We're having this convo on the General Discussions thread.
A lawyer can argue he's not been 'groomed' because he was legal; young but within the law and has simply allowed himself to get into a potentially unsatisfactory (for him) relationship. The article claims his 'troubles worsened' after he met Mr X without saying what these prior 'troubles' were, or it's bad wording on the DM's part.
We also only have one side of the story thus far. I have no love for this Mr X. if this indeed happened as it did but what if it's all or part fabricated? One of the tweets makes the young subject look besotted.
Not illegal, and the Met are saying it was consensual. The press are indeed homophobic on this one, but that is one huge age disparity.
It is, but it doesn't stop the DM running lots of articles almost celebrating the age disparity of a certain LA-based teenage stilletto queen and her decades older actor husband. (Because their regularly-papped antics round town are good for business!)
Though I'll give the DM some credit, they do jump on the cases of literally every female teacher who seduces male students as well. It's just whatever gets a reaction at DM. - they know their core audience. I try not to use it but do check in now and then.
The idea that "grooming" can only occur if the victim is under the age of consent is ridiculous
There's child grooming and then there's just normal, taking advantage of someone grooming
Yes but it is illegal to groom someone under age. Buying gifts and treating people nicely, taking them on holidays 'could' be seen as grooming in that case.
Difference? Under age it is illegal, Overage it is 'making a good impression'
Totally agree. By the end of the article I was thinking ooh I wonder who that is (I hope it is not who I eventually thought of as my only reason was 'he's openly gay' which seems rather unjust). But that's what the Mail have done by publishing this story, create a little witchhunt and the whole case sounds rather more complex than the initial headlines. Based on the information reported it sounds like the right thing for the judge to protect the identity of the comedian but I am sure the rumours will be all over twitter shortly.
The Mail is not 'not publishing the comic's name' in order to make it more spicy. It is not publishing the comic's name for the very same reasons that the name wasn't revealed at the inquest, and also because they are probably playing safe on lawyers' advice. Essentially, this is a sad case of a chap on the brink who had probably not yet come to terms with his probable sexuality. In that sense the comic is peripheral. I do know who it is because I asked someone who would definitely know, and it is someone who has never made a secret of his sexuality and could not be accused of hypocrisy. And it is not one of the three or four names which might come to mind.
If someone is offering you work and gifts and expecting sexual favours in response I'd say that's close to what grooming is. There doesn't seem to be a mutual relationship and he told his sisters he was worried something wrong was going on. Being 17/18 doesn't mean you can't feel pressured into doing things, especially if it's someone influential like a celebrity.
The stuff about groups of men stripping him off and touching him sounds completely messed up too. Again that doesn't sound like a normal relationship between him and the comedian.
At my advanced age, I remember just how unsure you can be at 17/18. Confident one minute, unsure the next. My heart goes out to this guy's family.
The Mail is not 'not publishing the comic's name' in order to make it more spicy. It is not publishing the comic's name for the very same reasons that the name wasn't revealed at the inquest, and also because they are probably playing safe on lawyers' advice. Essentially, this is a sad case of a chap on the brink who had probably not yet come to terms with his probable sexuality. In that sense the comic is peripheral. I do know who it is because I asked someone who would definitely know, and it is someone who has never made a secret of his sexuality and could not be accused of hypocrisy. And it is not one of the three or four names which might come to mind.
Yes it seems to be common knowledge all over the internet now. A tragic case all round but sadly drugs can & often do make people take leave of their senses and do stupid things that they later regret and wouldn't dream of doing in a normal frame of mind.
And as there will be no trial since technically nothing was illegal then his career is over as he can't be found not guilty....Sounds fair
I am not judging him, only on the fact that he is associated with an unsavoury story and his career on TV has stunk so far.
Not really going to have TV people clambering over themselves to have him on is it ?
I am not judging him, only on the fact that he is associated with an unsavoury story and his career on TV has stunk so far.
Not really going to have TV people clambering over themselves to have him on is it ?
Sorry yes my post wasn't meant as a dig at you, Just the fact that certain people will think like that and what can the guy do? Nothing without outing himself
Looks like the Mail has succeeded in its purpose. Postings on here including "oooh didn't know he was gay" or "ooh grooming". Are you seriously trying to say a 17 year old today is nieve? Anyway, in Scotland, he'd be of the age of consent.
Looks like the Mail has succeeded in its purpose. Postings on here including "oooh didn't know he was gay" or "ooh grooming". Are you seriously trying to say a 17 year old today is nieve? Anyway, in Scotland, he'd be of the age of consent.
Are you seriously trying to say a 17 year old today is nieve?
Erm, yes?
Do you seriously believe that everyone matures equally and all 17 year olds are mature and insusceptible to being taken advantage of?
I'm nearly 30 and i could probably be convinced by a famous celebrity to do loads of things i wouldn't normally do simply because i'd be so starstruck (though not by the celebrity in question, to be fair. Never did like him)
Do you seriously believe that everyone matures equally and all 17 year olds are mature and insusceptible to being taken advantage of?
I'm nearly 30 and i could probably be convinced by a famous celebrity to do loads of things i wouldn't normally do simply because i'd be so starstruck (though not by the celebrity in question, to be fair. Never did like him)
This is ridiculous. The law is the law, never mind the rate at which people mature!
Why are people trying so damned hard to turn this into a 'grooming' case when the subject was an adult - by law. He chose to take part (he went to parties -plural-clearly knowing what was going on there). However disgusted you feel with the person alleged to be involved (and I find the drugs and party deets unpleasant too), it is at present only word against word. There's no evidence of rape, coersion or anything else that wasn't consented to.
Let's get back to this when/if there's concrete evidence for a crime because at present there just isn't.
I also find those who defend relationships between teenagers and those in their 40's or older based on the "it's legal so it's fine" rationale to be utterly revolting individuals
Comments
A lawyer can argue he's not been 'groomed' because he was legal; young but within the law and has simply allowed himself to get into a potentially unsatisfactory (for him) relationship. The article claims his 'troubles worsened' after he met Mr X without saying what these prior 'troubles' were, or it's bad wording on the DM's part.
We also only have one side of the story thus far. I have no love for this Mr X. if this indeed happened as it did but what if it's all or part fabricated? One of the tweets makes the young subject look besotted.
It is, but it doesn't stop the DM running lots of articles almost celebrating the age disparity of a certain LA-based teenage stilletto queen and her decades older actor husband. (Because their regularly-papped antics round town are good for business!)
Though I'll give the DM some credit, they do jump on the cases of literally every female teacher who seduces male students as well. It's just whatever gets a reaction at DM. - they know their core audience. I try not to use it but do check in now and then.
There's child grooming and then there's just normal, taking advantage of someone grooming
Yes but it is illegal to groom someone under age. Buying gifts and treating people nicely, taking them on holidays 'could' be seen as grooming in that case.
Difference? Under age it is illegal, Overage it is 'making a good impression'
The Mail is not 'not publishing the comic's name' in order to make it more spicy. It is not publishing the comic's name for the very same reasons that the name wasn't revealed at the inquest, and also because they are probably playing safe on lawyers' advice. Essentially, this is a sad case of a chap on the brink who had probably not yet come to terms with his probable sexuality. In that sense the comic is peripheral. I do know who it is because I asked someone who would definitely know, and it is someone who has never made a secret of his sexuality and could not be accused of hypocrisy. And it is not one of the three or four names which might come to mind.
At my advanced age, I remember just how unsure you can be at 17/18. Confident one minute, unsure the next. My heart goes out to this guy's family.
Yes it seems to be common knowledge all over the internet now. A tragic case all round but sadly drugs can & often do make people take leave of their senses and do stupid things that they later regret and wouldn't dream of doing in a normal frame of mind.
I read he was gay, didn't realise he was a comedian. Won't be on TV any time soon if its him.
And as there will be no trial since technically nothing was illegal then his career is over as he can't be found not guilty....Sounds fair
I am not judging him, only on the fact that he is associated with an unsavoury story and his career on TV has stunk so far.
Not really going to have TV people clambering over themselves to have him on is it ?
Sorry yes my post wasn't meant as a dig at you, Just the fact that certain people will think like that and what can the guy do? Nothing without outing himself
I haven't seen him on TV in a while, now that I think about it.
He was on The Wright Stuff not too long ago, last month maybe.
That seems to be the only place he appears on TV.
I wonder if Matthew Wright will have anything to say - like that Ulrika Jhonsson incident?
And here in the UK too
And look how that turned out.
Ah, thanks. I don't normally watch that or the Wright Stuff. I've only known him from the usual panel shows and the Apollo.
Erm, yes?
Do you seriously believe that everyone matures equally and all 17 year olds are mature and insusceptible to being taken advantage of?
I'm nearly 30 and i could probably be convinced by a famous celebrity to do loads of things i wouldn't normally do simply because i'd be so starstruck (though not by the celebrity in question, to be fair. Never did like him)
This is ridiculous. The law is the law, never mind the rate at which people mature!
Why are people trying so damned hard to turn this into a 'grooming' case when the subject was an adult - by law. He chose to take part (he went to parties -plural-clearly knowing what was going on there). However disgusted you feel with the person alleged to be involved (and I find the drugs and party deets unpleasant too), it is at present only word against word. There's no evidence of rape, coersion or anything else that wasn't consented to.
Let's get back to this when/if there's concrete evidence for a crime because at present there just isn't.
People are claiming that the word "grooming" is no longer relevant if the person is over the legal age of consent.
Anyone of any age can be 'groomed' to do things - there are weak minded people of 50 who could be groomed easier than a 13 year old