MrSmith Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 It means that abusers of under 16 can be prosecuted. Abusers can be persecuted if they abuse someone no matter what age they are, an age of consent doesn’t stop abuse and lowering it wouldn’t stop abusers from being prosecuted. ---------- Post added 09-05-2013 at 18:47 ---------- Indeed. However, she isn't on about hormone filled teenagers doing what consensual hormone filled do and have done since the year dot, she wants to give a free pass for middle aged men to abuse (not rape thank god) girls (and boys no doubt). You mentioned somewhere that you wouldn't let your teenage girl go into a room with a stranger - some kids don't have the benifits of your parentage. This would give men old enough to know better carte Blanche to put their grubby hands over anyone over 13. It's wrong. The only upside is that on the whole it's being accepted by everyone as wrong. I hope Brewster or whoever she is gets a p45 in the morning. That’s not how I read it, abuse will still be abuse, and rape will still be rape. Both will still be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 The argument for the age of consent is that below 16, a person doesn't fully comprehend what they are consenting to and that makes it invalid. It's a stupid rule - it's the sorites paradox. Sadly, however, we need a line. If 1 day below 16 is wrong, but the day after is fine - that rule measures at every point. If 1 day below 13 is wrong, but the day after is fine - that's equally silly. That's the paradox. The law needs to be subjective, but they're quite hard to police so we have an objective line of 16. It's equally true that a young girl and her young boyfriend shouldn't be sent to prison for an act that hurts nobody, and all abusers should be punished. We're stuck in a dualism. Such is life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Oh dear. Genetic variation now means that the age of consent should be 13. A side spin and two thirds. You're a genius at going off on a tangent. I'll give you that. Every person is different, and that deference determines when each individual wants their first sexual experience, and with whom, why you think it’s your business is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Every person is different Genetically identical twins aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handypandy Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Every person may be different, however a law has to be a catch-all and 16 is plenty young enough. The bit that I take exception to, is describing the actions of Stuart Hall as 'misdemeanours'. Personally, I think that is outrageous. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Genetically identical twins aren't. They are and they will fall in love with different people and do different things because of that difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 [ The bit that I take exception to, is describing the actions of Stuart Hall as 'misdemeanours'. Personally, I think that is outrageous. . She may be referring to cases we do not know the details of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Sarah Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815 I read this open-mouthed. This was put forward as far as I can see to protect dirty old men, nothing more. If it was put forward to stop criminalising 14 year old boys who have a bit of consensual fumbling with a 13 year old girl I'd probably agree. This isn't whats she's saying at all. Madness. Nonce!...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irenewilde Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Why wouldn't you want to give 13, 14, and 15 year olds the free will to choose to do something that comes naturally? Ah, another chance for you to air the same off-colour opinions you displayed to us repeatedly in the Megan Stammers thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Abusers can be persecuted if they abuse someone no matter what age they are, an age of consent doesn’t stop abuse and lowering it wouldn’t stop abusers from being prosecuted. ---------- Post added 09-05-2013 at 18:47 ---------- That’s not how I read it, abuse will still be abuse, and rape will still be rape. Both will still be illegal. Well said. There seems to be a lot of pitch fork one sided opinion here. Is there no such thing as a Dirty old woman praying on young boys? Male rape happens too. So does gay rape. How about 14/15 year old girls slapping on the make up and little black dresses to sneek into nightclubs and get off with 18 year old lads? Rape or consented sex (with a false age)? We all know which side the media and foamy mouthed brigade would see it. Funny how nobody asks what these girls were doing there in the first place. A news anchor once made comment of the hypocritical media who will scream "string em up" to any creapy old man who even sniffs at a younger girl but then flip over the page and they have a full page of Britney Spiers dressed as a school girl in sexy poses or just 18 "our Janine" with her TTs out. This whole issue is a very grey area. Age of Consent has absolutely sod all to do with rape, paedophilia or anything in between. Rape/sexual abuse/sexual harrassment/domestic violence and the rest can all happy to any age and any sex. I personally think the Barrister made a valid point. Whether or not its the right decision. The point is still perfectly valid. Pity most of the media wont see it that way. ---------- Post added 09-05-2013 at 19:45 ---------- Sex Education plays a very important part too. If a "child" is educated in the birds and bees is it not simply nature that eventually some will choose to have sex earlier than others. Nobody controls their hormones and boys and girls will get together. The obvious distinction between a "child" and "teenager" is always going to be clear. The legaities of legal and illegal will always be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.