Paedophile in Charge of Hearts Football Club

[TeeJay]

You replaced links to the whole threads with links to your posts on those threads, and changed the text that accompanied the now vanished links.

Which is up to you. But as I said, I can only imagine you did so because you still have not understood what I was driving at.

But it's going to get really tiresome if you are going to pretend you haven't.

Ah.

I see now.

That was accidental. No reason behind it.

I had posted up a list of links to all the Jonathan King threads, and then went away and read through them. I came back and posted links to what I had posted in one of them: I must have edited the original post instead of adding the new links underneath. There was no reason for this - it was a mistake caused by having too many tabs open at once in my Mozilla Firefox.

 

[TeeJay]

You are misunderstanding the point. It was:

You seem very keen to make a distinction between paedophilia and illegally having sex with someone below the age of 16, but older than 13. Why is that? Is it a distinction you pursue in all discussions of sex with underage persons, or do you have a particular reason you are pursuing it in this case? (I provided one example of a person much discussed in this respect, and enquired if you had taken part in the discussions of him in the way you have addressed this thread, and if not were there reasons for that).

You are completely wrong to say that I have mentioned the age 13 and paedophilia. If you re-read the thread you will see that at least two other posters have made this link and defined paedophilia in connection to under 13s, but I haven't.

It's going to get really tiresome if you are going to pretend that I have said things I haven't.

 

[pilchardman]

OK. Glad that's cleared up.

The incidental point I was making can be made other ways, if it helps. I think it's the way I put that raised your hackles. I'll try to make it again, but without reference to Jonothan King this time.

Here goes. You have spent a good deal of this thread driving home the distinction in law between having sex with someone who is under 16 but over 13, and having sex with someone below that age - ie paedophilia. Is this a distinction you are generally keen on people making? Are you particularly irked that I did not make it with regard to Rix? Or is it just that you would be irked whenever the distinction was not made? (Perhaps you have raised this distinction in other discussions which have come up?

I should say, it isn't an earth-shattering point. I feel the issue of power is the substantive one.

 

[pilchardman]

You are completely wrong to say that I have mentioned the age 13 and paedophilia. If you re-read the thread you will see that at least two other posters have made this link and defined paedophilia in connection to under 13s, but I haven't.

In that case, how do you define paedophilia?

(If you do not mention the age of 13, then the above post may need rephrasing. But the point stands).

 

[butchersapron]

You are completely wrong to say that I have mentioned the age 13 and paedophilia. If you re-read the thread you will see that at least two other posters have made this link and defined paedophilia in connection to under 13s, but I haven't.

It's going to get really tiresome if you are going to pretend that I have said things I haven't.

Or if you attempt to change the issue. Do you really not think that there could be any circumstances which are structurally exploitatitive or coercive? Really? None at all?

 

[TeeJay]

...You have spent a good deal of this thread driving home the distinction in law between having sex with someone who is under 16 but over 13, and having sex with someone below that age - ie paedophilia...

No I haven't.

Care to find me one quote where I say that?

Other people have defined paedophilia like that. I have not.

 

[pilchardman]

No I haven't.
[...]
Other people have defined paedophilia like that. I have not.

OK, forgive my confusion. But how do you define it?

 

[butchersapron]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3791383&postcount=35

 

[pilchardman]

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.

I think this is what gave the idea.

What, then, has your argument been on this thread, if I have misunderstood it?

 

[TeeJay]

OK, forgive my confusion. But how do you define it?

I don't, but if I was pushed I would simply refer to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems published by the World Health Organization which defines it as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia )

 

[pilchardman]

I don't, but if I was pushed I would simply refer to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems published by the World Health Organization which defines it as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

(taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia )

OK. And is it your thesis that this does not apply to Rix?

 

[TeeJay]

I think this is what gave the idea.

That was making a comment about what is and is not statutory rape. Some of the previous posters had suggested that sex with an under 16 is automatically considered rape. I was pointing out that this isn't correct.

What, then, has your argument been on this thread, if I have misunderstood it?

Different posts have been responding to different things.

 

[pilchardman]

Different posts have been responding to different things.

OK. Well, do you feel like responding to some of the points I have made? Specifically that abuse, exploitation, coercion is structurally present where adults have sex with adolescents.

You said that was "crap". Is that your final word?

 

[TeeJay]

OK. Well, do you feel like responding to some of the points I have made? Specifically that abuse, exploitation, coercion is structurally present where adults have sex with adolescents.

Since the World Health Organization (WHO) defines adolescence as "the period of life between 10 and 20 years of age" I don't think you can generalise about it at all.

Furthermore: "The legal definition of entering adulthood varies between ages 16-21, depending on the region in question. Some cultures in Africa define adult at age 13, but most other civilizations consider this the teenager stage. Often the age is 18"

But to answer your question, I don't think that abuse, exploitation, coercion is *always* present: your own terms cover people up to age 20 ffs!

I don't accept the term "structurally" as being meaningful.

 

[pilchardman]

Since the World Health Organization (WHO) defines adolescence as "the period of life between 10 and 20 years of age" I don't think you can generalise about it at all.

Why not? There is certainly going to be a sliding scale of the size of the power differential from 10 to 20, but the point stands. (I introduced the term adolescent because you didn't like my terms "child", "wee lassie" etc. If you don't like it, I can revert).

But to answer your question, I don't think that abuse, exploitation, coercion is *always* present: your own terms cover people up to age 20 ffs!

OK, so you are saying it isn't present at age 20 where the adult is 40. Fair enough. Is it present at 19? 18? Since you are so keen on specifics.

I don't accept the term "structurally" as being meaningful.

Any others I should know about? Is there a reason? And can anyone join in?

 

[TeeJay]

OK, so you are saying it isn't present at age 20 where the adult is 40. Fair enough. Is it present at 19? 18? Since you are so keen on specifics.

I didn't say it "isn't present", I said "I don't think that abuse, exploitation, coercion is *always* present".

I don't really see much point in debating with you since you have misquoted and misrepresented me several times on this thread.

If you want to know what I think then go back and re-read my posts on this thread. I have no real desire to keep banging away at this and I am really not enjoying this much either.

 

[nino_savatte]

Jesus, Nino, that's out of order.

Why? I think you have actually read something into my post that isn't actually there and so has TeeJay.

 

[nino_savatte]

Post reported.

No further comment to make to you n_s.

Jolly good. Of course you are entitled to read things into my posts if you so wish.

 

[pilchardman]

I don't really see much point in debating with you since you have misquoted and misrepresented me several times on this thread.

I'm merely having trouble understanding you, as you are having trouble understanding me. It happens.

 

[pilchardman]

I didn't say it "isn't present", I said "I don't think that abuse, exploitation, coercion is *always* present".

I of course intended the meaning was isn't "structurally" present, but since you don't like the word I avoided it.

If you are so upset at this, perhaps bulletin boards aren't for you. Because one option would be to actually explain your meaning...

 

[Sasaferrato]

Would you let your kids join the youth team?

And you sir, can fuck right off.

If I have one more wisearse taking the piss I'm going to scream.

It wasn't the fucking fans that chose him.

Here's a pic of the new director of football.

 

[pilchardman]

Why was I expecting reasoned debate?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Why was I expecting reasoned debate?

Heaven knows, you've been around here long enough to know that reason can be in short supply.

Very well, to address your point; Rix was found guilty of a sexual offence against a minor, irrespective of whether there were mitgating circumstances, it is an absolute offence.

Should he pay for it for the rest of his life? No.

The likelyhood of him doing anything similar again is zero. Even if he wished to, he knows that the merest suggestion of impropriety would have him locked up.

We have all done things that we shouldn't have, and have been glad that we didn't have to pay for it, it would be gross hypocrisy to expect perfection of others.

 

[pilchardman]

Good lord. A reasoned argument.

You have gone up in my estimation!

 

[Sasaferrato]

Good lord. A reasoned argument.

You have gone up in my estimation!

Why, thank you kind sir.

 

[bertifrew]

We have all done things that we shouldn't have, and have been glad that we didn't have to pay for it, it would be gross hypocrisy to expect perfection of others.

well said.......