It is utterly ridiculous that he's not being investigated or brought in for questioning over this. However, if no one's making a complaint against him, that might be why the police aren't bothering with him for.
From Wikipedia.. On 2 June 1989, aged 52, Wyman married 18-year-old Mandy Smith whom he had been dating since she was 13 and he was 47 years old. According to Smith, their relationship was sexually consummated when she was 14 years old.
Definitely the illegal activities of a pedophile in plain sight of everyone.
But not in public interest to prosecute so best to forget about this one.
He is not a Paedophile though. Everyone uses this word for underage sex and it just cheapens the word. He was an Ephebophile. It's a different thing to young children. Glitter is a Paedophile as one of the girls was 8 years old.
Jeremy Forest is called a Paedophile again he is not one.
It's well-known that he courted Mandy Smith when he was 48 and she was 14. They were pictured together "dating" at the time and Mandy has stated publicly that he did indeed sleep with her while she was underage.
Seriously, even if Mandy Smith hasn't given a formal statement to the police, there must be more than enough evidence to get Wyman arrested and questioned about the relationship? Why the f*** has this guy got away with it? I remember they were pictured together on an awful lot of "holidays", so did the abuse take place in countries with a lower age of consent?
I don't read all the depressing garbage in the press - particularly when it comes to celebs.
Therefore, I'm going to formulate my response based on what I know so far - which is the info supplied by you in your opening post, along with the link.
First off, why do you conclude that there
must be more than enough evidence to get Wyman arrested and questioned
..??
Speaking out to friends or the media hardly constitutes as evidence of anything. What are the police supposed to do..? Ask their media department to pass along stories to them, assume they amount to evidence, and then arrest someone...?
I think the police have had a long time experiencing the fallout of leap without looking closer..potentially leaving them in the lurch for civil suits when/if at the end of it no actual evidence is presented to warrant an arrest based on what someone said. Moreover when the person is talking to the press, and you wonder what motivation lies behind that person (money perhaps..?) versuses the actual truth.
The cops on the back of that would nowadays think.."hmmmm..happy to talk publicly, but not to us by way of an allegation.."
They won't have skated past what's hapeened, and I assure you will be keeping an eye on it. BUT...Why leap without looking..? If the allegations are true then that's serious.
You ask why hasn't he been arrested already..?
So. They take the stories and act on them. There are a variety of ways that plays out..a bit like gambling..with the odds stacked against the police/CPS
No official complaint.
No 'evidence' as best I can tell from your/the links determinations.
No realistic way of proving otherwise as a result of the above two conclusions.
Little chance he would in interview (with the above in mind) suddenly say.."Yup it's true..Now prosecute me.."
You say they were pictured together 'dating.' What does that mean exactly in law ? A man is with an underage girl..photographed for the tabloids, and by virtue of this 'evidence' it proves what now..? I know of no such legislation in existence which can be interpreted to reach a conclusion regarding 'status.' In this case dating.
Warning markers..? Yes. Grounds to act..? Ummm..No.
From the article she is now a 40 year old woman, and a mother. Again - think of it from a police having to cover their arse point of view.
WHY wouldn't a middle aged mother come to them and make the allegation...? Why instead use the media to talk about it and make the allegations..? Would she support the police and provide a version of events to corroborate this..?
The police are sometimes expected to move mountains. A Daily Fail article like this is only proof that this opportunist thus far is interested in making every last cent she can from her all but deceased popularity. A fact that won't be lost with any would be investigating officer. So it's a case of come forward, speak up (no pay day from us) and let us investigate.
You sound like a typical Daily Fail reader. It looks possible, so let's extrapolate, get jowelly and condemn someone who thus far has not even been formally accused of an offence.
It's people like you OP who help muddy the water without ever knowing the actual facts - and your chosen tabloid link, of being the worst offenders in terms of trying to appear a legitimate news source, whilst acting/reporting on things for which no grounds to reach substantive conclusions actually exist.
The victim has herself stated publicly she was in a sexual relationship with Wyman at 14. Does she need to come forward to get an investigation started? Surely the police should go to her for a formal statement?
Why are you referring to her as "the victim", she doesn't seem to see herself in this capacity? She married him after all.
He is not a Paedophile though. Everyone uses this word for underage sex and it just cheapens the word. He was an Ephebophile. It's a different thing to young children. Glitter is a Paedophile as one of the girls was 8 years old.
Jeremy Forest is called a Paedophile again he is not one.
Any 47 year old who goes after a 13 year old child sexually is a pedo.
We don't need to justify them or give them a different name.
It's well-known that he courted Mandy Smith when he was 48 and she was 14. They were pictured together "dating" at the time and Mandy has stated publicly that he did indeed sleep with her while she was underage.
Seriously, even if Mandy Smith hasn't given a formal statement to the police, there must be more than enough evidence to get Wyman arrested and questioned about the relationship? Why the f*** has this guy got away with it? I remember they were pictured together on an awful lot of "holidays", so did the abuse take place in countries with a lower age of consent?
Why would it have been abuse? I always that although Mandy Smith was very very young, they just had a relationship? Totally consensual....
Why would it have been abuse? I always that although Mandy Smith was very very young, they just had a relationship? Totally consensual....
The argument is that she cannot consent as she is underage. However for me there is a world of difference in young girls underage actively going to nightclubs as Mandy and the girl in the Jimmy Page story. With the young girls groomed online by sexual predators in their own rooms.
The underage girls in nightclubs are looking to find sex and party with rock stars and lets not kid ourselves that it does not happen today it does. The online predators are a much more dangerous situation and there should be more effort put into this rather than trying to find if some old Rock star had sex with a girl who was under 16 at a party that she shouldnt have been at.
Why would it have been abuse? I always that although Mandy Smith was very very young, they just had a relationship? Totally consensual....
I am sure the 8 year old pictured in Cambodia walking hand in hand with Glitter "consented" as well. Probably the kid was happy with the coins and treats she was getting. Is that OK as well?
The point is that at 14 she was too young to give consent.
*head-desk
The point is she is 'claiming' this..NOT reporting this to the police..!!!
Anyone could allege something about anyone..BUT without credible proof, a complaint, evidence...hell ANYTHING viable to give credence to an allegation, then we must err on the side of innocence until those charged with the duty of proving guilt can at least begin the act of investigating..never mind charging, or eventual prosecution for something.
It's like some people are reverting to the days of the witch trials.
If he's guily - then come forward and report it formally, and get this thing rolling.
To any Mums here. IF you were 40 years old, had been abused and eventually felt strong enough to speak out..would it be :
1. As a parent, and thinking of your child, to the police..a legal team to represent you..?
OR
2. To the media for a spread that would have assured you a handsome payday ? And also in that article not seeming to care about the fact ?
I don't know if he's committed any offences. I do know, that irrespective, her behaviour thus far is reprehensible and does nothing to champion the cause of those who have been abused and try to deal with things as best as they can..invariably not via selling their allegations to the media.
At best, she is a money grabbing opportunist..no one can dispute that. At worst..? Well no need for me to detail the fine print.
The argument is that she cannot consent as she is underage. However for me there is a world of difference in young girls underage actively going to nightclubs as Mandy and the girl in the Jimmy Page story. With the young girls groomed online by sexual predators in their own rooms.
The underage girls in nightclubs are looking to find sex and party with rock stars and lets not kid ourselves that it does not happen today it does. The online predators are a much more dangerous situation and there should be more effort put into this rather than trying to find if some old Rock star had sex with a girl who was under 16 at a party that she shouldnt have been at.
This takes us down a dodgy road if we start saying that one 13-year-old (such as Mandy Smith) is "asking for it" while another is a victim. The blame lies 100% with the abuser.
Bill Wyman and Jimmy Page should both be investigated. The cases are public knowledge and the police do not need permission from the victim in order to proceed. In both cases the men used an immense abuse of power to groom teenage girls too emotionally incapable to process the situation. I read an interview with Mandy Smith a few years ago and it is clear that she has sustained lifelong, irrevocable damage from her experiences as a teenager.
Any 47 year old who goes after a 13 year old child sexually is a pedo.
We don't need to justify them or give them a different name.
Isn't it a bit strong calling him a "pedo". I thought they had had a consensual relationship, I mean, they married a few years later didn't they?
I remember reading about Mandy Smith years ago about what a wild child she used to be etc. So isn't this more about her hooking up with a totally unsuitable older man, as opposed to him being another Gary Glitter?
Isn't it a bit strong calling him a "pedo". I thought they had had a consensual relationship, I mean, they married a few years later didn't they?
I remember reading about Mandy Smith years ago about what a wild child she used to be etc. So isn't this more about her hooking up with a totally unsuitable older man, as opposed to him being another Gary Glitter?
OK OK its a bit strong calling him a pedo.
Let's just call him what he is.
He is or was a 47 year old man attracted to a 13 year old child.
Seems like most people on here think that's OK, well I think it is really weird.
I am sure the 8 year old pictured in Cambodia walking hand in hand with Glitter "consented" as well. Probably the kid was happy with the coins and treats she was getting. Is that OK as well?
There is a world of difference between an 8 year old cambodian child and Mandy Smith at 13/14.
Don't you remember she was supposed to be a wild child, going out to parties, clubs, drinking, obviously having sex with men etc.
I'm genuinely shocked at the posts I'm reading about! The posters who claim this is abuse, and he's a paeodophile!
Ok, for a middle aged man to go with someone so young, doesn't look great, but you can't put him in the same league as an actual paedophile!
Someone said she was emotionally incapable....I severely doubt that.
I imagine she went with Bill Wyman as it would have been the most shocking, rebellious thing for her to do at the time, as far the media were concerned.....
Bill Wyman and Jimmy Page should both be investigated. The cases are public knowledge and the police do not need permission from the victim in order to proceed. In both cases the men used an immense abuse of power to groom teenage girls too emotionally incapable to process the situation. I read an interview with Mandy Smith a few years ago and it is clear that she has sustained lifelong, irrevocable damage from her experiences as a teenager.
1. Yes they should be investigated. OP was asking why he (Wyman) hadn't been arrested. I have cleared this up, but the OP has put their blinkers on to my reply - an informed one at that.
2. Correct. The police do not need permission to proceed - with an *investigation.* And believe me they will be well aware of this, although unsure of where to investigate, or how to collate evidence.
3. Word of mouth, claims, newspaper stories are not sufficient to take action.
4. Mention the word 'underage' and everyone leaps up and down like a bunch of demented toads - stoked by media outlets such as The Daily Fail - and forget that we do in fact have a system here that is always open for people to assist with information, for victims to formally step forward..and a much developed system of support for the victims of abuse.
I'm not afraid to say this. This excuse for a 40 year old mother (again) is clearly looking for a payday over all else. Actions speak louder than words. Similarly so 'inaction'..ergo the media not the police...to whom she has thus far merrily it seems told all, and not a whiff of it sounding like a victim..rather lording it up for maximum press payday benefit.
As long as possible victims like this exploit society for financial gain, you are always going to undermine the precious resources there are to properly deal with child abuse offenders.
She is making the problem more difficult..not helping. The Fail/others are making it even more impossible as they stir the shit to sell papers.
The police cuts in budget/manpower are really very *boring* and no one wants to talk about that. Happy to create a shit storm, and a supposed victim to sell her last story for the last dollar.
Real victims are queuing up. This greedy mare should either put up..or shut up. A lot of non-celeb victims waiting for the dwindling resources to step up a gear and help them.
Comments
Where did I say that?
That is why the police are not investigating him.
It looks like Mandy's keeping him away from the police station.
He is not a Paedophile though. Everyone uses this word for underage sex and it just cheapens the word. He was an Ephebophile. It's a different thing to young children. Glitter is a Paedophile as one of the girls was 8 years old.
Jeremy Forest is called a Paedophile again he is not one.
I don't read all the depressing garbage in the press - particularly when it comes to celebs.
Therefore, I'm going to formulate my response based on what I know so far - which is the info supplied by you in your opening post, along with the link.
First off, why do you conclude that there ..??
Speaking out to friends or the media hardly constitutes as evidence of anything. What are the police supposed to do..? Ask their media department to pass along stories to them, assume they amount to evidence, and then arrest someone...?
I think the police have had a long time experiencing the fallout of leap without looking closer..potentially leaving them in the lurch for civil suits when/if at the end of it no actual evidence is presented to warrant an arrest based on what someone said. Moreover when the person is talking to the press, and you wonder what motivation lies behind that person (money perhaps..?) versuses the actual truth.
The cops on the back of that would nowadays think.."hmmmm..happy to talk publicly, but not to us by way of an allegation.."
They won't have skated past what's hapeened, and I assure you will be keeping an eye on it. BUT...Why leap without looking..? If the allegations are true then that's serious.
You ask why hasn't he been arrested already..?
So. They take the stories and act on them. There are a variety of ways that plays out..a bit like gambling..with the odds stacked against the police/CPS
No official complaint.
No 'evidence' as best I can tell from your/the links determinations.
No realistic way of proving otherwise as a result of the above two conclusions.
Little chance he would in interview (with the above in mind) suddenly say.."Yup it's true..Now prosecute me.."
You say they were pictured together 'dating.' What does that mean exactly in law ? A man is with an underage girl..photographed for the tabloids, and by virtue of this 'evidence' it proves what now..? I know of no such legislation in existence which can be interpreted to reach a conclusion regarding 'status.' In this case dating.
Warning markers..? Yes. Grounds to act..? Ummm..No.
From the article she is now a 40 year old woman, and a mother. Again - think of it from a police having to cover their arse point of view.
WHY wouldn't a middle aged mother come to them and make the allegation...? Why instead use the media to talk about it and make the allegations..? Would she support the police and provide a version of events to corroborate this..?
The police are sometimes expected to move mountains. A Daily Fail article like this is only proof that this opportunist thus far is interested in making every last cent she can from her all but deceased popularity. A fact that won't be lost with any would be investigating officer. So it's a case of come forward, speak up (no pay day from us) and let us investigate.
You sound like a typical Daily Fail reader. It looks possible, so let's extrapolate, get jowelly and condemn someone who thus far has not even been formally accused of an offence.
It's people like you OP who help muddy the water without ever knowing the actual facts - and your chosen tabloid link, of being the worst offenders in terms of trying to appear a legitimate news source, whilst acting/reporting on things for which no grounds to reach substantive conclusions actually exist.
Not really. He's BEEN to the police station.
Why are you referring to her as "the victim", she doesn't seem to see herself in this capacity? She married him after all.
Any 47 year old who goes after a 13 year old child sexually is a pedo.
We don't need to justify them or give them a different name.
The point is that at 14 she was too young to give consent.
The argument is that she cannot consent as she is underage. However for me there is a world of difference in young girls underage actively going to nightclubs as Mandy and the girl in the Jimmy Page story. With the young girls groomed online by sexual predators in their own rooms.
The underage girls in nightclubs are looking to find sex and party with rock stars and lets not kid ourselves that it does not happen today it does. The online predators are a much more dangerous situation and there should be more effort put into this rather than trying to find if some old Rock star had sex with a girl who was under 16 at a party that she shouldnt have been at.
*head-desk
The point is she is 'claiming' this..NOT reporting this to the police..!!!
Anyone could allege something about anyone..BUT without credible proof, a complaint, evidence...hell ANYTHING viable to give credence to an allegation, then we must err on the side of innocence until those charged with the duty of proving guilt can at least begin the act of investigating..never mind charging, or eventual prosecution for something.
It's like some people are reverting to the days of the witch trials.
If he's guily - then come forward and report it formally, and get this thing rolling.
To any Mums here. IF you were 40 years old, had been abused and eventually felt strong enough to speak out..would it be :
1. As a parent, and thinking of your child, to the police..a legal team to represent you..?
OR
2. To the media for a spread that would have assured you a handsome payday ? And also in that article not seeming to care about the fact ?
I don't know if he's committed any offences. I do know, that irrespective, her behaviour thus far is reprehensible and does nothing to champion the cause of those who have been abused and try to deal with things as best as they can..invariably not via selling their allegations to the media.
At best, she is a money grabbing opportunist..no one can dispute that. At worst..? Well no need for me to detail the fine print.
Paedophiles are usually attracted to pre-pubescent children, which Mandy Smith was not, whatever your thoughts are about it.
I don't make excuses for pedos.
How is "using the right word" in any way "making excuses"?
I remember reading about Mandy Smith years ago about what a wild child she used to be etc. So isn't this more about her hooking up with a totally unsuitable older man, as opposed to him being another Gary Glitter?
Let's just call him what he is.
He is or was a 47 year old man attracted to a 13 year old child.
Seems like most people on here think that's OK, well I think it is really weird.
There is a world of difference between an 8 year old cambodian child and Mandy Smith at 13/14.
Don't you remember she was supposed to be a wild child, going out to parties, clubs, drinking, obviously having sex with men etc.
I'm genuinely shocked at the posts I'm reading about! The posters who claim this is abuse, and he's a paeodophile!
Ok, for a middle aged man to go with someone so young, doesn't look great, but you can't put him in the same league as an actual paedophile!
Someone said she was emotionally incapable....I severely doubt that.
I imagine she went with Bill Wyman as it would have been the most shocking, rebellious thing for her to do at the time, as far the media were concerned.....
I think you have weird issues with correct use of language but you think it's okay. Woo, welcome to the world.
1. Yes they should be investigated. OP was asking why he (Wyman) hadn't been arrested. I have cleared this up, but the OP has put their blinkers on to my reply - an informed one at that.
2. Correct. The police do not need permission to proceed - with an *investigation.* And believe me they will be well aware of this, although unsure of where to investigate, or how to collate evidence.
3. Word of mouth, claims, newspaper stories are not sufficient to take action.
4. Mention the word 'underage' and everyone leaps up and down like a bunch of demented toads - stoked by media outlets such as The Daily Fail - and forget that we do in fact have a system here that is always open for people to assist with information, for victims to formally step forward..and a much developed system of support for the victims of abuse.
I'm not afraid to say this. This excuse for a 40 year old mother (again) is clearly looking for a payday over all else. Actions speak louder than words. Similarly so 'inaction'..ergo the media not the police...to whom she has thus far merrily it seems told all, and not a whiff of it sounding like a victim..rather lording it up for maximum press payday benefit.
As long as possible victims like this exploit society for financial gain, you are always going to undermine the precious resources there are to properly deal with child abuse offenders.
She is making the problem more difficult..not helping. The Fail/others are making it even more impossible as they stir the shit to sell papers.
The police cuts in budget/manpower are really very *boring* and no one wants to talk about that. Happy to create a shit storm, and a supposed victim to sell her last story for the last dollar.
Real victims are queuing up. This greedy mare should either put up..or shut up. A lot of non-celeb victims waiting for the dwindling resources to step up a gear and help them.
What a bizarre post.
I don't have a clue what you are trying to say there.
Thank you for welcoming me to the world.