you should judge a person by their deeds rather than the words of others
s, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar … The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it …
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral …
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man….
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
I believe it’s still statutory rape if a 14 year old lad rides a 14 year old girl. I’m open to correction on this.
I find the intricacies of the law interesting even if I’m probably largely ignorant of them. I said for a long time that female drivers getting favourable premia for car insurance was sexist and wouldn’t be tolerated if it was the other way around. The European Court of Justice (I think?) recently ruled along these lines.
Along similar lines, if I’m correct that a 14 year old fella can be done for riding a 14 year old girl - how do we know that she hasn’t statutory raped him? Presumably she could get done if she was over 18?
Huh? My point was that Gary Glitter was unlikely ever to have been considered a fundamentally decent man because of the nature of the business he was in. Who the fuck said anything about punishment?
A lot of this statutory rape stuff is based I think on the premise that the female is the fairer sex and needs to be protected as such from the big, bad aggressive male.
Get some of these law makers down to Flannerys on a Friday or Saturday night and they might change their mind.
Yes, but people that appear to be sound may not necessarily be so. People are capable of hiding things and fooling people, even close family and friends.
is that supposed to make sense? music industry - indecent, media industry - not so. any stats to back up this bullshit?
paedophiles by their nature tend to engineer situations in which they are in close proximity to vulnerable kids regardless of the industry they work in.
its almost surreal if this is true. never had much time for humphreys myself. more so to do with his soft treatment of roy keane more than anything else.
How? My point is that you could probably assume Tom was a decent enough chap as he had a steady job with a respectable newspaper while Gary was his own boss in a music industry which is rife with drugs, alcohol, sex, money and exploitation. I’m not making a big deal of it and can hardly remember what it’s in relation to exactly but I’m pretty sure it makes sense.
[quote=“Thrawneen, post: 576920”]
How? My point is that you could probably assume Tom was a decent enough chap as he had a steady job with a respectable newspaper while Gary was his own boss in a music industry which is rife with drugs, alcohol, sex, money and exploitation. I’m not making a big deal of it and can hardly remember what it’s in relation to exactly but I’m pretty sure it makes sense.[/quote]
Yeah - I think you’ve completely lost the run of yourself here. Take a deep breath and come back.
People probably would have thought Josef Fritzel was a ‘decent chap’.
Meanwhile there are several glam rockers out there who are probably complete gentlemen. I don’t know them personally but I don’t doubt that they are out there.
Thrawneen is making an interesting argument. He isn’t defending what Humphries is alleged to have done. If the allegations are true they are indefensible especially the violation of trust aspect and they’ll result in a jail sentence and deservedly so.
But Thrawneen is right that many 14 year olds are sexually active. The story in the Sunday World says the sex was consensual. There’s no evidence or hint in the story that this carry on ever happened with any other girls. Humphries coached for a good number of years without any known incident before the relationship with the girl started - don’t know how many exactly, but judging from his articles, I’d say at least six or seven. I think that should at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t get into mentoring for the purposes of shagging young girls.
Some on this thread have compared Humphries to Josef Fritzl, Ian Huntley and Hitler. Read it back. I’ll leave it up to yourselves as to whether you think they are legitimate comparisons.
For the benefit of the more reactionary posters, none of this takes away from what was an unforgiveable error of judgement from Humphries and it isn’t a defence of him.
its not as if he drove uninsured or left the cooker when he went on holidays, this kind of thing is not an unforgivable error of judgement. its an opngoing breaking of the law that lasted 18 months
long story short sid and thraw, do you think it should be legal for a 47 year old to fuck a 14 year old, yes or no will suffice
