- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Under sixteen would mean still at school, no job so no money, hard to see how this wouldn't be obvious to an adult.
We don't know it was over a three year period. It could be that whatever it was happened at some time between year 1 and year 3.
I think it's more likely to be a one-off myself because while I've read Scott likes young men; as discussed that is common and not illegal, and there's not been anything about him liking underage boys.
I think it's more likely to be a one-off myself because while I've read Scott likes young men; as discussed that is common and not illegal, and there's not been anything about him liking underage boys.
Why do you keep saying boy?
It can’t have been a one off or they’d be saying sexual offence, rather than sexual offences. So it’s clearly more than once!
Because the boy is now a 40yo man. Its disingenuous.
I think this is really unlikely for a teenager. There are so many more transitions to mark the passing of time to hang memories on than later in life. If he were in the middle of his GCSEs he'd remember that, for example. So a 3 year window of time to place a singular event seems unlikely to me.
Stephen Fry does seem to be quite interested in fictional explorations of youthful sexuality.
He wrote a play centred around a male teacher embarking upon a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old boy (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/fry-under-fire-over-paedophilia-play-186150.html)
He wrote a novel in which a 15-year-old boy instigates sexual relationship with various women (The Liar)
But it's all good, because underage sexual experiences with older people are nothing to whinge about, according to Stephen Fry:
Because he was under 16? What else would he be described as?
SM's statement is really annoying and self-serving, it only gives information that is already known apart from thanking his supporters, it is real damage limitation.
Thankfully the ready-made excuse of 'it was one kiss in a nightclub' seems to have fizzled out on the thread - no-one gets caught up in a national investigation for something that trivial.
Thankfully the ready-made excuse of 'it was one kiss in a nightclub' seems to have fizzled out on the thread - no-one gets caught up in a national investigation for something that trivial.
Exactly, was.
Then you know what I meant then, all good.
Why is it bothering you? He was a boy at the time the alleged offence occurred, that’s all that is relevant really.
Because blurring the lines takes away from other victims
It’s a historic sex offense allegation, in which the alleged victim was below the age of 16 at the time.
Many years later that victim is now an adult obviously.
I’ve known CSA survivors confide what happened to them in their much later years, it’s so sad they have carried this burden for so long but inspiring they felt finally able to share.
For a CSA survivor, being heard and being believed is important, and helps to shed any feelings of blame or shame. Justice also gives a lot of closure.
Many years later that victim is now an adult obviously.
I’ve known CSA survivors confide what happened to them in their much later years, it’s so sad they have carried this burden for so long but inspiring they felt finally able to share.
For a CSA survivor, being heard and being believed is important, and helps to shed any feelings of blame or shame. Justice also gives a lot of closure.
He was a child when he was a victim. Why is his age now relevant and what lines would it blur?
I feel high profile cases such as this one can inspire others to come forward. Empower is maybe a better word.
Times have changed since the mid 90s, fortunately.
If SM is guilty, how sad in 2016 the victim’s case didn’t proceed legally. I hope in such a constellation the victim had support.
I’ve known CSA victims crumble when they themselves became parents, that was then their trigger to speak out after many years. I’ve known others finally feel safe in an adult relationship and that was their prompt to speak out.
Times have changed since the mid 90s, fortunately.
If SM is guilty, how sad in 2016 the victim’s case didn’t proceed legally. I hope in such a constellation the victim had support.
I’ve known CSA victims crumble when they themselves became parents, that was then their trigger to speak out after many years. I’ve known others finally feel safe in an adult relationship and that was their prompt to speak out.
I don't understand what is meant here: in what sense does referencing that a victim of past sexual abuse was a child when it happened take anything away from other victims, and what 'lines' are being 'blurred' in referring to said victim as a 'boy' (which he was at the time of the alleged offenses)?
- Status