Savile Case Lead To 'Persecution', Lawyer Say

[dekker87]

I personally couldn't care less what the age of consent is. I just think it's silly to make men and even boys criminals if they have consensual sex with a 14 or 15 year old.

If you're not intelligent enough to understand the equivalence of a 12 year old being responsible for murder but not being responsible for the rest of his actions then there is no point in talking to you.

and if turn you say that you cannot understand that there is a difference between knowing it's wrong to murder someone and letting someone have sex with you then i have to begin to question your motives.

murder = always wrong regardless of age.

don't you get that?

but please....help me out here....explain why a grown man would WANT to have sex with a 14yr old child!?!?

[dekker87]

You don't believe that some people are born bad?

i do but this is totally irrelevant in this context. sex is not bad per se. it's bad between adults and children.

its quite simple to grasp really.

do you have children yourself?

[freetoroam]

You don't believe that some people are born bad?

Everyone is born both, but when the bad is allowed to materialize past the good, well, we know what happens!

WoW! that was a bit godly for me!

[through the fire]

murder = always wrong regardless of age.

don't you get that?

but please....help me out here....explain why a

grown man would WANT to have sex with a 14yr old child!?!?

Why would anyone want to have sex with a fat person?

Are you actually going to argue that there is any difference between having sex with someone aged 15 and 364 days and someone on their 16th birthday?

[dekker87]

Why would anyone want to have sex with a fat person?

because they find them attractive.

ergo someone wants sex with a 14yr old because they find children attractive.

disgusting.

Are you actually going to argue that there is any difference between having sex with someone aged 15 and 364 days and someone on their 16th birthday?

yeah - you can get locked up for one but not the other....for the record i think anyone over the age of 20 is a little dodgy if they find anyone younger than 18 attractive....

again tho irrelevant because you are saying 14 is an acceptable age.

so - have you children of your own?

[freetoroam]

Why would anyone want to have sex with a fat person?

Are you actually going to argue that there is any difference between having sex with someone aged 15 and 364 days and someone on their 16th birthday?

Whats the fat person bit got to do with this?

Many under age teenagers have sex with each other, no secret there.......but leave it to them!! NOT to the men who know better!!

[through the fire]

yeah - you can get locked up for one but not the other....for the record i think anyone over the

age of 20 is a little dodgy if they find anyone younger than 18 attractive....

again tho irrelevant because you are saying 14 is an acceptable age.

so - have you children of your own?

You can't justify that law can you? Not without looking completely ridiculous.

You kind of give yourself away with finding 20 year olds "dodgy". I bet you also find people with beards "dodgy".

Yes I do.

[dekker87]

You can't justify that law can you? Not without looking completely ridiculous.

You kind of give yourself away with finding 20 year olds "dodgy". I bet you also find people with beards "dodgy".

Yes I do.

i've justified it over and over.

how old are your children?

[freetoroam]

You can't justify that law can you? Not without looking completely ridiculous.

You kind of give yourself away with finding 20 year olds "dodgy". I bet you also find people with beards "dodgy".

Yes I do.

you are now talking absolutely sh ( te!

[dekker87]

you are now talking absolutely sh ( te!

fellas coming across very very dodgy....especially for someone who allegedly has children.

he doesn't seem to be able to get his head round the fact that 14 yr old have childs bodies....and if a grown man is attracted to them..well they have a word for such people.

[freetoroam]

through the fire, are you religious and what religion do you follow if you are?

[through the fire]

i've justified it over and over.

how old are your children?

Nope you haven't justified it.

Explain the magic that happens between the 15 years and 364 days of existance and 16 years.

There must be some huge biological, psychological and emotional shift right?

Explain it.

[dekker87]

Nope you haven't justified it.

Explain the magic that happens between the 15 years and 364 days of existance and 16 years.

There must be some huge biological, psychological and emotional shift right?

Explain it.

yeah...it's called adulthood.

how old are your kids?? are you going to answer the question?

[freetoroam]

Nope you haven't justified it.

Explain the magic that happens between the 15 years and 364 days of existance and 16 years.

There must be some huge biological, psychological and emotional shift right?

Explain it.

It means they can have sex with their 16 or 17 or 18 year old girl/boyfriend, not so that a 40 year old man can jump in there, although the chances are they would have already tried if they were that way inclined.

Edited May 10, 2013 by freetoroam

[through the fire]

yeah...it's called adulthood.

how old are your kids?? are you going to answer the question?

Adulthood begins at 16 now?

I'll answer that once you answer me about what magical thing happens on a persons sixteenth birthday.

I think I know what I'm dealing with here. You believe in secret government canals of paedophiles right? Jimmy savile was connected to it all too I suppose?

[dekker87]

Adulthood begins at 16 now?

I'll answer that once you answer me about what magical thing happens on a persons sixteenth birthday.

I think I know what I'm dealing with here. You believe in secret government canals of paedophiles right? Jimmy savile was connected to it all too I suppose?

your 'question' is nonsensical. you are advocating an age of consent of 14...not 16 so why the obsession?

as for secret government 'canals' (lol)...appears the metropolitan police are now also taking this sort of thing seriously....finally....notwithstandng naysyers such as yourself who believe it perfectly fine for sex to take place between adults and children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal

In January 2013, The Independent on Sunday reported that police were investigating claims that a former Liberal MP – who is no longer alive – sexually abused young boys at Elm Guest House, which the article claimed "was allegedly used by a powerful paedophile network whose members are said to have included former leading Conservative politicians."^[6]

In February 2013, it was reported that police were investigating allegations that in the early 1980s a "paedophile ring of VIPs" abused boys from the Grafton Close Children's Home in Richmond, south-west London. It also claimed that Kasir had photographs or video of many establishment figures at Elm Guest House, one photograph allegedly showing a former cabinet minister in a sauna with a naked boy.^[7] In March 2013, The Independent on Sunday reported that at least three men named in documents as visitors to the Elm Guest House were later convicted of multiple sexual offences against children.^[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal

[through the fire]

You're trying to wriggle away from the question because even someone as simple minded as you can see you can't answer it without looking silly.

Are you aware that sex with a 13, 14, 15 or 16 year old is not paedophilia?

I doubt police are taking you wacky theories seriously, but we live in a PC world where the screaming tabloid readers believe that jimmy savile was some kind of kind of da peedoze and they have to be appeased to quieten them down.

Canals was auto correct btw lol

[dekker87]

You're trying to wriggle away from the question because even someone as simple minded as you can see you can't answer it without looking silly.

no. you're changing the parameters because your original point is invalid.

you call me simple minded....there are various names i could call you...yet they appear self-evident so i won't be descending to that level...i'll simply keep supplying you the rope that you're doin very well hanging yourself on so far.

Are you aware that sex with a 13, 14, 15 or 16 year old is not paedophilia?

yes thanks. it is still having sex with children tho...i forget the correct term and i'm not googling for things like from work!

I doubt police are taking you wacky theories seriously

these are not my 'wacky theories' - i posted information there regarding a police investigation into potential child abuse by high ranking members of parliament...are you able to read?

but we live in a PC world where the screaming tabloid readers believe that jimmy savile was some kind of kind of da peedoze and they have to be appeased to quieten them down.

jimmy saville raped terminally ill kids....he raped kids in childrens homes...again what he was is self-evident.

look...i dont believe you're actually a nonce but you're being contrarian for the sake of it on a subject that demands far more seriousness than the usual level of childish debate on the internet....for the sake of your own kids (if you actually have some) i'd leave it for now.

[through the fire]

no. you're changing the parameters because your original point is invalid.

Nope my original point is completely valid.

The point is that if you're going to have an arbitrary age of consent why not have 15 and 6 months or 16 and 47 days?

Hopefully you realise I'm right about there being no difference between the day before your 16th birthday and the day after. Have an honest think about it.

I know that you don't think i'm a "nonce". But you have to consider why it's the first card you play. Could it be because your argument can't stand up to scrutiny?

Look at what your worldview is doing to you. You're too scared to search for the term ephebophilia online. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

[Setton]

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?

[freetoroam]

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!

[Walter White]

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?

[Setton]

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.

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.

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.

[freetoroam]

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?

[freetoroam]

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.