Liverpool FC Forum

by **wrighty (not mark!)** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 pm

'im the leaaaaaaaader, im the leaaaaaaaaaaaaader, im the leader of the ring i am!!!'

by **wrighty (not mark!)** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 pm

seriously though, he is one sick puppy

by **Garymac** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:57 pm

Yup, if hes found guilty of having sex with a 12 year old girl, he will be killed by firing squad.

by **drummerphil** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:59 pm

I see Jonathan King is back in trouble too.........pair of sick :censored:

all right

by **2520years** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:01 pm

Often with child-abusers, they can't change. I've known of some that have begged to be kept in jail because they know they'll re-offend.

I'm not expressing sympathy for them, because they knew that they were getting into was wrong. I think the only answer is to keep them away from the outside world. Strangely, the most compassionate thing might even be to execute them.

by **wrighty (not mark!)** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:13 pm

it wouldn't be compassionate, but I believe Child molestors and child killers are sub-human and should be executed. It would save us money that we would be spending on them in prison which could be spent on child abuse organisations or something

by **drummerphil** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:50 pm

get rid i say

by **Judge** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:53 pm

drummerphil wrote:is up the gary glitter, in the rimming slang

is this what you mean phil :laugh:

by **wrighty (not mark!)** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:03 pm

If he was a golfer and was about to putt, you just know he would rim the cup wouldn't he!?

by **Woollyback** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:03 pm

paedophiles are genuinely mentally ill people, they should be kept in a secure mental health unit until they can prove that they are safe to be amongst the public. GG clearly isn't, so he needs to be kept out of the community indefinitely, either that or in a locked room with the fathers of the children he has abused

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:23 pm

im going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here, but just be warned that i am not defending it.

i did this subject for my dissertation when i did my law degree so I have some idea about it as i am sure JBG will also.

its a very touchy subject so i will be careful, but i want to know your feelings and see if you all fully understand the subject or just go along with the 'hang them' mentality.

i will give two scenarios

1. a 16 year old boy has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend with her consent.

2. a 60 year old man has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend with her consent

OK, now which one is worse?

you will all be saying the second one. wrong answer, they are both as bad as each other in the eyes of the law. even the 16 year old boy can be branded as a pervert in the eyes of the uneducated and have to sign the sex offenders register. now i want you to think how many underage girls are actually having sex before the age of 16. now do you think that 16 year old boy should be branded for his act? would you call him a pervert and suggest that he be hung or shot? (take away the argument that the older guy should know better because i know some 16 year old kids with more intelligence and common sense that some 60 year olds i know).

Now i may be wrong but i havent really looked at the glitter case, but I am confident that he always has consent from the girls, as opposed to the rapists who force the underage person into the act. does this make it any better? do you still consider glitter to be as bad as someone who preys on children and abuses them without their consent, the rapist.

in malaysia the legal age of consent is 18, however you can marry much younger and therefore sex is ok as its within marriage. a recent case was between two cousins, she was 14 and he was 23. he got caught and arrested and charged. the charges were dropped when the girl agreed to marry him. before this agreement he was classed as a rapist. is it right to class this guy the same as a rapist who preys on underage children.

the point i am trying to make is that sometimes people do have sex with underage girls with their consent, however in the eyes of the law they are classed as the same as child abusers and rapists.

please dont think for one minute i am defending people who do have sex with underage girls, but there are circumstances where it happens with consent, as in the recent glitter situation with the 14 year old. now do you all class glitter as the same as someone who drags a 14 year old girl into a park and rapes her.

just interested to know your views

thanks

by **Judge** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:30 pm

peewee wrote:im going to put the cat amongst the pigeons here, but just be warned that i am not defending it.

i did this subject for my dissertation when i did my law degree so I have some idea about it as i am sure JBG will also.

its a very touchy subject so i will be careful, but i want to know your feelings and see if you all fully understand the subject or just go along with the 'hang them' mentality.

i will give two scenarios

1. a 16 year old boy has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend with her consent.

2. a 60 year old man has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend with her consent

OK, now which one is worse?

you will all be saying the second one. wrong answer, they are both as bad as each other in the eyes of the law. even the 16 year old boy can be branded as a pervert in the eyes of the uneducated and have to sign the sex offenders register. now i want you to think how many underage girls are actually having sex before the age of 16. now do you think that 16 year old boy should be branded for his act? would you call him a pervert and suggest that he be hung or shot? (take away the argument that the older guy should know better because i know some 16 year old kids with more intelligence and common sense that some 60 year olds i know).

Now i may be wrong but i havent really looked at the glitter case, but I am confident that he always has consent from the girls, as opposed to the rapists who force the underage person into the act. does this make it any better? do you still consider glitter to be as bad as someone who preys on children and abuses them without their consent, the rapist.

in malaysia the legal age of consent is 18, however you can marry much younger and therefore sex is ok as its within marriage. a recent case was between two cousins, she was 14 and he was 23. he got caught and arrested and charged. the charges were dropped when the girl agreed to marry him. before this agreement he was classed as a rapist. is it right to class this guy the same as a rapist who preys on underage children.

the point i am trying to make is that sometimes people do have sex with underage girls with their consent, however in the eyes of the law they are classed as the same as child abusers and rapists.

please dont think for one minute i am defending people who do have sex with underage girls, but there are circumstances where it happens with consent, as in the recent glitter situation with the 14 year old. now do you all class glitter as the same as someone who drags a 14 year old girl into a park and rapes her.

just interested to know your views

thanks

difficult scenarios peewee.

however, one could argue that at 16 yrs he is still a boy himself, whereas, at 60 yrs, you are definately an adult, and more responsible

just my opinion

by **wrighty (not mark!)** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:43 pm

Interesting peewee, it's good to see some different view points that are carefully set out. First, my instincts (no the law) tell me that a 16 yr old boy and a 15 yr old girl is fine because they are like, only a yr between them. However, the 60 yr old scenario, i would frown on it, but it is completely different to having child porn on your computer isn't it?

Also, you made a v.interesting point that in that region,if you marry an under-age girl you are permitted to have sex with her. Becomes clear why Glitter fled there. Seems like a law that can be gleefully exploited by sickos such as himself.

Now......

My point was Child molestors and Child killers.

That should clear the muddied waters of saying lets kill paedophiles. As you said peewee, If I have sex with a 15 yr old girl, then im a paedo right? Does that mean I should be killed? There is a phrase used in the states for this called 'statutory rape' whereas the person will go to jail unless the plaintiff waives the charge. This is all classed as 'paedophillia'.

Thanks for pointing those issues out peewee.

by **Woollyback** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:58 pm

To be fair Peewee I think the "hang 'em high" brigade are referring to the scumbags who abuse very young children, either violently or by coersing them into giving consent, rather than the 18yr old guy who gets branded a pervert for kn0bbing his girlfriend the day before she turns 16

Still a very thought-provoking post though, I'd say it's virtually impossible to draw the line between what's just healthy "growing-up" amongst teenagers and what's child abuse, hence why the law has to be quite clear-cut and arbitrary. Otherwise if the law was more of a grey area many would see this as a paedophile's carte blanche to go about their business so long as they had a good lawyer

There was a fair few girls at my school who I'd love to have boned when I was 15 (not that any of them said yes I'm afraid

) but if I HAD boned them I certainly wouldn't class myself as a pervert. Now that they all WANT to sh@g me

I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole cos that would be a bit sick & dirty ol' man now that I'm 34

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:01 pm

wrighty (not mark!) wrote:Interesting peewee, it's good to see some different view points that are carefully set out. First, my instincts (no the law) tell me that a 16 yr old boy and a 15 yr old girl is fine because they are like, only a yr between them. However, the 60 yr old scenario, i would frown on it, but it is completely different to having child porn on your computer isn't it?

Also, you made a v.interesting point that in that region,if you marry an under-age girl you are permitted to have sex with her. Becomes clear why Glitter fled there. Seems like a law that can be gleefully exploited by sickos such as himself.

Now......

My point was Child molestors and Child killers.

That should clear the muddied waters of saying lets kill paedophiles. As you said peewee, If I have sex with a 15 yr old girl, then im a paedo right? Does that mean I should be killed? There is a phrase used in the states for this called 'statutory rape' whereas the person will go to jail unless the plaintiff waives the charge. This is all classed as 'paedophillia'.

Thanks for pointing those issues out peewee.

no problem. i thought i may get stick as it appears im making a case for them, but really im pointing out a problem with the law. in the uk depending on the girls age its either rape as a young girl can not consent or if she is older is unlawful sexual intercourse, i think the cut off is 14, i dont quite remember.

Liverpool FC Forum

Gary glitter - Scum

Who is online