Jimmy Savile and Operation Yewtree

[Moriarty]

I'd agree with WA. Once a child enters puberty they are no longer a child. Adolescent is the most appropriate term. The media are not stupid and have their own agenda. Moreso than most they know the power of their words and choose them with intent.

You're right, at least from a medical/biological standpoint. From a legal standpoint, you're wrong and it's the legal construction of child/adolescent that matters here.

 

[Grinner]

We'd all think it somewhat alright if a 15 year-old boy had sex with a 15 year-old gitl. So what's the difference with an older man doing it?

I don't support that sort of thing, just looking to see what people come back with.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

You're right, at least from a medical/biological standpoint. From a legal standpoint, you're wrong and it's the legal construction of child/adolescent that matters here.

To me that suggests the law's wording is erroneous and should be changed to include the correct terminology.

 

[Moriarty]

To me that suggests the law's wording is erroneous and should be changed to include the correct terminology.

The normal term used is "minor" which I think is adequate. We like things to be black and white whenever possible.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

The normal term used is "minor" which I think is adequate. We like things to be black and white whenever possible.

Minor is good enough for me, yeah. I think WAs original comment focused on the media's use of child.

 

[Moriarty]

Minor is good enough for me, yeah. I think WAs original comment focused on the media's use of child.

Sells papers I suppose. I'm just bummed out that Rolf Harris has had his collar felt. I always liked him when I was growing up.

 

[Will Absolute]

I'd be happy with 'minor'.

 

[Ramshock]

Didn't we have this conversation before? How come 15 years old was old enough to be a woman who could marry in previous times but today she is a child?I think the argument to be made if a person is post pubescent but pre legal age then they should be called a minor not a child.

 

[DOTA]

We'd all think it somewhat alright if a 15 year-old boy had sex with a 15 year-old gitl. So what's the difference with an older man doing it?

I don't support that sort of thing, just looking to see what people come back with.

I'd say the issue would be the potential for manipulation. Though obviously that's true for many 16 year olds, as well.

 

[Mockney]

I think I used it accurately in this instance, but let's not quarrel. I still have fond memories of your Moyes/Woodward masterpiece.

I dont think children or teenagers are persecuted groups who's historical lowly stature needs to be re-dressed by using sensitive language.

Political Correctness is essentially just being careful how you speak about or act around people who're less advantaged than you.

It's not merely expressing a view that isn't Guardian approved liberal. It's basically just not being a cnut.

 

[Wibble]

Not using child in this context only serves to try to justify shagging kids. You don't have to be a baby raper to be a kiddy fiddler.

 

[Eyepopper]

I won't tell you that.

Sometimes politically correct outrage on the Caf assumes bizarre dimensions. I make what I thought was an uncontroversial post, saying that a 15 year old girl shouldn't be reported in the media as a 'child', and a firestorm of protest ensues. Apparently half the Caf, including Wibble, rcoobc, Eboue and Marching, think a 15 year old is a child.

Has nothing to do with the political correctness of the caf.

In this context, a 15 year old is a child, they are under age. The law, and whether its socially acceptable for grown men to have sex with them, has nothing to do with the clothes they are wearing, whether they're physically developed or whether they're precocious and extroverted.

I assume whatever point your trying to make isn't purely about symantecs, so feel free to elaborate.

 

[Eyepopper]

We'd all think it somewhat alright if a 15 year-old boy had sex with a 15 year-old gitl. So what's the difference with an older man doing it?

I don't support that sort of thing, just looking to see what people come back with.

It creates an unbalanced relationship which in turn creates a massive opportunity for abuse.

 

[Ramshock]

How is it legal for websites to say stuff like this? I know its a quote but fckin hell

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/michael-le-vell-court-sex-abuse-trial-081952310.html#aZB2fmE

 

[Damien]

How is it legal for websites to say stuff like this? I know its a quote but fckin hell

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/michael-le-vell-court-sex-abuse-trial-081952310.html#aZB2fmE

I imagine they'll get in trouble for leaving the comment section open.

 

[Marching]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent

 

[Sca11ywag]

Not using child in this context only serves to try to justify shagging kids. You don't have to be a baby raper to be a kiddy fiddler.

There's something totally uneasy in the wording of your post. How the feck did you ever become an admin?

 

[711]

I'd agree with WA. Once a child enters puberty they are no longer a child. Adolescent is the most appropriate term. The media are not stupid and have their own agenda. Moreso than most they know the power of their words and choose them with intent.

This bit is absolute nonsense. Girls are routinely entering puberty at 10. Most of these are children in every way. Many boys are essentially children through puberty too. They are children and deserve our love and support.

 

[Wibble]

There's something totally uneasy in the wording of your post. How the feck did you ever become an admin?

Perhaps I should have spoken slowly, loudly and using short words just for you?

 

[Irwinwastheking]

This bit is absolute nonsense. Girls are routinely entering puberty at 10. Most of these are children in every way. Many boys are essentially children through puberty too. They are children and deserve our love and support.

Bingo. Whilst I don't completely disagree with Dwayne and WA I don't think you can refer to a 10 year old as anything other than a child be they pre or post pubescent.

 

[Grinner]

This bit is absolute nonsense. Girls are routinely entering puberty at 10. Most of these are children in every way. Many boys are essentially children through puberty too. They are children and deserve our love and support.

Bingo. Whilst I don't completely disagree with Dwayne and WA I don't think you can refer to a 10 year old as anything other than a child be they pre or post pubescent.

I think Dwayne is getting at the idea that girls in puberty are developing features that signal that they are becoming women. Mentally they are still children but physically they are rapidly developing the body that they will have as a woman. Like it or not men notice this and sometimes the scummy ones may act on this visual input as an excuse to do something unpleasant.

If your only definition of a child is age then calling them a child is accurate.

 

[rednev]

I think what Dwayne and others meant is that there is a problem of semantics. In the media's vernacular, when it comes to sex crimes, victims are either children or they are adults. When the word child is used for anyone under the age of 16 or 18, under the banner of 'child abuse', there is no distinction between somebody who rapes a toddler and somebody who has consensual sex with a willing 15 year old, or even a 17 year old in the case of teachers.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

I think what Dwayne and others meant is that there is a problem of semantics. In the media's vernacular, when it comes to sex crimes, victims are either children or they are adults. When the word child is used for anyone under the age of 16 or 18, under the banner of 'child abuse', there is no distinction between somebody who rapes a toddler and somebody who has consensual sex with a willing 15 year old, or even a 17 year old in the case of teachers.

Yes, and that's not right either imo.

 

[Badunk]

They reckon the jury will give their verdict in the Le Vell case tomorrow. fecking shocked at what I've heard.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

Why don't we change this to the celeb Peado thread, or even give each of them their own thread so that these cnuts can't hide behind Saville.

 

[Grinner]

The Random Nonce Thread?

 

[Irwinwastheking]

Close enough.

 

[rednev]

The jury has returned a verdict of not guilty in the case of Michael Le Vell.

 

[Marching]

The jury has returned a verdict of not guilty in the case of Michael Le Vell.

Sounds a horrible case for all involved...especially so if the child involved is who she's rumoured to be.

 

[Pexbo]

fecking hell I didn't expect that.

 

[alastair]

The accuser was deemed to be unreliable so it was an inevitable verdict.

 

[Talking Vulture]

He'll always be branded a nonce, even though he's been found to be not guilty.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

I didn't read the details of this one in so much depth as the others. Must have a look back at it now.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

He'll always be branded a nonce, even though he's been found to be not guilty.

Maybe that's why people shouldn't be named unless they are found quilty. In these cases not too happy if someone name is destroyed.

 

[Talking Vulture]

Maybe that's why people shouldn't be named unless they are found quilty. In these cases not too happy if someone name is destroyed.

The accuser will keep her name a secret yet this fella has to deal with the abuse he'll get for the rest of his life no doubt.
It fecking stinks tbf

 

[Fergies Gum]

His name should have been kept secret from the media/public until after the trial. His reputation has been tarnished and there will still be some who think he is guilty.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

The accuser will keep her name a secret yet this fella has to deal with the abuse he'll get for the rest of his life no doubt.
It fecking stinks tbf

Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean his accuser was lying.

 

[Talking Vulture]

Sounds a horrible case for all involved...especially so if the child involved is who she's rumoured to be.

If she is who the rumour mongers are suggesting, it's pretty much fecked up from top to bottom.

 

[Pexbo]

The accuser will keep her name a secret yet this fella has to deal with the abuse he'll get for the rest of his life no doubt.
It fecking stinks tbf

And rightly so. Think of the fear of genuine victims coming forward that will be exposed if they can't prove their attackers guilt.

From a victims point of view, they couldn't find the accused guilty. Not "the accused is innocent and they were lying". It's important it stays that way.

As far as the accused goes, they were not found guilty so you have to treat them as innocent, that's the way that should be too.

 

[Talking Vulture]

And rightly so. Think of the fear of genuine victims coming forward that will be exposed if they can't prove their attackers guilt.

From a victims point of view, they couldn't find the accused guilty. Not "the accused is innocent and they were lying". It's important it stays that way.

As far as the accused goes, they were not found guilty so you have to treat them as innocent, that's the way that should be too.

But surely his name should have remained private too? It's a touchy subject and no matter what happens in these cases, someones life is ruined forever.