Forum - View topic

NEWS: UK Anime Club Leader Jailed For Teen Sex Abuse

When did I say acquaintance rape was of a lesser degree? I in fact only gave one example of a rape and didn't give examples of lesser degrees,

When did I say acquaintance rape was of a lesser degree?

To say that all rape is the same is presumably to avoid the trivialization of some forms of rape, but to refuse to acknowledge that there are in fact lesser degrees of rape compared to pulling someone off the street and raping them in some back-alley actually trivializes the latter.

Fierywind12 wrote:

When did I say acquaintance rape was of a lesser degree?

Fierywind12 wrote:

To say that all rape is the same is presumably to avoid the trivialization of some forms of rape, but to refuse to acknowledge that there are in fact lesser degrees of rape compared to pulling someone off the street and raping them in some back-alley actually trivializes the latter.

If pulling someone off the street and raping them in an alley is the "worst" then yes, non-violent acquaintance rape would be "lesser," by your own argument.

Mohawk52 wrote:

Polycell wrote: (I am, of course, assuming that the intoxication was perfectly willful - otherwise we veer towards flat-out territory). in the UK under aged drinking and getting drunk is also "flat-out" illegal.

This is me just nitpicking because I'm a pedant but technically the UK purchase age is 18, the UK drinking age is 5.

https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/check-the-facts/alcohol-and-the-law/the-law-on-alcohol-and-under-18s#legaldrinkingage

The UK chief medical officers recommend an alcohol-free childhood is the healthiest and best option.....There’s lots of debate about whether it’s OK to let children have a small amount of alcohol to try - some people call this the continental approach. But there’s no scientific evidence to prove this gives children a responsible attitude to drinking in later life.

Research shows the earlier a child starts drinking, the higher their chances of developing alcohol abuse or dependence in their teenage years and as an adult. Children who drink before age 15 are most vulnerable to alcohol misuse later in life.

So, parents play a crucial role in delaying a child's first drink.

It may be tempting to offer your child a sip of alcohol on special occasions so they don’t feel left out. This could send mixed messages about whether they are or aren’t allowed to drink.

Of course, children are naturally curious, so they’ll probably ask you questions if they see you drinking and may ask you to try some. Rather than offering them a sip, use this as a chance to talk to them openly and honestly about the facts.

You might think that allowing your child to try alcohol will demystify any uncertainties they may have. Instead, as with issues like smoking and drugs, it’s better to let them know they can ask you anything, at any time, about alcohol. If you don’t know the answer, be honest and suggest you find out together.

If you’ve already given your child a drink, it’s best to be honest and explain that if they carry on drinking it could harm them so they aren’t allowed to continue. Reassure them that if they stop, any effects drinking has already on their body are likely to be reversible, but if you’re worried it’s best to talk to your GP.

I did not say that there are no rapes that equal pulling someone off a street. Once again, please do not put words in my mouth to fit your own argument. I'm no straw-man for your personal bias. As for bamboo's question, an example of a lesser degree of rape, legally speaking, would typically be rape with no physical injuries beyond the rape itself, which carries a less-harsh sentence. Another would be statutory rape where the rapist is within a defined number of years older than the victim, such as 3 for some states, which makes it a misdemeanor below that age and a felony above.

You make it sound like I was right then - he sounds like someone naive without a clue, not a 'sexual predator'.

Out of curiosity, since you know some things we don't can I ask his age at the actual time please and the age of the girls involved at the time? This kind of information is important to understanding the charges and the sentencing but it was withheld by the author of the piece.

I have given sips of alcoholic drink to my children in the past just so they could taste what it's all about and I've told them the horror stories of some of the drunkards that were in my family during my childhood. Both are now grown ups. My son drinks responsibly and my daughter still doesn't like the taste and so doesn't drink alcohol at all. But it still doesn't matter in this case as nowhere does it state the girls were intoxicated during the abuse anyway.

he was not a mental retard, he knew exactly what he was doing,

...and quite frankly it sickens me that some of you seek to justify abuse of minors in anyway, just because you see it normalized in fiction does not mean its justified in real life.

Nigel was in his twenties at the time of abuse and a manager of children's clubs, at least two of the victims were underage at the time of abuse and the third of im not sure about.

You ask as if you believed 3 different girls would conspire in the courts just to bring down an old boyfriend from high school?

It's disgusting that this discussion isn't as black-and-white as it should've been.

Zac clearly has strong opinions on sex abuse cases, and he's completely entitled to voice them through the many editorial channels available to him, but "forum cleanup" of readers who question or disagree with those opinions in the context of ANN news reporting is a completely transparent example of editorial staff using forum mod powers to silence criticism and discourage other points of view.

Unless you see the entire trial, or plea bargain, or whatever happened in court, you'll never have all of the details that were used in his conviction. Reading a short and undetailed blurb doesn't give the specifics. It doesn't even say for certain or not if it was rape, just "sexual activity", for which I don't know English law and I don't know the specifics of the charges. Does anyone else?

mdreura wrote:

Zac clearly has strong opinions on sex abuse cases, and he's completely entitled to voice them through the many editorial channels available to him, but "forum cleanup" of readers who question or disagree with those opinions in the context of ANN news reporting is a completely transparent example of editorial staff using forum mod powers to silence criticism and discourage other points of view.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

I do find it a bit funny the people euthanized so far were those with dissenting opinions from the general tone of these threads. It is definitely a bit of a shame to see some posters who's views I either agreed with or appreciated in the discussion are being silence based on personal prejudice. Somehow I feel things will be much more boring and homogeneous around here for the time being.

walw6pK4Alo wrote:

Unless you see the entire trial, or plea bargain, or whatever happened in court, you'll never have all of the details that were used in his conviction. Reading a short and undetailed blurb doesn't give the specifics. It doesn't even say for certain or not if it was rape, just "sexual activity", for which I don't know English law and I don't know the specifics of the charges. Does anyone else?

Something I always try to do. It's a bad habit when the word 'rape' gets thrown around just because a guy was 18 and his girlfriend was one year younger at 17 and they both had consensual sex, but in the court of law it's treated the same as some violent rape scenario rather than kids fooling around. Media outlets and views on sex should always be questioned, I find I suppose we live in a 'guilty until proven innocent' society about this, though, so people tend to not ask these questions.

I do find it a bit funny the people euthanized so far were those with dissenting opinions from the general tone of these threads. It is definitely a bit of a shame to see some posters who's views I either agreed with or appreciated in the discussion are being silence based on personal prejudice. Somehow I feel things will be much more boring and homogeneous around here for the time being.

Why does ANN even run these articles? The only reason I can think of is just to troll the talkback forums, which seems to be effective every time.

This whole thing doesn't really have anything to do with anime at all. Oh, stop the presses, some guy got arrested and put in prison because he committed a crime, and he also watches anime!