Connect with us

Published

on

Men are more likely than women to think a sexual relationship between a 16-year-old and a partner decades older is acceptable, new polling has found.

It comes in the wake of concerns raised following claims Russell Brand was in a relationship with a 16-year-old schoolgirl when he was a 30-year-old BBC radio presenter.

Almost a third of men who responded to the Ipsos polling said this type of age gap was acceptable, compared to 15% of women who agreed it was okay.

The statistics showed a “grave need” for more conversations with young people on issues such as consent, power imbalance within relationships and gender equality.

Women were slightly more likely to support raising the age of consent than men and to feel that older men in relationships with at least a 10-year age gap hold more power, according to the exclusive Ipsos polling for the PA news agency.

The survey of 1,077 adults across Great Britain came a week after the allegations against Brand first surfaced.

Alice (not her real name) said she had a sexual relationship with the comedian when she was a teenager, and he would send BBC cars to her school to collect her from lessons so they could have sex at his home.

He became increasingly controlling during the relationship, Alice said, and encouraged her to lie to family and friends about the relationship.

What men and women think about this age gap

According to the PA polling, more than two-thirds (68%) of women said this type of age gap would be unacceptable, just over half (54%) of men felt this way.

More than a quarter (27%) of men said it was either somewhat or completely acceptable for a 16-year-old boy to have a sexual relationship with a woman aged up to 30.

This compares with just 9% of women thinking this is acceptable.

The trend continued with bigger age gaps – as almost a fifth (17%) of men said it was somewhat or completely acceptable for a 16-year-old girl to have sex with a man up to 40 years old, compared to just 4% of women feeling this way.

When it comes to a 16-year-old girl being in a sexual relationship with a man aged 50 or older, more than one in 10 men (13%) thought this was acceptable compared to 3% of women.

Overall, 48% of people said they either tended to or strongly supported the idea of raising the age of consent from 16 to 18, while 40% said they supported the idea of staggered consent, in findings similar to those from a YouGov poll earlier this week.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Woman ‘felt trapped’ by Brand relationship

Staggered consent

Women were slightly more likely to support the idea of staggered consent – where it is only legal for a 16 or 17-year-old to have sex with someone up to the age of 20 or 21 – than men, with a 41% and 38% split, according to the Ipsos polling.

Speaking to BBC Radio Women’s Hour earlier this week, Alice said her mother had breakdowns because “there was nothing that she could do to protect me from being in that relationship” due to the fact the teenager was the legal age to consent to sex at the time.

Alice said: “People say ‘well, just call the police’. And then what? I was legally allowed to be there.”

Read more:
All the companies that have cut ties with Brand
Why are the allegations only coming out now?
The allegations in full

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Alice added: “He was 30. Now that I’m in my 30s looking at 16-year-olds, I can’t imagine finding them sexually attractive. I can’t imagine thinking of them as a potential mate in any way.”

Anna Edmundson, head of policy and public affairs at the NSPCC, said: “While 16 and 17-year-olds are above the legal age of consent, we know from young people that reach out to Childline that they can still be vulnerable to grooming, exploitation and other forms of abuse, particularly from adults.”

Continue Reading

UK

Four charged after £7m of damage caused to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton

Published

on

By

Four charged after £7m of damage caused to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton

Four people have been charged after £7m of damage was caused to two Voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton.

The investigation into the incident early on Friday 20 June was led by counter-terror police.

They have been charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK – and conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

Two Voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton were damaged. PA file pic
Image:
Two Voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton were damaged. PA file pic

The four charged have been identified as:

• Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, of no fixed abode

• Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 35, from London

• Jony Cink, 24, of no fixed abode

More from UK

• Lewie Chiaramello, 22, from London

They will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court later today.

Brize Norton

A 41-year-old woman arrested last week on suspicion of assisting an offender has been released on bail until 19 September.

Meanwhile, a 23-year-old man detained on Saturday was released without charge.

Last month’s incident at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire was claimed by the activist group Palestine Action.

Yesterday, MPs voted to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation.

The legislation passed with 385 MPs voting in favour, while 26 were against.

Continue Reading

UK

No 10 backs Chancellor Rachel Reeves and says she ‘is going nowhere’ after tearful appearance in Commons

Published

on

By

No 10 backs Chancellor Rachel Reeves and says she 'is going nowhere' after tearful appearance in Commons

Rachel Reeves has not offered her resignation and is “going nowhere”, Downing Street has said, following her tearful appearance in the House of Commons.

A Number 10 spokesperson said the chancellor had the “full backing” of Sir Keir Starmer, despite Ms Reeves looking visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions.

Politics latest: ‘A moment of intense peril’ for PM

A spokesperson for the chancellor later clarified that Ms Reeves had been affected by a “personal matter” and would be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.

Politics latest: Reeves looks visibly upset in Commons

UK government bond prices fell by the most since October 2022, and the pound tumbled after Ms Reeves’s Commons appearance, while the yield on the 10-year government bond, or gilt, rose as much as 22 basis points at one point to around 4.68%.

Downing Street’s insistence came despite Sir Keir refusing to guarantee that Ms Reeves would stay as chancellor until the next election following the fallout from the government’s recent welfare U-turn.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the chancellor the “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence” just hours after he was forced to perform a humiliating U-turn over his controversial welfare bill.

Emotional Reeves a painful watch – and reminder of tough decisions ahead

It is hard to think of a PMQs like it – it was a painful watch.

The prime minister battled on, his tone assured, even if his actual words were not always convincing.

But it was the chancellor next to him that attracted the most attention.

Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset.

It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.

To read more of Ali Fortescue’s analysis, click here

Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ms Badenoch said: “This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the chancellor. Instead they’re creating new ones.”

Turning to the chancellor, the Tory leader added: “[She] is pointing at me – she looks absolutely miserable.

“Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?”

Not fully answering the question, the prime minister replied: “[Ms Badenoch] certainly won’t.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare vote ‘a blow to the prime minister’

“I have to say, I’m always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.”

Mrs Badenoch interjected: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”

The prime minister’s watered-down Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill, aimed at saving £5bn, was backed by a majority of 75 in a tense vote on Tuesday evening.

A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.

After multiple concessions made due to threats of a Labour rebellion, many MPs questioned what they were voting for as the bill had been severely stripped down.

They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Ms Badenoch said the climbdown was proof that Sir Keir was “too weak to get anything done”.

Read more:
The PM faced down his party on welfare and lost
Labour welfare cuts ‘Dickensian’, says rebel MP

Ms Reeves has also borne a lot of the criticism over the handling of the vote, with some MPs believing that her strict approach to fiscal rules has meant she has approached the ballooning welfare bill from the standpoint of trying to make savings, rather than getting people into work.

Experts have now warned that the welfare U-turn, on top of reversing the cut to winter fuel, means that tax rises in the autumn are more likely – with Ms Reeves now needing to find £5bn to make up for the policy U-turns.

Asked by Ms Badenoch whether he could rule out further tax rises – something Labour promised it would not do on working people in its manifesto – Sir Keir said: “She knows that no prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.

“But she talks about growth, for 14 years we had stagnation, and that is what caused the problem.”

Continue Reading

UK

Prosecutors consider more charges against Lucy Letby

Published

on

By

Prosecutors consider more charges against Lucy Letby

Prosecutors are considering whether to bring further criminal charges against Lucy Letby over the deaths of babies at two hospitals where she worked

The Crown Prosecution Service said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.

“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.

“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”

Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.

lucy letby
Image:
Letby worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital

She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.

Police said in December that Letby was interviewed in prison as part of an investigation into more baby deaths and non-fatal collapses.

A Cheshire Constabulary spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Cheshire Constabulary has submitted a full file of evidence to the CPS for charging advice regarding the ongoing investigation into deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neo-natal units of both the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital as part of Operation Hummingbird.”

Detectives previously said the investigation was looking into the full period of time that Letby worked as a nurse, covering the period from 2012 to 2016 and including a review of 4,000 admissions of babies.

Letby’s lawyer Mark McDonald said: “The evidence of the innocence of Lucy Letby is overwhelming,” adding: “We will cross every bridge when we get to it but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution’s unfounded allegations.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Three managers at the hospital where Lucy Letby worked have been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.

On Tuesday, it was confirmed that three managers at the Countess of Chester hospital had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter in a separate investigation.

Read more from Sky News:
‘Catastrophic failure’ that led to Heathrow power outage revealed
Man charged with murder of 93-year-old woman in Cornwall

Police said the suspects, who occupied senior positions at the hospital between 2015 and 2016, have all been bailed pending further inquiries.

There is also an investigation into corporate manslaughter at the hospital, which began in October 2023.

A public inquiry has also been examining the hospital’s response to concerns raised about Letby before her arrest.

In May, it was announced the inquiry’s final report into how the former nurse was able to commit her crimes will now be published early next year.

Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.

In February, an international panel of neonatologists and paediatric specialists told reporters that poor medical care and natural causes were the reasons for the collapses and deaths.

Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

Continue Reading

Trending