You might be interested (especially if you Edit the Guardian)…

www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=170...aims_of_sex_offences

Good piece, but I found the following part jarred :

I'm 100% supportive of the Guardian campaign to stop rape and to lock up real rapists. Not just violent rape. My personal morality dictates that it's wrong to get a woman into bed by telling her you love her when you don't

It comes across to me as though you are suggesting that men who have sex with women and don't commit to them 100% are rapists who deserve to be locked up.

I would guess that a majority of false rape accusations currently are of that nature (the woman feels cheated that she let a man have sex with her too easily, thinking he was more comitted to her than he was).

It would certainly be a novel way to cut down on the number of false rape accusations. Then again, by inflating the definition of rape so ludicrously, it would leave just about any man open to a rape conviction.

What next, stoning to death for adultory?

What about women who 'promise to love, honour, and obey' their husbands, demand 100% exclusive committment for years or decades, and then dump him for a richer man, taking the kids with her, as well as half of his income?

Should they be considered rapists, or something akin to rapists?

Good point Micro; I should have made it clear that I don't regard seducers as rapists and I don't even mean that my particular morality should apply to anyone else. As far as being honest with women (and males); apart from any morality I've always found it easier to let anyone I'd like to get involved with exactly where I stand, so, if it doesn't fit their view, they can choose to say "no thanks". Which has happened many times (and some of my closest friends are those I wanted to seduce, failed but became friends instead).

No, my main point, which I know you agree with, is that the word "rape" has now become so blurry and confusing that it is destroying lives unintended by both parties.

JK2006 wrote:
Good point Micro; I should have made it clear that I don't regard seducers as rapists and I don't even mean that my particular morality should apply to anyone else. As far as being honest with women (and males); apart from any morality I've always found it easier to let anyone I'd like to get involved with exactly where I stand, so, if it doesn't fit their view, they can choose to say "no thanks". Which has happened many times (and some of my closest friends are those I wanted to seduce, failed but became friends instead).

No, my main point, which I know you agree with, is that the word "rape" has now become so blurry and confusing that it is destroying lives unintended by both parties.

What we used to call "being taken advantage of" is now rape, and showing yourself in the best light to a prospective partner is called grooming,even though I cant imagine anyone inviting someone new around to see them lying on the couch in pyjamas and eating mars bars half the day, even if it is a more accurate picture of themselves.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573938...amp;ns_campaign=1490

Well, perhaps the Mail is right and people should be presumed guilty until or unless they can prove their innocence. But Editor Dacre may find that at the moment, legally, it is meant to be the other way around.

The article as written by an ignoramus! When did stating the law become "shocking" for goodness sake?

I see John-Thomas (the gift to satire that just keeps on giving) has denounced "Paedophile King" for defending "another Child Abuser" and even brought old Adolf into the equation!

Chris Retro wrote:
I see John-Thomas (the gift to satire that just keeps on giving) has denounced "Paedophile King" for defending "another Child Abuser" and even brought old Adolf into the equation!


Gosh. Wouldn't you think someone calling themselves a child protection expert would check the definition of "paedophile" and read the article before commenting?
However, the prison piece was unfortunately written so it could be easily distorted and you cant blame ordinary folk for getting the wrong impression about Mr king's view.

Slater & Moron getting in on the act now too (quelle surprise)
Liz Dux - S&G ‏@LizDuxLawyer 4h
Convicted paedophile Jonathan King claims Savile was innocent .Not content with traumatising his own victims,he wants to distress others .

Chris Retro wrote:
Slater & Moron getting in on the act now too (quelle surprise)
Liz Dux - S&G ‏@LizDuxLawyer 4h
Convicted paedophile Jonathan King claims Savile was innocent .Not content with traumatising his own victims,he wants to distress others .

It is worrying when a lawyer thinks it is acceptable to convict without trial!

Chris Retro wrote:
Slater & Moron getting in on the act now too (quelle surprise)
Liz Dux - S&G ‏@LizDuxLawyer 4h
Convicted paedophile Jonathan King claims Savile was innocent .Not content with traumatising his own victims,he wants to distress others .

I must say reading Liz Dux' stream of Twitters boasting of her success with the Savile estate makes me feel quite ill.

Why has it not dawned upon anyone that anyone can now have their estate successfully challenged ?- just wait until they die

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Chris Retro wrote:
Slater & Moron getting in on the act now too (quelle surprise)
Liz Dux - S&G ‏@LizDuxLawyer 4h
Convicted paedophile Jonathan King claims Savile was innocent .Not content with traumatising his own victims,he wants to distress others .

It is worrying when a lawyer thinks it is acceptable to convict without trial!

Can she honestly say she knows otherwise? Noo...