Savile Case Lead To 'Persecution', Lawyer Say

[Setton]

Sorry, Setton, I respect you have an opinion, but can not respect the age you think is acceptable.

Biologically, you have babies, children, teenagers then adults, just because some teenagers dress or act older does not mean they have reached the adult stage.

It has nothing to do with how they dress or act. The simple fact is that, once past puberty, a person is biologically an adult. Can I ask you, why do you think 16 is fine but not 15? What's the special difference between the two if the person is past puberty?

There are the mothers who dress their daughters up for those competitions, make up and all, personally i think its gross, but thats just my opinion, but those girls are still LITTLE girls, just because they are dressed up to look like a woman, does not make them one.

I couldn't agree more. As I said, it has nothing to do with how they dress or act and everything to do with biology. The other important factor is emotional maturity. I haven't touched on it before simply because it's an entirely individual thing. That's why I think setting any arbitrary age is unrealistic. Someone can be 20 years old and have the maturity of a 10 year old. Equally there are 15 year olds with more sense than people twice their age.

I will say though, I don't have any workable alternative to a set age. Otherwise 'I thought she looked like an adult' becomes a defense in court. I am merely trying to point out that there is no special change that happens on a child's 16th birthday. They only become adults sexually at 16 because the law defines it as such.

Good question. I can see loads of lawyers rubbing their hands for this.

I wonder what the parents of these girls would say about them being released?

Wonder how many of released will try for a younger aged girl/boy, hoping that one day that age will get quashed too?

As I said above, they wouldn't be released. That's not how the law works. They broke what was the law at the time they broke it. It's just as wrong as breaking a brand new law tomorrow.

[freetoroam]

It has nothing to do with how they dress or act. The simple fact is that, once past puberty, a person is biologically an adult. Can I ask you, why do you think 16 is fine but not 15? What's the special difference between the two if the person is past puberty?

I couldn't agree more. As I said, it has nothing to do with how they dress or act and everything to do with biology. The other important factor is emotional maturity. I haven't touched on it before simply because it's an entirely individual thing. That's why I think setting any arbitrary age is unrealistic. Someone can be 20 years old and have the maturity of a 10 year old. Equally there are 15 year olds with more sense than people twice their age.

I will say though, I don't have any workable alternative to a set age. Otherwise 'I thought she looked like an adult' becomes a defense in court. I am merely trying to point out that there is no special change that happens on a child's 16th birthday. They only become adults sexually at 16 because the law defines it as such.

I get what you are saying about the 15 and 16 years, but when there is a law like this, there has to be an age. like driving, when I was a mere girl, on our estate the boys all knew how to drive before they were ten, (no, i am not from Liverpool), personally I think when the teenagers leave school at 16 and are expected to go out and get a job and live in the adult world, then thats when the legal age limit should be.

But as for old men finding teenage girls sexually attractive and actually enforcing their fantasies, that is wrong...but if a girl wants to go and money dig, then thats up to them, if they are above the legal age limit.

Edited May 11, 2013 by freetoroam

[Walter White]

Of course not. No law can be applied retroactively. In the same way that if eating bread was made illegal tomorrow, we wouldn't all go to jail. It works the same regardless of whether a law is criminalising or decriminalising something.

I wouldn't be so final about it. The Home Office last year announced that homosexuals could apply to have their convictions for homosexual acts quashed (lesbian acts were never illegal, go figure ). So there would be a precedent if it ever came to the situation described in my above post.

Anyway, we're arguing over a circumstance that would never come into being, I'd be very surprised to see age of consent brough down to 13.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Walter White

[Setton]

I get what you are saying about the 15 and 16 years, but when there is a law like this, there has to be an age. like driving, when I was a mere girl, on our estate the boys all knew how to drive before they were ten, (no, i am not from Liverpool), personally I think when the teenagers leave school at 16 and are expected to go out and get a job and live in the adult world, then thats when the legal age limit should be.

I agree about other age limits. I guess 16 does make sense in terms of education; since full time education is compulsory up to 16, they might want to reduce any chance of pregnancies up to that age.

Just been doing some further reading and it seems that, if we decide purely on biological reasons, it should be different depending on gender (most girls are mature by 15, most boys by 18). I knew there was a difference, just didn't realise how much.

But as for old men finding teenage girls sexually attractive and actually enforcing their fantasies, that is wrong...but if a girl wants to go and money dig, then thats up to them, if they are above the legal age limit.

I'm not sure whether your using the word enforcing is correct or not. If they enforce their fantasies, it suggests an element of force or at least coercion. If that's what you meant, then of course that's wrong. If it's based on mutual attraction though, why is it wrong? Also, why is it fine for a girl to go after someone for money but not for a man to go after a girl out of genuine affection/attraction? That seems a bit twisted to me. Then again, men do tend to be more readily vilified.

I should say that, as I'm only 21, I have no idea what I'll find attractive when I'm 50. I can honestly say that I no longer feel any attraction to girls under 18 (although that has a lot to do with just how dull the majority are ). On the other hand, I can't see myself finding a 50 year old woman attractive (unless we've been involved a long time, of course). Time will tell, I guess.

I wouldn't be so final about it. The Home Office last year announced that homosexuals could apply to have their convictions for homosexual acts quashed (lesbian acts were never illegal, go figure ).

Surely ladies would never do such a thing! Hmm... the smiley needs a monocle

On a serious note, that's a very good point. I would like to think any cases where there was any hint of coercion would not be overturned. If there were ones genuinely based on mutual attraction, it gets harder to decide.

Anyway, we're arguing over a circumstance that would never come into being, I'd be very surprised to see age of consent brough down to 13.

As would I. 13 is definitely too young as it falls right in the middle of puberty for most people.

[freetoroam]

Just been doing some further reading and it seems that, if we decide purely on biological reasons, it should be different depending on gender (most girls are mature by 15, most boys by 18). I knew there was a difference, just didn't realise how much.

Thats the idea, but whether they are mature enough to actually behave like a real adult is debatable. I do not think a 15 year should be having a baby either, 1st they are missing out on so much in life and 2nd, unless they have a strong family behind them (which is why in Spain in probably works better because they are still very family orientated) then 15 is still not mature enough, just look at many of the children being brought up today in England by underage mothers, they are being brought into a life of benefits. Not a good example to set.

I do not want to be funding young girls because they think they are old enough to bring up a child and yet have never experience what work is!

As for boys maturing at 18....hahahahaha, some never grow up!

[Setton]

Thats the idea, but whether they are mature enough to actually behave like a real adult is debatable. I do not think a 15 year should be having a baby either, 1st they are missing out on so much in life and 2nd, unless they have a strong family behind them (which is why in Spain in probably works better because they are still very family orientated) then 15 is still not mature enough, just look at many of the children being brought up today in England by underage mothers, they are being brought into a life of benefits. Not a good example to set.

I do not want to be funding young girls because they think they are old enough to bring up a child and yet have never experience what work is!

It's a good point about family and I should point out, I do think 15 is too young to have children by a long way. As far as I know, there aren't many 13 year olds in spain with children either. As I said, on maturity, it's an individual thing and you really can't put an age one it.

As for boys maturing at 18....hahahahaha, some never grow up!

Nope, our toys just get bigger and more expensive

[ali smack]

13 is wrong on every level, I don't care who said it or what culture it's in.

I agree. It is wrong on every level. 13 year olds shouldn't be having sex with each other, let alone creepy old men such as Stuart Hall!

[ali smack]

I can't believe anyone but a paedo would want the age lowered to 13... Much less a woman who should know better... I suppose a case could be made for it going to 16 (I believe it's 18 here in Oklahoma)... but even then it's a slippery slope...

"Cradle robbing" has always disgusted me on a personal level... Maybe I'm just not "hip" enough for today...

Well I agree with you. Age of consent in UK is 16 which I think is fine.Any younger I think is not right.

[Almagest]

I have to object to one point I've seen raised over and over again. Thirteen year olds are not children. Most people have undergone the early stages of puberty by that point, breasts and pubic hair sprout, voices change etc. Now, a pedophile is NOT someone who has sex with someone under the age of consent, it's someone sexually attracted to children. There is a different term for those who are attracted to teenagers. That's not to say it's right. I think having a blanket age of consent is a good thing, sure, but that doesn't make everyone who has sex with someone under that age a pedophile. Or a sexual predator. Some fifteen year olds are very mature. Some thirty year olds are very immature.

And don't you recognize the disconnect between saying that teenagers are children but abiding an age of consent of 16.

[ali smack]

Well that's quite true.

what the raving tabloid readers don't get is abuse laws are not black and white

Obviously it's sick and wrong for anyone to sleep with children, toddlers,etc. And those kinds of people are pedophiles and should be locked up. there can be no excuses.

But when it comes to teenagers. It's not as simple. Because say a 14 year old looks 18 and goes to a club and a man in his 20s or 30s ends up sleeping with her. he'll have his name plastered all over the papers and locked up for being a pervert.Even though he thought she was 18.The club will get closed down and the barmaid will lose her job. But nothing will happen to the girl. Also sometimes young teenagers throw themselves at older guys and lie about there ages.

This of course DOES NOT excuse what saville etc did because they raped and abused young teenagers.

[dekker87]

Well that's quite true.

what the raving tabloid readers don't get is abuse laws are not black and white

Obviously it's sick and wrong for anyone to sleep with children, toddlers,etc. And those kinds of people are pedophiles and should be locked up. there can be no excuses.

But when it comes to teenagers. It's not as simple. Because say a 14 year old looks 18 and goes to a club and a man in his 20s or 30s ends up sleeping with her. he'll have his name plastered all over the papers and locked up for being a pervert.Even though he thought she was 18.The club will get closed down and the barmaid will lose her job. But nothing will happen to the girl. Also sometimes young teenagers throw themselves at older guys and lie about there ages.

This of course DOES NOT excuse what saville etc did because they raped and abused young teenagers.

you're quite wrong ali....in the recent 'celeb' cases if you read between the lines these young girls threw themselves at the 'celebs'...

does that make the offences any less odious?? no...of course not. it's children being abused by adults...this whole thread sickens me with some of the intellectual backflips people are performing to legitimise sex with youngsters.....we all know that some younger girls will pretend to be older...but that isn't what this issue is about....and i suspect some are subverting this discussion for their own ends.

this issue is about kids being exploited and groomed...not about precocious children pretending to be older than they are and having relationshops with older men....those type of things rarely end in prosecution...but the pro-paedophile (yes pedants i know that technically this means sex with kids 12 or under but colloquially this has come to mean men who sleep with children under the age of consent so for now i'm running with that term) - the pro-paedophile lobby are using this line of argument to fudge the issue surrounding their own sick little predilection.....

the mother of two of the pakistani muslim rapist paedohiles in the recent case in oxford demonstrates this amply by her suggestion that at 12 yrs old the girls should have been at home playing with toys and not having sex with older men...thereby trying to blame the victims for the abuse by her own sons....who were in their mid to late twenties...from some of the comments on here people seem to agree with her.