Daughter and !!!!!

Zazen999

poet123 wrote: »

A grown man of 60 having sex with a 60 year old is wrong, plain wrong and illegal.

You don't mean 60 surely?

poet123

Zazen999 wrote: »

You don't mean 60 surely?

:rotfl::eek::T

jamespir

peachyprice wrote: »

It matters not whether we know that he groomed her, he was an old man having sex with a child, he knew it was wrong.

You know, the comments you are making on this thread are really making you sound like you have peedoph!le tendancies yourself. If you really cannot see what is wrong with a man of that age having sex with a child parents with teenage girls living near you should be seriously worried.

no im just trying to point out theres two sides to every story so you can take your disgusting accusations elsewhwhere

jamespir

patchwork_cat wrote: »

He groomed the girl because she was a minor and he was an adult. It is irrelevant if it was her idea - he is an adult and as such should not have had sex with her. You are just being a troll as any right minded adult would see this for what it is. It is not a 17 year old lad with a 153/4 year old girl. It is a child with a man old enough to be her grandfather.

Troll somewhere else and get your sick kicks out of some other thread as this is an abhorent and very serious issue.

Please OP don't let this rest and if that means contacting social services etc. then do so. Have the sex offenders laws not been tightened after the Ian Huntley debacle?

im not a troll and im not gteiing sick kicks as you put it im just ponting ou that we dont know the truth the only person who does is the ops daughter

sashadesade

Good grief, this thread! The OP was asking about his legal rights, he didn't ask for a debate as to whether this man is a threat to his younger daughter.

DrScotsman

jamespir has said things like "she's an adult, she can do what she wants" and some of you have then pointed out that she was 15 when stuff happened which means the adult has committed a criminal offence.

Now it's one thing if you say "She was young, it's wrong" - that's a very fair argument as this can apply whether she was 15, 16 or maybe even 18. However some of you have specifically referred to the criminal offence he was committing as if the situation is completely different had she been 16 at the time. For all you know this girl was 15.9 years old, can you really have a change in judgement based on such a small age difference?

I'm not saying I disagree on the age of consent being 16 years old, but like I said on another thread, 29.999999999 is not speeding but 30.000000001 is, but you and I both know there's not enough difference to matter. Morals are not black and white but the law that we codify them into has to be - I know fully well that not one of you who referred to the criminal offence would be saying "Oh, that's okay then" if the girl was 16, so it is unfair on james (and the man) that you base your decision on the criminal offence at all.

patchwork_cat

jamespir wrote: »

im not a troll and im not gteiing sick kicks as you put it im just ponting ou that we dont know the truth the only person who does is the ops daughter

Well if you aren't trolling I am even more concerned. This is not a court and obviously the whole point of a forum is that it is one sided, we are not judge and jury.

However we have been asked to advise the OP as to what he can do and you have not tried to answer that question at all. You have suggested that the OP is jealous perhaps! Not helpful or pertinent to the question, is it? I have however advised that the OP does not let this lie and that he contacts amongst other people the NSPCC as they are best placed to advise where to go from here.

I am not going to waste my intellect arguing with someone who may well not even have an IQ in triple figures, it isn't fun as you don't stretch me! No this is not the right room for an argument James!

patchwork_cat

DrScotsman wrote: »

jamespir has said things like "she's an adult, she can do what she wants" and some of you have then pointed out that she was 15 when stuff happened which means the adult has committed a criminal offence.

Now it's one thing if you say "She was young, it's wrong" - that's a very fair argument as this can apply whether she was 15, 16 or maybe even 18. However some of you have specifically referred to the criminal offence he was committing as if the situation is completely different had she been 16 at the time. For all you know this girl was 15.9 years old, can you really have a change in judgement based on such a small age difference?

I'm not saying I disagree on the age of consent being 16 years old, but like I said on another thread, 29.999999999 is not speeding but 30.000000001 is, but you and I both know there's not enough difference to matter. Morals are not black and white but the law that we codify them into has to be - I know fully well that not one of you who referred to the criminal offence would be saying "Oh, that's okay then" if the girl was 16, so it is unfair on james (and the man) that you base your decision on the criminal offence at all.

Life is not black and white and obviously nothing magical happens when someone turns 16. There is a grey area in the law I believe and obviously as I have stated we are not talking about a 153/4 year old girl and 17 year old boy.

Morally I have no qualms in saying that the man in this situation, as we have been told it, is in the wrong even if the law does not agree anymore. Morals and the law are not the same thing at all!

The issue really is what the OP can do about his younger DD. She is 14 and by any stretch of the imagination a child.

Zazen999

patchwork_cat wrote: »

Well if you aren't trolling I am even more concerned. This is not a court and obviously the whole point of a forum is that it is one sided, we are not judge and jury.

Unfortunately, this 'we only know one side of the story' seems to be trotted out by James every time he gets pulled up on his 'views'.

He hasn't sussed it out that each person has a user name, and only writes their side of the story; that's the nature of an internet forum.

But supporting a 64 yr old taking a 14 yr old on holiday; quite frankly; says it all.

jamespir

patchwork_cat wrote: »

Well if you aren't trolling I am even more concerned. This is not a court and obviously the whole point of a forum is that it is one sided, we are not judge and jury.

However we have been asked to advise the OP as to what he can do and you have not tried to answer that question at all. You have suggested that the OP is jealous perhaps! Not helpful or pertinent to the question, is it? I have however advised that the OP does not let this lie and that he contacts amongst other people the NSPCC as they are best placed to advise where to go from here.

I am not going to waste my intellect arguing with someone who may well not even have an IQ in triple figures, it isn't fun as you don't stretch me! No this is not the right room for an argument James!

no its a fourum where we all allowed to have our own views
unfortunatly a lot of people are very judgmental

as for iq mines 121 so thats your little insult out the window