Martin Nolan give 1 year to guilty pedo.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

Not a good career move but there's an over protectiveness about the student-teacher relationship. What if she had been his nurse in hospital?

You think it would have been any more acceptable for a 25-year-old nurse to have sex with a 16-year-old patient under her care?

No he was a young adult of 16 and like many of his peers in Ireland probably a horny not-so-little mammy's boy.

I wonder how many posters would defend a male teacher who groomed his female student and had sex with her on her 16th birthday. How many would say that this "young adult" was horny and clearly begging for it?

Sadly, there's a consistent tendency to treat men and women differently when they commit the same offence. This is glaringly reflected in court: Women are much less likely to go to prison, and if they do, they serve shorter sentences.

RandomName2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, what matters is that you were mistaken, and instead of acknowledging your mistake you tried to pawn it off on me by suggesting you were trying to save me any embarrassment, and that I shouldn’t be so dense if I was being so belligerent, or words to that effect anyway, I didn’t care too much for your personal attacks.

It’s very simple. The provision existed in the Act of 2006, it’s there in Section 3 in black and white. When Permabear pointed out to you the existence of the amended Section 3 in the 2017 Act which still contained the same provision again about a person in authority, you claimed it must have been a recent change as you weren’t aware of it. That’s when I pointed out to you that it wasn’t recent, it existed in 2006, and I pointed you to Section 3 of the 2006 Act. Your response was a copy and paste of some Oireachtas report which you didn’t even provide a source for.

Nobody was trying to “put you down”, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply mistaken, as you have been throughout this thread. I didn’t say anything before because I just couldn’t be bothered correcting you on your numerous errors, but that one was important enough that I couldn’t let you away with posting complete nonsense. You’re still posting complete nonsense, only now you’ve tried to make it personal because the facts contradict what you had previously believed didn’t exist in Irish law.

Okay, so here we go. I'm only going to say this once (more)

I said that the law was that 17 was the age of consent, regardless of any other circumstances (naturally given that any people involved were of sound mind). Permabear said: nope, two years ago the age was raised to 18 if one person involved is in a position of authority over the other.

This was a useful bit of information I hadn't been aware of.

Then you say: no, it's been law since 2006 and then you say

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Recent? It’s been the law since 2006?


(3) A person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection (1) shall, in respect of any subsequent conviction of an offence under that subsection, be liable on conviction on indictment—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or

(b) if he or she is a person in authority, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years.


Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006

Okay, so I naturally ignore that.

Then I quote the Oireachtas report which states

RandomName2 wrote: »

The minimum age for engaging in sexual activity has, however, been set lower [than adulthood], at 17 years. Lower still, at 16 years, is the age for consenting to medical procedures , leaving school , and the age at which one ceases to be a child for the purposes of employment legislation. The age of criminal responsibility is 12, although it is lower again, at 10 years, in the case of certain offences, including certain sexual offences. It is not entirely clear whether there is a coherent notion of maturity or development which justifies the fixing of these different age brackets. What is clear, however, is that Irish law takes a progressive or gradual approach to the issue of maturity and adulthood. This makes intuitive sense. Rather than seeing the coming of adulthood as a magical process that occurs overnight, the law sees it as developing incrementally. That said, the existence of these different age limits could be a source of practical difficulty.

Now granted that I didn't give the url for this. I believe I did earlier in the thread when I first used it.

You then say

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is no such thing in Irish law as a minimum age for engaging in sexual activity.

Which really ought to be ignored as well.

Then in relation to my suggestion that the law should probably be like it is in Italy or Germany where young teens shouldn't be criminalized for engaging in sex with peers, you say (again erroneously) that that is already law, and quote a statute that it can be used as a mitigating factor that

One eyed Jack wrote: »

(8) Where, in proceedings for an offence under this section against a child who at the time of the alleged commission of the offence had attained the age of 15 years but was under the age of 17 years, it shall be a defence that the child consented to the sexual act of which the offence consisted where the defendant—

(a) is younger or less than 2 years older than the child,

So the statue states that young teenagers engaging in sexual relations is absolutely illegal, but close age is a mitigating factor.

Then you say

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve ignored your numerous misleading and mistaken opinions regarding Irish law that you’ve posted throughout this thread that you’re not even embarrassed to post, so rest assured you need have no concern for anyone else’s embarrassment but you own.

Now what is to be done with you One eyed Jack? You could say 'gotcha' cuz I fell for your goading in the first place.

One eyed Jack

RandomName2 wrote: »

Then in relation to my suggestion that the law should probably be like it is in Italy or Germany where young teens shouldn't be criminalized for engaging in sex with peers, you say (again erroneously) that that is already law, and quote a statute that it can be used as a mitigating factor that

...

So the statue states that young teenagers engaging in sexual relations is absolutely illegal, but close age is a mitigating factor.

...

Now what is to be done with you One eyed Jack? You could say 'gotcha' cuz I fell for your goading in the first place.

Nobody is saying ‘gotcha’ or anything else. I’m simply pointing out that you are incorrect in stating that there is a minimum age for sexual activity in Irish law (there isn’t), and that your suggestion of what is often called “Romeo and Juliet” laws, already exists in Irish law, except that instead of an age gap of three years as per your suggestion, the age gap is two years, in relation to a person charged with an offence under the Act.

The reason I’m trying to make that clear to you is because of the history of the 2006 Act in the first place, where it was introduced in response to this case, when the statutory rape laws were ruled unconstitutional because it criminalised teenagers having sex -


Statutory rape law ruled unconstitutional

RandomName2

nullzero wrote: »

Another long winded post that answers none of the questions asked.

nullzero wrote: »

I'll simplify things for you. Let's talk about the topic at hand. Do you believe that it was acceptable for a 23 year old woman to groom a 15 year old boy and have sex with him on his 16th birthday?

It won't come as any surprise that I think that the salient bit is that the 23 year old woman was the boy's teacher, and that no, I don't think that that was acceptable.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is saying ‘gotcha’ or anything else. I’m simply pointing out that you are incorrect in stating that there is a minimum age for sexual activity in Irish law (there isn’t), and that your suggestion of what is often called “Romeo and Juliet” laws, already exists in Irish law, except that instead of an age gap of three years as per your suggestion, the age gap is two years, in relation to a person charged with an offence under the Act.

The minimum age for sexual activity in Ireland, known as the age of consent, by which it means that a person can legally consent to sexual activity, is 17. Any sexual activity at a younger age is illegal. Whether the DPP chooses to prosecute is up to the DPP.

carolmon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is saying ‘gotcha’ or anything else. I’m simply pointing out that you are incorrect in stating that there is a minimum age for sexual activity in Irish law (there isn’t), and that your suggestion of what is often called “Romeo and Juliet” laws, already exists in Irish law, except that instead of an age gap of three years as per your suggestion, the age gap is two years, in relation to a person charged with an offence under the Act.

The reason I’m trying to make that clear to you is because of the history of the 2006 Act in the first place, where it was introduced in response to this case, when the statutory rape laws were ruled unconstitutional because it criminalised teenagers having sex -


Statutory rape law ruled unconstitutional

Can you explain the bolded statement above please? My understanding is the minimum age to give consent in Ireland is 17... I'd be interested in hearing if I'm incorrect.

Re the "romeo and juliet" clause in Irish law I think RandomName2 was making the point that in Ireland this is a mitigating factor to an illegal act, whereas in other jurisdictions it is not a criminal act.

Tea drinker

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte can be grateful they weren't born Paddies.

She'd have long had her life ruined and he would not be President of France.

OK with grown men banging 16 yo kids then?

nullzero

RandomName2 wrote: »

It won't come as any surprise that I think that the salient bit is that the 23 year old woman was the boy's teacher, and that no, I don't think that that was acceptable.

If she weren't his teacher would it have been acceptable?

nkl12xtw5goz70

carolmon wrote: »

Can you explain the bolded statement above please? My understanding is the minimum age to give consent in Ireland is 17... I'd be interested in hearing if I'm incorrect.

Children between 15 and 17 can consent to sex with someone who is no more than two years older than them, where there is no intimidation or exploitation concerned. But there is no defense for engaging in sexual activity with someone under 15, so the absolute minimum age in Ireland to give consent is 15.

Basically, then:

Sex with another person close in age is permissible at 15.
Sex with anyone other than a person in authority is permissible at 17.
Sex with a person is authority is permissible at 18.

carolmon

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

Children between 15 and 17 can consent to sex with someone who is no more than two years older than them. But there is no defense for engaging in sexual activity with someone under 15, so the absolute minimum age in Ireland to give consent is 15.

Basically, then:

Sex with another person close in age is permissible at 15.
Sex with anyone other than a person in authority is permissible at 17.
Sex with a person is authority is permissible at 18.

Bolded... technically still illegal but lack of enforcement based on mitigating circumstances

I'm curious why One eyed Jack insisted there's no minimum age of consent.... is it because of these ambiguities in the law?

RandomName2

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

Children between 15 and 17 can consent to sex with someone who is no more than two years older than them, where there is no intimidation or exploitation concerned. But there is no defense for engaging in sexual activity with someone under 15, so the absolute minimum age in Ireland to give consent is 15.

Basically, then:

Sex with another person close in age is permissible at 15.
Sex with anyone other than a person in authority is permissible at 17.
Sex with a person is authority is permissible at 18.

Are you sure about this. The quoted statute doesn't actually state this at all. It merely says that it is an acceptable defense. This is why the age of consent is clearly set as 17 for Ireland, as opposed to other countries, where peer related sexual activity may be legal (for instance Italy or Germany, both of which have their age of consent set at 14, with multiple provisos).

I mean to a certain extent this might be a bit like the blasphemy law that was not unlikely to be actually used to ever prosecute someone criticizing God. Didn't stop there being a blasphemy law though.

Beaten by carolmon

nullzero wrote: »

If she weren't his teacher would it have been acceptable?

It would have been illegal. I don't think it would have been acceptable had she had authority over him in another way. The grooming aspect in this case I think is also relevant, as it robs him of autonomy to a certain extent (in the same way that pressuring someone for sex among adults actually is relevant in the discussion of consent). It also strikes me as particularly calculating to wait until his 16th birthday.

nkl12xtw5goz70

carolmon wrote: »

Bolded... technically still illegal but lack of enforcement based on mitigating circumstances

It's not illegal if there's a statutorily permitted proximity-in-age defence.

Two consenting 16-year-olds are not committing a crime.

One eyed Jack

RandomName2 wrote: »

The minimum age for sexual activity in Ireland, known as the age of consent, by which it means that a person can legally consent to sexual activity, is 17.

There isn’t a minimum age for sexual activity in Irish law! The provisions regarding an age of consent are to protect teenagers from being exploited by adults. The age of consent is not also known as the minimum age for sexual activity activity, only according to you, and at this point it’s been established that you are clearly wrong in making that assumption.

You may have had a point before 2006, when the offence of statutory rape existed in Irish law, you know the one I demonstrated was ruled unconstitutional and therefore removed by the 2006 Act? Yeah, that one.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Any sexual activity at a younger age is illegal. Whether the DPP chooses to prosecute is up to the DPP.

And this is simply not true, because the offence of statutory rape was removed from Irish law by the 2006 Act. The bit you copied and pasted (I can only assume you googled for it) from an Oireachtas report was likely a reference to a debate on the introduction of the 2006 Act, which is why it would have been nice if you had referenced your source in that post, but you didn’t.

Whether the DPP chooses to prosecute or not is only applicable in circumstances where it is determined that an offence has been committed. It has no bearing on circumstances where no offence is committed by teenagers engaging in sexual activity, unless they actually commit an offence under Irish law. Then it is at the discretion of the DPP whether or not to pursue a prosecution in those specific circumstances as determined on a case by case basis.

Justin Credible Darts

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

Sadly, there's a consistent tendency to treat men and women differently when they commit the same offence. This is glaringly reflected in court: Women are much less likely to go to prison, and if they do, they serve shorter sentences.

Remember that obese thing that accused multiple men of rape.
One of the guys was sent to prison, another went on the run abroad/


When the truth came out she lied, all she got was a few years.


That cow should have got the same sentence a convicted rapist would get, for every false claim.

carolmon

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

It's not illegal if there's a statutorily permitted proximity-in-age defence.

Two consenting 16-year-olds are not committing a crime.

Can you supply a link to the relevant law?

I drilled it into my teenage son's head that 17 was the minimum age of consent in Ireland.

nkl12xtw5goz70

carolmon wrote: »

Can you supply a link to the relevant law?

I drilled it into my teenage son's head that 17 was the minimum age of consent in Ireland.

Here you go:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/enacted/en/print.html

(8) Where, in proceedings for an offence under this section against a child who at the time of the alleged commission of the offence had attained the age of 15 years but was under the age of 17 years, it shall be a defence that the child consented to the sexual act of which the offence consisted where the defendant—

(a) is younger or less than 2 years older than the child,

(b) was not, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, a person in authority in respect of the child, and

(c) was not, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, in a relationship with the child that was intimidatory or exploitative of the child.

One eyed Jack

carolmon wrote: »

Can you explain the bolded statement above please? My understanding is the minimum age to give consent in Ireland is 17... I'd be interested in hearing if I'm incorrect.

Re the "romeo and juliet" clause in Irish law I think RandomName2 was making the point that in Ireland this is a mitigating factor to an illegal act, whereas in other jurisdictions it is not a criminal act.

It’s very simple. Before 2006, the offence of statutory rape existed in Irish law. The fact that it was a statutory offence meant that what RandomName is saying would have been true at that time - it was a criminal offence for teenagers to engage in sexual activity. This law was challenged in the 2006 case I linked to precisely because it criminalised sexual activity between teenagers and offered a defendant who is presumed innocent, no defence against the charge of statutory rape.

The age of consent is not the same thing as a minimum age for sexual activity, a concept which does not exist in Irish law, it only exists in RandomNames head. RandomName doesn’t actually have a point because teenagers aren’t committing an offence by engaging in sexual activity. It’s only when they are charged with an offence that mitigating circumstances are applicable, and these mitigating circumstances didn’t apply before 2006 because of the existence of the offence of statutory rape, which criminalised teenagers engaging in sexual activity.

What the 2006 Act did was decriminalise sexual activity among teenagers, while still protecting teenagers from being exploited by adults.

nkl12xtw5goz70

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The age of consent is not the same thing as a minimum age for sexual activity, a concept which does not exist in Irish law...

Yes, there is a minimum age. The law states that: "A person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 15 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life or a lesser term of imprisonment."

The proximity-in-age defence applies only to sexual relations with teenagers aged 15 to 17.

However, anyone who has sexual relations with a child under the age of 15 is guilty of an offence, without exception. Therefore, the absolute minimum permissible age for sexual activity in Ireland is 15.

carolmon

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

Here you go:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/enacted/en/print.html

Thanks
I wonder why they use the term "offence" if it's legal?

nkl12xtw5goz70

carolmon wrote: »

Thanks
I wonder why they use the term "offence" if it's legal?

It refers to the "alleged commission of the offence."

A statutorily permitted defence against such an allegation is that the defendant was less than two years older than the alleged victim and that he/she consented to sexual activity.

carolmon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s very simple....

teenagers aren’t committing an offence by engaging in sexual activity. It’s only when they are charged with an offence that mitigating circumstances are applicable, and these mitigating circumstances didn’t apply before 2006 because of the existence of the offence of statutory rape, which criminalised teenagers engaging in sexual activity.

Thank you

How can teenagers be charged and need to use mitigating circumstances if it's not an offence?
What can they be charged with?

I disagree it's simple I'm finding it very confusing

The law is a minefield for parents and young people.

I agree with the poster who suggested an EU wide age of consent that is clear to all.
I

One eyed Jack

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

Yes, there is a minimum age. The law states that: "A person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 15 years shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life or a lesser term of imprisonment."

The proximity-in-age defence applies only to sexual relations with teenagers aged 15 to 17.

However, anyone who has sexual relations with a child under the age of 15 is guilty of an offence, without exception. Therefore, the absolute minimum permissible age for sexual activity in Ireland is 15.

It depends upon the circumstances in each particular case whether or not anyone is guilty of committing an offence, and under what Acts they are charged with committing an offence. For example under the 2006 Act a female under the age of 17 is not guilty of an offence under that particular Act by reason of only engaging in sexual intercourse -


5.— A female child under the age of 17 years shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse.


But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be charged with an offence under the 2017 Act, or any other Act for that matter, depending upon the circumstances in each case. In effect what it means is that the law isn’t seeking to punish teenagers for having sex (not even teenagers who are under the age of 15), but the law is intended to protect children from exploitation.

nkl12xtw5goz70

carolmon wrote: »

How can teenagers be charged and need to use mitigating circumstances if it's not an offence?

Suppose 16-year-old Jack has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend Jane. Jane's parents find out, are furious, and go to the Gardai demanding that charges be brought against Jack for "defilement of a child."

However, because Jack is under 17, no proceedings can be taken against him unless the Director of Public Prosecutions consents — which is unlikely to happen in the simple case of two teenagers having consenting sex. Even if Jack was over 17, he has a statutory defence that he is less than 24 months older than Jane and that she consented. A judge would be obliged to throw the case out because they haven't done anything illegal.

nkl12xtw5goz70

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It depends upon the circumstances in each particular case whether or not anyone is guilty of committing an offence, and under what Acts they are charged with committing an offence. For example under the 2006 Act a female under the age of 17 is not guilty of an offence under that particular Act by reason of only engaging in sexual intercourse -


5.— A female child under the age of 17 years shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse.


But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be charged with an offence under the 2017 Act, or any other Act for that matter, depending upon the circumstances in each case. In effect what it means is that the law isn’t seeking to punish teenagers for having sex (not even teenagers who are under the age of 15), but the law is intended to protect children from exploitation.

Yes, but you have stated that there is no concept in Irish law of a minimum age for sexual activity.

There is an absolute minimum age, and it's 15. For instance, nobody can have sex with a 10-year-old without committing an offence.

Above the age of 15, circumstances can vary depending on the age and sex of the respective parties and whether one of them is in a position of authority vis-à-vis the other, but Irish law draws a hard line at sex with anyone under 15.

RandomName2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s very simple. Before 2006, the offence of statutory rape existed in Irish law. The fact that it was a statutory offence meant that what RandomName is saying would have been true at that time - it was a criminal offence for teenagers to engage in sexual activity. This law was challenged in the 2006 case I linked to precisely because it criminalised sexual activity between teenagers and offered a defendant who is presumed innocent, no defence against the charge of statutory rape.

The age of consent is not the same thing as a minimum age for sexual activity, a concept which does not exist in Irish law, it only exists in RandomNames head. RandomName doesn’t actually have a point because teenagers aren’t committing an offence by engaging in sexual activity. It’s only when they are charged with an offence that mitigating circumstances are applicable, and these mitigating circumstances didn’t apply before 2006 because of the existence of the offence of statutory rape, which criminalised teenagers engaging in sexual activity.

What the 2006 Act did was decriminalise sexual activity among teenagers, while still protecting teenagers from being exploited by adults.

Doubling down eh? I admire your tenacity.

The color blue is green, I don't care what any of you say!

Under this provision, a person charged with an offence of engaging in a sexual act with a person between the ages of 15 and 17 years can use consent as a defence if the person charged is younger or is less than two years older. They must not be in authority over the child or be intimidatory or exploitative.

The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A girl under the age of 17 who has sexual intercourse may not be convicted of an offence on that ground alone.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/children_s_rights_and_policy/children_and_rights_in_ireland.html

Consent to sexual intercourse
Age 17

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/reference/checklists/checklist_at_what_age_can_i.html

So if you have a teenage son, be sure to tell him not to have sex until he is 17, and then to ensure that he does not have sex with anyone under the age of 17, or else it is possible that he may be put on the sex offenders list. While this possibility is slight, the consequence is significant enough to merit significant trepidation.

Naturally, this is different elsewhere in Europe



The law is very clear. It is illegal for two 16 year olds to have sex. That is absolutely clear. The age of consent is 17. There is a mitigating circumstance of age which may factor into any possible prosecution. The age of consent is 17. The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts.

One eyed Jack

carolmon wrote: »

Thank you

How can teenagers be charged and need to use mitigating circumstances if it's not an offence?
What can they be charged with?

I disagree it's simple I'm finding it very confusing

It would depend on the circumstances in each particular case, what they could or couldn’t be charged with.

carolmon wrote: »

The law is a minefield for parents and young people.

I agree with the poster who suggested an EU wide age of consent that is clear to all.
I

An EU wide age of consent simply isn’t necessary. The reason the age of consent varies among different jurisdictions is simply as a result of different social morals which influence their legal system. I can think of no better example than the recent case in Spain where a group of men who were charged with raping a 14 year old were acquitted because the charge of rape didn’t apply where the victim didn’t fight back (she was unconscious!) -


Spain: Court acquits men of gang-raping unconscious fourteen-year-old


For all the talk of more liberal laws in other European countries in relation to sexual offences, the people advocating for it are simply cherry picking the circumstances which suit their arguments, and ignoring the context of the society in which those laws exist. Ireland isn’t continental Europe, which has a whole host of it’s own problems in law without encouraging the idea of us adopting the same laws which have led to the current mess in which countries in Continental Europe find themselves.

One eyed Jack

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

Yes, but you have stated that there is no concept in Irish law of a minimum age for sexual activity.

There is an absolute minimum age, and it's 15. For instance, nobody can have sex with a 10-year-old without committing an offence.

Above the age of 15, circumstances can vary depending on the age and sex of the respective parties and whether one of them is in a position of authority vis-à-vis the other, but Irish law draws a hard line at sex with anyone under 15.

There isn’t any minimum age for sexual activity in Irish law, that’s what RandomName was arguing exists. It doesn’t. 10 year olds engaging in sexual activity aren’t committing an offence.

RandomName2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There isn’t any minimum age for sexual activity in Irish law, that’s what RandomName was arguing exists. It doesn’t. 10 year olds engaging in sexual activity aren’t committing an offence.

The age of criminal responsibility for some sexual offences is in fact 10 years of age, so they may actually be prosecuted for such, though unless there's aggravating circumstances the possibility would be pretty remote.

Cyclingtourist

nullzero wrote: »

So when your kid is 15 and is being groomed by an adult for sex you'll be OK with it?

You're presuming he/she isn't already over 15.

On this specific case it is quite possible that the 15 yo had more sexual experience than the teacher who was 8 years older. Perhaps they were 'grooming' each other, what used to be called 'courting'. Neither of us knows the truth but who needs truth when you've got 'simple laws' that aren't all that simple and self-appointed moral guardians eager to point the finger.

Foster Early Tuber wrote: »

You think it would have been any more acceptable for a 25-year-old nurse to have sex with a 16-year-old patient under her care?

You quote and highlight my question, don't answer it and ask one of your own.

Here's how it works sunshine: You answer my question then I will consider whether or not to answer yours.

One eyed Jack

RandomName2 wrote: »

Doubling down eh? I admire your tenacity.

The color blue is green, I don't care what any of you say!

So if you have a teenage son, be sure to tell him not to have sex until he is 17, and then to ensure that he does not have sex with anyone under the age of 17, or else it is possible that he may be put on the sex offenders list. While this possibility is slight, the consequence is significant enough to merit significant trepidation.

As it happens I do have a teenage son, and I’ve already said to him I don’t give a fcuk who he’s knocking boots with as long as he respects himself and respects anyone he’s having sex with. That covers a multitude and ensures not only does he not fall foul of the law, but he takes responsibility for his behaviour and his attitudes towards other people too, something you appear to be struggling with, and you’re an adult.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The law is very clear. It is illegal for two 16 year olds to have sex. That is absolutely clear. The age of consent is 17. There is a mitigating circumstance of age which may factor into any possible prosecution. The age of consent is 17. The age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts.

Yep, the law is very clear. What is also very clear is that you’re still talking nonsense.

nkl12xtw5goz70

One eyed Jack wrote: »

10 year olds engaging in sexual activity aren’t committing an offence.

Sorry, but you're simply wrong about this.

Sex with anyone under 15, under any circumstances, is an offence.

The proximity-in-age defence applies only to children aged between 15 and 17. It doesn't cover the case of a 16-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old. Or two 10-year-olds, for that matter.