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

SpaceJebus wrote:...I never said anything about it being a defense for sexually abusing anyone.

That's correct, you didn't. It was $ilva, who claimed I was 'defending' the man who abducted Megan Stammers.

Lagamorph wrote:

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.

It's Emily Forrest that I feel sorry for. She made the mistake of marrying an Aberdonian, but to have him run away with a tiddler must be harrowing.

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

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.

It's Emily Forrest that I feel sorry for. She made the mistake of marrying an Aberdonian, but to have him run away with a tiddler must be harrowing.

More than likely she'll sell her story and make a mint.

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.

Dude you're deluded if you think you aren't trying to defend this man.

Your obnoxious pat condell style of writing as if it's a crying shame that this guy is going to get strawberry floated by the law. As if the rigidity of the law on the age is a crying shame.

It doesn't matter whether it's statutory rape at 12 or 16, I didn't say this guy raped a girl, just that this guy is a deviant for being thirty years old, married and eloping with a 15 year old inexperienced girl to another country. It's a grave breach of trust in the least, I don't see why anyone would even have an issue with this guy getting strawberry floated over by the law.

Cal wrote:

SpaceJebus wrote:...I never said anything about it being a defense for sexually abusing anyone.

That's correct, you didn't. It was $ilva, who claimed I was 'defending' the man who abducted Megan Stammers.

You've been undercover defending the whole time by trying to compare it to the situations like "what if he had taken a boy" or "what if it was a woman taking a boy" or even "what if they were closer in age". All of it designed to make you think there's something wrong with the law

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

Don't you study the law? And you don't know the difference between the age of consent (16) and statutory rape (12 and under)? And then have the cheek to call others retards?

For what it's worth (before you make gooseberry fool up and think I'm defending Forest), this man has broken the law and should be punished accordingly. I just don't think it is helpful when people spread false information that this was statutory rape, when legally it was not.

Notice I state the age of consent is 16, as if it doesn't matter whether it's statutory rape or not, all that matters is that this dude is strawberry floating around with inexperienced children. I didn't even say he had raped her, I stated to you the age of consent.

Dude you need to forget about what I study and concentrate on studying that single quote you posted from me. The point is that it doesn't have to be statutory rape anyway, she's under the age of consent.

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.

bitches know how to simper.

Lagamorph wrote:

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

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.

It's Emily Forrest that I feel sorry for. She made the mistake of marrying an Aberdonian, but to have him run away with a tiddler must be harrowing.

More than likely she'll sell her story and make a mint.

I don't believe that the damage that's been done to her is worth the money.

$ilva $hadow wrote::lol: bitches know how to simper.

Kind of how you think you know how to debate.

$ilva $hadow wrote:You've been undercover defending the whole time by trying to compare it to the situations like "what if he had taken a boy" or "what if it was a woman taking a boy" or even "what if they were closer in age".

Okay, so admit, it $ilva: now you're just plain lying. I think, having gone back over my posts in this topic just to be sure, that that is the only conclusion we can reasonably draw from your comments. So you're now making up slurs and accusations to prove some kind of twisted point.

1. I have never raised the question of 'what if he had taken a boy'. Fact.
2. I have never raised the question of 'what if it was a woman taking a boy'. Fact.
3. I have never raised the question of 'what if they were closer in age'. Fact.

Will you now cease attempting to attribute words to me that I have never written?

Lagamorph wrote:

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

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.

It's Emily Forrest that I feel sorry for. She made the mistake of marrying an Aberdonian, but to have him run away with a tiddler must be harrowing.

More than likely she'll sell her story and make a mint.

What makes you say that?

Red wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

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.

It's Emily Forrest that I feel sorry for. She made the mistake of marrying an Aberdonian, but to have him run away with a tiddler must be harrowing.

More than likely she'll sell her story and make a mint.

What makes you say that?

It's pretty much the norm in these kind of situations. Someone will sell their story when the right offer comes along from the tabloids, and hers will likely be highly sought after by the vulturistic media.

This thread needs more puns.

Lagamorph wrote:

Red wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

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.

It's Emily Forrest that I feel sorry for. She made the mistake of marrying an Aberdonian, but to have him run away with a tiddler must be harrowing.

More than likely she'll sell her story and make a mint.

What makes you say that?

It's pretty much the norm in these kind of situations. Someone will sell their story when the right offer comes along from the tabloids, and hers will likely be highly sought after by the vulturistic media.

That seems a rather crass assumption.

Red wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Red wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Scotticus Erroticus wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

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.

It's Emily Forrest that I feel sorry for. She made the mistake of marrying an Aberdonian, but to have him run away with a tiddler must be harrowing.

More than likely she'll sell her story and make a mint.

What makes you say that?

It's pretty much the norm in these kind of situations. Someone will sell their story when the right offer comes along from the tabloids, and hers will likely be highly sought after by the vulturistic media.

That seems a rather crass assumption.

Another way to look at it is a nice friendly journalist will show up and offer her parents the chance to put their/her side of the story across. And £150k for their time.