MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Just heard a priest explain that over 95% of the boys who were 'allegedly' abused were homosexual so it wasn't abuse!
A few points I struggle with that perhaps STW could explain:
It seems an awful high proportion of homosexuals or have I lived a sheltered life.
At what age does a person decide their sexuality? I would have thought buggering a 4 year old was wrong regardless of their preferred sexuality.
Even if they were consenting children, surely the priests were in a position of trust, a bit like teachers, and should not have done it.
It is probable my skewed left wing liberal thinking but can anyone defend this man's thinking?
Where did you hear a priest give that explanation? It sounds extraordinary.
To paraphrase a certain lady from the sixties, "of course they'd say that". A priest is supposed to be celibate, and the whole point of being in the priesthood and being a man of God is to resist the temptations of the flesh. There is no way that proportion of children would be homosexual, the revolting little pervert is trying to absolve himself and others of blame by passing blame onto the innocent party. He's just doing what the Governent has encouraged many to do. It's the same culture of blame passing seen in the 'Baby P' case.
Did you hear really this or is this just 'made up' in order to get a response?
It was on The Big Question. Unbelievable. The priest claimed the victims weren't children but teenage boys. Hence it wasn't child abuse, but homosexual acts.
That sounds a little like those women that go out asking to be raped...
Taylor - That was the program. I walked in while wife was watching. Heard the priest and walked out in disgust.
It seems an awful high proportion of homosexuals or have I lived a sheltered life.
You've led a sheltered life mate ....... [i]everyone's[/i] at it these days.
I'm actually quite surprised you haven't given it a go and still just doing all that heterosexual nonsense - no one's really doing much of that anymore these days.
It hurts a bit at first, and you might possibly need to give up cycling for a couple of weeks or so, but then it gets much easier and it's, fun fun fun all the way. You'll kick yourself for not giving it a go earlier.
You'll kick yourself for not giving it a go earlier
My thoughts exactly...I just got someone else to kick me (but not in the bum because it was already quite tender)
I feel slightly sorry for the priests if they really reckoned that. In anciient Sparta, everyone would have understood perfectly and no-one would have been traumatised. They were just born in the wrong epoch.
Even if they were consenting children
Children cannot consent only adults can under 14 it is manadatory RAPE iiirc (possbly 13)above dependson age differenc eeg 15 year old girl and 17 year old girl v 15 year ols girl 45 year old man police /cps have discretionary powers.
To blame the victim (whether gay or straight) is just absurd and to defend the church in this manner is equally absurd
AS I said on the other thread, the insitution of the Catholic Church should be on the Sex Offenders register.
LMFAO!
Junkyard - children can give consent - "gillick competence"
The age of consent is simply that below that age sex is illegal. Nowt about age differences or younger age = rape
TJ - no, surely Gillick is about consent to medical treatment, not consent to sex?
Junkyard you are pretty much right.
If the child is under 13 the offence of rape is committed, whether or not they consent (more often termed statutory rape, mandatory rape could mean something entirely different) - Section 5 SOA 2003. The rationale being that a child under 13 cannot give informed consent.
If the child is 13,14 or 15 years and consented, the offence is sexual activity with a child. This is either Section 9 or Section 13 of the SOA 2003, depending on the age of the offender (18+ and under 18 respectively), with lower penalties and greater discretion over whether to prosecute when the offender is under 18 as you point out.
If the child is 13,14 or 15 and does not consent obviously that is normal rape.
EDIT This is for England and Wales, Scotland's got different laws, although I think a Scottish version of the SOA is on it's way.
Gillick competence is for any form of consent. Sex between children remains illegal whether consent is given or not.
The ages thing is just me being wrong 🙁
such a defence is entirely consistent with the church's raddled hypocrisy 🙁
Now I know why the age of consent in Vatican City is the lowest in Europe - age 12. Gives the priests a lot more leeway.
🙁
I sincerely hope no parent leaves a child unattended in the Vatican...
It would appear that the Catholic church is buggered.
[i]It would appear that the Catholic church is buggered. [/i]
Some would say the opposite, that the church is growing: it's widening its circle and allowing entry by the back door.
it's widening its circle and allowing entry by the back door.
if this didn't involve children it might be marginally amusing...
TJ
Gillick competence is for any form of consent. Sex between children remains illegal whether consent is given or not.
WRONG
From Wikipedia MY BOLD
Lord Scarman's test is generally considered to be the test of 'Gillick competency'. [b]He required that a child could consent if they fully understood the medical treatment that is proposed:[/b]"As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed." Lord Scarman
PS TJ as you point out you cannot consent to break the law as it is still illegal even if they consent because a minor cannot consent to SEX
It is odd the Gillick relates to the CONSENT to medical treatment of contraception to a minor (presumably because they are sexually active)yet they are LEGALLY NOT capable of CONSENTING to the act.
TJ, yes, sorry - I think Junkyard is much more convincing. Directly relevant statute has got to be a better source for age of sexual consent than a precedent that relates to medical treatment and is subjective on the child.
[i]if this didn't involve children it might be marginally amusing... [/i]
I think that's a bit harsh Simon. I laughed my ass off.
Theres going to be a big CofE debate today over allowing Gays into the Clergy. Is this formally allowing in or recognising that its already happened years ago? Sick of the Church's hypocrisy. It must be awful being a Christian and gay with the idiots in charge of the church.
How can you be both? Christians don't agree with gayness.
Yes you can. Its idiots interpretation of a ancient novel (which was probably amended in later years to persecute homosexuality in the faithful). Says it all- a profession within religion attracts Bigots and pondlife. Whereas the faithful actually [u]believe[/u] in the subject of devotion.
They need to make their minds up.
My understanding is that Gillick competence applies in any area that requires consent. Of course as I said sex under 16 remains illegal consensual or not.
Consent is usually required in a medical setting for sure but it can apply in other areas. The same test that has become known as gillick competence would then apply.
We are slightly at cross purposes. My intent was to state that Gillick competence is far wider than medical issues but as I stated several times statute will override it as in the case of age of consent
Its idiots interpretation of a ancient novel (which was probably amended in later years to persecute homosexuality in the faithful)
I don't get it - why is it so easy to believe that ancient Jewish scholars were *more* progressive on the issue of homosexuality than their successors?
hora - it's the church of scotland that is having the debate(?) at the moment. the CofE has allowed homosexuals for some time, though not praticing. I assume that they are now experts since practice is not allowed.