Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:24 pm

First topic message reminder :

A 21-year-old man who admitted rape after having sex with a 12-year-old girl has walked free from court.

Daniel Cieslak wept after police informed him of the girl’s age, having believed she was 16, Glasgow’s High Court heard.

Cieslak met the girl at a taxi rank at 4am and later had sex with her at a flat in Edinburgh in 2015.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daniel-cieslak-walks-free-from-court-after-admitting-raping-girl-12_uk_58cbd5bbe4b0be71dcf3c3dd?utm_hp_ref=uk
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down


Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:56 am

HoratioTarr wrote:What the hell was a 16 year old doing out alone at 4am?

She was 12 and I think everyone would like to know the reason why to that.

_________________
At this point I do not know what is worse.
A person who is full of envy spreading rumours and lies.
Or the people with not enough education or common sense who believe them.
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:56 am

HoratioTarr wrote:What the hell was a 16 year old doing out alone at 4am?

You mean a 12-year old. Good question, although I think she was with a friend - who was 13.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:58 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


You claimed a 12 year old can give consent.

No they cannot give consent.

Thus that means you are justifying and approving of child rape



If he didn't know she was 12, he couldn't know that she couldn't legally consent. He wasn't a mind reader and he couldn't have known that she was 12.

Are you going to accuse the judge of approving of child rape too? Be careful - that could be libellous. Cool

Perhaps the best solution would be to prosecute girls (and boys) who have sex when they're underage. Then perhaps they wouldn't go around agreeing to have sex with adults, or even initiating it.  

Point 1)
Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Point 2) Yes

Point 3) So you want to prosecute under 13's who are victims of rape now,
Gets worse by the minute your views.
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:58 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I see you completely ignored my question about the boys who killed Jamie Bulger. Cool

Mainly as it was dumbly based hypothetically, off a different age to what they were.

Zero relevance

It's very relevant as it pertains to the age of responsibility. You introduced enough red herrings, to which I replied, so maybe you could be civil enough to answer my question.

If they had been 9, would you have said they couldn't have committed a crime by killing Jamie Bulger?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:59 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Mainly as it was dumbly based hypothetically, off a different age to what they were.

Zero relevance

It's very relevant as it pertains to the age of responsibility. You introduced enough red herrings, to which I replied, so maybe you could be civil enough to answer my question.

If they had been 9, would you have said they couldn't have committed a crime by killing Jamie Bulger?

They were not 9, so zero relevance to the debate.

As she is 12 and under 13

She cannot give consent
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:00 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If he didn't know she was 12, he couldn't know that she couldn't legally consent. He wasn't a mind reader and he couldn't have known that she was 12.

Are you going to accuse the judge of approving of child rape too? Be careful - that could be libellous. Cool

Perhaps the best solution would be to prosecute girls (and boys) who have sex when they're underage. Then perhaps they wouldn't go around agreeing to have sex with adults, or even initiating it.  

Point 1)
Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Point 2) Yes

Point 3) So you want to prosecute under 13's who are victims of rape now,
Gets worse by the minute your views.

Pay attention Didge. I already told you that there's no suggestion that he was ignorant of the law. That's the third red herring you've introduced.

You just pretty libelled the judge - good luck with that.

I didn't mention victims of rape.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:01 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's very relevant as it pertains to the age of responsibility. You introduced enough red herrings, to which I replied, so maybe you could be civil enough to answer my question.

If they had been 9, would you have said they couldn't have committed a crime by killing Jamie Bulger?

They were not 9, so zero relevance to the debate.

As she is 12 and under 13

She cannot give consent

What if they had been 9 though? Come on, you can do better than that.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:03 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Point 1)
Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.

Point 2) Yes

Point 3) So you want to prosecute under 13's who are victims of rape now,
Gets worse by the minute your views.

Pay attention Didge. I already told you that there's no suggestion that he was ignorant of the law. That's the third red herring you've introduced.

You just pretty libelled the judge - good luck with that.

I didn't mention victims of rape.

I dont pay or heed any attention to someone who argues in defense of child rape, by claiming 12 year olds can consent to sex

Again, ignorance is not a defense as you keep claiming based off him not knowing she was 12

You just said underage girls should be prosecuted for having sex.

That means any girls under 13 who have sex and are thus raped under the law, would have you prosecute them.

avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:10 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Pay attention Didge. I already told you that there's no suggestion that he was ignorant of the law. That's the third red herring you've introduced.

You just pretty libelled the judge - good luck with that.

I didn't mention victims of rape.

I dont pay or heed any attention to someone who argues in defense of child rape, by claiming 12 year olds can consent to sex

Again, ignorance is not a defense as you keep claiming based off him not knowing she was 12

You just said underage girls should be prosecuted for having sex.

That means any girls under 13 who have sex and are thus raped under the law, would have you prosecute them.


One wonders why you're going to so much trouble to reply to me. Laughing

You don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the facts - ie, that she was 12. It's a different thing - you need to apply to some logic.

Are you going to libel the judge again? You've gone very quiet about that. After all, you were very keen on the issue of libel in the KH case - perhaps you think it doesn't apply to you. Cool

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:14 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I dont pay or heed any attention to someone who argues in defense of child rape, by claiming 12 year olds can consent to sex

Again, ignorance is not a defense as you keep claiming based off him not knowing she was 12

You just said underage girls should be prosecuted for having sex.

That means any girls under 13 who have sex and are thus raped under the law, would have you prosecute them.


One wonders why you're going to so much trouble to reply to me. Laughing

You don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the facts - ie, that she was 12. It's a different thing - you need to apply to some logic.

Are you going to libel the judge again? You've gone very quiet about that. After all, you were very keen on the issue of libel in the KH case - perhaps you think it doesn't apply to you. Cool


I understand the law perfectly

Under 13's cannot give consent to sex

Yes happy to say and reason that the judge approves of child rape

Please forward her my post if you like, you have my consent to do so.

So you argued in defense of child rape and that the victims should be prosecuted.

Its there in black and white for all to see.

avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:16 am

Oh and on the Judge here?



"Lady Scott, who represented Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in his Lockerbie bombing appeal before being made a judge in 2012, has attracted controversy in the past over her judgement in rape cases. 


In 2012 she was criticised by MPs for telling Algerian refugee  Hamadache Hamza, who subjected a woman to a weekend-long rape ordeal, that he deserved "credit" for overcoming his “very difficult background" and setting up a  successful hairdressing business."

_________________
At this point I do not know what is worse.
A person who is full of envy spreading rumours and lies.
Or the people with not enough education or common sense who believe them.
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:18 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

One wonders why you're going to so much trouble to reply to me. Laughing

You don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law, and ignorance of the facts - ie, that she was 12. It's a different thing - you need to apply to some logic.

Are you going to libel the judge again? You've gone very quiet about that. After all, you were very keen on the issue of libel in the KH case - perhaps you think it doesn't apply to you. Cool


I understand the law perfectly

Under 13's cannot give consent to sex

Yes happy to say and reason that the judge approves of child rape

Please forward her my post if you like, you have my consent to do so.

So you argued in defense of child rape and that the victims should be prosecuted.

Its there in black and white for all to see.


I said you don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law and the facts of the case.

There's no suggestion that the man didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a 12-year old, so your claim about ignorance of the law is irrelevant. Do you not understand that?

If you're sued for libel, I do hope you won't plead "ignorance". lol!

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:20 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


I understand the law perfectly

Under 13's cannot give consent to sex

Yes happy to say and reason that the judge approves of child rape

Please forward her my post if you like, you have my consent to do so.

So you argued in defense of child rape and that the victims should be prosecuted.

Its there in black and white for all to see.


I said you don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law and the facts of the case.

There's no suggestion that the man didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a 12-year old, so your claim about ignorance of the law is irrelevant. Do you not understand that?

If you're sued for libel, I do hope you won't plead "ignorance". lol!


You are claiming that his ignorance of her being 12 is a defense.

Its not a defense, as pointed out by both Quill and I

I will argue and reason my case if sued

Happy to go to court over that and I would win, as by law, a 12 year old cannot consent

Cool
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by HoratioTarr on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:22 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:What the hell was a 16 year old doing out alone at 4am?

You mean a 12-year old. Good question, although I think she was with a friend - who was 13.

Sorry, yes, a 12 year old.   But even a 16 year old shouldn't be doing that.   Why aren't her parents being prosecuted too?
avatar
HoratioTarr

Posts : 6286
Join date : 2014-01-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:26 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I said you don't understand the difference between ignorance of the law and the facts of the case.

There's no suggestion that the man didn't know it was illegal to have sex with a 12-year old, so your claim about ignorance of the law is irrelevant. Do you not understand that?

If you're sued for libel, I do hope you won't plead "ignorance". lol!


You are claiming that his ignorance of her being 12 is a defense.

Its not a defense, as pointed out by both Quill and I

I will argue and reason my case if sued

Happy to go to court over that and I would win, as by law, a 12 year old cannot consent

Cool

Yes. Ignorance of the law is a completely different issue. That would be like him knowing that she was 12 but not knowing that having sex with her was illegal.

You would not win because the judge has not given any indication that she approves of child rape - she merely accepted that the guy believed the girl was over 16.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:28 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean a 12-year old. Good question, although I think she was with a friend - who was 13.

Sorry, yes, a 12 year old.   But even a 16 year old shouldn't be doing that.   Why aren't her parents being prosecuted too?

I don't know. It's a strange story because apparently one of the girls spoke to the police about a missing girl, and they didn't notice that they were that young either.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:30 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


You are claiming that his ignorance of her being 12 is a defense.

Its not a defense, as pointed out by both Quill and I

I will argue and reason my case if sued

Happy to go to court over that and I would win, as by law, a 12 year old cannot consent

Cool

Yes. Ignorance of the law is a completely different issue. That would be like him knowing that she was 12 but not knowing that having sex with her was illegal.

You would not win because the judge has not given any indication that she approves of child rape - she merely accepted that the guy believed the girl was over 16.


But its still the same thing, his argument from ignorance of her age is invalid, the point, you cannot even grasp.

She has by claiming the girl gave consent and argued badly, that she was near 13 as her defense of this.

"Scott said: “Although the factual absence of consent is not an ingredient of the offence, it is a material factor for the purposes of sentencing. Here the victim willingly participated in the sexual intercourse and there was, in fact, consent.


“So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older"

I would win loads of money Rags as she is not of sound age to be a willing partner to sex, as she is 12

So bring it on Rags, the law would be on my side, she made a judgement not based on the law itself.

Cannot wait to see Quill tear you apart also on your poor defense here

Laughing
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:36 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. Ignorance of the law is a completely different issue. That would be like him knowing that she was 12 but not knowing that having sex with her was illegal.

You would not win because the judge has not given any indication that she approves of child rape - she merely accepted that the guy believed the girl was over 16.


But its still the same thing, his argument from ignorance of her age is invalid, the point, you cannot even grasp.

She has by claiming the girl gave consent and argued badly, that she was near 13 as her defense of this.

"Scott said: “Although the factual absence of consent is not an ingredient of the offence, it is a material factor for the purposes of sentencing. Here the victim willingly participated in the sexual intercourse and there was, in fact, consent.


“So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older"

I would win loads of money Rags as she is not of sound age to be a willing partner to sex, as she is 12

So bring it on Rags, the law would be on my side, she made a judgement not based on the law itself.

Cannot wait to see Quill tear you apart also on your poor defense here

Laughing

Unless there are reasons that the judge illegally gave him a discharge, you're on a hiding to nothing here Didge, and you have libelled her. I agree with the judge, both on her opinion and on her sentencing (or lack of it). The girl was willing, and the guy didn't know her true age.

Quill is not relevant to this. Stand on your own two feet and stop looking for support from others. Cool

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:38 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


But its still the same thing, his argument from ignorance of her age is invalid, the point, you cannot even grasp.

She has by claiming the girl gave consent and argued badly, that she was near 13 as her defense of this.

"Scott said: “Although the factual absence of consent is not an ingredient of the offence, it is a material factor for the purposes of sentencing. Here the victim willingly participated in the sexual intercourse and there was, in fact, consent.


“So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older"

I would win loads of money Rags as she is not of sound age to be a willing partner to sex, as she is 12

So bring it on Rags, the law would be on my side, she made a judgement not based on the law itself.

Cannot wait to see Quill tear you apart also on your poor defense here

Laughing

Unless there are reasons that the judge illegally gave him a discharge, you're on a hiding to nothing here Didge, and you have libelled her. I agree with the judge, both on her opinion and on her sentencing (or lack of it). The girl was willing, and the guy didn't know her true age.

Quill is not relevant to this. Stand on your own two feet and stop looking for support from others. Cool


You said I would be done for libel.
As seen I would not and this decision can also be challenged.
Son on both counts you are wrong again

I have stood on my own two feet and watched you defend prosecuting children raped and justify child rape. 
When Quill comes on though, he will have a field day with you and I cannot wait 

Laughing
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:40 am

A JUDGE who let a student walk free after he admitted raping a 12-year-old girl has been blasted by a victim support group.


Manager of Glasgow’s Rape Crisis Centre Isabelle Kerr said she feared the decision was “victim blaming” and could potentially put women off reporting incidents of rape.


In a shock move of leniency, Lady Scott today handed Daniel Cieslak an absolute discharge, meaning he escaped further punishment, saying the 12-year-old was an “active participant”.


Cieslak, of the capital’s Leith, will also avoid being on the sex offenders list.


The ruling came after the 21 year-old returned to the High Court in Glasgow, having earlier pled guilty to a rape charge.


Ms Kerr blasted the galling decision, saying the treatment of the 12-year-old girl was “concerning”.


She said: “The law really can’t be any clearer. If someone is under the age of 16 they cannot give consent – therefore a 12-year old is not able to consent.


“It’s a concern to be talking about someone of that age as an ‘active participant’.


“It’s going down the road of victim blaming, something we’ve been working to tackle.


“I would be concerned that young women might be deterred from reporting rape if they feel they are not going to be believed or not taken seriously.


“Our experience here working with police, as we do every day, is that when a report is made, it is taken seriously and victims are listened to.”


https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/737903/support-group-blasts-judges-shock-ruling-to-let-student-walk-free-after-he-admitted-raping-12-year-old-girl-in-edinburgh/

_________________
At this point I do not know what is worse.
A person who is full of envy spreading rumours and lies.
Or the people with not enough education or common sense who believe them.
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:41 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Unless there are reasons that the judge illegally gave him a discharge, you're on a hiding to nothing here Didge, and you have libelled her. I agree with the judge, both on her opinion and on her sentencing (or lack of it). The girl was willing, and the guy didn't know her true age.

Quill is not relevant to this. Stand on your own two feet and stop looking for support from others. Cool


You said I would be done for libel.
As seen I would not and this decision can also be challenged.
Son on both counts you are wrong again

I have stood on my own two feet and watched you defend prosecuting children raped and justify child rape. 
When Quill comes on though, he will have a field day with you and I cannot wait 

Laughing

Well the judge is unlikely to be reading this forum, but did you not say or imply that she approved of child rape? That's pretty libellous, and you cannot justify it.

Why are you so in awe of Quill? He's just a poster. scratch

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:43 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


You said I would be done for libel.
As seen I would not and this decision can also be challenged.
Son on both counts you are wrong again

I have stood on my own two feet and watched you defend prosecuting children raped and justify child rape. 
When Quill comes on though, he will have a field day with you and I cannot wait 

Laughing

Well the judge is unlikely to be reading this forum, but did you not say or imply that she approved of child rape? That's pretty libellous, and you cannot justify it.

Why are you so in awe of Quill? He's just a poster. scratch


I just did justify it, as she went against the law

A 12 year old cannot give consent, that means she is justifying child rape and clearly approves.

@Quill, because he knows the law better than most, and will no doubt cringe at your replies, they were that bad Rags
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:46 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well the judge is unlikely to be reading this forum, but did you not say or imply that she approved of child rape? That's pretty libellous, and you cannot justify it.

Why are you so in awe of Quill? He's just a poster. scratch


I just did justify it, as she went against the law

A 12 year old cannot give consent, that means she is justifying child rape and clearly approves.

@Quill, because he knows the law better than most, and will no doubt cringe at your replies, they were that bad Rags

She hasn't gone against the law at all. He pleaded guilty, and she was entitled to give him a discharge, given the facts of the case.

I don't care if Quill cringes or not. You might be frightened of him for some bizarre reason, but I'm not replying to him, and he's nothing to do with my posts.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:49 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


I just did justify it, as she went against the law

A 12 year old cannot give consent, that means she is justifying child rape and clearly approves.

@Quill, because he knows the law better than most, and will no doubt cringe at your replies, they were that bad Rags

She hasn't gone against the law at all. He pleaded guilty, and she was entitled to give him a discharge, given the facts of the case.

I don't care if Quill cringes or not. You might be frightened of him for some bizarre reason, but I'm not replying to him, and he's nothing to do with my posts.


She has gone against the law by ruling a 12 year can consent.
I am not arguing over the discharge, but her claim on consent.
So again, please send my views to the judge, as no doubt the Judge would know she would have no case.
The law is on my side and I can rightly cast her decision as wrong and in defense of child rape.
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:56 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

She hasn't gone against the law at all. He pleaded guilty, and she was entitled to give him a discharge, given the facts of the case.

I don't care if Quill cringes or not. You might be frightened of him for some bizarre reason, but I'm not replying to him, and he's nothing to do with my posts.


She has gone against the law by ruling a 12 year can consent.
I am not arguing over the discharge, but her claim on consent.
So again, please send my views to the judge, as no doubt the Judge would know she would have no case.
The law is on my side and I can rightly cast her decision as wrong and in defense of child rape.

That wasn't her ruling, she said the girl consented and was an active participant, which is true. She made it clear that a person under the age of 13 cannot consent in law.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:58 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


She has gone against the law by ruling a 12 year can consent.
I am not arguing over the discharge, but her claim on consent.
So again, please send my views to the judge, as no doubt the Judge would know she would have no case.
The law is on my side and I can rightly cast her decision as wrong and in defense of child rape.

That wasn't her ruling, she said the girl consented and was an active participant, which is true. She made it clear that a person under the age of 13 cannot consent in law.  


Its not true, because the law states otherwise, that any child under 13 cannot give consent.
This girl was 12, and thus cannot give consent, for the thousandth time.
So both you and the judge approve and justify child rape and even worse in your case, you want to prosecute the victims of child rape.
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:06 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That wasn't her ruling, she said the girl consented and was an active participant, which is true. She made it clear that a person under the age of 13 cannot consent in law.  


Its not true, because the law states otherwise, that any child under 13 cannot give consent.
This girl was 12, and thus cannot give consent, for the thousandth time.
So both you and the judge approve and justify child rape and even worse in your case, you want to prosecute the victims of child rape.

She clearly wasn't talking about legal consent, she was talking about factual consent. You really need to pay more attention. You've definitely libelled the judge - let's hope she doesn't read this forum. Laughing

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:09 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


Its not true, because the law states otherwise, that any child under 13 cannot give consent.
This girl was 12, and thus cannot give consent, for the thousandth time.
So both you and the judge approve and justify child rape and even worse in your case, you want to prosecute the victims of child rape.

She clearly wasn't talking about legal consent, she was talking about factual consent. You really need to pay more attention. You've definitely libelled the judge - let's hope she doesn't read this forum.  Laughing


Gibberish.
She argued off the legal bases as well and that she was shy a few months of 13, so again you are wrong.
Lets hope she does Rags Laughing
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:15 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

She clearly wasn't talking about legal consent, she was talking about factual consent. You really need to pay more attention. You've definitely libelled the judge - let's hope she doesn't read this forum.  Laughing


Gibberish.
She argued off the legal bases as well and that she was shy a few months of 13, so again you are wrong.
Lets hope she does Rags Laughing

Really Didge, I have to help you out with everything. You should do your own research, but here you go:

This statutory offence has a very wide scope; from the most serious circumstances of violent rape at one end of the spectrum, to, at the other, sexual intercourse in circumstances wholly absent of force and where as a matter of fact, but not law, there is consent.

I also note that the girl had been drinking vodka. Even a 12-year old knows that she shouldn't be drinking. I suppose they'll go after the people who served her as well. So much trouble caused.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:18 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


Gibberish.
She argued off the legal bases as well and that she was shy a few months of 13, so again you are wrong.
Lets hope she does Rags Laughing

Really Didge, I have to help you out with everything. You should do your own research, but here you go:

This statutory offence has a very wide scope; from the most serious circumstances of violent rape at one end of the spectrum, to, at the other, sexual intercourse in circumstances wholly absent of force and where as a matter of fact, but not law, there is consent.

I also note that the girl had been drinking vodka. Even a 12-year old knows that she shouldn't be drinking. I suppose they'll go after the people who served her as well. So much trouble caused.


And really Rags, I have to show why again you are wrong. So now you are victim blaiming due to the alcohol, as well as approving of child rape, and prosecuting victims of child rape

“So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older.
“The statutory offence for girls aged over 13 to 16 years provides for a defence based on reasonable grounds of belief by the accused that the victim was above the age of consent. 
“It is clear from the agreed facts presented to me that the Crown would have been unlikely to, or unable to, exclude such a defence and they do not dispute this. Accordingly, it is very unlikely the Crown could prove a crime had the victim been over 13 years of age.”
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:24 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Really Didge, I have to help you out with everything. You should do your own research, but here you go:



I also note that the girl had been drinking vodka. Even a 12-year old knows that she shouldn't be drinking. I suppose they'll go after the people who served her as well. So much trouble caused.


And really Rags, I have to show why again you are wrong. So now you are victim blaiming due to the alcohol, as well as approving of child rape, and prosecuting victims of child rape

“So too, whilst there is no defence to this offence because of strict liability, the fact is that you would have had a defence if the victim had been a few months older.
“The statutory offence for girls aged over 13 to 16 years provides for a defence based on reasonable grounds of belief by the accused that the victim was above the age of consent. 
“It is clear from the agreed facts presented to me that the Crown would have been unlikely to, or unable to, exclude such a defence and they do not dispute this. Accordingly, it is very unlikely the Crown could prove a crime had the victim been over 13 years of age.”

I see you've given up trying to claim that the judge ruled that the girl could legally consent. Well done for that at least.

I'm blaming the girl for buying and/or drinking vodka when she was underage. So what?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Thorin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:24 am

So in other words, its not a fact that it was consent, the judge cannot not even claim that, even outside of the law. As again she would have toprove the child was of sound mind of which she did not prove.
So again the judge was wrong on two counts to make such an assumption based off a 12 year old
So her claim it was factual consent is also piss poor Rags.

The judge is like I say going against the law and is claiming she is given consent at 12 in the most absurd fashion

Like I say, please send my views even more to the Judge, because her claim to factual consent is even weaker as a claim 

Thanks for the debate, am sure many will raise eyebrows at your views

Catch you later
avatar
Thorin

Posts : 11520
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:27 am

Thorin wrote:So in other words, its not a fact that it was consent, the judge cannot not even claim that, even outside of the law. As again she would have toprove the child was of sound mind of which she did not prove.
So again the judge was wrong on two counts to make such an assumption based off a 12 year old
So her claim it was factual consent is also piss poor Rags.

Like I say, please send my views even more to the Judge, because her claim to factual consent is even weaker as a claim 

Thanks for the debate, am sure many will raise eyebrows at your views

Catch you later

Did you not read what I quoted? The judge made it quite clear that she was talking about consent in a factual sense, not a legal sense. The girl agreed to sex, which is a fact.

Now you're introducing mental health issues - that's the fourth red herring. Laughing

Raised eyebrows are not my problem. rabbit

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Syl on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:03 pm

I think the judge made the wrong decision.

The 21 year old male had sex with a 12 year old female.....that's statutory rape.
I don't care how old the girl looked...she was a child. What if she had been 11, or 10. or 9?? Some very young girls can make themselves appear older....does that make it OK for men to have sex with them if the children are willing?

The onus should be on the man to either keep it in his pants before he knows more about her, or face the consequences.

_________________
My body is in Manchester (sometimes) my mind's all over the place (always)
Happy now??
avatar
Syl

Posts : 11732
Join date : 2015-11-12
Location : Manchester

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:38 pm

Syl wrote:I think the judge made the wrong decision.

The 21 year old male had sex with a 12 year old female.....that's statutory rape.
I don't care how old the girl looked...she was a child. What if she had been 11, or 10. or 9?? Some very young girls can make themselves appear older....does that make it OK for men to have sex with them if the children are willing?

The onus should be on the man to either keep it in his pants before he knows more about her, or face the consequences.

He was 19 at the time. Everyone who encountered the girl said she seemed much older, including some police officers. It's also up to girls to not go around pretending to be older than they are.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Syl on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:I think the judge made the wrong decision.

The 21 year old male had sex with a 12 year old female.....that's statutory rape.
I don't care how old the girl looked...she was a child. What if she had been 11, or 10. or 9?? Some very young girls can make themselves appear older....does that make it OK for men to have sex with them if the children are willing?

The onus should be on the man to either keep it in his pants before he knows more about her, or face the consequences.

He was 19 at the time. Everyone who encountered the girl said she seemed much older, including some police officers. It's also up to girls to not go around pretending to be older than they are.

Some kids are stupid...it comes with being young, ultimately its up to the adult to take responsibility.
No doubt she did look older, many kids do, there are sites and videos on the internet teaching kids how to look older, that still doesn't give an adult male the right to have sex with a child.
What if she had gotten pregnant, caught AIDS, would he still be the innocent party...I doubt it.

The judge was wrong, and it also gives out the signal that men can meet and shag young kids with gay abandon of being let off if it ever goes to court as long as the child LOOKS older. Rolling Eyes



_________________
My body is in Manchester (sometimes) my mind's all over the place (always)
Happy now??
avatar
Syl

Posts : 11732
Join date : 2015-11-12
Location : Manchester

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:56 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He was 19 at the time. Everyone who encountered the girl said she seemed much older, including some police officers. It's also up to girls to not go around pretending to be older than they are.



Some kids are stupid...it comes with being young, ultimately its up to the adult to take responsibility.
No doubt she did look older, many kids do, there are sites and videos on the internet teaching kids how to look older, that still doesn't give an adult male the right to have sex with a child.
What if she had gotten pregnant, caught AIDS, would he still be the innocent party...I doubt it.

The judge was wrong, and it also gives out the signal that men can meet and shag young kids with gay abandon of being let off if it ever goes to  court as long as the child LOOKS older. Rolling Eyes



He didn't know she was only 12 though, and his story is backed up by others who thought she was much older.

She's no more likely to catch HIV than any other female.

He was prosecuted and he pleaded guilty. What did you want to happen? For him to be chucked in prison for having a one night stand with someone he really believed was over 16? What would that achieve?

I think the Judge made the right decision. As for for men meeting and shagging young kids, well isn't it about time the young kids were told not to go out meeting men and having sex with them?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by magica on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:01 pm

Does it matter her age, she was raped.  He should never have walked away from court.

Also 12 yr olds can look abit older but not 16, even that picture above you can tell by her body she's not 16.  

Im amazed the woman judge let him go, it sends a message, its ok to rape now is it? Next man up for rape will think he can walk too and this girl is a junior!

Also why did the parents let her stay out til 4 Shocked

_________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

Don't walk behind I may not lead
Don't walk in front I may not follow
Just walk beside me and be my friend.
avatar
magica

Posts : 1645
Join date : 2016-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:05 pm

magica wrote:Does it matter her age, she was raped.  He should never have walked away from court.

Also 12 yr olds can look abit older but not 16, even that picture above you can tell by her body she's not 16.  

Im amazed the woman judge let him go, it sends a message, its ok to rape now is it? Next man up for rape will think he can walk too and this girl is a junior!

Also why did the parents let her stay out til 4 Shocked

Yes, her age matters. If she been 16 it wouldn't have gone to court obviously. Several people didn't think she was 12, not even the police who spoke to her that evening.

That is not a picture of the girl. The Judge that she looked over 16 too.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Syl on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:



Some kids are stupid...it comes with being young, ultimately its up to the adult to take responsibility.
No doubt she did look older, many kids do, there are sites and videos on the internet teaching kids how to look older, that still doesn't give an adult male the right to have sex with a child.
What if she had gotten pregnant, caught AIDS, would he still be the innocent party...I doubt it.

The judge was wrong, and it also gives out the signal that men can meet and shag young kids with gay abandon of being let off if it ever goes to  court as long as the child LOOKS older. Rolling Eyes



He didn't know she was only 12 though, and his story is backed up by others who thought she was much older.

She's no more likely to catch HIV than any other female.

He was prosecuted and he pleaded guilty. What did you want to happen? For him to be chucked in prison for having a one night stand with someone he really believed was over 16? What would that achieve?

I think the Judge made the right decision. As for for men meeting and shagging young kids, well isn't it about time the young kids were told not to go out meeting men and having sex with them?

SHE is a child...HE is an adult, that sums it up to me.

I don't care that she looked older....so what, does that give every man the right to have sex with a child because she looks older?
It was up to HIM to be sure she was above the age of consent...its a given that some kids are stupid, but its not against the law to be stupid, it IS against the law to rape kids.

_________________
My body is in Manchester (sometimes) my mind's all over the place (always)
Happy now??
avatar
Syl

Posts : 11732
Join date : 2015-11-12
Location : Manchester

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:10 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't know she was only 12 though, and his story is backed up by others who thought she was much older.

She's no more likely to catch HIV than any other female.

He was prosecuted and he pleaded guilty. What did you want to happen? For him to be chucked in prison for having a one night stand with someone he really believed was over 16? What would that achieve?

I think the Judge made the right decision. As for for men meeting and shagging young kids, well isn't it about time the young kids were told not to go out meeting men and having sex with them?

SHE is a child...HE is an adult, that sums it up to me.

I don't care that she looked older....so what, does that give every man the right to have sex with a child because she looks older?
It was up to HIM to be sure she was above the age of consent...its a given that some kids are stupid, but its not against the law to be stupid, it IS against the law to rape kids.

Also, he was told she was 16. It's not clear who told him that, but it must have either her or her mate. How could he make sure? Why would he expect a 12-year old girl to be out at that time of night, clubbing and drinking?

Why didn't she tell him she was 12 when they were in the flat?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Tommy Monk on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:13 pm

The girl was 12... you would know or at least have strong suspicion that the girl was under 16... especially if she was with a 13 tear old friend!


They would give off enough signs of being under age... and that would start alarm bells ringing in your head...



_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 18712
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by magica on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
magica wrote:Does it matter her age, she was raped.  He should never have walked away from court.

Also 12 yr olds can look abit older but not 16, even that picture above you can tell by her body she's not 16.  

Im amazed the woman judge let him go, it sends a message, its ok to rape now is it? Next man up for rape will think he can walk too and this girl is a junior!

Also why did the parents let her stay out til 4 Shocked

Yes, her age matters. If she been 16 it wouldn't have gone to court obviously. Several people didn't think she was 12, not even the police who spoke to her that evening.

That is not a picture of the girl. The Judge that she looked over 16 too.

Many girls look older for their age, does it mean they should all be raped. This judge needs to hang her head in shame.

_________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

Don't walk behind I may not lead
Don't walk in front I may not follow
Just walk beside me and be my friend.
avatar
magica

Posts : 1645
Join date : 2016-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by magica on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:14 pm

Also rape is rape no matter what their age is.

_________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

Don't walk behind I may not lead
Don't walk in front I may not follow
Just walk beside me and be my friend.
avatar
magica

Posts : 1645
Join date : 2016-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:15 pm

magica wrote:Also rape is rape no matter what their age is.

Eh? The whole point is that it was statutory rape because of her age. There's no suggestion that she didn't agree to it.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:16 pm

magica wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, her age matters. If she been 16 it wouldn't have gone to court obviously. Several people didn't think she was 12, not even the police who spoke to her that evening.

That is not a picture of the girl. The Judge that she looked over 16 too.

Many girls look older for their age, does it mean they should all be raped.  This judge needs to hang her head in shame.

Many girls don't go around meeting men at taxi ranks and going back to have sex with them either.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by magica on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
magica wrote:

Many girls look older for their age, does it mean they should all be raped.  This judge needs to hang her head in shame.

Many girls don't go around meeting men at taxi ranks and going back to have sex with them either.

No they don't and where were her parents? She obviously has been able to do what she likes then.

_________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

Don't walk behind I may not lead
Don't walk in front I may not follow
Just walk beside me and be my friend.
avatar
magica

Posts : 1645
Join date : 2016-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Raggamuffin on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:19 pm

magica wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Many girls don't go around meeting men at taxi ranks and going back to have sex with them either.

No they don't and where were her parents?  She obviously has been able to do what she likes then.

Yes. She was out drinking all night as well. Maybe she told her parents she was staying with her mate or something.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 28864
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by Tommy Monk on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:19 pm

I reckon he knew or strongly suspected that she was underage... but maybe thought she was 14-15 and he'd get away with it...



_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 18712
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Daniel Cieslak Walks Free From Court After Admitting Raping Girl, 12

Post by magica on Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:21 pm

Have to say many 12 year olds bodies are developing still, so not like a 16 year olds body. Many fellas could tell this, im sure theyre not that stupid.

_________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

Don't walk behind I may not lead
Don't walk in front I may not follow
Just walk beside me and be my friend.
avatar
magica

Posts : 1645
Join date : 2016-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum