another

scroll down to canada. thier are minimum buying ages laws and laws pertaining to consumption by those under legal buying age.

I took a course on it when i worked at a place that served alcohol

P.S. JON… FIX THE DARN “YOU ARE POSTING TO QUICKLY” BUG.

- There is no minimum drinking age in Most parts of Europe, and Canada. There is a minimum buying age, but not a drinking age.
- It is not uncommon for minors to have a drink or two with parents or other adults in europe.

Example, Im in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Minimum Buying age for alcohol is 18, but if you are parents or have permission of/for the kids to drink you can serve them alcohol. Your are responsible tho for them, so if they get drunk and you allow it and they go out and be obnoxious or commit a crime because of them being intoxicated, you are responsible. If i was a parent and we were at a licensed restuarant, and say my 16 yr old son wanted a beer, i could buy the beverage for him, he cant buy it for himself and he could drink it right in front of the bar staff and heck the police and not be arrested.

Jon would know more about drinking there then i would tho

Why would someone have champagne on the ready to two underage boys? She should be investigated for possible pedophilia if anything.

Where did I say that?

I did not even came remotely to that conclusion after reading Jon’s piece and chose to comment on it.

“Fishy or not, they NEVER had the right to drug her for sex..”

I never said that, and I did not think my comment should be interpreted in that way.

If those underage boys really did what they are accused of (I have not seen the video, so I do not jump to conclusions here just because someone else said it was this or that way) they should be punished, there is absolutely no question about it!

However every one accused/like every unfortunate victim of any crime should have the right to shed light on the circumstances that lead to the crime.
And those circumstances should play a role in the finding of the punishment if an accused one is finaly found guilty in an orderly court of law.
That’s why I said that as far as known from newsreports the incident description is “fishy”.

I wanted just to point out some also possible chain of event and unless otherwise proven I think it’s unjustified to assume one way is true and the other way is not.

I don’t know the social status of that woman, if its routine according to her financial status to offer champagne “to be social” as one report allegedly quotes her. Yet given my experience/personal prejudice about champagne, that is something I consider unusual, Thats why my nearly instantly feeling that the story is “fishy”

That it was something entirely consenting among the people involved should not be ruled out just because we are feel empathic for here.

so that makes drugging her and having sex with her ok ?

” Or was she about to do something with “a neighbour [she] trusted” together with the champagne (some “love services” maybe?) and then the minors saw their chance to have first time sex too? ”

So that makes drugging her to have sex with her ok ?

No wonder women things like this happen to never want to report it.
Fritz, you are a smart individual, but this is just idiotic and insensitive.
The blame the victim mentality is what allows this to happen .. again and again.

Fishy or not, they NEVER had the right to drug her for sex..

Or was she about to do something with “a neighbour [she] trusted” together with the champagne (some “love services” maybe?) and then the minors saw their chance to have first time sex too?

so far the story sounds very fishy…

Now, THOSE are kinds of things that people (all four of those kids, for sure) should have their names splashed all over the net for the world to see. I don’t care WHAT their ages are!