-
Posts
-
A chief constable claims men who have sex with girls of 13 or over should not be classed as paedophiles.
Terry Grange, chief constable of Dyfed-Powys Police, said he believed paedophiles should be classed as men who had sex with pre-pubescents.
The UK law states the age of consent is 16 and anyone who has sex with a younger child has committed an offence.
But in an interview with the Sunday Times, Mr Grange said men who have sex with children should not be classed as paedophiles if their victim was between 13 and 15.
Mr Grange, the spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers on child protection and managing sex offenders, also told the newspaper that the law on child pornography should apply accordingly.
“It’s much more of an issue for me if a child is under 13,” he said.
“I think the closer they get to 16, the more it becomes a grey area and I think everyone in the field of dealing with sexual health and sexual activity acknowledges that.”
“It’s much more of an issue for me if a child is under 13. I think the closer they get to 16, the more it becomes a grey area”
– Terry GrangeOfficial government guidance on prosecuting suggests that teenagers who have sex when one is below 16 should not necessarily be prosecuted.Mr Grange said: “You take a look at the circumstances and try to make the right decision for that case. It may be nothing, it may be formal warnings, it may be prosecution.”
:shock: :shock: :shock::shock: Just because they are very young teens!??!?! what the hell?!?!? they need protecting just as much as children do. He wouldn’t be saying that if it was his daughter or son!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
You misunderstood what he said. He didn’t say that men 20+ shouldn’t be prosecuted for having sex with girls who are under 16. What he was saying was that teenagers often have relationships with boys or girls who are under 16 and that maybe this shouldn’t be classed as paedophilia e.g. a 17 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend. He said this kind of relationship happens all across the country all the time and questioned whether it was reasonable to prosecute every teen who has sex with someone who isn’t 16 yet.
He did say that girls between 13-15 fell into a grey area but he did say that any MAN having sex with a girl that age should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, he said it shouldn’t necessarily be classed as paedophilia. He talked about the varying ages of consent in other countries and I think he has a point if you stop and reflect on what he’s saying. All he was doing was questioning whether someone who is attracted to someone in that grey area should be classed as a paedophile and he pointed out that the teenage boyfriends of his teenage daughters would fit into that category. I don’t think he should be sacked for pointing out the reality of the society we live in.
I have to agree with Mr B on this one. The fact is that very very sadly a huge number of young girls in the 11 – 16 age group are not only sexually active but are regularly so.
Speaking as a father, my belief is that the first ‘line of defence’ to all this starts in the home. Primarily it is the parent’s responsibility to set their children a good moral example and to teach and guide them such that they don’t just screw around but act with a sense of morality.
This necessarily HAS to start at an early age – pre-teens maybe – because if a young girl is brought up in an environment where her mother (for example) regularly has a succession of boyfriends, and she has a regular succession of ”Uncles” then the example that this stes is hardly morally uplifting is it?
The Police are sometimes put in an impossible position whereby a 14 or 15 year old girl is regularly sleeping with her ‘boyfriend’ with the full knowledge (and implied consent) of her parent(s). Under these circumstances, prosecution for USI (Unlawful Sexual Intercourse) becomes a bit of a farce.
Once again, the lynch-mobs have started baying for blood..mindful of the diddies who hounded someone from their home for being a paediatrician.
Thankfully..to counterbalance..we have the sanity and wisdom of both Mr. B and PB..who have summed up the situation with the consideration it deserves.
As an addendum…I would further pass comment on the morality of society which seeks to sexualise young children whilst holding up its collective hands in horror at the consequences. Consider the guilt of the fashion industry…the advertising syndicates…the retailers..the parents..who see no harm in parading their children a-Lolita..costumed in mini-me bras and belly-piercings.
PB is right..morality begins in the home..but there has to be a sense of continuity in the external world. We are all responsible for that.For the first time ever , I am in agreement with MR B
The guy was speaking sense – girls “grow up ” a lot earlier these days
I wouldn’t move the age of consent etc as it’s there to protect the innocent , unfortunately there are a lot of teenagers below 16 – who aren’t so innocent
I fell more strongly against the laws on buggery which this goverment brought in ; there are a lot more young boys need protectingI watched a programme on BBC1 last night on the subject of teenage drinking. The thing that appalled me most was the apparent acquiescence of the various parents in allowing their young children to go out alone (or with a ‘girlfriend’) and stay out until the early hours. It appears that they all simply hung around the streets drinking industrial quantities of vodka, cider etc etc.
It’s back to the morality point again isn’t it – and showing your children a good example of how to behave, or conduct themselves through life.
Having a youngster return home at 12.00; 1.00 or 2.00am or later, on a regular basis, and arriving home pissed out of their minds can hardly be described as responsible parenthood. But this sort of unacceptable behaviour doesn’t suddenly start with the onset of puberty, it gradually and imperceptibly grows and becomes the accepted norm over a period of time.
As so-called responsible adults (whatever one thinks THAT may be!!!), we have an absolute duty to our children to shield them and protect them from the dangers of this sort of behaviour. This not only includes drinking alchohol (to excess) but also indulging in the whole range of sexual activities, hanging around the streets late at night, experimenting with so-called ‘harmless’ drugs (marijuana etc), and so on.
I wonder how many JustChat board members, who are also parents of 11- 16 year old children, can really honestly put their hand on their heart and say that they fully discharge their parental responsibilities in this respect???
I’m not fishing for a load of ”I’d NEVER let my son/daughter do that etc” type of posts. I’m simply posing a question for the individual to mull over quietly and privately, and ponder on whether they have to accept their own share of responsibility in all this.
My eldest boy is 13 in January. He swears blind he will never smoke (as I do) as its disgusting, and he doesnt like to see people drunk as they are embarrasing.
Much as I admire his stance on the subject, and have told him so I have no doubt he will experiment, as his friends will as its what teenagers do, fact. I dont think any parent could catagorically say theirs wont do these things, you cant be blind to the fact that other kids will and your kids will see it and want to “fit in” and this is where the problems start.
On the subject of perverts, there are many different scenarios:
What about a 14 year old girl and a 30 year old Teacher: he is in a position of trust and the pupil must be protected by law.
A 14 year old girl and an 18 year old boy in a relationship: her Dad will probably hate it, but the guy is not a perv.
A guy who persistantly chases younger girls: perv
Young girls lying to guys about their ages: Slappers.
The bloke was right all along!
iv asked this question loads of times on here to the women
how many of them lost their virginity under the age of 16 to a bloke over 16?
does that make you a victim of child molestation?
does that make him a paedophile?@sharongooner wrote:
My eldest boy is 13 in January. He swears blind he will never smoke (as I do) as its disgusting, and he doesnt like to see people drunk as they are embarrasing.
Much as I admire his stance on the subject, and have told him so I have no doubt he will experiment, as his friends will as its what teenagers do, fact. I dont think any parent could catagorically say theirs wont do these things, you cant be blind to the fact that other kids will and your kids will see it and want to “fit in” and this is where the problems start.
On the subject of perverts, there are many different scenarios:
What about a 14 year old girl and a 30 year old Teacher: he is in a position of trust and the pupil must be protected by law.
A 14 year old girl and an 18 year old boy in a relationship: her Dad will probably hate it, but the guy is not a perv.
A guy who persistantly chases younger girls: perv
Young girls lying to guys about their ages: Slappers.
I agree with the fitting in bit but my parents alwas told me never to smoke, take drugs and respect my body. All of the above i followed i can put my hand on my heart and say i have never even tried smoking not even touched a ciggy!!!! I hate them and have from a small age, drugs never took 1 in my life and respecting my body i respected it very ver well and continue to do so.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!