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

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by milo

im guessing you also think shes been ruined by ****** culture?

Not really, she just looks cheap and rather nasty. Can't tell properly though.

In any case, I worry about people who post videos of themselves online unless they have some sort of special skill, message of some kind and/or a hilarious birth defect to display.

[milo]

most of them just appear to be attention whores

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If we have reached a point where posting links to attention whoring wiggers wiggling their bum can land you in prison then this is a golden age to be alive.

edit : I cannot believe I just signed up to youtube just to check that video. I hate you milo.

We've reached the first point in a thousand years were it was thought necessary to criminalise necrophilia.

I do not happen to approve of the statutory offences which milo has committed.

I can not see why his actions should amount to serious crimes.

However at this point in time his actions do amount to serious offences. There is no point in me (or anyone else) pretending that they do not.

I am inherently very reluctant to report milo. For one thing it would involve the rest of this forum's content being analysed for other criminal activity and that might well have negative impacts upon people I care about. For another it risks the boards being taken down for a few months while the police instigate such investigations.

However that is quite different from the question of whether milo 'can' be reported.

(All I ever try to do is to keep these boards free of illegal content and criminal activity. I don't really want any of you to be prosecuted. So I offer my professional advice. I support you all as 'good friends do'. What I resent is the barrage of abuse I recieve while I am actually trying to protect you)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

However at this point in time his actions do amount to serious offences. There is no point in me (or anyone else) pretending that they do not.

You've still not responded to his point about the girl being over 18, or doesn't that matter?

Also, I was being serious - I wish people could be put in prison for that.

[milo]

If you think what ive posted is bad and or dangerous it might, just might, be a better idea to pm the mods and have them delete it (i wouldn't object, its jolt's forum and they moderate it, ill happily respect their opinion). But if you think im going to take any notice of what amounts to little more than a rant/troll you're mistaken.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You've still not responded to his point about the girl being over 18, or doesn't that matter?

Also, I was being serious - I wish people could be put in prison for that.

It doesn't matter alas.

[Ste]

i'm still confused what yahwe thinks milo has done wrong...

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

edit : I cannot believe I just signed up to youtube just to check that video. I hate you milo.

I can't be arsed to sign up. Give me your username and password by pm plzkthnxbye.

[milo]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Also, I was being serious - I wish people could be put in prison for that.

Dante's britain doesn't sound much fun

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by milo

Dante's britain doesn't sound much fun

You're done for in the first wave of the new racial hygeine laws I'm afraid.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by milo

If you think what ive posted is bad and or dangerous it might, just might, be a better idea to pm the mods and have them delete it (i wouldn't object, its jolt's forum and they moderate it, ill happily respect their opinion). But if you think im going to take any notice of what amounts to little more than a rant/troll you're mistaken.

what you do or do not do is not my concern.

You put this whole community at risk by breaking a very serious law.

I share with you my professional knowledge and instead of being a grown up and saying 'my bad' you decide to attack me.

[milo]

Originally Posted by Ste

i'm still confused what yahwe thinks milo has done wrong...

he doesn't really, he just want us to all glorify in his legal argument about how my post was distasteul/crap/notworthy etc etc, now i admit it wasn't great but its hardly porn, its from a heavily admined and surveyed site and i intentionally posted it in one of my own threads. It wasn't enough to warrant a new thread but i thought it worthy enough to comment on. Especially as youtube is likely to grow.

A neg rep and telling the mods to delete it would be the normal course of action if you think it wrong. But no, we'll listen to yahwe threaten me instead.

[milo]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You're done for in the first wave of the new racial hygeine laws I'm afraid.

ill move to africa, theres plenty of black women there

[Ste]

Originally Posted by milo

ill move to africa, theres plenty of black women there

it's alright dante, he'll get the death sentence soon enough if he moves to africa

[milo]

btw blastoderm, i meant to ask, what happens if you pay £100 but ejaculate inside the first 5mins? holding back for the full 60mins in order to get your moneys worth doesn't sound like fun

[milo]

Originally Posted by Ste

it's alright dante, he'll get the death sentence soon enough if he moves to africa

ill check them for AIDS beforehand goddamnit

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Ste

i'm still confused what yahwe thinks milo has done wrong...

Originally Posted by Yahwe

the following offences

1) breach of s. 1 The Protection of Children Act 1978 (as ammended s.45 2003 Sexual Offences Act)
2) Incitement to breach s. 1 The Protection of Children Act 1978 (as ammended s.45 2003 Sexual Offences Act)
3) Conspiracy to breach s. 1 The Protection of Children Act 1978 (as ammended s.45 2003 Sexual Offences Act)
4) Attempt to breach s. 1 The Protection of Children Act 1978 (as ammended s.45 2003 Sexual Offences Act)

do you want to ask a more specific question?

I didn't draft these silly laws, but they still apply.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by milo

btw blastoderm, i meant to ask, what happens if you pay £100 but ejaculate inside the first 5mins? holding back for the full 60mins in order to get your moneys worth doesn't sound like fun

The thing about services like this, they give you the gf experience or whatever they call it. Massage, a bit of games, oral, spanking (well whatever tickles your fancy... roleplay essentially) and then intercourse.

If you cum in 5 mins from the start i.e. right before the roleplay, it means you need to see a doctor.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by milo

ill move to africa, theres plenty of black women there

But they're not pretty. And the afrikaans language sounds worse than the Patwa of Jamaica.

[milo]

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

But they're not pretty. And the afrikaans language sounds worse than the Patwa of Jamaica.

You've been listening to dante for too long. Do the black people in SA speak afrikaans?

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

do you want to ask a more specific question?

Yes. Specifically, what has he done wrong?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Ste

Yes. Specifically, what has he done wrong?

I just told you.

He breached statutory laws.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by milo

You've been listening to dante for too long. Do the black people in SA speak afrikaans?

According to a black SA at work, yes. Mainly.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by milo

You've been listening to dante for too long. Do the black people in SA speak afrikaans?

Sometimes but they usually speak Zulu or Xhosa or whatever. The "coloureds" in the Western Cape do though, with an utterly ace accent. English is of course pretty widespread too. Depends which part though.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I just told you.

He breached statutory laws.

how?

[furball]

I get the distinct feeling that Yahwe's legal knowledge is being disputed not because of its content but because it's Yahwe imputing it.

What milo posted does constitute an offence because, to the law, it doesn't matter what the actual facts are. Sure, she's 18. But you're attempting to access an indecent photograph of a child and that's all that matters.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is incredibly broad, and as wonderful as the drafting is, it criminalises many things that don't need to be crimes. We introduced crimes of voyeurism and necrophilia, despite there already being relevant offences on the statute book. Of course, this is nothing new to this current Labour government which has created no less than 800 new criminal offences since coming to power.



Did you know that a 15 year old boy who has consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is guilty of rape?

[milo]

Well i apologise for making a spelling mistake and breaking the law then.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by furball

I get the distinct feeling that Yahwe's legal knowledge is being disputed not because of its content but because it's Yahwe imputing it.

It's not really related to who, it's more of "how". I don't really care either way though.

Having said that, milo's original post doesn't even imply the picture of the girl is indecent.

[furball]

It depends on how you interpret indecent. Certainly from milo's post, 20 years ago that description would have been enough to give some of our appeal judges heart attacks.

In the last ten years the judiciary has changed a lot to reflect modern attitudes, so I wouldn't impose such a description on them now. You can look at the recent public decency case for a great example of that. All in all, they're a pretty good bunch with a few exceptions as per usual.

[midge5]

The Act Yahwe listed refers to Protection of Children, if this person is 18 surely she doesn't count as a child therefore they aren't relevant?

I realise if you two (Yahwe/Furball) are saying it does then obviously it does but I am curious as to how come as I didn't think an 18 year old would be counted as a child.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by furball

Did you know that a 15 year old boy can rape his 15 year old girlfriend?

I know what you mean here, but this is phrased pretty badly. Erm...of course he can?

[milo]

btw apparently this song was at number 1 for 4 weeks in 1968


Gary Puckett and The Union Gap - Young Girl

Young girl, get out of my mind
My love for you is way out of line
Better run, girl,
You're much too young, girl
With all the charms of a woman
You've kept the secret of your youth
You led me to believe
You're old enough
To give me Love
And now it hurts to know the truth, Oh,
Beneath your perfume and make-up
You're just a baby in disguise
And though you know
That it is wrong to be
Alone with me
That come on look is in your eyes, Oh,
So hurry home to your mama
I'm sure she wonders where you are
Get out of here
Before I have the time
To change my mind
'Cause I'm afraid we'll go too far, Oh,
Young girl

from here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../15/do1502.xml

[furball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I know what you mean here, but this is phrased pretty badly. Erm...of course he can?

Sorry, what I meant was the following:

A 15 year old boy who has consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is guilty of rape.


Went back and edited, cheers Dante. Everyone: you've read the headlines about 40 cautions a year being given for rape. Now, how would you punish this boy for committing this illegal act?

[Ste]

confiscate the girlfriend or force them to marry.

shrug

[furball]

Originally Posted by milo

btw apparently this song was at number 1 for 4 weeks in 1968

If you're into song lyrics, Marshall Mathers has something to say.

[Announcer]
Meet Stan, twenty-one years old.
After meeting a young girl at a rave party,
things start getting hot and heavy in an upstairs bedroom.
Once again, his conscience comes into play...

[Eminem]
Now listen to me, while you're kissin her cheek
and smearin her lipstick, I slipped this in her drink
Now all you gotta do is nibble on this little bitches earlobe..

[Dr Dre]
Yo this girls only 15 years old! You shouldn't take advantage of her, thats not fair!

[Eminem]
Yo, look at her bush. Does it got hair? (uhuh)
**** this bitch right on that spot there.
'Till she passes out she forgot how she got their.

[Dr Dre]
Man, ain't you ever seen that one movie Kids?

[Eminem]
No, but I seen the porno thats on nubiest!

[Dr Dre]
Shit, you wanna get hauled off to jail?

[Eminem]
**** that, hit that shit raw dawg and bail.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Ste

confiscate the girlfriend or force them to marry.

shrug

um, you can't marry until you're 16 anyway

besides

DOES NO-ONE UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF A RHETORICAL QUESTION?!!

[milo]

Originally Posted by furball

snip

yeah but hes probably talking about a black girl

[milo]

Originally Posted by furball

DOES NO-ONE UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF A RHETORICAL QUESTION?!!

no

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by milo

yeah but hes probably talking about a black girl

I thougt it was a white trash chick.

*shrug*

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

But they're not pretty. And the afrikaans language sounds worse than the Patwa of Jamaica.

Patois :eng101:

Although I can see why you made the mistake.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

Patois :eng101:

Although I can see why you made the mistake.

My bad.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by midge5

The Act Yahwe listed refers to Protection of Children, if this person is 18 surely she doesn't count as a child therefore they aren't relevant?

I realise if you two (Yahwe/Furball) are saying it does then obviously it does but I am curious as to how come as I didn't think an 18 year old would be counted as a child.

Allow me to explain. There are some things you may know, some things you don't but I've tried to cover everything so no one's left behind.

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. I have no idea of what specific offences are covered, but I'd probably wager that with actual legal experience in a court, Yahwe would be right. Anyone with a legal brain on this forum and a knowledge of the act would stay a mile away from that link, and below I'm going to tell you why. The fact milo could have misled you and that it could well be an 18 year old is irrelevant to whether you are guilty or not.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is a notoriously wide (and from my limited knowledge, academically criticised) piece of legislation. Not only does it punish what you believe to be the case where it deems fit, but in some cases (e.g. rape) chucks that personal belief out of the window to get offenders via the reasonable man standard (as in what you should have thought in the circumstances, not what you actually thought) to see if you were reckless or intended to have sex without consent. This is why in recent news, men were advised to get the woman to expressly consent during drunken sex, simply because the act is so wide.

In the case of some offences, generally involving children, it has created strict liability offences. With strict liability it doesn't matter what you thought or what you should have done, the fact you did it is enough. This is where furball's 15 year old consensual sex comes in. Sex with someone under age is strict liability, regardless of who did it. That 15 year old boy (whether you like it or not) is technically a rapist. The law pre this act, was arguably a lot fairer, as it took in the relative age of the parties into account as well as the circumstances. While you might still need to try the issue, there was the distinct possibility of a perfectly consensual situation being seen as harmless in the eyes of the law. No longer.

In my humble (student) legal opinion, the act is badly drafted. While it was probably drafted to protect victims, the result has been to criminalise things that don't need criminalising (necrophilia is one such crime as quite frankly the embarassment of getting caught should be enough, although voyeurism I feel if better defined is a useful update for the modern law), and it looks like a piece of legislation which catches people who potentiallly were quite innocent in their motives. This goes against the principle of English Law that it is better for 9 guilty men to be set free rather than have an innocent man convicted.

The real problem I can see, is that returning to the old (and in my opinion superior) law is pretty much impossible, as I'll wager you can't make a law on sexual offences less stringent without mass outcry (regardless of whether the law to be replaced has massively over egged the pudding). No one doubts that there are serious sexual offences that need to be stopped/punished. I do not dispute the seriousness of these situations. Bodily integrity and preserving self-worth is important. All myself, Yahwe and furball would probably agree upon is to simply state that this is not the way to do it. However, whether we like it or not, it is the law and we must accept it and hope the legislature is persuaded to change it.

The scary part of this is that it looks like this government has developed a love for the strict liability offence. The courts (who deal with crimes day in, day out, unlike governments) at a time not too far away from this act after trifling with the "reasonable man" standard for recklessness finally concluded in a case called "G" that we should base recklessness throughout the criminal law on what you thought was the case, not what you should have thought. This Sexual Offences Act effectively took years of work of the courts into deciding this through a midst of legal argument, academic debate and no doubt hours of conscious thought in a judge's mind and basically slapped them in the face.

Such nuances can be the diffence between jail and freedom for a good number of people and that if such drafting is allowed to creep into other legislation, we must be very careful, simply because so much behaviour would become "criminal" and we are meant to be a liberal society.

[Dante Hicks]

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 children

I don't care how badly the act is drafted, "Looking at images of children" is not illegal. Let's not be hysterical here and clarify (precisely) what we mean.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't care how badly the act is drafted, "Looking at images of children" is not illegal. Let's not be hysterical here and clarify (precisely) what we mean.

If I understand this correctly, Lokken is saying that it is illegal to click a link that someone said is of a child.
If it is possible that someone could think "ooh children" and click the link then noone should click it...

lol children on the Internet - www.cbbc.com

Is this breaking the law?

Sounds utter bollocks to me though.

[lokken]

sorry i forgot the word indecent.

[Ste]

ah, i don't think anyone thought it was an indecent link and therefore milo hasn't broken any laws and neither has anyone clicking on it.

Is that right?

[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. But I haven't researched for one (and don't intend to).

Lokken's made an excellent post, I'm in full agreement with him. The Government has a hard-on for strict liability because it prevents the judiciary from turning the law into common sense understood by ordinary people. It catches people out even where you'd think they'd done nothing wrong. 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'll present to you guys another example. It's from a real House of Lords case decided back in 1975, any lawyers on this forum will recognise it instantaneously. Please don't reveal the actual verdict.

Originally Posted by DPP v Morgan 1976 AC 182

The defendant Morgan was a senior N.C.O. in the Royal Air Force, the other defendants younger and junior members of that service. 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. This part of the conversation was denied by Morgan.

Mrs. Morgan's account of what happened, in substance, was that she was awakened from sleep in a single bed in a room which she shared with one of her children. Her husband and the other men in part dragged and in part carried her out on to a landing and thence into another room which contained a double bed. She struggled and screamed and shouted to her son to call the police, but one of the men put a hand over her mouth. Once on the double bed the defendants had intercourse with her in turn, finishing with her husband. During intercourse with the other three she was continuously being held, and this, coupled with her fear of further violence, restricted the scope of her struggles, but she repeatedly called out to her husband to tell the men to stop.

All the defendants had in due course made statements to the police, and those of McDonald, McLarty and Parker in differing degrees corroborated the general picture of a forcible rape against clear protest and resistance on the part of the victim.

In evidence they said that in the incriminating parts of their statements words had been put into their mouths by the police. 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.

The defendant Morgan's statement to the police was equivocal, but in evidence he asserted that his wife agreed in advance to have intercourse with the three friends he had brought home and, in the event, indicated her pleasure in doing so. According to Morgan, the only protest voiced by his wife related to the fact that one of the men who had intercourse with her was not wearing a contraceptive sheath.

The defendants were charged with rape under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The relevant statute law creating the offence is as follows:

Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956

(1) It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another man
(2) A man commits rape if –
(a) To he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and
(b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.
(3) A man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband.


Would you find the defendants guilty or not guilty?

[Cannon_Fodder]

I would say guilty because she didn't give her consent at the time.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by sniborp

I would say guilty because she didn't give her consent at the time.

(b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.

?

[Nodrog]

Theres not enough evidence there to judge because it seems to be a "he says/she says" issue. Assuming that the wife's story is completely accurate then yes, its obviously rape.