to think BILL WYMAN should now be arrested & charged with statutory rape?

[Downdog]

Mandy Smith has now publically confirmed that he had sex with her when she was 14 (and she went on to be quite mixed up, suffered from depression etc). He was and still is a 'rock star'.

AIBU to think he should be charged with statutory rape now? And if he's not charged are we giving out dangerous signals that this kind of behaviour is OK & statutory rape isn't to be taken seriously?

I read Mandy's article in the Daily Mail & my thoughts were the same as BAFE's. Mother "very ill" during kids' childhoods but miraculously recovered when they were all grown up & bringing wrinkly rockers home[hmmm] Bill Wyman should be prosecuted - Polanski, Jonathan King and others have been prosecuted long after the offences took place, so why not Wyman? It was illegal then, it's illegal now.

What Molesworth said.

How is this different from, say, an adult 'grooming' an underage child, who goes on to have what they think is a relationship, but is in reality rape/sexual abuse?

These people do get charged in retrospect AFAIK, so I can't see how he gets to walk.

I agree that the marriage was damage limitation. To make himself out to be "a decent bloke".

didgeridoo, Polanski wasn't prosecuted long after the offence took place. He was prosecuted immediately, found guilty, and then fled the country before he could be sent to prison.

The charges against him now are to do with him skipping bail, not raping a 13 year old. That charge has already been dealt with. (by the courts I mean, not that Polanski has atoned)

I think Polanski was charged & found guilty at the tome - but he skipped the country before sentancing. Switzerland as stalling extraditing him but the UK are going to extradite that poor lady who is on her deathbed, for leaving the USA with her daughter 15 years ago (see post from yesterday)& this .

We may have some a long way with womans rights these last 40 years or so, but this all still stinks of institutional misogyny to be.

I have often wondered how prosecutions long after the event work. Years later there is obviously no physical evidence, so do such prosecutions rely on there being more than one accusation?

My mistake, BAFE but just trying to put a pont across.

The 12 month limit (and the guidelines that "considerable discretion" may be applied in deciding whether to prosecute even within that timeframe) only applies to a girl aged 13-16 at the time of the crime. If the girl under 13 there's no time limit and the man can be prosecuted (indeed, "the public interest requires the prosecution") even years and years later.

Polanski was prosecuted right after the crime too (and under US state law not UK law), but he fled the US after the prosecution but before sentence. Jonathan King was convicted of sexual assault rather than unlawful sexual intercourse.

I don't like this 12 month limit business. What's the rationale for it?

I remember as a teen thinking how dodgy the relationship seemed - seeing it as an adult it's just vile

He could still be prosecuted but mandy would have to make a statement of complaint, they cant prosecute him on her 'hearsay' evidence.

I agree though what a dirty fucking disgrace he is, saved by his money.

No idea. A guess would be that any of these cases are going to be difficult to prove once a significant period have elapsed so they want to concentrate resources on the worst cases (i.e. where the child is under 13 or there wasn't even the appearance of consent).

They'd be difficult to prove for a child of 13 and under too though. It seems to me that although the age of consent is set at 16, in practice the law sets that boundary at 13 by having this rule. It's one thing if two 15 year olds are having consensual sex, but in the case of a much older man?

Molesworth, I think that's why there are two separate ages, in effect. If both parties are 13-16, the matter is almost always dropped. If one is older, that's when investigations are done. I think.

I have personal experience to suggest that that is not the case Clanger. And I think that is very wrong.

Sorry, Mole. I did say upthread I didn't know much about the law.
I'm sorry if what I said was triggering.

No need to be sorry Clanger - and I don't know much about the law either, hence the questions!

It's vile isn't it. I remember this all being in the papers at the time. All those wedding pictures - urgh. Vile man, poor girl. She ended up with eating disorder and everything didn't she?

WHAT in the name of god was her mother doing. Out clubbing at 13 for crying out loud.

Not anything to do wth Mandy Smith et al, however I often wondered what Bob Geldof was doing as well lketting Peaches and Pixie out clubbing when they were clearly underage. The would be pictured at the age of 16/17 whatever, out clubbing, and the press was saying that Bob G let them live in some kind of granny flat with a seperate entrance etc. It was all reported as if this was normal.

And (whilst I am ranting) pictures of 15 year olf Taylor Momsen from Gossip Girl all over the place, in Grazia etc, picturing her coming out of clubs in pretty dresses, held up as a fashion icon. She's 15 fgs. She should be in doing her homework at that age.

Can you tell I am the mother of a teenage girl!

I think her mother should be hauled over the coals also for encouraging her to start a relationship with him.

But I agree with the original poster. Wyman should be charged

Yes, of course he should be charged. But it's unlikely ever to come to that.

I agree that the mother has a lot to answer for. She was a piece of work. And yes, he should be charged.

I remember feeling so sorry for this young girl
being pumped by her Mum. If there is a 1 year limit, then nothing is going to happen to him, but everyone knows now that she has alleged that Bill Wyman is disgusting, scumbag padophile.