# Purple Aki gets another 2 years



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Sorry if its already been done but our purple friend has been given another stretch for fettling young boys in North Wales !

On a side note neighbour of mine reckons he served a bit of time with him and he's just as bad inside !


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

somebody from this forum was a kiddy fiddler?


----------



## dixie normus (May 11, 2008)

I thought it was legal in Wales:confused1: :lol:


----------



## Baz R (Jun 16, 2010)

I heard your purple akis cousin...............hense the name deeppurple ^^^^


----------



## chrisj22 (Mar 22, 2006)

Baz R said:


> I heard your purple akis cousin...............hense the name deeppurple ^^^^


LMFAO! :lol:


----------



## Baz R (Jun 16, 2010)

dixie normus said:


> I thought it was legal in Wales:confused1: :lol:


Nah mate you getting it mixed up its only legal with sheep in wales :lol:


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

Baz R said:


> I heard your purple akis cousin...............hense the name deeppurple ^^^^


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

avatarless keyboard warrior :tongue:

nah only joking


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

GODDAMMIT! How am i supposed to do his own 'special move' on him if he in jail:lol:


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

deeppurple said:


> somebody from this forum was a kiddy fiddler?


Not sure if you know about Aki but google him mate.

:beer:


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

i cant get over mrs weemans avi!!!! ps muscle touching lmfao


----------



## gambitbullet (Dec 12, 2008)

Aparantly he is the goto guy for info on appeals and stuff when your in jail, as he knows thew law system inside and out.


----------



## stevens (Feb 1, 2010)

everyone of them should be branded on the forehead and there d*cks cut off.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Someone care to explain for everyone's benefit why kiddy fiddling is wrong?

Not why you don't like it, but why it's wrong.

(Read my words carefully and don't infer that I think it's good or am defending it.)


----------



## Judas (Jan 21, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Someone care to explain for everyone's benefit why kiddy fiddling is wrong?
> 
> Not why you don't like it, but why it's wrong.
> 
> (Read my words carefully and don't infer that I think it's good or am defending it.)


WTF! Sicko! Only kidding. Who the hell is Purple Aki?  :confused1:


----------



## sthelensboy1989 (May 20, 2010)

purple aki lives not far away from me ( thatto heath . st helens lol ) sin him a few times . scary looking guy :sneaky2:


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Someone care to explain for everyone's benefit why kiddy fiddling is wrong?
> 
> Not why you don't like it, but why it's wrong.
> 
> (Read my words carefully and don't infer that I think it's good or am defending it.)


It's my opinion that to take a childs innocence is inherently wrong and children are easily manipulated.

I dont understand why you ask tho it seems a very immotive and possibly volatile question.


----------



## stevens (Feb 1, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> Someone care to explain for everyone's benefit why kiddy fiddling is wrong?
> 
> Not why you don't like it, but why it's wrong.
> 
> (Read my words carefully and don't infer that I think it's good or am defending it.)


gota be a wind up.either that or your having a drink on a saturday and even still at the wind up.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

stevens said:


> gota be a wind up.QUOTE]
> 
> X2
> 
> ...


----------



## HJL (Apr 26, 2009)

goonerton said:


> what about people just watching the videos and not actualy being involved in the photography etc?


----------



## deeppurple (Mar 13, 2010)

gemilky69 said:


> Not sure if you know about Aki but google him mate.
> 
> :beer:


i just did, he's a strange one!

muscle touching!?!? wha!?


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> Someone care to explain for everyone's benefit why kiddy fiddling is wrong?
> 
> Not why you don't like it, but why it's wrong.
> 
> (Read my words carefully and don't infer that I think it's good or am defending it.)


Interesting question, I see where you are coming from with it - probably a thread worthy one all of its own, bound to get some colourful replies :lol:


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> Someone care to explain for everyone's benefit why kiddy fiddling is wrong?
> 
> Not why you don't like it, but why it's wrong.
> 
> (Read my words carefully and don't infer that I think it's good or am defending it.)


and while we are at it, someone care to explain, also for the benefit of everyone, why touching young mens muscles is so wrong? And getting them to invert squat on you?

Don't see an issue tbh :lol:


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Someone care to explain for everyone's benefit why kiddy fiddling is wrong?
> 
> Not why you don't like it, but why it's wrong.
> 
> (Read my words carefully and don't infer that I think it's good or am defending it.)


Personally I think it's wrong because a child is completely innocent, because they are unable to defend themselves, because it will leave them traumatised for their entire lives etc.

Being a "paedophile" is a genuine psychiatric condition, but sooner or later those afflicted will act upon their urges, be it by looking at child porn or molesting a child etc. It would be fantastic if there was any way to treat their condition through therapy, but this has rarely proved successful, so unfortunately they are usually only apprehended when they do engage in inappropriate activity, and are rightly punished.


----------



## andy0009 (Jan 27, 2009)

is it that he likes muscles, but, if he was to touch a adults muscles i think most would give him a pasting so he turned to children?

i would say i hope he becomes some ones bitch inside prison but he'd like becoming one of them! nonce....


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

The stupid. It hurts.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

andy0009 said:


> is it that he likes muscles, but, if he was to touch a adults muscles i think most would give him a pasting so he turned to children?
> 
> i would say i hope he becomes some ones bitch inside prison but he'd like becoming one of them! nonce....


Have you seen the fella matey ?

Its unlikely he will be anyones "bitch" but l believe he has a neat trick to make people his.


----------



## dixie normus (May 11, 2008)

rs007 said:


> and while we are at it, someone care to explain, also for the benefit of everyone, why touching young mens muscles is so wrong? And getting them to invert squat on you?
> 
> Don't see an issue tbh :lol:


There is an ancient byelaw in Ayrshire which makes it illegal not to touch a hench blokes muscles.:laugh:


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

What is this trick?

We were all petrified of this (unt when we were kids. Permanent danger to kids therefore should be locked up for life.

Anyone remember what happened with Gary Kelly? If I remember rightly, Aki was chasing him, the kid was so petrified he run onto railway tracks where he was killed by a train. Gary Kelly was a Birkenhead boy just like me.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Huntingground said:


> *What is this trick?*
> 
> We were all petrified of this (unt when we were kids. Permanent danger to kids therefore should be locked up for life.
> 
> Anyone remember what happened with Gary Kelly? If I remember rightly, Aki was chasing him, the kid was so petrified he run onto railway tracks where he was killed by a train. Gary Kelly was a Birkenhead boy just like me.


I am told by my neighbour he sets up a couple of chairs and asks chosen victim would he like to earn £10,000 when they get out. He saks them can they get thro a gap that small and as they try BANG ! Knocked out cold and raped.

Cant confirm how true it is but no reason to disbelieve him. Also said he sets up "ghost" visits so it ends up just you and him in a room together.


----------



## jimmy79 (Jul 1, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinwale_Arobieke


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

Very interested (worried about) what Pro Divers rebuttle is going to be?

To ask that question you must have an argument for why it's not wrong??

:s


----------



## FATBOY (Mar 4, 2008)

, to even ask why its wrong is very strange in its self,

if its to cause a debate or reaction then im sure people will engage you


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

Prodiver said:


> Someone care to explain for everyone's benefit why kiddy fiddling is wrong?
> 
> Not why you don't like it, but why it's wrong.
> 
> (Read my words carefully and don't infer that I think it's good or am defending it.)


In some cultures, it is not seen as wrong at all. There are all sorts of places where youngish children (aged 10 or so) are taught how to please the opposite sex by an elder as in this way they are then seen as marketable as a good wife/husband. I doubt these kids are massively traumatised they just see it as something they have to do.

In some tribes, the mothers fellate their baby sons to help them sleep...

In the Vatican, the age of consent is 12...in the UK it is 16, and the US it's mainly 18. In the US there's a programme called 'To Catch a Predator', where they basically trap someone who's setting up a meeting for sex with an underage girl. Except these girls are usually 16 or 17 - in this country, a 21 year old man with a 17 year old girl is hardly going to raise eyebrows, but over there' he's an evil paedophile.

In this country, children are told it's a Bad Thing and that's all they see - also means they're ashamed of telling people in case they're punished.

I'm not defending people who hurt and abuse children but there can be two sides to it.

A friend of mine used to visit an old man, and do bits of shopping for him, mainly because he'd let her have a bit of his brandy and some roll ups. He liked her to sit on his knee and wear pretty dresses when she went round. Dirty old man? Yes, but he never actually did anything to her she wasn't willing to do in return for some **** and booze (she was 12 or 13 at the time), and was well aware what was going on...(as far as I know he never actually touched her, as such, just liked her sitting on his knee...)


----------



## Baz R (Jun 16, 2010)

^^^^^^^^^ That doesnt make it fukin right though if thats what your thinking.


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

Baz R said:


> ^^^^^^^^^ That doesnt make it fukin right though if thats what your thinking.


Did I say that?

TO us, all those things are abhorrent. We have no right to dictate to a tribe in wherever that their customs and practices are wrong, no matter how vile we find them.

I find female circumcision downright offensive and wrong, but there's not much we can do apart from educate. Thankfully it's illegal here, despite all number of pressure groups claiming 'tradition' and 'culture' and who knows what - only thing that surprises me is that they haven't banned circumcision yet - that's just as bad....religion or not, it's still harming a child without their consent:cursing:


----------



## The Project (Jul 21, 2007)

This is so wrong!


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Beklet said:


> In some cultures, it is not seen as wrong at all. There are all sorts of places where youngish children (aged 10 or so) are taught how to please the opposite sex by an elder as in this way they are then seen as marketable as a good wife/husband. I doubt these kids are massively traumatised they just see it as something they have to do.
> 
> In some tribes, the mothers fellate their baby sons to help them sleep...
> 
> ...


They stone people to death in certain countries for being gay and for adultery, in other countries they think raping babies will cure aids...

But does anyone in our society need to be asked why that is "wrong"?

If you were playing devil`s advocate and arguing that these nonce cases are ill rather than evil, I could understand your argument.

But to be arguing that sexually abusing kids may not actually be wrong??

I take it you don`t have children?


----------



## Raptor (Feb 16, 2010)

I have met him while he was in action.. I was in eccles in salford and seen him on the metrolink.. as i got off he followed some lad who was about 17-18 and clearly trained, i posted about this on MT, anyway Aki was asking where he trained etc, the lad was well intimidated so i went over and said "Your that Purple Aki guy!" he replied "No my name is Andy but is this Purple Aki a celebrity or a footballer or something?" I said well something like that.

He isn't like everyone says 'The scary black man' he was actually really intimidated by my accusations and im not massive by any means. he is a big guy yeah but not in shape, just big.


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

goonerton said:


> They stone people to death in certain countries for being gay and for adultery, in other countries they think raping babies will cure aids...
> 
> But does anyone in our society need to be asked why that is "wrong"?
> 
> ...


Wow chill, she was explaining what other cultures views are.

She wasn't saying that she agrees with it and that she's a paedo.

Chillthefvckout


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

MillionG said:


> Wow chill, she was explaining what other cultures views are.
> 
> She wasn't saying that she agrees with it and that she's a paedo.
> 
> Chillthefvckout


You chill the [email protected] out mate.

I`m quite sure Becklet is capable of responding to my post herself, if she so chooses.

I wasn`t being rude to her. or accusing her of being a "paedo" was I?

But I cannot for the life of me comprehend the reasoning behind her post....Or Prodiver`s original question, for that matter.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

To question doesn't mean to agree with, debate about any subject is the only way to move

forward.

Neither prov or beks are advocating child abuse

I think its strange how in USA a 21 year old guy can be classed as a paedo for having consensual

sex with a 17 year old girl, whilst in this country a 70 year old can have sex with a 16 year

old legally.

I'd say with 100% confidence that beks and prov are only trying to debate the issue rather

than the usual "cut his balls off" invisible hardman remarks.

Another question, how come the only paedo's that get grief in bird are the old, infirm or weak

individuals, the big feckers lead virtually normal lives, funny that innit.

Child abuse of any sort is abhorrent, as is any crime against innocent children

who have no means of protecting themselves, we need to find the reasoning behind

why these perverts do what they do, if there wired wrong then they should be

kept out of harms way forever, or until they are decrepid and no longer a danger

to our most innocent individuals, either that or "cut there balls off" :lol:

I do find it puzzling how some seem to view aki as a joke character, what if he

was doing it to your son or grandson, not so jokey then


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

goonerton said:


> You chill the [email protected] out mate.
> 
> I`m quite sure Becklet is capable of responding to my post herself, if she so chooses.
> 
> ...


Seemed pretty rude to me mate.

As was that post.

Gunning for a hatrick?


----------



## Baz R (Jun 16, 2010)

Milliong pipe down you little wiesel.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

tel3563 said:


> To question doesn't mean to agree with, debate about any subject is the only way to move
> 
> forward.
> 
> ...


I never said either of them were.

I just don`t understand the motivation behind the original Prodiver question of why it is wrong to be a "kiddy fiddler"?

Do we also need to ask why it is wrong to walk down the road and punch an old person on the nose and spit in their face for looking at you wrong??

We all just know its wrong so it is strange when someone asks "why"

I am also baffled by Becklets post.

She says

"In this country, children are told it's a Bad Thing and that's all they see"

Well as far as I`m concerned it is a bad thing and what else should they see??

She then says

"I'm not defending people who hurt and abuse children but there can be two sides to it."

What does that mean?...Sometimes the child is at fault too, for being abused by a paedophile??


----------



## engllishboy (Nov 1, 2007)

Paedophile - Someone sexually attracted to PrePubescent children (Usually <13)

Ephebophile - The attraction to mid to late adolescents (14-19)

People need to learn he difference between the two. Ephebophilia becomes illegal once it breaks laws..obviously...such as sex with someone who isn't at the AOC, or watching porn containing someone below the age of 18.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2010)

engllishboy said:


> Paedophile - Someone sexually attracted to PrePubescent children (Usually <13)
> 
> *Ephebophile - The attraction to mid to late adolescents (14-19)*
> 
> People need to learn he difference between the two. Ephebophilia becomes illegal once it breaks laws..obviously...such as sex with someone who isn't at the AOC, or watching porn containing someone below the age of 18.


What age does the person have to be to be a Ephebophile? :confused1:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

The few who read my post correctly saw that I was NOT questioning whether paediphilia is wrong, but WHY, because so many blindly accept it's wrong and cannot actually say why.

Beklet - as usual, and thanks! - got nearest to a cogent reply.

And, as she pointed out, age is an arbitrary factor that comes into it, different in different parts of the world.

It's not a child's "innocence" that is the chief consideration. As Beks implied, most children throughout the world are far more aware of sex from a young age and so less frightened and less vulnerable than our kids, whom we paradoxically dress provocatively like tarts yet coddle as if they were infants.

It's not even that SEX is the chief factor, though most seem to think it is. Are they obsessed wiith sex? Do they secretly know all too well and fear their own instincts?

It's *CONSENT* that's the chief factor. It's WRONG to invade anyone's space - especially a child's - physically, sexually, emotionally, if they are vulnerable and do not consent!

And it's totally wrong to coerce and groom a child to give some sort of pretend consent.

So they question is, when and how can someone give consent?

Our kids would be far less vulnerable, less attractive to paedos and less traumatised if they were brought up from an early age to understand that it's wrong for anyone to take advantage of them, be it sexually, physically...

And as Beks also implied, some psychologists who've studied world customs suggest they would be even less traumatised if people didn't tell them they were damaged...


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

Baz R said:


> Milliong pipe down you little wiesel.


Pmsl.

YES SIR!!!!

:lol:


----------



## engllishboy (Nov 1, 2007)

Dan said:


> What age does the person have to be to be a Ephebophile? :confused1:


Post adolescent i would of thought. Pretty much every bloke is an ephebophile. I mean, find me someone that wouldn't tap a hot 18 year old! lol! It's just sounds like a bad word because its so similar to paedophile. But calling someone a paedophile when they're not, is slander/libel, so i thought i'd just point it out.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver

*"It's CONSENT that's the chief factor. It's WRONG to invade anyone's space - especially a child's - physically, sexually, emotionally, if they are vulnerable and do not consent!*

*
*

*
And it's totally wrong to coerce and groom a child to give some sor of pretend consent.*

*
*

*
So they question is, when and how can someone give consent?"*

That is why we have an age of CONSENT. i.e anyone under a certain age is deemed too young to be able to responsibly consent to having sex...

What would you like to see the legal age of consent set at??

*"And as Beks also implied, some psychologists who've studied world customs suggest they would be even less traumatised if people didn't tell them they were damaged..."*

*
*

*
I think you are way off the mark there. Psycholigists will tell the victims that they were in no way to blame for what happened to them and that they have the rest of their lives in front in them. *

The fact is child abuse REALLY does damage many people , a lot of the victims carry feelings of guilt and worthlessness around with them for the rest of their lives.

Not helped by people saying things like there are two sides to it, and maybe they consented to the abuse.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

goonerton said:


> ...
> 
> Do we also need to ask why it is wrong to walk down the road and punch an old person on the nose and spit in their face for looking at you wrong??
> 
> We all just know its wrong so it is strange when someone asks "why"...


YES - we do need to ask why and to teach our children WHY!

It's children who have never had the WHY of morality and behaviour explained to them who are the first to transgress.

It's lack of understanding WHY that leads tyrants, Presidents and Prime Ministers to dismiss the importance of the individual and send forces to war.

It's no good simply to say to kids "don't do that because I say so", or "because people don't like it". They'll see through that immediately: what's so wrong about people not liking something that someone else thinks is advantageous?

We don't all "just know something is wrong" - people differ enormously in what they consider right and wrong.

People today are patricularly weak on WHY things are wrong, because they do not practice a religion and so never spend any formal time considering why things are right and wrong.

And remember that all peadophiles are always someone's father, brother, mother, uncle, sister, son, daughter... They may be yours...


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

goonerton said:


> ...
> 
> That is why we have an age of CONSENT. i.e anyone under a certain age is deemed too young to be able to responsibly consent to having sex...
> 
> ...


There aren't two sides to it at all.

CONSENT is the chief point.

But the age of consent is clearly a convenient nonsense for governments - they can't even agree what it should be!

And the strong theory is - after studying other countries' and tribes' experience - that victims carry feelings of guilt and worthlessness around with them for the rest of their lives precisely because WE stigmatize and exaggerate this as we're so sexually hung up.

I'll ignore any suggestion that someone discussing this is likely to have consented to abuse!


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> YES - we do need to ask why and to teach our children WHY!
> 
> It's children who have never had the WHY of morality and behaviour explained to them who are the first to transgress.
> 
> ...


Some things are so obvious you don`t need to tell your kids "why".

I was never told I shouldn`t sexually abuse kids or punch old people and I very much doubt I will ever tell my children not to do these things.

These are things that with a 'normal' upbringing in our society, you just grasp.

I`m not sure what religion has to with it either. Just look at the Catholic church ...You say we are weak today. But I say things are far better today in terms of child abuse. In years gone by children weren`t encouraged to come forward and report these crimes, or they tended to be brushed under the carpet.


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

I don't think you have to practise a religion to ponder WHY things are wrong or right Pat....don't agree with that at all.

As for the peadophiles being someones brother/sister/father/mother.......yeah, so was/is the victim.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Mrs Weeman said:


> I don't think you have to practise a religion to ponder WHY things are wrong or right Pat....don't agree with that at all.
> 
> As for the peadophiles being someones brother/sister/father/mother.......yeah, so was/is the victim.


Of course you don't have to practise a religion to ponder WHY things are wrong or right!

But the fact is that few children have the WHY explained to them, and few adolescents and parents today ever do sit quietly and ponder these things - witness the responses on this thread.

I bet we'd have far fewer paedos if parents explained the WHY to their kids more from an early age.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> There aren't two sides to it at all.
> 
> CONSENT is the chief point.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

goonerton said:


> Some things are so obvious you don`t need to tell your kids "why".
> 
> I was never told I shouldn`t sexually abuse kids or punch old people and I very much doubt I will ever tell my children not to do these things.
> 
> ...


Of course we must explain the WHY to our kids - or we're building a house based on sand!

Most parents can't - because they have no idea themselves why things are right and wrong - they just go by preferences and expedience - and often tell their kids it's wrong to do something because they might get caught! Duh! 

And please ne careful about the Roman Catholic CHurch: it's not the great mass of good and faithful Catholics who practise and condone paedophilia.

It's the appalling, distorted heirarchy of enforced-celibate priests and bishops that have caused all the abuse!


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Of course we must explain the WHY to our kids - or we're building a house based on sand!
> 
> Most parents can't - because they have no idea themselves why things are right and wrong - they just go by preferences and expedience - and often tell their kids it's wrong to do something because they might get caught! Duh!
> 
> ...


----------



## Simon m (Apr 3, 2008)

Baz R said:


> Nah mate you getting it mixed up its only legal with sheep in wales :lol:


Surely you mean lambs, sheep are adults!


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

is being gay with a sheep(ram) wrong?? all my girlfriends have been ewes but i have seen this ram giving me the eye recently and not sure wether to go for it or not... i may end up feeling used... decisions decisions


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Kezz said:


> is being gay with a sheep(ram) wrong?? all my girlfriends have been ewes but i have seen this ram giving me the eye recently and not sure wether to go for it or not... i may end up feeling used... decisions decisions


Careful - you may get to like it...


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Of course you don't have to practise a religion to ponder WHY things are wrong or right!
> 
> But the fact is that few children have the WHY explained to them, and few adolescents and parents today ever do sit quietly and ponder these things - witness the responses on this thread.
> 
> I bet we'd have far fewer paedos if parents explained the WHY to their kids more from an early age.


So its lazy parenting rather than religion?

See i ahve always said i think that people should have parenting classes, not because they are bad parents, but to support the massive task that is parental responsibility...i ASKED for parenting classes during both my pregnancies, don't see it as a punishment for bad parents, but something that everyone should experience...afterall, i had read every book etc on the subject...was still nothing like the shock of actually being a parent though:laugh:

I agree about the lazy parenting..and the sexualizing of kids...i even agree that alot of the time its the parents responsibility to teach their kids how to be safe....but when a fully grown adult makes the decision to invade a child(be it physically, sexually or mentally) then THE ADULT is still the one at fault.

Alot of cases of abuse are also incestuous....many of the people perpetrating these crimes DID have a religious upbringing.....didn't seem to teach them right from wrong, nor make them ponder WHY it was right or wrong. I have said it before and i'll say it again, sometimes people are just 'born wrong' nothing can 'make them better'....


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> Careful - you may get to like it...


 i did hahaha :thumb:


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

"But the fact is that few children have the WHY explained to them, and few adolescents and parents today ever do sit quietly and ponder these things - witness the responses on this thread."

So what did you explain to your kids? "Don`t worry about age, just look what they do in other cultures and tribes etc...It`s all about whether you get proper consent"...

IMO your "responses" on this thread are far more worrying than anyone elses.

"I bet we'd have far fewer paedos if parents explained the WHY to their kids more from an early age."

We may have fewer paedos if perhaps more potential abusers were made aware of the lifelong torment and damage they do to their victims. Not by telling them that the affects of child abuse to the victim are wildly exaggerated...


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

I'm so glad l started this thread.

How the hell did it end up like this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## stevens (Feb 1, 2010)

Baz R said:


> Milliong pipe down you little wiesel.


whats a wiesel:whistling:


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

stevens said:


> whats a wiesel:whistling:


Some kind of german sausage I think.


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

age of consent is bollox.

why is a 16 year old ready for sex but a 15 year old isnt ??? and when u come to that a 14 year old???

tell me why its wrong for a 19 year old to sleep with a 14 year old ???. if they shouldnt be having sex why do they get periods at that age ?

i think what pro driver is trying to get at is that its a vicious circle. girls are getting traumatised by it because they keep getting told they should be and that its wrong.

the ancient romans i think it was used to buggar the 12 year old kids, do you think they where traumatised by it ?? where they fk because they wasnt told that they was " damaged"


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

gycraig said:


> age of consent is bollox.
> 
> why is a 16 year old ready for sex but a 15 year old isnt ??? and when u come to that a 14 year old???
> 
> ...


So what about the PROVEN physical damage to childs innards? Is it alright to PHYSICALLY harm a child? Cause thats what happens.....


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

gycraig said:


> age of consent is bollox.
> 
> why is a 16 year old ready for sex but a 15 year old isnt ??? and when u come to that a 14 year old???
> 
> ...


The age of consent at 16 is a very modern idea, go back a few hundred years and girls were married off to grown men at 12-13.

Even here in England.


----------



## Críostóir (Dec 12, 2009)

gemilky69 said:


> Not sure if you know about Aki but google him mate.
> 
> :beer:


shocking

:cursing:


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

FFS gemilky 69,

No more threads OK :cursing:


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Back to Aki. If you want to talk sh it about paedoes or kiddly fiddling, feck off to another fred. :whistling:

Aki is a disgrace and shouldn't be free until it is proved he isn't a threat to children.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> CONSENT is the chief point.
> 
> But the age of consent is clearly a convenient nonsense for governments - they can't even agree what it should be!


That to me seems a weak cop out (as does the lack of morality without religion contention).

Different countries, do differ - but I think it's harsh and rash to class it as "convenient nonsense". Most developed countries try their best - and perhaps err on the side of caution - when attempting to protect children and the youth in society, by legislating an age before which it is deemed - from a legal standpoint anyway - that the individual is not sufficiently mature to be able to consent to sexual behaviour.



Prodiver said:


> And the strong theory is - after studying other countries' and tribes' experience - that victims carry feelings of guilt and worthlessness around with them for the rest of their lives precisely because WE stigmatize and exaggerate this as we're so sexually hung up.


My personal opinion is that is complete naive nonsense.

Plenty of people who've suffered from child abuse and struggled with it throughout their lives, haven't had society or anybody else telling them they have had an experience to be traumatised about.

Some haven't had direct recollection of their abuse, and have struggled through life with many issues, often with repressed reasons and have not been able to make sense of it, and it's only when trying to (perhaps through elective therapy, or in many cases enforced when they themselves have broken the law) that the reason for their issues has originated in emotional conflict arising at a time when they were not sufficiently emotionally developed or mature to be able to deal with it.


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

goonerton said:


> They stone people to death in certain countries for being gay and for adultery, in other countries they think raping babies will cure aids...
> 
> But does anyone in our society need to be asked why that is "wrong"?
> 
> ...


I find that comment quite offensive. People who don't have children are not incapable of feelings, parents do not have the monopoly on disgust nor do they have the moral high ground (most abuse is committed by family members, after all)

I've seen a lot of paedo material and indirectly dealt with a few (comes with the job) Most of them really don't understand what they're doing wrong. It's definitely something in the wiring. The majority of them are also married with kids.....



goonerton said:


> I am also baffled by Becklets post.
> 
> She says
> 
> ...


No. Prodiver answered it below. The Bad Thing comment is about my own childhood. It was unusual, to say the least, bits of it were pretty bad. At the time I knew no better (I must point out I was never actually physically or sexually abused at any point) and grew up generally normal, with whatever usual hang ups people have. Have met people with similar upbringings who were told their lives weren't normal, social workers etc involved, and they've grown up into total headcases because they now somehow believe they're 'not right'

As for the two sides - my friend encouraged the dirty old man because she liked the reward. 12 or not, she knew damn well what she was doing! Not saying it's right at all just that's the way it was


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well apologies if you were offended. I was not saying only parents can have feelings etc. I was just quite stunned by some of your post regarding child abuse, and just don`t belive a 'normal' parent would hold the same views.

You say your friend "encouraged" her abuser. I find it quite disturbing that you think a 12 year old should take some of the responsibility for being preyed on by a paedophile.

Some kids may seem quite switched on at that age, but they can still be very pliable and vulnerable. She may have seemed happy enough at the time to go along with it.

But at 12 do you really think she was old enough to know the full implications of what this pervert was doing to her?

Or how the experience may affect her in the future?

TBH I find your assertion that there are two sides to child abuse quite offensive.


----------



## nws (May 18, 2009)

Huntingground said:


> Anyone remember what happened with Gary Kelly? If I remember rightly, Aki was chasing him, the kid was so petrified he run onto railway tracks where he was killed by a train. Gary Kelly was a Birkenhead boy just like me.


 I knew Gary, he was getting chased by Aki in New Brighton. He tried to hide under a train, rolled under and hit the third rail, killing him. I've seen Aki hit several times by very large nasty men,for hanging round outside the gym, he just got back up afterwards! He may not look in shape but he's got a head of fcukin granite!! Horrible cnut


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

goonerton said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Well apologies if you were offended. I was not saying only parents can have feelings etc. I was just quite stunned by some of your post regarding child abuse, and just don`t belive a 'normal' parent would hold the same views.
> 
> ...


i know a girl that when we were bout 13-14 used to go round to an old mans house and do things for cigs and money. she knew exactly what she was getting herself into and even now (22) still accepts that she had just as much of a part in it and she still feels no remorse and certainly doesnt feel she had been abused. i thought it was disgusting then as i still do but i accept what beklet is saying in relation to some cases.


----------



## Ser (Aug 10, 2008)

Mrs Weeman said:


> GODDAMMIT! How am i supposed to do his own 'special move' on him if he in jail:lol:


I tried the 'special move' on weeslut.......he catapulted me behind him and i slid down the wall....means i have two years to get big enough where Purps can't throw me off easily:lol:


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Huntingground said:


> FFS gemilky 69,
> 
> No more threads OK :cursing:


You dont want to read my threads dont open them simple.

Dont know who made you an authority on here mate but you have clearly been on here a long time and know your stuff !


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

madmanc89 said:


> i know a girl that when we were bout 13-14 used to go round to an old mans house and do things for cigs and money. *she knew exactly what she was getting herself* *into* *and even now (22) still accepts that she had just as much of a part in it* and she still feels no remorse and certainly doesnt feel she had been abused. i thought it was disgusting then as i still do but i accept what beklet is saying in relation to some cases.


What you are describing is prostitution. This girl was being payed materially for sex/sexual favours by an old man.

So are saying that you think a 13/14 year old is mentally mature enough to understand the full implications of prostituting herself??

IMO no 13 /14 and definately no 12 year old is anywhere near mentally developed enough to enter into a mutually consenting sexual relationship with an adult.

Some 12 or 13 year olds may come across all grown up but they are still kids really, impressionable, naive and vulnerable. So regardless of how unaffected your friend may be, she was still a victim of sexual abuse. And the adult involved is 100% responsible for that abuse.


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

I concur with Pat's comments regarding consent being at the root of the matter.

The age to which someone can give informed consent is a tricky one in medicine too, where a gradual assumption of capacity tends to be developed between a medic and a child patient as they age, with a concurrent reduction in the involvement of the parent.

The matter of the age of sexual consent however is muddied (compared to medical consent) by the potentially strong motivations of a prospective partner, whose emotional/sexual drives would increases the probability of confirmation bias in their interpretations - ie if person A want to desperately hump person B, then A would be more inclined to consider evidence supporting B's capacity to give informed consent, whilst disregarding that evidence which would lead to a humpless outcome.

As was pointed out, there is some leeway afforded in the criminal justice system to deal with the greyer areas (where parties seem to have genuinely consented and have similar ages).

On the broader issue of the populace failing to engage in deeper reasoning on issues of ethics, I agree with you (Pat) in principle, although I do not believe that religion per se is a prerequisite for questioning matters of morality / ethics. In practice however the majority of the populous seems to prefer to avoid thinking in this way, preferring instead to be given cut and dry rules however arbitrary to which can guide their life and for them to complain about when there is an instinctual rather than rational disagreement with them. I see this in a slightly similar vein to that of BB protocols - whist some people enjoy knowing the principles, mechanisms and reasoning behind protocols, which can be tested against their current knowledge, many just want a explicit prescription provided by someone who is big.

J


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

goonerton said:


> What you are describing is prostitution. This girl was being payed materially for sex/sexual favours by an old man.
> 
> So are saying that you think a 13/14 year old is mentally mature enough to understand the full implications of prostituting herself??
> 
> ...


what i am suggesting is that particular 14 year old understood the implications of prostituting herself. the girl was and is an absolute nymph. i dont condone it in the slightest. we used to smash the dirty perverts house up frequently, but none the less, she was still FULLY aware of the situation she found herself in. i am not suggesting for a minute that all people of that age are socially and sexually aware enough to engage in consentual sexual encounters with an older person but THAT girl was. i was having sex at 14 and looking back at that time i dont remember ever feeling too naive to have sex so therefore i think that if i were having consentual sex with a mature woman at 14 i wouldnt have felt groomed because i was fully emotionally ready to do it. can i just make it clear that i dont agree at all with sex with minors, i am just offering beklets "2 sided" comment some support


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

underage and having sex. next monday 9pm channel 4


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

madmanc89 said:


> what i am suggesting is that particular 14 year old understood the implications of prostituting herself. the girl was and is an absolute nymph. i dont condone it in the slightest. we used to smash the dirty perverts house up frequently, but none the less, she was still FULLY aware of the situation she found herself in. i am not suggesting for a minute that all people of that age are socially and sexually aware enough to engage in consentual sexual encounters with an older person but THAT girl was. i was having sex at 14 and looking back at that time i dont remember ever feeling too naive to have sex so therefore i think that if i were having consentual sex with a mature woman at 14 i wouldnt have felt groomed because i was fully emotionally ready to do it. can i just make it clear that i dont agree at all with sex with minors, i am just offering beklets "2 sided" comment some support


Thats your opinion mate and you`re entitled to it. I`m pretty sure thats the same sort of line of defence many abusers use to justify their actions, "well I`m not forcing them, they want to do it too".

But lets see how impressed you are if you ever find out your 13 or 14 daughter is being taken advantage of by a 30 or 40 year old man, when he turns around and tells you "well she was emotionally ready for it"...

Child sexual abuse is never two sided, the adult is always 100% to blame IMO.


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

goonerton said:


> Thats your opinion mate and you`re entitled to it. I`m pretty sure thats the same sort of line of defence many abusers use to justify their actions, "well I`m not forcing them, they want to do it too".
> 
> But lets see how impressed you are if you ever find out your 13 or 14 daughter is being taken advantage of by a 30 or 40 year old man, when he turns around and tells you "well she was emotionally ready for it"...
> 
> Child sexual abuse is never two sided, the adult is always 100% to blame IMO.


do you think 2 consenting 14 yr olds should be allowed to have sex with each other???


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Not sure I would want my kids having sex at that age.

But kids having sex with kids, is a completely different issue to adults having sex with kids...


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

goonerton said:


> Not sure I would want my kids having sex at that age.
> 
> But kids having sex with kids, is a completely different issue to adults having sex with kids...


 i agree with you but can you accept that not all 14 year olds are that naive?? i was taking pills, drinking, shagging and fighting at 14 so what i am trying to say is i believe that had i made a decision to sleep with a mature woman (or could pull one for that matter) i honestly think i was mentally mature enough to make my own mind up without being groomed as to whether i had sex with that person.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

I agree that some 14 year olds are more naive than others. But all 14 year olds are naive full stop.

TBH I wonder about the maturity of your thinking now, if you believe that a kid drinking, fighting, or taking drugs is a sign that they are ready to have sex.


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

goonerton said:


> I agree that some 14 year olds are more naive than others. But all 14 year olds are naive full stop.
> 
> TBH I wonder about the maturity of your thinking now, if you believe that a kid drinking, fighting, or taking drugs is a sign that they are ready to have sex.


 I wasnt naive at 14 years old, all of the crazy things i did, i knew then what they were and still did them as they were lifestyle choices i was well advised enough on to make a decision. same goes for that girl doing what she did.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

From what you are saying, at 14 you were basically off the rails and out and of control. I was pretty much the same TBH. I also thought I was well clued up and knew what I was doing. But while you`re doing all those things at that age you are not concentrating on the things that are really important and going to make your life better and easier in the future, like getting a good education.

I used to look at the kids with their heads in books, doing what they were supposed to be doing and think they were naive mugs. I now realise I was the mug and they were the clued up ones.

At 14 whatever you think at the time you are in no way mature enough to make "lifestyle choices" especially ones involving drinking, taking drugs or prostituting yourself. Adults should be trying to guide you in the right direction at that age, not preying on your immaturity and naivety.


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

I met aki last year at a show, he started talking to us and was chatting for over an hour, i think only because we had young lads competing,,, he tried to get one lad on his own and asked him to show him his arms etc.. i dont think he did though.. he actually seemed a really nice guy and i can imagine how people could be easily tricked by him.

It was only when we saw him in the paper we realised who we were talking too!!..

he's a powerfully built bloke and must be over 6ft


----------



## UnitedFan (Jul 27, 2008)

I've googled and I still don't understand what he's done?

Surely not just touching people's biceps? I don't see the issue if that's all he does. I know someone that touches my bicep every time I talk to them and just find it weird/funny :lol:

Is rape involved?


----------



## YetiMan1436114545 (Dec 7, 2007)

He likes touching little boys muscles!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinwale_Arobieke


----------



## hamsternuts (Feb 8, 2009)

and he picks them up and squats them


----------



## UnitedFan (Jul 27, 2008)

He sounds like he's slow in the head to me tbh


----------



## arnienoonoo (Jun 2, 2010)

this guy is clearly satan in human form. shame he aint sharing a sell with hannibal lecter. **** the world is a ****ed up place:cursings that poor lad who died on railway tracks, ill be thinking about this all day now, off to gym to take some anger out:bounce:


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

gemilky69 said:


> You dont want to read my threads dont open them simple.
> 
> Dont know who made you an authority on here mate but you have clearly been on here a long time and know your stuff !


Sorry mate, came across wrong. Was trying to comment on where the thread had gone rather than pick you up on the way the thread started.

Apologies.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Anyone who thinks 12-14 years olds can't be "knowing" and must be naive should get out more!

This attitude is more evidence of the way people today want more than ever to infantilize and coddle their kids - probably because kids are paradoxically so much more sexualized than before.

And this when the age of puberty is now around 12 and falling, with all the hormonal consequences.

400 years ago when life expectancy was lower, 12 was the age of sexual knowledge, often betrothal and sometimes marriage. My ancestor Thomas More was fending for himself in the Inns of Court at 12, which was nothing unusual.

When I was at boarding school in the 60s a 12 year old new boy arrived and brazenly set about seducing a really nice 18 year old guy - a handsome buff senior prefect and good sporstman - to ingratiate himself.

A new housemaster found them in bed together in a night-time raid. The young bastard tike shit squealed and insisted he'd been seduced by the older guy, who was expelled, ruining his Oxbridge career.

The little tike was gladly sent to Coventry by everyone - gay or straight - and soon left as he found it unbearable. Natural justice.


----------



## ian-m (May 9, 2010)

asking them to do squats he wanted to be a P T file lol


----------



## JoeyRamone (Sep 10, 2009)

Some very strange points being made on here.

The age of consent is there to protect those that do not have the capacity to consent. It is a blanket age because it is a criminal offence therefore must be sufficiently well defined.

12 year olds may know what they are doing at the time but are they aware of all the consequences? Do they have the experience that 16 year olds have? they clearly do not.

In law when it comes to what is a child a child is someone under the age of 16. However in respect of consent to medical treatment a child under the age of 16 can give valid consent if they are 'Gillick' competent. There are certain tests the courts must apply to see if they have the necessary capacity. This kind of test should not and will not be applied to the age of consent.


----------



## ian-m (May 9, 2010)

beasts need hanging end of


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

JoeyRamone said:


> ... There are certain tests the courts must apply to see if they have the necessary capacity. This kind of test should not and will not be applied to the age of consent.


The existence of capacity tests is actually evidence that a blanket age of consent is absurd.

So it's illegal for an adult to have sex with someone a day under 16 yet not a day later! 

It is a convenient nonsense for government and the courts to be able to obtain clean simple convictions which satisfy joe public.

Common law already prohibits sexual assault. Every case should be subject to extensive tests to ensure that injustices aren't perpetrated and prevent any innocent people being placed on the sex offenders' register and stigmatized - either party.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Anyone who thinks 12-14 years olds can't be "knowing" and must be naive should get out more!
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Big Dawg (Feb 24, 2008)

ian-m said:


> beasts need hanging end of


Great academic argument right there


----------



## Ripp3d (Aug 31, 2006)

Prodiver said:


> When I was at boarding school in the 60s a 12 year old new boy arrived and brazenly set about seducing a really nice 18 year old guy - a handsome buff senior prefect and good sporstman - to ingratiate himself.
> 
> A new housemaster found them in bed together in a night-time raid. The young bastard tike shit squealed and insisted he'd been seduced by the older guy, who was expelled, ruining his Oxbridge career.
> 
> The little tike was gladly sent to Coventry by everyone - gay or straight - and soon left as he found it unbearable. Natural justice.


Cant believe what I'm reading int his thread, Pro you are an intelligent guy from what I have read of your previous posts...but do you really hold the 12 year old accountable?

Seriously, I cant get my head round some of this. I know Political Correctness is alive and well in our country but hiding behind stats and things that occurred 100s of years ago (even just 40 years ago) is madness.

It is just plain wrong. :confused1: Why would an 18 year old WANT to have sex with a 12 year old in the first place? Go find someone his own fking age or older. They do it because its an easy target imo, which is what makes a peado.


----------



## lostwars (Nov 7, 2008)

i agree with another poster that this purple aki seems rather soft in the head, im not implying that hes an innocent softie but he seems to be so stupid its unnatural

its only correct to have an age of consent, if we didnt have a consent law im sure adults praying on these kids could point to there being no such law and that the juvenile had known what they were doing

its just wrong anyway, and sickos are scumbags no sympathy for them, hang the fcukers


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

Ripp3d said:


> Cant believe what I'm reading int his thread, Pro you are an intelligent guy from what I have read of your previous posts...but do you really hold the 12 year old accountable?
> 
> Seriously, I cant get my head round some of this. I know Political Correctness is alive and well in our country but hiding behind stats and things that occurred 100s of years ago (even just 40 years ago) is madness.
> 
> It is just plain wrong. :confused1: Why would an 18 year old WANT to have sex with a 12 year old in the first place? Go find someone his own fking age or older. They do it because its an easy target imo, which is what makes a peado.


Too right I have had a 15 year old begging me for sex - I did not do it (much to friends surprise) because it was not right IMO, I was not comfortable with my perception of me taking advantage of her even though she made all the running and looked no where near 15 - its true honest


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

maccer said:


> Too right I have had a 15 year old begging me for sex - I did not do it (much to friends surprise) because it was not right IMO, I was not comfortable with my perception of me taking advantage of her *even though she made all the running and looked no where near 15 *- its true honest


I rest my case.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> I rest my case.


How does that have anything to do with your "case".

This guy is saying that he thought it was wrong to take advantage of a 15 year old girl and as such refused her advances.

You seem to be saying that you`re not sure that "kiddy fiddling" is wrong(per your original question). And seem to think that some 12-14 year olds are ready to have sex with adults!!


----------



## JoeyRamone (Sep 10, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> The existence of capacity tests is actually evidence that a blanket age of consent is absurd.
> 
> So it's illegal for an adult to have sex with someone a day under 16 yet not a day later!
> 
> ...


There would be far too many difficulties in applying such a test to the criminal law. If they ever did I would suggest they focus it on appreciation of consequences. Thus I don't believe many of the "knowing" 12 year olds would be deemed to have the sufficient capacity.

They can know all about sex and how to use it to get what they want but they will not be aware of the consequences. Also a capacity test would not protect those that were bullied into it or cultural forces influenced them too much. These aspects affect adult sexual relationships and there is nothing that can be done about it. Children should not be exposed to such risks. The law quite rightly seeks to prevent adult sexual contact with children.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

when i was 14 i believed i was the hardest guy in the world, the most mature guy in the world, lads wanted to be me, girls wanted to go out with me.

now im 20yrs older i know i was an immature, weak, repulsive person who believed what i did at the time out of ignorance and an urge to impress.

i think its increadibly rare for someone under the age of 16 (or maybe even 18) to actually know who they are and understand the world enough to be considered to be acting out of their own free will, rather than peer pressure, media pressure or pressure off someone older who is telling them they are old enough to know what they are doing.

just my two cents.


----------



## nagasis (Sep 26, 2009)

The law regarding age of consent is clear. Breaking that law has consequences. Because someone does not agree with that law does not mean they can ignore it and expect to get away with it.


----------



## Bulk_250 (May 10, 2008)

I have to agree with goonerton here.

Some of the points being made here are ridiculous. If it was your kid that had been with say a 30 yr old imagine how you would feel.

At the end of the day Aki is a sick c*nt. He needs to be locked up. It's weird how he is seen as a joke character around here.


----------



## jay120 (May 6, 2010)

this is a sensitive subject to talk about kids ar gullible and a child has a natural instinct to luck to an adult parent or not for guidence how else do we learn? for sum1 to say a 15 year old is begging fo sex then that child has been failed by society and in no means should be takin advantage of as this is a confusing age wen a child is growing in2 adulthood i was unable to make my own decisions in a sensible way till at least 19 and im not stupid or gullible in any way at all any1 who needs to ask y this is wrong then they ar the problem here a child is a child END OF


----------



## UnitedFan (Jul 27, 2008)

I don't think many people would bat an eyelid if a 14 year old male had sex with a 18 year old female, yet the other way around it seems wrong.

It's just people's perceptions of the law and what it should be.

Perceptions come with experiences and culture. It's pretty simple.

I find it shocking at the number of people in this thread that can't read points properly, suggestion others don't believe having sex with minors is wrong etc.

Some people appear to be too quick to jump up and shout paedophile during a debate


----------



## Bulk_250 (May 10, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Anyone who thinks 12-14 years olds can't be "knowing" and must be naive should get out more!
> 
> This attitude is more evidence of the way people today want more than ever to infantilize and coddle their kids - probably because kids are paradoxically so much more sexualized than before.
> 
> ...


I don't know if ive read this wrong, but it sounds to me like you are saying that we should feel bad for the 18 year old here. How the f*ck does a 12 year old lad seduce a 18 year old? The eighteen yr old is mature enough to know what he is doing. Im glad it f*cked up his career. He should have been locked up.

In normal society this isnt acceptable and it sounds to me like you are sticking up for the older lad. I hope you are bein argumentitive for the sake of it and you dont actually think this type of thing should be allowed.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

JoeyRamone said:


> ...The law quite rightly seeks to prevent adult sexual contact with children.


Well it clearly isn't working.

Criminologists are generally sceptical of any laws being deterrents.


----------



## jay120 (May 6, 2010)

lol ur using 400 years ago as sum type of defence or whatever point you ar trying to make back then youd drown a women just for thinkin she was a whitch lol


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

its the law ...end of, the speed limit is 70mph and if you break it you get fined.. same goes if you [email protected] a kid, but i suspect you would get a beating as well as a fine if you were caught doing it


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

nagasis said:


> The law regarding age of consent is clear. Breaking that law has consequences. Because someone does not agree with that law does not mean they can ignore it and expect to get away with it.


You are obviously unaware that in the history of Britain virtually every social advance has been made by law breaking...

Just because a Parliament of professional politicians with vested interests makes a law does not make it right.

It hardly bears thinking how many hungry children were once hanged for stealing pennies...

And many of our laws today will similarly be seen as appallingly respressive in years to come.


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

so basically what you are saying here is the age of consent should be lowered?? i bet the paedo's that shag 3 year old would love that


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2010)

AlasTTTair said:


> Personally I think it's wrong because a child is completely innocent,


Tell that to the 14 year old cnut that pulled a knife on my Mrs :cursing:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Bulk_250 said:


> I don't know if ive read this wrong, but it sounds to me like you are saying that we should feel bad for the 18 year old here. *How the f*ck does a 12 year old lad seduce a 18 year old? *The eighteen yr old is mature enough to know what he is doing. Im glad it f*cked up his career. He should have been locked up.
> 
> In normal society this isnt acceptable and it sounds to me like you are sticking up for the older lad. I hope you are bein argumentitive for the sake of it and you dont actually think this type of thing should be allowed.


No. Of course everyone there felt bad for the older boy.

The younger guy was poisonous, wicked, calculating and totally aware; the older too nice and probably emotionally vulnerable at the time. BTW it turned out the young shit seduced other guys several times and was eventually found out.

If you don't know or can't comprehend how this can happen you should get out more!


----------



## JoeyRamone (Sep 10, 2009)

Its alright saying that logic dictates there should not be a blanket age limit but have you actually considered its application in the courts?

Practicality means 100% an age limit is required. Otherwise a child will be on trial much the same a rape victim is when her consent is questioned.

Children do not have the same abilities of analytical thought as adults do. You cannot assume these children who may be externally adult in their behaviour have the intelligence of an adult.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Kezz said:


> so basically what you are saying here is the age of consent should be lowered?? i bet the paedo's that shag 3 year old would love that


Nope.

The suggestion is - by other far more able than me - that there should be no age of consent.

This would rationalize all sexual assault, whether by an adult on a child, a child on another child, a child on an adult or an adult on an adult.

In all cases knowledge, motive, initiative and consent would have to be discovered and proved before sentencing.


----------



## Bulk_250 (May 10, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> No. Of course everyone there felt bad for the older boy.
> 
> The younger guy was poisonous, wicked, calculating and totally aware; the older too nice and probably emotionally vulnerable at the time. BTW it turned out the young shit seduced other guys several times and was eventually found out.
> 
> If you don't know or can't comprehend how this can happen you should get out more!


Get out more? Why, cos Im not from a boarding school where it is "apparently" the norm for boys to seduce each other? I'd rather stay in mate. :beer:

My problem is that you were using this case to prove a point about the general public. What is it exactly you are getting at?

I understood your initial question and what you were trying to get people to question, but Im not quite sure what exaclty you believe we should have. Are you saying we should not have an age of consent??? I can't see that working.

Obviously some younger people are more mature than others, but I still think that if you know someone is under the age of consent you should stay away or wait until they are 16. Whether an 18 year old is emotionally vulnerable or not, surely he was clever enough to realise what he was doing? And realise he should not do it.


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

well i doubt that will ever happen somehow


----------



## hamsternuts (Feb 8, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Nope.
> 
> The suggestion is - by other far more able than me - that there should be no age of consent.
> 
> ...


sounds good in theory, but too difficult to determine.

whereas the ages of the people involved is a fact, and therefore not open for argument.


----------



## BillC (Jun 11, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> You are obviously unaware that in the history of Britain virtually every social advance has been made by law breaking...
> 
> Just because a Parliament of professional politicians with vested interests makes a law does not make it right.
> 
> ...


I can only conclude that you were one of the 5 or so people in the entire country, apart from politicians (who for soem strange reason like sex with young boys), who were actually for the lowering of the legal age for homosexual sex from 18 to 16. The difference between a 30 year old and a 40 year old is wrinkles. The difference between a 16 and an 18 year old is far more marked.

Always reminds me these debates of being a 15/16 year old at school myself, watching all the 'fit birds' being picked up by 18 year olds in their mrk II Escorts. We all used to say, "Can't wait until we're 18, we'll pull all the birds with our cars" but guess wehat, when my friends and I got to 18, 15 year old school girls were completely off the menu. Only saddo scum buckets went chasing schoolies. We knew even then that dating, nevermind having sex with kids was wrong.

I see no use for this debate, apart from a couple of members to get their rocks off thinking their experience in years somehow makes them experts on everything. What matters is the here and now, never mind what people might have thought in the past or will do in the future. Right now, kiddie fiddling is illegal and morally wrong. End of. That story of the 12 year old 'seducing' the 18, was the 18 year old you? Sounds like it to me. How the fck does an 18yo get seduced by a 12 year old boy unless he is fcking sick. Lost all respect for members on here. Whatever 'point ' you were trying to convey.


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

This thread is nuts.

My personal view is that the only way to protect this individuals that aren't aware or mature enough to give consent is to have a blanket age.

Realistically it's not possible for every single young person to be vetted to see if they can be deemed mature enough to give consent.

Over the years I've known 14 year olds that have been shagging for Britain, and I also know 18 year olds who I doubt know what shagging is.

I've had a 15 yr old recently want me to visit her and not in just a friendy way, but I couldn't because the age put me off.. THE only reason was that she wasn't 16 yet. But I'd bet my bottom dollar that in a few months when she is 16 I wouldn't think twice.

(I am only 19 by the way)


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

JoeyRamone said:


> Its alright saying that logic dictates there should not be a blanket age limit but have you actually considered its application in the courts?
> 
> Practicality means 100% an age limit is required. Otherwise a child will be on trial much the same a rape victim is when her consent is questioned.
> 
> Children do not have the same abilities of analytical thought as adults do. You cannot assume these children who may be externally adult in their behaviour have the intelligence of an adult.


Few adults seem capable of analytical thought! 

Practicality has no place when someone is accused of something so serious. And this is one of the great criticisms of our current policing and court policy.

Rape parallels this. If a woman is indeed raped and is blameless, why should she want and be allowed anonymity in a supportive society, when a wrongly accused rapist is denied anonymity and his life ruined?

Again this is because UK joe public are strangely irrational about sexual acts - of others and themselves - witness many threads on UK-M - when really coercion and consent are the real questions and not sex.


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

BillC said:


> I can only conclude that you were one of the 5 or so people in the entire country, apart from politicians *(who for soem strange reason like sex with young boys), who were actually for the lowering of the legal age for homosexual sex from 18 to 16*. The difference between a 30 year old and a 40 year old is wrinkles. The difference between a 16 and an 18 year old is far more marked.
> 
> Always reminds me these debates of being a 15/16 year old at school myself, watching all the 'fit birds' being picked up by 18 year olds in their mrk II Escorts. We all used to say, "Can't wait until we're 18, we'll pull all the birds with our cars" but guess wehat, when my friends and I got to 18, 15 year old school girls were completely off the menu. Only saddo scum buckets went chasing schoolies. We knew even then that dating, nevermind having sex with kids was wrong.
> 
> I see no use for this debate, apart from a couple of members to get their rocks off thinking their experience in years somehow makes them experts on everything. What matters is the here and now, never mind what people might have thought in the past or will do in the future. Right now, kiddie fiddling is illegal and morally wrong. End of. That story of the 12 year old 'seducing' the 18, was the 18 year old you? Sounds like it to me. How the fck does an 18yo get seduced by a 12 year old boy unless he is fcking sick. Lost all respect for members on here. Whatever 'point ' you were trying to convey.


 now this confused me. why can a straight couple have penetrative sex at 16 but a gay couple cant?? im straight but have gay friends and i personally find this almost discriminative. i do struggle seeing an 18 year old being seduced by a 12 year old though.


----------



## JoeyRamone (Sep 10, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Nope.
> 
> The suggestion is - by other far more able than me - that there should be no age of consent.
> 
> ...


So do you believe the prosecution should prove a lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt? Or a reverse burden that defendant must show on balance of probabilities that the child consented?


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

BillC said:


> I can only conclude that you were one of the 5 or so people in the entire country, apart from politicians (who for soem strange reason like sex with young boys), who were actually for the lowering of the legal age for homosexual sex from 18 to 16. The difference between a 30 year old and a 40 year old is wrinkles. The difference between a 16 and an 18 year old is far more marked.
> 
> Always reminds me these debates of being a 15/16 year old at school myself, watching all the 'fit birds' being picked up by 18 year olds in their mrk II Escorts. We all used to say, "Can't wait until we're 18, we'll pull all the birds with our cars" but guess wehat, when my friends and I got to 18, 15 year old school girls were completely off the menu. Only saddo scum buckets went chasing schoolies. *We knew even then that dating, nevermind having sex with kids was wrong.*
> 
> I see no use for this debate, apart from a couple of members to get their rocks off thinking their experience in years somehow makes them experts on everything. What matters is the here and now, never mind what people might have thought in the past or will do in the future. Right now, kiddie fiddling is illegal and morally wrong. End of. That story of the 12 year old 'seducing' the 18, was the 18 year old you? Sounds like it to me. How the fck does an 18yo get seduced by a 12 year old boy unless he is fcking sick. Lost all respect for members on here. Whatever 'point ' you were trying to convey.


Please don't descend to being personal in a difficult argument.

The 18 year old was not me.

You've again begged the question: who are kids? How old do people have to be to give consent?

A fixed age of consent is clearly absurd.

If you remember correctly, for a long time most politicians were strongly against the lowering of the age of consent from 18 to 16. Originally they kept the age at 21, but Labour lowered it to 18 to gain more Labour voters, so sexual consent had to go down too.

There was huge national support for 16 for boys, since that was already the age of consent for girls! Ang girls have always been able to marry legally at 15 with parental consent!


----------



## jay120 (May 6, 2010)

prodiver just to be clear your point is ther should be no age of consent?


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

JoeyRamone said:


> So do you believe the prosecution should prove a lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt? Or a reverse burden that defendant must show on balance of probabilities that the child consented?


Innocent until proven guilty always.

The prosecution must always prove a lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt.

IME this is not nearly as difficult to ascertain as people imagine. Most paedophiles own up to their acts (as they seldom feel them wrong) and betray whether knowlege and consent were present.

True predatory peadophiles are very dangerous and must be kept out of circulation.

But many adults are seduced by aware "kids". Trouble is, their parents don't like to admit their deficient upbringing of their kids and their own sexual laxity, and usually bay for the blood of the adult.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

jay120 said:


> prodiver just to be clear your point is ther should be no age of consent?


Yes.

This does not mean individuals may not be guilty of coercion and assault - which are inexcusable.


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> Innocent until proven guilty always.
> 
> The prosecution must always prove a lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> ...


anyone seen the film "Hard candy"??


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> Yes.
> 
> This does not mean individuals may not be guilty of coercion and assault - which are inexcusable.


 dont say that. there will b loads of pervs outside the junior school gates with sweets and puppies!!!


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Kezz said:


> dont say that. there will b loads of pervs outside the junior school gates with sweets and puppies!!!


There already are. And more at home...


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

yes but then it would be legall.... here jonny suck my willy and i'll give you a bag on jelly babies


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Innocent until proven guilty always.
> 
> The prosecution must always prove a lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> ...


so your saying that if a pedo targets a kid who thinks they are 'aware' and wants to act older than they are then its the kids parents fault?

sorry but thats bollox


----------



## JoeyRamone (Sep 10, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Innocent until proven guilty always.
> 
> The prosecution must always prove a lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> ...


I understand what you are saying generally and agree that the age limits are there for criminalization rather than actually investigating whether a younger person consents. I differ in my opinion on the need for that criminalisation though. I do not think there can be an adequate enough test or process to determine those children who are "ready" for sex and those that are not. I also heavily doubt there are in fact any of those children in existence.

Your example of the 12 year old severely weakened your point as well. It's not other peoples preconceived ideas or prejudices that are preventing them from seeing your point on that it is the fact that at 12 years old you seem to have imparted adult emotions and calculation into him. The 18 year old was clearly to blame for letting it get that far. No matter how calculating or knowing that child was the MAN should have said no.

These are clearly criminologist/psychologist theories and they should stay that way.


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

gets 7 years olds to put on make up and a wig.... but your honour she looked 16 lol


----------



## tinkerbabe (Feb 15, 2010)

Prodiver said:


> Innocent until proven guilty always.
> 
> The prosecution must always prove a lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> ...


----------



## jay120 (May 6, 2010)

this is not a clever thread to start and can cause complications especialy wen you raise such deep issues and try to challenge the law this should be ditched


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

goonerton said:


> Thats your opinion mate and you`re entitled to it. I`m pretty sure thats the same sort of line of defence many abusers use to justify their actions, "well I`m not forcing them, they want to do it too".
> 
> But lets see how impressed you are if you ever find out your 13 or 14 daughter is being taken advantage of by a 30 or 40 year old man, when he turns around and tells you "well she was emotionally ready for it"...
> 
> Child sexual abuse is never two sided, the adult is always 100% to blame IMO.


I obviously lived in a strange place as a kid (Nottingham, if anyone cares) but no they're not. A friend of same said girl (a few years later) had a boyfriend she was sleeping with, went to the pub with etc etc. He was 24, she told him she was 17.

She was 14.

She knew damn well what she was doing, otherwise she wouldn't have lied. As soon as he found out, he went ballistic (rightly so), punched her (not right) and told her to fvck off and never come near him again (as he should)

Didn't stop her doing it again to another bloke, few weeks later.

She had terribly low self esteem and liked the kudos and attention an older bloke brought - she didn't think of the consequences for him. SHe was too young to understand the repercussions but no one could have stopped her.

You may find my comments about there being two sides offensive, sorry about that but in some cases, there are. You might not like it, I don't either, but that's life. :sad:

I find all manner of things offensive but the truth is not always pleasant or palatable.


----------



## nagasis (Sep 26, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> You are obviously unaware that in the history of Britain virtually every social advance has been made by law breaking...
> 
> *I am fully aware.*
> 
> ...


Whether or not anyone thinks it right, the law is the law and must be obeyed. When that law changes people will still need to obey it.


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

jay120 said:


> this is a sensitive subject to talk about kids ar gullible and a child has a natural instinct to luck to an adult parent or not for guidence how else do we learn? for sum1 to say a 15 year old is begging fo sex then that child has been failed by society and in no means should be takin advantage of as this is a confusing age wen a child is growing in2 adulthood i was unable to make my own decisions in a sensible way till at least 19 and im not stupid or gullible in any way at all any1 who needs to ask y this is wrong then they ar the problem here *a child is a child END OF*


It's not that black and white though. Puberty is an amazing thing. Girls as young as 8 are starting their periods, with them come hormones and sexual awareness. Physically, they are capable of breeding, mentally, most certainly not, but hormones are a very difficult thing to ignore. Many young girls are sexually aware at younger ages. It's not good, but it's unavoidable.

I'm sure I already mentioned the age of consent in most EU countries is lower than here, and most of them are enlightened nations too - who decides when someone is 'ready'?

Oh and paedophiles go after children - i.e. pre-pubescent. As I posted above, that does not apply to most 13 year old girls.

For the record, before I get any more abuse, I do not condone child abuse, paedophilia, or sexual, mental and physical abuse of any kind. I am not defending abusers, just trying to answer the original post.


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Innocent until proven guilty always.
> 
> The prosecution must always prove a lack of consent beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> ...


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

I fear that alot of the things being said on this thread are too complex for most of the members replying to them, whom do not have the intellect to process and understand what is being said in the correct context.

So, Prodiver and Beklet.. You may aswel be talking to a brick wall with most people, but I understand where you're coming from. :thumbup1:


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

Beklet said:


> I obviously lived in a strange place as a kid (Nottingham, if anyone cares) but no they're not. A friend of same said girl (a few years later) had a boyfriend she was sleeping with, went to the pub with etc etc. He was 24, she told him she was 17.
> 
> She was 14.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kezz (Sep 3, 2007)

regardless of what chemical reactions are happening in a childs body, i normal adult has to b pretty sick to want to have sex with a child


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

MillionG said:


> I fear that alot of the things being said on this thread are too complex for most of the members replying to them, whom do not have the intellect to process and understand what is being said in the correct context.
> 
> So, Prodiver and Beklet.. You may aswel be talking to a brick wall with most people, but I understand where you're coming from. :thumbup1:


Hahaha...Do I detect another delusional superiority complex? :lol:


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

goonerton said:


> Thats a completely different scenario. If the girl told him she was 17 and he had reasonable grounds to believe her, that is an instance where the adult has been duped and I`m quite sure so long as his story added up, he would not face legal charges.
> 
> But we are talking about the rights and wrongs of an adult *knowingly* having sexual contact with a child.


So you think it's acceptable for am adult to find a child attractive and want to sleep with them, if they don't know about it?


----------



## Rosko (Oct 15, 2007)

WOW! Wasn't gonna read this thread but once it got going i couldn't stop!

Prodiver, you won't be surprised to read that i am astounded at some of your posts! 

Beklet i understand a bit more where you are coming from with the 2 sides to a story but still cant really see where your coming from as i believe the blame is one one side of the story.

*MillionG, it's not because they (or you) are on a higher intellectual plain and that i (and most others) don't fully understand the complexities of their responses, i do. Fact is i disagree coz of MY intellect, not theirs!! *

Pro, its 2 of your points mainly that leave me open mouthed.

Firstly, when you say that parents should tell their kids and make them more aware of why its wrong for an adult to abuse them. I couldn't disagree more. What happened to the innocence of childhood?!! At what age would you suggest a dad start telling his daughter about predatory men who will want to take advantage of them and manipulate them in an attempt to probably obtain a confused consent or if not rape them?!

NEVER, thats when, coz children should have the right to be children!!! To go to the park and play football without having to worry about if they are going to be snatched and buggered!! Why would you want to put such offensive and negative visions of life in an innocent mind?!

Secondly, where you say that children only feel "abused" and "traumertised" as such coz we as a society tell them thats how they should feel. What do you suggest saying to little Billy, "Its ok little fella, no need to worry about the 8 inch c0ck thats just been shoved up your ar$e, its no big deal. How was school today?!!!"

I know you are not condonning this behaviour, i as everyone else thats been on here a while know you are an intelligent man, but i don't see why you would seemingly seek to put some of the blame, which imo falls wholely on the shoulders of the adult, onto the parents or child? :confused1:


----------



## JoeyRamone (Sep 10, 2009)

MillionG said:


> I fear that alot of the things being said on this thread are too complex for most of the members replying to them, whom do not have the intellect to process and understand what is being said in the correct context.
> 
> So, Prodiver and Beklet.. You may aswel be talking to a brick wall with most people, but I understand where you're coming from. :thumbup1:


Who's not intelligent enough to understand?


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

JoeyRamone said:


> Who's not intelligent enough to understand?


I feel it's more not wanting to understand, rather than inability.

Meant no offence Rosko, it just seems like not everyone responding to posts really grasps the concepts of the ideas being put forward, probably because they don't want to and are stubbornly sticking with their view and not willing to give any thought to others.


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

Rosko said:


> NEVER, thats when, coz children should have the right to be children!!! To go to the park and play football without having to worry about if they are going to be snatched and buggered!! Why would you want to put such offensive and negative visions of life in an innocent mind?!
> 
> Secondly, where you say that children only feel "abused" and "traumertised" as such coz we as a society tell them thats how they should feel. What do you suggest saying to little Billy, "Its ok little fella, no need to worry about the 8 inch c0ck thats just been shoved up your ar$e, its no big deal. How was school today?!!!"


I didn't want to get into this because I've got enough grief but I have to say it.

Not all paedophiles are all about buggering young children. There are many other things they might do, that aren't overt sexual abuse but still highly inappropriate. These are things the child may not be aware of at the time, and would cause no physical and mental harm to the child if they were not made aware of the implication (I am NOT saying any of these things are right)

The typical one is the dirty old man who hangs around the school gates or playground. He might just like to watch children. He knows it's wrong to touch them, he just enjoys watching them. Fully clothed, playing footy or something with their mates. Physically, he may not be doing them any harm.

He goes home, has a [email protected] to the pictures in his head (or on his phone)

Yes, it's pretty disgusting, it's really not pleasant at all, but he's not actually physically hurting a child. Parents will still know what he's up to and tell their child to 'stay away from the nasty man and tell us if he appears so we can get rid of them', but they can't tell the child WHY they need to stay away, as telling them may actually traumatise them, but just telling them to stay away will confuse them unless they get a decent explanation.

Some will just want to get close to children, physically but not actually have sex with them - again, they don't just go around buggering kids, and they're hard to tell from a genuinely nice person.....was the old man up the road just being nice when he offered me cold drinks and to play with his cats or was he a pervert? I'll never know....

For my sins, I've had to pretend to be a paedophile for work which means finding out how they are and what makes them tick. It's pretty disturbing :sad:

The one statistic that surprises most is that 53% of convicted paedophiles in the UK a couple of years back were female...


----------



## Rosko (Oct 15, 2007)

MillionG said:


> Meant no offence Rosko, it just seems like not everyone responding to posts really grasps the concepts of the ideas being put forward, probably because they don't want to and are stubbornly sticking with their view and not willing to give any thought to others.


OK, cool, none taken, but that might have got a few peoples backs up. The fact that people have strong views about something, and don't alter their stance because someone argues differently doesn't mean they are stupid.

I know some of the responses are a bit blunt, but probably coz it really is as cut and dry in some peoples minds, mine included. I don't see how under ANY circumstance that the responsibility doesn't fall on the adult, no matter how "knowing" the child is, the adult should know better.

Just my opinion, your welcome to yours ! :beer:


----------



## nagasis (Sep 26, 2009)

MillionG said:


> probably because they don't want to and are stubbornly sticking with their view


Im my case million you are 100% correct. Its my opinion that an adult having sex with a minor is a sex offender. My opinion will never change and I'm very happy with my opinion. I'm also very happy that 99.9% of the population and the law agrees with me


----------



## madmanc89 (Apr 6, 2010)

goonerton said:


> me and you (goonerton) were debating how naive some 14 year olds are and this proves that they can be deviant and supports beklets post that in SOME cases, there are two sides.


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

nagasis said:


> Im my case million you are 100% correct. Its my opinion that an adult having sex with a minor is a sex offender. My opinion will never change and I'm very happy with my opinion. I'm also very happy that 99.9% of the population and the law agrees with me


Believe me on the mostpart you are correct, but I also think there ARE exceptions.. Where the adult shouldn't be criminalised..

For example a 15 year old girl knowingly persuing and 18 year old male.

In the eyes of the law the man/boy (depending on your view) would be bang to rights, but IMO it would be entirely subjective wether the lad was in the wrong.

I've known many girls at school who purposely pursued older men, from the age of 14 up, and I'm sure it happens younger sometimes.


----------



## Rosko (Oct 15, 2007)

Beklet said:


> Not all paedophiles are all about buggering young children.
> 
> I know that you doughnut!!  Just trying to get the point across.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

^^^^

Tbh I'm not sure what you'd tell your kids.

I remember getting told to stay away from certain people as a kid because they were bad men who hurt children and gave them poisoned sweeties......

Worked well enough - maybe we were naive kids :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

MillionG said:


> I feel it's more not wanting to understand, rather than inability.
> 
> Meant no offence Rosko, it just seems like not everyone responding to posts really grasps the concepts of the ideas being put forward, probably because they don't want to and are stubbornly sticking with their view and not willing to give any thought to others.


It doesn`t seem like rocket science to me.

Prodiver appears to be saying that he thinks we don`t need a legal age of consent and that it is OK for adults to have sexual contact with children so long as it is 'mutually consensual'.

Others don`t agree and think that it is an adult`s responsibility to not engage in sexual conatct with a child under any circumstance.

Why don`t you in your infinite wisdom, highlight exactly which "concepts" and "ideas" being put forward you think us thickos are missing or "not wanting to understand"??


----------



## JoeyRamone (Sep 10, 2009)

MillionG said:


> I feel it's more not wanting to understand, rather than inability.
> 
> Meant no offence Rosko, it just seems like not everyone responding to posts really grasps the concepts of the ideas being put forward, probably because they don't want to and are stubbornly sticking with their view and not willing to give any thought to others.


Ideas and concepts are great. The problem with this one at the very least is the impracticality and the fact no thought has actually been given to the court process.

The age limit is there as I have already said for criminalization reasons. The law commission has suggested before that where parliament has no laid down any specific age for an activity requiring consent then there should be a statutory test of consent. This is wholly different to removing the age limits totally. They also suggest that there should be an absolute age where anything that occurs below that age is rape.

A problem with the gillick competency test I mentioned earlier in relation to consent to medical treatment was shown by the young girl who chose not to have a heart transplant (The ability for a child to refuse to consent to medical treatment is even lower than to consent- the courts will generally gladly overule their wishes if it is in their best interests. So this test was even more stringent and hard to satisfy than normal). A few months later she changed her mind. She had been mistaken and did not wish to die as she thought she did.

Lets now introduce such a test into the criminal law case. The prosecution must show the child did not consent beyond reasonable doubt as it now becomes a question of fact. The child should not have to go through this type of thing and it will be distressing for the vast majority of child abuse victims. In addition there is a delay between the incident and the trial. When are they assessed as competent/not competent? If it is at the court (which of course it will be) they will be older/ have more experience so are more likely to be capable than when the actual consent was given and the jury will look at them now and attempt to interpret whether they could have consented many months ago. Or is it to be ascertained from police interviews at the time???

There are many many more problems with these ideas (and not just because in my opinion they are wrong)


----------



## Rosko (Oct 15, 2007)

MillionG said:


> Believe me on the mostpart you are correct, but I also think there ARE exceptions.. Where the adult shouldn't be criminalised..
> 
> For example a 15 year old girl knowingly persuing and 18 year old male.
> 
> ...


Completley agree you'll be surprised to hear!!! :lol:

Similar thing happened to me, aint gonna say what happened, or ages, or outcomes, *BUT, *and it is a big *BUT, *its completely different to a man grooming a little kid!

In one instance the adult male (for arguments sake) is completley unknowing and innocent and the 15 year old girl is wrong. In the other, the adult male is sick, twisted and knowingly responsible for his actions when breaking the law and the 15 year old girl is innocent.


----------



## Rosko (Oct 15, 2007)

Beklet said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Tbh I'm not sure what you'd tell your kids.
> 
> ...


As kids should be!! :thumb:

Glad it worked!!!!!!!


----------



## UnitedFan (Jul 27, 2008)




----------



## goonerton (Sep 7, 2009)

MillionG said:


> Believe me on the mostpart you are correct, but I also think there ARE exceptions.. Where the adult shouldn't be criminalised..
> 
> For example a 15 year old girl knowingly persuing and 18 year old male.
> 
> ...


If an adult is being pursued sexually by a child it is their responsibility to spurn the child`s advances. But obviously most people are not going to view an 18 year old going with a 15 year old in the same light as a more mature man going with a 15 year old.

But Prodiver hasn`t offered any argument involving two individuals close to the age of consent on either sides.

The only specific instance he brought forward was between a 12 year old and an 18 year old, and he basically said that he didn`t think the 18 year old had done anything wrong in having sex with the 12 year old!!


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Huntingground said:


> Sorry mate, came across wrong. Was trying to comment on where the thread had gone rather than pick you up on the way the thread started.
> 
> Apologies.


Apology accepted.

I thought you were having a pop mate and l have to agree the thread has gone t*t's up royally.

:thumbup1:


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

Rosko said:


> Completley agree you'll be surprised to hear!!! :lol:
> 
> Similar thing happened to me, aint gonna say what happened, or ages, or outcomes, *BUT, *and it is a big *BUT, *its completely different to a man grooming a little kid!
> 
> In one instance the adult male (for arguments sake) is completley unknowing and innocent and the 15 year old girl is wrong. In the other, the adult male is sick, twisted and knowingly responsible for his actions when breaking the law and the 15 year old girl is innocent.


Exactly, it is such a gray area that a black and white law is impractical.

So what I'm saying is that Nagasis idea that any sexual involvement with a 'minor' should result in conviction as a sex offender is wrong.

Because a mature 15 year old girl is a minor, even the day before her 16th birthday.

This is a completely different subject to that of paedophiles etc, because once a girl starts showing adult traits and begins to become attractive to males then these male aren't paedophiles, imo they're quite normal.. They're attracted to the sexually mature characteristics, breasts, childbearing hips etc etc.

These people shouldn't be put in the same classification as paedos, whom are vile creatures, and wether or not they should be convicted of sex offences is a very blurry subject imo.


----------



## JoeyRamone (Sep 10, 2009)

MillionG said:


> Exactly, it is such a gray area that a black and white law is impractical.
> 
> So what I'm saying is that Nagasis idea that any sexual involvement with a 'minor' should result in conviction as a sex offender is wrong.
> 
> ...


That's where the CPS come in. They decide whether to prosecute on the particular facts of the case. It would most likely not be in the public interest in the situation you describe quite rightly. Taking this one example is not a reason to remove the age limit. This small example can and is worked around. It is in relation to the many other situations that the age limit is needed. You can't just highlight that and say so we'll get rid of all of it.


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

JoeyRamone said:


> That's where the CPS come in. They decide whether to prosecute on the particular facts of the case. It would most likely not be in the public interest in the situation you describe quite rightly. Taking this one example is not a reason to remove the age limit. This small example can and is worked around. It is in relation to the many other situations that the age limit is needed. You can't just highlight that and say so we'll get rid of all of it.


I don't think it should be got rid of, because those who aren't mature enough to consent need protecting and a blanket age is the only practical way.

It's more the social aspect I feel is wrong, the moment a man is suspected of committing a sex offence, even if it is then found that the girl was infact knowing and able to give consent and worked around as you say.. That mans life is ruined, not in the eyes of the law but socially and in the eyes of his peers. Which I think is wrong, because he hasn't commited an offence in the eyes of the law but will always be labelled as a 'pedo'


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

dutch_scott said:


> Now how in gods name does a 13 year old, even tho she looked circa 16/17, have the guts, to go upto a 260lb man and act sexually predatory?


You sound puzzled by that.

As to how? Well she holds all the power.

As people have commented, sexualisation and awareness are probably slowly creeping lower in age. Kids of that age, generally know they have all the power, and all the might of societal repulsion and vigilante-ism behind them. Plus at that age (as plenty have also commented about their own youth) very little, if any consideration as to consequences.

So to a large degree, they are probably empowered to behave like this, because they have a myopic outlook, radically changing physicality, awareness of their physical power, and know that one wrong word unleashes a sh1t storm.

Similar to many other behaviours exhibited by the youth, as they are at least savvy enough to realise there's no real accountability to their behaviour, and the likelihood that the person they're acting up to isn't a real psycho.

All the same, though, the idea that the legal age of consent is a nonsense is the biggest load of tosh I've ever read. Anybody who doesn't believe that the weight of legal bias in favour of protecting the young in society (by merit of a legal age of consent, before which consent is deemed to be legally absent) is entirely justified, I suspect, has never had the misfortune of encountering anybody damaged by young people being abused (whether sexually or by other physical means).


----------



## Mike Oxlong (Jun 17, 2009)

i dont agree with it being wrong a day before your 16th and fine a day later but i dont see a better alternative?

however spending time with my stepdaughter and her mates of 18 - 19 i can't believe anyone mature would want anything to do with anyone that young and dull!


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

As Beks can probably confirm, there's a growing problem of sexually active underage girls (and to a lesser extent boys) making a dead set at someone, and when they are rebuffed or get bored crying paedo/rape/assault.

Sometimes, they try blackmail.

Such girls and boys are not blameless and innocent.

And the law and the courts must take this into account, or justice is undone.

Innocent lives are too fequently ruined.

It's dangerous to fondly have confidence in your child's innocence: even naive children can manipulate and harm others. You may not see the calculating side of your child's character. Children are not nearly as unknowing as many parents want to believe.


----------



## nagasis (Sep 26, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> As Beks can probably confirm, there's a growing problem of sexually active underage girls (and to a lesser extent boys) making a dead set at someone, and when they are rebuffed or get bored crying paedo/rape/assault.
> 
> Sometimes, they try blackmail.
> 
> ...


Completely agree with this. Children are devious when it comes to getting what they want and they should be punished accordingly. I have seen this first hand.

However this is not the same as when something does actually happen. This is why all instances or allegations should be properly investigated.


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

nagasis said:


> Completely agree with this. Children are devious when it comes to getting what they want and they should be punished accordingly. I have seen this first hand.
> 
> However this is not the same as when something does actually happen. This is why all instances or allegations should be properly investigated.


x2 Have personal experience myself.


----------



## nagasis (Sep 26, 2009)

MillionG said:


> So what I'm saying is that Nagasis idea that any sexual involvement with a 'minor' should result in conviction as a sex offender is wrong.


I do understand the position but where does society draw the line with regards to having sexual contact with a minor? 21? 25?

What about the paedos who say thats too strict and it should be 55? or 65?

My point is that if an adult has sexual contact with a minor contrary to uk law then that adult should face prosecution. If a jury does not convict because he/she was 15/18 then that is what justice is about.


----------



## MillionG (Nov 17, 2009)

nagasis said:


> I do understand the position but where does society draw the line with regards to having sexual contact with a minor? 21? 25?
> 
> What about the paedos who say thats too strict and it should be 55? or 65?
> 
> My point is that if an adult has sexual contact with a minor contrary to uk law then that adult should face prosecution. If a jury does not convict because he/she was 15/18 then that is what justice is about.


This is all true, but by the time the 18 year old lad has been cleared of all charges his reputation has been destroyed and may aswel have been locked up.

Perhaps annonymity and discretion until proven guilty would be a positive step.


----------



## nagasis (Sep 26, 2009)

MillionG said:


> Perhaps annonymity and discretion until proven guilty would be a positive step.


Im a big advocator of this including rape cases


----------



## Beklet (May 13, 2005)

Prodiver said:


> As Beks can probably confirm, there's a growing problem of sexually active underage girls (and to a lesser extent boys) making a dead set at someone, and when they are rebuffed or get bored crying paedo/rape/assault.
> 
> Sometimes, they try blackmail.
> 
> ...


I'd agree with this - I was a horribly manipulative little sh1t as a kid, and my mother always believed I was sweetness and light - never any sexual blackmail though!

I was an innocent though - no underage sex for me - nothing to do with legality, more general fear :laugh:

Sadly, fully grown women also cry rape/assault when they can't get their own way. but that;s a whole other subject which in this forum, should be called 'Snakes With T1ts' :lol:


----------



## Wheyman (Sep 6, 2011)

http://theuglydance.com/?v=nyrzwjagfx


----------



## Cactus87 (Mar 30, 2009)

Some of the arguments on here from a certain male member and female member are truly shocking to me. :crying:


----------



## Ashcrapper (Jul 3, 2008)

Cactus87 said:


> Some of the arguments on here from a certain male member and female member are truly shocking to me. :crying:


you referring to Prodivers "I'm more intelligent than you" bullshit? feel sorry for that 18 year old who got caught bumming that 12 year old sexual predator. Life ruined due to that child's cunning ways :sad:


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

Ive been unlucky enough to see him in person, he was ****ing huge! He got his head kicked in by some local gangsters for trying to perv on one of their lads.

There used to be some funny stories flying round about it


----------



## Cactus87 (Mar 30, 2009)

Ashcrapper said:


> you referring to Prodivers "I'm more intelligent than you" bullshit? feel sorry for that 18 year old who got caught bumming that 12 year old sexual predator. Life ruined due to that child's cunning ways :sad:


Yeah and Beklets posts as well. Truly weird and disturbing.


----------



## BettySwallocks (Aug 1, 2012)

was he a member on here?


----------



## Chelsea (Sep 19, 2009)

BettySwallocks said:


> was he a member on here?


Yep but he poses as a tiny white man called @R0BLET apparently


----------



## jonesboy (Apr 7, 2013)

Read this in the Mail-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382507/Bodybuilder-squeezed-muscles-built-men-asked-squats-despite-banned-doing-past.html


----------

