He wanted the age limit lowering to 14 for boys of under 16, not for men beyond that age to be legally entitled to shag young boys. Can't say I agreed with him, but you're painting him as a paedo there, and I'm sure that's fair either.
That is not what he said on breakfast TV all those years ago, it stuck in my mind, his argument was about men not being prosecuted for sex with 'consenting' kids, and it isn't 14, it's lower, that's the age he 'campaigns' for because it's more acceptable than 12, which is his aim and why his banners said '14 is just the start.'
Find one example of an under 16 being charged and given a criminal record in the history of 20th & 21st century. Of course you won't find any, for the simple reason there hasn't been any, so his whole campaign is for what? To protect the children who wouldn't get close to being prosecuted? or to protect the older man, which he is, who would get prosecuted. Go and find some other source other than his updated public propaganda face. I remember what he said very well and it had nothing to do with protecting the child from anything.
He was 15, you said there'd be no case anywhere of underage sex where both parties were underage resulting in conviction. It was labelled rape because of the law saying she can't be consensual due to her age. Plank
no, I said where both parties CONSENTED, not quite the same, is it? You have proof of consent other than what he said? "At the time of the events complained of the appellant was aged 15 and the complainant was aged 12. She said that he had vaginal intercourse with her despite the fact that, alarmed by what was to happen, she made clear her objections."
Statutory rape due to her age, he claimed consent and yet pleaded guilty to rape, as the law meant he was guilty of rape irrespective of consent There's plenty of cases of underage sex cases were both consent and yet the Police and CPS are involved because they're both breaking the law.
What part of consent is irrelevant to the law at that age are you struggling with? Jesus you're thick
she said no AND made a complaint about what happened to the police, that isn't 2 consenting kids happily ****ing like you're trying to make out, that's one kid happily ****ing a reluctant one, who has then gone on to make a complaint to the police. If 2 under age kids ****ing meant a criminal record then most of the kids in the UK would have one, which they don't because authorities don;t get involved unless a complaint is made. Oh, and for the record, after further research, I found out Tatchel also campaigned heavily for the Paedophile Information Exchange and tried to have the laws against child pornography overturned. I didn't know that earlier, but it doesn't surprise me to learn it, because that's the impression I got from his interview all those years ago,
A ref has come out: http://www.skysports.com/football/n...g-openly-gay-in-football-should-hold-no-fears I never really thought about it before, but imagine how much abuse a Premier League ref doing this would get every week. They get slaughtered anyway, so I dread to think what a gay ref would hear in each game. Especially true if they were ****.
Nigel Owens has been openly gay for a long time. It isn't a problem at all in rugby, in fact he is well respected as probably the best referee out there and him being gay changes nothing. You are correct though, this would simply not happen in football.