A very English Scandal

There are plenty of parrallels. Vulnerable and young working class people used and abused by members of the ruling class. The three Scott, Rice Davies and Keeler survived and made lives for themselves in very different ways, but the experiences they were involved in at very young ages must have had an impact.

Keeler and Rice Davies chose their profession , I really do not understand how they are seen as victims , they were not dragged from their homes and forced into prostitution.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U

Peter Cook's 'Biased Judge' sketch.

Keeler was 19 and Rice Davies 17 when they first met Profumo so both very young. Scott was kept and housed by Thorpe and therefore could be regarded as a prostitute as well. All three were young, vulnerable and exploited.

How anyone, particularly another woman could believe that CK and MRD were not victims is simply beyond me ( and NS). So many scandals over the years involve rich powerful well connected men who use and abuse young women, boys and young men and are protected from the full consequences of their actions by the whole Establishment

How were Keeler and Rice Davies victims?

"How were Keeler and Rice Davies victims?"
Because, as trisher says, they were young and vulnerable and exploited.

Keeler chose to move to London, chose to be a topless hostess, had affairs with several men, went to a weekend party met Profumo had an affair for a few weeks whilst living with Ward and having an affair with the Russian . The press got wind of the affair, found she was also having an affair with the Russian and printed it,

Where was she exploited ?

You’ve just described a scenario of exploitation ab.

Exactly ME & Gill

I gather you didn’t watch the programme AB or you would have seen the judges summing up, which was a direct transcript from the trial.

Good heavens AB do you have to have that spelled out for you? You really think two young vulnerable girls were not being exploited.

I hope you don’t think that other victims were ‘asking for it’?

Acount of the iconic photograph by the photographer. A real account of continued exploitation. The photo was supposed to be publicity for a film about the affair not made till the '80s
During the session, three rolls of 120 film were shot. The first two rolls had Christine sitting in various positions on the chair and on the floor, dressed in a small leather jerkin. It was at this point that the film producers who were in attendance demanded she strip for some nude photos
Christine was reluctant to do so, but the producers insisted, saying that it was written in her contract. The situation became rather tense and reached an impasse. I suggested that everyone, including my assistant leave the studio. I turned my back to Christine, telling her to disrobe, sit back to front on the chair. She was now nude, fulfilling the conditions of the contract, but was at the same time covered

Young women were more naïve in those days and therefore easily exploited. The glamour of the swinging sixties was just kicking in and their heads would have been easily turned.

They were not victims , I do not see all young girls as victims . Victims because they had sex with men one who was wealthy ?

As for ‘asking for it’. Asking for what ? Money ?

Is Scott not a vctim then? Because he had sex with a wealthy man.

Yes I agree trisher NS was also a victim as are all young people used for sex by the more powerful.

And what are young people who sleep around but not with powerful men ?

This I just don’t understand , a girl can have sex with many men in her neighbourhood no problem , but a girl who has sex with wealthy men are all victims .

I don’t think anyone is saying that sleeping around (whatever that means) means that such young women are not victims. That’s a whole other discussion but in the context if this thread I think what is being said is that those young women ( and men) were victims.

Interesting point Anniebach. Times were different then. We don't know what choices these girls had at the time. However, other girls didn't get sucked into that sort of life. It's interesting to consider why not. What were/would have been protective factors?
Personally I suspect they were seduced by the exciting life on offer.

Jane, The girls at that time had a far better chance of employment , many chose the life of working locally, dating local boys and marrying .

Some girls decided this was not the life they wanted and headed for the bright lights.

It was choice and quite possibly upbringing, Keeler had an awful upbringing but this was not caused by the many men she had affairs with when she chose to be a nightclub hostess

I despise any man especially powerful ones who have sex with much younger women and expecially if they are in their teens regardless of the motivation of the women ( and how can we judge that anyway).

Why especially powerful men ? Seems a mans wealth is at the root of this not his morals

I loved the bit in the drama where Jeremy Thorpe got a cushion and the other three men didn't. That can't be true can it?

Trisher -^Vulnerable and young working class people used and abused by members of the ruling class^

Ye Gods. Not surprised this becomes another socialist rant from Trisher.

It's not a class or wealth issue - there is so much more to this tale..

In life and always there have been weak and strong people. There have been rich and poor people. There have been abusers and victims.

It still happens and not all abusers are middle class and wealthy. Ask those used as sex slaves, those working as prostitutes, those living in fear of a bully. I could go on. The abusers come from all walks of life. Always have and always will. Complete pond life types can also find victims, or people who will not stand up to them, and assert their power and influence.

It's not about wealth and power in every case, much as you'd like it to be so you can make a political point.

Thorpe and Cook's story is interesting because of Thorpe's job, his need for secrecy and because homosexual relations ships were illegal at the time. Thorpe had a privileged background but many abusers do not.

Bullying, abusing and using and casting aside are not character traits peculiar to only the wealthy.