Age of sexual consent should be lowered to 13, says barrister

Discuss.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

Think the best parts are "the move was necessary in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men"

And

"Among those to have been convicted is former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall, who admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting girls, including one aged nine, between 1967 and 1985.

Ms Hewson described Hall's crimes as "low-level misdemeanours" which "ordinarily... would not be prosecuted"

So raping a 9 year old girl is a misdemeanor?

This woman is supposed to bring justice in the world.

 

Shoot the lovely person.

Sorry, I know I should engage in a wide ranging debate about sexuality and young people but 13 year olds are children, despite society encouraging them to be young adults asap and need protecting.

 

Which bloke?

Anyway, ridiculous views - quite how prosecuting child molesting perverts is "damaging to society" is beyond me.

 

I almost choked on my cornflakes when I read that this morning. That view is unpalatable even to a bleeding heart liberal such as myself. Perhaps we could go a step further and legalise murder to end the persecution of homicidal maniacs?

 

Think it's barrister trying to make a name for themselves personally. Spout a load of ***** and then make the headlines.

 

There is nothing to discuss. To compare these crimes to gang rape is sick and irresponsible. Does that women have children of her own? I doubt it, her maternal instincts are none existent.

If anything, the age of consent should be raised. I was a pre-historic 18 before I had my cherry popped.

 

I don't care how qualified they are, a person with these views should not be allowed in such an influencial position. I know the legal profession are staggeringly out of touch with the real world generally but this goes beyond the pale.

 

That's just about as grim an article as I've ever read.

It's basically saying it's alright for dirty old b*stards to go around fingering young girls.

I'm not a prude, I have no issues with teenagers having sex with people of the same age so long as it's consensual (and they use a condom, I'd make that law), but once you're over the age of 18, imho, it should be illegal to have any sort of sexual relationship with anyone who is not an adult. And once you're over thirty you shouldn't be allowed to touch anyone under the age of 21.

I realise there's tons of holes in that, but **** it, preying on kids is just unacceptable.

 

I couldn't agree more Jay, it's basically making it law for dirty old men to prey on young girls, what a ridiculous statement to come out with.

 

The man's an idiot..and I'm being generous there...lower the age to 13 and then just wait for the campaign for it to be lowered again in a few years time..kids in nursery school will not be safe.

 

Staggeringly its not a man, its a woman who made this statement - I found this even more worrying.

 

"the move was necessary in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men"."

Strange reasoning, in other news murder is going to be made legal because we have too many people being locked up for murder! The anwer to crime is not to make the crime legal!

 

I thought it was a bloke at first - I had to go back and edit the origional post.

For a woman to say that it's even more sickening.

"kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one's hand up a 16-year-old's skirt" even the slightest suggestion that that's okay foran adult to do is sickening.

Things like that that happen stay with the individual for the rest of their lives.

"anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality" - still can't believe anyone - never mind a woman- would say that.

It's you thats out of touch with reality. In a massive way.

 

Technically, this woman is paid to put across her clients point of view in a court of law. I would guess from this that she is representing (or hopes to represent) some of the shadier celebrities in their moment of truth before the judge.

The age of consent (for all things) is arbitrary anyway. It was set at 16 at some point in the past, but go back in history far enough and kids were married off much younger (weren't Romeo and Juliet only just teens?).

 

Might have been how it was back then, but things are different now. We're civilised. Marrying off young kids wasn't right then and it isn't now. Even to try and defend what she's saying is very wrong IMO.

(PS. Romeo and Juliet were not real people. Even so they're thought to be late teens early 20's and of the same age.)

 

We used to send em up chimneys and off to work at 5 and 6 years old.

Then we got hold of our senses and decided that the vulnerable in society needed looking after and protecting.

Now we seem to be railing against that. Funny old world.

 

Nowadays it seems the evil have equal rights with the vulnerable.....something going wrong somewhere.

 

Sorry if It sounded like I was defending it being younger. I'm not - and I've got a 12 year old daughter...

I was just making the point that the age of consent was set to a value that has increased over years. In some parts of the world it is 14, some 16, others 18 and in some places it is the wedding day.