Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
But he's not a mussie ... I'm all confused now.
She was only 13!!! How do these people get away with it??
She was only 13!!! How do these people get away with it??
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 81
|
By:
old school tie network - BBC - judiciary - police - masons
|
|
By:
He only wanted 40% of an adult
 |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
I hope he does better due diligence when he invests
 |
|
By:
didnt understand the numbers and pulled out
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Defending the indefensible as per usual naydam.Number 3 in your list mememe sums him up up more than adequately.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
with house prices deciding the sentence length
|
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Good pals with David Cameron.
Been a few of Cameron's old friends let off with otherwise jailable offences. Funny how these things work... |
|
By:
who you know not what you do
|
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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-Doug-Richard-accused-having-50-Shades-Grey-sex-13-year-old-girl-CLEARED-Old-Bailey.html#ixzz3yewx9Jjb Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook |
|
By:
'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.' |
|
By:
Adam Johnson's defence team now preparing the exact same defence!
|
|
By:
Darlo beat me to it
|
|
By:
Thank you, Darlo. Very informative.
|
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
I can tell the speed limit by the signs on the road. I can only estimate a person's age. The difference is obvious
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Good old chit chat. Where's the rope? Not guilty? Technicality. Hang him high.
 |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 . |
|
By:
"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? |
|
By:
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.” |
|
By:
It's getting to the stage where men will have to ask to see birth certificates. He is a dirty old goat though.
|
|
By:
Speeding is a strict liability offence so whether or not somebody was speeding intentionally or accidentally is irrelevant.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
You're not only biased but quite illogical. The law is clear and it has been explained to you clearly.
|
|
By:
Meme, he also found her by searching on a "sugar daddy" site. (I don't get it either btw)
|