Jump to content

The Moral Maze - Age of Consent


Seat68

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

It doesn’t work now either. There is no perfect solution, looking for one is a futile exercise 

This is the lecture I’ve had off my other half. 

She deals with this shit day in and day out and has just given me a few ‘working examples’ of what they are currently dealing with.

But she’s absolutely strongly of the opinion that just repeating ‘18’ or ‘16’ as a blanket answer isn’t going to sort anything out and we need to at least try and work something better out. It needs a level of nuance that government is pretty much incapable of. There’s a core of men out there looking for an angle an edge and the opportunity to exploit. Perhaps what we need (and this is my thought, not hers) is something approaching the half plus seven rule but made law in some way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, villan-scott said:

I have no idea to be honest. Very rarely watch BBC and never watch BBC Breakfast. 

He left a few months back, I wouldn’t have cared but there was a bit of a fuss made about it in the media for some reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Genie said:

He left a few months back, I wouldn’t have cared but there was a bit of a fuss made about it in the media for some reason. 

Well if it was designed to give Piers Morgan an early morning embolism it failed but good plan anyway

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Perhaps what we need (and this is my thought, not hers) is something approaching the half plus seven rule but made law in some way. 

This sounds reasonable on the surface when considering it in the context of a 16/17/18 year old, but at some point veers into "nanny state" territory. I don't think it's the government's place to tell 26 year olds that they can't sleep with a 40 year old.

We do already have this kind of grey area of a sliding age of consent when it comes to, I think, statutory rape not usually being considered an offence between two people below the age of consent, so an aoc of 18, that essentially means people over 18 can't be shagging 16 year olds, doesn't seem so bad, as long as we're not criminalising a pair of 17 year olds going at it, because criminalising that is helping nobody.

Generally, I think a hard cut off at some point, be that 16/18 is ok with adequate enforcement of things like grooming laws, and an average 18 year old with capacity should be free to make an informed but unwise decision.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

This sounds reasonable on the surface when considering it in the context of a 16/17/18 year old, but at some point veers into "nanny state" territory. I don't think it's the government's place to tell 26 year olds that they can't sleep with a 40 year old.

We do already have this kind of grey area of a sliding age of consent when it comes to, I think, statutory rape not usually being considered an offence between two people below the age of consent, so an aoc of 18, that essentially means people over 18 can't be shagging 16 year olds, doesn't seem so bad, as long as we're not criminalising a pair of 17 year olds going at it, because criminalising that is helping nobody.

Generally, I think a hard cut off at some point, be that 16/18 is ok with adequate enforcement of things like grooming laws, and an average 18 year old with capacity should be free to make an informed but unwise decision.

Remembering back to when I was at school in that final year (20 years ago - I feel old!) there was a running thing when people were turning 16 at the various times in that year of "oh you're legal now" "you're not legal" "if person x **** person y they were going to jail" - even though you know no one in the country would think it was appropriate to prosecute a 16 year old for having sex with a 15 year old in the same year at school.

Could you not just go "if you're at school, you're off limits to people older than school age"

I do get the motivation to "protect" younger people - mainly girls - from creepy older blokes but at what point does it become "you can't be trusted to not get coerced into something you'll look back on and regret so we need to make this law to protect you from yourself".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how the above suggestions can work - you are one month older than your girlfriend, but a school year higher. You leave school first and can now technically get prosecuted for something that was perfectly fine the previous year?

Unfortunately I think this is one of those where no matter how the law is worded it's just always going to boil down to some kind of common sense being applied by the authorities to sort out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

I am not sure of your point here.

My point was to debunk the idea that Britain has a puritanical Christian mindset I invoked Islamic states as an example of what hangups about sex really look like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lichfield Dean said:

I can't see how the above suggestions can work - you are one month older than your girlfriend, but a school year higher. You leave school first and can now technically get prosecuted for something that was perfectly fine the previous year?

Unfortunately I think this is one of those where no matter how the law is worded it's just always going to boil down to some kind of common sense being applied by the authorities to sort out.

No I get that there's got to be some kind of common sense/nuance here when it comes to young people dating young people.

When I started working at a company in 2013 I was sent out on a site visit to a customer with a colleague to shadow them and we were passing a school in the car and he turned to me and made a remark on how attractive a young lady was - she was in a school uniform - I said something like "she's in a **** uniform, dude!" in a pisstake kind of way calling him a nonce and he said "she could be 16, it's fine". I just think when you've got a case of someone in a school uniform 16 or not it's pretty grim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, villan-scott said:

Piers Morgan would love it to be Dan Walker. He’s got some weird vendetta against him. 

Nope. It's pretty common knowledge who it is. Especially now that pic has spread like wild fire online. I just scratch my head with all the sites out there where he could have exchanged pics with someone in a pretty discreet environmen, that he'd pay £35K for pics?! I'm guessing it was to keep the lad quiet?!

Edited by stewiek2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stewiek2 said:

Nope. Its pretty common knowledge who it is. Especially now that pic has spread like wild fire online. I just scratch my head with all the sites out there that he'd pay £35K for pics?! I'm guessing it was to keep the lad quiet?!

Oh dear, just searched for the image you mentioned. Now I need a councillor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

With AI and photoshop that’s probably true for everything on the internet now. Fun times.

I saw a video of an AI presidential debate between 'Trump' and 'Biden'. Other than what they were saying to each other, and a pause every now and again when the next dialogue was loading, you can't tell the difference between real and fake. They had the voice and even mannerisms to a tee on the video. 

Was quite scary to watch really. 

Edited by villarule123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â