If the minimum age to appear in porn is 18 …

When I was 16 I had a 14 year old girlfriend for a time. Neither of us were paedophiles. Had we still been together when I was 18 and she was 16, I would not suddenly have become a paedophile in law on my 18th birthday. You are stretching the definition of a paedophile to a ridiculous extent. There are plenty of circumstances where sexual attraction to a 17 year old might be considered inappropriate, perhaps even illegal in some aspects. But attraction to a 17 year old does not make you a paedophile, since to all intents and purposes a 17 year old is fully developed sexually and physically. Finding a 17 year old sexually attractive can be considered normal, even though most of us are way too old to go beyond merely noticing it. Finding a 7 year old sexually attractive is a vastly more abnormal and serious thing, and trying to put both in the same category just looks silly.

If this is all it is purported to be, surely any sensible person needs to question why the parents of the 17 year old chose to first go to the BBC itself, then one of the scummiest rags on the market? When surely the proper thing to have done if all is as has been reported is to have gone to the police first and foremost?

This highlights to me the possibility - just the possibility, I am going no further than that - that this is something been over-sensationalised for whatever dubious ends. Are the parents trying to make money out of their son's problems? We just don't know yet. But what we do know is the newspaper headlines are not reliably accurate all too often. In fact, the Sun itself has form when it comes to printing what is supposedly "The Truth". Ask the people of Liverpool.

That does not mean that it is necessarily lying now. But only a gullible fool would accept such headlines now as gospel truth without first waiting for more official revelations from the authorities, including the police.

I do not think that a 16 year old engaging in sexual activity with his 15 year old girlfriend is motivated by paedophilia, even though it is against the law. Such a definition of paedophilia would clearly be ridiculous nonsense. This would not be a crime of paedophilia, merely a crime of underage sex between young people of similar age. To treat that 16 year old lad as a paedophile would be grossly disproportionate. Linking paedophile yearnings with pre-pubescence - psychologically speaking - is much more accurate a definition.

I know that when I was 16 or 17, there were 14 or 15 year olds that I still fancied. Now that I am 58 I never fancy anyone so young. A 16 or 17 year old budding paedophile would be very different in that he would likely fancy people of 9 or 10 or even younger. And he would still be doing so at my age. If you cannot tell the difference you do not understand the problem.

According to the stepfather “I told the BBC I had gone to the police in desperation but they couldn’t do anything as they said it wasn’t illegal.''

WTF has it to do with the stepfather who the kid wants to have sexual relationships with?

A top BBC presenter explains how the BBC holds and maintains editorial standards and accuracy to an audience of children. It is a very informative video and will help those still undecided about whether to pay for a TV Licence.