Former Dragons' Den star Doug Richard 'paid a 13-year-old schoolgirl hundreds of pounds for sex'

[Amp34]

AFAIK paying for sex isn't illegal

what matters is that they are underage

Obviously that matters, but it would be a short thread if it didn't branch out a bit as I already said.

There is a movement trying to make paying for sex in this country illegal. It's why I asked. The headline also said paying for sex when it didn't appear at first glance that he did.

That said, from the article it look like he gave them both the same amount of money, and only had sex with one. Perhaps trying to keep them quiet after he realised what he had done?

 

[Stovepipes]

Not a Muslim therefore not a nonce

What?

 

[Amp34]

Even if he reasonably believed they were sixteen or older?

Anyone know what the entrance requirement on the site he met them on was? Is there a minimum age limit on the site? Do you have to provide evidence of age? (I assume yes and no)

I guess he could also be arguing that he is American and "School" means something different there - although you do go to school until you are 18 here.

I presume those may be some of the arguments he may or may not be using to defend himself.

 

[Amp34]

Wanting to keep it quiet, as in not in the press, would seem like a sensible thing for him to do when it's a negligible amount of money for him to part with. That piece of information doesn't make me think he knows he's a nonce.

I was thinking more like not mentioning it to the police or other people.

I'm not suggesting he is or isn't, just thinking aloud, looking at what we know and coming up with ideas as to why he did it and/or what he is using as evidence.

 

[diamount]

Japan's consent age is 13 though isn't it? Those dirty buggers.

 

[dowie]

Obviously that matters, but it would be a short thread if it didn't branch out a bit as I already said.

There is a movement trying to make paying for sex in this country illegal.

I think that is a bit off topic, he basically was paying for sex either way and that in itself isn't illegal. Whether it would in theory be illegal if we did have such laws or not is all rather hypothetical but I guess if he's given extra money in return for some act then presumably he would have difficulty defending the idea that he was just paying for their time.

It is the idea that he claimed he didn't know they were underage that makes me a bit skeptical - if he is genuine then he might well not be guilty of anything, but unless this girl does look significantly older than she is then this is rather dubious. I'd also assume the site is for people 18 and over only, on the one hand maybe that provides a (rather weak) defence, on the other hand he should have expected them to look 18or over really not just 16 or over.

 

[Danthus]

From the website he used.

Posting or sending material that exploits people under the age of 18 in a sexual or violent manner, or solicits personal information from anyone under 18;

Failing to report knowledge of a person under the age of 18 to **************.***, or continuing to use the site to interact in any way with anyone you know is under the age of 18.

 

[SonniLombardi]

Even if he reasonably believed they were sixteen or older?

What normal person would want to have sex with a 16 year old anyway? especially being in their 50's. I'm 30 and don't look at 16 year old girls and want to **** them, it's odd.

Clearly he didn't think they was a bit older, 18 etc, there is a big difference between 13 and 18 in the way a female looks.

Bang the nonce up.

 

[Danthus]

It is pretty obvious what his defence will be.

You had to be 18 to join the website therefore how was he meant to know she wasn't 18.

 

[SonniLombardi]

Cool story bro. I'm not saying I think it's good or bad, I'm just pointing out what his position is from a legal perspective.

I'm sure you have some weird sexual predilections we don't all share, too . (If it matters, I too find the idea of fancying children to be a bit odd, but meh if everyone's genuinely consenting and it's legal).

I do fantasize about the occasional Nun now and again.

 

[Danthus]

That'll be part of his defence, but it'd be utterly idiotic to rely on that.

Based on the media reports so far, not sure he has a lot else.

Going to be a tough pitch to those 12 dragons.

 

[Amp34]

I think that is a bit off topic, he basically was paying for sex either way and that in itself isn't illegal. Whether it would in theory be illegal if we did have such laws or not is all rather hypothetical but I guess if he's given extra money in return for some act then presumably he would have difficulty defending the idea that he was just paying for their time.

It is the idea that he claimed he didn't know they were underage that makes me a bit skeptical - if he is genuine then he might well not be guilty of anything, but unless this girl does look significantly older than she is then this is rather dubious. I'd also assume the site is for people 18 and over only, on the one hand maybe that provides a (rather weak) defence, on the other hand he should have expected them to look 18or over really not just 16 or over.

And there in lies the problem. What are we debating? We don't know what the evidence is for and against. We don't even know what the girl in question looks like so can't even play the "I'd (not) hit it" game.

but I guess if he's given extra money in return for some act then presumably he would have difficulty defending the idea that he was just paying for their time.

The article suggests both girls were given (the same amount of) money, so that would suggest he didn't pay for sex in the definitions given above. It wouldn't be as good a story if the title didn't say he did though would it.

It would just be "Dragons Den Star has sex with 13 year old he thought was 16, having met on a sugar daddy website"

 

[Amp34]

It is pretty obvious what his defence will be.

You had to be 18 to join the website therefore how was he meant to know she wasn't 18.

When did he find out she was "16"? I guess I'm making assumptions here but it sounds like before he met them in person. At the very least he knew she lied about her age to get onto the site in the first place, which would probably make that defence even more dubious than it was already.

EDIT: According to the BBC news article:

He asked their ages and they told him they were 16 and 17, the court heard.

Sounds like after they met in person, perhaps he had his suspicions when he met them?

 

[elrasho]

What religion is he? Funny how they don't mention that when their white

 

[FoxEye]

Japan's consent age is 13 though isn't it? Those dirty buggers.

Only it isn't, really. From what I understand Japan's age of consent laws are a total minefield, and depending on where you are in the country, the only "safe" age is 18+.

Between 13-17 you can get in trouble depending on where in the country you are and exactly what acts you perform.

 

[Malevolence]

Estonia is 14, and prostitution is also legal. There are more than a few girls of that age on the streets in Tallinn.

 

[dowie]

The article suggests both girls were given (the same amount of) money, so that would suggest he didn't pay for sex in the definitions given above. It wouldn't be as good a story if the title didn't say he did though would it.

but paying for sex isn't illegal so it is all rather irrelevant, I'm not quite sure why you want to get side tracked over some hypothetical scenario that doesn't actually apply here

 

[Danthus]

What religion is he? Funny how they don't mention that when their white

Go on...........

 

[Amp34]

but paying for sex isn't illegal so it is all rather irrelevant, I'm not quite sure why you want to get side tracked over some hypothetical scenario that doesn't actually apply here

Because it's obviously being used in the thread (and newspaper) title for a reason. It may not be illegal here (yet) but it certainly has more connotations than legality for the minds of most people that read it.

 

[bainbridge]

I can't remember this one from off of dragons den and can't be bothered to look up a suspected paedo, so I'm out.