Post by: loulou on June 16, 2005, 12:17:18 am
Post by: roxy on June 16, 2005, 12:39:17 am
Here's how "they" put it: "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent". "They" are probably right...
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 08:21:39 am
12 people have sat through three months of evidence and have sat and deliberated for a further seven days. They found him not guilty.
He is not guilty.
Post by: loulou on June 16, 2005, 08:50:37 am
Post by: smurfboy on June 16, 2005, 10:24:39 am
I still can't decide what I think. After seeing him on the Bashir programme I did genuinely think there was nothing sexual in it, but that he was very disturbed in that he couldn't see how inappropriate it was.
Apparently one of the jurors has already said he thinks Jacko IS a paedophile and has abused boys in the past, but the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict in this case. Hardly a resounding 'not guilty'...
Post by: lemoneye on June 16, 2005, 01:06:09 pm
I think that trial by jury is not a good thing. I have sat on a jury and been faced with two of the guiltiest little toe-rags (or worse) that you are ever likely to be unfortunate enough to meet (especially outside a nightclub) and then seen them get off because other jury members are too stupid to understand the concept. Very worrying.
"Oh, he's about the same age as my Jimmy - and my Jimmy wouldnt have meant to do it if he was there - so i think he aint guilty" etc etc ad nauseum
Post by: oldspice on June 16, 2005, 01:37:59 pm
I think he has actually been found not guilty of touching and fondling young boys in the persuit of gaining sexual satsfaction.
However, I am not convinced that he is not guilty not sexual abuse because he hasn't touched them. If he gained even mental sexual satisfaction from being in bed with young boys (and let's face it, he might not even have admitted this to himself) then that is abusive.
It is highly inappropriate for a man of his age to share his bed with adolescent boys. It is in no way an innocent act.
The poor man is a complete mess and the quicker he disappears from public view to get himself in order the better.
Post by: lemoneye on June 16, 2005, 02:20:31 pm
Post by: chocolate chick on June 16, 2005, 03:17:38 pm
children anywhere near Michael Jackson, let alone stay at his in his
bed.
The jury said there was not enough evidence to convict him, I would
like to know what evidence they did find and why Michael Jackson was
not called to the stand.
Post by: loulou on June 16, 2005, 05:47:29 pm
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 07:17:15 pm
I say castrate him.
Oooooooooow! Eeee-heeeeee!
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 07:20:17 pm
Oldspice Wrote... "If he gained even mental sexual satisfaction from being in bed with young boys (and let's face it, he might not even have admitted this to himself) then that is abusive".
An interesting point of view. Am I abusing 16 year old schoolgirls by ogling them in their uniforms? I know the answer but I just wondered where one draws the line with abuse.
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 07:21:58 pm
Oldspice Wrote... "If he gained even mental sexual satisfaction from being in bed with young boys (and let's face it, he might not even have admitted this to himself) then that is abusive".
An interesting point of view. Am I abusing 16 year old schoolgirls by ogling them in their uniforms? I know the answer but I just wondered where one draws the line with abuse.
What you and your girlfriend do in your own time is entirely up to the pair of you.
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 07:23:24 pm
I think that trial by jury is not a good thing. I have sat on a jury and been faced with two of the guiltiest little toe-rags (or worse) that you are ever likely to be unfortunate enough to meet (especially outside a nightclub) and then seen them get off because other jury members are too stupid to understand the concept. Very worrying.
"Oh, he's about the same age as my Jimmy - and my Jimmy wouldnt have meant to do it if he was there - so i think he aint guilty" etc etc ad nauseum
I have never been on a jury, but I hope this is the exception rather than the rule.
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 07:25:00 pm
Quote from: bounty hunterOldspice Wrote... "If he gained even mental sexual satisfaction from being in bed with young boys (and let's face it, he might not even have admitted this to himself) then that is abusive".
An interesting point of view. Am I abusing 16 year old schoolgirls by ogling them in their uniforms? I know the answer but I just wondered where one draws the line with abuse.
What you and your girlfriend do in your own time is entirely up to the pair of you.
My girlfriend doesn't ogle girls in school uniform
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 07:26:30 pm
I have asked my boyfriend this and he said he would never let his children anywhere near Michael Jackson, let alone stay at his in his bed.
The jury said there was not enough evidence to convict him, I would like to know what evidence they did find and why Michael Jackson was not called to the stand.
The right to remain silent is observed on both sides on the Atlantic. It can be a very powerful defense.
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 07:26:33 pm
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 07:31:21 pm
Tee hee
Post by: loulou on June 16, 2005, 07:38:05 pm
Quote from: paulhamQuote from: bounty hunterOldspice Wrote... "If he gained even mental sexual satisfaction from being in bed with young boys (and let's face it, he might not even have admitted this to himself) then that is abusive".
An interesting point of view. Am I abusing 16 year old schoolgirls by ogling them in their uniforms? I know the answer but I just wondered where one draws the line with abuse.
What you and your girlfriend do in your own time is entirely up to the pair of you.
My girlfriend doesn't ogle girls in school uniform
Can you be sure of that?
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 07:44:06 pm
Post by: loulou on June 16, 2005, 07:47:02 pm
Post by: loulou on June 16, 2005, 07:48:10 pm
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 08:46:21 pm
Post by: loulou on June 16, 2005, 08:54:28 pm
Post by: on June 16, 2005, 09:38:32 pm
Post by: kevvosa on June 16, 2005, 09:46:42 pm
I never realised he had it chopped off. Post by: loulou on June 16, 2005, 10:17:44 pm
Post by: maggiemay on June 16, 2005, 11:17:14 pm
Oggling schoolgirls is not really a healthy past time for a fully grown man. Of course it's not abuse - but if you took them to bed and didn't lay a finger on them I would still think you had done it to fulfil some basic sexual need. Likewise, taking teenage boys to bed because it makes you feel good is abusing the situation if not the body. It's corrupt. Whether any good would come of punishing him is doubtful.
Therapy would be more appropriate.
Still, what about that Rolling Stone who, at quite a grand age, had an inadvisable relationship with a 13 year old girl?
Post by: on June 17, 2005, 08:03:17 am
Maggiemay wrote..."Oggling schoolgirls is not really a healthy past time for a fully grown man".
It's perfectly healthy. If they're 16 the law says it's OK. Girls reach a certain age, when they become very attractive. It might be 15 or 16 or 17, depends on the individual. If a man sees a girl as attractive at 14, it's a borderline thing; I have a relative who looked 18 when she was 14. If a man oggles someone at 13, I would start asking questions. Less than 13 then the rusty knife should pay a visit to testicle land.
Post by: Cherry_Ripe on June 17, 2005, 11:27:46 am
Bounty you of all people should know it's spelt ogling
And how old do boys have to be for it to be OK for women to ogle them?
Post by: on June 17, 2005, 02:18:05 pm
Post by: loulou on June 17, 2005, 02:45:58 pm
Bounty stuck for an answer.
Post by: on June 17, 2005, 08:31:04 pm
Bounty you of all people should know it's spelt ogling
And how old do boys have to be for it to be OK for women to ogle them?
I had to give this some thought. Women don't require quite the same sort of visual stimuli sexually, so a woman ogling a 16 year old boy would be unusual, but less so the other way round. Also women tend to like the maturity and masculinity often lacking in even later teenage boys.
However, since there is no age of consent for boys in this country it's hard to determine at what age mere oggling would be acceptable, but intuitively I would say around 14.
Post by: on June 17, 2005, 10:23:22 pm
Quote from: Cherry_RipeBounty you of all people should know it's spelt ogling
And how old do boys have to be for it to be OK for women to ogle them?
I had to give this some thought. Women don't require quite the same sort of visual stimuli sexually, so a woman ogling a 16 year old boy would be unusual, but less so the other way round. Also women tend to like the maturity and masculinity often lacking in even later teenage boys.
However, since there is no age of consent for boys in this country it's hard to determine at what age mere oggling would be acceptable, but intuitively I would say around 14.
Whatever floats your boat.
Post by: on June 17, 2005, 10:50:59 pm
Post by: loulou on June 17, 2005, 11:13:20 pm
Post by: on June 18, 2005, 08:35:36 am
You're just jealous cos the little penguins talk to me.
Post by: oldspice on June 18, 2005, 09:46:14 am
Bounty - there is an age of consent for boys in this country. It's the same as for girls. It is illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to have sexual intercourse.
As the mother of two teenagers, (girl 16 nearly 17, and boy 18 nearly 19) I would be very concerned if an adult in their 30s showed a sexual interest in either of them.
Post by: lemoneye on June 18, 2005, 10:24:39 am
Post by: goldencup on June 18, 2005, 10:38:12 am
Post by: on June 18, 2005, 10:40:01 am
Oldspice wrote "there is an age of consent for boys in this country. It's the same as for girls. It is illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to have sexual intercourse"
Sorry Oldspice you're wrong. For example, it's lawful for a 16 year old girl to have sex in a consensual relationship with a 15 year old boy. Check with a policeman if you don't believe me.
Oldspice wrote "As the mother of two teenagers, (girl 16 nearly 17, and boy 18 nearly 19) I would be very concerned if an adult in their 30s showed a sexual interest in either of them"
And in your situation so would I, but of course showing an interest and just looking aren't quite the same.
Incidentally Oldspice, I am 40 and my girlfriend was 43 on Tuesday. But thanks for putting me im my 30's 
Post by: goldencup on June 18, 2005, 10:48:51 am
Not sure you're right about that Bounty. I quote:
The age of consent is the age at which the law says a young person can agree to have sex. Before someone reaches the age of consent, they are not allowed to have sex with anyone, whatever age their partner may be. The law says that to have sex, both partners must be over the age of consent
Post by: lemoneye on June 18, 2005, 11:05:14 am
Post by: on June 18, 2005, 11:45:06 am
As the mother of two teenagers, (girl 16 nearly 17, and boy 18 nearly 19) I would be very concerned if an adult in their 30s showed a sexual interest in either of them.
True, but show me an 18 year old boy who wouldn't like a 30 yr old woman showing interest in him!
Post by: lemoneye on June 18, 2005, 11:55:25 am
Post by: on June 18, 2005, 12:28:28 pm
Golden Cup, I am sure of my facts, I have researched it thoroughly. The law on consent in UK is very complicated with minor differences between England/Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. "Anyone trying to have sexual contact (including touching) with anyone under the age of 13 is committing an absolute offense and can be served with life in prison". This the legal definition of paedophilia. After that it becomes a little grey.
"It is an offense for a male over the age of 10 to have sex with a girl between the age of 13 and 15 unless he can validly argue, he thought she was 16." Bounty comments - Plausible at 15, less so at 13.
"A girl having sex under the age of 16 is not committing an offense."
There is no legislation currently covering sex between a boy under 16 and a girl/woman over 16, however in some circumstances the woman can be charged with indecent assault. For example a 40 year old teacher and a pupil. If the girl is 16 and the boy is 15, prosecution is unlikely, particularly if it is consensual and a relationship.
Post by: on June 18, 2005, 12:50:19 pm
"It is an offense for a male over the age of 10 to have sex with a girl between the age of 13 and 15 unless he can validly argue, he thought she was 16."
Actually, I didn't mean that - It's still an offense but genuinely believing they're 16 might be a defense.
Post by: lemoneye on June 18, 2005, 01:02:04 pm
Post by: goldencup on June 18, 2005, 02:10:14 pm
Bounty we could go on for some time arguing about this but I'm only quoting what I'm finding on the internet. Here's another one:
What is the age of consent?
The age of consent is the age at which the law says you are old enough to make your own decision about whether to have sex or not. Before you reach this age you cant legally have sex with anyone, however old they are.
In the UK the law says that both partners must be sixteen or over. This applies whether you're hetrosexual, gay or lesbian.
Having worked for the Police myself, I know they do apply a limited amount of common sense when actually enforcing this law and as Lemoneye says, probably not many of us are entirely innocent in this area! I remember a straw poll of my friends a while ago revealed that not all of us waited until 16.....
Post by: lemoneye on June 18, 2005, 02:18:35 pm
Post by: on June 18, 2005, 04:19:33 pm
I still think 16 is about right and the age of both partners needs to be taken into account when considering the law. I don't think the law on paedophilia is nearly harsh enough and should command a sentence of natural life once you have fiddled with very young children. I don't think someone who wants to have sex with say, an eight year old, can EVER be allowed at large in the community.
Post by: lemoneye on June 18, 2005, 04:37:13 pm
Post by: goldencup on June 18, 2005, 06:04:50 pm
Post by: lemoneye on June 18, 2005, 06:09:59 pm
Post by: goldencup on June 18, 2005, 06:11:08 pm
Post by: salsa on June 18, 2005, 06:21:17 pm
I still think 16 is about right and the age of both partners needs to be taken into account when considering the law. I don't think the law on paedophilia is nearly harsh enough and should command a sentence of natural life once you have fiddled with very young children. I don't think someone who wants to have sex with say, an eight year old, can EVER be allowed at large in the community.
I agree, but what about a 9 year old? unfortunately this will always be a grey area.
Personally if I had any faith in the justice system I would be happy for us to go back to the death sentance, but alas, we get it wrong too often to do that.
Post by: oldspice on June 18, 2005, 07:27:23 pm
Part of my job requires me by law to undergo child protection training. I also have to have an extended police check. I can definitely state that the age of consent is 16 and it is illegal for anyone under that age to have sexual intercourse. Whether or not it is difficult to prove, or the partners consented or they looked older, it is still illegal.
You are right that areas of the law are grey, but the age of censent is quite clear.
Post by: loulou on June 18, 2005, 09:05:47 pm
Post by: on June 19, 2005, 09:20:40 am
Quote from: bounty hunterI still think 16 is about right and the age of both partners needs to be taken .....
I agree, but what about a 9 year old? unfortunately this will always be a grey area.
Personally if I had any faith in the justice system I would be happy for us to go back to the death sentance, but alas, we get it wrong too often to do that.
Nine! A grey area, are you for real???
Post by: on June 19, 2005, 09:24:27 am
Part of my job requires me by law to undergo child protection training. I also have to have an extended police check. I can definitely state that the age of consent is 16 and it is illegal for anyone under that age to have sexual intercourse. Whether or not it is difficult to prove, or the partners consented or they looked older, it is still illegal.
You are right that areas of the law are grey, but the age of censent is quite clear.
Again, a somewhat vague and misleading set of statements. However what you say is more or less correct.
Post by: on June 19, 2005, 09:25:17 am
bounty you say you have researched it thoroughly. why?
It is a question of morality and I find morality an interesting topic.
Post by: loulou on June 20, 2005, 02:17:46 am
Post by: on June 20, 2005, 08:14:57 am
Post by: loulou on June 21, 2005, 12:58:40 pm
