Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 81 comments are related to the topic:
Ex-Dragons' Den star cleared of child sex offences
Ex-Dragons' Den star cleared of child sex offences
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 81
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.  |
|
By:
EO
I'm not the first poster on here to wonder if you're not quite right. HTH |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Does everyone with these perverse pastimes seem to have tory friends,this country is unbelievable!!
 |
|
By:
akabula - have you read any of Eeternal's post on this thread, or are you keen just to argue with naydam. Just wondering
|
|
By:
Aka been on the sauce tonight.
 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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'. |
|
By:
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
 |
|
By:
how much was he paying
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.  |
|
By:
a gift
fcking dancer |
|
By:
A few more examples here of how the working classes are not capable of logical thought.
|
|
By:
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 !
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
He will pay by having his reputation trashed and brings theissue about anonymity back into the spotlight,are men always the guilty parties ?
|
|
By:
This thread was made for Ebul. Where is he?
|
|
By:
Cut his bollox off and throw it to the dogs.................
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
British justice - the best money can buy.
|
|
By:
Cut his bollox off and throw it to the dogs.....
|
|
By:
Peter Jones must be absolutely livid that his brand has been tainted by association.
|
|
By:
odd socks ?
|
|
By:
Yes....mine have a picture of Debra Meaden's pert derriere on !
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
@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. |
|
By:
Forgot to add link for train fares.
http://www.abelliogreateranglia.co.uk/tickets-fares/daily-tickets/advance-tickets |
|
By:
What abut taxi fare from Norwich to London and back?
|