Am I wrong in feeling a little sorry for Adam Johnson?

No I'm not, I'm reading the statute from the purposive view. The reason under 16's cannot legally have sex is because they lack the capacity to consent, why else would it be a crime if they can consent?


Posted from TSR Mobile

That's not why, it's because consent is irrelevant. Why is it not rape then? Have a look at the cps guidelines, if the sex is consensual it is sexual activity, not rape. If they can't consent why is it not rape? Please answer that.
If you ask me to kill you and I do, I would be convicted. You would have consented to it, but like sexual activity with a child, consent is irrelevant.
You can consent to someone killing you but consent is not a determining factor like it is in rape cases
That doesn't mean you haven't consented, it just means consent is not relevant.

Not a hard concept to grasp. If under 16s could not consent to sex. It would be automatically rape, it is not.

Stop being a stubborn sod. You're wrong here and you know you are.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm not wrong, the reason it is unlawful to have sex with someone under 16 is because people of that age are seen to be incapable of making a reasonable choice. Why else would it be illegal?

'A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law' - that is directly taken from the CPS website.

It's rape by a different name, if you ask most people they'd call it 'statutory rape'.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You are wrong. Quite simply. Wrong.
It is not 'rape' by a different name. That's again, wrong. Rape and sexual activity with a child are two separate crimes.
CPS guideline :

In relation to many other offences there is no requirement to prove an absence of consent. Only the act itself and the age of the victim or other criteria need to be proved

Why is it not automatically rape? It's because if the sex was consensual it is sexual activity with a child, not rape.

You most certainly can consent. And that consent means it will not be rape but it will be sexual activity with a child.

The reason it is illegal is because consent is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the girl/boy consents, you are not allowed to engage in sexual activity. In the same way, if you ask me to kill you, you have consented - but that consent doesn't make the activity lawful.

It's exactly the same.
Exactly the same. Consent doesn't make everything lawful. The reason sexual activity is illegal is not because you cannot consent, but because the consent is irrelevant and doesn't make it lawful.

Otherwise every single case of sexual activity with a child would also legally be rape. But that's not the case at all. Because if they activity was consensual, it will be tried as sexual activity, not rape.

That's not rape by a different name, it's a separate offence.
If you sleep with an under 16 and they do not consent, it will legally be both rape and sexual activity with a child. If they do consent, it will not be rape, only sexual consent with a child.

Under 13s cannot consent, and therefore it will automatically be rape. But for those between 13-16, consent means it will not be rape, but only sexual activity.

You're incredibly stubborn, you're just wrong here. Factually and legally wrong.

If an under 16 cannot consent then why will consent mean it will be tried as sexual activity, not rape?

BECAUSE THEY CAN CONSENT.

So despite the CPS website saying someone under 16 can't consent you want to continue arguing?


Posted from TSR Mobile

It's rape by a different name, if you ask most people they'd call it 'statutory rape'.

Yes it can.
If consent can't exist how come it is not automatically rape to have sex with an under 16?i
If it didn't exist how could it reduce a crime of rape to that of sexual activity with a child?

It consent couldn't exist it would be. But it does, which is why consent means that the offender will not be convicted of rape but sexual activity with a child.

I know you like to be stubborn but this isn't a matter of opinion, you're just factually and legally Incorrect here.

You're all talking about consent, but from what I understand all that happened was kissing, inappropriate messaging, and an intent to perform sexual acts with the girl.

I read something (could have been wrong of course) that the girl had claimed she'd performed sexual acts with him, and as such seen AJ'S penis, but then when asked to describe how his pubic hair was cut, she described it in a completely different way, both to a picture and how his girlfriend had always seen it.

What he has done is wrong, I'm not disputing that, but is there an age of consent for kissing? And why would the girl lie about sexual acts, makes you wonder if she lied about anything else, although his intent is not in doubt (from the messages between them)

Pretty sure it's not rape because they didn't have sex?

If they did have sex, it would be rape, statutory rape... The reasoning at that age I think, is that the individual is too young to give fully informed consent.

You have rejoined the discussion at a late stage, which has in the meantime moved on. No-one has suggested they had sex.

I am afraid you have also missed the point regarding consent and please me my last post why any reference to statutory rape in the context of England is nonsense.

Fair play to the first bit, but I haven't missed the point regarding consent.

Section 74 defines consent as 'if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'. Prosecutors should consider this in two stages. They are:Hence why everyone empahsised the girl involved as the "child" to make salient her age, and so her immaturity, and so her incapacity to fully consent.

Except consent was not relevant to the offences which which he was charged.

If he had, for example, been charged with rape, section 74 would have been relevant. There are other offences under SOA where consent is relevant (see for example section 45).

I thought the discussion had moved on and you were no longer explicitly discussing Adam Johnson, but the use of 'statutory rape' in general, not specifically relating to Adams offenses...

When I originally started this discussion, the first thing I said was be careful of borrowing from other legal systems.

Most people wouldn't have called it statutory rape before they heard the expression on American television programmes. My guess is the term started being used on American television from the 1980s. You will not find it in English legal textbooks. It is as meaningless in England as "common law marriage".

Before 1956 rape was a common law offence. Between 1956 and 2003, rape was an offence created by statute but defined at common law. Since 2003, rape has been a wholly statutory offence regardless of the age of the victim. To refer in England to statutory rape would be like saying "killing dead" or "arson by fire". It would be completely tautologous. There is no rape that isn't statutory rape; there is no sort of killing that doesn't involve death; arson necessarily involves fire.

They didn't say that. That was in the soa 1956. Old law. You're pathetic in arguing that.


The 2003 act is the current law and that does not mention under 16s. We live in a common law system, the judges interpret and give meaning to the statute, not the cps. The common law makes it quite clear that under 16s can consent, that means it's not rape but is sexual activity.
You still haven't answered the question as to why it is not rape, but sexual activity with a child if the girl or boy consents.

And you haven't answered my other question. If you ask me to kill you and I do, have you not consented?

You can consent but the consent doesn't make it lawful. Same applies to both. You seem to struggle with the idea that consent is not relevant to the legality. Something can be consented to without being lawful.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm entirely aware of that however, like I said, if you asked most people what the offence of having sex with a child is called they'd probably say statutory rape. It would be completely different if you asked people who had a legal education

I mean, if she was less than one year older this wouldn't even be a legal issue?
The difference between when the incident happened, and a few months down the line draws the difference between a child too young for sex, and a woman, who to have sex with would be completely legal?

I know there needs to be a legal definition, a line to draw. But it just makes me feel uncomfortable somehow.

I don't see a problem, but then I always obtain two forms of photo ID before sex.

I can think of a few occasions where a guy asked me to show ID when I just started clubbing at 18 As if he thought he actually had a chance anyway right.