Rape at Virgin Active / Westville

Venomous said:
rape or not. he should at least be charge for having sex with a minor.
Click to expand...

Fine. But if there's evidence it's not rape, she should be charged for something a lot more serious than that. Potential there to ruin a mans life after all. I'd say at least 5 years jail time for anyone that cries wolf over rape. There's needs to be a serious deterrent against it. The added benefit being when someone does then accuse someone of rape you can be sure they didn't just do it on a whim and know there are consequences if they are found to be lying. They would therefore have more credibility to their claims.
 
Last edited:
I just find it pathetic how quickly Virgin Active comes out with a "statement" trying to assure customers and not really being completely objective about it. Perhaps Virgin Active / the media has not disclosed all the details, but their sentiment of "Look, we have all the measures in place that incidents like this can be prosecuted" just annoys me, as in none of the Virgin Active gyms I go to, does their staff actively walk the gym and engage with members (which could have prevented such an incident if staff was more aware and present)

I am pretty sure that Westville is no different - TBH if they have such "sophisticated" security where they monitor KidZone, splash pools and toilets an incident like the alleged rape would have not happened, as Virgin Active staff would have not allowed a minor and an adult going into a disabled toilet.
 
Midnight_choir_drunk said:
Fine. But if there's evidence it's not rape, she should be charged for something a lot more serious than that. Potential there to ruin a mans life after all. I'd say at least5 years jail time for anyone that cries wolf over rape. There's needs to be a serious deterrent against it. The added benefit being when someone does then accuse someone of rape you can be sure they didn't just do it on a whim and know their are consequences if they are found to be lying. They would therefore have more credibility to their claims.
Click to expand...
agreed 100%.
 
Crowley said:
Didn't the government drop the age of consensual sex a while ago?
Click to expand...

No, they dropped the AREA of consent. If it is JZ's place, consent is implied.


I have an issue here: previous poster (M_c_d) is correct:


Midnight_choir_drunk said:
Potential there to ruin a mans life after all. I'd say at least 5 years jail time for anyone that cries wolf over rape..
Click to expand...

A man's life could be ruined for a situation where he has no foreboding of the shiftstorm that will follow. I really don't know how to feel. Having a daughter who is young makes me say throw the key away. But, being a person who has had interesting liaisons makes me shiver. We have a problem, and not one I can easily solve.
 
Midnight_choir_drunk said:
Fine. But if there's evidence it's not rape, she should be charged for something a lot more serious than that. Potential there to ruin a mans life after all. I'd say at least 5 years jail time for anyone that cries wolf over rape. There's needs to be a serious deterrent against it. The added benefit being when someone does then accuse someone of rape you can be sure they didn't just do it on a whim and know there are consequences if they are found to be lying. They would therefore have more credibility to their claims.
Click to expand...

As an adult it is/was his responsibility to know that it is illegal to have sex with her. As such he is subject to the laws of our land. It is considered rape even if she paraded in underwear and then pole danced for him while stripping, then sucking his dick, before fscking him.
And that because of her age.

The law is such in order to protect the innocent. Otherwise you could fsck a 3 year old and claim they did provocative things (dance, touch, etc), or gave consent(can talk at 3).

The problem with this young girl possibly, and probably, stems back to her parents. Did they fsck infront of her? If not, did they do what they can to shield her from sex, and other harsh realities, or limiting knowlege to age appropriate info? Does she have appropriate adult supervision?
And the guy? Seems like he was not about to complain about a piece of tight kitty, if offered to him.

So if there is enough evidence(camera footage possibly could suffice), he can be convicted of rape. Something he should thought about before sinking his dick into crazy teen.
 
Last edited:
Venomous said:
If not, did they do what they can to shield her from sex, and other harsh realities, or limiting knowlege to age appropriate info?
Click to expand...
And what is age appropriate? Don't bother, there are no hard and fast or even generally applicable rules in that regard.

So if there is enough evidence(camera footage possibly couls suffice), he can be convicted of rape. Something he should thought about before sinking his dick into crazy teen.
Click to expand...
Unless they have something other than her word that sex took place there should be no case.
 
Venomous said:
As an adult it is/was his responsibility to know that it is illegal to have sex with her. As such he is subject to the laws of our land. It is considered rape even if she paraded in underwear and then pole danced for him while stripping, then sucking his dick, before fscking him.
And that because of her age.

The law is such in order to protect the innocent. Otherwise you could fsck a 3 year old and claim they did provocative things (dance, touch, etc), or gave consent(can talk at 3).

The problem with this young girl possibly, and probably, stems back to her parents. Did they fsck infront of her? If not, did they do what they can to shield her from sex, and other harsh realities, or limiting knowlege to age appropriate info? Does she have appropriate adult supervision?
And the guy? Seems like he was not about to complain about a piece of tight kitty, if offered to him.

So if there is enough evidence(camera footage possibly couls suffice), he can be convicted of rape. Something he should thought about before sinking his dick into crazy teen.
Click to expand...

If she was under 16, then yes it's statutory rape. The rest of it I'm not going to agree with. 15 year old girls don't need excuses to justify their sexual behaviour. Many of them are sexually active. Additionally some 15 year old girls look much older and I don't think every 19 year old boy is going to query a girl's age when she's a sure thing, especially if she looks much older than she is.
 
Rule number 1: If you want to have sex with someone (especially someone of dodgy age), dont do it in a public place.
 
D3nz said:
If she was under 16, then yes it's statutory rape. The rest of it I'm not going to agree with. 15 year old girls don't need excuses to justify their sexual behaviour. Many of them are sexually active. Additionally some 15 year old girls look much older and I don't think every 19 year old boy is going to query a girl's age when she's a sure thing, especially if she looks much older than she is.
Click to expand...
The best answer to your post is:

Stefanmuller said:
Rule number 1: If you want to have sex with someone (especially someone of dodgy age), dont do it in a public place.
Click to expand...

Else accept that if found out you could be in serious trouble.
 
noxibox said:
And what is age appropriate? Don't bother, there are no hard and fast or even generally applicable rules in that regard.


Unless they have something other than her word that sex took place there should be no case.
Click to expand...

security cameras show them entering the disabled toilet stall, showing at least intent.
 
In this case he was lucky that it WAS in a public place because, had it been anywhere else, there would have been no camera to support the consensual part.
 
Venomous said:
As an adult it is/was his responsibility to know that it is illegal to have sex with her. As such he is subject to the laws of our land. It is considered rape even if she paraded in underwear and then pole danced for him while stripping, then sucking his dick, before fscking him.
And that because of her age.

The law is such in order to protect the innocent. Otherwise you could fsck a 3 year old and claim they did provocative things (dance, touch, etc), or gave consent(can talk at 3).

The problem with this young girl possibly, and probably, stems back to her parents. Did they fsck infront of her? If not, did they do what they can to shield her from sex, and other harsh realities, or limiting knowlege to age appropriate info? Does she have appropriate adult supervision?
And the guy? Seems like he was not about to complain about a piece of tight kitty, if offered to him.

So if there is enough evidence(camera footage possibly could suffice), he can be convicted of rape. Something he should thought about before sinking his dick into crazy teen.
Click to expand...

I agree sorts off. Now you go out to a club at night.. meet a hottie.. she looks/says she is 18. You are bit tipsy from booze (or not even drunk).. she wants it.. you give it. Tomorrow she screams rape because she wasn't suppose to be having sex with strangers...

Not always cut and dry...

edit: look at this crazy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lse-rape-allegations-ex-boyfriends-years.html

Leanne Black, 32, repeatedly cried rape with bogus sex assault reports to police after rowing or breaking up with her former partners.
Click to expand...

Tell me we don't need laws against fake rape cases..
 
Last edited:
joelus said:
Sex with a minor is considered rape. It's called statutory rape
Click to expand...

No, it's considered statutory rape. Rape is when you force yourself sexually on someone and statutory rape is when you have sex with someone the law deems to be unable to consent despite what they think, feel or say because of an arbitrary age. See the difference? It's quite glaring. It's not even a little like rape.

Sex with a minor is a much more accurate term.
 
nightjar said:
In this case he was lucky that it WAS in a public place because, had it been anywhere else, there would have been no camera to support the consensual part.
Click to expand...

nope. It is bad for him, due to her age. Her parents can file statutory rape charges...
 
Venomous said:
nope. It is bad for him, due to her age. Her parents can file statutory rape charges...
Click to expand...

Depends on his age as well. Quote from a police officer:

"The age of consent is 16, however, if the other party is two years or less difference in age there is no offence."
 
This case reminds me of my mother's neighbour - I was still staying there at that time. Long story short, he caught his daughter, same age as the one in this story, having sex with a guy, so he fired off a few shots to scare the guy off. Then told the whole neighbourhood that it was a few guys trying to break in, only for the real story to come out later.

All I'm saying is that teenage girls are not necessarily innocent, even if the law deems them innocent and in need of protection. There is definitely two sides to this story.
 
Glammy said:
Depends on his age as well. Quote from a police officer:

"The age of consent is 16, however, if the other party is two years or less difference in age there is no offence."
Click to expand...

a google search implies that the guy is over 25.
Not sure if true. His age will possibly be confirmed later, by the media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X