Forum menu
people often say there’s no evidence, completely ignoring the witness statement from the complainer.
And at least one of the (alleged) victims in the documentary had corroborating evidence in that someone else heard her screams.
most of us will know perfectly happy couples whose age differences raise eyebrows.
It doesn’t have to legal definition. As far as I am concerned a man in his thirties who has a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old girl is a nonce, irrespective of what the law says or whether the girl “looked twenty years old”.
So, an age difference of maybe 14-16 years? I’ve had relationships with several girls with 14-15 year age gaps, care to give an opinion on my relationships…
I can say that one of them, where there was a 14 year gap, there was a gap of over twenty years between her mum and dad.
I bolloxed up that one, basically because of not being able to talk about perceived issues that were actually non-existent, something I regret to this day, thirty five years later. ☹️
Her folks were just the loveliest people too.
I'm reminded of an incident around the same sort of time in these parts, where a Man of consequence - i'll call him Sam because that's his name - knowingly 'shagged' a 16-year-old. She had a 'thing' for him, he was 40+ at the time, and it was very much consensual.
Everyone else thought it was a bit 'ick' and he was persona non grata for years. I don't get out much, so i'm not even sure he's redeemed himself yet.
The problem with age limitations is what are the ages and who sets them. Seems like 30 and 16 honest fly on this forum, how about 27 and 17.
27 and 17 were the age my mum and dad first got involved and were very happily married for almost 60 years.
Not so much the age difference as the circumstances between the two people with the age difference is it so a stupid thing to put into law.
I love the way that it’s moved from rapist to pedo territory because he slept with a 16 year old girl.
So are we now saying a 16 year old girl can’t give consent to sleep with an older man especially if they are famous?(and not employer/teacher etc)
Pitchforks at the ready and prepare the bonfire 🙂
Did Jonathan Ross not have a 16 year old friend when he hosted the Last Resort on C4?
Might have tabloid memory fail.
Whilst ignoring the fact that there’s probably currently more evidence to prosecute for rape.
Did Jonathan Ross not have a 16 year old friend when he hosted the Last Resort on C4?
Looks like he went on to marry her and she’s still his wife.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jonathan-ross-fascinating-family-hollywood-23244653
And the reason I’m making a fuss about this is because it dilutes the meaning of the word. It’s a bit like screaming racism because someone talks about blackboard, eventually people become acclimatised and numb to actual racism. If we normalise it to mean ‘a bit rapey’ then what do we call actual pedos, ‘ultrapedos’ or something?
might I suggest that rigorously trying to enforce use of language may actually have a consequence which I assume you are not trying to achieve. by “leaping to the defence” of people accused of being peadophiles who don’t meet the clinical definition you seem to be saying oh he’s not that bad he only likes the ones with breasts where he has to use his mind to manipulate them into having sex with him rather than pinning down the primary school kids. I’ve never met you, and I know you enjoy a pedantic argument on the internet so I don’t want to make assumptions about you, but the people I’ve met in real life who make these sort of arguments are not usually trying to ensure society and the justice system treats “genuine” pedos properly they are trying to justify their own behaviour towards teenage girls.
by “leaping to the defence” of people accused of being peadophiles
I'm not leaping to anything. Rather, the point of language is to convey information accurately. And this is inaccurate. I'm not saying that something is "not as bad" as anything else, I've made no comment on that.
You wouldn't call someone a Red Light Jumper if they'd been caught speeding, would you.
he only likes the ones with breasts where he has to use his mind to manipulate them into having sex with him rather than pinning down
You haven't watched the documentary, have you. "Pinning down" was one of his MOs. Er, allegedly.
I think people are over thinking and the peado thing.
It has a proper definition in psychiatry and in that field of charity/support work.
There are separate legal definitions for underage sex.
Just use the right ****ing terms before labelling someone incorrectly. Especially on social media.
Innocent people have been attacked and killed because of people bandying around the term paedo without understanding whst it really means.
I’m not leaping to anything. Rather, the point of language is to convey information accurately. And this is inaccurate. I’m not saying that something is “not as bad” as anything else, I’ve made no comment on that.
You wouldn’t call someone a Red Light Jumper if they’d been caught speeding, would you.
If you want to be the word police then you need to be 100% sure. Nonce never has and still doesn't only mean paedophile.
Mid 30s man in a relationship with a 16 year old? He’s a nonce afaic.
Nonce = paedophile .
Wrong, nonce means more than just paedophile.
I'd appreciate it if we could all be inclusive and use the appropriate term for the sexual orientation: MAPs (Minor Attracted Persons). LGBTQ+M!
I joke but that was genuinely an angle people were trying to use at one time to legitimise this. And I agree with the poster above, there most certainly isn't 100% of males that find 16/17/18 Yr old girls attractive - I've always found it a good benchmark that I've not quite let go of all my morals
Its not the finding them attractive thats the icky bit, it's the knowing you shouldn't be trying it on with them that's the key divider.
LittleMissMC is that age, and part of a gymnastics squad. Many of them are objectively attractive, but it would obviously be wrong for 54 year old me to turn all "Russell Brand" about it.
Wrong, nonce means more than just paedophile.
Aye - thinking about it when I was in Pentonville (working 😉 ) I heard it applied in a wider way to other sex offenders I think
Not since I was 15, 16, 17…
Exactly my point.
there most certainly isn’t 100% of males that find 16/17/18 Yr old girls attractive
Not even when they were 16?
I’ve known girls younger than that who could pass for early 20s
Till you talk to them
To be fair, i know a good number of people in their 30's and 40's who seem to have pretty much stopped developing in their late teens...
I believe some European countries have something like this?
Yes, some do. Not googling it from work though.
Not even when they were 16?
How is that relevant? Russell Brand was in his thirties when he allegedly had a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old girl.
Edit : I say allegedly but I believe that Russell Brand freely admits to having a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old when he was in his thirties. Nonce!
NONCE - Not on Normal Courtyard (or communal) Excercise. Anyone excluded from being with other inmates cos they might get the shit kicked out of them. Usually sex offenders, not just peado's.
How is that relevant? Russell Brand was in his thirties when he allegedly had a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old girl.
Edit : I say allegedly but I believe that Russell Brand freely admits to having a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old when he was in his thirties. Nonce!
Think the poitnt is that if Brand is a peado for shagging a 16 year old girl, is a 16 or 17 year old lad also a peado for doing the same? I don't think either are a peado, wrong un maybe, nonce, yeah if its not consensual.
The half your age plus 7 rule is a good rule of thumb.
18 years old? Don't sleep with anyone young than 16 (18 * 0.5 + 7 = 16)
30 years old? Don't sleep with anyone younger that 22 etc etc.
Its not the law, its a bit silly and not suggesting any it resolves the serious issues discussed in this thread. But, as a general position it seems quite fair.
I think there's a whole world of difference between finding a 16 year old attractive because she's attractive, and finding her attractive because she's 16.
Getting her picked up from school would in my opinion put RB in the latter.
EDITED: Since my midlife crisis at the age of 51 I have been in relationships with women 20 years younger then me.
Should I hand myself into the police?
Think the poitnt is that if Brand is a peado for shagging a 16 year old girl, is a 16 or 17 year old lad also a peado for doing the same?
Is that a serious question?
When I was 13 I was lusting after some of the 15 and 16 girls in my school, as far as I was concerned they were pretty much women. Did that make me a peado? Of course not.
This isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about a grown thirty something man having a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old child.
You can be fairly certain that the only thing on his mind was sex, not an attraction to her intellect or shared hobbies and interests.
Calling him a nonce is perfectly reasonable imo.
This thread has gone full brasseye in the last few pages!
Calling him a nonce is perfectly reasonable imo.
If we understand that a nonce is not automatically the same thing as a paedophile.
The half your age plus 7 rule is a good rule of thumb.
54yo M would like to meet 35yo F with poor self esteem and low standards to share disappointing sexual experiences.
To get this away from what is & what isn't a nonce - a lot of people here are saying why didn't they go to the police.
There are so many reasons - imagine being the victim of a crime & having the police then pour through your phone. Then you lifestyle etc - the way we gather evidence for victims of sexual assault is as bad for the victim as the assault was if not worse.
Imagine sitting in a courtroom & having all your sexual exploits & text messages laid bare before the press & a jury?
& you're the victim, not the accused.
& then the rich lawyers that the perpetrator has sows enough doubt in the Jury's mind, that the same could happen to them or their sons, that some woman could have some fun then accuse them of rape.
Not even when they were 16?
Someone I knew many years ago identified himself aa asexual, whilst he thought women were attractive he didn’t want to engage in sexual intimacy with them. He wasn’t attracted to men, girls or boys either.
As a result, I doubt he would have said he was sexually attracted to 16 year old girls.
A nonce is someone on Rule 43
Just about to post that Bill.
Peadophiles, sexual offenders, former police and prison officers, debtors, grasses, and anyone else at risk of violence from other inmates to name but a few.
But colloquially it's also a term used for anyone who ****s kids or is a bit sexually 'strange'. Maybe not in some of your middle-class utopias but defo among the working classes that some of you hate/love depending on how they voted or if it suits the political point you're trying to make.
Just about to post that Bill.
Peadophiles, sexual offenders, former police and prison officers, debtors, grasses, and anyone else at risk of violence from other inmates to name but a few.
Debtors looks like the odd one out on there - why're they particularly likely to be subject to violence?
<sorry, OT I know>
Sorry, they've borrowed from other inmates, could be drugs, cigarettes/tobacco, things from the commissary and not paid back or in full.
For clarity: I have two Prison Officers in the family and my mate from childhood has spent a fair few years on the inside of His Majesty's establishments in his younger years.
If Brand is convicted he'd be regarded as a nonce (in the colloquial sense) for the following reasons:
Rape
Having sex with a 16yo
He'd be on Rule 43 from day one.
Being famous would add an extra flavour to the above.
Makes him a wrong un. But I don’t think that relationship is illegal. It’s wrong in our minds, but this isn’t about morals. It’s about what is legal and what isn’t. Maybe she was groomed, maybe she wasn’t. I don’t know about that and we probably never will.
The other situations within the Despatches programme are far worse than what STW has decided to argue about.
Weirdly I watched a Blackbelt Barrister video on this last night, I normally respect his content, but this was strange. Also the comments were very strange. Worth having a read to understand what I am referring to. Almost feels like as a content provider there is a level of support, maybe it’s a cross over of viewership.
And I’m normally someone who would prefer to wait until a court makes a decision, but I’m not sure this will see a court and it’s probably the only opportunity the victims have to make their voices heard….which is equally wrong and insulting for them.
The government trying to get him demonetised from all his content platforms is quite interesting. Rumble have basically told them to stick it up their arse.
https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584929026216118
When I was 13 I was lusting after some of the 15 and 16 girls in my school, as far as I was concerned they were pretty much women. Did that make me a peado? Of course not.
This isn’t what we are talking about. We are talking about a grown thirty something man having a sexual relationship with a sixteen year old child.
So it's fine when you're 13 and not fine when you're 30. OK. What age is the cutoff between the two?
You can be fairly certain that the only thing on his mind was sex, not an attraction to her intellect or shared hobbies and interests.
When you were lusting after those girls at school, did you intend to discuss their opinions on Nietzsche?
^ yeah that's messed up, it's up to platforms to make that decision, not the government to declare him persona non grata or asozial depending on your view.
Never heard of Rumble before but that's an impressive response. What business is it of the government at this point in the proceedings?
Debtors looks like the odd one out on there – why’re they particularly likely to be subject to violence?
I don't think they mean people who owe RBS for a couple of missed mortgage payments or even those convicted for not paying their council tax... I think it means when you own money to criminal gangs (usually for drugs) - they tend not to be so accepting of not being paid and like to make an example of people so others know to keep their promises!
The government trying to get him demonetised from all his content platforms is quite interesting.
Given their recent history around failing to act on allegations of sexual abuse their position is somewhat hypocritical.
Never heard of Rumble.
Seems culture and media secretary is asking reasonable questions though.
The government trying to get him demonetised from all his content platforms is quite interesting.
1) it's not the government - it's a parliamentary committee. The legislature is not part of the executive.
2) nor is it Parliament. It's a single committee.
3) and nor is it attempting to control anything. It's asking if they will continue to pay Brand for his content on the platform. They're free to say yes or say no. This is in the context of discussions around the regulatory framework and self-regulation for conveniental and social media companies - which is in the committee's remit to examine.
Apart from that, great points all round!
Meanwhile, I notice that creepy hat-wearer and sexual assault apologist George Galloway has come to Brand’s defence. Which is not surprising in the slightest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783
Seems culture and media secretary is asking reasonable questions though.
Are they though?
As much as Brand is clearly loathsome, he hasn't been convicted of any crime (yet) and this is his job, the vast majority of his content is of the tin foil hat variety, and whilst I don't agree woith what he says, he is entitled to broadcast those views on a public platform.
Need to be very careful about deplatforming people based on accusations and disagreeing with what they say.
Rumble is based in Canada/US so Rumble are more than within their rights to the UK Gov to do one.