Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Paedophile in Charge of Hearts Football Club

Should Rix be given a second chance?


  • Total voters
    18
Sorry. said:
Is a 15yo technically paedophilia? (and if not is the above not libellous?)
15 year old is a child, underage, and non adult.

Rix is a convicted sex offender on the Sex Offenders Register.
 
I thought paedophilia referred only to under 13s. Under 16s is statutory rape isn't it? So you could refer to him as a child-rapist.
 
pilchardman said:
15 year old is a child, underage, and non adult.

Rix is a convicted sex offender on the Sex Offenders Register.

But he isn't convicted of 'paedophilia' is he... so the technical question what makes a paedophile still stands.
 
Paedophilia just refers to a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There isn't an offence of "paedophilia" - you can't be convicted just of being attracted to kids.
 
pilchardman said:
Nope. If that's the case then Jonothan King doesn't qualify either.

wikipedia

The term paedophilia erotica was coined in 1896 by the Vienna psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his writing Psychopathia Sexualis. He gives the following characteristics:
* the sexual interest is toward children, either prepubescent or at the beginning of puberty
* the sexual interest is the primary one, that is, exclusively or mainly toward children
* the sexual interest remains over time

adding

The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision has in its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":

* Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
* The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
* The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12 or 13-year-old.
 
at a guess, although ages of consent differ from country to country, the defining characeristic of a paedophile would be a sexual attraction that is of a different nature to the conventional attraction to males/females of sexual maturity for the purpose of procreation.
 
I wouldn't give him a second chance unless I knew him very well and wasn't 100% convinced of his guilt, but then I can be a bit overprotective but I'm a mum so it's allowed.
 
Thora said:
Under 16s is statutory rape isn't it?
I thought statutory rape was taking a girl across state lines (in the US) with a younger age of consent for the purpose of sex.
 
Mrs Magpie said:
I thought statutory rape was taking a girl across state lines (in the US) with a younger age of consent for the purpose of sex.

i think it's having sex with any under 16 girl...
 
In the UK, I think statutory rape is sex with someone under the age of 13. Someone of that age is presumed to be unable to consent, whether they say so or not.

If you need more advice on this one, ask a policeman. I'm sure they'll be happy to straighten out any queries you may have.
 
marty21 said:
i think it's having sex with any under 16 girl...
In Scotland, having sex with a child aged under 13 is statutory rape.

However, although I had never heard of Rix until yesterday, I understand his conviction was in England.
 
pilchardman said:
In Scotland, having sex with a child aged under 13 is statutory rape.

However, although I had never heard of Rix until yesterday, I understand his conviction was in England.

yep i think it was,

I think he's a twat who exploited a young girl, is guilty of statutory rape, and shouldn't have been given the hearts job but is not guilty of being a paedophile
 
Sorry. said:
Scotland. Hence the choice of forum.

Radio, newspapers, people you meet. It's being discussed. This being a venue for discussion of current events, I thought I'd bring it here.

You think I shouldn't?
 
oh, right, I thought you meant urban rather than scotland (I never notice what forum we're in...).

Was just wondering what brought the topic to mind.

FWIW I think imprisonment is probably sufficient punishment for being an old letch.
 
its ridiculous do describe what rix did as anything to do with paeophilia or rape. 15 isn't that young - altho if it was my daughter i would kick his arse
 
maximilian ping said:
its ridiculous do describe what rix did as anything to do with paeophilia or rape.
I wouldn't know.

What are the details? He had unlawful sex with a 15 year old. How old is he? 17? 18? 19?
 
41! :eek: No, not acceptable. Not in the least.

admitted one charge of having unlawful sexual intercourse with the girl, and one of indecently assaulting her
.

He "met her in a hotel"?

Nope, sorry. He's much worse than a lech.
 
pilchardman said:
41! :eek: No, not acceptable. Not in the least.

.

He "met her in a hotel"?

Nope, sorry. He's much worse than a lech.


you can spell it either way, btw.

I'm not sure what the 'indecent assault' was either.

But would it be any better if she were 16?
 
Sorry. said:
you can spell it either way, btw.
What?

But would it be any better if she were 16?
No, not really. It isn't at all OK for a 41 year old to say "I thought she was 16" (don't know if that is what he though, or if he thought much at all).

I'm 40. I can't even begin to imagine chatting up a 16 year old.
 
pilchardman said:

Letch/Lech (I though that's why you italicized it)

No, not really. It isn't at all OK for a 41 year old to say "I thought she was 16" (don't know if that is what he though, or if he thought much at all).

I'm 40. I can't even begin to imagine chatting up a 16 year old.
I can't either (and I'm only 22). But that's fairly culturally, historically specific of us - it wasn't always the case...

And if she had been 16, he wouldn't have gone to prison - would that have been wrong?
 
Sorry. said:
Letch/Lech (I though that's why you italicized it)
No, I was just saying it was too mild a term for that kind of behaviour.
And if she had been 16, he wouldn't have gone to prison - would that have been wrong?
I don't require the law to tell me what is right or wrong. Sometimes the law coincides with that which is ethical, but often it doesn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom