Child sexual abuse

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

In the UK it is slightly more complicated from a child protection point of view (I know because it is part of my job to know). The 'abuse' element is important. Two 14 year olds who had sex would generally not lead to any legal action for example. A thirty year old having sex with a 13 or 14 year old almost certainly would. Vulnerability and the abuse of responsibility and power is the key factor in our law.

Quite, but this is rarely legislated or considered in the general idea of consent, which is what I was referring to in the first place. By strict application of the law - which is not how the law works, which you from your job quite likely experience - two 14 year olds would be raping each other. Not so amusingly, this is what happens when zero tolerance is applied to laws, which I hope you do not experience in your job.

[Beatsong]

And yes, you are right 'statutory rape' is not a legal term in the UK.

Thanks for clarifying.

In which case my original point, before all the irrelevant brouhaha, still stands: Presuming the people the comte was referring to were in the UK (they may not have been, but he hasn't said so), the man would not have been sent to jail for statutory rape; he would have been sent to jail for sex with a minor (or whatever it's called).

So the idea that this sends a message to the girl that her consenting sex was actually rape, is completely unfounded.

[Beatsong]

What you've said above OTOH, about "special conditions that make research into rape harder than research in many other subjects" is very interesting, and pertinent. So I'd be interested to know more about what these are.

I've already described them. Under-estimation, over-estimation (which you discarded as if you had any qualification to correct me)

Go read it again. I didn't "discard" anything, or "correct" you about anything. What I did was raise questions, because I was surprised by some of your views, disagreed with some of them and was interested in gathering further information. eg:

There are ways of overcoming this hurdle and I'm not aware that they're any less known to, or less successfully implemented by, those studying rape than those studying any other phenomenon.

That's me admitting that if such differences exist, I don't know about them. So you're welcome to fill me in (as you've done a teensy weensy bit above).

Next to this, there is the vast underestimated number of male rape, where men are raped in prisons, or even by women.

How do you know, or what makes you think, that it is vastly underestimated? (I don't even know what the estimates are).

That's called a question. The way to answer it (if you want to) is to give an indication how you know: links to further information, a run down of prominent views about it, etc. etc. Not to throw your fuckin' toys out of the pram because I had the temerity to question you.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a discussion forum. Not a "reassure the comte that he's right about everything" forum. And being a discussion forum about a wide range of issues, it will naturally draw people from a wide range of specialisms. I have my own area of professional expertise, and I've happily discussed it with plenty of people whose knowledge about it is much lower than my own - and yes, discussed disagreements and questions with them too - with resorting to cutting them short and posturing about my "credentials" instead. I''ve also had plenty deep and friendly debates with other psychology professionals, who seemed to feel that my level of understanding of their answers to my questions was high enough to make such debate worthwhile.

I find it ludicrous - and to be honest, more than a little pathetic - that you can't even take a perfectly clear, non-confrontational question about something without turning the whole thing into an irrelevant issue of personal qualifications, and then being mortified that you've been "corrected" and your opinion "discarded" instead of just answering the fuckin' question.

I'm not going to labor this any further as it's already way off the point of the thread. But at least your comment earlier about peoples' perception of your ego makes more sense to me now. You've made some interesting points elsewhere in this post that begin to address my questions, and your original post makes more sense to me in that light. But to be honest, if it's this damn difficult to have a simple discussion with you without every little thing coming down to how wonderfully knowledgeable and important you are, and how important it is to acknowledge that before daring as to ask a question, I can't be bothered.

Well, I hope you are having sex some way.

Now that sounds like a better use of my time...

[Pappa]

And yes, you are right 'statutory rape' is not a legal term in the UK.

Thanks for clarifying.

In which case my original point, before all the irrelevant brouhaha, still stands: Presuming the people the comte was referring to were in the UK (they may not have been, but he hasn't said so), the man would not have been sent to jail for statutory rape; he would have been sent to jail for sex with a minor (or whatever it's called).

So the idea that this sends a message to the girl that her consenting sex was actually rape, is completely unfounded.

A minor is considered unable to give informed consent, so therefore it's rape.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

And yes, you are right 'statutory rape' is not a legal term in the UK.

Thanks for clarifying.

In which case my original point, before all the irrelevant brouhaha, still stands: Presuming the people the comte was referring to were in the UK (they may not have been, but he hasn't said so), the man would not have been sent to jail for statutory rape; he would have been sent to jail for sex with a minor (or whatever it's called).

So the idea that this sends a message to the girl that her consenting sex was actually rape, is completely unfounded.

A minor is considered unable to give informed consent, so therefore it's rape.

I'm tempted to write "Thanks, captain obvious", but I'm forced to admit that apparently, this is necessary.

Finally,

Aside from questions of content validity, and the degree to which 'sexual abuse' represents what it said to represent by the laymen, there are questions about the accuracy of data. Rape is an overreported and underreported phenomenon. That seems contradictory, but it is not. Many women do not report rape, and as awful as it sounds, sometimes no rape occurred and women report rape anyway.

That's probably true. But then it's gonna be true of any study of human behaviour. It's well known among sociologists, statisticians etc that inaccuracies and biases in self-reporting are one of the biggest hurdles in getting meaningful information out of people about their own experiences. There are ways of overcoming this hurdle and I'm not aware that they're any less known to, or less successfully implemented by, those studying rape than those studying any other phenomenon.

I must have missed the question here. I was quite clear that there are specific question as to the validity of statistics concerning rape. "There are ways"? Really? :

But to be honest, if it's this damn difficult to have a simple discussion with you without every little thing coming down to how wonderfully knowledgeable and important you are, and how important it is to acknowledge that before daring as to ask a question, I can't be bothered.

I'll bite! The problem here is that people are accustomed to the idea that even though they have nothing interesting to add to the collective of human knowledge, their opinion is interesting. The oft-repeated banalities in bars are generated again and again as 'original comments', and on a discussion forum it's sadly no different. People who know what they are talking about generally don't frequent these bars, because well, they have actual lives to attend to. I am special. In fact, there are a couple of special people here. Special because despite their knowledge - a concept that may be new to some unnamed individuals in this conversation between the two of us and that isn't me - they still frequent these parts.
Yes, I know shit. I don't know why this has anything to do with ego (I don't understand why claiming to belong to the world of knowing immediately implies one has 'an ego' -- what do the accusers claim to be part of?) but that said, I have no problem with it. If you had actually bothered to ask a question you would have received a polite answer - yeah, I'm an educator and I reserve hours of my time to - without any pay or compensation - educate children and others. No, I'm not Mother Theresa, but I'm not the asshole you're pretending to encounter either.

Reread my posts, reread your posts and see what is what, bub.

[Beatsong]

Fuck it.

Finally,

Aside from questions of content validity, and the degree to which 'sexual abuse' represents what it said to represent by the laymen, there are questions about the accuracy of data. Rape is an overreported and underreported phenomenon. That seems contradictory, but it is not. Many women do not report rape, and as awful as it sounds, sometimes no rape occurred and women report rape anyway.

That's probably true. But then it's gonna be true of any study of human behaviour. It's well known among sociologists, statisticians etc that inaccuracies and biases in self-reporting are one of the biggest hurdles in getting meaningful information out of people about their own experiences. There are ways of overcoming this hurdle and I'm not aware that they're any less known to, or less successfully implemented by, those studying rape than those studying any other phenomenon.

I must have missed the question here. I was quite clear that there are specific question as to the validity of statistics concerning rape. "There are ways"? Really? :

Nice quote mine. I referred to my question in the other passage - the one you've ommitted. The passage above is a comment (another concept you seem to have trouble with coming from anyone but your august self) which is also perfectly relevant to a discussion board. And as I pointed out, it makes quite clear to anyone who isn't a paranoid, emotionally insecure egomaniac that it's a statement of personal knowledge that is open to revision ("I'm not aware that...")

And your point about "specific questions as to the validity of statistics concerning rape" came later, after the whole pile of shit about my "correcting" you. As I've already pointed out, I'm perfectly open to hearing about that and all you had to do was present it in the first place. Instead you chose to turn the whole thing into a dick-measuring contest. If you need to do that it's your problem, but don't then think you can change the order of events to make it look like someon else's.

But to be honest, if it's this damn difficult to have a simple discussion with you without every little thing coming down to how wonderfully knowledgeable and important you are, and how important it is to acknowledge that before daring as to ask a question, I can't be bothered.

I'll bite! The problem here is that people are accustomed to the idea that even though they have nothing interesting to add to the collective of human knowledge, their opinion is interesting. The oft-repeated banalities in bars are generated again and again as 'original comments', and on a discussion forum it's sadly no different. People who know what they are talking about generally don't frequent these bars, because well, they have actual lives to attend to. I am special. In fact, there are a couple of special people here. Special because despite their knowledge - a concept that may be new to some unnamed individuals in this conversation between the two of us and that isn't me - they still frequent these parts.

So far here you've made a couple of contentious points about rape which you've provided almost no background or evidence for. I don't care how "special" you think you are, sweety, in the comfortable little world of self-adoration your mummy made for you. I care about the actual content of what people say. The more you try to exempt yourself from this, and the more you try to turn it on me by pretending that I'm obviously not worthy of receiving the great gift of your intellectual endowment, the more ridiculous you look. I'm perfectly capable of understanding information about psychology, and at the very least am entitled to actually receive the information before someone decides otherwise.

I'm also aware that there are many schools of psychology, and many dissenting individual opinions within them. Your credentials in the field may well give your opinions some weight, but they don't turn any of them into absolute truths. There could very easily be 100 other psychologists, with equally valid credentials, come along in five minutes and say differently.

Of course there's a very easy solution to this, which is that you expand upon what you said and give the necessary information behind it. You've done a little bit of that now, but fuck: why is it such hard work? I suppose it could be that the knowledge required to understand where you're coming from is so rarified that mere mortals could never get close to it. In which case why don't fuck off and form some private forum with your three other "special people" where you can sit around and admire each others' dicks all day?

Or it could just be that you're full of shit, and the vast majority of rape studies don't include verbal comments under "sexual assault", without making the distinction clear. Until you point to some that do, I guess we'll all just have to form our opinions.

Yes, I know shit. I don't know why this has anything to do with ego (I don't understand why claiming to belong to the world of knowing immediately implies one has 'an ego' -- what do the accusers claim to be part of?)

Christ you're so dishonest it's not true. Noone ever suggested that simply "having knowledge" was why you had an ego problem. If you're going to misprepresent things that blatently then again, I can't be bothered.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Fuck it.

Finally,

Aside from questions of content validity, and the degree to which 'sexual abuse' represents what it said to represent by the laymen, there are questions about the accuracy of data. Rape is an overreported and underreported phenomenon. That seems contradictory, but it is not. Many women do not report rape, and as awful as it sounds, sometimes no rape occurred and women report rape anyway.

That's probably true. But then it's gonna be true of any study of human behaviour. It's well known among sociologists, statisticians etc that inaccuracies and biases in self-reporting are one of the biggest hurdles in getting meaningful information out of people about their own experiences. There are ways of overcoming this hurdle and I'm not aware that they're any less known to, or less successfully implemented by, those studying rape than those studying any other phenomenon.

I must have missed the question here. I was quite clear that there are specific question as to the validity of statistics concerning rape. "There are ways"? Really? :

Nice quote mine.

That was the entirety of your response to that part of my post.

I referred to my question in the other passage - the one you've ommitted. The passage above is a comment (another concept you seem to have trouble with coming from anyone but your august self) which is also perfectly relevant to a discussion board. And as I pointed out, it makes quite clear to anyone who isn't a paranoid, emotionally insecure egomaniac that it's a statement of personal knowledge that is open to revision ("I'm not aware that...")

It amuses me that, despite me not having insulted you and you calling me out on insults, you go to some lengths to insult me. These supposed 'ways of overcoming this hurdle' remain unspecified. Naturally, since they don't exist, since they were asserted by someone who did not know what he was talking about. I do know what I'm talking about.

And your point about "specific questions as to the validity of statistics concerning rape" came later, after the whole pile of shit about my "correcting" you. As I've already pointed out, I'm perfectly open to hearing about that and all you had to do was present it in the first place. Instead you chose to turn the whole thing into a dick-measuring contest. If you need to do that it's your problem, but don't then think you can change the order of events to make it look like someon else's.

Still acting under the contention that your "I'm not aware" has any meaning. You haven't done anything to become aware. You're a layman.

But to be honest, if it's this damn difficult to have a simple discussion with you without every little thing coming down to how wonderfully knowledgeable and important you are, and how important it is to acknowledge that before daring as to ask a question, I can't be bothered.

I'll bite! The problem here is that people are accustomed to the idea that even though they have nothing interesting to add to the collective of human knowledge, their opinion is interesting. The oft-repeated banalities in bars are generated again and again as 'original comments', and on a discussion forum it's sadly no different. People who know what they are talking about generally don't frequent these bars, because well, they have actual lives to attend to. I am special. In fact, there are a couple of special people here. Special because despite their knowledge - a concept that may be new to some unnamed individuals in this conversation between the two of us and that isn't me - they still frequent these parts.

So far here you've made a couple of contentious points about rape which you've provided almost no background or evidence for. I don't care how "special" you think you are, sweety, in the comfortable little world of self-adoration your mummy made for you.

You think I'm impressed by you attempting to insult me? Please.

I care about the actual content of what people say. The more you try to exempt yourself from this, and the more you try to turn it on me by pretending that I'm obviously not worthy of receiving the great gift of your intellectual endowment, the more ridiculous you look. I'm perfectly capable of understanding information about psychology, and at the very least am entitled to actually receive the information before someone decides otherwise.

I'm curious to know what exactly you think I should provide background or evidence for. I've been incredibly parsimonious on my claims. Just go take a look at scientific articles on rape statistics - any will do, and they shall back up what I say here. I haven't said anything controversial, if I will, I'll back it up. I'm not going to reference every single thing I say just because some layman has a problem with it..

I'm also aware that there are many schools of psychology, and many dissenting individual opinions within them. Your credentials in the field may well give your opinions some weight, but they don't turn any of them into absolute truths. There could very easily be 100 other psychologists, with equally valid credentials, come along in five minutes and say differently.

Err, no, actually. There aren't 'many schools' in what is statistically possible. There may be different schools that accept data manipulation, but questions of validity and reliability aren't 'vigorously debated'. Not that my being 'not absolutely true' (as if I have claimed such) has any bearing on you still being wrong and ignorant on statistics and psychology...

Of course there's a very easy solution to this, which is that you expand upon what you said and give the necessary information behind it. You've done a little bit of that now, but fuck: why is it such hard work? I suppose it could be that the knowledge required to understand where you're coming from is so rarified that mere mortals could never get close to it. In which case why don't fuck off and form some private forum with your three other "special people" where you can sit around and admire each others' dicks all day?

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the mission of this forum. These people ARE here to worship and admire my dick. I don't see why I would make it private, however, it seems obvious that the more people that worship and admire my dick the better.

Or it could just be that you're full of shit, and the vast majority of rape studies don't include verbal comments under "sexual assault", without making the distinction clear. Until you point to some that do, I guess we'll all just have to form our opinions.

Wait.. Why exactly don't you do some research here? Why don't you look up some of these 'rape studies'? Why am I responsible for this argument, how it turns out, and even more ludicrously, your education?

Yes, I know shit. I don't know why this has anything to do with ego (I don't understand why claiming to belong to the world of knowing immediately implies one has 'an ego' -- what do the accusers claim to be part of?)

Christ you're so dishonest it's not true. Noone ever suggested that simply "having knowledge" was why you had an ego problem. If you're going to misprepresent things that blatently then again, I can't be bothered.

[Beatsong]

And yes, you are right 'statutory rape' is not a legal term in the UK.

Thanks for clarifying.

In which case my original point, before all the irrelevant brouhaha, still stands: Presuming the people the comte was referring to were in the UK (they may not have been, but he hasn't said so), the man would not have been sent to jail for statutory rape; he would have been sent to jail for sex with a minor (or whatever it's called).

So the idea that this sends a message to the girl that her consenting sex was actually rape, is completely unfounded.

A minor is considered unable to give informed consent, so therefore it's rape.

I'm tempted to write "Thanks, captain obvious", but I'm forced to admit that apparently, this is necessary.

All well and good. However the fact is he's wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... e-sex.html

The word "paedophile" does not appear in any Act of Parliament so Terry Grange can define it how he wishes.

However, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 creates clear restrictions on sex with children. Although the general age of consent in England and Wales is 16, in some cases it may be as high as 18. Anyone who rapes, sexually penetrates, or sexually touches a child under the age of 13 is guilty of an offence. Although consent is normally a defence in sex offences, a child under 13 is presumed to be too young to give informed consent.

The maximum penalty for rape or sexual penetration of a child under 13 is life imprisonment. For sexual assault, the maximum is 14 years.

These offences can be committed by anyone aged 10 or older, the age of criminal responsibility. The Act also creates a range of offences involving sexual activity with children under 16 including sexually assaulting a child; inciting a child to engage in sexual activity; and obtaining sexual gratification by making a child watch a sexual act.

If the victim is under 13, again there can be no defence. When the victim is 13 or over, but under 16, no offence is committed if the victim consents and the defendant believes, on reasonable grounds, that the child is at least 16. Simply taking the victim's word for his or her age may not be enough. Offenders under 18 commit a lesser offence with lower penalties.

Now if the law differentiates between "sexually assaulting a child" and "inciting a child to engage in sexual activity", then it is NOT simply saying that all sexual activity with an under-16-year-old is "rape", is it? It's acknowledging that sex with a consenting under-16 is different from pure assault, although it is still a crime.

http://www.fpa.org.uk/Professionals/Factsheets/lawonsex

The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new series of laws to protect children under 16 from sexual abuse. However, the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation.

Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds.

The simple statement that all sex with under-16-year-olds is legally rape, is either a mistake or a lie. I suspect it started as a mistake and now has to be perpetuated as a lie, because rather than keep it a simple matter of objective debate about the facts, you had to cloak it in bullshit ad hominem ("is there anything you're knowledgeable about?") and now there's too much ego riding on it to back down.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Err.. Maybe you should ask a lawyer what 'age of consent' means, rather than interpreting the interpretation of a telegraph journalist. For clarification, the age of consent is the age at which individuals can legally consent to sex. Technically, all sexual relations with someone under 16 is without legal consent, and therefore, can be termed as rape.
Now, there are various provisions and exceptions that mean that someone may not be punished for what is otherwise, in principle, rape.

[Beatsong]

Err.. Maybe you should ask a lawyer what 'age of consent' means, rather than interpreting the interpretation of a telegraph journalist. For clarification, the age of consent is the age at which individuals can legally consent to sex. Technically, all sexual relations with someone under 16 is without legal consent, and therefore, can be termed as rape.
Now, there are various provisions and exceptions that mean that someone may not be punished for what is otherwise, in principle, rape.

It was the Telegraph legal editor, and he was citing the words of the law. I found plenty of other sites saying the same thing; I could happily list them if I thought you were remotely interested in anything except trying to pretend you were right, when you were obviously wrong.

With respect (lol), what you consider to be, "in principle" or "technically" rape is irrelevant to the discussion. The law does NOT call sex with a consenting 15-year-old rape. The law defines a DIFFERENT offence called "inciting a child to engage in sexual activity" (and, according to that article, various other similar offences too). This crime has a different name, different meaning, and (presumeably) different statutory punishments to the crime of "rape". Now given that the crime of "rape" also exists, when carried out against a 15-year-old, there is no reason why the law would do this, if they were legally the same thing.

My original point that started all this was that the "message" that would be sent to the girl in the case you cited would depend upon what exact crime the man was convicted of. If it was something that made no mention of the word "rape" then I don't see why she would think she had been raped.

You then said it was "statutory rape", until it was pointed out that that crime doesn't even exist in the UK! You're now saying that it's rape anyway, because you equate under-age sex with rape even though the law is clearly more nuanced than that. But your point was not about what message the girl would get from you, it was about what message she would get from the law. And the law does not call consenting sex with a 13-16-year-old rape: that's the fact of the matter.

[Rum]

Well done Beatsong! You have the measure of the guy.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

With respect (lol), what you consider to be, "in principle" or "technically" rape is irrelevant to the discussion. The law does NOT call sex with a consenting 15-year-old rape.

I'll use simple words now. So you it's easier. So you can know what I mean. Below age of consent means no consent. 15 is below age of consent. 15 no consent. law calls no consent rape, so 15 sex is rape.

If you wish to discuss the character of assault, or of non-legal consent, then that is all interesting and it is formalised in some countries (not all) but some countries - like the US - don't even consider it in all cases. You've amusingly assumed that all of this would happen in the UK, whereas I never insinuated that it did happen there. Hell, people have been branded rapists for having what you would call consensual sex with a year younger girlfriend in the US.

But yeah.. I'm obviously wrong just like Rum is objective and doesn't have some old grudges to settle

[nellikin]

You obviously like Tromovitch and Rind 2003, Comte. I tried to attach this file but it exceeded the size-limit, sorry. More recent meta-analyses using both broad and narrow definitions have come up with consistently high reporting rates, to which I stand. I'd like to attach several, but only one is below the limit:

Reporting rates (which are probably related to culture and the perception of guilt experienced by victims of CSA) as well as definitions are obviously difficult to deal with, yet studies show consistently high rates of CSA - up to 60% in some countries, around 25 % in Australia (though one narrowly defined study found 40% of girls had been raped with penetration here), though world-wide they are lower. One study in China found 0% of children are sexually abused: should we maybe question the study and the perception of CSA in that culture - I mean, what if children are abused don't report it for fear of personal shame and repercussion? Without wanting to appear prejudiced, I could imagine that a totalitarian regime might just nurture such fear...

I stand by my OP point - protecting my children from adults who might pray on them is a top priority for me. If they get naked with the neighbouring kids and fiddle and explore things and they want that, I don't care. I did plenty of that. That isn't CSA for me. But if my neighbour himself fiddled, then I know the extent of damage that would inflict, and I will do everything to teach my kids that they hold the power over their bodies and nobody has the right to force them to do anything they don't want, particularly if that person holds a position of trust and power.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Well, there you go.. The study differentiates between broad and narrow definitions. I don't share their reservations about the lack of importance of this distinction. On the other hand, I don't think questionnaires are a very good way of measuring child abuse either. That said, I think 1 in 5 is a step in the right direction from 1 in 4 - I wanted to end on a positive note.

I think a nice balance can be achieved between protecting the children and scaring the shit out of parents. And since we are manipulating data in service to a political agenda, I think we should adjust downwards -- considering parents are in some playgrounds not allowed to escort their children because they might be paedophiles.

[Beatsong]

I'll use simple words now. So you it's easier. So you can know what I mean. Below age of consent means no consent.

Simple as you like dude. This is untrue.

Below age of consent means that even when the person's consent has been given, it is still illegal to have sex with the person.

It does NOT mean that the law does not distinguish between such a situation where consent has been given, and one where it hasn't. This can be quite categorically concluded from the fact that the law defines several different types of offence involving sex with udner-16s, of which ONE is called "rape", ONE is called "sexual assault", and the OTHERS are called other things, which clearly distinguish them from this. Such as "inciting a child to sexual activity". Do you not understand the difference in the English language between "forcing" and "inciting". Well, no bother, the law does.

What exactly do you not understand about this? The law makes the distinction. Once more, whether YOU do or not doesn't mean jack shit for the purposes of the discussion.

15 is below age of consent. 15 no consent. law calls no consent rape, so 15 sex is rape.

No it doesn't. The law does NOT call "no consent" just by virtue of the fact that the person is under 16 "rape". That is factually wrong. If you have sex with a 15 year old, but everyone including her and the prosecution admit openly that she consented, you will NOT be convicted of "rape". Not in the UK anyway, or most European states AFAIK.

You can look at the link I posted, or any other on the subject. You can go find out. You can swallow your pride about the fact that you prefaced your own ignorance on the subject with a dig at me being so "unknowledgable". Or you can keep coming on here and denying the facts as I have clearly summarised and linked, and look like more and more of an idiot with no interest in anything but protecting your bruised ego. Your call I suppose. It's kinda funny and entertaining so by all means let's stretch it out some more.

You've amusingly assumed that all of this would happen in the UK, whereas I never insinuated that it did happen there.

I made that working assumption at the beginning, since when I have several times invited you to clarify and correct me if it was wrong. But you haven't done that, have you? And you're not doing it even now, as you say this, because it's all about power games to you rather than knowledge, and you want to keep that close to your chest so you can "catch me out". Whereas if you were remotely interested in actually discussing the subject and getting to the truth, you would have simply told us where it occurred when (if) the error first came up.

But yeah.. I'm obviously wrong

Ah! Some self-awareness at last.