Pregnant at 15. Mum 'Delighted'...
Discussion
mgmrw said:
unrepentant said:
Boyfriend prosecuted for statuatory rape, baby taken immediately into care and put up for adoption, ugly old slapper prosecuted for child neglect / pimping, council house removed from them as they are law breakers (isn't that the new rule), job done.
contender for best post of the day/week/month/year IMHO
mph1977 said:
ChiChoAndy said:
So you think sexy starts at 13? Interesting...
if taking the biological 'if there's grass on t'wicket let's play cricket' approach ...paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children
theage of consent and age for marriage are arbitrary legalcontructions as can be seen by the variation in these ages across the civilised world ...
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm
unrepentant said:
Boyfriend prosecuted for statuatory rape, baby taken immediately into care and put up for adoption, ugly old slapper prosecuted for child neglect / pimping, council house removed from them as they are law breakers (isn't that the new rule), job done.
Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "statuatory rape" in the UK. It's unlikely that a 17 year-old boy would be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year-old girl, although 40 year-old man would be.vixen1700 said:
"Once the new baby comes the council will have to find us a place with four or five bedrooms"
FFS, when are we going to get an end to this 'hand-out' attitutude?
IMO, people need to realise that this is an article in The Sun, which essentially sells sensationalism, not news.FFS, when are we going to get an end to this 'hand-out' attitutude?
I wouldn't be surprised if she said no such thing, after all, what is the mum's motivation for co-operating with the article? Of course she's probably not the brightest spark, but I doubt she'd go ahead with an article knowing that it will be subtitled "How not to raise a daughter".
The BBC's recent documentary series See You In Court was an eye-opener; it seems that several papers will publish claims and quotes, the validity of which they aren't prepared to defend in court.
JonRB said:
Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "statuatory rape" in the UK. It's unlikely that a 17 year-old boy would be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year-old girl, although 40 year-old man would be.
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between 40 y-o and 17 y-o in this instance. It is a case of having sex with a minor.rolando said:
JonRB said:
Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "statuatory rape" in the UK. It's unlikely that a 17 year-old boy would be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year-old girl, although 40 year-old man would be.
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between 40 y-o and 17 y-o in this instance. It is a case of having sex with a minor.
youngsyr said:
vixen1700 said:
"Once the new baby comes the council will have to find us a place with four or five bedrooms"
FFS, when are we going to get an end to this 'hand-out' attitutude?
IMO, people need to realise that this is an article in The Sun, which essentially sells sensationalism, not news.FFS, when are we going to get an end to this 'hand-out' attitutude?
I wouldn't be surprised if she said no such thing, after all, what is the mum's motivation for co-operating with the article? Of course she's probably not the brightest spark, but I doubt she'd go ahead with an article knowing that it will be subtitled "How not to raise a daughter".
The BBC's recent documentary series See You In Court was an eye-opener; it seems that several papers will publish claims and quotes, the validity of which they aren't prepared to defend in court.
youngsyr said:
The 17 year old is also a minor though?
Unless things have changed since I did A Level law (probably 6years ago) the age of consent for males and females was different. (14 for males, 16 for females IIRC) BUT that said, no court is likely to make charges of "rape" for a 17year old on a 15year old that were in a relationship, stick and go to trial.I now expect to be thoroughly flamed for my opinion and shonky memory
mgmrw said:
Unless things have changed since I did A Level law (probably 6years ago) the age of consent for males and females was different. (14 for males, 16 for females IIRC) BUT that said, no court is likely to make charges of "rape" for a 17year old on a 15year old that were in a relationship, stick and go to trial.
I now expect to be thoroughly flamed for my opinion and shonky memory
No, you're quite correct. I now expect to be thoroughly flamed for my opinion and shonky memory
See the guidance notes for the Sexual Offences Act 2003 at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences...
notes said:
Prosecutors should have regard to the following factors:
* The relevant ages of the parties, i.e. the same or no significant disparity in age;
* Whether the complainant entered into sexual activity willingly, i.e. did the complainant understand the nature of his or her actions and that (s)he was able to communicate his or her willingness freely;
* Parity between the parties in regard to sexual, physical, emotional and educational development;
* The relationship between the parties, its nature and duration and whether this represents a genuine transitory phase of adolescent development;
In addition, it is not in the public interest to prosecute children who are of the same or similar age and understanding that engage in sexual activity, where the activity is truly consensual for both parties and there are no aggravating features, such as coercion or corruption. In such cases, protection will normally be best achieved by providing education for the children and young people and providing them and their families with access to advisory and counselling services. This is the intention of Parliament.
* The relevant ages of the parties, i.e. the same or no significant disparity in age;
* Whether the complainant entered into sexual activity willingly, i.e. did the complainant understand the nature of his or her actions and that (s)he was able to communicate his or her willingness freely;
* Parity between the parties in regard to sexual, physical, emotional and educational development;
* The relationship between the parties, its nature and duration and whether this represents a genuine transitory phase of adolescent development;
In addition, it is not in the public interest to prosecute children who are of the same or similar age and understanding that engage in sexual activity, where the activity is truly consensual for both parties and there are no aggravating features, such as coercion or corruption. In such cases, protection will normally be best achieved by providing education for the children and young people and providing them and their families with access to advisory and counselling services. This is the intention of Parliament.
Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 16th August 13:22
rolando said:
JonRB said:
Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "statuatory rape" in the UK. It's unlikely that a 17 year-old boy would be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year-old girl, although 40 year-old man would be.
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between 40 y-o and 17 y-o in this instance. It is a case of having sex with a minor.JonRB said:
mgmrw said:
Unless things have changed since I did A Level law (probably 6years ago) the age of consent for males and females was different. (14 for males, 16 for females IIRC) BUT that said, no court is likely to make charges of "rape" for a 17year old on a 15year old that were in a relationship, stick and go to trial.
I now expect to be thoroughly flamed for my opinion and shonky memory
No, you're quite correct. I now expect to be thoroughly flamed for my opinion and shonky memory
See the guidance notes for the Sexual Offences Act 2003 at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences...
notes said:
Prosecutors should have regard to the following factors:
* The relevant ages of the parties, i.e. the same or no significant disparity in age;
* Whether the complainant entered into sexual activity willingly, i.e. did the complainant understand the nature of his or her actions and that (s)he was able to communicate his or her willingness freely;
* Parity between the parties in regard to sexual, physical, emotional and educational development;
* The relationship between the parties, its nature and duration and whether this represents a genuine transitory phase of adolescent development;
In addition, it is not in the public interest to prosecute children who are of the same or similar age and understanding that engage in sexual activity, where the activity is truly consensual for both parties and there are no aggravating features, such as coercion or corruption. In such cases, protection will normally be best achieved by providing education for the children and young people and providing them and their families with access to advisory and counselling services. This is the intention of Parliament.
* The relevant ages of the parties, i.e. the same or no significant disparity in age;
* Whether the complainant entered into sexual activity willingly, i.e. did the complainant understand the nature of his or her actions and that (s)he was able to communicate his or her willingness freely;
* Parity between the parties in regard to sexual, physical, emotional and educational development;
* The relationship between the parties, its nature and duration and whether this represents a genuine transitory phase of adolescent development;
In addition, it is not in the public interest to prosecute children who are of the same or similar age and understanding that engage in sexual activity, where the activity is truly consensual for both parties and there are no aggravating features, such as coercion or corruption. In such cases, protection will normally be best achieved by providing education for the children and young people and providing them and their families with access to advisory and counselling services. This is the intention of Parliament.
Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 16th August 13:22
Way I remember it from Law was that the CPS would view it as a case of If/When to proceed with prosecutions, i.e.
case a) 15 year old girl goes out, gets a 1night stand with a 20year old lad. Chances are, he's going to face some form of court case
case b) 15 year old lass, 16 year old lad. Been "together" for 12months, parents met all parties and approve. It ends. She says: "he slept with me" and he won't face a rape case.
That said I will always remember one case where a guy of 21/22year old, met a lass in a night-club at 2am. They had a 1nighter.
2 days later police at his door, charged with RAPE, she was 14.
His lawyers argued that on that night she'd been in 4 or 5 OVER 18s bars, shown some form of fake ID, so how could the guy be expected to know she was 14.
IIRC he got away with it, BUT his reputation was ruined, and he got no compensation for his traumatic experiences (loss of earnings, stress, etc)
rolando said:
JonRB said:
Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "statuatory rape" in the UK. It's unlikely that a 17 year-old boy would be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year-old girl, although 40 year-old man would be.
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between 40 y-o and 17 y-o in this instance. It is a case of having sex with a minor.am I safe to join this thread again?
rolando said:
JonRB said:
Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "statuatory rape" in the UK. It's unlikely that a 17 year-old boy would be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year-old girl, although 40 year-old man would be.
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between 40 y-o and 17 y-o in this instance. It is a case of having sex with a minor.Tiggsy said:
rolando said:
JonRB said:
Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "statuatory rape" in the UK. It's unlikely that a 17 year-old boy would be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year-old girl, although 40 year-old man would be.
I'm sorry, I don't see the difference between 40 y-o and 17 y-o in this instance. It is a case of having sex with a minor.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff