Daughter and !!!!!

mummy_Jay

jamespir wrote: »

so if the guy had not "supposedly" had sex with the 15 year old would there be a problem with them all going on holiday then ?

YES, it's term time she should be at school studying.:D

jamespir

mummy_Jay wrote: »

YES, it's term time she should be at school studying.:D

:rotfl::rotfl:

Triker

Throwing my hat into the ring....

As the partner of the OP's daughter, why did he not have the courtsey and respect to ask the younger daughters Father (the OP) if it was ok to take his youngest daughter out of the country on holiday....?

Given that he (the partner) must be aware of the reservations of her Father re his relationship with his eldest daughter, surely his actions are antagonistic at least and dismissive of the Father's authority at worst... which is a worry.

Re allegations surrounding underage sex etc.

Where there cannot be a charge, there can be a warning indicator left on police and social services files to indicate that there are 'concerns' re the individual.

These 'concerns' can be highlighted if and when there are other worries or allegations that the individual targets young people for an underage sexual relationship. A pattern emerges very quickly, usually when a young person is 'replaced' by another young person....that's when they usually then go to the police and state they had a sexual relationship that was coercive, however the police are'nt not usually able to present a case to the CPS, that will result in a charge, usually due to the passage of time.

It's a troubling area.

jackieglasgow

James, I fell down my stairs this morning, but I can honestly say that the pain from that is nothing compared to the pain in bum I'm getting from all the nonsense you've spouted on this thread. As Gingham said, you need to step away and take a good look at yourself.

DrScotsman

patchwork_cat wrote: »

Sorry I fail to see the ring of logic. James' posts on this thread are not logically displayed in an analytical manner, but more antagonistic in a troll like inflamming manner.

I'm afraid I don't have much to say other than I have to disagree. I'm reading through his posts right now and while I would recommend against some of his suggestions, they do seem mostly logically founded, and I am certain he is not trolling - and as for inflaming, who brought up IQ?

As a parent to protect children at all costs is a feature that I have that I am very proud of, and I am not going to apologise for having a well developed sense of protection!!

Disagree with him!! I don't think you should take the risks he suggests either!! But he's not trolling, and I fail to see how this parental sense of protection seems to justify attacking those who see it as over protective (and yes, you are attacking james) as opposed to just disagreeing and ignoring.

Pollycat

jamespir wrote: »

either way we dont knwo waht happened so i dont know how anyof you can judge the 60 year old

Actually jamespir, although you express yourself very poorly, I wouldn't argue with that.

I've re-read all the OP's posts and (imho) the only people who really know what happened in a sexual way before this girl was 16 are the girl and the man involved.
Although the OP says the girl told him that they'd had sex, that is just hearsay as the OP had no direct involvement (I assume) with the alleged act.
It could be that the girl wasn't telling the truth, and that's the reason she wouldn't speak up to the police.

Although the OP referred to this man as a "dirty old man" there is nothing in his posts to substantiate this, other than the word of his daughter that they had sex and that "they were found in a car together".

Who found them together in the car?
Now if "found in a car together" means they were having sexual contact and were discovered by other people then what I've said above doesn't apply.
But if they were having sex in a car, why weren't the police involved at that stage?

Does this man have a history of seeing under-age girls or is the OP's daughter the first?

I have great sympathy with the OP and understand his anger and frustration but looking at the situation dispassionately, there IS nothing to leagally prove this man had sex with the OP's underage daughter.
AND, jamespir, THAT is NOT the same as him NOT having sex with her.

One thing that DID occur to me, the girls' Mum gave her consent to the 14 year old going on holiday.
Also according to the OP:

When i found out and rang the mother i was astonished by her reasons,she said she doesn't see him as a pervert and the daughter sees him as a grandad figure,since when did people sleep with there grandparents.The whole thing is sick beyond belief.

We have two diametrically opposing views from the 2 parents about this alleged !!!!!phile.
Which is the correct one?

adouglasmhor

If you type ephebophile instead of pædophile you will be using the right word and I won't have to look at !!!!! again thanks.
pædophile means atracted to pre-pubescent childrn, not just any kiddly fiddling scumbag.

DrScotsman

adouglasmhor wrote: »

If you type ephebophile instead of pædophile you will be using the right word and I won't have to look at !!!!! again thanks.
pædophile means atracted to pre-pubescent childrn, not just any kiddly fiddling scumbag.

I believe the legal definition of pædophile doesn't make the distinction between pre- or post- pubescent, and the legal definition is the one that seems to have taken over in recent years. Which is stupid, because no matter how evil you think an ephebophile is, it's worlds apart from a pædophile.

adouglasmhor

DrScotsman wrote: »

I believe the legal definition of pædophile doesn't make the distinction between pre- or post- pubescent, and the legal definition is the one that seems to have taken over in recent years. Which is stupid, because no matter how evil you think an ephebophile is, it's worlds apart from a pædophile.

There is no such thing as a legal definition as such, the law refers to Child Sex Offenders.

DrScotsman

adouglasmhor wrote: »

There is no such thing as a legal definition as such, the law refers to Child Sex Offenders.

Fair enough, the "news channel definition" then . Anyone who's a child sex offender is automatically denoted a pædophile by the media and hence the people.