Quote:
Originally Posted by Shasown
Sorry mate but in this country as well as numerous others the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Innocent till proven guilty and all that.
You care to back up your gossip or speculation with any proof at all?
Any sort of evidence?
Other than your suspicions?
Nope, thought not.
|
who cares? You don't have evidence regards the ages of the numerous boys he went with either and thats what it comes down to.
And I'm not trying to persuade anybody. Think whatever you choose. The paedo accusations have hung over him like a black cloud for over a century so Im not making any exclusive revelations here! As Ive said all the literature surrounding him is littered with quotes and references about his numerous sexual encounters with rentboys and servants. If you choose to read all that and romanticise it thats your problem. Fact is, he lusted after boys.
But as he's been a corpse for over 100 years I don't think we need worry about children being sexually abused by him at this point.
and you yourself even suggested the random age group 15-19. So if you think 15 then I don't see why you struggle to think boys lower than that age is a great stretch. Especially when soliciting boys in the underground world of Victorian gay prostitution. But even a 15 year old is a boy btw so you have actually agreed he had sexual encounters with boys.
seems the only difference between us is that you seem sure he imposed a strict minimum age rule of 15 whereas I say its very probable he went with even younger.
Maybe we should do a poll of how many people think a 40 year old man having sex with 15 year old boys make him a paedo?
But whatever.