You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Chances of anyone stepping forward to testify, and having their name and life plastered all over the daily mail i reckon is pretty slim.
Scotland has something akin to your sliding scale – it’s a defence to statutory rape if you are <24 and had a genuine belief that the “victim” was 16 or over, as long as they are over 13 (from memory, details may be a little out).
There was a defence to the previous Scottish legislation around underage sex which took account of the suspects age. It wasn’t a defence to rape. That legislation has all been superseded by the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 anyway.
Sex with an ‘older child’ (13/14/15 years of age) is illegal, but not automatically rape. In simple terms, if it is consensual, it isn’t rape but it is USI, however if it’s non-consensual, it is rape.
Sex with a younger child (12 or less) is rape, because the law says they cannot consent. End of story.
Technically, the “age of consent” is 13, as only someone under that age can never consent (in legal terms). A 13/14/15 year old can consent, so it is not automatically rape, but it is still against the law. So while the term “age of consent” is generally used to indicate the age at which it is not an offence to have consensual sex, it’s actually a bit incorrect.
But the underlying principle remains. Don’t have sex with children.
Anyone near Green Park opposite Buck Pal with some plant killer (or anything else that will kill the grass) to hand?
Fancy a late night stroll whilst emptying the contents to spell out in big letters "NONCE PRINCE" or something similar?
Could always add "**** OFF BORIS" is there is space.
I’m guessing you haven’t read the thread Cougar. The allegations cover being forced to have sex after being trafficked to multiple territories, where different laws apply. The UK age of consent isn’t the key issue at all.
I said exactly this a few posts previous, didn't I? Far as I knew, the whole thing revolves around her being moved between US states which have different laws.
The BBC link is interesting. According to that she's accusing him of three counts of sexual abuse when she was 17. The trafficking was Epstein, not Andrew.
Yes. You may think you’re playing Devil’s Advocate but you’re just coming across to me as a bit of a tool.
Yet for all your assuredness, you (nor no-one else) seemingly still can't tell me which law you're referring to or otherwise evidence what you're claiming is fact.
Again: screaming "nonce" because someone allegedly slept with a 17-year old isn't helpful. A 17-year old could - legally in the UK - be a wife and a mother (or of course, husband and father). Personally I find that a bit uncomfortable, and I've long thought that it's weird that you can lawfully have sex at 16 but can't watch someone else doing it for another two years, but here we are.
I read up really briefly on the 'abuse of power' thing we touched on yesterday and it seems I was right about it being tightly defined, to a point where the NSPCC are campaigning to have this revised because the law isn't good enough. Ie, the way it reads to me is that Andrew should legally be considered to be in a position of power / authority but "prince" currently isn't on the list so he isn't.
It's all a bit of a minefield.
The trafficking was Epstein, not Andrew.
Doesn’t matter. He’s not being sued for trafficking her. He’s being sued for sexually assaulting/abusing her on the basis that, having been trafficked, she didn’t consent. If it can be shown that he knew or suspected that he’s culpable.
Yet for all your assuredness, you (nor no-one else) seemingly still can’t tell me which law you’re referring to or otherwise evidence what you’re claiming is fact.
I've really no idea what you're on about. You were making unevidenced claims about the age of children on the basis of biology, which is not relevant to this case. It's been pointed out in this thread more than once that people under 18 are considered, in UK law, to be children. If you won't accept that, it would seem to be more about your refusal to back down than anything else. You're free to do so of course.
Again: screaming “nonce” because someone allegedly slept with a 17-year old isn’t helpful
Take it up with whomever is doing that, then. Perhaps you could list the acceptable adjectives to describe a powerful, middle aged man sleeping with a child who was trafficked for the purpose. Because that's what this case is starting to look like.
You were making unevidenced claims about the age of children on the basis of biology
No, I'm making well evidenced claims about the definition of the word "child" on the basis of biology and I cited several sources for that evidence which you're free to go and read.
which is not relevant to this case. It’s been pointed out in this thread more than once that people under 18 are considered, in UK law, to be children.
It has. Yet (again) no-one has been able to say which law this, or given any indication as to where this may be legally defined beyond "it just is, are you daft?"
Also, on a point of pedantry there is no such thing as "UK law."
Take it up with whomever is doing that, then.
I was, until you waded in to call me names. Most recently, Alpin's post three previous to yours.
Perhaps you could list the acceptable adjectives to describe a powerful, middle aged man sleeping with a child who was trafficked for the purpose. Because that’s what this case is starting to look like.
I'm sure you can come up with plenty without my help. But again this is disingenuous: "a child who was trafficked" in isolation sounds like he was stealing 11-year olds from third-world countries when in fact a 17-year old woman was taken across a US state border (by someone else) and as above the charges levelled against him by the victim are sexual abuse not child trafficking. What form that alleged abuse took, I don't know. Do you?
This is the point I'm getting at, just stick to the facts as we know them. Using (presumably) deliberately emotive language is the work of tabloid headlines and we're better than that. From the sounds of things it's wholly unnecessary anyway as he's been sufficient a shitbag to hang himself.
which is not relevant to this case. It’s been pointed out in this thread more than once that people under 18 are considered, in UK law, to be children.
It has. Yet (again) no-one has been able to say which law this, or given any indication as to where this may be legally defined beyond “it just is, are you daft?”
From
It's not primary legislation but is authoritive enough to be distributed to inform MPs for considering relevant legislation.
1 Definition of a child
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK government in 1991, states that a child:
means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law
applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
1 The Children Act 1989, which makes provision for a number of orders relating to the welfare of children, defines a child as follows:
“child” means,(subject to paragraph 16 of section 1), a person under the age of 18.2
Not relevant to the Andrew case but this definition of "child" gives rise to some probably unintended consequences. Two 17 year olds can legally have consensual sex, but if they send each other nudes they're guilty of an offence and can potentially end up on a sex offenders register.
Age of consent does not equal the age you are legally an adult.
Yes we are at a 17 year old but in order to get her coerced into servicing these men would have started before that and a "weakness" noticed and worked on by adults.
It does seem that people knew that these young girls/women were there and probably not of there own free will.
But this is what makes it such a difficult situation. The "women" are perhaps willing to have sex in order to not lose a bit of stability and niceness in their lives. If you, as a teen, live on the street then being offered a nice warm room and meet princes what would you give up. And not on day one but groomed into it.
. But again this is disingenuous: “a child who was trafficked” in isolation sounds like he was stealing 11-year olds from third-world countries when in fact a 17-year old woman was taken across a US state border (by someone else) and as above the charges levelled against him by the victim are sexual abuse not child trafficking. What form that alleged abuse took, I don’t know. Do you?
You're doing it again. A 17 year old is not a woman, however inconvenient that may be to your argument. Try taking your own advice and stick to the facts.
As for how it sounds, that's your interpretation: others are available.
What form that alleged abuse took, I don’t know. Do you?
Having sex with her, she’s been quite clear on that. After she’d been trafficked, so without true consent. It’s fairly straightforward.
It’s been pointed out in this thread more than once that people under 18 are considered, in UK law, to be children
Here are a couple of examples of how the law uses the word "child". It uses it loosely.
16Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child
[F1(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)A is in a position of trust in relation to B,
(d)where subsection (2) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and
(e)either—
(i)B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
(2)This subsection applies where A—
(a)is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 21(2), (3), (4) or (5), and
(b)is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances.
...
and
9Sexual activity with a child
(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
...
Child is not a defined term, note how the actual offences talk about "another person" and give an actual age requirement, the word "child" only appears in the heading. You can conclude that a 17 year old is properly referred to as a child from this, but you cannot conclude that an 18 or 19 year old isn't also a child. I might add that for the purposes of inheritance, you are a child (of your parents) for the whole of your life.
So, as always, meaning is dependent on context.
Edited to get the numbers right
It’s not primary legislation but is authoritive enough to be distributed to inform MPs for considering relevant legislation.
Now we're getting somewhere. The link there suggests The Children Act 1989 with a disclaimer regarding paragraph 16 of section one. I looked at this legislation and couldn't find this definition, and section 1 only has 7 numbered paragraphs. But, OK, whatever, we'll roll with it, I don't understand legislation language sufficiently to argue.
Biologically a "child" is defined as a prepubescent. For the purposes of most child protection laws in English Law however, this is apparently extended to cover all under-18s. Both of these scenarios make sense; legalese deals in absolutes like road speed limits, but you don't suddenly get hit with magic Maturity Fairy Dust on your 18th birthday. Someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is likely to be no more mature in two days' time.
You’re doing it again. A 17 year old is not a woman, however inconvenient that may be to your argument. Try taking your own advice and stick to the facts.
I'm not sure what "it" is here but I deliberately chose those words to prove a point - that it is easy to be potentially misleading. Shall we go with "17-year old female" instead of "child" or "woman" then? Or perhaps, "adolescent"?
If a 17-year old female (or male) is not to be considered a woman (or man) then what you're suggesting is that in the UK it's perfectly legal for children to marry and reproduce. Is that not concerning? Or icky?
What form that alleged abuse took, I don’t know. Do you?
Having sex with her, she’s been quite clear on that. After she’d been trafficked, so without true consent. It’s fairly straightforward.
The article linked above claims three counts of sexual abuse.
"Ms Giuffre says in the court documents that she was forced into sex by explicit or implicit threats and because she feared the powerful connections, wealth and authority of Epstein, Ms Maxwell and Prince Andrew.
She says the duke knew her age and that she was a sex-trafficking victim."
The issue is seemingly force and coercion, not directly her age. Did I read somewhere as well that he'd knocked her about, of have I made that up? She could legitimately be making the same claims against him (aside than trafficking which, again, was Epstein) if she were 30.
Having sex with someone against their will is wholly illegal. In US law, dragging people across state borders to dodge local consent limits is wholly illegal. From the sounds of things it sounds like he was if not complicit then (excuse me) balls deep in the whole affair and needs to go to jail for a long time. But that doesn't make him a paedo.
And the reason I'm banging this drum is because if we start conflating paedophilia with shagging a 17-year old then we risk diluting the impact of that word. If people start to hear news reports about someone being arrested for kiddie fiddling and the listener has been conditioned into concluding "well, she was probably 17" rather than "well she was probably 6" then we're potentially entering into very dangerous territory.
If he's a nonce, call him a nonce. If he isn't then don't, because that helps excuse actual nonces.
Sorry - I haven't really been paying attention to this at all, and I've only read the last couple of pages.
From what I understand, Maxwell's guilty verdicts (re: trafficking) mentioned Virginia Giuffre several times - but her's wasn't one of the cases that she's specifically been found guilty of. So aren't there three points to prove here?
a) Virginia Giuffre was trafficked
b) Prince Andrew knew Virginia Giuffre was trafficked
c) Prince Andrew had sex with Virginia Giuffre
Anything less than proving all three things is going to get Andrew off the hook, isn't it? Genuine question - not trying to start an argument.
I suppose if A, and B are proven..... even if they can't prove C, Andrew could be done on the basis of B - that he was complicit in trafficking.
From that, I see B as being Andrew's chief defense - that he did have sex with her, but he didn't know that she was trafficked. He could just claim that he thought she was a member of his staff/entourage, and that he made a (arguably) reasonable assumption that she was above the legal age of consent.
What I'd really like to know here is: what's the bigger picture?
Epstein hosted parties with all kinds of rich/powerful people - at which there were often young girls (who had been trafficked) who were then abused by the guests.
But is that (horrendous as it is) the limit of it? Were Epstein/Maxwell just glorified pimps - hosting sex-parties? So did people pay to be at these events? Or was there some other quid-pro-quo? What was the benefit in this endeavor for Epstein/Maxwell?
And what was in it for Andrew? Was he just there to have sex with young women? Or did he have another role in this whole awful thing?
It's annoying - there seems to be so much here just under the surface. I don't want to go full "jive" here, but this all feels like a bit of a sideshow
@thegreatape thanks for the update - 20 years since I studied criminal law. Seems to me that what I said WAS a defence to statutory rape tho.
I’ll see if I can find it when I’m in later. I take the term ‘statutory rape’ to mean that, regardless of the willingness of the victim, they cannot in law consent on account of their age. I’m pretty sure the defence wasn’t available in that situation. But I’d need to check to be 100% - if the old law did not have the distinction between older child and younger child like the current legislation does then ‘statutory rape’ would have a different context.
@cycnic-al
I misread your original post, apologies - we are in agreement!
What I’d really like to know here is: what’s the bigger picture?
Epstein hosted parties with all kinds of rich/powerful people – at which there were often young girls (who had been trafficked) who were then abused by the guests.
But is that (horrendous as it is) the limit of it? Were Epstein/Maxwell just glorified pimps – hosting sex-parties? So did people pay to be at these events? Or was there some other quid-pro-quo? What was the benefit in this endeavor for Epstein/Maxwell?
This is the thing that's conveniently being overlooked by all the (entirely justified!) anti-Andrew focus. There's a lot of rich and/or powerful and/or high profile people linked to Epstein and his parties. Were they just networking events? Were they honey traps? Who paid or gave what to who to gain access or to keep their presence quiet? Were people blackmailed?
Fwiw, Cougar is trying to make a valid point. Paedophilia is a specific "thing" which is not always the same as under age sex. Using terms like nonce may not be appropriate in discussing cases around this as it conflates the two. And if you take a step back and look at it objectively, as Cougar has tried to, there are clear contradictions in our laws regarding age of consent, age of majority, and requirements to be in education, plus others.
So aren’t there three points to prove here?
Given this is a civil case, and like in the UK, the trial proceeds on a lesser burden of proof. Probabilities rather than certainties. So not necessarily did he know, but would it be reasonable that he could have known, or should have made himself aware.
So not necessarily did he know, but would it be reasonable that he could have known, or should have made himself aware.
I doubt it, that sort of thing would be how it would go in a negligence claim. Assuming US law is similar to UK law in this respect, "reasonableness" is not part of the test for a "deliberate tort" such as assault. The question will be is it more likely than not that he knew? Of course, considerations of what it would be reasonable for a person to have done in such circumstances are relevant to his credibility.
ETA the text of Guiffre's court document is here, if all she needed to show was that it was reasonable for him to have known, that would be alleged, it isn't.
If he’s a nonce, call him a nonce.
She says the duke knew her age and that she was a sex-trafficking victim.”
Yep, that’s a nonce, abusing a seventeen year old trafficked female gets you over the nonce line.
Paedophilia is a specific “thing” which is not always the same as under age sex.
It’s a sexual interest in prepubescent children so it’s pretty close to under age sex. Next is hebephilia, pubescent, and had to look this one up next is Ephebophilia. These various, little used, terms are why it’s much better to just refer to men with dodgy sexual interests as nonces - keeps it simple. IANAL
It’s a sexual interest in prepubescent children so it’s pretty close to under age sex.
Paedophilia in the sense described here is not something people have control over, it appears to be something people are born with. Unfortunately for those so afflicted, the word, in common usage, has come to mean people who have sex with children.
are relevant to his credibility.
Better put that me.
aren’t there three points to prove here?
a) Virginia Giuffre was trafficked
b) Prince Andrew knew Virginia Giuffre was trafficked
c) Prince Andrew had sex with Virginia Giuffre
We're speculating of course, but it doesn't look good.
I don't think a) is in doubt. She was moved across a border by Epstein, I don't think anyone is denying this are they? (Aside from anything else, even if it's untrue dead men make useful scapegoats so why not?)
b) Is trickier. I want to say that he was aware simply because of scale, if she was a one-off then claiming ignorance would have been more plausible. As it is it's surely highly unlikely that he was unaware of Epstein's practises. Plus, for all that she claims to have been scared of Epstein et al, wouldn't she have said something to Andy at some point? If the royal member was genuinely oblivious I can only conclude that she was a willing participant. Proving that either way is going to be hard, we're presumably going to need corroborating witnesses.
c) Total pants-on-fire here. Claiming not to remember a girl that he's photographed with his arm around is at best highly unlikely. If he had sex with her - three times - and genuinely doesn't remember her then, well, that might not be illegal but it certainly gives us a measure of the man. The only other explanation I can see here is if he was absolutely ripped off his tits. Which isn't implausible.
What worries me about all this is actually pinning the blame on the donkey. He's innocent of a) if we're convinced that Epstein did it. He's innocent of b) if he pleads ignorance, she was "just visiting from California". He's innocent of c) because people have sex all the time and if it was illegal to sleep with an under-18 it would've rendered b) pointless.
What was the benefit in this endeavor for Epstein/Maxwell?
And what was in it for Andrew?
In both cases, "they could"?
I suspect Epstein's motivations were fairly clear and not a world apart from Savile, Harris, Hall et al. They had money and privilege combined with questionable sexual proclivities, it's never a great combination. Why do rich people throw parties? To show off how rich and powerful they are.
Why do people throw parties at all? Why do people attend parties? To spend time with like-minded individuals.
To spend time with like-minded individuals.
Is this not the biggest red flag of them all? Even if we (ho ho) believe everything Andrew claims, he went back to see his buddy Epstein after all the news broke publicly. Maybe it's just me, but the only way I'd have done that is if I'd taken a cricket bat with me.
abusing a seventeen year old trafficked female gets you over the nonce line.
Paedophilia is a specific “thing” which is not always the same as under age sex.
...
It’s a sexual interest in prepubescent children
Well, which is it then? 17 (ironically) pages in, we're now potentially arguing about a legal definition of "nonce"?
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here please, but I was labouring under the supposition that nonce was slang for paedophile, rather than a generic term for a sex pest?
I mean, correct me if I’m wrong here please, but I was labouring under the supposition that nonce was slang for paedophile, rather than a generic term for a sex pest?
Seems to be the point at issue. I'm with you on the understanding, and as MrsMC has spent 25 years at the nasty pointy end of child protection and we both volunteer with youth organisations, if the term has changed I'd like to know because it's a very emotive term and I don't it to be used to stir up any hard of thinking pitchfork welding mobs in the wider community
Based on my experience, sex with trafficked minors would cross the nonce threshold. (that sounds a bit weird!!. I have never trafficked anyone!)
A pedo (in its looser pitchforks meaning) can be a nonce but a nonce isn’t always a pedo.
I don’t recall either of the terms in SOA 2003 so I don’t think there’s a legal criteria 😉
I want to say that he was aware simply because of scale
Isn't there a witness statement from another guest saying that he saw Andrew getting a foot massage from another girl? A young Russain this time I think, so there's other times, fo'shure.
I always thought it’s meaning in this context came from Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise being added to their notes/file in prison, to stop them getting a shoeing from the general prison population. If that’s true, then logically a nonce would be anyone on the protected wing or whatever it’s called. So not defined by the age of the victim.
Could be an urban myth or total bollocks though! Esselgruntfuttock might know.
I always thought it’s meaning in this context came from Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise being added to their notes/file in prison, to stop them getting a shoeing from the general prison population. If that’s true, then logically a nonce would be anyone on the protected wing or whatever it’s called. So not defined by the age of the victim.
Could be an urban myth or total bollocks though! Esselgruntfuttock might know.
That would make sense! So as you say, a nonce may not be a paedophile, or even in for a sex offence (assuming any former police officers go on the protected wing regardless of offence)
I always thought it’s meaning in this context came from Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise
Could be, but that sounds to me a lot like "posh" (port out, starboard home) and many, many other backronyms.
In any case, I've never heard it to mean anything other than a child molester and that's certainly the implication.
'The acronym N.O.N.C.E. comes from HMP Wakefield at the turn of the century and was marked on the cell card of any prisoner who may have been in danger of violence from other prisoners – it means 'Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise'. So that staff would not open their doors when other prisoners were out.' (Wiki)
if the term has changed I’d like to know because it’s a very emotive term and I don’t it to be used to stir up any hard of thinking pitchfork welding mobs in the wider community
Bearing in mind that the wider community has been known for attacking people whom they've discovered were pediatricians, that's probably wise.
Could be, but that sounds to me a lot like “posh” (port out, starboard home) and many, many other backronyms.
That's not a backronym.
That comes from the P&O liners running to India, before air conditioning was common place.
The portside cabins were cooler on the way out and stbd cooler on the way back to the UK. You paid more for them.
‘The acronym N.O.N.C.E. comes from HMP Wakefield at the turn of the century and was marked on the cell card of any prisoner who may have been in danger of violence from other prisoners – it means ‘Not On Normal Courtyard Exercise’. So that staff would not open their doors when other prisoners were out.’ (Wiki)
Really?
That comes from the P&O liners running to India, before air conditioning was common place.
No it doesn't.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonce
1975. Unknown, derived from British criminal slang. Several origins have been proposed; possibly derived from dialectal nonce, nonse (“stupid, worthless individual”) (but this cannot be shown to predate nonce "child-molester" and is likely a toned-down usage of the same insult), or Nance, nance (“effeminate man, homosexual”), from nancy or nancyboy. The rhyme with ponce has also been noted.
As prison slang also said to be an acronym for "Not On Normal Communal Exercise" (Stevens 2012), but this is likely a backronym.
I feel a bit sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie.
Imagine if your dad was outed like theirs has been and it was all over the front pages of the newspapers for months! I wonder if they're still talking to him. Virginia Giuffre is only 5 years older than Beatrice.
follow the money
https://twitter.com/_whitneywebb/status/1316022556416077825
Odd there's been so little mention of the hidden cameras...
I’m not sure what “it” is here but I deliberately chose those words to prove a point – that it is easy to be potentially misleading. Shall we go with “17-year old female” instead of “child” or “woman” then? Or perhaps, “adolescent”?
Ah, so you asked me to "stick to the facts" but are being deliberately misleading yourself. Great.
If a 17-year old female (or male) is not to be considered a woman (or man) then what you’re suggesting is that in the UK it’s perfectly legal for children to marry and reproduce. Is that not concerning? Or icky?
No, it doesn't concern me.
That comes from the P&O liners running to India, before air conditioning was common place The portside cabins were cooler on the way out and stbd cooler on the way back to the UK. You paid more for them.
I've heard this as well, but there's no evidence for it
follow the money
How does Cilla Black fit into this little flight of fancy?
That comes from the P&O liners running to India, before air conditioning was common place The portside cabins were cooler on the way out and stbd cooler on the way back to the UK. You paid more for them.
I’ve heard this as well, but there’s no evidence for it
Sounds like utter crap, the temperature would even out regardless.
Chitty chitty bang bang has a lot to answer for.
Sounds like utter crap, the temperature would even out regardless.
Not if you're heading east/west above the equator in a ship painted black it wouldn't.
POSH Not air-con/temperature related but the side the sun would predominately shine on. Ladies should never be brown!
Racist.
Ah, so you asked me to “stick to the facts” but are being deliberately misleading yourself. Great.
As I said, to prove a point. Seems to have been effective, n'est-ce pas?
No, it doesn’t concern me.
You aren't concerned about marrying off children? OK.
This is another reason why pulling definitions out of the air and presenting them as immutable fact can be problematic (and why I wanted people to think rather than react). The trafficking charge here comes about because in one US state the age of sexual consent was set at 18, another state was 16. In the UK it used to be 12 I believe (someone else said this earlier?) and in some parts of the world it still is. What's the difference? Are we suggesting that people in New York mature earlier than people in Florida? Do they just have lower standards?
Posh - port out starboard home.
Definitions from Oxford Languages
posh
Origin
early 20th century: perhaps from slang posh, denoting either a dandy or a coin of small value. There is no evidence to support the folk etymology that posh is formed from the initials of port out starboard home (referring to the more comfortable accommodation, out of the heat of the sun, on ships between England and India)
I'll bet those posh folk ate marmalade and saluted the union jack.
Jolly good job too; a country with such a rich history of chivalry!
Arise sir Tony!
Surely it's about time the Right Honourable Lord Mandelson got bumped up the honours list...
What’s the difference? Are we suggesting that people in New York mature earlier than people in Florida? Do they just have lower standards?
Possibly a poor example, but in "Western countries" children/adolescents have more time to mature, and have more protection from parents.
In less well developed countries, children need to "mature" a lot faster as they have to support themselves (inc working at a younger age), and look after younger siblings and/or older relatives.
Presumably, the age of consent in those countries is lower because of this (and, I guess, the fairly recent [historically] rise in age of consent in the UK and other developed countries reflects this as well as we transitioned thru the industrial revolution).
Arise sir Tony!
This forum badly needs a Bozo Filter.
Posh – port out starboard home.
Nope, this is a nonsense widely believed to be true, which is why I used it as an example.
“Western countries” ... In less well developed countries,
Sure, this crossed my mind. Perhaps there may be genetic considerations here too. Like, people from some countries tend to be taller or shorter than in others, maybe that is a contributory factor? (I'm speculating, I don't know)
But between nearby US states?
Shame you're not modding these days eh...
It's a fair point about the rise in the age of consent, though the overall story remains the same:
In Victorian London, the age of consent was just thirteen. Unwitting girls were regularly enticed, tricked and sold into prostitution. If not marked out for a gentleman in a city brothel, they were legally trafficked to Brussels, Paris and beyond.
All the while, the Establishment turned a blind eye. That is, until one policeman wrote an incendiary report.
Disgraced for testifying against a violent colleague, Irish inspector Jeremiah Minahan was transferred to the backwater of Chelsea as punishment. Here he met Mary Jeffries, a notorious trafficker and procuress who counted Cabinet members and royalty among her clientele. Within days of reporting Jeffries, Minahan was unceremoniously forced out of the Metropolitan Police. So he turned private detective, setting out to expose the peers and politicians more interested in shielding their own positions (and peccadilloes) than London’s child prostitutes.
The findings Minahan did reveal in 1885 sparked national outrage: riots, arrests, a tabloid war and a sensational trial...other secrets were so fearful he took them to his grave, where they remained - until now.
This is the true tale of a man caught between a corrupt English Establishment and his own rebel heart: a very Victorian scandal, but also, a story for our times.
Age of consent caries widely across europe from 14 to 18
its a purely moral and political question - nothing to do with maturity or anything else. Its about politicians controlling womens ( or girls) bodies)and moral panics
16 in the UK is daft a anything IMO - as its regularly broken by large numbers of people therefore does not serve to protect at all. this is why I would rather have a sliding scale - 15 if the age gap is less than 2 years, 16 if the age gap is less than 4 years, 18 if the age gap is more than 6 years ( something like that anyway - not dead set on the ages and age gaps)
As it is we criminalise many thousands of young folk every year - but when did you last here of the partner of a girl of 15 that got pregnant being prosecuted.
a law widely ignore and never prosecuted is just ignored and brings the law into disrepute
https://www.ageofconsent.net/continent/europe
dunno about you guys but at 17 I had left school, traveled widely on my own and was an adult.
dunno about you guys but at 17 I had left school, traveled widely on my own and was an adult.
Equally, I've met 30 year olds who don't know how to boil an egg.
We have to legislate for the lowest common denominator. In terms of consent, that seems to be 18 in most civilized places, and in my mind, more or less correct.
Shame you’re not modding these days eh…
For what it's worth, I very very rarely banned anyone whom I was actively debating with as a user as that would've been an abuse of my position. For that to happen, you would either have had to have crossed a line by a very long chalk or ignored repeated <mod> requests to cease and desist.
But anyway.
the overall story remains the same:
Really? That was a hundred and fifty years ago. Do you have any photos of Queen Victoria in the same room as someone with smallpox?
I'm no particular fan of the monarchy especially oily toads like Andrew and I'm vehemently opposed to most modern-day MPs, but surely even you can't seriously be going "Victorian London... makes you think..."?
Do you actually believe this stuff or are you just fishing to get a rise out of people?
Clearly abuse of power is of no great concern to you...
In terms of consent, that seems to be 18 in most civilized places, and in my mind, more or less correct.
18 is actuallly an outlier. 16 is more common. the only countries with 18 for consent in europe are vatican city, turkey and malta. 14 is not uncommon
So if the age of consent is 18 but you can get married at 16? Or are you going to argue marriage should not be until 18?
See my link above
18 is actuallly an outlier. 16 is more common. the only countries with 18 for consent in europe are vatican city, turkey and malta. 14 is not uncommon
So if the age of consent is 18 but you can get married at 16? Or are you going to argue marriage should not be until 18?
Can a 16yo take out a credit contract in thier own name? that should be a better indicator of responsibility.
Raise it to 20 for all I care, my names not Andrew 🙂
We have to legislate for the lowest common denominator. In terms of consent, that seems to be 18 in most civilized places, and in my mind, more or less correct.
Large chunks of Europe must be very uncivilised then.
Equally, I’ve met 30 year olds who don’t know how to boil an egg.
I've met 70-year olds who don't know that. "Oh, the wife always did the cooking."
We have to legislate for the lowest common denominator.
I disagree. Hard legislative limits like this are a trade-off. A 30mph speed limit isn't a lowest common denominator, rather it's a figure which (rightly or wrongly) has been decided as a sensible compromise between road safety and still making progress. If that weren't the case we'd be back to having men with red warning flags walking in front of cars. Zero accidents and mass employment, everyone's a winner.
In the UK we've decided that, somewhat counterintuitively perhaps, for the purposes of English Law people aren't considered adults until they are 18, but they can get married and have sex aged 16 (and these days are likely to have been shagging long before that). A pair of 17-year olds could be married with a child of their own all totally lawfully, so long as he doesn't send her a dick pic cos that would be illegal and potentially get him on a register.
Biology doesn't work like that, people don't radically change overnight on their birthday. Some people hit puberty at an earlier age than others, some mature sexually earlier, some mature emotionally earlier, even if they're all within the same demographic. I wasn't ready mentally to be having sex at 16 (though gods know I wanted to!), I think I was 20 when I popped my cherry and it was probably about the right time for me. But emotional maturity is harder to define so is harder to legislate for and thus harder to safeguard. Which is why we need numbers on poles - uh, legal age limits.
Clearly abuse of power is of no great concern to you…
We've discussed this and you're already wasting too much of my time so I'm not retyping it, read back a couple of pages.
But emotional maturity is harder to define so is harder to legislate for and thus harder to safeguard
We sort of actually have that in UK law. Gillick competence the concept is known as
Raise it to 20 for all I care
The elephant in the room here is that 14-year olds are routinely shagging each other. I cannot verify this claim, but I heard a couple of years ago now that the preferred method of contraception in the absence of being able to get it easily via other methods was "up the bum." You've more chance of Canute telling the tide to go out than you have of stopping horny teenagers from playing hide the sausage.
The age of sexual consent is there for their protection and I reckon TJ is on the money here with his notion of relative rather than absolute values. A couple of 15-year olds discovering their sexuality together I'd file under "where's the victim here?" whereas a 15-year old and a 40-year old not so much. A lad aged 16 years and one day old sleeps with his girlfriend aged 15 years and 364 days, by the letter of the law he's now a sex offender because they differ in age by two days. That's surely madness.
"close in age" or romeo and Juliet exemptions while not widespread are relatively common although they vary widely
Again see the link I put in a few posts above
Romeo and Juliet exemptions
I'd definitely have a register for people that have sex while listening to Dire Straits. Absolute wrong'uns.
Not if you’re heading east/west above the equator in a ship painted black it wouldn’t.
From first hand experience, you're wrong.
I’d definitely have a register for people that have sex while listening to Dire Straits. Absolute wrong’uns.
Not a fan of Tunnel of Love then?
Money for nothing and the kicks for free?
Looks in on thread.
Notices JhJ throwing odd statements around as "fact".
Leaves thread, not to return.
(JhJ - are you in a self build forum? Someone posted yesterday about us all being traded on a Vatican stock market from birth, our land having been stolen from us for the ruling shadow figures to use...)
At the end of the day, we've all been taught to take it up the bum from the Royals and their tame parliamentarians our whole lives; far too many folk do indeed seem to enjoy it
At the end of the day, we’ve all been taught to take it up the bum from the Royals and their tame parliamentarians our whole lives; far too many folk do indeed seem to enjoy it
Now you are blatantly trolling. Go away.
Come now, look at all the progress that has been made in the quest for justice since I kicked off all those years ago!
Point of order
Not a fan of Tunnel of Love then?
Tunnel of Love was Bruce Springsteen not Dire Straits.
the overall story remains the same:
Really? That was a hundred and fifty years ago.
Clearly abuse of power is of no great concern to you…
Perhaps I misunderstand here; are you suggesting that girls of varying ages being recruited by questionable means into a life of international trafficking and sex slavery involving Politicians and Royalty leading to police investigations being shut down bears no similarity to the Epstein case simply because it was a long time ago?
As a teenager in the 80s, I'm not admitting whether Dire Straits contributed to my sexual experiences.
Possibly contributed to it not happening while I was underage though. Possibly a lesson to be learnt.