Otta

Surely there should be no question of consent if a 12 year old is concerned? Under age, end of discussion! I'm not sure how I feel about the teacher being on the sexual offenders register. A man in his 40s having sex with a 16 year old is wrong on many levels, and I get that he was a teacher (and agree that he should no longer be able to teach), but at the ejnd of the day she was 16, which the law says is old enough to have sex. I'll lose no sleep for him, but I don't much like grey areas in law. But come on, no one over the age of say... 20 MAX should be having sex with a 16 year old. Especially as at that age a couple of years seems like a huge difference. Interesting discussion on QT last night. I am not in any way a fan of David Starkey, but I had some sympathy with him last night, because the question that was put was "can a 16 year old girl groom a grown man" (or words to that effect. And Starkey was saying replace "groom" with "seduce", and yes they can. He was shot down as if he was saying the bloke in this story had done no wrong, which he wasn't (he repeatedly said the man had acted appalingly and shouldn't have succumbed to any advances), but he was saying that some teenaged girls are more mature than others, and I think he made a fair point. I mean had that panel never seen American Beauty?!?!?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Little Britian - hated it and the twats on it. I don't hate the people, but I never found it remotely funny.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maxxi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Haggis > > > > Fleeces > > > > Concrete buildings > > Agree with Haggis and Concrete buildings- > particularly the Barbican and a lt of the > Southbank Centre/National Theatre I just wish they'd give them a lick of colour. I like the buildings quite a lot, but all that grey is a bit miserable.

I was gonna book a ticket, but then realised that I really couldn't be arsed spending 5-6 hours on a coach in one day only to end up in Margate.

But it's not "cool" to like them. I quite like them. And white bread? Hell yeah!

How can you call trendy Peckham unpopular?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Night life except boozing Huh? What is this witchcraft?

Would it not be cruel to make someone stay in Penge?

"old man boozers" a.k.a traditional pub (that doesn't sell food)

Haha, chocolate, definitely chocolate.

The word "gusset".

FWIW, legalbeagle and I know a bit about each other and she's cool. But when I read that line I did think "hang on, is she saying that we're questioning out of guilty conscience or something". I now realise that she wasn't but that is how I first read it. Personally I think this has been a good discussion about a subject which people don't really like to discuss a lot of the time. I find the legal side interesting, and frankly would hate to be trying to get a conviction (or indeed avoid one if I was accused) based on what seem like pretty blurred lines. But as LB said earlier, rape of pissed strangers is relatively rare (thankfully).

Brownies. I mean they're okaaaaaaaay, and I know they vary, but come on.

Give us an example of an edgy situation Quids. SOME hair metal. Ozzy Osbourne before The Osbournes.

grace3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > why pay to be depressed? that's my view on modern > films. You didn't enjoy Paddington then?

That's for the irrational rage thread. This is for things that are really popular, which you don't understand the popularity of.

Funnily enough my wife stumbled across that site last night, and it does look good. I like the idea of guinea pigs, but think she who must be obeyed has heart set on rats. Which is cool.

Thanks all. Like the look of that new foreat site.

I think most people would understand that if a woman wasn't really steady on her feet / leaning all over you whilst suggesting a bunk up, that she's not really in a fit state. I think the scary thing for men is that they could be out having a great time with someone over a few drinks, think everything was cool, and wake up the next morning to a rape allegation. I agree with your point of view LB, especially that women should never be blamed, but the vagueness of the line is scary. And for the record, no I wasn't thinking back to a particular night and wondering whether I'd raped someone.

This is getting pretty close to a line where by men seem to have to not only take responsibility for their own actions (which of course they should), but also be expected to take full responsibility for a woman's. The whole "If you're old enough to have sex (and drink) you're old enough to take responsibility for your actions" works two ways. It is a very difficult line to place, but it is up to women also to play their part. And no, that doesn't mean I think it's okay to shag any drunk girl.

I'd say hell no.

Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do you place Stuart Lee in the same category > as Michael Macintyre and Micky Flanagan? Their job title?

Yeah I get that, but if you trace it back, I'm sure uncle Mo or whoever he was named after will have been named after the prophet. Does this mean if people put images of me on facebook I should be offended and kill them?

"Clubbing"

Okay so this is a serious question. If it's offensive to depict the prophet Mohammed because (as I understand it) he is perfection basically. Is it not more insulting to give your child his name? To me that doesn't make sense, but I don't claim to be an expert.