[AnnieK]

Mmm wonder if the barrister is a parent? 13 is no age for consent IMO. Many 13 year olds haven't (or only just) hit puberty then. It's just too young.

I wonder if this barrister is a parent? I agree there are have been many crimes of a vicious sexual nature but that still doesn't excuse anyone of touching children inappropriately. I am sure there are some cases in the latest lot that would have gone unreported had it not been for the Saville inquiries but some of her comments don't seem particularly well thought out.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by anniek76

Mmm wonder if the barrister is a parent? 13 is no age for consent IMO. Many 13 year olds haven't (or only just) hit puberty then. It's just too young.

I wonder if this barrister is a parent? I agree there are have been many crimes of a vicious sexual nature but that still doesn't excuse anyone of touching children inappropriately. I am sure there are some cases in the latest lot that would have gone unreported had it not been for the Saville inquiries but some of her comments don't seem particularly well thought out.

My daughter just turned 13 and she's still very much a child.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

My daughter just turned 13 and she's still very much a child.

I think most 13 year olds are - however much they think they are grown up. Children should be children as long as possible and lowering the age opens them up to more abuse, more pressure and less innocence surely? I'm sure most parents of 13 year olds will think the same.

If kids that age (as that's what they are) want to have sex, they will have sex. The age of consent is pretty meaningless in that regard. The most disturbing aspect of her point, seems to be to offer protection for older men to take advantage of young girls.

That would never be allowed to happen, but what a wildly misguided thing to not only think, but to state publicly.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by anniek76

I think most 13 year olds are - however much they think they are grown up. Children should be children as long as possible and lowering the age opens them up to more abuse, more pressure and less innocence surely? I'm sure most parents of 13 year olds will think the same.

Yes exactly, my daughter hasn't even developed fully yet, she's physically still very much a child, what that woman is saying is disgusting.

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

If kids that age (as that's what they are) want to have sex, they will have sex. The age of consent is pretty meaningless in that regard. The most disturbing aspect of her point, seems to be to offer protection for older men to take advantage of young girls.

That would never be allowed to happen, but what a wildly misguided thing to not only think, but to state publicly.

Absolutely agree, I know what you're saying about if they want to do it they will but you're right, she's making this point in some sort of defense for old men who were still pretty old men at the time they took advantage of those girls. Not to mention the fact that one of the men she's defending has admitted to raping a 9 year old

[Livia]

Originally Posted by anniek76

Mmm wonder if the barrister is a parent? 13 is no age for consent IMO. Many 13 year olds haven't (or only just) hit puberty then. It's just too young.

I wonder if this barrister is a parent? I agree there are have been many crimes of a vicious sexual nature but that still doesn't excuse anyone of touching children inappropriately. I am sure there are some cases in the latest lot that would have gone unreported had it not been for the Saville inquiries but some of her comments don't seem particularly well thought out.

While I agree with everything you say, Annie, I am not a parent. Being a parent doesn't give you a special insight into right and wrong, as many parents who beat and even kill their own children prove. Everyone on this forum has a link to a 13 year old inasmuch as we all used to be one and can look back and see how terribly childlike we were at that age, although at the time we thought we were very grown up.

I'm sure all 13 year old think that they're very sophisticated. You've only got to walk past a secondary school emptying out and see the girls dressed up like street walkers to know that. Many young teenage girls are very provocative, but they are not adult enough to make informed choices and that's why the law must protect them. The barrister involved in this is an idiot.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

While I agree with everything you say, Annie, I am not a parent. Being a parent doesn't give you a special insight into right and wrong, as many parents who beat and even kill their own children prove. Everyone on this forum has a link to a 13 year old inasmuch as we all used to be one and can look back and see how terribly childlike we were at that age, although at the time we thought we were very grown up.

I'm sure all 13 year old think that they're very sophisticated. You've only got to walk past a secondary school emptying out and see the girls dressed up like street walkers to know that. Many young teenage girls are very provocative, but they are not adult enough to make informed choices and that's why the law must protect them. The barrister involved in this is an idiot.

I don't think Annie meant that being a parent gives you special insight into right and wrong Livia, what I picked up from what she said was that if she actually had a 13 year old daughter herself would she think it's fine for some 40 year old man to sleep with her? I doubt she would.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Livia

While I agree with everything you say, Annie, I am not a parent. Being a parent doesn't give you a special insight into right and wrong, as many parents who beat and even kill their own children prove. Everyone on this forum has a link to a 13 year old inasmuch as we all used to be one and can look back and see how terribly childlike we were at that age, although at the time we thought we were very grown up.

I'm sure all 13 year old think that they're very sophisticated. You've only got to walk past a secondary school emptying out and see the girls dressed up like street walkers to know that. Many young teenage girls are very provocative, but they are not adult enough to make informed choices and that's why the law must protect them. The barrister involved in this is an idiot.

Yeah, I agree Livia, my point about whether she was a parent was to see if she had thought of an old man touching her 13 year old daughter and still thinking it was ok but I agree with your point that being a parent doesn't make that insight special but I always try to put myself in a position where I think of how I would feel if certain things happened to my loved ones. Her comments leave me in no doubt that I would probably inflict some pretty serious damage if anyone touched my child inappropriately at the age of 6, 9, 15 or older I guess but you really don't have to be a parent to work that out either I guess.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by anniek76

Yeah, I agree Livia, my point about whether she was a parent was to see if she had thought of an old man touching her 13 year old daughter and still thinking it was ok but I agree with your point that being a parent doesn't make that insight special but I always try to put myself in a position where I think of how I would feel if certain things happened to my loved ones. Her comments leave me in no doubt that I would probably inflict some pretty serious damage if anyone touched my child inappropriately at the age of 6, 9, 15 or older I guess but you really don't have to be a parent to work that out either I guess.

I got your point Annie, I wasn't really being critical, just saying...

I have three beautiful nieces aged 10, 8 and 4. I'd kill anyone who touched them. Seriously, I would go to jail...