Cliff Richard now!

[Cobra]

Back track my @rse. You can see what I wrote. You're obviously too thick to be able to understand. Too much frozen mice I think have addled yer brain.

Cliffy a P****? Some surprise that one

The doesn't help your "case" one iota.
Its pretty obvious to all what you wrote and how it was intended to be interpreted.

 

[BRASH]

The doesn't help your "case" one iota.
Its pretty obvious to all what you wrote and how it was intended to be interpreted.

I've just told you how I meant it.

If you choose to interpret it differently that's your issue. Had I meant it how you have interpreted I'd have said so. I don't give a toss what people think I think of Cliffy but I do take exception to being called a liar....................................and just for good measure:rage:

 

[BillN_33]

Does it matter? Under age is under age.

More accurately.

not really, it depend which research you believe,

pedophiles are primarily attracted to children

but we could quote and re quote all night about this subject

 

[cowasaki]

Does it matter? Under age is under age.

But if someone likes boys or girls who are post pubescent but under age they are not pedophiles they are hebophiles. Also at this time it is an allegation so wait till we know differently.

 

[BRASH]

before 2010 the age of consent was 14 for boys in Scotland

Utter 100% Pish!!! Where the hell did you get that crap from?

 

[Cobra]

I've just told you how I meant it.

Yeah I know you did

 

[BillN_33]

Utter 100% Pish!!! Where the hell did you get that crap from?

you got to my post before I edited it as I was unsure - but I had that somewhere in my mind, I'll look it up

but the "age of consent" if different from this subject anyway

 

[BRASH]

Yeah I know you did

Suit yourself then. Your a Mod I ain't so you must be right!!

 

[viv1969]

not really, it depend which research you believe,

pedophiles are primarily attracted to children

but we could quote and re quote all night about this subject

Well, paedophiles are attracted to children by their very nature....that's why they're called paedophiles.
Your post suggests they're never homosexuals and vice versa.

 

[BRASH]

you got to my post before I edited it as I was unsure - but I had that somewhere in my mind, I'll look it up

Don't bother, I've just told you you are wrong.

 

[BRASH]

But if someone likes boys or girls who are post pubescent but under age they are not pedophiles they are hebophiles. .

You are quite correct with the definition but the general 'street term' if you like, is that a Pedophile is someone who has a sexual attraction to persons under the age of consent. Semantics perhaps with inaccuracies but that's how I see it.

 

[Cobra]

Suit yourself then. Your a Mod I ain't so you must be right!!

Member first mod second,

I see nothing here that needs moderating.

 

[Brendan Mulachy]

lets hope when they do search his house its just full of kiddy porn and not something horrific like unreleased music

 

[BillN_33]

all the "junk" etc., will start appearing, again!!!

"well I never"

 

[big soft moose]

You are quite correct with the definition but the general 'street term' if you like, is that a Pedophile is someone who has a sexual attraction to persons under the age of consent. Semantics perhaps with inaccuracies but that's how I see it.

this is why I use the term 'Nonce' - which is more collective and less specific as to the homosexuals aren't paedophiles thing I suspect you get heterosexual paedophiles who are attracted to children of the opposite sex , homosexual paedophiles who are attracted to same sex children , bi sexual paedophiles who nare attracted to children of both sexs , and power/ego driven child abusers who aren't sexually attracted to children at all but who victimise them because they are easy to control.

certainly not all homosexuals are paedophiles any more than all heterosexuals are - but some of both persuasions equally will be

 

[BRASH]

this is why I use the term 'Nonce' - which is more collective and less specific as to the homosexuals aren't paedophiles thing I suspect you get heterosexual paedophiles who are attracted to children of the opposite sex , homosexual paedophiles who are attracted to same sex children , bi sexual paedophiles who nare attracted to children of both sexs , and power/ego driven child abusers who aren't sexually attracted to children at all but who victimise them because they are easy to control.

certainly not all homosexuals are paedophiles any more than all heterosexuals are - but some of both persuasions equally will be

I never mentioned homosexuality.

 

[Byker28i]

you got to my post before I edited it as I was unsure - but I had that somewhere in my mind, I'll look it up

but the "age of consent" if different from this subject anyway

Before 1929, Scots law followed Roman law in allowing a girl to marry at twelve years of age and a boy at fourteen, without any requirement for parental consent. However, according to one early 20th-century source*, marriage in Scotland at such young ages was in practice almost unknown. No doubt if marriages between children had become common, there would have been public pressure to raise the legal minimum age of marriage earlier than 1929. The Age of Marriage Act 1929 (applying in Scotland, England & Wales but not in Northern Ireland) made void any marriage between persons either of whom was under the age of sixteen. Sixteen remains the lower age-limit today, contained in the current legislation, the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. Scots law still has no requirement for parental consent. *Source: Vital registration: a manual of the law and practice concerning the registration of births, deaths and marriages. (G T Bisset-Smith. 1st edition. Edinburgh: William Green & Sons, 1902)

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regs...the-minimum-age-for-marriage-in-scotland.html

 

[BillN_33]

Before 1929, Scots law followed Roman law in allowing a girl to marry at twelve years of age and a boy at fourteen, without any requirement for parental consent. However, according to one early 20th-century source*, marriage in Scotland at such young ages was in practice almost unknown. No doubt if marriages between children had become common, there would have been public pressure to raise the legal minimum age of marriage earlier than 1929. The Age of Marriage Act 1929 (applying in Scotland, England & Wales but not in Northern Ireland) made void any marriage between persons either of whom was under the age of sixteen. Sixteen remains the lower age-limit today, contained in the current legislation, the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. Scots law still has no requirement for parental consent. *Source: Vital registration: a manual of the law and practice concerning the registration of births, deaths and marriages. (G T Bisset-Smith. 1st edition. Edinburgh: William Green & Sons, 1902)

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regs...the-minimum-age-for-marriage-in-scotland.html

I thought that there was a new Act in 2009 which brought Scottish law in line with the rest of the UK, increasing the age of consent for boys to that in the rest of the UK………. but it not worth bothering researching this as it would be pointless anyway

 

[Byker28i]

Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/254429/0105624.pdf

 

[onomatopoeia]

I thought that there was a new Act in 2009 which brought Scottish law in line with the rest of the UK, increasing the age of consent for boys to that in the rest of the UK………. but it not worth bothering researching this as it would be pointless anyway

Has nothing to say about age limits for marriage, which is where you started.

Until the SOA (2003) in England and Wales there was no codified age of consent for boys engaging in hetrosexual intercourse, the age limit of 16 only applied to girls (and then only for heterosexual intercourse, lesbians didn't exist in the eyes of the law). Prosecutions of adult women having sex with boys or girls under 16 were generally brought as "Indecent assault", which became something of a catch all for stuff they hadn't written a specific offence for yet.

 

[BillN_33]

Has nothing to say about age limits for marriage, which is where you started.

.

didn't realise anyone had mentioned marriage, I don't think that I did?

 

[u8myufo]

 

[Pookeyhead]

I thought you were innocent until proven guilty... clearly not in here

This is why in such cases the accused should have anonymity. If they're found guilty.. fine... shout it from the rooftops, but even if found innocent, he's already been damned by most people, and will always be accused of being a paedophile regardless. It's in the pubic interest to know that he IS a paedophile perhaps, but I think ANYONE accused of such a crime should be protected until it's proven because this is the kind of thing that destroys careers and families, even if you are found innocent.

 

[posiview]

I thought you were innocent until proven guilty...

I'd agree with this. Twitter, FB, etc is full on with a load of speculative tosh. Chatter, blah, blah, blah, 'he did this, he did that', 'a mate of mine once said....', etc, etc, etc....

I'll await the outcome of any court case.

Cheers.

 

[BillN_33]

It is just a fact of life today that the internet has little control and is full of everything, from good to bad and from true to untrue

It is a marvellous (democratic) environment but like most things it has it's downsides - information about Cliff Richards true or false, bias and unbiased has been around for some time ....... if you really want to get into interesting subjects ........Utube has them all

 

[Pookeyhead]

It is just a fact of life today that the internet has little control and is full of everything, from good to bad and from true to untrue

It is a marvellous (democratic) environment but like most things it has it's downsides - information about Cliff Richards true or false, bias and unbiased has been around for some time ....... if you really want to get into interesting subjects ........Utube has them all

If the anonymity of the accused was guaranteed until a verdict was delivered, it wouldn't be an issue. I find it massively unfair that the victims can have their identity protected, but the accused gets vilified in the most public and cynical way even before a court case takes place.


That just HAS to be wrong.

 

[MartynK]

If the anonymity of the accused was guaranteed until a verdict was delivered, it wouldn't be an issue. I find it massively unfair that the victims can have their identity protected, but the accused gets vilified in the most public and cynical way even before a court case takes place.
That just HAS to be wrong.

Much the same applies to rape. Reputations, families and careers can be destroyed by the media feeding frenzy in all these cases, even if no prosecution follows; and I find it very difficult to believe that there's no risk of prejudicing the jury if it does go to trial.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Much the same applies to rape. Reputations, families and careers can be destroyed by the media feeding frenzy in all these cases, even if no prosecution follows; and I find it very difficult to believe that there's no risk of prejudicing the jury if it does go to trial.

Exactly. Also.. love the way the police leaked this to the press BEFORE the raid in his home, and before contacting Cliff Richards himself.

Disgusting.

 

[jonbeeza]

But its news and people will discuss news either here or down the pub.
Here is easier than leaving your house. Cheaper too

In the pub last night some in our little group did discuss if he was guilty or not, and none of us had ever met the man. The ones who like his music thought he could never commit such an act, while those of us who dislike his music voted he must be guilty! I kept trying to veer the conversation onto something else, without much success! Most of us by that time at consumed rather too much, and we ended up squabbling. I ended up leaving them arguing amongst themselves over some other unrelated topic, I went home to bed

 

[Cobra]

In the pub last night some in our little group did discuss if he was guilty or not, and none of us had ever met the man. The ones who like his music thought he could never commit such an act, while those of us who dislike his music voted he must be guilty! I kept trying to veer the conversation onto something else, without much success! Most of us by that time at consumed rather too much, and we ended up squabbling. I ended up leaving them arguing amongst themselves over some other unrelated topic, I went home to bed

Sounds like most OoF threads right here on TP TBH

And I can see the ( albeit misguided) logic in the two camps too

 

[onomatopoeia]

didn't realise anyone had mentioned marriage, I don't think that I did?

Sorry, the post you quoted in the one I replied to talked about the age limits for marriage in Roman law.

 

[BillN_33]

Sorry, the post you quoted in the one I replied to talked about the age limits for marriage in Roman law.

not me ………. I know I'm an "old bugger" and getting on, but I don't remember that?

 

[Bernie174]

love the way the police leaked this to the press BEFORE the raid in his home, and before contacting Cliff Richards himself.

You know it was 'leaked' by police do you? While I agree with you on not naming suspects 100%, ff it was a search on a warrant then it was a matter of public record, and the press would have shot onto that, I think you'll find they have been expecting this for a while.

 

[chadders]

Exactly. Also.. love the way the police leaked this to the press BEFORE the raid in his home, and before contacting Cliff Richards himself.

Disgusting.

It's been stated by SYP that al Beeb got wind of the search and approached them first. SYP decided to "work with" them. Following the publicity further people have come forward. It's all in tomorrows Telegraph.

 

[cambsno]

I thought you were innocent until proven guilty... clearly not in here

This is why in such cases the accused should have anonymity. If they're found guilty.. fine... shout it from the rooftops, but even if found innocent, he's already been damned by most people, and will always be accused of being a paedophile regardless. It's in the pubic interest to know that he IS a paedophile perhaps, but I think ANYONE accused of such a crime should be protected until it's proven because this is the kind of thing that destroys careers and families, even if you are found innocent.

Totally agree. Even if cliff is found totally innocent he will forever be tarnished with this.

 

[dinners]

I thought you were innocent until proven guilty... clearly not in here

This is why in such cases the accused should have anonymity. If they're found guilty.. fine... shout it from the rooftops, but even if found innocent, he's already been damned by most people, and will always be accused of being a paedophile regardless.

Agreed - mud sticks.

What makes it even more difficult is that regardless of whether people are found innocent or guilty in a court of law - it may or may not be the case.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

A bit pedantic but something all of us need to remember, No one charged with a criminal offence and undergoing a trial in a criminal court is "Found Innocent"

All are INNOCENT until foumd guily. If found NOT GUILTY, then they are just as innocent as they were throughout the case. The prosecution's job is to prove guilt.

It is also the very protection all of us have, so the "No smoke without fire" approach is a p**s poor road map to justive. We may as well knit and eat pasties around the public gallows.

Sadly, and in the absence of the man himself, Saville went his grave uncharged ans so never faced trial.... the court of Daily Mail justice on the other hand.....

I woulf hppe that all here would hope they would not have to face a jury of their peers who would determine guilt onthe burden of imnuendo as opposrd to proof.

Steve

 

[Byker28i]

You know it was 'leaked' by police do you? While I agree with you on not naming suspects 100%, ff it was a search on a warrant then it was a matter of public record, and the press would have shot onto that, I think you'll find they have been expecting this for a while.

Well, it was found that the news of the world and sun were paying policemen for information, why would it be different now?

 

[Pookeyhead]

You know it was 'leaked' by police do you? While I agree with you on not naming suspects 100%, ff it was a search on a warrant then it was a matter of public record, and the press would have shot onto that, I think you'll find they have been expecting this for a while.


Well... I'm struggling to think of how else the press new about it before it happened. It was either leaked.. or they just blatantly informed the press. One or the other, but the information MUST have come from the police originally.


I can't imagine the granting of a warrant is broadcast immediately over some kind of hotline to the press the very second it's issued. It may be public record, but for them to be waiting before the police even got there, complete with helicopter etc. Hmmm.....

 

[Steve Smith]

If the anonymity of the accused was guaranteed until a verdict was delivered, it wouldn't be an issue. I find it massively unfair that the victims can have their identity protected, but the accused gets vilified in the most public and cynical way even before a court case takes place.

There were two cases of that local to me. The first was a well respected primary school teacher who had his career ruined by a parent who accused him of child abuse when his only crime was getting a child who was repeatedly kicking other children to take his shoes off. After an investigation the police decided there was no case to answer for, but this was not enough for the head teacher who refused to re-employ him. He eventually got a huge amount in compensation and effectively retired early and the head teacher lost her job. The teacher would have preferred to continue teaching.

The other more tragic case was the head of another school who, when faced an accusation from a pupil, hanged himself from a tree. Later, the child admitted it was a false accusation but the fact that it had been reported in the local paper was enough to cause a suicide.


Steve.