Lostprophets Singer Facing Child Sex Charges

[elmarko]

The fact she went out looking for it and succeeded, meant it wasn't against her will, and therefore isn't rape.

Ok, she could tell lies and have the man convicted of the offence, but it wouldn't be an actual clear cut case of rape at all, because it wasn't actually against her will - she wanted it to happen.

That definition clearly isn't as clear cut, as children who consent to sex with adults are still classified as being raped (which doesn't fit the terminology).

Quoting a general Oxford English dictionary style definition of a term as a retort to a complex issue isn't going to be that fruitful - against their will also indicates a choice being made (where in the case of people who are date-raped or unconscious it wasn't against their will, the state of said will was never obtained or determined) - further undermining the 'one size fits all' element of the term.

As above, quoting one line isn't an argument.

 

[V-Spec]

You were arguing that fantasy will inevitably progress to action. Some people chat, but that doesn't mean that fantasy inevitably leads to actual cheating.

I think that people who fantasise about cheating, in some cases will break self-control or whatever and actually go ahead and try, then perhaps succeed in cheating.

 

[V-Spec]

That definition clearly isn't as clear cut, as children who consent to sex with adults are still classified as being raped (which doesn't fit the terminology).

Quoting a general Oxford English dictionary style definition of a term as a retort to a complex issue isn't going to be that fruitful - against their will also indicates a choice being made (where in the case of people who are date-raped or unconscious it wasn't against their will, the state of said will was never obtained or determined) - further undermining the 'one size fits all' element of the term.

As above, quoting one line isn't an argument.

Well the original example, wasn't to do with children - it was related to adults.

Also - it's extremely important to stick to proper definitions, otherwise things become twisted and taken completely out of context, because it isn't complex, someone either has sex with you against your will, OR you want them too.

You can complicate the issue however you like, the law in terms of rape is clear and simple in just about all cases.


Concerning date rape or where a person is unconscious - according to the law, consent is not implicit, the person performing the act is automatically committing rape, if he believes consent has not been given - which it wouldn't have been if the person was unconscious or under the influence of drugs.

 

[schnoodles]

I think that people who fantasise about cheating, in some cases will break self-control or whatever and actually go ahead and try, then perhaps succeed in cheating.

Yes, I absolutely agree. But my point is it's not inevitable, and it's not likely to be a high proportion. So in terms of the discussion of paedophiles limiting their urges to the realm of fantasy, I would say the jury's out on whether that's helpful or not as compared to attempting to suppress those urges completely.

 

[V-Spec]

You appear to not understand what morals actually are. Morals aren't some hard and fast thing, they ebb and flow, change on a whim and are different for every person.

Someone can't really abandon their own morality, someone can change what they think is right and wrong but not abandon morals. We do it all the tone, from personal morals like becoming more capitalist as you get more money or societally, such as believing being gay isn't a sin or immoral.

I'd argue that somebody who is healthy, but who fantasises over sex with children has abandoned their sense of morality, or as good as.

Being gay can't really be immoral because afaik it doesn't actually cause any damage to anybody, whether you like it or not is a different matter - but it doesn't actually cause problems, the fact some people used to think it is, is testament to change - but I think that's simply because people are more liberal now

 

[platypus]

I think that people who fantasise about cheating, in some cases will break self-control or whatever and actually go ahead and try, then perhaps succeed in cheating.

The key word being some. Your assertion that people will always want more is clearly wrong.

 

[Freefaller]

Whilst this is an emotive subject, can we reel in the personal attacks please.

 

[V-Spec]

The key word being some. Your assertion that people will always want more is clearly wrong.

I apologise for my bluntness.

I'm getting carried away responding to too many people at once when I should be working

I think I've drastically overstated most of what I was saying and it's become difficult to make anything reasonable clear

I'm gonna take a break for a bit

 

[schnoodles]

I apologise for my bluntness.

I'm getting carried away responding to too many people at once when I should be working

I think I've drastically overstated most of what I was saying and it's become difficult to make anything reasonable clear

I'm gonna take a break for a bit

Uncommonly wise words and behaviour for an internet discussion. Respect.

 

[gothic_hobbit]

If more victims come forward, would they extend the 35 years ?

 

[V-Spec]

Yes, I absolutely agree. But my point is it's not inevitable, and it's not likely to be a high proportion. So in terms of the discussion of paedophiles limiting their urges to the realm of fantasy, I would say the jury's out on whether that's helpful or not as compared to attempting to suppress those urges completely.

Ok, so the jury is out,

Lets go along with it allow pedophiles to happily commit their fantasies over and over inside their heads, or for example with fantasy artwork, toys etc - with the understanding that it's limited to fantasy only - basically we set the precedence that this is acceptable - we turn a blind eye, so long as no children are abused.

How then, taking into account the unpredictable nature of people, do you determine the risk factor?

Suppose that it's acceptable for people to have these "thought fetishes" (because I agree, thoughts are harmless) would you be happy with these people working in schools? nurseries? would you leave your child with one of them - presumably you would, because it's just a fantasy right?

I don't know how you deal with the problem overall, but to make a compromise and say "fantasy is fine" to me seems like a drastic underestimation of what we're talking about here.

 

[helmet]

If more victims come forward, would they extend the 35 years ?

Yup, the 35 years is for the crimes he was on trial for (31 counts in all I believe). If other cases come up with evidence to support he'll be tried for them also.

I've read 1/4 of that document and can't read any more, this animal does not deserve a life. Really hoping all the guards get invited upstairs for a Christmas drink at the same time.... /no sarcasm.


EDIT: Fantasy or not, if you have a behavioural disorder you should seek help, like an alcoholic it's up to you to recognise and correct the disorder, no one else, for the person affected by it only.
How many good souls have got up off their $%% and walked into an AA meeting despite being only a borderline alcoholic? Quite a few I'd reckon.

That to me is why we've seen much more abuse these days, sure there is better communication to get stories out but mostly people don't want to or have been brought up being able to shirk off responsibility. You just need to look outside any given Wetherspoons on a Friday night to see that being acted out.

 

[badcompany]

Hopefully the stair get a but icy this winter.

 

[Edrof]

Hopefully the stair get a but icy this winter.

Are you a spy meeting another spy?

 

[Gogl]

edit - Apologies if you read any bluntness in my reply, I misread part of your post - you are correct, I do sometimes do that as you say.

No worries, I have written replies exceeding all human comprehension, and even redacted ones after reading your edit

But I lack the ability to be concise, so I'll stick to soap-boxing at the pub after a few where I can edit and amend in realtime more ably.

Forum debates are not for me it would seem.

 

[Mr Jack]

Why are the two women involved not being named? Is to protect the identity of the children or something?

 

[Danthus]

Why are the two women involved not being named? Is to protect the identity of the children or something?

Yep.

 

[cm1179]

Why are the two women involved not being named? Is to protect the identity of the children or something?

apparently peaches geldoff named them on twitter.

 

[schnoodles]

Ok, so the jury is out,

Lets go along with it allow pedophiles to happily commit their fantasies over and over inside their heads, or for example with fantasy artwork, toys etc - with the understanding that it's limited to fantasy only - basically we set the precedence that this is acceptable - we turn a blind eye, so long as no children are abused.

I don't think anyone suggested that? I was under the impression we were discussing the issue theoretically, with a view to achieving a better understanding of it.

Suppose that it's acceptable for people to have these "thought fetishes" (because I agree, thoughts are harmless) would you be happy with these people working in schools? nurseries? would you leave your child with one of them - presumably you would, because it's just a fantasy right?

That's an interesting point, because if you drive those "thought fetishes" underground, you'll have no idea who's indulging in them. So it becomes a moot point whether you want those people around your kids or not, because you'll have no way of knowing who they are.

I don't know how you deal with the problem overall, but to make a compromise and say "fantasy is fine" to me seems like a drastic underestimation of what we're talking about here.

Again though, I don't think anyone said that? Personally, I was only ever responding to your suggestion that fantasy will inevitably lead to action.

 

[V-Spec]

I don't think anyone suggested that? I was under the impression we were discussing the issue theoretically, with a view to achieving a better understanding of it.

So in terms of the discussion of paedophiles limiting their urges to the realm of fantasy, I would say the jury's out on whether that's helpful or not as compared to attempting to suppress those urges completely.

Well, I'm trying to understand by seeing it from your point of view, if you say the jury is out - that implies that it's not known whether such fantasies are dangerous or not and whether or not we should accept such things, or make any attempts to fix the problem, if it's deemed a problem.

I think it is known, that child sex fantasy - even if just a fantasy is wrong and dangerous, I don't think you should police free thought - but it's still dangerous.

That's an interesting point, because if you drive those "thought fetishes" underground, you'll have no idea who's indulging in them. So it becomes a moot point whether you want those people around your kids or not, because you'll have no way of knowing who they are.

But we know full well, that many people will at some point act on their impulses, if you attempt to drive people with such thoughts underground - I think you increase the risk because you're not attempting to deal with the problem.

I don't see, how making it acceptable for people to have such "thoughts" subtracts from the problem - it only adds, as far as I can tell.

Again though, I don't think anyone said that? Personally, I was only ever responding to your suggestion that fantasy will inevitably lead to action.

I think that in many many cases fantasy, especially sexual fantasy does lead to action, it's also logical to suggest that the whole thing starts with fantasy.

The amount of abuse taking place daily doesn't seem to be decreasing - there seems to be more reports of this sort of thing happening, so it follows that many people are acting out their fantasies, the NSPCC claims that 5% (20k per year) of all children have been abused at some point - which is a lot of children.