King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]JK2006 wrote:[/b]
[quote]Condemned by the Courts for allowing police to treat 17 year olds as adults; this is particularly interesting regarding sex. Are "children" to be allowed to have sex (as anyone over 16 legally can)?

The 1933 Children and Young Persons Act calls children persons "under 14" and Young Persons those between 14 and 18.

A bit like The Sun condemning me for a lyric which says "there's nothing wrong with buggering boys" making clear they must be above the age of consent and must give consent.

My answer to their use of the word "boys" was "So are Our Boys fighting in Afghanistan all children?"[/quote]

I only saw the film a couple of days ago and I thought it was magnificent. B) 
I wish you had used a different word because I think it put people off watching it after glimpsing the headlines. Or perhaps headlines was the point?

I think a lot of people forget that fourteen year olds were considered grown up in the sixties and seventies. When I was fourteen (born 1960) I was a part time child care assistant in a children's home, which would be ridiculous now.  
Childhood seems to go on for about twenty-five years these days![/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Children; the Courts; are they 18 or 16 or 14?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
honey!oh sugar sugar.	JK2006 wrote: Condemned by the Courts for allowing police to treat 17 year olds as adults; this is particularly interesting regarding sex. Are "children" to be allowed to have sex (as anyone over 16 legally can)? The 1933 Children and Young Persons Act calls children persons "under 14" and Young Persons those between 14 and 18. A bit like The Sun condemning me for a lyric which says "there's nothing wrong with buggering boys" making clear they must be above the age of consent and must give consent. My answer to their use of the word "boys" was "So are Our Boys fighting in Afghanistan all children?" I only saw the film a couple of days ago and I thought it was magnificent. I wish you had used a different word because I think it put people off watching it after glimpsing the headlines. Or perhaps headlines was the point? I think a lot of people forget that fourteen year olds were considered grown up in the sixties and seventies. When I was fourteen (born 1960) I was a part time child care assistant in a children's home, which would be ridiculous now. Childhood seems to go on for about twenty-five years these days!
hedda	tabloids and their fellow travelers, the police are willfully dangerous when it comes to language. If an 18 year old is a victim he is a "teenager"..if he commits the crime he is a "man". depending of course what the angle of the story is to be...the terms can be switched to produce an entirely ifferent train of thought.
JK2006	Condemned by the Courts for allowing police to treat 17 year olds as adults; this is particularly interesting regarding sex. Are "children" to be allowed to have sex (as anyone over 16 legally can)? The 1933 Children and Young Persons Act calls children persons "under 14" and Young Persons those between 14 and 18. A bit like The Sun condemning me for a lyric which says "there's nothing wrong with buggering boys" making clear they must be above the age of consent and must give consent. My answer to their use of the word "boys" was "So are Our Boys fighting in Afghanistan all children?"