Pop mogul Jonathan King has been freed from prison after serving half his seven-year term for sex crimes.
As he left Maidstone Prison he said: "I'm totally, absolutely 100% innocent" and added his lawyer had "guaranteed" he would be cleared on appeal.

As supporters handed out free copies of King's new CD, he told reporters he had "enjoyed" his time in prison.

Should he have been released early seeing as he refuses to admit his guilt, or does that only apply to murderers, such as Stephen Downey.

I dont know much of his case so i cant really comment. But if he did do the things he is accused of he sould be locked away for life. If he didnt he should be allowed to carry on his life outside of prison.

He should have been jailed for 'Loop Di Love' in the 70s.

He shouldn't have been released. He was in one of the Sunday papers a couple of weeks ago spouting about how he'd done nothing wrong, and if the boys hadn't enjoyed what he did to them, then why did so many boys seek out his company?! Also that he would continue to 'seek out and enjoy the company of young men'.

He was also boasting about how his career wouldn't be harmed by his stint in prison, because his reputation was very strong. :rant:

Have you seen this Feargal? It contradicts what was in the papers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4388913.stm

My two penneth, if he is guilty he should have served him full sentence. I'm appalled though that he appears to have enjoyed his time inside!

Thanks Kristian, I hadn't seen that... I'd rather him say that than the stuff I read in the papers - if that makes sense!? I suppose I mean that a denial is marginally better than bragging about doing it all again, with no remorse.

Also, can't help hoping that if he really enjoyed his time inside so much, he won't be claiming compensation when his "guaranteed" conviction quashing comes to pass!

if his conviction is overturned then fair enough, release him. If not then he is showing no remorse for his crime and should not qualify for early release at this stage.

No one should be released from prison until there full term is done whatever there crime.
If a shop lifter is given 2 months then thats what he should do, if a rapist is given 12 years then 12 years it should be and to the day.
Life should mean life, though some murderers get out after 15 years some never get out, why should this be.

Originally posted by Cycleracer
No one should be released from prison until there full term is done whatever there crime.
If a shop lifter is given 2 months then thats what he should do, if a rapist is given 12 years then 12 years it should be and to the day.
Life should mean life, though some murderers get out after 15 years some never get out, why should this be.

I am fairly certain that they are only given parole if they admit to their crimes, and like Stephen Downey who never admitted to murdering Wendy Sewell, they serve longer periods until some journalist pops up with a plausible explanation, and get's them released to bleat on about how they were wrongly convicted.

I can see JK making even more money out of his odious behaviour after his release than he did before his conviction.

He's a nonce - just because he's famous doesn't make it all right.

He needs his cobblers chopping off and forehead tattoo'ed with PAEDO in big letters!

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by owdlad
I can see JK making even more money out of his odious behaviour after his release than he did before his conviction.

Do you? How? He's not exactly Jeffrey Archer, this is no 'white collar crime'! Nobody will want to buy anything he writes / records surely? Look at Gary Glitter for what I'm suggesting!

K x

Originally posted by Internetowl
He's a nonce - just because he's famous doesn't make it all right.

Who suggested that? :huh: Did I miss a bit?

K x

My sister was a nurse at a mens prison and one day a known nonce collapsed with a heart attack.

Reluctantly my sister gave mouth to mouth and saved this mans life. She is a professional and did her job.

Soon after, this man was released and not long after that he abused another child.

I know this is slightly off the subject but my sister has often questioned herself about saving this mans life knowing that he went on to hurt another child.

Obviously she had no choice otherwise she would be a criminal herself, but she found that situation too hard so ended up leaving the prison service.

If you show no remorse for a crime and a child abuser reoffends once released they should then remain in prison for life!

Originally posted by Internetowl
He's a nonce - just because he's famous doesn't make it all right.

He needs his cobblers chopping off and forehead tattoo'ed with PAEDO in big letters!

:thumbsup:

If there is DNA to prove the crimes then I agree about the cobblers and the forehead.

Originally posted by drolnhoj
If there is DNA to prove the crimes then I agree about the cobblers and the forehead.

DNA evidence is not the unequivocal proof people seem to think it is.

I don't see how anyone can honestly vote in this poll. Has anyone actually seen any of the evidence from either side?

you all believe in a very black and white world don't you.

Part of his conviction was for having sex with boys aged under 18, 2 days after his conviction the law was changed to equalise the age of consent for men and women to 16.

If it were a 15 year old boy caught having sex with a 15 year old (girl or boy) would you be calling for him to have bits removed and forehead tatoo'd? I don't think you would. But in the eyes of the law it's the same crime.

I was under the impression though that parole was available only if you showed remorse for your crime, which he clearly doesn't. Maybe I was mistaken, or maybe he tricked the parole board.

For those arguing against parole itself, i suggest you go and start your own thread as this one is about a specific release, not the general policy of releasing people 'early' if they show good behaviour and remorse.

I read King has admitted to knowing the laws which were in place at that time, therefore knowing that he was breaking it.

I think the man is mad, and I'm not amused by his gloating, hopefully this will mean any chance of an appeal is out of the window.

I thought he completely denied his crimes though, saying he's never even met his accusers?

....Yeah ....Yeah.... and who out here is going to know what he said to his parole hearings.
Once he's out, he can say what he wants!

Originally posted by Cyclone
you all believe in a very black and white world don't you.

Part of his conviction was for having sex with boys aged under 18, 2 days after his conviction the law was changed to equalise the age of consent for men and women to 16.



according to the Independent today his conviction, or at least part of it, was for sexual activities with 14 and 15 year olds. That is still illegal, so he would still be convicted today for this part of the crime.

The guy should not have been released and I think its a bit sick that he is already promoting his latest 'album' as soon as he steps foot out of prison.

Originally posted by nightrider
according to the Independent today his conviction, or at least part of it, was for sexual activities with 14 and 15 year olds. That is still illegal, so he would still be convicted today for this part of the crime.

never said anything to contradict that. So are you one of those who thinks he should be castrated? Would you apply the same penalty to a 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old (or to both of them?). If not, then how do you balance that view.

Originally posted by Cyclone
never said anything to contradict that. So are you one of those who thinks he should be castrated? Would you apply the same penalty to a 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old (or to both of them?). If not, then how do you balance that view.

you said

"Part of his conviction was for having sex with boys aged under 18, 2 days after his conviction the law was changed to equalise the age of consent for men and women to 16.

If it were a 15 year old boy caught having sex with a 15 year old (girl or boy) would you be calling for him to have bits removed and forehead tatoo'd? I don't think you would. But in the eyes of the law it's the same crime."

to me that implied the boys were over 16 and under 18. Why would the change in law be relevant if the boys were under 16 anyway? I dont see your point in the above text mentioning this change at all - what is it?

He should have the year to prove he was innocent. If he fails he should go back and do the rest.

Originally posted by Cyclone
never said anything to contradict that. So are you one of those who thinks he should be castrated? Would you apply the same penalty to a 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old (or to both of them?). If not, then how do you balance that view.

There is a very big difference between children playing 'doctors and nurses' or similar and grown men having sex with children. At least one of the kids King had sex with was only 13 years old.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
There is a very big difference between children playing 'doctors and nurses' or similar and grown men having sex with children. At least one of the kids King had sex with was only 13 years old.

is that a euphemism to make it sound different.

There is no difference in the law between an 40 year old having sex with a 15 year old and a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old.
The only difference if it's two 15 year olds having sex is that they are both committing a crime.

What about a 40 year old having sex with someone on their 16th birthday, what made 16 so special. I'm not arguing for a change in the law here, I just think that it must be nice to live in your world where everything is black and white and shades of grey don't exist.

nightrider - I don't understand why you are confused. I'll try to make it clearer.

Part of his conviction was for having sex with boys under 18, at the time illegal.
Part was for having sex with boys under 16, at the time illegal and still illegal.

A few days after his conviction the law was changed to equalise the age of consent, thus the part of his conviction based on the >16<18 partners would no longer even be brought to trial.

I then in a new paragraph pose a question about what penalty two 15 year olds should suffer and question whether you would apply the same penalty to them as to King as they would all have committed the same crime.

I'm just trying to make the point that things are not as black and white as some people would portray.

No euphemism is required - it is substantively different. The grown man should know better than to exploit the naivety and lack of worldly experience of children - even if they appear to be 'willing'. We know from past cases how such exploitation can have a devastating effect upon the adult lives of the victims.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
No euphemism is required - it is substantively different. The grown man should know better than to exploit the naivety and lack of worldly experience of children - even if they appear to be 'willing'. We know from past cases how such exploitation can have a devastating effect upon the adult lives of the victims.

so are you suggesting that 15 year olds can consent with each other but somehow lack the experience to consent to 40 year olds, what about consenting to a 16 year old?

Or how about a 16 year old consenting to have sex with a 40 year old, there might be only 1 days difference between illegal and legal...

Maybe you'd like to see the law changed so that it's the age difference that's important. Although the people who happily have a relationship with a large age difference are likely to disagree with you...

You keep referring to 15, 16 and even 18 year olds in order to buttress your weak argument. In King's case, at least one of his victims was only 13 at the time the offences were commited. There has to be some specific age limit defined by the law - King admitted that he knew what it was and chose to break it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Or how about a 16 year old consenting to have sex with a 40 year old, there might be only 1 days difference between illegal and legal...

True, but one would still be legal, and the other would still be illegal...

...and anyway, that's not what's being discussed here.

At the end of the day:

At the time of his conviction the legal age of consent for gay peolpe was 18. He (allegedly) had sex with males under this age. This is a criminal offence.

If two 15 year olds decided to have sex then theortically they both ar sommiting an offence, but they are not in the eyes of the law at an age to be able to give consent so i duno what would happen...

With the comments about "well hes 40 and should know better" yes he should, but then if a 16 year old had sex with a 15 year old he could be prosecuted for the same offence. In the eyes of the law it is no different.

OK, now I'm confused (easily done I know), I've looked back, and I can't find any mention of them being "under 18", this is the report from the BBC website, from the time:

"Wednesday, 21 November, 2001, 15:17 GMT
Pop mogul jailed for sex abuse

King, charged under his real name Kenneth King, was found guilty of four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences against boys aged 14 and 15, committed in the 1980s…

…The 56-year-old former television presenter, who lives in Bayswater, west London, was convicted on 27 September."

Link: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1667960.stm>

So this is a 56 yr old (not 40), and boys aged 14 and 15 (not "under 18 but over 16").

Have I missed something. :confused:

Originally posted by Avalon
At the end of the day:

At the time of his conviction the legal age of consent for gay peolpe was 18. He (allegedly) had sex with males under this age. This is a criminal offence.

If two 15 year olds decided to have sex then theortically they both ar sommiting an offence, but they are not in the eyes of the law at an age to be able to give consent so i duno what would happen...

With the comments about "well hes 40 and should know better" yes he should, but then if a 16 year old had sex with a 15 year old he could be prosecuted for the same offence. In the eyes of the law it is no different.

But in the eyes of judges who interpet the law it is different. The question of culpability, degree of guilt and circumstances come into play.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you all believe in a very black and white world don't you.

Part of his conviction was for having sex with boys aged under 18, 2 days after his conviction the law was changed to equalise the age of consent for men and women to 16.

If it were a 15 year old boy caught having sex with a 15 year old (girl or boy) would you be calling for him to have bits removed and forehead tatoo'd? I don't think you would. But in the eyes of the law it's the same crime.

I was under the impression though that parole was available only if you showed remorse for your crime, which he clearly doesn't. Maybe I was mistaken, or maybe he tricked the parole board.

For those arguing against parole itself, i suggest you go and start your own thread as this one is about a specific release, not the general policy of releasing people 'early' if they show good behaviour and remorse.

would this be my weak argument that i'm trying to support? This being my first post in this thread.
I simply comment that some of the users here seem to live in a very black and white world, and I still think that. As that's an opinion i don't need to support it.
And i notice that not one of the idiots who have suggested castration, tatooing or whatever other ridiculous solution they dreamed up have responded.

....................................

Originally posted by LordChaverly
But in the eyes of judges who interpet the law it is different. The question of culpability, degree of guilt and circumstances come into play.

Yes. But i the eye of the LAW it is the same offence. That is what i was saying. If i were a judge and two 1 year olds were brought before me acused of having sex with each other i would have to take into account their maturity and assess whether they knew what they were doing or not. But if 56 year old was brought beofre me accused of having sex with a 15 year old id throw the book at them as they KNEW that they were preying on the vunerable.

Make sense? :confused:

Originally posted by Avalon
Yes. But i the eye of the LAW it is the same offence. That is what i was saying. If i were a judge and two 1 year olds were brought before me acused of having sex with each other i would have to take into account their maturity and assess whether they knew what they were doing or not. But if 56 year old was brought beofre me accused of having sex with a 15 year old id throw the book at them as they KNEW that they were preying on the vunerable.

Make sense? :confused:

that may be, but once the jury finds the defendant guilty a judge is constrained to pass a sentence within the limits defined by the legislation.

Originally posted by Cyclone
would this be my weak argument that i'm trying to support? This being my first post in this thread.
I simply comment that some of the users here seem to live in a very black and white world, and I still think that. As that's an opinion i don't need to support it.
And i notice that not one of the idiots who have suggested castration, tatooing or whatever other ridiculous solution they dreamed up have responded.

You do need to support your opinions if you would like others to take them seriously. In my opinion your argument in this thread weak because you constantly focus on the marginal cases relating to age limits in a very general way and ignore the realities of this particular case - i.e. of a man in his 50s having sex with a boy of 13 (and according to the boy's subsequent testimony, a man using his wealth, fame and cunning to exploit the naivety and ignorance of his victim).

Originally posted by Avalon
Yes. But i the eye of the LAW it is the same offence. That is what i was saying. If i were a judge and two 1 year olds were brought before me acused of having sex with each other i would have to take into account their maturity and assess whether they knew what they were doing or not. But if 56 year old was brought beofre me accused of having sex with a 15 year old id throw the book at them as they KNEW that they were preying on the vunerable.

Make sense? :confused:

I also fail to see how a single act can on one day be worth the maximum sentence possible and the next not even be a criminal act. Do you see no contradiction in this?

Originally posted by Avalon
Yes. But i the eye of the LAW it is the same offence. That is what i was saying. If i were a judge and two 1 year olds were brought before me acused of having sex with each other i would have to take into account their maturity and assess whether they knew what they were doing or not. But if 56 year old was brought beofre me accused of having sex with a 15 year old id throw the book at them as they KNEW that they were preying on the vunerable.

Make sense? :confused:

Yes, it makes sense. In fact it is the same point as I was making.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I also fail to see how a single act can on one day be worth the maximum sentence possible and the next not even be a criminal act. Do you see no contradiction in this?

Hey - i dont make the laws!

Originally posted by LordChaverly
You do need to support your opinions if you would like others to take them seriously. In my opinion your argument in this thread weak because you constantly focus on the marginal cases relating to age limits in a very general way and ignore the realities of this particular case - i.e. of a man in his 50s having sex with a boy of 13 (and according to the boy's subsequent testimony, a man using his wealth, fame and cunning to exploit the naivety and ignorance of his victim).

but my general opinion was made in response to general comments.

nor did I ever suggest that King shouldn't have had a jail sentence.

Originally posted by Internetowl
He's a nonce - just because he's famous doesn't make it all right.

He needs his cobblers chopping off and forehead tattoo'ed with PAEDO in big letters!

:thumbsup:

it was posts like this that I was responding too, and the one by cycleracer where he suggests that no one should be paroled.

You still keep quoting this:
Originally posted by Cyclone
Part of his conviction was for having sex with boys aged under 18, 2 days after his conviction the law was changed to equalise the age of consent for men and women to 16.

but, I can't find any mention of them being "under 18", this is the report from the BBC website, from the time:

"Wednesday, 21 November, 2001, 15:17 GMT
Pop mogul jailed for sex abuse

King, charged under his real name Kenneth King, was found guilty of four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences against boys aged 14 and 15, committed in the 1980s."

Link: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1667960.stm>

I'll ask again, have I missed something. :confused:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
You still keep quoting this:

but, I can't find any mention of them being "under 18", this is the report from the BBC website, from the time:

"Wednesday, 21 November, 2001, 15:17 GMT
Pop mogul jailed for sex abuse

King, charged under his real name Kenneth King, was found guilty of four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences against boys aged 14 and 15, committed in the 1980s."

Link: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1667960.stm>

I'll ask again, have I missed something. :confused:

It's what they said on sky news 24, they spent about an hour covering it, maybe that had more detail than the bbc report...
Or maybe they were wrong and thus i have been misinformed.