Canning Town Bingo Club

[Baleforce]

I agree it's sick, although I do remember it being a thing, remember Moyles perving over Charlotte Church on Radio 1 way back when.

 

[monkeybarry]

No and I get that, but for someone to have been identified before 16 is where the issues are and although times have changed and normalization has changed, man alive do I feel horrendous about the idea of underage women being identified at 14 and 15.....

Yuk

Completely agree.... today.

It's fascinating, even in your post there -
you said "underage women", which is still a step behind where it needs to be. There's no such thing as an "underage women" - that's a girl, or child, not a woman. And just the term "underage" is focused purely on the age of sexual consent.
And your sentence (and I'm not suggesting any ill intent for one second - it's an observation, not a criticism) would have been considered "woke" (or whatever the 90s/2000s equivalent was), with most people saying something like "coming of age" - which is literally looking at a <16 year old and imagining what day it's ok to have sex with them.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Completely agree.... today.

It's fascinating, even in your post there -
you said "underage women", which is still a step behind where it needs to be. There's no such thing as an "underage women" - that's a girl, or child, not a woman. And just the term "underage" is focused purely on the age of sexual consent.
And your sentence (and I'm not suggesting any ill intent for one second - it's an observation, not a criticism) would have been considered "woke" (or whatever the 90s/2000s equivalent was), with most people saying something like "coming of age" - which is literally looking at a <16 year old and imagining what day it's ok to have sex with them.

Of course and its the wrong term, but I am half writing on here, half watching the Terry Venebles Doc on Sky so not fully engaged in what I am writing, so you are right, its a girl not a woman

Ultimately its sick then and is sick today. Attitudes changing don't change that for me

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I thought it was a pretty poor programme actually, by Panorama standards. I assume there is either more to come, or the hope is that it's the wedge in the door that brings more women forward but aside from the having the words of victims, there was nothing especially new or that wasn't known about in general before. Unless rape can be proven, there wasn't anything explicity illegal in this actions, awful as they might have been.

Ultimately it's the age old story of a man with power (and a particularly sleazy one in this instance) or influence using that power to take advantage of young girls/women who for whatever reason (naievete/gulibleness/vulberability/ambition/star-struckedness/fear) find themselves in a position to be taken advantage of.

Hopefully more will come out so that he gets his dues.

And that Nick Cracknell bloke is a definite wrong'un as well.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I thought it was a pretty poor programme actually, by Panorama standards. I assume there is either more to come, or the hope is that it's the wedge in the door that brings more women forward but aside from the having the words of victims, there was nothing especially new or that wasn't known about in general before. Unless rape can be proven, there wasn't anything explicity illegal in this actions, awful as they might have been.

Ultimately it's the age old story of a man with power (and a particularly sleazy one in this instance) or influence using that power to take advantage of young girls/women who for whatever reason (naievete/gulibleness/vulberability/ambition/star-struckedness/fear) find themselves in a position to be taken advantage of.

Hopefully more will come out so that he gets his dues.

And that Nick Cracknell bloke is a definite wrong'un as well.

Yeh I suspect its there to open Pandora box for more to come forward