Russell Brand and the age of consent

 I've been following with interest the media coverage of the Russell Brand 'expose' with interest. I've no intention of saying anything at all about Mr Brand or what I think of his alleged behaviour. The place for that to be settled is in court, if the CPS can be persuaded that there is sufficient evidence. I'm not a fan or Brand, I've never really found him funny and haven't followed his post TV career. 

I did meet one of the victims of his humour, Georgina Ballie at an Adam and the Ant's gig at the Scala shortly after the media furore. She struck me as a very vulnerable person, who in no way deserved to get the monstering she received from Brand and Jonathan Ross (who I had liked until then). She had clearly been startstruck and badly treated and I formed strong opinions then.

The more interesting aspect about the coverage, for me, is that one of the alleged victims was sixteen and there has been media talk of grooming, etc. I have to confess I never really thought about the age of consent until I had kids (when you have daughters, it does make you aware of the perils). The laws on age of consent were designed to protect vulnerable children from predatory adults. In the UK it is 16, and at this age, a person is deemed capable of deciding whether or not they want to give consent. They can have sex with anyone of any age legally at this point. The one exception is if the person is in a position of power over them, such as a teacher, where it is 18. 

In the late 1990's, there was a proposal to lower the age to 14, but this was dropped when Labour got into power. To me, 14 seems far too young. Some people are late developers and do need protecting at such an age. The press have been talking about how a 16 year old was groomed. As the girl in question was legally above the age of consent, there is no legal impediment to her having sex and there is no legal concept of grooming for people above the age of consent. The objections are moral rather than legal.

The question must be whether or not the law is doing its job. In short, do girls of 16 need to be legally protected from dirty old men. We are not talking about where there is no consent (ie rape or sexual assault), we are talking about where a girl of sixteen decided she wants to participate in a sexual relationship with a much older man. It is worth noting that if there is cash involved, the age of consent raises to 18 (ie prostitution). Some have suggested that maybe for 16/17 year olds, there should be an upper limit of 21 for sexual relationships. I really don't know the answer. What I do know is that men generally are at there worst when they want to have sex with someone. When my daughters were younger I told them that when a man says he wants to buy you a drink, what he is really saying is that he wants to have sex with you and lower your inhibitions.I'd then say that if he is also drinking, he will be lowering his own at the same time. In otherwords, be very careful about who you let bu you a drink and be aware of their motives and that they are also drinking and their behaviour may change. 

Working in the music industry for 44 years, I've seen plenty of terrible behaviour, but all was consensual. In the 1970's and 80's, girls would literally throw themselves at successful artists. Artists would make all manner of illict substances freely available to their entourages. I never saw anyone present who didn't want to be there and no compulsion on anyone to do anything, but I do understand that younger, more impressionable people (of both sexes) at times probably did things they didn't want to do, just to stay in with the in crowd. Consenting to something is a very different thing to enjoying it. My mother would say to us as kids "Don't do anything you'll regret later". I do wonder how many of the allegations come into this category, where people reluctantly consent, to be part of the crowd, only to bitterly regret it later. One thing that the Georgina Ballie case should have demonstrated was that narcissistic people have no regard for anyone, once they have ceased to be amused by their victims.

So in short, people can be beastly, horrible and uncaring but that doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't consent at the time. We could raise the age of consent, but then we'd have to deal with the reality that teenagers have sex withe ach other. We could make up all manner of arbitary time limits and rules. for when you can have sex with someone else. But ultimately, wherever you draw the line, it will not be perfect.

For me, the issue is whether there is consent, which can only be legally given once someone is sixteen. Parents and schools should make sure that everyone is properly educated about what exactly consent is. That it can be withdrawn before and during sex, but not after. If anyone continues to indulge in sexual activities, once consent has been withdrawn, that clearly is a legal matter, but where people get buyers regret after sex it isn't, whether they are 16 or 60. 

I can see a time coming, where if we want to have sex with someone, both parties will have to register their consent on a government computer and de-register when they cease to want it anymore. I'm just glad I was born in 1962, when everything was more simple, although I am sure that many will take a very different view.

Why Russell Brand is wrong and you should use your vote

I've spent the last 36 years playing rock and roll, running a music studio and organising music gigs, festivals etc. I am by nature a cynic. I've had the misfortune to meet plenty of very uninspiring politicians, who are the opposite of what one may call an advert for the profession. I've had politicians tell me bare faced lies, insult me and even tell lies about me on the radio and TV. This is not a new thing either. When our band toured Sweden in 1981, we were denounced as dangerous by a Swedish politician on national TV, following the disappearance of 2 teenage girls following our gig at the Underground club in Stockholm. We were accused of abducting them and taking them to Finland. When it turned out that they'd simply gone home with boys they'd met at the gig, doing what teenage girls sometimes do,  we did not get an apology for the wild accusations that had been made. The politician simply changed his tack to state we'd encouraged them, by singing permissive music. The whole incident was ultimately rather comical. When we returned to Stockholm, the poor girls mother actually apologised to me in front of TV cameras for the insults she'd made the previous evening. Bearing in mind that we'd been in Finland and hadn't got a clue what all the fuss was about (no moblie phones in 1981), it was rather surreal (the apology was staged by the tour promoter to get us a bit of free publicity). When the full story was told, I felt very sorry for the Mum. She'd been wound up and used by a nasty right wing politician, who was trying to garner support for the 1982 general election there. It was quite funny seeing myself on the Swedish news being asked my opinion of said politician, to which I replied "He's clearly an idiot, I hope no one votes for him" with Swedish subtitles.

Strangely enough what they didn't show was the rest of what I said. I told them that we didn't sing songs urging teenage girls to run off with their boyfriends, we write songs to help people deal with the issues they are facing in their lives, issues which fat, useless politicians don't give a damn about.

Despite my antipathy towards the type of politician who lies, abuses there position and doesn't give a damn about the society they live in, I cannot possibly let Mr Brand have his say without making the point that not only is he wrong, he is what Lenin would call a "useful idiot" for the very powers he claims to be fighting against. In this country there is huge injustice, yet the people at the end of the sword cutting welfare budgets are those least likely to vote. When Russell Brand "whips up apathy", he is not whipping it up amongst the billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch, who ensures his media empire does everything legally allowed to ensure a Conservative victory. It does not whip up apathy amongst rich property owners, who campaign like tigers against a mansion tax, but ignore the people at the bottom being forced out of their homes by the bedroom tax.

Sadly the people most likely to buy into the Russell Brand form of apathy are impressionable teenagers, who are idealistic and impressionable. What Brand is doing is simply removing a whole swathe of voters who care about injustice and the environment from the process, ensuring that those who simply want to maintain the status quo and protect their own privilige.  If you look at countries where there are not democratic elections, they are invariably hell holes. Whatever you think of the UK at the moment, it is one of the best places in the world to live. By not voting as a positive decision, you are in effect lining yourself up with some of the most vicious and repressive regimes in the world.

Brand argues that "voting doesn't make a difference". This is a complete lie and I am sure Russell knows it. I thought I'd make a short list of some of the decisions that have been policies of the Conservative Party and opposed by the Labour party, which have made huge differences to millions of peoples lives. Some are local and some are national issues.

* Closure of Edgware General Hospital. I was born there, my eldest daughter was born there. The Tories shut it, so my next daughter had to be born in Barnet General. As my mum's health failed, I spent many hours in the overloaded A&E dept of Barnet General, which has never been able to cope with the number of people using it following Edgware Closure.

* NHS cuts starving cancer pateints of services. I am under treatment for prostate cancer. Following my last MRI scan in February, I had to have a telephone consultation with someone who wasn't my doctor, because the cuts mean there are too many patients at the Royal Free for the number of doctors available.

* Privatisation of the railways, meaning trains are run largely for the benefit of foreign shareholders. On the Thameslink service, the latest in a long list of useless private contractors are driving the service into the ground. Under BR, Mill Hill Broadway had eight trains an hour in rush hour. Now we are lucky to have five or six and they are all rammed full. Fares now cost a fortune and vicious regimes levy huge fines if you make the slightest mistake or the Oyster reader doesn't read your card properly.

* Students face a massive tax, wrongly called a student loan. The Tories have hiked this so students leave University with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. If tax is on millionaires is bad for the country, how can it be good for students? (Note Brand is a millionaire so likely to benefit from a Tory government). I have two daughters starting Uni in September. Whilst my wife studied Russian for four years and left college with no debt, my daughters will be well and truly shafted.

* The Tories have decimated the supply of social housing. Margaret Thatcher forced councils to sell off council houses and did not allow them use the money raised to build new ones. This means that young people are forced to pay huge rents to private landlords, many of whom are less than scrupulous.

The bottom line is that for the vast majority of people living in this country, health, education, housing and transport are the issues which define the quality of our lives. It could not be clearer that the Tories and Labour have completely different policies and approaches. When a millionaire encourages people not to vote, I always get suspicious. When most of the people he is targeting, will vote against his fiancial interests, I smell a huge rat.