Mick

iTrader: (1)

With reference to the thread about the 3 sisters of 12, 14 and 16... http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429076 !

Is there not a legal age of consent anymore?

There is a young child of 12 at a hospital I heard about... NOBODY is interested in who the father is - apparently he is ~ 35 years old! - possibly her own father...

I don't know about anybody else here - but that sort of thing makes my skin crawl...

Mick

TheBigMan

Yep, it is dirt indeed!!

gyfto1

the only way to stop this stuff nowdays seems to be to castrate their brothers and fathers,uncles etc.

vindaloo

No!

There is however the slight issue of identifying the perpetrator.
If the girl won't identify the individual and her parent(s) won't agree then it's hard to see what can be done short of 'catching them in the act'. People have human rights and whipping off a couple of cells to do a DNA match is invasive.

With the strength of feeling that the word paedo. generates, anyone wanting to make a case has to be bl**dy careful they're targetting the right person and can make a case stick. The consequences of getting it wrong could be terminal and/or very costly.

In the case of a 35 year old, I agree, it's not right. What if the 'lover' was 14 though, or 15 or even 18?

J.

MJW

In answer to the thread question I guess it must be in the USA, since convicted sex offenders can easily get hold of Viagra tablets while still in prison !!

OllyK

Once the "lover" is 16 or over (IIRC) and certainly by 18 then they can be convicted of having sex with a minor. It may even be possible to do so if they are both under 16, especially if the male is older.

I need to check, but I think underage sex is illegal, so the the girls have broken the law anyway and should be prosecuted accordingly. Harsh, but it may spark a nano second of thought.

scoob_babe

According to yesterday's Fox news, there was an oversight because Viagra was made available through Medicaid and it couldn't be refused to any prisoner in New York state. Apparently its being closed but the news broke yesterday and there was outrage, unsurprisingly

OllyK

This may answer a few questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_r...dia/437789.stm

Basically there are laws there but it is often considered not in the public interest to persue it. However, the 12 year old, who ever had sex with her should have been chared with rape apparently.

Leslie

In days gone by it used to be considered morally wrong to have sex outside marriage. The reasons of course were obvious and seeing the present state of things in that respect in this country, maybe older ideals were not all bad.

Children then did not consider going in for sexual activities beyond a bit of "petting " etc. since there was a stigma of shame attached to becoming pregnant outside wedlock. Certainly children of that age would not consider sex since they were more occupied with other things to do in life. Abortion was illegal and pretty dangerous too in the backstreet "clinics".

Maybe we should ask ourselves whether the modern day approach to all this is the best way. Children are being forced into adult ways before they are sufficiently mentally developed or experienced in life to be able to make the right sort of decisions over this.

If they do start a baby off, then they are assumed to be a victim of bad luck and it is never really considered to be a fault in their behaviour. Abortion is easily available and is used as a form of contraception. Issuing children with contraceptives without the knowledge of their parents will obviously put the wrong ideas in their heads as well.

I am on record as saying that I believe abortion to be wrong and that it is not fair to end a baby's life just as a matter of convenience. That human life begins at the moment of conception when the cells start to divide to form the foetus. Whoever is at fault, it is certainly not the unborn child and it deserves its own chance of life.

I believe it is about time to start to change attitudes to that of more personal responsibility, especially those of the parents. Start by making them responsible for wrongs committed by their children and making them pay for damage etc that they may cause. That might get a few of them taking a bit more interest in how their children are brought up! Make them also responsible for supporting the babies born out of wedlock too.

Les

Iwan

[Leslie]
Bring back the birch!
[/Leslie]



Seriously, i agree totally with the above. Efforts need to be taken to stop children thinking that being a parent at 12/14 is glamourous, cool, or even a good idea.

Laws need to be toughened up, or just implemented effectively.

1. The fathers are all paedos, put them in prison for a long time.

2. The girls have all broken the law, put them in a young offenders instititution. or take them into care as their mother is clearly failing in her duty of care.

3. The babies have done nothing wrong; take them into care and let them be fostered/adopted by a caring family who may not be able to have kids themselves, but have the means to look after them and give them the best possible life.

4. Remove benefits for the illegally young mothers, by getting pregnant in the first place they broke the law. They shouldn't be rewarded for breaking it.

5. Prosecute the mother for aiding and abetting the behaviour that caused the problem. She's basically allowed child abuse to happen and done nothing to prevent it. This is already being done for child truancy, where parents are prosecuted and fined if their children repeatedly play truant.

6. On the wide subject of benefits. Why not make the rules the same as for EU migrant workers from the recently joined countries? Until you've contributed tax/NI for 2 years you're entitled to ZERO benefit other than healthcare. Also limit the maximum number of consecutive years you can be on benefit without contributing anything, go over that and you get nothing.

7. Remove tax/benefit incentives for having kids outside of marriage completely. Bring back favourable tax/benefit advantages for having kids inside marriage.

8. Bring back the birch.

Yes, the prison population would go up at first but the drop in the state benefits loading would compensate. In the long term the presence of effective deterrants would bring down the prison population. And we'd have a more responsible society.

OllyK

And others see it differently.

Conception? If contraception was in place you wouldn't be in this mess

There's a hell of a difference between a zygote and a foetus.

Fine we'll have them delivered round to your house and you can personally raise and pay for them.

I agree with most of that, but the kids also need to learn responsibility other wise it is just becomes a pass the buck issue.

If they choose to have the child. You won't agree with me, but in the case of 2 of the 3 girls, abortion would have been the responsible course of action.

DeanF

iTrader: (1)

Les,

But what if that child was to not get the best chance of life, A very high portion of children are not wanted, Abused Mistreated & missed by the authoritys, There lives are hell from day 1 due to neglect etc, Is this fair also ??
Here is another can of worms, Similar,
Happened in my family
young female 37 Yrs old, dying from cancer, all her lower spine area eaten away, she wants to die, infact she deserves to, you have to watch her suffering day to day.
If she was an Animal we would be prosecuted for keeping her in that state & the animal would be put down, Is / was her life worth living, who becomes Judge !!!
Dean

Tiggs

this is ALL about money....not having sex at a young age.

if kids of 13 want sex let them crack on (in years gone by it would be the norm anyway - the very fact they get pregnat shows they are "ready" physically)

the problem is that they choose to do it in a country that doesnt work that way.....we all go to school till mid/late teens then have kids - not what nature intended, byt the way we choose to live. It should be fine to buck the system but you cant then have the system you buck pay you a reward for that!

if these kids saw that having sex at 12/13 ment you ended up living in poverty and ending up dead at 25 they'd soon realise the advantge of the whole "school first, **** later" approach that has worked for most poeple not still living in Dickensian times!

MJW

Yes, the 'other things' occupying children in those times were things such as sweeping chimneys, working in coalmines, and using dangerous factory machinery. Children were forced into adult ways long before the 21st century !

Leslie

OllyK,

You do like your lists!

Do you honestly think I don't realise that others see the question of abortion differently to me. Can't think why you bothered to point that out. I am entitled to put forward my own point of view regardless and am obviously not frightened to do so.

Yes I can make typos (conception/contraception) with the best of them. It was pretty obvious what I meant though but if it makes you happy to try to score a weak point-good luck to you!

I'm sure you can tell us how long the fertilised female gamete remains a zygote before it subdivides into an embryo. How much time would one have to abort the zygote before that happens? Is it alright by you then to abort a zygote and not an embryo or then a foetus. I still hold that the life begins at the moment of fertilisation. I dont believe that you can put a defining moment for the real start of that life after that.

Your remark about what to do with the babies is specious and unnecessary with regard to the end of my post.

If you had read my post a little more closely you would have seen that my point about parental responsibility indicated that they might actually take steps to teach their children exactly that they are also to blame for their mistakes, and if they do it wrong then it is their fault and they have to bear the burdens in the future.

You are entitled to think what you like of course about the best way to deal with the problem of an unwanted baby. So am I and I think it is morally wrong and against natural law to kill an innocent child.

This is also part of my reply to DeanF, do you really believe it is better to carry out a "mercy" killing on a baby because of the circumstances of its's birth? Is that really the right way to remove such an irritating problem? Would you be personally prepared to do that to a living human being with such an excuse as you gave about their possible future lives.

I can understand your anguish over the desperately ill person you told us about, and I feel very sorry to hear about it. I believe this is a different situation to the discussion on this thread though.

Les

fatherpierre

It's an offence for a 'person' to intentionally engage in sexual activity with a child under 13

or

a child under 16, but over 13 if they do not reasonably believe that they are 16 or over.



So if a person has sex with a 13, 14 or 15 yr old and they believe them to be 16 or older, an offence hasn't been committed.



Any person can committ the above offence, regardless of age.

bigJoe

Gotta agree with Leslie and Iwan, in fact I’d say abortion is murder

I think it’s all the parents faults, they Let their kids skive off school, stay out late (practicing making babies no doubt) and work the system for all they can get.

The babies should be taken into care with no parental contact, it’s the only way to break the chain – at least then they’ll have some chance (and yes the child care system needs a serious re-organisation – to say the least).

clarence

Regarding the law, it's interesting if u compare the current situation in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong has the same common law system as in the UK, as well as an independant judiciary. In fact, most of the laws in HK are identical to UK laws (a legacy of being a former colony), and it seems that judges here view under age sex dimly. The law regarding under age sex in HK is the same as in UK, i.e. statutory rape when below 13 and under age sex when below 16. Maximum sentences are the same - life for the former and 5 years for the latter. Recently, there were a number of under age sex cases, and a number of cases involved pregnancies. DNA tests were carried out to ascertain who the fathers were, and at the end prison sentences were handed down. The difference between HK and UK is that the victims' parents forced their daughters to have DNA tests, and the judges (mostly British or Australian) takes a dim view of things.

OllyK

Lists? Do you mean breaking a response up so that you can tell what I am replying to? I just find it makes it obvious what I am responding to rather than responding to 2 people in a single post in a whopping great bit of prose, but each to their own.

Err what are we discussing now, you expressed an opinion as you are free to do, why am I not allowed to respond and express my opposing opinion?

Oh brother - hence the smiley at the end of it to make the point it was just a light hearted jibe to try and stop this getting all so serious, it was nothing to do with scoring points.

It's none of my business in terms of general abortion, it is the mother's choice within the guidelines of the law. I am not opposed to abortion within the current legal limits, but I don't take it lightly either.

You can't put a defining moment on the "real" start of life period, you find it convenient to your POV to set it as early as you can without it getting truely ridiculous, it doesn't mean either of us is correct.

I assume you mean the abort 2 out of 3 rather than delivering them all to your house (the benefits of keeping replies in context ). It certainly wasn't a fallicious argument, it was however an opinion. Unnecessary, I don't know, tasteless in your eyes perhaps, but an opinion non the less and I see no reason not to express it.

I read that, I also would rather an innocent new bourn baby doesn't suffer as part of a pre-teen child's learning curve, I'd also rather the message got driven home before the horse had bolted the stable, and that society wasn't engineered in such as way as to almost condone and encourage it.

Nobody has suggested terminating a child once it has been bourn, that is a crime in this country, indeed termination after 24 weeks is illegal. Or were you perverting the meaning of the terms "baby" and "child" on purpose?

clarence

It seems that the Police in UK and the CPS are not doing anything stopping this crime happening. How can not pursuing the case being in the public's interest?? What's going to be next?? Not pursuing murderers and robbers??
Sex with a minor under 16, as well as statutory rape, is a criminal offence, and it is not up the the victims or their parents to decide on whether to take action or not. Once the police finds out, the matter should be in the hands of the state, and the CPS will decide on whether the case is strong enough. The victim's refusal to provide details of what has happened and also co-operate with the required tests should be treated as obstructing the police.

fatherpierre

Proving the person having sex with minor 'knew' he/she was under age is the main problem, though.

The law allows that get-out clause for the offender to use.

OllyK

But not if they are under 13 IIRC - so the one that boinked the 11 year old that gave birth at 12 should be sitting in the nick by now.

fatherpierre

For sure. I've not read the full story - only saw it briefly on the news last night, and there was no mention of any of the babies' fathers.

How old are the boys?

OllyK

Apparently one is 38, dunno about the others.

fatherpierre

38? kin ell.

OllyK

Apparently - Bit old for short trouser!

OllyK

My bad - the age mentioned was 35 in the opening most and I may have misrepresented what the poster meant. Please ignore my previous responses.

OllyK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4572219.stm