|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 10, 2023 7:08:13 GMT
I think the Law is at fault here as it is not coherent. A 17 year old can (and probably does) fuck whoever they like - but getting your bits out for the camera is illegal...  |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Jul 10, 2023 7:40:49 GMT
This is about a lot more (potentially) than a 17 year old "getting her bits out".
Sergeant Eldest Son explains..
(I'm paraphrasing, but this is what he said about it yesterday..)
There may be the issue of producing a lewd or obscene image involving someone under the age of 18, but there are also safeguarding issues if the young person is declared "vulnerable", there's also a potential charge involving Coercive Control, too. There can also be chargeable offences involving the aspect of paying money in the knowledge that it will be used in the commission of a crime (ie the purchase of Class A drugs). Also (depending upon the methods of money transfer used, and the declaration or otherwise of those transfers) there could even be fraud/tax evasion offences, if you REALLY want to throw the book at him..
He's currently coming to the end of an extended period as Desk Sergeant - meaning he spends all day, every day, reading out what people are accused of. He certainly seems to know his way around a Charge Sheet.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 8:48:42 GMT
This isn’t a case of paedophilia. Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre pubescent children. Legally it's about under-age children. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 8:51:22 GMT
I think the Law is at fault here as it is not coherent. A 17 year old can (and probably does) fuck whoever they like - but getting your bits out for the camera is illegal... I tend to agree: The law is a mess. The law defines a child as any person under 18. Yet the age of consent is 16, so effectively the law allows sex with children (but no photos). It's a crazy world. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 9:00:54 GMT
This isn’t a case of paedophilia. Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre pubescent children. Legally it's about under-age children. Illegal underage sex is not necessarily paedophilia . |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Jul 10, 2023 9:03:10 GMT
Legally it's about under-age children. "Legally", it's more likely to be about Safeguarding, and Coercive Control of a vulnerable person. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 9:30:03 GMT
Legally it's about under-age children. Illegal underage sex is not necessarily paedophilia . There is no universally accepted definition of paedophilia and neither does the law define it.
But that's irrelevant: What we're discussing here is possible unlawful sexual activity with a child. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 9:38:54 GMT
Illegal underage sex is not necessarily paedophilia . There is no universally accepted definition of paedophilia and neither does the law define it.
But that's irrelevant: What we're discussing here is possible unlawful sexual activity with a child. There is , it’s the sexual attraction to pre pubescent children . |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 9:42:49 GMT
Nope, that's just your opinion and it's still wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not an offence of unlawful sexual activity has taken place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 9:58:35 GMT
Nope, that's just your opinion and it's still wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not an offence of unlawful sexual activity has taken place. It’s not my opinion , it’s the definition. Its very relevant . |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 10:05:05 GMT
Nope, that's just your opinion and it's still wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not an offence of unlawful sexual activity has taken place. It’s not my opinion , it’s the definition. Its very relevant . OK then, please quote the act and section that defines it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 10:14:26 GMT
It’s not my opinion , it’s the definition. Its very relevant . OK then, please quote the act and section that defines it. What? There is a clear definition of paedophilia . You should buy a dictionary or go to the university of google . Sexual activity with pre pubescent children is a whole new level of depravity. People that spout ‘ paedophile’ at men who exploit 17 year olds ignore this . |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 10:29:57 GMT
OK then, please quote the act and section that defines it. What? There is a clear definition of paedophilia . You should buy a dictionary or go to the university of google . Sexual activity with pre pubescent children is a whole new level of depravity. People that spout ‘ paedophile’ at men who exploit 17 year olds ignore this . Ah, so it's not a legal definition. Which is why I said it's irrelevant: If we go back to the OP, the question is whether or not an offence of unlawful sexual activity has taken place. Which has absolutely nothing to do with your personally accepted definition of paedophilia.
Now can you please stop the off-topic whataboutery, there's a chap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 10, 2023 11:00:19 GMT
What? There is a clear definition of paedophilia . You should buy a dictionary or go to the university of google . Sexual activity with pre pubescent children is a whole new level of depravity. People that spout ‘ paedophile’ at men who exploit 17 year olds ignore this . Ah, so it's not a legal definition. Which is why I said it's irrelevant: If we go back to the OP, the question is whether or not an offence of unlawful sexual activity has taken place. Which has absolutely nothing to do with your personally accepted definition of paedophilia.
Now can you please stop the off-topic whataboutery, there's a chap.
It’s THE definition not mine . You undermine just how horrendous sexual activity with pre pubescent is when you call watching a 17 year old undress paedophilia . However , if you think that watching a 17 year old undress is the same as abusive 9 year olds then that your problem . Isn’t it..old chap. Dictionaries are free now. I suggest that you use them. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 10, 2023 11:13:15 GMT
It’s THE definition not mine . You undermine just how horrendous sexual activity with pre pubescent is when you call watching a 17 year old undress paedophilia . However , if you think that watching a 17 year old undress is the same as abusive 9 year olds then that your problem . Isn’t it..old chap. Dictionaries are free now. I suggest that you use them. Nope, as stated, there is no universally accepted standard definition. There are however, quite clear legal definitions around sexual activity with minors. That is why my own personally accepted definition falls exactly into line with sexual offences as defined by law. That way I don't need to draw imaginary, and highly subjective, lines in the sand. Let me be quite clear: If you are above the legal age and you engage in sexual activity with someone defined in law as being below the legal age then you are a paedophile. No if's, no buts. If you think otherwise, then you're on very thin ice. Old chap. |
|
