Planetarion Forums - Men who pay for sex are 'as bad as child abusers' - MP Fiona Mactaggart

JonnyBGood · 12 Apr 2006, 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Would you find the defendants guilty or not guilty?

The word reckless being included is an absolute travesty.

Dante Hicks · 12 Apr 2006, 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

As I said earlier, the link (and its advertised concert) was perceivable as indecent. There's no definition in the Act itself - it'd probably be on a case-by-case basis, I don't know of a specific common law case.

I think the point is that the chances of anyone going to prison for it are laughably remote.

Quote:

The 15 year old boy in my earlier example is just one of thousands of similar boys doing similar things. But he's a rapist.

I think we all get that bit, it's just the un-needed hysteria about custodial sentences from looking at MySpace attention whores is what people were complaining about.

Quote:

Would you find the defendants guilty or not guilty?

Guilty, based on what you've said. I'd need to see more information before actually convicting someone, but at first glance it doesn't seem overly controversial (if we accept the wife's version of events). In terms of whether it was guilty under the law previously, who knows, afaik it wasn't a crime for a husband to rape his wife until 20 years ago or something stupid like that.

Alessio · 12 Apr 2006, 12:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

OH.

MY.

GOD.

Nobody click this link. I have no idea what it is but even clicking this link is a serious criminal offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

If the link shows what it purports to show there would be no question of anything other than a custodial sentence.

The evidence from this forum would be perfectly admissible in court and you would go down.

This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen a forum user post.

It is maddness. Sheer madness.

As your resident Lawyer I have now advised you.

Bah you made me register on that site to watch it
While it wasn't even worth watching

I don't even wanna know how many black penisses she had

JonnyBGood · 12 Apr 2006, 12:51

Incidentally is the 15 year old girl who has sex with her boyfriend de facto guilty of rape?

Blastoderm · 12 Apr 2006, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessio

I don't even wanna know how many black penisses she had

She gets a black penis on that vid?

lokken · 12 Apr 2006, 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Incidentally is the 15 year old girl who has sex with her boyfriend de facto guilty of rape?

No, as you have to penetrate the vagina with a penis to be guilty of rape. A woman can never be guilty of rape in itself. Technically, she can be guilty of aiding and abetting it though.

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think the point is that the chances of anyone going to prison for it are laughably remote.

I think we all get that bit, it's just the un-needed hysteria about custodial sentences from looking at MySpace attention whores is what people were complaining about.

I won't dispute this. However, Yahwe has his own style of posting which we should all be used to by now.

On topic: the defendants were found NOT GUILTY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by headnote (summary) of the case

Per Lord Cross of Chelsea. A man who has intercourse with a woman, believing on inadequate grounds that she is consenting to it, does not commit rape in ordinary parlance or in law.

Per Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone. In rape the prohibited act is intercourse without the consent of the victim and the mental element lies in the intention to commit the act willy-nilly or not caring whether the victim consents or not. A failure to prove this element involves an acquittal, because an essential ingredient is lacking and it matters not that it is lacking because of a belief not based on reasonable grounds.

Per Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. If the effect of the evidence as a whole is that the defendant believed or may have believed that the victim was consenting, the prosecution has not discharged the onus of proving commission of the offence and no question can arise as to whether the belief was reasonable or not, though the reasonableness or otherwise of the belief is important as evidence tending to show whether the belief was truly held.

Essentially the case says that the belief that a woman is consenting is subjective, not objective. What mattered was the defendant's state of mind - and if they believed that the woman was consenting (even if on inadequate grounds and he was wrong), he was not guilty of rape.

To analyse the case facts a little for you, the defendants were in the RAF along with the husband, who was a superior officer to them. To quote from the case:

Quote:

Originally Posted by first paragraph

On the night of the offences Morgan invited the other three to return to his house and suggested to them that they should all have intercourse with his wife, the prosecutrix. The young men, who were complete strangers to Mrs. Morgan, were at first incredulous but were persuaded that Morgan's invitation was intended seriously when he told them stories of his wife's sexual aberrations and provided them with contraceptive sheaths to wear. McDonald, McLarty and Parker also said in effect that Morgan told them to expect some show of resistance on his wife's part but that they need not take this seriously since it was a mere pretence whereby she stimulated her own sexual excitement.

How would you react? Your superior officer is telling you to have sex with his wife as part of a sex game where she will protest but not mean it.

And remember the key rule: A defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

N.B. - this case no longer applies to the law of rape since the Sexual Offences Act 2003. So don't get your hopes up.

JC · 12 Apr 2006, 13:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

A woman can never be guilty of rape in itself.

They can in Norway though.

Dante Hicks · 12 Apr 2006, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

How would you react? Your superior officer is telling you to have sex with his wife as part of a sex game where she will protest but not mean it.

I'd be very wary to start with and orgies of that kind aren't exactly my bag. But seriously, if you turned up to have sex with a (theoretically willing) woman and she was screaming for you to stop there's a certain level of moral ****ing responsibility. Yeah, there's roleplay but that's why we have safety words. In all honesty I'd like to think if I was involved in the situation I'd stab the husband in the throat for being an utter ****.

The only real defence would be if you were one of those ultra slow/retarded people who were very trusting of whatever anyone said.

lokken · 12 Apr 2006, 13:13

i'm happy for Norway :) :) :) :)

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Incidentally is the 15 year old girl who has sex with her boyfriend de facto guilty of rape?

No, you need a penis to rape - see s.1(1)(a). However, the girl would be guilty of Section 3 Sexual Assult and Section 4 Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Child sex offences don't apply because the perpetrator has to be aged 18 or over.

Cannon_Fodder · 12 Apr 2006, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

?

I have a habit of seeing a few words and filling in the gaps

milo · 12 Apr 2006, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

Effectively it's incitement/soliciting of such behaviour because it's encouraging members of this forum to look at images of what they were led to believe to be indecent images of children, even though they aren't.

what the **** are you on about?!?!?

'yes your honour i made a spelling mistake!'

!

jbg check pms

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'd be very wary to start with and orgies of that kind aren't exactly my bag. But seriously, if you turned up to have sex with a (theoretically willing) woman and she was screaming for you to stop there's a certain level of moral ****ing responsibility. Yeah, there's roleplay but that's why we have safety words. In all honesty I'd like to think if I was involved in the situation I'd stab the husband in the throat for being an utter ****.

The only real defence would be if you were one of those ultra slow/retarded people who were very trusting of whatever anyone said.

It's at this point that we have to go back to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I'll quote from the judge's summary: "Of the account which these three gave in their evidence of their acts of intercourse with Mrs. Morgan and of her conduct throughout the incident, it is sufficient to say that all three spoke of her manifesting her sexual co-operation and enjoyment in a way which could only indicate that she was consenting. Any element of resistance on her part was, according to this account, no more than play acting."

There's some more detail which I appreciate you didn't have access to regarding the defendants' testimony.

Quote:

But all asserted that after she got into the double bedroom she not merely consented to but actively co-operated with and enjoyed what was being done. She caressed and masturbated their private parts, she licked their private parts, she made noises and 'moans' of pleasure. When it was all over she said, 'Have you all had a go?', but not in a sarcastic sense. In other words, she was actively participating in a sexual orgy, and was anxious to see that each of the participants had enjoyed himself as much as she.

Obviously the two sets of facts are irreconcilable. However, it's fairly clear that once the sexual acts had begun in earnest, she stopped protesting (whether in fear or through enjoyment). She wasn't screaming the entire way through. Either way, the husband's a total **** and I suspect the RAF gave him a dishonourable discharge.

Dante Hicks · 12 Apr 2006, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

There's some more detail which I appreciate you didn't have access to regarding the defendants' testimony.

Yeah, but this goes back to Nod's point about the he said/she said. Assuming her testimony is correct (as I said originally) it's not a very controversial case.

Without knowing the full details it's silly to speculate further (I have no idea which defendant was more believable for instance) but as an automatic reaction it seems "more likely" that some guys would rape a woman (albeit in weird circumstances) rather than a woman being a willing participant in a gang-bang and then straight afterwards going "lol" and running to the hospital claiming to be raped.

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 13:55

The question isn't really whether or not they raped her. The had sex with her, she withheld consent, ergo rape.

The question is whether or not they should be found guilty of rape when they believed that she was consenting.

Dante Hicks · 12 Apr 2006, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

The question is whether or not they should be found guilty of rape when they believed that she was consenting.

Yes as their belief wasn't sufficiently grounded.

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 13:59

Then you're applying an objective reasonableness test. That's fine, since it's the law at present.

The question at the time was whether or not an unreasonable belief was enough to absolve someone of responsibility for sexual intercourse without consent. The verdict was 3:2 so it could easily have gone 'your' way.

Yahwe · 12 Apr 2006, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think the point is that the chances of anyone going to prison for it are laughably remote.

This is your answer to every point about law.

It is beyond silly.

You obviously imagine that we do not live in a nation with the highest prison population in Europe. It's pretty ailly of you to always contradict me when I can reply "I've seen it happen" and all you can say is "in my mind i expect it doesn't happen".

Dante Hicks · 12 Apr 2006, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

You obviously imagine that we do not live in a nation with the highest prison population in Europe.

No I don't imagine this. Don't be silly, one does not have to take extreme positions on this case. I realise you have a love of drama but it is not necessary here.

Quote:

It's pretty ailly of you to always contradict me when I can reply "I've seen it happen"

If you can supply a case where someone has received a custodial sentence for just posting a link to the sort of material Milo posted* then I will of course withdraw my remark.

* = i.e. a fully clothed adult wiggling her bottom in a suggestive, if mildly off-putting manner.

Cooling · 12 Apr 2006, 14:18

It is threads like these that reaffirm my belief that Yahwe is the Cassandra of these forums.

As unlikely as it sounds, these things can happen. The consequences may well be pretty severe. They are severe for a reason. Whatever your feelings are about the detterence effect of the law, you must acknowledge that the potential consequences far outweigh the momentary excitement you might get out of clicking a link on an internet forum.

Dante Hicks · 12 Apr 2006, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooling

As unlikely as it sounds, these things can happen.

Then provide an example - a single example is all that is required - of something specifically like this happening.

Yahwe · 12 Apr 2006, 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

No I don't imagine this. Don't be silly, one does not have to take extreme positions on this case. I realise you have a love of drama but it is not necessary here.

If you can supply a case where someone has received a custodial sentence for just posting a link to the sort of material Milo posted* then I will of course withdraw my remark.

* = i.e. a fully clothed adult wiggling her bottom in a suggestive, if mildly off-putting manner.

I don't happen to own an up-to-date copy of archbold and that's the only place such cases would be.

First instance criminal cases aren't always reported i'm afraid. They're not necessary you see. First instance cases only apply the law as it stands. There have been no appeals cases which analogise but then the laws are statutory and there is no mechanism for the courts to challenge such straightforward statutory law.

That's what I've been doing (and every other lawyer on this forum it seems) is applying the law as it stands.

If you want my personal experience. The best analogy was when I saw a man convicted under the PoC Act in Maidstone for using a search engine (yahoo) to search for porn where he had used the search term "teen". He got 3 years. No previous, respectable middle aged middle class man.

The police and CPS have a zero tolerence policy on these issues and so always prosecute (i think this is stupid as well but there we are)

Nodrog · 12 Apr 2006, 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

This is your answer to every point about law.

It is beyond silly.
.

Actually, its not silly at all. We live in a country with an absurdly oppressive legal system, to the extent where I would guess that at least 80% of people under the age of the 30 have committed a crime which could technically result in imprisonment (remember, drug possession and copyright infringement are criminal offences). When the law is deliberately constructed in a way that makes everyone a criminal, discussions over what is 'actually' illegal cease to make sense - all that really matters is what youre likely to be caught/prosecuted for. If we lived in a country with a rational set of laws then your point would be valid, but this is sadly far from being the case.

Ste · 12 Apr 2006, 14:24

there must be more to the case than that.
otherwise anyone who has looked at porn on the internet has broken the law.

JonnyBGood · 12 Apr 2006, 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

If you want my personal experience. The best analogy was when I saw a man convicted under the PoC Act in Maidstone for using a search engine (yahoo) to search for porn where he had used the search term "teen". He got 3 years. No previous, respectable middle aged middle class man.

The police and CPS have a zero tolerence policy on these issues and so always prosecute (i think this is stupid as well but there we are)

Was that the only thing he was being prosecuted for? If so I think we're done for guys

Yahwe · 12 Apr 2006, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Was that the only thing he was being prosecuted for? If so I think we're done for guys

I thought it was the most disgraceful thing i''d ever seen in my life actually.

And the jusge still felt the need to 'have a go' at the poor man calling him a monster and what not, I did actually think of you lot at the time.

Not one of us posting here (the other lawyers and I) actually approve of these laws. The changes in prosecution levels and evidence laws which lead to these situations are the reason i'm glad to be leaving the bar.

JonnyBGood · 12 Apr 2006, 14:32

I meant to edit milo's post to remove the link ages ago but somehow I forgot to. However it now says she's 18, is the link still illegal? This is a genuine question here

JonnyBGood · 12 Apr 2006, 16:24

This thread has been restored. And in the spirit of this thread consent was expressly given \o/

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I meant to edit milo's post to remove the link ages ago but somehow I forgot to. However it now says she's 18, is the link still illegal? This is a genuine question here

It's not, because it doesn't advertise an indecent photograph of a minor which the previous advertisement for it did. She's 18 -> it's legal.

milo · 12 Apr 2006, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This thread has been restored. And in the spirit of this thread consent was expressly given \o/

johnny has offered to go to jail for me, true story.

JonnyBGood · 12 Apr 2006, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

It's not, because it doesn't advertise an indecent photograph of a minor which the previous advertisement for it did. She's 18 -> it's legal.

What if directly afterwards he posted that she was actually over 18, which he did, and you clicked on the link. Still a crime? What if you claimed he told you on irc or rang you up or shouted really loudly across the irish sea?

The law is confusing and poorly laid out

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 16:35

It depends on your state of mind when you clicked the link. If you viewed it believing that it was an (indecent) photograph of a minor, then you're guilty. If you were informed that the subject wasn't a minor before you clicked to view the link, you've done nothing wrong.

Denning has something to say about methods of communicating information (offer and acceptance in contract law, actually), but I won't bore you all with it here.

milo · 12 Apr 2006, 16:45

someone prosecute britney spears

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 16:48

for what?

milo · 12 Apr 2006, 16:50

the hit me baby one more time video

she was under 18...

milo · 12 Apr 2006, 16:52

as well as the rolling stone shoot

Yahwe · 12 Apr 2006, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The law is confusing and poorly laid out

All the more reason for lay people to accept the legal advice they are given by professionals and law students then don't you think?

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

the hit me baby one more time video

she was under 18...

Oh dear god.

There's so many things wrong with your flippant remark that my head nearly exploded.

1) The video was shown on reputable music channels which would be expected to not show any indecent material.
2) The video itself wasn't indecent.
3) You don't view a channel to specifically view a video, you channel-surf until you find something good.

The problem was that a 'booty shaking video' could be indecent or not indecent. Considering the strict liability nature of our anti-child porn legislation, there aren't many convenient get-out routes for a judge to get you off the charge without impinging on his own professional reputation.

It's a bit different to watching a reputable music channel which has its own obligations not to broadcast any indecent material.

milo · 12 Apr 2006, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Oh dear god.

There's so many things wrong with your flippant remark that my head nearly exploded.

1) The video was shown on reputable music channels which would be expected to not show any indecent material.
2) The video itself wasn't indecent.
3) You don't view a channel to specifically view a video, you channel-surf until you find something good.

The problem was that a 'booty shaking video' could be indecent or not indecent. Considering the strict liability nature of our anti-child porn legislation, there aren't many convenient get-out routes for a judge to get you off the charge without impinging on his own professional reputation.

It's a bit different to watching a reputable music channel which has its own obligations not to broadcast any indecent material.

Hey guys youtube isn't reputable and i never ever repeatedly suggested it might be, britney spears in her debut video wasn't in any way sexual, even less so in her rolling stone shoot.

I consider 'booty shaking' to be a general term and therefore apply it to Ms Spears video. Im not sure why you'd consider her not to be shaking her ass.

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

as well as the rolling stone shoot

Again, the magazine has an obligation not to publish any indecent material. The reader wouldn't be held culpable for the magazine publishing inappropriate material.

If you'd tagged the video as work-safe, it would have probably been fine because that would imply that the video wasn't indecent. That way, if it then had been indecent (e.g. containing a breast shot), the user could probably get off the charge with few problems.

You didn't. It was up to the user to decide whether or not to bear the risk of the photo of a minor being indecent, given the ambiguous advertisement of the video. If there had been cause for charges to be brought against you, you wouldn't get off by claiming ignorance prior to viewing the link.

milo · 12 Apr 2006, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Again, the magazine has an obligation not to publish any indecent material. The reader wouldn't be held culpable for the magazine publishing inappropriate material.

If you'd tagged the video as work-safe, it would have probably been fine because that would imply that the video wasn't indecent. That way, if it then had been indecent (e.g. containing a breast shot), the user could probably get off the charge with few problems.

You didn't. It was up to the user to decide whether or not to bear the risk of the photo of a minor being indecent, given the ambiguous advertisement of the video. If there had been cause for charges to be brought against you, you wouldn't get off by claiming ignorance prior to viewing the link.

I didn't link to a minor dude, i made a spieling miastake.

I meant 18, i typed 17 i corrected as soon as i realised, look you obviously all want to show the greatness of your legal arguments and im fine with that. Honestly i am. But if you think there is something wrong with the thread go to the mods.

don't hate on me

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

Hey guys youtube isn't reputable and i never ever repeatedly suggested it might be, britney spears in her debut video wasn't in any way sexual, even less so in her rolling stone shoot.

I'm fairly sure I had a wank to that video once. Trust me, it was sexual.

The point is that YouTube ISN'T reputable, unlike MTV and Rolling Stone. For that reason it's the user who bears the risk of something shown being indecent. You're the one who said it was of a minor, and one little typo really can make all the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

I consider 'booty shaking' to be a general term and therefore apply it to Ms Spears video. Im not sure why you'd consider her not to be shaking her ass.

Lovely.

What if the girl in the video hadn't been wearing any shorts? If she'd only had a top on, it would have definitely been held as indecent. You'd have got a decent view of the relevant area's via the model shaking her 'booty'.

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

I didn't link to a minor dude, i made a spieling miastake.

I meant 18, i typed 17 i corrected as soon as i realised, look you obviously all want to show the greatness of your legal arguments and im fine with that. Honestly i am. But if you think there is something wrong with the thread go to the mods.

don't hate on me

Typo schmypo. It was advertised as a video of a minor. That's all that matters. Until the typo was corrected, nothing changed. After it was corrected, the video was totally safe - and I said that ages ago.

Oh, and I am a mod, as well as a law student

milo · 12 Apr 2006, 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

I'm fairly sure I had a wank to that video once. Trust me, it was sexual.

Furball masturbates to children, you heard it here first.

You despicable paedophile she wasn't considered an adult by the law.

Im going to the police.

For how long have you had sexual thoughts about minors?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furball

The point is that YouTube ISN'T reputable, unlike MTV and Rolling Stone. For that reason it's the user who bears the risk of something shown being indecent. You're the one who said it was of a minor, and one little typo really can make all the difference.

Its owned by paypal heavily modded and got its VC from sequoia capital, you have an odd odd definition of not reputable.

Quote:

Lovely.

What if the girl in the video hadn't been wearing any shorts? If she'd only had a top on, it would have definitely been held as indecent. You'd have got a decent view of the relevant area's via the model shaking her 'booty'.

I wouldn't have linked to it then you moron.

furball · 12 Apr 2006, 17:12

To clarify for some people on the forums - since I may be coming off as a bit of a wanker here.

All I'm trying to do is to explain the legal situation to the best of my ability. Sometimes I can be a little harsh in doing so when I become frustrated. Of course, not everyone has a legal background and it's easy to forget that. Just trying to fulfil a public duty

Yahwe · 12 Apr 2006, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

I didn't link to a minor dude, i made a spieling miastake.

I meant 18, i typed 17 i corrected as soon as i realised, look you obviously all want to show the greatness of your legal arguments and im fine with that. Honestly i am. But if you think there is something wrong with the thread go to the mods.

don't hate on me

All we did was to tell you you were in a real danger of breaking a very serious law.

You reacted like a child and took everything personally.

Attacking me, making silly arguments, deleting the thread, begging jonny to get it back ... etc...

Next time you are given legal advice (for free) by someone who understands the law better than you you ought to accept it.