I'll bet my left arm she was looking at regular porn sites..ie legal
If she's been looking at the sites I think she has, then it will be plainly obvious these are not child porn sites...Personally I think she's either being very nieve after finding a few role play porn movies...or she's knowingly exaggerating what she's actually seen...ie journalistic licence.
I agree. And MWT really ought to be au fait with the 'lets pretend we went on the computer' type story......
...I wasn't surprised that a vulnerable teenager, Ashleigh Hall, was groomed on Facebook before being brutally raped and killed.
He seems to have written that Facebook was just as dangerous.
Yes, my 14-year-old daughter uses Facebook, but with stringent privacy settings and a maximum of 30 friends, all of whom she must know genuinely - and I am one of them.
In MWT's article he gives advice to paedophiles how to con a young child.
Police investigate allegations of sex abuse at Catholic boarding school
Police are investigating allegations of abuse at a Catholic boarding school in the Scottish Highlands, following complaints of a brutal regime in which boys were physically beaten, psychologically tortured and sexually assaulted. The school closed in 1993.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who resigned as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh in February after allegations of sexual misconduct, was a visitor to the school and guest of honour at last year's old boys' dinner.
Jimmy Savile, who owned a house in the Highlands, was also an occasional guest
Was there any school/home/hospital that pervert didn't visit to get his kicks?
An old law may stop women in England and Wales, who were groomed for sex as teenage girls before 2004, from bringing charges against the people who took advantage of them. The issue was highlighted when two women were told they could not press charges because they did not report the abuse to the police within 12 months of it happening.
I am confused. If this law is called into effect for these two women, why isn't it being used for the historic abuse accusations about Rolf Harris etc?
I think he has done the right thing, however many of his own re-tweets have given too much detail of how to find sites featuring child pornography.
To give him his due, I haven't seen him link in this way for a while so perhaps he has realised the need for caution. If so, good for him.
I am confused. If this law is called into effect for these two women, why isn't it being used for the historic abuse accusations about Rolf Harris etc?
I hope someone who knows will come and explain (slowly and carefully please ) because I am confused about it too.
Memory On Trial
Do we understand enough about how memory works to properly assess evidence in sex abuse cases when allegations date back decades http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zshnz
I hope someone who knows will come and explain (slowly and carefully please ) because I am confused about it too.
I think this is down to the fact that the only available charge under the laws existing at the time of these two alleged offences by the schoolteachers against these pupils was:
1956 Sexual Offences Act, S6. Unlawful sexual intercourse by a man with a girl under 16. For a prosecution under this offence the offence had to be reported to police within 12 months. (If the girl was under 13 it fell under S5 and there wasn't any deadline for reporting).
Under the 1956 Act there is an offence of indecent assault. There is no deadline for reporting of this offence. But it has been ruled that prosecutors cannot use this offence to try to bypass the time limit in what should be a S6 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse offence.
I think this is down to the fact that the only available charge under the laws existing at the time of these two alleged offences by the schoolteachers against these pupils was:
1956 Sexual Offences Act, S6. Unlawful sexual intercourse by a man with a girl under 16. For a prosecution under this offence the offence had to be reported to police within 12 months. (If the girl was under 13 it fell under S5 and there wasn't any deadline for reporting).
Under the 1956 Act there is an offence of indecent assault. There is no deadline for reporting of this offence. But it has been ruled that prosecutors cannot use this offence to try to bypass the time limit in what should be a S6 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse offence.
So if this is the case can we assume those being arrested or interviewed etc are being accused of crimes not of having unlawful underage sex with a girl aged 13 toi 16 but of an assault other than intercourse with a girl aged 13 to 16 or of unwanted intercourse with a person over 16 ? or under 13 ?
That probably sounds as clear as mud but I know what I mean .
Memory On Trial
Do we understand enough about how memory works to properly assess evidence in sex abuse cases when allegations date back decades http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zshnz
Some interesting stuff in there and something that could also apply to the way others have come forward to accuse celebs.
So if this is the case can we assume those being arrested or interviewed etc are being accused of crimes not of having unlawful underage sex with a girl aged 13 toi 16 but of an assault other than intercourse with a girl aged 13 to 16 or of unwanted intercourse with a person over 16 ? or under 13 ?
That probably sounds as clear as mud but I know what I mean .
I know what you mean and that was my thoughts too.
So typical of the sensation seeking DM :rolleyes: It is the same as the small piece extracted from the Barbara Hewson(?) article where she said the age of consent should be reduced. By reading the whole of the article as by reading the full chapter, it is obvious that the context is all important.
Much of what Nick Ross wrote is true and whilst there is NEVER an excuse for rape there MAY be mitigating circumstances which should be taken into account.
I also saw an article where it was said that soccer stars were the next in line for Yewtree. Why on earth the important cases like the North Wales care homes can't be dealt with before listening to women accusing celebs etc for what we do not know? Touching etc may be offensive and unwanted but is not in the same league as rape and genuine sexual abuse yet seems to be so treated by the police.
I think this is down to the fact that the only available charge under the laws existing at the time of these two alleged offences by the schoolteachers against these pupils was:
1956 Sexual Offences Act, S6. Unlawful sexual intercourse by a man with a girl under 16. For a prosecution under this offence the offence had to be reported to police within 12 months. (If the girl was under 13 it fell under S5 and there wasn't any deadline for reporting).
Under the 1956 Act there is an offence of indecent assault. There is no deadline for reporting of this offence. But it has been ruled that prosecutors cannot use this offence to try to bypass the time limit in what should be a S6 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse offence.
So if this is the case can we assume those being arrested or interviewed etc are being accused of crimes not of having unlawful underage sex with a girl aged 13 toi 16 but of an assault other than intercourse with a girl aged 13 to 16 or of unwanted intercourse with a person over 16 ? or under 13 ?
That probably sounds as clear as mud but I know what I mean .
I think I know what you mean , but if this clarifies it a bit more:-
- They can't be prosecuted for sexual intercourse with anyone over 12.
- They could be prosecuted for sexual intercourse with anyone up to 12.
- They could be prosecuted for rape of anyone of any age.
- They could be prosecuted for indecent assault of anyone of any age.
Complaints seem most likely to fit the indecent assault offence, for which there can be a Defence of Consent in cases where the complainant was 16 or over but not where the complainant was under 16.
ETA: The above are all assuming female complainants - theres loads more variations when it comes to male complainants :eek::)
Why on earth the important cases like the North Wales care homes can't be dealt with before listening to women accusing celebs etc for what we do not know?
In theory the UK does not have a national police force, Yewtree is London based therefore a Met police led operation. If a reported incident happened outside London it is passed on to the local police to deal with.
Unless there was a London connection North Wales is not part of Yewtree, it's a separate investigation by local police.
One of the problems in North Wales are the claims made by a particular individual, which have been headline grabbing, but were at odds with the facts.
Comments
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/25/daily-mail-journalist-admits-viewing-child-porn_n_3335486.html
MWT may not have used Facebook for the article but...
He seems to have written that Facebook was just as dangerous.
In MWT's article he gives advice to paedophiles how to con a young child.
Catholic Church and child sex abuse: police launch ‘Operation #Torva’ into British schools of #Salesian order. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4979/met-investigates-catholic-order-s-schools-over-child-sex-abuse …
Liaising my arse. The police should throw the book at the Mail. This sort of "journalism" should never, ever be acceptable.
Police are investigating allegations of abuse at a Catholic boarding school in the Scottish Highlands,
following complaints of a brutal regime in which boys were physically beaten, psychologically tortured and sexually assaulted. The school closed in 1993.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who resigned as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh in February after allegations of sexual misconduct, was a visitor to the school and guest of honour at last year's old boys' dinner.
Jimmy Savile, who owned a house in the Highlands, was also an occasional guest
Was there any school/home/hospital that pervert didn't visit to get his kicks?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/25/fort-augustus-abbey-school-abuse-allegations
http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/exclusive-met-police-launch-nationwide-child-abuse-investigation-into-catholic-order/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedo-probe-catholic-schools-20-1911825
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/25/daily-mail-journalist-admits-viewing-child-porn_n_3335486.html
https://twitter.com/smessham
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22653991#
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/402441/Ex-BBC-driver-is-charged-with-sex-abuse-of-boy-12
I am confused. If this law is called into effect for these two women, why isn't it being used for the historic abuse accusations about Rolf Harris etc?
To give him his due, I haven't seen him link in this way for a while so perhaps he has realised the need for caution. If so, good for him.
I hope someone who knows will come and explain (slowly and carefully please
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12881097
Memory On Trial
Do we understand enough about how memory works to properly assess evidence in sex abuse cases when allegations date back decades
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zshnz
I think this is down to the fact that the only available charge under the laws existing at the time of these two alleged offences by the schoolteachers against these pupils was:
1956 Sexual Offences Act, S6. Unlawful sexual intercourse by a man with a girl under 16. For a prosecution under this offence the offence had to be reported to police within 12 months.
(If the girl was under 13 it fell under S5 and there wasn't any deadline for reporting).
Under the 1956 Act there is an offence of indecent assault. There is no deadline for reporting of this offence. But it has been ruled that prosecutors cannot use this offence to try to bypass the time limit in what should be a S6 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse offence.
So if this is the case can we assume those being arrested or interviewed etc are being accused of crimes not of having unlawful underage sex with a girl aged 13 toi 16 but of an assault other than intercourse with a girl aged 13 to 16 or of unwanted intercourse with a person over 16 ? or under 13 ?
That probably sounds as clear as mud but I know what I mean .
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2330930/Crimewatch-creator-Nick-Ross-provokes-fury-suggesting-rape-rape-victim-drunk-leading-men-on.html
forcing the publisher to put the whole chapter about sex crimes online
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/posts/nick-ross-chapter-twelve-from-crime-on-sex-crimes
so we can read what he actually wrote.
Nick Ross will be on #5live Nolan tonight regarding his comments about rape.
5Live 10pm-1am
here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/webcam/videocam/
Former Crimewatch presenter Nick Ross provokes fury with rape comments
Nick Ross appeared to claim that rape victims were partly responsible if they were drunk or provocatively dressed
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/former-crimewatch-presenter-nick-ross-provokes-fury-with-rape-comments-8632730.html
There's a thread about it
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1830391
Some interesting stuff in there and something that could also apply to the way others have come forward to accuse celebs.
I know what you mean and that was my thoughts too.
So typical of the sensation seeking DM :rolleyes: It is the same as the small piece extracted from the Barbara Hewson(?) article where she said the age of consent should be reduced. By reading the whole of the article as by reading the full chapter, it is obvious that the context is all important.
Much of what Nick Ross wrote is true and whilst there is NEVER an excuse for rape there MAY be mitigating circumstances which should be taken into account.
I also saw an article where it was said that soccer stars were the next in line for Yewtree. Why on earth the important cases like the North Wales care homes can't be dealt with before listening to women accusing celebs etc for what we do not know? Touching etc may be offensive and unwanted but is not in the same league as rape and genuine sexual abuse yet seems to be so treated by the police.
I read bits here and here but never contribute so I just wanted to thank the regulars for their efforts.
You sure have stamina for this dreadful sad saga.:(
I think I know what you mean
- They can't be prosecuted for sexual intercourse with anyone over 12.
- They could be prosecuted for sexual intercourse with anyone up to 12.
- They could be prosecuted for rape of anyone of any age.
- They could be prosecuted for indecent assault of anyone of any age.
Complaints seem most likely to fit the indecent assault offence, for which there can be a Defence of Consent in cases where the complainant was 16 or over but not where the complainant was under 16.
ETA: The above are all assuming female complainants - theres loads more variations when it comes to male complainants :eek::)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01xppf4/Stephen_Nolan_26_05_2013/
1hr 6mins in
Nolan has him wriggling.
In theory the UK does not have a national police force, Yewtree is London based therefore a Met police led operation. If a reported incident happened outside London it is passed on to the local police to deal with.
Unless there was a London connection North Wales is not part of Yewtree, it's a separate investigation by local police.
One of the problems in North Wales are the claims made by a particular individual, which have been headline grabbing, but were at odds with the facts.
http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2013/04/yewtree-decision.html