The idea of having sex with a 13 year old is utterly sick to me, still it hasn't done Bill Wyman's reputation any harm has it?
Speaking of which, isn't it funny how we choose to judge people and how flexible our morality can sometimes be?
World famous rock star sleeps with 13 year old, gets a pat on the back, enhances his outlandish rock star reputation. Teacher sleeps with 15 year old and he's a (tabloid headline alert) SICKKKKK PEEEEEEDO.
So I'd be genuinely interested to know, all you people who think this man deserved his 5 year sentence, how many years behind bars would you have given Bill Wyman?
Not by me they haven't, I find it gross whoever does it.
But if you think its sick and abhorrent to have sex with a 13 year old, why the Romeo and Juliette statement at me being shocked at people feeling sorry for the guy?
So he gets a sentence not far off 10 times as long as even the notoriously punatative US system dispenses.
Seems to me a high profile "political" sentence.
How long were people getting for this sort of thing say 5 or 10 years ago?
A married California teacher who had a year-long affair with a 15-year-old student after he helped out with chores at her home has been locked up for five months.
He admitted having sex with the Livingston High School agriculture teacher around 50 times between September 2010 and August 2011.
I'm not the one confusing anything. it is certain posters on here who confuse a person BELOW puberty with a person PAST puberty.
Say it with me slowly, one is a child, the other is an adolescent.
For some reason I truly cannot fathom, the British people seem utterly incapable of understanding that a MINOR is not the same thing as a CHILD.
A minor is a person under the age of 16, a child is a person under the age of puberty.
'Minor' is a legal term, 'Child' is a biological term.
This ain't quantum physics FFS.
The legal term is child. The charge was sexual activity with a child. He pleaded guilty. Think you might be confusing American TV shows with real life in the UK
This topic never ceases to amaze (or should I say shock) me.
30 year old teacher grooms and has sex with a 14 year old girl and then absconded with her as a 15 year old girl and people somehow sympathise and feel sorry for him.
I can't believe people are seriously hoping she holds out for him, its as if people see this as a romantic love story.
Interesting debate on this on the radio today Iain Dale on LBC has read of several cases of women teachers having sex with male pupils and not sent to jail.
He is arguing that women get treated differently to men when it comes to crimes like this.
This crime was serious and deserved jail,but the debate Iain Dale is having on LBC 97.3 is a very good one.
Interesting debate on this on the radio today Iain Dale on LBC has read of several cases of women teachers having sex with male pupils and not sent to jail.
He is arguing that women get treated differntly to men when it comes to crimes like this.
This crime was serious and deserved jail,but the deabte Iain Dale is having on LBC 97.3 is a very good one.
Very good point.
And I'm still waiting for people to explain why Bill Wyman didn't get jailed (which he certainly should have).
I saw Wyman on BBC breakfast last month, happily chatting away about his metal detector. The presenters didn't look at him with repulsion for being a sexual predator.
Like I said, our morality is bizarrely flexible sometimes.
I remember a case of an 18 year old man who was given a suspended sentence for having sex with a 13 year old girl. It was accepted by everyone associated with the case that she was the one who initiated the sexual contact and who took advantage of him, yet he was still branded a paedophile and demonised to a similar level to Jeremy Forrest purely for no other reason than she was 13.
So i think it does prove that in some situations - obviously not all - that being underage doesn't automatically make you a helpless child with no power of rational thought.
And I'm still waiting for people to explain why Bill Wyman didn't get jailed (which he certainly should have).
I saw Wyman on BBC breakfast last month, happily chatting away about his metal detector. The presenters didn't look at him with repulsion for being a sexual predator.
Like I said, our morality is bizarrely flexible sometimes.
He wasn't jailed because at that time in history it was considered fair game for rock stars to be naughty boys and that their groupies were lucky little things.
I imagine people don't look at him with repulsion because its been forgotten about or maybe they are from the same era, or that they see no point in bringing it up now?
Don't know why and its not relevant really, just because someone gets away with it does not mean others should be able too as well.
But of course, times have changed since then, thankfully, so I'm not sure what the point is.
From what I have read, the girl (according to a french hotelier) went to France willingly and happily with her lover. She wasn't groomed, drugged or coerced and he gets labelled a paedophile? There is something not right with the law of this country.
He wasn't jailed because at that time in history it was considered fair game for rock stars to be naughty boys and that their groupies were lucky little things.
I imagine people don't look at him with repulsion because its been forgotten about or maybe they are from the same era, or that they see no point in bringing it up now?
Don't know why and its not relevant really, just because someone gets away with it does not mean others should be able too as well.
But of course, times have changed since then, thankfully, so I'm not sure what the point is.
You're not sure what the point is?
Would you like me to have it tattooed on my forehead?
Man A screws 13 year old = not a paedophile.
Man B screws 15 year old = he's sick, depraved pedo scum who should be locked up until the Sun explodes in 21 million years.
On the Wright stuff this morning they asked who was more evil, Forrest or the painter who abused six year old girls.
So if we accept that the painter is more evil, does this mean that Bill Wyman has to slot somewhere in between them?
My point is about the flexibility of social morality and how and why we make the value judgements that we do, and why we sometimes make judgements that cannot stand up to rational scrutiny.
And I'm still waiting for people to explain why Bill Wyman didn't get jailed (which he certainly should have).
I saw Wyman on BBC breakfast last month, happily chatting away about his metal detector. The presenters didn't look at him with repulsion for being a sexual predator.
Like I said, our morality is bizarrely flexible sometimes.
Wyman wasn't jailed because no-one involved complained to the police. If Mandy refused to cooperate and denied anything happened to protect him then I don't think anything could have been done. That is what grooming is all about. Of course, years later, Mandy can now see how she was manipulated. Also, I remember at the time there was a huge uproar and that's why he ended up marrying her.
I think he got off lightly. 4.5 years for abusing a child.
I don't, its very harsh what he got, its all wrong, he only done one girl, who was 15, another bloke, done umpteen girls, some a lot younger, for well over a decade, and only got 15 months, so wheres the justice, Forrest only deserved about a week maximum, which as i said, hed have already served, so should have been allowed to walk free today.
Theres also that guy who spray painted a wall, he got 3 1/2 years for that, terrible, should have only got about 10 secs tbh, bet hes wishing hed only sexually abused a fair few kids now for about 10-15 years instead.
Wyman wasn't jailed because no-one involved complained to the police. If Mandy refused to cooperate and denied anything happened to protect him then I don't think anything could have been done. That is what grooming is all about. Of course, years later, Mandy can now see how she was manipulated. Also, I remember at the time there was a huge uproar and that's why he ended up marrying her.
If Wyman wasn't prosecuted because no one complained, that much I can understand. What I cannot understand is why Wyman is still being treated as a respectable human being by the very same national media that is demonizing another man for having sex with a 15 year old.
From what I have read, the girl (according to a french hotelier) went to France willingly and happily with her lover. She wasn't groomed, drugged or coerced and he gets labelled a paedophile? There is something not right with the law of this country.
I feel sorry for his wife, though.
You are looking at it from the latter stages. Grooming takes time and we know something was going on when she was 14, so it could have started even earlier. She was vulnerable too which is a classic sign of being chosen to be groomed.
From what I have read, the girl (according to a french hotelier) went to France willingly and happily with her lover. She wasn't groomed, drugged or coerced and he gets labelled a paedophile? There is something not right with the law of this country.
I feel sorry for his wife, though.
I mentioned that few posts back the humiliation must be awful.:mad:
She was vulnerable too which is a classic sign of being chosen to be groomed.
I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here due to the questionable grammar, but it is conceivable that her "vulnerability" (whatever that means; I'm sure we're all vulnerable in some way or another) was actually entirely coincidental. If that's the best evidence you have that grooming was taking place, then it's pretty weak.
Comments
He fibs if he is fishing because he knows I think its a boring pastime.
Chris Moyles got in trouble for saying something to a similar effect on Radio 1 though.
No thanks
Not by me they haven't, I find it gross whoever does it.
But if you think its sick and abhorrent to have sex with a 13 year old, why the Romeo and Juliette statement at me being shocked at people feeling sorry for the guy?
Which looked like a justification to me.
Seems to me a high profile "political" sentence.
How long were people getting for this sort of thing say 5 or 10 years ago?
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/calif-teacher-jailed-year-long-relationship-15-year-old-article-1.1300146#ixzz2WrodZCUG
The legal term is child. The charge was sexual activity with a child. He pleaded guilty. Think you might be confusing American TV shows with real life in the UK
You & me both
Child abduction carries a maximum penalty of 7 years in the UK
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/child_abduction/
Sexual activity with a child, carries a maximum sentence of 14 years
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s9_sexual_activity_with_a_child/
More commonly:
Grooming carries a maximum sentence of 10 years:
More commonly:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s15_grooming/
And he abused his position of trust as a teacher, and his duty of care as a teacher.
And in some countries you can have sex with a 7 year old provided you marry her.
So I don't think what other countries do or don't do is/should be particularly relevant to what we do.
He is arguing that women get treated differently to men when it comes to crimes like this.
This crime was serious and deserved jail,but the debate Iain Dale is having on LBC 97.3 is a very good one.
It does seem like that sometimes.
And if he was a hunky, hot specimen of a man?
Very good point.
And I'm still waiting for people to explain why Bill Wyman didn't get jailed (which he certainly should have).
I saw Wyman on BBC breakfast last month, happily chatting away about his metal detector. The presenters didn't look at him with repulsion for being a sexual predator.
Like I said, our morality is bizarrely flexible sometimes.
So i think it does prove that in some situations - obviously not all - that being underage doesn't automatically make you a helpless child with no power of rational thought.
Obviously the usual DS disclaimers apply ..
He wasn't jailed because at that time in history it was considered fair game for rock stars to be naughty boys and that their groupies were lucky little things.
I imagine people don't look at him with repulsion because its been forgotten about or maybe they are from the same era, or that they see no point in bringing it up now?
Don't know why and its not relevant really, just because someone gets away with it does not mean others should be able too as well.
But of course, times have changed since then, thankfully, so I'm not sure what the point is.
I feel sorry for his wife, though.
You're not sure what the point is?
Would you like me to have it tattooed on my forehead?
Man A screws 13 year old = not a paedophile.
Man B screws 15 year old = he's sick, depraved pedo scum who should be locked up until the Sun explodes in 21 million years.
On the Wright stuff this morning they asked who was more evil, Forrest or the painter who abused six year old girls.
So if we accept that the painter is more evil, does this mean that Bill Wyman has to slot somewhere in between them?
My point is about the flexibility of social morality and how and why we make the value judgements that we do, and why we sometimes make judgements that cannot stand up to rational scrutiny.
Wyman wasn't jailed because no-one involved complained to the police. If Mandy refused to cooperate and denied anything happened to protect him then I don't think anything could have been done. That is what grooming is all about. Of course, years later, Mandy can now see how she was manipulated. Also, I remember at the time there was a huge uproar and that's why he ended up marrying her.
I don't, its very harsh what he got, its all wrong, he only done one girl, who was 15, another bloke, done umpteen girls, some a lot younger, for well over a decade, and only got 15 months, so wheres the justice, Forrest only deserved about a week maximum, which as i said, hed have already served, so should have been allowed to walk free today.
Theres also that guy who spray painted a wall, he got 3 1/2 years for that, terrible, should have only got about 10 secs tbh, bet hes wishing hed only sexually abused a fair few kids now for about 10-15 years instead.
If Wyman wasn't prosecuted because no one complained, that much I can understand. What I cannot understand is why Wyman is still being treated as a respectable human being by the very same national media that is demonizing another man for having sex with a 15 year old.
Care to enlighten me?
Not in the least just a passing comment from myself
You are looking at it from the latter stages. Grooming takes time and we know something was going on when she was 14, so it could have started even earlier. She was vulnerable too which is a classic sign of being chosen to be groomed.
I mentioned that few posts back the humiliation must be awful.:mad: