I love the way he seems offended that the cops didn't make an appointment to search his gaff. What a dick.
Cougar - Moderator
...yet if she's 15 years and eleven months old then he's a nonce and everyone else is reaching for the pitchforks.
If you are older, then you should have the maturity to not shag if in doubt.
I grew up in the 60s and we knew to avoid children, we knew it was illegal, and had serious consequences.
There's no excuses, 15 years and 11 months means you should display some maturity and wait a month.
We knew it then, we know it now.
I love the way he seems offended that the cops didn't make an appointment to search his gaff. What a dick.
I think the point was that, while he might not have expected a warning, having the entire news media, including helicopters, ready and waiting as their little convoy headed in is possibly taking the piss.
The coppers must know they are not going to find anything relating to an incident in the 1980s in CR's flat. The whole point of the exercise is the media circus. The police are hoping that the publicity draws out a few more allegations that they can stitch into some sort of credible case.
His reputation is completely trashed, whether this initial allegation has any truth in it or not. Perhaps he deserves it, and perhaps it's the only way to convict the Stuart Halls and Rolf Harrises of this world, but I'm still uncomfortable with it.
If you are older, then you should have the maturity to not shag if in doubt.
Sure. Don't get me wrong, it's still pretty morally bankrupt; aside from anything else, it's an abuse of power. My point was, as gobuchul said, it doesn't sit easily with me that someone can go from fine upstanding citizen to kiddy fiddler for the sake of a couple of months either way on a partner's age.
It's essentially the speed limit argument again. We need to have a limit to (theoretically at least) protect young people from the likes of Savile. But it's an arbitrary one-size-fits-all figure, you don't just throw a switch on adulthood when you hit sixteen. I don't doubt that some people are "mature" before their sixteenth birthday, and expect that similarly there's plenty of folk who still aren't well into their 20s.
There's no excuses, 15 years and 11 months means you should display some maturity and wait a month.
This is what I'm getting at, really.
If you're a fifty year old rock star (say), you probably shouldn't be shagging a sixteen year old girl any more than one who's fifteen and 11 months. That month is your "do not go to prison" card, but it doesn't suddenly make it morally justifiable.
Ie, that one month makes sod all difference to anything at all beyond the possibility of legal action. It's the sort of wooly thinking that empowers the Sun to work up its readers into a froth with their "SHE'S NEARLY LEGAL NOW LADS, WAYHAY!" countdown timers. Three days to go till you can shag Hermione! Only a week till this unknown with massive breasticles can get them out on Page 3!
FFS.
Mark E Smith 😆 has he punched you in the face Woppit
Cougar - Moderator
"If you are older, then you should have the maturity to not shag if in doubt."
Sure. Don't get me wrong, it's still pretty morally bankrupt; aside from anything else, it's an abuse...
From a more pragmatic viewpoint:
If you're in a relationship with the girl, you'll know her age and respect it.
If you're just out for a shag, all the more reason to be careful. Underage kids loaded with hormones aren't noted for discretion which is why we have these laws - to protect them.
There have been cases where people have been charged with sex with a minor (15) and the corruption of said minor. And the judge has thrown out the corruption charge due to the minor being "no stranger to cock".
The age of consent is to protect minors from adults so if a 15 year old of dubious reputation came on to you as an adult you should say no out of moral decency aswell as it being the law even if she looks 18.
And I think a 16 year old is to young for any one over the age of very early twenties in my mind.
But at 18 you have to accept they are an adult and if only because they are free to make there own mistakes I think age difference is no longer an issue.
These are only my views.
It's essentially the speed limit argument again. We need to have a limit to (theoretically at least) protect young people from the likes of Savile. But it's an arbitrary one-size-fits-all figure, you don't just throw a switch on adulthood when you hit sixteen. I don't doubt that some people are "mature" before their sixteenth birthday, and expect that similarly there's plenty of folk who still aren't well into their 20s.
In some countries the age difference is also taken into consideration - a 16-year-old with a 15-year-old is very different to a 35-year-old with a 15-year-old.
The cases which are really wrong are the ones where an underage girl is charged with distributing child pornography for sexting pictures of herself.
It's very complex, and a cut-and-dried age of consent doesn't help - it leads to things like the Sun's countdown to when Charlotte Church was legal.
Aye, I'm sure there's plenty of 16, 17 18 yo who are probably still a bit immature to make proper decisions about sex. Also I think a sliding scale may be more applicable, 16 with a 17yo fair enough, 16 and a 50yo something fairly wrong there but 16 and early twenties still seems not quite right. At that age a couple of years difference is a lot. As cougar says a young person hits their 16th birthday and suddenly it's open season and anything goes....that makes me pretty uncomfortable.I don't doubt that some people are "mature" before their sixteenth birthday, and expect that similarly there's plenty of folk who still aren't well into their 20s.
Especially when our attitude to sex and sex education isn't really all that great
it leads to things like the Sun's countdown to when Charlotte Church was legal.
Never happened.
The Sun is a shitty newspaper but this is one thing it got the blame for off a Guardian journo that never really happened.
[url= http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2012/01/truth-about-that-charlotte-church.html ]Read this.[/url]
Broadsheet journalist telling lies! Who would of thought that? 🙄
Didn't know that. This is real though?
[img] 
[/img]
The Sun is a shitty newspaper
As I said. I don't buy tabloids. Don't buy many papers.
However, as I wrote earlier:
The definition of a paedophile is someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.The media seems to have changed this to mean being attracted to anyone below the age of consent. Not the same thing.
I would also suggest that the picture suggests that those 2 articles were next to each other in the paper, I bet not.
I am not sticking up for NI here, just highlighting how all media is biased.
In no way am I defending under age sex, it is legally and morally wrong.
But it's worth bearing in mind that the age of consent at 16 is relatively new (Victorian?), British (other developed nations have higher and lower ages) and therefore arbitrary figure.
It also is out of step with various other age restrictions in the UK. You can marry, have sex and kids at 16, but not drive, vote, drink, enter various legally binding contracts, watch or make porn, and now you are expected to be in school and/or training till you are 18.
The whole age of majority mess needs harmonising. Not sure whether everything should go up to 18 or down to 16.
Edit- also agree that the definition of paedophilia is grossly misunderstood by the press, public and internet hardmen. Several friends of mine have relationships with big age gaps, none were underage, none are Jimmy Saville.
16 and early twenties still seems not quite right.
I am going to go out on a limb here.
A 16 old girl is physically mature enough to have sex. And I will accept an argument that they are probably not emotionally mature enough to have sex if you accept an argument that neither are most 20year old men.
Never happened.
Just checked. It was the Daily / Sunday Sport that did the Page 3 countdown, with a then-15 Linsey Dawn McKenzie.
neither are most [s]20year old[/s] men
FTFY 😉
I am going to go out on a limb here.A 16 old girl is physically mature enough to have sex.
You're going to have to qualify that I think, I'm not sure where you're going with it.
You're [i]physically [/i]mature enough to have sex after puberty, pretty much by definition. Emotional maturity comes much later (assuming it arrives at all...)
The whole age of majority mess needs harmonising. Not sure whether everything should go up to 18 or down to 16.
I always thought it was a bit odd that you could have sex legally at sixteen, but had to wait another two years before you could watch someone else do it.
Could there be any truth in allegations that Elm Guest House is linked to snuff movies?
Also 16 year olds and twenty year old could move in the same circles so it would not be uncommon to make a connection.
Where a 40 year and 16 year , the forty year old probably went out of there way to make it happen
Broadsheet journalist telling lies! Who would of thought that?
In wholly unrelated news, I met her last weekend. She didn't strike me as the sort of person who would lie intentionally for sensationalism reasons.
IIRC John Peel has said in interviews that when he was working in America he routinely had sex with underage girls.
Edit: yup, including regularly with a 13 year old. He also described himself as abusing them.
Chip that's part of the problem, at any age some will be very mature for their age others will be very immature which is why an arbitrarily defined age limit line in the sand between don't touch and knock yourself out isn't really all that great.A 16 old girl is physically mature enough to have sex. And I will accept an argument that they are probably not emotionally mature enough to have sex if you accept an argument that neither are most 20year old men.
And I'm sure it's not just older males preying on younger females, I know how strongly you feel about sexual equality
She didn't strike me as the sort of person who would lie intentionally for sensationalism reasons.
However, she did write this. Which simply is not true, but is quite provocative.
Charlotte Church was 15 years old when Britain's best-read daily newspaper began a public countdown to the day on which she could be legally ****ed.
hmm 16yo at school, playing on the street, living with parents vs 20yo working, out in pubs, living in own house?Also 16 year olds and twenty year old could move in the same circles
Like I said it varies a lot person to person
So if we don't have a set age, who decides if your mature or not.
At 16 I had 20 year friends, at twenty I had 16 friends.
At the age of 19 I had a girl of 15 knock on my front door who I had only met once before previously.
Now at 15 she was a fine figure of a young woman.
Anyway she knocked on my door and on opening said she was going to suck me dry.
Now people I knew at the time would have invited her in an closed the door, I stepped out and closed the door behind me. Went for a walk and basically asked her what are you like.
I did this because, maybe some what I knew she was 15 but mainly because based on both meetings I saw her as damaged ( I am not trying to be derogatory with that statement) and thought I would be taking advantage of the situation.
I saw her 5 years later with someone else in a pub looking absolutely beautiful and I did kick my self a little bit.
But at 19 I did not look at her at 15 as a child but as a peer, a peer who was under the age of consent.
It is complex but a line has to be drawn in the sand to make an initial arrest possible and then digression will be the the job of the CPS or the courts .
Anyway she knocked on my door and on opening said she was going to suck me dry.
Don't worry, they can't cross the threshold unless you invite them.
Don't worry, they can't cross the threshold unless you invite them.
[img] 
[/img]
[b]Could there be any truth in allegations that Elm Guest House is linked to snuff movies? [/b]
[i]Could[/i] there be? Sure, anything on the David Icke forums [i]could[/i] be possible.
hmm 16yo at school, playing on the street, living with parents vs 20yo working, out in pubs, living in own house?
Equaly my younger bothers 25 and to all intents and purposes living at home, when not at uni where he's socialising with 18yr olds, and other friends left home completely at 16.
hmm 16yo at school, playing on the street,
How long ago were you 16! It's not even cider behind the spar anymore, it's all legal highs and snapchat!
agreed and hopefully the CPS do a good job of not putting 16yos who have sex with their 15yo partners on the sex offenders register, but will prosecute older people and take issue with terms like "predatory" being applied to 13yos.It is complex but a line has to be drawn in the sand to make an initial arrest possible and then digression will be the the job of the CPS or the courts .
It's more the "once passed this line everything is legit" part that I had issues with. AFAIK a much older person "grooming" a 16yo is all above board and legit - If I'm wrong please feel free to educate me.
....anything on the David Icke forums could be possible.
🙂
He wants a PROPER answer ! he posted the question in [b]bold![/b] because nobody was listening !
I led a sheltered life 😳 no cider on the park for me til I was over 17How long ago were you 16!
It's an established fact that if you say something that everyone ignores, requoting it in [b]bold[/b] makes it far more important.
Oh, no, wait, my mistake, it's still a weaselly Daily Mail headline tactic. Is Cliff Richard a nonce? Does cinnamon cause cancer? Could there be any truth in a random statement in isolation?
So let me put it back to you. We don't know. Could there be? Sure. There could also be truth in the allegations I've jut made up that Elm Guest House is run by insectoid aliens from the planet Splort, come down to Earth in the 70s to establish an intricate plot to take over the world by mind-controlling celebrities.
Do you think it's true? Do you have any evidence? Can you provide us with good reason to think that it may be true? Is there something we can discuss? Or are you just dropping random hearsay and conjecture into the conversation like a stone bonker and expecting us all to go "oooh"?
Or are you just dropping random hearsay and conjecture into the conversation like a stone bonker and expecting us all to go "oooh"?
Can I have £3.75 to win on this one please.
Hang on.....
Cinnamon causes CANCER !!
....shit...
Glad to see I've got you thinking a bit...
I can't personally verify this is gospel, but Chris Fay of NAYPIC is a primary witness:
(WARNING!! Traumatic)
Glad to see I've got you thinking a bit...
Well, yes, you have. Problem is what you've got us thinking is "Nurse! he's on the internet again!"
Glad to see I've got you thinking a bit...
Do you actually believe that ?
🙄
Well, yes, you have. Problem is what you've got us thinking is "Nurse! he's on the internet again!
You have a Nurse at your beck and call?
Don't worry, just stop taking the pills, once the sedation wears off, you'll be able to understand the world far more clearly...
Do you actually believe that ?
I have evidence to suggest that if nothing else, there is a great deal of truth involved...
I have evidence to suggest that if nothing else, there is a great deal of truth involved...
That not an answer to the question I asked.
Never mind. I should know by now that engaging conspiracy nutters in any sort of conversation is a total waste of time.
As you were.
It's not an answer to anything, it's just a number of positive-sounding words vomited together in a meaningless fashion.
What evidence do you have?
That not an answer to the question I asked.
Oh dear, my bad, are you the spider and I'm the fly?
I don't want to believe it, but I accept there are many dark things in this world... look at Ian Watkins
Review this piece, then make up your own mind:
I am another person uneasy with CR's name plastered across the media when he has not been charged - or even interviewed if I have read reports correctly.
I heard a bit of an interview with Jim Davidson a week or two ago who also got caught up in similar accusations (over 16 though) and the cases have now been dropped. Whatever you think of his brand of comedy he had a rough year and he claims lost £500k income! Jimmy Tarbuck was cleared as well. Their careers are likely to suffer with the 'no smoke without fire' attitudes.
