A question re: the Gary Glitter Case
Daniel Ucko
accused of "four counts of indecently assaulting a girl under the age of
16." The thing that confuses me is that I have also read that he is
charged with "a further four coints of buggery involving the same girl
between March 1980 and June 1982." I am confused since a) I didn't
realise anal sex/buggery was illegal these days and b) if it is illegal,
many people I know commit an illegal act with alarming regularity. Could
anyone versed in these matters enlighten me, please?
With thanks,
Daniel Ucko
Vicky and Tony
carried out in private (so no 3 in a beds!!). I presume though that he he
being tried on this charge on the basis that it was illegal at the time the
offence was allegedly committed. On the other hand he may be being charged
on the grounds that the anal sex is only legal between two consenting
adults, and obviously the allegation in this case is that she wasn't old
enough to give her legal consent so therefore he had committed the crime of
"buggery".
As a footnote, I must admit that I found it rather strange that a sex act
that was legal between 2 gay men should be illegal between a male and a
female (which at the end of the day is the usual "coupling" in nature and
has always been regarded as the "normal" arrangement by UK law) - but that
is the UK legal system for you :-)
Tony
Daniel Ucko <d.u...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:38296BD6...@ucl.ac.uk...
Paul Burridge
opined thusly:
| As you probably know, Gary Glitter (nee Paul Gadd) is under trial
| accused of "four counts of indecently assaulting a girl under the age of
| 16." The thing that confuses me is that I have also read that he is
| charged with "a further four coints of buggery involving the same girl
| between March 1980 and June 1982." I am confused since a) I didn't
| realise anal sex/buggery was illegal these days and b) if it is illegal,
| many people I know commit an illegal act with alarming regularity. Could
| anyone versed in these matters enlighten me, please?
|
| With thanks,
|
| Daniel Ucko
Are you talking specifically about English law, or some other
jurisdiction?
--
Noverint universi per presentes et futuri...
Daniel Ucko
Paul Burridge wrote:
<snip>
> | accused of "four counts of indecently assaulting a girl under the age of
> | 16." The thing that confuses me is that I have also read that he is
> | charged with "a further four counts of buggery involving the same girl
> | between March 1980 and June 1982." I am confused since a) I didn't
>
<snip>
>
> Are you talking specifically about English law, or some other
> jurisdiction?
He is under trial here, so I presume that it is UK/English law that he is
accused of having broken.
Daniel Ucko
Gary Jackson
on his computer and the next thing he's in court over a young girl.
How did one lead to the other?
Gary
Daniel Ucko
Gary Jackson wrote:
I'll fill you in since I started this thread. Apparently, the hoopla
over the PC World child porn stuff lead this woman to bring forward
charges against Glitter, but not before she had sold her story to News
of the World. She's not a young girl anymore though, she is 34.
According to the woman they had a relationship that started when she was
14 and ran to when she 26. She has received an initial payment from NotW
of 10,000 pounds. This is not the first time she has spoken on this,
though, she also got 5,000 in 1987 and 10,000 in 1993 from the same
paper for more stories about her life with the singer. Max Clifford is
behind her present arrangement with NotW (surprise, surprise). The
details are from the Guardian, by the way.
It may, from the above paragraph, sound as if I condone sex with minors.
I do not. I merely think that the publicity machine makes it difficult
for justice to be made in an unbiased manner.
Daniel
Richard Miller
writes
>According to the woman they had a relationship that started when she was
>14 and ran to when she 26. She has received an initial payment from NotW
>of 10,000 pounds. This is not the first time she has spoken on this,
>though, she also got 5,000 in 1987 and 10,000 in 1993 from the same
>paper for more stories about her life with the singer. Max Clifford is
>behind her present arrangement with NotW (surprise, surprise). The
>details are from the Guardian, by the way.
>
>It may, from the above paragraph, sound as if I condone sex with minors.
>I do not. I merely think that the publicity machine makes it difficult
>for justice to be made in an unbiased manner.
I've noticed a number of things with this case. I don't know if anyone
can answer these points.
First, what has happened to the charges re the pictures on his computer?
Dropped? Quietly pleaded guilty and awaiting the outcome of this case?
Secondly, the cross-examination appeared - from the Guardian report - to
focus on the tabloid journalists, rather than on whether the evidence
was true. Gary himself has not taken the stand. Anyone else smell a
defendant who has admitted his guilt to his barrister? Or is it just a
case that the prosecution is so weak he thinks he can legitimately claim
it simply is not proven? Gary is not known for being reticent, and I can
imagine that he would turn his barrister into a nervous wreck on the
witness stand.
Thirdly, it's a bit rich the prosecution arguing he was "preying on a
vulnerable young fan" if their relationship lasted until she was 26. If
there was a whole string of 14 year olds, I could understand it, but in
this case it seems he wanted *her*, not just any young girl he could get
(at least on the evidence in this case); and that she wanted him!
Fourthly, was there any evidence at all apart from her statement? If so,
then after this length of time when he could not hope to produce alibi
evidence even if he actually had a perfect alibi, it all smacks of abuse
of process. Again, if there was a second victim, this would tend to
corroborrate her story, but if it is one person with a tabloid cheque
hanging on the verdict with no other evidence whatsoever, it is hard to
see "beyond reasonable doubt" there.
--
Richard Miller
Jonathan Marcus Hill
are in danger of being in contempt of court by publishing discussions (ill
informed discussions at that) about the trial until it is all finished.
Jonathan Hill
Barrister at Law
Geordie
Daniel Ucko wrote in message <3829B5F0...@ucl.ac.uk>...
>
>
>Gary Jackson wrote:
>
>> Can anyone fill me in on this case? First, PC World found some porn
>> on his computer and the next thing he's in court over a young girl.
>>
>> How did one lead to the other?
>>
>> Gary
>
>I'll fill you in since I started this thread. Apparently, the hoopla
>over the PC World child porn stuff lead this woman to bring forward
>charges against Glitter, but not before she had sold her story to News
>of the World. She's not a young girl anymore though, she is 34.
>
>14 and ran to when she 26. She has received an initial payment from NotW
>of 10,000 pounds. This is not the first time she has spoken on this,
>though, she also got 5,000 in 1987 and 10,000 in 1993 from the same
>paper for more stories about her life with the singer. Max Clifford is
>behind her present arrangement with NotW (surprise, surprise). The
>details are from the Guardian, by the way.
>
>It may, from the above paragraph, sound as if I condone sex with minors.
>I do not. I merely think that the publicity machine makes it difficult
>for justice to be made in an unbiased manner.
The age of consent in the UK is an outrage. This should be set at 12, when
children
reach pubity. This is the age recognised for centuries as a suitable time
for sexual responsibility, and is still recognised as such in Holland, Spain
and many other tolerant and socially advanced countries. (This obviously
excludes the USA and the UK).
Youths of this age are quite able to judge for themselves wether they want
to have gay sex with adults or not, or even someone of the opposite sex!
Gary has been stitched up by the child abuse industry in the UK, I wish him
the best of luck!
Geordie.
John O
Daniel Ucko wrote in message <38296BD6...@ucl.ac.uk>...
>As you probably know, Gary Glitter (nee Paul Gadd) is under trial
>16." The thing that confuses me is that I have also read that he is
>between March 1980 and June 1982." I am confused since a) I didn't
>many people I know commit an illegal act with alarming regularity. Could
>anyone versed in these matters enlighten me, please?
>
>With thanks,
Who's got a guilty conscience, then?
Naughty boy!
John O
Vicky and Tony wrote in message ...
>IANAL
<snip>
A somewhat unfortunate abbreviation, considering the subject matter.
John O
Richard Miller wrote in message <$Vu6jCAZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>...
<snip>
>I've noticed a number of things with this case. I don't know if anyone
>can answer these points.
Personally, I was wondering what the hell was going on in this case
altogether.
Irrespective of what happened - whether he DID, or DIDN'T do it - the
tabloid involvement must come perilously close to making a fair trial
impossible.
What chance of this happening and/or the NoW beingtaken to task for this.
(and the Sun...front page lead today quoting the girl....implying GG
guilty).
John O
Richard Miller wrote in message <$Vu6jCAZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <3829B5F0...@ucl.ac.uk>, Daniel Ucko <d.u...@ucl.ac.uk>
>writes
<snip>
>Thirdly, it's a bit rich the prosecution arguing he was "preying on a
>vulnerable young fan" if their relationship lasted until she was 26. If
>there was a whole string of 14 year olds, I could understand it, but in
>this case it seems he wanted *her*, not just any young girl he could get
>(at least on the evidence in this case); and that she wanted him!
Ye-es: I am in a bit of a quandary here, myself....I DO think that the Law
should be enforced...and it would be rather hypocritical for me to say
otherwise, given my expressed views on this elsewhere.
OTOH, this does start to run the hare of whether the Law in this area isn't
a bit of an ass, anyway. Since there are several European countries in
which this relationship would not be illegal at all, and at least one in
which he could have married her.....
....I think I end up feeling that the Law may well have been broken....but
the more lurid claims of 'child sex', if based on this case alone, are
entirely misplaced.
It will be interesting, assuming he and the woman accused of indecently
assaulting a 15-year-old boy are both found guilty, to compare the
respective sentences in a few months time....
John O
Jonathan Marcus Hill wrote in message <_qmW3.353$lZ.14652@news2-hme0>...
I will stop publishing when someone does something about the NoW and the
Sun....
.
>As you probably know, Gary Glitter (nee Paul Gadd) is under trial
>accused of "four counts of indecently assaulting a girl under the age of
>16." The thing that confuses me is that I have also read that he is
>charged with "a further four coints of buggery involving the same girl
>between March 1980 and June 1982." I am confused since a) I didn't
>realise anal sex/buggery was illegal these days and b) if it is illegal,
>many people I know commit an illegal act with alarming regularity. Could
>anyone versed in these matters enlighten me, please?
>
>With thanks,
>
>Daniel Ucko
>
Indeed,and further to this,can we now expect a spate of similar cases
given that PC World are now offering a PC maintenance service whereby
you foolishly pay £39 and they will service your computer and make it
run like clockwork again.
joe,manchester
Alexander Baron
rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk "Richard Miller" writes:
> First, what has happened to the charges re the pictures on his computer?
> Dropped? Quietly pleaded guilty and awaiting the outcome of this case?
We'll find out afterwards. Glitter doesn't strike me as the sort of bloke
who would be into young girls, not that young, especially as he has never
had to chase them. Actually I remember a joke my guitar teacher told a group
of us in the pub in 1973, yes, 1973. He was taking the piss out of newspaper
headlines and said
"Gary Glitter admits to being 35 - he's 50 if he's a day". How old is he now?
> Secondly, the cross-examination appeared - from the Guardian report - to
> focus on the tabloid journalists, rather than on whether the evidence
> was true. Gary himself has not taken the stand. Anyone else smell a
> defendant who has admitted his guilt to his barrister? Or is it just a
> case that the prosecution is so weak he thinks he can legitimately claim
> it simply is not proven? Gary is not known for being reticent, and I can
> imagine that he would turn his barrister into a nervous wreck on the
> witness stand.
If he is innocent all he has to do is deny it. And as it as so long ago
what can he remember apart from he didn't screw a 14 year old?
> Thirdly, it's a bit rich the prosecution arguing he was "preying on a
> vulnerable young fan" if their relationship lasted until she was 26. If
> there was a whole string of 14 year olds, I could understand it, but in
> this case it seems he wanted *her*, not just any young girl he could get
> (at least on the evidence in this case); and that she wanted him!
There was another charge wasn't there, from 1978.
> Fourthly, was there any evidence at all apart from her statement? If so,
> then after this length of time when he could not hope to produce alibi
> evidence even if he actually had a perfect alibi, it all smacks of abuse
> of process. Again, if there was a second victim, this would tend to
> corroborrate her story, but if it is one person with a tabloid cheque
> hanging on the verdict with no other evidence whatsoever, it is hard to
> see "beyond reasonable doubt" there.
I think this sort of case is absurd. He should get off even though he hasn't
gone into the box but I always think this is a mistake. Why not make a
submission of no case first?
--
Alexander Baron,
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
John O
. wrote in message <3829e11f...@news.freeserve.net>...
Really? I knew they could do clockwork radios....
Vicky and Tony
year old girl and that it should be legal. - You sick bastard!!
A 12 year old girl is hardly old enough, or physically or mentally developed
enough to make any such decisions about sex. We have an age of consent to
protect children not simply to hinder dirty old perverts. Furthermore, not
all girls reach puberty at the same age - it can vary by a couple of years.
Heck, some girls even develop breasts and have periods at the age of 9 - do
you think it ok to shag them too ??
Tony
Geordie <jo...@metazoan.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80csei$n5t$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Vicky and Tony
slips that somehow manage to get in through the back door.
Tony
John O <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80cuh5$ip$2...@quince.news.easynet.net...
Vicky and Tony
inventor has said so!!
Tony
John O <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80d51h$615$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
David Swarbrick
<j.m....@cwcom.net> wrote
>I hate to be a wet blanket, but this case is well and truly sub judice. You
>are in danger of being in contempt of court by publishing discussions (ill
>informed discussions at that) about the trial until it is all finished.
>
persons standard. People are trying to be better informed.
It is very difficult to calculate the standing of discussions on a news
group. I would have no difficulty discussing such things in the pub, but
who knows who is listening here?
I feel that the likely audience is so small and dispersed as to be
insignificant, but I suppose the lawyers among us, at least, should
recognise and stay clear of obvious infringements. I think that, in
general, we do - but then it sounds like trying to be wise after the
event.
Welcome back, and for those readers of uk.legal who do not know, you owe
it all to Jonathan.
--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor 01484 722531 - da...@swarb.freeuk.com
www.swarb.co.uk - law-index of 10,000+ uk case summaries and uk.legalFQA
The Law Society regulates our investment business. IP / IT Law and Contracts.
Jim Ley
wrote:
>It will be interesting, assuming he and the woman accused of indecently
>assaulting a 15-year-old boy are both found guilty, to compare the
>respective sentences in a few months time....
Didn't that one go Not guilty yesterday?
Jim
Paul Burridge
opined thusly:
|
| Jonathan Marcus Hill wrote in message <_qmW3.353$lZ.14652@news2-hme0>...
| >I hate to be a wet blanket, but this case is well and truly sub judice. You
| >are in danger of being in contempt of court by publishing discussions (ill
| >informed discussions at that) about the trial until it is all finished.
| >
| >Jonathan Hill
Good lord! Not JH from the dawn of this group? Where have you been for
the last 7 years?
| I will stop publishing when someone does something about the NoW and the
| Sun....
Yes, it's a bit rich for us to be condemned for our little natter
(particularly because it *is* ill-informed) given the highly
questionable involvement of the gutter press in this case.
Paul Burridge
thusly:
| Indeed,and further to this,can we now expect a spate of similar cases
| given that PC World are now offering a PC maintenance service whereby
| you foolishly pay £39 and they will service your computer and make it
| run like clockwork again.
Why would anyone want their computer to run that slowly? :-)
39 quid sounds a bit steep until you take into account that the fee
includes scanning your HD for nudie pix and forwarding any found to
NCIS.
Daniel Ucko
Paul Burridge wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:14:25 -0000, "John O" <aud...@hotmail.com>
> opined thusly:
>
> |
> | Jonathan Marcus Hill wrote in message <_qmW3.353$lZ.14652@news2-hme0>...
> | >I hate to be a wet blanket, but this case is well and truly sub judice. You
> | >are in danger of being in contempt of court by publishing discussions (ill
> | >informed discussions at that) about the trial until it is all finished.
> | >
> | >Jonathan Hill
>
>
<snip>
>
> | I will stop publishing when someone does something about the NoW and the
> | Sun....
>
> Yes, it's a bit rich for us to be condemned for our little natter
> (particularly because it *is* ill-informed) given the highly
> questionable involvement of the gutter press in this case.
For what it's worth, my original question was on a point of law, not on this case.
The fact that the case and the accusations against the glittery one brought it
(the law, if such exists) to my attention is entirely divorced from the case
itself. I consider the point academic.
I agree with Paul and John about the tabloids.
Daniel
Paul Burridge
<vickya...@cwcom.net> opined thusly:
| Oh bugger - I didn't think of that. Its always amazing the little freudian
| slips that somehow manage to get in through the back door.
It can be a bummer, can't it?
Vicky and Tony
Tony
Paul Burridge <Pa...@osiris1.spoiler.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:382aaf44...@news.freeserve.co.uk...
Gary Jackson
from David Swarbrick <da...@swarb.freeuk.com> contains these words:
> It is very difficult to calculate the standing of discussions on a news
> group. I would have no difficulty discussing such things in the pub, but
> who knows who is listening here?
Is there a difference then David, or is it just that it's all documented here?
I cannot see how GG would accept a guilty verdict. Whilst I have no
opinion either way, I don't see how he can possibly have had a fair
trial after what has been printed in certain tabloids.
One other point - is the woman paying her own costs, or is she being
bankrolled indirectly by the tabloids?
Gary
fuk_y...@my-deja.com
assure you that unless the law has been changed by the broad-minded
bugger AKA Jack Straw - heterosexual buggers (both the buggerer and the
buggeree) commit a "serious sexual offence" whilst couples consisting
entirely of men (or couples consisting entirely women, one or both of
the pair being blessed with an organ of intromission), operating in
private and indulging in such disgusting behaviour have the blessing of
the state in the course of such an act.
Tatchell should shut his face and be happy with 18 year-olds I say....
allowing such carry-on when we poor heteros risk jail indulging in the
"Hershey Highway"! :-)))))))))))))
FYT
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John O
Jim Ley wrote in message <382a95ea...@news.bcandid.deja.com>...
Indeed it did: I wrote too soon.
However, some of the juicier extracts from the court report in the Guardian
don't half give pause for thought.
Bear in mind that we are talking about a 15 year old boy allegedly assaulted
by a 32-year-old teacher....
According to the Guardian, the following are extracts from the Defence
Counsel:
"Can you believe it?' Mr Fisher asked the jury. 'Fifteen-year-old-boys
seeing a naked woman in an open nightgown like that and not noticing. It
would have been the talk of the town. Its nonsense. It couldn't possibly
be true".
{of an incident where different witnesses recalled different descriptions of
what the teacher had been wearing on one occasion}.
With regard to the accuser's claim that Ms Williams had been 'nagging' him
for sex, he said: "Any 15-year-old would have been, to use his term,
'gagging for it'. Its preposterous."
I suppose the easy observations to make concern phrases like double
standards, and one Law for women, another for Men.
I mean....if this is what passes for 'argument' in the minds of supposedly
intelligent lawyers, then can we expect, in the dying days of the GGlitter
trial to hear how it any girl in the position of the 14-year-old he is
accused of having assaulted would have been "gagging for it", too.
After all, he was a famous pop star....she was a besotted fan....wouldn't
ANY teenage girl have just lain back and opened her legs for him....and if
she was gagging for it, no doubt she could be counted upon to lie about her
age....and how could he possibly have resisted....
Of course, there are SOME boys and SOME girls who are sexually precocious
and quite ready to participate in activity that is strictly outside the Law
at age 12 or 13....just as there are some who are likely still to be unready
at 18.
It may well be that in this case, the INDIVIDUAL concerned would have been
more than happy to be led away behind the bike sheds and given a good
seeing-to by his Drama Mistress (Ooooer! Fnar! Fnar!). Equally, the girl
in the GG case might have been more than ready for her own sexual awakening.
Each case needs to be decided on by its individual merits....the actual
course of action needs to be proven....guilt established....etc.
It should be possible to establish the case on the merits of the facts as
presented, rather than by appeal to stereotypes about genders.
That is the EOC point.
More seriously, as already suggested: some individuals are ready at a
certain age, others are not. We may debate for some time on this ng as to
whether 16 or 15 or even 12 is an appropriate age for sex to become
permissible.....but since lawyers are meant to work within the Law, it ill
becomes them to toss away its protection so lightly.
NOT ALL boys of 15 are 'gagging for it': some would be up for a shag with a
girl of around their own age; fewer, I suspect, would be prepared to get
into bed with a woman twice their own age....with someone, specifically, who
is old enough to be their mother.
For some, it would be a lark: for others, potentially quite damaging.
Mr Fisher appears not to have considered this when tossing out his random
remarks on the case.
He is, it might be appropriate to observe, a complete tosser.
Alexander Baron
jo...@metazoan.freeserve.co.uk "Geordie" writes:
> The age of consent in the UK is an outrage. This should be set at 12, when
> children
Earlier this year a group of doctors issued a strong open letter urging that
the age of consent for homosexuals not be lowered. I couldn't agree more, but
girls must also be protected. The age of consent should remain at 16 for sex
and at 18 for queer "sex".
Vicky and Tony
> Earlier this year a group of doctors issued a strong open letter urging
that
> the age of consent for homosexuals not be lowered. I couldn't agree more,
but
> girls must also be protected. The age of consent should remain at 16 for
sex
> and at 18 for queer "sex".
I'm getting worried. I'm starting to agree with people who post to
newsgroups. I seem to remember agreeing with you on another newsgroup
recently Alexander, please do me a favour and spout some crap instead of
well reasoned arguments that I have to agree with :-)
Tony
stevosbaldhead
Geordie <jo...@metazoan.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80csei$n5t$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Daniel Ucko wrote in message <3829B5F0...@ucl.ac.uk>...
> >
> >
> >Gary Jackson wrote:
> >
> >> Can anyone fill me in on this case? First, PC World found some porn
> >> on his computer and the next thing he's in court over a young girl.
> >>
> >> How did one lead to the other?
> >>
> >> Gary
> >
> >I'll fill you in since I started this thread. Apparently, the hoopla
> >over the PC World child porn stuff lead this woman to bring forward
> >charges against Glitter, but not before she had sold her story to News
> >of the World. She's not a young girl anymore though, she is 34.
> >
> >According to the woman they had a relationship that started when she was
> >14 and ran to when she 26. She has received an initial payment from NotW
> >of 10,000 pounds. This is not the first time she has spoken on this,
> >though, she also got 5,000 in 1987 and 10,000 in 1993 from the same
> >paper for more stories about her life with the singer. Max Clifford is
> >behind her present arrangement with NotW (surprise, surprise). The
> >details are from the Guardian, by the way.
> >
> >It may, from the above paragraph, sound as if I condone sex with minors.
> >I do not. I merely think that the publicity machine makes it difficult
> >for justice to be made in an unbiased manner.
>
> children
> for sexual responsibility, and is still recognised as such in Holland,
Spain
> and many other tolerant and socially advanced countries. (This obviously
> excludes the USA and the UK).
> Youths of this age are quite able to judge for themselves wether they want
> to have gay sex with adults or not, or even someone of the opposite sex!
>
> Gary has been stitched up by the child abuse industry in the UK, I wish
him
> the best of luck!
>
> Geordie.
run the risk of womb cancer later in life and can end up sterile. Still, sex
with kids in the North East is nothing new is it?.
>
>
>
>
stevosbaldhead
Gary Jackson <gary.j...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:199911111...@zetnet.co.uk...
John O
stevosbaldhead wrote in message <80fi61$s5r$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>You mate are talking through your fucking arse. Girls who have sex at 12,
>run the risk of womb cancer later in life and can end up sterile. Still,
sex
>with kids in the North East is nothing new is it?.
Personally, I do think 12 is too young....but perhaps you should take this
issue up with the Dutch who, AIUI, seem to think that sex with parental
consent is ok at 12. (Or is it 13?)
Anyway, the point is that in this area, more than many others, you can end
up a criminal just by crossing a border in Europe. Different states have a
ragne of different consent ages ranging from 12 (or 13) up to beyond 16.
So: what do YOU think it ought to be. Is 16 OK? Into bed with a virgin a
day after her 16th birthday is fine...but doing it two days earlier is
unspeakable, and merits your name being added to the Child Protection
Register for life?
Do you consider those states that advocate sex at 15 as being unspeakably
barbaric? Or 14? Or 13?
And what about 17?
Clearly, wherever you draw the line there will be problems of practicality
and principle.
I can live with that. I just think it would help if people understood that
the line - wherever drawn - is a compromise, and that some people breaching
it a little may actually have acted far worse, ethically, than others who
breach it by more.
Alexander Baron
aud...@hotmail.com "John O" writes:
> Bear in mind that we are talking about a 15 year old boy allegedly assaulted
> by a 32-year-old teacher....
I hate to advocate double standards but a woman teacher having it off with
a 15 year old boy is not the same thing. This woman has been cleared now and
she may well have been the victim of a vendetta in any case but when I was
15 years old I don't know anyone - including me - who would have complained
about this sort of thing. There were a couple of teachers I would most
definitely not have kicked out of bed. It is though different for girls.
The age of consent is there to protect young girls from exploitation by
men and young boys from exploitation by men. In practise, anyway.
Richard Miller
<aud...@hotmail.com> writes
>"Can you believe it?' Mr Fisher asked the jury. 'Fifteen-year-old-boys
>seeing a naked woman in an open nightgown like that and not noticing. It
>would have been the talk of the town. Its nonsense. It couldn't possibly
>be true".
>
>{of an incident where different witnesses recalled different descriptions of
>what the teacher had been wearing on one occasion}.
I certainly agree with you about the "gagging for it" phrase, but I
disagree with your interpretation of this part of the report.
As I read it, two of the prime witnesses were saying that their teacher
walked into the room wearing nothing but a nightgown which was hanging
open at the front. She had denied this; and the other two boys who were
in the room at the same time said they did not notice anything unusual
or out of the ordinary about what she was wearing on this occasion. The
point the barrister was making here was that if two 15 year old boys had
seen a woman walk into their room effectively stark naked, they would
have noticed; therefore, by implication, the two who said she had done
so were lying. This, I believe, was a fair comment to make.
Not so the suggestion that the boys were "gagging for it." Frankly, the
woman came across as having acted entirely inappropriately, as she
herself now seems to acknowledge. Apparently she now admits to going
swimming naked in front of the boys, although she seems to have
demonstrated such naturist tendencies elsewhere, so there may well have
been no sexual intent on her part in doing this. She also sent an
entirely inappropriate card to one of the boys too. In the light of
these admissions, I was surprised she was acquitted.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Watts
John O <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>After all, he was a famous pop star....she was a besotted fan....wouldn't
>ANY teenage girl have just lain back and opened her legs for him....and if
>she was gagging for it, no doubt she could be counted upon to lie about her
>age....and how could he possibly have resisted....
Of course, if this is valid, it would make a wonderful opportunity for any
litigous groupies out there (`I was incapable of consent, and he was
deliberately promoting that image in order to have sex with me, your
honour'). Could be a nice little earner :-).
[snip]
Richard.
--
Death to false nettles !
Paul C. Dickie
wrote:
>According to the woman they had a relationship that started when she was
>14 and ran to when she 26. She has received an initial payment from NotW
>of 10,000 pounds. This is not the first time she has spoken on this,
>though, she also got 5,000 in 1987 and 10,000 in 1993 from the same
>paper for more stories about her life with the singer. Max Clifford is
>behind her present arrangement with NotW (surprise, surprise).
>I do not. I merely think that the publicity machine makes it difficult
>for justice to be made in an unbiased manner.
Quite -- especially as she expects to get a further 25,000 quid if he is
convicted. IMO, if Mr Gadd is acquitted, Messrs Clifford and Murdoch
should be tried for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>Oh bugger - I didn't think of that. Its always amazing the little freudian
>slips that somehow manage to get in through the back door.
Was that another?
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Actually I remember a joke my guitar teacher told a group of us in the
>pub in 1973, yes, 1973. He was taking the piss out of newspaper
>headlines and said
>
>"Gary Glitter admits to being 35 - he's 50 if he's a day". How old is
>he now?
55, officially.
Ergo, that means that he should soon be eligible for a bus pass...
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<fle...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Indeed,and further to this,can we now expect a spate of similar cases
>given that PC World are now offering a PC maintenance service whereby
>you foolishly pay £39 and they will service your computer and make it
>run like clockwork again.
I would prefer my computer to run like a computer; clockwork I can
service myself...
--
< Paul >
WOZ
fuk_y...@my-deja.com wrote in message <80f886$b49$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
The law was changed by an amendment to the Criminal Justice act (1995 or
1996 I think) which was proposed by Edwina Currie to legalise anal sex
between consenting adults.
If Jack Straw had anything to do with it all sex would be illegal unless you
were a politician - or a politians son.........
WOZ
>The law has always discriminated between males and females but only in ways
>that are to the female's advantage.
>
>I notice that her MP is howling that it's a disgrace that her name has
>been published while the boy's name is kept secret. I wonder if he would
>feel the same if the sexes had been reversed.
>
>It's also remarkable that this woman who admits to perjury when she denied
>parading naked in front of schoolboys has not been charged with either
>perjury or indecent exposure.
You seem to be taking a somewhat one sided view here.
Whilst a charge of perjury could be made against the teacher, perhaps one
should also consider bringing that charge against the individual who made
the false accusation to start with. In fact given the 2 month jail sentence
recently given to the student for wasting police time over a false rape
claim - where no direct accusations were made against anyone - this would
seem to be a far more serious case, but no one seems to think this boy
should even get a slapped wrist - now thats what I call a double standard.
John O
WOZ wrote in message <80fpjn$8gq$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net>...
Hehehe. Good point.
Any chance of some symmetry here? The opposing arguments are likely to
focus on:
a) people who make allegations of rape (or indecent assault) that are found
to be unsubstantiated should get significantly more than a slapped wrist,
because the allegation is serious, and other people should be discouraged
from doing so, or ....
b) if people are fearful that failure to win in a court of Law would lead
them into prison, then even genuine victims of rape/assault might hesitate
to lay charges.
Personally, I think I would be happy either way, so long as the principle
was applied equally....
John O
Paul C. Dickie wrote in message ...
Just how are you punctuating this sentence?
Personally, I don't care two hoots whether you can service yourself or
not.....
You'll be bringing out that old chestnut about 'why does a dog lick its
balls?' next....
newsa...@my-deja.com
a 12
> year old girl and that it should be legal. - You sick bastard!!
>
> A 12 year old girl is hardly old enough, or physically or mentally
developed
> enough to make any such decisions about sex. We have an age of
consent to
> protect children not simply to hinder dirty old perverts.
Furthermore, not
> all girls reach puberty at the same age - it can vary by a couple of
years.
> Heck, some girls even develop breasts and have periods at the age of
9 - do
> you think it ok to shag them too ??
>
> Tony
Sir,
Maybe you should direct your comments elswhere. This is the UK.Legal
newsgroup not alt.MrAngryVentsHisRage.
Personally, I would feel it rather strange if a middle-aged man and a
teenage woman did get it together. But sometimes life is like that.
Most relationships between male/female couples are conducted between
adults of a similar age. But in everything, there are extreme cases and
I am sorry you are not mature enough to realise this.
Your claim, namely, that a "12 year old girl is hardly old enough, or
physically or mentally developed enough to make any such decisions
about sex" just doesn't ring true. Such opinions are normally held by
people who are grossly out of touch with what actually happens in
society.
Steve
Anthony R. Gold
<1999111200503...@nym.alias.net>
doo...@nym.alias.net "Ian Newman" wrote:
> It's also remarkable that this woman who admits to perjury when she denied
> parading naked in front of schoolboys has not been charged with either
> perjury or indecent exposure.
The fact that this teacher made false statements is undisputed but
the the fact that the teacher was not convicted of assault is not
proof that the student lied. Would you have us presume that every
alleged victim in an unsuccessful prosecution is dishonest?
Regards,
--
Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tg...@panix.com
Anthony R. Gold
p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk "Paul C. Dickie" wrote:
> Quite -- especially as she expects to get a further 25,000 quid if he is
> convicted. IMO, if Mr Gadd is acquitted, Messrs Clifford and Murdoch
> should be tried for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
I note your belief that an aquittal will be a miscarriage of justice.
Is it time to propose uk.lynching? Legal due process is time and
money wasted on some defendants; Mr. Dickie should be given a forum
where he could save the public purse from such inefficiencies :-)
Vicky and Tony
<newsa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:80g7um$21c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Your claim, namely, that a "12 year old girl is hardly old enough, or
> physically or mentally developed enough to make any such decisions
> about sex" just doesn't ring true. Such opinions are normally held by
> people who are grossly out of touch with what actually happens in
> society.
Ask a Doctor for his opinion. The laws exist to protect children.
Tony
Vicky and Tony
stevosbaldhead <rough...@no1house99.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80fi61
> > Geordie.
> You mate are talking through your fucking arse. Girls who have sex at 12,
> run the risk of womb cancer later in life and can end up sterile. Still,
sex
> with kids in the North East is nothing new is it?.
Yes, but it tends to be their sisters (or so I've been told) :-)
Tony
Jim Ley
("Anthony R. Gold") wrote:
>On Friday, in article <ojev$EAFz1K4Ew$L...@bozzie.f9.co.uk>
> p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk "Paul C. Dickie" wrote:
>
>> Quite -- especially as she expects to get a further 25,000 quid if he is
>> convicted. IMO, if Mr Gadd is acquitted, Messrs Clifford and Murdoch
>> should be tried for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
>
>I note your belief that an aquittal will be a miscarriage of justice.
Are you sure? I took it to be, if acquitted, then it was obviously a
stich up by Messrs Clifford and Murdoch, and it was them who wasted
the courts time and money with malicious accusations..
Of course I might just be being generous to Mr Dickie...
Jim.
John O
Ian Newman wrote in message <1999111208051...@nym.alias.net>...
>has got away with her crimes. She admits she lied to the court and she
>admits she indecently exposed herself to children.
>
>Any man who behaved like her would have been jailed and his name would
>have been put on the sex offender's register.
>
>I believe the verdict was a result of political correctness and that a
>man would have been found guilty of rape. This woman, by her own admission,
>is a liar and a child abuser. There were three witnesses against her but
>she was acquitted.
<snip>
An interesting observation, and one which plays around the edges of what is
acceptable in society.
When I was young, and the old Queen was still on the throne....
(I jest: she'd just died!)
'Flashing' seems to have been a music hall thing. That is - and maybe this
was just the experience of a teenaged boy 20/30 years ago - society as a
whole appeared to treat Flashing as fairly non-serious. So you would see
parodies of it in Benny Hill and the Two Ronnies.....
....and then a new attitude set in, and it became much less pc on, I think,
two grounds: that the erstwhile flasher was not so much a figure of comedy,
but a sick individual, for whom flashing was but the first step on a road
that would almost inevitably lead to much nastier and abusive behaviour.....
....and that flashing itself was an exercise in male power, put women down,
and did damage.
On the first, I have no evidence - though I suspect that those making the
claims have little more. On the latter, talking to women at the time, I got
the impression that for most, it was no big deal: it had happened to many
and they had shrugged it off, or indeed, been amused by it.....so the
question is raised of whether the perception of 'damage done' is largely
circular.
Which brings us to Ms Williams who, I suppose, is guilty of being a female
flasher....a bit like Erika Roe, and many before her....
....and I was wondering where, if anywhere, society felt it appropriate to
draw the line regarding 'inappropriate displays of nudity'.
OTOH, I think that someone inflicting their private parts on another person
ought not to be allowed to do so. But then, who decides what is
appropriate? The flasher? Or the flashee?
I can imagine many women would say the flashee - since if you don't want to
have someone's bits waved in your face, it should be your right to say
so....but what then of the 'right to breastfeed in public?'
I can imagine some men (and some women, too) objecting - and if the right to
object is absolute, then why should breastfeeding be allowed?
I am also trying to work into this the East/West German experience, which
appears to be relevant.....basically, pre-unification, the East Germans were
very pro nudity, nude bathing, etc. and many good public beaches have a
culture in which nudity is both allowed and encouraged.
Roll on re-unification....West Germans go on holiday in the East and are
shocked, horrified, etc. by the "Ossies" ' shameless nudity. Some women, of
course, also turn this into a sexism thing, objecting to men flaunting their
penises in public....
Very difficult. If you rebuke the act, then clearly, Ms Williams, with whom
we began, is guilty of 'flashing' and, by implication, of all the evils
associated with that.....if we condemn on the say-so of the 'victim', then
much that now adds to the general hilarity of life will be abolished just in
case someone gets offended......
Hmmmm. I have no answer.
Anthony R. Gold
doo...@nym.alias.net "Ian Newman" wrote:
> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>
> >On 12 Nov, in article
> ><1999111200503...@nym.alias.net>
> >doo...@nym.alias.net "Ian Newman" wrote:
> >
> >> It's also remarkable that this woman who admits to perjury when she denied
> >> parading naked in front of schoolboys has not been charged with either
> >> perjury or indecent exposure.
> >
> >The fact that this teacher made false statements is undisputed but
> >the the fact that the teacher was not convicted of assault is not
> >proof that the student lied. Would you have us presume that every
> >alleged victim in an unsuccessful prosecution is dishonest?
>
> Of course not.
That should have been replying to another post. My appologies and I
will try again.
Anthony R. Gold
<80fpjn$8gq$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net> w...@spam.com
"WOZ" wrote:
> Whilst a charge of perjury could be made against the teacher, perhaps one
> should also consider bringing that charge against the individual who made
> the false accusation to start with. In fact given the 2 month jail sentence
> recently given to the student for wasting police time over a false rape
> claim - where no direct accusations were made against anyone - this would
> seem to be a far more serious case, but no one seems to think this boy
> should even get a slapped wrist - now thats what I call a double standard.
The fact that this teacher made false statements is undisputed but
the the fact that the teacher was not convicted of assault is not
proof that the student lied.
Do you presume that every alleged victim who is willing to be a
prosecution witness a prosecution that fails was dishonest?
fuk_y...@my-deja.com
"WOZ" <w...@spam.com> wrote:
> The law was changed by an amendment to the Criminal Justice act (1995
> or 1996 I think) which was proposed by Edwina Currie to legalise anal
> sex between consenting adults.
>
Great to know that "takin' it up the Gary Glitter" is now legal.... :-))
FYT
Vicky and Tony
> Women, and especially womyn, can't have equal rights *and* seats on buses
Quite right - that's why I shall continue to offer a woman my seat and open
doors for them :-)
Tony
Anthony R. Gold
<$Vu6jCAZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>
rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk
"Richard Miller" wrote:
> First, what has happened to the charges re the pictures on his computer?
> Dropped? Quietly pleaded guilty and awaiting the outcome of this case?
Four months imprisonment and entry onto the sex offenders' register.
Paul Burridge
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> opined thusly:
| Ergo, that means that he should soon be eligible for a bus pass...
Gate pass, actually. But not for another couple of months.
:->
--
Noverint universi per presentes et futuri...
Paul Burridge
thusly:
| Are you sure? I took it to be, if acquitted, then it was obviously a
| stich up by Messrs Clifford and Murdoch, and it was them who wasted
| the courts time and money with malicious accusations..
That was the way I read Paul's comment as well. I note on the R4 news
this evening they're talking about introducing a specific criminal
offence for this kind of thing, but it's already what's known as
'criminal contempt' under common law. When will we ever see an editor
in the dock over it, though, rather than simply the impotent Lord
Wakeham wheeled out to recite the same old platitudes?
Clive D.W. Feather
>She's not a young girl anymore though, she is 34.
>
>According to the woman they had a relationship that started when she was
>14 and ran to when she 26.
Isn't there some limit on how long after the event a prosecution can be
brought ? Particularly when the chief witness hasn't come forward in all
that time, but:
>This is not the first time she has spoken on this,
>though, she also got 5,000 in 1987 and 10,000 in 1993 from the same
>paper for more stories about her life with the singer.
hardly indicates she was too scared to, or unable to, or whatever.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Vicky and Tony
him in prison :-)
Tony
"Anthony R. Gold" <tg...@microvest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:19991112.174...@microvest.demon.co.uk...
Richard Miller
Gold" <tg...@microvest.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Wednesday, in article
> <$Vu6jCAZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>
> rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk
> "Richard Miller" wrote:
>
>> First, what has happened to the charges re the pictures on his computer?
>> Dropped? Quietly pleaded guilty and awaiting the outcome of this case?
>
>Four months imprisonment and entry onto the sex offenders' register.
>
>Regards,
And according to the BBC tonight, it was a pretty extensive collection
of a particularly nasty variety of child porn involving pre-teens.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
>So you think it is perfectly acceptable for a middle aged man to shag a 12
>year old girl and that it should be legal. - You sick bastard!!
I don't much like the idea of a middle aged man shagging a 16 year old
girl. But it is not illegal.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<aud...@hotmail.com> writes
>So: what do YOU think it ought to be. Is 16 OK? Into bed with a virgin a
>day after her 16th birthday is fine...but doing it two days earlier is
>unspeakable, and merits your name being added to the Child Protection
>Register for life?
>
>Do you consider those states that advocate sex at 15 as being unspeakably
>barbaric? Or 14? Or 13?
>
>And what about 17?
>
>Clearly, wherever you draw the line there will be problems of practicality
>and principle.
>
>I can live with that. I just think it would help if people understood that
>the line - wherever drawn - is a compromise, and that some people breaching
>it a little may actually have acted far worse, ethically, than others who
>breach it by more.
This summarises exactly what is wrong with the "paedophile haters."
Given the different ages of consent, it is impossible to argue with any
credibility that a man is a monster and unspeakably evil just because he
has had sex with a girl under this country's age of consent.
The way I look at it is that seeking sex with a prepubescent girl is
unnatural. Seeking sex with a girl who has reached puberty is not
unnatural, but that is when society has to make its moral judgements on
the balance between freedom and protection of young people.
In this country as late as the beginning of this century, the age of
consent was twelve, and it is generally thought that children mature
earlier now than they did then. Does that make our ancestors unspeakably
evil?
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
a...@no1house99.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Probably on legal aid!
Not a chance. Witnesses in criminal cases get no assistance with legal
costs at all.
--
Richard Miller
John O
Vicky and Tony wrote in message ...
I thought we'd finished with the 'bum jokes' ?
Vicky and Tony
Bloody pervert.
Tony
Richard Miller <rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:ev5SdTAD...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
ANDRAS
broadcasted a bitstream which decodes to...
That was funny.
Andras
----
"Truth does not penetrate the preoccupied mind" - Ch. Darwin
jon
<rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <19991112.174...@microvest.demon.co.uk>, "Anthony R.
>Gold" <tg...@microvest.demon.co.uk> writes
>>On Wednesday, in article
>> <$Vu6jCAZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>
>> rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk
>> "Richard Miller" wrote:
>>
>>> First, what has happened to the charges re the pictures on his computer?
>>> Dropped? Quietly pleaded guilty and awaiting the outcome of this case?
>>
>>Four months imprisonment and entry onto the sex offenders' register.
>>
>>Regards,
>
>And according to the BBC tonight, it was a pretty extensive collection
>of a particularly nasty variety of child porn involving pre-teens.
I am not a collector of pornography. However, I take the view that Mr
Glitter has been found guilty of a victimless crime. If you download
obscene images and masturbate to them, you really are not encouraging
the exploitation of children. Those who exploit and abuse children will
do so regardless of whether they can sell the images to 50 or 5000
people. Anyone who requires pornography to enjoy sex deserves pity
rather than public shaming.
--
jon
WOZ
snipped....
>The fact that this teacher made false statements is undisputed but
>the the fact that the teacher was not convicted of assault is not
>proof that the student lied.
>
>Do you presume that every alleged victim who is willing to be a
>prosecution witness a prosecution that fails was dishonest?
>
>Regards,
>--
> Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tg...@panix.com
No, but in this case the individual admitted to the court under cross
examination he had lied and made up at least one of the allegations. There
were also numerous witness statements that these sort of accusations had
been made at other staff members over a period of time. The jury, who one
presumes had far more details of the allegations didn't exactly take long to
acquit the defendant did they?
John O
jon wrote in message ...
Hmmmm.
The sentence expresses social displeasure at the interest....and so it
should.
The principle behind the sentence may require more debate. Basically, it
appears to be taken as axiomatic that there is a gentle descent....
? "facile est descensus in Averno"
(I just know I've misquoted that: Latinists, please feel free to correct
me!)
Paedophiles start with erotic imagery, move to more hard core and then,
ineluctably, on to actual offending. Its a bit like the 'soft drugs lead to
hard drugs' argument.
Against this, some offenders who have been prepared to talk _claim_ that
they could actually use pornography to control their urges....in fact, to
obtain release, which would mean they would not move on to actual abuse.
Personally, I haven't a clue about this. The latter argument appears to
contain a kernel of sense....though so, too, does the first.
I would like to see some decent research into this area, since clearly, if
one of these views is wrong and we make the wrong choice, we are, as a
society, atually increasing rather than decreasing the risk to children.
This is important, because if
Vicky and Tony
consented to their involvement. Viewing pornography of this type is both
natural and enjoyed by many men and women, in the form of video, photo and
internet worldwide.
An interest in child pornography is a sick perverson. Who is to say that
the sicko playing with himself whilst looking at these vile photos will not
decide in the future that he needs the real thing (it happens)??
Anyone that NEEDS pornography has problems, anyone that WANTS child
pornography has problems - people who WANT adult pornography are normal
human beings.
Tony
jon <j...@jongru.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NMd2SHAl...@jongru.demon.co.uk...
> In article <ev5SdTAD...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>, Richard Miller
> <rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <19991112.174...@microvest.demon.co.uk>, "Anthony R.
> >Gold" <tg...@microvest.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>On Wednesday, in article
> >> <$Vu6jCAZ...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>
> >> rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk
> >> "Richard Miller" wrote:
> >>
> >>> First, what has happened to the charges re the pictures on his
computer?
> >>> Dropped? Quietly pleaded guilty and awaiting the outcome of this case?
> >>
> >>Four months imprisonment and entry onto the sex offenders' register.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >
> >And according to the BBC tonight, it was a pretty extensive collection
> >of a particularly nasty variety of child porn involving pre-teens.
>
> I am not a collector of pornography. However, I take the view that Mr
> Glitter has been found guilty of a victimless crime. If you download
> obscene images and masturbate to them, you really are not encouraging
> the exploitation of children. Those who exploit and abuse children will
> do so regardless of whether they can sell the images to 50 or 5000
> people. Anyone who requires pornography to enjoy sex deserves pity
> rather than public shaming.
> --
> jon
Alexander Baron
In article <NMd2SHAl...@jongru.demon.co.uk>
j...@jongru.demon.co.uk "jon" writes:
> I am not a collector of pornography. However, I take the view that Mr
> Glitter has been found guilty of a victimless crime. If you download
> obscene images and masturbate to them, you really are not encouraging
> the exploitation of children. Those who exploit and abuse children will
> do so regardless of whether they can sell the images to 50 or 5000
> people. Anyone who requires pornography to enjoy sex deserves pity
> rather than public shaming.
There is an argument here, but the idea - the proper idea - should be to
discourage the production of it. It's the old argument that if there were
no fences there would be no burglars. However, if images can be generated
totally electronically I can't see that this argument holds water, in fact
it might be a good idea to encourage it on the basis that while perverts
are doing this they aren't molesting real kids.
Avedon Carol once told a good anecdote about this. She said she attended
a conference at which a senior police officer claimed that it is now
possible to manipulate pictures and put a child's head on a naked woman's
body. He thought this was outrageous but Carol thought it was a good idea.
Any thoughts on that?
--
Alexander Baron,
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
Marge Proops
>So you think it is perfectly acceptable for a middle aged man to
>shag a 12 year old girl and that it should be legal. - You sick
>bastard!!
>A 12 year old girl is hardly old enough, or physically or mentally
>developed enough to make any such decisions about sex. We have an age
>of consent to protect children not simply to hinder dirty old perverts.
>Furthermore, not all girls reach puberty at the same age - it can vary
>by a couple of years. Heck, some girls even develop breasts and have
>periods at the age of 9 - do you think it ok to shag them too ??
>Tony
Dear Tony,
The bint that Mr Gadd was acquitted of shagging silly was not 12 but 14
at the time of the alleged fucking. Although he was acquitted because
the Crown could not prove that he did it, you should not claim that he
was guilty but "got let off".
The law of consent in Great Britain is quite a recent introduction and
is a little over a hundred years old. Before then it was quite legal
and relatively common for girls to marry at 14 or younger. The law in
Europe is also quite different; in Holland the age of consent is only
12. Do you think that the Dutch are "dirty old perverts" because they
choose not to comply with your standards?
An angry response to the allegations and a determination to send
Mr Gadd to jail for ever suggests that the person ranting and raving
in that manner has also lusted after a nubile young girl but is afraid
to admit their desires in public or even to themselves. From your
comment that some girls of 9 have big bouncing bristols it seems
obvious that you have been looking at them. Do you have those same
desires Tony? Have you tried to get treatment to help you overcome
your lusts? Your local GP may be able to help with a referral to
a specialised unit where you should be able to get the help you need.
--
+------------------------------------------------+
| Marge, everyone's favorite agony aunt |
+------------------------------------------------+
Marge Proops
Pa...@osiris1.spoiler.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:53:26 GMT, j...@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) opined
> thusly:
> this evening they're talking about introducing a specific criminal
> offence for this kind of thing, but it's already what's known as
> 'criminal contempt' under common law. When will we ever see an editor
> in the dock over it, though, rather than simply the impotent Lord
> Wakeham wheeled out to recite the same old platitudes?
I do not know if Lord Wakeman is impotent but could he not try Viagra?
My editor uses it all the time and he says that with its help he never
feels a day over 63. He is 45 by the way but that is what this job
does to people.
Richard Miller
<j...@jongru.demon.co.uk> writes
>>And according to the BBC tonight, it was a pretty extensive collection
>>of a particularly nasty variety of child porn involving pre-teens.
>
>Glitter has been found guilty of a victimless crime. If you download
>obscene images and masturbate to them, you really are not encouraging
>the exploitation of children. Those who exploit and abuse children will
>do so regardless of whether they can sell the images to 50 or 5000
>people. Anyone who requires pornography to enjoy sex deserves pity
>rather than public shaming.
Sorry, for once I can't agree with you. If you are not talking about
digitally manipulated pictures, then to create the picture, a child had
to be abused. Anything which can reduce the demand for such pictures can
potentially reduce the incidence of such abuse. Child abusers may well
do it anyway, but if there is profit or the pleasure of sharing in it,
they may well do it more frequently than they would for personal
pleasure. And by making such images more widely available, there is a
danger that those who have an interest in child porn may steel
themselves to do it too when they otherwise might leave it as just a
sick fantasy.
I don't think the case is by any means proven, but taking such action
cannot harm children and may protect them. Therefore in my book, it is
justified.
--
Richard Miller
jon
<rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> writes
If we could be certain that Gadd's imprisonment will reduce the demand
for child porn, then I'd agree with you. I'd support the gaoling of
people who take obscene pictures of children or who profit from such
pictures by taking money for them (subject to the usual caveat that
sometimes there is a grey area between art and pornography and I
wouldn't want artists to be rounded up and put in prison). But as far as
Gadd is concerned, he is being held up to public shame and ridicule in
the hope that others will be so fearful of a similar fate that they will
refrain from downloading similar images. I never like the idea of the
individual being scapegoated pour encourager les autres.
--
jon
Paul Burridge
<vickya...@cwcom.net> opined thusly:
| people who WANT adult pornography are normal
| human beings.
Well I must be *abnormal* then, speaking personally, since I eschew
the lot of it.
Paul Burridge
<rich_an...@seasalter0.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> opined thusly:
| I don't much like the idea of a middle aged man shagging a 16 year old
| girl. But it is not illegal.
You might, however, when you yourself become middle-aged.
;-)
John O
Alexander Baron wrote in message <942482...@abaron.demon.co.uk>...
>> Glitter has been found guilty of a victimless crime. If you download
>> obscene images and masturbate to them, you really are not encouraging
>> the exploitation of children. Those who exploit and abuse children will
>> do so regardless of whether they can sell the images to 50 or 5000
>> people. Anyone who requires pornography to enjoy sex deserves pity
>> rather than public shaming.
>
>discourage the production of it. It's the old argument that if there were
>no fences there would be no burglars. However, if images can be generated
>totally electronically I can't see that this argument holds water, in fact
>it might be a good idea to encourage it on the basis that while perverts
>are doing this they aren't molesting real kids.
>
>Avedon Carol once told a good anecdote about this. She said she attended
>a conference at which a senior police officer claimed that it is now
>possible to manipulate pictures and put a child's head on a naked woman's
>body. He thought this was outrageous but Carol thought it was a good idea.
>Any thoughts on that?
I am uneasy with the idea....though it does open up a new philosophical
avenue in terms of what we consider a crime.
Let us assume a gradient. At the top of the gradient is actual physical
interference with children. As a society we are absolutely determined that
this is wrong and should be prevented.
Next step down is photographs of this activity happening. The activity is
still wrong....though we are slightly ambiguous as to what to do about
punishment. Is this a lesser offence? Or should those buying into such
images be punished equally, because they are encouraging the production of
such material.....
Then, drawings, cartoons, crude pictures depicting such activity. We
probably acknowledge that a divide has been crossed, because although we
find the images disturbing, wrong, etc. no single person has been harmed in
their production.
Our condemnation and punishment of the possession of such images rests, I
suspect on three pivots: a belief that this is the start of a slippery
path - so punish this activity in case it leads on to something worse; its
permanence....the fact that this is a product 'out there'; and the fact that
it is part of a trade or industry, with worse things in its lower depths.
By interrupting this activity, we intyerrupt the trade in general.
But now, step lower to people creating their own pornographic images using
pc-based packages. If they distribute them, they are in much the same
category as those who produce a more than ephemeral representation.....but
if they NEVER distribute them....keep them for their own use and are
discovered only by chance (by a network administrator or pc technician).
And if the person only creates ephemeral images that are wiped at regular
intervals?
The excuse for intervention now is much more tenuous: either a model that
assumes an inevitable progress from use of images to action; or a
presumption that the individual is actually ill, and therefore intervention
is required on the basis that they need help.....
John O
Marge Proops wrote in message <80jqsj$i4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <382c553c...@news.freeserve.co.uk>,
> Pa...@osiris1.spoiler.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:53:26 GMT, j...@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) opined
>> thusly:
>> That was the way I read Paul's comment as well. I note on the R4 news
>> this evening they're talking about introducing a specific criminal
>> offence for this kind of thing, but it's already what's known as
>> 'criminal contempt' under common law. When will we ever see an editor
>> in the dock over it, though, rather than simply the impotent Lord
>> Wakeham wheeled out to recite the same old platitudes?
>
>I do not know if Lord Wakeman is impotent but could he not try Viagra?
>My editor uses it all the time and he says that with its help he never
>feels a day over 63.
This would be a reference to his Personal Assistant, Ms Sarah Day, who out
of dedication to her job, turned down retirement at 60, and is planning,
instead, to celebrate that event next year when she turns 65?
Marcus Houlden
marge_...@my-deja.com inscribed <80jqsj$i4l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> to tell
the good people of uk.misc the following:
Oi! Didn't you die a few years ago?
--
Marcus Houlden
ICQ: 29654055 http://www.houlden.f9.co.uk
'78 M Y+ L+ U- KQ+++ C+ c B p+ Sh+ FC(Crown St) R(M21)
PGP keys available from http://www.houlden.f9.co.uk/contact.htm
Tim Martin
Marge Proops <marge_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:80jqd8$hql$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> ... in Holland the age of consent is only 12.
Are you sure?
Tim
Paul C. Dickie
<Pa...@osiris1.spoiler.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:21:20 +0000, "Paul C. Dickie"
><p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> opined thusly:
>
>| Ergo, that means that he should soon be eligible for a bus pass...
>
>Gate pass, actually. But not for another couple of months.
>:->
Assuming, of course, that he doesn't suddenly contract Saunders' variant
of Alzheimer's Disease...
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>Ian Newman <doo...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
>> Women, and especially womyn, can't have equal rights *and* seats on buses
>
>Quite right - that's why I shall continue to offer a woman my seat and open
>doors for them :-)
I thought the allegation was that Gadd had improperly used her seat? p-)
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
>human beings.
So, you think it's another of those irregular verbs: "I am normal, you
may have a problem, he is sick and depraved"?
Or is it more like:
it is kinky to use a feather or two
it is perverted to use the whole chicken
it is sick and depraved to use the whole chicken, then cook it for lunch
--
< Paul >
< ... who, being a vegetarian, doesn't eat chicken...>
Paul C. Dickie
<j...@jibbering.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:56:09 +0000 (GMT), tg...@microvest.demon.co.uk
>("Anthony R. Gold") wrote:
>>On Friday, in article <ojev$EAFz1K4Ew$L...@bozzie.f9.co.uk>
>> p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk "Paul C. Dickie" wrote:
>>> Quite -- especially as she expects to get a further 25,000 quid if he is
>>> convicted. IMO, if Mr Gadd is acquitted, Messrs Clifford and Murdoch
>>> should be tried for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
>>
>>I note your belief that an aquittal will be a miscarriage of justice.
Wrongly.
>Are you sure? I took it to be, if acquitted, then it was obviously a
>stich up by Messrs Clifford and Murdoch, and it was them who wasted
>the courts time and money with malicious accusations..
Perhaps, and perhaps not. My point was (and is) that by their antics,
Clifford, Murdoch and Murdoch's mindless minion who edits the News of
the Screws have effectively wasted public money by ensuring that the
prosecution was doomed to failure. I would add that I do not believe
the case should ever have been brought to trial with the only evidence
(the testimony of the self-proclaimed victim) being so obviously tainted
with the stench of lucre.
I do not expect that they will be prosecuted any more than the snooper
at PC World would be prosecuted for a possible offence contrary to the
Computer Misuse Act -- he was paid and authorised to fix the hard drive,
not take to gawping at its contents. But, IMO, they *should* be.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote:
><newsa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:80g7um$21c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Your claim, namely, that a "12 year old girl is hardly old enough, or
>> physically or mentally developed enough to make any such decisions
>> people who are grossly out of touch with what actually happens in
>> society.
>
>Ask a Doctor for his opinion. The laws exist to protect children.
Historically, you are quite incorrect.
The law was introduced to try to prevent young girls from being traded
as prostitutes -- effectively, being bought and sold, as white slaves --
in Victorian London.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<aud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Paul C. Dickie wrote in message ...
>>In article <3829e11f...@news.freeserve.net>, .
>><fle...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>Indeed,and further to this,can we now expect a spate of similar cases
>>>given that PC World are now offering a PC maintenance service whereby
>>>you foolishly pay Ł39 and they will service your computer and make it
>>>run like clockwork again.
>>I would prefer my computer to run like a computer; clockwork I can
>>service myself...
>
>Just how are you punctuating this sentence?
Normally. If you'd prefer it rephrased, I'll say that I can service
clockwork for myself, though watches are another matter.
>Personally, I don't care two hoots whether you can service yourself or
>not.....
Personally, I don't care two hoots for your unpleasant speculations.
>You'll be bringing out that old chestnut about 'why does a dog lick its
>balls?' next....
Why should I, when you seem determined to do so?
--
< Paul >
a_vomit
<vickya...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>54 counts of possessing child pornography were admitted by Mr. Glitter.
>Bloody pervert.
>Tony
In another article <aSCT3.1725$BJ3.84025@news1-hme0>, posted to
uk.adverts.personals and uk.adverts.personals.gay-lesbian-bi, he advertised
for other perverts to write to him:
>Subject: SWINGING CLUBS - AMSTERDAM
>Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:40:08 -0000
>
>We are a young professional married couple who are going to
>Amsterdam on the 17th. We are looking for an upmarket "swinging"
>club where the emphasis (hopefully) is on couples and single
>females. Can anyone recommend one ??
>
>Thanks
>
>V&T
Even if the Jew Mason does get to Amsterdam and find some of his
fellow preverts there he will have to avert his eyes on every
street corner and in every bookshop. Holland and Amsterdam in
particular is full to bursting with child porn.
--
John Steed
pp. The Avengers
Vicky and Tony
is fine with me, people shagging kids and/or taking photos of kids is wrong.
FULLSTOP. There is nothing perverted about sex between consenting adults.
Tony
a_vomit <vom...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:80m33e$14p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Dead Mangled Pigeon
[snip]
>Even if the Jew Mason does get to Amsterdam...
Better a Jew Mason than a net cop detective.
Paul Burridge
<vickya...@cwcom.net> opined thusly:
| The purpose of your posting ?? Sexual activites between consenting adults
| is fine with me, people shagging kids and/or taking photos of kids is wrong.
| FULLSTOP. There is nothing perverted about sex between consenting adults.
Nice work, Mr. a_vomit. Interesting to see a certain contradiction in
morals here....
Paul Burridge
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> opined thusly:
| Assuming, of course, that he doesn't suddenly contract Saunders' variant
| of Alzheimer's Disease...
Reversible pre-senile dementia? That was indeed a classic!
I wonder what dear Ernest is doing with himself these days... :-/
Paul Burridge
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> opined thusly:
| Perhaps, and perhaps not. My point was (and is) that by their antics,
| Clifford, Murdoch and Murdoch's mindless minion who edits the News of
| the Screws have effectively wasted public money by ensuring that the
| prosecution was doomed to failure. I would add that I do not believe
| the case should ever have been brought to trial with the only evidence
| (the testimony of the self-proclaimed victim) being so obviously tainted
| with the stench of lucre.
Even the police themselves have said this.
John O
Paul C. Dickie wrote in message ...
>In article <80fpu9$222l$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>, John O
><aud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Paul C. Dickie wrote in message ...
>>>In article <3829e11f...@news.freeserve.net>, .
>>><fle...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>Indeed,and further to this,can we now expect a spate of similar cases
>>>>given that PC World are now offering a PC maintenance service whereby
>>>>run like clockwork again.
>>>I would prefer my computer to run like a computer; clockwork I can
>>>service myself...
>>
>>Just how are you punctuating this sentence?
>
>Normally. If you'd prefer it rephrased, I'll say that I can service
>clockwork for myself, though watches are another matter.
>
>>Personally, I don't care two hoots whether you can service yourself or
>>not.....
>
>Personally, I don't care two hoots for your unpleasant speculations.
>
>>You'll be bringing out that old chestnut about 'why does a dog lick its
>>balls?' next....
>
>Why should I, when you seem determined to do so?
Oh, my! Which particular bee got under your bonnet.
I really don't think you thought I was being serious - well, I hope you
didn't, because I think I would be seriously worried by someone who had so
little perception.
Or do you object to the poor quality of the humour. Fair enough....though I
see elsewhere on this thread that you yourself are not above attempting a
little light relief....
must we applaud _your_ jokes, but restrain ourselves?
Or was it simply that I had the temerity to hang some low level humour on to
one of your posts.
Touchy, aren't we!
P.D.Stamford
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes
>
>Quite -- especially as she expects to get a further 25,000 quid if he is
>convicted. IMO, if Mr Gadd is acquitted, Messrs Clifford and Murdoch
>should be tried for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
for compensation from any criminal compensation fund?
--
P.D.Stamford
Charles Bryant
Your moral outrage seems to have clouded your thoughts or made you
careless in expression.
Charles Bryant
Paul Burridge <Pa...@osiris1.spoiler.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:53:26 GMT, j...@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) opined
>thusly:
>
>| stich up by Messrs Clifford and Murdoch, and it was them who wasted
>| the courts time and money with malicious accusations..
>
>this evening they're talking about introducing a specific criminal
>offence for this kind of thing, but it's already what's known as
>'criminal contempt' under common law. When will we ever see an editor
>in the dock over it, though, rather than simply the impotent Lord
>Wakeham wheeled out to recite the same old platitudes?
Who would be entitled to prosecute for such an offence? Only the CPS,
some involved party, or anyone?