourself into some rock’n’roll band, and wait for the girls to throw themselves at you.
Because everybody knew that these rock bands had their ‘groupie’ girls trailing after them. And everyone envied them for it.
Back then, it was normal. But now, like more or less everything else, it’s being denormalised.
Because, retrospectively, it’s been renamed paedophilia, and turned into something sick and perverted and evil. And we can now expect every single 60s or 70s rock star to be hauled in by the police and accused of being serial sexual predators.
And that, I suspect, is the long term goal. It’s to turn rock gods into rock demons, and to degrade and humiliate the icons of that era. One or two already have been. Gary Glitter, for example. And now Jimmy Savile. There’s probably real fear stalking through the rock music world. Who’s next?
Yet there may even be an edge of truth to the paedophilia. Because if you’re a 25-year-old rock star in X band, you probably have no more luck with 25-year-old women than I did when I was 25. But when you’re on the road, you’ll have hordes of teenage girls (many of them under-aged) throwing themselves at you bodily. It’s too easy. It’s like picking fallen apples. And you do what’s easiest. And after a while maybe you get to prefer 13-year-olds to 25-year-olds. Because it’s what you’ve become used to. And because they don’t answer back. And because with them you’re the boss. Not equals like real, full-grown women. And so on.
So that’s my guess about Jimmy Savile. That his prominent DJ career brought much the same female adulation as any rock star, and he took as full advantage of it as any of them, and even came to prefer teenage girls over adult women, and did so all his life.
But that didn’t make him a predatory psychopath of the kind that needed to be locked up and the key thrown away. And I think it’s a real shame that they’ve already taken down the headstone erected over his grave only last month, and closed down the charities he worked for, purely on the basis of anonymous allegations.
It’s just that now the groupie girls that used to hang around him, and who have largely been silent over the past 50 years, have been retrospectively persuaded that their experiences amounted to rape or sexual abuse.
And now, one by one, the heroes of the 60s and 70s are going to be demonised, ostracised, exiled, and imprisoned. And that’s why these stories are emerging now. It’s all part of the process of denormalising and degrading and vilifying an entire culture, in every respect. It’s being done to tobacco. And it’s being done to alcohol. And it’s being done to everything else, including the cultural icons of the era, with smear and innuendo and lies.
Frank Davis 
And anyway, how come the BBC are responsible?
I largely agree with you about this, I was a teenager then though I never liked Jimmy Savile, I always thought there was something creepy about him, would have jumped at George Best though!. However I do find the stories about the girls approved school, the home in Jersey and his hospital visits disturbing if true. That is not taking advantage of what’s on offer as I am sure they all did, but using your position to take advantage of girls already in a vulnerable position and who would not be likely to be believed if they did complain. One girl said she did and got three days detention. Shame it did not come out until after he died but the rumours seem to have been rife for years, still I don’t see the point of it now.
“…smear and innuendo and lies”.
Precisely. Not a single word has been said about any action which he did, apart from one report in a paper which actually said that he raped a girl in a corridor – swiftly withdrawn.
So what he is alleged to have done? I haven’t seen a single actual description of what he is said to have done. The word ‘abuse’ is meaningless since zealots of all kinds latched onto it. If one demanded “Say exactly what he did and prove that he did it”, then the paucity of facts would be revealed.
I never took to him. There was something very artificial about his public persona. It would be interesting to know what he was like when he was sitting on a settee, at home, on his own, and what went through his mind.
It is always uncertain whether long-term actors and actresses can ever actually appear in public as themselves. Only their immediate friends and relatives would know. But when these friends and relatives try to describe that person, there is always some uncertainty about what that person was. For example, I have seen programmes about John Thaw (was that his REAL name?). He hailed from Bolton, where I live. He is a Lancastrian. He was not ‘posh’, and therefore, one can assume, had the same sense of humour which we Lancastrians have.
The Lancastrian sense of humour ‘takes down’ anything which purports to be ‘posh’. Is that from some sort of jealousy? Perhaps. But it is more likely that the reality of living among the mills and mines excluded ‘posh’. That does not mean that ‘intellect’ was ridiculed (although some people did). The South-East of England is not the only source of intellectual excellence.
I can’t say that I was a fan of his either. DJs in general are an odd bunch.
“And that, I suspect, is the long term goal. It’s to turn rock gods into rock demons, and to degrade and humiliate the icons of that era.”
Or, maybe it’s because :
“He … sported a big cigar.”
I wouldn’t discount that possibility as the reason, if you want to create the illusion of an iron-clad utopian hate filled anti-smoking new world order as “normal”, then you have to re-write everything, all of history, anyone venerable during the smoking-allowed-era must be denigrated and demoted if only by hear-say, in order to create the larger illusion they are trying to build, of making good bad and bad good, turning the world upside down.
The thought crossed my mind. But the cigar never seemed to be lit. Still, for antismoking nutters, it was probably a red rag to a bull.
When the news broke the BBC show a brief montage of film snippets of him – he was smoking a cigar in every scene. It was almost as if they were saying “It wasn’t because he worked at the BBC, it was because he was a smoker!”
I must say I could never stand him – he was weird and creepy and always came across as a dirty old man, even when he was young. He didn’t seem to know the first thing about music, either, or even particularly care about it, which was a criminal way for someone involved in the industry to be for a music loving teenager in the Seventies like me. So I’m not really too fussed or surprised about Savile.
But I think you’re right about the implications of it. These extracts are from an article in the London Evening Standard on Tuesday by someone called Sarah Sands:
“Reading about the culture of light entertainment in the Jimmy Savile days is like looking back at children’s employment rights during the Victorian era. We have made social progress……. The seedy culture of the past should make us appreciate the enlightened present.”
In its smug and utterly misplaced assumption that the “progressive” and “enlightened” present is infinitely superior to the recent past, it sounds rather reminiscent of other topics, doesn’t it?
I suspect you’re right Frank, I also believe that convictions based solely on an accusation with no corroborating forensic evidence to be at best unsound and worse the innocent doing time. Even if found not guilty, with the shit that sticks, your life’s fucked.
Last year, my son who had just turned 18 was chatting on facebook to a girl a month under 15. Her mother saw the chats, and called police and made a complaint and we received a 6 o’clock knock one morning, house searched, computers (all of them, mine and the wifes included) taken for forensic examination.
As you can imagine, allsorts were going through my mind. He was arrested, locked up for 10 hours, dabs and DNA swabbed and interviewed. During the interview, the evidence they had was nothing more than usual teenaged bollox, and you would have heard worse in any bus queue.
After 11 months, the girl now 16, had left her mothers and gone to live with her dad and didn’t want to persue the case, so the case was dropped.
In the meantime 5 computers had been forensically gone through at fuck knows what cost, and I asked the DC dealing with the case why, as there was zero chance of a conviction as they had nothing and hadn’t even charged him with anything. He replied, “We have to investigate all complaints of a sexual nature with minors, regardless, and that for us, facebook is a nightmare”.
On one occasion down the police station, a woman (with her friend) had gone in to make a complaint about her ex sending what I presumed to be the usual drunken texts. As we all know, serial killers always text their victims prior to doing them in, and when it’s suggested she change her number, Oh no can’t do that, I’d have to tell everyone of change. Same with facebook crap, when suggested to just block them, Oh can’t do that, as I wouldn’t know what they’re saying about me…
This isn’t a dig at police, as I’m more than sure they’d like to tell them to grow the fuck up and stop wasting their time, but in the however unlikely event of they being murdered in their bed, the police would once again be pilloried.
Terrifying story.
The Tobacco Control people are taking advantage of our lack of politcal support. Politicians lack objectivity. They are driven by emotion.
All I can says is SICKEM!
There is scientific evidence to back up the dangers of passive smokingTONY Sykes (Letters, October 10) claims not one person in the UK has been hospitalised due to passive smoking.
inShare.0
Custom byline text:
The British Medical Journal reported in 2005, before the ban on smoking in public indoors, that 11,000 people a year were dying in the UK due to passive smoking.
Only 600 of those were due to smoking in the workplace, suggesting that many died due to smoky pubs and members of their family smoking in their own home. The smoking ban will have changed the first but not the second.
The World Health Organisation reported last year that 600,000 people a year die due to passive smoking, one-third of them children.
Mr Sykes’s claim about “worldwide scientific data that man makes no contribution to global warming” needs to specify what studies he is referring to and who carried them out. The scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that average annual global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate and that there is a more than 90% probability that most of this change is due to human activity. An independent review of 928 scientific research papers found 75% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC’s assessment and none strongly disagrees with it.
It’s certainly true that some parts of the earth are cooling while others are warming, but that is one of the possibilities predicted by climate scientists – for instance that global warming could lead to less difference in temperature between the poles and the tropics, weakening or ending the Gulf Stream (a convection current) and resulting in the UK’s climate becoming more similar to Alaska’s.
These are two cases in which politicians have acted on the basis of scientific research, though in the second case not nearly enough yet.
Duncan McFarlane,
Beanshields,
Braidwood, Carluke.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/there-is-scientific-evidence-to-back-up-the-dangers-of-passive-smoking.19115969
You know its gonna be fun,the fucktard is hitting every point Franks a professional at destroying!
Such tosh. It just makes you despair.
I was one of those yo-yo’s who learned how to ‘play the gui-tar on the MTV’ at a ripe young age and can directly vouch for the groupie phenomenon. I played songs from two of those groups you mentioned (Yardbirds and Stones) and I gotta’ say, I’d hate to see Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page brought up on old underage sex charges. As per the email once I sent you, I owe Jimmy Page big time for Stairway to Heaven. During the first half of the 70’s I had congress with many the lass who otherwise wouldn’t have given me the time of day but for simply being able to play that song.
As for the age differential aspect I have a unique twist to relate. After playing with my band at a big outdoor festival when I was 19, a groupie girl of 16 years of age clung to me and I somewhat reluctantly slept with her. She moved into my apartment and lived with me for a couple of months. I say reluctantly because I had my lustful eye on a gorgeous older (probably 23 years old!) girl who lived in the apartment next door.
To me, striving for an older gal was the ideal, the real challenge. I was a little embarrassed and my self-esteem was ratcheted a few notches down with the ‘slim and tight’ groupie girl as my girlfriend.
Then one day an older and wiser dude (probably 23 years old as well!) gave me the heads up on statutory rape laws. I knew nothing about them whatsoever at the time. In the eyes of a 19-year-old teen, a 16-year-old girl is one of your contemporaries. I had a little talk with her about ‘sachitory’ and we went our own ways. I had no idea what a statute was other than one of those art sculptures you see in a park.
After that I always was fairly rude with any girl who looked young and approached me after a performance. I’d say something like “Why don’t you go play with your Barbie dolls” or some such.
I never stopped lusting after that older girl next door and I (sigh) never got her either. This was prior to the release of Stairway to Heaven though, so you never know what might have happened in retrospect.
Damnit!!!!
Its good watching the BBC sweat though.
Remember this is the BBC that slavishly publishes every bit of anti smoker, AGW (climate change) garbage they can get their hands on.
This is the BBC that promoted the benefits of EU membership and rubbishes any voices of dissent against their looney left crusades.
Anything that damages that corrupt organisation is a bonus in my book.
Ah well. In the age of sanctimony about “the children,” we seem to have forgotten that Juliet was 14 and that–at least formerly here in America– 16 was the legal age to marry in a lot of states. And besides, hormones don’t obey the law, except for the law of…hormones. Then, too, there’s the paradox. If a 16 yo sleeps with her 16 yo boyfriend, why is that different from her sleeping with her 24 yo boyfriend? Why is it presumed that if he’s 24, he’s svengali and the act is automatically rape? OTOH, I believe that in our new sanctimony, the 16 yo boy is also considered a statutory rapist and can even get a record as a “sex offender.” And somehow, it’s all a part of the same recurrent puritanism, a 180 from the ’60s, often espoused by the very same people who themselves enjoyed the sex and drugs with their rock n roll but have now declared an open war on all pleasure–smoking, drinking, eating, fucking– morphed it into sin. Perhaps because they’re now too tight-wound and old to get laid or get high and the only bed they conjure in the darkest part of the night is that looming and inevitable hospital bed? I suppose there’s a Golden Mean about it all, but we never seem to strike it.
a 180 from the ’60s, often espoused by the very same people who themselves enjoyed the sex and drugs with their rock n roll but have now declared an open war on all pleasure
I know several of them. Perhaps it’s Maturity Onset Guilt.
And it is a 180, which makes me think that these things come in waves – sine waves – and it’ll all flip in a few years.
I think you’re right about Jimmy Saville, Frank – I shouldn’t think he was very attractive to women (I never fancied him, anyway.) But he certainly did a lot of fund-raising, which I suppose he got his knighthood for, and it seems a shame if that’s going to be forgotten in all this. Are the recipients going to hand all the money back? I haven’t heard any of them saying so.
What is the point in going after a dead man? If all the dead ‘dirty old men’ got investigated, there’d be no end to it. There probably was a ‘culture’ (as someone said) of predatory sexual behaviour in some of those BBC studios, with the DJs and the groupie teens, but why are they raking it all up now? Is there more to it than fodder for those who love a juicy under-age sex scandal (and there are obviously plenty of them)?
The very fact he was regarded as a pillar of the establishment, rewarded with a knighthood, is why the media (Beeb excepted of course) will milk this as much as possible. Saville probably knew his memory would be dragged though the dirt after his death. The most amazing thing is how he managed to get away with it whilst still alive. Very powerful friends in high places presumably. I guess they’ll be shitting themselves watching this unfold.
Like Prince Charles?
I agree, different time, different society. different morals, different standards.
But to pick up on the pedophilia point. The term is being abused to mean any adult/teenager relationship which some people don’t approve of. The recent case of Megan Stammers being one of the few not tagged with the word, though everyone is made to think it.
Any adult having sexual contact with a young person aged around 15 is not a pedophile. They are an ephebophile. An adult could be someone aged 19. Only a few years difference between them. But then complex greek words don’t mean anything to the general public especially when you need to make something highly emotional to whip up support for your organisation which could be a charity.
A relationship between an older adult and a teen is more than likely to be abusive, but it’s not every single one. I personally know of a couple who have been married over 15 years, she’s in her 40s and he’s in his late 60s and they met as teacher/student. Not at a school but at university. Is there case any more immoral?
My second wife was 15 with a 1 year old baby not mine. I took on the responsibility at age 24 while in the U.S. NAVY. It lasted 3 years more due to deployment than marital problems. I suppose Id be a pedophile by todays progressive standard. But then again my Grand pa was 21 when he married my just turned 14 year old grand mother in 1937.
That marriage last til death after 64 years married……….My brothers wife was 14 when he married her at age 18 they are still married after 26 years………
There we are – different places, different customs. Wouldn’t have been allowed in the UK (not since the nineteenth century or so – probably OK before that, I think).
My grandmother was 14 when she had her first child. The child died, she survived. 50,000 girls under the age of eighteen died in 2011 as a result of the complications of pregnancy or during childbirth. We are supposed to be making a better world. The fact that some girl children survived pregnancy and childbirth in the past is not a recommendation, it is a cautionary tale. Children experiment, kids larking about with other kids should be accepted and ways should be found to make them safe. A thirty year old man, recently married, playing pass the sausage with a child half his age does not get any kind of award from here.
Well said, Marie – no awards from me either.
Ephebophile? That’s a new one on me.
Seems that’s a sexual interest in people aged 15 – 19.
Looking it up, I also came across hebephilia. Which is for 11 – 15 year olds.
I wonder who makes up all these words?
My Shorter Oxford says: Hebe: youthful prime; daughter of Zeus and Hera, goddess of youth and spring; the cupbearer of Olympus: hence … a waitress. (I like that.)
:-)
As an addendum I need to add something here. You all might have temporarily suspended your opinion of me as a braindead California dude with a vocabulary the size of Luxembourg when I used ‘had congress with’ in a sentence describing the sex act in my commentary.
Truth be told I snatched that just yesterday from the good Captain Ranty. When I saw the term I clicked on my handy dandy WordWeb app, ever residing on my system tray and, sure enough, congress means carnal knowledge as well as a legislative body akin to your House of Commons.
So by extension it can correctly be said that my congressman or congresswoman is a F**cker.
You British are the absolute masters of the English language. I, like, really, really salute you. Have you ever noticed how many times I use the adverb ‘really’. It’s nauseating.
XX And I think it’s a real shame that they’ve already taken down the headstone erected over his grave only last month, and closed down the charities he worked for, purely on the basis of anonymous allegations. XX
Perfect example of NKVD/KGB, Gestapo and MfS informer policys 1916/18 – 1989.
At least the undertakers will be relieved – they had misspelled Chieftain as Chieftan. I also gather that his family has asked for it to be destroyed. Its tackiness alone justified that…
IS ASH SURRENDERING?
National anti-smoking charity ASH praised the hospital for having tried the ‘gold standard’ of a total ban.
A spokesman said: “We are extremely sympathetic with the trust in having to alter its policy as we too find it astonishing that people smoke in the doorways of cancer and maternity units.
“But large numbers still do smoke and it is sensible to use shelters to move them from entrances.”
University Hospital of North Staffordshire ditches ban on smoking
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/story-17067350-detail/story.html
Think I’m about to disagree with everyone on here. I think that there is substance to the allegations. They’ve been made by victims themselves, strangers to each other – when one spoke out she couldn’t have known that others would too, so hardly a conspiracy. I did wonder if, in today’s climate of near hysteria about paedophilia, the nature of the abuses would once have been considered harmless but I suspect that it was rather that the victims, being young teens (in an era when they were a good deal more innocent than today) firstly knew that Savile had misbehaved but not quite why and secondly, were afraid to speak out. Adult witnesses have also made allegations. I heard being interviewed one woman who witnessed an incident in a hospital involving a mentally incapable girl. She described Savile kissing this girl’s neck and running his fingers down her arm – and I heaved a sigh of exasperation: inappropriate behaviour but abuse?. The woman then said that Savile went on to molest the girl.
Why wait til now to speak out? No-one would have believed any of them, victims or witnesses in an age when most people didn’t believe that abuse happened let alone by upstanding, public figures. It is entirely possible that Savile constructed his persona of colourful, gregarious philanthropist to shield him from allegation. There can’t be redress for the victims but I think that they must be heard.
I don’t know what it’s like being 15 now, but in the 50s (when I was 15) my friends and I came across men trying such things on every time we went out. Most girls did, frequently. The idea was not to let yourself get cornered (if you didn’t want it), but sometimes it happened. We might sometimes express some outrage among each other but we never used the words ‘abuse’ or ‘paedophile’, and we’d never dream of telling anyone. I think we saw it as ‘how things are’ – and half the time we weren’t supposed to be where we were when it happened, anyway, so maybe we half-blamed ourselves.
Jimmy does not care anymore!
Nor do I!!
Amen to that.
Two small points to Frank’s blog. It’s true that almost every rock band member took advantage of the groupies that followed them everywhere – though there is one story about a young (now very famous) lead guitarist who took a 15 year old girl to his room, spent the night with her but only wanting a cuddle, and then paid her £50 to tell everyone he sh*gged the *rse off her all night long! However, how often did the Beatles, Searchers, etc, make regular trips to hospital wards containing disabled young women, or to local authority homes containing young, fragile and emotionally disturbed young women? The evidence is that Savile deliberately chose these locations as any allegtations would be discounted. The other point is that an ex-Army colleague of mine worked for the BBC after leaving the Services and had a very promising career with everyone singing his praises. He subsequently became concerned at the behaviour of a number of very high profile people, including Savile, at the Beeb and reported these concerns to his manager. He was summarily sacked as ‘not meeting the high standards required by the BBC’, and then found himself almost blacklisted, unable to get a job in his profession anywhere in the country. He lost his job, his home and his marriage and eventually emigrated, where we lost touch. This may be why no one else reported this behaviour. The loss, or threat, of everything you hold dear would concentrate the mind somewhat.
The evidence is
What evidence? Has there been a trial? Did I miss it?
To me, nearly the entire anglophone world, both male and female, seems to be pedophile.
How else could their songs be full of declarations of love to some “Baby”? ;-)
I respect your opinion Frank, and consider it brave in these times that we live in to make such comments. I personally have nothing to say on the matter, except this. It is alarming that certain words have a different meaning in law than they do with the general public, who, when these terms are used freely in the media, appeal to the lynch mob mentality of certain people. A paedophile is a person who finds children sexually attractive. In law, this is a person under 13, it is however, for some of the general public, any person up to the day of their 16th birthday. Rape is having sexual intercource with an unwilling person. Now in law, a person under 16 is a minor, and therefor it can be argued in court that they are not of an age to be capable of giving consent to such an act.
In early teens, a boy suddenly notice that girls are interesting. 18 year old girls are clearly the gold standard, but utterly out of reach. Girls his own age seem more attainable, but it soon becomes clear that they’re only interested in boys two years older. Eventually he realises that girls two years younger than him may consider him eligible. Most of those girls are, it turns out, not interested in boys yet, and most haven’t developed the interesting bumps which are the source of his interest, nor are they practising the flirtatious behaviour which he observes in his female contemporaries.
But some have! They are few in number, and over-subscribed, but his formative years of unfulfilled yearning are likely to be focused on those. Later, he gets the chance to upgrade to the 16 year olds, and ultimately the 18s. But he never forgets that foxy 14yr-old.
There’s nothing perverted in an adult male seeing some sexual attractiveness in a 14yr-old girl who is making an effort to project it. The vast majority of men will never follow it up, through either wisdom, lack of access, or a sense of fair play. The law is the law, our culture is our culture, but I won’t join in the witch-hunt against a guy who had them queueing up to be flattered by his attention. I’m getting sick of apologising for being male.
For me, a paedophile is someone who has sexual lust for girls below puberty. Using that word for anything else just dilutes its seriousness.
As for the “evidence”, well he was a bit odd, wasn’t he?
Burn the witch!
haha Zaphod, very well put and a funny ending.
Frank, you said “…have been retrospectively persuaded that their experiences amounted to rape or sexual abuse.” It is getting even meatier now. What was that you said Zaphod? “I won’t join in the witch-hunt against a guy who had them queueing up to be flattered by his attention.” Attention is now turning on the NHS and BBC and others, being possibly sued for allowing it to happen.
I know someone very well who works in an environment where solicitors regularly turn up. She hates them. Never ending compensation claims against innocent parties.
Yes it didn’t take long for the compensation vultures to come out, they are bleeding us dry.
Pingback: New Heights of Hysteria | Frank Davis
Pingback: Re-defining Paedophilia, Salami-Style | Frank Davis