Paedophiles

Forums Forums TV Newsroom Paedophiles

This topic contains 22 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Forum Member 11 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #28878 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant
    #28879 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    A lot has been reported by the news about paedophiles.

    So why also are they not including Men & Women that have sex with minors, even if the child is 15 years and 364 days old and the other is 16 this is still illegal.

    I have seen in the past two years family’s of children as young as 11 a case of an 11, 13 and 17 year old that has mothered children, some of them 2 before the age of 16.

    This was in a national newspaper, it’s one of thousands of under 16 year olds that fall pregnant.

    A teacher who was female infact 2 were prosecuted for having a relatioship with minors, it seemed to fizzle away.

    I don’t hear of or read about any prosecutions or jail terms when a Man or Woman that is a major having sex with a minor.

    #28880 Reply

    daved2424
    Participant

    Paedophillia is different to consenting intercourse, underage or not.

    #28881 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    daved2424+Jan 17 2006, 05:03 PM–>(daved2424 @ Jan 17 2006, 05:03 PM)
    Paedophillia is different to consenting intercourse, underage or not.

    Not it isn’t, a person over 16 having sex with or holding lude images of a child under 16 is paedophilia.

    #28882 Reply

    daved2424
    Participant

    Yes, but is a different degree.

    #28883 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    daved2424+Jan 17 2006, 10:57 PM–>(daved2424 @ Jan 17 2006, 10:57 PM)
    Yes, but is a different degree.

    No, it’s an adult having underaged sexual intercourse.

    It’s paedophilia, no different degree the adult should know better.

    #28884 Reply

    daved2424
    Participant

    So if I have sex with a girl of 15 tonight, who claims she is 16 and is consenting, is the same as me downloading thousands of images of young children, maybe even toddlers, and assaulting, and perhaps even raping, the odd one here or there? Get a grip.

    #28885 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    daved2424+Jan 18 2006, 10:51 AM–>(daved2424 @ Jan 18 2006, 10:51 AM)
    So if I have sex with a girl of 15 tonight, who claims she is 16 and is consenting, is the same as me downloading thousands of images of young children, maybe even toddlers, and assaulting, and perhaps even raping, the odd one here or there? Get a grip.

    Yes having sex with a minor is rape and means if you’re an adult then you are behaving as a paedophile.

    If you download indecent images of children then you should be jailed also.

    I did not start this thread on downloading paedophilic images.

    If you wish to start such a thread then off you go and type, don’t change the subject of the thread, Trolls are not welcome.

    #28886 Reply

    daved2424
    Participant

    Right this isn’t difficult to get. You started off the topic asking why they recieve different levels of coverage, I responded by explaining the different levels of paedophillia and explaing why different stories recieve different levels of coverage.

    You are viewing paedophillia with blinkers on. All paedophillia is illegal and I do not dispute that, but what I am saying is there are different levels of sickness when it come to paedophilles.

    You also mention “behaving as a paedophille”. Yes, in the scenario I presented you are “behaving as a paedophille” but you are not knowingly, and to the very best of your knowledge, committing a crime. That is why this scenario is far less sicking as child rape and is why different levels of media coverage are given.

    Is that simple enough now?

    #28887 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    A paedophile is a paedophile.

    Any one that aquires indecent images of minors for their self gratification or has illegal sex with a minor is a paedophile.

    There is no level, that is making excuses.

    #28888 Reply

    daved2424
    Participant

    Thank god you are not a judge or a tv news producer.

    #28889 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    daved2424+Jan 18 2006, 09:37 PM–>(daved2424 @ Jan 18 2006, 09:37 PM)
    Thank god you are not a judge or a tv news producer.

    You should not show disrespect to your creator, it’s G-d.

    You may have set your morals lower than a sewer pipe, don’t expect everyone to behave how Dogs behave.

    If there were more people like myself running this country and sitting as magistrates or wigged judges, this country and society would be a better more tolerant society.

    Paedophilia is never to be tolerated.

    #28890 Reply

    daved2424
    Participant

    1. God is not my creator, so please do not preach your religion to me. I do not preach mine to you and I would appreciate it if you did the same.

    2. Not once, have I ever, ever, EVER said on this thread that paedophillia is acceptable. If you just opened you bloody eyes and read what I have been trying to say you would realise I have being trying to explain the answer to your question. If you look even closer, you will even notice that I have not even said I agree with the reasoning of the different coverage levels.

    3. My morals are not communicated to you through this thread.

    4. Please refrain from personal insults on a matter that you may believe you dissagree with me on, but in fact cannot tell because I have not actually expressed it here.

    5. I have never once said paedophillia should be tolerated.

    6. THINK before you TYPE.

    #28891 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    daved2424+Jan 19 2006, 12:13 AM–>(daved2424 @ Jan 19 2006, 12:13 AM)
    1. God is not my creator, so please do not preach your religion to me. I do not preach mine to you and I would appreciate it if you did the same.

    2. Not once, have I ever, ever, EVER said on this thread that paedophillia is acceptable. If you just opened you bloody eyes and read what I have been trying to say you would realise I have being trying to explain the answer to your question. If you look even closer, you will even notice that I have not even said I agree with the reasoning of the different coverage levels.

    3. My morals are not communicated to you through this thread.

    4. Please refrain from personal insults on a matter that you may believe you dissagree with me on, but in fact cannot tell because I have not actually expressed it here.

    5. I have never once said paedophillia should be tolerated.

    6. THINK before you TYPE.

    Quit being a moron.

    I am agnostic.

    You say paedophilia has different levels.

    I do think before I type.

    I don’t insult.

    I do think before I type.

    #28892 Reply

    daved2424
    Participant

    This has got to be a wind up.

    #28893 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    daved2424+Jan 19 2006, 12:36 PM–>(daved2424 @ Jan 19 2006, 12:36 PM)
    This has got to be a wind up.

    You feel wound up, do you have something to hide?

    I wonder why we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Western europe; I wonder why there are 11 year old girls giving birth to babies fathered by adults?

    No morals and laws not implemented.

    #28894 Reply

    daved2424
    Participant

    Lee Smith+Jan 19 2006, 01:36 PM–>(Lee Smith @ Jan 19 2006, 01:36 PM)
    You feel wound up, do you have something to hide?

    Are you implying something?

    #28895 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    daved2424+Jan 19 2006, 03:50 PM–>(daved2424 @ Jan 19 2006, 03:50 PM)

    Lee Smith+Jan 19 2006, 01:36 PM–>(Lee Smith @ Jan 19 2006, 01:36 PM)
    You feel wound up, do you have something to hide?

    Are you implying something?

    I didn’t imply anything, you ought to read your replies, disturbing indeed.

    #28896 Reply

    davedave99
    Participant

    leave it Dave. He’s being deliberately argumentative. You both make valid points, but we don’t (thank god, whether agnostic or whatever) live in a black and white country.

    Everything has certain degress, if you are just using the definition of paedophiles that means “an adult who is sexually attracted to children”. So if your hot date Dave does turn out to be 15 despite saying she was older and looks older does that make you a paedophile? Probably not. If you only fancied her when she told you she was 15, then yes. You are and you will burn in hell.

    Of course if you live in a place that lets you sleep with 15 year olds
    (or younger) by law…like certain southern States and other parts of the world then legally you are not a paedophile but morally perhaps yes! When is a child not a child? It’s a tough one, no easy answers, hence the never ending debate!

    #28897 Reply

    Lee Smith
    Participant

    davedave99+Jan 19 2006, 06:42 PM–>(davedave99 @ Jan 19 2006, 06:42 PM)
    leave it Dave. He’s being deliberately argumentative. You both make valid points, but we don’t (thank god, whether agnostic or whatever) live in a black and white country.

    Everything has certain degress, if you are just using the definition of paedophiles that means “an adult who is sexually attracted to children”. So if your hot date Dave does turn out to be 15 despite saying she was older and looks older does that make you a paedophile? Probably not. If you only fancied her when she told you she was 15, then yes. You are and you will burn in hell.

    Of course if you live in a place that lets you sleep with 15 year olds
    (or younger) by law…like certain southern States and other parts of the world then legally you are not a paedophile but morally perhaps yes! When is a child not a child? It’s a tough one, no easy answers, hence the never ending debate!

    I am not being argumentative.

    The United Kingdom is not a southern state of the United States.

    The United States also has laws against under aged sex also.

    My whole point is, we have laws against underaged sexual relations, yet there has been only a few prosecutions in the past decade for this law.

    It’s about time people and the law makers woke up and started to implement the law rather than wearing sound proof ear-muffs.

    There is an easy answer, prosecute those involved and we won’t have headline news on in the last case I remember 3 girls under 15 youngest which is 11 having 4 children between them.

    #28898 Reply

    Forum Member
    Participant

    Lee Smith+Jan 17 2006, 10:42 PM–>(Lee Smith @ Jan 17 2006, 10:42 PM)

    daved2424+Jan 17 2006, 05:03 PM–>(daved2424 @ Jan 17 2006, 05:03 PM)
    Paedophillia is different to consenting intercourse, underage or not.

    Not it isn’t, a person over 16 having sex with or holding lude images of a child under 16 is paedophilia.

    Judges have discretion. A 16 year old boy who has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend would not be considered a sex offender.

    A 30 year old man in the same scenario probably would be but if the girl looked 18 and it could be shown that she told the man that she was 18, he could still be cleared.

    #28899 Reply

    Damian
    Participant

    This is all really disgusting and sickening.

    #28900 Reply

    Forum Member
    Participant

    vane101 wrote:Judges have discretion. A 16 year old boy who has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend would not be considered a sex offender.

    A 30 year old man in the same scenario probably would be but if the girl looked 18 and it could be shown that she told the man that she was 18, he could still be [Edit] dealt with more leniently

    My second sentence isn’t quite right is it! The 30 year old would still get done but may be the punishment would be less severe.

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
Reply To: Paedophiles
Your information:




Add New Topic Login Register