Not thinking of bill wyman by any chance?

is it cos rock stars were cool and sexy rock stars, whereas Jim was a mingin' old paedo...?

no stars in particular, mainly all male and at some point or other where sex symbols....so none of them took advantage...and pigs fly, bears sh1t in the woods etc etc....

so if they were cool rock stars it was okay then !

so if they were cool rock stars it was okay then

I'm not sure if that defence would stand up in court

The rock stars didn't prey on the vulnerable sick and mentally disabled as the under aged groupies were flinging themselves at the rock stars. Seem to remember Ritchie Blackmore had to exit one of the US states in a hurry when it turned out one of the goupies he slept with was a minor.

Rock stars have their very own Edinburgh defence. They were researching books.

I'm not sure if that defence would stand up in court

I don't think it would either...time will tell !

so if they were cool rock stars it was okay then !

Love how you are sarcastically responding to someone defending nobody, against an accusation you didn't make, regarding nobody in particular.

Top marks for sounding angry, but not yet having decided what you are angry about.

im not angry in the slightest...I wouldn't be silly enough to name any persons on the internet...

so if they were cool rock stars it was okay then !

of course it wasn't okay ! What planet are you on ???

please no arguing its been a long week...

Given the stuff I've read about John Peel and as mentioned above, Bill Wyman, I believe that due to the era when all this took place, by which I mean like a 'celebrity zeitgeist' as it were, I find it kind of weird that they're being judged by todays 'moral standards', if you get my gist. It was kind of accepted in those days - young kids were queueing to see these mega-stars and I guess their real crime was taking advantage of that situation. Not that I'm condoning any of it - just thinking with my fingers on a public forum.

I doubt Mandy Smith was dragged kicking and screaming - she was simply naive...

Having put all that down I guess that kinda reads like we should've let the old war crimes go unpunished, too.

Maybe not, then...

Maybe they have not done the things Saville or Glitter has done !
Do you think this is ordinary by any chance or acceptable behaviour ?

teasel - Im on your side !

If any of the big names of rock have done wrong then of course they should be punished !

Where have I said it was/is okay...I HAVE NOT IN ANY WAY SAID ITS ACCEPTABLE !

Read the first post !

of course it wasn't okay ! What planet are you on ???

If that was for me, then you missed my point completely.

Never mind.

Jimmy Page (who plays in a Led Zep tribute band called Led Zeppelin) had his hotel guarded so noone could see him shacked up with 14 year old Lori Maddox. Lori's ex at the time was one David (and probably Angie) Bowie.

nealglover- no

i think its to folk that want an argument instead of a chat !

A friend of mine accidentally picked up the suitcase of a very famous rock star at an airport, got it home and found it full of animal porn. She had to trace him and it turned out he had her case. She had to drive to Cornwall to do that swap as for some reason he wasn't too keen to do it. Her own case had been opened and all her stuff rummaged.

Wish I could remember who it was.

pete townshend still doesnt seem to have brought his book out yet...... taking a while int it.

I find it kind of weird that they're being judged by todays 'moral standards', if you get my gist. It was kind of accepted in those days -

I doubt Mandy Smith was dragged kicking and screaming - she was simply naive...

What was that Rolling Stones Album cover with the pre-pubescent girl on the cover, can't see that going down well these days..

pete townshend still doesnt seem to have brought his book out yet...... taking a while int it.

I asked this question lately and my sister in law (a social worker) told me that he has indeed released a book. Not sure if anyone bought it though?

And isn't the lead singer of a band in court for something just now? something prophets? I know it's not from way back but it shows this is still going on... terrible people.

What was that Rolling Stones Album cover with the pre-pubescent girl on the cover, can't see that going down well these days..

Wasn't that a Led Zep cover? Houses of the holy?

[img] [/img]

It wasn't socially acceptable, though.

Really. How many blokes do you think had thoughts along the lines of [i]"Nice one, Bill - back of the net..."[/i], for example. I don't know for sure but it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination, is it. I also don't think it was so covert, just ignored for the most part. As has been plastered all over the news today, kids of that time were told to stop lying or stop causing trouble if they suggested they'd experienced any sort of sexual harrassment. Open and accepted expression is a relatively recent phenomena IMO. Just progression, isn't it.

Sounds like a good reason to have a statutory age of consent!

Yeah, 'cause every child adheres to that, don't they. I know the onus is on the adult but kids will always be curious and some adults obviously don't seem to know better. I'm thinking groupies and the like; it's a very seventies thing.

Like I wrote - just thinking out loud. Times change and so do social attitudes and standards of acceptance and those that have offended should face the music, I guess...

Your 16th birthday is ace isn't it?

Thirty seconds before you pass it you are but a child, wandering around without a care in the world.
47 milliseconds after you pass it you become a clear and level headed individual with a thorough, concious and experienced viewpoint in the world.

Dirty perverts who like having sex with people who look like children are simply that. No amount of rules and laws will stop them taking advantage of inexperienced, naive, impressionable girls. All you have to do is look cool and have a leather jacket. Maybe be able to buy cider.

Punishment should be 100% directed at the little ****ers who absue these innocents. Do not consider that the girls in question might be sexually aware or even complicit. This is about the little men who feel like they are having sex with children. They know what they are doing is wrong.

Teasel its always been wrong. In the media industry though people like to think rules dont apply/its wild etc.

14/15yr old girls have always been forbidden fruit to randy self-obsessed deluded perverts

I seem to remember Bill Wyman waiting for one of his brides to become legal.....

I remember an interview in I think Sounds magazine back in the late 70s whilst a rock star(who went on to have a Number 1 ) and his band were touring.All the band ,especially the lead singer were happily watching a XXX video they had picked up in Europe featuring very young/underage girls. Possesion of such a video nowadays would probably carry a jail sentence as well as signing the Sex Offenders register.Schoolgirls were often a feature of fantasy in pornography.
Saw said singer on TV recently with his young daughters and thought at the time I wonder what he would think if his girls had been in the videos...
Edit-Just checked him on Wiki and he now holds a rather inappropriate role with aleading organisation if my memory of the above interview is accurate.

I remember an interview in I think Sounds magazine back in the late 70s whilst a rock star(whowent on to have a record breaking Number 1 )

So who was it ?

As i cannot recall the details of the interview 100% accurately nor find any trace of it I think it prudent not to say.

The clear difference is that on the one hand, there are people coming forward with evidence that Uncle Jimmy forced himself on them and committed rape.

On the other hand, the "rock stars" of which you speak were receiving the attentions of teenage girls who wanted what they wanted. Hence, no lurid stories about post-event grievances.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Plaster_Caster

Although I suppose you COULD get yourself worked up into a moral lather about it, if you were so inclined...

On the other hand, the "rock stars" of which you speak were receiving the attentions of teenage girls who wanted what they wanted. Hence, no lurid stories about post-event grievances.

Some of those teenage girls were children.
No matter how famous you are, you still have the ability to realise that having sex with children is wrong.

Although I suppose you COULD get yourself worked up into a moral lather about it, if you were so inclined...

Large assumption there that it's "bothering" me, Rusty old chap.

Wanna fight?

Not really. 😀
Just found it interesting that you bothered to mention it, that's all.
Surely the 'media outrage' is an inevitable part of the process?

And would you care to comment on the first point?

Nope.

We'll let your previous comments speak for themselves then.

Well, the 'moral outrage' of the media is an inevitable by-product of exposing & attempting to stop the abuse of children by those in a position of power and trust.

I remember The Sun (I think) running a campaign maybe late 80s / early 90s featuring a skimpily clad, well endowed teenage girl who was going to be a Page 3 model, to the tune of "only a week to go till she's legal, folks" before she featured topless on her birthday. The 'moral outrage of the media' is somewhat hypocritical, I fear.

The 'moral outrage of the media' is somewhat hypocritical, I fear.

Absolutely. But again, inevitable.
Human nature - basic design flaw.

Rusty Spanner - Member

We'll let your previous comments speak for themselves then.

That's big of you.

Human nature - basic design flaw.

"Design"?

😀

I use the phrase 'Oh God' quite a lot too.
Doesn't mean I'm a believer, but it has a purpose. 🙂

And no-one's mentioned the Blind Faith album cover yet.

I don't remember finding it offensive or titilating whilst searching record shop racks, but there was obviously some controversy about it at the time.

All boils down to the difference between art and pornography, I suppose.
To paraphrase the famous Potter Stewart quote, I can't define pornograph or art, but I know it when I see it.
Different for everyone I suppose.

The differences between JS and many of the rockstars were that on the whole, the musicians didn't coerce young women into sex, it was offered. Also, generally they were young as well, early 20s or less so there was less of an age difference.

At the time there was an acceptance that young women were willingly sexually active, hence Oz's cartoons featuring Honeybunch Kaminski and the words of the Stones' song "Stray Cat Blues".

When you say 'young women', what age range do you mean?

At the time there was an acceptance that young women were willingly sexually active, hence Oz's cartoons featuring Honeybunch Kaminski and the words of the Stones' song "Stray Cat Blues".

How widespread would you say the 'acceptance' was?
Just amongst the counterculture, certain members of the entertainment industy, paedophiles, wider society in general?

Rusty: Sadly, I've never been a rock god with easy access to nubile women so I don't know. Post-puberty, adolescent, young adult?

Moses - Member

The differences between JS and many of the rockstars were that on the whole, the musicians didn't coerce young women into sex, it was offered.

As long as those 'young women' were over 16 I can't see a problem.
Otherwise, they were children.

And just because consensual sex with children was seen as an acceptable subject by Robert Crumb and The Stones doesn't make it right, then or now.

Someone alluded to it on the previous page, it is Ian Watkins of Lostprophets who has been charged (and denied bail) on some horrendous charges of child abuse.
http://www.nme.com/news/lostprophets/68120

A bit of googling turns up lots of grim stories about him.

Lori Maddox is an interesting one - perhaps 13 when Bowie introduced part of himself to her. Then Paige when she was 14 and carried on for a few years. I suppose she could cause some trouble if she fancied it but presumably doesn't see herself as a victim.

Edit for legal porpoises - this is all alleged rumour and may not be true...!

I suppose she could cause some trouble if she fancied it but presumably doesn't see herself as a victim.

No. Adults can be very clever in that respect when dealing with children.

To be fair, there is a difference between consensual sex and rape. Not saying that this means that it's OK - just that there is often a difference.

Well, the 'moral outrage' of the media is an inevitable by-product of exposing & attempting to stop the abuse of children by those in a position of power and trust.
I remember The Sun (I think) running a campaign maybe late 80s / early 90s featuring a skimpily clad, well endowed teenage girl who was going to be a Page 3 model, to the tune of "only a week to go till she's legal, folks" before she featured topless on her birthday. The 'moral outrage of the media' is somewhat hypocritical, I fear.

It was the sport, I remember it I was at school at the time and we used to get the sport from the corner shop. the girl was older than us it didn't seem too bad as teenagers and we didn't really understand exploitation back then (yes she was exploited FWICR her step father was promoting the charade) however I expected the target audience could have been more sinister than a bunch of us school kids.

mightymule - Member

To be fair, there is a difference between consensual sex and rape. Not saying that this means that it's OK - just that there is often a difference.

Yes, but to consent you must be an adult.
Children cannot consent - which is why consensual sex between adults and children is illegal now and was illegal in the 60's and 70's as well.

Yes it is, and for good reason. However, there is still a difference between fully consensual sex and rape, which is recognised by the courts, and reflected in the sentencing guidelines for sexual offences.

The 'moral outrage of the media' is somewhat hypocritical, I fear.

Aye they also did a countdown for Charlotte church being legal and the girl from harry Potter probably on page Three

mightymule - Member

Yes it is, and for good reason. However, there is still a difference between fully consensual sex and rape, which is recognised by the courts, and reflected in the sentencing guidelines for sexual offences.

Consent is an issue only if the girl is over 13, according to the law.
If she is under 13, consent is immaterial.

Sentencing reflects individual circumstances, ie age of the other party etc.

I thought the law was if they were under 14 it was an absolute offence- ie no discretion you must be charged

from 14- turning 16 the police and prosecution can decide.

The age of the offender of also an issue in deciding

14 year old with 15 year old or 14 year old with a 54 year old

Not sure Junky, tbh. You are probably right, things may have changed.

Irrelevant though tbh.
Any adult attempting to justify, fully or partially, sex with a child, whether consent was given or not, is on very dodgy ground indeed.

Indeed.

Its a strange one we can all see how consent alters it sort of and we can see why its worse to rape someone bit i do tens to agree that neither is defendable in terms of morality.

Its worth noting perhaps 100 years ago at 14 you may well have been married though and I suspect we can still find places where this is the norm.

Its worth noting perhaps 100 years ago at 14 you may well have been married though and I suspect we can still find places where this is the norm.

True.
There are still places where slavery is practiced too.
Doesn't make it any less abhorrent.

I was more getting at how morals change over time but yes you have indeed proved some are absolute for all time

You think it's abhorrent because that's our society's norm.
In some US states the age of consent is 18, so would you consider sex with a 17-year old abhorrent, too? If not, why not?

Similarly, in Spain (I think) the age of consent is 13. Is it abhorrent for 14 year olds to have consensual sex?
So why do you think that 16 is right? Biologically, the age of menarche is dropping across the western world, yet if anything the age of legal consent is rising.

Coercion is wrong, sex isn't.

Sorry Junky, I was agreeing with you 🙂

Some morals are indeed absolute, or as near as damn it makes no difference.

If these allegations regarding rock stars prove to be true, will be very interesting to see what the excuses are if prosecutions aren't brought.

Similarly, in Spain (I think) the age of consent is 13. Is it abhorrent for 14 year olds to have consensual sex?

Well, each country must set the age limit as it sees fit, according to how children are viewed and valued as members of society.
A 13 year old is still a child however, whatever other attributes of adulthood they may posess.

Biologically, the age of menarche is dropping across the western world, yet if anything the age of legal consent is rising

Just because a child is able to reproduce doesn't make them any less of a child.

In some US states the age of consent is 18, so would you consider sex with a 17-year old abhorrent, too? If not, why not?

Coercion is wrong, sex isn't.

So consensual sex is always fine, regardless of the age of either party?

WEll, again, that's a bit tricky isn't it - I mean some victims of abuse have been groomed to the point where they do "consent".

on how morales have changed, remember the film 'Rita, sue and Bob too'. That still gets shown nowadays and the theme of it is an adult fornicating with 2 schoolgirls. Dont think many films like that would be made today. Britain definately has weird age defines.

Driving is 16 and over
NI number and getting a job is 16 and over
sex is 16 and over
smoking is 18
alcohol is 18 and over.

So you can make a huge deision to be an adult, to have sex, go out buy and drive a car to your place of work, but you cant have a cigarette on the way or a pint after work

Simple line should be child - young adult (16-17?)( meaning either nothing or everything is legal) - adult

Driving is 16 and over

17

radoggair - Member

So you can make a huge deision to be an adult, to have sex, go out buy and drive a car to your place of work, but you cant have a cigarette on the way or a pint after work

As a mate of mine pointed out the other day, at 16 you can have sex but you can't buy a video of someone else having sex. Let them join the army, but whatever you do don't let them vote.

It's really not a simple issue and I have no useful answers. Legally I was raped as a 15 year old, suffice it to say I told my mates but not the police. But reverse the positions, make it a 15 year old girl and a 19 year old man and the assumption goes from willing participant to victim.

Actually, driving is 16, moped<50cc,
drinking is 5, not 18, 16 in a restaurant with a meal
smoking no lower limit, the limits are on purchase, not use.

midlifecrashes - Member
Actually, driving is 16, moped<50cc,

radoggair - Member

Driving is 16 and over...

...go out buy and drive a car to your place of work

It's all about the context, baby... 8)

Legally I was raped as a 15 year old

Legally a female cannot rape a man.

It requires a penis to rape and it needs to be placed in an orifice.

Aye, you're right enough, the UK definition is restrictive isn't it. Sexual or indecent assault, would it be? Sex without legal consent, in any case.

It requires a penis to rape and it needs to be placed in an orifice.

Well a woman was convicted of rape for being part of a gang that raped a woman.

http://www.****/news/article-31150/18-year-old-woman-convicted-rape.html

Is anyone a member of NAMBLA?

Scarily NAMBLA actually exists.

Anyone see Ali G in Saviles shellsuit?

Those Marlon Brando look-a-likes are eeeeeevillllllllllllll.

I'm surprised so many people have misunderstood what the purpose of having a minimum age of consent is. It's for protection of the minor, not the criminalization of the minor.

Konabunny, the vast majority of the responses on this thread are quite disturbing.