[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

Tommy Robinson spoke out about under age girls being raped and marrying adults. He was labelled a racist by all the virtue signallers. Now calling him a racist was an excuse.

Who has said that was right?.... nobody!
The fact that you have outed yourself as totally ignorant to what contitutes as abuse are you sure these girls were actually abused?.... many of them referred to their abusers as boyfriends so that's ok isn't it? ...

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Who has said that was right?.... nobody!
The fact that you have outed yourself as totally ignorant to what contitutes as abuse are you sure these girls were actually abused?.... many of them referred to their abusers as boyfriends so that's ok isn't it? ...

Have you ever thought you are the ignorant one? And what I said was correct?

Rape is an act carried out forcibly or under a threat, or without consent.

This wasn't rape, it was sex with a minor.

You can argue about it until the cows come home, but you're still wrong.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Josy

I really do despair at this type of comment.

It doesnt matter if it was a different era, if there was lot of it about, if the child (yes a child) liked older men etc etc it's wrong, it's illegal, its abuse, its statutory rape and it being excused or made out to be not so bad and so on in any way at all is ****ing disgusting.

No one said it was right Josy,I was just sayng how it was back then,from what I have been told,it was wrong but it was the norm then I believe, times move on and that can be a good thing,I was not condoning it at all, as I said I would not be happy with my 16 year old girl dating a 33 year old but if they want to do it they will, they don't care if its wrong.people are calling for 16 year olds to get the vote hence they must think teenagers are mature enough to know what the world is about and I am sure I knew at 16 having sex underage was wrong aswell, yes men take advantage, but some girls are willing to let them, I never once said t was ok.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Josy

I really do despair at this type of comment.

It doesnt matter if it was a different era, if there was lot of it about, if the child (yes a child) liked older men etc etc it's wrong, it's illegal, its abuse, its statutory rape and it being excused or made out to be not so bad and so on in any way at all is ****ing disgusting.

Talking about what was acceptable in the past and how it was viewed does not make it right and it does not make the person talking about the mindset of the past wrong.

[thesheriff443]

Look grown men are marrying 8 year old girls with th the full backing of her parents.

Will we ever live in a world where girls women are treated equal, no

[Alf]

White English girls are being raped in the tens of thousands, and the Police, Social services, and likely, politicians deliberately ignored it. Sacrificed those girls.

You wanna speak out? then speak out.

[Oliver_W]

When it comes to "Classic" Rock stars and groupies, I think the lines are more blurred than instances such as Epstein, or Hollywood creeps like Weinstein - it's not like she was forced to be a groupie, or someone with power over their career used blackmail. Jagger was probably high af at the time, should he have asked to see her ID?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

When it comes to "Classic" Rock stars and groupies, I think the lines are more blurred than instances such as Epstein, or Hollywood creeps like Weinstein - it's not like she was forced to be a groupie, or someone with power over their career used blackmail. Jagger was probably high af at the time, should he have asked to see her ID?

So anyone who is high should be excused of having sex with a minor? Being high profile should make these stars more aware....but they think their money and fame excuse any indiscretions....she wouldn't have looked twice at mick Jagger had he not been famous.

The age if consent in the UK has been 16 since 1865 so I don't buy it was a different era, it had still been illegal for.over 100 years

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

So anyone who is high should be excused of having sex with a minor? Being high profile should make these stars more aware....but they think their money and fame excuse any indiscretions....she wouldn't have looked twice at mick Jagger had he not been famous.

The age if consent in the UK has been 16 since 1865 so I don't buy it was a different era, it had still been illegal for.over 100 years

I didn't say it should be excused - if he hit on her in a coffee shop on a Tuesday afternoon, I'd say he's unequivocally a creeper. But when he had impaired judgement, in a situation where he expected to only meet adults, and was presented with someone who wanted sex, it wasn't unreasonable for him to assume she was of age.

[smudgie]

So, she says he didn’t know she was underage, she wanted to experience being a groupie, she had been sleeping around so knew what she was doing.
They remained friends for years.
Hmmm, difficult one to prove as rape, all pivots on him knowing her age or not really.

[Alf]

Statutory rape definition: Sex with a minor. Exactly what I said.

Rape definition is different, adults can be raped.

[thesheriff443]

If it was all statutory rape , you would not get people be charged with, sex with some one under the age of consent.

It happens a lot on here, when a member of the opposition sex to the the person in the thread title gives there opinion on the case that is not the same as everyone else, they get grief from others on here claiming they are defending the person responsible for a crime.

Same as if a man gives his opinion on sexism, he must be sexist because he is a man.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

If it was all statutory rape , you would not get people be charged with, sex with some one under the age of consent.

It happens a lot on here, when a member of the opposition sex to the the person in the thread title gives there opinion on the case that is not the same as everyone else, they get grief from others on here claiming they are defending the person responsible for a crime.

Same as if a man gives his opinion on sexism, he must be sexist because he is a man.

Or its because they're arguing about the semantics of peadophilia

Mick Jagger ****ed someone who was under age, it doesn't matter if the girl was willing, she was underage and could not give consent. I'd argue the same if it was a female teacher who'd done the same with a teenage boy.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Dia.

Or its because they're arguing about the semantics of peadophilia

Mick Jagger ****ed someone who was under age, it doesn't matter if the girl was willing, she was underage and could not give consent. I'd argue the same if it was a female teacher who'd done the same with a teenage boy.

You can white wash it I’m afraid it’s a crime but it falls into a different category.

Having sex with someone who is under age is wrong but even in the eyes of the law it’s falls into different categories depending on the circumstances of each case.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

You can white wash it I’m afraid it’s a crime but it falls into a different category.



Having sex with someone who is under age is wrong but even in the eyes of the law it’s falls into different categories depending on the circumstances of each case.

Its statutory rape. Why are people so adamant it isnt....

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Josy

Its statutory rape. Why are people so adamant it isnt....

Because it’s not, people are charged with, having sex with someone under the age of consent or cohersing a minor into having sex.

[thesheriff443]

You can kill someone and it’s not always classed as murder.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

You can kill someone and it’s not always classed as murder.

Its 2 different crimes so that's a pretty poor comparison

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Josy

Its 2 different crimes so that's a pretty poor comparison

No it’s not in the eyes of the law you can have the same thing happen but under different surcumstanes.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

No it’s not in the eyes of the law you can have the same thing happen but under different surcumstanes.

Yes I know that.

Doesnt change the fact that Jagger committed statutory rape.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Josy

Yes I know that.

Doesnt change the fact that Jagger committed statutory rape.

No in the eyes of the law the charge will be having sex with someone under the age of concent because even tho she agreed to have sex she was under the legal age of consent

[Josy]

Why do people even care about name of it it just comes across like attempting to defend or make it seem somehow less horrible

[Jake.]

Originally Posted by Josy

Why do people even care about name of it it just comes across like attempting to defend or make it seem somehow less horrible

Exactly the point I feel

[Josy]

The Age of Consent in*United Kingdom is 16 years old. ... Individuals aged 15 or younger in*United Kingdom*are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for*statutory rape*or the equivalent local law.

Again why the hell do people seem more interested in what the crime is called rather than what he done.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Josy

Again why the hell do people seem more interested in what the crime is called rather than what he done.

I’m done

Looks like you’ve nothing else to do but go around in circles winding people up ..


Crazy thing is .... we’re all on the same team !!!’

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro