Something I have noted in the celebrity show trials of the recent months, is how few cases of
actual intercourse, wanted or unwanted, are claimed. Nearly all the "offenses" seem to be this new
thing called "inappropiate touching". In Jimmy Savile's case, according to the the NHS reports,
one the "offenses" is as small as "I thought I saw someone who looked like him in the car park,
once."

Like JK, I lived through the era of the historical impossible to defend against "sex crimes", and
it has struck me what the authorities and feminists are bent on doing is making teen relationships
illegal. In the 60s and 70s, it all seemed clear and simple to us: intercourse with a girl under 16
was illegal, but intimacy outside of that was not a crime. Thus French kisses (another JS
"offense"), feeling a bit of tit or a "fish and finger pie" were all acceptable, provided the lady
was willing of course. Now, suddenly, all this past lechery by horny teenagers has become a
prosecutable offense; and has since been found to cause great lifelong trauma to those who were
willing participants at the time. The "victims" of course are in need of compensation for their
brave fortitude in keeping their "abuse" secret.

Before anyone lays into me with the charge of "victim" blaming, I am talking about fully consenting
teens, not children. The age of criminal liability in the UK is 10 (correct me if I'm wrong), but
the age of "vunerability" has crept out to 18. Seriously, what horny teenager of 17 has never been
kissed?

Does this mean that virtually any man who had a girlfriend (or boyfriend if that way inclined) below
the age of consent in the distant past is now open to prosecution?

ahem yes!

When did teenagers petting become illegal?

It was more or less encouraged until recently from what I can remember...

corevalue wrote:
Does this mean that virtually any man who had a girlfriend (or boyfriend if that way inclined) below
the age of consent in the distant past is now open to prosecution?

If it was before 2003, she was over 14, was consensual, they never went all the way, and one of them wasn't in a position of authority then I wouldn't think they should be imo...

Someone, somewhere is going to have to draw a legal "line in the sand" - not for moral reasons but simply for financial ones. If they start prosecuting old offences of speeding or taking illegal drugs...

The offenses concerning drugs and speeding would require evidence, both of the crime actually happening, and your connection to it. However, the new modus operandi of the law is that cases of sexual allegations require neither evidence, or corroboration. Just the say-so of the "victim", as I believe happened in your case JK.

Indeed that is currently the case but if such "evidence" is acceptable in sex cases, why not "I saw XXX speeding" or "YYY took drugs with me" being sufficient for prosecution and conviction? It is madness; government HAS to step in - and you're right, it is simply not fair that such PROOF is acceptable in one situation and not in another.