What next, Police now think that you cannot class anyone a Paedophile if their victim is over 13?

Question

What is happening to the Laws of this country

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19112006/325/policeman-questions-paedophilia-policy.html

A senior policeman has questioned the country's policy over paedophilia, saying adults who have sex with girls above the age of 13 should not be classed as paedophiles.

Answer 1

What ever happened to statutory rape and age of consent?

Answer 2

The point being made is that you cannot classify a 15 year old boy a paedophile for having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend. This is not a discussion about old men having sex with young girls. A man of 18 having sex with a 13 year old would face the charge of paedophilia. What is really under discussion here is child sex involving children or minors and not adults.

Answer 3

Blimey! Sceptic agrees with Veritas! That doesn't happen often.

But as someone has already said - ONE police officer has raised the question, is the stand we take actually in the best interests of protecting children?

Does it protect children by labelling the teenager who has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend in the same way as the serial abuser of very young girls? Obviously not.

If we target resources a little more, then perhaps the sex offenders' register can be reserved for those who pose a threat to the public, and a much closer watch be kept on them.

It is, however, very worrying just how many of you lot fly off the handle and go into a self-righteous rant without the first idea of what you are referring to.

Answer 4

Great stuff. So now all the sickos can go out and molest 13 and 14 year old boys and girls and presumably its "OK".

IMHO anyone who molests a child under 16 is a paedophile as sex is not lawful until the age of 16. After that its sexual assult or rape. Period.

As for 15 year olds having sex with other 15 year olds that is unlikey to be considered an offence, nor should it be. Kids will always have sex. But if you're talking about a 39 year old having sex with 14 and 15 year old girls then yes he's a ******* sicko and needs to be locked up. He's taking advantage of a young girl and its sick and wrong!

But then what do you expect from this circus of a government that allowed a convicted paedo to work out in a *school gym* to avoid infringing his "human rights"!!

Answer 5

I think that he has a point. There is a world of difference between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent people. The original law, before the term paedophile came into our language, used to draw a distinction in terms of the seriousness of the offence, between -13 and 13+. You have to remember that 16 is only a line in the sand. It isn't universally applied around the world, and didn't even used to be applied in this country years ago. It is frighteningly easy to get yourself onto the sex offenders register for all sorts of things. I simply think that the issue needs looking at again with a cool head, after all, aren't schools who issue condoms to young people being pragmatic, or are they encouraging it? The whole thing has been ratcheted up by those with an agenda.

Answer 6

Over 13 it's unlawful sexual intercourse - under 13 rape. If both parties are consenting. If a 19 year old man has sex with a 13 year old who is mature - it's unlawful sexual intercourse - not rape if she is consenting. the police officer was making the point that in those cicumstances. The man should not be placed on the sex offenders register and consume a lot of police time for something that happens all the time and rarely gets reported. I've seen 13 and 14 year old girls on the game near where I live - and they use the pub - bit of make up and they look 18. You have to be realistic. A few years ago people imagined commies under every bed - now it's paedophiles - what next - Bin Laden?

Answer 7

its ridiculous...you're not allowed to vote or legally drink until you're aged 18...so thats when you become an adult...however you have to pay adult prices for everything at the age of 13 and now some official in the police force has decided that sexual abusers should only be classed as paedophiles if their victim is under the age of 13!

A 13 year-old is still vulnerable...even an 18 year old is but an abuser should be classed as a paedophile if his or her victims are age anything below 18! The country's going topsy-tuvy for even suggesting otherwise!!!!

Answer 8

I think people have misunderstood what Chief Constable Terry Grange actually said - and I think I agree with him.....
Of course it's totally wrong for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old, 14 year old, 15 year old girl. Throw the book at him, lock him up AND put him on the sex offenders' register, label him as a paedophile, because that's what he is.
But what of a 19 year old boy who has sex with a 15 year old girl, (knowing her age for the legal eagles...). Is that the same thing? The law actually says that it is - and puts him on the sex offenders' register as.... a paedophile.
Now, what he's done ain't right - I'm not saying that. But it's not the same as the pervert 30 year old, is it?
If we brand EVERYONE who has sex with an underage girl as a paedophile we a) distort the meaning of the term b) label someone, possibly for life, as something that they are not and c) making it harder for the police to target the odious perverts who deserve to be on the register.
And remember - although the legal age for sex for a girl IN THIS COUNTRY (UK) is 16, it's older or younger in other, similar countries, showing that all cut off ages are arbitrary.
In essence - wide age gap - perverted paedophile; small age gap, look at the circumstances and make the appropriate, not a mandated, decision.

Answer 9

He didnt actually say that now did he?! He said there is a difference - and indeed there is. There is no question about the fact that both are wrong but the public perception of a peadophile is someone who preys on young, often very young children for their own personal sexual gratification. To assume that a person, often not that much over the age of consent themselves, in a relationship with a person slightly younger who chooses to have sexual intercourse is the same as the latter is ridiculous.

It is still wrong. But it is not the same.

Answer 10

I think that it is ridiculous and will be seen so by the majority of people so will not be legalised. The age of consent is there for a reason and 13 is NOT a reasonable age to be having sex. By saying this it is going to encourage paedophiles as they won't think that it's wrong when it blatently is!!!!

Answer 11

what does a young teen know about consenting to sex? this is crazy! a child in that age group most likely hasnt enough knowledge about sexual issues. they are not emotionally stable enough to make this kind of decision. if they are considered unable to be emotionally and knowledgable enough to vote or drive or any of the other priveleges adults have then why are we leaving this up to them also?
i believe in just saying no to them and explaining why...and yes someone older having sex with someone so young should be prosecuted. they are pedaphiles! we dont allow them to smoke...we say no legally here in the states....why cant we say no to a serious thing as sex? we need to keep these type of people in the right catagory....pedafiles. this is so irresponsible on the legal societies part i cant believe it!