Nothing is relevant to you except your pathological need to post utter nonsense.

Defo depends on the context of the case.

If you're suggesting that because someone is engaged in one sexual act that means that all sexual acts are on the table, i.e. because of the oral consent that means full penetrative consent then it's not that straightforward.

Which is your point about a minefield, which is correct. However, some mines are more easily identifiable than others. Not all cases are the same

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

It is a minefield, which is why judgements should be cautious.

For me, with stuff like that, it's about physical coercion or violence.....But that's also sometimes not so easy to prove.

If a women puts herself into a sexual situation and then starts treating the events like a running commentary consent form it's unrealistic.

How would anyone of us know the likely truth. I think we would have to personally know the people involved to gauge how honest they are as individuals....and even that's not perfect.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

As a social conservative I too also find the idea of a male who is significantly older than 16 shagging a 16 year old female as distasteful.

The father would be in his rights to be angry....If this happened then the father is either not in their lives or just a poor one.

However, I also get a bit frustrated with this contention when I hear it brought up.

Something should either be legal or not.....Attaching shame to something legal is just an indication to me that that law is inadequate.

Raise the age of consent or add some age difference barrier or remove the criticism. Everything should be clear because if Brand did this and it was consensual then he did nothing illegal.

Just make it very clear what's ok to do and what isn't ok to do.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Sep 2023 5.32pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

They weren’t biding their time. They were adopting a softly softly strategy that appears, due to it being applied in several places, to have been devised centrally. Whether that was an acknowledgement of a lack of resources is unknown. No one argues that the abuse of thousands of children ought not be a priority but it’s how to achieve the best outcome with the available resources that the commanders had to decide. Who knows what was said by them to their political masters.

Alongside that is the fact that poor recruitment, poor pay and poor training results in a poor quality of service. Underfunding is the root cause of that.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

There's a lot of focus about illegality here as though if nothing has been proven to be illegal, then move on, nothing to see here. Savile would be delighted.

I'd argue that public social and moral critique of a public figure held up to be some sort of past national treasure is just as valid and note that this can quite rightly lead to various individuals and institutions creating distance between someone without any illegality needing to be involved.

If I'm a brand (of the corporate type) and the sordid details of someone I pay to be associated with sleeping with hundreds of women, some borderline children come out in the papers without legal challenge, along with everything else plus actual factual reminders of how cringe and creepy I used to actually be come to light, I think I'd know what I'd do.

He has right to reply – give an interview. Follow up statement. Get the lawyers involved if untrue.

I'm afraid all I hear so far is... silence.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.