The "New" Paedophiles are people who have had sex before they are 16 with others that age - and then for compensation purposes they are now being brought to court.

www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/art...-involving-children/

The 28 year old man would have been 14 years old at the time of the alleged offences.

Just shows how the Police are manipulating the media as well - because it sounds as if he is 28 years old at the time of the alleged offence.

It should read - 14 year old accused of sex offences at the age of 28 years old......if TRUTH was the aim with the Police spin.

We live in very dangerous times when the STATE is condoning UNDER AGE SEX every day - yet 10 years later is prosecuting the very people they are encouraging to have sexual experimentation.

This is STATE GROOMING - with a purpose of "creating" criminal offences to be "sleeping" until someone decides that the person is "ripe" for picking.

KIDS should be taught that IF they indulge in ANY sexual contact before the age of 16 years old - they will potentially be prosecuted at any time for the rest of their lives.

I dont believe SCHOOLS are teaching "This New Law" with relation to sexual contact. They are only GROOMING children to participate if their hormones are ready.

This is a very EVIL TRICK by the STATE on the kids of today.

KEN CLARKE should change ALL sex offence laws which carry a 5 year+ sentence to a FIVE YEAR reporting term. This would stop this grooming dead in its tracks and put Sexual Offences on a par with most crime.

Rape and Murder should be the only offences that have no time limit - because they have such a high burden of proof.

All other offences are impossible to prove either way after 5 years ( probably after 1 year ) so this unfair law should be changed.

The cost of historic sexual offence cases ( as in this case ) is the biggest cost to the Police and Courts because there is no real evidence and it leads to appeals and multi appeals and technical arguments which can drag a simple trial out to years of wrangling.

At this time of CUTTING the easiest way to cut the budget would be to put a FIVE YEAR BAR on Sexual Offence cases. At a stroke the STATE would save over a BILLION a year.

Groups should lobby for this - justice is not served by witch hunting children from the past for their sexual indescretions.

This is just ONE case of many hundreds that are coming into the courts right now in 2010 because the Police have run out of dirty vicars and operation ore type things.

BR you do serious damage to a legitimate concern when the article refers to claims up to 2006 - when he would have been 24. A different thing.

'Rape and Murder should be the only offences that have no time limit - because they have such a high burden of proof.'

Are you sure? They charged me with rape of a minor,including a verbal tale from a girl of bad character that was physically impossible!

Thanks JK, you write:

"BR you do serious damage to a legitimate concern when the article refers to.."

This choice, rounded yet tastefully reserved turn of phrase merits recycling. Can I use it to preface future comments on BR's many excesses?

Best Wishes,
Jim

JK2006 wrote:
BR you do serious damage to a legitimate concern when the article refers to claims up to 2006 - when he would have been 24. A different thing.

true but I believe there should be a statute of limits.

There is on state sanctioned murder...Ian Tomlinson. 6 months pass and the person gets away with it but 'sexual touching' (???) and it could come back 40 years later to haunt you.

The article said 1994 - 1996. That is when he was 12 - 14 years old.

How can that do any damage to my post ?

That is when he is accused - from TWELVE years old to FOURTEEN ( as I said in my original post )

That is plainly ridiculous.

Read the article BR - it says 2006.

When I posted it - it said 1996. I would not have made the mistake of thinking this was 2006.

Even so - it is strange that they are charging him with offences from the age of 12 years old to the age of 24.

Totally ridiculous.

Thanks BR, you write:

"When I posted it - it said 1996. I would not have made the mistake of thinking this was 2006."

If you had copied and pasted from the article we could have more confidence in this.

Best Wishes,
Jim