The News of the World names and shames 15 year old Jordan Webster who raped a 58 year old woman when he was 14 and got 5 years for it .

They do it because he was hooked on cannabis from the age of 10.

Normally the lawyers blame such addiction on sexual abuse instead of the other way around.

We are into a very, very strange time for humanity.

Just remember - the one thing that matters is - IS IT A GOOD STORY?

I thought so too JK. We regularly hear about 17 year olds who cannot be named for legal reasons. What's different about this case ?

Anyone can be anon in a court case in the judge agrees it is a) For safety and b) in the interests of a fair trial.

Likewise anyone can be named if the judge decides that they should a) in public interest or b) Named and shamed

The law is elastic in everything - hence it is used by those who know how to get "around" it.

I believe it is illegal to name a juvenile in a court case involving a sexual matter, even if that juvenile is the one accused.

It's generally up to the presiding judge to institute an action against the offending publication by referring it to the DPP, But will it happen ?. I don't think so.

News International must approve of the rape of minors - they name him in The Sun today too.
Clearly they must be allowed to do so and find nothing wrong with raping the reputation of a 14 year old.

Ah, I see the Judge who ordered that this boy be named is Judge Kerry MacGill.

Leeds Crown Court.

No reason apart from malice appears to have been given but I'm sure the tabloids love him.

It's a great story.

Devil Child.

Let's create more monsters please.

And a further thought.
The law clearly says NOBODY under 16 is capable of giving consent to a sex act.

So how can this 14 year old have committed a sex act?

Shouldn't the 58 year old woman have been charged with rape?

Double standards.

I think the law is interpreted, by many, as a person under the age of sixteen being unable to agree to consensual sex. They are, however, able to commit assault, and so they can be prosecuted for a sexual assault, bypassing the issues of consent.

The woman did not engage in sex willingly, and so has no legal responsibility for the act.

Of course, setting the law aside and considering reality, this boy was clearly able to make the decision to commit a sexual act, bringing into question the claim that children of his age are unable to make such decisions. This could open a whole new debate.

If we continue to pump our kids full of SEX TALK from the age of 8 years old - is it suprising that by 14 they are raging with hormones and these types of incidents happen.

Either we need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE Of sex before 16 - in other words - no FAMILY PLANNING and making it ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE TO COMMIT SEXUAL ACTS until they hit 16 years old. In other words if you get pregnant at 13 years old you get a criminal record and the person who impregnated you ( easy to find out by DNA )

The law at the moment is encouraging court cases against 17 years olds plus - 13 years old are engaging in sexual activity and then using it to gain compensation later on.

Maybe if we say that kids are going to have sex at 14 years old then the law should reflect that if we do not have the guts to enforce that law.

The EU has an average age of consent at 14. Asia and Middle East at 12 and USA/Americas at 13. Once again the UK is out of step with the rest of the World. Marriage should be possible at the same time of course.

Either it is wrong and we should take action or we should decriminalise 14 - 16 year olds. We cant have a silly law like this and try and justify it if we are not prepared to enforce it.

If this happened I would like to see sentences doubled for those who commit abuse on Under 14s to send out a strong message to those who do abuse children that there is no excuse because at 13 or under they really are still children. I dont want to see the liberal lobby destroy the chance for kids to remain kids.

I would also like to see all DAYTIME VIDEO channels take off any suggestive videos or videos of pop stars in their knickers. What sort of message is that sending out to kids ? No wonder they get into sexual situations if they think being a pop star means dancing around with virtually nothing on.

We are creating a monstrous society at the moment and need to tackle these issues. New Labour is intentionally sexualising children in my view and generally allowing society as a whole to cheapen sex to yet another business transaction - hence the compensation culture building up around it.

Relating to the later part of BR's post, I was flicking through the channels on Saturday morning and came across some girl dancers in very revealing costumes, thrusting boobs and bums at the audience. Some of the moves were blatantly sexual. I wondered what show it was, then saw that the average age of the studio audience was around 10 years old. It was Childrens BBC.

Then we have news bulletins, on the BBC, about children being exposed to unsuitable content.

@BR

Can you show that sex education [unsurprisingly] leads to 14 year olds committing rape?. It does seem a startling suggestion you are making.

Elsewhere you rail against the "Orwellian State" but now seem to condone mass DNA testing to identify the father of a child born to women under 16. This is inconsistent.

Your figures for the age of consent seem inaccurate - reference

How do you arrive at the view "New Labour is intentionally sexualising children"?