"sex with over 13 year old girls is ok with me", says chief constable

welsh chief constable terry grange thinks its ok for men to have sex with girls (funny he doesnt mention boys there also) over the age of 13 and not be labelled pedophiles for doing so.

he also doesnt believe that indecent photographs of children that age can be counted as child pornography saying "Child porn is 12 and under. For me, that sort of thing, paedophilia, is [with] prepubescent children."

i cant even begin to think what i could possibly type here to sum up what i think of this man and stay within ats guidelines

story




[edit on 2006-11-19 by wecomeinpeace]

He may have a point, though a very small one.. For example, did the man KNOW the child was under 16?
I ask this, because I know that when I was 14, getting into night clubs was not a problem, meeting older men was not a problem.
Had I have chosen to have sex with an other man, well, for HIM, there would have been a problem.
I even dated a VERY well known radio personality, that had we had sex, would have been in VERY big trouble.
Truth, the club that I met him, not only would I get in free, I would get my hand stamped, which was a requisite for going into the bar portion of the club, AND I would get free alchoholic drinks.
I was 14.
No, I did not look 14, no I did not act 14.
But the fact remains that many men could have been in very deep kimchee, had I not just been counting coup, and stroking my ego.

There are grey areas, and these areas need to be addressed.
I don't think he spoke his case well at all, but I do understand what he was trying to say.

perhaps you should read the article. he wasnt talking about one case. he was talking about the law and his view of it.

perhaps you, like him, believe that the law ought to be changed to protect perverted adults who wish to have sex with children rather than protect children from sickos like that.

the law is there for a reason - the protection of children and in the uk you are legally a child until 16 (though you cant vote or buy alcohol till 18). just because a child may look older doesn't mean they should be given the rights of an adult. there is a huge difference between physical looks and mental age.

do you think the dj (or most other men) would have cared if you were 14 or 16? in your 'experience' how many do you honestly think would have turned you down if they knew your true age?

who protects you from them (and them from you)? you are right that this area needs to be addressed but only from the point of view of protecting the child. an adult can choose to say no if they are in doubt about the childs age.

by the way, what were your parents doing allowing you out at 14 to go to drinking in nightclubs?

Where in the article does the man say that sex with 13 year olds is ok?

The title of your thread is very misleading. All that he is saying is he doesn't think the term "paedophile" should be applied to men who have sex with girls over 13. He wasn't condoning acts of sex against girls over 13 he was just saying there should be a separate name for them.

btw first post .

Originally posted by daviroo
Where in the article does the man say that sex with 13 year olds is ok?

First paragraph....

A chief constable has said that young men who have sex with girls aged 13 or over should not necessarily be classed as paedophiles.

Ok i get what you are implying but in many peoples eyes 13 is still wrong. I think "paedophile" is a label that is a good deterrent for any sicko wanting to do this to kids. Unfortunately it is'nt good enough.

If this chief constable has a 13 year old, lets see what he calls any guy who touches his daughter!

What about kids who go through puberty at the ages of 9 and 10? Would that be ok? Of course not!

Why is it when i see a story like this, i always get the feeling that the person involved is just trying to soften the blow for when they get caught doing something dodgy?

I'd have thought a chief constable of all people would have been against there being a "grey area" on this subject. The only people who complain that it's a confusing "grey area" are usualy the who are guilty of it!

CX.

I just heard it on the radio news and it seems he was talking about say a 18 year old and a 14 yar old.


The age gap is hardly massive. Its when you get a 30 something trying to find a 13 year old that you get problems. Im not saying you dont get 18 yearold child molesters, you probably do.

Originally posted by manta
I just heard it on the radio news and it seems he was talking about say a 18 year old and a 14 yar old.
The age gap is hardly massive. Its when you get a 30 something trying to find a 13 year old that you get problems. Im not saying you dont get 18 yearold child molesters, you probably do.

so when he said "I don't actually personally adhere to the 15-year-old being with a 20-year-old boyfriend being paedophilia, or even if the boyfriend is 30." you still don't see a problem - namely that it is still against the law as the 15 year old is legally a child.

im sure there are people that think burglary, car theft, murder and rape are ok in their eyes and all of those are illegal to do so why are there so many people here who seem apparantly to support sex with children at a younger age than is there for the childs welfare?

how old does a 'child' have to be till its no longer protected and vulnerable to predatory adults.

Justyc, you seem to be trying really hard to present the policeman's position in a manner that was not intended.

Nobody here, I hope, is going to suggest that paedophilia is even remotely acceptable and the policeman certainly isn't either, he is simply suggesting that there is a difference between paedohphilia and underage sex, a view with which I would certainly agree.

The question being raised is, should and any act of sex between an adult and an underage child be considered as paedophilia? There is clearly a huge difference between sex between an 18 year old and a 14 year old as compared to sex between an 18 year old man and a 6 year old girl. The policeman involved is regarding paedophilia as being liked to pre-pubescent children which is not a bad approach.

This, of course, does not mean that a child of less than 16 is not protected by the law in any way at all or that an adult is not protected from rape. He is just trying to apply the law in a rational manner to prevent it becoming an ass.



[edit on 19-11-2006 by timeless test]

Hes actually got it right, as it stands now. A 16 year old boy can be charged if he has sex with a 15 year old girl in the same year at school. Is he a paedophile?

Now when you start to get into men into their 20s or later then the relationship isn't normal and they should be labelled a paedophile.

yeah i would agree that it's not really pedophelia if she's over 13. i'd probyl say i see nothing wrong with sleeping with girls 16 and up.

13-15 is still a little young...but i mean i guess if she wants to then it's ok if she's over 13.

Justyc, looks like you spinning what the guy actually said.

As it stands anyway, if you have underage sex with someone (be it girl or boy) who is over 13, that is usually a case of statutary rape and can only be prosecuted if the child makes a complaint. It's different if it's a teacher, but they get done on a different set of laws, breaching trust or something like that.

There is a big difference between having sex with a 15 year old girl/boy and 9 year old for example.

What's with all the misrepresentation going on on these forums lately?

In no part of that artical do I see the officer in question stating "sex with 13 year olds is ok by me". What I see is a man having the guts to voice his opinions on a very touchy subject in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that laws and terminaology in this area are outmoded and in need of redress.

By putting those words into his mouth, the original poster has comitted libel.

I suggest that misrepresentation of facts like this should result in an instant ban from ATS or atleast a warning accompanied with a heavy points fine.

Deny Ignorance.
Don't spread it.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
What's with all the misrepresentation going on on these forums lately?

In no part of that artical do I see the officer in question stating "sex with 13 year olds is ok by me".

I agree, people need to learn what a quote means. You can't quote someone with something they never said. It may be the poster's interpretation, but claiming that this person said such a thing is essentially a lie. Perhaps the original post needs to be revised by a moderator.

The constable isn't saying that it's ok for a 23 yr old guy to have sex with a 13 yr old girl.....he's saying that sex between 13-20 yr olds should not constitute labeling someone as a pedophile.

Personally, I think 20 is a bit too old to be chasing 13 yr olds.....17 is more like it, and even that's a stretch. 18 is generally the age that one can move out and make their own decisions and is considered to be a "man"....well, it's like that in the states, not sure about the UK, Fr, etc..





[edit on 19/11/2006 by SportyMB]

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by daviroo
Where in the article does the man say that sex with 13 year olds is ok?

First paragraph....

A chief constable has said that young men who have sex with girls aged 13 or over should not necessarily be classed as paedophiles.

Ok i get what you are implying but in many peoples eyes 13 is still wrong. I think "paedophile" is a label that is a good deterrent for any sicko wanting to do this to kids. Unfortunately it is'nt good enough.

I believe that daviroo is trying to point out that the constable is being mis-quoted in this thread's title.

justyc, have you got something to hide?
you doth protest too much

I personally agree with the constable, if it's consenting, than
there should'nt be a problem, however with 'child pornography',
to me that still is a grey area for me, personally I'd set the
consent age to be in pornography at 15, since most people can
consent to that kind of thing at that age, but it's not dropped
low enough where there might be some confusuion with some
individuals.

And for the record, I'd never have relations with someone that
was more than three years younger than me.

Originally posted by justyc
perhaps you should read the article. he wasnt talking about one case. he was talking about the law and his view of it.

perhaps you, like him, believe that the law ought to be changed to protect perverted adults who wish to have sex with children rather than protect children from sickos like that.

the law is there for a reason - the protection of children and in the uk you are legally a child until 16 (though you cant vote or buy alcohol till 18). just because a child may look older doesn't mean they should be given the rights of an adult. there is a huge difference between physical looks and mental age.

do you think the dj (or most other men) would have cared if you were 14 or 16? in your 'experience' how many do you honestly think would have turned you down if they knew your true age?

who protects you from them (and them from you)? you are right that this area needs to be addressed but only from the point of view of protecting the child. an adult can choose to say no if they are in doubt about the childs age.

by the way, what were your parents doing allowing you out at 14 to go to drinking in nightclubs?

And only ONE girl ever lied about her age? Statatory rape laws should be reveiwed and looked into, whether UK or US. I have a friend whose brother is in jail, and will be labled a predator his life, because he was 17 having sex with a 15 year old, WITH her mother's knowledge.. She even let them have sex in her home, and knew what was happening.
He turned 18, and she called the police.
Legal, yes, right, no.

Don't put words into my mouth, I said NOTHING of the sort. Do NOT equate me with being on the side of pedophiles. Read what I said, the laws should be re examined. Demonizing me in a personal attack, because I presented a veiw point you didn't agree with is not conducive to a meaningful discussion.

And I was no child in my mind. I was 14 going on 44. Yes, I could have a decent conversation about pretty much any topic, except sports, lol. Ever hear the term, old soul? That was me. I did not look, act, or carry myself like a 14 year old.

Would the DJ have had sex with me? Probably, but then a stury showed that 90% of men said they wuld have sex with an underage child if they thought they could get away with it. BUT someone in the publics eye is going to be twice as careful as to who they stick what in. What do you mean turned me down, I never approached anyone, and was just counting coup, like I said. It was never about sex, and I was actually a virgin for several more years after that.
BUT, would it have been fair IF I DID have sex with an older man, and then went to the police? The law doesn't say, Oh, well, she told you she was 21, so, we are going to let you off the hook. That is the point, I was trying to make, and I think that these things should be addressed in law, and they are not.

I protected me from them, and I protected them from me. Could things have gotten ugly? Yes, but so could things for a woman of age, going into night clubs, and drinking, ect.. I think the law needs to be addressed with BOTH veiws in mind. Have you seen some of the 13-15 year olds lately?
And because I was an A student, and was not a problem child, I could tell my parents, I was going over to blank's and because I had earned the trust over the years, I was believed.
Again, don't make this into a personal attack on me or my family, the snide comment is not appreciated. This is a side that I think should be seen, and addressed, because currently, there is no law in place to protect adults from children. Yes protect adults from predatory children.
Check out your sociopathy, younger females prefer older males. Children are physically developing faster than ever, and there are some 15 year olds that hunt the big prey, the guy with a job, his own place... That is not going to be the 16-18 year old boy, it is going to be someone 20 or older in most cases.

I saw this item on the news last night and cannot believe that such a non-story would get so overhyped.

Justyc, you are misrepresenting the policeman's position.

He's taken a courageous and mature stance. It is, whether you like to recognise this or not, a simple biological fact that girls mature at different rates. The age of consent is a rule that society sees fit to make and is an artificial measure that cannot accommodate this disparity in maturation. There are quite young girls who look - as already testified in this thread - rather older than they actually are. A man who is attracted to what appears to be a mature female is not a paedophile, and the policeman is correct in his belief that such men should not be labelled as such. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to children - pre-pubescent children.

The age of consent is there to prevent exploitation of vulnerable girls. It's not there to define a paedophile.

Our country has become so paranoid about paedophilia and I find this really sad. A friend of mine is a photographer and a little while ago we were out walking along the seafront. He had his camera with him and was taking photographs as we went. When we stopped by a playground and he photographed some children I found myself feeling shifty. How appalling is that? Children are wonderful, and to watch them getting lost in their play is to be transported back to a more innocent age. To have that innocent pleasure tainted out of paranoia is absolutely tragic.

It's arguments like yours that reinforce this atmosphere of paranoia. I can imagine this kind of distortion coming from a Daily Mail reporter, there to sensationalise an otherwise serious and sensible news item to sell newspapers, but for it to come unbidden from a member of the public one might suspect, as another poster has put it, that you do "protest too much".

im not going to go into many details here because frankly it is none of anyone else business. i could go on and on about the horrors i have witnessed when it comes to consentual and non consentual sex with children of many ages and what i find more horrifying is the lack of anything done about it by adults.

i have seen the physical and mental damage done to children who had sex underage with (and without) their consent and if i protest to much then so be it. im not ashamed to say i wish that more would be done to protect children from the physical and mental dangers that most seem not to care about.

i literally saw a mentally retarded 14 year old girl having 'sex' with a 16 year old boy in a childrens home once when i walked into the bathroom where it was happening and when i reported it to the staff nothing was done. she didnt have the mental capacity to know what was 'consent' so it just got swept under the carpet. where was her protection?

ive seen how internal damage can be done to a young girl who had underage sex (not to mention the long term physical effects of this on the cervix of the girls as they grow older).

teenage pregnancies in the uk are at an appalling level because the law is not protecting children as it ought to. parents seem not to care much either and everyone is passing the responsibility on to someone else.

perhaps i just see further than the physical appearance of a child. if i happen to think that an underage child should be protected by the law then why is that a problem with some members? thats my opinion as the opinion of the chief constable was his. i happen to think the law ought to be enforced rather than relaxed but that is because i have witnessed so much damage that has been done to so many already and if you wish to attack me for caring about that then go ahead.