Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 78

Thread: Can a 12 year old consent to sex?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    Unlike Northumbrian who immediately jumped to Sir Jimmy Saville's defence when he was accused with countless acts of paedophillia. It's much better to take a holistic approach before intrinsically observing the structure. Why, the subject might go off in your face at any time.
    Yes I did indeed defend Jimmy Savile when the first allegations emerged. You may recall that this initially involved girls in their mid to late teens, and NOT very young children. I was highly critical of the press for subjecting Savile to "trial by media" at which he could not defend himself. Nonetheless, once the scale of his offending became apparent, as well the increasingly younger age of the victims coming forward, it became obvious that not only did the allegations have substance, but that Jimmy Savile had pulled the wool over millions of eyes (including mine) and was one of the most prolific paedophiles in UK history. As a result, I completely recanted my position later in the same thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    I would hazard a guess, that in the case of Jeremy Stammers, the fault doesn't necessarily lie solely in the teacher's lap.
    Oh you are so hilarious Eatmy. Stammers was a teacher who had sex with his pupil, so therefore you are trying to link the noble profession of teaching with paedophilia (knowing of course that I myself am a teacher). How droll. I think you should know that most paedophiles are sad, dysfunctional, middle-aged men who live alone and have no life. I don't know if this rings any bells?

    Whether Stammers could be counted as a paedophile is perhaps a matter of debate, as the girl herself was not a 12 year old adolescent (as in the case being discussed earlier), but in fact was close to the age of consent. Nonetheless, what one can say is that the guy was a complete moron and a dirty sleazebag who betrayed a sacred position of trust and responsibility by entering into a relationship with this girl (not to forget the small matter of the betrayal of his wife). Stammers deserves whatever punishment he has received and it is right that he will never be allowed to work with children again. He is a disgrace to his profession, and he has no sympathy from me as a teacher.

    For f**ks sake, how difficult is it for a man to say no? It really doesn't make any difference if this girl came into his classroom after school wearing stockings and suspenders and begging him to bend her over a desk. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Lets stop making excuses for the weaknesses of some men.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 06-08-2013 at 01:29 AM.

  2. #12
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    I see you can make allowances for Mr Forrest, as I thought you would "matter of debate"; he's not been charged with sex with a minor, but abduction of a minor. But as you say the girl was 15 not 12, so therefore had some control over her sexual behaviour. And indeed, Mr Forrest, even today, is utterly despondent his "fairy tale" episode with Megan has been cruelly shattered by the British State. However, I would imagine no charges over sexual conduct will be brought because the defence counsel would try to make out the girl was just as responsible for her sexual conduct as Mr Forrest; and I don't think either party wants that, as it may be proved true, if not the defence counsel, if it wished to do so, prove the girl a slut that did more to destroy the happy and contented marriage, life and career of Mr Forrest. I therefore considered, which you were so incapable of accepting, that this would be the defence's argument in relation to the Oxfordshire case, that the girls were just as responsible for their sexual conduct as the men. Indeed it is a very narrow and tenuous defence, but a defence nonetheless, for what is seemingly a developing phenomenon in our culture. I'm sure the World would be quite a different place if the legal process, instead of balancing an argument, jumped to conclusions, like yourself. We would then indeed have a legal system much like many of the countries you so despise for a lack of democratic values.

    A SCHOOLGIRL has told a court how her teacher touched her inappropriately when she asked for help with her work.
    Christopher Hird, 47, is accused of touching girls aged 11 to 16 at South Holderness Technology College in Preston while working there as a chemistry teacher.


    Read more: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...#ixzz2Vaa1dY3v
    Follow us: @thisishull on Twitter | thisishull on Facebook
    A friend of yours? I believe Stammer was married, as were most of those Muslim men. You sure do pull these remarkable facts from nowhere Northumbrian. Are fathers who abuse their children sad, dysfunctional, middle-aged men who live on their own and have no life? Do you have kids?
    Last edited by eatmywords; 06-22-2013 at 06:46 AM.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    I see you can make allowances for Mr Stammer, as I thought you would "matter of debate"; he's not been charged with sex with a minor, but abduction of a minor. But as you say the girl was 15 not 12, so therefore had some control over her sexual behaviour.
    I made no such allowance. All I questioned is that whether the crime should be referred to as paedophilia. Some people would only define paedophilia as sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent girl, which clearly this girl wasn't. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that a very serious crime was committed, and the girls role in this regarding her "sexual behaviour" as you put it is completely and utterly irrelevant. Any sexual relationship between a 30 year old man and a 15 year old girl would be criminal, but the fact that he was her teacher made it far worse. A 15 year old may well be physically mature but she is not yet emotionally mature, as defined by law. This scumbag took advantage of her and broke a sacred oath of trust and responsibility which was placed on him, not just by the girl herself, but also by the girl's parents and by society as a whole. How would you feel if you were her father?

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    And indeed, Mr Stammer, even today, is utterly despondent his "fairy tale" episode with Megan has been cruelly shattered by the British State.
    Well many paedophiles view their relationship with their victim through the prism of a fantasy of their own making. They often convince themselves that the relationship was "harmless" and that the girl "wanted it" as much as they did. Perhaps you might consider the very different way in which Megan herself will almost certainly view the relationship in say, 10 years time, when she has learned a little about life and genuine relationships between men and women. I would say there is a 95% probability that she would feel she was taken advantage of by a man she should have trusted, and that a special time when she should have been getting to know boys her own age was stolen away from her.

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    However, I would imagine no charges over sexual conduct will be brought because the defence counsel would try to make out the girl was just as responsible for her sexual conduct as Mr Stammer; and I don't think either party wants that, as it may be proved true, if not the defence counsel, if it wished to do so, prove the girl a slut that did more to destroy the happy and contented marriage, life and career of Mr Stammer. I therefore considered, which you were so incapable of accepting, that this would be the defence's argument in relation to the Oxfordshire case, that the girls were just as responsible for their sexual conduct as the men. Indeed it is a very narrow and tenuous defence, but a defence nonetheless, for what is seemingly a developing phenomenon in our culture. I'm sure the World would be quite a different place if the legal process, instead of balancing an argument, jumped to conclusions, like yourself. We would then indeed have a legal system much like many of the countries you so despise for a lack of democratic values.
    On the contrary, if there is any evidence that this relationship went anywhere beyond a kiss or cuddle it will be difficult for Stammer to avoid a jail term of 3-4 years. When I was doing my teacher training, my tutor told our group of a trainee teacher a few years earlier, who had a "consentual" relationship with a pupil just a few months short of her 16th birthday who was jailed for 4 years. It is absolutely correct that he was jailed. There are additional laws which relate to adults who have responsibility over children which mean that such cases are taken much more seriously. In fact, you may not realise but it is actually illegal for a teacher to have a relationship with a person under 19 years of age (yes 19), even if that person is not their own student or even at their own school.

    The whole point which you fail to grasp is that an underage girl cannot legally consent, and therefore her sexual behaviour is irrelevant in any such case. A person accused of a crime is entitled to a defence but that doesn't mean that all lines of argument from a defence counsel are acceptable. For example, it is no longer acceptable for a defence counsell in a rape case to question the victim about her previous sexual history or the clothes she was wearing when she was attacked. It is greatly to be hoped that in cases of child abuse, it becomes utterly unacceptable for the defence to make any reference to the sexual conduct of the child, or to use the supposed "consent" of the child as any sort of defence. Indeed, I think great steps in this direction have already occurred.

    If you have any sort of sympathy for Stammer, I think you should consider that he would have been trained extensively in child protection issues (as I have been). He would have been taught about how to deal with a child who had a crush on him. He had the power to say no to Megan (if indeed she made "all the running", which I doubt) and he chose not to exercise this power. Therefore, he is responsible for the crime he committed and this is why he deserves jail.

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    A friend of yours? I believe Stammer was married, as were most of those Muslim men. You sure do pull these remarkable facts from nowhere Northumbrian. Are fathers who abuse their children sad, dysfunctional, middle-aged men who live on their own and have no life? Do you have kids?
    Oh so a teacher is a paedophile and you are saying this makes him a "friend" of mine? Are you trying to slur me or my whole profession? Maybe I am misinterpreting you, but you really are an unpleasant piece of work sometimes Eatmy. In fact, I am a married man with 2 teenage children. Obviously, my comment about "sad, dysfunctional, middle-aged men who live on their own and have no life" hit a chord with you, however. You mention that Stammer was married. Well the killers of Sara Payne, Milly Dowler and April Jones certainly fitted into the "sad, dysfunctional, middle-aged" category. Perhaps you are right and I am making assumptions, but I bet you if a girl goes missing in your neighbourhood, the police will first come knocking on the doors of middle-aged men living alone.

    Its odd that in your left-wing/liberal quest to seek "balance" for paedophiles, you seek to trample on the rights of children and parents. Have you not noticed how, whenever you start defending paedophiles (or terrorists for that matter), those on this forum who normally are your political soul-mates (Will and Mack, for example) suddenly desert you and are nowhere to be seen? Doesn't that tell you something?

  4. #14
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    lol defending paedophiles. So you consider those who take a different perspective of a thing to be defending that thing? Do you still think the world flat? I wonder if Megan was more or less sexually aware after she received those lessons in sexual education? You are aware young girls were once married off to the elite to cement land and privilege as little as 2 centuries ago; have you read any Chaucer and Shakespeare? Juliet was a minor, as were many of the female heroines of the bard. And you are aware there were child brothels in this country only 150 years ago? History is a trajectory and not something you can choose to be ignorant of just because you don't like what you see.

    From sex with minors to the disappearance of young children. The sequential motive of your mind is indeed a curious thing. Something like that is as far from my thoughts as the raping of a child. But what a wonderful outlook you have, in that you are in expectation of both tragic occurrences, the disappearance of a child (male or female) and the loss of civil rights of all single middle-aged men, to come about just to prove a point. You are as careless with your facts as you are with your choice of words.

    And really Northumbrian, after I have defended your sole arguing position on this forum a number of times, you then consider I need support from Will and Mack to argue for me. That really is poor form old chap. I think you will find I don't substantiate the topics Will likes to debate and instead argue my own opinion, as much as I don't expect him to argue for me regarding the topics I choose to partake in. Such egoism.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    lol defending paedophiles. So you consider those who take a different perspective of a thing to be defending that thing?
    Well that would depend on the different perspective that you would take. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that you are arguing for us to view paedophilia from the point of view of the paedophile and to argue that the victim is (at least partially) to blame or that she "wanted it" (an argument often used by abusers themselves). That is not an acceptable perspective and it is a perspective that society abandoned many decades ago, along with the notion that women who were raped by strangers were "asking for it" because they wore short skirts and were out alone at night.

    Of course, in many parts of the world, such notions about women and children still predominate. In conservative Muslim societies, women and girls are forced to cover themselves from head to toe so that men are "protected" from the risk that they may be unable to control their lustful urges should they catch sight of an inch of female flesh. Thank god that in a civilised culture we recognise that men should take responsibility for their own actions, and we no longer view men as innocent victims who cannot help themselves when confronted with female sexuality. Then again, there is nothing about our culture which you find worthy of celebration, is there Eatmy?

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    Do you still think the world flat? I wonder if Megan was more or less sexually aware after she received those lessons in sexual education? You are aware young girls were once married off to the elite to cement land and privilege as little as 2 centuries ago; have you read any Chaucer and Shakespeare? Juliet was a minor, as were many of the female heroines of the bard. And you are aware there were child brothels in this country only 150 years ago? History is a trajectory and not something you can choose to be ignorant of just because you don't like what you see.
    I'm not ignorant of history and I fully recognise that many bad and unpleasant things happened in times past. In the same way that we no longer burn witches at the stake or hang people for stealing a loaf of bread, we no longer allow child brothels or the aristocracy to marry 12 year olds. Its called progress. Far from me being the conservative, it would appear that it is you who wants to turn the clock back. Why is this? Do you like little girls yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    From sex with minors to the disappearance of young children. The sequential motive of your mind is indeed a curious thing. Something like that is as far from my thoughts as the raping of a child. But what a wonderful outlook you have, in that you are in expectation of both tragic occurrences, the disappearance of a child (male or female) and the loss of civil rights of all single middle-aged men, to come about just to prove a point. You are as careless with your facts as you are with your choice of words.
    Single middle-aged men (or any other men) do not have a "civil right" to have sex with young girls. Stammer's crime may not be of the same level or severity as the crimes of Roy Whiting or Levi Bellfield, but it lies along the same spectrum of perversion. Don't you at least celebrate the increase in the civil rights of women and children not to be the victims of sexual crime? As recently as the 1930's, girls or women who complained of rape or sexual abuse were often locked away in asylums. One would have thought that this progress at least would chime with your left-wing views, or do you only believe in "justice" for men?

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    And really Northumbrian, after I have defended your sole arguing position on this forum a number of times, you then consider I need support from Will and Mack to argue for me. That really is poor form old chap. I think you will find I don't substantiate the topics Will likes to debate and instead argue my own opinion, as much as I don't expect him to argue for me regarding the topics I choose to partake in. Such egoism.
    Oh come on. You know exactly what I was saying. The reason Will and Mack have not contributed on your side is presumably that they don't agree with you I imagine (either that or they haven't read this thread - they would have to speak for themselves on this issue). How could anyone in their right mind? After all, you have said that 11 year old girls wanted to be raped and tortured by gangs of Muslim men.

    You are a very peculiar person Eatmy. I'm not sure if you actually believe what you write, or if you deliberately decide to oppose any notion of what is decent and common sense. All in the name of "offering a different perspective", eh? Well in this case, and I think I speak for most others, acting as an apologist for paedophiles is one perspective we can all do without.
    Last edited by Northumbrian; 06-08-2013 at 04:26 PM.

  6. #16
    Have you got a link? skinny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,801

    Default

    Eatmy, what do you think the age of consent should be in this country, and do you think it should be different for different races/cultures in this country?

    Allso, if a minor "asked for it" do yo think it is ok for an adult to accept the invitation?

    If I read this thread correctly, and i am not the best academic, I have to agree with North' in the entirety.

  7. #17
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Of course I don't think the age of consent should be lowered, I just know how to provoke Northumbrian to reveal his true motives.

    People often confuse being objective is being biased, which couldn't be further from the truth
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    Of course I don't think the age of consent should be lowered, I just know how to provoke Northumbrian to reveal his true motives.
    So you are deliberately being provocative? Sounds like you are something of a sociopath Eatmy - I bet you are a real barrel of laughs in person. And what have you discovered about my true motive? Presumably that I am looking for an excuse to "hang and flog" paedophiles, because that fits in with your expectation of a rabid Daily Mail reading right-winger doesn't it? Or perhaps that I am once again trying to "pin this on Muslims"? Well you would be wrong on both counts. All I am interested in is fairness for the victims of crime, and to see that wrong-doers are properly punished.

    Perhaps you might consider just asking me a question in future if you want to understand my "true motives". It would be quicker. Unlike you, I actually give a straight answer to a straight question. I am not ashamed about any of my beliefs and I am always happy to both express them and defend them. I get the impression that this is not true with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    People often confuse being objective is being biased, which couldn't be further from the truth
    Well actually that is not always the case in my opinion. There are some things which it is impossible to be objective about - child abuse being one of them. You either take a moral stand against child abuse, or by making excuses for those who commit such crimes, you are helping to subject more children to abuse. Very few people would argue that Switzerland or Sweden or Ireland or Spain were taking the moral high ground in WWII by being neutral.

  9. #19
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Objectivity is not being neutral. I rest my case!
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  10. #20
    Have you got a link? skinny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,801

    Default

    What about my second question?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •