rodders Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 12 minutes ago, Max Power said: You wouldn't think he would have developed enough to commit rape? Boys have erections at any age. Its whether he knew what erections are used for and at what at age. I wouldn't know what the legal definition of rape is, but I know what mine is, and it doesn't require the male to ejaculate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 6 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: It's a joke you humourless bore Just how funny do you think your jokes are ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PmJ Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 12 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: It's a joke you humourless bore You need a new script writer then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PmJ Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 6 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Just how funny do you think your jokes are ? Not very would be my guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, rodders said: Boys have erections at any age. Its whether he knew what erections are used for and at what at age. I wouldn't know what the legal definition of rape is, but I know what mine is, and it doesn't require the male to ejaculate. What I'm trying to say is that it's a difficult thing to prove in most cases, harder still after so much time and at such a young age! I don't think his name should have been released, it's wrong. If there are circumstances which we are unaware of, they should have been released after the case has been heard but a child should not have his life ruined to satisfy the flaws in the Manx justice system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxst Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 4 hours ago, Max Power said: https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/douglas-man-faces-historical-child-sex-charges/ This 21 year old was between 10 and 12 when these offences took place, is it right that he should be named? Or more likely to be between 11 and 13 I’d suggest, given that a quick google search of previous offences had him at 21 years old at the start of 2018 also. Not that it’s a particularly big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 22 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Just how funny do you think your jokes are ? Hey it's worth a try to inject a bit of humour into this forum to relieve people from the pages and pages of your angry unfunny drunken wanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 5 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: Hey it's worth a try to inject a bit of humour into this forum to relieve people from the pages and pages of your angry unfunny drunken wanks. Nothing about this thread is funny. Is that hard to understand ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 So John Wright was/is correct, PmJ is Neil Down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PmJ Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 22 minutes ago, Gizo said: So John Wright was/is correct, PmJ is Neil Down. You are a bit slow on the uptake aren’t you sunshine? PmJ is Neil Down/PASWT/Paul and pretty much anybody else you feel like adding. Wasn’t Neil Down also Dilli at one point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 11 hours ago, PmJ said: You are a bit slow on the uptake aren’t you sunshine? PmJ is Neil Down/PASWT/Paul and pretty much anybody else you feel like adding. Wasn’t Neil Down also Dilli at one point? Stating that a poster is an incarnation of a previous poster or a 'sock puppet' seems,IMO, to be a knee jerk reaction by those posters who have no useful contribution, other than playground insults . I s'pose it also offers a chance of a bonding exercise between like minded individuals who can then 'like' their chums posts in a failed attempt to give credibility to the false 'outings'. Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bees Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 A quick Google makes the lad out to be a bit of an idiot, a clear case for chemical castration (keep those genes out of the pool eh?). Bit of a tit but probably harmless enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 49 minutes ago, 2bees said: A quick Google makes the lad out to be a bit of an idiot, a clear case for chemical castration (keep those genes out of the pool eh?). Bit of a tit but probably harmless enough. With the caveat of innocent until proven guilty; how on earth can you suggest that someone who forces another person into sexual intercourse, regardless of their age is ‘harmless enough?’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 On 2/15/2019 at 9:41 PM, Max Power said: What I'm trying to say is that it's a difficult thing to prove in most cases, harder still after so much time and at such a young age! I don't think his name should have been released, it's wrong. If there are circumstances which we are unaware of, they should have been released after the case has been heard but a child should not have his life ruined to satisfy the flaws in the Manx justice system! I looked at some UK guidelines for whether the name would be released there and couldn't see anything against it, but that's probably because no such case ever appears to have been brought there. i did find a handful of examples where boys as young as 11 were charged with rape, but those were all detected and prosecute at the time of the offence and dealt with anonymously. Apart from anything else, justice would surely demand that you deal with an offender in the way appropriate to their age at the time - how could you do that in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 1 minute ago, The Lurker said: With the caveat of innocent until proven guilty; how on earth can you suggest that someone who forces another person into sexual intercourse, regardless of their age is ‘harmless enough?’ Again we don't know the details, but as a general point, I think anyone under the age of 13 is deemed unable to give consent, so in such a case it's possible no force was involved, the charges would still be the same. But of course we don't know the age of the victim and hopefully it won't be given. One of the problems with the Courts and reporting on the Island is that it is sometimes possible to work out the identity of anonymous victims when the circumstances, details and age etc mean that it could only be one person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.