Why isn't Bill Wyman in jail with Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, etc?

Gusto Brunt · 18/03/15 - 18:27

Found this article about Wyman 'dating' a 13 year old girl then marrying her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

Seems there's one law for Gary Glitter, another for Bill Wyman.

Nobby Burton · 18/03/15 - 18:40

Rightly or wrongly, the fact that it was consensual plays a big part in this. If a woman walks into a police station and says "a man had sex with me when i was 14, although i did consent" the chances of it being pursued are very slim

Nobby Burton · 18/03/15 - 18:46

If it was a consensual act (as much as it can be when one is underage), and neither the girl nor her parents objected to it, the police aren't going to create extra work for themselves. They would need to show that it was in the best interests of the public to pursue it, which is unlikely unless there is serious evidence to suggest the guy is a paedophile or recurring sex offender

grimtales1 · 18/03/15 - 19:07

Even it was consensual I think just the idea sounds dodgy, but if neither the girl or her parents objected to it at the time, and she consented why persue it now?
If she was 13 then while she's underage, it doesnt make him a 'paedo' (Harris' daughters friend was 13 too)

haphash · 18/03/15 - 19:11

Wyman obviously did do some questionable things and got away with it. I guess the police are not going to pursue him unless someone comes forward and says that he forced himself on them when they were underage. If they were willing participants there's not much the police can do about it now.

[Deleted User] · 18/03/15 - 19:49

was 30 years ago, it would be handled differently these days fortunately

Isambard Brunel · 18/03/15 - 20:03

It's not in the public interest to pursue Wyman at this stage. No one has ever made a complaint against him, quite the opposite.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2049873

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1739156

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1194578

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1762384

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1246847

Etc.

Honestweegie wrote: »

was 30 years ago, it would be handled differently these days fortunately

You sure?

mklass · 18/03/15 - 20:08

Mandys mum married Bill son so i don't think it is likely that she will come back now and make any complaints about him!.......

dorydaryl · 18/03/15 - 20:14

Mandy was very screwed up throughout and following that relationship. I remember it all very well and have referred to it on here before. To me it was the combination of some very dodgy parenting (I don't think her dad was around much when she was growing up and her mum seemed to very much encourage her precocious lifestyle) and her availability to a predatory man who liked them young. Mandy Smith's health was appalling for years after.

Attitudes to that kind of relationship were indeed different back then so, unsavoury as it all was (and I have no time for Bill Wyman and his predilections), I don't know what could be done, now, if Mandy Smith hasn't wanted to take it further.

Joe_Totale · 18/03/15 - 20:28

"If I played guitar I'd be Jimmy Page
The girlie's I like are underage (Check it!)"

nitenurse · 18/03/15 - 21:49

I remember the press frenzy around that relationship. Can't be bothered to google but I seem to remember the rest of the band weren't happy with it either.

Her Mother was all for it and Mandy was billed (pardon the pun) as a wildchild.

I seem to remember the divorce settlement was generous and she only started commenting on her health years later.

The 80s were a different world and time. Back then people still left school at 15-16, making them working adults. I never understood why her mother wasn't prosecuted for at least, truancy!

zx50 · 18/03/15 - 22:04

I think there's been very questionable behaviour from quite a few singers in the past. I don't know why on earth Priscilla's parents allowed her to start dating Elvis back then when she was underage.

haphash · 18/03/15 - 22:54

zx50 wrote: »

I think there's been very questionable behaviour from quite a few singers in the past. I don't know why on earth Priscilla's parents allowed her to start dating Elvis back then when she was underage.

Agreed but Elvis and Wyman were in relationships with these girls and there was at least affection involved. This is completely different from Saville groping and abusing people who did not want his attention.

Flowes · 18/03/15 - 23:07

Gusto Brunt wrote: »

Found this article about Wyman 'dating' a 13 year old girl then marrying her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

Seems there's one law for Gary Glitter, another for Bill Wyman.

I don't think Gary Glitter and Bill Wyman's situations are at all similar. Wyman was in a relationship and went on to marry the girl there haven't been any accusations against him.

Glitter is a completely different species, and a serial offender.

d'@ve · 18/03/15 - 23:46

haphash wrote: »

Agreed but Elvis and Wyman were in relationships with these girls and there was at least affection involved. This is completely different from Saville groping and abusing people who did not want his attention.

The only difference is of degree. 'Doing a Wyman' in this Country if prosecuted and convicted could get you 5 to 10 years these days (i.e. more than the schoolteacher Forrest who groomed a 'willing' 14 y/o and screwed her at 15) - but Savile would probably end up inside for life if he could be prosecuted and was convicted of 10% of what he's thought to have done, which was of course far worse.

Cronker · 19/03/15 - 00:15

The idea that it's all ok because it was all consensual and everyone was good with it is flat out wrong.
Legally, regardless of what anyone says, a person under the age of consent cannot give consent.

Flowes · 19/03/15 - 01:58

Cronker wrote: »

The idea that it's all ok because it was all consensual and everyone was good with it is flat out wrong.
Legally, regardless of what anyone says, a person under the age of consent cannot give consent.

I don't think anyone is saying it is ok but to compare Wyman to the likes of Glitter, Hall, Harris etc is also wrong, The behaviours are entirely different.

donna255 · 19/03/15 - 09:10

I have a memory of Mandy Smith saying in a newspaper interview the police did come and want to interview her. Both she and her mother refused to talk to them so nothing was done. Now this was later when she said all this and married to a footballer.

So as far as the police were concerned it was heresay that she was only 13 or 14 and not 16 at the time.

Heston Veston · 19/03/15 - 09:12

Gusto Brunt wrote: »

Found this article about Wyman 'dating' a 13 year old girl then marrying her.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

Seems there's one law for Gary Glitter, another for Bill Wyman.

Yawn, here we go again. Where's the rolleyes emoticon when you need it?

pfgpowell · 19/03/15 - 09:22

Nobby Burton wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, the fact that it was consensual plays a big part in this. If a woman walks into a police station and says "a man had sex with me when i was 14, although i did consent" the chances of it being pursued are very slim

Don't know about that. The whole trouble with the Rotherham and Rochdale cases was that a lot of the young teens girls were naive enough to think those raping them were 'their boyfriends'. And anyway, the age of consent it 16, so sex before 16 cannot by definition be consensual.

The point here would be whether or not Wyman and the girl actually had sex, I suspect they didn't or else the police would have acted (I like to think, but give the feet of clays the have demonstrated over the years, one does wonder.

But to be fair to the police - necessary given the job they have to do and how lucky we are in Britain with the police we have compared to many other countries despite recently publicised cock-ups - we never get to hear about the good work they do, just the cock-ups. In my limited dealings with the police they have never given me the impression of being incompetent.

stvn758 · 19/03/15 - 09:53

I would imagine that's why he married her, I was under the impression they can't force a wife to testify against her husband can they, the fact they were married may throw a spanner in the works.

Ben_Fisher1 · 19/03/15 - 10:31

So as long as it is consensual a middle aged guy can diddle a 13 year old?:(

There seems a lot of hypocrisy around this kind of thing imo. Ok it's not like Glitter or Harris etc BUT it is still very creepy and the girl was underage. He was in his 40s!!
What is even more creepy is that people always try to use the fact that Mandy was sexually precoucious, as if that is a mitigating circumstance. 'Oh well, she was hot and coming on to me so.....you know. Yes I know she was 13 but....' why bother having an age of consent at all if some rich folk can get away with it like this. cause I can promise you that ordinary people wouldn't so easily. It is like that other creep Polanski, you get all the top Hollywood actors supporting him, and making excuses for him, because the girl was up for it, so that makes it ok! Sorry what???>:(

Glawster2002 · 19/03/15 - 10:41

Ben_Fisher1 wrote: »

So as long as it is consensual a middle aged guy can diddle a 13 year old?:(

There seems a lot of hypocrisy around this kind of thing imo. Ok it's not like Glitter or Harris etc BUT it is still very creepy and the girl was underage. He was in his 40s!!
What is even more creepy is that people always try to use the fact that Mandy was sexually precoucious, as if that is a mitigating circumstance. 'Oh well, she was hot and coming on to me so.....you know. Yes I know she was 13 but....' why bother having an age of consent at all if some rich folk can get away with it like this. cause I can promise you that ordinary people wouldn't so easily. It is like that other creep Polanski, you get all the top Hollywood actors supporting him, and making excuses for him, because the girl was up for it, so that makes it ok! Sorry what???>:(

As I have already said, whre is the evidence anything did happen?

Unless someone makes a complaint, or there is sufficuent evidence that such a relationship took place how are the police supposed to do anything?

That isn't condoning what is said to have happened at all, it is simply the stark reality of the situation.

grimtales1 · 19/03/15 - 11:19

pfgpowell wrote: »

If he had sex. That is the all-important detail.

It doesnt make him a paedophile though whether they had sex or not. Specifically paedophiles are attracted to children under the age of 13/before puberty.

Cricketblade · 19/03/15 - 11:31

It's strange how he and Pete Townshend get an easier ride than some.

Resonance · 19/03/15 - 11:32

stvn758 wrote: »

I would imagine that's why he married her, I was under the impression they can't force a wife to testify against her husband can they, the fact they were married may throw a spanner in the works.

They can still volunteer to testify though, but yeah if she didn't want to she wouldn't have to.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Why isn't Bill Wyman in jail with Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, etc?

Comments