I don't think a 12 year old boy should be prosecuted for doing what comes naturally. There should be laws against abuse, not against sex. I understand the age of consent laws are there to protect children from preying adults, but genuine such cases are few and far between, and this is obviously not one of them. I agree the law should apply equally to everyone, but we need better laws, which means we need more intelligent and sensible politicians.

Let's have less of these "Karen Matthews lookalike" comments. It's immature and reflects badly on this forum. The girl can't help her looks, and I'm sure several of us are probably not pin-up material either.

It's actually gone from barminess and dangerous tabloid criminal incitement to Alice in Wonderland insanity.
Today saw various young men boasting about sleeping with a 14 year old. Are they totally unaware of the law or is money conquering all sense?

And the mother and father?

I really am going to be sick and will be incandescent with rage if Wade and Murdoch aren't in Crown Court for this.

"All we did was encourage children to fuck like rabbits in order to get fame and money, m'lud".

Defence rests.

A lot of kids are f*cking like rabbits anyway. Murdoch and Co. just turned it all into a Carnival Peep Show.

Nicola, Alfie's mum, has decided that there should be a paternity test. Alfie himself is devastated at the claims he might not be the dad. That's a price of dealing with the likes of Murdoch. They set you up for a massive fall. I hope the test proves Alfie is the dad, because he'll be damaged for years otherwise. Even though he's had sex and might be a dad, he is still a kid and should have been treated better by adults who put greed before all else. And I don't mean his parents.

Yes but not let's fall for the easy trap (we did earlier in the thread) of specifics... is he the Dad? Is she a slag?

It all avoids the prime question - did Wade and Murdoch break the law by inciting crime? I believe they did and should be prosecuted.

Surely they'd only be inciting crime if they told the children to have sex in the first place. If they merely reported the fact that it had happened then they are only doing what the media legally does. I doubt that any kids will got out and have sex just because they read the story.

The decision to prosecute or otherwise lies with the legal authorities. They have obviously decided that no serious crime has been committed - although they might change their minds if a test proves it was the 16 year old who got her pregnant, and not the 12 year old.

If anyone is spreading the message that under age is sex is acceptable, maybe so long as the boy is younger than the girl, it is the legal authorities through their decision to take no action. "Not in the public interest", doesnt mean the public are not interested. It just means that little would be gained, on balance, by giving kids criminal convictions for following natural human instincts - plus, the public seem to mostly back the kids and so a jury would be unlikely to convict.

As one school girl said, teenage sex happens all the time. Most pregnancies are aborted so we don't hear about them. This time was different, but inevitable, and was probably what the media have been waiting for. Much drooling by reporters and media directors. More bucks in the bank.

Is he the dad? Is she a slag? Personally I think neither is any of my business and I'd rather it had remained a private family matter.

So that's my last comment on this subject.

Ah but their front page coverage and huge payments is certainly incitement for others to do the same. And under age sex is a crime.

If they devoted their front page to My Story and paid a fortune to a man claiming to have bombed someone in the name of Islam, that would be incitement.

Surely the "Grooming" charge would be applicable to the editors of the SUN. They need to be prosecuted - and then perhaps they would not pay out huge sums of money.

Paying children to have sex is wrong isnt it ? especially at 12 and 14 ?

Our society is totally undermined by this behaviour.

Kids having sex is now a circus to titilate the raincoat brigade around the UK. The SUN is guilty of grooming by offering financial inducements.

It could be described as prostitution of a 14 year old girl.

I have constantly said the authorities encourage under age sex - and this is another example. The Police should prosecute the parents for neglect by allowing their young children to engage in innapropriate behaviour.

As we found with Karen Matthews - this is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Yes BR you are right and JC I repeat; the criminal act of incitement is that, by doing what they did, The Sun are inciting other children (and, more important, greedy parents like Matthews) to rut like rabbits, produce babies and apply to The Sun for THEIR photos to be bought and stories to be set up - SIX YEAR OLD FATHERS CHILD BY EIGHT YEAR OLD! - exclusive from Wade and Murdoch morality preachers Ltd...

It is grossly irresponsible and if this kind of child abuse is not protected by the full weight of the law, it should be, but can you see Brown or Cameron or Smith or any other backboneless politicos saying this? Or doing something about it? Or the toothless PCC?

If another 12yo boy fathers a child it won't be such a sensation and so I doubt there'd be any mass payout by the media for the story. An 11yo, yet a lower age, might be a story but the chances of that being possible are rather low. I don't think any paper paid the kids to have sex, so I don't see it as an incitement. They have paid real criminals for their stories, usually after time served, and it isn't seen as inciting others to become criminals so they can milk the media afterwards. I'm all for bashing Murdoch but I think you are rather stretching things with words like incitement and grooming. Who did the paper pay to have sex, BR? I think the kids had already had sex nine months earlier.

No Emma you miss the point - it is clear incitement for others, influenced by the coverage, to break the law.

And the only commentator to even dare touch on the issues - very lightly...

www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentato...o-blame-1609182.html

No, I did get that point and I did touch on it. I really don't see how this would incite other kids to go have sex, if they are not already doing it. For one thing, a similar story would not be as newsworthy because it's already yesterday's topic, unless they could beat the age by the boy being even younger, but that's highly unlikely. I agree that they have exploited the children, but I don't agree that this would incite others. If they put a front page ad offering money to anyone who could match or beat Alfie's age then that would be incitement. Otherwise, you may as well say that any time they pay for a story they are inciting others to go copy whatever the story is about. That would be nonsense.

the "here is one I made earlier" argument is surely not applicable.

The Sun by offering money condones an illegal act and therefore is party to it.

Can you imagine someone saying "But I paid the prositute AFTER we had sex so it was not prostitution or grooming" - Grooming can take place by setting people up to think that they may get rich and/or famous by illegal and innapropriate behaviour.

How do we know that the parents of these kids are not videoing their sex sessions and streaming them on the internet ? Sounds quite possible based on their other actions.

The POLICE need to put their foot down and arrest the lot of them and do a proper investigation - rather than laugh it off as having nothing to do with them.

From what I can see this is the media and the authorities conspiring to condone under-age sex. This is how child abuse happens - this is the real story underneath the sensationalism. These two kids have had their lives turned upside down and inside out by the adults around them offering no protection - just money to titilate everyone else.