[Ammi]

The age of consent for sex should be lowered to 13-years-old in a bid to end the 'persecution of old men' in the wake of the Savile sex abuse scandal, a top female barrister has argued.

Lawyer Barbara Hewson described the arrests of celebrities such as Rolf Harris, Dave Lee Travis, Jim Davidson and PR guru Max Clifford under Operation Yewtree as a 'grotesque spectacle' adding it had 'nothing to do with justice or the public interest'.

Ms Hewson, a barrister at Hardwicke chambers in London, described the crimes committed by disgraced broadcaster Stuart Hall as 'low level misdemeanours' which would not normally be prosecuted.

In an article for online magazine Spiked, Ms Hewson, who specialises in reproductive rights, also calls for the end of anonymity for complainants.

Children’s charity the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) said to hear such 'outdated and simply ill-informed' views from a highly-experienced barrister 'beggars belief'.

Her comments come as Scotland Yard runs Operation Yewtree, an investigation split into three inquiries into allegations involving deceased presenter Jimmy Savile, involving Savile and others and those involving just others.

A number of high-profile figures have been arrested under Yewtree such as entertainer Rolf Harris, former pop star Gary Glitter, DJ Dave Lee Travis, comedian Jim Davidson and PR guru Max Clifford. All deny any wrongdoing.

Ms Hewson argues that 'the post-Savile witch-hunting of ageing celebs echoes the Soviet Union' and says that it is not difficult to see why some elderly defendants 'conclude that resistance is useless'

She adds: 'But the low-level misdemeanours with which Stuart Hall was charged are nothing like serious crime.'

Ms Hewson continues: 'Ordinarily, Hall’s misdemeanours would not be prosecuted, and certainly not decades after the event.

'What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal-justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle.

She continues: 'It’s time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest.'

The barrister adds: 'Instead, we should focus on arming today’s youngsters with the savoir-faire and social skills to avoid drifting into compromising situations, and prosecute modern crime.



'As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are remove complainant anonymity, introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions and reduce the age of consent to 13.'

Ms Hewson argues that 'touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt' are not comparable to cases such as the Ealing Vicarage rape or Fordingbridge gang rape and murders from 1986.

She adds: “Anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality.'

And Ms Hewson labels charities like the NSPCC and the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) as “moral crusaders' who have infiltrated Yewtree.

Peter Watt, director of the NSPCC helpline, said: “These outdated and simply ill-informed views would be shocking to hear from anyone but to hear them from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief

'Stuart Hall has pleaded guilty to abusing children as young as nine years old, we think most people would agree that crimes of this nature are incredibly serious. Thankfully the law, and most people, are very clear on this matter.

'To minimise and trivialise the impact of these offences for victims in this way is all but denying that they have in fact suffered abuse at all. Any suggestion of lowering the age of consent could put more young people at risk from those who prey on vulnerable young people.

'And we must strongly defend the right for victims to remain anonymous and to ask for justice no matter when they choose to come forward.

'Many who are abused are bullied, blackmailed and shamed into staying silent, often well into adulthood. We must always be prepared to act no matter how long ago the abuse occurred.

'The actions of those who speak out also protect others from abuse and give confidence to other victims to come forward.'

Ms Hewson is regularly ranked as a Leading Junior by The Legal 500 in the fields of public and administrative law, human rights and civil liberties, and professional discipline and regulatory law, according to her chambers’ website.

She has won cases in the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court and High Court of the Republic of Ireland


more on Sky news: http://news.sky.com/story/1088447/sa...on-lawyer-says

[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.

[joeysteele]

I would not be in support of this move at all. I think 13 is too young.
I am not a parent obviously but I would be concerned at 13 being made the age of consent.

[Shaun]

I can smell a firing...

[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

[Firewire]

I don't see the problem with it staying at 16... why is it an issue?

[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.

[Scarlett.]

The woman who said this bullcrap needs to be suspended or fired.

Saying sexual abuse is a "Low level misdemeanour" what the ****.

[GiRTh]

'The Persecution of old men'. Shouldn't that be 'dirty' old men. I tuned out after reading that bullsh*t.

If this barrister saw how these pervs act in bars with girls they know are much younger than them then I'm sure she realise not much persecution is happening here.

[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...

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Firewire

I don't see the problem with it staying at 16... why is it an issue?

It is an issue because of the number of men taken in for questioning as part of the Yewtree investigations, presumaly if the age of consent was dropped to 13 then alot of these guys would not be in the "net" so to speak, though I doubt even if the age of consent was changed the law could be applied retropectively. The age of consent in Spain is 13 but it's too young I don't care how emotionally or physically mature they are or think they are.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

It is an issue because of the number of men taken in for questioning as part of the Yewtree investigations, presumaly if the age of consent was dropped to 13 then alot of these guys would not be in the "net" so to speak, though I doubt even if the age of consent was changed the law could be applied retropectively. The age of consent in Spain is 13 but it's too young I don't care how emotionally or physically mature they are or think they are.

Is it really? wow, I didn't know that

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Is it really? wow, I didn't know that

Yeah I found that quite shocking especially given how Catholic the country is!

[Vanessa]

13 is far too young.

[arista]

Dirty Fecker



This will never happen

[Nedusa]

I strongly disagree, I think the age of 16 is probably the best age to allow the age of consent as it is the age when you are considered to be adult enough to understand the implications of starting a sexual relationship. It is currently the age when you can marry legally (with Parental consent) and are considered mature enough to understand all the issues & responsibilities that come with sexual relationships.

I appreciate some children are more or less mature than others but the law has to set an age which the majority of young people will be considered mature enough.

Also we have to protect 13 or 14 year olds from being pressurised into giving consent by older people who could take advantage of these youngster's immature emotional states. I think the law has the age of consent pitched at about the right age when all things are considered...!!!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Yeah I found that quite shocking especially given how Catholic the country is!

Well.................

[Black Dagger]

Urgh, no, they are still children, let kids be kids ffs.

Spain was ruled by the Moors (Muslims) for many centuries which may explain the historically low legal age.

[Jack_]

Instead of lowering the age how about a more open and liberal approach to sex education? That's the problem, this whole shying away and treating it as if it's some dirty weird thing that needs to be kept under wraps from kids for as long as possible, that causes more problems rather than solving them.