Quote: Matthew Stott @ May 15 2008, 9:55 PM BSTEspecially as Im always right.
Paedo-Pop? Page 6
Quote: Griff @ May 15 2008, 10:01 PM BSTWell if one of those is me, I apologise.
No, you are safe from my wrath. No wrath for thee.
Quote: sootyj @ May 15 2008, 9:34 PM BSTI also think criminalising normal sexual behaviour, is a sad backwards left over from Victorian era.
We're not talking about normal sexual behaviour. We're talking about sex with children.
Who's to say that's not normal? 
Jeez so the law is the fairest moral, and practical, not just legal definition of when childhood starts?
You must have an awful lot of faith in it?
You know sheep f**king used to be legal, but wanking was illegal (punishable by mutilation I believe).
And I'm talking maybe a 100 years or so ago. I guess the law's the law, looks like a great weekend for some, not so good for others.
Of course the innocent, and the vulnerable need protection. Declaring the definition of this vulnerability is an arbitrary age is a bit silly.
Of course in this country according to Age Concern, twice as many elderly people are sexually abused as kids.
Maybe there should be an upper, and lower age of consent.....
Quote: jacparov @ May 15 2008, 6:56 PM BSTHe is a peadophile
No he isn't! Jeepers creepers, Brass Eye were so spot on with their Paedageddon episode!
He had sex with a minor (or two), this is in no way the same thing as having sex with a child (as in the real sense of the word) who has not reached sexual maturity. People like you behave as though a 15 year old cannot reproduce and would never even think about trying to do so. My arse to both of those, do you remember being a teenager??
He did wrong according to the laws of our country, fair dos he got what was coming to him, but calling him a paedo is f**king reactionary and completely OTT.
I can see, what with 'children' staying on at school longer as well as other things, the age of consent one day being raised so that people sleeping with under 21's are bunted and burned as paedos or kiddy fiddlers.
I disagree with you. He was convicted of indecent assault against a 14 and a 15 year old. Although this isn't prepubescent it is younger than the local age of consent.
Yes I do remember being a teenager, thankyou.
Although my initial posts were ott, caused basically by ignorance. (I didn't know who JK was or the details of the case.) I simply don't like the abuse of children or adolescents. Nothing will change my mind on that.
Now, can we please leave this futile conversation, thankyou.
Yes, let's drop it now. I don't think any sane person will argue that doing sex to a five year old is no worse than the same with a 15 year old, but it's still a crime, rightly or wrongly, under British law and so Jonathan King, rightly or wrongly, is as far as that law is concerned, a child abuser, and I would guess (although not sure of the exact legal definition) a paedophile too.
End!
Quote: Aaron @ May 18 2008, 2:57 PM BSTEnd!
'Ang on! It's taken me this long to read all this! Why end an interesting and potentially valuable discussion?
Got something to say >> (if allowed)
It's all nonce sense anyway.
Just wanted to make a point about the age of the 'victims'.
Strikes me that there can't be much difference, for someone of that leaning, between the attraction of a 14/15 year old and that of a 16 year old? So why would King put himself at such ridiculous risk?
Two possible answers but feel free to add:-
Part of the excitement is in actually breaking the established law? Along the lines of the risk involved but also, possibly, making a statement in protest of a law with which he disagrees?
Alternative view is that there is a big difference between those ages and the enjoyment is enhanced by the fact that at 14/15 people are more vulnerable and King experienced pleasure through power.
Ian W made a good point in relation to this - the effect of people staying at school longer and hence remaining more vulnerable. In reality, all between 13 and 25 could potentially have a similar vulnerability but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Ta
Third possible answer: it was all bollocks, concocted by the accusers (and the media?) to bring down someone rich and powerful.
Maybe if we were talking about Michael Jackson.
But JK was never rich or powerful.
Was he...?
He's a very successful singer/songwriter/promoter with a very long career. He's certainly a millionaire.
Is it illegal to shag a girl under the age of 16 if you're under 16 yourself?
If so I'm a big fat slobbering pedo-scum, as are most of the posters on this forum I suspect.