Underage Sex Is Not Paedophilia??

panther · 20-11-2006, 20:02

A POLICE chief sparked outrage yesterday by claiming men who bed girls as young as 13 were not all paedophiles.

Chief Constable Terry Grange laimed sleeping with kids a few years under 16 "was a grey area" - even if the man was twice their age.
Mr Grange, who speaks for UK police bosses on child protection, said: "I don't personally adhere to the 15-year-old being with a 20-year old being paedophilia - or even if the boyfriend is 30.

"It is much more of an issue for me if the child is under 13."

Sex with a child below that age is automatically deemed rape.

The officer, head of Dyfed-Powys Police, said the appropriate action depended on the case - even when child pornography was involved.

He added: "You look at the circumstances. It may be nothing, it may be formal warnings, it may be prosecution."

But his remarks drew furious condemnation from kids' charities.

Kidscape, which fights child sex abuse, called him "irresponsible".

It said: "A paedophile is a person sexually attracted to children.

In this country we class this as children under 16."

NCH, formerly National Children's Homes, claimed sex fiends could use his comments to justify their actions.

A spokesman said: "Any proposal by a serving child protection officer to define child pornography as that which only involves children 12 and under is unhelpful and irresponsible.

"Denial by sexual offenders is often the result of their twisted, distorted and biased thinking."

And the NSPCC added: "It is right that it is an offence to have sex with a child under 16."

Mr Grange later claimed he had meant sex between two teenagers.

He said: "If you prosecute every time a boy has sex with a girl under 16 and above 12, we'd be in schools and youth clubs regularly.

"But If the fellow is in his 20s, 30s or 40s, I believe you should prosecute them ruthlessly."

IS HE RIGHT?

Sparkologist · 20-11-2006, 20:07

When you read the last two lines of that statement, then yes, i agree with him.

panther · 20-11-2006, 20:13

believe me if a 18/19 year old lad touched my 13 yr old he wont need to be prosecuted! he will have two bloody house bricks to contend with!

Tinkerbelle · 20-11-2006, 20:15

Silly, silly comment to make.

No way is sex ok for a 13 year old, regardless of her sexual partners age and whether they think they are in love. The only thing he has done is condone under-age sex. It's wrong, they have all the time in the world 16 and onwards to have an intimate relationship, he should be encouraging kids to seize the right to be children and hold onto it for as many years as they can.

The only grey area in my eyes as far as under-age sex is the one that our law already recognises. If someone is 15 when they are having sex but will turn 16 before any case will appear before the courts, what is the point? It will just be an expensive court case that would end up being thrown out of court.

Gayle · 20-11-2006, 20:17

I can understand why he said it's a grey area - for instance if it was a 17 year old boy and a 15 year old, you can probably bet that it was the 15 year old girl that did all the running.

Ianto.W. · 20-11-2006, 20:22

If it happened to you, if your granddaughter or daughter was made 'pregnant'at the early age of 14, would you like it, no you would be the first to cry 'statutary rape', and rightly so, bring these cretins to book never mind 'she loves him' IT IS RAPE, in the eyes of the law.

Gayle · 20-11-2006, 20:27

I don't know Ianto - when I was at school a girl got pregnant at 14 and I'm pretty sure she was a willing partner.

I agree if the man had been a man but it wasn't it was a boy of a similar age to her.

steeljack · 20-11-2006, 20:31

I think this Police Chief is way off the mark on this , the Law says 16 is the "age of consent " (its also the minimum age at which one can get married), and the Police should follow and enforce the law , otherwise if you lower the age you are opening the door to allowing child-brides.
At the same time I acknowledge that youngsters are going to experiment and 'mess-around' , (I think lots of us know of someone who had to leave school early and getting wed at 16 but it was usually to a lad a couple of years older) it would be a more sensible approach to maybe allow a 3 year window, e.g. a 17yr old lad wouldn't be jailed for rape if his girlfriend was 14 yrs , (just handed over to her dad and brothers) but in my mind there is no reason for anyone 18 or over having a 14 yr old girlfriend , that is just child molestation .

Sparkologist · 20-11-2006, 20:32

In addition to my previous post...

As I understand it, paedophillia is about predatory sex by men abusing children. It is what we do with these b@stards when they are brought before the judicial system that bothers me.
The pinko, mard-arsed, bleeding-heart liberal, human rights brigade seem to favour the perpetrators of the crime over the victims of the crime. Brand 'em with a letter P on their forehead, then throw 'em into general circulation in the prison system. No molly-coddling or Section 43 for these scrotes!

Footnote. I had to add this as an addendum because we have had the edit facility seriously curtailed. It is now only possible to edit a post within a 10 minute timescale. I blame ** ***** abuse of the system for having this restriction foisted upon us!

Ianto.W. · 20-11-2006, 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

I don't know Ianto - when I was at school a girl got pregnant at 14 and I'm pretty sure she was a willing partner.

I agree if the man had been a man but it wasn't it was a boy of a similar age to her.

I must admit I am biassed it realy hurts when it is 'your' problem. enough said thanks ITW.

Mancie · 20-11-2006, 20:43

It's not really a grey area.. the law is that to have sex with someone under the age of 16 is illegal.. but I think its common sense tells that a 17yr old having consenting sex with a 15yr girl old is not the same as a grown man preying on kids. So should the 17yr old still be placed on the sex offenders list?

Tinkerbelle · 20-11-2006, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

So should the 17yr old still be placed on the sex offenders list?

No .... and you will find the law already recognises this.

Gayle · 20-11-2006, 20:53

Actually, yes, I don't know why I'm doing the liberal and understanding stuff on this thread - you're right, paedophiles should be locked away for a very long time. I don't know why I do it but I always have to see both sides of the argument.

Tinkerbelle · 20-11-2006, 20:59

It's not a bad thing Gayle. I'm exactly the same. I have strong opinions on some things that I won't be swayed on, but most thinks I like to believe I can see both sides of the argument.

For instance Mancie put the example up of a 15 year old girl with a 17 year old lad. I'll be surprised if anyone thinks that's wrong. Now let's go up in stages 15 year old with a 20 year old? Hmmm not an ideal situation. 15 year old with a 25 year old? 15 with a 30 year old and so and so on .... Where is the line drawn?

Ianto.W. · 20-11-2006, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

It's not a bad thing Gayle. I'm exactly the same. I have strong opinions on some things that I won't be swayed on, but most thinks I like to believe I can see both sides of the argument.

For instance Mancie put the example up of a 15 year old girl with a 17 year old lad. I'll be surprised if anyone thinks that's wrong. Now let's go up in stages 15 year old with a 20 year old? Hmmm not an ideal situation. 15 year old with a 25 year old? 15 with a 30 year old and so and so on .... Where is the line drawn?

There is no line to be drawn law is law, it is not 'bent' for anyone, or is it?