Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Jeremy Forrest sentenced to 5 1/2 years for abducting a minor


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#61 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:01 PM

So a man (or woman) having sex with a 15 year old in the UK is a paedophile but not if they travel to France to do it?
You are saying there are no shades of grey in the matter. There are though.

I'm saying that the law is black and white.



#62 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,073 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:08 PM

Okay, this is getting weird now.

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#63 longboard

longboard
  • Coach
  • 2,293 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:17 PM

You sure it's 12, I thought statutory rape was anyone under 16.

 

 

The link below may help, although it is not light reading.

 

It is  taken to be under the age of 13, based on the idea that children cannot give consent to such an act......

 

http://www.fpa.org.u...s/lawonsex#p8vW



#64 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:41 PM

The link below may help, although it is not light reading.

 

It is  taken to be under the age of 13, based on the idea that children cannot give consent to such an act......

 

http://www.fpa.org.u...s/lawonsex#p8vW

No, it is based on the idea that there can be no defence of mistaken age. Sex below 16 is still illegal but the police may choose not to act. If it is below 13 then they must act.



#65 longboard

longboard
  • Coach
  • 2,293 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:58 PM

It is not simply about there being no defence of mistaken age. It is also about a child below 13 not being able to give consent. It is one of the basic protections for children in the sexual offences legislation; that's why it is there. Yes, the police do not always act on sexual activity by children between 13 & 16 years of age and the CPS also sometimes decide not to take action, sometimes on the basis of a prosecution not being in the public interest.

 

The thinking behind some  of those sorts of decisions in the past has been questioned in the light of some of the organised grooming and abuse cases that have come to trial in the the last couple of years, but that is going off topic...


Edited by longboard, 24 June 2013 - 02:25 PM.


#66 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:09 PM

It is not simply about there being no defence of mistaken age. It is also about a child below 13 not being able to give consent. It is one of the basic defences of children in the sexual offences legislation; that's why it is there. Yes, the police do not always act on sexual activity by children between 13 & 16 years of age and the CPS also sometimes decide not to take action, sometimes on the basis of a prosecution not being in the public interest.

 

The thinking behind some  of those sorts of decisions in the past has been questioned in the light of some of the organised grooming and abuse cases that have come to trial in the the last couple of years, but that is going off topic...

The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women.

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new series of laws to protect children under 16 from sexual abuse. However, the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation.

 

Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds.

Read more at http://www.fpa.org.u...sQKSXmXAhB6m.99

 

tldr version: sex with an under-13 year old will always be prosecuted, sex with a 14 or 15 year old is illegal but may not be prosecuted if the other party is also young.


Edited by Northern Sol, 24 June 2013 - 02:10 PM.


#67 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:45 PM

I'm saying that the law is black and white.

But it clearly isn't. Two people having sex in different countries means one is a paedophile and one isn't. How come?

Do you think a man or woman having sex with a 15 year old they genuinely believe to be older renders them a paedophile? (In your opinion)

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#68 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:08 PM

But it clearly isn't. Two people having sex in different countries means one is a paedophile and one isn't. How come?

Do you think a man or woman having sex with a 15 year old they genuinely believe to be older renders them a paedophile? (In your opinion)

No to your second point.

 

But to your first, British law is clear who is or is not guilty of a sex offence, French law is equally clear. They just happen to differ.

 

British and French law differs on any number of things. That doesn't make either of them vague.



#69 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:12 PM

It is just an indication that the matter has various degrees. While it might be handy for the papers to label everyone as paedophiles, it isn't usually accurate.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#70 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:51 PM

It is just an indication that the matter has various degrees. While it might be handy for the papers to label everyone as paedophiles, it isn't usually accurate.

It has no degrees within British law.



#71 longboard

longboard
  • Coach
  • 2,293 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:35 PM

 

The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women.

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new series of laws to protect children under 16 from sexual abuse. However, the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation.

 

Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds.

Read more at http://www.fpa.org.u...sQKSXmXAhB6m.99

 

tldr version: sex with an under-13 year old will always be prosecuted, sex with a 14 or 15 year old is illegal but may not be prosecuted if the other party is also young.

 

 

Sol, have a look at the legislation on this and you'll see what I mean. It'll be available on the government legislation website. 



#72 longboard

longboard
  • Coach
  • 2,293 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:59 PM

It is just an indication that the matter has various degrees. While it might be handy for the papers to label everyone as paedophiles, it isn't usually accurate.

 

JOC, the  label paedophile is convenient for lazy hacks to use but it doesn't in itself inform the reader about what offences people have been convicted but it is conveniently sensational for the papers to include in a headline etc. Accuracy isn't what counts in newspaper headlines of course.

 

On a side issue, Forrest would still have committed an offence under the Sexual Offences Act if he abused his position of trust by having a physical relationship with a 16 year old pupil.



#73 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 06:30 AM

Agreed longboard, I aren't arguing that he has done nothing wrong. He has committed a sexual offence .

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#74 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:01 AM

JOC, the  label paedophile is convenient for lazy hacks to use but it doesn't in itself inform the reader about what offences people have been convicted but it is conveniently sensational for the papers to include in a headline etc. Accuracy isn't what counts in newspaper headlines of course.

 

Maybe so but the argument was about whether Forrest was a paedophile or not.



#75 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:14 AM

Maybe so but the argument was about whether Forrest was a paedophile or not.

Which you think he is.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#76 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:29 AM

Which you think he is.

If paedophile is merely a catch-all term for lazy hacks then I can't see how it can be denied.



#77 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:39 AM

If paedophile is merely a catch-all term for lazy hacks then I can't see how it can be denied.

Do you always concur with what hacks say about people?

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#78 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:39 AM

Do you always concur with what hacks say about people?

I think it's safe to say that if he sued for slander / libel on the "paedophile" label then he'd lose on the simple grounds that he was convicted for a child sex offence. That's not a media invention.


Edited by Northern Sol, 25 June 2013 - 09:40 AM.


#79 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,701 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 07:52 AM

I think it's safe to say that if he sued for slander / libel on the "paedophile" label then he'd lose on the simple grounds that he was convicted for a child sex offence. That's not a media invention.

I doubt he has the moral high ground, for sure. But is he, in your opinion, a paedophile?

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#80 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,145 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:45 AM

I doubt he has the moral high ground, for sure. But is he, in your opinion, a paedophile?

Yes.

 

Maybe not as bad as Stuart Hall.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users