Options
Awful Awful Writing Ee
Im a massive fan of Jay such a gifted actor.
But my god the writing has nothing been short of disgrace.
No lawyer would ever use the word pedophile and say i wont defend that.
Jay pleading guilty what a joke that was. Everything in this story was a complete joke.
But my god the writing has nothing been short of disgrace.
No lawyer would ever use the word pedophile and say i wont defend that.
Jay pleading guilty what a joke that was. Everything in this story was a complete joke.
0
Comments
I'm so shocked at the amount of people who had no idea that sort of thing gets you put on the sex offenders register with immediate effect.
her dad called the police but he was released after a few hours and a quick interview with the girl and that was the end of it.
The time frame of how quick Jay was charged and in court was so nothing short of fantasy!
Its that far fetched its unbelievable
If this was true and the police turned a blind eye to the law being broken all those involved would be sacked. You are basically claiming the police who are there to uphold the law, disregarded it. The home office would go ape shit.
He was at a bail hearing. He entered his guilty plea there so there was no need for a trial.
well thats the story at the time, unless they all lied. i dont find it that unbelievable ??? unless ofcourse he did get a caution of some sort which im not 100% about.
Think you are being a tad dramatic there don't you?
He wouldn't have been charged, his phone wouldn't have been checked that quick. He would have been arrested and bailed pending further enquires as the police cant investigate a case like that that quickly.
Not really, the age of consent is 16. The poster claimed the police disregarded the law. A child protection law no less.
The police can scan phones within minutes and yes he would have been charged. He had indecent images of a 14 year old girl on his phone.
What are people not understanding? you guys are acting like thats ok. From reading this thread its good they are doing this story to educate people on just how much trouble this sort of thing can get young people into.
Decent people who know him well turning against him is the most frustrating part
yes I think there is a possibility that it could. the phone was being checked within days of the images been deleted.
One of my friends does this for a living and I am not up on the ins & outs but they are experts at what they do.
also I think that due to the wonders of modern tech and the fact you can retrieve deleted images yourself now on certain phones that they probably accessed Jay's quite easily. sure if they were wanting to look back further it would have taken longer
i don't understand how jay is responsible for something he had no control over - he had no control over her sending those images, he deleted them and yet he has been deemed responsible. this is grossly unfair >:(
Ritchie isn't your typical solicitor. She'll use whatever words she wants with the Mitchells.
They didn't disregard the law they decided not to proceed to prosecution. That happens in all sorts of cases and occasions surely
I find the whole Jay story line very scary tbh. It's a harsh lesson to him to always have sight of someone's birth certificate before receiving suggestive pictures of them on his phone hmm.
Mick's behaviour in particular is disgraceful given that he himself pleaded guilty for something he didn't do just because he happened to see and speak to Ian in a vicinity where there were prostitutes.
Poor Jay
I agree.
Not a child protection law no. The law always has to be upheld.
If a 20 year old man really had sex with a 15 year old girl he would be placed on the sex offenders register. Its the law, an adult cannot have sex with anyone underage. It doesn't matter if they didn't know the girls real age. It still happened.
I'm actually shocked I'm even having to explain this.
He didn't have sex with an underage girl though. As soon as he realised her true age be ended it, the furthest it went sexually was kissing and the images that she sent him, which was what the whole case was about. He wasn't in court for having sex with her.
I'm referring to the case Aura is talking about.
If the police didn't process every case of an adult having sexual relations with a child all genuine and real peados would be using the 'I didn't know her age' as their defence.
That is why its automatic to be placed on the sex offenders register if an adult has any sort of indecent images of children or has committed any sex act with anyone under the age of 16. Its law that isn't up for debate.
Like I said, its good EE have done this as people really have no idea of the laws.
Apologies, I thought you were talking about Jay's case
How can that be right though? jay had no control over what images were sent to him. If this is the law, then anyone could get someone who was otherwise innocent in serious trouble by sending them similar images - i could imagine some spiteful people would do that. it is wrong >:(
There have been some high profile cases of innocent people being targeted in the way you have written but its still the law. Its there to protect children first and foremost. Which at the end of the day is right because many peados are very good liars.
No it isn't right. I am a survivor of child sex abuse and I only want to see actual perpetrators convicted, not innocent people. Convicting someone like Jay makes a mockery of the convictions secured for real offenders, and also makes a mockery of the real survivors struggles.