Eddy Shah opens a can of worms

Home Forum Chat Forum Eddy Shah opens a can of worms

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 115 total)
  • Eddy Shah opens a can of worms
  • Junkyard
    Member

    Is the person biological an adult or a child?

    The age of consent is below the age of adulthood and children can legally have sex.

    Biological would mean able to reproduce – ie create babies/sexual maturity and will clearly lead to some very young children being “adults” in your view and some actual legal adults [18+] still being children.
    Its why we use something else based on age

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    Eddie Shah’s an idiot.

    fanatic278
    Member

    Not sure why so many people here have such strong deterministic views. So if I have sex with a girl who’s 15 years and 364 old I’m a disgusting pervert, but wait until midnight and it’s all hunky dory?

    What if I go to Canada and have sex with a 16 year old? Does that just make me a disgusting pervert in Canada, but not when I come home?

    I’m not necessarily commenting on what this Shah fella has said, just wondering why lots on here seem to think it’s all black and white. The minute someone even half raises the debate then the press and general public seems to drown them out in a torrent of outrage.

    The law is black and white. If you dont like the laws campaign for change.

    deadlydarcy
    Member

    The law is black and white. If you dont like the laws campaign for change.

    It may be written in black and white, but thankfully, sentencing guidelines allow for quite a lot of greyness.

    fanatic278
    Member

    The law is black and white. If you dont like the laws campaign for change.

    Why do we need the law to define our moral compass? Why can’t we make our own minds up about what is right and wrong? This debate is getting swallowed up by people who like to jump on their high horse and quote the law. Why not accept there are grey areas and then try and work out the facts of each individual case before sharpening your pitchfork?

    If a lawyer and judge says a 15 year old girl is predatory then is that an impossibility? If indeed she was predetory then can’t that be mitigation against a severe custodial sentence?

    Bit like speeding this debate. Your either over the limit or not imo. Describing a 15 yearold as a sexual predator is not only very stupid but also dangerous when uttered by a judge.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Why do we need the law to define our moral compass?

    Because some people’s “moral compass” is damaging to others. That’s why. It’s not rocket science.

    yunki
    Member

    wow… just wow

    I’m guessing by some of the heinous attitudes towards young girls being displayed in this thread that some of the men here have only ever encountered teenaged girls whilst drunk in nightclubs.. or worse

    I feel a little bit sick

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    Describing a 15 year old as a sexual predator is not only very stupid but also dangerous when uttered by a judge.

    So the prosecution lawyer thought that was what she was, the judge thought that was what she was. But you know better than those legal professionals equipped with the facts of the case and many years experience in dealing with such cases.

    You are awesome, we should do away with the whole legal profession and just let you decide sentences from what you read in the media.

    some of the heinous attitudes towards young girls being displayed in this thread

    What thread are you reading?

    Junkyard
    Member

    Why do we need the law to define our moral compass?

    I would not wish to get into a moral debate with a mugger though as they impose their moral compass on mine. Is that a serious question?

    If indeed she was predetory then can’t that be mitigation against a severe custodial sentence?

    whilst I reject the word predatory here it may be reflected in the sentence given but not whether an offence took place like driving
    80 past a school at shutting time versus 80 on a mway at 3 am for example.

    So the prosecution lawyer thought that was what she was, the judge thought that was what she was. But you know better than those legal professionals equipped with the facts of the case and many years experience in dealing with such cases.

    Fallacy Appeal to authority – just because they said it it does not automatically become true – they might be wrong as other equally well versed legal people said.

    Citing someone whose job is to offer mitigation and defend someone as an example of a truth is fraught with dangers not least because a jury did not listen tot their version and found the person guilty and their version to be incorrect and untruthful.

    You are awesome, we should do away with the whole legal profession and just let you decide sentences from what you read in the media.

    Fallacy as it is a straw man

    Premier Icon Clover
    Subscriber

    Eddie Shah’s and many of these comments make me furious. Surely alarm bells would ring with a girl very much younger?

    In my teens, I looked of indeterminate age and had a facade of maturity. Underneath utter confusion. I was pretty good at calculus but much of the rest of the growing up stuff was based around serious amounts of risk taking, drunken, idiocy. In retrospect, I can put it down to a desire to grow up mixed with puzzlement (how?) and terror.

    The fact that the adults I met didn’t take advantage of the teenage behaviour could be testament to them being good adults rather than selfish, gratification-seeking, older men who don’t give a toss about who they are shagging. It could also be down to the law which was there to protect me from myself as well as the stupid, the selfish, the shameless and the abusive.

    So the prosecution lawyer thought that was what she was, the judge thought that was what she was. But you know better than those legal professionals 

    I bet I spend more time with teenage kids than they do, so actually I do think I know better yes.

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    Citing someone whose job is to offer mitigation and defend someone as an example of a truth is fraught with dangers not least because a jury did not listen tot their version and found the person guilty and their version to be incorrect and untruthful.

    It was the prosecution who said it, not the defence. 🙄

    Fallacy as it is a straw man

    I know it’s your favourite operandi modus, to just claim everything a straw man or an ad hominem, but you are often wrong as in this case.

    I bet I spend more time with teenage kids than they do, so actually I do think I know better yes.

    Why not just stick to the details of the case they made the comments in, what do you know about the details presented to the court?

    Junkyard
    Member

    I stand corrected re it being a prosecutor Cheers.
    However the point still remains that it is an appeal to authority, One of the authorities is now no longer prosecuting , due to this comment,sex offenders cases so they are properly some way short of the expert you claimed they are.
    Re straw man do you wish to claim that that is what ernie actually said or meant? Its not what he said nor meant so you are clearly attacking a position he never took

    But you know better than those legal professionals

    Speaking about Mr Colover’s remarks, a CPS spokesman said: “The language used by prosecution counsel was inappropriate.
    “The transgressor in this case was the defendant and he bears responsibility for his criminal acts.”
    Alan Wardle, from the NSPCC, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The age of consent in this country is 16, before that a child cannot consent. As a society we have drawn a line in the sand on that.
    “In this case, the child was 13 and the man was 41 – it’s pretty clear who the predator was.”
    In a statement, the Attorney General’s Office said: “The case has been drawn to the attention of this office as a possibly unduly lenient sentence.
    “This means it’ll be considered by a law officer (the attorney or solicitor general) who will decide whether it should be referred to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.”

    It would appear they are not alone in questioning the judgement made so plenty seem to think they “know better”

    yunki
    Member

    what do you know about the details presented to the court?

    it really doesn’t matter does it?

    fanatic278
    Member

    I do not need the law to define my moral compass, is probably the point I meant. It just seems some people on here use the law to define a clear line between what is wright and wrong. I’m happy to state that I don’t always agree with the law and am quite capable of making my own mind up.

    Why can’t a lawyer or judge refer to a girl as predatory if she truly is? I get that there is possibly a underlying reason of bad parenting or maybe even abuse to why that may be the case, but nevertheless it is still relevant to the case and sentencing so it has to be mentioned.

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    it really doesn’t matter does it?

    Yes the details of the case are clearly important in guiding the remarks made by the judge.

    Re straw man do you wish to claim that that is what ernie actually said or meant? Its not what he said nor meant so you are clearly attacking a position he never took

    It was AA not Ernie, and he claimed to know better than the judge so it was the position he took. It is clear you are just looking for an argument rather than bothering to read anything.

    Junkyard
    Member

    she was a 13 year old victim of sexual abuse

    Calling her predatory was just a really shit way of saying **** up due to abuse but with no empathy for her plight, hence the reaction.

    As we are discussing the behaviour of a 41 year man , whatever her behaviour, he should have known better.

    I get your broader point that many of us are moral and we pick our moral independent of the law but it would not really work would it in the real world if we were all allowed to do this

    Anarchy does not equate harmony.

    Junkyard
    Member

    It was AA not Ernie, and he claimed to know better than the judge so it was the position he took. It is clear you are just looking for an argument rather than bothering to read anything.

    😳

    Sorry again

    Can I still keep my appeal for authority or do i fully strike out 😀

    mightymule
    Member

    I sincerely and utterly hope that nobody on here ever has to deal with the sexual abuse of a child and its aftermath, however I believe that possibly some posts would have phrased slightly differently if some of the posters had been in that situation. It is the worst kind of hell imaginable, and the effects on both the victim and the victim’s family last for years. The last thing that somebody who has suffered this kind of abuse needs is an odious piece if excrement like Shah implying that what happened to them was all their own fault.

    yunki
    Member

    but nevertheless it is still relevant to the case and sentencing

    how is it relevant to sentencing..?

    Premier Icon Coyote
    Subscriber

    Some guys on here seem pretty relaxed in their attitudes to sex with girls under the legal age of consent.

    Describing a 13 y/o girl as a sexual predator is beyond belief and anyone arguing in defense of that statement disgusts me.

    glupton1976
    Member

    22 now….

    And to think that there was a multihundred post thread on that person just a couple of years ago that ended up with many people being forcibly ejected from the forum.

    Some of the outraged on this thread were not so long ago bleeting about what a curse life must be for a paedophile and how tough things are for them, how it’s not their fault and how their lives have been blighted by their illness. But now, no matter what a paedophile should always know better and make the right decision in a situation where they could get it very wrong. Funny that.

    Junkyard
    Member

    could you link to the thread where the “outraged” did as you claim?

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Some of the outraged on this thread were not so long ago bleeting about what a curse life must be for a paedophile and how tough things are for them, how it’s not their fault and how their lives have been blighted by their illness.

    Well there’s a thread I missed. Got a link ?

    Premier Icon Lifer
    Subscriber

    Waits with interest…

    And +1 to Coyote.

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    how is it relevant to sentencing..?

    Are you suggesting that the details of the crime are irrelevant to sentencing? How else would you suggest sentencing is decided, maybe on the spin of the wheel of fortune?

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    Many of the posts remind me of this.

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU[/video]

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Many of the posts remind me of this.

    Like Coyote some of the posts on here quite frankly sicken me.

    I think you have completly missed the point of the Brass Eye Episode.

    ScottChegg
    Member

    pointless smartarse comments

    I’m not sure what I could usefully contribute to a thread where underage sex is somewhere between unavoidable and inevitable, to be honest.

    Astonishing.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Two irony images on one thread ScottChegg – leave a few on google images for others to use. Perhaps you could try a different tactic ?

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    I think you have completly missed the point of the Brass Eye Episode.

    No, I get that it highlighted the paranoia, the hysteria, and the need of so many to make a public display of that worthiness that reality and debate was pushed to the margins.

    Premier Icon Lifer
    Subscriber

    Which isn’t what this thread is about. At all.

    yunki
    Member

    I’m not sure what I could usefully contribute to a thread where underage sex is somewhere between unavoidable and inevitable, to be honest.

    this

    you post regularly on a forum where you kind of imagine that basically, all the other users are fairly sound.. then suddenly a couple of fellas pop up saying that

    ‘yes, 13 year old girls are indeed sexual predators, some misogynistic old perv of a judge has said so.. so we’d better all start being a bit more careful about where we put it hey lads, even though if we get it wrong it won’t really be our fault’

    beyond belief.. troll perhaps..?

    I’m interested though.. what age are the posters that are supporting the judge..? I suppose things can look slightly different depending on what stage of maturity you are at..

    could you link to the thread where the “outraged” did as you claim?

    No, it was deleted after about 20 posts.

    No, it was deleted after about 20 posts.

    but you remember the names of the contributors, maybe you can list them to help me with my memory?

    No, I get that it highlighted the paranoia, the hysteria, and the need of so many to make a public display of that worthiness that reality and debate was pushed to the margins.

    Can you point out where I have displayed paranoia or hysteria, or where I have just written stuff to appear worthy? All I have highlighted is that someone under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex and it is up to the adult to ascertain the age of the person you are shagging. It has also been implied that I am odd in being 100% sure that everyone I have shagged was over 16. If that’s odd so be it, I am happy to be odd.

    but you remember the names of the contributors, maybe you can list them to help me with my memory

    So you can string them up?

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 115 total)

The topic ‘Eddy Shah opens a can of worms’ is closed to new replies.