According to the exact specific words in the 1933 Act (never repealed)...

Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
-
107 - Interpretation. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say,—
“Child” means a person under the age of fourteen years.

I always thought it was 'under 18' but what I've seen refers to a 'minor' as opposed to 'child'. The age of criminal responsibility in England, Northern Ireland and Wales is 10...in Scotland it is 12. How very peculiar that the definition of a 'child' alters radically throughout the text of law.

The NSPCC website will confirm that there is no single law that defines the age of a child across the UK; there are even differences between the UK nations.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK goverment in 1991, states that a child 'means every human being below the age of 18 years...'

JK2006 wrote:
the 1933 Act (never repealed)...Children and Young Persons Act 1933

Just because an Act has not been repealed does not mean it has not been superceded - as this 80 year old one has been, several times.

The English and UK legal systems are full of old Acts and laws which have no relevance today.

I believe I am entitled to herd sheep over London Bridge: I must try it during the Olympics.

a 'child' means whatever the tabloids want it be.

How the tabloids work:

1. 'investigative' reporter is crowing at present about his 'discovery' that some charities in Asia claiming to save children from prostitution are bogus....he should know locals have been telling him for years some of these so-called 'child protection' groups who are scammers.

No-where in his story (behind Rupert's paywall but free to read on his website..does Rupert know?) does he mention how he previously promoted said scammers.

A child has come to mean under 18 just about everywhere in the world, legally, linguistically, and ethically, largely due to the UN resolution that was mentioned above, and ratified by every country in the world except the USA and Somalia.

Ironically, the USA exerted massive economic and political pressure to ensure both that a child was defined as high as 17, and that every country would sign up to it to ensure that right wing religious freak teachings on adolescent sexuality and abstinance could be exported around the world. The reason America didn't themselves sign up to it was because right-wing freaks didn't want to lose the 'right' to stop putting retarded 14 year old black boys onto death row, or sending 16 year old kids off to die as cannon fodder in petroleum wars - both of which were also included in the resolution (against America's wishes).

The other primary force behind the resolution was feminist fake child protection lobby groups who insisted on defining 17 year old young women as children in order to remove such competitors from the sexual market. Campaigning for a global age of consent of 18 or even 21 was something that feminists were doing as early as the 19th century - even before they were seriously campaiging for a woman's right to vote.

What the consequences of classifying 17 year old young men and women as children, the same as 6 month old babies, will be on their development and whether it is resulting in the infantilisation of both young adults and society itself have been almost completely ignored, aside from one very interesting book that I would highly recommend : www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Against-Adolescenc...ering/dp/0787987379/

One final thing to note is that Rupert Murdoch was still publishing topless pictures of 16 year old 'children' in the Sun long after the UK had ratified this UN resolution defining 16 year olds as children, and which declares that any sexual image of a 16 or 17 year old to be child porn.

But let's be specific here; just as the age of consent is different for every country (and my "crimes" would not have been "crimes" anywhere else in Europe except Ireland), so is the LEGAL definition of a "child".

We are all children (of our parents - and some say of God).

But my point is - it is written in British Law that a child is "a person under 14" and those between 14 and 18 are "young persons".

As a result, the word a "paedophile" (someone who finds a child sexually attractive) should never be used to describe anyone whose area of sexual interest does not involve persons under 14.

JK2006 wrote:
it is written in British Law that a child is "a person under 14"

Yes...written in an 80 year old act. See Ross's point above.

I think the moral aspect is more important than the legal one in certain situations.

A friend of mine who happens to be 44 years of age has recently hooked up with a 17 year old girl.

He has now been disowned by most of his family and so has the girl by her family.

Although he isn't doing anything wrong legally I do find it all a little creepy, especially as he is a few years older than the girls father.

The law makes it clear that the age of consent is 16. You'd be crucified for saying 14 JK. Although some may argue that you've already been crucified so it doesn't matter. You can't crucify someone twice. Can you?

Obviously the age of consent is 16 but the fact is - a child is legally "a person under 14" and therefore, whilst someone having sex with a 14 or 15 year old is still a crime, it is not paedophilia by strict, accurate definition.

Paedophilia is the sexually deviant attraction to pre-pubescent children.

If you deny that historical and still clinical definition and say paedophilia is the attraction to any children, then with the definition of children now including buxom fully grown 17 year old girls then you have to accept that 95% of the heterosexual male population are paedophiles (which is of course what feminists want society to believe).

To that person who came out with 'it's creepy, especially as he's older than her father'.

What kind of logical or moral force does a statement like that have that statements such as the following don't?

'two men having sex...so creepy...it's unnatural'

or

'a black man seeing a white girl...ewwww...what on Earth can they have in common?'

Actually, you'd get arrested for making any of the latter two statements, although they are no more absurd examples of hair brained prejudice as the first.

In relation to that ... I don't know why it's a crime for one man to have sex with another man who is of the age of consent but under 18 when one of them is a teacher. I can understand if that breaks some ethic - but ethics are one thing and law should be another. The law, as it stands, is "an ass" - with different rules for different people, which is always a mistake.

One of the problems is that laws are made by people with good intentions but zero intelligence.

Biologically speaking, children become adolescents at the start of puberty at the age of about 10 and I imagine most men are sexually attracted to girls or boys down to that kind of age.

10? Oh dear! Did I really say that?!

and to complicate all this..age of consent laws are lower in France , Italy, Germany, Spain and the Scandanavian countries so a "paedo" is only a EU regional claim depending upon where you live (and when the tabloids decide)

Funnily enough PH - I tend to be on the other side in the "teacher" situation; I really hate the idea of pressure that's not a part of physical or emotional attachment being used in relationships.

I never, ever crossed the line - people who worked for me often had no idea what my sexuality was and, I hope, never felt that I might "come on" to them. I think it's immoral to tell a girl you love her when you don't and intend to drop her after you've scored.

The special relationship between teachers and pupils, family members, vicars and church members - it's a dangerous area and both sides should be dissuaded from allowing themselves to become involved personally. Of course it is bound to happen - and often WITHOUT pressure - but the young can be seduced when in situations they cannot get out of.

One of the reasons I so objected to the prosecution case against me - that there was "abuse of trust". In every personal relationship of mine, the younger person could easily make excuses and not visit me (distance, boredom, lack of musical interest, etc). There was no reason why, if they did not enjoy visiting me or hated any aspect of our friendship, they could not have simply stopped visiting me.

When it's a teacher or priest or relative, that is harder to do. That is "abuse of trust".

JK2006 wrote:
Funnily enough PH - I tend to be on the other side in the "teacher" situation; I really hate the idea of pressure that's not a part of physical or emotional attachment being used in relationships.

I never, ever crossed the line - people who worked for me often had no idea what my sexuality was and, I hope, never felt that I might "come on" to them. I think it's immoral to tell a girl you love her when you don't and intend to drop her after you've scored.

The special relationship between teachers and pupils, family members, vicars and church members - it's a dangerous area and both sides should be dissuaded from allowing themselves to become involved personally. Of course it is bound to happen - and often WITHOUT pressure - but the young can be seduced when in situations they cannot get out of.

One of the reasons I so objected to the prosecution case against me - that there was "abuse of trust". In every personal relationship of mine, the younger person could easily make excuses and not visit me (distance, boredom, lack of musical interest, etc). There was no reason why, if they did not enjoy visiting me or hated any aspect of our friendship, they could not have simply stopped visiting me.

When it's a teacher or priest or relative, that is harder to do. That is "abuse of trust".


I agree with you that abuse of trust is wrong, which is why a teacher or doctor or priest as to be struck off when they are found to have done wrong, but that is a separate thing to it being a crime. Either there is equality and consistency in the law or the whole thing becomes a joke. We can't have one law for certain groups and other laws for others - therein lies folly.

Pumpkinhead wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Funnily enough PH - I tend to be on the other side in the "teacher" situation; I really hate the idea of pressure that's not a part of physical or emotional attachment being used in relationships.

I never, ever crossed the line - people who worked for me often had no idea what my sexuality was and, I hope, never felt that I might "come on" to them. I think it's immoral to tell a girl you love her when you don't and intend to drop her after you've scored.

The special relationship between teachers and pupils, family members, vicars and church members - it's a dangerous area and both sides should be dissuaded from allowing themselves to become involved personally. Of course it is bound to happen - and often WITHOUT pressure - but the young can be seduced when in situations they cannot get out of.

One of the reasons I so objected to the prosecution case against me - that there was "abuse of trust". In every personal relationship of mine, the younger person could easily make excuses and not visit me (distance, boredom, lack of musical interest, etc). There was no reason why, if they did not enjoy visiting me or hated any aspect of our friendship, they could not have simply stopped visiting me.

When it's a teacher or priest or relative, that is harder to do. That is "abuse of trust".


I agree with you that abuse of trust is wrong, which is why a teacher or doctor or priest as to be struck off when they are found to have done wrong, but that is a separate thing to it being a crime. Either there is equality and consistency in the law or the whole thing becomes a joke. We can't have one law for certain groups and other laws for others - therein lies folly.

I'd dispute that and say that the law is used every day disproportionately against different people and is driven more by media interference and the false perceptions of community "standards".

The Netherlands ( a basically very conservative country) had the most sensible laws-especially in sex matters- for decades that allowed a whole range of factors to be taken into account including whether there really had been 'predatory' seduction (by either party..younger or older). how the relationship was conducted..if the parties were genuinely in love and so on.

Basically they did their best to treat such matters as what they were..often highly sensitive matters of the heart..human frailty...or rape etc, and then penalties (if any) were tempered by the result.

sadly, just like their dope smoking laws the mentality of the EU is reducing such things to a more penalised system.

Pumpkinhead wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Funnily enough PH - I tend to be on the other side in the "teacher" situation; I really hate the idea of pressure that's not a part of physical or emotional attachment being used in relationships.

I never, ever crossed the line - people who worked for me often had no idea what my sexuality was and, I hope, never felt that I might "come on" to them. I think it's immoral to tell a girl you love her when you don't and intend to drop her after you've scored.

The special relationship between teachers and pupils, family members, vicars and church members - it's a dangerous area and both sides should be dissuaded from allowing themselves to become involved personally. Of course it is bound to happen - and often WITHOUT pressure - but the young can be seduced when in situations they cannot get out of.

One of the reasons I so objected to the prosecution case against me - that there was "abuse of trust". In every personal relationship of mine, the younger person could easily make excuses and not visit me (distance, boredom, lack of musical interest, etc). There was no reason why, if they did not enjoy visiting me or hated any aspect of our friendship, they could not have simply stopped visiting me.

When it's a teacher or priest or relative, that is harder to do. That is "abuse of trust".


I agree with you that abuse of trust is wrong, which is why a teacher or doctor or priest as to be struck off when they are found to have done wrong, but that is a separate thing to it being a crime. Either there is equality and consistency in the law or the whole thing becomes a joke. We can't have one law for certain groups and other laws for others - therein lies folly.

Agreed young man,perhaps at best we could try them for 'abuse of trust'? But that seems a bit daft too.

Black man seeing a white girl is more common then ever my step sister is married to a black man they couldn't be happier and look at ITK welfare mums many of them have a black or brown baby. It is well documented that children can produce from the age of 9.

I don't agree that Sixth Form and college teachers can be struck off with having sex with students, at the college I went to a teacher quit so he could get married to one of his students.

Let the good times roll.