Mason Greenwood

Satan: Aaaand this is the lake of lava where you'll be spending eternity.

Mr Pedantic : Actually, because we're underground, it's magma not lava...

Satan: You do know that's why you're here, right?

 

Going by,the definition he isn't.He is a sick bastard who may who may deserve a good kicking but that is a different thing. You can't be like Humpty Dumpty and claim words mean what you want them to. Incidentally, the ones I referenced were more than eager participants. Again different to being groomed.

 

There is with Prince Andrew.

 

Are they calling him a *****?

 

No, but they constantly refer to him being friends with one. Which brings about certain perceptions.

 

Which is correct. He was friends with a convicted *****phile.

 

Unless you are a teacher or someone in a position of trust. Then relations with an under 18 is an offence. It wasn't that long ago that the legal age of consent in Portugal amongst some other countries was 14.

 

He wasn't convicted of being a *****phile though.

 

He was convicted of trafficking underage girls. There's no trial to prejudice and he isn't around to sue.

All I'm suggesting is that editors have to toe a line where there is ongoing litigation otherwise they can be open to prosecution/litigation if they are deemed to have used prejudicial language that could influence any outcome.

In Andrews case no one is denying his association with Epstein.

 

Anybody who ****s about with someone underage, no matter what age range, needs a ****ing good kicking every day of their lives. I know through personal experience, where I gave the **** a good kicking.
So can we all agree they're all sick ****s and drop the topic now please?

 

It was a convo about technical definitions, not whether it's reprehensible or not.

I don't think anyone's excusing the behaviour and I don't see why some are assuming that to be the case.

 

16 in the UK, not 18.

If you are in a position of trust then depending on the circumstances it can be an offence up to 18 - as can abusing a position of trust over that age depending on the power dynamic.

Some countries don't have a specific age of consent I believe, but they will still look at whether its a predatory relationship or not.

 

I think most people wouldn’t consider a 16-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-year-old as objectionable but they would a 30-year-old with a 15-year-old. There is no justifiable reason for someone in their 30s to be in a relationship or having sex with someone of secondary school age. It’s predatory.

 

Entirely. Probably why different countries prosecute cases differently.

My first was 16 when I was 15. Technically she could have been prosecuted, but I wasn't complaining or in any way coerced and a prosecution would have been totally ridiculous and counter productive. Totally different from a grown up exploiting a teenager.

 

As I said, an offence to have relations with someone under the age of 18 if you are in a position of trust whether they are willing or not. A teacher round my way got over 5 years for that. Even though the father of one of the girls was so disgusted by the messages on his daughter's phone he told the police she was the one egging him on. Still deservedly went down as it wasn't a one off incident.

 

And someone in their 40's with someone of primary school age?

 

I heard of one lad on placement with my sister in law whilst they were on teacher training about 20 years ago.

He'd gone on placement in a school and was seen in a nightclub by one of the 6th formers. He didn't know her or who she was but got seen snogging her on the dance floor and of course she was bragging about it to her mates the following week

Lost his course and can't work as a teacher ever again, though she was over 16 and there was only a few years between them.

I kinda felt a bit sorry for him at the time, but if you are in that position it is your own responsibility to be careful.

 

What is the point of this question?

 

Sometimes, it’s really not worth splitting hairs.

 

So, some people who by the definition of the word who are not you referring to as paecophiles but ones who by the definition of the word are you don't? Not just you...