Radford Family

[Apricot]

Sorry if this is the wrong place.  Im sure I've seen the Radford Family discussed on here before. 

The Radford Family (some people have called them the UK Duggars which is kind of insulting because they actually seem quite a nice family) are expecting their 19th child in July. 

http://www.theradfordfamily.co.uk/news-share/

[Howl]

The FJ part of my brain just exploded.  I'm gobsmacked! This woman first got pregnant at 14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are upfront about this on their Web site. But, she and Noel stuck it out, got married when she was  17 (Noel is five years older) and the rest is history.  They are still together and support their family  through their own family bakery (and reality TV since 2013). 

Last baby was born on June 3rd, 2015, and now the next is due in July 2016.  Sue is 41 and writes the best run on sentences evah!  Not seeing a religious influence, but they do seem genuinely fond of their children, which is, of course, very good! 

Apparently, the oldest child has begun reproducing as well, so everybody likes kids!  

Edited January 19, 2016 by Howl

[AmazonGrace]

It's not a crime in the UK for a 19-year old to have sex with a 14-year old? 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

This just needs to be quoted:

Quote

We announced our news to the children last week after having a brilliant scan, we decided to put the scan photo on the fireplace and sit back and watch to see who noticed it first well it really didn’t take long Tillie  spotted it first and said ohhhh who’s that with a big grin on her face we said who do you think it is she said I need to go get Millie so she ran to get her and came back in closely followed by the rest of the children  the reaction was so funny they are so excited.  

 

 

 

[Waterfall]

Coming out of lurkdom. I wonder what the older children think about this new addition. Like do they want to tell their parents to just stop or are they are excited/"Meh" about the 19th child.

[Apricot]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

It's not a crime in the UK for a 19-year old to have sex with a 14-year old? 

It is.  The age of consent is 16 here.  I'd imagine that no complaint was made to the police by anyone at the time. 

 

[NakedKnees]

Aww, they seem pretty sweet! I want to watch their show now!

[AmazonGrace]

 

3 minutes ago, Apricot said:

It is.  The age of consent is 16 here.  I'd imagine that no complaint was made to the police by anyone at the time. 

 

How nice for him,  he  got away with sexually abusing a child and even got a tv show out of it. Some guys have all the luck. 

[AmazonGrace]

Quote

The pair were childhood sweethearts Sue got pregnant with their first child Chris, 25, at the age of just 14.

Childhood sweethearts is a very quaint way of putting it  if one of you is an adult who is sexually abusing a child. JMO but childhood sweethearts implies that you're both children. 

 

So apparently this pregnancy was a surprise 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/radford-family-parents-britains-biggest-7203317

 

Quote

 

Sue and Noel Radford vowed they wouldn't have anymore children after the birth of Hallie Alphia Beau eight months ago.

But the family, who don't claim any extra state benefits, have taken to their own website to announce the shock pregnancy along with a picture of the scan, which says the baby is due in July.

...

 

You'd think that after 18 kids most couples would have figured out how this getting pregnant business works, but apparently  it still manages to take some people by surprise. 

Quote

Sue, 40, told the Sun: “It has come as a huge surprise. We were adamant that we wouldn’t have more. But it is a brilliant start to the New Year.”

Edited January 19, 2016 by AmazonGrace

[SoGladIWasCofE]

As far as i can tell they aren't religious really. They're church of England and didn't get some of the kids christened until recently. Unlike some families I could name, the parents work to support them and don't make them do housework. 

@AmazonGrace imo its not OK to characterise someone's experiences as sexual abuse if they say it wasn't. Describing consensual (even if she was underage) sex between if I remember rightly a 13 year old and a 16 year old as 'sexual abuse of a child' is not exactly accurate. Even if that had been reported the police likely wouldn't have bothered prosecuting unless she wanted to press charges.

 

[AmazonGrace]

If he's five years older he'd be  about 18 when she's 13. 

I'm sorry but I won't apologize for thinking that sexually meddling with a child when you're an adult is a crime.

Edit: Their website says he was born in 1970 and she was born 1975. 

Victims of sexual abuse may say it's OK but the UK law apparently disagrees. 

Quote

It is an offence for anyone to have any sexual activity with a person under the age of 16. However, Home Office guidance [1] is clear that there is no intention to prosecute teenagers under the age of 16 where both mutually agree and where they are of a similar age.

Consensual or not, it is an offence for anyone aged 19 or 20  to have sexual relations with a 14 year old.

The opinion of the victim doesn't really enter into it. 

Quote

 

A boy who has sex with a girl under 16 is breaking the law. Even if she agrees.

If she is 13-15, the boy could go to prison for two years.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4hPrqzTRSBvvzHkTckNYNZ5/age-of-consent

http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex#gUBlguAkBq4cHylt.99

He got away with it but that doesn't make it OK

Quote

 

 

In relation to many other offences there is no requirement to prove an absence of consent. Only the act itself and the age of the victim or other criteria need to be proved. They include:

...

child sexual offences involving children under 16

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

Edited January 19, 2016 by AmazonGrace

[Imaginary_Wonderland]

I have seen a few shows on this family before but not in a long time. The last time I saw it, both the mother and oldest daughter were pregnant at the same time (if I remember correctly). I think there may have been a programme on them before Xmas or maybe it was a repeat. I saw it in the tv listings and was confused as it uses the same title as the Duggars and then I remembered this UK family instead.

I didn't know she had the first kid so young but they always seemed a nice couple and actually enjoy their children rather than baby collecting. I could be wrong on that of course, I am only going from memory seeing them a long time ago. The are fairly open and seemingly normal, other than having a heap of kids. But in my opinion, even the most loving and involved parents can't give enough to each child deserves and needs when there are so many.

They don't have constant pregnancies for religious reasons but they mentioned the fact that both parents were adopted and I think this may have triggered the need for a large family and lots of babies.

One of the things that stood out to me that differed with the Duggars was the work ethic. The father is a baker and I think he goes out to work at 5am and is back again at the house to help getting kids out to school and then back to work again. Can't imagine Jim Bob at that!!!

[nickelodeon]

Tillie, Millie, Ellie and Hallie? You're killing me here!

Seems like not only mom but also the oldest daughter started having babies before they were married, so definitely not fundie of any kind!

Their recipes section (and the favorite foods of the kids listed) includes a lot of bakes and casseroles, natch. But with a dad in food service, it can't be as bad as what we're used to at FJ.

[Seren Ann]

Yes, it's Bates-level naming isn't it ? (Addallee, Ellie, Callie-Anna, Allie Jane)

I've been following them for quite a long time now. They are both really nice people and they genuinely love and appreciate all their children. A little carried away with the compulsive baby-making, clearly, but otherwise normal. And yes, I do believe it has something to do with being adopted, they even half-acknowledged it on a show a while back.

My worries are more to do with some of the older daughters (mainly Chloe), who do feel responsible for helping with the children, and how it might impact their studies, even though Sue is definitely not another Michelle and works herself ragged.

Their food is definitely simple and made in bulk, but is reasonably healthy and seems tasty enough.

I get the feeling Sophie, the eldest daughter who has children, is done with her 3 though. She was very vocal about not wanting as many as her mother.

[EmainMacha]

Yeah I felt bad when Chloe gave up uni to move back home-  can't remember if she switched to one nearer by or stopped altogether.

This is their 19th child but they include their 17th child who was sadly stillborn in their count so if everything goes ok this would be their 18th live birth.

[mango_fandango]

I think technically it would be child no #18 as they miscarried no # 17 (Alfie), but they refer to Hallie as no #18. I respect people who do that, but I'd personally find it confusing. "I have five kids..." "Oh but there are only four?" "Yes, I miscarried one." I wouldn't want to make someone feel awkward. It's weird how some do this and others don't. I mean, Michelle says she has 19, not 21.

[gustava]

 

 

6 hours ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

 

This just needs to be quoted:

Quote

We announced our news to the children last week after having a brilliant scan, we decided to put the scan photo on the fireplace and sit back and watch to see who noticed it first well it really didn’t take long Tillie  spotted it first and said ohhhh who’s that with a big grin on her face we said who do you think it is she said I need to go get Millie so she ran to get her and came back in closely followed by the rest of the children  the reaction was so funny they are so excited.  

Hope they are not  homeschooling.

 

 

Edited January 19, 2016 by gustava

[SpoonfulOSugar]

15 minutes ago, mango_fandango said:

I think technically it would be child no #18 as they miscarried no # 17 (Alfie), but they refer to Hallie as no #18. I respect people who do that, but I'd personally find it confusing. "I have five kids..." "Oh but there are only four?" "Yes, I miscarried one." I wouldn't want to make someone feel awkward. It's weird how some do this and others don't. I mean, Michelle says she has 19, not 21.

Alfie was stillborn not miscarried, and she very clearly feels a great connection to him. She decorated his garden at Christmas.

A child lost is still a child.  Acknowledging that loss by including him in the count obviously matters to them.  I don't know why someone else's awkwardness should have more value than their loss.

[Seren Ann]

27 minutes ago, gustava said:

 

Hope they are not  homeschooling.

 

No, everyone goes to public school.

[SoGladIWasCofE]

4 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

If he's five years older he'd be  about 18 when she's 13. 

I'm sorry but I won't apologize for thinking that sexually meddling with a child when you're an adult is a crime.

Edit: Their website says he was born in 1970 and she was born 1975. 

Victims of sexual abuse may say it's OK but the UK law apparently disagrees. 

Consensual or not, it is an offence for anyone aged 19 or 20  to have sexual relations with a 14 year old.

The opinion of the victim doesn't really enter into it. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4hPrqzTRSBvvzHkTckNYNZ5/age-of-consent

http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex#gUBlguAkBq4cHylt.99

He got away with it but that doesn't make it OK

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

I live here, I do know the law. But no one is particularly interested in prosecuting sex between teenagers unless the younger party (or their parents) wants it prosecuted. She clearly doesn't.

It's illegal, it's not really an ethical choice on his part, but she doesn't think of it as sexual abuse, so labelling him an abuser and her a victim seems a bit off.

I really, really am against labelling other people's experiences against their wishes. She doesn't think it was rape or sexual abuse. So saying that he got a TV show for sexually abusing a child is out of line in my opinion. And also inaccurate, they didn't get a TV show for having a kid when she was 14, they got a TV show  for not stopping. They'd probably still have one if they'd waited a couple of years and only had 12-13 kids.

 

[AmazonGrace]

Defending child abuse seems a little off to me. *shrug*

 

If he doesn't want to be called a child abuser he shouldnt' have been fucking a 14 year old. 

Lots of victims give their abuser a pass but they're still abusers. The age of consent means that they can't properly consent so it doesn't really change the facts what the victims say. It was a crime nevertheless. 

Where the hell were the girl's parents and the social services?  Why is this man on TV instead of  the sexual offender list? 

Edited January 19, 2016 by AmazonGrace

[Gobsmacked]

Both parents were adopted. Their first born is now 25 years old. They  are a very loving and lovely couple.

1980s Britain wasn't very PC at all. Labelling every one as sex offenders is a recent thing. Young people make mistakes, always have, always will.

The Radfords both work hard. Dad leaves home to work in the family owned bakery before 5am. He returns to help Mum get the younger children off to school then goes back to work .

He also plans and cooks most of the family meals using fresh ingredients. They don't beg or grift. The children are well brought up and polite. 

No howler monkey behaviour is obvious from the programmes. They certainly don't climb all over kitchen work tops with bare dirty feet. The children have table manners.

They appear to be a close loving family. 

Chloe(?)The daughter who left for university transferred to a uni closer to home as she was missing her parents.

They would be a good role model family for the Rodriguii to watch and learn from.

Also the Duggars as they appear to be parents who listen to and communicate with their kids rather than just collect them.

[Catey]

Just looking at the their Facebook page. I like them. They seem like a really big, happy family. They seem to be able to laugh at themselves and their children seem well cared for and normal.

For example the pre wedding photo with the ladies they comment on the headaches that will be had tomorrow. (Champagne induced)

They seem to be well able to afford their family and nothing overly strange seems to be happening.

As for when they decided to start their family, I just don't know what to say about that. I don't want to diminish women who were taken advantage of or not able to properly consent but also personally had a relationship that was very well either on or below the "legal" limit that I really enjoyed and even now 16+ years later do not in any way see it as abuse.

Anyone who told me that I was exploited was definitely not living my reality, however I see how it could be a slippery slope when there are girls that need to have someone speak for them or to be able to have people not discount their abuse as just kids being kids.

 

Quote

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

JMO the child may think it's fun, the child may think it's totally cool, the child may think he or she is in love, the child may think they want it and that the relationship is gonna make everything all right. 

It is still wrong for an adult not to keep it in their pants. 

[mango_fandango]

2 hours ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

Alfie was stillborn not miscarried, and she very clearly feels a great connection to him. She decorated his garden at Christmas.

A child lost is still a child.  Acknowledging that loss by including him in the count obviously matters to them.  I don't know why someone else's awkwardness should have more value than their loss.

Fair. 

I hope this latest pregnancy goes well. If she's only 40, she could well have more and surpass even DQ and Kelly.