okaycuckoo Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Sir, I have personally studied hundred of hours of video footage that I believe rather conclusively proves you to be incorrect on that statement. That's porn - one woman pretending to be a man. Done for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prescience Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Well, reading some of the posts on this thread, it's clear Britain should lower the age of Sexual Consent to, say, five: allow teachers to spend their days rogering and buggering their pupils; and we should forget normal education. And focus on teachers imparting a wide variety of sexual skills to kids so that they can indulge their urges to the full at each and every opportunity. No wonder this bleedin' country is chock full of people who can't read, write, count, reason and speak English correctly: and our GU clinics are scratching their heads wondering how the hell they are going to treat the epidemic of constantly re-occuring STDs. And we suffer perhaps the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe: and the age bar is lowered each and every year! And perhaps we could also ask Tesco to operate the divorce courts in future? Stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap? Kids are intended to attend school to learn FFS! Not screw! All that seems to count is self-gratification: whatever the cost. What a truly depraved society this has become! No bloody hope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest P-Diddly Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Well, reading some of the posts on this thread, it's clear Britain should lower the age of Sexual Consent to, say, five: allow teachers to spend their days rogering and buggering their pupils; and we should forget normal education.And focus on teachers imparting a wide variety of sexual skills to kids so that they can indulge their urges to the full at each and every opportunity. No wonder this bleedin' country is chock full of people who can't read, write, count, reason and speak English correctly: and our GU clinics are scratching their heads wondering how the hell they are going to treat the epidemic of constantly re-occuring STDs. And we suffer perhaps the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe: and the age bar is lowered each and every year! And perhaps we could also ask Tesco to operate the divorce courts in future? Stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap? Kids are intended to attend school to learn FFS! Not screw! All that seems to count is self-gratification: whatever the cost. What a truly depraved society this has become! No bloody hope! It's not Japan you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest P-Diddly Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 How exciting. Can't wait. No really, it's nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 That is simply incorrect. The law takes into consideration the relative ages of the people involved so a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old would not be prosecuted. There is also the issue of someone making an allegation. As Bill Wyman knows only too well, if no one talks then the police have nothing to go on. In the case of the teacher and the pupil you can bet your bottom dollar it was both the parents and the school who were eager to see a prosecution. If we had been talking about two teenagers here then that would be far less likely to happen. Strictly speaking, it doesn't. It's the way in which the law is administered where the discretion comes in. The law is very clear on this, it is illegal to have sex with someone who's under 16, end of story. Whether it's actually in the public interest to prosecute though is a different matter and is why people often aren't prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AuntJess Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Well, reading some of the posts on this thread, it's clear Britain should lower the age of Sexual Consent to, say, five: allow teachers to spend their days rogering and buggering their pupils; and we should forget normal education.And focus on teachers imparting a wide variety of sexual skills to kids so that they can indulge their urges to the full at each and every opportunity. No wonder this bleedin' country is chock full of people who can't read, write, count, reason and speak English correctly: and our GU clinics are scratching their heads wondering how the hell they are going to treat the epidemic of constantly re-occuring STDs. And we suffer perhaps the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe: and the age bar is lowered each and every year! And perhaps we could also ask Tesco to operate the divorce courts in future? Stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap? Kids are intended to attend school to learn FFS! Not screw! All that seems to count is self-gratification: whatever the cost. What a truly depraved society this has become! No bloody hope! Gee Prescience, you've only discovered sex-dominated comments on THIS thread!! Try reading to'thers. The threads and comments read like the conversations in the locker room amongst a group of fourth formers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prescience Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Gee Prescience, you've only discovered sex-dominated comments on THIS thread!! Try reading to'thers. The threads and comments read like the conversations in the locker room amongst a group of fourth formers. It's not the rather worrying pre-occupations that I find strange, Aunty. It's the general thrust - if you'll forgive the pun - of secret volitions and desires. Never mind: one day, hopefully, more will discover more altruistic and developed focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest P-Diddly Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 It's not the rather worrying pre-occupations that I find strange, Aunty.It's the general thrust - if you'll forgive the pun - of secret volitions and desires. Never mind: one day, hopefully, more will discover more altruistic and developed focus. No ones going to judge you for your ladyboy fantasies, Prescience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AuntJess Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 It's not the rather worrying pre-occupations that I find strange, Aunty.It's the general thrust - if you'll forgive the pun - of secret volitions and desires. Never mind: one day, hopefully, more will discover more altruistic and developed focus. Yes, We all change as we go through life. Some get older and wiser: some just get older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 It's the general thrust - if you'll forgive the pun - of secret volitions and desires. On behalf of the forum, I'd like to apoligise for us all having deviant thoughts. We will all report immediately to Room 101 for thought-reprogramming. Regards, Sherwick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prescience Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 On behalf of the forum, I'd like to apoligise for us all having deviant thoughts.We will all report immediately to Room 101 for thought-reprogramming. Regards, Sherwick. You don't have to: or ought not to, since if you do then you will develop pyschosis from supra-guilt. It is quite normal for people of all ages to have what might be considered deviant thoughts and even urges. The problems emerge when they either cannot control such urges; or become pre-occupied by them. Above average preoccupation with sex is a typical hormone-driven fact of puberty. People used to grow out of this as they matured.......... Now, I'm not so sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedgefunded Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Is the other girl 16 yet? God it's like waiting for Emma Watson's birthday all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prescience Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Why the heck does sex have to mean altruism and focus are excluded? Didn't say they did. Read the whole thing and don't quote out of context. If a pre-occupation with sex is severe then it overrides most other human emotional development. Since it has transmuted into obsession. Just take a look at the sex-related topics of the past two weeks on these boards! They read like a bog wall in a post-Victorian boy's prep school! The offence this teacher commited was an abuse of power, it doesn't automatically follow the desire was somehow wrong. Solution: resign; give up being a teacher, take up shelf stacking, or something equally mundane, requiring little in terms of rules and regulations: but most critically of all, go and see the 15 year old girl's parents and inform them you are desperate to have lesbian sex with their daughter. And, after she had picked her teeth up................... Have you not heard of "Grooming"? Young women and young men suffer lack of confidence, sexually and an impressionable young person can be persauded they are lesbian, e.g., by a persuasive older role model in authority. Many pubescent children have passing homosexual experiences as part of their phase of experimentation and fantasy. However this can be turned by determined people into emotionally and mentally confusing ill-balance. I know one rather unstable man of 30 who, during a period of extreme emotional and mental turmoil was groomed by a "Friend" of his late father when his father suddenly died. And this man came product back from Brighton (Well, it would be really),"For a good rest", after staying with this devious old queen and his chums and proudly announced he was "Gay"! Yes; right. And this is why organisations which perforce require adults to act in supervisory capacity to youngsters lay down rigid and robust rules and expected behavioural objectives. Or that people with healthy sexual appetites are unfocused and/or selfish. Define "Healthy". And to repeat, the problems occur with excess pre-occupation; to the exclusion of the normal process of the development of the emotional and creative side. There's too much crap talked about sex in this country. I would personally re-phrase that and state:" There is far too much talk about sex in this country!" The media have exploited sex to sell, to sway and to brainwash. Singers writhe in a sort of copulatory and deeply suggestive masquerade. Shame they invariably can't sing and can't dance properly, either. From about 1972/3 people became obsessed with and by sex! They were the only group who knew about sex: they had suddenly discovered it as if it was the bleedin' Load Stone! Probably all Cosmo's fault: writing about women's "right" to have multiple orgasms! As if older people knew nothing about it, didn't do it and weren't interested. Wonder where all the over-population came from? My personal conclusion about all this is simply that post the apparent era of Free Love in the 60s (And interestingly when I got together with the other members of a group we all played in in the early and mid sixties a few years back, we agreed that whoever was getting all this free love it wasn't us and there wasn't much about in truth!), a few louche, disolute celebs became role models for behavioural patterns to try and emulate. And as their reported behaviour became evermore outrageous and the media more pervasive, then more and more youngsters wanted to slavishly copy their sad and socially destructive example. The abuse of power is the mistake that she's paying for as it should be in any situation. Surely it's more correctly, the abuse of position? I dunno, I may be out on a limb but I think sex between consenting parties is never wrong Trouble is with this argument, it omits the other stakeholders: like wives, husbands, faithful partners and the rest. Self-Gratification is the current name of the game. Whatever the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 A desire to have sex with another member of your own species of a sexually mature age. So you approve of the relationship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 So you approve of the relationship? Just to provoke discussion, I believe this would be perfectly legal in Sweden where the age of consent is 15 I think. Sweden isn't some backward third-world country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Why restrict it to your own species, open your mind and challenge the societal norms that you have been ingrained with. Thinking about it the only animal in the whole animal kingdom I don't find repellent is the dolphin. So I'll do one in the blow-hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Just to provoke discussion, I believe this would be perfectly legal in Sweden where the age of consent is 15 I think.Sweden isn't some backward third-world country. I don't know that it would because I don't know of they have something similar to what this woman was convicted of there. Don't forget that this relationship still wouldn't have been legal if she were 16 or 17 as it was a teacher/pupil relationship! The age of consent is 15 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Does anyone have a picture of the victim ? There will be an order protecting her identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverland Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 From the land down under - where the men are men and the sheep are scared. It's all true then. Something tells me you've drunk from the furry cup yourself? Fair enough While there is nothing wrong with having sex with a 15 year old, its a bit off when: - you're 26 - shes your pupil This would be the same if you were gay or straight I suspect the jail sentence was driven by the nature of the relationship and the details of what was involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I don't know that it would because I don't know of they have something similar to what this woman was convicted of there. Don't forget that this relationship still wouldn't have been legal if she were 16 or 17 as it was a teacher/pupil relationship! The age of consent is 15 though. Hang on, if the 'victim' were 16 or 17, wouldn't it have been unethical rather than illegal (due to the teacher/pupil relationship)?? I.e. it's certainly legal for a teacher and a pupil to have a relationship if they are both over the age of consent, however, it's unethical (therefore the teacher is sacked). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Far better if the teacher had murdered her entire class, she could probably have got off with community service. Can't deny she did something wrong, but she's going to get more time than many who have done far worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Far better if the teacher had murdered her entire class, she could probably have got off with community service.Can't deny she did something wrong, but she's going to get more time than many who have done far worse. Maybe not murder. But if she got drunk and went round your house and put a brick through every window before setting your car on fire on her way out she would have almost certainly got away with a fine. Instead she has a consensual relationship with a girl who is perfectly old enough to make her own choices and is ruined for life on the sex offenders register, something she will have to disclose on every job and imprisoned for 15 months. I really am furious with the total absence of justice in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverland Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Agreed - and I frequently partake. (Always legally.) Thats a shame, I thought your member profile photo was quite becoming (its probably the mask ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Hang on, if the 'victim' were 16 or 17, wouldn't it have been unethical rather than illegal (due to the teacher/pupil relationship)??I.e. it's certainly legal for a teacher and a pupil to have a relationship if they are both over the age of consent, however, it's unethical (therefore the teacher is sacked). It's not legal if one party is in a position trust over the other. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga...2#pt1-pb6-l1g16 "16 Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child (1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally touches another person (, ( the touching is sexual, © A is in a position of trust in relation to B, (d) where subsection (2) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and (e) either— (i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or (ii) B is under 13. (2) This subsection applies where A— (a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and ( is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances. (3) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. (4) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section— (a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and ( it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances. (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; ( on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years. 17 Abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity (1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally causes or incites another person ( to engage in an activity, ( the activity is sexual, © A is in a position of trust in relation to B, (d) where subsection (2) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and (e) either— (i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or (ii) B is under 13. (2) This subsection applies where A— (a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and ( is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances. (3) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. (4) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section— (a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and ( it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances. (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; ( on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 It's not legal if one party is in a position trust over the other.http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga...2#pt1-pb6-l1g16 "16 Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child (1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally touches another person (, ( the touching is sexual, © A is in a position of trust in relation to B, (d) where subsection (2) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and (e) either— (i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or (ii) B is under 13. (2) This subsection applies where A— (a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and ( is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances. (3) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. (4) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section— (a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and ( it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances. (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; ( on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years. 17 Abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity (1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally causes or incites another person ( to engage in an activity, ( the activity is sexual, © A is in a position of trust in relation to B, (d) where subsection (2) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and (e) either— (i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or (ii) B is under 13. (2) This subsection applies where A— (a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and ( is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances. (3) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it. (4) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section— (a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and ( it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances. (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; ( on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years." Well this is clearly crazy IMHO because it means that an 18 yo can be sent to prison for having sex with a 17 yo if the 18 yo is teaching the 17yo, even if both wanted to have sex and even though the legal age of consent is 16 in the UK. Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.