So you would raise the age of consent for hetrosexuals to 18 in line with homosexuals?
Mind you when the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 18 was discussed in parliament Edwina Currie did argue it should be lowered to 16, so you could be right about character.
It's 16 for both isn't it? The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, became law in January 2001 throughout the UK, and thus equalised the age of consent at 16 for both heterosexual and homosexual acts (including, for the first time, lesbian acts), except those taking place between a 16-17 year old and someone "in a position of trust" (e.g. a teacher), where the age of consent was raised to 18. (from wikipedia)
I think you'll find that the age of consent was equalised in the UK quite a while ago now.
True.
2003 I believe, due to an European ruling.
If someone had argued to lower it from 18 to 16 would their character have been seriously questioned?
Just realised Harvey Proctor who I've seen described as scum for engaging the services of two willing male prostitutes, would have broken no laws if he'd waited 20 years.
It's 16 for both isn't it?
The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, became law in January 2001 throughout the UK, and thus equalised the age of consent at 16 for both heterosexual and homosexual acts (including, for the first time, lesbian acts), except those taking place between a 16-17 year old and someone "in a position of trust" (e.g. a teacher), where the age of consent was raised to 18.
The point I was making was that, 'seriously question anyone's character if they think lowering the age of consent is a remotely good idea' isn't a good idea.
As before 1967 homosexuals were barred from any sexual activity, then the age of consent for them became 21, which was lowered to 18 in the 1990's.
Lesbians never seemed subject to legal restrictions.
1275 saw the age of consent for females set at 12.
1533 buggery male or female was punishable by death
1861 the death penalty was removed for buggery
1875 following concerns girls being sold to brothels the age of consent was raised to 13
1885 age of consent was raised to 16
1885 outlawed any kind of sexual activity between males
1967 homosexual acts were decriminalised, age of consent set at 21
1994 age of consent for homosexual acts lowered to 18
1997 the European Court of Human Rights held that a higher age of consent for homosexuals than for heterosexuals was a breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.
1997 House of Lords rejected change in the law
1998 House of Lords again rejected change in the law
2000 passed under the Parliament Act 1911, Lords overruled.
The point I was making was that, 'seriously question anyone's character if they think lowering the age of consent is a remotely good idea' isn't a good idea.
I meant lowering the age of consent to anything below sixteen is a terrible idea. I think sixteen is a good age for the age of consent and I would indeed be very wary of anyone who wanted it lower than sixteen.
I have no idea why you've brought homosexuals into the argument. I wasn't even thinking about the age of consent in a way that would make me think to bring it up in a straight and/or gay context.
You are very frustrating to try and discuss anything with.
I meant lowering the age of consent to anything below sixteen is a terrible idea. I think sixteen is a good age for the age of consent and I would indeed be very wary of anyone who wanted it lower than sixteen.
According to that Wikipedia item, the age of consent in Spain is 13...in most of Europe it seems to be 16 although in some places it's 18.
I'm guessing in some countries the population might be wary of you and your motives thinking 16 was an acceptable age of consent.
Internet search engines also need to take responsibility with these foul images and films...... how do people find these films/images without a search engine.....?
Internet search engines also need to take responsibility with these foul images and films...... how do people find these films/images without a search engine.....?
the internet as you know it goes much deeper and a far more frightening place .
that is where they get access to that kind of material .
and a lot more besides .
"The case of a 12-year-old girl called a 'liar' by barristers whilst being cross-examined during the trial of her father - he was accused of sexually abusing her and other children."
The age of consent is an arbitary concept, there is no special reason for it to be 16, and you could make a reasonable case for lowering it given how many teenagers ignore the law and how few are prosecuted, or at least for a romeo and juilet clause as in other countries which legalises sex between couples a few years either side of the age of consent.
There is a sense that the internet’s chaotic and exponential growth makes preventing such behaviour almost impossible
As Carole Vorderman said , the likes of Google know what we are all doing online , they force ads at us based on pages we visit, they could do more if they wanted , it might involve spending some of their cash that they avoid tax on but they could if they tried.
Mark Williams-Thomas @mwilliamsthomas
Massive cuts means that not even every computer/device seized form a suspected child offender will be examined. This is a failure.
Mark Williams-Thomas @mwilliamsthomas
Massive cuts means that not even every computer/device seized form a suspected child offender will be examined. This is a failure.
Comments
It's 16 for both isn't it?
The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, became law in January 2001 throughout the UK, and thus equalised the age of consent at 16 for both heterosexual and homosexual acts (including, for the first time, lesbian acts), except those taking place between a 16-17 year old and someone "in a position of trust" (e.g. a teacher), where the age of consent was raised to 18. (from wikipedia)
True.
2003 I believe, due to an European ruling.
If someone had argued to lower it from 18 to 16 would their character have been seriously questioned?
Just realised Harvey Proctor who I've seen described as scum for engaging the services of two willing male prostitutes, would have broken no laws if he'd waited 20 years.
The point I was making was that, 'seriously question anyone's character if they think lowering the age of consent is a remotely good idea' isn't a good idea.
As before 1967 homosexuals were barred from any sexual activity, then the age of consent for them became 21, which was lowered to 18 in the 1990's.
According to Wikipedia in the UK ...
Lesbians never seemed subject to legal restrictions.
1275 saw the age of consent for females set at 12.
1533 buggery male or female was punishable by death
1861 the death penalty was removed for buggery
1875 following concerns girls being sold to brothels the age of consent was raised to 13
1885 age of consent was raised to 16
1885 outlawed any kind of sexual activity between males
1967 homosexual acts were decriminalised, age of consent set at 21
1994 age of consent for homosexual acts lowered to 18
1997 the European Court of Human Rights held that a higher age of consent for homosexuals than for heterosexuals was a breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.
1997 House of Lords rejected change in the law
1998 House of Lords again rejected change in the law
2000 passed under the Parliament Act 1911, Lords overruled.
You really like to make bizarre and totally unfounded assumptions against posters you disagree with, don't you? :rolleyes:
I meant lowering the age of consent to anything below sixteen is a terrible idea. I think sixteen is a good age for the age of consent and I would indeed be very wary of anyone who wanted it lower than sixteen.
I have no idea why you've brought homosexuals into the argument. I wasn't even thinking about the age of consent in a way that would make me think to bring it up in a straight and/or gay context.
You are very frustrating to try and discuss anything with.
According to that Wikipedia item, the age of consent in Spain is 13...in most of Europe it seems to be 16 although in some places it's 18.
I'm guessing in some countries the population might be wary of you and your motives thinking 16 was an acceptable age of consent.
Trust that gives you a better understanding.
Spain is in the process of raising its age of consent
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/09/spain-raises-age-of-consent-for-sex-marriage/
A horrible case
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/05/mother-of-sex-abuse-victims-accuses-250-of-pedophilia-in-suit/
the internet as you know it goes much deeper and a far more frightening place .
that is where they get access to that kind of material .
and a lot more besides .
search " deep web" on wiki
http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/postcards/pres.shtml
Fortunately it doesn't seem to work.
Maybe its an idea to get in touch with BBC about that link.
I can do that if you want or I'm happy to leave it to you.:)
That says it was raised on medical grounds.
Here's a bit more background..upto 1996 it had been 12 years of age.
Meanwhile in India the age is said to have remained at 18 due to recent incidents.
Done it. I suppose they may want to argue that it's part of history, and it isn't normal to remove nasty people from history books etc. We'll see.
OK............thanks for responding.:)
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/male-survivors-of-child-abuse/
Victoria Derbyshire on 5Live this morning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01xpypj/Victoria_Derbyshire_30_05_2013/
6m 45s in.
Interview with the girl, relatives and MWT. Hard to listen too, even though the girl is voiced by an actress.
Oh my God, you are infuriating. Ignore list here I come...
https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/this-morning/31-05-2013
4m 40s in.
Posting here because MWT is discussing the case.
http://blogs.channel4.com/geoff-white-on-technology/2013/05/31/curb-spreading-indecent-images-online/
There is a sense that the internet’s chaotic and exponential growth makes preventing such behaviour almost impossible
As Carole Vorderman said , the likes of Google know what we are all doing online , they force ads at us based on pages we visit, they could do more if they wanted , it might involve spending some of their cash that they avoid tax on but they could if they tried.
Massive cuts means that not even every computer/device seized form a suspected child offender will be examined. This is a failure.
source?