Can I ask what some may say is a stupid question, we all know Jay didn't know (and should have asked) her age to know she was under age. The message etc were wrong, however Mick and Linda had their first child aged 15, so because they were both underage is that OK then? Both must have known they were underage but still had sex, so how would the law see that?
No it isn't right. I am a survivor of child sex abuse and I only want to see actual perpetrators convicted, not innocent people. Convicting someone like Jay makes a mockery of the convictions secured for real offenders, and also makes a mockery of the real survivors struggles.
No it doesn't. Protecting children comes first which is why this is law. The victim always comes first. We know Jay is innocent but in the eyes of the law he is not the victim, Linzi is as she is a child and he pleaded guilty to having indecent images of a child on his phone...
I'm still shocked people don't understand any of this.
Can I ask what some may say is a stupid question, we all know Jay didn't know (and should have asked) her age to know she was under age. The message etc were wrong, however Mick and Linda had their first child aged 15, so because they were both underage is that OK then? Both must have known they were underage but still had sex, so how would the law see that?
Two underage teens having sex is not the same as an adult having sex with an underage minor.
No it isn't right. I am a survivor of child sex abuse and I only want to see actual perpetrators convicted, not innocent people. Convicting someone like Jay makes a mockery of the convictions secured for real offenders, and also makes a mockery of the real survivors struggles.
I'm sorry but In EE Jay is a real offender
yes the circumstances are unfortunate but saying I didn't know is not really a good enough excuse, anyone can say that. the fact is he had pictures of an underage child on his phone. fact is he had been unknowingly grooming that child and was very lucky Phil sent him to pick up Louise!
the moral of the story is, it is your responsibility to ensure whoever you are doing things with is appropriately aged, just thinking that they look old enough is not enough, especially this day in age when young teens dress like they are ten years older.
had Jay asked her age, its possible non of this would have happened
yes the circumstances are unfortunate but saying I didn't know is not really a good enough excuse, anyone can say that. the fact is he had pictures of an underage child on his phone. fact is he had been unknowingly grooming that child and was very lucky Phil sent him to pick up Louise!
the moral of the story is, it is your responsibility to ensure whoever you are doing things with is appropriately aged, justthinking that they look old enough is not enough, especially this day in age when young teens dress like they are ten years older.
had Jay asked her age, its possible non of this would have happened
No it doesn't. Protecting children comes first which is why this is law. The victim always comes first. We know Jay is innocent but in the eyes of the law he is not the victim, Linzi is as she is a child and he pleaded guilty to having indecent images of a child on his phone...
I'm still shocked people don't understand any of this.
You remind me of the definition of a genius 'someone who found out something just before you did' Really though, most of us do have the power of comprehension we are just not aware of the law regarding this. In my case anyway I'm not a lawyer, I don't have any kids, don't work with kids and have never been involved in any kind of child abuse scenario so why would I know the legal implications
I think what the more general discussion is getting at is the draconian nature of the law in this area and though I understand the protection of the child is paramount what this case reveals is that viewing it in such a black and white way may be doing more harm than good. Also, in Jay's case, he plead guilty in order to get out sooner and even the magistrate accepted that he genuinely didn't know Linzi's age but because he had plead guilty he had to be punished severely. It's like some kind of Kafkaesque hell
You remind me of the definition of a genius 'someone who found out something just before you did' Really though, most of us do have the power of comprehension we are just not aware of the law regarding this. In my case anyway I'm not a lawyer, I don't have any kids, don't work with kids and have never been involved in any kind of child abuse scenario so why would I know the legal implications
I think what the more general discussion is getting at is the draconian nature of the law in this area and though I understand the protection of the child is paramount what this case reveals is that viewing it in such a black and white way may be doing more harm than good. Also, in Jay's case, he plead guilty in order to get out sooner and even the magistrate accepted that he genuinely didn't know Linzi's age but because he had plead guilty he had to be punished severely. It's like some kind of Kafkaesque hell
He had to plead guilty as he was guilty. Going to trial and making a 14 year old give evidence would have meant a harsher sentence.
Pretty tragic really. Jay's life destroyed forever for a misunderstanding and absolutely no detriment to Star.
Tragic indeed awful what has happened to Jay. Obviously contrived soap writing has made him look more suspicious but he really had no idea she was overage and his life has been tuned upside down for it.
Can I ask what some may say is a stupid question, we all know Jay didn't know (and should have asked) her age to know she was under age. The message etc were wrong, however Mick and Linda had their first child aged 15, so because they were both underage is that OK then? Both must have known they were underage but still had sex, so how would the law see that?
Yes he should have asked but would it have changed anything as she wouldn't have given her correct age anyway
Tragic indeed awful what has happened to Jay. Obviously contrived soap writing has made him look more suspicious but he really had no idea she was overage and his life has been tuned upside down for it.
That is the law as it stands she is a minor and therefore in the eyes of the law does not know what is right or wrong when it comes to sexual matters but the older male does
That is the law as it stands she is a minor and therefore in the eyes of the law does not know what is right or wrong when it comes to sexual matters but the older male does
Hard cases make bad law and this is a prime example. Judges have discretion on matters such as knowledge and intent.
He didn't have to plead guilty. No one has to even guilty ones.
Well what was the point of pleading not guilty when he was guilty? As he said he'd likely have gone on remand and been attacked. He'd also have got a worse sentence.
Comments
No it doesn't. Protecting children comes first which is why this is law. The victim always comes first. We know Jay is innocent but in the eyes of the law he is not the victim, Linzi is as she is a child and he pleaded guilty to having indecent images of a child on his phone...
I'm still shocked people don't understand any of this.
Two underage teens having sex is not the same as an adult having sex with an underage minor.
Yes I understand that! But if Lindas family wanted to take it further could they have done? Or because Mick also a minor they couldn't?
I'm sorry but In EE Jay is a real offender
yes the circumstances are unfortunate but saying I didn't know is not really a good enough excuse, anyone can say that. the fact is he had pictures of an underage child on his phone. fact is he had been unknowingly grooming that child and was very lucky Phil sent him to pick up Louise!
the moral of the story is, it is your responsibility to ensure whoever you are doing things with is appropriately aged, just thinking that they look old enough is not enough, especially this day in age when young teens dress like they are ten years older.
had Jay asked her age, its possible non of this would have happened
Well Said.
You remind me of the definition of a genius 'someone who found out something just before you did'
I think what the more general discussion is getting at is the draconian nature of the law in this area and though I understand the protection of the child is paramount what this case reveals is that viewing it in such a black and white way may be doing more harm than good. Also, in Jay's case, he plead guilty in order to get out sooner and even the magistrate accepted that he genuinely didn't know Linzi's age but because he had plead guilty he had to be punished severely. It's like some kind of Kafkaesque hell
He had to plead guilty as he was guilty. Going to trial and making a 14 year old give evidence would have meant a harsher sentence.
He didn't have to plead guilty. No one has to even guilty ones.
Quite right we hear of sexting and revenge porn a lot so it does go on
Jay would be allowed to stay with family who had children as long as the parents knew about the offence and consented to him being there
And the preachy, oh so desperate to be topical lesson they are trying to show us regarding women is so clumsy.
It's like amateur hour down there.
I agree, although since the judgesaid that Jay would only be on that register for 5 years, what happens at the end of those 5 years?
as long as he behaves himself he will not be restricted as he will be
Tragic indeed
Yes he should have asked but would it have changed anything as she wouldn't have given her correct age anyway
That is the law as it stands she is a minor and therefore in the eyes of the law does not know what is right or wrong when it comes to sexual matters but the older male does
Hard cases make bad law and this is a prime example. Judges have discretion on matters such as knowledge and intent.
Well what was the point of pleading not guilty when he was guilty? As he said he'd likely have gone on remand and been attacked. He'd also have got a worse sentence.