Max Clifford charged with 11 indecent assaults

[En_Route]

I agree. Technically a pedophile is someone who is attracted to children and classically that refers to pre pubescent kids. The 'grey' areas seem to occupy a lot of time and create a lot of anxiety. There can't be many men who haven't been stimulated by the pneumatic oozing movements of a fifteen year old. If you are 18 that is probably acceptable but if you are 50?..

Odd choice of words, Rum. "pneumatic oozing movements" hints too much at German predilections to me!

Don't forget I used to go into schools for work purposes. Watching some 15 year old girls on the volley ball court makes one realise the ..er..distractions that the average male teacher has to live with all day everyday!

Yes indeed. In my days as a School Inspector*, I always commenced by saying: " The Department, as you are doubtless aware, takes a profoundly holistic approach to the education and development of our children, and I will be particularly concerned today to ensure that your sporting facilities are of the requisite standard and are subject to optimum utilisation. As part of our committment to evidence- based methodology, I will be documenting my findings with the aid of this camcorder, which I can see you are already quietly admiring."

* Wholly a figment of my diseased imagination.

[Audley Strange]

I agree. Technically a pedophile is someone who is attracted to children and classically that refers to pre pubescent kids. The 'grey' areas seem to occupy a lot of time and create a lot of anxiety. There can't be many men who haven't been stimulated by the pneumatic oozing movements of a fifteen year old. If you are 18 that is probably acceptable but if you are 50?..

It's not so much the "stimulation" as the acting upon it. A 50 year old ought to have enough self control to understand it's inappropriate and thus not act on the impulse.

Technically so should an 18 year old, we do consider them adults. If an 18 year old in a temper tantrum kills someone, we don't go "yeah he's just a kid that's probably acceptable."

[Audley Strange]

We need to be having this debate.

In my previous life, as head teacher of a secondary school, I remember the mixture of worry and outrage a mum and dad presented me with one day in my office, because their daughter - who was just short of her 15th birthday - had a 19-year-old boyfriend, and they were sure sex was involved. During our discussion, they applied the term "pedophile" to the guy. He had obviously left school, and they no doubt had much better places for their sex than school grounds, so of course my only concern was to make sure the girl was fine, and she was.

Now, ten years or so later, they're still together and they have a couple of kids. Such a lot of nonsense is talked about pedophilia by narrow-minded people and by overprotective parents in denial.

I see today a soap actor here in the UK is being investigated by the police because he may have shagged a 15-year-old 40 years ago. In law, that's rape, even if at the time she consented.

It's a bloody mess.

Christ, that's your opening salvo in a debate? Seriously? I have an anecdote, thus we should lower the age of consent? The point about the age of consent is not that it's negotiable dependent upon the age of the actors, it's that prior to it we have judged that consent is not informed. Were you so free and easy about children smoking in class.

Thus if you are fucking someone under that age, you are fucking someone who's consent is not informed. More so, you know it's against the law, so if the opportunity arises and you take it and it bites you on the arse years later, then tough fucking shit, you did something you knew was wrong, thought you'd get away with it and didn't. BOO fucking HOO.

Stuart Hall admitted indecently assaulting a nine year old, but yeah it's understandable right? what man could resist that tight little snatch eh? That's what the arguments are boiling down to? That is repugnant.

[John_fi_Skye]

We need to be having this debate.

In my previous life, as head teacher of a secondary school, I remember the mixture of worry and outrage a mum and dad presented me with one day in my office, because their daughter - who was just short of her 15th birthday - had a 19-year-old boyfriend, and they were sure sex was involved. During our discussion, they applied the term "pedophile" to the guy. He had obviously left school, and they no doubt had much better places for their sex than school grounds, so of course my only concern was to make sure the girl was fine, and she was.

Now, ten years or so later, they're still together and they have a couple of kids. Such a lot of nonsense is talked about pedophilia by narrow-minded people and by overprotective parents in denial.

I see today a soap actor here in the UK is being investigated by the police because he may have shagged a 15-year-old 40 years ago. In law, that's rape, even if at the time she consented.

It's a bloody mess.

Christ, that's your opening salvo in a debate? Seriously? I have an anecdote, thus we should lower the age of consent? The point about the age of consent is not that it's negotiable dependent upon the age of the actors, it's that prior to it we have judged that consent is not informed. Were you so free and easy about children smoking in class.

Thus if you are fucking someone under that age, you are fucking someone who's consent is not informed. More so, you know it's against the law, so if the opportunity arises and you take it and it bites you on the arse years later, then tough fucking shit, you did something you knew was wrong, thought you'd get away with it and didn't. BOO fucking HOO.

Stuart Hall admitted indecently assaulting a nine year old, but yeah it's understandable right? what man could resist that tight little snatch eh? That's what the arguments are boiling down to? That is repugnant.

Putting words in my mouth is repugnant, too, Audley. Point out to me where I said, "we should lower the age of consent".

I said we should be talking about the grey areas. Kindly read, before launching into OTT condemnation.

[Clinton Huxley]

Aye, Stuart Hall has fessed up to all charges. Still, the girl who was 9 at the time is just trying to make a quick buck now /misogynist dinosaur mode.

[John_fi_Skye]

Hall is odious, Savile was odious, Clifford is odious. As a father of daughters, I have no problem condemning any man who lays an inappropriate finger on a nine-year-old girl. I didn't think I'd need to say that.

But I still think that these recent cases raise a number of grey areas (some of which my examples relate to) which we as a society should be discussing. Laws are inherently conservative with a small "c", and we should be discussing the degree to which those which exist in relation to these matters are fit for purpose, rather than continuing to allow ourselves to be manipulated by tabloidy outcries.

[JimC]

Hall is odious, Savile was odious, Clifford is odious. As a father of daughters, I have no problem condemning any man who lays an inappropriate finger on a nine-year-old girl. I didn't think I'd need to say that.

But I still think that these recent cases raise a number of grey areas (some of which my examples relate to) which we as a society should be discussing. Laws are inherently conservative with a small "c", and we should be discussing the degree to which those which exist in relation to these matters are fit for purpose, rather than continuing to allow ourselves to be manipulated by tabloidy outcries.

Here's an idea. Say that the standard age of consent is 16, but for 14 and 15 year olds (given willing consent, of course) no action would be taken if the older partner was no more than, say, 2 years older than them. So, 14 year old girl, 16 year old boy, 15 year old girl, 17 year old boy, no dramas...

The exact figures could be debated, of course, but it does inject some give into the system.

(I suspect that something of the sort may operate unofficially in many jurisdictions...)

[Collector1337]

Why would there be any drama between a 15 year old and a 17 year old? They're both minors.

[JimC]

Why would there be any drama between a 15 year old and a 17 year old? They're both minors.

If the age of consent was 16 in a given jurisdiction (and I know it varies) then technically the 17 year old boy could be prosecuted for having sex with the 15 year old girl. My post was an attempt to give a little flexibility...

(I suppose it also applies if a 17 year old girl is having sex with a 15 year old boy, though that would be a rarer event, most likely...)

[Collector1337]

If we assume age of consent is 16. It's absolutely absurd that a 17 year old should get in trouble for having sex with a 15 year old, regardless of the age of consent. They are both minors. That should make it end of story. Age of consent should only apply if one party is not a minor.

It pains me that there are people out there who would actually think they're doing the right thing by prosecuting a 17 year old for having sex with a 15 year old. We're talking about kids here. Kids experiment with sex. What the fuck is this world coming to?

[JimC]

If we assume age of consent is 16. It's absolutely absurd that a 17 year old should get in trouble for having sex with a 15 year old, regardless of the age of consent. They are both minors. That should make it end of story. Age of consent should only apply if one party is not a minor.

It pains me that there are people out there who would actually think they're doing the right thing by prosecuting a 17 year old for having sex with a 15 year old. We're talking about kids here. Kids experiment with sex. What the fuck is this world coming to?

Basically I agree with you. But, the letter of the law can make them liable to prosecution. That's why I suggested, by one means or another, a degree of flexibility in how the law is applied. In reality, judges themselves may apply a little common sense even with existing laws...

[Collector1337]

If we assume age of consent is 16. It's absolutely absurd that a 17 year old should get in trouble for having sex with a 15 year old, regardless of the age of consent. They are both minors. That should make it end of story. Age of consent should only apply if one party is not a minor.

It pains me that there are people out there who would actually think they're doing the right thing by prosecuting a 17 year old for having sex with a 15 year old. We're talking about kids here. Kids experiment with sex. What the fuck is this world coming to?

Basically I agree with you. But, the letter of the law can make them liable to prosecution. That's why I suggested, by one means or another, a degree of flexibility in how the law is applied. In reality, judges themselves may apply a little common sense even with existing laws...

I'm glad we can agree on this.

I'm not sure if judges have any common sense. If they do, it sure doesn't seem like they ever use it. One of the many reasons I'm Libertarian, mostly.

[Thinking Aloud]

I agree. Technically a pedophile is someone who is attracted to children and classically that refers to pre pubescent kids. The 'grey' areas seem to occupy a lot of time and create a lot of anxiety. There can't be many men who haven't been stimulated by the pneumatic oozing movements of a fifteen year old. If you are 18 that is probably acceptable but if you are 50?..

It's not so much the "stimulation" as the acting upon it. A 50 year old ought to have enough self control to understand it's inappropriate and thus not act on the impulse.

Technically so should an 18 year old, we do consider them adults. If an 18 year old in a temper tantrum kills someone, we don't go "yeah he's just a kid that's probably acceptable."

Killing someone tends not to imply consent of the person being killed, so I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. I realise I wasn't clear in my comments that I was not suggesting it's OK for an 18 year old to act unilaterally and force themselves upon the fifteen year old. My context was that an 18 y-o falling for a 15 y-o and pursuing a relationship ought to be more acceptable and understandable than a 50 y-o falling for a 15 y-o and pursuing a relationship.

[John_fi_Skye]

If we assume age of consent is 16. It's absolutely absurd that a 17 year old should get in trouble for having sex with a 15 year old, regardless of the age of consent. They are both minors. That should make it end of story. Age of consent should only apply if one party is not a minor.

It pains me that there are people out there who would actually think they're doing the right thing by prosecuting a 17 year old for having sex with a 15 year old. We're talking about kids here. Kids experiment with sex. What the fuck is this world coming to?

Basically I agree with you. But, the letter of the law can make them liable to prosecution. That's why I suggested, by one means or another, a degree of flexibility in how the law is applied. In reality, judges themselves may apply a little common sense even with existing laws...

I'm glad we can agree on this.

I'm not sure if judges have any common sense. If they do, it sure doesn't seem like they ever use it. One of the many reasons I'm Libertarian, mostly.

That's certainly the kind of debate I was talking about. I do know that - as you say, Jim - de facto such common sense gets applied, but there's no consistency to it. I also fucking hate the sanctimonious crap that's often talked in the media and in society as a whole, and for that reason I think the debate would be every bit as important as the outcome.

[Rum]

Hall is odious, Savile was odious, Clifford is odious. As a father of daughters, I have no problem condemning any man who lays an inappropriate finger on a nine-year-old girl. I didn't think I'd need to say that.

But I still think that these recent cases raise a number of grey areas (some of which my examples relate to) which we as a society should be discussing. Laws are inherently conservative with a small "c", and we should be discussing the degree to which those which exist in relation to these matters are fit for purpose, rather than continuing to allow ourselves to be manipulated by tabloidy outcries.

You have mentioned 'grey areas' a few times, but I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Personally I think a teacher (or other 'leader') who has authority over young people should not be having sex with them under pretty well any circumstances. One could argue that the young person is incapable of informed consent and that the nature of the power relationship by definition means that this power is being abused. For a while I was the line manager for our local authority's 'named person', i.e. the guy who did the initial investigations into complaints of this type in schools. I recall a few cases over the years of male teachers shagging their pupils. None of them ended well for either party - though probably worse for the male whose life was in shreds at the end of it all.