Suffragette1 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 It matters not how many times you repeat the same thing when the facts differ from what you want to believe. ---------- Post added 11-05-2013 at 20:48 ---------- I proved the current age of consent laws can be and are used to criminalise young people and that they didn't stop anyone from being a child abuser. "Proved" it with one case. I have proved that the current Act accomodates underage consensual sex and the vast majority of underage teens having consensual sex with other underage teens does not even get prosecuted, never mind convicton. Do all the underage teens who get pregnant get prosecuted? Doctors prescribing contraceptives to under 16s? NO. Two swallows hardly make a summer. Your faux concern is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 FLAGGING THIS POST Mr Smith appears to be advocating the removal of an age of consent. Quelle surprise. We have all agreed, this boy should not have been prosecuted, never mind convicted. As I have said, the Sexual Offences Act was disregarded in this case, it has nothing to do with the law as it currently stands but those who chose to charge and prosecute. So, everyone is agreed that he shouldn't have been prosecuted. But he was. Clearly the present system is not fit for purpose. If those who chose to charge and prosecute got it wrong, it was because the law allowed them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 Clearly the present system is not fit for purpose What would you suggest to improve it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 What would you suggest to improve it? I don't know. It doesn't alter the fact that this lad was criminalised for something that most people on here think that he should not have been. The law let him down. How would you prevent future cases where young men such as him are criminalised in similar purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 Anyone who is triggered by this and other threads, you can contact: Samaritans (24/7): 08457 90 90 90 Rape Crisis: 0808 802 9999 (Open 12 – 2.30 and 7 – 9.30pm every day of the year) NAPAC: 0800 085 3330 (mn and women) Survivors UK: male rape or sexual abuse: 0845 122 1201 Monday & Tuesday between 7pm and 9.30pm or Thursday between 12pm and 2:30pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 The age of consent is there to act as a deterrent. It will deter many but not others. In the case of the young couple there may have been other factors which decided the police to act. As in all these cases the public are rarely aware of the complete story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 New age of consent laws will do exactly the same thing. It'll just move the age up or down but won't stop stupid policing. I’d introduce an age difference starting with a 2 year gap, probably with a starting age of 12 for sexual contact and 14 for sexual intercourse. This would best reflect the realty of how young people interact sexually. 12 and 14 OK for sexual contact, 13 and 15 OK for sexual contact, 14 and 16 Ok for sexual intercourse, 15 and 18 Ok for sexual intercourse, 16 same rules we have now. ---------- Post added 11-05-2013 at 21:15 ---------- "Proved" it with one case. I have proved that the current Act accomodates underage consensual sex and the vast majority of underage teens having consensual sex with other underage teens does not even get prosecuted, never mind convicton. Do all the underage teens who get pregnant get prosecuted? Doctors prescribing contraceptives to under 16s? NO. Two swallows hardly make a summer. Your faux concern is laughable. No you haven't, and it clearly doesn't when young people are being criminalised for having sexual contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 I’d introduce an age difference starting with a 2 year gap, probably with a starting age of 12 for sexual contact and 14 for sexual intercourse. This would best reflect the realty of how young people interact sexually. 12 and 14 OK for sexual contact, 13 and 15 OK for sexual contact, 14 and 16 Ok for sexual intercourse, 15 and 18 Ok for sexual intercourse, 16 same rules we have now. ---------- Post added 11-05-2013 at 21:15 ---------- No you haven't, and it clearly doesn't when young people are being criminalised for having sexual contact. Do you know what? I really don't care for your sophistry. I am more concerned about victims and survivors than your warped view of the world and twisted arguments and logic. I care about them and their feelings which you clearly don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 Do you know what? I really don't care for your sophistry. I am more concerned about victims and survivors than your warped view of the world and twisted arguments and logic. I care about them and their feelings which you clearly don't. You keep telling yourself that. You think you care but in realty you care only about your own opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted May 11, 2013 Author Share Posted May 11, 2013 An extra 3yrs opens up a whole new ballgame for pervs who would use consent and age as a synonym. Exactly. And it would affect how the law looks at grooming. I'm thinking particularly of the teacher who ran off with a 14 year old. As long as it was different schools they wouldn't be breaking any laws - you couldn't groom anyone over 13 if the age of consent is 13 can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.