I am confused re the Bill Roach charges.. am I correct in thinking he's been charged with raping the same 15 yr old twice?

 

Makes you wonder did they occur at the same time and if not why was she within any distance of him after the first time?

 

 

I do hope that groupies [teens around 16 yrs of age, both just over and just under, the latter being illegal age]  from yrs ago in the time of 'free love' when the pill came out and people went a bit mad are not jumping on bandwagons in the hope of getting some money out of this eventually.. I feel bad as a woman saying that but am getting a feeling some of the cases may be to do with things like that.. am not excusing any of the men for putting it about but for me some of these cases feel like they have a few blurry lines around them.. not talking about the kiddy fiddling things here but the teens thing is a blurry area for me. . 

She could have been a family friend or a relative, with little chance of avoiding any contact with him. I'd say it's pretty common for those sort of victims to be abused multiple times.

 

Or, it could be that he, at the age of 35, had seduced a 15 year old, who the law says couldn't consent at that age. We're not talking about a 16 year old boy having a relationship with a 15 year old girl here.

You guys seen this?

 

BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall has admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting girls including one aged nine.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286

Roache is a co director of Ridings Publishing,alongside veteran broadcaster Stuart Hall.businessman Owen Oyston,who owns Blackpool FC and was sentenced to  6 years in prison for rape in 1996 is the major shareholder in the company which made a loss of 2 million last year.

Excerpt taken from todays mirror.

 

Birds of a feather etc.

Didnt see this when i posted the BBC link

as I said, with the teens I am finding it blurry..  am not making excuses for anyone just pondering some things out loud..  I am not saying a 35 yr old with a 16 yr old is right either it is dodgy if they only ever go for young uns but it happens. . am betting it also happens with 15 years and 364 days young adults too which is illegal under the law .... it probably happens even more nowadays as people seem to be sexually active a lot earlier too and are quite capable of seducing people even if the law says they aren't.. [am not saying this is what has happened but it may have in some of the cases]  and as much as I find it disgusting to see an older person with a young adult barely out of nappies it does go on.. 

 

I am also aware of dirty old buggers of old trying to force themselves on young girls having experienced some of it in the past myself in various forms. . I brushed off the tacky advances and after a good slap or telling off carried on with my life. . men will be animals sometimes.. back then and now. .  sad to say. . but a swift knee to the nuts usually does the job . .again am talking about young adult yrs not kiddies here..

 

I actually am not sure that I think the age of the attacker should be relevant.....   there have to be laws that all abide by or you'd have two people, say one aged 16 and one in their 30's, and they both have forced and unlawful sex with the same young adult who is say 15. .  but the law lets the 16 yr old 'attacker' off and prosecutes the one in their 30's. .  I know what I am trying to say here but am not saying it very well. .  I think I better just shut up 

I have to say I broadly agree with you Ollie ...especially about the knee

I was talking about a 15 year old girl in a relationship with a 16 year old boy, not forced sex (rape). Of course he would be as guilty as a man in his 30s, if it is forced. 

 

I understand that you are finding it 'blurry', when it comes to teenagers, but that seems to be because you are assuming that they were 'groupies', 'jumping on bandwagons' and after monetary compensation. You questioned why this woman would have allowed herself to be raped twice by the same man. I was giving you two instances which would explain how this could happen.

on the first point. I was not saying nor assuming they were all like this I said I hope some aren't

 

On the second point again I am not nor never did say the girl  allowed herself to be raped.. . I dunno where you get that from. . 

 

I respect your very strong feelings over these matters Blizzie, maybe blindingly strong sometimes? I feel just as strongly but I also accept not everything is black and white sometimes, hence my blurry areas on some things, so please don't put words into my mouth that I did not say. 

 

I have never for one moment suggested that there are not legitimate claims out there, I was positing on the blurry cases that may be out there as well and wondering out loud how some things may have occurred.  My questions were more rhetorical really. .

 

As for the monetary gain side, there are always going to be bandwagon jumper onners and I was wondering how some of those could be weeded out. .ie a forceful young adult groupie [who may be not have been quite legal at the time as many weren't]  slept around all the slebs back in the day then sees an opportunity years later to make some money. . things like that happen now too .. ironically it's how Max Clifford made his bucks on the 'I slept with xyz' stories.. funny that some of it may come back to bite him on the ass

 

and please note I have used the words Young Adults not specified the gender of them as it refers to both male and female ..

Reading your original post, it just sounds like victim blaming to me, however you meant it to sound. There are real victims out there, reading all these opinions, and I can't imagine how depressing it must be to hear the same old doubts banded about. Why not let the police and the CPS decide, now that they finally seem to be taking it seriously, instead of spreading doubt and making victims feel that they should just keep quiet about it?

Oh jeez - Stuart Hall - i never wud have imagined.

 

I dunno how many times I can say I was pondering out loud about some things. .

 

You choose to call it victim blaming. .I call it my right to have my thoughts and opinions about what is or maybe going on in some cases.. and my hope that there are not any bandwagon jumpers spoiling it for the real victims. . and if any are found I hope they are dealt with publicly so no more will jump on or think twice before they do so we can let the real victims get justice.

 

but I am clearly not allowed to say anything that creates any doubt about some of them even tho history shows there always will be bandwagon jumper onners and people with grudges coming out of the woodwork too, [again I will say my ponderings are not about the kiddy fiddlers stuff at all] so I will step out as it is such an emotive topic people can be blinded to anything other than their own opinion and I don't want to cause a row where non should be.. 

 

Mmmm, plea bargaining to get off with the more serious rape charge

Olly the allegations are of rape not consensual sex, we don't know the details but it is not at all unusual for young people who are sexually abused for them to be abused repeatedly by the same person

Olly, if it's rape it's rape and I would expect both the 16 yr old perpetrator and the 30 year old to face the same charge

Yes I know that I am not stupid..

 

am not saying any more,  my main ponderings were to do with possible band wagon jumper onners ruining it for the real victims. . 

 

anyways as I said am out of here. . I am not arguing over who is telling the truth or not, that is for the courts to decide, I just had a few things going around my brain and wish I'd left them there tbh

the law deems a person under 16 unable to consent so even if it was consensual it would be regarded as rape. .but the older one is more likely to be charged with rape than the 16 yr old.... in a consensual case that is, and that was my point in that post..

Olly, it would only be considered rape if the 'victim' was under 13, there is a presumption that over 13s can and do consent even though they are technically below the age of consent, so there would not be a rape charge. 

ah thanks for that I was going on what Blizzie had said about under 16 not be judged able to give consent and going on that . .

 

anyway I am out of here  ..clearly not the place for me

Why? We are all entitled to comment even if others dont agree. That's what a forum is all about, isn't it?

because it is an emotive subject and I have had words put into my mouth that I did not say .. so I am best out of here

Okay, you take care

The most disappointing thing about the Stuart Hall incident is that at first he called his accusers 'liars'.

When he knew they weren't - that's just terrible.

I don't think it's an exact science Renton.

Well for Stuart Hall - he later pleaded guilty when he previous called the allegations 'lies'

 

Subsequently he has been well advised. Plead guilty, save the victims any further embarrassment, fast track and in the expectation that there are bigger fish to fry, hope that the next offender takes a bigger share of the publicity. Yesterday's papers. Do the time. Bring out a book.

And he probably only pleaded guilty to get off with the rape charge

And get a reduced sentence for a guilty plea!

Indeed. Unless they give him a couple of years for calling people liars.

Daily Mail Comments
on Stuart Hall- "Why admit to something that could never be proven? His biggest crime is idiocy"

 

actual quote from the Daily Mail

 

 

Probably playing the technicality game.  Charged with indecent assault instead of rape - big difference when it comes to sentencing.

Exactly Cosmo

The last thing i expected was Stuart Hall the devious bastard.

 

The very least a person who was really regretful would do would be to confess and ask for forgiveness. He didn't

 

All I'm going to add here is, I bet Bill Roache is regretting saying that comment about rape victims.

Disgraceful ............calling his accusers liars

 

After being arrested and charged last December with three counts of indecent assault against children, Hall told reporters the claims against him were ‘pernicious, callous, cruel and above all spurious’.

 

and today

‘Mr Hall deeply and sincerely regrets his actions. He wishes to issue an unreserved apology to the individuals concerned. He now accepts his behaviour and actions were completely wrong and he is very remorseful.

Surely that can't be right?

Yeah but child sex offenders have an incredible knack at convincing  themselves that you've done nothing wrong

 Yeah right

Leaving court Hall, who previously had described the allegations as "pernicious and spurious", was pressed by reporters for an apology but said: "I've got a very heavy cold. I have no comment to make at all."

What the heck has that got to do with anything?