Missing Megan - A moral Dilemma Bird back in Blighty

Cal wrote:
degoose wrote:See that sounds like he kidnapped her but it was voluntary , sometimes I think this country and media act like a complete bunch of pompous idiots.

I'm afraid the law says it was child abduction, regardless. She was 15 = the law says she was not capable of giving her consent (even if she did). Ergo, she was abducted. I know, it seems ridiculous, but there you are.

I fail to see what is ridiculous about it, if you abscond with a minor and her parents don't know where she is you are going to get into trouble s why risk it. Laws like this need to be in place to protect the majority and there needs to be a cut off point, you can't have too much flexibility as that can lead to bigger issues.

He was her teacher and knew exactly what he was doing and made the choice to break the law.

Mommy wrote:
Moggy wrote:
$ilva $hadow wrote:What the strawberry float are you retards going on about what the law is? Doesn't sound like you guys even understand it.

The age 16 is set, because that's a cut-off point to safely say that it is reasonable to assume by 16 everyone is at a certain level of maturity to decide things for themselves. It's also reasonable to expect that people at 16 and below are most definitely going to be inexperienced, so even if you're strawberry floating with a 15 years and 364 day aged little girl, you're a prick. The only time this law is a problem is when a 16 (or maybe slightly older, one that is reasonably close to 16) year old boy gets a statutory rape conviction, not when a thirty year old man gets it.

It is only statutory rape if they are 12 or under.

It's sexual activity with someone under the age of consent.

Indeed. But it is not statutory rape as people seem to keep thinking it is.

Moggy wrote:
Mommy wrote:
Moggy wrote:
$ilva $hadow wrote:What the strawberry float are you retards going on about what the law is? Doesn't sound like you guys even understand it.

The age 16 is set, because that's a cut-off point to safely say that it is reasonable to assume by 16 everyone is at a certain level of maturity to decide things for themselves. It's also reasonable to expect that people at 16 and below are most definitely going to be inexperienced, so even if you're strawberry floating with a 15 years and 364 day aged little girl, you're a prick. The only time this law is a problem is when a 16 (or maybe slightly older, one that is reasonably close to 16) year old boy gets a statutory rape conviction, not when a thirty year old man gets it.

It is only statutory rape if they are 12 or under.

It's sexual activity with someone under the age of consent.

Indeed. But it is not statutory rape as people seem to keep thinking it is.

Yes. There's a difference between "Sex with someone under the age of consent" and "Statutory Rape". He can be accused of the former, but not the latter. However I think that proving it beyond a reasonable doubt will be next to impossible so more than likely Child Abduction is the only thing he'll get convicted for. They might be able to add on charges of Child Endangerment, but I don't think it's going to be possible to convict him of any sexual offences unless he or she actually comes out and admits it.

You guys are discussing the wrong damn issue. It doesn't matter if it is statutory rape or not, my problem is with the way Cal and other retards are talking about the law. As if it's some asinine reasoning. There's a reason that people have chosen a certain age, and it's the minimum age chosen to be fair to all, including those children that are on the borderline, under it, or just over it.

The age 16 is chosen, because almost no parent in their sane mind would allow their little chicklet straight from the nest, to go around banging experienced 30 year old men who can take advantage of them. If you're 16 and over, you STILL have no strawberry floating clue about the world, and unfortunately for you, the law won't protect you, because we've decided that we will protect your right to freedom before we protect you from being exploited.

Cal you're one sick deluded pervert to even be defending the 30 year old married man.

edit: The age of consent is not 12 you law-illiterate morons. It's 16.

Who said the age of consent was 12?

$ilva $hadow wrote:

edit: The age of consent is not 12 you law-illiterate morons. It's 16.

They're not saying it is. The age of consent is 16 but any sexual activity with a child 12 or younger is automatically considered statutory rape and is a much more serious offence.

Isn't there lenience show if you are under 24 and can provide reasonable proof that you thought the girl was over 16, even if she wasn't?

But yeah, if she is under 13 you're strawberry floated.

Mommy wrote:Isn't there lenience show if you are under 24 and can provide reasonable proof that you thought the girl was over 16, even if she wasn't?

A judge might have some flexibility when it comes to sentancing and be able to take that into account, but in terms of being prosecuted there isn't. You did or you didn't, simple as.

$ilva $hadow wrote:edit: The age of consent is not 12 you law-illiterate morons. It's 16.

Perhaps it is you who should study the law, and maybe brush up on your reading comprehension skills while you're at it. There is a two-tier system. Below the age of 12, the crime is "Statutory rape". Between the ages of 12 and 16, there is a lesser crime of "Sex with a minor". Both are illegal, but one is worse than the other.

$ilva $hadow wrote:...my problem is with the way Cal and other retards are talking about the law. As if it's some asinine reasoning.

No, I think your problem is that you're an obnoxious prick. I think I've been very clear about my view on the law and at no point have I said I don't agree with it. I've suggested the problem of interpretation is often a difficult one when one takes into account the complexities of cases like these, but I've always underlined such opinions with a statement of the law as it stands.

$ilva $hadow wrote:Cal you're one sick deluded pervert to even be defending the 30 year old married man.

Please show the forum exactly where in this topic I 'defend' this man. If you can't do that, I will accept your apology for such an ill-advised choice of words.

$ilva $hadow wrote:edit: The age of consent is not 12 you law-illiterate morons. It's 16.

I think it's perfectly clear who the moron is, $ilva.

Popcorn.gif

Cal wrote:
$ilva $hadow wrote:...my problem is with the way Cal and other retards are talking about the law. As if it's some asinine reasoning.

No, I think your problem is that you're an obnoxious prick. I think I've been very clear about my view on the law and at no point have I said I don't agree with it. I've suggested the problem of interpretation is often a difficult one when one takes into account the complexities of cases like these, but I've always underlined such opinions with a statement of the law as it stands.

The way you phrased the reply I quoted above made me think you didn't agree with the law, with the ridiculous thrown in there.

Cal wrote:
$ilva $hadow wrote:...my problem is with the way Cal and other retards are talking about the law. As if it's some asinine reasoning.

No, I think your problem is that you're an obnoxious prick. I think I've been very clear about my view on the law and at no point have I said I don't agree with it. I've suggested the problem of interpretation is often a difficult one when one takes into account the complexities of cases like these, but I've always underlined such opinions with a statement of the law as it stands.

$ilva $hadow wrote:Cal you're one sick deluded pervert to even be defending the 30 year old married man.

Please show the forum exactly where in this topic I 'defend' this man. If you can't do that, I will accept your apology for such an ill-advised choice of words.

$ilva $hadow wrote:edit: The age of consent is not 12 you law-illiterate morons. It's 16.

I think it's perfectly clear who the moron is, $ilva.

Whoever wins...

SpaceJebus wrote:The way you phrased the reply I quoted above made me think you didn't agree with the law, with the ridiculous thrown in there.

What I said was: '...it seems ridiculous'. In context, in a discussion suggesting that a girl who could be only a day away from her 16th birthday is still considered by the law to be below the age of consent, the comment is a mere observation. It is not a 'defense' for sexually abusing 15 year-old girls.

In the same sentence, reiterating the law, I also said: '... she was not capable of giving her consent (even if she did).'

I note $ilva elected, conveniently, to miss out that bit.

There's a fair amount of 15 year old behaviour in this thread.

Have we reported that she's back in the country yet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-18204401

Schoolgirl Megan Stammers has flown back to the UK more than a week after she disappeared in France with her maths teacher.

The 15-year-old from Eastbourne flew back to the UK on Saturday afternoon and was being reunited with her parents before talking to Sussex Police.

Teacher Jeremy Forrest, 30, has been arrested by French police on suspicion of child abduction.

The pair were found in Bordeaux on Friday, after a sighting on Thursday.

'No protracted extradition'

Earlier, lawyers for the teacher said Mr Forrest would not fight extradition proceedings and had agreed to return to the UK as soon as possible.

Phil Smith, from Tuckers Solicitors, said in a statement: "He [Mr Forrest] has agreed to return to the UK as soon as possible without the need for protracted extradition proceedings."

The BBC's Luisa Baldini said Mr Forrest's cooperation with the authorities meant protracted extraditions could be avoided, but it would still be several days before he returned to the UK.

She said Mr Forrest was being held at a detention centre in Bordeaux and would appear before a local judge on Tuesday.

Mr Forrest's lawyers have said he is upset but is being treated well and with some sympathy.

Megan's parents have already been in contact with their daughter by telephone but remained in the UK to wait for their daughter's return, Sussex Police said.

'Emotional rollercoaster'
A police spokesman said police would talk to Megan after she had seen her mother Danielle Wilson and stepfather Martin Stammers.

Jeremy Forrest and Megan Stammers were found in Bordeaux
Megan was reported missing by her family after she failed to turn up at Bishop Bell C of E School, in Eastbourne, on 21 September.

It later emerged she and Mr Forrest had caught a ferry from Dover to Calais the day before.

After they were found, Megan was taken into the care of British Consular staff and a Sussex Police child protection team officer who had joined her in France.

Her family said they were "overjoyed at the outcome".

Mr Stammers said: "As you can imagine it's been an absolute emotional rollercoaster."

He asked that they were left alone to "bond as a family" after Megan's disappearance.

Her life's pretty much ruined. She can hardly go back to school can she?

Memento Mori wrote:Her life's pretty much ruined. She can hardly go back to school can she?

Imagine the homework she'd have to catch up on :fp:

Memento Mori wrote:Her life's pretty much ruined. She can hardly go back to school can she?

In a years time nobody will even remember her. She'll be able to get on with life just fine provided the guy hasn't put her through some traumatic experience, which it doesn't appear he has.

Cal wrote:
SpaceJebus wrote:The way you phrased the reply I quoted above made me think you didn't agree with the law, with the ridiculous thrown in there.

What I said was: '...it seems ridiculous'. In context, in a discussion suggesting that a girl who could be only a day away from her 16th birthday is still considered by the law to be below the age of consent, the comment is a mere observation. It is not a 'defense' for sexually abusing 15 year-old girls.

In the same sentence, reiterating the law, I also said: '... she was not capable of giving her consent (even if she did).'

I note $ilva elected, conveniently, to miss out that bit.

The quote was under degoose's statement about the case so I thought it pertained to that, also I never said anything about it being a defense for sexually abusing anyone. You did reiterate the law but then after that said the ridiculous part which made it look like that was your feelings on the matter. Apologies if that was not the case.

Missing Megan - A moral Dilemma Bird back in Blighty

Who is online

Affiliates

Missing Megan - A moral Dilemma *Bird back in Blighty*

Who is online

Affiliates

Missing Megan - A moral Dilemma Bird back in Blighty