'We can't prove sex with children does them harm' says Labour-linked NCCL

Watch
BibleMan
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
PIE members were lobbying NCCL officials for the age of consent to be reduced and campaigning for “paedophile love”.

Their view that children were not harmed by having sex with adults appears to have been adopted by those at the top of the civil liberties group.

Today we publish extracts from an NCCL report written for the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1976 when Mrs Hewitt was general secretary.

It says: “Where both partners are aged 10 or over, but under 14, a consenting sexual act should not be an offence. As the age of consent is arbitrary, we propose an overlap of two years on either side of 14.

“Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.

“The Criminal Law Commission should be prepared to accept the evidence from follow-up research on child ‘victims’ which show there is little subsequent effect after a child has been ‘molested’.

“The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.

“The present legal penalties are too high and reinforce the misinformation and prejudice. The duty of the court should be to inquire into all the relevant circumstances with the intention, not of meting out severe punishment, but of determining the best solution in the interests of both child and paedophile.”

Read More:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/462...ur-linked-NCCL
0
reply
joey11223
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by BibleMan)

It says: “Where both partners are aged 10 or over, but under 14, a consenting sexual act should not be an offence. As the age of consent is arbitrary, we propose an overlap of two years on either side of 14.

“Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.
I somewhat understand the concept of if two children in their early teens have sex with each other it shouldn't necessarily be an offense if both parties were clearly willing.

But the consent thing seems troubling for sure, they propose an overtap of two years either side of 14? So in essence are they saying they want the age of consent to be 12? Why call it an overlap at all...
0
reply
MildredMalone
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
To say that allowing gay marriage would cause a "slippery slope" is stupid, and has nothing to do with this. But lowering the age of consent with the above rules could easily set a dangerous precedent, where the age of consent is lowered with none of the strings.

Interesting this comes from Labour, given their love for a certain set of people...
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
The way that's been worded is confusing the hell out of me, what are they doing with this bit?
As the age of consent is arbitrary, we propose an overlap of two years on either side of 14.
Are we making the age of consent 14 or 12 or what

Can they not just slap down some close in age exceptions and stop making it weird sounding?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What support do you need with your UCAS application?

I need help researching unis (19)
14.84%
I need help researching courses (8)
6.25%
I need help with filling out the application form (7)
5.47%
I need help with my personal statement (48)
37.5%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (33)
25.78%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (3)
2.34%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (10)
7.81%

Watched Threads

View All