Jonathan,

I just wanted to tell you that I think it is awful the way the press has made you a pariah. I totally agree that what you were convicted of is not paedophilia and those that tar you with the same brush as Gary Glitter are just plain brain dead. He had pictures of children - you were convicted of sex with 14 and 15 year olds who returned voluntarily again and again to your home. I don't regard that as unwilling participation, even though the law obviously said sexual contact was illegal.

As a teenager, I grew up in a time when the gay age of consent was 21 and the law was an ass. I was having sex well under 21 years old, often with older men, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Either way, whatever the circumstances, even if you were guilty of all charges, it is still not paedophilia and I respect your contribution to music. I met you once in 1995 in Dublin as we walked to the Eurovision after party and I found you a very polite and personalble man.

Good luck to you in the future.

Michael

Thank you Mike.

Bear in mind - those teenagers returning again and again did so because nothing was happening that they objected to.
This is not saying they were desperate to be abused - it means there was no abuse going on.

Which is why the police had to force down their ages and pretend they were under 16.

We managed to prove, again and again, that they were over 16 when they came around (if they did - several never knew me at all).

Imagine how hard that is - we are dealing with events 30 years ago.

Why should anyone have to "prove" they are innocent. The UK law used to be "innocent UNTIL PROVED guilty"

What a load of rubbish. If there was doubt ( as there would be after 30 years ) about age in all of this then the case should have been thrown out.

Again in UK Law the prosecution have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

The main reason for prosecution was the AGE issue - and if they could not prove BEYOND REASONABLE doubt ( e.g hard evidence }

I seem to recall that Michael Howard made changes to the law so that the burden of proof was reduced in cases of alleged sexual abuse, so that "victims" can have a better guarantee of "justice".

Since then things have gone from bad to worse.

So Mike, you think sex with 14 year olds is ok as long as 'they wanted it officer' ? The worrying trend continues.......

No Godiver, Mike makes it quite clear it is NOT OK as it is against the law in the UK.

We have all, always, made that 100% clear.

People may argue that it is strange that a 14 year old can be considered able to know that killing someone is wrong yet not be mature enough to decide whether or not they want sex, but that's the way the law is and we all agree it must be obeyed.

Don't try to adapt the clear message in posts to indicate anything false.

It is now guilty until proved innocent with the trial by media brigade.

Only JK knows if he is innocent of the crimes that took place. As for myself, I am one of millions of the general public that are supposed to go with a lot of the tabloid newspapers views that he is guilty and is supposedly a 'vile pervert'.

A friend of mine (who does regular quizzes/DJ'ing now, which I have participated in)worked with JK at Radio 1 in the late 70's/early 80's and had nothing but positive things to say about him. When the allegations were reported, my friend assumed they would be thrown out, however, when the guilty verdicts came in, the first thing he said was 'It is a stich up'.

Since then, having watched that awful Channel 4 documentary on JK and learning more about the case through this website, I am totally convinced it is as well. How can you prove that you watched live, the US Open Final in 1985, yet not be allowed to submit this evidence in court.

Also I do believe that if their wasn't thousands (if not millions) of people in the same position of false convictions (unfortunately not able to do anything), then JK wouldn't be lodging an appeal to help them as well. I could quite imagine if JK's appeal is successful, then the floodgates could well open.

I'll climb off my soapbox now.

Well actually Godiver-although it's not my personal taste-and despite the fact I was fairly promiscuous at 14 and did have sex with people a bit older ( who I'd dread to think may have got into trouble over it although I cannot remember who initiated what)..one must remember that in Germany the legal age is actually 14 and Japan & Italy 13 and even in some US states like New Mexico it's 14.

I always find that a very difficult concept to understand-where a person could be called a peadophile in one country but not another. And even stranger in the USA where it changes from state to state. It's a bit like being called a housebreaker in one but not the other !

Obviously the best course-always obey the law no matter what you think !

Mind you-it doesn't stop Ronnie Wood at 61 running off with his 20 year old girlfriend and you can imagine most blokes saying "go for it.."

Sex !..the one thing that makes the world go round and still the greatest mystery !!

The modern British system is built on suspicion and the assumption of guilt. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of the past. For example, we have criminal background checks, where each job applicant must first prove themselves innocent before they can be employed. The increase of surveillance suggests that we are all suspects. The government plans to include legislation to record all of our phone calls, text messages and emails in the next Queen's speech. Then there is ID cards, stop and search, stop and question, microchips placed in school uniforms and fingerprinting of children, biometric databases, etc. The list goes on.

So it is not just a person accused of a crime who must prove themselves innocent. It is something forced upon us all.

The nightmare has only begun.

R T MASON sums this new BIG BROTHER state up brilliantly - superb post.

We MUST all do something about this - even if we just visit David Icke's site each day and Alex Jones' site each day so that we are informed. Thousands around the world are now doing this.

We have entered ORWELL's nightmare scenario. I have 100% personal experience of this first hand. I research and HAD ALL MY COMPUTERS taken in February this year. There was nothing illegal on them - as you all know I dont agree with PORN of any sort because I see it as exploitation. There was no reason for them to take my computers ( two were boxed and new and had not been used ) I run my businesses on them.

I might add none of them have been returned 8 months on - despite the Police admitting there was nothing illegal on them of any sort.

This is happening all the time - the Police have provided no believable reason why they took them either. I cant afford Lawyers because I work in Music and Media - so I am at present lacking over

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

I would say that the most important requirement for all trials, before they proceed, is for the prosecution to provide proof that 1) a crime has been committed, and 2) the accused person is guilty of that crime. In many cases there is no proof of either.

In 1935 Viscount Sankey ruled that "Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained." (Woolmington vs DPP)

Unfortunately, several changes to the law and to the rights of the individual have indeed whittled it down, to the point where that famous principle no longer exists.

Maybe you should approach Citizens Advice regarding your stolen computers. If the police have no grounds for seizing your computers then, in my opinion, they have stolen them - unless you gave written permission for them to be taken.

You can demand the return of your property. If the police refuse without good reason, then you can begin action with the help of Citizens Advice who have lawyers attached to their service. You could also approach the Police Complaints Commission. However, I did make a complaint to the PCC regarding the actions of one police force, to be told that "The PCC cannot take action against the police unless the force in question agrees to it." This was quite baffling.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, and am not sure that there really is a NWO. I do know that we have a government who are precisely mirroring the policies of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. They deny it, but step by step they follow the same pattern. They will argue that the dehumanising of people on the sex offenders register is nothing like the dehumanising of the Jews, because sex offenders have committed crimes. In fact, the picture is much larger. British Law used to be straight forward. It treated all people equally; we were all innocent until proven guilty, but if proven guilty we paid a penalty and were then released back into society. However, now the law has many shadowy and blurred areas. It applies to different people in different ways.

Hitlers party used the media to help manipulate public opinion against the Jews. Labour use the media to help manipulate public opinion against people accused of sex offences.

Jews had no right to a fair trial. Changes in the law have removed the need for evidence to prove allegations of sex offences - resulting in unfair trials.

Jews had to be registered and were limited to where they could live and work. Same today with sex offenders.

The net is ever widening regarding who can be included in the sex offenders register. There is even guilt by association. The nazi party had the same policy.

First they came for the Jews, then Gypsies, then Jehovas Witnesses, and eventually anyone who did not fit the ethnic profile.

What excuse did the Nazi party use to justify their actions?
They claimed that such people were a threat to either children or national security.

They also used the claim that the Jews abused their children by the ritual of circumcision as a means of controlling opinions.

It is all so familiar. And there is much more to come.

Paranoid?
If only I was!

Anyone who reads mikes post can see what he is saying.

How about a hands up if you think sex with a 14 year old is ok? JK, you may state that everyone agrees with the law but that is simply not true of many posters. the legal age in other countries is wheeled out at the drop of a hat on this site.

I'm not a robot who obeys all laws as told but i have personal views on right and wrong that seem to differ from others on this post.

I'm also not commenting on your situation JK. If i had to hazard a guess i would say that you are a victim of a shoddy system rather than anything evil (whatever that means) but other posters seem to infer that and rant accordingly, the very sin you accuse me of.

Excellent post Godiver. Nothing more to add.

20 year old's are generally classed as adults worldwide as far as i'm aware??

No Godiver - there is a difference between saying that the law should be obeyed (now they have been forced to equalise the ages of consent) and discussing what that age should be.

Other countries have other ages of consent; some lower, some higher. It is a fair topic for discussion.

Indeed, in some countries ANY gay sex is totally illegal. Muslim countries for example.

There is no point on sneering at others who simply disagree with certain attitudes. We can agree or disagree but we are all entitled to opinions.

And the other topic - the subtle stitching up of certain people in order to inflame tabloid anger - is an equally valid discussion.

And I am entitled to my opinions too which are all i am stating. I add that you are always very generous in advocating free speech by posting some peoples blatant ignorance on a frequent basis.

I also believe that patronising is the equal of sneering, although i am not sure i was sneering at anyone. Do muslims not like gays? i totally, like, did not know that dude!

I'm not looking to trample on anyones opinion, just curious about what some of these comments in some of these posts actually mean?

I think most of the posts on this forum are fairly straight forward.

It's better to debate a subject and try to understand it, than to ignore it completely and remain ignorant.

Except when i'm continuing the debate?

Your post appears devoid of any meaning Denise.

Godiver wrote:
Except when i'm continuing the debate?

Your post appears devoid of any meaning Denise.
I'm confused by what point you are making - genuinely and sincerely.

For the meanings of people's posts, I don't think we have anyone championing a reduction in the age of consent but there has certainly been a debate on how arbitrary 16 can seem.

There is a problem that somebody writing we should understand the issues, to an extent, has to then appear whiter than white least aspersions are cast. This does make some posters appear unnecessarily defensive and/or evasive.

Of course you are right and I wasn't implying that Ronnie Wood was doing anything illegal.

I really should have made it clearer-it was more a comment on the varying degrees of outrage about sex.
Ronnie's 40 years old than his girlfriend..no problem for me...I couldn't give a damn but some of the great sex moralisers would be outraged. Not the tabloids of course as in this case-it's all good copy.