King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Randall wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]MWTW wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]Randall wrote:[/b]
[quote]Oh yes, I forgot to post my second question... Does anyone know what proportion of these meeting after grooming prosecutions involve an actual under 16 year old, and what proportion are for attempting to meet someone who doesn't exist?

My guess is that the former are extremely rare.[/quote]

In 2007 2008 around 270 men jailed for attempts to me an under 16 year old all of those were police officers not real people. I hope that helps.[/quote]

No, sorry it doesn't help  :laugh:

Convictions for the [i]attempted[/i] version of s.15 will almost all be entrapments. That's why it's the attempted version.

I suppose there might be occasions where a real child is involved but the "criminal" is intercepted on the way to the rendezvous, but I doubt there are many such cases. I'd like to know how many of these there were, AND how many substantive s.15 convictions there are where there is an actual child being met.

Also, are you sure that all the entrappers were police? No vigilantes? Seems unlikely.

And lastly, what's your source?[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Woman rapes child? 2 years.
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Randall	MWTW wrote: Randall wrote: Oh yes, I forgot to post my second question... Does anyone know what proportion of these meeting after grooming prosecutions involve an actual under 16 year old, and what proportion are for attempting to meet someone who doesn't exist? My guess is that the former are extremely rare. In 2007 2008 around 270 men jailed for attempts to me an under 16 year old all of those were police officers not real people. I hope that helps. No, sorry it doesn't help Convictions for the attempted version of s.15 will almost all be entrapments. That's why it's the attempted version. I suppose there might be occasions where a real child is involved but the "criminal" is intercepted on the way to the rendezvous, but I doubt there are many such cases. I'd like to know how many of these there were, AND how many substantive s.15 convictions there are where there is an actual child being met. Also, are you sure that all the entrappers were police? No vigilantes? Seems unlikely. And lastly, what's your source?
Bookworm	In my view MWT is likely complicit in covering up crime if he is using diversion tactics and claiming he has evidence when he does not. He does for covering up crime what the idiot brigade do for covering up phone hacking. Pure fantasist and all of the officials who allow him and them to continue should be taken to task. They are all skewing the true course of justice and benefit from it in some way. It is there for all to see.
MWTW	Randall wrote: Oh yes, I forgot to post my second question... Does anyone know what proportion of these meeting after grooming prosecutions involve an actual under 16 year old, and what proportion are for attempting to meet someone who doesn't exist? My guess is that the former are extremely rare. In 2007 2008 around 270 men jailed for attempts to me an under 16 year old all of those were police officers not real people. I hope that helps.
hedda	Misa wrote: Randall's apparently 'fundamentalist' position on these issues seems to be: a) generally consistent b) fair and sensible hedda raises a very interesting point:The whole meaning of the word peedeofile is an adult attracted to non-sexual or prepubescent children and the attraction is for that very reason.. This does seem disurbing but, if what you've said is accurate, does that suggest that such an interest can be 'non-sexual'? Do we have any idea just how many cases there are in the UK each year of genuine sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child? But, wise hedda, are you not being incautious when you repeat the line that:around 95% of abuse happens within the family or through a friend of the family. Abuse does not equal sexual abuse, does it? And how on earth could we know that this 95% figure is accurate? I actually mean the children were "non-sexually active" ..all shrinks who talk to true peedeofiles know that it's the sheer innocence of children that attracts them...as opposed to an adult who has it off with a teenager who is sexually active. Yes the 95% statistic is questionable because we don;t really know what the figures are but that is the recorded child abuse figures and even those dodgy "charities" will tell you the real problem is most child abuse happens within a family or via a family friend. Doesn't make it less awful but makes it bloody complicated because of family dynamics. ## a good point that needs discussion but is ignored: is mental or physical abuse far more damaging than perhaps the one-off sexual abuse?. I say it probably has far more reaching damaging effects upon the victims. It's why I abhor those "charities" that claim rape of child abuse "ruins your life"..a claim that can become self -fulfilling. ### And as my favourite feminist Germaine Greer says..why should rape or abuse victims remain anonymous as though something terribly shameful has happened to them?. they should be able to shout it from the rooftops ! I mean if you were injured in a car accident through no fault of your own you aren't told you should keep it a secret?
Randall	Oh yes, I forgot to post my second question... Does anyone know what proportion of these meeting after grooming prosecutions involve an actual under 16 year old, and what proportion are for attempting to meet someone who doesn't exist? My guess is that the former are extremely rare.