Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Major news - police to be probed on handling of past sex abuse allegations
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Jo wrote:
If this has anything to do with the Elm Guesthouse rumours, one of the people who appears to be behind them was sentenced to 12 months for involvement in a boiler room scam, where scammers spin stories about fake investments. He can be seen in two YouTube videos telling gruesome stories to B. Maloney, who seems only too happy to listen.
I wonder how many of the people driving this have criminal records or a grudge against the police. They would surely find it fun to spin stories that have to be taken seriously and get the police into trouble for not listening to stories they didn't hear before.
It could also stem partly from misunderstandings and gossip. If someone spoke of "underage" parties in the sixties or seventies (correctly for the time) it is easy to see how forty years later the same statement was understood to mean actual children.
and therein lies many a problem.
we have rent boys & girls (some underage and some legal age) now classed as 'one size fits all' victims and history is re-written.
and of course many were victims of a society where poverty was/is rife,social services underfunded, couples having children when they completely unsuited to be parents etc etc.
trying to correct the ills of 1950s thru 90s via 2015 thinking.
there will be no money keft in till at end. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Jo wrote:
If this has anything to do with the Elm Guesthouse rumours, one of the people who appears to be behind them was sentenced to 12 months for involvement in a boiler room scam, where scammers spin stories about fake investments. He can be seen in two YouTube videos telling gruesome stories to B. Maloney, who seems only too happy to listen.
I wonder how many of the people driving this have criminal records or a grudge against the police. They would surely find it fun to spin stories that have to be taken seriously and get the police into trouble for not listening to stories they didn't hear before.
It could also stem partly from misunderstandings and gossip. If someone spoke of "underage" parties in the sixties or seventies (correctly for the time) it is easy to see how forty years later the same statement was understood to mean actual children. |
|
Jo |
If this has anything to do with the Elm Guesthouse rumours, one of the people who appears to be behind them was sentenced to 12 months for involvement in a boiler room scam, where scammers spin stories about fake investments. He can be seen in two YouTube videos telling gruesome stories to B. Maloney, who seems only too happy to listen.
I wonder how many of the people driving this have criminal records or a grudge against the police. They would surely find it fun to spin stories that have to be taken seriously and get the police into trouble for not listening to stories they didn't hear before. |
|
JK2006 |
Correct Sasha but two points - my arrest was two days before the age of consent was equalised at 16 through Europe insisting. I'm pretty certain police were 100% aware that I'd never had sex with anybody under 16. And the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933, never repealed (to my knowledge) defines a child as "a person under 14". Those over 14 are defined as "young persons".
However, interestingly, the Sex Offenders Register assumes (I'm not sure it's official) that a child is "a person under 18".
So I am not allowed to work with 16 or 17 year olds although I am legally allowed to have sex with them (not that any would want to have sex with me). |
|
Sasha |
20 year olds were considered minors until 1969 in the UK. The definition of a child was an under 14 (although I'm not sure if it was even a legal definition or of any great importance).
Homosexuality was criminalized in the 1885 Criminal Amendment Act - an act campaigned for mainly by suffragettes (i.e. feminist puritans). The same act also raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 (for heterosexuals), as well as criminalizing prostitution. The aim of the suffragettes was actually to raise it to 21, but even having it raised to 16 was a struggle and met a lot of resistance in parliament, only finally achieving success after a manufactured and now discredited tabloid moral panic over 'white slavery'. This was in an era in which girls started puberty at 17, and which the common view was that they were 'ruined' by pre-marital sex.
In the 1960's the age of consent set at 16 was being increasingly seen as a Victorian irrelevance, just as homosexuality was. You just have to watch a Carry On film or any number of movies, tv shows from that period for proof of this.
I doubt very much homosexuals of the time strictly observed age of consent laws which had no application to them, which were seen as irrelevant for heterosexuals, and set by the same backward Victorian puritans who had criminalized homosexuality.
Unless of course they had access to crystal balls or some other form of liberal progressive divination and could confidently predict that in the year 2015, the standard moral view would be that sex with minors is the worst crime possible (but minors as defined in 2015, not 1965) and that the morality of the year 2015 should be the morality to live by in 1965, regardless of the morality or actual law in 1965. |
|
|
|
