Reply to: heheeee

[SallyAnne]

The son of ex-colleague and friend had a 16 year old son who befriended the next-door neighbour’s 15 year old daughter. The next door family were always in trouble with the law. It came out that the son had tried to have coessential sex with the daughter during heavy petting. The neighbour went to the police and the boy was prosecuted. He was seventeen and a half by the time it came to court. The judge was very sensible and commented that the girl was “not exactly a virgin angel” . The son was let off with a suspended sentance. As luck would have, a local newspaper reporter was their and took the comments out of context. In the newspapers, attempted sex on a minor was relabelled child rape. Media pressure ended with a review of the sentence six moths latter. By now he was eighteen. The press had suggested a prison sentence and the appeal judge gave him six months. He had no previous convictions and he was in his first year of university.

Thats utterly shocking - a complete disgrace and probably ruined that lads life.

The story was made more light hearted by the use of the phrase "heavy petting" though Did anyone else snigger at that?

[Paddy]

Nope - only the lad gets charged.

It's a stupid out dated law.

Peado's come undera completely different category.

The son of ex-colleague and friend had a 16 year old son who befriended the next-door neighbour’s 15 year old daughter. The next door family were always in trouble with the law. It came out that the son had tried to have coessential sex with the daughter during heavy petting. The neighbour went to the police and the boy was prosecuted. He was seventeen and a half by the time it came to court. The judge was very sensible and commented that the girl was “not exactly a virgin angel” . The son was let off with a suspended sentance. As luck would have, a local newspaper reporter was their and took the comments out of context. In the newspapers, attempted sex on a minor was relabelled child rape. Media pressure ended with a review of the sentence six moths latter. By now he was eighteen. The press had suggested a prison sentence and the appeal judge gave him six months. He had no previous convictions and he was in his first year of university.

[SallyAnne]

Is that true? Has she not also committed a crime?

Nope - only the lad gets charged.

It's a stupid out dated law.

Peado's come undera completely different category.

[expat]

What's really weird is that of two 14 year olds, it's the boy that gets put on the sex offenders register...

Is that true? Has she not also committed a crime?

[wonderwaif]

What's really weird is that of two 14 year olds, it's the boy that gets put on the sex offenders register...

Good point Zeity.
Chico will confirm that it was Eve that tempted Adam.....

[expat]

What I read (Daily Telegraph in the pub I think), said he'd gone beyond that and saying any adult having sex with a minor over the age of 13 shouldn't be classified as a paedophile either as the definition of paedophile is somebody physically attracted to children, and girls in particular of 14/15 are more or less physically mature.

It should be illegal, but it's a different crime.

Spot-on.

I'd say there are 3 crimes, because each actually is a different thing:
1. older kid goes with younger kid. He's wrong, maybe even criminal, but let's keep it in proportion: he's not a dangerous evil man out after children, he's about the same age himself.
2. Man has sex with under-age girl who is physically mature. That's a crime. But, depending on the case, it might not be among the most heinous crimes a man can commit. He might be a misguided man who wants a relationship with a woman, just picks one that he shouldn't. It's against the law because she is not considered old enough to consent; but he wanted it to be consensual and non-criminal. He has failed in a very important duty of care, but he has not committed an attack on a minor.
3. Man has sex, if you can call it that, with a child. It's got to be a child, that's what he wants. Consent doesn't come into it, abuse of power is central. Now that is nasty, and one of the worst crimes a man can commit. Let's keep it separate and not confuse it with any grey areas.

I don't see the main point of this as advocating relations with minors, rather as keeping it clear that real paedophilia, in the form of attacks by force, is seriously evil.

PS just writing this has made me think, and I'm not sure I agree 100% with what I wrote

[VectraMan]

He was talking about consexual sex, between two people of a similar age.

What I read (Daily Telegraph in the pub I think), said he'd gone beyond that and saying any adult having sex with a minor over the age of 13 shouldn't be classified as a paedophile either as the definition of paedophile is somebody physically attracted to children, and girls in particular of 14/15 are more or less physically mature.

It should be illegal, but it's a different crime. Unfortunately there's so much hysteria about the whole issue that anyone applying any common sense is considered just as bad as the abusers. And it's the likes of The Sun that'll lead the witchhunt on Page 1, whilst having a topless 16 year old on Page 3.

[Paddy]

2 excellent ideas!!

Whats your point?

Oh, whats next? Erm....Legalised prostitution, legalised canabis, undo the smoking ban...

actually, think I might just move to Holland!

Prostitution is legal in the UK. Soliciting for sex is illegal along with kerb crawling and running a brothel (more than one prostitute working at the same address) (that does away with the IR35 substitution clause.)

I lived in Holland for some years, certain drugs are tolerated but still illegal. At the I was living in Holland they brought in an experiment in Amsterdam in that they gave out heroin to addicts. What happened was/: There was less cases of infections, and there was a huge drop in petty car theft. A comparison was done with Rotterdam where the experiment was not implemented.

I wish prostitution was regulated in the UK for the sake of the young girls many whom are on drugs and also to stop human trafficking. Unfortunately the general public does not seem to go along with the idea.

If a girl is forced out of home at 16 and ends up on the streets in desperation fining her £50 for soliciting is not going to resolve the issue.

[ImNotFromIndia]

Well which is why we have laws, that are 99% of the time followed, yet thankfully we dont live in a country where we have to follow it to the exact letter every time.
Sometimes you need to introduce common sense, as I think they've done in this case.

You are right of course ... That common sense is needed.

However, why do the police enforce strict legal age for buying alcohol ... and yet there is no need for the strictness with regard to sex with minors.

I don't want Gary Glitter to come back to this country!!!

IMHO, the think the officer who said it had a hidden agenda. Maybe, him and his mates know something I don't.

[SallyAnne]

You're not the 1st person to say I have a minging point.

and also, ewwww!

[SallyAnne]

I think it's question of enforcement which the police is losing ... They are trying to find ways to shift the responsibility.

Where do we draw the line? 17 yrs old, 18 years old etc ... When does it become illegal to have sex with a 14 years old?

For the sake of an argument, let's say that it's illegal to have sex with a minor if you are 35 years old and over ... What do you do if someone who is 35 years and 1 day old had sex with a minor? I think were are back to square one.

Well which is why we have laws, that are 99% of the time followed, yet thankfully we dont live in a country where we have to follow it to the exact letter every time.
Sometimes you need to introduce common sense, as I think they've done in this case.

[snaw]

No, his agenda was quite clear - if you'd heard him say it rather than be taken out of context then most sensible people would agree.

He was talking about consexual sex, between two people of a similar age. His agenda was saying that it didn't really make sense to classify one of this pair as a paedophile, which technically could happen. He backed it up by citing the example of his two 14 year old twin daughters having older boyfriends, and while not condoning the idea they might have sex he wouldn't consider the boyfriends to be paedophiles if they did.

If they were to be then I know a tonne of guys who would have been labelled as such before they got to the legal drinking age, including myself.

[DimPrawn]

You're not the 1st person to say I have a minging point.

[ImNotFromIndia]

Actually the first point was fair, he got quoted out of context. He was saying that he doesn't think young men - i.e. say 17 should be classified as paedophiles for having sex with girls of say 14 and up.

Percetly sensible viewpoint in my opinion. Obviously the press had a field day with it since technically a 17 teen year old boy is a man, but a 14 year old girl is a 'kid'.

Reality these days (And in my day) is that the majority of boys and girls lose their virginity well before 16, and lot's of perfectly normal relationships happen at that age between kids with a couple of years age difference. In fact I seemt o remember it being the norm.

I think it's question of enforcement which the police is losing ... They are trying to find ways to shift the responsibility.

Where do we draw the line? 17 yrs old, 18 years old etc ... When does it become illegal to have sex with a 14 years old?

For the sake of an argument, let's say that it's illegal to have sex with a minor if you are 35 years old and over ... What do you do if someone who is 35 years and 1 day old had sex with a minor? I think were are back to square one.

[SallyAnne]

He was trying to say "old enough to bleed, bleedin old enough" in a PC, 21st century way.

Well, although your point is minging, its fair.

I was a 14 ear old girl, and there was nodifference between 14 and 16 for me. The legal age for sex in Holland is 14 and they have a far lower teenage pregnancy rate than here.

Theres a masive difference between someone who fiddles with kids and 14 year old lasses having consentual sex.