nikkibikki wrote: » I suppose there would but who's to say an allegation made was false but because of the photos on the phone, even though deleted, a conviction was made. That's kinda what happened on EE.
Assuming you are talking about your own son? My post was about mine and not allowing them to have a phone til they are 25 was meant as a joke, thought that was fairly obvious! Mine are 8 and 2. I deem them too young still but each to their own. My 8yr old can't mind his shin guards for soccer so I won't be trusting him with a phone just yet!
One eyed Jack wrote: In order for that to happen, wouldn't there have to be an allegation made against your sons in the first place? That would personally concern me more than whether he had a phone or not.
One eyed Jack wrote: As it happens, he does, he's had one since he was six.
nikkibikki wrote: » Well obviously but they can still be recovered if phone is analysed by cops.
One eyed Jack wrote: Delete them?
nikkibikki wrote: » Think it was child porn Jay pleaded guilty to. Even though he had deleted the pics SHE sent him.What is someone to do if they get sent pics they don't want or didn't asked for? Don't think either of my sons will be allowed have a phone etc til they are 25!
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Was watching Eastenders this week and a character in it had this happen to him when his gf turned out to be 14 and let on she was much older. Now I know this is only a soap but I've no doubt it happens in real life as well and I think it's very unfair to someone to be registered as a sex offender when they were lied to and end up having their life ruined as a result of a girl not telling them the truth. I remember years ago being in a nightclub and saw my neighbour there as well, she was 15 but looked older and if any of the men there had sex with her they would have been in serious trouble if anything happened.
BigDuffman wrote: » Having seen the way young girls are done up these days it is impossible to tell. 16-20 year olds look very similar. For a young guy in a club there should be some recourse of having a plausible deniability with regards to awareness of age. If she is on a licenced premises and consuming alcohol and then subsequently lies about her age, I fail to see how the fault rests with the guy that gets caught out afterwards. By all means the law is there to protect exploitation and abuse but a common sense approach by the judiciary could save some guy getting his life ruined through someone else's lie.
2.— (1) Any 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. (2) Any person who attempts to engage 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. (3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he or she honestly believed that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the child against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed had attained the age of 15 years. (4) Where, in proceedings for an offence under this section, it falls to the court to consider whether the defendant honestly believed that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the child against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed had attained the age of 15 years, the court shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the defendant’s so believing and all other relevant circumstances. (5) It shall not be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that the child against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed consented to the sexual act of which the offence consisted.
(5) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he or she honestly believed that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the child against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed had attained the age of 17 years. (6) Where, in proceedings for an offence under this section, it falls to the court to consider whether the defendant honestly believed that, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, the child against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed had attained the age of 17 years, the court shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the defendant’s so believing and all other relevant circumstances. (7) It shall not be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that the child against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed consented to the sexual act of which the offence consisted. (8) An offence under subsection (2) shall be an arrestable offence for the purposes of the Criminal Law Act 1997 . (9) No proceedings for an offence under this section against a child under the age of 17 years shall be brought except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions. (10) A person who— (a) has been convicted of an offence under this section, and (b) is not more than 24 months older than the child under the age of 17 years with whom he or she engaged or attempted to engage in a sexual act, shall not be subject to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 .
mansize wrote: » 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 person who is convicted of this offence and is not more than two years older than the victim is not subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This means they will not have their name placed on the Sex Offenders Register.
