Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Savile Case Lead To 'Persecution', Lawyer Say


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#46    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,279 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 10 May 2013 - 05:46 PM

View PostSetton, on 10 May 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

Genuine question here, linked to through the fire's point: Why do we set the age of consent at 16? How is it ok for a 50 year old man to have sex with a girl on her 16th birthday but not for an 18 year old to have sex with her the day before?

There's no magical change on your 16th birthday. Basically there are two ways of looking at it:

Either it's an issue of responsibility, in which case, setting an arbitrary age is the only realistic way. But why 16? Practically everything else is 18. People in this country can legally have sex before they can learn to drive. If it's about responsibility, is that really the right way round?

Alternatively, it's about paedophilia. In which case, the decision should be on an individual basis. I've met 14 year olds who are so far through puberty that they could pass for adults. Equally, I know a girl my age who gets taken for 12 a lot of the time.

So, why 16?
its not so much why a 50 year old should be allowed to have sex with a girl  on her 16th birthday, its why they would want to have sex with someone so young?
But there has also got to be an age where a teenager is recognised as an adult, whether that 16 year old wants to now legally go off with a 50 year old man is something which we could discuss all night to the actual reasons behind it.
We know some girls look older, but the sickening thing is that there are men who once they go with a 15 year old, will make no qualms about going younger.
I do not agree with men marrying girls as young as nine, no doubt there are many out there who will disagree, but as it stands, in ENGLAND it is illegal, and I hope it stays that way and we do not change it because some think it is ok!!
It is also illegal to abuse children, so once you allow an adult to have sex with a minor, you are basically telling the child thats how it is! THATS WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#47    Walter White

Walter White

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  • "He will regret it but once, and that will be continuously." - J.E.B. Stuart

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:38 PM

If the age of consent was brought down to 13, would men and women previously convicted of sleeping with adolescents (who were between 13 and 16 when the offence took place) have their convictions quashed?



"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union.  It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for it's preservation." - General Robert E. Lee

"I think I understand what military fame is; to be killed on the field of battle and have your name misspelled in the newspapers." - Major General William Tecumseh Sherman

#48    Setton

Setton

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,546 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:56 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 10 May 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

I do not agree with men marrying girls as young as nine, no doubt there are many out there who will disagree, but as it stands, in ENGLAND it is illegal, and I hope it stays that way and we do not change it because some think it is ok!!

Nor do I. As far as I am concerned, there is no argument for making marriage/sex/whatever legal with pre-pubescent children. The issue is that, after puberty, a person is biologically an adult and that's where lines get blurry.

Quote

It is also illegal to abuse children, so once you allow an adult to have sex with a minor, you are basically telling the child thats how it is! THATS WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Obviously it is wrong to abuse anyone, never mind a child. But the point is, how do we define a minor? Is it under 18, 16, or 13? In Spain, the age of consent is 13. You may have noticed Spain hasn't collapsed as a result, nor are all the children there emotionally traumatised. Personally, I think 13 is right at the lower end of what is reasonable. I'd argue for 15 probably if we have to set an arbitrary number on it but anything from 14-18 seems reasonable to me.

View PostWalter White, on 11 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

If the age of consent was brought down to 13, would men and women previously convicted of sleeping with adolescents (who were between 13 and 16 when the offence took place) have their convictions quashed?

Of course not. No law can be applied retroactively. In the same way that if eating bread was made illegal tomorrow, we wouldn't all go to jail. It works the same regardless of whether a law is criminalising or decriminalising something.

'Good' is not the same as 'nice'.
'No, murder is running your broadsword through someone because he worships a different God to you... Or is that evangelism? I get confused.'
When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed - They are not it.
I don't object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.

#49    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,279 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:27 PM

View PostWalter White, on 11 May 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

If the age of consent was brought down to 13, would men and women previously convicted of sleeping with adolescents (who were between 13 and 16 when the offence took place) have their convictions quashed?

Good question. I can see loads of lawyers rubbing their hands for this.
I wonder what the parents of these girls would say about them being released?

Wonder how many of released will try for a younger aged girl/boy, hoping that one day that age will get quashed too?

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#50    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,279 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:36 PM

Sorry, Setton, I respect you have an opinion, but  can not respect the age you think is acceptable.
Biologically, you have babies, children, teenagers then adults, just because some teenagers dress or act older does not mean they have reached the adult stage.
There are the mothers who dress their daughters up for those competitions, make up and all, personally i think its gross, but thats just my opinion, but those girls are still LITTLE girls, just because they are dressed up to look like a woman, does not make them one.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#51    Setton

Setton

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,546 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:37 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 11 May 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

Sorry, Setton, I respect you have an opinion, but  can not respect the age you think is acceptable.
Biologically, you have babies, children, teenagers then adults, just because some teenagers dress or act older does not mean they have reached the adult stage.

It has nothing to do with how they dress or act. The simple fact is that, once past puberty, a person is biologically an adult. Can I ask you, why do you think 16 is fine but not 15? What's the special difference between the two if the person is past puberty?

Quote

There are the mothers who dress their daughters up for those competitions, make up and all, personally i think its gross, but thats just my opinion, but those girls are still LITTLE girls, just because they are dressed up to look like a woman, does not make them one.

I couldn't agree more. As I said, it has nothing to do with how they dress or act and everything to do with biology. The other important factor is emotional maturity. I haven't touched on it before simply because it's an entirely individual thing. That's why I think setting any arbitrary age is unrealistic. Someone can be 20 years old and have the maturity of a 10 year old. Equally there are 15 year olds with more sense than people twice their age.

I will say though, I don't have any workable alternative to a set age. Otherwise 'I thought she looked like an adult' becomes a defense in court. I am merely trying to point out that there is no special change that happens on a child's 16th birthday. They only become adults sexually at 16 because the law defines it as such.

View Postfreetoroam, on 11 May 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

Good question. I can see loads of lawyers rubbing their hands for this.
I wonder what the parents of these girls would say about them being released?

Wonder how many of released will try for a younger aged girl/boy, hoping that one day that age will get quashed too?

As I said above, they wouldn't be released. That's not how the law works. They broke what was the law at the time they broke it. It's just as wrong as breaking a brand new law tomorrow.

'Good' is not the same as 'nice'.
'No, murder is running your broadsword through someone because he worships a different God to you... Or is that evangelism? I get confused.'
When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed - They are not it.
I don't object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.

#52    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,279 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:09 PM

View PostSetton, on 11 May 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

It has nothing to do with how they dress or act. The simple fact is that, once past puberty, a person is biologically an adult. Can I ask you, why do you think 16 is fine but not 15? What's the special difference between the two if the person is past puberty?



I couldn't agree more. As I said, it has nothing to do with how they dress or act and everything to do with biology. The other important factor is emotional maturity. I haven't touched on it before simply because it's an entirely individual thing. That's why I think setting any arbitrary age is unrealistic. Someone can be 20 years old and have the maturity of a 10 year old. Equally there are 15 year olds with more sense than people twice their age.

I will say though, I don't have any workable alternative to a set age. Otherwise 'I thought she looked like an adult' becomes a defense in court. I am merely trying to point out that there is no special change that happens on a child's 16th birthday. They only become adults sexually at 16 because the law defines it as such.



I get what you are saying about the 15 and 16 years, but when there is a law like this, there has to be an age. like driving, when I was a mere girl, on our estate the boys all knew how to drive before they were ten, (no, i am not from Liverpool), personally I think when the teenagers leave school at 16 and are expected to go out and get a job and live in the adult world, then thats when the legal age limit should be.
But as for old men finding teenage girls sexually attractive and actually enforcing their fantasies, that is wrong...but if a girl wants to go and money dig, then thats up to them, if they are above the legal age limit.

Edited by freetoroam, 11 May 2013 - 07:10 PM.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#53    Walter White

Walter White

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  • "He will regret it but once, and that will be continuously." - J.E.B. Stuart

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:37 PM

View PostSetton, on 11 May 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Of course not. No law can be applied retroactively. In the same way that if eating bread was made illegal tomorrow, we wouldn't all go to jail. It works the same regardless of whether a law is criminalising or decriminalising something.
I wouldn't be so final about it.  The Home Office last year announced that homosexuals could apply to have their convictions for homosexual acts quashed (lesbian acts were never illegal, go figure :lol:).  So there would be a precedent if it ever came to the situation described in my above post.

Anyway, we're arguing over a circumstance that would never come into being, I'd be very surprised to see age of consent brough down to 13.

Edited by Walter White, 11 May 2013 - 07:39 PM.

"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union.  It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for it's preservation." - General Robert E. Lee

"I think I understand what military fame is; to be killed on the field of battle and have your name misspelled in the newspapers." - Major General William Tecumseh Sherman

#54    Setton

Setton

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,546 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:41 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 11 May 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

I get what you are saying about the 15 and 16 years, but when there is a law like this, there has to be an age. like driving, when I was a mere girl, on our estate the boys all knew how to drive before they were ten, (no, i am not from Liverpool), personally I think when the teenagers leave school at 16 and are expected to go out and get a job and live in the adult world, then thats when the legal age limit should be.

I agree about other age limits. I guess 16 does make sense in terms of education; since full time education is compulsory up to 16, they might want to reduce any chance of pregnancies up to that age.

Just been doing some further reading and it seems that, if we decide purely on biological reasons, it should be different depending on gender (most girls are mature by 15, most boys by 18). I knew there was a difference, just didn't realise how much.

Quote

But as for old men finding teenage girls sexually attractive and actually enforcing their fantasies, that is wrong...but if a girl wants to go and money dig, then thats up to them, if they are above the legal age limit.

I'm not sure whether your using the word enforcing is correct or not. If they enforce their fantasies, it suggests an element of force or at least coercion. If that's what you meant, then of course that's wrong. If it's based on mutual attraction though, why is it wrong? Also, why is it fine for a girl to go after someone for money but not for a man to go after a girl out of genuine affection/attraction? That seems a bit twisted to me. Then again, men do tend to be more readily vilified.

I should say that, as I'm only 21, I have no idea what I'll find attractive when I'm 50. I can honestly say that I no longer feel any attraction to girls under 18 (although that has a lot to do with just how dull the majority are :P). On the other hand, I can't see myself finding a 50 year old woman attractive (unless we've been involved a long time, of course). Time will tell, I guess.

View PostWalter White, on 11 May 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

I wouldn't be so final about it.  The Home Office last year announced that homosexuals could apply to have their convictions for homosexual acts quashed (lesbian acts were never illegal, go figure :lol:).

Surely ladies would never do such a thing! :o Hmm... the smiley needs a monocle :P

On a serious note, that's a very good point. I would like to think any cases where there was any hint of coercion would not be overturned. If there were ones genuinely based on mutual attraction, it gets harder to decide.

Quote

Anyway, we're arguing over a circumstance that would never come into being, I'd be very surprised to see age of consent brough down to 13.

As would I. 13 is definitely too young as it falls right in the middle of puberty for most people.

'Good' is not the same as 'nice'.
'No, murder is running your broadsword through someone because he worships a different God to you... Or is that evangelism? I get confused.'
When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed - They are not it.
I don't object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.

#55    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,279 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:52 PM

View PostSetton, on 11 May 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:



Just been doing some further reading and it seems that, if we decide purely on biological reasons, it should be different depending on gender (most girls are mature by 15, most boys by 18). I knew there was a difference, just didn't realise how much.


Thats the idea, but whether they are mature enough to actually behave like a real adult is debatable. I do not think a 15 year should be having a baby either, 1st they are missing out on so much in life and 2nd, unless they have a strong family behind them (which is why in Spain in probably works better because they are still very family orientated) then 15 is still not mature enough, just look at many of the children being brought up today in England by underage mothers, they are being brought into a life of benefits. Not a good example to set.
I do not want to be funding young girls because they think they are old enough to bring up a child and yet have never experience what work is!

As for boys maturing at 18....hahahahaha, some never grow up! :yes:

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#56    Setton

Setton

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,546 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 11 May 2013 - 09:24 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 11 May 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

Thats the idea, but whether they are mature enough to actually behave like a real adult is debatable. I do not think a 15 year should be having a baby either, 1st they are missing out on so much in life and 2nd, unless they have a strong family behind them (which is why in Spain in probably works better because they are still very family orientated) then 15 is still not mature enough, just look at many of the children being brought up today in England by underage mothers, they are being brought into a life of benefits. Not a good example to set.
I do not want to be funding young girls because they think they are old enough to bring up a child and yet have never experience what work is!

It's a good point about family and I should point out, I do think 15 is too young to have children by a long way. As far as I know, there aren't many 13 year olds in spain with children either. As I said, on maturity, it's an individual thing and you really can't put an age one it.

Quote

As for boys maturing at 18....hahahahaha, some never grow up! :yes:

Nope, our toys just get bigger and more expensive :D

'Good' is not the same as 'nice'.
'No, murder is running your broadsword through someone because he worships a different God to you... Or is that evangelism? I get confused.'
When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed - They are not it.
I don't object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.

#57    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 829 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:18 PM

View PostSky Scanner, on 09 May 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

13 is wrong on every level, I don't care who said it or what culture it's in.
I agree. It is wrong on every level. 13 year olds shouldn't be having sex with each other, let alone creepy old men such as Stuart Hall!


#58    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 829 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:20 PM

View PostTaun, on 09 May 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

I can't believe anyone but a paedo would want the age lowered to 13... Much less a woman who should know better...  I suppose a case could be made for it going to 16 (I believe it's 18 here in Oklahoma)... but even then it's a slippery slope...

"Cradle robbing" has always disgusted me on a personal level... Maybe I'm just not "hip" enough for today...
Well I agree with you. Age of consent in UK is 16 which I think is fine.Any younger I think is not right.


#59    Almagest

Almagest

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2013

Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:41 PM

I have to object to one point I've seen raised over and over again. Thirteen year olds are not children. Most people have undergone the early stages of puberty by that point, breasts and pubic hair sprout, voices change etc. Now, a pedophile is NOT someone who has sex with someone under the age of consent, it's someone sexually attracted to children. There is a different term for those who are attracted to teenagers. That's not to say it's right. I think having a blanket age of consent is a good thing, sure, but that doesn't make everyone who has sex with someone under that age a pedophile. Or a sexual predator. Some fifteen year olds are very mature. Some thirty year olds are very immature.

And don't you recognize the disconnect between saying that teenagers are children but abiding an age of consent of 16.

Life is the result of the struggle between dynamic opposites Form & Chaos, Substance & Oblivion, Light & Dark And all the infinite variations of Yin & Yang
When the pendulum swings in favour of one It will eventually swing in favour of it's opposite Thus the balance of the universe is maintained

-Jeru the Damaja

#60    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 829 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:48 AM

Well that's quite true.
what the raving tabloid readers don't get is abuse laws are not black and white
Obviously it's sick and wrong for anyone to sleep with children, toddlers,etc. And those kinds of people are pedophiles and should be locked up. there can be no excuses.
But when it comes to teenagers. It's not as simple. Because say a 14 year old looks 18 and goes to a club and a man in his 20s or 30s ends up sleeping with her. he'll have his name plastered all over the papers and locked up for being a pervert.Even though he thought she was 18.The club will get closed down and the barmaid will lose her job. But nothing will happen to the girl. Also sometimes young teenagers throw themselves at older guys and lie about there ages.
This of course DOES NOT excuse what saville etc did because they raped and abused young teenagers.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users