Jimmy Savile 'household name' sweep

[Alf W]

Alledged rape in 1967. In public interest

35 year old man accused of raping a 15 year old girl. Fully worthy of pursuing either way.

[Troll]

I have to tread lightly here as rape is not a subject I would wish to be flippant about; indeed it is a heinous act.

Now, rape to me connotates gaining carnal knowledge of a lady without her consent and against her will. It also implies a degree of violence.

The legal definition has become a bit more blurred in recent times with these so called date rape cases. I believe there have been cases where people have gone to court where the woman was too sozzled to remember much about the event (even if she did give drunken consent). Not sure if any of these prosecutions were successful but I do believe the legal definition has been watered down and It's possible that Mr Roach is being accused by a partner in some drunken romp many years ago as opposed to his being involved in some vicious assault as the word rape leads one to believe.

A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot legally give consent, ergo it is rape in the eyes of the law
Not certain what is normal for kids these days but most of the girls in the group of teens that I knocked about with had lost their cherries consensually at or before 16 ( the earliest being 13!)

In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape

In my generation rape was always thought of as an act forcibly performed on an unwilling person often with the threat or actual accompaniment of violence - these days it's far more complicated & I'd hate to be a fumbling teenager again

[SueEllen]

A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot legally give consent, ergo it is rape in the eyes of the law
Not certain what is normal for kids these days but most of the girls in the group of teens that I knocked about with had lost their cherries consensually at or before 16 ( the earliest being 13!)


In my generation rape was always thought of as an act forcibly performed on an unwilling person often with the threat or actual accompaniment of violence - these days it's far more complicated & I'd hate to be a fumbling teenager again

Your generation thought rape couldn't happen in marriage and women never beat up their much larger husbands.

How wrong you were.

BTW Kids these days are the same. The issue is when the other party is a teacher or similar figure, or much older.

[mudskipper]

These are described as 'historic allegations' - I'm assuming that means the allegations were made a long time ago, or just that the alleged offence was committed a long time ago?

[Troll]

Your generation thought rape couldn't happen in marriage and women never beat up their much larger husbands.

How wrong you were.

BTW Kids these days are the same. The issue is when the other party is a teacher or similar figure, or much older.

I knew of two family friends of my parents generation where the man was being beaten up by the female leading to divorce (very much frowned on in those days)

[Troll]

These are described as 'historic allegations' - I'm assuming that means the allegations were made a long time ago, or just that the alleged offence was committed a long time ago?

At this stage they are only allegations but only one of the parties involved is having their names dragged through the media. In the interest of fairness should the identity of the other party - who would now be a 46 year old - also be revealed?

[mudskipper]

At this stage they are only allegations but only one of the parties involved is having their names dragged through the media. In the interest of fairness should the identity of the other party - who would now be a 46 year old - also be revealed?

The other party isn't charged with committing a crime.

[proggy]

At this stage they are only allegations but only one of the parties involved is having their names dragged through the media. In the interest of fairness should the identity of the other party - who would now be a 46 year old - also be revealed?

So its not enough to be raped, but you have to be forced to reveal your name. The alleged rapist is Innocent until proved guilty, so they should be fine if they are innocent and then the person making the allegation should be charged with false allegations and name revealed.

[Troll]

So its not enough to be raped, but you have to be forced to reveal your name. The alleged rapist is Innocent until proved guilty, so they should be fine if they are innocent.

Except we appear to have trial by media in cases of rape where the males identity can be splashed all over the papers but not the females - and the reputation damage to the male is severe - even in those cases where it is proven that the female has made up the allegation - the point I'm trying to make is both parties should be anonymous until found guilty

[administrator]

Breaking news on the beeb

Stuart Hall admits indecent assaults:
BBC News - Broadcaster Stuart Hall admits indecent assaults

I am truly shocked by this one.