Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    I think if you looked into it you'd find that age does not have a strong correlation with number of previous relationships as you think it does. There are many older people who have had just one relationship their entire life, and a 20 year old may have never had a relationship yet a 16 year old may have had several.
    And the likelihood of having had at least one relationship increases with age...

    'So what' is that your opinion is not the only one that matters in society and many people would not think it would be wrong if there was no law saying so.
    Sure. But in this case my opinion coincides with the law in this country, so I'm happy.

    You are purposefully being vague. What's your definition of a 'young teenager'?
    Let's see, hmmm... a 15-year old? I thought that was obvious...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Yeah but what I'm saying is, it's not right that it's completely legal. I believe people should be punished for it.

    So even though it's kind of harsh to punish on the basis of the girl being a few months too young in age, I don't feel sorry for him personally, because I don't think he's the kind of character that deserves to just walk away a free man.

    Of course in my view, he'd ideally be getting punished for his infidelity (along with everyone else who is unfaithful) rather than because of the girl's age.
    So you think the law should be changed to be more similar to how it was nearly a century ago?

    Also you don't know him and he isn't a free man. He is on the sex offender's register for life and can never play football again.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    The law doesn't punish adultery. We would have to lock up half the population if it did. :lol:

    I really don't care that he cheated BTW; interestingly that leaves me completely indifferent. I'm also sure his girlfriend knew he was a serial cheat (his girlfriend before that dumped him for it). Most wags are probably in tacitly open relationships.
    Exactly lol but tazarooni seems to disagree...


    (Original post by llys)
    Sure. But in this case my opinion coincides with the law in this country, so I'm happy.

    Let's see, hmmm... a 15-year old? I thought that was obvious...
    Thanks for finally agreeing.

    Your definition of a young teenager is a 15-year old!!! How arbitrary! 13 and 14 year olds are both teenagers younger than your definition...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Exactly lol but tazarooni seems to disagree...

    Your definition of a young teenager is a 15-year old!!! How arbitrary! 13 and 14 year olds are both teenagers younger than your definition...
    13- and 14-year-olds are automatically protected if 15-year-olds are protected, so I don't have to argue for them. You seem to think that 15-year-olds shouldn't be protected, so that's what I disagree with.

    More precisely, you seem to think I should think 15-year-olds shouldn't be protected, just because there are other people who think that they shouldn't be protected. How bizarre.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    As others have said, he knew full well that what he was doing was against the law and that he knowingly ruined an otherwise stable relationship, so no excuses.. But i do roll my eyes at the self-righteous hysteria of the twitter mob.. F*******N PAEDO SCUM etc. Who's to say she didn't know exactly what she was getting into? Oh no wait, all girls have an epiphany of wisdom on their 16th birthday of course, so lets lynch him and lump him in the same box with Jimmy Saville. Most of the crimes that will get you a custodial are far worse that this... but come on Adam, you had it coming mate.
    Agreed on the point that she might've known what was happening (although grooming is essentially manipulated, and I had no idea I was being manipulated until after the fact so it's possible she might not've), but whether she knew or not is irrelevant. He's the adult, he's the one sleeping with an underage girl, he's the one who had the more power/influence in that situation. So the self-righteousness, as you put it, is totally deserved imo. Whether she was aware or not is irrelevant on the charge of sexual activity with a child; her knowing does not diminish his responsibility.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    13- and 14-year-olds are automatically protected if 15-year-olds are protected, so I don't have to argue for them. You seem to think that 15-year-olds shouldn't be protected, so that's what I disagree with.

    More precisely, you seem to think I should think 15-year-olds shouldn't be protected, because there are other people who think that they shouldn't be protected. How bizarre.

    Well 16 could equally be included in your definition yet they aren't automatically protected. This is why arbitrary distinction based on age is fallacious.

    No I have no opinion on meaningless age distinctions such as being 15 or 16. It is just the fact that he knew where the line in the law was drawn and still chose to cross it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abruiseonthesky)
    Agreed on the point that she might've known what was happening (although grooming is essentially manipulated, and I had no idea I was being manipulated until after the fact so it's possible she might not've), but whether she knew or not is irrelevant. He's the adult, he's the one sleeping with an underage girl, he's the one who had the more power/influence in that situation. So the self-righteousness, as you put it, is totally deserved imo. Whether she was aware or not is irrelevant on the charge of sexual activity with a child; her knowing does not diminish his responsibility.
    May I ask do you think he should be locked up for 10 years?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Well 16 could equally be included in your definition yet they aren't automatically protected. This is why arbitrary distinction based on age is fallacious.
    A line based on age is indeed arbitrary. That doesn't bother me too much though because at least a line protects everyone below it. In the absence of an alternative, having no line would be much worse IMO. But perhaps you can think of a good alternative? Someone once suggested a "maturity test" that you would have to pass before you could have sex, which I think is an interesting idea, but I don't see how it would work in practice.

    It is just the fact that he knew where the line in the law was drawn and still chose to cross it.
    Well, I agree with that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    A line based on age is indeed arbitrary. That doesn't bother me too much though because at least a line protects everyone below it. In the absence of an alternative, having no line would be much worse IMO. But perhaps you can think of a good alternative? Someone once suggested a "maturity test" that you would have to pass before you could have sex, which I think is an interesting idea, but I don't see how it would work in practice.

    Well, I agree with that.
    It seems we agree more than I thought at the beginning.

    In terms of alternatives, I did think of the possibly of being linked to GCSEs or passing a test like for a driving licence but this wouldn't actually be that practical. I guess 16 is a reasonable place to draw the line especially if school is compulsory until that age. However if the government makes sixth form a requirement then IMO that changes the whole debate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    All he had to do was wait like tyga
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, in essence, there are some 15 year olds who are more womanly/ready for sex than some 18 year olds, and in biological terms once a girl starts menstruating then technically it's a sign that she is, according to nature, ready for sex, but we have to draw a line somewhere, at law, and the creep knew what he was doing :rolleyes:

    That said, that he has been convicted, and may be sentenced to years in jail, apparently purely off the back of an ambiguous text and testimony from an infatuated 15 year old girl (hearsay, from an unreliable witness who is a minor), certainly is troubling
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    It seems we agree more than I thought at the beginning.

    In terms of alternatives, I did think of the possibly of being linked to GCSEs or passing a test like for a driving licence but this wouldn't actually be that practical. I guess 16 is a reasonable place to draw the line especially if school is compulsory until that age. However if the government makes sixth form a requirement then IMO that changes the whole debate.
    Actually it may not be such a bad idea to link it to school / college. If they make sex and relationship education compulsory at some point (and improve quality of provision), that could include a short test, though it would probably test knowledge rather than "maturity" which is a little bit more difficult to assess. Perhaps one should pass the test and then have two years of "practice time" before being able to have sexual relationships with adults.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Ok, in essence, there are some 15 year olds who are more womanly/ready for sex than some 18 year olds, and in biological terms once a girl starts menstruating then technically it's a sign that she is, according to nature, ready for sex, but we have to draw a line somewhere, at law, and the creep knew what he was doing :rolleyes:

    That said, that he has been convicted, and may be sentenced to years in jail, apparently purely off the back of testimony from an infatuated 15 year old girl (hearsay, from an unreliable witness who is a minor), certainly is troubling
    Oh Foo, I thought you were better than that. Didn't you read the texts? He pleaded guilty to grooming and kissing because there was plenty of textual evidence. He also proposed fingering (feeling up) in one of the texts, in context with kissing, so it's fairly reasonable to think that happened as well. He wasn't found guilty of the offence that was only based on the victim's testimony (oral sex).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    in terms of maturity, there is a big difference between 15 and 16.
    Really? I don't think so tbh
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    He proposed fingering (feeling up) in one of the texts, in context with kissing, so it's fairly reasonable to think that happened as well
    Presumption of guilt is not how we operate a legal system nestled within a modern Democracy amigo. 'Innocent until proven guilty'

    He wasn't found guilty of the offence that was only based on the victim's testimony (oral sex)
    Sexual activity with a minor, is the charge to which I was referring
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Presumption of guilt is not how we operate a legal system nestled within a modern Democracy amigo. 'Innocent until proven guilty'
    "beyond reasonable doubt"

    There were two sources of evidence for the fingering charge that I saw, and perhaps more that I didn't see. I see no reason to believe that there was a miscarriage of justice here.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    "beyond reasonable doubt"
    Ok, so sending a text prior to an alleged offence, to your mind, puts it "beyond reasonable doubt"?

    There were two sources of evidence for the fingering charge that I saw
    The text and the testimony of the infatuated teen?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Ok, so sending a text prior to an alleged offence, to your mind, puts it "beyond reasonable doubt"?

    The text and the testimony of the infatuated teen?
    Prior (a text about kissing and feeling up) and after (a text suggesting something happened). Yes. I also don't see why the victim should be automatically discarded, especially if there is other evidence to back her up.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If it had been with a 16 year old, whilst it would never have come to court and not be a crime, I would still condemn him for it.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    text suggesting something happened
    This 'you felt very turned on' text?

    I also don't see why the victim should be automatically discarded
    Who said that? :confused:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.