Gary Glitter gets his comeuppance
Mixy
I just heard something about Gary Glitter getting Done on child porn
charges. Does anyone know anything more?
Tal and Trizia told me he was in trouble a while ago but apparently there
have been some new developments.
Personally I'm glad as I've worked with him and didn't like him one bit.
Mixy - now at mi...@dpinc.ml.org to stop Ticklebitchbombs(Thanks Sam)
<<The views contained herein are strictly my own or those of the voices in
my head>>
First rule at a rock gig - if you see a pyro tech running, keep up.
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <6frtct$q6h$2...@gte1.gte.net>,
mi...@gte.removetoreply.net had scribbled:
> I just heard something about Gary Glitter getting Done on child porn
> charges. Does anyone know anything more?
>
> Tal and Trizia told me he was in trouble a while ago but apparently there
> have been some new developments.
>
> Personally I'm glad as I've worked with him and didn't like him one bit.
>
Apparently he's got 50 counts for possession and 50 counts for something
else that I can't remember (I wasn't paying much attention).
He's supposed to be seeing a magistrate sometime today. He says it's not
going to interfere with his musical career.
Yeah. Right.
--
nothing.
"Nice video. Shame about the song."
- Lufthansa Terminal
Katherine Gardner
<Had to snip everything or it wouldn't post, More included text than new
text - blah Netscape!>
He took his computer in to be repaired where they found some dodgy
photos on the hard drive. It was reported to the police who then spent
the next couple of months going through his house, his boat and
somewhere else I think. According to Reuters it's 50 counts of making
indecent photographs of juveniles.
Is it OB-NetGoth and on topic since the pictures were found on his
computer? :)
Katherine
--
My goal in life is to prove that money can buy happiness.
Now all I need is a sponsor.....
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <35220F...@citicorp.com>,
katherin...@citicorp.com had scribbled:
> <Had to snip everything or it wouldn't post, More included text than new
> text - blah Netscape!>
>
> He took his computer in to be repaired where they found some dodgy
> photos on the hard drive. It was reported to the police who then spent
> the next couple of months going through his house, his boat and
> somewhere else I think. According to Reuters it's 50 counts of making
> indecent photographs of juveniles.
>
[SNIPPEROO!]
Apparently he's also been charged with 50 counts of possession.
Also of which, did anyone see the Jack Docherty show last night on Ch. 5?
There was a bit of a GG and Deirdre (her from Corry) send up. 'Twas very
predictable but quite amusing nonetheless.
Tal
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 09:44:22 +0100, not...@bigfoot.com (nothing)
wrote:
>Upon the e-scroll of <6frtct$q6h$2...@gte1.gte.net>,
>mi...@gte.removetoreply.net had scribbled:
>> I just heard something about Gary Glitter getting Done on child porn
>> charges. Does anyone know anything more?
<snip>
>Apparently he's got 50 counts for possession and 50 counts for something
>else that I can't remember (I wasn't paying much attention).
I'm not going to get into this, except insofar as to say that from
what I've managed to find out the whole thing stinks. Roll on the
bloody dictator state.
Tal
Who's noticed how a hell of a lot of ppl assume he's guilty until
proven innocent just because he's been charged.
Mr X
Tal wrote: I'm not going to get into this, except insofar as to say that from
> what I've managed to find out the whole thing stinks. Roll on the
> bloody dictator state.
>
> Tal
> Who's noticed how a hell of a lot of ppl assume he's guilty until
> proven innocent just because he's been charged.
He's got a computer->with internet access->so he must have downloaded
porn->guilty
Q.E.D.
I wonder how many other people could be done for *similar* things...
enjoy,
Mr X.
Whisky Dave
Mr X <M...@Twisted.org.uk> wrote in article
<35222DC3...@Twisted.org.uk>...
> > Tal
> > Who's noticed how a hell of a lot of ppl assume he's guilty until
> > proven innocent just because he's been charged.
>
> He's got a computer->with internet access->so he must have downloaded
> porn->guilty
>
> Q.E.D.
>
How about the person that bought a new computer from I think Dixons, only
to find that someone else's accounts database had been left on there.
Apparently this 'new' computer was a returned & refurbished one and they
hadn't even wiped the disc or deleted the previous owners files before
selling it a second time. I think it was on watchdog about a year ago.
Whisky Dave
Tal <T...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<352210d...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 09:44:22 +0100, not...@bigfoot.com (nothing)
> wrote:
>
> >Upon the e-scroll of <6frtct$q6h$2...@gte1.gte.net>,
> >mi...@gte.removetoreply.net had scribbled:
> >> I just heard something about Gary Glitter getting Done on child porn
> >> charges. Does anyone know anything more?
> <snip>
> >Apparently he's got 50 counts for possession and 50 counts for something
> >else that I can't remember (I wasn't paying much attention).
>
> I'm not going to get into this, except insofar as to say that from
> what I've managed to find out the whole thing stinks. Roll on the
> bloody dictator state.
>
> Tal
> Who's noticed how a hell of a lot of ppl assume he's guilty until
> proven innocent just because he's been charged.
I wonder what these 50 counts are?.
A friend of mine still maintains that Michael Jackson is innocent of those
alleged child incidents.
She had virtually no childhood of her own and feels the same way (or very
similar to M.J) with children she would like to re-live the childhood she
never had and the only way do that is to be around and close to children,
and that doesn't mean you are screwing them.
Due to M.J childhood years it sounds as though he's lost out at a being a
child so to me this seems plausible.>
Kevin O' Gorman
"Whisky Dave" <d.wil...@qmw.NOBOTTLES.ac.uk> writes:
>I wonder what these 50 counts are?.
Could be 50 individual files...
Could be something to do with the transfer of a smaller number of files across
multiple national boundaries...
Either way, it proves that the average computer repair place isn't averse to
checking out your hard drive and ripping off anything interesting thereon.
K.
-
Tal
On 1 Apr 1998 17:21:54 +0100, spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
wrote:
>"Whisky Dave" <d.wil...@qmw.NOBOTTLES.ac.uk> writes:
>
>>I wonder what these 50 counts are?.
>
>Could be 50 individual files...
It is. One count for each alleged pic.
>
>Could be something to do with the transfer of a smaller number of files across
>multiple national boundaries...
>
>Either way, it proves that the average computer repair place isn't averse to
>checking out your hard drive and ripping off anything interesting thereon.
It's arse. A BIG fekkin bag of arse. Some of it is even faked i.e. not
real pics. Horray for art censorship.
Arse.
Tal
Florian
Does anyone else find it ironic that it was a 'tecchie' at PC World that found
the alledgedly offending items?
Personally, I didn't think PC World had tecchies, and their World revolves
around Windoze 95....
Florian.
--
Cavalry charges, a flank attack; |Flo...@drella.NOSPAM.demon.co.uk
Tape it on the video and play it back; |(Remove NOSPAM to mail!)
"And Look! There's me - the one in black" |
He tells his new found friends. |Blyth Power, Marius Moves.
Alexander
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:54:32 -0800, "Mixy" wrote:
>I just heard something about Gary Glitter getting Done on child porn
>charges. Does anyone know anything more?
Can I do the joke about him pulling out of 'Children In Need' now or
would that be in bad taste?
no? :>
--
~Alexander : Essential Well-Hard Crucial Re-Mix
The Facts: http://www.alexander.darkwave.org.uk/
I like a man who grins when he fights. - Winston Churchill
Mixy
Alexander wrote in message <3525bd29...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:54:32 -0800, "Mixy" wrote:
>
>>I just heard something about Gary Glitter getting Done on child porn
>>charges. Does anyone know anything more?
>
>Can I do the joke about him pulling out of 'Children In Need' now or
>would that be in bad taste?
Please don't remind me. I ended up doing the 95 children in need with him
and it was not a nice experience. His manager picked up some extremely drunk
groupie for him and just said "Leader-fodder" as him and his assistant
carried her off to Gary's London flat. He feels the need to be
hero-worshipped by everyone but treats everyone like dirt.
After the show there was one beer and one round of sandwiches per crew
member on the tour bus and we were limited to one bottle of mineral water on
stage per musician per show. Also, when he cancelled the last couple of
dates 10 minutes before he was supposed to go on at Wembley it was down to
stage fright, not the stated "bad back".
Esme
In a message of 31 Mar 98 mi...@gte.removetoreply.net wrote to All:
..
mgr> I just heard something about Gary Glitter getting Done on child porn
mgr> charges. Does anyone know anything more?
I think he's been found guilty? My boss, who had tickets to a gig of his,
didn't go on principle, apparently, but her friends did, to heckle.
(shrugs...) Can't imagine wanting to go to a Glitter concert anyway, me...
:-}
/\./\ Ciao for now!
\/ O O \/ Take care,
-( T )- Esme
/\ \_/ /\
|...| (Don't forget to remove the .NOSPAM before replying!)
--
|Fidonet: Esme 2:2500/632.7
|Internet: Es...@p7.f632.n2500.z2.overflow.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his/her own.
Nega...@onyxnet.co.uk
In article <6ftpj2$n...@graves.maths.tcd.ie>,
spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman) wrote:
>
>
> Either way, it proves that the average computer repair place isn't averse to
> checking out your hard drive and ripping off anything interesting thereon.
>
> -
'Tis something to think on, to be sure...
And as if sending off your PC to a repair shop to be fixed with anything of
such a nature *anywhere* on the HD wasn't bad enough, there was a similar case
in wired news a while back where some American fellow sent his machine in to
the shop... turns upt he had a kiddieporn .AVI movie as his... wait for it...
startup screen... Laugh..? I nearly wet me leathers...:)
Natural Selection at Work...
NoneMoreNegative
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
guy ruth hammond
Tal wrote:
>
> It's arse. A BIG fekkin bag of arse. Some of it is even faked i.e. not
> real pics. Horray for art censorship.
>
what exactly are you trying to say here? that child pornography
is ok if it's been edited in photoshop? thaty censors are wrong
to ban it's distribution? that pedophile's shouldn't be prosecuted?
--
GuyRuthHammond <g...@onlinemagic.com> bill is my master
Webmaster, Systems Operations Group win32 is my mantra
Online Magic Ltd http://onlinemagic/ world domination is my goal
Kevin O' Gorman
T...@irkar.demon.co.uk (Tal) writes:
>>
>>Either way, it proves that the average computer repair place isn't averse to
>>checking out your hard drive and ripping off anything interesting thereon.
>It's arse. A BIG fekkin bag of arse. Some of it is even faked i.e. not
>real pics. Horray for art censorship.
Surely that implies that the rest of it is real - in which case the "is it art"
debate is probably (and should be) going to be very short.
I just think that it's a very dodgy way to acquire evidence.
K.
-
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <6fvh4j$o8v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Nega...@onyxnet.co.uk had scribbled:
> > checking out your hard drive and ripping off anything interesting thereon.
> >
> > -
>
> 'Tis something to think on, to be sure...
> And as if sending off your PC to a repair shop to be fixed with anything of
> such a nature *anywhere* on the HD wasn't bad enough, there was a similar case
> in wired news a while back where some American fellow sent his machine in to
> the shop... turns upt he had a kiddieporn .AVI movie as his... wait for it...
> startup screen... Laugh..? I nearly wet me leathers...:)
>
Taking a p.c. to PCWorld is just asking for trouble (IMHO)... most of
them are simply sales people with a bit of computer knowledge, and the
'techies' are no more than CS dropouts. Well, if my limited experience
of the branch in Edinburgh is anything to go by.
I'd compare it to asking a dog to perform minor surgery. It could sniff
about a bit, maybe find something interesting, but not know what the hell
it was supposed to be doing. :)
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <6fviu6$c...@graves.maths.tcd.ie>,
spi...@maths.tcd.ie had scribbled:
> T...@irkar.demon.co.uk (Tal) writes:
> >>
> >>Either way, it proves that the average computer repair place isn't averse to
> >>checking out your hard drive and ripping off anything interesting thereon.
>
> >real pics. Horray for art censorship.
>
> Surely that implies that the rest of it is real - in which case the "is it art"
> debate is probably (and should be) going to be very short.
>
> I just think that it's a very dodgy way to acquire evidence.
>
In this way, I suppose that his lawyers could argue that the folk at
PCWorld had no business poking around in his 'personal data', and
therefore the evidence may be inadmissable.
But I'm not law expert...
> K.
> -
Tal
>what exactly are you trying to say here? that child pornography
>is ok if it's been edited in photoshop? thaty censors are wrong
>to ban it's distribution? that pedophile's shouldn't be prosecuted?
Uh, if I do a drawing of, say, a naked child (just off the top of my
head - no model or anything) is that 'child pornography'? It may be
tasteful or not, good or bad...but think about the consequences of
saying 'yes' to that. Think long and carefully.
I was neither defending nor attacking porn or pedophilia, I was simply
commenting that the majority of the charges, from what I have gathered
(and my sources _are_ fallable), concern pictures that have been
digitally altered to produce a 'pornographic' picture, in that the
original pics were not of this sort, and that it is [to say the least]
a disturbing notion that you can, in effect, be tried for what you
THINK as opposed to what you do.
If you seriously want to have a discussion on it well, I'm happy to,
but via email as I'm liable to be long winded about it.
Tal
Kevin O' Gorman
not...@bigfoot.com (nothing) writes:
>In this way, I suppose that his lawyers could argue that the folk at
>PCWorld had no business poking around in his 'personal data', and
>therefore the evidence may be inadmissable.
Not under sassenach law.
K.
-
Whisky Dave
Kieran <kie...@twisted.org.uk> wrote in article
<35296783...@news.ftech.net>...
> Tal wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 09:06:10 +0100, guy ruth hammond
> ><g...@onlinemagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Uh, if I do a drawing of, say, a naked child (just off the top of my
> >head - no model or anything) is that 'child pornography'?
>
> (By current law) only if it is a "photograph or pseudo-photograph". The
> definition of the latter is "appears to be a photograph".
>
> If you can draw or paint something convincing enough to be a photograph,
> well... I'd advise against drawing naked children in provocative
positions as
> an excercise in drawing skin tones.
I wonder how well it has to be dawn in order to be considered a
photograph?.
As I was recently sent an ASCII picture (or rather a thing that you scroll
down and it moves in a matchstick men sort of way) of a person having sex
with a sheep.
But then again I suppose that if you try to to imply child sex then you're
probably deserve to be seen as guilty. IMHO.
Whisky Dave
Alexander <alex...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in article
<3525bd29...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:54:32 -0800, "Mixy" wrote:
>
> >I just heard something about Gary Glitter getting Done on child porn
> >charges. Does anyone know anything more?
>
> Can I do the joke about him pulling out of 'Children In Need' now or
> would that be in bad taste?
>
I'd would be rather childish wouldn't it. ;-)
Whisky Dave
Kevin O' Gorman <spi...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote in article
<6fvogb$h...@graves.maths.tcd.ie>...
How about the Data protection act?.
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <01bd5e33$18f20860$4620...@davewpc.elec.qmw.ac.uk>,
d.wil...@qmw.NOBOTTLES.ac.uk had scribbled:
AFAIK the DPA only applies to those that hold information on individuals.
Any information you hold on your computer (unless of a 'personal details'
type and held for commercial reasons) is not subject to the Act.
Fross
>what exactly are you trying to say here? that child pornography
>is ok if it's been edited in photoshop? thaty censors are wrong
>to ban it's distribution? that pedophile's shouldn't be prosecuted?
the crime should be for causing suffering and/or distress to unwilling
participants (ie the children), and/or wilfully supporting such
activities by buying/reselling or spreading such material.
i would argue that if someone felt so inclined to create such an image
by using techniques/resources that are nto damaging to anyone, then
that's ok. distasteful, maybe, but not illegal.
Fross
Tal
>(By current law) only if it is a "photograph or pseudo-photograph". The
>definition of the latter is "appears to be a photograph".
>
>If you can draw or paint something convincing enough to be a photograph,
>well... I'd advise against drawing naked children in provocative positions as
>an excercise in drawing skin tones.
Now that _is_ an interesting (not to mention phenomenally weird)
notion...censorship based on your ability as an artist!!
BTW, nobody ever said anything about them having to be provocative.
Plenty of folks have been prosecuted over perfectly innocent,
non-provocative 'family' type snaps.
Anyway, GG is for it regardless. Though I'll be very interested to
find out whether the shots consist of nasty things being done to 6
year olds, or some provocative pics of 17 year olds (who, remember,
can't give their consent for photos). A world of difference? Not in
law. Technically, both are child porn.
Enough.
Tal
Steven Thurgood
In article <3525bd29...@news.demon.co.uk>, alex...@deathsdoor.com
says...
> Can I do the joke about him pulling out of 'Children In Need' now or
> would that be in bad taste?
>
> no? :>
Just as tasteless as the one about his favourite drink (8 year old bells
in shorts)
But I won't tell that one.
-Steve
--
-----------------------------------
<A HREF="http://www.thurgood.demon.co.uk">
Web Page
Gothic/Fantasy CGI and immense midi list.
</A>
<A HREF="mailto:ste...@thurgood.demon.co.uk">
Mail Me</A>
-------------------------------------
Tom Sulston
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, nothing wrote:
>>> I just think that it's a very dodgy way to acquire evidence.
>>>
>>
>>In this way, I suppose that his lawyers could argue that the folk at
>>PCWorld had no business poking around in his 'personal data', and
>>therefore the evidence may be inadmissable.
I can't believe that anyone would be so stupid to send a hard disk full of
child porn to Dixons... I mean, it'd be enought to put them right off the
repairs...
+---Tom Sulston --------------------------------+
| Gatekeeper of Hallucenogenic Visions |
| When it works.... |
+-----------------------------------------------+
Carole Backler
Kieran wrote:
> (By current law) only if it is a "photograph or pseudo-photograph". The
> definition of the latter is "appears to be a photograph".
>
> If you can draw or paint something convincing enough to be a photograph,
> well... I'd advise against drawing naked children in provocative positions as
> an excercise in drawing skin tones.
which one), is that they were referred to as pseudo-photographs because
they were stored on a computer. that is apparently the term that they
have decided to use to distinguish them from actual printed photographs.
carole
Whisky Dave
Fross <fr...@noeggs.darkwave.org.uk> wrote in article
<3523c75d....@news.uk0.vbc.net>...
That sounds sensible & reasonable so it's unlikely to be the 'Law' ;-)
Tal
>I can't believe that anyone would be so stupid to send a hard disk full of
>child porn to Dixons... I mean, it'd be enought to put them right off the
>repairs...
Which is also in part why I'm quite skeptical as to their actual
content. Mind you, some people probably _are_ that stupid.
I do remember hearing a few months ago that Dixons et. al. had a very
quiet agreement with various police depts. to do disk scans whenever
PCs are handed in for any reason. Allegedly.
Tal
Trizia
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 10:57:10 +0100, Katherine Gardner
<katherin...@citicorp.com> wrote:
>He took his computer in to be repaired where they found some dodgy
>photos on the hard drive.
He took the computer to be repaired at the Bristol PCWorld - for a
problem that didn't require any examination of the HD. According to
the reports when it first happened PCWorld staff have some sort of an
agreement with the OPS to poke into HD's 'just in case'.
>According to Reuters it's 50 counts of making indecent photographs of juveniles.
It's 50 counts of making 'pseudo photographs' of juveniles. As far as
I can see he was picking up fake photos, and in my book a fake is not
the same as the real thing. The 'pseudo photo' idea hasn't been taken
through the courts before and is a test case ... which is why the have
50 counts of possessing indecent photos (even though they aren't
photos)
It just leaves me wondering where they'll try and apply it next -
maybe they'll raid the Tate or the National or something.
After all the filth have told one of the Birmingham Uni's that they
have to destroy one of their Mapplethorpe books, they are refusing of
course.
>
Trizia
Trizia
On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 10:27:46 GMT, kie...@twisted.org.uk (Kieran)
wrote:
>If you can draw or paint something convincing enough to be a photograph,
>well... I'd advise against drawing naked children in provocative positions as
>an excercise in drawing skin tones.
But simply drawing a naked child can get you prosecuted. Or parents
taking the usual baby in the bath or baby on the fluffy rug type of
pictures - there 've been several cases here (and even more in
America) where parents have been prosecuted for photos like that.
Now, how many of us have parents who took baby / childhood photo's
like that? And should all our parents be prosecuted?
Also it's classed as child porn if the model 'looks' like a child -
that includes if the model has her pubic hair shaved off.
Trizia
Trizia
On 2 Apr 1998 09:40:38 +0100, spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
wrote:
>Surely that implies that the rest of it is real - in which case the "is it art"
>debate is probably (and should be) going to be very short.
>
Why? What is actually wrong with the naked human body - of any age?
Your line of arguments (which seems to be if it has naked kids then
it's bad) would seem to lead to big fires in Tafalgar Square and on
the Embankment.
And please remember, boys and girls, that none of us actually know
what the photos are.
They may simply be pictures of naked children / teenagers doing normal
kids things i.e. playing on the beach, swimming pool, or whatever.
They may be pictures of pre-pubescents being provocative - and no
matter how much people try to deny it children are sexual beings - and
if someone has a snap of an 8-year-old pouting at the cameras whilst
in her swimsuit so what? I think there's more to worry about in the
selling of the Spice Girls to young children.
They may be pictures of pre-pubescents engaged in sexual activity with
adults / older children - not a good thing. But I don't necessarily
think the possessor of pictures of this sort should be prosecuted,
rather the maker and distributor.
They may be pictures of adolescents (i.e. after puberty) engaged in
sexual activity, now some people might not like the idea, but (there
are a couple of 'if's here) IF they consented of their own free will,
and IF no harm came to them, (the same qualifiers I apply to any
porn), I personally don't see what the problem is in this case - as
long as those 2 IF's can be answered with 'YES'.
Also having a picture of something and carrying out the act depicted
in that picture are two different things. I love the painting "The
Execution Of Lady Jane Grey In The Tower Of London" but I'm not going
to go chopping someone's head off because of it. I like the power of
guns and have several books on them, and wouldn't mind collecting the
real thing, but I wouldn't use them.
Trizia
Trizia
On 01 Apr 98 20:57:49 GMT, Es...@p7.f632.n2500.z2.overflow.com (Esme)
wrote:
>I think he's been found guilty?
The case hasn't even been set a court date AFAIK.
>My boss, who had tickets to a gig of his,
>didn't go on principle, apparently, but her friends did, to heckle.
>(shrugs...)
What happened to the concept of a fair trial and innocent until proven
guilty???
Trizia
Trizia
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 14:39:36 -0800, "Mixy" <mi...@gte.removetoreply.net>
wrote:
>Also, when he cancelled the last couple of
>dates 10 minutes before he was supposed to go on at Wembley it was down to
>stage fright, not the stated "bad back".
>
actors / musicians suffer from it, and if they find it hard to go on
stage I'm not surprised that a 3rd rate performer like GG couldn't go
on stage at all.
Trizia
antony johnston
Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> They may be pictures of adolescents (i.e. after puberty) engaged in
> sexual activity,
[...]
> IF they consented of their own free will, and IF no harm came to them,
> (the same qualifiers I apply to any porn), I personally don't see what the
> problem is in this case
...except that such an act is, in and of itself, illegal.
--
antony johnston
http://www.mostlyblack.demon.co.uk/
PS: the man in the orange shirt is not really here.
Trizia
On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 16:14:15 GMT, god...@twisted.org.uk (The Girl who
wanted to be God) wrote:
>whereas in Japan is legal porn only if the pubic hair is not shown :/
>
AFAIK that law was repealed sometime in '96 - I know our Japanese porn
(mainstream stuff) now has 'fluffy bits' showing.
Trizia
Trizia
>Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> They may be pictures of adolescents (i.e. after puberty) engaged in
>> sexual activity,
>[...]
>> IF they consented of their own free will, and IF no harm came to them,
>> (the same qualifiers I apply to any porn), I personally don't see what the
>> problem is in this case
>
>...except that such an act is, in and of itself, illegal.
I wasn't talking with reference to what was or was not legal, but I do
happen to think that the age of consent is wrong and the laws
regarding how old you need to be to do porn. I would rather that any
16 year old of mine did porn than joined the army - in fact if they
did the latter I'd disown them.
Trizia
Kevin O' Gorman
Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk (Trizia) writes:
>On 2 Apr 1998 09:40:38 +0100, spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
>wrote:
>>Surely that implies that the rest of it is real - in which case the "is it art"
>>debate is probably (and should be) going to be very short.
>>
>Why? What is actually wrong with the naked human body - of any age?
>Your line of arguments (which seems to be if it has naked kids then
>it's bad) would seem to lead to big fires in Tafalgar Square and on
>the Embankment.
No, my argument is that when people who are unable to protect themselves
are being taken advantage of, it's a bad thing. It's the kind of thing
that we should stand against, whether individually or as a society.
The only really good thing about civilization is the protection of
the weak, in repudiation of the predator-prey mode. It's the only
beautiful thing we do. Say what you want about the sexuality of
children, you can't deny that in almost every sexual relationship
involving a child and an adult the child is the victim and the
adult is the predator.
If you can't figure this out for yourself, I'm sorry for you.
K.
-
antony johnston
Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I wasn't talking with reference to what was or was not legal
fair enough, I wasn't disputing that, but to be fair you didn't make
that too clear.
> but I do happen to think that the age of consent is wrong
now there's an interesting one. I'm of the opinion that it's fine where
it is, *but* education should be much more widespread and comprehensive,
simply because most ppl leapfrog the age of consent anyway. if it was
lowered to, say, 14, you'd probably have everyone doing it at 12 instead
of 14/15, and personally I *do* think that's too low, if only because
kids of that age aren't really emotionally prepared for it [1]. imho, of
course.
--
antony johnston
http://www.mostlyblack.demon.co.uk/
PS: the man in the orange shirt is not really here.
[1] not that kids of 14/15 are all that prepared for it, but you can
only stave off hormones for so long.
Paul Crowley
spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman) writes:
> The only really good thing about civilization is the protection of
> the weak, in repudiation of the predator-prey mode. It's the only
> beautiful thing we do. Say what you want about the sexuality of
> children, you can't deny that in almost every sexual relationship
> involving a child and an adult the child is the victim and the
> adult is the predator.
By "child" you mean "person under 16" and "adult" is "person over 16"?
So two people of very close age under 16 might have to leave their
relationship on hold for two weeks (or whatever) to avoid
predator-prey relationships in the gap between their 16th birthdays?
--
__
\/ o\ pa...@hedonism.demon.co.uk \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley -+- Linux really works /~\
Kevin O' Gorman
Paul Crowley <pa...@hedonism.demon.co.uk> writes:
>By "child" you mean "person under 16" and "adult" is "person over 16"?
Where did I say that exactly?
>So two people of very close age under 16 might have to leave their
>relationship on hold for two weeks (or whatever) to avoid
>predator-prey relationships in the gap between their 16th birthdays?
No, you twat, that's not what I'm saying. In my own life I've tended to
judge these things on a case by case basis, as there are no hard and fast
rules to apply. But if it's an issue, it's generally fairly obvious.
K.
-
Esme
>> IF they consented of their own free will, and IF no harm came to them,
>> (the same qualifiers I apply to any porn), I personally don't see what
>> the problem is in this case
aj> ....except that such an act is, in and of itself, illegal.
Hmmnn.. raises the whole thing of law and morality not being identical,
whether the law as such /has/ any morals, and if so whose, and what are the
criterion for "moral" behaviour? I'll admit I do naught but go by gut
feeling /guided/, but not ruled, by a smattering of logic. I haven't the
ability to work the whole thing out logically. Neither, I submit, has
anyone else -at least, not so convinvingly that everyone will agree to the
answer.
/\./\ Ciao for now!
\/ O O \/ Take care,
-( T )- Esme
/\ \_/ /\
|...| (Don't forget to remove the .NOSPAM before replying!)
--
|Fidonet: Esme 2:2500/632.7
|Internet: Es...@p7.f632.n2500.z2.overflow.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his/her own.
Trizia
>now there's an interesting one. I'm of the opinion that it's fine where
>it is, *but* education should be much more widespread and comprehensive,
>simply because most ppl leapfrog the age of consent anyway. if it was
>lowered to, say, 14, you'd probably have everyone doing it at 12 instead
>of 14/15, and personally I *do* think that's too low, if only because
>kids of that age aren't really emotionally prepared for it [1]. imho, of
>course.
Mmmm, Holland, Spain and Japan (to name a few) seem to manage quite
well on 12. I read a while back (poss in the Observer or Gruniad) the
EU wants to standardise it at 15.
Given the there are laws covering sexual assault and rape is there
actually a need for an age of consent - surely the other laws
regarding sex would cover any case of unwanted attention ... at least
they would if the legal system actually worked.
I don't think that teenagers deliberately have sex a few years before
they are 'old' enough and that if the legal age comes down they'll
start at a commensurately younger age.
And as for emotional preparedness - I think that definitely varies
from person to person, an advanced few _might_ be sussed enough to do
it at 12 or 13 and then there are people who are _never_ emotionally
mature enough but do it anyway.
Trizia
Trizia
On 5 Apr 1998 00:10:51 +0100, spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
wrote:
>No, my argument is that when people who are unable to protect themselves
>are being taken advantage of, it's a bad thing. It's the kind of thing
>that we should stand against, whether individually or as a society.
>
But we don't need a specific age of consent law (for example) to do
that - as I said in a post to Anthony, there are laws in place
covering such things as rape and sexual assault.
>The only really good thing about civilization is the protection of
>the weak, in repudiation of the predator-prey mode. It's the only
>beautiful thing we do.
Art? Literature? Poetry? Music? Space Flight? Love? Friendship?
I could go on.
>Say what you want about the sexuality of children, you can't deny
>that in almost every sexual relationship involving a child and an
>adult the child is the victim and the adult is the predator.
>
I would certainly argue with you on that point. There are certainly
such cases, but there are also cases of young / old relationships
working very well. Such things need to looked at with more than the
standard knee-jerk 'oh it's bad' reaction.
>If you can't figure this out for yourself, I'm sorry for you.
>
Thanks, but I don't need your sympathy unless you want to offer it for
the death of my uncle yesterday.
Trizia
Trizia
On 5 Apr 1998 19:17:19 +0100, spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
wrote:
>Paul Crowley <pa...@hedonism.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>By "child" you mean "person under 16" and "adult" is "person over 16"?
>
>Where did I say that exactly?
>
That's what's usually meant by child and adult.
>>So two people of very close age under 16 might have to leave their
>>relationship on hold for two weeks (or whatever) to avoid
>>predator-prey relationships in the gap between their 16th birthdays?
>
>No, you twat, that's not what I'm saying. In my own life I've tended to
>judge these things on a case by case basis, as there are no hard and fast
>rules to apply. But if it's an issue, it's generally fairly obvious.
>
But you said earlier ' in almost every relationship involving a child
and an adult the child is the victim and the adult the predator' -
that seems to me to contradict what you say here about how you judge
on a case by case basis.
Trizia
Kevin O' Gorman
Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk (Trizia) writes:
>>
>But you said earlier ' in almost every relationship involving a child
>and an adult the child is the victim and the adult the predator' -
>that seems to me to contradict what you say here about how you judge
>on a case by case basis.
If I'd said "in every relationship", your nitpick might be valid.
K.
-
Kevin O' Gorman
Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk (Trizia) writes:
>>The only really good thing about civilization is the protection of
>>the weak, in repudiation of the predator-prey mode. It's the only
>>beautiful thing we do.
>Art? Literature? Poetry? Music? Space Flight? Love? Friendship?
>I could go on.
[What have the Romans ever done for us?]
K.
-
Tal
On 05 Apr 98 09:01:16 GMT, Es...@p7.f632.n2500.z2.overflow.com (Esme)
wrote:
>Hmmnn.. raises the whole thing of law and morality not being identical,
>whether the law as such /has/ any morals, and if so whose, and what are the
>criterion for "moral" behaviour? I'll admit I do naught but go by gut
You cannot teach morals, only morality.
Tal
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <6g8vf7$8...@graves.maths.tcd.ie>,
spi...@maths.tcd.ie had scribbled:
<Monty Python>
"What about the roads?"
</Monty Python>
:^)
--
nothing.
"Nice video. Shame about the song."
- Lufthansa Terminal
guy ruth hammond
Tal wrote:
> I do remember hearing a few months ago that Dixons et. al. had a very
> quiet agreement with various police depts. to do disk scans whenever
> PCs are handed in for any reason. Allegedly.
a certain well-known high street chemist has a similar arrangement.
--
GuyRuthHammond <g...@onlinemagic.com> bill is my master
Webmaster, Systems Operations Group win32 is my mantra
Online Magic Ltd http://onlinemagic/ world domination is my goal
Rob Ingram
In article <3528AC...@darkwave.org.uk>,
-=Falcon=- <Fal...@darkwave.org.uk> writes:
> guy ruth hammond wrote:
>> a certain well-known high street chemist has a similar arrangement.
>
> and finding "illicit" material there be inadmissable as there
> was no warrant for the search? (not dis-similar to bugging)
You'd hope so. The two cases are very different. I mean, the photo
developers have to look at the material for quality control but there
is no reason for the computer repairer to do anything on the hard disc
which isn't necessary to get the computer up and running again.
Rob.
--
Rob Ingram || Each sequence flickered || Information
Computer Science || On the screen || Visualisation and
University of Nottingham || Was repetition || Virtual Environments
Nottingham UK || Though camouflaged || Research
http://www.crg.cs.nott.ac.uk/~rji/
Whisky Dave
antony johnston <ant...@mostlyblack.baphomet.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<1998040418...@mostlyblack.demon.co.uk>...
> Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > They may be pictures of adolescents (i.e. after puberty) engaged in
> > sexual activity,
> [...]
> > IF they consented of their own free will, and IF no harm came to them,
> > (the same qualifiers I apply to any porn), I personally don't see what
the
> > problem is in this case
>
> ...except that such an act is, in and of itself, illegal.
Just like drugs....
Whisky Dave
Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<352ae65b...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On Sun, 5 Apr 1998 11:03:17 +0100,
> ant...@mostlyblack.baphomet.demon.co.uk (antony johnston) wrote:
>
> >now there's an interesting one. I'm of the opinion that it's fine where
> >it is, *but* education should be much more widespread and comprehensive,
> >simply because most ppl leapfrog the age of consent anyway. if it was
> >lowered to, say, 14, you'd probably have everyone doing it at 12 instead
> >of 14/15, and personally I *do* think that's too low, if only because
> >kids of that age aren't really emotionally prepared for it [1]. imho, of
> >course.
>
> Mmmm, Holland, Spain and Japan (to name a few) seem to manage quite
> well on 12.
Who manages well, and in what way?
> I read a while back (poss in the Observer or Gruniad) the
> EU wants to standardise it at 15.
If the EU wants it to be 15 there's gotta be something wrong. ;-)
> Given the there are laws covering sexual assault and rape is there
> actually a need for an age of consent - surely the other laws
> regarding sex would cover any case of unwanted attention ... at least
> they would if the legal system actually worked.
But even if they did work would it be enough?
Would it be OK for a 50 year old to have sex with a seven year old because
she said yes when offered sweeties as a 'reward'
>
> I don't think that teenagers deliberately have sex a few years before
> they are 'old' enough and that if the legal age comes down they'll
> start at a commensurately younger age.
I think they would, as children (adults as well) bow to and follow peer
pressure.
>
> And as for emotional preparedness - I think that definitely varies
> from person to person, an advanced few _might_ be sussed enough to do
> it at 12 or 13 and then there are people who are _never_ emotionally
> mature enough but do it anyway.
Then there's the physical readiness.
>
Mel, Stephen Mellor
Trizia ...
> >The only really good thing about civilization is the protection of
> >the weak, in repudiation of the predator-prey mode. It's the only
> >beautiful thing we do.
> Art? Literature? Poetry? Music? Space Flight? Love? Friendship?
> I could go on.
No, I agree with Kevin. Love and friendship aren't affected by
civilisation, space flight hasn't exactly got us anywhere (and I think
we've now missed the window for migrating off the planet). The arts,
beautiful in a sense, yes, but not exactly altruistic, or even
particularly useful.
I suppose I'm thinking too much in terms of survival of the species.
Or... beauty as in 'love of your fellow men' blah blah blah Hell I
dunno, wibble.
/Mel/
Lost it.
Whisky Dave
Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<352cea9b...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On 5 Apr 1998 19:17:19 +0100, spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
> wrote:
>
> >Paul Crowley <pa...@hedonism.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >>By "child" you mean "person under 16" and "adult" is "person over 16"?
> >
> >Where did I say that exactly?
> >
> That's what's usually meant by child and adult.
>
> >>So two people of very close age under 16 might have to leave their
> >>relationship on hold for two weeks (or whatever) to avoid
> >>predator-prey relationships in the gap between their 16th birthdays?
> >
> >No, you twat, that's not what I'm saying. In my own life I've tended to
> >judge these things on a case by case basis, as there are no hard and
fast
> >rules to apply. But if it's an issue, it's generally fairly obvious.
> >
> But you said earlier ' in almost every relationship involving a child
> and an adult the child is the victim and the adult the predator' -
> that seems to me to contradict what you say here about how you judge
> on a case by case basis.
>
> Trizia
>
<Really picky>
Maybe it's because it's a Monday and my eyes are stinging, but I understood
what 'PaulC' meant. He said a child and an adult where the child is a
victim and the adult the predator..' in *almost* every relationship...
He is also implying that this 'childs' age is not under a microscopic
examination as in The child is 10 seconds from being 16, but a significant
period of time.
<Really Really picky>
A child can be from anything over the age of a baby[1] through from the age
of consent being 12-18. So it was a little difficult saying what a child
*is*.
But I assumed he meant below the age of intelligent reasoning and logical
thought processes[2] which personally I'd put at about 14 as being the
minium.
</pickyness>
[1] I tend to think of babies being of that age when they can't walk across
a room unaided. They become children when they can walk, run and be a pain
in the arse by getting in situations they shouldn't be in.
[2] Oh, I've just eliminated most college/Univ. students in this statement.
;-0
Whisky Dave
nothing <not...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
<MPG.f929e97b...@nntp.netcom.net.uk>...
> Upon the e-scroll of <6g8vf7$8...@graves.maths.tcd.ie>,
> spi...@maths.tcd.ie had scribbled:
> > Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk (Trizia) writes:
> > >>The only really good thing about civilization is the protection of
> > >>the weak, in repudiation of the predator-prey mode. It's the only
> > >>beautiful thing we do.
> > >Art? Literature? Poetry? Music? Space Flight? Love? Friendship?
> > >I could go on.
> >
> > [What have the Romans ever done for us?]
> >
>
> <Monty Python>
> "What about the roads?"
> </Monty Python>
>
> :^)
Bloody North Circular, F**king M25,
We should never have let them get past customs.
Whisky Dave
Mel, Stephen Mellor <m...@cix.compulink...co.uk> wrote in article
<memo.19980406...@mel.compulink.co.uk>...
> Trizia ...
>
> No, I agree with Kevin. Love and friendship aren't affected by
> civilisation, space flight hasn't exactly got us anywhere (and I think
> we've now missed the window for migrating off the planet). The arts,
> beautiful in a sense, yes, but not exactly altruistic, or even
> particularly useful.
>
> I suppose I'm thinking too much in terms of survival of the species.
> Or... beauty as in 'love of your fellow men'
But would this fellow man be below the 'age of consent' ;-)
Paul Crowley
> >relationship on hold for two weeks (or whatever) to avoid
> >predator-prey relationships in the gap between their 16th birthdays?
>
> No, you twat, that's not what I'm saying. In my own life I've tended to
> judge these things on a case by case basis, as there are no hard and fast
> rules to apply. But if it's an issue, it's generally fairly obvious.
"no hard and fast rules", eh? So when you said
spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman) writes:
> you can't deny that in almost every sexual relationship involving a
> child and an adult the child is the victim and the adult is the predator.
you're judging this "on a case by case basis", and we can translate:
"in almost every relationship involving a victim and a predator the
victim is the victim and the predator is the predator".
I was successfully demonstrating that there are exceptions to your
sweeping generalisations. You twat.
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <memo.19980406...@mel.compulink.co.uk>,
m...@cix.compulink...co.uk had scribbled:
> Trizia ...
>
> > >The only really good thing about civilization is the protection of
> > >the weak, in repudiation of the predator-prey mode. It's the only
> > >beautiful thing we do.
> > Art? Literature? Poetry? Music? Space Flight? Love? Friendship?
> > I could go on.
>
> civilisation, space flight hasn't exactly got us anywhere (and I think
Well, we now know that here's water on the Moon :)
> we've now missed the window for migrating off the planet). The arts,
> beautiful in a sense, yes, but not exactly altruistic, or even
> particularly useful.
Art for art's sake, huh?
> I suppose I'm thinking too much in terms of survival of the species.
> Or... beauty as in 'love of your fellow men' blah blah blah Hell I
> dunno, wibble.
Ah... ?
> Lost it.
Indeed.
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <01bd6159$9219f440$4620...@davewpc.elec.qmw.ac.uk>,
d.wil...@qmw.NOBOTTLES.ac.uk had scribbled:
>
> But I assumed he meant below the age of intelligent reasoning and logical
> thought processes[2] which personally I'd put at about 14 as being the
> minium.
I disagree with this. I was quite able to make intelligent, reasoned and
logical decisions at 14, and for quite a while before that too.
Perhaps that's why I was always in so much trouble... :^)
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <01bd615a$121419a0$4620...@davewpc.elec.qmw.ac.uk>,
d.wil...@qmw.NOBOTTLES.ac.uk had scribbled:
>
[SNIPEROO!]
> > >
> > > [What have the Romans ever done for us?]
> > >
> >
> > <Monty Python>
> > "What about the roads?"
> > </Monty Python>
> >
> > :^)
>
> Bloody North Circular, F**king M25,
> We should never have let them get past customs.
>
I think the Celts had the right idea...
Mel, Stephen Mellor
guy ruth hammond ...
> > I do remember hearing a few months ago that Dixons et. al. had a very
> > quiet agreement with various police depts. to do disk scans whenever
> > PCs are handed in for any reason. Allegedly.
>
> a certain well-known high street chemist has a similar arrangement.
As of next month you'll be able to get your films developed at your local
police station - open all hours! And later this year a new initiative by
West Midlands Serious Crime Squad will be the setting up of PC Plod - a
24-hour computer repair centre.
/Mel/
Mel, Stephen Mellor
Rob Ingram ...
> You'd hope so. The two cases are very different. I mean, the photo
> developers have to look at the material for quality control but there
> is no reason for the computer repairer to do anything on the hard disc
> which isn't necessary to get the computer up and running again.
I'm sorry sir, but Windows 3.1 doesn't support the use of long filenames,
which is why you were unable to locate the file
TeenageLesbianGangbang(with armadillo).jpg
/Mel/
Kevin O' Gorman
Paul Crowley <pa...@hedonism.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> you can't deny that in almost every sexual relationship involving a
>> child and an adult the child is the victim and the adult is the predator.
>you're judging this "on a case by case basis", and we can translate:
>"in almost every relationship involving a victim and a predator the
>victim is the victim and the predator is the predator".
You need to work on your comprehension skills. I was careful to
make sure I said "almost every sexual relationship" as opposed
to just "every sexual relationship", for precisely the
reason that I have seen counter examples (though unfortunately, not
many).
Next time, read *before* you post.
K.
-
ping*
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998 14:23:10 +0100, not...@bigfoot.com (nothing)
tippity tappity tappited:
>Upon the e-scroll of <01bd6159$9219f440$4620...@davewpc.elec.qmw.ac.uk>,
>d.wil...@qmw.NOBOTTLES.ac.uk had scribbled:
>>
>
>> But I assumed he meant below the age of intelligent reasoning and logical
>> thought processes[2] which personally I'd put at about 14 as being the
>> minium.
>
>I disagree with this. I was quite able to make intelligent, reasoned and
>logical decisions at 14, and for quite a while before that too.
I diagree with this. I couldn't then and still can't ; )
>Perhaps that's why I was always in so much trouble... :^)
I could agree with this though...
ping*
********************
ping*s don't jump
they BOUNCE!
******************
Tom Sulston
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, nothing wrote:
>>> >Art? Literature? Poetry? Music? Space Flight? Love? Friendship?
>>> >I could go on.
>>>
>>> [What have the Romans ever done for us?]
>>
>><Monty Python>
>>"What about the roads?"
Well, of course the roads. goes without saying, the roads.
Brought eyeliner?
>></Monty Python>
+---Tom Sulston --------------------------------+
| Gatekeeper of Hallucenogenic Visions |
| When it works.... |
+-----------------------------------------------+
Tom Sulston
On 6 Apr 1998, Whisky Dave wrote:
<Age of Consent>
>>> I read a while back (poss in the Observer or Gruniad) the
>>> EU wants to standardise it at 15.
>>If the EU wants it to be 15 there's gotta be something wrong. ;-)
But what are the convergence criteria? Or is /that/ the criterium? :)
Tal
>On 6 Apr 1998, Whisky Dave wrote:
>
><Age of Consent>
>
>>>> I read a while back (poss in the Observer or Gruniad) the
>>>> EU wants to standardise it at 15.
>>>If the EU wants it to be 15 there's gotta be something wrong. ;-)
>
>But what are the convergence criteria? Or is /that/ the criterium? :)
WTF is it people have with the EU??? I mean, I can count the number
of things I don't like about it on one hand. I'd need a f*cking ARMY
to count the amount of shit from UK governments. Not to mention that
most folks get their info on the EU _from_ the UK govt....vested
interests anyone??
And don't forget boys and girls that 9 times out of 10 it's the EU
court of human rights which protects yer civvie libs...
Tal
Tom Sulston
The monitor is covered in tea, the mouse is dangling off the end of teh
desk, and I'm ROTFL...
You are a very strange individual, you are.......
Tom Sulston
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Tal wrote:
>>><Age of Consent>
>>>
>>>>>> I read a while back (poss in the Observer or Gruniad) the
>>>>>> EU wants to standardise it at 15.
>>>>>If the EU wants it to be 15 there's gotta be something wrong. ;-)
>>>
>>>But what are the convergence criteria? Or is /that/ the criterium? :)
>>
>>WTF is it people have with the EU??? I mean, I can count the number
Me? Nothing? I like the concept of not paying import duty of French grog.
:)
Course, being this close to France is a bit of a bugger. Perhaps we could
move it a little? ;-)
+---Tom Sulston --------------------------------+
Euro-spending-Brussels-Loving-soon-to-go-Aussie
+-----------------------------------------------+
antony johnston
Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Mmmm, Holland, Spain and Japan (to name a few) seem to manage quite
> well on 12.
what exactly do you mean by "quite well"? I admit to knowing v. little
regarding those regions myself, but do you mean there are less unwanted
pregnancies? less broken marriages? or what?
> I don't think that teenagers deliberately have sex a few years before
> they are 'old' enough
please don't take this the wrong way, but you clearly do not get out
enough. I can't speak for girls, but the peer pressure on boys is
*enormous*, and many do succumb to it [or would do given the opportunity
-- don't believe that "if they actually got the chance they'd run a
mile" guff].
> And as for emotional preparedness - I think that definitely varies
> from person to person, an advanced few _might_ be sussed enough to do
> it at 12 or 13
"might" being the operative word here. conversely, the probability that
they *won't* is very high indeed. the key here is that, unlike other
things you are only allowed to do when you reach a certain age, such as
drive, drink, drugs etc., sex is a *need*, not a *choice*. and once
those hormones start kicking in you're away.
like I said, my main bugbear is the lack of decent education kids are
given. I'm fairly confident that if ppl were given better education,
there'd be a lot less trouble.
--
antony johnston
http://www.mostlyblack.demon.co.uk/
PS: the man in the orange shirt is not really here.
antony johnston
Whisky Dave <d.wil...@qmw.NOBOTTLES.ac.uk> wrote:
> Just like drugs....
like I said, I wasn't moralising, just pointing out a fact. this has
been a pubic service announcement. =!>
Fross
ant...@mostlyblack.baphomet.demon.co.uk (antony johnston) wrote:
>Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mmmm, Holland, Spain and Japan (to name a few) seem to manage quite
>> well on 12.
>
>what exactly do you mean by "quite well"? I admit to knowing v. little
>regarding those regions myself, but do you mean there are less unwanted
>pregnancies? less broken marriages? or what?
maybe he means there are less cases of underage sex
*grin*
>> I don't think that teenagers deliberately have sex a few years before
>> they are 'old' enough
>please don't take this the wrong way, but you clearly do not get out
>enough. I can't speak for girls, but the peer pressure on boys is
>*enormous*, and many do succumb to it [or would do given the opportunity
>-- don't believe that "if they actually got the chance they'd run a
>mile" guff].
nod.
>> And as for emotional preparedness - I think that definitely varies
>> from person to person, an advanced few _might_ be sussed enough to do
>> it at 12 or 13
but thats few, rather than the norm.
if you mean preparedness as in knowledge of the consequences,
precautions to take to keep it safe, and other such stuff, then yes
perhaps 12 year olds might be prepared, but i'd put it closer to 16.
if you mean emotional preparedness to keep it on context and realize
what the act signifies and the full implications of such things as a
one night stand and broken hearts, i think you ought to raise the age
of consent to 25.
Fross
.sig file lost, presumed dead.
Kate Rowley
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Fross wrote:
> >> And as for emotional preparedness - I think that definitely varies
> >> from person to person, an advanced few _might_ be sussed enough to do
> >> it at 12 or 13
> but thats few, rather than the norm.
> if you mean preparedness as in knowledge of the consequences,
> precautions to take to keep it safe, and other such stuff, then yes
> perhaps 12 year olds might be prepared, but i'd put it closer to 16.
> if you mean emotional preparedness to keep it on context and realize
> what the act signifies and the full implications of such things as a
> one night stand and broken hearts, i think you ought to raise the age
> of consent to 25.
Most definitely. I think it's all a case of perspective really. If you
were to ask any 15/16 year olds if they are mature enough to be having sex
most would answer yes. Put it down to peer pressure mainly. Most people I
know realise, five years later, that 16 is way too young. It's always
going to be a thing of constantly thinking you are ready and realising in
hindsight that you weren't unless the pressure of social conformity is
removed and education increased.
Have fun
(though not if you're under 21!)
Kate
Trizia
On 5 Apr 1998 23:06:11 +0100, spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
wrote:
>Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk (Trizia) writes:
>>>
>>But you said earlier ' in almost every relationship involving a child
>>and an adult the child is the victim and the adult the predator' -
>>that seems to me to contradict what you say here about how you judge
>>on a case by case basis.
>
>If I'd said "in every relationship", your nitpick might be valid.
>
With subjects such as this i think that nitpicking is valid, because
if the nits are not picked it can very easily turn into a situation
where it is 'normal' to say "All relationships involving a juvenile
and an adult are wrong" - which is, IMHO, utterly ridiculous.
Trizia
(and I think that Paul Crowley picked the same nits)
Trizia
On 6 Apr 1998 12:43:45 GMT, "Whisky Dave"
<d.wil...@qmw.NOBOTTLES.ac.uk> wrote:
><Really picky>
>Maybe it's because it's a Monday and my eyes are stinging, but I understood
>what 'PaulC' meant.
Uuuur, Dave, it's not Paul who I'm disagreeing with, it's Kevin. Paul
and I seem to be following similar arguments atm.
>But I assumed he meant below the age of intelligent reasoning and logical
>thought processes[2] which personally I'd put at about 14 as being the
>minium.
I think that very much depends on the child. To save confusion over
what is meant by 'child' how about using the terms pre- and post-
pubescent?
Trizia
Trizia
On 6 Apr 1998 17:06:16 +0100, spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
wrote:
>You need to work on your comprehension skills. I was careful to
>make sure I said "almost every sexual relationship" as opposed
>to just "every sexual relationship", for precisely the
>reason that I have seen counter examples (though unfortunately, not
>many).
>
>Next time, read *before* you post.
>
I think that part of the problem here is that some people tend to read
'almost every' as 99.99% or 'practically all of them as the exceptions
are so few that they may as well be ignored'.
Trizia
Trizia
On 5 Apr 1998 23:09:43 +0100, spi...@maths.tcd.ie (Kevin O' Gorman)
wrote:
>[What have the Romans ever done for us?]
>
The Romans??
City design. Central Heating. Steam Engines (the theory anyway).
The Alphabet. etc,etc.
Trizia
Trizia
On 6 Apr 1998 12:34:17 GMT, m...@cix.compulink...co.uk (Mel, Stephen
Mellor) wrote:
> Trizia ...
>
>> >The only really good thing about civilization is the protection of
>> >the weak, in repudiation of the predator-prey mode. It's the only
>> >beautiful thing we do.
>> Art? Literature? Poetry? Music? Space Flight? Love? Friendship?
>> I could go on.
>
>No, I agree with Kevin. Love and friendship aren't affected by
>civilisation, space flight hasn't exactly got us anywhere (and I think
>we've now missed the window for migrating off the planet). The arts,
>beautiful in a sense, yes, but not exactly altruistic, or even
>particularly useful.
>
>I suppose I'm thinking too much in terms of survival of the species.
>Or... beauty as in 'love of your fellow men' blah blah blah Hell I
>dunno, wibble.
>
Well then you have to define what exactly is meant by the term
'civilisation'.
Romantic Love, as fair as I remember from both Literature and Art
History, was a concept developed in early medieval France.
Space Flight hasn't got us anywhere because of a lack of vision on the
part of governments. That doesn't mean it _couldn't_ get / have got
us somewhere. Hell, if the impetus had been kept up we could have
colonised the moon by now. And i don't think there is such a window.
I have to totally disagree with you on your view of the Arts. The Arts
are one of the defining characteristics of humanity, IMO. Because
they have no 'use' ( to use your word, but I'd disagree with it) they
become something _more_ than the struggle for existence.
But I think the Arts do have uses. Music, writing, painting - they
can all move us to tears, to anger, to joy. I've seen paintings which
have changed the way I think, or clarified something i've been
puzzling over. I've stood before paintings for hours trying to take
in every detail, marveling at what the artist has achieved, longing to
carry even a little of the feeling away with me in my soul.
Trizia
(possibly too much of a romantic for all the scary scientisty people
here to relate to)
Tal
>what exactly do you mean by "quite well"? I admit to knowing v. little
>regarding those regions myself, but do you mean there are less unwanted
>pregnancies? less broken marriages? or what?
Uh...yes (by a LOT), and not sure.
>please don't take this the wrong way, but you clearly do not get out
>enough. I can't speak for girls, but the peer pressure on boys is
>*enormous*, and many do succumb to it [or would do given the opportunity
>-- don't believe that "if they actually got the chance they'd run a
>mile" guff].
Beg to differ quite a lot actually. Anyway, I think the point that
was being made was that people didn't go out to have sex _just
because_ it was illegal, but for different reasons...
>"might" being the operative word here. conversely, the probability that
>they *won't* is very high indeed. the key here is that, unlike other
Um..based on what evidence / statistics? Or is that just an
assumption?
>like I said, my main bugbear is the lack of decent education kids are
>given. I'm fairly confident that if ppl were given better education,
>there'd be a lot less trouble.
This is very true. it has been demonstrated time and again that
countries with lower ages for legal sex, proper and full information,
and adequate access to contraception these problems are largely dealt
with (and, for that matter, there is far less pressure in these
circumstances for kids to indulge before they wish to).
Tal
Graham Clark
In article <352c2339...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Fross
<fross....@darkwave.org.uk> writes
>ant...@mostlyblack.baphomet.demon.co.uk (antony johnston) wrote:
>
>>Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Mmmm, Holland, Spain and Japan (to name a few) seem to manage quite
>>> well on 12.
>>
>maybe he means there are less cases of underage sex
Also remember that the age of consent was originally passed
specifically to combat child prostitution, rather than any other social
problem. It's a bit of a blunderbus as legal instruments go.
G.
--
"The rhythm hammers us, hits us and possesses us, making us prisoners of noise.
It's like a drug. We no longer own the music, it possesses us and annihilates
the soul." (Jeanne Moreau)
Peter Bond
Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> What happened to the concept of a fair trial and innocent until proven
> guilty???
Devolved to 'trail by gutter press', purporting to represent 'the will of
the people', giving rise to a preconceived bias on the part of the judge,
the jury, the 'audience' and the reporters who actually go along to the
trial. After all, they can't possibly go against the opinion of
'everybody' in the country, can they?
Now be thankful we no longer have capital punishment.
Its Monday morning. I'm cynical.
Peter
Whisky Dave
Tom Sulston <bs...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.95.980406191720.29823A-100000@crocus>...
> On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Tal wrote:
>
> >>
> >>WTF is it people have with the EU??? I mean, I can count the number
>
> Me? Nothing? I like the concept of not paying import duty of French grog.
> :)
>
> Course, being this close to France is a bit of a bugger. Perhaps we could
> move it a little? ;-)
I'd recommend and bit further than that, you don't want to get to close to
the French
they're so emotionally unbalanced. ;-)
Whisky Dave
Trizia <Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<352a15c5...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >If I'd said "in every relationship", your nitpick might be valid.
> >
> With subjects such as this i think that nitpicking is valid, because
> if the nits are not picked it can very easily turn into a situation
Agreed we'd also become nit infested.
Nits must be culled, but lets do it in an ecological why none of this
pesticides and chemical shit.
> (and I think that Paul Crowley picked the same nits)
I think that should be illegal. :-)
>
Kevin O' Gorman
Tri...@irkar.demon.co.uk (Trizia) writes:
>I have to totally disagree with you on your view of the Arts. The Arts
>are one of the defining characteristics of humanity, IMO. Because
>they have no 'use' ( to use your word, but I'd disagree with it) they
>become something _more_ than the struggle for existence.
Defining characteristic? That would hold true if no other animals
produced art, which is seriously debatable. And there's the Freudian
fallback, that artists only do it to get laid (and hence propagate
their genetic material.)
Altruism (or looking after weaker people to whom you're not related) is
a much finer thing, because it requires us to act outside our conditioning.
Hence a decision to be altruistic is motivated purely by intellect.
(Of course, you could argue that a lot of seemingly altruistic acts are
motivated by maternal/paternal instinct - but IMO that's just noise to
the sample.)
>But I think the Arts do have uses. Music, writing, painting - they
>can all move us to tears, to anger, to joy.
So can a pointy stick, if it's used right.
K.
-
Tom Sulston
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Trizia wrote:
>>>[What have the Romans ever done for us?]
>>>
>>The Romans??
>>City design. Central Heating. Steam Engines (the theory anyway).
>>The Alphabet. etc,etc.
And the wine.. Mustn't forget the wine... :)
+---Tom Sulston --------------------------------+
I DON'T LIKE SPAM!
+-----------------------------------------------+
nothing
Upon the e-scroll of <Pine.SOL.3.95.980407133407.16603C-100000@crocus>,
bs...@csv.warwick.ac.uk had scribbled:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Trizia wrote:
>
> >>>[What have the Romans ever done for us?]
> >>>
> >>The Romans??
> >>City design. Central Heating. Steam Engines (the theory anyway).
> >>The Alphabet. etc,etc.
>
> And the wine.. Mustn't forget the wine... :)
>
And aquaducts (to carry vast quanities of aforementioned to the off-
licences[1])
--
nothing.
[1] Which in them days were not on corners. :)
Tom Sulston
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, nothing wrote:
>>> >>>[What have the Romans ever done for us?]
>>> >>>
>>> >>The Romans??
>>> >>City design. Central Heating. Steam Engines (the theory anyway).
>>> >>The Alphabet. etc,etc.
>>>
>>> And the wine.. Mustn't forget the wine... :)
>>
>>And aquaducts (to carry vast quanities of aforementioned to the off-
>>licences[1])
And Slimeys! (As a place in which to consume said beverages) :)
+---Tom Sulston --------------------------------+
Footnotes are silly - especially yellow ones.
+-----------------------------------------------+
John Sullivan
Kevin O' Gorman <spi...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>Altruism (or looking after weaker people to whom you're not related) is
>a much finer thing, because it requires us to act outside our conditioning.
>Hence a decision to be altruistic is motivated purely by intellect.
>(Of course, you could argue that a lot of seemingly altruistic acts are
>motivated by maternal/paternal instinct - but IMO that's just noise to
>the sample.)
Hmm. There is another argument - that we look after those who aren't
related to us because it doesn't matter to us whether they survive or
not (because they don't share genetic material with us). That way,
when we do need to look after our own (who do share genetic
information with us, so it becomes more in our interests to ensure
their survival), they are more likely to survive because we've had
more practice.
John
--
It's getting kind of late now,
I wonder if you'll stay now,
Or will you just politely say goodnight.
<p><a href="file:///dev/null">:-p</a>
Kate Rowley
On 7 Apr 1998, John Sullivan wrote:
> Kevin O' Gorman <spi...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
> >Altruism (or looking after weaker people to whom you're not related) is
> >a much finer thing, because it requires us to act outside our conditioning.
> >Hence a decision to be altruistic is motivated purely by intellect.
> >(Of course, you could argue that a lot of seemingly altruistic acts are
> >motivated by maternal/paternal instinct - but IMO that's just noise to
> >the sample.)
>
> Hmm. There is another argument - that we look after those who aren't
> related to us because it doesn't matter to us whether they survive or
> not (because they don't share genetic material with us). That way,
> when we do need to look after our own (who do share genetic
> information with us, so it becomes more in our interests to ensure
> their survival), they are more likely to survive because we've had
> more practice.
Surely there's another arguement that we look after those that aren't
related to boost our own ego and make others dependant on us. This way we
can manipulate situations to our own ends. I think there are a number of
philosophies based on the idea that all things done by humanity are self
indulgent and to our own ends. I don't tend to agree but that is another
possible reason as to why we might care for those not related.
Have fun
Kate
Ryszard Boryna
Kevin O' Gorman wrote
>
>Altruism (or looking after weaker people to whom you're not related) is
>a much finer thing, because it requires us to act outside our conditioning.
>Hence a decision to be altruistic is motivated purely by intellect.
>(Of course, you could argue that a lot of seemingly altruistic acts are
>motivated by maternal/paternal instinct - but IMO that's just noise to
>the sample.)
If you haven't already try reading "The Fall" by Albert Camus. It's the
tale of a man who is altruistic through purely selfish reasons, definitely
not paternal/maternal. It's a very uncomfortable book to read (as is much
of his work) and certainly made me question a lot of my motives.
Ryszard
antony johnston
Tal <T...@irkar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Beg to differ quite a lot actually. Anyway, I think the point that
> was being made was that people didn't go out to have sex _just
> because_ it was illegal, but for different reasons...
not the point I was making, although I'd go so far as to say even that
is true in many cases. didn't you find that, after your 18th birthday,
going to the pub was just a *little* less exciting?
and I can only assume the underage boys you know/knew are/were unusual.
you're the only person I've ever encountered who doesn't seem to agree
that most kids are just *dying* to get laid while they're still
underage, and I've had this discussion a lot... [waits for the ensuing
chorus of dissenters =!>]
> Um..based on what evidence / statistics? Or is that just an
> assumption?
it's an assumption based on a *lot* of anecdotal evidence. =!>
> countries with lower ages for legal sex, proper and full information,
> and adequate access to contraception these problems are largely dealt
> with (and, for that matter, there is far less pressure in these
> circumstances for kids to indulge before they wish to).
all agreed. not sure about the pressure thing, but I'm willing to
believe it as I really don't know much about those societies.
Trizia
On 6 Apr 1998 12:14:11 GMT, "Whisky Dave"
<d.wil...@qmw.NOBOTTLES.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Mmmm, Holland, Spain and Japan (to name a few) seem to manage quite
>> well on 12.
>Who manages well, and in what way?
I was just trying to point out that age of consent laws are arbitrary
and vary widely from country to country. I don't think anyone can
really say that one age of consent is 'better' than an other.
>> Given the there are laws covering sexual assault and rape is there
>> actually a need for an age of consent - surely the other laws
>> regarding sex would cover any case of unwanted attention ... at least
>> they would if the legal system actually worked.
>But even if they did work would it be enough?
>Would it be OK for a 50 year old to have sex with a seven year old because
>she said yes when offered sweeties as a 'reward'
No, it wouldn't. Because the 7 year old hasn't yet reached puberty -
that should be the deciding factor, not actual calendar age.
>
>>
>> I don't think that teenagers deliberately have sex a few years before
>> they are 'old' enough and that if the legal age comes down they'll
>> start at a commensurately younger age.
>I think they would, as children (adults as well) bow to and follow peer
>pressure.
I really don't think so. People already have sex as young as 12, but
there aren't hoards of others queuing up to follow their example.
From varied reading I seem to recall that in Holland although the AoC
is 12 most don't do it until their mid-teens or so - I think its a
case of they can do it if they want to but because its legal it
doesn't carry any of the 'naughtiness' or 'rebelliousness' that it
does over here. And they are far better educated about sex.
>>
>Then there's the physical readiness.
Which is why I say that the reaching of puberty should be the deciding
factor in each individual case.
>>
Trizia
Trizia
>what exactly do you mean by "quite well"? I admit to knowing v. little
>regarding those regions myself, but do you mean there are less unwanted
>pregnancies? less broken marriages? or what?
>
The statistics for Holland's rate of teenage pregnancy appear in the
press almost everytime teenage sex is discussed. They are very low.
From what I've read, and heard from friends who live there, Japan has
an equally low rate of teen pregnancies.
>please don't take this the wrong way, but you clearly do not get out
>enough.
Oh, I know that! What with clinical depression, no money, Tal's mum
in hospital, a sick cat, etc, etc, etc. : )
>I can't speak for girls, but the peer pressure on boys is
>*enormous*, and many do succumb to it [or would do given the opportunity
>-- don't believe that "if they actually got the chance they'd run a
>mile" guff].
Well, that would be more Tal's subject than mine, but calling to mind
his school friends the 'run a mile' thing wasn't guff at all. From
what I remember of the girls at school there was a slight peer group
pressure to have a boyfriend but none at all to have sex.
>
>"might" being the operative word here.
Which is why I used it : )
> conversely, the probability that
>they *won't* is very high indeed. the key here is that, unlike other
>things you are only allowed to do when you reach a certain age, such as
>drive, drink, drugs etc., sex is a *need*, not a *choice*. and once
>those hormones start kicking in you're away.
>
The probability is changing all the time. Puberty is happening
earlier - perhaps due to better food or perhaps due to hormones and
chemicals in that food.
Having sex is / should be a choice. We are not slaves to our sex
drives (at least most people aren't, I hope) and we can choose whether
to act on what our biology wants us to do.
>like I said, my main bugbear is the lack of decent education kids are
>given. I'm fairly confident that if ppl were given better education,
>there'd be a lot less trouble.
Well, I can't disagree with you on that one. It seems to be the case
that the better and less biased the sex education the fewer problems
the society has with teen pregnancy etc.
Trizia
Trizia
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 18:51:44 GMT, fross....@darkwave.org.uk (Fross)
wrote:
>if you mean emotional preparedness to keep it on context and realize
>what the act signifies and the full implications of such things as a
>one night stand and broken hearts, i think you ought to raise the age
>of consent to 25.
>
What does the act signify?? I'd say that any significance it has is
put there by the parties involved. Personally what it signifies
depends on who I'm doing it with and what I'm doing. Sometimes it
signifies nothing at all - but it can still be fun.
What implications does a one night stand have? As long as
precautions are taken and the people involved are honest about their
intentions what's the problem?
I don't think that anything can prepare you for a broken heart.
Trizia
(who's in favour of raising that age at which you can learn to drive
to 25)
Trizia
>Most definitely. I think it's all a case of perspective really. If you
>were to ask any 15/16 year olds if they are mature enough to be having sex
>most would answer yes. Put it down to peer pressure mainly. Most people I
>know realise, five years later, that 16 is way too young. It's always
>going to be a thing of constantly thinking you are ready and realising in
>hindsight that you weren't unless the pressure of social conformity is
>removed and education increased.
>
From a personal standpoint I'd have to disagree entirely. I have
never thought I was too young, and I have never regretted it, and if I
had the same time over again I'd not change it.
Trizia