For the answer, read the post in the LEGAL section.


www.kingofhits.co.uk/content/view/687/46/

This is one of the best, most sensible and honest pieces I've ever read JK.
Good on yer.

What I've been meaning to ask JK, was there any time whilst in prison you did genuinely feel angry and/or frustrated?

Great post and virtually untwistable for newspaper use.

No Chrissy - anger is a very rare emotion for me and when it arrives it's usually on behalf of somebody else.

Frustration? Again, it is so short lived as my nature instantly leaps to "what am I going to do about this?" mode.

Frustration is more at one's own inability to accomplish something but, again, I then tend to ask "What am I doing wrong? How can I achieve the result in a different way?".

Not intended to make me sound a saint, simply practical.

Anger, hate, frustration - all such negative and wasteful uses of energy, distracting from getting on with it.

And Mart, my reply to your post is... don't count on it!

Well, in the event that the press do, do a job on the piece, I shall do a job on their piece and see how far away , using the "tablodal chinese whispers(c)"theory, we are from the original statement.

Question.
Is it OK for someone such as a school teacher, doctor, priest, celebrity etc. to take sexual advantage of an minor (under the age of sixteen) due to their status in society?

Well said JK. It's just such a shame that so many people who are falsely accused or wrongly imprisoned for crimes they did not commit do not have your outlook on life and/or the strength of character which you clearly possess. I get the impression that you view your time spent in prison as being a positive experience.

Mart wrote:
Great post and virtually untwistable for newspaper use.

Oh yeah...

"REMORSE - I answer your questions
The most frequent question I get asked, "how can you never show remorse for your crimes?".

I must say I really don't understand why "remorse" makes any difference. ...why is conforming to social morality so important? I suspect "ordinary people" simply cannot grasp that we all have different moralities... For me, it's vital to obey your own morality.

My morality conflicted the social one...

...wanted to break the existing laws

So - no remorse? No. [shouldn't that be "yes" - Ed]

Sometimes you simply do not think about the future.

The drive of lust ...can provoke us ...to do things without always thinking about the ramifications ...the young especially.

There's nothing wrong with seduction... ...times when I was not responsible enough.

The age of consent is in many ways a stupid concept.

I had experiences with people who were not able to consent intelligently. ...you can cross that line and, again

Especially with us males, sometimes the physical desire overwhelms and contradicts the intellectual and even emotional consideration.

So those are my feelings about regrets and remorse."

Said disgraced pop-mogul, vile pervert, etc, etc.

Any tabloids got a vacancy?

David T - for me it is not acceptable and indeed illegal for ANYONE to take advantage of anyone, either gender, under 16 - at least in this country - but I suspect you mean OVER 16 and in a position where the person is under their tuition or guidance or whatever.

I don't think that IS acceptable. As with family members, you have a moral responsibility not to take advantage of someone when you are in a position of trust (like teacher, uncle etc).

I resented the court saying me being a pop star (sex drugs rock'n'roll) was a position of trust. A position of MIStrust, I'd say!

But I do not think someone in the aforementioned position should take advantage of a pupil, relative or whatever - even if they were fully consenting - until an older age.

That's just my personal opinion.

Every cloud has a silver lining,and I feel that you've come out of this with a renewed vigor to prove yourself.
We all 'cruise' at times in our lives,just doing enough to get by,but not using our full potential.Well you've gone on overdrive since your legal conviction to prove your innocence,and just look around us to see all the things you've being doing since.Quite an achievement,and certainly with more to come;)
There's not many of the 60s generation able to take on the youngsters and win.New music recorded,video diaries,other esteemed projects.The question is would you have persued these avenues with such vigor had you not been sentenced?
Not real compensation for all the inconvieniance,but proof beyond doubt how much you believe in your case,and of course how we others here believe in you too.

The question of remorse in the human psyche is an interesting one. It has its roots in religion. God has mercy upon us if we show remorse and seek forgiveness for our sins. This is engrained subconsciously and manifests itself even in inappropriate circumstances such as the legal process.

The same goes for perceptions of morality. All major religions seek to control by revealing a divine code of morality. Even atheists can still be controlled by the "rules" they ingested decades ago. Hence repressive attitudes to sex, bizarre notions of guilt and all the rest of it. Some people cannot even comprehend that we can formulate our own notions of morality, and live an entirely decent life by them.

Those prophets and priests and imams have a lot to answer for.

JK2006 wrote:
David T - for me it is not acceptable and indeed illegal for ANYONE to take advantage of anyone, either gender, under 16 - at least in this country - but I suspect you mean OVER 16 and in a position where the person is under their tuition or guidance or whatever.

I don't think that IS acceptable. As with family members, you have a moral responsibility not to take advantage of someone when you are in a position of trust (like teacher, uncle etc).

I resented the court saying me being a pop star (sex drugs rock'n'roll) was a position of trust. A position of MIStrust, I'd say!

But I do not think someone in the aforementioned position should take advantage of a pupil, relative or whatever - even if they were fully consenting - until an older age.

That's just my personal opinion.

Wouldn't the average teenager be somewhat overwhelmed if they met that-bloke-off-the-telly?

Doesn't that put that-bloke-off-the-telly in a position of authority/trust/admiration that could be exploited?

Is the position of that-bloke-off-the-telly really so very different than a teacher, relative, etc. Although for different reasons, they all share a dominant status over the teenager.

I'm sorry I got caught....

Good point Zoo except I believe that "admiration" is a different thing from "trust" and "authority".

That-bloke-off-the-telly may create admiration (God knows why) just as he's-a-pop-star did in the 60's and 70's and possibly even today but it's not the moral guidance that being a family member or teacher or priest or foster parent or whatever brings. They are a part of growing up and getting involved may muddle objective decisions.

Likewise those involved in the growing process are a part of life and hard to get away from. Say NO to a teacher and every day at school or university could bring embarrasment at the least.

If someone decides they like association with a pop star or TV person or celebrity but don't want a sexual relationship they can always a) say no or b) remove themselves from the situation.

I cannot tell you how many really good friends started as - hopefully - potential lovers, said no, became friends and remain so. It's no insult to say "I find you hugely attractive" as long as you can accept the reply that says "same here except not physically".

LOL, well let's just grey that up a bit.

The law says that someone in a 'position of trust', which would generally be someone who holds a position of official authority or responsibilty for children/vulnerable adults, should not engage in a sexual relationship, even if it is consensual, with anyone up to the age of 18.

A position of 'status' is a little bit different but let's face it anyone who is rich or famous can dazzle the wide-eyed and innocent and play Comus.

So, effectively, the age of consent is raised for you if you have a certain job of job/responsibility but if you're rich and famous the standard age of consent applies but the responsibility is moral.

This is only recently the case so the question is a product of its time.

Some factors to 'grey' things up basically revolve around the concept of moral relativism, a concept beloved of libertines and libertarians but anathema to the killjoys, houses of religion, tabloids and lawmakers.

Taking a moral relativist view you might consider whether the age of consent is at the right level and if not, indeed, what is acceptable.

Let's face it the law acknowledges this conceptual greyness as if you had sex with someone who is 14/15 then it would most likely be 'unlawful sex' or indecent assualt where if it was someone 13 or under then it would automatically be rape as there is a legally perceived difference on factors such as sexual maturity (both physical and mental) and that an early teen may want to be going at it like a rabbit and played a big part in the situation, but of course if the person has not yet reached sexual maturity that's a different ball game.

Note that the Catholic Church rails against homosexuality but is forgiving of paedophilia because, so i have seen argued, the former is mentioned in the Bible but the latter is not!

Islam which considers itself most moral would also find itself subject to the weaknesses of humans as the aggressively protected veneer of high morality is fully staffed by honour killers, domestic abusers and more. But then our society and culture may criticise that but there's may not - and should we take the age of Mohammed's wife given in the Koran literally?

Whether an Imam or similar counts as a position of reponsibility or status is interesting but there are cases reported of such positions taking advantage of their position for sexual gain.

The point about positions of trust is that you would have ongoing access to someone of an 'impressionable age' and be in a position to work on them or 'groom them'. That is always considered to be for your own sexual gratification rather than being part of a mutually beneficial relationship - which isn't necessarily true.

Let's face it we are also products of our time. Homosexuality has been legal for 40 years only and so much more has changed in that time. One of the criticisms JK had from Ronson was as positioning himself as being 'morally progressive'. That sort of criticism is something you would get from someone or a society that either does not understand or agree with you. The laws in respect of children/vulnerable adults have come out as a result of activities the media has brought to light but by the same token changes in the law generally but specifically on these issues are politically motivated and generally to feed the populist view which, on sexual issues, is driven by a media who would only shag you in one position forever, with the lights out and only after you're married!

In another 40 years time the moral climate will be different again - although Britain could then be an Islamic state and we're all restricted lol.


So the answer kind of depends on what you're perspective is. Your own personal answer may be legal or illegal. That can be fairly black or white.

But you cannot really say that it is moral or not, the best you can say is that a certain view is held by a moral majority (usually positioned and articulated by the media).

But then who is the moral majority? You only have to look through the media every day to find someone who was one day a member of the moral majority and the next day they were outcast into the moral minority.

The only difference is that they got caught!

Hence

I'm only sorry I got caught.....


Remorse has a purpose as showing it can help reduce a sentence.

You only have to look at the media though to see that once 'disgraced' or 'shamed' by getting caught it doesn't matter how much remorse you show, you're never allowed back into decent company again. Well except for Stan Collymore on Radio 5 but as far as sexual peccadilloes go, dogging......come on.

Outside of remorse being something you yourself can use in respect of your sentence for any 'transgressions', remorse is something the media use to either enhance their moral position by your acknowledgement of being morally wrong by their standards or vilifying someone for not having them. Either way, I can't see someone benefitting from kowtowing with remorse for the rest of their lives, genuine or not.

Thank you JK and Uberman

I see that being that-bloke-off-the-telly isn't a position of trust.

Well the answer may be, Zooloo, would you trust Simon Cowell?

Sadly in my case the answer has to be YES as he stood bail for me to the tune of

Isn't it, would I find Simon Cowell having a fling with a 16 year old morally reprehensible.

I'm finding it very difficult to care one way or the other... . I wouldn't insist on "hands off" until 18.

At 14 or 15, the law says you shouldn't so don't. If somebody did I think I'd consider them more of a fool than as evil.

(Regarding the law says don't so don't, I do except the 21 age limit for males. I see no reason for it to be set differently.)