angos Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 So you have no conclusion? No views on age of consent laws? Last time asking. I've learnt enough not to try and kick water up an hill. Yes I've concluded that you like to argue for the sake of arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Quite. Too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owethemnowt Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 As a rule of thumb I think that most under age girls aren't fat enough yet to look anything like the average woman. If they aren't big and fat then I wouldn't believe her is she said she was 16 or older. It's a good guide to follow. You've only to take a look on the streets. Big fatties driving cars, buying booze or cigarettes - shows they're over the age. Then there's skinny kids with a can of pop, no fags and no car. It works and if she's under 17 stone - leave it alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 As the examples you give nicely illustrate, the law is indeed a blunt instrument - in the first case, no sane person would bring the law into the situation; in the second it might be used to protect the girl from serious harm. However, as I think you might well agree, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. One has to trust that those who make decisions about how to implement the law do so wisely I agree that there is no choice but to draw a line somewhere. My argument is that we keep the common sense approach and use that line as a trigger point for assessing whether a crime has been committed and if so how serious it is. I simply do not agree with people like Jon Brown of the NSPCC who responded to Shah's comment by saying "We are talking about child abuse or we're talking about rape, it's as simple as that." We cannot apply absolutes like that and have justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo68 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 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. A QuicK FYI The offence is Statutory Rape whe a person has sex with another that is under 16. The law at one time was reasonable about this in that sentences for commiting this offence were taken from a sliding scale which was based on the age difference of the people involved. I am advocating anyone having sex with someone who is under age whatever their own age. I'm simply clearing up what appears to be a misunderstanding of the law as it stands at present. I would be interested to know what happens if a man marries a girl who is not yet 16 or even a teenager as some cultures allow and then has sex with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 A QuicK FYI The offence is Statutory Rape whe a person has sex with another that is under 16. The law at one time was reasonable about this in that sentences for commiting this offence were taken from a sliding scale which was based on the age difference of the people involved. I am advocating anyone having sex with someone who is under age whatever their own age. I'm simply clearing up what appears to be a misunderstanding of the law as it stands at present. I would be interested to know what happens if a man marries a girl who is not yet 16 or even a teenager as some cultures allow and then has sex with her. Thats a good question, would an immigrant be arrested if he came to the UK and lived with his wife and child if she was under 16, or would they be refused entry in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 A QuicK FYI The offence is Statutory Rape whe a person has sex with another that is under 16. The law at one time was reasonable about this in that sentences for commiting this offence were taken from a sliding scale which was based on the age difference of the people involved. That's not quite right Tommo, there is no offence of 'statutory rape' in English law, although minors 12 and under are deemed not able to give consent (even if they do), so the offender will be charged with rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 That's not quite right Tommo, there is no offence of 'statutory rape' in English law, although minors 12 and under are deemed not able to give consent (even if they do), so the offender will be charged with rape. Unless, of course, the offender is female and the victim is male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 I agree that there is no choice but to draw a line somewhere. My argument is that we keep the common sense approach and use that line as a trigger point for assessing whether a crime has been committed and if so how serious it is. I simply do not agree with people like Jon Brown of the NSPCC who responded to Shah's comment by saying "We are talking about child abuse or we're talking about rape, it's as simple as that." We cannot apply absolutes like that and have justice. But we have to, otherwise the grey area creates legal ambiguity. It's a little like the drink drive laws, I'm sure a lot of people could drive with 6 pints inside them (I know some people who drive better!), but there has to be a proscribed level so everyone knows where they stand (or fall) before they get in a vehicle having had a drink. Of course there will be 15 year olds who look and behave like 18 year olds, but can you imagine the situation where it's open to debate? Or it can be used as a defence, rather than mitigation in sentencing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 But we have to, otherwise the grey area creates legal ambiguity. It's a little like the drink drive laws, I'm sure a lot of people could drive with 6 pints inside them (I know some people who drive better!), but there has to be a proscribed level so everyone knows where they stand (or fall) before they get in a vehicle having had a drink. Of course there will be 15 year olds who look and behave like 18 year olds, but can you imagine the situation where it's open to debate? Or it can be used as a defence, rather than mitigation in sentencing? If you look at the examples I gave earlier then it is obvious that there is no public interest in prosecuting the 18 y.o. lad, whilst doing nothing against the group of 5 men who gangbang a girl, just because one girl is 2 hours younger than the other. The police/CPS need to apply discretion because, despite what the NSPCC say, the 18 year is not a child abuser and shouldn't be treated as one. I really do not think it is too confusing for people to cope with. As for the drink driving... you may have a point. Perhaps an American style sobriety test would be fairer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.