Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Apricot

Radford Family

Recommended Posts

LittleSpouseOnThePrairie
On January 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, AmazonGrace said:

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. 

I totally see and agree with you. I just keep thinking about how when I was a freshman in high school I had a boyfriend who was a senior, I was 14, he was 18. We never did have sex (because while very attractive, he acted really dorky) but if he had pressured me into it, yes it would have been wrong. If he made it seem ok and later I felt taken advantage of, it would have been wrong. But if we both felt strong, true, lasting feelings for each other I don't personally think it would have been wrong despite our age.

Likewise, I had a bunch of other freshman/sophomore friends in the same scenario who did sleep with their 18/19 year old senior boyfriends and it was never a big deal to anyone, at least in my small community it was just high schoolers in love.

There was also never an instance of "Diane" being 15 and "Jack" being 17-going on 18 and then they had to stop doing it because the law suddenly applied to his age. We were all "in love" and in high school;  if it were a kid who'd already graduated that was mackin on a freshman, then that would have been viewed more as predatory for sure.

This might sound crazy to some. Just sharing my experience on the matter, and it's ok if you disagree. I might feel differently if I have teenage daughter someday :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoybeanQueen

I have a 13 year old daughter and a 14 year old daughter. Both are in junior high school. I would be incredibly concerned if a senior in high school, or a first year college student, thought it appropriate to even date one of them without a physical relationship. Even if my daughter thought it was OK or cool, my job as a parent is to teach her that an adult who wants to have sex with a child is not someone to be trusted.

I'm glad it has worked out for the family mentioned here, but this is not a case of a 2 year age difference in an ongoing high school relationship and then, aww darn, the guy turned 18. He, a legal adult or soon to be one, met a 12 or 13 year old child and had her pregnant within a year. Perhaps that sounds romantic and sweet to some, but I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jana814

I have a old classmate of mine who's sister is 10 years older then her. Her sister started dating her husband when she was 14 & he was 18. But they didn't have kids still her sister was in her 20's & they only have 2 kids. The only issue they had was my classmates brother-in-law got a lot heat for dating a girl in junior high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NakedKnees

Maybe I was too quick to celebrate it, but I can't help but feel evidence seems to point to this being a consensual relationship, while it is nonetheless important that the law exist even for underage individuals being manipulated into relationships like this. That just doesn't seem to be the case here, and being so certain that it is may perhaps trivialize those actually abusive and manipulative cases? Just my opinion here.

I hate to take the "age is just a number" route, but in my mind the age-18 cutoff is, after a certain point in argument, arbitrary. They could have been an abusive 16-year-old with a 14-year-old and wouldn't that be worse, regardless of the law?

What I find most interesting is that they had been friends since she was seven. I don't know if that would disturb me more or less if I were her parent. I imagine I would be wary at best, and extremely opposed at worst.

And who is to say her parents were not opposed? Is there evidence that they were super supportive from the get-go? Please pardon my lack of research if there is. Once she became pregnant, it seems her parents did the reasonable thing and let her do what she wanted with her body and the fetus, and I don't disagree with that choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace

JMO when an adult male makes a child pregnant, the reasonable thing is to call the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catey

I live in Canada, our age of consent was raised from 14 to 16 in 2006.

I know that they are in the UK but here it would not have been illegal for her at 14 to consent.

Quote

In June 2006, the Canadian government raised the age of consent from 14 to 16, while creating a close-in-age exemption for sex between 14-15 year olds and partners up to 5 years older

With her being born in 1975 and him in 1970 even after the law changed she would still be in the close in age group. I have seen cases where the matter of a month one way or the other was given consideration when pressing charges based on the entire situation upon an investigation.

I still feel that there are 1000000's of women that are exploited and there are laws for a reason to protect them, I just do not see that in this relationship with the fact that they then made a life together and raised/are raising a bunch of seemingly happy well adjusted kids.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace

So you'd have to wait 25 years and see if the couple is still together and popping kids, before deciding if the adult in the couple should have been expected to obey the law and leave minors alone, or not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpoonfulOSugar
12 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

So you'd have to wait 25 years and see if the couple is still together and popping kids, before deciding if the adult in the couple should have been expected to obey the law and leave minors alone, or not? 

I don't think that's an accurate summation of what anyone has said in this thread.

I believe that using solely age, with absolutely no other consideration, is incredibly arbitrary.

I feel pretty passionately about abuse, being a survivor of both childhood abuse and also a teacher-student relationship.

But AGE differential is much less of a factor than elements like grooming, manipulation, and actual coercion.  We simply don't know enough about the power differential at the time to know with certainty what elements were in play.  We do know that social mores have evolved (which is why laws are not retroactive and why statutes of limitation exist) and we know that some injustices have had to be corrected through Romeo & Juliet statutes.  And yes, we know that they continue to live together and seem to rub along quite well, without many of the visible foibles of other families.

You seem absolutely set that this is abusive, but the sole element you are pointing to is age.  Do you find NO room for a "close in age" defense?  Is the line really that hard and bright for you?  17 years and 360 days is okay, but 18 years and one day is not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace

Well I don't find 19 and 14 close enough, and I see her pregnancy as an absolute aggravating factor. 

This dude made 14 year old pregnant. A 14 year old. In my world it is not OK. 

Now we're supposed to think he's some kind of hero because he is still having sex with her and goes to work to support his kids. 

If you're going to abuse a 14 year old, the least you can do is make sure she's not getting preggers. 

That could ruin a girl's life, and at 19 and 14 you can't know that it's not going to happen to her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waffle Time
JMO

If she is only 41 then she could easily have another one or two and outdo Michelle Duggar.  A heathen having more blessings! Imagine that!  And what made them decide to stop at 18?  #19 can't be that much of a surprise at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catey
42 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

adult in the couple should have been expected to obey the law and leave minors alone, or not

Not at all.

I am saying that in Canada (where I live) a 14 year old could be with a 19 year old and it is NOT against the law.

They are in the UK so my legal point is moot.

However, I do not believe that Canada is overly permissive or pro child exploitation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace

Well but if they're OK with 14 year olds getting pregnant by adult males they are certainly not very anti-child exploitation. 

We must agree to disagree. I think what this guy did was wrong. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roddma

Here's an article that mentions the expectant daughter saying the Randofrds spend roughly 30000 pounds, around 47K in USD of their own money per year raising ALL 17-19 of their kids. In the US it costs roughly 100K PER CHILD to raise a child from birth to 18, quite a difference. It says they go through two boxes of cereal and tow pints of milk daily. How does over a dozen people split two boxes of cereal ? I dont care how you spin it, dad works, kids seem normal,etc 19 kids is insane. I think this women sees her only ID as Mom. We have no clue what happens in their off camera life.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/radford-family-britains-biggest-brood-6277100

An adult with a 13 yr old. Here in Tennessee, t. Just because 13 yr olds can consent doesn't make it right. There's a vast difference in 13 and 18 yr olds. Statutory rape laws were enacted in the US to prevent males from taking advantage of young females which int he past the female was forced into shotgun weddings..he 21 yr old daughter is on her 3rd kid but at least her DH is 22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace
Quote

The couple now have to bring up Chris, 26, Sophie, 21, Chloe, 19, Jack, 17, Daniel, 15, Luke, 14, Millie, 13, Katie, 12, James, 11, Ellie, nine, Aimee, eight, Josh, seven, Max, six, Tillie, four, Oscar, three and two-year-old Caspar, and now young Hallie.

Funnily phrased. If the oldest is 26 and the second oldest is a married mom of three, shouldn't they be able to be considered adults by now and the parents shouldn't have to do that much to "bring them up" anymore.  

I suppose most people with 12+ kids budget tighter and spend less per kid in average, even in the USA. More handoffs from sibling to sibling, fewer expensive hobbies, cheaper food

 

Oh this is even worse than 14: 

Quote

Sue fell pregnant with the eldest child Chris when she was just 13.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaelh

The UK laws have had a 16 year old cut off since 1885. 

But. 

But. 

The seventies there was a HUGE movement to lower the age of consent to 14.  Even the Quakers were part of the movement.  Science was considered to support it and the general public was pretty much behind it.   Indeed, 76: the Council for Civil liberties made a law reform submission that read something like:  

"Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult, result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."

The Council was a very well respected organisation.  Statements like this didn't cause too much of a social stir. 

The whole "it's sexual assault" is very much a product of time and place.  a few hundred years back, if you weren't having kids by 14 you were frittering away your productive years.  Today, 14 years might make us cringe, but that's very much the product of now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dollypeeps

What I'm finding surprising is that we haven't heard the social services weren't involved as she was still a minor at 13/14. This was 1970 after all so very much frowned upon being pregnant out of wedlock and more so being under age too 

There is a lot that isn't being said here of what actually happened in that era. With the parents and social services 

Plus if a 13/14 got pregnant now in the UK to an 18 or 19 year it would be investigated and evaluations would be done by SW. Mainly she would be allowed to raise the child if she so wished and it would be drop by visits only to do check ups as most 13/14 are still at home not in the care system. 

I remember them when they where at 14 and she admitted she love the big family and a feeling of being needed cos they where adopted. 

Edited by Dollypeeps
Forgot a sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace
51 minutes ago, Dollypeeps said:

What I'm finding surprising is that we haven't heard the social services weren't involved as she was still a minor at 13/14. This was 1970 after all so very much frowned upon being pregnant out of wedlock and more so being under age too 

 

She was born in 1975 so  she got pregnant in 1988.

Edited by AmazonGrace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
withaj

Aww, I stumbled across them on Youtube not too long ago. They're very sweet, not particularly religious, and just love kids. And they can support them all. I can't complain about that. 

ETA: Not going to dive into the age gap issues in their early relationship. Skeeves me out a bit, but I think the longevity of what appears to be a healthy relationship speaks for itself in this case.

Edited by withaj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dollypeeps
34 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

She was born in 1975 so  she got pregnant in 1988.

I'm sleep deprived so got the dates mixed up sorry. But there still would of been SW involvement because of their ages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roddma

Liking kids and raising them as your own are two different things. I guess I dont see a reason to have 19 kids. ANd because an adult/child relationship ended healthy doesnt make it less squick.The reason girls were married off so young a century or two ago is to help reduce the number of mouths to feed. And the often were married to much older men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blessalessi

I don't think the age gap is something to be celebrated, but I do see it as a product of a different era, one that I grew up in.

From the various reports on their age, it seems that they were probably 17 and 13 at the time of conception. "Gymslip mums" were much more unusual at the time, there was much stigma attached to single parenting, and I can easily see how then that it would have been seen as "bringing something positive out of the situation" for two young people, themselves considered vulnerable as adoptees, to decide to keep and raise a child that they themselves considered to be a "mistake" rather than the outome of an assault.

The thing that really gets my goat about this family, and the main thing about them that is celebrated in the Daily Fail, is the way that they are lauded for earning a living at their business  and not living on state benefit.

Yes, they are hard working, and yes they have the right to make their own reproductive choices, but at the same time, they will be benefitting hugely from various tax breaks for families, and from free universal healthcare and education. It is disingenuous for them or the press to suggest otherwise.

I don't begrudge their children a penny of the public money spent on them, but I do resent this family profiting from an alliance with the right wing media that uses them as a stick with which to beat other families who are genuinely struggling and more reliant on benefit payments at times of need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roddma

In addition to tax benefits, many of the larger families like these subsist on donations much like the DUggars did in the beginning.I think it's a stretch to say they don't live off the state. They may not directly live off welfare, but get help in other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sad
Gobsmacked

The family pay their own way.

This will include tax and National insurance payments.

All people in employment pay these .

National insurance pays for our health care.

That is how it is done in the UK

The family is not benefitting from having lots of children as they are paying their way by working.

They are not grifting, begging or scrounging.

The education system is free in the uk.

Private education is optional.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sad
Gobsmacked

This family is NOTHING like the Duggars. To say so is just insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigmata

They'll get child benefit for all underage children plus will be eligible to claim child tax credits (which are in work benefits).  So I think saying they don't get anything from the government is a bit misleading.

However, I have heard of large families here who rely totally on benefits and have never worked.  They are so much better than many but still put a strain on the NHS and schools.  They may be able to support their children financially but is it really a good thing for a woman to have 19 babies?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.