And a partridge in a pear treeeeee!!!
The Radford Family #23 Radfords are escaping one by one, including Millie and her secret son
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The proof is there in the form of children who were born to an underage mother, who was a child herself!!
I dont think they are filming because of how many have been left home.
Cant believe Millie is pregnant again!! No job but baby number 2? Shock horror
Didn’t they also just have a double christening that was completely eclipsed when Sue accidentally uploaded the “Jeff message” with the Christening photos?
Shall we guess what Millie is going to be naming her son? I reckon it will be Arthur, Harrison or Reggie
Please not one of those. I was ahead of the trend and named my one 18yrs ago
Yes but Chloe seems to think she’s above her family.
I’m very disturbed by comments too. As mentioned, my own 12 year old more often than not can’t make up her mind what she fancies for dinner, let alone plot to get impregnated by an 18 year old. I don’t like Sue, but I draw the line at blaming her for being groomed. She was a child, willing participant or not. Sorry to hear of your own experience.
Did she blame Mary of being jealous? That’s her usual go to. Glad someone told her some hometruths, well overdue.
Not like Sue at all. She would’ve been posting all about it before she had even gone. I’m sure we will hear all about it soon enough.
Shop ‘til they drop, and then shop some more. Create a few dramas along the way. The usual nonsense.
He would be furious no doubt. It’s most odd how people find it acceptable just because he stuck with Sue. It should never have happened.
Last edited:
I’m confused as to why you think not Disney as they went on a plane. A lot of people fly to Disneyland especially the further north they are it’s quite a drive where as just a short flight. If I had that many kids I’d choose to fly over driving for hours on end. When we go we fly. We are in Scotland though but they aren’t a million miles from me.
I reckon Lapland
My god Sue's vagina must look like it's been bombed. Good to hear she's finally drying up.
We are in the south west and we flew to Disneyland, we drove the first time we went, but flying is so much easier and stress free. It's also ideal for a weekend. But Lapland is also a suitable weekend trip, but some of their kids are too young to be able to cope with the cold and enjoy it.
I think the reason it causes so much conflict over whether Noel’s act which was legally statutory rape was his own fault totally, or a combination of himself and Sue, is the time that has passed and the impacts of it. I thinks it’s a difficult issue, in other countries in the 1980s, the age of consent was much lower, and I personally don’t believe that a 15 year old is a child can be raped by coercive paedophile partner, but then can he a consenting adult one day later on their 16th birthday by being in a relationship with a loving older partner….the same scenarios could be the same couple, just one day apart in the situation, in the eyes of the law. Noel surely would have realised what he did was wrong, but that may have been because it was illegal or because parents wouldn’t approve…but he may not have felt like a sexual predator, he may have been convinced by Sue’s ‘maturity’. From one of the earlier episodes something was said about the two families hanging around together, and they don’t come across as people who have friends outside of their own family, it seems like a case of kids from 2 families getting inappropriately close, without supervision and without either of them being firmly handled to be made clear on the problem that the rest of society would see with their relationship, or the possible impact on Sue who may feel abused on reflection, and Noel who could have ended up facing legal charges.
The biggest issue for me, is why there were repercussions at the time for Noel, their relationship seemed to be allowed to continue. Why did Sue’s parents allow that? Was it just because Noel was old enough to financially contribute for the baby, I think at the time as a minor Sue would not have been able to claim any benefits and neither would the grandmother due to only the mother being able to claim and needing to be over 16?
That’s what disturbs me, Noel was a teenager, and either sexual predator specially targeting a young girl, or an immature barely adult man who just had very bad judgment. Whichever way, it should have been the priority for Sue’s parents to keep Noel away, either by agreement or by reporting to the police. For Noel’s parents, financially contributing for the baby would be a responsible step, but their main priority should have been to keep him safe from jail by ensuring that he has learnt how close to it he came and how any normal person would see him as a pervert, to ensure he doesn’t do anything similar again and he keeps away from Sue...and was made to understand that no matter how much Sue says she is happy to have sex, that she is not capable of consenting.
At the time it happened, that was the time to take action, specially by Sue’s parents. At that time, Noel could have been prosecuted - and it would have been a cut and dry case of statutory rape.
But from today’s viewpoint, with Sue apparently still happy in her own mind that she was not abused and is in a long and happy marriage (or at least wanting to present that publicly)…what good would it now do to deal with Noel’s crime at age 18, now that he is 50?
If Noel were to be investigated and protected, the children would lose their father, made all the worse for them by their ‘fame’ meaning the case would hit national newspapers. Sue would then be left with a large number of kids to raise alone, and if the psychological damage and predatory nature of statutory rape was explored with her by the authorities…it could do her massive emotional and mental damage. If Sue believes she was in a position to consent…how will it help her, from the position of 2021, to be convinced otherwise?
If there was any evidence or belief that Noel poses a risk to underage girls now…then that would be a different situation all together, and Sue, as the most likely person to genuinely know if he is, would then be in the wrong for not reporting his previous crime, in order to protect other children.
As has been said in one of the posts above, it would be very interesting for them to have to deal with one of their underage girls ‘dating’ a boy over 16. How can they tell their daughters that older ‘boys’ are predators and that they are not old enough to be able to decide for themselves to consent…without having to re-examine their own teenage years through the same lens?
I guess instead of looking at the couple now, their personalities and their long history, and trying to imagine how that reverses back to their teen years….we should look at the facts as they were at the time, as if we are judging them then, not from their current position. Thy were 12/13 and 18, having sex, with no way of knowing that it would lead to a long marriage, at that time it could have gone the other way and Sue could have felt groomed and abused either immediately or on reflection, causing her massive damage. There is no circumstances where at the time it could have been judged that in their particular circumstances that being in a relationship did not have a huge potential to harm one or both of them.
I don’t think Noel is a dangerous predator, if he was he would have moved on to other victims. But I do think that they are public figures, and as such this is an important issue that they have never properly explained or explored to their audience. Some regret and reflection, from the benefit of hindsight, and some being horrified at what they got themselves into, knowing now what they do about the rate of how young girls mature raised so many of their own, would be the right way forward in my viewpoint. Noel in particular, telling honestly how he came to getting into such an inappropriate relationship, how he justified it to himself at the time, anything that family did that made that very easy for himself to do…as examples…could be revealing and educational to parents of both boys and girls, wanting to understand how young people slip through the net in this way and how best to safeguard.
Another thought has just occured…have Sue and Noel EVER done any tv/radio/newspaper interviews WITHOUT bringing young children with them? Ever promoted the tv show etc with a radio interview, or been a guest on even just a regional ‘the one show’ type setting? I’m wondering if they can’t…because any journalist wanting to draw attention to their show/paper…especially if live, will probe about their meeting and early relationship, knowing that any unrehearsed answers could prove sensational and explosive. It’s the kind of questions and difficult probing that journalists couldn’t do with 10(ish) young kids in the room who could be traumatised by the confrontation.
I wonder too, if any local people, who know the history, have ever acted out in disgust. Spray painting ‘pweirdo’ on the bakery, or shouting rapist when Noel walks by. Most people who do business with him would either know the history or be able to find it out easily…what other men would want to be seen to be friendly with him? He’s surely a pariah in the community he lives in, parents may tell their daughters not to enter the bakery, or apply for jobs there. In some ways it seems odd that they ever started doing tv to begin with, considering the huge skeleton in the closet may not have been a known fact around Morcambe beforehand.
The biggest issue for me, is why there were repercussions at the time for Noel, their relationship seemed to be allowed to continue. Why did Sue’s parents allow that? Was it just because Noel was old enough to financially contribute for the baby, I think at the time as a minor Sue would not have been able to claim any benefits and neither would the grandmother due to only the mother being able to claim and needing to be over 16?
That’s what disturbs me, Noel was a teenager, and either sexual predator specially targeting a young girl, or an immature barely adult man who just had very bad judgment. Whichever way, it should have been the priority for Sue’s parents to keep Noel away, either by agreement or by reporting to the police. For Noel’s parents, financially contributing for the baby would be a responsible step, but their main priority should have been to keep him safe from jail by ensuring that he has learnt how close to it he came and how any normal person would see him as a pervert, to ensure he doesn’t do anything similar again and he keeps away from Sue...and was made to understand that no matter how much Sue says she is happy to have sex, that she is not capable of consenting.
At the time it happened, that was the time to take action, specially by Sue’s parents. At that time, Noel could have been prosecuted - and it would have been a cut and dry case of statutory rape.
But from today’s viewpoint, with Sue apparently still happy in her own mind that she was not abused and is in a long and happy marriage (or at least wanting to present that publicly)…what good would it now do to deal with Noel’s crime at age 18, now that he is 50?
If Noel were to be investigated and protected, the children would lose their father, made all the worse for them by their ‘fame’ meaning the case would hit national newspapers. Sue would then be left with a large number of kids to raise alone, and if the psychological damage and predatory nature of statutory rape was explored with her by the authorities…it could do her massive emotional and mental damage. If Sue believes she was in a position to consent…how will it help her, from the position of 2021, to be convinced otherwise?
If there was any evidence or belief that Noel poses a risk to underage girls now…then that would be a different situation all together, and Sue, as the most likely person to genuinely know if he is, would then be in the wrong for not reporting his previous crime, in order to protect other children.
As has been said in one of the posts above, it would be very interesting for them to have to deal with one of their underage girls ‘dating’ a boy over 16. How can they tell their daughters that older ‘boys’ are predators and that they are not old enough to be able to decide for themselves to consent…without having to re-examine their own teenage years through the same lens?
I guess instead of looking at the couple now, their personalities and their long history, and trying to imagine how that reverses back to their teen years….we should look at the facts as they were at the time, as if we are judging them then, not from their current position. Thy were 12/13 and 18, having sex, with no way of knowing that it would lead to a long marriage, at that time it could have gone the other way and Sue could have felt groomed and abused either immediately or on reflection, causing her massive damage. There is no circumstances where at the time it could have been judged that in their particular circumstances that being in a relationship did not have a huge potential to harm one or both of them.
I don’t think Noel is a dangerous predator, if he was he would have moved on to other victims. But I do think that they are public figures, and as such this is an important issue that they have never properly explained or explored to their audience. Some regret and reflection, from the benefit of hindsight, and some being horrified at what they got themselves into, knowing now what they do about the rate of how young girls mature raised so many of their own, would be the right way forward in my viewpoint. Noel in particular, telling honestly how he came to getting into such an inappropriate relationship, how he justified it to himself at the time, anything that family did that made that very easy for himself to do…as examples…could be revealing and educational to parents of both boys and girls, wanting to understand how young people slip through the net in this way and how best to safeguard.
Another thought has just occured…have Sue and Noel EVER done any tv/radio/newspaper interviews WITHOUT bringing young children with them? Ever promoted the tv show etc with a radio interview, or been a guest on even just a regional ‘the one show’ type setting? I’m wondering if they can’t…because any journalist wanting to draw attention to their show/paper…especially if live, will probe about their meeting and early relationship, knowing that any unrehearsed answers could prove sensational and explosive. It’s the kind of questions and difficult probing that journalists couldn’t do with 10(ish) young kids in the room who could be traumatised by the confrontation.
I wonder too, if any local people, who know the history, have ever acted out in disgust. Spray painting ‘pweirdo’ on the bakery, or shouting rapist when Noel walks by. Most people who do business with him would either know the history or be able to find it out easily…what other men would want to be seen to be friendly with him? He’s surely a pariah in the community he lives in, parents may tell their daughters not to enter the bakery, or apply for jobs there. In some ways it seems odd that they ever started doing tv to begin with, considering the huge skeleton in the closet may not have been a known fact around Morcambe beforehand.
Last edited:
So you're really going to blame the person who was a child for being a little slapper who led him astray, huh?
Anyone want to know why there's an epidemic of girls being used for sex by unscrupulous men in this country? Why the "gym-slip mum" phenomenon has ravaged so many communities?" Why there are so many broken, damaged and angry women trying to raise kids they were far too young to have? Want to know why the police and the social don't even pursue these cases?
It's because there are so many people happy to call the victims of child sexual exploitation dirty little slappers who were ganting for it and thus let the predators off the hook. Why would the govt make laws to enable catching and prosecuting the creepers when it's so obvious there aren't many votes in it?
I'll run through this again. She was 7 when he met her. She was at the very oldest 12 when he abused her. I don't like her either but of all the people present in that time and place when that 12 year old child found herself pregnant by a man she was told to trust and care for, she is the very least to blame.
I'm just going to say that I hope a couple of things. I hope if you have a son you haven't conveyed to him your opinion that any child he chooses to sex up asked for it. If you have a daughter and a predatory man abuses her I hope she has someone other than you to go to for help - and I hope like hell you don't work in any position which would allow you to have power and influence over the lives of any child, male or female.
Here's a photo of Sue and Noel with baby Chris for those who are struggling to understand that Sue was a kid when she got pregnant for the first time. They all look like siblings, especially Sue and Chris. You wouldn't think she was his mother.
The reason Noel was allowed to stay with Sue was because her parents asked the advice of someone (I think a doctor?) who told them that if they took legal action against Noel and kept Sue away from him they might rebel by running away together. I was a young teen in the 80's, we knew damn well that adults shouldn't be sleeping with kids.
I'm not saying Noel is a dangerous predator now- I certainly wouldn't have him around my kids, but I don't necessarily think he's into teen girls now (I HOPE not). But the fact is that he met a girl when she was SEVEN YEARS OLD and had sex with her pretty much the moment she hit puberty. I don't think he was a naïve darling who didn't know he was doing anything wrong. If he thought he was in the right he wouldn't lie about their ages on television.
No I don't believe you can be 15 and 11 months as a clueless innocent child and then suddenly 16 and able to consent, but it's a case by case thing. A 30 year old sleeping with a 16 year old would still be weird despite the legal age. A 16 year old sleeping with a 15 year old wouldn't be weird despite one being underage. But this isn't about that, this is about Sue's specific situation in which she was 13, possibly younger. There's a huge difference even between 13 and 15/16.
I'm not saying Noel is a dangerous predator now- I certainly wouldn't have him around my kids, but I don't necessarily think he's into teen girls now (I HOPE not). But the fact is that he met a girl when she was SEVEN YEARS OLD and had sex with her pretty much the moment she hit puberty. I don't think he was a naïve darling who didn't know he was doing anything wrong. If he thought he was in the right he wouldn't lie about their ages on television.
No I don't believe you can be 15 and 11 months as a clueless innocent child and then suddenly 16 and able to consent, but it's a case by case thing. A 30 year old sleeping with a 16 year old would still be weird despite the legal age. A 16 year old sleeping with a 15 year old wouldn't be weird despite one being underage. But this isn't about that, this is about Sue's specific situation in which she was 13, possibly younger. There's a huge difference even between 13 and 15/16.
There will always be perverts, paedos, or just misguided young men who think their own and their girlfriend’s feelings are genuine and mature meaning that they don’t believe it is abuse.
There will always be people who will break the law and abuse children, whether the child child believes they are able to consent or not. I think there is too much focus on what Noel did, it was wrong but he cannot turn back the clock. What I want to know is how could the families have allowed it to get to that situation, where was the safeguarding for Sue, where was the guidance for Noel? Why wasn’t it dealt with properly once the families knew? Why didn’t Sue’s school, doctor, midwife, social worker do anything to get an injunction in place to stop Noel being able to be in contact with Sue until she was an adult?
Perverts and pweirdo’s will always exist, some very brave men I saw on a documentary once discussed it as a mental health condition, that their sexual preferences are unacceptable…and they sought treatment and support to ensure that they did not act on them. Everyone if different, having a perverted thought is one thing, but acting on it in any way takes it to a criminal level. There is no way to 100% eradicate them from this world, especially before they commit their first crime. What we can do is understand that these people are out there and so protect children from being in situations where their safety is at risk, and ideally also make it easier for perverts to seek prevention treatment for themselves. Did nobody in the family act to safeguard Sue? Would Noel or Sue be adept at being able to recognise if their own children were being groomed, as a result of their own reflections?…or is it the opposite and they would not be able to see it because it is total blind spot to them due to being unable to see where the crossover point would be to know the difference between young love and predatory grooming?
If they chose to, they really could have something interesting to share on things like safeguarding, blindspots that parents need to be aware of, young relationships developing inappropriately etc.
How can Sue justify that she feels she was mature enough at 12 to be in an sexual relationship, be having a baby at 13, meaning that she took on adult responsibilities and appeared to do so willingly and with no sense of concern about doing so…yet will go apeshit when her own adult offspring want to do something much lower in responsibility, such as move out of their childhood home. It’s a complete contradiction, if anything, her feeling grown up at 13, should mean she has no issue with any of her own kids doing normal things like leaving home, getting married, releasing or withholding their personal information online…from 16 onwards I don’t see how any of them can take her seriously.
It’s shocking if the story that it was a doctor who advised to allow the relationship to continue! Even in the 80s that doesn’t sound likely. Even so, that would just be one person….where was everyone else, how did they keep this situation hidden enough, the neighbour’s would know, Sue’s school friends and teachers would know, the midwives would know, extended family would know, even the registrar for the birth certificate probably knew. How did this slip past SO MANY people?
That photo does ram the message home, Chris isn’t even a newborn, so ignoring Sue’s physical age…just going by how old she looks, they would have been having sex 18months BEFORE that photo was taken. Take a year and a half off Sue, I think she genuinely would have been looking very much like Tillie’s current age (ignoring as I say, actually physical ages, but how she would have looked compared to her own kids today, she’s not even comparable to her teens at the stage she was first pregnant). Noel defiantly looks like a young MAN in the photo, he maybe looked more like a boy 18 months earlier, but it’s still massively disturbing that the families couldn’t see that Sue was a child in need of parenting and discipline…and just seemed to give up on that and allow her to continue in an adult relationship. It’s lucky for Noel that Sue married him, she could have had him on the sex offenders register, or in jail, maybe only doing it out of spite (if she never felt abused) if their relationship hadn’t lasted.
There will always be people who will break the law and abuse children, whether the child child believes they are able to consent or not. I think there is too much focus on what Noel did, it was wrong but he cannot turn back the clock. What I want to know is how could the families have allowed it to get to that situation, where was the safeguarding for Sue, where was the guidance for Noel? Why wasn’t it dealt with properly once the families knew? Why didn’t Sue’s school, doctor, midwife, social worker do anything to get an injunction in place to stop Noel being able to be in contact with Sue until she was an adult?
Perverts and pweirdo’s will always exist, some very brave men I saw on a documentary once discussed it as a mental health condition, that their sexual preferences are unacceptable…and they sought treatment and support to ensure that they did not act on them. Everyone if different, having a perverted thought is one thing, but acting on it in any way takes it to a criminal level. There is no way to 100% eradicate them from this world, especially before they commit their first crime. What we can do is understand that these people are out there and so protect children from being in situations where their safety is at risk, and ideally also make it easier for perverts to seek prevention treatment for themselves. Did nobody in the family act to safeguard Sue? Would Noel or Sue be adept at being able to recognise if their own children were being groomed, as a result of their own reflections?…or is it the opposite and they would not be able to see it because it is total blind spot to them due to being unable to see where the crossover point would be to know the difference between young love and predatory grooming?
If they chose to, they really could have something interesting to share on things like safeguarding, blindspots that parents need to be aware of, young relationships developing inappropriately etc.
How can Sue justify that she feels she was mature enough at 12 to be in an sexual relationship, be having a baby at 13, meaning that she took on adult responsibilities and appeared to do so willingly and with no sense of concern about doing so…yet will go apeshit when her own adult offspring want to do something much lower in responsibility, such as move out of their childhood home. It’s a complete contradiction, if anything, her feeling grown up at 13, should mean she has no issue with any of her own kids doing normal things like leaving home, getting married, releasing or withholding their personal information online…from 16 onwards I don’t see how any of them can take her seriously.
It’s shocking if the story that it was a doctor who advised to allow the relationship to continue! Even in the 80s that doesn’t sound likely. Even so, that would just be one person….where was everyone else, how did they keep this situation hidden enough, the neighbour’s would know, Sue’s school friends and teachers would know, the midwives would know, extended family would know, even the registrar for the birth certificate probably knew. How did this slip past SO MANY people?
That photo does ram the message home, Chris isn’t even a newborn, so ignoring Sue’s physical age…just going by how old she looks, they would have been having sex 18months BEFORE that photo was taken. Take a year and a half off Sue, I think she genuinely would have been looking very much like Tillie’s current age (ignoring as I say, actually physical ages, but how she would have looked compared to her own kids today, she’s not even comparable to her teens at the stage she was first pregnant). Noel defiantly looks like a young MAN in the photo, he maybe looked more like a boy 18 months earlier, but it’s still massively disturbing that the families couldn’t see that Sue was a child in need of parenting and discipline…and just seemed to give up on that and allow her to continue in an adult relationship. It’s lucky for Noel that Sue married him, she could have had him on the sex offenders register, or in jail, maybe only doing it out of spite (if she never felt abused) if their relationship hadn’t lasted.
Last edited:
I don't know why people are questioning whether Noel will/should be prosecuted now for his crimes over 30 years ago. That is only going to happen if Sue reported him for abuse. I can never see that happening, so seems a bit odd even debating it.
Yes times were different back then but the age of consent wasn't, therefore a crime was committed however they and their minions try to justify it.
I agree they probably should be seen to be addressing it more. All they've ever said on TV is "we were very young at the time", Noel has never publicly addressed that, as a 17 year old, he was in the wrong to sleep with a child 4 years younger, a child he'd known since she was a very little girl no less, there can be no denying he knew her age.
I will never have respect for him, but it would be a bold move to address a historical wrong and would go some small way to making amends. For most people who have an issue with this family, the age at which they started procreating is their biggest issue, and the fact the media place this family on a pedestal without ever acknowledging that. IF it was to be addressed, by Noel himself, it would be a step in the right direction.
It never will be though, because in his own mind he can justify his actions. I honestly don't think he's ever sat down and admitted to himself how wrong he was, despite having had many teenage daughters himself already go through the stage at which he first took advantage of Sue.
As for Sue herself, she was woefully failed by her parents and the authorities at the time. They could have put a stop to this. In many ways, they are just as responsible as Noel for the way her life has panned out. She could have still led a relatively normal life, had he been convicted and kept away from her. Despite the teenage pregnancy, she could have turned her life around and eventually met someone who she could live a normal family life with. As it is, their actions (or lack of) led to her being tied to her abuser forever more. She was never able to see it for the abuse it was (and still is, with the yearly pregnancies that followed), because nobody was looking out for her, to open her eyes to it
Yes times were different back then but the age of consent wasn't, therefore a crime was committed however they and their minions try to justify it.
I agree they probably should be seen to be addressing it more. All they've ever said on TV is "we were very young at the time", Noel has never publicly addressed that, as a 17 year old, he was in the wrong to sleep with a child 4 years younger, a child he'd known since she was a very little girl no less, there can be no denying he knew her age.
I will never have respect for him, but it would be a bold move to address a historical wrong and would go some small way to making amends. For most people who have an issue with this family, the age at which they started procreating is their biggest issue, and the fact the media place this family on a pedestal without ever acknowledging that. IF it was to be addressed, by Noel himself, it would be a step in the right direction.
It never will be though, because in his own mind he can justify his actions. I honestly don't think he's ever sat down and admitted to himself how wrong he was, despite having had many teenage daughters himself already go through the stage at which he first took advantage of Sue.
As for Sue herself, she was woefully failed by her parents and the authorities at the time. They could have put a stop to this. In many ways, they are just as responsible as Noel for the way her life has panned out. She could have still led a relatively normal life, had he been convicted and kept away from her. Despite the teenage pregnancy, she could have turned her life around and eventually met someone who she could live a normal family life with. As it is, their actions (or lack of) led to her being tied to her abuser forever more. She was never able to see it for the abuse it was (and still is, with the yearly pregnancies that followed), because nobody was looking out for her, to open her eyes to it
Last edited:
- Status