Makes you fooking sick

[The Camel]

When I was at school (long time ago now!) a girl in my year told her parents when she was 12 or 13 that she was having an affair with a teacher.

They (naturally enough) went to the police, he got arrested, charged with multiple accounts rape, sexual assault etc

It was only a couple of weeks before the case went to court that she confessed she made it all up because she had a crush on him but spurned her advances.

Although he was completely exonerated, he never returned to the school. Mud sticks and some parents didn't want him teaching.

All very sad.

No matter how bad the evidence looks, we should always remember "Innocent til proven guilty".

 

[HastingsSeagull]

Who??

 

[The Modfather]

Who??

Some bloke from Coronationm Street

 

[Del Fenner]

Innocent until proven guilty.

No it isn't. It's presumed innocent until proven guilty. Which is not at all the same thing as innocent.

 

[Ali_rrr]

No it isn't. It's presumed innocent until proven guilty. Which is not at all the same thing as innocent.

I'm not condoning his alleged actions, but it is, innocent until you're proven to be guilty.

 

[Del Fenner]

I'm not condoning his alleged actions, but it is, innocent until you're proven to be guilty.

The legal principle is:

Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit

Which means "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."

So therefore until proof of guilt is established, the accused is considered to be innocent.

The shorthand for this is "presumption of innocence" or "presumed innocent".

"Innocent" is the state of not having committed the crime one is accused of, which is quite independent of the judicial process.*



*For example the Guildford Four appear to have been factually innocent, yet judicially proven guilty.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

"child rape"
does that equate to under 16 years old penatrative intercourse? - since an under 16 cannot be consenting [not an adult], any sex with a minor would be classed as "rape".

Now if the plaintiff is/was 15 and a half at the time of the alleged incident, that is [in my mind] quite different to raping a 2 / 5 / 9 year old? No?

There are many a 15 year old lass that, when dressed up, could pass for 21.
We don't know the facts, so be wary of being judgmental.

 

[Philzo-93]

Guess that's why the Corrie producers voted against tnaming the garage: Kev'll fix it!

 

[edna krabappel]

"child rape"
does that equate to under 16 years old penatrative intercourse? - since an under 16 cannot be consenting [not an adult], any sex with a minor would be classed as "rape".

Shades of grey. While the age of consent is 16, the law does make certain concessions, hence not all men who are found to have had sex with 15 year olds are prosecuted, because the system recognises that 15 year old girls may and do often consent to sex. Otherwise 16 year old boys would be in court all over the place (or at least that's what they'd like us to think).

The cutting off point is 13: a child under 13 cannot be deemed under law to have consented under any circumstances, therefore any adult found to have engaged in sexual activity with a 12 year old commits an offence.

 

[TheMajor]

The legal principle is:

Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit

Which means "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."

So therefore until proof of guilt is established, the accused is considered to be innocent.

The shorthand for this is "presumption of innocence" or "presumed innocent".

"Innocent" is the state of not having committed the crime one is accused of, which is quite independent of the judicial process.*



*For example the Guildford Four appear to have been factually innocent, yet judicially proven guilty.

How's ticket sales going ? - still selling like hot cakes - 200 a day.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Kevin Webster..The future's fuckin' rosie.....

Bushy you tart....that is funny....

 

[red star portslade]

Don't buy 'em from Websters Garage, they're bald and barely legal.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Hope he gets what's coming to him

Where they wearing short skirts though? This makes a difference.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Shades of grey. While the age of consent is 16, the law does make certain concessions, hence not all men who are found to have had sex with 15 year olds are prosecuted, because the system recognises that 15 year old girls may and do often consent to sex. Otherwise 16 year old boys would be in court all over the place (or at least that's what they'd like us to think).

The cutting off point is 13: a child under 13 cannot be deemed under law to have consented under any circumstances, therefore any adult found to have engaged in sexual activity with a 12 year old commits an offence.

So matey...the teacher from Eastbourne with the 15 year old pupil...will be treated leniently?

No.no he won't. Clearly she was fully consenting to the relationship but he is in a position of trust. I guess that's another big factor.

 

[Soulman]

....................

 

[SeagullSongs]

Shades of grey. While the age of consent is 16, the law does make certain concessions, hence not all men who are found to have had sex with 15 year olds are prosecuted, because the system recognises that 15 year old girls may and do often consent to sex. Otherwise 16 year old boys would be in court all over the place (or at least that's what they'd like us to think).

The cutting off point is 13: a child under 13 cannot be deemed under law to have consented under any circumstances, therefore any adult found to have engaged in sexual activity with a 12 year old commits an offence.

I get your point, but I think it applies more to those around the legal age, such as for a 16 year old boy and a 15 year old girl. 30 and 15 would not be the same story.