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

My birthdate was 24th July 1973. I was not more of an adult on 25th July 1989, or less on 23rd July 1989, than I was on 24th July. To say that I was a child who was raped on 23rd July 1989, or an adult who had consensual sex on the 25th, is ridiculous when both instances were the same.

I repeat, I DID NOT suggest that violence must be present for rape to be the call. I said that non-consent must be present.

If a child is under 16, then non - consent is present, because s/he can't legally consent.

That's what the law says.

And yes, you're right, of course cut-off dates are an imperfect solution.

But what is the alternative to a cut off date?

in law a minor can't consent. i don't care if you call it sex with a minor instead of rape where there was no coercion but essentially rape is penetration without consent and a child is not deemed able to give legal consent so really....

I don't know, Basil. I don't know the answer. I just know that the current definition doesn't work for me.

As you say, SWAF, rape is penetration without consent. So my issue is with the 'deemed old enough to give consent' part. Perhaps there should be a bloody test or something

A line has already been drawn - that line is 16, ANY type of sex before that age is seen as a criminal offence, under 13 and it is automatically rape.

I appreciate that due to the actions of others he may have just been put through a terrible ordeal (although a not guilty judgement doesn't necesarry mean he is sweetness and light), I also apreciate that some girls may have made themselves up to look older than they are - but they could never look anywhere near as old as the accused were at the time, so why the fuck were they having sex with them??

I think Shah is saying that if a man believes or/and is told by the girl that she is old enough to consent
If the girl is also a willing participant
That a later charge of rape seems to be a wrongly applied tariff

He believes rape to be a different crime than that described above

I am unsure how often the situation he speaks about might come about...
If the girl is willing and it is wholly consensual I unsure where or how often the police might become involved

Perhaps much later when someone ( a parent perhaps or the police? The girl herself?) feels he should have known much better
Checked harder
Been more sure

If someone genuinely didn't know then it must be horrifying to find out by a rap at the door from a PC

no he quite clearly says if an underage girl is up for a good time then she is fully responsible for what happens, not the man, ever. he's quite clear.

why would it be horrifying? suddenly finding out that you fucked a 15yo messed up kid and a prostitute at the same time would be horrifying whereas fucking a 16yo messed up kid with a prostitute would not give you any trouble at all?

come on.

I think that if you are in the market for paying for sex with two prostitutes then worrying if they are messed up or not is not part of your remit.

I don't know who this guy is first I heard of him. But it's raised some questions in my head readin the replies.

I think the current law does not help. Not old enough to vote but old enough to have sex at 16?

16 year olds often called kids, but law says kids can have sex?

Sex under 16 illegal but schools and clinics dish out free condoms and other contraception aiding the crime, yes in the eyes of the law thats ehat it is. It gives these kids a confused and wrong message. I don't think any 16 year old is ready for sex. Sex shouldn't be just a fun thing least that's not what I think. There should be more importance on the relationship aspect rather than sex as the be all and end all. It's a status things to many kids peer pressure to say yes I've done it.

Also what's so wrong about telling your children to be modest in dress and not flaunt their sexuality to all and sundry down the street? It doesnt mean you are a nun, it doesnt mean youre a religious nutter or a prude kt simply means you are sensible. Our sexuality and bodies should be valued.

Why do kids of 16 or younger who in the eyes of the law are children, need to dress so scantily for a night out, forget a night out even in casual day wear. Society sexualises kids there's something wrong when parents buy these trashy clothing for their kids and the retail industries produce them, and we think they're ok. They're not ok kids should be kids, not in mini versions of adult clothing . I'm not saying adults or youngsters who wear such clothing deserve rape, but some responsibility should be taken. Why wear that crap.

What of cases where a 15 year old is dating an 18 yr old guy. Parents are fine with it. No one cares until law gets involved. if they later get married and she is 18 its all okey dokey great nothing wrong. Nothing predatory. That confuses me.

16 year old is mentally ready to have sex and potentially bring a child into this world, or carry stds . But nt old enough to make decisions about their country ie vote. Sorry I find it really farcical.

'I'm not saying adults or youngsters who wear such clothing deserve rape, but some responsibility should be taken. Why wear that crap.'

This is where your argument falls down, what a girl or woman wears does not in any way make her responsible for someone attacking her. Men are not animals, they are capable of controlling themselves.

That said, the sexualision of girls through such things as clothing and the media are worrying, however this is hardly the child's fault.

It's funny how men can wear what they want, and not be accused of being provocative. The recent sunny spell saw many young men wandering around topless, however if one of them was raped I'm sure no-one would suggest they'd brought it on themselves. And rightly so.

"'I'm not saying adults or youngsters who wear such clothing deserve rape, but some responsibility should be taken."

Some responsbility should be taken by whom, for what?

For a man or boy who chooses to rape a girl or woman?

Who is responsible for that justanuthermanic?

In the opinion of people who are not rapists or rape apologists, the person who carries out the rape is responsible for that. No-one else is.

I hope if you have sons, you are teaching them that.

Why do posts insist on talking about consensual sexual relationships between similarly aged young people?

1. If it is a consensual relationship then who is complaining to the police? The idea that girls and women make spurious complaints for no apparent reason after having consensual sex is a rape myth

1. The CPS guidance in England and Wales is that the law for children aged 13-16 is not intended to prosecute consensual, equal relationships, but exists so that prosecutions can be enacted where there is a power imbalance, coercion etc

1. The complaints being made against the men this Shah man refers to are made up of people who felt they were abused when it happened, maybe told and were not listened to, maybe didn't tell because they thought they wouldn't be believed. This idea being propagated that the claims are all from older teens who knew what they were doing and engaged in wholly consensual activities does not match the stories that are being told or the charges that have been made against these men. The charges are for assaults, unwanted sexual contact, attempted rape and so on. Some of the children were very young. To try and brush it all off as consensual is ridiculous. And also begs the question - if the people involved were cheerful about what went on why on earth would they report it as a crime 30 years down the line? This idea that people spuriously report consensual sex for no apparent reason ties back in with point 1. A rape myth that people who say they have been the victim of a sex crime are likely to be lying. The fact is that most people who say they have been a victim of a sex crime are telling the truth.

Threads like this are so depressing.

I agree that threads like this are depressing but sometimes I think they are depressing because we cannot admit that sometimes bad sexual things happen without mal intention.

Shah for reasons best decided by the court was found innocent of the rape charges levied against him
Personally I find it all very very questionable

I do think that there is a case to be made that groupies who wanted to and then did have sex with stars might now find it hard to garner sympathy with the public or even prosecutions in court.
Because there is a public consciousness of groupies from that time period.
This might be or become a misused excuse by those with fame who abused young girls

A number of those girls will have had bad home lives
A number will have been in some way groomed into thinking it was the right or only thing to do

Some however will have been groupies who simply wanted to have sex with a famous or rich man
The inference will be that all these girls are reporting upon these fact now because they again want publicity/financial gain etc

But why would a groupie who had consensual sex with their idol and had a good time, report them to the police 30 years later? All of the reports I have read and the interviews I have seen have been about sexual assault, non consensual sexual contact with children.

What Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall et al did was sexual abuse of children. It's got nothing to do with "groupies". The people who are pedalling that are people like Eddie Shah and, oh look, Stuart Hall.

All of the people I've seen who talked about it had heart-rending tales. That little boy who Jimmy Saville got at sticks in my mind. Was he a groupie, there aged about 9 or 10, a little boy on a TV show who got molested afterwards? Of course he wasn't. And nor were the girls who have said they were forced into sex acts, and were terrified. That clip of a child's show with 3 men - one of them was Gary Glitter, was one Freddie Star and the other one Saville? Sitting there pleased as punch with their arms around girls ages about 10-13 to look at them... Those girls were groupies? They deserved what they got?

Honestly it makes me so angry.

These were grown men, who were predatory, and used their position to abuse children, both girls and boys.

And we get the WAH poor men being picked on, those children were predatory and after all they could get and they loved every minute.

Bollocks.

Like I said the supposition and defence will be that the claims are being made by publicity hungry women

The interviews I have seen have not been like that at all.

The assumption that women are "publicity hungry" and will lie about being sexually assaulted for... what exactly. Does this assumption apply as well to the men who have spoken about being abused, I wonder.

It's a rape myth.

The myth that females are duplicitous and regularly lie about rape.

I haven't seen anyone accuse the boys who were abused of being groupies who were well up for it and deserve to shoulder the blame. Wonder why that is.

why would anyone want the publicity of having been fucked by some filthy old man against their will as a child?

it's hardly celebrity is it? it hardly brings fame and fortune to the door. they expose themselves to being ripped apart by the media, the courts, the public etc.

nicetabbard - same reason as there was such a disparity between the ages of consent for boys (with men) and girls (with men) for so long.

little girls are for fucking, it's natural, it's what they're there for. little boys?! shock horror at someone thinking they're a 'thing' to have cocks shoved in.

always the same.

So the idea is that handfuls, dozens, scores, hundreds of people who have never met each other, who all had sexual encounters with the same 70s slebs, have now independently decided to lie about it to police to get money and fame.

I mean, seriously?

Even given that some of these men are in prison???

Anyone who gives any time of day to that idea is either pretty dodgy, or doesn't have more than 2 brain cells to rub together.

What does it take in this society to get people to listen to victims of sexual abuse? It's just mind-boggling.

I dunno Tabard, I dunno

I don't even really know what I think about Savile and the enquiry if I'm honest. It's grim that it was covered up for so long. The amount of time that has lagged makes it harder for the victims to have any justice

I do know that most abuse happens within the family and friend group of a child and I worry that the focus on famous perverts and rapists may be somehow fudging that fact