RE: Sarah's Law?
Suddenly it went very quiet. Was it something I said...?
RE: Sarah's Law?
I don't know much (if anything) about the case you mentioned Supersub. It does sound though, as despicable as it is, this was by mutual consent (correct me here if I'm wrong).
My anger is more directed towards the Ian Huntleys/Roy Whitings of this world - I should have been more explicit in my post yesterday which was written in the heat of the moment (bad move I know[:-]).
Love
RE: Sarah's Law?
Supersub, if it was a male middleclass churchgoing teacher who had seduced a 14 year old girl, there would be an outcry, wouldn't there?
No she shouldn't hang, as she hasn't killed the child,( we are all talking about abusers who kill in the end)
But she is in a position of trust, she is married, although that is between her and her spouse. But she claims to be a churchgoer, so that would probably explain it, especially if she is an RC, they do have so many paedophile role models don't they?
Teenagers because of their raging uncontrollable hormones are a class apart in vulnerability, especially when confronted with teachers who have a similar problem, despite a more mature??? age.
She is the responsible adult, he the child.
She did what she wanted, she pays the price
RE: Sarah's Law?
Fair enough... but isn't that the argument some people have used AGAINST, rather than in support of,paedophiles above? That paedophiles believe children have consented - which, in many cases, they have, because they are persuaded to by their abuser. (I'm obviously talking about paedophile sexual abuse here, rather than murder)
The law says this boy is under the age at which he is able to consent. A 14-year-old is a child. The 49-year-old is therefore a predatory paedophile, surely? Or ispaedophilia not such a black and white issue after all...?
RE: Sarah's Law?
I'm new to the forum and are not quite au fait with the postings and replies so bear with me.
I had 2 girls who now have 5 children between them. I have always said that a parent should always be vigilant. It dosnt take long for a monster to keep watch and when the child is alone somewhere, out of sight of the guardian, he will strike.
I think we need toalert parents and schools to always keep their child or children within eye-shot- .
Has anyone seen the film 'Cold light of day'.? Children are innocent - games and magic are a lure.
RE: Sarah's Law?
You are absolutely correct. With all the technoligy that is available it still needs a human to input that info.
RE: Sarah's Law?
I take it nothing else came out in the trial? no other young boys used for her gratification?
All paedophilia stinks whatever the age of the victim, probably more so in the case of the young baby in the headlines recently. But only that young boy knows whether he enjoyed the relationship or endured it.
Given the woman's age and what she was doing , she may have had the decency to feel contempt for herself, but how did that manifest itself?
All children must be protected, and really there isn't any difference in shades of grey, in this case,similarly in murder victims whether they are young or old, its still murder. Just all the more poignant when the victim is younger and may not have fulfilled their lives.
RE: Sarah's Law?
Ah, but does it matter if he enjoyed it? Actually, he said afterwards that he felt used. But as a psychologist who worked with sex abuse victims once said to me, sex is only about friction (simplistic way of putting it!). Even young children can "enjoy" it - in the sense that they get nice feelings from it. Doesn't make it right, whatever the age and however contrite the perpetrator might feel afterwards.
And yes, Babooshka, all of us who are parents have a duty to be vigilant. But let's not lose sight of the fact that serious predatory paedophiles are pretty rare (and they've always been around). There are plenty of other horrible things that are much more likely to happen to our children, many of them accidental. And on that cheerful note...
RE: Sarah's Law?
Supersub, no the fact that he may not have enjoyed it is more relevant, and is finally allowed to say so.
As you say, its mainly friction. But when love is involved...... no
But she may have had control of his mind also.
Not being ageist at all, but I'm 58, and at 49 with clothes on I looked good, but with them off, it was 'the lights are dimmed', and now its just gropetime by candlelight.
Still she has plenty of time to reflect now, doesn't she
RE: Sarah's Law?
I would say no to Sarah's Law because of the risk of vigilante action and no to capital punishment for sex offenders as surely our treatment of the insane and criminal within our society is a measure of our own humanity.
Many adult survivors/victims of childhood sexual abuse do not want this either. Many just want to be believed, their pain acknowledged, a sincere apology and an explanation. They also want sentencing that reflects the crime. As most cases of CSA are perpetrated by a trusted and loved adult, there are huge complex emotions mixed up in their feelings and, quite often, they still 'love' the perpetrator.
But usually their feelings are ignored in the court process, if they ever get that far.
In the case of two fifteen year olds, who would you prosecute the girl or the boy? Who, if any, is the victim and who is the perpetrator? The law does not allow for this and it is highly unlikely that a prosecution would be brought in this case under the Sexual Offences Act. However, just for the record, if a victim is under the age of thirteen, there is no issue regarding consent, legally they are not able to give consent.
Conspiritualist:
[color="#0000cc"]it's still rape... but would you hang him?, coz I wouldn't (however, if he was a 'Spud' clearly I'd reconsider).
Jokes about rape! Are you sure?
Regards
Tucker
RE: Sarah's Law?
ORIGINAL: Tucker
Conspiritualist:it's still rape... but would you hang him?, coz I wouldn't (however, if he was a 'Spud' clearly I'd reconsider).
Jokes about rape! Are you sure?
Regards
Tucker
Whatever makes you feel superior Tucker 😮
Your implication is perhaps means that I lack normal compassion... Idon't know; maybe you should hunt out all my posts, you might find your mind changes towards me...
But, unfortunatly that's how humour works - it's nearly always at the expense of an unfortunate event or experience, I don't make up the rules, but I will try to find summit to smile atin any event.:)
I notice you don't have a pop at lotusflower for effectively the same gag[sm=scratchchin.gif]
RE: Sarah's Law?
[sm=eeeK.gif]Hell, I wasn't making light of the subject. I was asked who I would hang and well andI tried to be flippant (my bad :eek:). (I'm sure you know my sense of humour by now Roger:)).
Tucker, sorry if we upset you. I would never take such subjects anything other than very seriously.
Love
RE: Sarah's Law?
Hi all,
I'm in favour of the death penalty for serial sexual predators, I don't go in for the arguement of what if an 18 year old man seduces a 13 year old girl, although it's most defiantely an offence it does differ from a person who offends against children, grooms or persues them, anybody looking at cases can see that they differ and the law should be able to distingush also.
I agree that the death penalty is not without it's problems, but would say that certain offenders should NEVER be released and in that situation would the death penalty not be an option for the good of all.
I think that peodophilia is much more common that people are aware, and to combat this we should be looking at activities which agrivate this, i.e. porn, internet, the music industry (mainly music videos).
It is also still a massive stigma for people to say that they have been abused, particulary for men because for the misinformation regarding the going on to abuse, this needs to be addressed.
Going back to Sarah's Law, I don't strongly oppose it but do think it's more of a sticky plaster than a solution.
RE: Sarah's Law?
Hi Sue
No worries, I'm really not upset. I know that you and others on this thread understand the seriousness of this subject. It is my view that an ability to laugh at the harshness of life is a positive coping mechanism.
Hi Conspiritualist
Of course I do not think that you lack 'normal compassion'. However, in post 520 in the Footie thread, you stated:
[color="#0000cc"]Anyway, as for Tucker’s “still crying everyday” – I’m not sure that a ‘mental breakdown’ would be funny (clearly not had someone close suffer from deep depression, a breakdown or witnessed a person’s existence if sectioned) – I certainly don’t wish it on Campbell and I‘m one of the ones he’s let down.
You can't have it both ways, luv! If it's not okay to make jokes about mental health then surely it's not okay to make light of rape.
Regards
Tucker
RE: Sarah's Law?
ORIGINAL: Tucker
Hi Conspiritualist
Of course I do not think that you lack 'normal compassion'. However, in post 520 in the Footie thread, you stated:
Anyway, as for Tucker's "still crying everyday” – I'm not sure that a 'mental breakdown' would be funny (clearly not had someone close suffer from deep depression, a breakdown or witnessed a person's existence if sectioned) – I certainly don't wish it on Campbell and I'm one of the ones he's let down.
You can't have it both ways, luv! If it's not okay to make jokes about mental health then surely it's not okay to make light of rape.
Regards
Tucker
Fair comment, you have me with my pants down fair lady… 🙂
I can only but apologise (it seems to be my day for apologising to the smarter sex anyway) forgive me.[sm=hidesbehindsofa.gif]
But my joke in fairness was aimed at being a “spud” as opposed to being a rapist and a ‘snap-on’ to Sue’s comment… about her comment – to her comment.
The missive that you quoted above was, I suppose, in defence of ‘one of my own’ (Sol Campbell - a gooner) and from having spent years of dealing with the effects of a ‘sectioned’ family member – drugged to their eyeballs, shuffling that heartbreaking shuffle of theirs and the emotions that that such a gruelling experience has on you - not fun really.
So, am I adequately contrite Honey?;)