Today in the Sunday Times, Terry Grange, Chief constable of Dyfed-Powys states that men who have consensual sex with girls over 13, should not be classed as paedophiles. He also believes that the age of consent should be lowered to 13. I believe that he has a point, since the official description of a child is someone under the age of 14 (well maybe he is a year out). All forms of abuse are wrong, but if someone is post-puberty and there is consent, then I don't think that it should be a matter for the law to intervene. Children now have sex education at age 10, which I don't agree with, but you can't say on the one hand that sex is wrong before 16, but give them the rules and the information before that age. What do the readers think of this controversial opinion.

<<<< He also believes that the age of consent should be lowered to 13. >>>

I don't think he did say that - quite the reverse.

He was merely stating that paedophilia refers to children and not teens. It will still be illegal to have sex with someone under the age of consent, but he wishes people would not class everyone who does this as a paedophile.

There are alot of issues here. I'm normally in favour of freedoms - but that always comes with responsibility. On the one hand the age of consent is lower in many European countries than it is here in the UK, but given the number of unwanted pregnancies (here) already I don't want to pay any more tax to support someone else's offspring!!!

Interesting, also, that the points he raises ALL refer to girls .... is he being sexist, or does he also mean boys?

I`m glad someone brought this up as it was a very strange article and really has only served to fuel the fire.
A point which you raised Robbie was of sex education beginning at the age of 10, I can inform you that at the place where I was being brought up, it started at 5, and that obviously was plain wrong and stupid,(and if I thought long and hard about it and was twisted I could claim abuse) I also remember it made me feel sick and I did not want to know.
However, they obviously assumed I was ready for the information, but some kids of 16 will not want to know.
Everybody is different and you simply cannot expect an age limit to assume that everybody is developing at the same rate.
I really don`t know why Terry Grange made that statement, of all people, I am yet to understand if he was even asked a question.
I thought this story would die away today, but as I type, it`s still headlines on Skynews.
Every generation thinks they invented sex anyway, but there was no fire going on here to be bellowed, there is now and it`s come from a very strange area of the right field.

He made many sensible points.
The word "Paedophile" refers to someone who finds children sexually attractive.
A "child" is - by the only relevant legal description - "a person under 14".
That's the Children And Young Persons Act 1933.
I've argued about this to the News International ombudsman for years.
Unless you regard us all as "Children" (of God or of parents), which would, as I pointed out, make Rupert Murdoch a paedophile, the tabloids should not be so ready to use the word and smear so many with it.

But Grange's point, apart from the general one that sloppy use of language disguises a tabloid desire to exaggerate and a media quest to make big stories out of little stories or no stories, is that this is eroding normality.

I have many times pointed out that this witch hunt can make any child who finds another child attractive feel he or she is a "paedophile" and become deeply distressed.

Thr description is never qualified. And the law is strictly enforced with 16 year old boyfriends being prosecuted for having 15 year old girlfriends.

Romeo and Juliet, as I've often said, would be illegal today.

Now we have some extra views on this, the plain English version seems to say that the Police do turn a blind eye to a lot of "offences", that are technically illegal but have absolutely no merit in prosecution.
Can you imagine the childhood sweethearts, waiting to get out of the young offenders institution so they could see each other again?
I think what he is saying, is that he is going to make sure that will not happen.
Peter Tatchell made good points on this earlier on the morning news, I`m sure we should have a link by lunchtime.
And parents also going in the dock because their teenage kids have partners is ludicrous.
I think this is actually a signifigant change coming on.

<<<< Romeo and Juliet, as I've often said, would be illegal today.>>>>

To be even more contraversial, Mary was only 16 when she gave birth to Jesus but her husband Joseph was 30. Was he a paedophile? Or does he get special dispensation because it was a virgin birth?

a few years ago when two 15 year olds having consensual sex were investigated by the police.
The boy was prosecuted, convicted and jailed.
At his appeal the defence claimed this was sexist - why was he prosecuted and not the girl?
His appeal failed as the law decreed that one person had to be considered the predator and it should be the male.
I don't know whether this is true or not but it is well known amongst lawyers.
And to me it sums up the entire mad situation.

With all these new latin "phile" names emerging, do we now get a "dontknowreallywhattosayaphile"?
In plain English of course.

I think 16 is OK as age of consent. I was not ready younger; there are emotional issues that young people may not be ready to deal with. I think there can be pressure put on teens by both adults and peers, so I don't think it would be appropriate for a 40 year old to sleep with a 13 year old. However, I would not prosecute when a 13-14 year old consensually slept with someone up to 3 years older, as kids are bound to experiment.
I think sex education is a good thing, and it is better to give teens correct information that they can use to make rational decisions, rather than hiding facts (especially about contraception) until it is too late. Studies show that sex education is more likely to put people off having sex young than promoting underage promiscuity.
I heard things in the playground from when I was 9 or 10 (mostly untrue), and I read teenage magazines at 13-14 and generally got a fair grasp on what is appropriate and what is best left till one is a bit older.
I first had sex when I was 23 and totally comfortable and in love. Contraception was in place, and, though I didn't want a child, I was willing to accept that risk.
Sex forms very close bonds between lovers and, IMO, is not something to do with all and sundry behind the bike sheds. My partner was very appreciative that I had waited till I found the right man (him!)

To be even more contraversial, Mary was only 16 when she gave birth to Jesus but her husband Joseph was 30. Was he a paedophile? Or does he get special dispensation because it was a virgin birth?

1. Virgin births are exempt.
2. 16 is the age of consent (in UK at present), so no prosecution should take place. Some might frown on the 14 year age gap, but it's legal (unless Joseph was her teacher/carer/stepparent, etc).
3. Where did you get the ages of 16 and 30? I am not aware they are actually given in the Bible, merely that Mary was a young woman (maiden is a good word - one of marriageable age).

There is no record of how old Mary really was. Some believe that, as girls often got married around the age of 13 in that region she would be 14 at most. Joseph would be around 30 as it was the custom for men to be established in work and able to provide for their partner before a marriage could take place. Maturity in the man was seen as an asset.

Interestingly, in Wales in the 1920s girls could get married at 12 and boys at 14. I don't know what year that changed. Many of our female ancestors will have been no older than 13 when they were married and we would not exist if not for those relationships which would be seen as shockingly evil today. But I think girls were prepared properly back then as early marriage and motherhood was a normal part of life. Now they are programmed to believe they are physically and psychologically incapable below the age of 16. Actually most girls could handle a relationship below the age of 16, and many do.

I think 14 is a reasonable age for consent.

In The Know wrote:
<<<< He also believes that the age of consent should be lowered to 13. >>>

I don't think he did say that - quite the reverse.

He was merely stating that paedophilia refers to children and not teens. It will still be illegal to have sex with someone under the age of consent, but he wishes people would not class everyone who does this as a paedophile.

There are alot of issues here. I'm normally in favour of freedoms - but that always comes with responsibility. On the one hand the age of consent is lower in many European countries than it is here in the UK, but given the number of unwanted pregnancies (here) already I don't want to pay any more tax to support someone else's offspring!!!

Interesting, also, that the points he raises ALL refer to girls .... is he being sexist, or does he also mean boys?

The above comments - attributed to me, were NOT posted by me !

Investigation, JK ?

To correct you - Mary was around 13 years old when she bore Jesus.

Not only that she did have other children as the bible makes clear.

There was no age of consent laws until recent times. Puberty and betrothal were the markers for sex.

This method is the one given in the bible - where sex is for marriage.

I realise this is a deeply "uncool" view of sex - especially in a society which prizes sex as the ultimate leisure activity.....but the educational principles behind a relationship are very sound.

Sex leads to children. Children thrive in a family situation where TWO parents represent the role models of both sexes.

Much of the meltdown in our society is because "modern law making" has decided to make laws that are bad.

For instance - if you teach a 10 year old who has reached puberty about sex ( which is represented in our schools as a leisure activity NOT a committment in any way to marriage or another person ) then that 10 year old may well decide to go and act on it and try it out. That is a natural thing to do but has obvious serious consequences.

We have 16 - 20 year olds who have basically slept with half their year at school and many of the older lads in their area. This is factual and something the Government hides and covers up. I suggest you talk to some teenage girls or boys about the "sex lives" that are occurring.

That is another reason why in schools we have highly sexed 14 and 15 year olds who see their teachers and support staff as legitimate targets - and often more attractive than those their own age.

By manipulating the laws of the bible and creating a sex without love and consequences idea - sex has been seperated from its purpose which was to unite two people in a relationship in order to provide a stable upbringing for a family and to provide for them.

What we have now are millions of single mothers and fathers living off benefits because their casual approach to sex has left them literally holding the baby. The rest of us are paying via tax and work for their upkeep and thus we are supporting this crazy system.

If we taught morality and the purpose of sex and marriage in schools rather than a cold state sanitised version of leisure sex and contraception then our society may mend itself.

This is a flaw in CAMERON's GREAT PLAN - he thinks words will heal society. He is wrong. Until we look again at this major problem and make sex special and for marriage and teach that - we will see generations of lives ruined.

I am not advocating loveless marriage and all the awfulness that goes with it. But there needs to be a blueprint which youngsters can aspire to and that include Civil Partnerships I might add. I dont want to see a return to the dark days of arranged marriages - backstreet abortions etc. We should be able to educate properly about sex.

The POLICEMAN is therefore stupid. The Law is not the right part of sex education. The more laws that have been passed about under age sex - the more under age sex has happened. Surely he must have noticed this. OUr country leads the world in child pregnancy in the G20. We have the resources to help our children grown up safely with a positive attitude to sex and relationships. Instead it has been reduced to a legal argument about age. How sickening that sex has been cheapened to this point.

We need more LOVE and COMMITMENT in relionshops - not more laws to break in order to get children to conform to a POLICE perspective on sex. How many of you would take relationship and sexual guidance from your local PCSO or Chief Constable ? Not many !!!! So there is the answer.

jK and everyone else, I am the real robbiex and not this guy who is using my name. You will be able to tell this by my ip address, so could please don't confuse this imposter with me.

Mr pretend Robbiex, stop inpersonating me. I've been posting on this site for years using this name and don't appreciate people pretending to me, particularly when they have such controversial views.

ITK and Robbie - the starter post seems to have been begun years ago - in 2006!

ahhh...but Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born and Joseph didn't do the deed !

or did he ?

the respected Dead Sea scholar Barbara Thiering has long argued that the concept of "virgin' has been mis-interpreted for centuries and the word virgin actually meant that although the woman may have been married and having sex-she hadn't yet had a child. So she was only a 'virgin' in the sense that she was childless..not chaste.

And of course people married off early then asap..and where does that leave Jewish rituals like Bar mitzvahs and Bat mitzvahs when boys and girls become men and women at 13 today ?

In fact..do Jews respect their own religious laws of the laws of the land as they are in conflict ? (one to discuss with your rabbi this Friday)

I think bonking at any age has been going on since time began BR and no law will ever stop it nor will we be able to stop kids having sex as soon as they feel horny.

Sex education is therefore quite a good thing (works in Europe and Asia..only Britain seems to have this weird problem)

I discovered only recently that my father was born in 1912 a month after his parents wed..could have bowled me over with a feather !...especially as his mother was 17 and Irish..imagine...her parents must have to hide her in an attic for 8 months till her dad polished up the shotgun.