Ex-Dragons' Den star cleared of child sex offences

old school tie network - BBC - judiciary - police - masons

He only wanted 40% of an adult

Do you have any relevant proof of guilt, or do you just assume that a person is guilty if somebody else says so? That is a dangerous situation.

Naydam you're either:

1. stupid, or
2. being deliberately obtuse, or
3. just an irritating sh1t

or all 3, is my guess is all 3 reading the stuff you post most of the time.

Anyway, to keep it simple for you ... the guy admitted it but said he thought she was 17 ... she was 13!

But he was not guilty.  In my book, of course he was.  Ignorance is no defence, never was.

Again, how do they get away with it?

I hope he does better due diligence when he invests

didnt understand the numbers and pulled out

But he was not guilty.  In my book, of course he was.  Ignorance is no defence, never was.

The judge seems to have thought otherwise. Tbh I thought he was in more trouble on the child prostitution charge since he admitted giving them money (as "a gift") and the age for child prostitution is 18 not 16. I guess that is what the jury had to decide after hearing the evidence.

Maybe he was lucky to get off. He was certainly lucky not to get the Rolf Harris jury which seemed to reach a "no smoke without fire" verdict.

Defending the indefensible as per usual naydam.Number 3 in your list mememe sums him up up more than adequately.

It is unwise to second guess trial verdicts based on the media reporting of evidence.

If it was as simple as that, all the jurors could sit at home, read the papers, watch the TV news and text in their verdict.

with house prices deciding the sentence length

Mememe. Sounds like most (if not ALL) of the jury decided that he was not guilty of the charges, whatever they were. Or do you consider that the jury are 'in on it' as well?

Twizzle. I only request that which I always try to achieve...please give due consideration to what you post and try to avoid the 'knee-jerk' responses that are the norm.

I gave my response after some consideration naydam and i only wish to confirm that you are,in my opinion, most defiantly a number 3.

Good pals with David Cameron.

Been a few of Cameron's old friends let off with otherwise jailable offences. Funny how these things work...

who you know not what you do

presumably a properly empanelled jury of his peers after due consideration of all the evidence decared him not guilty and thats how he got off.thats how it works in this country

What I don't understand is that he admitted paying for sex with a girl who was only 13 ... just because he said he thought she was 17 doesn't make her 17 ...SHE WAS 13 FFS.

I always believed that not knowing wasn't a defence.

If I ever get caught for speeding in a 30 mph zone, I'll say I thought that it was a 40 mph zone.

No difference to me than the creep saying I thought she was 17, (was 13 defence).

Clear enough Naydam?

Am I missing something here?

Would you say it was a 40mph zone even if you KNEW it was a 30mph zone? That would be an untruth. He will have given his evidence UNDER OATH.

Saying you thought she was 17 when she was 13 is EXACTLY THE SAME AS SAYING I thought it was a 40 mph limit when it was 30 mph.

What do you do for a living Naydam, is it work in Rocket Science, perhaps Brain Surgery?

Explanation here.

Raj Chada, a partner at London based solicitors Hodge Jones Allen, explains:
'If you reasonably believe the person is 16-years-old or over then you have a defence.
'If the defendant thought she was 16 with any reasonable belief then he or she is not guilty.
'All cases depend on the particular circumstances of the offence. What is potentially unusual in this case was that the complainant was very young, 13-years-old.
'I do not know the complainant's physical appearance but obviously the younger the victim is less then the less likely it is you could say in your defence that you thought she was over 16.
'If the victim is under the age of 13, then that defence cannot be used.
'What the court would weigh up is the circumstances of how they met. No doubt the defence would point to potential comments the complainer may have made, but equally they would need to take into account comments the defendant made and the claimant's age.
'Meeting on an adult website that claims to be for consenting adults aged 18 or over would support the defence case that the people on that website were over 16.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3423023/Former-Dragon-s-Den-star-Dou...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

'If the defendant thought she was 16 with any reasonable belief then he or she is not guilty.

'Meeting on an adult website that claims to be for consenting adults aged 18 or over would support the defence case that the people on that website were over 16.'

Adam Johnson's defence team now preparing the exact same defence!

Darlo beat me to it

Thank you, Darlo. Very informative.

So if you reasonably believe that speed limit is 40 mph when you're caught doing 39 mph, then you'll get away with it?

If you have evidential reason as to WHY you should believe the limit to be 40mph then that evidence should be taken into consideration.
You may, or may not, 'get away with it' as you say. That would depend upon the strength of your evidence. One cannot imply believe. You must be a reason that caused that belief.

Johnson's defence team can forget it, to my knowledge he's never been in the same room as Cameron so it's very unlikely they've ever been friends

I can tell the speed limit by the signs on the road.  I can only estimate a person's age.  The difference is obvious

Jan 29, 2016 -- 6:59PM, Lee Ho Fooks wrote:

Johnson's defence team can forget it, to my knowledge he's never been in the same room as Cameron so it's very unlikely they've ever been friends

Good old chit chat. Where's the rope? Not guilty? Technicality. Hang him high.

If he had "influential friends" perverting the course of justice he wouldn't have gone to court.  This was decided by a jury.  I suspect had he not been "famous" no charges would have been made.  Better in this instance to be a nobody.

the girl was on an adult  website promoting herself as an adult  from whaat i can see ,  unless she told him otherwise she was a minor then he can't be held to blame surely ?  thats how the jury would be directed to see it i guess.
In summary ,she shouldn't have even been on there .  It's like blaming a Lion when you put your hand in the cage and he bites it off .

"In 1983, when Smith was only 13 years old, a relationship began between her and 47-year-old Rolling Stones bassist Bill Wyman.[1][2] In a 2010 interview with the Daily Mail, Smith claimed to have started a sexual relationship with Wyman at just 14"

Beyond all reasonable doubt Bill Wyman knew Mandy Smith was only 14.  Why isn't he being charged?  Is he friends with Tony Blair?

You could say they were all at it in one way or another but does it make it right?

Margaret Thatcher was warned that senior ministers were involved in a child sex ring, a former Tory activist claims.

Anthony Gilberthorpe says he sent her a 40-page dossier in 1989 accusing Cabinet members of abusing underage boys at drug-fuelled conference parties.

Mr Gilberthorpe, who claims he was ordered to recruit boys for the ministers, says he posted the “graphic” allegations to Mrs Thatcher after befriending her.

Mr Gilberthorpe, who was a young Tory hopeful when he was asked to recruit for the parties, said: “I outlined exactly what I had witnessed and informed her I intended to expose it.

“I had met Mrs Thatcher on several occasions and even presented her with a birthday cake in 1983. I believed she had to know.”

It's getting to the stage where men will have to ask to see birth certificates. He is a dirty old goat though.

Speeding is a strict liability offence so whether or not somebody was speeding intentionally or accidentally is irrelevant.

I'm not a lawyer (I'm an accountant so fundamentally deal in logic, which seems a complex subject for some legal minds).  I used the example of speeding to illustrate the illogic (to me, anyway) of the guy getting away with having paid sex with a 13 year old child on the basis he didn't know she was 13 13, 13, 13, not 15.
Istill don't get how he can admit to it but then say in his defence was he didn't know she was 13. I always thought not knowing was no defence, but she was a 13 year old child ... not a precocious 15 year old easily taken for an 18 year old.
SHE WAS A 13 YEAR OLD CHILD FFS.

Maybe I am biased because I have 2 daughters.
He should be in jail.

You're not only biased but quite illogical. The law is clear and it has been explained to you clearly.

Meme, he also found her by searching on a "sugar daddy" site. (I don't get it either btw)

EO, I understand what I've read ...

That apparently it's ok in law if you reasonably believed a 13 year old child was 17 when you had paid sex with her.

So all you have to say "I believed that 13 year old child was 17" and you're scot free.

Doesn't make sense to me, either morally or logically.

Because you aren't thinking logically. Lawyers are trained to think logically. Accountants are trained to take their shoes and socks off and if it goes beyond twenty to get a calculator out.

I'll give you a free clue but any more and I may have to think about charging:

That apparently it's ok in law if you reasonably believed a 13 year old child was 17 when you had paid sex with her.

So all you have to say "I believed that 13 year old child was 17" and you're scot free.

Read your comments and keep reading them until one word jumps out at you. Then begin to think what that word means. Then you'll be thinking with logic old son.

EO

I'm not the first poster on here to wonder if you're not quite right.

HTH

Of course I'm not right. I'm posting on here. Have you worked out what that word is yet? I'll give you another few minutes.

Okay. Here goes.

The relevant word is reasonable. Unlike what some people may think that has nothing to do with what you think is reasonable. The Judge is known as The Tribunal Of Law. He will explain to the jury what the law is relating to the case and will give the jury instructions relating to the law. The Jury is known as The Tribunal Of Fact. They will listen to the evidence presented to them provided by both Prosecution and Defence. They are the ones who decide whether the actions or argued beliefs of this Defendant were reasonable and/or truthful.

naydam  • January 29, 2016 4:28 PM GMT 
Do you have any relevant proof of guilt, or do you just assume that a person is guilty if somebody else says so? That is a dangerous situation.

Yet another post on something you obviously know nothing about naydam.
We know he was guilty. The only thing in doubt was whether his defence of ignorance of her age would be accepted.
Now that it has it's no doubt opened the floodgates. Maybe all these celebs being charged will forward a similar defence.

Akabula. So, was he charged with UNKNOWINGLY having sex with a minor? For that, apparently, was the offence that he committed. I'm not sure that it exists in law.

Just as an aside...How can you possibly believe anything that the accuser says if she has falsely declared her age to be 18?
Once one tells a lie your word is worthless. You can never, ever be taken on trust again.

That apparently it's ok in law if you reasonably believed a 13 year old child was 17 when you had paid sex with her.

So all you have to say "I believed that 13 year old child was 17" and you're scot free.

Actually, you've complicated it. Paying to have sex with a 17-year-old is illegal, because prostitutes must be at least 18. If he'd not paid to have sex with her, then the relevant age is 16, because that is the age of consent.

So the defence needed to make two points: 1) any payment was a gift or for travel expenses but not for sex; 2) that he believed she was over the age of 16 (and here he said he thought she was 17).

Clearly the jury believed him because he was acquitted.

Having already said he's a dirty old goat I must caution people not to throw stones. I know we're all old codgers now but cast your mind back to when you were young medallion men swinging your flares around in the clubs back in the day. Did any of you bang any hot young thangs? Be careful what you wish for. You may have assumed that because she was in the club you could put your wiggler in her club but shouldn't you be hoist by the same petard? How do know she was 18? Did you ask? Did you ask for further verification?

Beware. That knock at the door may not be the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Akabula. I know virtually nothing about most things. I have never claimed otherwise...in fact, I declare my lack of knowledge on a regular basis. I frequently apologise if this leads to misunderstandings or misinterpretation of my posts.
I frequently state that thoughts or ideas are my own opinions on certain matters and are not intended to mislead.

What more can I do? I only ask that posters should spend a little time thinking before they post. Especially on some subjects (particularly Islam) That seem to develop into 'cut and paste' exercises taken from propaganda (in my opinion) sites. I assume that these sites have their own, commercially or politically based, agenda.

naydam  • January 29, 2016 9:50 PM GMT 

Akabula. So, was he charged with UNKNOWINGLY having sex with a minor? For that, apparently, was the offence that he committed. I'm not sure that it exists in law.
Just as an aside...How can you possibly believe anything that the accuser says if she has falsely declared her age to be 18?
Once one tells a lie your word is worthless. You can never, ever be taken on trust again.


What is there to believe. He admitted it. Can't you grasp that. He was guilty of having sex with someone underage.
Thereafter it was his and not the accuser who's testimony was getting judged as he claimed he thought she was older.

Does everyone with these perverse pastimes seem to have tory friends,this country is unbelievable!!

akabula - have you read any of Eeternal's post on this thread, or are you keen just to argue with naydam. Just wondering

Aka been on the sauce tonight.

Well actually I was merely pointing out to naydam that as per normal he has a go at posters without knowing the facts.
The thread itself is really incidental in that respect but thanks for the interest anyways.

Usual post Saville hysteria about anything sexual.So he's a randy middle aged fantasist,who went on a website for WOMEN AGED 18 +,and was lied to and conned. Not guilty.

There is a huge difference both physical and mental, of a girl aged 13 and one of 17.
The law is ridiculous if you can get off by saying , i thought she as older guv'.

Who would have thought that the topic of a middle aged man having sex with an underage girl would attract so much attention from chit chat's regulars

how much was he paying

I would imagine that the law, which I think pays little attention to two underage kids having sex, is intended to prevent young girls being used, exploited, groomed by older men.

I dont know that much about this case, but it seems that wasn't really the situation.

TheChaser  • January 30, 2016 12:47 PM GMT 
how much was he paying

There were 2 girls involved and he gave them £60 each although he said it was a gift and not payment for sex. Aye sure m8.

a gift fcking dancer

A few more examples here of how the working classes are not capable of logical thought.

What we had here was on one side a wealthly man visiting a website for ADULT mercenary women prepared to indulge his sexual fantasies.On the the other side we had an obviously very streetwise,deceitful 13 yr.old girl, who lied about her age (by implication),to get some "dosh" from this man,without any thought for the damage she might do to his life.It was not the first time she had done this.She was not called as a witness because her account to the police was "inconsistent with other evidence".Seems to me  she doesn't need protecting from men.Men need protecting from her !

lfc1971 - every thread you seem to be attacking the so called working class. Anytime your'e not you are having a pop at British people.

What is your problem?

He will pay by having his reputation trashed and brings theissue about anonymity back into the spotlight,are men always the guilty parties ?

This thread was made for Ebul. Where is he?

Cut his bollox off and throw it to the dogs.................

BF missing a trick here.
Could have a section in their shop selling pitchforks and lengths of rope with the BF CCDA logo on them.

British justice - the best money can buy.

Cut his bollox off and throw it to the dogs.....

Peter Jones must be absolutely livid that his brand has been tainted by association.

odd socks ?

Yes....mine have a picture of Debra Meaden's pert derriere on !

Everytime someone embraces multiculturism and attempts to culturally enrich themselves by following the principles of other cultures it always ends up badly, why do we bother.

he said he paid them nearly 500 quid for travel expenses? that's a blatant fabrication.. you can't logically believe that it would cost anywhere near that amount to travel. am i missing something?

and since when has some dodgy website that anyone could set up be used to bolster his case just because they arbitrarily state that you must be over 18 to use it? surely to be a valid legal argument the website would have to have protocols for verifying the age of those using the site?

@razz -- surely to be a valid legal argument -- it is evidence; not an automatic defence that led to the charges being dropped, but evidence that the jury apparently accepted as supporting his claim he thought they were both over the age of consent. Forgive me for not searching for this or any similar sites to check how plausible it is.

he said he paid them nearly 500 quid for travel expenses? that's a blatant fabrication.. you can't logically believe that it would cost anywhere near that amount to travel. am i missing something?

First class rail fare from Norwich to London is just over £100; there were two people; two journeys (there and back); add a taxi ride and it seems plausible.

Forgot to add link for train fares.
http://www.abelliogreateranglia.co.uk/tickets-fares/daily-tickets/advance-tickets

What abut taxi fare from Norwich to London and back?

Remember she only pays childs fare...unless she lied about her age.

Ooer...I forgot about that!