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

So you're saying that allowing Shah on R5 Live is a planned backlash, Basil?

Who said anything about a cheek?

Whether or not an act is sexual (and the 2003 act doesn't define what sexual means) it simply states that the act must be sexual and ... other definitions follow. It implies that the same act might be carried out which is not sexual. A perfect example is that a parent must touch a child's genitals in order to clean them. That's a far better example of what we're talking about than a straw man argument about a cheek.

No I don't think it's planned as such.

I do think it's deliberate though.

It's how the media work. For a few weeks / months they report on something new and shocking, then they get people to trash the original new/ shocking thing and say it's all a bit out of hand and exaggerated.

I think they're surprised and shocked by how long this story - of men's violence against women - has run. It was probably supposed to come to a neat close after the Savile revelations so that we could pretend that he's a nasty one-off and not part of a more systematic problem of misogyny and instead it is running and running and running and women keep speaking out against male violence and threats against them and drawing attention to the fact that this is happening. I suspect the meejah types are bored of it and want to return things back to normal (IE with women being silenced), while the dirty old men contingent are desperate to shut it all down.

And they're all a bit puzzled and nonplussed about the fact that more and more people are making connections - Eddie Shah's rapey remarks are connected to the rape threats to Stella Creasy, Caroline Criada Perez et al, all are connected to Stuart Hall and Savile, all are connected to the "make me a sandwich and STFU", all connected to Page 3, all connected to LadsMags - the connections that are being made for the first time for many people, are connections malestream media doesn't want made.

Straw man argument?

FFS.

You are in good company with people like this Shah chap, in being totally unable to understand what type of contact is inappropriate / illegal, and when.

I would also imagine that SS would be extremely interested in a parent who insisted on washing their teenaged childs gentials for them (without good reason).

Tell me what prison sentence you would give to people found guilty of having sex with someone under 16.

Sorry.

Not good at disengaging.

Basil I agree with both of your last posts.

nicetabard, if you don't know what a definition is then there's no point in having a discussion. Who said the child having its genitals washed was a teenager? Perhaps you had better start listing all of the things I haven't said like: elephants are pink, water is solid,

I leave you to finish the list.

The law is different for young children.

This thread is about teens. Talking about the age 13-16 age group - as you have said that is where the gap in the law is.

Suddenly switching to talk about young children when that is not what the thread is about (or you were previously talking about) is unhelpful to the discussion.

Tell me how long you want people convicted of having sex with under 16s to go to prison for.

Basil I'd like to follow that line but it isn't logical within itself. One thing is that you are conflating online abuse of women with sexual abuse of children. Often hand-in-hand yes but not in these circs, I don't think whatsoever.
Another thing is that Shah on R5 Live is giving the debate legs, not shutting it down. And the tw abuse issues are leading to prosecutions and terms of imprisonment. I'm not buying into the patriarchal conspiracy here when so much of the evidence contradicts it.

Have people gone to prison for the rape threats on twitter?

I thought it was still early days with arrests.

Agree with BBE that all of these things feed from the same place. And that twats like this Shah are baffled as to why there is a problem and thus speaking out in an attempt to turn the tide. Sadly, it seems to be working a bit.

The thread is really about blame and how some idiot believes or pretends to believe that victims can be blamed for their own victimisation. And what I've said consistently is that the law in its deliberate attempts to muddle and cloud the age of consent by having several different ones helps abusers to make their abusive arguments. The law should be clear and simply state that sex under the age of 16 is a criminal offence to be punished by five years in jail.

yes tw abuse has been dealt with by prison sentences - not in these cases re Creasy et al but in other cases where abuse online is being treated as 'real life' exchanges, and the CPS head Keir Stammer indicates this will be the approach in all cases.

Eddie Shah is clearly talking about older children and teens. I wouldn't like to guess what his cut-off is, but I'm fairly sure he wasn't thinking of toddlers.

I personally don't think that teenagers who have entirely consensual sexual relationships should be sent to prison for 5 years. The idea is quite mad.

So there you go.

I don't think in terms of patriarchal conspiracies Pan and it's patronising to imply that I do.

There are a lot of men out there who think like Eddie Shah. Interviewing him isn't giving the discussion legs it didn't have - there was already uproar about the judge's and prosecution barrister's remarks in that appalling case - the uproar was happening anyway. He's promoting the backlash case.

Someone said to me a while ago that any middle aged woman can just come forward now and accuse a man of having raped her and be believed and that is appalling.

Yep, women claiming to be raped being believed, is appalling. Because of course, if that happens, then all middle aged women everywhere will suddenly start accusing men of having raped them years ago when they haven't, because that's what women do, doncha know. This is a serious and genuine prospect.

Eddie Shah is speaking for men like him - men who believe that women should automatically not be believed when they speak of male violence against them and that only women who have suffered the most violent rapes should have the right to speak of them.

That is good news Pan.

columngollum - that's a really absurd way to deal with young people. And the interpretation of the law isn't to cloud or fudge, it gives prosecutors and judges leeway and wriggle room to consider the cases in the round, to not criminalise children before they are adults.

Why should teenagers be sent to prison for five years for carrying a knife but not for having sex? If the knife hasn't harmed anybody then surely a caution would do.

Madness in this case is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

Children are continuously being criminalised before they're adults, mainly because they've been breaking the law. That's what young offenders institutions are there for.

I'd hate to patronise you Basil, but your conjecture sounded a lot like that?

Why are you comparing carrying a knife to having consensual sex?

Okay columngollum, we see things differently. I think the current laws applications aren't perfect but operable and allows for considerations which you wouldn't allow. Fair enough.

Because if the law got rid of its fudge that pretended illegal underage sex was consensual under certain circumstances (and illegal just meant illegal.) Then sex under 16 would be rape.

Fair enough, Pan.

Eddie Shah is speaking for men like him - men who believe that women should automatically not be believed when they speak of male violence against them and that only women who have suffered the most violent rapes should have the right to speak of them

Shah is an idiot who should have kept his mouth shut given where he had just been, but this is ridiculous.

He was specifically talking about underage girls who consensually sought sex with older men, and went to some lengths to be seen as older.

Even Shah in his bumbling way made it clear that sex with known under age girls was rape.

Shah's argument is that given they are trying to deliberately appear older, claim they are older, and are seeking out sex, then some of the responsibility falls on their shoulders too.

IMO that is a valid point for debate.

Well, unfortunately the 2003 act includes the phrase "does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over"

and that's a mighty screwed up phrase for lawmakers to use. You might as well just write we don't know what we're doing here she could be this or she could be that. You decide!