Anger at proposal to change under-age sex laws
A CONTROVERSIAL Scottish Government proposal to effectively "decriminalise" sex for
13 to 15-year-olds has provoked fierce debate.
The recommendation, which some critics claim could be seen as condoning under-age sex between teenagers, was made in the Scottish Law Commission's draft legislation on rape and other sexual offences.
Scores of parents, children's groups and churches have warned in their written responses that the move would send out the wrong message and lead to increases in teenage pregnancies, exploitation and sexually transmitted diseases.
However, organisations including Victim Support Scotland, Barnardo's and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration (SCRA) support the move.
The review on rape and sexual offences was commissioned by the previous executive three years ago following confusion about the definition of consent and the exclusion of male rape.
Respondents to the 200-page draft have agreed with almost all its recommendations, with the exception of No 29, which proposes that sex between consenting children aged between 13 and 15 should be decriminalised.
Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting
15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA.
The proposals are that it would be statutory rape to have sex with a boy or girl under the age of 13 and concerns about consenting sex between vulnerable 13 to 15-year-olds could be referred to the SCRA. The paper makes it clear adults over the age of 16 would be, as now, committing an offence for sexual activity with a child under the age of 16.
In the commission's original discussion paper in 2006 it took a different position, but now says it has "reconsidered" following responses.
The report from the commission states: "We wish to emphasise that these provisions deal only with conduct involving consent. In making this recommendation we are particularly struck by anomalies which would follow in criminalising consenting sexual activity between teenagers, which would extend to activities such as kissing each other.
"We are not impressed by the argument that such criminal
liability would be theoretical only and in the vast majority of cases there would be no criminal
prosecutions.
"Such an approach fails to take account of the possibility that older children might still be subject to investigation by the police, even if prosecution in the criminal courts is unlikely. More fundamentally, there is an important
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Im no really here, but over there on 2:22am Sat 10 May 08
I'm against the SNP on this.
If this is no longer a crime, then when will pictures of this stuff start appearing on the Internet?? Sort of goes against what the rest of the world thinks.
I'm against the SNP on this.
If this is no longer a crime, then when will pictures of this stuff start appearing on the Internet?? Sort of goes against what the rest of the world thinks.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 3:16am Sat 10 May 08
This is insane.
Posted by: Mike, Edinburgh on 5:23am Sat 10 May 08
Lets get this clear before we start blaming anyone.
An investigation was set up by the then ruling Scottish Government of New Labour and the LibDems. They are not guilty of anything for only forming an investigation.
Obvously the SNP Government will find the underage clause recommended by the report highly offensive. So they are even less guilty for receiving a report commisioned by others.
The real guilty here are the halfwits who made such silly reasons, and the negligent Parents who couldnt give a sheite what their kids are doing.
A storm in a teacup is what this article wanted to stir up. Its time for the media and the Politicians to start to understand that this type of behaviour is not and never will be acceptable to the Scottish Nation. The Herald should really try better to seperate its News Paper from the gutter News in the Daily Retard, The SUN and the News of the World. This Nation is ready to move on from the English Style sensational New to sell their Rags.
Lets get this clear before we start blaming anyone.
An investigation was set up by the then ruling Scottish Government of New Labour and the LibDems. They are not guilty of anything for only forming an investigation.
Obvously the SNP Government will find the underage clause recommended by the report highly offensive. So they are even less guilty for receiving a report commisioned by others.
The real guilty here are the halfwits who made such silly reasons, and the negligent Parents who couldnt give a sheite what their kids are doing.
A storm in a teacup is what this article wanted to stir up. Its time for the media and the Politicians to start to understand that this type of behaviour is not and never will be acceptable to the Scottish Nation. The Herald should really try better to seperate its News Paper from the gutter News in the Daily Retard, The SUN and the News of the World. This Nation is ready to move on from the English Style sensational New to sell their Rags.
Posted by: Graham, Larbert / Kazakhstan on 5:45am Sat 10 May 08
Posted by : Mike, Edinburgh.
[quote]A storm in a teacup is what this article wanted to stir up. Its time for the media and the Politicians to start to understand that this type of behaviour is not and never will be acceptable to the Scottish Nation. The Herald should really try better to seperate its News Paper from the gutter News in the Daily Retard, The SUN and the News of the World. This Nation is ready to move on from the English Style sensational New to sell their Rags.[/quote]
[bold]Well said Mike[/bold] , another call for the standards of [bold]"The Herald"[/bold] to improve. This observation is now becoming a regular feature.
Posted by : Mike, Edinburgh.
A storm in a teacup is what this article wanted to stir up. Its time for the media and the Politicians to start to understand that this type of behaviour is not and never will be acceptable to the Scottish Nation. The Herald should really try better to seperate its News Paper from the gutter News in the Daily Retard, The SUN and the News of the World. This Nation is ready to move on from the English Style sensational New to sell their Rags.
Well said Mike , another call for the standards of
"The Herald" to improve. This observation is now becoming a regular feature.
Posted by: annonymoose, Glasgow on 5:47am Sat 10 May 08
Calm Down! consider what is really being reported and discussed here.
This is not about telling early teens its OK to go out and perform like rabbits.
What happens when you bar a wilful child from something? They have got to do it!!
What happens when there is no bar, other than Morals and standards taught, about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour for an early teen. They abstain.
It is more than just chance, its almost a given, that early teens are going to try anything and everything within the bounds of what they can get away with, at least once, not what is legal or not.
Those teens, who through Morals & Standards instilled by parental guidance will continue to be more effective than maintaining criminalisation.
Imagine a rebellious 13 year old having a record that places them on the sex offenders register for the rest of their life. That is Life destroying..... just for being an adventurous, inquisitive teen.... before that life has even started.
Before you all jump on me, or others who can see beyond prudish and Victorian attitudes, ask the question of THE PERSON FACING YOU IN THE MIRROR, what sort of things did you get up to at that age, or at least wanted to get up to, before you were 16. I know my answer, and I wasn’t even a “Hound Doggy”!
That said, now ask your partner the same, then use the “WE” word as well.
Calm Down! consider what is really being reported and discussed here.
This is not about telling early teens its OK to go out and perform like rabbits.
What happens when you bar a wilful child from something? They have got to do it!!
What happens when there is no bar, other than Morals and standards taught, about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour for an early teen. They abstain.
It is more than just chance, its almost a given, that early teens are going to try anything and everything within the bounds of what they can get away with, at least once, not what is legal or not.
Those teens, who through Morals & Standards instilled by parental guidance will continue to be more effective than maintaining criminalisation.
Imagine a rebellious 13 year old having a record that places them on the sex offenders register for the rest of their life. That is Life destroying..... just for being an adventurous, inquisitive teen.... before that life has even started.
Before you all jump on me, or others who can see beyond prudish and Victorian attitudes, ask the question of THE PERSON FACING YOU IN THE MIRROR, what sort of things did you get up to at that age, or at least wanted to get up to, before you were 16. I know my answer, and I wasn’t even a “Hound Doggy”!
That said, now ask your partner the same, then use the “WE” word as well.
Posted by: Hamish McKropotkin, Bannockburn on 7:18am Sat 10 May 08
Anonnymoose,
Absolutely, I have two kids in the 14-15 age bracket. I would rather they weren't sexually active. If they were the last thing that I want is the police or courts to become involved.
I would also argue that the legality of sex will play very little part in the decision making process of a young teenager.
These are very difficult decisions and affect us all across the political spectrum. In debates like these party politics should be irrelevant. If the SNP administration carry these proposals forward they have my support and good wishes.
Anonnymoose,
Absolutely, I have two kids in the 14-15 age bracket. I would rather they weren't sexually active. If they were the last thing that I want is the police or courts to become involved.
I would also argue that the legality of sex will play very little part in the decision making process of a young teenager.
These are very difficult decisions and affect us all across the political spectrum. In debates like these party politics should be irrelevant. If the SNP administration carry these proposals forward they have my support and good wishes.
Posted by: Sam, Glasgow on 7:22am Sat 10 May 08
'Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA'
well that seems fair
'Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA'
well that seems fair
Posted by: morris pottinger, highland on 7:25am Sat 10 May 08
Respondents to the 200-page draft have agreed with almost all its recommendations, with the exception of No 29, which proposes that sex between consenting children aged between 13 and 15 should be decriminalised.
Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA.
refer your article " sex BETWEEN consenting children aged between 13 and 15" // did you misquote using BETWEEN // what about ONE consenting under 16 and an adult. i.e. over 16 at present //
there are a lot of them about you know , using the "I genuinly thought she was over 16" and "she was willing " // WHAT A RECIPE FOR LAWYERS AND OTHER IDIOTS TO CLAIM A CHILD WAS CONSENTING // my daughter is 13 right now and this scares me so called intelligent new mopdern realistic approach is utterly balmy // I wont go on, but boy I could // scorrie //
Respondents to the 200-page draft have agreed with almost all its recommendations, with the exception of No 29, which proposes that sex between consenting children aged between 13 and 15 should be decriminalised.
Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA.
refer your article " sex BETWEEN consenting children aged between 13 and 15" // did you misquote using BETWEEN // what about ONE consenting under 16 and an adult. i.e. over 16 at present //
there are a lot of them about you know , using the "I genuinly thought she was over 16" and "she was willing " // WHAT A RECIPE FOR LAWYERS AND OTHER IDIOTS TO CLAIM A CHILD WAS CONSENTING // my daughter is 13 right now and this scares me so called intelligent new mopdern realistic approach is utterly balmy // I wont go on, but boy I could // scorrie //
Posted by: morris pottinger, highland on 7:26am Sat 10 May 08
Respondents to the 200-page draft have agreed with almost all its recommendations, with the exception of No 29, which proposes that sex between consenting children aged between 13 and 15 should be decriminalised.
Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA.
refer your article " sex BETWEEN consenting children aged between 13 and 15" // did you misquote using BETWEEN // what about ONE consenting under 16 and an adult. i.e. over 16 at present //
there are a lot of them about you know , using the "I genuinly thought she was over 16" and "she was willing " // WHAT A RECIPE FOR LAWYERS AND OTHER IDIOTS TO CLAIM A CHILD WAS CONSENTING // my daughter is 13 right now and this scares me so called intelligent new mopdern realistic approach is utterly balmy // I wont go on, but boy I could // scorrie //
Respondents to the 200-page draft have agreed with almost all its recommendations, with the exception of No 29, which proposes that sex between consenting children aged between 13 and 15 should be decriminalised.
Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA.
refer your article " sex BETWEEN consenting children aged between 13 and 15" // did you misquote using BETWEEN // what about ONE consenting under 16 and an adult. i.e. over 16 at present //
there are a lot of them about you know , using the "I genuinly thought she was over 16" and "she was willing " // WHAT A RECIPE FOR LAWYERS AND OTHER IDIOTS TO CLAIM A CHILD WAS CONSENTING // my daughter is 13 right now and this scares me so called intelligent new mopdern realistic approach is utterly balmy // I wont go on, but boy I could // scorrie //
Posted by: Mr Angry, ayrshire on 7:58am Sat 10 May 08
Morris, perhaps you should read the article properly , they are only talking about this where the people involved are between 13 and 15, get a grip. If your daughter is willing to have sex with a boyfriend her own age , why should he get prosecuted. Obviously if the boy is over 16 then it remains a criminal offence. It is ludicrous that a boys life should be ruined for having consensual sex with a girl his own age.
Morris, perhaps you should read the article properly , they are only talking about this where the people involved are between 13 and 15, get a grip. If your daughter is willing to have sex with a boyfriend her own age , why should he get prosecuted. Obviously if the boy is over 16 then it remains a criminal offence. It is ludicrous that a boys life should be ruined for having consensual sex with a girl his own age.
Posted by: Karin, glasgae. on 8:10am Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Sam[/bold] wrote:
'Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA' well that seems fair[/quote] i hope that was sarcasm sam? If it was i agree with you that is fundamentally unfair. I just think this is a something people dont wan to think about. I would like to see something in the legislation that says it is for the partner over 16 to determine that the other partner is over 16. I would also like it to be 14 not 13.
Sam wrote:
'Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA' well that seems fair
i hope that was sarcasm sam? If it was i agree with you that is fundamentally unfair. I just think this is a something people dont wan to think about. I would like to see something in the legislation that says it is for the partner over 16 to determine that the other partner is over 16. I would also like it to be 14 not 13.
Posted by: Free Thinker, North Lanarkshire on 8:12am Sat 10 May 08
More Herald 'manipulation' of 'news'.
Well said Mike.
More Herald 'manipulation' of 'news'.
Well said Mike.
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 8:22am Sat 10 May 08
How come other European countries already have similar sex laws to what is being proposed here but don't seem to have any of the problems the UK has?
Are we as a people so immature that we can't educate our children to understand sex and to behave responsibly. Children, especially boys are going to want to try and indulge in sex once their hormones start flowing. Telling them that they must abstain (for whatever reason) is stupid as their hormones trump common sense everytime.
Teach proper sex education in our schools, pointing out the pitfalls as well as the pleasures, but most of all highlighting the responsibility that goes with it. Do that properly and you will find that it is the girls who will take control of their lives.
FFS let's grow up at last and behave like adults, instead of children who are terrified of the darkness. We're now living in the 21st century, not the Victorian age with it's ignorance and hypocricy.
How come other European countries already have similar sex laws to what is being proposed here but don't seem to have any of the problems the UK has?
Are we as a people so immature that we can't educate our children to understand sex and to behave responsibly. Children, especially boys are going to want to try and indulge in sex once their hormones start flowing. Telling them that they must abstain (for whatever reason) is stupid as their hormones trump common sense everytime.
Teach proper sex education in our schools, pointing out the pitfalls as well as the pleasures, but most of all highlighting the responsibility that goes with it. Do that properly and you will find that it is the girls who will take control of their lives.
FFS let's grow up at last and behave like adults, instead of children who are terrified of the darkness. We're now living in the 21st century, not the Victorian age with it's ignorance and hypocricy.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, Glasgow on 8:25am Sat 10 May 08
Like the overwhelming majority of my peers I would have to admit that I was a virgin until my late teens, that is not to say that I did not think about it or getting stoned: but the “swinging sixties” always seemed to be happening elsewhere (mind you I did have a face like an explosion in an acne factory at the time).
I also contemplated robbing a bank and murdering my evil b’astard of a teacher, shall we decriminalise that since my adolescent mind thought that was a good idea at the time?
Why penalise 12year-olds who feel like a bit of rumpy-pumpy? Who has the right deny a 10yr-old who “gets the horn” during PE the right of freedom of expression? Where do you draw the line?
The young now seem to see sex as recreation rather than procreation and this legislation will not change that mind-set.
Like the overwhelming majority of my peers I would have to admit that I was a virgin until my late teens, that is not to say that I did not think about it or getting stoned: but the “swinging sixties” always seemed to be happening elsewhere (mind you I did have a face like an explosion in an acne factory at the time).
I also contemplated robbing a bank and murdering my evil b’astard of a teacher, shall we decriminalise that since my adolescent mind thought that was a good idea at the time?
Why penalise 12year-olds who feel like a bit of rumpy-pumpy? Who has the right deny a 10yr-old who “gets the horn” during PE the right of freedom of expression? Where do you draw the line?
The young now seem to see sex as recreation rather than procreation and this legislation will not change that mind-set.
Posted by: David on 8:26am Sat 10 May 08
[bold]#1 Many of us wish you were indeed not there or believe you are not all there. This matter originated with a report commissioned by the LAB/Lib?Lab executive but that is not important. The matter needs discussion and it is not an easy one. Unintended consequences must be avoided. Please discuss it calmly and do not use it to take a pop at the SNP.[/bold]
#1 Many of us wish you were indeed not there or believe you are not all there. This matter originated with a report commissioned by the LAB/Lib?Lab executive but that is not important. The matter needs discussion and it is not an easy one. Unintended consequences must be avoided. Please discuss it calmly and do not use it to take a pop at the SNP. Posted by: birsealmighty, Dundee on 9:02am Sat 10 May 08
These are proposals and its about time this started being spoken about seriously and with the right people i.e. the kids themselves included in order for the "professionals" to have a clue what is going on.
Oh and I notice the church is up in arms once again. It is my belief that education and religion should be completely separated - I have nothing against people having a religion (I personally don't) but they should have the choice - with education this should be mandatory.
But my point here is that all parties should be speaking to one another to:
Stop Scottish kids having kids
Scotland has far too high a rate for this due to poverty (lack of parental support due to being in the bookies, bingo or pub), religious meddling (non support of condoms) and/or far too conservative health education (concentrating on biology rather than the emotional/financial cost of kids and worse the possibility of sexual diseases which still kill).
It's about time people woke up, told the kids what they need to hear and allow them to have the choice to have kids at the right time. Not 10 years earlier than they should be doing.
These are proposals and its about time this started being spoken about seriously and with the right people i.e. the kids themselves included in order for the "professionals" to have a clue what is going on.
Oh and I notice the church is up in arms once again. It is my belief that education and religion should be completely separated - I have nothing against people having a religion (I personally don't) but they should have the choice - with education this should be mandatory.
But my point here is that all parties should be speaking to one another to:
Stop Scottish kids having kids
Scotland has far too high a rate for this due to poverty (lack of parental support due to being in the bookies, bingo or pub), religious meddling (non support of condoms) and/or far too conservative health education (concentrating on biology rather than the emotional/financial cost of kids and worse the possibility of sexual diseases which still kill).
It's about time people woke up, told the kids what they need to hear and allow them to have the choice to have kids at the right time. Not 10 years earlier than they should be doing.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 9:08am Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]morris pottinger[/bold] wrote:
Respondents to the 200-page draft have agreed with almost all its recommendations, with the exception of No 29, which proposes that sex between consenting children aged between 13 and 15 should be decriminalised.
Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA.
refer your article " sex BETWEEN consenting children aged between 13 and 15" // did you misquote using BETWEEN // what about ONE consenting under 16 and an adult. i.e. over 16 at present //
there are a lot of them about you know , using the "I genuinly thought she was over 16" and "she was willing " // WHAT A RECIPE FOR LAWYERS AND OTHER IDIOTS TO CLAIM A CHILD WAS CONSENTING // my daughter is 13 right now and this scares me so called intelligent new mopdern realistic approach is utterly balmy // I wont go on, but boy I could // scorrie // [/quote] The article and the report are perfectly clear on what happens if one person is over 16:
[quote]The paper makes it clear adults over the age of 16 would be, as now, committing an offence for sexual activity with a child under the age of 16.[/quote]
So there is absolutely no suggestion that a someone over 16 having sex with an underage child could plead consent.
morris pottinger wrote:
Respondents to the 200-page draft have agreed with almost all its recommendations, with the exception of No 29, which proposes that sex between consenting children aged between 13 and 15 should be decriminalised.
Under the law, the age of consent is 16, but there are special rules which apply to a girl under 13, and if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA.
refer your article " sex BETWEEN consenting children aged between 13 and 15" // did you misquote using BETWEEN // what about ONE consenting under 16 and an adult. i.e. over 16 at present //
there are a lot of them about you know , using the "I genuinly thought she was over 16" and "she was willing " // WHAT A RECIPE FOR LAWYERS AND OTHER IDIOTS TO CLAIM A CHILD WAS CONSENTING // my daughter is 13 right now and this scares me so called intelligent new mopdern realistic approach is utterly balmy // I wont go on, but boy I could // scorrie //
The article and the report are perfectly clear on what happens if one person is over 16:
The paper makes it clear adults over the age of 16 would be, as now, committing an offence for sexual activity with a child under the age of 16.
So there is absolutely no suggestion that a someone over 16 having sex with an underage child could plead consent.
Posted by: avrom, Scotland on 9:34am Sat 10 May 08
What's the big deal. In the 60s I started having sex at 13 with girls of the same age. We used condoms to prevent infection and pregnancy. Criminalising the act is stupid. Kids don't take that into consideration. "Oh, it's against the law. Sooooooorry. We can't have sex." Aye, right.
What's the big deal. In the 60s I started having sex at 13 with girls of the same age. We used condoms to prevent infection and pregnancy. Criminalising the act is stupid. Kids don't take that into consideration. "Oh, it's against the law. Sooooooorry. We can't have sex." Aye, right.
Posted by: Im no really here, but over there on 9:55am Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]David[/bold] wrote:
[bold]#1 Many of us wish you were indeed not there or believe you are not all there. This matter originated with a report commissioned by the LAB/Lib?Lab executive but that is not important. The matter needs discussion and it is not an easy one. Unintended consequences must be avoided. Please discuss it calmly and do not use it to take a pop at the SNP.[/bold] [/quote] I suppose because you wrote in BOLD that what you say must be correct. Didn't know you had the authority to speak for others.
There is an age limit here. There are speed limits; alcohol content limits; age restrictions, etc etc. There has just been a case where someone guilty of speeding submitted that their "secret" job would be in jeopardy if they suffered the true consequences and were banned. The response is, if your licence is so important, don't speed. I suppose that in 20 years time, after 13-15 year old sex is decriminalised, there will be a call for 9-12 year old sex to be decriminalised too.
Everyone knows what will happen. They will be reported to a panel and they'll be told "naughty, naughty, don't do it again".
It's amazing how some people on this thread use their own experiences as justification as to what should be regarded as right and wrong. I certainly wouldn't dare to.
Perhaps we should go back to the good old days, before the PC Brigade took hold, where the father/brothers of the girl would get hold of the boy and give him a good kicking.
David wrote:
#1 Many of us wish you were indeed not there or believe you are not all there. This matter originated with a report commissioned by the LAB/Lib?Lab executive but that is not important. The matter needs discussion and it is not an easy one. Unintended consequences must be avoided. Please discuss it calmly and do not use it to take a pop at the SNP.
I suppose because you wrote in BOLD that what you say must be correct. Didn't know you had the authority to speak for others.
There is an age limit here. There are speed limits; alcohol content limits; age restrictions, etc etc. There has just been a case where someone guilty of speeding submitted that their "secret" job would be in jeopardy if they suffered the true consequences and were banned. The response is, if your licence is so important, don't speed. I suppose that in 20 years time, after 13-15 year old sex is decriminalised, there will be a call for 9-12 year old sex to be decriminalised too.
Everyone knows what will happen. They will be reported to a panel and they'll be told "naughty, naughty, don't do it again".
It's amazing how some people on this thread use their own experiences as justification as to what should be regarded as right and wrong. I certainly wouldn't dare to.
Perhaps we should go back to the good old days, before the PC Brigade took hold, where the father/brothers of the girl would get hold of the boy and give him a good kicking.
Posted by: Corrupt EU, Fife on 10:13am Sat 10 May 08
Gain knowledge? More like become brainwashed. This is such a blatant piece of pro-EU propaganda. I bet it was all official, EC approved literature. These kids need to read books such as 'England Our England' by Vernon Coleman.
Some true facts that these brainwashed kids won't have been told:
1. The phrase European Economic Community was invented by Nazi Hermann Goerring. The phrase United States of Europe was invented by Adolf Hitler. (page 122).
2. Not one citizen in any of the 15 nations in the E.U. has ever been asked if they wanted to join the E.U. (page 15).
3. Every English taxpayer pays £450 a year for membership of the E.U. For every £1 England receives from the E.U. the English taxpayer must hand over £4.15 to the E.U. (page 19).
4. Joining the euro will cost every Englishman, Englishwoman and English child £650 in hard cash. (page 25)
5. Corrupt E.U. staff are immune from prosecution. (page 27)
6. Fraud costs the E.U. between £4 and £8 billion a year. (page 28).
9. The European Union will shortly ban the sale of effective vitamin therapies (much to the delight and profit of large drug companies). (page 32)
11. The E.U. wants to ban political parties which disapprove of the E.U. (page 33)
12. The Labour Government is trying to abolish trial by jury in England. They are doing this because the E.U. has told them they must. (page 35)
13. Members of Europol (Europe's new official police force) are armed and `immune from the law'. (page 35)
14. The E.U. spends £600 million a year telling English university students the value of England being part of the E.U. (page 36)
20. England's oil reserves are worth over £250 billion. The E.U. now regards those reserves as a `shared E.U. resource'. (page 50)
21. The Government has handed England's £32 billion worth of gold and dollar reserves over to the E.U. (page 52)
22. The number of laws created by the E.U.'s bureaucrats in Brussels far exceeds the number of laws
Gain knowledge? More like become brainwashed. This is such a blatant piece of pro-EU propaganda. I bet it was all official, EC approved literature. These kids need to read books such as 'England Our England' by Vernon Coleman.
Some true facts that these brainwashed kids won't have been told:
1. The phrase European Economic Community was invented by Nazi Hermann Goerring. The phrase United States of Europe was invented by Adolf Hitler. (page 122).
2. Not one citizen in any of the 15 nations in the E.U. has ever been asked if they wanted to join the E.U. (page 15).
3. Every English taxpayer pays £450 a year for membership of the E.U. For every £1 England receives from the E.U. the English taxpayer must hand over £4.15 to the E.U. (page 19).
4. Joining the euro will cost every Englishman, Englishwoman and English child £650 in hard cash. (page 25)
5. Corrupt E.U. staff are immune from prosecution. (page 27)
6. Fraud costs the E.U. between £4 and £8 billion a year. (page 28).
9. The European Union will shortly ban the sale of effective vitamin therapies (much to the delight and profit of large drug companies). (page 32)
11. The E.U. wants to ban political parties which disapprove of the E.U. (page 33)
12. The Labour Government is trying to abolish trial by jury in England. They are doing this because the E.U. has told them they must. (page 35)
13. Members of Europol (Europe's new official police force) are armed and `immune from the law'. (page 35)
14. The E.U. spends £600 million a year telling English university students the value of England being part of the E.U. (page 36)
20. England's oil reserves are worth over £250 billion. The E.U. now regards those reserves as a `shared E.U. resource'. (page 50)
21. The Government has handed England's £32 billion worth of gold and dollar reserves over to the E.U. (page 52)
22. The number of laws created by the E.U.'s bureaucrats in Brussels far exceeds the number of laws
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 10:28am Sat 10 May 08
common sense move? - rot -its a lazy Crown Office perverting the course of justice - what is the point of having a parliament if the Crown Office do their own thing as they do over drugs, child care etc
common sense move? - rot -its a lazy Crown Office perverting the course of justice - what is the point of having a parliament if the Crown Office do their own thing as they do over drugs, child care etc
Posted by: McGinty, The North on 11:02am Sat 10 May 08
Posted by: Im no really here, but over there on 9:55am today
'Perhaps we should go back to the good old days, before the PC Brigade took hold, where the father/brothers of the girl would get hold of the boy and give him a good kicking.'
Agree with this and if it were my own child I might also be tempted to give them a hiding, but I would go further and no doubt a hard hitting elucidation of bare facts [bold]by parents[/bold] might do the trick. If the law fails to look after my children, then I certainly will.
Posted by: Im no really here, but over there on 9:55am today
'Perhaps we should go back to the good old days, before the PC Brigade took hold, where the father/brothers of the girl would get hold of the boy and give him a good kicking.'
Agree with this and if it were my own child I might also be tempted to give them a hiding, but I would go further and no doubt a hard hitting elucidation of bare facts
by parents might do the trick. If the law fails to look after my children, then I certainly will.
Posted by: Luigi, Aberdeen on 12:25pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Free Thinker[/bold] wrote:
More Herald 'manipulation' of 'news'. Well said Mike.[/quote] Yes - but the government has to deal with this quickly.
The UK media are using CIA smear tactics now - first the accusations of incompetence (uncertainty) then treason (siding with tories) and now the bottom of the barrel (interferring with innocent children). I really never expected them to stoop so low so quickly - it's a sure indication of how desperate they now are - straight out of the CIA character assasination manual.
The government has to deal with this NOW.
Free Thinker wrote:
More Herald 'manipulation' of 'news'. Well said Mike.
Yes - but the government has to deal with this quickly.
The UK media are using CIA smear tactics now - first the accusations of incompetence (uncertainty) then treason (siding with tories) and now the bottom of the barrel (interferring with innocent children). I really never expected them to stoop so low so quickly - it's a sure indication of how desperate they now are - straight out of the CIA character assasination manual.
The government has to deal with this NOW.
Posted by: Brian Hill, Edinburgh on 12:59pm Sat 10 May 08
annonymoose of Glasgow gives us all something to think about.
As this is such an important topic the terms SNP, Labour etc should not be used. This is everyone's business but above all parliament as a whole will decide, and woe betide anyone who tries to make political capital out of such a serious social issue.
Clearly there will be opposing views but we need to listen to those on the ground who are dealing with children's issues on a daily basis.
Any system which prevents 13 year olds from being classed as sex offenders has to be better than the present situation.
annonymoose of Glasgow gives us all something to think about.
As this is such an important topic the terms SNP, Labour etc should not be used. This is everyone's business but above all parliament as a whole will decide, and woe betide anyone who tries to make political capital out of such a serious social issue.
Clearly there will be opposing views but we need to listen to those on the ground who are dealing with children's issues on a daily basis.
Any system which prevents 13 year olds from being classed as sex offenders has to be better than the present situation.
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 1:03pm Sat 10 May 08
Thanks for pointing me in this direction Luigi.
If anyone bothered to read the article , instead of going off half cocked if you;ll pardon the saying, you would see the sense in it.
All you protective fathers will want to protect your daughters as much as humanly possible. If you are also a father of boys , perhaps you should consider the other guys daughters too.
There is no sense in prosecuting a 15 year old boy who has had sex with a consenting 13 year old girl.
The person who has sex with an underage girl or boy will still be prosecuted.
Now remember to lock up your daughters , Daddys!
Thanks for pointing me in this direction Luigi.
If anyone bothered to read the article , instead of going off half cocked if you;ll pardon the saying, you would see the sense in it.
All you protective fathers will want to protect your daughters as much as humanly possible. If you are also a father of boys , perhaps you should consider the other guys daughters too.
There is no sense in prosecuting a 15 year old boy who has had sex with a consenting 13 year old girl.
The person who has sex with an underage girl or boy will still be prosecuted.
Now remember to lock up your daughters , Daddys!
Posted by: Melanthios on 1:11pm Sat 10 May 08
This is really pretty poor journalism.
Headline:[bold] Anger at proposal to change under-age sex laws[/bold]
First sentence: [bold]A CONTROVERSIAL Scottish Government proposal to effectively "decriminalise" sex for 13 to 15-year-olds has provoked fierce debate.[/bold]
Anyone not reading the article will simply remember the headline & first sentence and go flying off at a tangent.
Perhaps this is what the Herald wants............?
This is really pretty poor journalism.
Headline:
Anger at proposal to change under-age sex laws
First sentence:
A CONTROVERSIAL Scottish Government proposal to effectively "decriminalise" sex for 13 to 15-year-olds has provoked fierce debate.
Anyone not reading the article will simply remember the headline & first sentence and go flying off at a tangent.
Perhaps this is what the Herald wants............?
Posted by: poilu, Edinburgh on 1:49pm Sat 10 May 08
"A CONTROVERSIAL Scottish Government proposal to effectively "decriminalise" sex for 13 to 15-year-olds..."
[bold]A LIE - is the Herald going the same way as the Scotsman - what a disgraceful bunch Scottish journalists are.[/bold]
"A CONTROVERSIAL Scottish Government proposal to effectively "decriminalise" sex for 13 to 15-year-olds..."
A LIE - is the Herald going the same way as the Scotsman - what a disgraceful bunch Scottish journalists are. Posted by: weedave, Glasgow on 2:20pm Sat 10 May 08
Currently, I think children like to do what they are not allowed to, and in the context of this article, it is have sex before the age of 16. They feel a rush there when they do something they are not allowed to do, so they still do it. So decriminalising sex for 13-15 year olds will allow them to do it, but they will still try to push the envelope by either having sex with 15+ or below 13. So this situation could just get worse and worse. I do not know where the main influence is coming from for children to have sex, whether it is films, tv or even from there own parents, but it exists. We need to take action to inform younger children about safe sex, not just decriminalise it and think it will make all the problems vanish. Scrap recommendation no. 29.
Currently, I think children like to do what they are not allowed to, and in the context of this article, it is have sex before the age of 16. They feel a rush there when they do something they are not allowed to do, so they still do it. So decriminalising sex for 13-15 year olds will allow them to do it, but they will still try to push the envelope by either having sex with 15+ or below 13. So this situation could just get worse and worse. I do not know where the main influence is coming from for children to have sex, whether it is films, tv or even from there own parents, but it exists. We need to take action to inform younger children about safe sex, not just decriminalise it and think it will make all the problems vanish. Scrap recommendation no. 29.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 2:26pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Corrupt EU[/bold] wrote:
Gain knowledge? More like become brainwashed. This is such a blatant piece of pro-EU propaganda. I bet it was all official, EC approved literature. These kids need to read books such as 'England Our England' by Vernon Coleman. Some true facts that these brainwashed kids won't have been told: 1. The phrase European Economic Community was invented by Nazi Hermann Goerring. The phrase United States of Europe was invented by Adolf Hitler. (page 122). 2. Not one citizen in any of the 15 nations in the E.U. has ever been asked if they wanted to join the E.U. (page 15). 3. Every English taxpayer pays £450 a year for membership of the E.U. For every £1 England receives from the E.U. the English taxpayer must hand over £4.15 to the E.U. (page 19). 4. Joining the euro will cost every Englishman, Englishwoman and English child £650 in hard cash. (page 25) 5. Corrupt E.U. staff are immune from prosecution. (page 27) 6. Fraud costs the E.U. between £4 and £8 billion a year. (page 28). 9. The European Union will shortly ban the sale of effective vitamin therapies (much to the delight and profit of large drug companies). (page 32) 11. The E.U. wants to ban political parties which disapprove of the E.U. (page 33) 12. The Labour Government is trying to abolish trial by jury in England. They are doing this because the E.U. has told them they must. (page 35) 13. Members of Europol (Europe's new official police force) are armed and `immune from the law'. (page 35) 14. The E.U. spends £600 million a year telling English university students the value of England being part of the E.U. (page 36) 20. England's oil reserves are worth over £250 billion. The E.U. now regards those reserves as a `shared E.U. resource'. (page 50) 21. The Government has handed England's £32 billion worth of gold and dollar reserves over to the E.U. (page 52) 22. The number of laws created by the E.U.'s bureaucrats in Brussels far exceeds the number of laws [/quote] ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzZZZZZZZZZZZZz
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
zz
[quote]22. The number of laws created by the E.U.'s bureaucrats in Brussels far exceeds the number of laws[/quote]
Eh???????????????
I also think that just now we are part of the UK, therefore why is England mentioned in your nonsense
Absolute tripe
Corrupt EU wrote:
Gain knowledge? More like become brainwashed. This is such a blatant piece of pro-EU propaganda. I bet it was all official, EC approved literature. These kids need to read books such as 'England Our England' by Vernon Coleman. Some true facts that these brainwashed kids won't have been told: 1. The phrase European Economic Community was invented by Nazi Hermann Goerring. The phrase United States of Europe was invented by Adolf Hitler. (page 122). 2. Not one citizen in any of the 15 nations in the E.U. has ever been asked if they wanted to join the E.U. (page 15). 3. Every English taxpayer pays £450 a year for membership of the E.U. For every £1 England receives from the E.U. the English taxpayer must hand over £4.15 to the E.U. (page 19). 4. Joining the euro will cost every Englishman, Englishwoman and English child £650 in hard cash. (page 25) 5. Corrupt E.U. staff are immune from prosecution. (page 27) 6. Fraud costs the E.U. between £4 and £8 billion a year. (page 28). 9. The European Union will shortly ban the sale of effective vitamin therapies (much to the delight and profit of large drug companies). (page 32) 11. The E.U. wants to ban political parties which disapprove of the E.U. (page 33) 12. The Labour Government is trying to abolish trial by jury in England. They are doing this because the E.U. has told them they must. (page 35) 13. Members of Europol (Europe's new official police force) are armed and `immune from the law'. (page 35) 14. The E.U. spends £600 million a year telling English university students the value of England being part of the E.U. (page 36) 20. England's oil reserves are worth over £250 billion. The E.U. now regards those reserves as a `shared E.U. resource'. (page 50) 21. The Government has handed England's £32 billion worth of gold and dollar reserves over to the E.U. (page 52) 22. The number of laws created by the E.U.'s bureaucrats in Brussels far exceeds the number of laws
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzZZZZZZZZZZZZz
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
zz
22. The number of laws created by the E.U.'s bureaucrats in Brussels far exceeds the number of laws
Eh???????????????
I also think that just now we are part of the UK, therefore why is England mentioned in your nonsense
Absolute tripe
Posted by: IainGlasgow07, glasgow on 2:33pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Corrupt EU[/bold] wrote:
Gain knowledge? More like become brainwashed. This is such a blatant piece of pro-EU propaganda. I bet it was all official, EC approved literature. These kids need to read books such as 'England Our England' by Vernon Coleman. Some true facts that these brainwashed kids won't have been told: 1. The phrase European Economic Community was invented by Nazi Hermann Goerring. The phrase United States of Europe was invented by Adolf Hitler. (page 122). 2. Not one citizen in any of the 15 nations in the E.U. has ever been asked if they wanted to join the E.U. (page 15). 3. Every English taxpayer pays £450 a year for membership of the E.U. For every £1 England receives from the E.U. the English taxpayer must hand over £4.15 to the E.U. (page 19). 4. Joining the euro will cost every Englishman, Englishwoman and English child £650 in hard cash. (page 25) 5. Corrupt E.U. staff are immune from prosecution. (page 27) 6. Fraud costs the E.U. between £4 and £8 billion a year. (page 28). 9. The European Union will shortly ban the sale of effective vitamin therapies (much to the delight and profit of large drug companies). (page 32) 11. The E.U. wants to ban political parties which disapprove of the E.U. (page 33) 12. The Labour Government is trying to abolish trial by jury in England. They are doing this because the E.U. has told them they must. (page 35) 13. Members of Europol (Europe's new official police force) are armed and `immune from the law'. (page 35) 14. The E.U. spends £600 million a year telling English university students the value of England being part of the E.U. (page 36) 20. England's oil reserves are worth over £250 billion. The E.U. now regards those reserves as a `shared E.U. resource'. (page 50) 21. The Government has handed England's £32 billion worth of gold and dollar reserves over to the E.U. (page 52) 22. The number of laws created by the E.U.'s bureaucrats in Brussels far exceeds the number of laws [/quote] So where does Scotland stand?
£1.Trillion worth of oil reserves extrapolating from your figure anyway. Time to make a UDI and nationalise the oil me thinks.
Corrupt EU wrote:
Gain knowledge? More like become brainwashed. This is such a blatant piece of pro-EU propaganda. I bet it was all official, EC approved literature. These kids need to read books such as 'England Our England' by Vernon Coleman. Some true facts that these brainwashed kids won't have been told: 1. The phrase European Economic Community was invented by Nazi Hermann Goerring. The phrase United States of Europe was invented by Adolf Hitler. (page 122). 2. Not one citizen in any of the 15 nations in the E.U. has ever been asked if they wanted to join the E.U. (page 15). 3. Every English taxpayer pays £450 a year for membership of the E.U. For every £1 England receives from the E.U. the English taxpayer must hand over £4.15 to the E.U. (page 19). 4. Joining the euro will cost every Englishman, Englishwoman and English child £650 in hard cash. (page 25) 5. Corrupt E.U. staff are immune from prosecution. (page 27) 6. Fraud costs the E.U. between £4 and £8 billion a year. (page 28). 9. The European Union will shortly ban the sale of effective vitamin therapies (much to the delight and profit of large drug companies). (page 32) 11. The E.U. wants to ban political parties which disapprove of the E.U. (page 33) 12. The Labour Government is trying to abolish trial by jury in England. They are doing this because the E.U. has told them they must. (page 35) 13. Members of Europol (Europe's new official police force) are armed and `immune from the law'. (page 35) 14. The E.U. spends £600 million a year telling English university students the value of England being part of the E.U. (page 36) 20. England's oil reserves are worth over £250 billion. The E.U. now regards those reserves as a `shared E.U. resource'. (page 50) 21. The Government has handed England's £32 billion worth of gold and dollar reserves over to the E.U. (page 52) 22. The number of laws created by the E.U.'s bureaucrats in Brussels far exceeds the number of laws
So where does Scotland stand?
£1.Trillion worth of oil reserves extrapolating from your figure anyway. Time to make a UDI and nationalise the oil me thinks.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 4:09pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Melanthios[/bold] wrote:
This is really pretty poor journalism.
Headline:[bold] Anger at proposal to change under-age sex laws[/bold]
First sentence: [bold]A CONTROVERSIAL Scottish Government proposal to effectively "decriminalise" sex for 13 to 15-year-olds has provoked fierce debate.[/bold]
Anyone not reading the article will simply remember the headline & first sentence and go flying off at a tangent.
Perhaps this is what the Herald wants............?[/quote] It would have been much more accurate to write
[quote]
A CONTROVERSIAL Scottish Government proposal to effectively "decriminalise" sex [bold]between[/bold] 13 to 15-year-olds has provoked fierce debate.[/quote]
But of course that wouldn't have caused nearly as much fuss.
Melanthios wrote:
This is really pretty poor journalism.
Headline: Anger at proposal to change under-age sex laws
First sentence: A CONTROVERSIAL Scottish Government proposal to effectively "decriminalise" sex for 13 to 15-year-olds has provoked fierce debate.
Anyone not reading the article will simply remember the headline & first sentence and go flying off at a tangent.
Perhaps this is what the Herald wants............?
It would have been much more accurate to write
A CONTROVERSIAL Scottish Government proposal to effectively "decriminalise" sex between 13 to 15-year-olds has provoked fierce debate.
But of course that wouldn't have caused nearly as much fuss.
Posted by: Thyme Kelpie on 7:07pm Sat 10 May 08
Am I correct in thinking that according to this article, this review took 3 years to produce a 200 page draft report?
Dare I ask, what on earth they were doing? In that time, I would have expected a thorough detailed report explaining why they thought this etc.
It strikes me as rather a shoddy piece of work, doing nothing for the sexual health of future Scots, never mind their moral well-being and protection. It does nothing to support parents, who are being undermined so often. I am really surprised that it has got this far - think it should've been chucked into the cylindrical filing cabinet.
The remit was far too narrow in the first place.
Am I correct in thinking that according to this article, this review took 3 years to produce a 200 page draft report?
Dare I ask, what on earth they were doing? In that time, I would have expected a thorough detailed report explaining why they thought this etc.
It strikes me as rather a shoddy piece of work, doing nothing for the sexual health of future Scots, never mind their moral well-being and protection. It does nothing to support parents, who are being undermined so often. I am really surprised that it has got this far - think it should've been chucked into the cylindrical filing cabinet.
The remit was far too narrow in the first place.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 9:11pm Sat 10 May 08
It's nothing to do with the SNP, they are receiving and will be acting upon the advice of experts in this. I agree with the experts. Whether people wish to acknowledge it or not, teenagers are sexual creatures. It would be utterly wrong to condemn them for doing what comes naturally, especially given the inequality bwtween how the law as it stands treats boys and girls. That has to be amended. The way to control teenage sex is by education, nurturing, and being able to have a conversation with them about sex. We don't need the tough, we just need the love, in helping our children when they are at this age.
It's nothing to do with the SNP, they are receiving and will be acting upon the advice of experts in this. I agree with the experts. Whether people wish to acknowledge it or not, teenagers are sexual creatures. It would be utterly wrong to condemn them for doing what comes naturally, especially given the inequality bwtween how the law as it stands treats boys and girls. That has to be amended. The way to control teenage sex is by education, nurturing, and being able to have a conversation with them about sex. We don't need the tough, we just need the love, in helping our children when they are at this age.
Posted by: Big Boy Did It, And Ran Away on 1:10am Sun 11 May 08
I think it is a sensible idea. 13 to 15 year olds have sex. Criminalising them for it is nonsense, hence the desire to reform the law.
A few misunderstandings seem to be in the way of some people:
Sex under 13 is criminal regardless of whether there is consent given. The implication being that under 13s cannot have the maturity to make an informed choice regardless of how 'grown up' they are. The age of the other partner (be it 13 and 1 month or whatever) is irrelevant.
13 to 15, Fraser Ruling / Gillick competence is used to decide whether a 'minor' has an appropriate level of understanding to make an adult decision. It was first used as a barometer in prescriptions for the pill, but the extension to sexual activity is obvious.
When teenagers have sex with those around their age, common sense is applied. It wouldn't be unusual for a year or two difference in age. The 16 year old cut off may be viewed with this in mind: A 15 and 11 month old girl and a 16 and 1 month boy having sex would probably be viewed as reasonable.
When the age difference gets beyond 2 or 3 years or so, then it is a whole different ball game, as you get into the situation of coercion / pressure etc. These are quite rightly viewed with suspicion and liable to prosecution.
A more liberal, open and supportive attitude on the behalf of parents is what I think is most likely to benefit young teenagers: "We know you're probably going to have sex, here's how to do it safely." etc.
I think it is a sensible idea. 13 to 15 year olds have sex. Criminalising them for it is nonsense, hence the desire to reform the law.
A few misunderstandings seem to be in the way of some people:
Sex under 13 is criminal regardless of whether there is consent given. The implication being that under 13s cannot have the maturity to make an informed choice regardless of how 'grown up' they are. The age of the other partner (be it 13 and 1 month or whatever) is irrelevant.
13 to 15, Fraser Ruling / Gillick competence is used to decide whether a 'minor' has an appropriate level of understanding to make an adult decision. It was first used as a barometer in prescriptions for the pill, but the extension to sexual activity is obvious.
When teenagers have sex with those around their age, common sense is applied. It wouldn't be unusual for a year or two difference in age. The 16 year old cut off may be viewed with this in mind: A 15 and 11 month old girl and a 16 and 1 month boy having sex would probably be viewed as reasonable.
When the age difference gets beyond 2 or 3 years or so, then it is a whole different ball game, as you get into the situation of coercion / pressure etc. These are quite rightly viewed with suspicion and liable to prosecution.
A more liberal, open and supportive attitude on the behalf of parents is what I think is most likely to benefit young teenagers: "We know you're probably going to have sex, here's how to do it safely." etc.
Posted by: Radagast, Adelaide on 2:51am Sun 11 May 08
Come on! Why should someone be treated as a criminal because they have sex? It's perfectly natural and human to have sex, so why not? As long as we educate our kids , no harm should come of it.
Come on! Why should someone be treated as a criminal because they have sex? It's perfectly natural and human to have sex, so why not? As long as we educate our kids , no harm should come of it.
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 9:48am Sun 11 May 08
I'm no really here - it is not actually a crime now. When was the last time a 14 year old was prosecuted for having sex with another 14 year old? It doesn' happen. All these proposals do is to make official what already happens in practice. I
I'm no really here - it is not actually a crime now. When was the last time a 14 year old was prosecuted for having sex with another 14 year old? It doesn' happen. All these proposals do is to make official what already happens in practice. I
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 12:14pm Sun 11 May 08
Observer: So we now have experts on teenage sex. Maybe the experts have had plenty of practice.[bold]bold[/bold]
Observer: So we now have experts on teenage sex. Maybe the experts have had plenty of practice.
Posted by: Guga, Rockall on 12:24am Mon 12 May 08
"......if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA"
Why would only the boy be prosecuted? Isn't this an example of sex discrimination?
As for the rest of it, I do not agree with making it legal for kids between 13 and 15. This is going too far. We know they are going to do it, but legalising it will only encourage it.
"......if two consenting 15-year-olds were to have sex, the boy, but not the girl, could be prosecuted in a criminal court if referred to the SCRA"
Why would only the boy be prosecuted? Isn't this an example of sex discrimination?
As for the rest of it, I do not agree with making it legal for kids between 13 and 15. This is going too far. We know they are going to do it, but legalising it will only encourage it.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (38)
