angel wrote:
Blackit wrote:
robbiex wrote:
Blackit wrote:

Up until the NuLabor's sex offences bill of 2003, it was almost impossible to prosecute a man for having sex with a 14 year old girl if both she and her parents consented. Until 2003, for most intents and purposes, the age of consent in the UK was 14.

How many parents of a 14 year old girl, in their right minds, would consent to them having sex with an adult male, in this case a man in his 30s.

Then why didn't her parents have Glitter arrested?

Many parents of 14 year old girls would allow their daughters to have sex with men in their 30's. The parents of Mandy Smith were happy with their 13 year old daughter being banged by Bill Wyman. In Germany and Austria, where the age of consent is 14 with parents consent, it used to be extremely common for 14 year old girls to be with men in their 30's. Not that any of this has any relevance to the point I was making, which was to explain that what Glitter was alledgedly doing was pretty much legal at the time if the parents of the girl were happy with it.

And how do you come by these stats? Apparently its legal to have sex with kids once they leave school but that doesn't mean 3.30pm.

Did you just fart again?

And where do you and Robbie come by the stat that NO parent in their right mind would let their 14 year old daughter have sex with a man in his 30's? A stat that's so apparently obvious and intuitive that once again, all you need to to is verbally fart to reveal my ridiculous cognitive distortion making?

My stat from my own eyes when I lived in germany and saw many girls that age with boyfriends in their 30's - presumably with parental consent, as that is basically what defines the age of consent there from the age of 14.

And as we've talked about her previously, and JK will confirm, in the 70's and 80's it wasn't exactly a rarity for hetereosexual rock stars to be bedding 14 and 15 year old groupies.

You both seem unable to read. Although I have no hesitation in stating that I believe that the age of consent should be no higher than 14 (take some charcoal or bodymint before you reply, please), I was simply pointing out that, once again, ignorent people are projecting 21st century paedohysteria onto what was a very different situation 2 or 3 decades ago. I was stating a fact, not an evaluative judgement, that until 2003, a man was unlikely to be arrested or prosecuted for having a 14 year old girlfriend, so long as neither the girl or her parents made a complaint to the police.

Apparently its legal to have sex with kids once they leave school but that doesn't mean 3.30pm

Yea, and no doubt you'd like the age of consent raised to 25 with summary firing squads for any men who break it. As I said, turkeys will never vote for christmas.

Talking of Gary, I wonder if the detailed examination of News of the World payments will reveal any donations to young Asian persons in return for statements or allegations... um, I mean "stories".

And I wonder if there were any payments to Vietnamese or Cambodian or Thai police officers? A crime under US laws, of course.

JK2006 wrote:
Talking of Gary, I wonder if the detailed examination of News of the World payments will reveal any donations to young Asian persons in return for statements or allegations... um, I mean "stories".

And I wonder if there were any payments to Vietnamese or Cambodian or Thai police officers? A crime under US laws, of course.

You do get the feeling that all those facts that might help Gary will be 'lost'.
Let's face facts the government don't like the truth!
And on the subject how much did they pay the photoshop artist for the park pics? doubt that will come out in the wash too.

Problem is we knew the Police were corrupt before this. And this will never correct the Police as Murdoch is a better target. Glitter will be 'scum' forever.