egg

The shades of grey go to mitigation, not culpability. Stealing a can of petrol isn't as bad as stealing the car to put it in but it's all dishonesty. There is no grey area with sexual offences towards kids, just degrees oF severity.

Wtf does that have to do with this thread? Saville was a nonce by all accounts, who f^cked and molested kids. Peel admitted getting blow jobs off kids. Peel admitted he didn't ask so by your rationale he's better than those who actively seek out children. Your grading dog sh!t into different categories of dog **** but it's all brown and smelly.

Yeah, ones wrong and the other is wronger. Are you trying to say that you believe that if you don't bother asking it's ok to f^ck a kid? Frankly you ain't making much sense to me.

That's not my reading of a few of the posts above.

That was my opinion. I agree with the legal position.

You're guilty of statutory rape. A minor can't consent.

You assume that these people don't know that these kids are kids. John Peel said that the girls were as young as 13. Jimmy Saville visited schools and childrens hospitals, met kids who wrote to his show, had dancers on top of the pops from schools. Assuming he had sex with one or more of these people, can it really be said that he had no idea that they were minors?

The old trainspotting situation. That's very different to what's being talked about in this thread, and in the few posts above. There's a difference between being ignorant/turning a blind eye and being duped but it's an offence either way. In your scenario it would be hard to not be sympathetic if you had blatantly been lied to, particularly if you had met in a club or a bar where people are likely to have been id'd.

Your initial point was that if a groupie threw herself at a star for "favours" then it's fine, regardless of age. It's not. You now try to justify it by saying that if they're 15 then it's ok. It's not. The point you also seem to make is that if the statutory rape is between a rock star and a child, then its ok. It's not. You interpret what you believe to be my position but you'll see I've not said that at all. My point, simply, is that it's wrong for a grown man to have sex with a minor, ie a child under 16 irrespective of the circumstances.

We couldn't disagree more. Your interpretation of the post I was relying to is wrong. I correctly interpreted what is written, and you all but say the same thing. The fact that it's a rock star involved with a star struck child doesn't make it right. I find it staggering that anyone could try to justify a grown man having sex with a minor, regardless of the situation.

I think he needs a kick up the arse, but not dropping - yet. He gets pulled infield too often and if he's played wide left he needs to be more disciplined in his positioning. We cant play all season with a winger who exposes his full back. He also needs to release the quicker and stop faffing about with it.

As long as they're not throwing names around I don't see the harm in letting the people that should be worried feel worried.

Sounds like thin ice to me. If I read you correctly you're saying it's ok for a grown man to have sex with an under age girl, if she's a groupy.

No, it shows how wrong society was that this was once perceived by some as acceptable. I'm not sure it was ever the general attitude though.

A caution is accepted in lieu of conviction, ie to accept one is an acknowledgement of an offence. I've no idea what Townshend was supposed to have done though!

What? There will be no judicial process with saville - he's dead. Jones, leverson, hacking etc have nothing to do with revelations about Saville and potential revelations about others. In respect of the latter, proper investigation and judicial process should follow.

Influencing what Judges and for what reason? The police are accepting information about Saville but won't be investigating him as such, given thta he's dead. It seems clear that this kind of noncery was widespread back in the day (evidence=John Peel confession/marriage). There are people still living who deserve to be outed and dealt with in the boundaries of the law.

where did he play?

He can only shuffle the pack he's been given. I think it unlikely that another manager will get more out of the players that we have.

spot on.

Eh? I'm in the keep Nigel camp.

Forget telfer etc, the league has moved on and we have the players we have. Our defensive unit is the problem, not the manager. Out ot interest, who should have come on instead of jos?

How can any manager improve our defence? Individually they ain't good enough. Collectively they ignore the manager and drop deep. Any new manager has to work with these players.

That's a pretty **** argument for change.

So keep our "best players" on the park even if they ain't performing? Sounds great.