donkey Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 16 isn't under age..? What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 People charged with such crimes don't go on the sex offenders register. In the rare event when such things come to court, it would probably be a public order charge. I saw your post earlier just after i'd done mine and it struck a memory somewhere and I (as an knowledgeable Joe) kinda think your right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 What do you mean? you said " No one under age has been prosecuted for a sex offence.." we were talking previously about a 16 year old lad and his 15 1/2 year old girlfriend.Are you changing your stance now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 you dont know if anybody or not as been convicted of underage sex or indeed if they are on the register. im fed up of arguing on the subject now, ive said what i wanted to say on the subject, it seems certain people have their minds made up and refuse to even think that there maybe varying types of people on the register. so ill sign off with ALL im trying to say is, shouldnt somebody in the know investigate fully and maybe change it slightly to make it fairer? if your not a gary glitter type character then why should you get classed int he same league as? Just because the offence was not against a child, does not mean they have not exerted their will against another for their sexual gratification. It's what they have done, regardless of the age of the victim, which puts them in a risk category meaning they could pose a potential threat to vulnerable persons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 you said " No one under age has been prosecuted for a sex offence.." we were talking previously about a 16 year old lad and his 15 1/2 year old girlfriend.Are you changing your stance now? You have completely changed the meaning of that quote by leaving the end of the sentence off' 16 isn't under age..? Anyway no. Sixteen is the legal age of sexual consent, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 You have changed the meaning of my quote by leaving the last part of it out. It is you who have tried to change what I have said to make it look like I changed my stance. Pretty stupid really, considering the posts are up there for anyone to see what I actually did say. I can only presume that this is because you don't really believe what you are saying and are just arguing for the sake of it. Anyway, no 16 is the legal age of sexual consent, I believe. Not changing my argument at all ,I asked if a 16 year old boy should be on the register for having sex with his 15 and a half year old girlfriend..you said that wouldn't happen..I posted a link that shows that it could..you then go on about there being no under age people on the register..? I'm not sure where you stand.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Not changing my argument at all ,I asked if a 16 year old boy should be on the register for having sex with his 15 and a half year old girlfriend..you said that wouldn't happen..I posted a link that shows that it could..you then go on about there being no under age people on the register..? I'm not sure where you stand.. That is because of your own confusion. You quoted me incorrectly and based your whole assertion on the incorrect assumption that 16 is below the age of consent. Furthermore, your link does not at all demonstrate what you say it does. If you don't understand what I mean, read the posts again, without changing the meaning by leaving the ends of sentences off. If you still can't understand them, then I'm sorry, but I can't help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 That is because of your own confusion. You quoted me incorrectly and based your whole assertion on the incorrect assumption that 16 is below the age of consent. Furthermore, your link does not at all demonstrate what you say it does. If you don't understand what I mean, read the posts again, without changing the meaning by leaving the ends of sentences off. If you still can't understand them, then I'm sorry, but I can't help you. I didn't say 16 was below the age of consent.. why else would I mention a lad of 16 and a girl of 15..? As I asked earlier do you think this lad will be a threat at 26? My post does show that the police will caution a 16 year old and that this will put him on the register..unless you think ACPO are telling porkies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 I didn't say 16 was below the age of consent.. why else would I mention a lad of 16 and a girl of 15..? As I asked earlier do you think this lad will be a threat at 26? My post does show that the police will caution a 16 year old and that this will put him on the register..unless you think ACPO are telling porkies.. 16 isn't under age..? What do you mean? you said " No one under age has been prosecuted for a sex offence.." we were talking previously about a 16 year old lad and his 15 1/2 year old girlfriend.Are you changing your stance now? Aside from the fact that I did not say no minor had been prosecuted for a sex offence (you cut the rest of the sentence off to make it look like I did) How could i be changing my stance unless the hypothetical 16 year old you cite was under age? Either you are sayiong a 16 year old is under age there. or the whole thing is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Mod Note Posts have been removed for not being family friendly, and frankly I could have taken a lot more with them. Now I understand this is a delicate and emotive issue and sometimes you are angry or want to make a particular point and need to get the words on the page quickly. Just bear in mind that children have access to these forums and think twice about what you are writing. "Is it too graphic ?", "is it too descriptive ?", "would I be happy if my eight year old came and asked me what this phrase means and then told me they'd read it on here ?" These are the sorts of things you need to be thinking when making a post. This is a family friendly forum and the moderation team will do everything they have to to keep it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.