I found it to be a good read and it seems that the reporter has researched the facts of your case as well.

Fingers crossed for next year.

Not a bad article even though he still has digs at you and the headline that includes the word "pervert".

He says you miss the point re the underage thing..but it's really the journo who misses the point.

As the age of consent in the UK was reduced to 16, similar happened in Australia after a Royal Commission but as some lawyers at that commission pointed out-all gay sex was illegal until about 1983 athough rarely prosecuted so all gay people were breaking the law before that date.

An attempt was made to use this matter against a still sitting High Court Judge, Justice Kirby-a highly respected world renowned jurist after he quietly included in his Who's Who record the name of his long time Dutch lover..ie: he came out. Newspapers went bananas demanding he be removed from the bench but one QC at the Royal Commission then stated that he too was gay (although common knowledge)and had been breaking the law since he was 14 and demanded the police arrest him immediately.

The whole matter died within a week or so.

Don't you think "Vile Perverts" is a great name for a band ?

It seems from the article that JK is admitting to sleeping with boys/girls under the age of 16? Have i read the article wrong JK?

Yes you have read it wrong Godiver and several of those who don't like the piece feel that is what it implies.

I thought my accurately quoted remark about the age of 16 made it clear that I was not one of those who enjoyed the younger groupies, but some feel that is not made clear.

And to be fair he did call me in order to make my point more clear. I thought I'd done that effectively but it seems not.

So for the record - the only age of consent law I broke was the one making it a crime to go with anyone under 21. And as I gather, if both parties were over 16 and no complaint was made within twelve months, such act ceased to be a crime, I can say I never broke the law at all.

Yes, I read your words twice before I knew what you meant. You admit to breaking the laws re- age of consent which, at the time, was 21. The meaning is confused by other comments about some pop stars sleeping with 14 yr olds, and you do use the word "we". I think most people will read what they want, or expect, it to mean.

Interestingly, when I wrote my piece on the "revolting unsigned", a friend advised me to not include the bit where I mention that you'd been number one in the Fab Chart. "It'll never be widely accepted," he said. "I'm just reporting a fact," I replied. Plus, it helped to make a valid point about new freedoms in the music market.

I hope things work out well next year.

good point godiver but i think it comes across pretty well - jk is clearly saying that everybody was doing it but that he didn't do it with the men convicted.

cut and dried i'd say.

lots of very red faces for 08!

Does look as if they're clearing the ground for an appeal sucess.
At least Sky News is close enough to admitting you'll suceed,the Sun will probally do an Ostrich,but with its head stuck between Sam Fox's....talking of which how many 16 year old girls have appeared nude in the Sun?

Excuse me SE, some of us have had our heads...

That's quite enough! ED

I still felt that it was still a positive piece on you and at least he did contact you regarding the consent law regarding clarification.

That was the only element where I felt it was slightly unfair. Maybe he didn't understand it.

We all have opinions on what has occured, for what it's worth, I think that JK is innocent and in 2008, he will have his convictions quashed.

Too many unsafe convictions and you can imagine the Pandora's Box it will open, when JK is acquited (apologies for spelling).