Paedophile in Charge of Hearts Football Club
- Thread starter pilchardman
- Start date
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
I'm not big on punishment. But I think for the safety of children he needs to go on intensive sex awareness training and therapy, and to be supervised whenever he's with kids. (I'm assuming these things will happen. Indeed, I'm surprised he got the job at all, given that he'd need a Disclosure Scotland check before working with the youth team).Sorry. said:
Oh, and if he came near my daughter, I'd beat the shit out of him.
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
As others has said, having sex with a 15-year-old girl can't really be classed as paedophilia - over the ages of 14, 15, and 16, having sex with 15-year-old girls was the major preoccupation for me and most of my peer group!
For older teenagers to be shagging 15-year-olds was looked on as being a little bit dodgy, for a 41-year-old to be doing so is sick and fucked up and there's no way I'd put a smidgen of trust in Rix.
For older teenagers to be shagging 15-year-olds was looked on as being a little bit dodgy, for a 41-year-old to be doing so is sick and fucked up and there's no way I'd put a smidgen of trust in Rix.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
A teenager having sex with another teenager isn't paedophilia. That's a different qestion altogether. The "time-line" between a 15 year old and her 16/17 year old boy friend is not the question here.Yossarian said:
A 41 year old having sex with a 15 year old is not a case of equals and mutual consent. There is a serious power and trust differential there, and Rix took advantage of it. That is deplorable.
No it isn't.Thora said:
Sex by someone 18 or over with someone under 13 is "statutory rape" because under 13s are not considered able to give consent.
Illegal sex with someone 13 or over but under 16 is still illegal but isn't automatically considered to be rape. 13 to 16 year olds are considered to be *able* to give consent, although they are not allowed to IYSWIM.
See section 5 (under 13) and section 9 (13 or over but under 16)
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Of course, sex without consent is rape whatever the age.
There is no need to ask police(wo)men every time we want to know what the law is.untethered said:
A lot of it is available online (see above).
edit:
Just to note that people make lots of noise on threads like this, but probably didn't say anything when the Sugababes were releasing fairly sexy videos aged 15:
"Overload"
RealVideo: http://www.clipland.com/Video/701010695/#
The tension is incredible, boy I'm in charge
You know how I feel for you,
Will you stop, or will you just keep going
Please don't say no, no, no, no
Train comes I don't know its destination
It's a one-way ticket to a madman's situation
As has already been pointed out, sex with someone under 13 is, in the eyes of the law, rape. Rix may have taken advantage of someone many years younger than him, but had she been slightly older there would have been no crime, and I doubt anyone would be making such a big fuss over it (apart, presumably, the girls family). Besides, he spent a period in jail (not sure exactly how long) and I'm sure a few of the inmates will have put him off trying anything like that again.
Anyways, it's late and I'm drunk so I'm noy sure if I can really add anything to this conversation. Suffice to say that like Teejay I also find the hypocracy in the media a little much to swallow.
Anyways, it's late and I'm drunk so I'm noy sure if I can really add anything to this conversation. Suffice to say that like Teejay I also find the hypocracy in the media a little much to swallow.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
As a matter of fact, I have long fumed at the hypocrisy of the media and entertainment industries. Including in threads on Urban.TeeJay said:
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
Perhaps I wouldn't have heard of him, then. But had I, I certainly would make a fuss. There is a misogynist culture in football; there has been a number of incidents where rich, powerful men have at the very least mistreated young women, often in hotel rooms, and sometimes in groups.The Boy said:
These cases are little to do with sex and attraction, and a lot to do with power and disrespect for the rights and individual autonomy of others.
Society as a whole has a problem with these issues, and until we deal with them many more young people will be abused.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
1. Rix is not, in fact, a paedophile. He is, in fact, a convicted sex offender.
2. I find the current fuss a little curious since Rix has already been working in football, subsequent to his conviction, without a great deal of public comment.
2. I find the current fuss a little curious since Rix has already been working in football, subsequent to his conviction, without a great deal of public comment.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
I find the distinction unpersuasive, and hairsplitting.Donna Ferentes said:
My interest is because it has been in the Scottish media. I had never heard of him until he was employed by Hearts. And it isn't a fuss; it's a debate.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I think the distinction is quite important and not remotely hairsplitting .When people have committed serious offences it's proper to describe what they have actually done rather than what they haven't - otherwise there's just a hue and cry.pilchardman said:
First, I think there's more fuss than debate. Secondly, you might very well not have, but in football circles he's very well-known indeed. Besides, my puzzlement is at the general fuss rather than at yours individually. Rix was appointed manager of Oxford United in March 2004: if it is inappropriate for him to work in football now, why no great public outrage then?pilchardman said:
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
Whatever. All I know is I wouldn't leave him alone with my 10-year-old daughter for a second.Donna Ferentes said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I'd certainly be worried about his lack of experience. His last job was as assistant to Gullit or was it Hoddle? Apart from that he's a dirty auld lech.
Donna's just pointed out he was at Oxford Utd...and where are they now?
Donna's just pointed out he was at Oxford Utd...and where are they now?
Go and watch that sugababes video then come back and tell me if you think anyone who finds them attractive is a paedophile.pilchardman said:
Even better, try and tell me which one out of the three is under 16 at the time of the video (without looking it up on the internet).
How old do you think they look?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
About thirty miles away from Reading.nino_savatte said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Donna Ferentes said:
Cheeky git.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
And your (relevant) point is?TeeJay said:
OK. I think a few things need clearing up. This thread has turned into an exercise in semantics. Which is perhaps refreshingly different from the usual intellect-free zone these issues engender. But not better.
I was hoping to address the sorts of issues I began to discuss above: "These cases are little to do with sex and attraction, and a lot to do with power and disrespect for the rights and individual autonomy of others.
Society as a whole has a problem with these issues, and until we deal with them many more young people will be abused."
Now, to answer TeeJay's point. First, it is similar to points I have tried to raise in threads on this topic before, and was roundly castigated for my pains. Including being denounced as a non-anarchist liberal one of my libertarian comrades. Hey ho.
Secondly, the way TeeJay frames it is exactly symptomatic of the confusion society gets itself into on the issue. I'll explain: it is perfectly possible to recognise that an underage girl (or boy) is pretty, (good-looking/ however you want to put it) without desiring to have sex with them. For example, my ten year old daughter has pretty friends. I can say that without meaning to imply sexual desire.
Furthermore, my daughter and her friends dance to their CDs in a sexualised way. They do this because of the type of video TeeJay holds up as evidence. However, even when they do so, I do not feel the desire to have sex with them.
That is the first step. Those are children who are not sexually mature. It is perhaps not unexpected that a non pathological adult will be able to say that.
Second step. Take a child who is sexually mature. My friend Pete's 15 year old daughter, for example. She, too, is a good looking girl. She is a musician, and sings in her band. She moves in similar sexualised ways. It is easy to see why the young boys pay her a lot of attention.
However - and I can say this honestly - I do not have any desire to have sex with her. I can recognise her looks, her talent, her personality as being attractive, but not feel sexually attracted to her. How does this work? It works in part, for sure, because I have known her since she was sexually immature. But it also works because I am an adult, and tend to find myself sexually attracted to adults. To people closer to my own maturity. This - I concede - is a cultural effect. But it is nontheless real for that. We are social animals, and our social learning is powerful.
We discussed Charlotte Church in the music forum recently. I recognise she is a good looking girl. But she is only a young girl, and I therefore don't find myself turned-on by her. Quite the reverse.
Third step. If I were to feel sexually attracted to a young girl - to feel, that is, the desire to shag her - I, as an autonomous individual, am in control of my actions. I do not need to chat her up. To engage in all the behaviour that will lead to sex. I can turn away saying "No. I am a grown man. She is only 16 (or whatever age)". It is no excuse to say you couldn't help yourself. You can. At the age of 40 (as I am), I have more experience, more power, more self-control than a 16-year-old (I remember being 16. Self control in sexual matters was not often on the cards). At my age you are taking advantage, abusing trust, asserting your power if you pursue sexual activity with a girl of 16. Even more so if she is 15. Because there is not a male in the land who doesn't know that that is illegal, beyond the pale, unacceptable, and morally reprehensible.
Whatever language you want to use to describe Rix's behaviour, he is a child sex offender. He is guilty - by his own admission - of sexually abusing a child. And that is unacceptable for all the reaons given above, and more.
just to add some more details to the case.
apparently he'd met her several months before the event, and seen her* several times before 'anything happened'.
* possibly by chance. not in any 'romantic' sense.
he invited her to his flat and wined her.
he also refused to use a condom even though she wanted him to.
i don't think i need to know much more about this.
apparently he'd met her several months before the event, and seen her* several times before 'anything happened'.
* possibly by chance. not in any 'romantic' sense.
he invited her to his flat and wined her.
he also refused to use a condom even though she wanted him to.
i don't think i need to know much more about this.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
So this was no heat-of-the-moment "mistake".where to said:just to add some more details to the case.
apparently he'd met her several months before the event, and seen her* several times before 'anything happened'.
* possibly by chance. not in any 'romantic' sense.
he invited her to his flat and wined her.
he also refused to use a condom even though she wanted him to.
i don't think i need to know much more about this.
I don't think I want to know much more, either.
Pilchardman - I agree that people shouldn't sleep with under 16s. But there are under 16s who look like they are over 18.
You say "We discussed Charlotte Church in the music forum recently. I recognise she is a good looking girl. But she is only a young girl, and I therefore don't find myself turned-on by her. Quite the reverse."
Maybe you are a special case. I agree that people can and should decide about their actions, but I don't buy the idea that they can find something a turn on or not simply by finding out someone's age.
The Sugababes video is an example: how is anyone meant to know how old they are? If you watch it you will either find them attractive or not. You can't rush off afterwards, find out their real ages and then decide that you were not, in fact, turned on after all. You either were or you weren't. Of course being turned on isn't the same as choosing to have sex with someone etc.
You say "I am an adult, and tend to find myself sexually attracted to adults. To people closer to my own maturity". Well good for you. Everybody has their own sexuality, although the way you phrase it isn't very specific. Being "sexually attracted to adults" could mean "to over 16s" or "to over 18s", "closer to my own maturity" could mean "closer than 15 years old", or it could mean "over 40 year olds". I don't see that you have the right to project your own sexuality onto other people or moralise about it, beyond what the law requires (eg consent and over 16).
I am *not* trying to argue for a change in the law allowing sex with under 16s. But some people are utterly full of shit when they throw around terms like "paedophile" without making any distinction between people who have sex with very young children (eg babies, toddlers, pre-pubescent etc) and people who have mistakenly had sex with someone who, while being under 16 can easily pass of as over 18 even.
I also get tired of the whole "abuse of power relations argument". Yes of course in specific cases this can be a factor but it is not universally true, and in any case it applies to people over the age of 16, 18 or of any age and situation - in fact you will never get complete "power equality" between two people ever - but so what?
I'd also like to quote part of section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
I don't know the details of Rix's case so I will leave that to one side, but it is worth noting that have a reasonable belief that someone is over 16 is a defence under the law - unless the person is under 13 in which case belief is irrelevant.
Pilchardman - are you saying that you think this clause is wrong?
Again, I am not arguing that the law is wrong. I am not declaring a personal preference for sex with young people. I do however get fed up with the moralising from people who seem to think that everyone should have the same sexuality as them and that 40 year old (for example) shouldn't have sex with 18 year olds (for example). I also get fed up with people using the word paedophile to cover both people who have sex with 2 year olds (illegal) and people who sleep with a sexually mature 15 year old thinking that they are over 16 (illegal, although with a possible defence - ie "reasonable belief").
You say "We discussed Charlotte Church in the music forum recently. I recognise she is a good looking girl. But she is only a young girl, and I therefore don't find myself turned-on by her. Quite the reverse."
Maybe you are a special case. I agree that people can and should decide about their actions, but I don't buy the idea that they can find something a turn on or not simply by finding out someone's age.
The Sugababes video is an example: how is anyone meant to know how old they are? If you watch it you will either find them attractive or not. You can't rush off afterwards, find out their real ages and then decide that you were not, in fact, turned on after all. You either were or you weren't. Of course being turned on isn't the same as choosing to have sex with someone etc.
You say "I am an adult, and tend to find myself sexually attracted to adults. To people closer to my own maturity". Well good for you. Everybody has their own sexuality, although the way you phrase it isn't very specific. Being "sexually attracted to adults" could mean "to over 16s" or "to over 18s", "closer to my own maturity" could mean "closer than 15 years old", or it could mean "over 40 year olds". I don't see that you have the right to project your own sexuality onto other people or moralise about it, beyond what the law requires (eg consent and over 16).
I am *not* trying to argue for a change in the law allowing sex with under 16s. But some people are utterly full of shit when they throw around terms like "paedophile" without making any distinction between people who have sex with very young children (eg babies, toddlers, pre-pubescent etc) and people who have mistakenly had sex with someone who, while being under 16 can easily pass of as over 18 even.
I also get tired of the whole "abuse of power relations argument". Yes of course in specific cases this can be a factor but it is not universally true, and in any case it applies to people over the age of 16, 18 or of any age and situation - in fact you will never get complete "power equality" between two people ever - but so what?
I'd also like to quote part of section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
It is worth noting the words "does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over"
I don't know the details of Rix's case so I will leave that to one side, but it is worth noting that have a reasonable belief that someone is over 16 is a defence under the law - unless the person is under 13 in which case belief is irrelevant.
Pilchardman - are you saying that you think this clause is wrong?
Again, I am not arguing that the law is wrong. I am not declaring a personal preference for sex with young people. I do however get fed up with the moralising from people who seem to think that everyone should have the same sexuality as them and that 40 year old (for example) shouldn't have sex with 18 year olds (for example). I also get fed up with people using the word paedophile to cover both people who have sex with 2 year olds (illegal) and people who sleep with a sexually mature 15 year old thinking that they are over 16 (illegal, although with a possible defence - ie "reasonable belief").
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no. i don't like hearts, apart from rix's record.pilchardman said:
although hearts are better than some other clubs i could mention.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
Rix appears to have known full well how old the girl was, and to have planned and schemed over some time. That makes him a devious and deliberate child abuser.TeeJay said:
But leaving him aside, you make some points about the age 16 cut-off. I thought I had addressed that, but I'll try again. There are of course occassions when mistakes are made. When they are made by boys of 17, 18, 19, or even, conceivably, 20, depending on the individuals, then that can be understood. I don't know how old you are, but if you are closer to that age, then that period of fluidity will be more problematic for you. But I don't intend to personalize this.
However, I look at the picture you posted:
and all I see is a couple of wee lassies. In saying that I'm not trying to say my sexuality is the benchmark. I'm just saying the intervening decades make a difference. A big difference.
Sure, there is a range around my age of women I'll find attractive. And it'll be quite a wide age range. That isn't the point. The point is about power differentials.
Young people should be able to safely explore their sexuality with each other. Not have that sense of wonder exploited by older people with more experience.
Mistakes about age, when they are made, are not made by 41 year old men. They are made by other young people. That's why the law recognises the blurred line.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Or, at least, if you're 41 you're more than old enough to recognise the issue and to ask.
Noone has provided the details of his case, I haven't seen them, so I can't comment on it.pilchardman said:
Good. Because I am not speaking personally about whether I like to shag grannies or first-year students. My personal preferences don't come into this.
You keep using various terms: girls, children, young children - now 'wee lassies'. Someone else might use the term "young women" to describe 15, 16, 17, 18 year olds. It would be a lot harder to bang on about "paedophiles" tho' wouldn't it?
I don't see why the point is about "power differentials" at all. The point about sex is *consent*. Hence the phrase "sex between consenting adults" - not "sex between adults with a low power differential between them". You may well find exploitative and unequal relationships distasteful, but ultimately this isn't a matter of law - people have, for better or worse, the freedom to get into them or not, just as they have the freedom to drink (aged 18), smoke (aged 16) or do other things that are bad for them.
The law doesn't have anything to say about who a 16 year old sleeps with. I don't think it should, even if personally I would advise against it on both sides, and even if I don't like it myself.
You have this wrong. The law is clear that mistakes about age can be made by 41 year old men. Hence the line of section 6 which says "B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over".
Similar threads
