We are not, of course, allowed to know his name; that would breach his rights. 13 year olds are not old enough to suffer public exposure, or to consent to sex. But they are considered old enough to be tried and jailed since they really ought to be old enough to know better not to kill someone. Society has got into a terrible muddle.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/thir...t-year-10091389.html

Quote media leader JK, "13 year olds are not old enough to suffer public exposure, or to consent to sex."

Paraphrase Gay leader Peter Tatchell, "10 yr old offenders Thompson & Venables were correctly deemed able to know right from wrong in criminally murdering victim Jamie Bulger, while causing huge pain to society. Yet if they had willfully shared sexual pleasure with a 16 yr old, they would be wrongly labelled 'life scarred victims', and the teen would be falsely scarred-for-life as a 'Vile Paedophile' causing huge pain to society."

SuchGooodPoints wrote:
Quote media leader JK, "13 year olds are not old enough to suffer public exposure, or to consent to sex."

Paraphrase Gay leader Peter Tatchell, "10 yr old offenders Thompson & Venables were correctly deemed able to know right from wrong in criminally murdering victim Jamie Bulger, while causing huge pain to society. Yet if they had willfully shared sexual pleasure with a 16 yr old, they would be wrongly labelled 'life scarred victims', and the teen would be falsely scarred-for-life as a 'Vile Paedophile' causing huge pain to society."


But the teen WOULD be a vile paedophile, wouldn't he?

certainly British society has got itself into a muddle and I blame unemployment and the dole !!

(that person up the back who almost had cardiac arrest is ITK- smelling salts have been administered )

but don't get too excited- if they didn't get benefits they would go on the rampage.

Poor old Maggie's attempt to re-define UK society as a land of homeowners etc etc backfired badly.

Now dangerous ferals roam the land in the 10,000s and some are 13/14 years old.

So sad, after all these years of JK enlightenment.

Honey is STILL in the dark of a fake-mainstream cliche, 'VILE Paedophile'?

So sad.

SuchGooodPoints wrote:
So sad, after all these years of JK enlightenment.

Honey is STILL in the dark of a fake-mainstream cliche, 'VILE Paedophile'?

So sad.

Oh I am well aware of the cliche and the misuse of the word but I find the suggestion of ten year old children "willfully sharing sexual pleasure with a 16 yr old" revolting!

You're right about the "vile paedophile" Honey but this is the problem; in today's society, a 15 year old falling in love with another 15 year old means technically, legally, they are both Vile Paedophiles. By simplifying and blurring the lines, by talking in extremes, we are worryingly close to causing or provoking terrible problems to innocent people. And by treating confused 16 year olds as sick adults, we help nobody and solve no problems.

JK2006 wrote:
You're right about the "vile paedophile" Honey but this is the problem; in today's society, a 15 year old falling in love with another 15 year old means technically, legally, they are both Vile Paedophiles. By simplifying and blurring the lines, by talking in extremes, we are worryingly close to causing or provoking terrible problems to innocent people. And by treating confused 16 year olds as sick adults, we help nobody and solve no problems.

Yes, I agree with this, and I have often spoken about how I feel it is unhelpful to demonize criminals of all types but in particular sexual crimes where it will prevent people from seeking help, and make people think they are loopy for being attracted to physically mature teenagers (or same sex attraction, depending on the culture)
Also, we often punish people who have a severe mental illness that they cant help. I believe it is barbaric!

However, we were talking about ten year olds "willingly enjoying" sex with a sixteen year old. Ten year olds might have fun together waving their bits or playing doctors, but if a sixteen year old is involved it is abusive, and children can not "willingly" consent. (or be responsible for a crime in my opinion)
You could call the sixteen year old a vile paedophile or any other extreme term (i would rather we didn't) or offer help and support. It does not change the crime.

The daft laws and over-reactions about age of consent is one thing, and abusing small children is another.
Lets not give the impression we think it is ok.

I don't think anyone on here would consider it OK Honey. But I do think 10 year olds are capable of crime and that it's up to us, society, education, parents to inform and guide the young on why they should not behave in certain ways. Killing another human being is wrong. Even pulling wings off flies is wrong. It is a vital lesson they must learn as soon as they learn how to walk and talk. Which is why the government announcement about teaching 11 year olds makes good sense to me.

JK2006 wrote:
I don't think anyone on here would consider it OK Honey. But I do think 10 year olds are capable of crime and that it's up to us, society, education, parents to inform and guide the young on why they should not behave in certain ways. Killing another human being is wrong. Even pulling wings off flies is wrong. It is a vital lesson they must learn as soon as they learn how to walk and talk. Which is why the government announcement about teaching 11 year olds makes good sense to me.

I am baffled by the announcement about teaching children about rape at eleven, because children are already taught about consent at school from around four. It is called the "pants" campaign (or something) and they are taught that their body belongs to them and nobody is allowed to touch it unless they say it ok, and that pants areas are off limits.

I suppose it will just be a slightly more detailed version at eleven? They are hardly likely to show them Charles Bronson's "death wish" films!