Accuser calls for legal ‘staggered ages of consent’
One of the women who has accused Russell Brand of sexual assault when she was 16 told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour yesterday that the allegations against him had been “a long time coming”.
Speaking for the first time since the accusations became public, the woman, known as Alice, called for an introduction of legal “staggered ages of consent”, suggesting people over 18 should not be allowed to have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds (1).
The age of consent in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is 16. This means it is against the law to have sex with someone under the age of 16 in the UK.
As long as a person is 16 or older, there is no minimum age gap for relationships or sexual encounters in the UK - unless the older person is a teacher or in a position of authority, where different rules can apply. That means that, for instance, a 16-year-old can consent to a relationship with most 30-year-olds in the UK.
(1) that’ll never work - unless teenagers have ID implants …
I don’t like the bloke , foul mouthed not my kind of person , but , a question I’d like to ask the 16 year old girl who went twice to his house in a layed on car by the BBC is
Why did you go to his house, did it not occur to you that sex may be involved ?
He was a druggie a boozer , not particularly a nice person , why didn’t she and the others keep well away
Regarding Jimmy Savile I agree …it didn’t help that all his accusers shared his vast fortune that was supposed to go to his charitable trust…law firms took the rest so the charities missed out on £4.3 million
Youngsters are easily impressed especially when you have a big name taking an interest flattering them , sending a car …
Grooming may well of played a part in this case.
Savile’s fortune .
His charity work was underpinned with perversion , it kept him in touch with a supply of fresh victims .
This being the case I believe it was the right decision most of the money went to the victims
I lay no blame at the doors of the charity’s
However I feel the victims should get first dibs.
I’m almost sure many victims didn’t come forward, I don’t believe I would want to relive events .
Also scammers may well of received a payout
However genuine victims of Savile have receive acknowledgement of their suffering also some financial compensation .
Hate to say that folks who have strong opinions tend to make a lot of cash along the way, this instinct may dilute their stance, maybe a lack of Youtube revenue will refocus the mind?
I believe that most victims of sexual assault would rather see the perpetrator imprisoned, monetary compensation cannot erase memories. Acknowledgement that they are believed is (imo) much more important and relevant.
Publicity? Attention? Fading career? jumping on the band wagon? Getting paid for her story?
She’s hardly a victim and it’s a non-story anyway
She says he invited her to his room? Well, that may be true or she may have made it up, no evidence either way?
But even if he did, inviting someone to your room isn’t a crime
And she didn’t go, so neither we or she know if he would have assaulted her if she did?
The rest is just her opinion that she thought at the time he might be a dirty old man and creepy. Her opinions don’t prove him guilty of anything
That is exactly the sort of story that I hate, no evidence, adding absolutely nothing
She wasn’t assaulted or abused or a victim, just invited somewhere, maybe, if it’s true, and to join in the media frenzy she’s built it up to be a big thing starring her, wanting part of the limelight
Which I think is very offensive to genuine victims
Off Topic
I’m sure victims would rather the perpetrator of the crime be found guilty and imprisoned as well as receiving compensation.
I am glad Colleen Nolan spoke out and no don’t believe for a moment it was a lie . I am sure many of JS victims can relate to Colleens experience of the invitation and sadly worse.
But what exactly did she speak out about? …. He once invited her to his room, she didn’t go and nothing happened? It’s not exactly earth shattering or a brave revelation, is it?
If there are genuine victims, (I think there are, but it’s never been proven in court) even then, an invitation to a room isn’t an assault. An unpleasant experience maybe but not enough to call them a victim?
Obviously, if they went to the room and abuse did happen, that’s serious and very sad and they need help and support, but I don’t see how Colleen jumping on the bandwagon assists with that
