[Closed] Eddy Shah opens a can of worms

i suggested that a lot of older rock/pop stars were probably concerned about the savllie fallout a whileback

I was told in so many words that groupies dont count!

The man's an idiot - of course there are sexually experienced 13-year-olds who throw themselves on older men, the point is an adult should be able to control themselves.

I know many sexual experienced 13 year olds who would go with older men, and egg them on................
BUT, they are like that because of the terrible upbringings they have had, often because of sexual abuse by their parents.
What the judge said last week was disgusting I don't think these people have any idea of what some children are subject to, and I understand that, before I started my job I couldn't dream up what adults will put children through.
If I dwelt on it too long I would become depressed 😕

My wager says that if his granddaughter was being accused of sexual experience in early teens, he might feel differently.

Easygirl has it spot on.

Eddy Shah is talking utter shite. If you are going to stick your cock in something it's up to you to find out if its appropriate. No ifs, buts or half measures.

Eddy Shah was accused of raping an under-age girl, and found innocent. I expect in many peoples eyes he is guilty and got away with it. Because rape has become a crime where an accusation is proof of guilt for most people.

Maybe his comments have been shaped by his experience.

Is the judiciary also not meant to be independent? It is getting to the point where we may as well let sentencing be passed by the politicians beholden to the tabloids.

The man's an idiot - of course there are sexually experienced 13-year-olds who throw themselves on older men, the point is an adult should be able to control themselves.

exactly

Is the judiciary also not meant to be independent? It is getting to the point where we may as well let sentencing be passed by the politicians beholden to the tabloids

the radio presenter should of asked him at what age do you draw the line 13, 12, 11, 10 , 9, 8.....

Maybe his comments have been shaped by his experience.

I don't what comment you are referring to but I fairly sure everyone else is referring to this comment :

[url= http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-08-11/underage-girls-must-take-the-blame-for-the-abuse-they-suffer/ ]Shah: Girls 'must take the blame' for abuse they suffer[/url]

I would say that comment has been shaped by callous denial from someone who is a complete arsehole 💡

Well that's not what he said, his actual words are

"Young girls and young men have always wanted a bit of excitement when they are young. They want to appear adult and do adult things."

When asked if he was implying that underage victims could themselves be at fault, he said: "If we're talking about girls who go out and just have a good time, then they are to blame.

"If we talk about people who happen to be out and actually get 'raped' raped, then I feel no - and everything should be done against that."

but if you want to use comments he didn't make, then that's up to you.

Thanks for clearing that up - I wasn't sure whether you were referring to the comment where he was blaming underage victims for being at fault. I now see that you were. And yes, that's exactly what he said.

And I will repeat what I said, imo the comment has been shaped by callous denial from someone who is a complete arsehole.

Ah so thee is good rape and bad rape, I see.

He was talking solely about consensual sex with people under 16. He has a point, albeit a dubious one. He is correct in what he said about some underage people looking like they are 18 or above - some do. Would you ID someone before you had sex with them?

Or should we perhaps make the half your age plus 7 rule a law?

I can sort of see where he is coming from, if you have an older looking underage girl? What do you do, ask her for for passport? Is it like going to the shop and having to prove your age before you buy alcohol?

So you think a 20 year old man, who sleeps with a 15 year old girl he meets in a nightclub and believes is over 18, should be treated exactly the same as a 40 year old man forcing himself on a 15 year old girl by the law?

It's all a bit disappointing, as prior to these comments he's always come across as a really, really nice bloke. Thoughtful and caring. And not at all an egotistical, moronic, callous bell end!

Ah so thee is good rape and bad rape

If you want up put it like that, yes. Nothing is ever black and white in life. Under age is statutory rape, which is IMO not the same as date rape, violent rape etc etc.

The question is did the victim want sex, or was the victim forced, or was the victim unable to give consent. If someone is pissed can they give consent? How many students does that catch?

Glumption I'm not sure he was just talking about two underage people. It didnt sound like it. The child cannot consent to sex, if you are an adult its your responsibility to find out the age of the person yku are shagging. End of story. Some of the comments here show some "interesting views".

He was talking solely about consensual sex with people under 16. He has a point, albeit a dubious one.

If you know anything about pedeophillia you would know that it is not uncommon for children to enjoy the physical pleasures, it doesn't mean that it doesn't **** up their heads and leave them with problems for the rest of their lives.

So you think a 20 year old man, who sleeps with a 15 year old girl he meets in a nightclub and believes is over 18, should be treated exactly the same as a 40 year old man forcing himself on a 15 year old girl by the law?

both rapists, sentences would differ

if you are an adult its your responsibility to find out the age of the person yku are shagging.

So did you check the birth certificates of girls you were dating when you was 18?

anagallis_arvensis - Member

Some of the comments here show some "interesting views".

I agree 😐

both rapists, sentences would differ

Ah so thee is good rape and bad rape, I see.

So did you check the birth certificates of girls you were dating when you was 18?

no but I knew what year they were in at school or I knew they were uni students so I didnt have to. I preferred girls my age. Maybe you were different.

Did your last post having a point MSP?

I preferred girls my age.

See I preferred girls older than me. None of them ever ID'd me...

So every girl you met was either in your school or at your uni? That is just bullshit.

Every girl i shagged, until it no longer became a doubt over their age. Obviously you think this odd, I dont think this is the place to ask why.

So want to insinuate that everybody who doesn't see the world as black and white as you is a paedophile now?

I have no idea you seem to implie that I'm odd in knowing how old everyone I have shagged is. Seems you obviously have no idea how old people you have slept with are.

Looking back at myself as an 18 years old, I certainly could not know the age of all the (well the few) women I slept with, I believed they were 18 or over because of the environment I met them in. I think my experience is much closer to normality than your claims.

OK I am odd then.

If you know anything about pedeophillia...

Maybe you should Google it? (spelt correctly, natch) I mean, what's the worst that could happen?

everybody who doesn't see the world as black and white as you

[img] [/img]

Maybe you should Google it? (spelt correctly, natch) I mean, what's the worst that could happen?

🙄

How I spelt it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I am neither an expert on spelling nor pedeophillia. Nor do I claim to be.

BTW ScottChegg have you got a point to make on this thread, or are your comments purely restricted to pointless smartarse comments ?

the radio presenter should of asked him at what age do you draw the line 13, 12, 11, 10 , 9, 8.....

You shouldn't be drawing the line at any age, but a developmental stage. Is the person biological an adult or a child? Girls in this country can be adult as early as 12 (according to the NHS), and boys as late as 20. The quick thinking amongst you with therefore realise that the current UK laws make it legal to have sex with a (biological) child.

he child cannot consent to sex

In UK law children of 13 an over CAN consent to sex actually. Independent of the age of consent which is 16.

So, to explain that, if an adult and a minor of 13 or older engage in consensual sex, then the offense of underage sex has occurred. However if the minor was younger than 13 then the crime is automatically rape regardless of any consent, because by law a child under 13 cannot legally give their consent.

Independent of the age of consent which is 16.

Interesting to remember that the gay age of consent was (after legalisation) 21, then only reduced to 18 and then 16 recently?

So was a man who had sex with a sixteen or seventeen year old in the 1970's a paedophile (Jonathan King anyone?)

And while we're mentioning Bill Wyman

[img] [/img]

And while we're mentioning Bill Wyman

What's that suppose to mean - Jimmy Saville had underage sex with Elvis ?

Not sure your right there Trucker

The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new series of laws to protect children under 16 from sexual abuse. However, the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation. Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds. 
Read more at  http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex#GPbZDVMtqYSdc87Q.99

Is the person biological an adult or a child?

The age of consent is below the age of adulthood and children can legally have sex.

Biological would mean able to reproduce - ie create babies/sexual maturity and will clearly lead to some very young children being "adults" in your view and some actual legal adults [18+] still being children.
Its why we use something else based on age

Eddie Shah's an idiot.

Not sure why so many people here have such strong deterministic views. So if I have sex with a girl who's 15 years and 364 old I'm a disgusting pervert, but wait until midnight and it's all hunky dory?

What if I go to Canada and have sex with a 16 year old? Does that just make me a disgusting pervert in Canada, but not when I come home?

I'm not necessarily commenting on what this Shah fella has said, just wondering why lots on here seem to think it's all black and white. The minute someone even half raises the debate then the press and general public seems to drown them out in a torrent of outrage.

The law is black and white. If you dont like the laws campaign for change.

The law is black and white. If you dont like the laws campaign for change.

It may be written in black and white, but thankfully, sentencing guidelines allow for quite a lot of greyness.

The law is black and white. If you dont like the laws campaign for change.

Why do we need the law to define our moral compass? Why can't we make our own minds up about what is right and wrong? This debate is getting swallowed up by people who like to jump on their high horse and quote the law. Why not accept there are grey areas and then try and work out the facts of each individual case before sharpening your pitchfork?

If a lawyer and judge says a 15 year old girl is predatory then is that an impossibility? If indeed she was predetory then can't that be mitigation against a severe custodial sentence?

Bit like speeding this debate. Your either over the limit or not imo. Describing a 15 yearold as a sexual predator is not only very stupid but also dangerous when uttered by a judge.

Why do we need the law to define our moral compass?

Because some people's "moral compass" is damaging to others. That's why. It's not rocket science.

wow... just wow

I'm guessing by some of the heinous attitudes towards young girls being displayed in this thread that some of the men here have only ever encountered teenaged girls whilst drunk in nightclubs.. or worse

I feel a little bit sick

Describing a 15 year old as a sexual predator is not only very stupid but also dangerous when uttered by a judge.

So the prosecution lawyer thought that was what she was, the judge thought that was what she was. But you know better than those legal professionals equipped with the facts of the case and many years experience in dealing with such cases.

You are awesome, we should do away with the whole legal profession and just let you decide sentences from what you read in the media.

some of the heinous attitudes towards young girls being displayed in this thread

What thread are you reading?

Why do we need the law to define our moral compass?

If indeed she was predetory then can't that be mitigation against a severe custodial sentence?

So the prosecution lawyer thought that was what she was, the judge thought that was what she was. But you know better than those legal professionals equipped with the facts of the case and many years experience in dealing with such cases.

Citing someone whose job is to offer mitigation and defend someone as an example of a truth is fraught with dangers not least because a jury did not listen tot their version and found the person guilty and their version to be incorrect and untruthful.

You are awesome, we should do away with the whole legal profession and just let you decide sentences from what you read in the media.

Eddie Shah's and many of these comments make me furious. Surely alarm bells would ring with a girl very much younger?

In my teens, I looked of indeterminate age and had a facade of maturity. Underneath utter confusion. I was pretty good at calculus but much of the rest of the growing up stuff was based around serious amounts of risk taking, drunken, idiocy. In retrospect, I can put it down to a desire to grow up mixed with puzzlement (how?) and terror.

The fact that the adults I met didn't take advantage of the teenage behaviour could be testament to them being good adults rather than selfish, gratification-seeking, older men who don't give a toss about who they are shagging. It could also be down to the law which was there to protect me from myself as well as the stupid, the selfish, the shameless and the abusive.

So the prosecution lawyer thought that was what she was, the judge thought that was what she was. But you know better than those legal professionals 

I bet I spend more time with teenage kids than they do, so actually I do think I know better yes.

Citing someone whose job is to offer mitigation and defend someone as an example of a truth is fraught with dangers not least because a jury did not listen tot their version and found the person guilty and their version to be incorrect and untruthful.

It was the prosecution who said it, not the defence. 🙄

Fallacy as it is a straw man

I know it's your favourite operandi modus, to just claim everything a straw man or an ad hominem, but you are often wrong as in this case.

I bet I spend more time with teenage kids than they do, so actually I do think I know better yes.

Why not just stick to the details of the case they made the comments in, what do you know about the details presented to the court?

I stand corrected re it being a prosecutor Cheers.
However the point still remains that it is an appeal to authority, One of the authorities is now no longer prosecuting , due to this comment,sex offenders cases so they are properly some way short of the expert you claimed they are.
Re straw man do you wish to claim that that is what ernie actually said or meant? Its not what he said nor meant so you are clearly attacking a position he never took

But you know better than those legal professionals

Speaking about Mr Colover's remarks, a CPS spokesman said: "The language used by prosecution counsel was inappropriate.
"The transgressor in this case was the defendant and he bears responsibility for his criminal acts."
Alan Wardle, from the NSPCC, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The age of consent in this country is 16, before that a child cannot consent. As a society we have drawn a line in the sand on that.
"In this case, the child was 13 and the man was 41 - it's pretty clear who the predator was."
In a statement, the Attorney General's Office said: "The case has been drawn to the attention of this office as a possibly unduly lenient sentence.
"This means it'll be considered by a law officer (the attorney or solicitor general) who will decide whether it should be referred to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme."

It would appear they are not alone in questioning the judgement made so plenty seem to think they "know better"

what do you know about the details presented to the court?

it really doesn't matter does it?

[b]I[/b] do not need the law to define my moral compass, is probably the point I meant. It just seems some people on here use the law to define a clear line between what is wright and wrong. I'm happy to state that I don't always agree with the law and am quite capable of making my own mind up.

Why can't a lawyer or judge refer to a girl as predatory if she truly is? I get that there is possibly a underlying reason of bad parenting or maybe even abuse to why that may be the case, but nevertheless it is still relevant to the case and sentencing so it has to be mentioned.

it really doesn't matter does it?

Yes the details of the case are clearly important in guiding the remarks made by the judge.

Re straw man do you wish to claim that that is what ernie actually said or meant? Its not what he said nor meant so you are clearly attacking a position he never took

It was AA not Ernie, and he claimed to know better than the judge so it was the position he took. It is clear you are just looking for an argument rather than bothering to read anything.

she was a 13 year old victim of sexual abuse

Calling her predatory was just a really shit way of saying ****ed up due to abuse but with no empathy for her plight, hence the reaction.

As we are discussing the behaviour of a 41 year man , whatever her behaviour, he should have known better.

I get your broader point that many of us are moral and we pick our moral independent of the law but it would not really work would it in the real world if we were all allowed to do this

Anarchy does not equate harmony.

It was AA not Ernie, and he claimed to know better than the judge so it was the position he took. It is clear you are just looking for an argument rather than bothering to read anything.

Sorry again

Can I still keep my appeal for authority or do i fully strike out 😀

I sincerely and utterly hope that nobody on here ever has to deal with the sexual abuse of a child and its aftermath, however I believe that possibly some posts would have phrased slightly differently if some of the posters had been in that situation. It is the worst kind of hell imaginable, and the effects on both the victim and the victim's family last for years. The last thing that somebody who has suffered this kind of abuse needs is an odious piece if excrement like Shah implying that what happened to them was all their own fault.

but nevertheless it is still relevant to the case and sentencing

how is it relevant to sentencing..?

Some guys on here seem pretty relaxed in their attitudes to sex with girls under the [b][u]legal[/u][/b] age of consent.

Describing a 13 y/o girl as a sexual predator is beyond belief and anyone arguing in defense of that statement disgusts me.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

22 now....

And to think that there was a multihundred post thread on that person just a couple of years ago that ended up with many people being forcibly ejected from the forum.

Some of the outraged on this thread were not so long ago bleeting about what a curse life must be for a paedophile and how tough things are for them, how it's not their fault and how their lives have been blighted by their illness. But now, no matter what a paedophile should always know better and make the right decision in a situation where they could get it very wrong. Funny that.

could you link to the thread where the "outraged" did as you claim?

Some of the outraged on this thread were not so long ago bleeting about what a curse life must be for a paedophile and how tough things are for them, how it's not their fault and how their lives have been blighted by their illness.

Well there's a thread I missed. Got a link ?

Waits with interest...

And +1 to Coyote.

how is it relevant to sentencing..?

Are you suggesting that the details of the crime are irrelevant to sentencing? How else would you suggest sentencing is decided, maybe on the spin of the wheel of fortune?

Many of the posts remind me of this.

Many of the posts remind me of this.

Like Coyote some of the posts on here quite frankly sicken me.

I think you have completly missed the point of the Brass Eye Episode.

pointless smartarse comments

[img] [/img]

I'm not sure what I could usefully contribute to a thread where underage sex is somewhere between unavoidable and inevitable, to be honest.

Astonishing.

Two irony images on one thread ScottChegg - leave a few on google images for others to use. Perhaps you could try a different tactic ?

I think you have completly missed the point of the Brass Eye Episode.

No, I get that it highlighted the paranoia, the hysteria, and the need of so many to make a public display of that worthiness that reality and debate was pushed to the margins.

Which isn't what this thread is about. At all.

I'm not sure what I could usefully contribute to a thread where underage sex is somewhere between unavoidable and inevitable, to be honest.

this

you post regularly on a forum where you kind of imagine that basically, all the other users are fairly sound.. then suddenly a couple of fellas pop up saying that

'yes, 13 year old girls are indeed sexual predators, some misogynistic old perv of a judge has said so.. so we'd better all start being a bit more careful about where we put it hey lads, even though if we get it wrong it won't really be our fault'

beyond belief.. troll perhaps..?

I'm interested though.. what age are the posters that are supporting the judge..? I suppose things can look slightly different depending on what stage of maturity you are at..

could you link to the thread where the "outraged" did as you claim?

No, it was deleted after about 20 posts.

No, it was deleted after about 20 posts.

but you remember the names of the contributors, maybe you can list them to help me with my memory?

No, I get that it highlighted the paranoia, the hysteria, and the need of so many to make a public display of that worthiness that reality and debate was pushed to the margins.

Can you point out where I have displayed paranoia or hysteria, or where I have just written stuff to appear worthy? All I have highlighted is that someone under the age of 16 cannot consent to sex and it is up to the adult to ascertain the age of the person you are shagging. It has also been implied that I am odd in being 100% sure that everyone I have shagged was over 16. If that's odd so be it, I am happy to be odd.

but you remember the names of the contributors, maybe you can list them to help me with my memory

So you can string them up?