Sex cases in the news

Absent - it really is that simple isn't it.
Flower - give yourself a break, and you're right, it is all alleged and before the courts. It does smell though, doesn't it.

have read this thread with interest and sat on my hands till now but what I find most disturbing is the lack of the backbone of British justice - innocent until proven guilty,
I remember on an earlier thread many of us recounted problems with 'straying hands' - it happened in the 60s and 70s - it did not make it right and certainly if it went further than that it was unacceptable and criminal.
but is it right|:
that these men have been tarred with the same brush as JS even when the court has not found them guilty
even if they are found not guilty mud will stick
the accusers are remembering events from 40 or 50 years ago in such detail with no insight into their behaviour at the time
since when have 'stars' and 'celebs' had a 'duty of care' towards their admirers - teachers, doctors and other professionals yes but I never remember such 'duty of care' being widely expected in the 60s.
we all do silly, stupid things when the hormones are raging in our teens - I have read many threads on mumsnet where it is expected and accepted that young teens will be 'sexually active'. no different back in the 60s then.
find myself agreeing in part with jinglebellfrocks - there is a world of difference between inappropriate touching and serious sexual assault.

Duty of care from celebs - not really

Responsibility not to exploit, from any man, celeb or not - yes

Several incidents happened to me when I was a teenager and I can remember the fear, palpitations and breathlessness that followed quite clearly. I didn't report any of them either to the police or my mother.

These victims are going through those feelings all over again.

Lona

Here's the acid test for those who believe reckless girls who throw themselves at celebs shouldn't come complaining now that they were abused back then:

How would you feel, finding out that your dad, brother, husband or son had been 'groping' young women or girls, serially, over the last 20 years or so? That whilst your back was turned, they had been taking advantage of sexual opportunities laid at their door and that they could keep secret from you? How about if it was your best friend, sister, daughter complaining now that they had been keeping this traumatic memory to themselves but, with all the current publicity about JS and others, they feel they might be believed now, especially as they realise now that this man has done it to a few others? Would you be as dismissive? Yes, you would probably be supportive of that accused family member, but would you condone their behaviour if it was found that they had done it?

If my daughter or friend disclosed that someone had been 'groping' them at work, or at a pop concert, years ago, and that they had been frightened and worried that no-one would believe them, or that they had been a bit reckless about being alone with a celeb and now lived with the idea that it was all their fault that they had been sexually exploited, I wouldn't dismiss it. It's tantamount to saying we're entitled to take what we want if we find it there for the taking.

I think that there is a distinction between an unsolicited grope (which most of us have probably experienced) and serious exploitation of women and particularly younger girls.

Even with the grope situation, it is worrying that many women have said that they did not feel that they could report it as they would be ignored. I think women should be listened to and believed even if the incident might appear "minor" on the surface.

With these cases from so long ago, it might be more sensible to concentrate on the more serious ones, as proof is going to be difficult and efforts should be concentrated on the most serious perpetrators. I do not think it matters that they are odl men and that it all happened a long time ago.

Where would you draw the line between serious and less serious, Mishap? I would struggle to distinguish between someone who committed an indecent assault once and a serial 'groper' with multiple complainants. All victims of sexual offences should be entitled to have their cases heard. The three celebs currently attending court have several counts to be tried on, some very serious, some less so in terms of the punishment if found guilty.

There are very strong social norms in place re not invading the personal space of other people. And if you do invade that space then there are ways of doing it that are not overtly sexual - e.g. hand on the shoulder or arm. Even these can make women feel uneasy in a work environment. I had a boss that used to do this to both sexes years ago and it made everyone feel uneasy.
But once the line is crossed to touching bottoms, legs or breasts then that is seriously unusual and out of order is it not? That social norm has been clearly transgressed.
If I was working in office or school environment and there was even one incidence of someone doing that, the alarm bells would be ringing very loudly indeed and the end of it would probably be dismissal if I had any influence on the outcome.

when you say all victims of sexual offences should be entitled to have their cases heard.

Actually, the women are not victims of sexual offences until the men concerned have been found guilty.

Do you allow for the (even slight) possibility that at least some of the women who have come forward after so long are jumping on the band wagon, maybe in the hope of compensation?

I was groped quite a bit as a young woman but not by anybody famous or wealthy. If I complained now to the police I wonder if they would do anything about it.

I take your point when and had it in my mind as I was writing. The answer is that I do not know. I guess I just want to see the perpetrators of vile crimes against young women prosecuted as they should be, and I feel that the litany of "mild" (but clearly unacceptable) gropes might stop the public taking this all seriously.

I was horrified by the recent news item about children in the Philippines being subjected to filmed sexual abuse that was being directed in real time online by paedophiles operating in Britain and elsewhere across the world. The children were basically rented out for this by their parents, whose poverty must be extreme to make them stoop to such a dreadful way of making money.

I'd have to think about your 'acid test' question a bit before I could come up with an answer when.

However, I see from today's Guardian that Bill Roache's three children have decided to support him (picture of them accompanying him to court).

I'm struggling with your comment, Petallus

"Actually, the women are not victims of sexual offences until the men concerned have been found guilty"

given that the majority of victims/survivors of sexual offences have either not reported the assaults on them, or their disclosures have not resulted in court action.

If you assume the women bringing charges are victims of sexual assault who deserve to be heard, this presupposes the men are guilty surely.

I agree with your last sentence. We all know how dire the situation is with regard to women who are raped and then have to decide whether to go to the police or not.

But does this mean that every woman who does report a rape (especially in a context of publicity/possibility of compensation) is automatically to be believed.

If this were the case, why bother with a trial?

I shouldn't have said 'report a rape' above. What is going on at present is that women are coming forward forty years after the event to report groping or under age consensual sex mostly.

Petallus I agree with your line of thinking. I wonder why these women are coming forward now, forty years later? There is unlikely to be any credible evidence that can be presented in court after all this time. Moreover, I doubt any custodial sentence passed will be seen to be in the public interest.

We are too hasty, in my view, to pronounce guilt prior to trial. Our attitudes have been coloured by the fallout of of the JS investigation. These men are innocent until proven guilty. We may think they're guilty, but that's not the point, is it? They deserve a fair trial, regardless of public attitude.

This was playing in a dress shop my sister and I were in yesterday. We had just been discussing the current under age sex cases.

Gary Puckett & The Union Gap 1968

Young girl, get out of my mind
My love for you is way out of line
Better run, girl
You're much too young, girl

With all the charms of a woman
You've kept the secret of your youth
You led me to believe
You're old enough
To give me Love
And now it hurts to know the truth

Whaoo-oh-oh
Young girl, get out of my mind
My love for you is way out of line
Better run, girl
You're much too young, girl

Beneath your perfume and make-up
You're just a baby in disguise
And though you know
That it's wrong to be
Alone with me
That come on look is in your eyes

Whaoo-oh-oh
Young girl, get out of my mind
My love for you is way out of line
Better run, girl
You're much too young, girl

So hurry home to your Mama
I'm sure she wonders where you are
Get out of here
Before I have the time
To change my mind
'Cause I'm afraid we'll go too far

Whaoo-oh-oh
Young girl, get out of my mind
My love for you is way out of line
Better run, girl
You're much too young, girl

Young girl, get out of my mind
My love for you is way out of line
Better run, girl
You're much too young, girl

Food for thought?

Are you confident about that, Petallus? I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm picking you up about your perfectly good comments, but regretted under-age sex is unlikely to get past CPS, as it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute. Whereas, underage sex between a girl under 16 and a man would be prosecuted on the grounds that she could not give informed consent, and if there had been an ongoing, committed relationship, when she was of age (not a powerful and abusive relationship) between them after such incidents, that would be taken into account.

G23 I always have felt that song was food for thought.

But I always loved that song, in site of its dubious lyrics!

Anyone coming forward with allegations of any form of abuse, 'minor' or 'major' will know they are in for a very tough time. They will be ruthlessly judged by many men and women in society never mind the dreadful experience of the cross examination by smart barristers. No one in their right mind would do so just for compensation or publicity and the few that do are likely to be found out in the courts. The odds are always against those who do dare to come forward and I believe they are the tip of the iceberg. Why are celebrities the ones bought to court? They have thrived on publicity so their names will obviously be the ones in the press and this will mean others will dare to speak out, especially if they see them behaving arrogantly or read about the kind of statements of innocence that Stuart Hall for example made. Reading some of the posts on internet threads brings home to me just how hard it is for anyone to speak out, even now.

Good post Gadabout, thank you.

Very interesting to hear that so many of us have suffered at the hands of men over the years. I too have mixed feelings about the prosecution of these DJs and actors. They obviously did take advantage of young girls in varying degrees of severity and I don't think they should get away with it now just because it was years ago. However, men are weak creatures when it comes to women and I can well imagine how the girls behaved because I did it myself in the 60s.
Even so, I think men know(and knew) when they are doing wrong and as such if women come forward now with historical complaints I think that they should be taken seriously.
I spent my whole young life being exploited and abused by males, first by my brother at a very young age, then by many of his friends when I no longer cared what happened to me. Later as a married woman I experienced sexual harassment by a manager in an office I worked in. I was shocked and appalled by his behaviour but I was too scared to tell anyone so I just left. In those days no one really had any sympathy for girls and women in these situations, and I'd been stung by my own mother's disbelief at my own brother's antics so was not about to be put down again!
Thank goodness these things are at least discussed now and women taken seriously, even if prosecutions are not always made. The serious sexual abuse of children and young girls that you hear about in the news always upsets me though on a very personal level.

Granny22 I enjoyed hearing that song again! very apt!
Also I am in a nice relationship now and have survived my childhood abuse, though I must admit I would prefer not to be reminded of it night after night on the news!

when I'm not completely sure what you are asking me if I am sure about.

Was it my remark about 'underage consensual sex'? If so, are you making the point that underage sex cannot, legally, be consensual?

If so, I agree.

I was thinking of the difference between a situation where a 14 or 15 year old is being physically forced, protesting, into sex and a situation where she goes into the situation willingly and gives her consent (though this would not hold weight in a court of law.

Or perhaps you didn't mean that

I see another woman has spoken out about Lord Rennard saying he sexually assaulted her too and calling on Nick Clegg to do something about it.

I'm not holding my breath.