Very true and this is why Jay Brown is a peadophile and will always be viewed as a peadophile.
Well paedophile means an attraction to prepubescent children, so not sure that applies in Jay's case. The character is certainly a sex offender. Even unknowingly so. Yet they still kind of left that open as to whether or not we should have sympathy with him. I know many people who think he deserved what he got because he didn't make the effort to check her age.
Contrast that with the "aww, she's having a boohoo and 17 is legal anyway here", sympathy they tried to weave into Michelle's revelation.
Breaking the law in regards to a teacher having sex with a student under the age of 18 is sexual abuse. It isn't a matter of opinion, I'm afraid.
Sexual abuse isn't not sexual abuse because someone doesn't consider it sexual abuse
If that happened here, even with the age of consent differences, a teacher sleeping with their 17 year old student would be guilty of committing a sexual offence and be considered a sex offender.
That's not what I'm saying. I know it's illegal and I know there should be repercussions for it, I am not disagreeing with that. However, I think each individual case is different. The law is the law and it's there for a reason, quite rightly so, but Jimmy Saville was a sexual abuser but you can't put Michelle in the same group as him. You just can't. It's not the same. Perhaps Tony King (Whitney's abuser) is a better example. He was consciously grooming her, he was a sexual predator. I also think that's not the same, and not because it was a male abuser with a female victim, but because there was a predatory element to it. He wormed his way into a household and took advantage.
My point is that although sexual abuse is against the law, not every case is the same and that should be taken into account.
Well paedophile means an attraction to prepubescent children, so not sure that applies in Jay's case. The character is certainly a sex offender. Even unknowingly so. Yet they still kind of left that open as to whether or not we should have sympathy with him. I know many people who think he deserved what he got because he didn't make the effort to check her age.
Contrast that with the "aww, she's having a boohoo and 17 is legal anyway here", sympathy they tried to weave into Michelle's revelation.
It does apply because as you said its the law.. Jay had photos of a minor naked on his phone.
I don't think we are expected to find sympathy with Michelle either. She wasn't written as being sympathetic. Hence the reaction to her being overly negative.
That's not what I'm saying. I know it's illegal and I know there should be repercussions for it, I am not disagreeing with that. However, I think each individual case is different. The law is the law and it's there for a reason, quite rightly so, but Jimmy Saville was a sexual abuser but you can't put Michelle in the same group as him. You just can't. It's not the same. Perhaps Tony King (Whitney's abuser) is a better example. He was consciously grooming her, he was a sexual predator. I also think that's not the same, and not because it was a male abuser with a female victim, but because there was a predatory element to it. He wormed his way into a household and took advantage.
My point is that although sexual abuse is against the law, not every case is the same and that should be taken into account.
Of course there are varying degrees of severity. But I wonder how they'd handle a male teacher who committed the same crime. I suspect they'd do more than just a slap on the back and a friendly jibe about being a cradlesnatcher. I suspect they'd have worked closely with victim's charities to determine how best to introduce the character's illegal past and how it should be dealt with going forward.
Society already has a huge problem with not thinking abuse of underage boys is a a problem and treating it differently to abuse of underage girls . Even though there was no physical abuse in Jay's case, the show was eager, and right, to push the legal/moral warnings.
Michelle openly admits to what amounts to a far worse crime under both UK and British law and she's redeemed because she had a bit of a boohoo.
That's not what I'm saying. I know it's illegal and I know there should be repercussions for it, I am not disagreeing with that. However, I think each individual case is different. The law is the law and it's there for a reason, quite rightly so, but Jimmy Saville was a sexual abuser but you can't put Michelle in the same group as him. You just can't. It's not the same. Perhaps Tony King (Whitney's abuser) is a better example. He was consciously grooming her, he was a sexual predator. I also think that's not the same, and not because it was a male abuser with a female victim, but because there was a predatory element to it. He wormed his way into a household and took advantage.
My point is that although sexual abuse is against the law, not every case is the same and that should be taken into account.
You know what I actually agree.
If anything this highlights Americas silly system. Some states you can have sex at 16 and in others you must wait until you are 18 yet you can drive at 15 but aren't allowed alcohol until you are 21! Everything is a bit arse over tit. Its no wonder there are blurred lines if you can cross the border of one state have sex in it before then crossing over again. You think common sense would make them have it set nationally across the country.
Not disputing Michelle broke her position of trust by sleeping with a student but I would hardly say she is a sex pest as a result of it. Maybe if he had been 15 or under.
Of course there are varying degrees of severity. But I wonder how they'd handle a male teacher who committed the same crime. I suspect they'd do more than just a slap on the back and a friendly jibe about being a cradlesnatcher. I suspect they'd have worked closely with victim's charities to determine how best to introduce the character's illegal past and how it should be dealt with going forward.
Society already has a huge problem with not thinking abuse of underage boys is a a problem and treating it differently to abuse of underage girls . Even though there was no physical abuse in Jay's case, the show was eager, and right, to push the legal/moral warnings.
Michelle openly admits to what amounts to a far worse crime under both UK and British law and she's redeemed because she had a bit of a boohoo.
It's true - it would be totally different if it was a guy. That's a reality and it's sad because there's a feeling that men are 'stronger' emotionally and that's just not true. It always annoys me when people talk about equality because usually that means equality for good (women getting paid the same etc) and that's something I support wholeheartedly, but what about when women do something wrong like this? It seems to be it's more lenient. But then, perhaps I'm wrong. But there is a difference in thinking there.
You know what I actually agree.
If anything this highlights Americas silly system. Some states you can have sex at 16 and in others you must wait until you are 18 yet you can drive at 15 but aren't allowed alcohol until you are 21! Everything is a bit arse over tit. Its no wonder there are blurred lines if you can cross the border of one state have sex in it before then crossing over again. You think common sense would make them have it set nationally across the country.
Not disputing Michelle broke her position of trust by sleeping with a student but I would hardly say she is a sex pest as a result of it. Maybe if he had been 15 or under.
I just think that, although yes it is against the law, that on a personal level you can't just put everyone in the same box. There are different motivations for abuse and sometimes it's just about someone not being able to control their feelings and making a mistake. Again, I'm not condoning it. But every case is different and I was suitably convinced by last night's episode that Michelle is sorry for what happened and made a mistake. Against the law yes, but a mistake nonetheless.
It's true - it would be totally different if it was a guy. That's a reality and it's sad because there's a feeling that men are 'stronger' emotionally and that's just not true. It always annoys me when people talk about equality because usually that means equality for good (women getting paid the same etc) and that's something I support wholeheartedly, but what about when women do something wrong like this? It seems to be it's more lenient. But then, perhaps I'm wrong. But there is a difference in thinking there.
I just think that, although yes it is against the law, that on a personal level you can't just put everyone in the same box. There are different motivations for abuse and sometimes it's just about someone not being able to control their feelings and making a mistake. Again, I'm not condoning it. But every case is different and I was suitably convinced by last night's episode that Michelle is sorry for what happened and made a mistake. Against the law yes, but a mistake nonetheless.
I agree with the first part of your post. there is a massive imbalance between Michelle's story and how it would have been if it was an older man with a 17 year old student. Regardless of the reasons for her behaviour, she has committed a serious crime and should be dealt with accordingly. However I disagree with your bit in bold. Michelle did not come across as sorry. She kept stating that they were in love, as if that justified her actions. She was not repentant for any of it and just bemoaned that her life had been turned upside down and neither Tim or Mark would talk to her. I don't recall her dating she had spoken to Preston at all? So she's not berm in contact with the person she was madly in love with? And if they were both planning to tell their families about it and be together then everyone was going to know the truth anyway and she would still have lost her job etc etc. As i said in an earlier post, I could have accepted what she did as a mistake if it had been a short term fling but to for her to be with this CHILD for a year is something else entirely.
Personally I just can't invest in a story that has been made up for a reason to bring Michelle back.
At least with Jay we saw the story unfold, we can have sympathy with the character and the sort of innocence behind it.
With Michelle its just yet another story that has been told to us and we are meant to believe it and invest in it. Sorry EE, these days to story tell on screen, you must show the action. Its a cheap way of doing storylines and is happening quite frequently under SOC.
Given that the age of consent in Florida is 18....
Jay unknowingly sexts underage girl, is (initially) rejected by the Mitchells and labelled a paedo and given criminal record in some big storyline.
Michelle knowingly sleeps with underage boy, and gets "craddlesnatcher" followed by a wink and a hug.
I know consent laws vary but it does seem a bit problematic. If you have sex with a 17 year old in Florida it's the same as having sex with a 15 year old here. A wink and a hug isn't really appropriate is it?
Or is the difference that the victim in Michelle's case is male and therefore 'not as bad'? Either way it's fairly distasteful.
You're not shocked are you OP? Women do NOT commit crimes in EastEnders.
Jay was lusting after a underage teenage girl and had naked pics of her on his phone. The excuse used to defend him is probably the same excuse many peados try in order to get off.
He is a sex offender and a peadophile by law. Anyone who finds school girls attractive has issues and Jay was attracted to one. Thankfully because he is on the sex offenders register no other girl will fall victim to his unnatural urges.
Jay was lusting after a underage teenage girl and had naked pics of her on his phone. The excuse used to defend him is probably the same excuse many peados try in order to get off.
He is a sex offender and a peadophile by law. Anyone who finds school girls attractive has issues. Thankfully because he is on the sex offenders register who other girl will fall victim to his unnatural urges.
But we know, having watched the show, that the girl was posing as someone of age. So some of our sympathies should lie with Jay having been duped. We know the character and we know that he wouldn't have done that if it was known that she was underage.
But we know, having watched the show, that the girl was posing as someone of age. So some of our sympathies should lie with Jay having been duped. We know the character and we know that he wouldn't have done that if it was known that she was underage.
We know Jay never asked her age yes but thats no excuse. He made the choice not to ask her age... He was attracted to a minor. Hence the words attracted too. She was a child and he found her sexually attractive.
Jay was lusting after a underage teenage girl and had naked pics of her on his phone. The excuse used to defend him is probably the same excuse many peados try in order to get off.
He is a sex offender and a peadophile by law. Anyone who finds school girls attractive has issues and Jay was attracted to one. Thankfully because he is on the sex offenders register no other girl will fall victim to his unnatural urges.
Which law? The word doesn't mean what you're implying it to mean
Which law? The word doesn't mean what you're implying it to mean
Jay is on the sex offenders register for making indecent images of children which is the definition used for what Jay was charged with and admitted to in a court of law. Therefore by law he is a peadophile.
Jay is on the sex offenders register for making indecent images of children which is the definition used for what Jay was charged with and admitted to in a court of law. Therefore by law he is a peadophile.
Except people can be prosecuted for taking pictures of themselves these days. A 17 year old who takes a naked selfie is not a paedophile.
In fact, he didn't even ask for them. The girl who took them could actually be charged for distribution in real life. I guess that means her character is a paedophile.
Jay is on the sex offenders register for making indecent images of children which is the definition used for what Jay was charged with and admitted to in a court of law. Therefore by law he is a peadophile.
Except people can be prosecuted for taking pictures of themselves these days. A 17 year old who takes a naked selfie is not a paedophile.
You seem to completely misunderstand.
Jay admitting to making indecent images of children in court and was then ordered to sign the sex offenders register for this offence making him a peadophile by law.
Jay admitting to making indecent images of children in court and was then ordered to sign the sex offenders register for this offence making him a peadophile by law.
This is how the law recognises Jay. ;-)
Is it?
Says who?
The law may be black and white when it comes to certain things, but it also can recognise the difference between crimes.
The law says he is on the register, like a rapist would be. The law doesn't say that all rapists are paedophiles.
The law may be black and white when it comes to certain things, but it also can recognise the difference between crimes.
The law says he is on the register, like a rapist would be. The law doesn't say that all rapists are paedophiles.
The law of England says it. Jay is not on the register for 'rape'. Jay is on the sex offenders register for ' making indecent images of children ' therefore by English law he is classed a peodophile.
If you want to try and dispute me try researching on Google next time.
The law of England says it. Jay is on the sex offenders register for ' making indecent images of children ' therefore by English law he is classed a peodophile.
If you want to try and dispute me try researching on Google next time.
Classed in what way though?
Would there be a file somewhere that says "Jay Mitchell: paedophile" in real life? Since people know that "children" in these cases can mean 1 day before an 18th birthday, surely people realise that the criminal involved can either be a paedophile, or an absolute idiot who fancied a 17 year old and took pics?
Comments
Well paedophile means an attraction to prepubescent children, so not sure that applies in Jay's case. The character is certainly a sex offender. Even unknowingly so. Yet they still kind of left that open as to whether or not we should have sympathy with him. I know many people who think he deserved what he got because he didn't make the effort to check her age.
Contrast that with the "aww, she's having a boohoo and 17 is legal anyway here", sympathy they tried to weave into Michelle's revelation.
That's not what I'm saying. I know it's illegal and I know there should be repercussions for it, I am not disagreeing with that. However, I think each individual case is different. The law is the law and it's there for a reason, quite rightly so, but Jimmy Saville was a sexual abuser but you can't put Michelle in the same group as him. You just can't. It's not the same. Perhaps Tony King (Whitney's abuser) is a better example. He was consciously grooming her, he was a sexual predator. I also think that's not the same, and not because it was a male abuser with a female victim, but because there was a predatory element to it. He wormed his way into a household and took advantage.
My point is that although sexual abuse is against the law, not every case is the same and that should be taken into account.
It does apply because as you said its the law.. Jay had photos of a minor naked on his phone.
I don't think we are expected to find sympathy with Michelle either. She wasn't written as being sympathetic. Hence the reaction to her being overly negative.
Of course there are varying degrees of severity. But I wonder how they'd handle a male teacher who committed the same crime. I suspect they'd do more than just a slap on the back and a friendly jibe about being a cradlesnatcher. I suspect they'd have worked closely with victim's charities to determine how best to introduce the character's illegal past and how it should be dealt with going forward.
Society already has a huge problem with not thinking abuse of underage boys is a a problem and treating it differently to abuse of underage girls . Even though there was no physical abuse in Jay's case, the show was eager, and right, to push the legal/moral warnings.
Michelle openly admits to what amounts to a far worse crime under both UK and British law and she's redeemed because she had a bit of a boohoo.
You know what I actually agree.
If anything this highlights Americas silly system. Some states you can have sex at 16 and in others you must wait until you are 18 yet you can drive at 15 but aren't allowed alcohol until you are 21! Everything is a bit arse over tit. Its no wonder there are blurred lines if you can cross the border of one state have sex in it before then crossing over again. You think common sense would make them have it set nationally across the country.
Not disputing Michelle broke her position of trust by sleeping with a student but I would hardly say she is a sex pest as a result of it. Maybe if he had been 15 or under.
It's true - it would be totally different if it was a guy. That's a reality and it's sad because there's a feeling that men are 'stronger' emotionally and that's just not true. It always annoys me when people talk about equality because usually that means equality for good (women getting paid the same etc) and that's something I support wholeheartedly, but what about when women do something wrong like this? It seems to be it's more lenient. But then, perhaps I'm wrong. But there is a difference in thinking there.
I just think that, although yes it is against the law, that on a personal level you can't just put everyone in the same box. There are different motivations for abuse and sometimes it's just about someone not being able to control their feelings and making a mistake. Again, I'm not condoning it. But every case is different and I was suitably convinced by last night's episode that Michelle is sorry for what happened and made a mistake. Against the law yes, but a mistake nonetheless.
I agree with the first part of your post. there is a massive imbalance between Michelle's story and how it would have been if it was an older man with a 17 year old student. Regardless of the reasons for her behaviour, she has committed a serious crime and should be dealt with accordingly. However I disagree with your bit in bold. Michelle did not come across as sorry. She kept stating that they were in love, as if that justified her actions. She was not repentant for any of it and just bemoaned that her life had been turned upside down and neither Tim or Mark would talk to her. I don't recall her dating she had spoken to Preston at all? So she's not berm in contact with the person she was madly in love with? And if they were both planning to tell their families about it and be together then everyone was going to know the truth anyway and she would still have lost her job etc etc. As i said in an earlier post, I could have accepted what she did as a mistake if it had been a short term fling but to for her to be with this CHILD for a year is something else entirely.
At least with Jay we saw the story unfold, we can have sympathy with the character and the sort of innocence behind it.
With Michelle its just yet another story that has been told to us and we are meant to believe it and invest in it. Sorry EE, these days to story tell on screen, you must show the action. Its a cheap way of doing storylines and is happening quite frequently under SOC.
You're not shocked are you OP? Women do NOT commit crimes in EastEnders.
Doesn't KNOWLEDGE of the other person being a minor matter AT ALL? Was he supposed to ID her?
That's not what a paedophile is
Michelle needs locking up.
Jay was lusting after a underage teenage girl and had naked pics of her on his phone. The excuse used to defend him is probably the same excuse many peados try in order to get off.
He is a sex offender and a peadophile by law. Anyone who finds school girls attractive has issues and Jay was attracted to one. Thankfully because he is on the sex offenders register no other girl will fall victim to his unnatural urges.
But we know, having watched the show, that the girl was posing as someone of age. So some of our sympathies should lie with Jay having been duped. We know the character and we know that he wouldn't have done that if it was known that she was underage.
We know Jay never asked her age yes but thats no excuse. He made the choice not to ask her age... He was attracted to a minor. Hence the words attracted too. She was a child and he found her sexually attractive.
Which law? The word doesn't mean what you're implying it to mean
I'm wondering about that too. Paedophilia isn't an attraction to underage girls, it's an attraction to pre-pubescent children.
If the term covered older, yet underage girls, how many men would be paedophiles? 17 year olds would count in some places.
Jay is on the sex offenders register for making indecent images of children which is the definition used for what Jay was charged with and admitted to in a court of law. Therefore by law he is a peadophile.
Except people can be prosecuted for taking pictures of themselves these days. A 17 year old who takes a naked selfie is not a paedophile.
In fact, he didn't even ask for them. The girl who took them could actually be charged for distribution in real life. I guess that means her character is a paedophile.
I don't think he made them , he received them .
You seem to completely misunderstand.
Jay admitting to making indecent images of children in court and was then ordered to sign the sex offenders register for this offence making him a peadophile by law.
This is how the law recognises Jay. ;-)
The legal definition for anyone who is charged for having child porn on their procession is ' making indecent images of children ' .
Is it?
Says who?
The law may be black and white when it comes to certain things, but it also can recognise the difference between crimes.
The law says he is on the register, like a rapist would be. The law doesn't say that all rapists are paedophiles.
The law of England says it. Jay is not on the register for 'rape'. Jay is on the sex offenders register for ' making indecent images of children ' therefore by English law he is classed a peodophile.
If you want to try and dispute me try researching on Google next time.
Classed in what way though?
Would there be a file somewhere that says "Jay Mitchell: paedophile" in real life? Since people know that "children" in these cases can mean 1 day before an 18th birthday, surely people realise that the criminal involved can either be a paedophile, or an absolute idiot who fancied a 17 year old and took pics?