Eddie Shah statement

[Glamrocker]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23653172

Now I realise this bloke is obviously upset at what has happened to him but does he have a point to quote from the link...A young person under the age of 16 cannot give consent to sexual activity. question given that young girls mature much more quickly than males,how the hell do you recognise someone who is of age,as Shah stated re the groupies etc girls used to throw themselves at pop stars and indeed as far as I know had to be 16 before entering the Top of the Pops studio but obviously must have entered under age.Now as stated the law says...A young person under the age of 16 cannot give consent to sexual activity if someone is under age but who acts ,looks and has categorically stated that they are over the age of 16 and are willing to consent to sex on that understanding,just who is to blame ?and Im not confining that situation to celebritys which would obviously rattle a few cages ,what about a 16 y o lad who meets a 15 y o girl she would probably look more mature than he did and if she states shes 16 and thay go on to have sex the 16 yo lad is then,as the law states,breaking the law and liable to prosecution and all it entails ,surely the law while obviously designe to protect the vulnerable, is unfair.

[boyfriday]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23653172

Now I realise this bloke is obviously upset at what has happened to him but does he have a point to quote from the link...A young person under the age of 16 cannot give consent to sexual activity. question given that young girls mature much more quickly than males,how the hell do you recognise someone who is of age,as Shah stated re the groupies etc girls used to throw themselves at pop stars and indeed as far as I know had to be 16 before entering the Top of the Pops studio but obviously must have entered under age.Now as stated the law says...A young person under the age of 16 cannot give consent to sexual activity if someone is under age but who acts ,looks and has categorically stated that they are over the age of 16 and are willing to consent to sex on that understanding,just who is to blame ?and Im not confining that situation to celebritys which would obviously rattle a few cages ,what about a 16 y o lad who meets a 15 y o girl she would probably look more mature than he did and if she states shes 16 and thay go on to have sex the 16 yo lad is then,as the law states,breaking the law and liable to prosecution and all it entails ,surely the law while obviously designe to protect the vulnerable, is unfair.

 

I understand where he's coming from, but I think he's wrong. Juveniles who look 16+ need protecting from themselves as well as from sexual predators.

[Glamrocker]

I understand where he's coming from, but I think he's wrong. Juveniles who look 16+ need protecting from themselves as well as from sexual predators.

I totally agree but how do you Police the situation when they have stated that they are over age and obviously look and act it ?

[JFKvsNixon]

I totally agree but how do you Police the situation when they have stated that they are over age and obviously look and act it ?

 

Has ignorance ever been used as a successful defence? Mitigation maybe.

[Chris_Sleeps]

There's a difference between statutary rape and rape.

 

A girl of 15 who chooses to have sex with a popstar hasn't been abused or raped.

 

I don't understand his point really.

[Halibut]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23653172

Now I realise this bloke is obviously upset at what has happened to him but does he have a point to quote from the link...A young person under the age of 16 cannot give consent to sexual activity. question given that young girls mature much more quickly than males,how the hell do you recognise someone who is of age,as Shah stated re the groupies etc girls used to throw themselves at pop stars and indeed as far as I know had to be 16 before entering the Top of the Pops studio but obviously must have entered under age.Now as stated the law says...A young person under the age of 16 cannot give consent to sexual activity if someone is under age but who acts ,looks and has categorically stated that they are over the age of 16 and are willing to consent to sex on that understanding,just who is to blame ?and Im not confining that situation to celebritys which would obviously rattle a few cages ,what about a 16 y o lad who meets a 15 y o girl she would probably look more mature than he did and if she states shes 16 and thay go on to have sex the 16 yo lad is then,as the law states,breaking the law and liable to prosecution and all it entails ,surely the law while obviously designe to protect the vulnerable, is unfair.

 

The adult who has sex with them is to blame, clearly.

[Glamrocker]

The adult who has sex with them is to blame, clearly.

Expand on that if the girl has stated she is over age and gives the impression she is over age how do you Police it ,as the law stands ,yes you are quite correct in that statement, but if the girl says in a statement that she told the man she was 16 + as the law stands he is still to blame ,how can that be right ?

[NorthernStar]

I don't think it is right at all, I've only scanned through the storey and If I'm correct this bloke was in his 30's and looking to nail teenagers whether legal or not I'd still view the guy as a paedo. If he was still in his teens himself then perhaps his ignorance could at least be understandable.

[Glamrocker]

Has ignorance ever been used as a successful defence? Mitigation maybe.

But theres a difference between ignorance and being told something that you are led to believe is true

[Zamo]

The adult who has sex with them is to blame, clearly.

 

To blame for what?