Pretty sick stuff if it is true.
Never been a fan of the band, though.
Couple of things I want to pick up on.......
Paedophile is such an over used term these days. If someone sleeps with a 15 year old girl they are branded a paedophile. Well, no actually they are not a paedophile, by the very definition of paedophilia. Although it does actually apply to this case, which is unusual as proper paedophilia is not the norm in many recent cases.
Paedophilia only relates to those who have a definite interest or preference in sexual activity with
pre-pubescent children. The legal cut off point is age 13 for girls.
Someone like Jeremy Forrest, though, is not technically a paedophile. He should be more accurately described as an Ephebophile - which is someone with a
preference for sexual partners aged from mid-late teens. That is, of course, if he actually has a preference, or whether his relationship with his student was a mixture of environmental and situational opportunities, in which case he would not likely be classed as having a pathalogical disorder.
The issue with sleeping with a girl in a club or bar who is under the age of consent is technically statutory rape, or sexual activity with a child. However, it has been known for the case to go in favour of the man based on the fact that the girl was in a club that is administrated by door men or an admittance policy so it is reasonable for a man in that club to assume she is at least 18 years old (she clearly looks that age in order to be admitted - added to this many places now have a "if you look under 25 you have to produce ID" policy). Additionally, whether you would be charged as a paedophile where the girl was 13 would depend on a couple of things. Firstly whether she actually were pre-pubescent (not likely if her physical appearance allows her to get into a club) and secondly whether her appearance was that of a child (again not likely if getting into a club). Finally, whether the man actually sought out sex with this individual on the basis of knowing her true age. Yes, technically you would be breaking the law, but I think it reasonable to say there is an element of entrapment in these situations.
The way that the authorities like to blame media for everything is laughable. Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for their actions because, well, they are just sick? Have a screw loose, have a brain wired to like babies, or a mental condition? No it must obviously be music, computer games and porn. In fact that is the catch all answer these days. Someone is stabbed - it is violent computer games. Violent teenager hoses down a dozen students with an SMG - it is because he listens to Eminem. Man attempts to rape a baby - it is because of internet porn.
Some people are just crazy, and would be just as crazy with or without music, games and porn.
I wonder what would happen to the rape and sexual assault statistics in areas where freely available porn is banned?
