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
I agree that it being legal doesn't stop it being gross and morally dubious.
Skeevey as it comes and the boy was emotionally manipulated but it, if consented, was legal. It's unfortunately impossible to tell now because the kid isn't here to defend himself. The age difference is fairly creepy but if it's two consenting people there's little can be done. It doesn't mean the emotional manipulation was right of course.
How do we check who is naive enough to be groomed then. Should we test people and say ok you could be groomed so you can't date a 30 plus year old. An 18 year old could groom a 17 year old who naive....where do we stop. The law is there for a reason. Once you are legal you are legal....Yes this gets abused but where do we stop?
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)
I won't comment on this particular case, but in reference to the above, I think it is more than being 'starstruck' it is a lot to do with trust.
I think there are a lot of people that will trust a celebrity because they see them on TV and think they know them and therefore assign them a trust status that you would not do with a stranger you had just met.
And I think this is more the case with an 18 year old - even if it is legal, it doesn't stop the 18 year old being naive - even today, there is still a lot to learn when you are only 18.
Having said that, I really do think the undertone that the mail are going for here is wrong. We don't know both sides, we don;t kow what parts are true, everything was totally legal & consensual and to say it was grooming is ( to my definition of the word) wrong.
When 40 year old men buy presents etc for 18 year old girls, people do pull face and think it a bit creepy, but no-one actually calls it grooming
The boy could have said no. Surely everyone knows about dirty old men,who will give you presents but expect something in return? A man in his 40s hanging around with teenagers, honestly is a bit sad and obviously up to no good and you would have to be quite stupid never mind naive to think anything else. The boys parents said they warned him it was dodgy. Taking presents and money in return for sex makes you only one thing. It seems this poor lad thought he could do without his self respect and then found out he couldn't after all. The older man is definitely morally reprehensible and seedy,whoever he is but this boy was an adult,just,and he made his decisions for himself.
I would never give up my self respect in exchange for a Burberry bloody handbag and he could and should have valued himself more highly.
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.
The DM can only report what was said in court. If the troubles weren't specified in court, the DM can be had up for contempt if it expands on them. And even if they were specified (which none of us who wasn't in court knows either way), I really don't think the DM can be taken to task for not giving chapter and verse. What would be the point? This was obviously a troubled youngster and the comedian's involvement was, in a sense, accidental. And if he were someone we had never heard of, the DM would not have bothered with story and the various anti-DM wiseacres here would have had to get their knickers in a twist about something else (though preferably DM-related as it is open season on the DM 12 months a year).
As usual the Daily Mail is vilified for its so-called anti-gay stance. I'm not wishing to defend the paper but it appears to me that they are simply quoting Ben's twin sister Sophie who first used the word 'grooming'. Several other papers have also reported the same quotes from those involved but have not come in for the same criticism. I know it's not the main point of this thread but those constantly on the lookout for homophobic material and who always have a go at the Daily Mail should take a look at the following:
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.
You cannot lump all 17-year-olds together. Some will be more worldly-wise than others and the factors determining it all will be several and various. Furthermore, as a once 17-year-old, you think you are 'grown up' and seem to be able to handle many things until you find yourself in a situation you are finding difficult.
We know very little about this lad, whether he was gay, whether he only thought he was gay or whatever. We don't know. As someone else pointed out here, he indulged in drink and drugs and might have behaved in a gay way although he wasn't gay. It might well happen, and could well have upset him. But who know? We sitting at this site are just a gang of wiseacres with very little to do adding our two ha'orth worth. Spare a thought for his parents and sibblings who will not be glued here to DS.
As usual the Daily Mail is vilified for its so-called anti-gay stance. I'm not wishing to defend the paper but it appears to me that they are simply quoting Ben's twin sister Sophie who first used the word 'grooming'. Several other papers have also reported the same quotes from those involved but have not come in for the same criticism. I know it's not the main point of this thread but those constantly on the lookout for homophobic material and who always have a go at the Daily Mail should take a look at the following:
I'm talking morals here, not whether having sex with a 17 year old is legal
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
As this is a court case, the DM, whatever else it gets up to elsewhere (column of shame and all that bull) would be and is extremely circumspect on what it reports. So if it used the word 'grooming' you can bet your bottom dollar the word was used in court and it is then able to report what was said. If the word wasn't used, then it would play safe and not use the word 'grooming'. If nothing else it could risk a lawsuit from the gay comic in question who could say he had been libelled because the paper reported he had groomed the lad but he hadn't. So we can take it it was a word used in court for whatever reason.
As usual the Daily Mail is vilified for its so-called anti-gay stance. I'm not wishing to defend the paper but it appears to me that they are simply quoting Ben's twin sister Sophie who first used the word 'grooming'. Several other papers have also reported the same quotes from those involved but have not come in for the same criticism. I know it's not the main point of this thread but those constantly on the lookout for homophobic material and who always have a go at the Daily Mail should take a look at the following:
What point exactly Really what are you implying with your quotes. You have referenced several newspapers, now what do you think?
It seems to me he is saying its a bit rich slagging off the Mail when several others papers used the same term. However, you don't get brownie points for slagging of the Western Morning News and the West Briton. These are not quite the hate figures we all cherish.
It seems to me he is saying its a bit rich slagging off the Mail when several others papers used the same term. However, you don't get brownie points for slagging of the Western Morning News and the West Briton. These are not quite the hate figures we all cherish.
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
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with it. You're just massively hysterical.
What's the difference between grooming and (for want of a better word) wooing someone you fancy?
Wooing is when the Wooee likes the attention and is telling their mates about being showered with gifts like it's a good thing, grooming is when the relationship sours & the Wooee feels used/bought.
Wooing is when the Wooee likes the attention and is telling their mates about being showered with gifts like it's a good thing, grooming is when the relationship sours & the Wooee feels used/bought.
Only when the relationship sours? So before that point its not grooming and only becomes afterwards?
Wasn't there messages where the guy said he was milking the celebs liking of him, Doesn't sound so naive. Seems that it could be one of those that when they are dead people only remember the good/naive in people not the other
Wasn't there messages where the guy said he was milking the celebs liking of him, Doesn't sound so naive. Seems that it could be one of those that when they are dead people only remember the good/naive in people not the other
I believe it was 'I'm fed up with X milking me, I'm going to milk him for a change' or words to that effect.
Thanks to pfgpowell for answering on my behalf Scarlet Berry's earlier brusque demands.
That's roughly what I meant. The Mail had accurately reported that which had transpired in the coroner's court; no more, no less. However, there will always be those wishing to take issue with what is printed (and more often than not, what is printed in the Mail).
This thread is, after all, about gossip. Gossip is by definition: Casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true - www.oxforddictionaries.com. Therefore most of what is found herein is opinion, which we are all entitled to express. But it never ceases to amaze me how quickly people will take an account which is not laden with opinion but solely the facts, and manage to twist it to meet their own agenda.
Sorry, you're right, too heavy. Must stop listening to gossip!
Comments
I agree that it being legal doesn't stop it being gross and morally dubious.
I think there are a lot of people that will trust a celebrity because they see them on TV and think they know them and therefore assign them a trust status that you would not do with a stranger you had just met.
And I think this is more the case with an 18 year old - even if it is legal, it doesn't stop the 18 year old being naive - even today, there is still a lot to learn when you are only 18.
Having said that, I really do think the undertone that the mail are going for here is wrong. We don't know both sides, we don;t kow what parts are true, everything was totally legal & consensual and to say it was grooming is ( to my definition of the word) wrong.
When 40 year old men buy presents etc for 18 year old girls, people do pull face and think it a bit creepy, but no-one actually calls it grooming
I would never give up my self respect in exchange for a Burberry bloody handbag and he could and should have valued himself more highly.
The DM can only report what was said in court. If the troubles weren't specified in court, the DM can be had up for contempt if it expands on them. And even if they were specified (which none of us who wasn't in court knows either way), I really don't think the DM can be taken to task for not giving chapter and verse. What would be the point? This was obviously a troubled youngster and the comedian's involvement was, in a sense, accidental. And if he were someone we had never heard of, the DM would not have bothered with story and the various anti-DM wiseacres here would have had to get their knickers in a twist about something else (though preferably DM-related as it is open season on the DM 12 months a year).
1. www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/TV-comic-groomed-Cornish-teenage-sex-just-months/story-20843233-detail/story.html
2. www.gaystarnews.com/article/british-teenager-committed-suicide-after-relationship-gay-tv-comedian230314
3. www.westbriton.co.uk/Failures-care-suicide-teenager-Ben-Cowburn-18/story-20839331-detail/story.html
4. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10717152/Teenager-committed-suicide-after-relationship-with-gay-TV-comedian.html
5. www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ben-cowburn-teenage-boy-killed-3274233
6. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5526678/Gay-comic-tribute-to-dead-teen-Ben-Cowburn-groomed.html
etc, etc - point made!
You cannot lump all 17-year-olds together. Some will be more worldly-wise than others and the factors determining it all will be several and various. Furthermore, as a once 17-year-old, you think you are 'grown up' and seem to be able to handle many things until you find yourself in a situation you are finding difficult.
We know very little about this lad, whether he was gay, whether he only thought he was gay or whatever. We don't know. As someone else pointed out here, he indulged in drink and drugs and might have behaved in a gay way although he wasn't gay. It might well happen, and could well have upset him. But who know? We sitting at this site are just a gang of wiseacres with very little to do adding our two ha'orth worth. Spare a thought for his parents and sibblings who will not be glued here to DS.
What point exactly
As this is a court case, the DM, whatever else it gets up to elsewhere (column of shame and all that bull) would be and is extremely circumspect on what it reports. So if it used the word 'grooming' you can bet your bottom dollar the word was used in court and it is then able to report what was said. If the word wasn't used, then it would play safe and not use the word 'grooming'. If nothing else it could risk a lawsuit from the gay comic in question who could say he had been libelled because the paper reported he had groomed the lad but he hadn't. So we can take it it was a word used in court for whatever reason.
Well said.
It seems to me he is saying its a bit rich slagging off the Mail when several others papers used the same term. However, you don't get brownie points for slagging of the Western Morning News and the West Briton. These are not quite the hate figures we all cherish.
Thanks for clarifying that for me.
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with it. You're just massively hysterical.
Wooing is when the Wooee likes the attention and is telling their mates about being showered with gifts like it's a good thing, grooming is when the relationship sours & the Wooee feels used/bought.
Only when the relationship sours? So before that point its not grooming and only becomes afterwards?
I believe it was 'I'm fed up with X milking me, I'm going to milk him for a change' or words to that effect.
Its all getting a tad heavy around here.
The comic and the dead boy both have a twin sister, totally irrelevant but just thought I'd mention it.
That's roughly what I meant. The Mail had accurately reported that which had transpired in the coroner's court; no more, no less. However, there will always be those wishing to take issue with what is printed (and more often than not, what is printed in the Mail).
This thread is, after all, about gossip. Gossip is by definition: Casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true - www.oxforddictionaries.com. Therefore most of what is found herein is opinion, which we are all entitled to express. But it never ceases to amaze me how quickly people will take an account which is not laden with opinion but solely the facts, and manage to twist it to meet their own agenda.
Sorry, you're right, too heavy. Must stop listening to gossip!