Shah - underage girls are 'out to have a good time'

[poachedeggs]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/10/eddy-shah-operation-yewtree-sexual-abuse

i agree having the world know you took a teenager and a prostitute to a hotel room to fuck is damaging to your reputation. easy solution is not to fuck teenagers and prostitutes.

rape conviction or not everyone now knows this man for what he is. i don't feel sorry for him that his sexual mores and utter contempt for young girls have been revealed.

he didn't need to be found guilty of rape to be proved a horrible, seedy little man that you shouldn't let your children near.

An adult wanting to have sex with someone much younger than them is showing a troubling and exploitative mindset.
15 or 16 makes no difference morally, they are creepy predatory pricks. imvho.

Legally, they have to draw a line somewhere. It's imperfect but it's necessary.

'This completely misrepresents the way "the maths" works. The stats in this area are a political football so the only definites - guilty and falsely accused - are the Very Certain ones. Those who are convicted are the ones who are most definitely guilty to a high level of certainty, those who are judged as false accusations are definitely false to a high level of certainty. In between is everything from very probably false to very probably guilty.

To argue that all those not convicted are still guilty of rape makes as much sense as arguing that all those not convicted were falsely accused.'

Except that - as all the research indicates - that most rapes aren't reported (85%), most of that 15% that are don't get as far as prosecution, and the ones that do are only slightly more likely than not to get a conviction. So there are a vast number 'in between' as you put it, of rapes that will never see justice.

So 'the math', (roughly) 50% of 15% = 7.5%, 60% of that = 4%. Rough figures, of course. But that leaves 96% of rapists who are walking around unpunished. That's math.

I have only read the first 100 or so posts so excuse me if we have meloved on but I feel so strongly compelled to comment.

I honestly think that a CHILD who is actively pursuing and ADULT (lets face it boys, girls, men and women can all be invovled in this situation it is not liminted to girls and men) is an increadibly vulnerable child. They do not hold these veiws as a result of a balanced childhood or mental state. As such any adult engaging in this behaviour should be viewed as more preditory not less.

Well yes swallowed. If his intent was to avoid embarrassment, it is rather strange that he didn't just avoid the situation completely.

all of these 'i'm devastated', 'it was an ordeal', blah blah sob stories are coming from men who don't deny fucking little girls whilst they were in positions of power or celebrity. we're supposed to feel sorry for them being put in such awful positions as being accused of rape or sexual assault. they're shameless really.

all of them deserve whatever contempt has come their way for their hideous predatory behaviour whether they are found guilty of a criminal act or not imo. i want to live in a society where dirty old men who fuck little girls are viewed with contempt and disgust. even if the girls are 16 fgs.

nooka
I believe that Shah didn't make a defence based on age. I believe he said that he didn't ever sleep with his accuser.
He then spoke about the difference between rapists and those having sex with willing worldly girls who later turned out to be underage

I think the points that he made were interesting related to the accusations made and arrests following Savile. I was interested in what he said as I think they will form the basis of most of the other defences. I was also interested because I think it mirrors what a large number of people think but are wise enough not to say.

As young groupies were part of a consciousness at that time have those men used that as an excuse to themselves when having sex with young girls? When they should have been steering in a different direction, did they excuse themselves?
On some occasions could there women who appeared to be overage and had sex with 'stars' who later turned out to be very surprisingly young?? How often might that really have been the case?

I also think that we are really talking about different things.
There is a difference between young girls abused at the stage door by a Savile type and a groupie of whatever age. (Although they were perhaps equally abused )

The sexual abuse or rape will actually be the same, the difference is usually that the groupie will probably not make a charge.
The groupie will feel that it was her choice or that she made the decisions or that she was a willing partner.
Whether she was old enough, safe enough or able in any way to make decisions about sex will probably not be considered by the groupie...she will feel she was a willing party. Therefore most of the accusations made will imo come from the former category.
I am interested to see how Shah and others are trying to amalgamate the groups. Both groups were victims but one is being tarnished and is then (somehow) tarnishing the other. I'm interested to see how acceptable that still is to the public.

That's why I thought what Shah was saying was interesting. He is still hoping that the excuses he made to himself are valid. He is still hoping that the public will believe that all those accused men actually only had sex with a worldly siren bunch of ageless groupies.

please stop using the word groupie to describe children abused by pop stars. please. it is so demeaning.

Er...no. I will continue to use the term as I disagree.
There were groupies. The term groupie is not demeaning.

not demeaning? you're applying it to underage girls exploited for sex by grown men - re: victims of the equivalent of statutory rape. how is it different if the man is a pop star? should we call girls who don't say no to their dads groupies too because they loved him? maybe they too should be treated differently because they appeared willing?

Your views are duly noted.

Can we also be clear that in the UK there is no statutory rape.
Anyone having having sex with someone under the age of 13 will automatically be committing rape. I assume that this is what we mean when we discuss 'statutory rape' or are we discussing girls aged between 13-16?

note the word 'equivalent'.

You cannot use equivalent as there is a difference.

Statutory rape is a generic term for sex with a post pubescent minor. It usually refers to sex with girls aged 13-16 in the US.

In the UK when people speak about 'statutory rape' usually they mean the charges which automatically occur when someone has sex with a girl under the age of 13.

These things are important to clarify as often on these boards people are discussing different things but assume that their understanding or usage of a term is the same as the next person's. Often their thoughts and feelings are the same but their use of terminology is incorrect and this causes needless argument.

the equivalent of statutory rape - re: sex with a post pubescent minor of 13-16. the offense is the equivalent of what american's call statutory rape and most sane people see as sex without consent because a child can't give consent.

personally i believe we should call it statutory rape here and punish it as such to make clear what the crime is rather than pretend it is something other.

Q.E.D

Sorry Ronald I wasn't really following the case, but yes I am thinking about men who think that because it was the 'norm' in their world to have sex with 13-16 year old girls as they were so easily available that they should not be prosecuted.

To me this is like the Polinski case, where an adult very obviously couldn't give a shit about the child except as an object, and where the child was undoubtedly over awed by the status of the man abusing her and although damaged at the time felt they couldn't say anything about it.

Sure you could describe the group of girls and women as groupies, but that doesn't men that they weren't abused. Women like Mandy Smith weren't really 'worldly' they were just vulnerable children who were not properly protected.

As for the 'statutory rape' label, it is important to remember that the only defense is that you thought the 13-15 year old was in fact 16, knowingly having sex with a 13 year old is still illegal.

Nooka

Polanski makes my blood boil