Bill Wyman & Mandy Smith - no one ever charged him and the public never campaigned to stop buying Rolling Stones records.
No they just made jokes about it "Bill Is in hospital awaiting the birth of his next girlfriend". I suppose it is better that attitudes have changed but are we going to far?.
With the other thread taking about the disabled man barred from Legoland because he does not have a child with him. Couples without children are barred as well, that's just wrong.
The word "paedophile" gets bandied about far too much and is, as in the Daily Mail headline, used completely wrongly. As had been said, a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. The girl in the case here was certainly not pre-pubescent. And in France, where they eloped too, the age of consent is 15 so, the teacher and pupil aspect aside, over there he wouldn't even have done anything wrong.
In some states in the US, where the age of consent is 18, the word "paedophile" is sometimes used against someone who has sex with a 17 year old. It just dilutes the word and makes it meaningless.
Bill Wyman & Mandy Smith - no one ever charged him and the public never campaigned to stop buying Rolling Stones records.
He has never been charged because there has never been an accusation made against him. Mandy Smith has admitted they had a sexual relationship while she was under the age of 16 but as she has never gone to the police there's little to nothing that can be done.
He has never been charged because there has never been an accusation made against him. Mandy Smith has admitted they had a sexual relationship while she was under the age of 16 but as she has never gone to the police there's little to nothing that can be done.
According to an interview he did he went to the police when the Savile thing was going on and they said they were not interested.
Well whatever the term is, he is still a predator and she was still a vulnerable child, the comments of the DM readers blame her as much as him and I find that outrageous.
The DM comments section as of late have been full of victim blaming
- DM readers questioned the story of the woman who'd been raped while asleep; despite the fact her rapist was convicted
- DM readers continue to defend Ched Evans, with some of the highest rating comments even accusing the courts of framing him and stiching him up
- DM readers blamed the 16 girl in the recent case of a judge defending Stuart Kerner
and those are just a few examples....
Thankfully, it's just a demographic of people, and not representative of everyone in this country.
Ah, I never knew that. It seems strange that the police weren't interested so I wonder if he's just saying what he said in the article to keep the press at bay.
He probably knows that the rest of his life is in the hands of Mandy Smith. For the rest of Wyman's life she can have him arrested with just one quick visit to a police station.
What is the exact definition of pre-pubescent? If you still haven't started periods or grown body hair but are aged 15 does this mean that strictly speaking you are pre-pubescent?
A 15 year old might be sexually aware but dealing with the emotional side of life and the ramifications of big life choices is best left to adults.
The man sounds creepy and like a bad choice romantically but i'm not sure why anyone would want to read a book about this case.
The DM comments section as of late have been full of victim blaming
- DM readers questioned the story of the woman who'd been raped while asleep; despite the fact her rapist was convicted - DM readers continue to defend Ched Evans, with some of the highest rating comments even accusing the courts of framing him and stiching him up
- DM readers blamed the 16 girl in the recent case of a judge defending Stuart Kerner
and those are just a few examples....
Thankfully, it's just a demographic of people, and not representative of everyone in this country.
To be fair this isn't as cut and dry as you make out.
I genuinely don't know, and I don't think anybody does. I wouldn't like to say one way or the other. I hope the jury got it right.. but it doesn't look great on paper.
There was a massive thread where clearly, quite a few people - possibly as many as 'half' think he might be innocent.
To be fair this isn't as cut and dry as you make out.
I genuinely don't know, and I don't think anybody does. I wouldn't like to say one way or the other. I hope the jury got it right.. but it doesn't look great on paper.
There was a massive thread where clearly, quite a few people - possibly as many as 'half' think he might be innocent.
It is when you're accusing the justice system of having a massive conspiracy against Ched Evans. It's one thing to 'doubt' his guilt (although I think the fact he was convicted when rape convictions are very hard to get is a statement in itself) and another thing to think that the whole criminal justice system is trying to stitch Ched Evans up; and acting as if he's this big victim. There's even posts such as ''innocent until proven guilt'' - he's already been convicted and ''proven guilt''. Until there comes a day when the CCR grants him permission to appeal, and he gets to do this and is successful (whether it's in having the case quashed, a retrial etc....) he's not a victim.
It is when you're accusing the justice system of having a massive conspiracy against Ched Evans. It's one thing to 'doubt' his guilt (although I think the fact he was convicted when rape convictions are very hard to get is a statement in itself) and another thing to think that the whole criminal justice system is trying to stitch Ched Evans up; and acting as if he's this big victim. There's even posts such as ''innocent until proven guilt'' - he's already been convicted and ''proven guilt''. Until there comes a day when the CCR grants him permission to appeal, and he gets to do this and is successful (whether it's in having the case quashed, a retrial etc....) he's not a victim.
I personally believe he might be a victim. Like I say, it's hard to make any judgment, I really do hope the jury got it right.. I have no desire to stand up for Ched as a person, I despise overpaid, cheating love-rat footballers.. but the facts as they have been reported would not seem to support a conviction.
Sure I don't think there was any sort of deliberate 'stitch-up', but juries do make mistakes.
I'm just making the point that it's not cut and dry as '100% guilty', in my mind.
What is the exact definition of pre-pubescent? If you still haven't started periods or grown body hair but are aged 15 does this mean that strictly speaking you are pre-pubescent?
A 15 year old might be sexually aware but dealing with the emotional side of life and the ramifications of big life choices is best left to adults.
The man sounds creepy and like a bad choice romantically but i'm not sure why anyone would want to read a book about this case.
Then again to turn that on it's head. How about a 16 year old who is now "legal", however they have not started periods yet.
I must admit I don't think he's a 'predator' or a paedophile. 'Predator' is actually quite a strong, well defined word which doesn't fit his pattern of behaviour.
I think he was a very immature idiot, who genuinely thought he was 'in love'.
Messed up, yes, he absolutely should have known better - but not predatory.
That doesn't fit in with his behaviour with other girls. Remember also he started to try and develop a relationship when she was 14, sorry but there's no way he didn't know what he was doing, he wanted sex with people underage and was in a position of power over underage people that enabled him to do it.
I personally believe he might be a victim. Like I say, it's hard to make any judgment, I really do hope the jury got it right.. I have no desire to stand up for Ched as a person, I despise overpaid, cheating love-rat footballers.. but the facts as they have been reported would not seem to support a conviction.
Sure I don't think there was any sort of deliberate 'stitch-up', but juries do make mistakes.
I'm just making the point that it's not cut and dry as '100% guilty', in my mind.
BIB: Personally, I don't see that. The evidence supplied pretty much fits in with the law regarding capacity to consent (and within the considering issues such as alcohol/drugs and how it effects that) and gaining informed consent as issues for a jury to consider. But then again, I don't want to derail this thread. And while juries do make mistakes, I'll doubt the juries' verdict if Evans team produces new information to put that verdict in doubt, or the verdict is overturned.
The word "paedophile" gets bandied about far too much and is, as in the Daily Mail headline, used completely wrongly. As had been said, a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. The girl in the case here was certainly not pre-pubescent. And in France, where they eloped too, the age of consent is 15 so, the teacher and pupil aspect aside, over there he wouldn't even have done anything wrong.
In some states in the US, where the age of consent is 18, the word "paedophile" is sometimes used against someone who has sex with a 17 year old. It just dilutes the word and makes it meaningless.
ages 13-15 Ephebophile (although 16-19 is also included in this term)
Paedophile has become the term that everyone uses because it is the most shocking. The most shocking cases do involve young children. The word is getting diminished and it is becoming a term of insult for single men who have done nothing wrong.
Not Forrest but some of the underclass of this county do use it if you as much as look at their child who is misbehaving. (I have seen this myself. Thankfully not on the recieving end though).
Legally he is a paedophile, according to the judge in his sentencing remarks. Simple as that. Had the judge not said that then I'd agree.
Another reason not to have faith in judicial system.. A judge handling a sex case doesn't know the definition of a paedophile.
As for this case it is the teacher / pupil relationship that is the crux of it. He was in a position of trust.
Watching news the other day and apparently some states in US have in place age differentials when considering prosecution. Five years being an example. So a 15 year old with a 21 year old. The latter would be prosecuted. Have to say this makes some sense. Mind you a 3 year differential would probably be better.
As for this case it is the teacher / pupil relationship that is the crux of it. He was in a position of trust.
Indeed. I've said before, but I don't actually see why that should be specifically illegal if both were over the age of consent (which obviously in this case they weren't). Now I still think that it's unprofessional behaviour and that a teacher who sleeps with a pupil should be sacked and banned from teaching, but I don't think it should be a crime unless the pupil is underage.
Watching news the other day and apparently some states in US have in place age differentials when considering prosecution. Five years being an example. So a 15 year old with a 21 year old. The latter would be prosecuted. Have to say this makes some sense. Mind you a 3 year differential would probably be better.
It does make sense, yes, but it somewhat complicates the law. Not that the law is necessarily sensible now, given that it would be legal for me (aged nearly 29*) to have sex with a 16 year old, but if I took sexy pictures of her it would be child pornography (unless we were "married or living together in an enduring family relationship"^...)
*Not saying it wouldn't be frowned upon, but it would be legal.
^whatever that means. I don't know if that defence has ever been used.
Legally he is a paedophile, according to the judge in his sentencing remarks. Simple as that. Had the judge not said that then I'd agree.
Except "paedophile" isn't a legal term; he was wrong.
Obviously the guy did wrong- part of what you're being paid for is to protect pupils AND to resist temptation if it comes you're way. He knackered that totally. But he's not a paedophile. Well, I suppose he *might* be, but there's no reason to believe he is based on what we know.
Well whatever the term is, he is still a predator and she was still a vulnerable child, the comments of the DM readers blame her as much as him and I find that outrageous.
No she wasn't. She was 15 not 5 and knew exactly what she was doing and what was happening.
No she wasn't. She was 15 not 5 and knew exactly what she was doing and what was happening.
As someone else stated, 15yr olds are a mass of hormones and are still far too young to realise the ramifications of what they are doing and the decisions that they make. She WAS a vulnerable child.
Comments
No they just made jokes about it "Bill Is in hospital awaiting the birth of his next girlfriend". I suppose it is better that attitudes have changed but are we going to far?.
With the other thread taking about the disabled man barred from Legoland because he does not have a child with him. Couples without children are barred as well, that's just wrong.
In some states in the US, where the age of consent is 18, the word "paedophile" is sometimes used against someone who has sex with a 17 year old. It just dilutes the word and makes it meaningless.
According to an interview he did he went to the police when the Savile thing was going on and they said they were not interested.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html
The DM comments section as of late have been full of victim blaming
- DM readers questioned the story of the woman who'd been raped while asleep; despite the fact her rapist was convicted
- DM readers continue to defend Ched Evans, with some of the highest rating comments even accusing the courts of framing him and stiching him up
- DM readers blamed the 16 girl in the recent case of a judge defending Stuart Kerner
and those are just a few examples....
Thankfully, it's just a demographic of people, and not representative of everyone in this country.
He probably knows that the rest of his life is in the hands of Mandy Smith. For the rest of Wyman's life she can have him arrested with just one quick visit to a police station.
A 15 year old might be sexually aware but dealing with the emotional side of life and the ramifications of big life choices is best left to adults.
The man sounds creepy and like a bad choice romantically but i'm not sure why anyone would want to read a book about this case.
To be fair this isn't as cut and dry as you make out.
I genuinely don't know, and I don't think anybody does. I wouldn't like to say one way or the other. I hope the jury got it right.. but it doesn't look great on paper.
There was a massive thread where clearly, quite a few people - possibly as many as 'half' think he might be innocent.
It is when you're accusing the justice system of having a massive conspiracy against Ched Evans. It's one thing to 'doubt' his guilt (although I think the fact he was convicted when rape convictions are very hard to get is a statement in itself) and another thing to think that the whole criminal justice system is trying to stitch Ched Evans up; and acting as if he's this big victim. There's even posts such as ''innocent until proven guilt'' - he's already been convicted and ''proven guilt''. Until there comes a day when the CCR grants him permission to appeal, and he gets to do this and is successful (whether it's in having the case quashed, a retrial etc....) he's not a victim.
I personally believe he might be a victim. Like I say, it's hard to make any judgment, I really do hope the jury got it right.. I have no desire to stand up for Ched as a person, I despise overpaid, cheating love-rat footballers.. but the facts as they have been reported would not seem to support a conviction.
Sure I don't think there was any sort of deliberate 'stitch-up', but juries do make mistakes.
I'm just making the point that it's not cut and dry as '100% guilty', in my mind.
Then again to turn that on it's head. How about a 16 year old who is now "legal", however they have not started periods yet.
Hmph... They probably would have been if he was an average Joe.
BIB: Personally, I don't see that. The evidence supplied pretty much fits in with the law regarding capacity to consent (and within the considering issues such as alcohol/drugs and how it effects that) and gaining informed consent as issues for a jury to consider. But then again, I don't want to derail this thread. And while juries do make mistakes, I'll doubt the juries' verdict if Evans team produces new information to put that verdict in doubt, or the verdict is overturned.
I agree. People like the OP diminish the word.
Legally he is a paedophile, according to the judge in his sentencing remarks. Simple as that. Had the judge not said that then I'd agree.
ages 0-11 Paedophile
ages 11-13 Hebephile
ages 13-15 Ephebophile (although 16-19 is also included in this term)
Paedophile has become the term that everyone uses because it is the most shocking. The most shocking cases do involve young children. The word is getting diminished and it is becoming a term of insult for single men who have done nothing wrong.
Not Forrest but some of the underclass of this county do use it if you as much as look at their child who is misbehaving. (I have seen this myself. Thankfully not on the recieving end though).
Then the judge is a poorly educated idiot who shouldn't be in the position that he is!
Another reason not to have faith in judicial system.. A judge handling a sex case doesn't know the definition of a paedophile.
As for this case it is the teacher / pupil relationship that is the crux of it. He was in a position of trust.
Watching news the other day and apparently some states in US have in place age differentials when considering prosecution. Five years being an example. So a 15 year old with a 21 year old. The latter would be prosecuted. Have to say this makes some sense. Mind you a 3 year differential would probably be better.
Indeed. I've said before, but I don't actually see why that should be specifically illegal if both were over the age of consent (which obviously in this case they weren't). Now I still think that it's unprofessional behaviour and that a teacher who sleeps with a pupil should be sacked and banned from teaching, but I don't think it should be a crime unless the pupil is underage.
It does make sense, yes, but it somewhat complicates the law. Not that the law is necessarily sensible now, given that it would be legal for me (aged nearly 29*) to have sex with a 16 year old, but if I took sexy pictures of her it would be child pornography (unless we were "married or living together in an enduring family relationship"^...)
*Not saying it wouldn't be frowned upon, but it would be legal.
^whatever that means. I don't know if that defence has ever been used.
Except "paedophile" isn't a legal term; he was wrong.
Obviously the guy did wrong- part of what you're being paid for is to protect pupils AND to resist temptation if it comes you're way. He knackered that totally. But he's not a paedophile. Well, I suppose he *might* be, but there's no reason to believe he is based on what we know.
No she wasn't. She was 15 not 5 and knew exactly what she was doing and what was happening.
As someone else stated, 15yr olds are a mass of hormones and are still far too young to realise the ramifications of what they are doing and the decisions that they make. She WAS a vulnerable child.